The Press.
London, England, 1854-04-01 00:00:00

CAPITULAR ESTATES.

The second reading of the Capitnlar Estates Bill
was moved on Wednesday, at the day sitting of the
Commons, by the Marquis of BLANDFORD, who ex-
plained the condition of these estates, and traced the
steps taken from time to time to adjust and Sx the
incomes of the bishops and canons, and otherwise to
arrive at an improved appropriation of the revenues.
The object of the bill was to extend previous im-
provements, by transferring the management of the

estates to the Estates Commissioners of the Ecclesias-
tical Commission. He proposed that the Estates
Commissioners should rec. ive the income, and pay it
over to the Ecclesiastical Commission. This arrange-
ment would have the effect of relieving the bishops
from their present humiliating position, of being ex-
posed to the suspicions of the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners. By an improved system of management he
calculated that about half a million more than was
realised at present might be added to the income.
The bill contemplated management merely, and not
distribution ; and the noble marquis said that he had
no objection to tie up any surplus until the Chapter
Commission now sitting should have made its re-
port.
Sir WILTI.tm CLAY moved as an amendment that
the bill be read a second time that day six months.
He did not question the motives in which the bill
originated, but could not persuade himself that it
was a measure which the house should sanction. It
was incomplete, unsatisfactory, and insufficient to
meet the necessities of the case. The abolition of
church rates ought to form an essential part of any
measure for the adjustment of church revenues.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the amendment.
Mr. MOWBRAY could not support the bill, believing
that its provisions would greatly peril the security of
church property, and tend to invest it with the cha-
racter of national property.
Mr. HUME advised Sir William Clay to withdraw
his amendmeut. The church-rate question had no
necessary connection with the bill. To that measure
he would give a cordial support, and thought its pro-
moter deserved high credit for the devotion he had
displayed in endeavouring to secure substantial

gam.
Mr. GOULBURN pointed out many defects in the
bill, which when it came to be worked might, as
he feared, result in rendering the stipends of Church
dignitaries insecure and uncertain. He apprehended
that it would retard instead of promoting the objects
of its framer.
Mr. HORSMAN contended that the principle of the
measure was sound, and had been left untouched by
all the objections raised against it. Faults of detail
could be rectified in committee. The bill was calm
lated to extend the usefulness of the Established
Church, a purpose which every party in the house
should combine in furthering.
Mr. LIDDELL thought a bill of so much importance
should have been taken up by the Government, if
they approved of it. It was most inexpedient that
interests so large and so important as those involved
should undergo discussion in the absence of all the
members of the Cabinet, thus depriving the house of
the opinion of the Government.
Sir G. GREY considered the principle of the bill so
plain and reasonable that there need be no difficulty
in their adopting it. He admitted nevertheless the
disadvantage attending the absence of Ministers,
who were engaged elsewhere upon urgent duties.
Mr. HENLEY could not agree with Mr. Hume that
the capitular estates could be considered as public
property, though Parliament might have the right
of determining the uses they should be put to. As
far as he could understand the proposition, its object
was to alienate half of the property of the Church,
and he could not see how this could be beneficial to
the Church.
SirJ. Youtia apologised for the members of the
Cabinet, in whose compulsory absence he trusted
the noble marquis would consent to have the debate
postponed.
This suggestion was accepted after a brief discus-
sion, and the debate stands adjourned to Thursday
next, the 6th instant.
THE POOR-LAW BOARD.
Mr. BAINES, on Thursday, took an opportunity of
entering into some personal explanations touching
his position at the head of the Poor-law Board :
" He had introduced the Removal and Settlement Bill
in a form which was in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of 1847, and had been asked whether it referred to
Irish paupers. He had replied that it did not. When the
bill was within a few days of the second reading, some
Irish representatives had addressed a memorial to Lord
Palmerston, and had obtained a decision that Ireland ought
to be included in the bill, a decision given without his
being aware of it. On reflection he had been satisfied
that no personal disc expect was intended to himself, but
having at heart the ii terests of the bill as it stood, and as
the Irish members and others thought that this bill was to
be moulded to include Ireland, while he was convinced
the Irish question was not ripe for legislation, he conceived
that, by retaining his office, his character and efficiency as
a public servant would be impaired. He had, therefore,
resigned on Tuesday last ; but the Premier having ex-
pressed a strong wish that he would reconsider his
decision, for the sake of the public service, he had taken
the opinion of two friends (a noble lord and right hon.
member) upon it, and, in accordance with their advice, had
withdrawn his resignation, but reserved a right to renew it
if he were unable to acquiesce in the measures Government
might produce on the subject."
Mr. FRENCH, on behalf of the Irish members,
repudiated any intention of treating the Right Hon.
President with discourtesy, when applying directly to
the Home Secretary,

Lord PALMERSTON also denied any intentional
disrespect to his colleague, whose public services lie
warmly eulogised, and of whose value as a coad-
jutor in the Administration lie expressed a high ap-
preciation.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE did not think the explanation
satisfacory to the house, for it was evident that the
right hon. gentleman had not been treated with the
consideration which he deserved. While he was
proceeding with his bill he had been kept in igno-
rance of the flirtation going on between Tiverton and
Tyrone, and the Crown might have lost an efficient
Minister, and the poor a sincere and considerate

friend.
After some observations from Mr. Picitc and
Colonel DuNNE,
Mr. DISRAELI concurred in appreciating highly
the services and character of Mr. Baines. He pro-
ceeded to notice the fact that within twelve months
five ministers had thrown up, and then resumed, their
official duties. Mr. Disraeli suggested that seine of the
diplomatic talent now unemployed abroad should be
utilised at home in reconciling these administrative
discordances, without allowing them to scandalise
the house and the public.
The subject then dropped.

THE DUBLIN AND HOLYHEAD PACKETS.
Mr. H. HERBERT moved, on Tuesday, an address
to the Crown, praying that effect should be given to
a recommendation contained in a report from the
select committee on the postal communication with
Dublin, so as to establish a class of steamers
affording better accommodation for passengers, com-
bined with higher capabilities as regards the speed
of transit.
Mr. VANCE, as a member of the committee by
whom the report was drawn up, seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER calculated the
cost of the proposed line of steamers, and, in a
speech of some length, deprecated the expenditure
of 150,0001. per annum for the convenience, as he
alleged, merely of a few high-class passengers, at a
time when the nation was subjecting itself to heavy
burdens for objects in which its honour and safety
were involved,
Mr. F. FRENCH was assured that private contracts
had been offered to the Admiralty which would have
accomplished all that was desired at a comparatively
insignificant cost.
The Hon. Mr. CowrEn stated the course which the
Admiralty bad adopted with respect to the contracts
for steam service between Holyhead and Dublin. He
submitted that the conveyance of letters was suffi-
ciently provided for. The passenger part of the bu-
siness should, he contended, be left to private
enterprise.
Lord NAAS supported the motion ; Mr. WILLIAMS
opposed it.
After some further discussion the house divided—
Ayes 152
Noes 2OB-543
The motion was consequently lost

MINISTERS' MONEY.
The House of Commons on Monday resolved itself
into committee on the Ministers' Money (Ireland)
Bill. Considerable discussion, occupying some hours,
took place upon the clauses of the bill, several
amendments being moved and carried successively
to a division, with the invariable result of being
negatived by a comparatively narrow majority. One
of these amendments, proposed by Mr. J. O'CoN-
NELL, was designed to exempt from payment of
the rate all houses occupied by Roman Catholics
or dissenters. The committee divided on this amend-
ment—
Ayes
Noes
The bill ultimately went through committee with-
out undergoing any important alteration.
SLIGO ELECTION.
On the motion of Mr. K. SEYMEIt, the Attorney-General for
Ireland has been instructed to prosecute Michael Gethin, Henry
Simpson, and James Simpson, for their conduct reported to the
House of Commons by the select committee appointed to in-
quire into the allegations of the petition of Mr. John Patrick
Somers, complaining of irregular and unconstitutional pro-
ceedings in the matter of a petition complaining of the return of
Mr. John Sadleir for the borough of Sligo.
THE PRESTON STRIKE.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE has given notice that, on an early day after
Easter, he will move for a committee to inquire into the allega-
tions of a petition presented by him from the Preston operatives,
complaining of the conduct of the manufacturers and magis-
trates of that town.

THE PRUSSIAN Kreutz Zeitung, on the 21st ult.,
published an article falling foul of Lord Ponsonby
for quoting the Journal des Debats in some recent
observatioqs. "His lordship," it says, "in lieu of
studying the _Wats should study our children in the
streets. He would then see that when they play
every day at war—and German children prefer the
game of war to that of shopkeeper—they do not play
' Prussians against Russians,' but ' Prussians and
French;' and this also with changes of sides, for the
rules of the game is that the 'French' must always
be beaten."

APRIL 1, 1854.