The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-THIS DAY.

The SIEAKER took the chair shortly after twelve
o'clock.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT BILL.

The hotse went into committee on this bill, resuming at
clause 26, which, with some verbal amendments, was
agreed to.
Clause 27 was agreed to.

On clause 28, which relates to the valuation of Govern-
ment property, an amendment was agreed to by which
boards of guardians were empowered to make the property
of the Government contribute to the common fund.
_ .

On clause 32, which provides for the payment of expenses
incurred for returns ordered by the overseers, and for com-
pensation,

Mr. AYRTON moved an amendment to the effect that
such payments should have the sanction of the board of
guardians. Another amendment was also proposed, but
both were negatived, and the clause was agreed to.
The remaining clauses with some amendments were
agreed to.

The bill, as amended, Was then read a second time.

LEFT SITTING.

HOUSE. OF LORDS—YESTERDAY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at the usual hour.

THIRD READINGS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed :-

Glasgow Barony Parochial Boards,-Breton Ferry Dock
and Railway, North British, (fee., Railways, Brecon and
Merthyr Tydvil Junction Railway, and Cowbridge Rail-
way.
MALICIOUS INJURIES, &c. (IRELAND).
The Earl of LEITRIM brought in a bill for further
strengthening the law with respect to murders and
malicious injuries in Ireland. The measure proposed that
where a person was murdered in Ireland a jury should
be summoned with the view of assessing the compensation
to be paid to his survivors by tha inhabitants of the locality
in which the crime was committed.
The bill was read a first time.
THE DEBT OF JAMAICA.
The Earl of DERBY rose to call the attention of the
house to the correspondence which had taken place relative
to the debt due by the Island of Jamaica. The noble earl said
that some time ago their lordships were amused, or rather
scandalised, by a correspondence which had been
brought under their notice, and which had taken
place between two departments of the Govern-
ment, viz., the Admiralty and the Treasury. The
correspondence had been brought under their attention
by a noble friend of his (the Earl of Hardwicke),
with the true spirit of a seaman, for certainly
had it not been for him a number of brave men would have
been kept out of that which was their right. In the corre-
spondence which he was about to bring under their notice
it would be seen that in this case also two depart-
ments of the Government were concerned, but in
this instance it was between the 1 reasury and
the Colonial office. He could not refrain from saying that
the correspondence should not have taken place, or at
all events that it should not have been submitted to Par-
liament. In the year 1831, in consequence of the financial
distress in the island of Jamaica, a loan of £200,000 at a
certain rate of interest, was granted, the understanding
being that the whole sum should be paid
off in the year 1859. Up to the year 1847,
the interest was punctually paid, and the debt was
reduced to about £160,000. From that year, in consequence
of the act equalising the duties upon slave grown and free
labour sugar, difficulties arose, and payment of instalments
from that period ceased altogether. The noble earl then
proceeded to point out the various steps that had taken
place relative to the debt, and the correspondence which
had taken place with respect to it.
Lord GRANVILLE said that, as the correspondence
extended over several years, inconsistencies had probably
occurred in it. As to the Treasury, it always started from
a different point of view than other departments, as its ob-
ject was, of course, to check expenditure. A bill was about
to be introduced to remedy the evils caused, as both the
Treasury and the Colonial-office had agreed to a compro-
mise.

_
Lord TAUNTON was sorry to find the question had
not been long ago settled, and considered that the publica-
tion of the correspondence was indiscreet. He condemned
the system of the Government lending money to the co-
lonies.

Lord GREY thought that the Queen's Government
should act as a whole, and that heads of departments should
not seek to throw off responsibility from themselves on
others. The Government ought not to be divided against
itself, and show such a want of firmness and consistency.
If differences arose, they ought to be referred first to the
Prime Minister, and then to the Cabinet.
Lord CARNARVON made a few remarks.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE denied any wish to evade
responsibility on his part, and said there had been no diffe-
rence of opinion as to the practical measures to be adopted.
The charge of delay must be shared by every Treasury for
the last seven years, and consequently, in part, by the Ad-
ministration of Lord Derby,
_ _ _

Lord DERBY, having 'briefly replied, withdrew his mo-
tion.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of.
The house adjourned at 5 minutes before 9 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY.

The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.

The Great Western Railway (Oswestry, Shrewsbury,
and Ellesmere Lines) Bill was read a third time and
passed.

THE PULTENEY HARBOUR BILL.

On the motion for the consideration of the Lords' amend-
ments to this bill,

Mr. HODGSON moved the omission of the clauses pro-
viding for compulsory pilotage.
Mr. MASSEY (chairman of committees) took technical
exception to this amendment, and contended that the
proper course to be pursued in regard to a private bill was
that it should be recommitted.

After a short discusssion the amendment was negatived,
and :he bill was considered and ordered for third reading.
DISTRESS IN THE MANUFACTURING
DISTRICTS.

Mr. HIBBERT asked the President of the Poor-law
Board whether, in the present and prospective state of dis-
tress in the manufacturing districts, he was prepared to
bring in a bill for the purpose of enabling Boards of
Guardians to borrow money, with the consent of
the Poor-law Board, for the purposes of relief ;
such loans to be borrowed on the security of the rates, and
to be repaid by instalments extending over a period of not
more than seven years.

.....
•
Mr. VILLIERS thanked the hon. member (Mr. Rib -
bert) for having postponed the question until the present
day, as it had afforded him an opportunity of ascertaining
whether adequate p eans existed for meeting any distress
that might arise in the manufacturing districts by giving
the poor law administrators power to raise money if necessary
for any special emergency. He had communicated with
the very intelligent gentleman who had been sent by
Government into the manufacturing districts to
institute inquiries into the circumstances of the
locality, and he regretted to say that within the last
week or tan days the tone of this gentleman's letter was
not so hopeful as previously in respect to the distress of the
district. It appeared, however, that in Lancashire only 17
per cent, of the population were receiving parochial relief,
while in other parts of the kingdom the percentage was as
much as 19. At the same time there was no
security that in that locality those who were at
present ratepayers would not shortly be the re-
cipients of parochial relief Under theee, circumstances he
considered it was desirable that these districts should be
carefully watched, i, order that relief should be provided
during the recess, if it were found thr‘t the poor rate was
not adequat3 He could assure the hon. member and the house
that every attention would be paid to this important sub-
ject by the Government and the department under which
he (Mr. Villiers) presided during the recess.
In reply to Colonel WILSON PATTEN and Mr. COBDEN,
Mr. VILLIERS said that the report of the Government
Commissioner could be inspected at the office of the Poor-
law Board. As regarded the act of Elizabeth, he believed
it would be found. to be applicable to the existing circum-
stances, by giving to the local authorities a power of
making a rate in order to meet special emergencies.
DISTRESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.
In reply to Mr. SCULLY,
Sir G. GREY said that a careful inquiry had been made
into the alleged distress in the West of Ireland, but the
result was not considered sufficient to justify the making
of a rate in aid on the counties adjoining the districts
where the distress was stated to prevail.
BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS BILL.
In reply to Lord J. MANNERS,
Mr. M. GIBSON said that at this stage of the session
he did not think this bill could be carried, and therefore he
did not propose to proceed with it at present.
FORTIFICATION (PROVISION FOR EXPENSE)
BILL. 1
The house went into committee on this bill.
In reply to Mr. OSBORNE, Sir F. SMITH, and other hon.
members,
Sir G. LEWIS said that in order to afferu' hon. mem-
,
members an ample opportunity of discussing the question
involved in the present bill, he proposed that it should be
recommitted. Government was anxious that the subject
should receive full discussion, and when the bill had been
recommitt-d he would give the house all information in his
power. In order to carry out that object, if it were neces-
easy, Government would not object to protract the session.
After some discussion the house divined on the motion of
Sir H. WILLOUtiRBY,—That the chairman should report
progress.
Ayes
Noes ................ 105
Majority ........................ —27
i The motion was accordingly negatived.
On the vote of £llO,OOO for Portsdown forts,
Mr. MONSELL moved that the vote should be reduced
by £70,000. He quoted the authority of Admiral Den-
man and other distinguished naval officers to show
that the defence of this country could be best provided for
by iron-clad vessels, and that the house ought not to be
required to lay out large sums on the construction of forts,
the utility of which was doubtful. lie ridiculed the idea of
any successful invasion of this country taking place with
the power of concentrating troops on a given point which
existed, provided also that there was an adequate floating
battery maintained. He contended that the construction
of the forts on Portsdown Hill was a matter that did not
require any technical military knowledge at the pre-
sent day to understand it, but could be decided by men of
common sense, and he contended that the forts were
shown to be a lavish expenditure.
The amendment was supported by Sir F. SMITH.
Sir G. LEWIS, in replying to Mr. MONSELL, observed
that, assuming that Portsmouth would be attacked only by
sea, the forts would be superfluous; but the question was
whether Portsmouth was not liable to an attack by land,
and it'. as to defend it from a land attack that the forts
were intended.
Upon a division, the amendment was negatived by 132
to 50.
The schedule was then added to the
bill, which was
ordered to be reported, after an emphatic protest by Mr.
Osborne against the lavish waste of public money upon these
forts.
The Thames Embankment Bill was read a third time
and passed, after a conversation upon somewhat extrane-
ous topics.
JAMAICA LOAN (SETTLEMENT) BILL.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE, in moving the second reading of
the Jamaica Loan (Settlement) Bill, stated that it was for
the purpose of settling by compromise a very old debt due
by the colony,, of the history of which he gave a short
sketch, explaining the terms upon which it was proposed to
remit the arrears of the debt.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS opposed the bill, considering that