The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-24 00:00:00

Vii' / ~v~

cf.4*),;,.
„i •
.;r1:41
..tv,,-..244;;;;;,,ii,4;,::1%.
- • •
- - .• , Z.' 'l' 411116
• . . .
<4414A/1
Prir-Vir I;Vk„,.
04, •
\
, r
;
eY );7"4_- .- , . SS..A‘'.nt.l : ---,A.:4,
4"'Ns. 14104., DI ji•ii•P+ PR oi ;%,•*,
nit .np

LON DON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 24, 1853.

THE , INDISPUTABLE LIFE POLICY
COMPANY.
No. 72, Lombard-street and 24, Connaught-terrace.
TRUSTEES.
Richard Spooner, Esq., M.P.
J. Campbell Renton, Esq., M.P. James Fuller Madox, Esq.
Richard Ma In.. Esq., Q.C., M.P. William Nl'llberforce, Esq.
The POLICIES are INDISPUTABLE, in terms of the Deed of
Settlement of the Company, duly registered, and are thus rendered
CERTAIN FAMILY PROVISIONS, and NEGOTIABLE DOCU-
MENTS OF SECURITY.

be sent up a chimney to extricate a machine, though
it wa., unlawful to employ him in sweeping it; but
the bill of the noble earl proposed that nobody under
16 should be employed to assist a master chimney-
sweep within any house. (Hear, hear.) By such an
enactment they would embarrass the trade, without
doing any real good. (Hear.) He hoped, therefore,
the noble earl would take further time to consider this
question, and when he had produced a measure really
calculated to remove the abuses that now existed, he
would find no more earnest supporter tlizin himself.
The Earl of WICKLOW concurred very much in the
views taken upon this subject by the noble• lord below
him (Lord Beaumont). The noble earl had given no good
and definite reason why this measure should be carried
into effect. The only reason he gave for it was, that the
late act was evaded by boys being smuggled into houses
as persons carrying bags or brushes, and then by stealth
put up the chimney; but the law as it stood was so strin-
gent, that it was almost impossible it could be evaded in
this way, The act was not evaded in London, because
the 'penalties were well known there, and if the noble
earl would only circulate bills to let the people in the
country generally know what the penalties were, as little
evasion would take place in country districts. He, there-
fore. looked upon this as a useless piece of legislation.
The noble earl (Panmure) said the law interfered for
the protection of children. That wan true, but the law
did not prevent them entering into a trade under 16. If
this bill passed, there would be a penalty imposed on a
chimney-sweeper for taking his own son to assist him in
his trade. (Hear, hear.)

Ihis Company has introduced, as more p,culiarly appllcal,le to the
Middle and Induitrious Chests, a plan of SELF- l'ltO rt.:(2 s.l IN-
SURANCE, whereby in one Paley for one rate of Premium, h re
combined sit Insurance of a Sum payable either at &ant or on at-
laMing a specille.l age, and a pension or annuity alter that aye ; and
giving the lull la-nefit of all Premiums that have Leen paid, although
the payments should at any time he tilieontinued.
• • ALEXANDER UOISERTSON, Stanager.

s „
The Duke of ARGYLL said, the chief argument in
favour of this bill was the fact, that the former act to
prevent children being employed, in chimney-sweeping
was evaded. It was notorious that such evasion took
place, and therefore they were called upon to prevent it.
Of course, if any noble lords were of opinion that the for-
mer act was a bad act, he could understand their opposi-
tion to the present bill, but those who approved of the
first act ought to approve of the present also. (Hear.)
The noble earl (Wicklow) said that the Legislature, in
.interfering in the case of children, never prevented their
entering a trade ; but, to make his observation applica-
ble to the present case, everything depended upon what
he meant as the trade of chimney-sweeping. The bill
before their lordships prevented young persons being
employed " within any house,"—these words having
been added to the bill by the noble earl. It was plain,
therefore, that children might be employed out of doors.
Lord MONTEAGLE said, the bill prevented any per-
son under 16 years of age from using the trade of a
chimney-sweeper within any house. Now, by a stand-
ing order of their lordships, it was provided that no bill
for "regulating the conduct of any trade," or "altering
the laws of apprenticeship," should be read a second time
till a select committee should have considered and re-
ported on the expediency or inexpediency of the house
proceeding to take the matter into consideration. The
object of this order was clearly to prevent hasty legisla-
tion on these matters, and he believed it was impossible
for any bill to come more distinctly under its provisions
than the present. He therefore called upon their lord-
ships to enforce their standing order in this case. (Hear.)
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY might not have been
sufficiently acquainted with the orders of their lordships'
house ' • but, as to the merits of this question, nothing
should ever induce him to recede from the position
which he had taken up. (Hear.) With regard to the ob-
servations of the noble baron opposite (Lord Beaumont),
who had spoken with so much force against legisla-
tion upon this matter, he could only say that he trusted
in God he should ever fall under his censure, and under
the censure of all those who, with him, could apply to
the course he had taken a charge of cant and miserable
legislation. He rejoiced in the observation the noble
lord had made, and he rejoiced that the noble lord had
nothing more tangible to bring against the measure which
he had introduced to their lordships' notice. (Hear,
hear.) The noble lord had told them that the act of
1840 had produced no good whatever. Now he had
great reason to complain that he and other noble lords
rose to make statements upon this subject while they
were not able to corroborate. Having no knowledge of
the class of which they spoke, not having given them-
selves the trouble to inquire personally among the people
themselves, to perambulate the streets in which they
lived, and to go into the dens of human misery where
they were to be found, they nevertheless came before
their lordships and affirmed that the late act had pro-
duced no beneficial effects whatever. Now, he totally
denied the statement of the noble lord. He could pro-
duce the most convincing testimony to show that consi-
derable advantages had arisen from that act ; that there
were hundreds and thousands of children, who, but for
that act, would have been employed in this disgusting
and degrading occupation, now engaged, after beimg
educated in trades and occupations that were worthy of
the dignity of free men and the privileges of a Christian
people. (Hear, hear.) It seemed to be thought that
the sweeping-machines and the system of chimney-
doors could not be used except at great expense, and
without breaking the ornamental parts of drawing-
rooms ; but the fact was, they could be constructed
at a very small cost indeed, and if they prevented alto-
gether the occupation of climbing boys, those chimney
doors would be universally used, for cre was not a
house in any part of the kingdom, however old it might
be, where they could not be erected at a small expense.
The noble lord said that fires had greatly increased in
consequence. [Lord Beaumont dissented.] Did the
noble lord now repeat to the house the assertion that,
in consequence of the act of 1840, fires had occurred or
increased ? If not, the noble lord had, in his place in
Parliament, without inquiring, and with the view of
exciting a feeling against this act, and to induce their
lordships to throw out the present measure, made a very
wide and untenable statement.

Lord BEAUMONT explaine3, that he had made in•
quiry as to the truth of the facts to which he referred.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY expressed a hope that
their lordships would not take on themselves the re-
sponsibility of defeating a measure intended to remedy a
condition worse, if possible, than that of slavery.
The Earl of ABERDEEN entered fully into the feel-
ing which animated the noble earl on this subject. At
the same time he would recommend the noble earl, with
a view to maintaining the regularity of their proceed.
ings in that house, to allow the bill to be referred to a
select committee. It was understood that the commit-
tee would not enter into any further inquiry, and there-
fore the reference would cause no material delay.
After a short conversation on the point of form, in
which the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, Lord PANIIURE,
and the Earl of WICKLOW participated,
The bill was referred to a select committee.
Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY. )
The SPEAKER took the chair at five minutes ITo four
o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the following bills were
considered and agreed to :—Salford Extension and Im-
provement ; Teignmouth Harbour and Teign Navigation.
The following bills were read a third time, and
passed :—Gravesend and Wrotham Road ; Great Extra-
mural Cemetery Association ; Kilkenny and Great South-
Arn and Western Railway • Ludlow Cattle Market and
Slaughter-houses ; Manchester Improvement ; Midland
Railway; North British Railway; Staines, Wokingham,
and Woking Junction Railway ; Swaffham and Bottisham
Drainage (No, 2) ; Weston-super Mare Waterworks ;
York Drainage ' and Sanitary Improvement and Foss
Navigation ; Edinburgh Waterworks (No. 2).
The reports upon the following bills were considered
and agreed to, and the bills were ordered to be read a
third time :—London, Brighton, and South Coast Rail-
way ; North and South Western Junction Railway ;
Sunderland Dock ; Wildmore Fen and East and West
Fens ; Great Western Railway (Henley).
The following bills were read a second time :—Aber-
deen Tailors' Incorporation Estate, Fisher's Divorce,
Baroda and Central India Railway Company.

//J ~~~~

[PRICE SD•

that thelouse at its rising should adjoewn unfit Thurs-
day next.

r dequitable share of taxation, but they thought at
I AA aright to ask that that fair, Just, and equitable taxatio
scould first be decided by a competent tribunal. This was
not the first time they had asked for an inquiry as to bow
the accounts between the two countries really stood. When
a motion of this kind was brought forward some years
ago by the hon. member for Kilkenny, the Government of
that day did not condescend to answer him, and, probably,
the present Government intended to follow a similar course

SEPTENNIAL ACT.
Lord DUDLEY STUART gave notice that on this
day month he would move for leave to bring in a bill to
repeal the Septennial Act.

EDUCATION BILL.
Mr. MIALL gave notice of his intent!on to add a
proviso to clause 25 of Lord J. Russell's Education Bill,
to the effect that the assessment on persons under the
bill should he reduced by the amount which they volun-
tarily contributed to scho)ls in the town or borough in
which they resided.

on ihepresent occasion, and to content themselves with

DOCKYARD PATRONAGE-REPORT OF
COMMITTEE.

strangling the question by votes. (Hear, hcar.) Ae did
not think it necessary to enter into the merits of the ques-
tion further than by saying, that the English Government
having entered into certain engagements with Ireland at
the time of the union, the Irish representatives only asked
that those engagements should be fairly carried out. They
only asked that a competent tribunal should be appointed
to decide on the mode by which Ireland, considering her

Lord SEYMOUR. brought up the report or the com-
mittee appointed to inquire into the patronage of the
Admiralty in regard to dockyards.

relative capability, should be called upon to contribUte to
the support of the State • and, if that tribunal should de-
cide that increased taxation should be laid upon Irdand,
they would willingly and cheerfully submit to it. But if,
on the other hand, it shuuld decide that no - additional
taxation should be levied upon that country, they hoped
the Government would also be ready to abide by that
decision. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MA.CARTNEY had always thought that if there
was a fair account taken as between the two countries

The report was read by the chief clerk (Sir D. Le
Marchant) on the motion of Sir G. Pechell. It was a
very voluminous document, and occupied an hour in
reading. The committee divided their inquiry into four
distinct questions, on each of which they proceeded to
offer their observations in detail. The first was the cir-
cumstances under which tlio circular sent to the sur-
veyors of dockyards on the 26th of September, 1849,
was cancelled on the 10th of April, 1852, with-
out any order or minute of the Board of Admiralty.
After detailing at great length the main facts
proved before them, and which are already familiar to
the public, they stated it was their opinion that the
circular was undoubtedly cancelled with the consent of the
First Lord of the Admiralty, the Duke of Northumberland,
who seemed to have acted under the belief that the power
to cancel it remained properly with the Secretary of the
Admiralty, Mr. Stafford. The First Lord, they added,
therefore, sanctioned the cancelling, in ignorance of all
those forms of the Admiralty which it was essential for
him to know. The committee had not been able
to ascertain any facts which could justify Mr. Stafford
in cancelling the circular, and it was evident to them

that he had adopted that proceeding for the purpose of
satisfying his political friends. The committee stated,
in justice to Sir B. Walker, the Surveyor of the Navy,
that they had heard nothing which cast the least shadow
of suspicion on the integrity of his conduct in the per-
formance of his duty. (Cheers.)
The report was ordered to be printed.
REFUGEES IN TURKEY.

Lord D. STUART said it had been stated in the pub-

frelaial could afford to pay the income tax ; but until tsat
t,ccotint was gone into he did not think it would be fair to

lic papers that a demand had been made by Russia
and Austria upon the Porte, requiring the Go-
vernment of Turkey to expel political refugees
from Turkey. The demand to which he referred did not
require that refugees should be removed into the interior
of Turkey, but that they should be entirely expelled the
country, which was an unjust interference with the
rights of the Turkish empire, and he wished, therefore,
to ask if the Government had received any information
of such a demand.

impose that tax upon her.
Mr. CONOLLY said, ho should not only be incon.sistent
with his own professions in that house, but untrue to those

who sent hina'there, if he did not take the earliest oppor-
tunity• of impressing on the Government the absolute neces-
sity of granting an inquiry before placing upon Ireland a
tax which went to vitiate one of the leading articles of the
union. and which he considered as eminently unjust. Ho
thought he was also entitled to insist that the Government
should distinctly place before them the grounds upon which
they asked the house to extend the income tax to Ireland,
for ho must say that he felt it was a personal indignity to
the Irish members to have all their reclamations against
this impost treated with silent contempt by the right lieu.
-..e.ntleinen on the other side, and that thny should be over-
borne by a majority, and a majority alone. (Hear, hear.)
tie maintained that on the principle of seN-interest, if
upon no higher grounds it was the business of the house
tthhegrlaa
late
theet
Sir
pweheilc
was
asw s n
perfectly
ov ur
igghbtt.
and the solemn duty of 'the Government, as the guardians
hfet hbeel
etvaet,el,
in the opinion he had expressed that the income tux, if
applied to Ireland, would not pay the expenses of its col
lection. He could only tell the house that, by extending
the income-tax to Ireland, they would be flying in the face
of a whole nation, and treating the Irish people with a
contempt they would feel most poignantly. The Exche-
per of England, he was satisfied, would not receive the
slightest advantage from such an outrage. From motives
if high policy, the late Sir Robert Peel refused, in 1845,
.to extend the,iacome tax to Ireland, but the state of Ire-
land at the present time was not nearly so prosperous as it.
was then. (Hear, hear.) If it could be shown that Ire-
land had unjustly evaded her fair share of the imperial
taxation, he (Mr. Conolly) would at once assent to the ex-
tension of the income tax to that country. The people of
Ireland were not to be led away by theories that 1001. in
one place was as good as 1001. in another. 'They suffered
snough from the burdens, local and imperial, which were
.hrown upon them, and they felt that any addition to
those burdens was peculiarly unjust at the present time.
Mr. WILKINSON said ho thought, whatever Ireland
alight complain of, she certainly could not complain of the
want of a fair attention on the part of that house. (Hear,
hear, and a laughs.) He could only say, that since he had
been a member of that house one-half of its time had been
)ccupied in the discussion of Irish affairs. He supposed
the object of the proposed committee would be to inquire
what would be a fair share of taxation to be borne by Ire-
land. Now, he would put it to hon. representatives of Ireland
whether they thought they were pursuing. the course by
which they were most likely to obtain their' object ? Ho
wondered they did not feel some sense of humiliation in

:oming forward and suing, as it were in forma pauperii,
-Asking exemption from one tax and another. For his own
mart, he was quite ready to give his support to the budget,
which, he believed, would tend to promote the general
Advantage and prosperity of the country.
Lord C. HAMILTON observed, that he might remind
the hon. member for Lambeth that, but for the union, it
.vould have been unnecessary for any Irish representatives
to trouble that house on the subject of the fiscal arrange-
ments of their country. Ho understood that the object of
the motion was to obtain the appointment of a committee
who might inquire whether the tams upon which th e
inion was established, and which brought Irish member e
into the house, had been strictly and fairly carried o u t
with respect to the burdens of taxation borne by the tw o
countries. He hoped the hon. member would not conside r
that, in doing his duty to his constituents, he was pleading
for them in fornut pauperis. He (Lord C. Hamilton)
thought it might be shown that the bargain made at the
union had not been quite fairly observed. In order to
induce the Irish Parliament to waive its separate rights,
Lord Castlereagh had distinctly declared that Ireland
Abould not be called upon to pay towards debts and liabi-
lities incurred by Great Britain before the union, but that
As to future expenses the two countries were to be taxed
on a strict measure of relative ability. He (Lord C.
ilamilton) thought, then, that Irish members had a

Lord J. RUSSELL said, having received notice of
this question, he had consulted with the noble earl the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject.
He had ascertained from the noble lord that no such in-
formation had been received at the Foreign-office.

right to ask whether, in this new framework of financial
legislation, not only the letter but the 'pit-it of that
contract had been strictly considered. (Hear, hear.)
He had long thought that Ireland must have an in-
come tax, if such a tax was to he permanent in England—
(hear, hear)—but he wished it to be ascertained what dif-
ference there was between the resources ofireland in 1845,
and at the present time, which now rendered that country
to much more capable f bearing additional taxation with-
out injury to her interests. He would ask whether, when
Ireland had just passed through a period of great difficulty,
it would be wise for the Imperial Treasury to seize upon
the first fruits of her returning prosperity? The tendency
A such a proceeding would be, he believed, be to retard, it
not to destroy that prosperity, and to paralyse the efforts
by which, during the last few years, so much had been
accomplished. The remissions now contemplated as re-
tarded Great Britain amounted to 1,470,0001., but the
only remission for Ireland was that of the consolidated an-
nuities, which, he contended, ought not to enter into the
tmlanee at all. He would not enter at any length into
igures ; but, allowing 2;50,000/. for the consolidated au-
nuitics„that left a surplus in favour
_of_ Great Britain of

1,220,600 t. Was time in Lho spirit of the Act of Union?
Ito did not wish to complain of or to deny their power to
imposo additional taxation. All the supporters of this
motion wanted was inquiry, and that inquiry he hoped the
house would give.

The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER could not
well commence his observations upon this discussion with-
out adverting to the remarks of the hon, member for Rog-
common (Mr. F. French) on what ho had been pleased to
term the inattention of the Government during the speech
of the hon. and gallant gentleman who had brought for-
ward this motion. For his own part, he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) entirely disclaimed that charge. (Hear.)
He was in the house, endeavouring to attend to the hon.
and gallant gentleman—(hear)—when some persons who
were now sarcastically cheering him were not in the house
at all. (A. laugh.) He did his best to hear the gallant
colonel, but there was so much noise during his speech
that it was heard most imperfectly, and it appeared to
him that a large share of that disturbance came from the
neighbourhood of the gallant colonel himself. (No, no,
and a laugh.) The hon. member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly)
had stated that it was in no spirit of evasion that this mo-
tion was made—that there was no desire to escape from the
question or evade a fair share of taxation as regarded Ire-
land. Now, he accepted implicitly the assztion of the
hon. member, without assenting, however, to the proofs
upon which that assertion rested ; for he thought the asser-
tion would have stood better without those proofs than
with there. (A laugh.) It did not appear to him (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) that this motion had at all
the effect of demonstrating to the house or to the country
that there was no disposition to evade the question. He
was quite sure such a motion would not be made the rule
of proceeding in another place. He remembered, in 1833,
when there had been a long discussion upon the question
of negro emancipation, and when the discussion had been
ended, and a bill had been brought in and read a second
time, the hon. member for Montrose made a motion very
similar to this—namely, that in lieu of going into com-
mittee on the bill, a select committee of inquiry should be
appointed. The hon. member for Montrose was followed
on that occasion by the Earl of Derby, then Lord Stanley,
who administered such a reproof as it was not in his (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's) power to give to the hon.
and gallant colonel, but which, if it were in his power to
administer, ho was sure would prove a great discourage-
ment to the hon. and gallant member. (Hear, and a
laugh.) He did think the present motion was an e
tremely unfortunate one, both in respect to the form and
the time at which it was made. In the first place, it
was interposed as an absolute bar to their progress with
this bill. (Hear.) It was an amendment to the Speaker's
leaving the chair. Now, what was this billy It was
something else than applying the income tax to Ireland.
(Hear, hear.) It was a bill for repairing a deficiency,
of 5,000,000/. in the national revenue and for carry-
ing on the service of the year, being so far irrespective of
Ireland. The way to draw attention to the case of Ireland
would have been to either bring forward a separate motion
or to move to exempt Ireland from the operation
of the
tax in committee. But now they attempted to bar the
further progress of a bill which repaired a deficiency of
5,000,000/. in the public revenue, and upon which hinged
the whole financial arrangements of the year ; and all these
arrangements as regarded England and Scotland were to be
suspended until they had got the report of a select com-
mittee upon the relative taxation of England and Ireland.
(Hear.) There would have been far more propriety in such
a motion if it had been made at the first step taken in this
matter ; it ought at any rate to have come at a far earlier
period than this. Why was the question of equal taxation
between the two countries revived now, after it had
been
h
debated for nights together, and after divisions had been
taken upon it, in which the sense of the house had been
unequivocally expressed. (No, no !) Noy Why, on the
mail motion the debates had chiefly turned upon the case
separately
of Ireland—the question of applying the tax to Ireland
discussed and decided ; and, having been
was
separately decided, and the competency of the house to
decide upon it having been thus admitted, the hon. and
gallant gentleman now came down, at a very much later
Stage, and asked the house for a select committee of
inquiry ! (Hear, hear.) . That appeared to him (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) a bad Parliamentary ground
upon which to stand, and one of a very inconvenient
'st
udes istio
cha-
racter as respected the order and consistency of
public pro-
scieteitol inn g
tos.
avoid(H e aorr ,
escapehear.) f
roWmiththreegmaredritto, o
committee,thfisthe
admired), who the
judgment of his noble friend had said he would not go fully,
he had not, in taking these objections, the alighttpo;
amadiltatohn.
d s
(Loe
rl fd.
C.
I HI e
into the figures. (A. laugh.) He admired
the hon, and gallant colonel—the the judgment of
men who gave an historical characterjudgment and skill of
who went back to the epoch of the to their speeches
over everything which had union, but who leaptill
and the present time, (Hear.)occurred between that period
7th article of the Act of the They had spoken as if the
but he did not hear Union were departed from,
one syllable of reference to
pro-
ceedings which had taken the
7th article. This was place since the union upon that
rather remarkable taatvey inconvenient topic. It was
the proceedings relating to this
Act of Union, which had occurred in the interval, should
have been allowed to drop entirely out of sight. They
were told it was a very hard case that Ireland should pay
1,000,000/. or 5,000,0004. towards the general revenue of
the country. That. was said to be a very hard case, and
Ireland, it was added, would have been much better off in
regard to her financial condition if she had kept separate
from England. (Hear, hear; from the Opposition benches.)
She would ? Well, he was glad now to have got a per-
fectly distinct statement. There was a fair challenge to
him, and he accepted it. The hon. gentleman said, then,
that it would have been better for Ireland—that she would
have been at far less cost than she was at present—if, in-
stead of having her finances consolidated with those of E g n -
land,,• she had been allowed to continue upon her. own
ground. (An Hon. Member—If the debts had not been
consolidated.) Well, the house shells see how that