The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-21 00:00:00

MEM

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, .J L'LY 21, 1853.

IMPEIiI AL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY•)
ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATE DUTY (No. 2.)

the Government thought the prudent course would be received. The noble lord concluded by moving the
be to make neither of these reductions, and on their adjournment.
part he had submitted a plan to the consideration of the After a few words from Mr. C. BERKELEY and Mr.
house. He would not speak now of the chance NEWDEGATE, the motion for adjournment was put, and
divisions taken on the advertisement duty at a late agreed to.
hour in the evening; but he would admit that those divi- Mr. NEWDEGATE moved that the debate be re-
siona did indicate to his mind, and to those of his col- sumed this day fortnight.
leagues, a strong feeling and desire on the part of the The motion was agreed to and the debate was ad-
house that that duty should be repealed. (Hear.) The journed accordingly.
opinion of the Government was that it would have been After the reception of some reports the house rose at
more prudent not to repeal that duty. Their opinion a few minutes to 6 o'clock.
was that they could not repeal both these duties, and
they were not prepared to repeal both of them ; but he
had not the least hesitation in saying that if the question
came to be between the one duty and the' other,
and if the house was disposed to press for the repeal of
the advertisement duty in opposition to the views which
Government held as to what the interests of the revenue
might require, and if they were called on to exercise a
judgment on the question where they should take their
stand, and where they should say they could not conscien-
tiously accede to the propositions of the house, then their
duty with regard to the tax on attorneys' certificates would
be to declare that they were not prepared to accede to
the repeal of that tax. (Hear, hear.) They admitted that
the house had shown a strong desire for the repeal
of the advertisement duty. They placed the two ques-
tions before the house, and they frankly owned that if
one of these duties was to be repealed, that one should
not be the duty on attorneys' certificates. He had never
said more than that. There had been no tacit under-
standing. He entirely declined to give any sort of
pledge with reference to the future ; but he had stated
that, in the view of the Government, it would not be
consistent with their duty to consent to the repeal of
both these taxes. (Hear.) He would now leave the
matter in the hands of the house, and express the hope
that this subject was not to be made a tax in another
form—a perpetual tax from year to year on the
time of the house, but that it would receive some
final and decisive expression of opinion, from which both
the Government and the parties might have the oppor-
tunity of judging what course was to be taken, and that
they might be able to apply themselves to business in
future sessions without the perpetual discussion of all
the incidental accompaniments that attached to the sub-
ject of attorneys' certificates. (Cheers.)
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP,
Mr. EWART had repeatedly moved in former years
the repeal of the advertisement duty, and had as repeat-
edly supported the motion of the noble lord the member
for Middlesex, but he could not for a moment hesitate
now in giving his support for,the repeal of the advertise-
ment duty in preference to the repeal of the attorneys'
certificate duty.
Mr. MAGUIRE urged the claim of the attorneys to
the consideration of the house.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading lO2
Against it
Majority —B4
The bill was consequently thrown out.
RECOVERY OF PERSONAL LIBERTY BILL.
On the motion for resuming the adjourned debate on
the second reading of this bill,
Mr. BOWYER rose to order. He understood that
the second reading was negatived by the division which
took place on the 23d of June, and he wanted to know
how they could resume the debate on that question
now ?
The SPEAKER said they were strictly in order. At
the former occasion the question was " That this bill be
now read a second time ;" to which an amendment was
moved to leave out all the words after the word
" that," in order to insert the words moved by the hon.
and learned member for Bath, and the question which
the house had now to decide was whether these words
should be added.
Mr. J. BALL was glad that the question had been
so narrowed, because it rendered it quite unnecessary
for him to answer the flimsy arguments which had been
urged in favour of the bill. As for the amendment of
the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Bath,
he insisted that it was wholly uncalled for. The whole
movement was an unjust attack upon a number of most
valuable institutions, which ministered to the wants of
the sick, provided education for the poor, and pro-
moted the religious welfare of the Roman Catholics.
Those who opposed, or wished to pry into them,
did not do so for the sake of securing the interest of so-
ciety generally, but with the view of spreading religious
discord and exciting unholy animosities amongst the
people. That was the great object of the Protestant
Association, the Evangelical Alliance, and similar socie-
ties, and they sought to accomplish it by resorting to
scandalous libels, which they published, upon the Roman
Catholic Church. Now, he wanted to know if the house
was ready to assist such a movement by passing a mo-
tion like this ? He hoped not ; and therefore he called
upon them to reject the motion.
Mr. E. BALL believed that the essence of religion
was charity, and, although a Dissenter, he was yet hi
favour of maintaining the Established Church. (Hear,
hear.) Through life he had been the advocate
of religious liberty, and often had he been persecuted for
the views which he entertained. He was consequently
not disposed to join in the persecution of others, and as
he had not yet heard anything in support of this motion
he should resist it. He might be looked upon as the
very antipodes of a Roman Catholic, but he never hoped
:o convert others to his views by persecution. No ; it

BILL.
Lord R. GROSVENOR moved the second reading of
the bill. He had postponed the second reading from
time to time, and had he been pressed to bring it on at
an earlier period he should probably have declined
to do so ; but as the financial scheme of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer bad safely , passed
through the ordeal to which it had been very properly
subjected, and as the returns of the quarter's revenue,
lately published, showed a considerable surplus, he
thought he was not taking an unjustifiable course in now
pressing for the entire reduction of the tax. The pro-
position of the right hon. gentleman with regard to the
tax had not been at all approved of by the attorneys and
solicitors. He understood that the Government had
been beating up for recruits in all directions, and it was
said that they had succeeded in obtaining the support of
the right hon. gentleman the member for Manchester
and his friends, on the understanding that the Govern-
ment would take the newspaper taxes into their favour-
able consideration. If the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an assurance
that he would take the tax into his consideration next
session, he should not press the bill to a second reading.
Mr. MURROUGH denounced the bill as a political
sham. He never had seen such a ridiculous manner of
advocating the cause of a class as the course adopted by
the noble lord, and he thought that if the noble lord
had taken as straightforward and sincere a course as the
right hon. gentleman the member for Manchester, the
attorneys would now be in as good a position as the
newspaper proprietors were.
Mr. HUME had always been opposed to the abolition
of the tax, but he did not think the hon. gentleman was
advancing the interests of the attorneys by imputing
partial motives to any member of that house.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER must
say he sympathised very much with the pain which the
honourable member opposite (Mr. Murrough) suffered
on account of the vote he was about to give, but he
would respectfully suggest to him that he might very
easily spare himself that pain by not giving it. (A laugh).
There were two motives on which men generally acted
---the one was from duty, the other was from pleasure.
The honourable member, it was plain, was not going
to act for the purpose of duty, for he said he was
about to vote for a. political sham—(a laugh)—neither
was he going to vote for the purpose of pleasure, for he
said it was painful to his feelings to vote for the motion.
(A laugh.) Perhaps he would pardon him for offering a
suggestion, that, in these circumstances, he would be
acting entirely in accordance with the dictates of his
conscience if he removed himself from the house alto-
gether. (Great laughter.) But he must be allowed to
say he thought the hon. member had entirely mistaken
the motives and character of his noble friend's conduct.
(Hear.) His noble friend, at his suggestion, agreed to
take the division on the second reading of the bill, but it
was not at all true that his noble friend by that agree-
ment in any way put an advantage into his hands. If
he had done so the hon. member would have had a
right to complain, or at least would have had some
colour of complaint; but the hon. member was perhaps
not aware that, this being a case of reduction of duty,
it was not necessary to introduce it by a preliminary
resolution at all, and that, by not opposing his (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's) resolution, his noble
friend did not lose his right to introduce a bill to take
away the duty altogether. It was, therefore, a mere
matter of courtesy that led to any arrangement between
them. If it had not been for the attack just made by
the hon. member opposite, he should have been dis-
posed to take up his noble friend from an opposite point
of view, and to compliment him for the tenacity, he
would say the chivalrous tenacity, with which he
had taken up the cause of this unfortunate and
helpless body. (A laugh.) His noble friend's cha-
racter as a philanthropist had been long esta-
blished, otherwise, no more illustrious example of it
could be quoted in after times than the manner in
which he had held out the right hand of succour and
support to a meritorious class, entirely without organi-
zation—(laughter)—not represented in that house—
(laughter)—cut off from all the ordinary means of com-
munication with it enjoyed by other clasees—(laughter)
—and, last of all, having their friends on circuit. (Great
laughter.) But, with regard to the question at issue, it
was understood that they were discussing a bill with two
objects—one to repeal the annual certificate duty paid by
attorneys and solicitors, the other to amend the law with
regard to their registration. The question to be taken on
the second reading, however, had no relation to this last
clause, and therefore they were going to debate the ques-
tion whether they would repeal the certificate duty or not.
He was sorry to find that besides the offence of refus-
ing the repeal of the duty he had committed another
offence by introducing a plan for the reduction of the
duty, that was more unacceptable than its maintenance
—for his noble friend had told them that the plan which
he introduced gave satisfaction to no one, while it would
be a sheer loss to the revenue. (Hear, hear.) Now, all
he had to say upon this point was, that if the noble lord
and his friends felt so much aggrieved by the proposal
which he had made, he did not say the Government was
so obstinate in their adherence to the plan as that they
might not be induced, on the representation of the par-
ties, to give it up altogether. (Laughter.) But, most
unquestionably, they would not be parties to a repeal
of the certificate duty and setting the profession free
from a tax to the State which they had paid for 60
years, and which they were brought up in the expecta-
tion of paying, and at the same time leaving in its
unmitigated force the enormous tax now paid upon the
stamp that was required in the case of every little
boy whose father wanted to put him into the profes-
sion—a tax of 1201. in the case of a boy, who might,
perhaps, turn out to be unfit, or who might be pre-
vented by circumstances from following out the voca-
tion. (Hear, hear.) The Government would be no
party to levying such a burdensome tax and repealing
the other. (Hear.) His noble friend said, if he would
consent to put his refusal on the ground of a temporary
injury to the revenue, and promise that by another year
he would somewhat relent, he would be ready to take
the present plan of the Government as an instalment,
leave the question in the meantime in his hands, and be
ready to take it up again in a future year. Of course,
it was open to his noble friend to use his own discretion
in the matter ; but it was open to him also to say that
be hoped the house was now disposed to come to a
final vote on the subject. (Hear.) He could give
what he thought conclusive reasons from the state
of the revenue of the present year why the re-
peal of this tax should not now be granted ; and
he could not give any promise conscientiously to
his noble friend in the next year, or any
future year, he could repeal this duty—and for this plain
reason, that, forming the most sanguine estimate of the
resources of the revenue, he still felt there were other
objects of legislation beneficial to the attorneys and
solicitors, in common with the rest of the community,
far preferable to this, and far more imperative than this,
in the claims they made on the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer and that house. (Hear.) He therefore could give
no pledge as to the future, because he saw a long array
of claims coming in for the repeal of taxes—claims of a
far higher nature than could be urged in favour of the
present object. Now, with regard to revenue conside-
rations, he would state a few words to the house. On
the 18th of April, having stated to the house the changes
which the Government were prepared to propose with
reference to their fiscal legislation, he calculated that the
result of those changes would be to leave them with a
surplus of 495,0001. Since that time various changes had
taken place, and he was able to speak more positively
on subjects scarcely then ripe for a conclusion, and the
result had tended materially to alter the statement he
had made. His noble friend must not found his calcula-
tions upon the last quarter's revenue. Tho returns for
the last quarter were swelled adventitiously and acci-
dentally by a variety of causes which he could easily
point out ' • and he would say, looking at the present
state of the country, enlarging on that view of it, and
the prospect of the harvest, that if ho were to go now into
his department and ask them to give him a new estimate
of the revenue for 1853-54, they would not be able to
give him, to say the least, a more favourable estimate
than that which he laid before the house in April.
(Hear, hear.) As to the surplus he then calculated
upon, it would the necessary to make one or two state-
ments. In one item, that of the militia, there would
be a gain, the expenditure under that head being
52,0001. less than was anticipated. The packet contract,
however, would exceed the estimate by 35,0001.
Then there was a sum of 56,0001. which he expected to
have got from the Channel Island harbours, but which
it would not be possible to save during the present
year. There was 100,0001., the probable result of the
financial measures that had been taken, a sum which
would be realised as a permanent saving to the country
from the contracted amount of the Exchequer-bills, but
which would not be available for the balance of the
present year. There was likewise 110,0001., which he
had calculated on receiving from licenses, but this itderitt)
was so cut down by deductions which be bad foun _
necessary to make in order to satisfy the fair claim f
as oit
parties who had made representations to himt t h t
rof the
was deemed betterinot to insist on that
surplus disposed
dirpoesaord.)
of, Hanerde of
fcretdbiet
after giving
of
for the sum saved from the militia, the amount
thatwas le3fot,l",
ired to meet cer-
-150,000/. to 200,000/. would be r 000/. o.puat.
'reqduuty to take in a
250,000/r (Hear, hear.) Then a sum of from
tain charges that it would be t
at
all they had left of
supplementary estimate ; , • (Hear.)
reneal of
There was a demand made for the_ the the surplus would be from 5°0,0%0/. to 100 000/
adver-
tisement duty, amounting totoBo,oo7ltdlandbotf
ifthe attor-
neys' duty, also amountingboth of
they would have to carry
on the operations of the financial year, not with a sur-
plus, but with a deficit. (Hear.) Something had been
these duties were to be repealed.o
said abort a tacit understanding with the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Manchester. Whatever under-
standing there had been on this subject was not
tacit but outspoken (hear, hear) and whatever
had proceeded from him, directly or indirectly to the
members for Manchester in regard to the relation
between these two questions of the attorneys' and
adprovoeoretdiseedmfernotindhuitrny,
dwiraosounyotomtohree
noble than
ber for Middlesex one or two days lohraddthleikmewemise-
ago, when he called
upon him, when he pointed out that in regard to the
national accounts there was a very close relation be-
tween the two questions: (Hear, hear.) They were
asked to repeal two sets of duties amounting to 160,0001.,
and it was acknowledged that if they did so they would
-start, not with a surplus, but with a deficit, Now:

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-JULY 20.

(Front the Votes and Proceedings of the House of

Commons.)

ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS CERTIFICATE
DUTY (No. 2) BILL.

•
Order for second reading read ; motion mado, and ques-
tion propond, " That the bill be now read a second
time ;" amendment proposed, to leave out the • word
" now," and at the end of the question to add the
words " upon this day three months." Question put,
" That the word ' now' stand part of the question."
The house divided—Ayes, 102 ; Noes, 186.

MINORITY—AYES, 102.
Adderley, C. Graham, Lord M.W. Newdegate, C.
Alexander, J. Gro,,-hi I , Edward
Ham i i ton, 0' Arlen, C.
Barrington, Viscount Hawkins, W. W.
Annesiey, Earl of Hadfield, G.
l'ailey, C. . Palmer, R.
Go.- A. Parker, R. T.
Pi elicit, Sir G.
Eelibow, John lief:bort, Sir Thomas Peel, colonel
Beres:ord. William Hotliain, Lord Potter, R.
Berkeley, 11. Ingham, Stolen Price, W.:P.
Elandforil, Marquis Jones, Captain nigh, ti.'
liooth, Sir It. Kendall, Nicholas Repton, G.
Brooke, Sir A. Ker, D. Roll, P.
Brown, 11. King, James King Russell,F. W .
I'm rroughes, Ilenry N Knatch bull, Wm. F. Sib thorp , Colonel
Butler, Charles S. Knight, F. W. Smith. J.
Camac, Sir J. Rivett Lathan, It. M. Somerset, Capt
Child, Smith Lawton, 11. G. Spooner, R.
Cobbold, J. C. Langum. W. Cl. stairord, A.
Codrington, Sir Wm. Lase,elles, E. Stanley, Lord
Conolly, Thomas Lenuox,L ord A.
Taylor, Col.
Crook, J. Leslie, C. I'. Tudway, R. C.
Cubitt, Mr. Ald. Liddell, IL G. Tyler, Sir G.
Davison, R. Locke, J. Vance, J.
Duckworth, Sir J. Lytton, Sir E. B. Vyvyan, Sir R.
buncombe, WE. Macgregor, James Vyse, Capt.
W.
Dunne, Col. Maguire, J. F. Waddington, IL
Egerton W. Martin, John Walcott, Adm.
Egerton, E. Niles, IV. Welby, Sir G.
Ferguson, Joseph Michell, William Whiteside, James
Fitzgerald, Sir J. Moody, C. A. Whitmore, 11.
Frewen, C. H. Morgan, C. Wise, A.
Fuller, Augustus E. Morris, D. IVoodd, B.
Galway, Viscount Mowbray, J. Wyndham, Oen.
Goddard, A. L. Mullings, J. R. TELLERS
Goderieh, Viscount Murrough, J. F. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Gore, W. Napier, J. Ball, Edward

MAJORITY—NOES 186.
Aclanil, Sir T. Fitzroy, Hon. H. Oakes, J.
A'Court, C. 1 itzwilliam, G. O'Connell, D.
Anderson, Sir James Foley, John H. O'Flaherty, Anthony
Bailey, Sir J. Forster, Charles Oliveira, Benjamin
Baines, M. T. Fsrteseue, Chichester Osborne, Ralph
Baird James Fox, R. Otway, A. J.
Barnes, Thomas Gardner, Richard Owen, Sir J.
Barrow, William 11. Geacb, Charles Palmerston, Viscount
Bass, M. T. Gipson, T. M. Patten, J.
Beaumont. W. B. Gladstone, William Peel, F.
Beckett, W. Goodman, Sir G. Percy, J.
Bell, J. Gordon, Admiral Peto. S.
Berkeley, Admiral Goulburn, H. PhiHipps, J. H.
Bethell, Sir Richard Gower, F. L. 1-hiliimore, R.
Biggs, William Graham, Sir James Pigott, F.
Blacken, J. F. B. Greydie, Colonel F. Pilkington. James
Boldero, Col. Hall, Sir Benjamin Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Bonham-Carter, 3. Hamilton, Lord C. Ponsonby, lion. A.
Bouverie, E. Emile, Alexander Pritchard, J.
Bower, G. Mane, Archibald Ramsden. Sir J.
Boyle, Hon. Colonel Headlam, T. E. Robartes, Thos. J. A.
Bramston. T. W, Heathcoate, Sir G. Roche, E. B.
Bright, John Herbert, Sidney Russell, LordJ.
Brockman, E. D. Hervey, Lord A. Russell, F. C.
Browne, V. Ileyworth, Lawrence Sadleir, J.
Bruce, Lord E. Hindley, Charles Sadleir, John
Bruce, H. A. llorsfall, T. B. Sawle, C. B. G.
Campbell, Sir A. Howard, W. G. Scholefl eh], W.
Cardwell, Edward Howard, Lord E. Scobell, Captain
Cavendish, Hon. Geo. Hume, J. Seymour, Lord
Chambers, 'l'. Hutchins, E. Seymer, H. D.
Cholmondeley, Ld. H. Jermyn, Earl Shelburne, Earl of
Clifford, Henry M. Jocelyn, Viscount Shelley, Sir J. V.
Cobden, Richard Keating, It. Sheridan, R. B.
Cockburn, Sir A. Kennedy, T. Smith, John Bcnj.
Coffin, W. Keogh. William Smith, R. V
Cowan, Charles Kershaw, James Strutr, lit. lion. E.
Cowper, W. Kinnaird, A. F. Stuart, H.
Craufttrd, E. 11. 3 Kirk, William Sutton, J. 11. M.
Crossley, F. Lacou, Sir E. Tancred, Henry Wm.
:Si Earl Laing, S. Thompson, Ge,.rge
Davie, Sir H. Lawley, F. C. Thornely, Thomas
Denison, E. Lee, William Vernon.G. E. H.
Denison, J. E. Legh, G. C. Villiers, C. Pelham
Dent, J. Lockhart, A. E. Wal', C. B.
Hering, Sir Edward Lockhart, W. Walmsley, Sir J.
Divett, E. Lowe, Robert Walpole, S. 11.
Drumlanrig,Viscount Luce, Thomas Walter, John
Drummond, Henry Mackinnon, W. A. Wells, W.
Duke, Sir J. M`Gregor, John Whelley, George H.
Duncan, G. Maddock, Sir 11. Wickham, 11. W
Dundas, G. Mauls, Colonel Wilkinson, W. A.
Dindas, F. Miall, E. Williams, W.
Dunne, Michael Milligan, R. Wilson, James
East,:Sir J. B. Mills, T. Wood, Sir C.
Eleho, Ldrd Moffatt, G. Wrightson, W.'
Ellice, E. Molesworth, Sir W. Wyndham, Wiliam
Elmley, Viscount Monck, Lord .Wy vill, M.
Esmond°, J. Monsell, W. Young, Sir J.
E'rart, William Muigrave, Earl
Feilden, M. J. Mure, Col. TELLERS.
Fergus, John Newark, Viscount Hayler, lion. W.
Ferguson, Col. Norreys, Lord Berkeley Grenville

GREAT LONDON" DRAINAGE BILL.

TO THE EDITOR. OF THE SUN.

SIR,—You are aware that a bill under the above
title was introduced into Parliament this session, by
which it was proposed to accomplish the following
objects :—" To afford means for effectually draining the
Metropolis—to preserve the Thames from the pollution
at present passing into it—and to preserve the contents
of the sewers for agricultural purposes."
These objects were to be secured by the construction
of a tunnel sewer on each side of the Thames, passing
under and intercepting the contents of the present sewers,
conveying the same to a distance from the Metropolis,
and there, by deodorising and precipitating it, to form
an inodorous and dry manure.
This bill was referred to a select committee before
whom, during an investigation of seven days, the fol-
lowing facts were proved by evidence :
That the proposed tunnel sewers were capable of car-
rying off 37,000,000 of cubic feet of sewerage per diem,
whilst the daily amount of sewerage, according to the
highest estimate, is only 12,000,000 of cubic feet.
That by these tunnel sewers, and by no other means,
can the whole of the low-lying districts of the metropolis
be efficiently drained.
That for the ordinary rain-fall ample provision is made,
the flushing or scouring power of which will carry down
into the tunnel sewers all the foul matter that may be in
the general sewers, leaving them clean channels through
which any amount of storm wPter will afterwards pass
into the Thames.
That the proposed terminal works were sufficient for
ie purpose, and that the process of .manufacturing the
atiure was so inoffensive as to admit of the works ter-
eating at the River Lea, 3& miles short of the distance

must be done rather by charitable and Christian persua-
sion, and not by a recourse to violence. He strongly
deprecated these efforts to increase religious animosities,
they produced no good ; but above all he deprecated the
vile and unchristian manner in which the institutions of
the Roman Catholic Church had been assailed. Be
had visited some of them, and he found instead of a pri-
son, a charitable asylum where children were educated, I
who would otherwise have been left to the lanes and
streets—where poor women were employed or re-
claimed from an ill course of life. He had visited
the convent in Blandford-square, the asylum of
the Holy Shepherd at Hammersmith, as well
as the nunnery at Roehampton • and instead of finding
dungeons in them, he discovered places where charity,
good will, and religion prevailed. While, therefore, he
had the strongest faith in his own Protestant principles,
which could thrive without the assistance of legislative
enactments, he had no fear of their being undermined
by institutions like these ; and his course was clearly to
vote against the motion.
Mr. WHITESIDE treated this as a legal ques-
tion, and contended that the house had no alter-
native but to appoint a committee of inquiry
with a view to the amendment of the law relat-
ing to the inmates of conventual establishments.
He wished to have no disagreeable or painful inspection
of conventual establishments, but he desired to protect
their inmates from having their property taken away
from them against their will. He was surprised to find
great unanimity among Roman Catholics in favour of
throwing some protection around ladies in convents in
regard to the execution of deeds and wills. He could
not see any reason why the Roman Catholic members of
the house should object to inquiry if they were so satis-
fied it would redound to their honour, or that the cases
of oppression which had been cited were without foun-
dation. He denied the assertion of the hon. member for
Carlow that the object of this measure was to assail the
Roman Catholics of Ireland, and to deprive them
of their rights of property. There could be no
doubt that the opposition for finquiry came from
the ultramontane party of the Romish Church. In
making that assertion, he did not stand alone. Mr.
Berwick, the principal-of the college at Galway, had
said it was impossible for that institution to withstand
the machinations of this priestly party.
Mr. DRUMMOND said the real question was the
secular power assumed, without ever being abandoned,
mitigated, or modified, by Rome and all its clergy ; and
he should never, whether in or out of Parliament, cease
to expose the means by which they had boldly avowed
their intention to carry out the system into effect. He
considered that the motion was a very injudicious one,
because it would not secure the object intended. Hon.
members had alluded to the abuses connected with these
establishments in England, but nothing was done here
equal to what took place on the continent. The—state
of Europe justified all that had been asserted of them in
the course of the debate. Wherever in France did they
hear of the beloved priests or hierarchy ? Where, but
for the standing army in Rome, would the priests
be? (Hear, hear.) He would recommend no one to
withdraw those troops if they had any mercy for the
Pope. He had no hesitation in saying that convents
were abodes of cruelty, and he did not think the bill
would hit at the real evil. A writer on Portugal, Gen.
Dumorier, stated that 400,000 out of the 2,000,000
in
nfconventual the p o p u l a population in t
a ish
re cheats c oeuene t r ye f themr e confined
e
saesraegfltihoeofmtheeetkiinngfa,naineedshee
hdaeras certi
ebr. ed therr hwo h ocloenodfutcht them
priestsfor th e
mw atsobe subversiveloya lionf a
Protestant morals,
country.a s impossible
pHo sesi
be-
lievedb
theth aMt Romanrit.
hßi
would,
Catholics.orßurolod
sharersoal3n withß
unjusti
ctEenN ProtestantaEoncpt p ointerferencesed f rtheeemmweonitti
with
no
nthe
othen conducting
libertiesg
rucotui nnogdf
with the late Duke of Wellington, that it would be
seen that it was impossible for slaves to the priesthood
thoebaeffairs of this country. (Hear.)
onsttrted.ed
Ithnatdiitscwuasssinthgethe essentialgues.
without
principle of the religion of the Roman Catholics to bo
tloyaleMn,r
they
hoEe this
coming to any satisfactory
conclusion, steep themselves to their necks in theology,
exasperate the Catholics, and confute the Protestant
people of the country. Nothing could be more un-
statesmanlike than bringing forward a measure of this
kind without any good grounds, when it was shown that
in every case of hardship which had been referred to
the law had been vindicated. It was like stepping in
where angels feared to tread.
Sir J. TYRREL attributed the opinions of the hon.
member for Cambridgeshire to his innocence in regard to
the system adopted in convents. He protested against
Wednesday afternoons being fritted away by gentlemen
who seemed speaking against time, and he expressed his
astonishment that no member of the Government had
risen to interfere.
Mr. FITZGERALD contended that the arm of the
law was strong enough to protect the inmates of con-
vents both in regard to their own personal liberty and to
the disposal of their property. Wherever moral coercion
had been proved, deeds making away property to the
Church had been set aside. But where there was
one case of coercion in these convents there
were fifty in private life by the parent over the child.
In Ireland convents had existed openly and notoriously
for centuries, and was it not extraordinary, if such abuses
had existed in them, that there should be only four cases
in the books in which assignments of the property had
been obtained by undue means, in all of which the law
had set them aside. He protested against inquiry as
unnecessary, and also because it would raise sectarian
animosity, and be most mischievous in its effects.
_at
• Lord PALMERSTON suggested tha h
t the d.ch e
should be adjourned, in order that awn° rePQrto might

proposed by the plan.
That the tunnels could be constructed without inter-
fering with the traffic of the thoroughfares under which
it was intended to pass ; and
That the proposed tunnel sewers, branch sewers, and
works could be efficiently constructed for the sum of
900,0001., eminent contractors being fully prepared to
undertake the contract.
The minutes of evidence taken before the committee
were ordered to be printed, on the motion of the chair-
man ; reference to which will confirm the foregoing
statements. _ _ _ _

This important public work, originating with, and now
proposed to be carried out by, public enterprise, and in
all reasonable probability without charge to the rate-
payers, could not fail to confer such incalculable advan-
tages upon the metropolis that it was deemed reasonable
that the parishes benefited should share the risk in a
small degree. A clause was, therefore, inserted in the bill,
providing that they were to contribute towards a divi-
dend of 3 per cent. on the outlay (not exceeding 900,0001.),
in so far as the sale of the manure failed to produce that
rate of interest.
This guarantee was to extend only over 25 years, and
to be altogether extinguished whenever the profits
amounted to 3 per cent. Under this clause the greatest
amount which, under any circumstances, could be pay-
able by the metropolis would be 27,000/. per annum for
twenty-five years, equal to a present value of 450,0001.,
or one half the cost of the works.
The parishes, the parties really interested, did not
oppose the bill in committee, which was opposed only
by the representatives of the two Commissions of Sewers,
and on them, therefore, will rest the responsibility of
any delay that may occur in the carrying out this work,
or of devising some better plan for the drainage of the
metropolis, and a more advantageous method of raising
the capital.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant,
W. C. STEPHENS.
29k, Royal Exchange, July 13th, 1853.
By the minutes of evidence taken before the com-
mitteee, you will see that the commissioners do not con-
template taking any steps for relieving the Thames from
its pollution ; but, on the contrary, they contend that
such pollution is not particularly injurious, and that
they intend to confine their labours, for many years to
come, to the formation of extended inland sewers in
connection with the present outfall sewers, which will
greatly increase the pollution of the Thames, and still
further endanger the health of the metropolis.

BURlALS.—Yesterday the Government bill for burials
beyond the metropolis was printed. By this measure
her Majesty, on the representation of the Home Secre-
tary, may restrain the opening of burial-grounds. There
are several provisions for burial grounds beyond the
metropolis.
THE FACTORY HANDS' STRIKE AT MANCHESTER.--
During the week arrangements have been come to
by
several employers, either with the whole or part of the
hands who had struck work, and some large
ments arc again in full operation ; but ilitootZset:Wish-
mills
piecers have either struck or given notice
Monday next, if their demands be not complieddwo istho on
.
Manchester Guardian.
WEST CORNWALL ELECTION.—The election for this
division of the county took place gt Truro.on Tuesday
morning. On the nomination of J. P. Gilbert, Esq.,
seconde by W. M. Tweedy, Esq., Michael Williams,
Esq., of Trewince,
was unanimously elected to represent
this division in Parliament.
AUSTRALIAN ROYAL MAIL COMPANY.—At the ad-
journed meeting of this company held yesterday, the
accounts were presented and referred to the committee
of investigation, it being understood that when their
report is ready the whole question of management will
be brought under consideration. The sole point of inte-
rest touched upon were the return of the Melbourne, and
the advices from St. Vincent of the arrival of the
Victoria. It appears by the profit and loss account,
that the ordinary expenditure to the 30th of June last
was 12,3381., while the receipts were only 4,9871.,
leaving a balance of 7,3511., which added to the
sum disbursed for a dividend at the rate of 5 per cent.
per annum in December last, namely, 5,6731., makes
13,0141. to be carried against the general account of the
company,