The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-28 00:00:00

claims of the Irish and Scotch poor were fully as irre-
. sietible as those of the English poor, and he considered
the house ought to know what regulations the Govern.
ment intended to propose respecting the Irish and
Scotch poor before the bill were passed, and he thought
the Government would not be justified in proceeding
further with this bill till the whole measure as regarded
the Irish and Scotch, as well as the English poor, was
fully before the house.
Mr. BAINES said he thought Mr. Walpole had
, dealt very fairly by the bill. Would the house allow
him to state what was the principle of this bill? (Hear.)
By the law, as it at present stood, a person was entitled
to relief, subject to removal if that was not his own
parish. He must say he could see no reason for postponing
the present measure; settlement was a matter confined
entirely to England and Wales, and had no reference to
Ireland-or Scotland, and he thought, as he stated on a
previous occasion, that part of the question ought to be
kept quite distinct from the subject as regarded Ireland
and Scotland. He was quite ready to admit that the
subject of settlement as regarded Ireland and Scotland
deserved a speedy solution ; but he maintained that the
materials for that solution were not yet ready; but the
materials for its solution, as regarded England and Wales,
were ripe for decision, and required at once to be
settled.
Mr. R. PALMER concurred entirely in the view
taken of the question by his hon. friend (Mr. Walpole),
and he believed the votes of a great number of mem-
bers on both sides of the house depended on the post-
ponement of this measure ; or, at least, the house
should be put in possesSion of the general outlines of
the measure intended by the Government as regarded
Ireland and Scotland.
Mr. H. HERBERT expressed his approbation of the
course suggested by the hon. member for Midhurst (Mr.
Walpole) for postponing this bill. He contended that in
a vast number of cases grievous hardships were inflicted
on Irish paupers by removing them arbitrarily
from this country, after they had spent the best
years of their life in it, honestly earning their
bread by the sweat of their brow. He had
been assured by more than one good authority that
' Scotch farmers acknowledged they would find it almost
ifnpossible to either cultivate their farms, or get in their
harvests, without the aid of Irish labourers. But
yet those Scotch farmers took excellent care to
prevent those Irish labourers obtaining a settle.
ment there, for as soon as the time drew near, which
would entitle them to a settlement, they discharged
them. (A laugh.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON expressed, his belief that gentle-
men who were friendly to the measure would vote
against it if they were not informed what course the
Government intended to take on the Irish subject.
Lord PALMERSTON could not see the logical con-
clusion that because they had not sufficient materials
before them for legislating with respect to the Irish part
of the question, they ought not to legislate for England
He contended that the Irish and Scotch paupers ought
to be dealt with equal justice as regarded the English
paupers. In every work requiring great phyicel strength
and endurance, in the metropolis and all other large
English towns, the Irishmen were sure to take the
largest share, and in case of poverty or sickness overtak-
ing him, was it right that he or his family should be
treated on a footing inferior to that of the English la-
bourer or his family ? He thought the apprehensions of
an undue influx of Irish labourers were founded on
most erroneous expectations. He would entreat the
house not to postpone now the second reading of this
bill, and in the subsequent stages of the bill they might
very appropriately consider some safe measure as re-
garded the Irish and Scotch labourers. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. TROLLOPE said it was perfectly clear to him
that they should consider the whole of this subject
together as affected the labourers not of England and
Wales only, but also of Ireland and Scotland. (Hear,
hear.) He did not think the house ought to be called
on to pass the second reading without being,,put in pos-
session of the whole measure. (Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of GRANBY said that the Irish part of
the question was certainly the most difficult, and it
seemed to have been left entirely out of consideration
till it was brought under their notice by some of the
Irish members. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentle-
man and the noble lord seemed to differ as to the prin-
ciple of the measure, and under such circumstances the
house ought not to be called on to decide on the second
reading till the whole cage was before it. (Hear.)
Sir G. GREY confessed he saw no reason for a further
postponement of the debate. He still adhered to the
opinion he uttered on Friday night that it would be in-
expedient to mix up two measures which were distinct
in their nature. (Hear, hear.) If they tried to engraft
on a measure relating to the settled poor of England
and Wales another measure which dealt with the un-
settled poor of Ireland, they would alter the scope of the
bill and hazard its passing through the house. (Hear.)
On Friday night he understood that a distinct pledge
had been given by the Government for a provision which
would place the Irish pauper in the same position as the
English with respect irremovability. But he now un-
derstood from his noble friend that no such intention
was entertained by the Government, and that they were
fully aware of the difficulty of framing a measure of that
kind. (Hear.) After the house assented—if it should
assent--to this measure, he would be prepared to con-
sider the law with respect to the removal of Irish
paupers, which, as it stood, he admitted was unsatisfac-
tory. (Cheers.)
Colonel DUNNE said he came down to the house
prepared to vote against further adjournment, but he
wished to explain why he should now vote diametrically
opposite to that intention. (Laughter.) After the speech
of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and
who might be taken as an exponent of the intentions of
the Government, it seemed that the Government were
not going to fulfil the promise they made to the Irish
memers. (Hear, hear.) The Government said that
they considered the claims put forward by the Irish
members to be irresistible, and had made up their minds
on the subject, without saying that any further inquiry
or consideration was necessary. (Hear, hear.) There
was now, it seemed, a breach of their promise ; and as
he knew that any delay between the second reading of
this bill and the bringing forward of the Irish bill would
be employed to get up a feeling in England against the
claims of the Irish poor, he would not aid in passing the
Government bill till the Irish measure was before the
house. (Cheers.)
Mr. E. DENISON said he entertained an opinion
somewhat different from that expressed by his right hon.
friend (Sir G. Grey). He begged to call the attention
of the Government to the great evil and danger which
seemed now to exist, that this subject would be
brought into the category of party questions, in which
light it was note considered up to the present time.
There was danger, also, that the real merits of the
question would not be fairly considered if it was made a
party question. (Hear, hear.) The proposition of
the noble lord for one year's industrial residence
jwould no doubt remove some of the difficulty of the sub-
ect, but he would be glad to see the whole question of
removal disposed of at once. He would put it to the
noble lord whether he would not hazard the bill by in-
sisting on the second reading now. If the bill could be
postponed after the second reading, why could it not be
postponed before the second reading ? (Hear.)
Mr. PHILLIPS said that, as an inhabitant of Milford
Haven, he might be supposed to feel some alarm on the
subject before the house. He did not think he could be
. considered guilty of presumption in saying that he knew
the nature of the evil and could judge of the remedy pro-
posed. If it was said that Ireland was now in a better
position, and that the difficulty was passing away, his
reply was that it was not unreasonable to look for secu-
rity against possible danger. (Hear.)
Mr. MAGUIRE said this bill was as well received by
him in the first instance as by any other member of the
house ' • but when he found that Ireland was to be ex-
cluded his feelings on the subject changed. The demand
made on the Government by the Irish members was that
Irish paupers in England should be placed on precisely
the same footing as respected irremovability as English
paupers in England, and the noble lord the member for
Tiverton had declared on beh;lf of the cabinet that the
case was irresistibly established, and that justice re-
quired that the wishes of Irish members should be com-
plied with. He should despair of any redress for Ireland
unless it were included in this bill. He believed the
Government was attempting to cajole Irish members.
(Laughter.) If the bill passed as it stood they would
give up the strong position which they occupied at that
moment, and would no longer have the power of putting
the screw on the Government. (Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—At least the course which the
Government is now taking on this question is not a new
Znirse. My right hon. friend the President of the Poor
?maw' Board
_Board declared very early what was the object of
the bal—that it referred only to the poor who were re-
movable on the ground of settlement. It is notorious
that a question was asked in the other house of Parlia-
ment, of my noble friend the head of the Government,
and
ngthahetn e substance of his answer, as circulated
thro
mated that th
the country, was that the Government ad-
re e law with respect to Irish paupers re-
quiredboen and alteration ; that revision and altera-
tion would
that
the materials were not quite
sufficient ;th that ; further information was required ; and
that it was not % that information had been obtained
that legislation
friend further said the proposed. And my noble
bill with respect to removal
and settlement would not •
That postponed on that account
on the second reading.
friannswer was in conformity
with what my right hen d, the President of the
Poor Law Board has stated tie:
the
t. But, sir, I think
there is a general agreement
house, in conformity
with what was stated in the
ilretmere of my noble friend
the Secretary of State for the
epartment, that
if you declare that it is a hardahip ti)o.drem?ve persons
from the'parishes in which they have resided Eneland
you admit that it is a 'hardship
oavned
haveri sh
ads° to e
paupers who have resided in English periarles7
given them the benefit of their labour and industry. I
stated, however, on Friday evening, that I thoodugell.preon-
visions for that purpose could hardly be intr
the present occasion, and that great caution woul(dooble.
required in framing them. Now, the hon. member
(Col.
Dunne) and the hon. member for Portarlingtee
'Dunne) appear to think it would be a great gain if they
could throw a slur on the principle of this bill. To my
astonishment, the hon. member for Portarlington ap.
pealed to common sense. (Laughter.) I should have
thought that common ense was the last thing to -which
the right lion. gentleman would have thought of appeal-
ing, because it Is clear that if you decide in favour of the
principle that in England paupers should no longer be
removable, and if Parliament proceeds with a bill founded
on that principle, the claim on the part of Ireland. in
Point of justice will be irresistible. You will thee& be
able to say—" you have put an end to these removals,
attended with circumstances of great injury to men who
have been good labourers in England ; do not let any
!bred or fragment of the present law remain, but 'bring
in a bill with regard to Ireland." The hon. member for
Portarlington seems to think that not to assent to this
principle with regard to England will be a great befit
to Ireland. Why the benefit to Ireland will be that

the same hardships will remain as respects that coun-
try, but England will also be subject to them. That is
the appeal to conimon sense. (Hear, hear.) I must
confess I should have thought that, after the Govern-
ment had declared in favour of the principle, the best
course for Irish members would be to do what we now
propose, namely, affirm the principle with regard to the
bill which is before the house, and afterwards to con-
sider in what manner a similar principle can be extended
to Ireland. At least it seems to me that to raise difficul-
ties with regard to England is to say in effect with re-
gard to Ireland that the law should there remain in the
state in which it is.
The house then divided—
, For the adjournment.... 209
Against it
183-26
The second reading was then adjourned till the 28th
of April.

. -
BRIBERY BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS, &c., BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,

Mr. WALPOLE saki he thought it desirable that this
bill should, together with the Bribery Bill, be referred to
a select committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought no benefit whatever would
arise from such a step.
Col. SIETHORP complained that, in the confusion
which followed the division, he had not heard the Speaker
• put the question of the second reading of the Bribery Bill;
otherwise he should have moved an amendment. There
were two bribery bills before the house, and it was diffl-
, cult to toll which was which ; but having opposed every
bribery bill hitherto, and intending to persist in that
course until the Treasury bench had been purified
(laughter)—he should move the postponement of the bill
till that day six months.
The amendment not being seconded, fell to the ground.
Mr. LIDDELL said he wished to take that opportunity
of giving notice of an amendment which he inteded to
move in committee. The bill provided a somewhat com •
plicated machinery for the trial of controverted elections ;
and so much that it contained, he should be happy to give
his assent. Not so with regard to the appointment of as-
sessors. It was proposed to appoint 10 assessors, barristers
of 10 years' standing, at a salary of 1,0001. a year each, to
guide the decision of members of the House of Commons,
in the trial of controverted elections. He thought there
were grave objections to this proposal ; and he now wished
to state that when the bill was in committee ho should
move a provision, the object of which was to secure a trial
of all cases which hsd been submitted to the " Prelimi-
nary Committee" before a court of law. When the house
considered how much dissatisfaction had attended the de-
cisions of election committees, they would, he thought
agree with him that it was very desirable that they-should
get rid of the responsibility.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Monday next.
MINISTERS MONEY, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill then went into committee, and clause one was
agreed to.
On clause 2, which exempts houses under 10/. from pay-
ment of the tax.
Mr. FAGAN moved as an amendment that the figure be
201.

Sir J. YOUNG resisted the amendment.
Mr. HUME advocated the entire abolition of the tax, as
t was folly to keep up a religious agitation for the sake of
;he paltry sums which would annually be realised under
the bill.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 77
Against it
Mr. HADFIELD moved another amendment to the ef-
fect that the exemption should extend to houses under 151.
a-year. The tax was a stigma upon the good sense of the
age, and he was surprised that a Government calling itself
liberal could support it.
Sir J. YOUNG argued that the figure fixed upon by the
Government would afford great relief to the Roman
Catholics.
Mr. HUME admitted that this was a bill of relief, but
at the same time it was a compromise that left the principle
of the tax untouched. However, if the Government would
introduce a clause entirely exempting houses occupied by
Roman Catholics from payment of the tax, that objection
would be got rid of.
Mr. MAGUIRE said, unless the tax were entirely
abolished, it would be the constant source of agitation in
the corporation of those towns in Ireland which had to
bear it, and he took that opportunity of again putting it
to the Gevernment whether under these circumstances it
was wise to persist in this compromise. The tax he insisted
fell most heavily upon the Roman Catholics.
Mr. WHITESIDE said the last time he paid the tax,
which was in the parish of St. George's, Dublin, he was
told by the collector that the majority of his fellow-
parishioners were Protestants. No less than 11,0001. of
this tax was collected in Ireland, and three-fourths of that t
sum was paid by Protestants.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said the parish of St. George's
was the richest parish in Dublin, but he did not object to
the Protestants paying the tax—what he objected to was
that the Roman Catholics should be called upon to contri-
bute to it. A clause ought to be introduced into the bill
entirely exempting Roman Catholics and Protestant Dis-
senters from payment of the tax, and he therefore hoped
Government would re-consider the matter.
Mr. A. PELLATT did not view the bill in the light of
a question between Roman Catholics and Protestants but
as a political question. Now, in a political point of view
it was unwise to continue any portion of the tax. Besides
that the tax originated in a triumph over the Roman
Catholics, and for the sake of getting rid of this historic re-
collection the tax ought to be wholly abolished.
Mr. FAGAN observed that the hon. and learned mem-
ber was mistaken in the impression which he wished to
convey to the committee, as it was proved before the select
committee on the subject of this tax that the majority of
the house property of Dublin was held and occupied by
Roman Catholics.
The committee again divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 7l
Against 92-21
The amendment was therefore lost. Clause 2 was then
agreed to.
Upon clause 3,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved to add to this clause the
following words :—" Provided also that no house, the
property of Roman Catholics and Dissenters, be liable to
be rated."
Sir J. YOUNG objected to the amendment as totally at
variance with the principle on which the bill was read a
second time.
Mr. HUME considered that the second reading of the
bill only affirmed that certain funds were to be raised.
He supported the amendment, because he considered that
a Church of England Establishment ought to be supported
by the members of that church.
NAPIER opposed the amendment. Every conces-
sion made to certain parties in Ireland only appeared to
lead the way to further demands. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Thera would be great difficulty in practically
working such a scheme as that proposed by the hon. mem-
ber for Clonmel (Mr. J. O'Connell.)
Mr. FRENCH reminded the hon. member who had just
spoken that the scheme involved in the amendment was
not a new one. A similar one Lad long been in existence
in Canada.
Sir J. YOUNG reminded the house that the matter was
a financial one, and that religion ought not to be mixed
up with it. He could not but foresee innumerable diffi-
culties in the working of such a project. Suppose a house
belonging to a Roman Catholic were let to a member of the
Church of England.
Mr. HUME—The tax would then be paid.
Sir J. YOUNG said the hon. member was wrong, for
the tax was upon the property, not upon the occupiers.
The scheme was full of anomalies.
Mr. HUME could not see why each congregation should
not pay its own minister. (Hear.)
Mr. MAGUIRE denied that this was a mere matter of
finance. Pounds, shillings, and pence could not be sepa-
rated from religion. (Laughter.) This tax was imposed
for the cure of souls. Whose souls did the Protestant clergy
attempt to cure ? Not his soul, nor that of his house.
(Laughter.) Why then should he be taxed for their sup-
port ?
Lord PALMERSTON reminded the hon. member (Mr.
Maguire) that he ought to be cautious how far he pushed
the proposition that persons of one religion ought not to pay
for the maintenance of the religion of others. How would
that doctrine square with allowances to Roman Catholic
chapels, to Roman Catholic priests for soldiers, and with the
grant to Maynooth? He (Lord Palmerston) held that
this question had nothing to do with religion; it was a
mere question of a tax upon property. It would be
perfectly preposterous to make a tax variable according to
the religion of the owner or occupier of a house.
Mr. HADFIELD said that the noble lord had warned
the house against pushing the doctrine of the hon. member
opposite (Mr. Maguire) to its full ex:ent. He (Mr. Had-
field) wished to carry it as far as it could be carried. Let
the iron hand of the Church of England be taken off the
whole country. (Laughter, and Hear, hear.) The Church
of England was not the national Church, he never wanted
to hear it called by that offensive name. (Laughter.)
Not one-fourth of the people of this country were members
of that Church. Why'should Dissenters pay for its sup-
port ? He reminded the Government that, with the mes-
sage from the crown which had been read fresh in their
memories, it was important to have the support of hon.
members on the other side. Religious quarrels had always
been the weakness of the country.
Mr. LUCAS said that the noble lord had entirely passed
by the fact that a scheme similar to that involved in this
amendment had been for upwards of 50 years in existence
in Canada, With regard to the threat of the noble lord
in relation to Maynooth, he (Mr. Lucas) was quite ready
to take the noble lord at his word.
The committee then divided ; the numbers were—
For the amendment 7l
Against it
Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved, as an amendment to the
clause, to add words exempting religious houses to which
schools were attached, and houses tenanted by ministers
of any religious denomination, from being rated.
The amendment was lost without a division.
Mr. FAGAN moved to add the following words to the
end of the clause :—" Provided always, that on or before
the 25th day of March in every year after the passing
of this act, it shall be ascertained by the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners for Ireland, and declared by
them in the Dublin Gazette, what increase of income the
said commissioners have obtained during the year preced-
ing the 25th day of March, by reason of the avoidance
during the year of benefices or of bishopric, or by reason
of the increase of the tax payable from benefices and bi.
shoprics ; and the said increased amount of income in each
year shall be deducted from the whole assessment to be
levied as aforesaid off of the said eight cities and towns,
and
AeF;rfajetiilivfset commissioners shall thereupon notify to the col-
lector-general, to the town-clerks, and boards of guardians
aforesaid respectively, the proportion of the said reduced
sum, which is to be collected in each city or town re-
spectively, to be ascertained according to the proportion
which the amount each said city or town has to pay
the first year after the passing of this act, bears to
the entire sum to be levied the said first year and so
on, every succeeding 25th day of March in every year,
until the entire oesaid assessment is wholly reduced
and extinguished." These Ecclesiastical Commissioners
had invested during the last year no less a sum than 40,0001.
in the funds.
Sir J. YOUNG said that the amendment really was •
fact subversive of the whole bill. With regard to the sum
invested in the funds, that was only done as a measure of
11),"erthdY, not because the money was not required
waitialor.ed.u.sd;oemn"Mr. HADFIELD in su;p—olrt, of
the anaendnaent,
The committee divided—
r.
TA
AgainstFhe eMoom nEr AthGi et lit
clausee. Ee ldiav
°d.
divided—
''''' °mission of clause
'' 93.9
Clause
4.. was carried............. . . .
were a division, as 72 2a7150
clauses to 10 inclusive.
mr. VANCE moved the addition of the following clause

—" And whereas the persons now employed in the collec-
. tion of ministers' money in the several parishes and parts
of parishes in Ireland will, by the operation of this act, be
deprived of their employment, be it enacted, that every
person who, previously to the passing of this act, shall have
been employed in the collection of ministers' money in the
several parishes within the city and suburbs of Dublin and
liberties thereunto adjoining, and in the several other cities
and boroughs of Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Drogheda,
Kilkenny, Clonmel, and Kinsale, who, by the operation of
this act shall be deprived of such employment, or of any
emolument arising therefrom, and who shall not be re-
appointed under this act, or who shall not be employed or
retained by the said collector-general, or by the guardians,
or by the councils of each of the said cities or boroughs, or
by the town commissioners, in their respective districts,
in au office of equal value under this act, shall be entitled
to make a claim for compensation to the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners for Ireland, within six months after this act
shall come into operation ; and it shall be lawful for the
said Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in such manner as they
shall think fit, to inquire what was the nature of the em-
ployment, and what was the tenure thereof, and what were
the lawful fees and emoluments in respect of which such
compensation should be allowed, and the said Ecclesiastical
Commissioners in each case shall award such compensa-
tion, if any, as they shall think just ; and all such compen-
sations shall be paid out of the funds arising under this
act, or out of such other funds as shall be at the disposal
and command of the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners for
the purposes of this act ; and in case the person preferring
such claim shall think himself aggrieved by the determi-
nation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners thereon, it
shall be lawful for him to appeal to the Commissioners of
her Majesty's Treasury, who shall thereupon make such
order as to them shall seem just, and such order, signed by
three or more of such lords commissioners, shall be binding
upon all parties."
After an observation from Mr. NAPIER.
Mr. HUME objected to the granting of compensation to
parties who had not been appointed by Government, and
who might be continued in their offices.
Mr. GROGAN supported the clause.
Sir J. YOUNG had ascertained that the collectors were
not considered public servants, and he would therefore op-
pose the clause.
After a short conversation the committee divided—
For the clause lB
Against it 144-126
The clause was consequently lost, and the preamble hav-
ing been agreed to, the house resumed. Bill to be reported
on Friday.
VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved the second reading of
this bill. It had been favourably received in Scotland, but
certain alterations had been suggested, and he proposed to
commit it pro forma, in order that an opportunity might
I be afforded to consider those alterations.
Mr. HUME fully concurred in the course suggested, and
confirmed the learned lord's statement that the bill was
regarded favourably in Scotland.
Col. BL AIR hoped that the committee would not be
moved before the 30th of April, in order that full time
might be given to consider the bill together with the
amendments.
Mr. DUNLOP urged that the valuation should be made
by some impartial authority. There were other portions
of the bill which he thought were susceptible of amend-
ment.
After a few words from Mr. DUNCAN, the bill was read
a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday
next.
CHURCH BUILDINGS ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,

Mr. HADFIELD had given notice of an amendment to
limit the duration of the commission for one year; he had
been informed that that the noble lord was disposed to
accede to that amendment, or, at all events, to some limit
other than that adopted in the bill, and if the noble lord
would give him some assurance to that effect, he would
not move his amendment, but otherwise he must press it
to a division.
Lord PALMERSTON said the bill as it stood continued
the commission for 10 years. Many gentlemen had sug-
gested alterations of the several acts constituting the law
on the subject, alterations in the constitution and duration
of the board, and various other changes. These suggestions
were deserving of consideration, but they would require
some time certainly to consider them. For that purpose, he
should not object to limit the duration of the commission
for two years, but to propose a less period would be trifling
with the house, and neither he nor any person in his posi-
tion could be able to say whether those arrangements
should be carried into effect or not.
The Marquis of BLANDFORD was inclined to concur
in the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Hadfield)
though probably not for the same reason. It was well
known that the acts in question were not complicated,
and some years ago it was attempted to consolidate them,
but the attempt only made matters worse, and altogether
failed ; and the bill for the purpose was such an immense
size and so complex that it was not proceeded with. There
was no reason for any consolidation of these acts, or any
continuance of the commission beyond a limited period.
There was the act 6 and 7 Victoria, commonly known as
Sir Robert Feel's act, which contained only 27 clauses, but
it was efficient for its purpose, and under it 23 parishes
had been separated. That act was most practical in its
character, had been conceived in a master spirit, had con-
ferred great advantages, and had been the means of con-
stituting 250 parishes, and might, if necessary, be the
means of constituting 2,000. There was no reason, there-
fore, why a simple extension of the powers of that act
should not afford all the facilities necessary for the proper
separation of parishes throughout the United Kingdom.
(Hear, hear.) Another reason why the commission
should not continue for the period proposed by this bill
was, that some important evidence had been taken
by the commissioners in respect to the subdivision of
parishes which had only recently, upon a motion of his
own, been presented to the house, and which he believed
would afford abundant proof, on the testimony of witnesses
well acquainted with the working of the church building
acts, that some change in the law as it existed was neces-
sary. He had given notice of a bill for that purpose, and
he hoped shortly after Easter to be able to bring it before
the house; and when he should have an opportunity of
explaining its details, he believed it would he found to
embrace all that was necessary for the subdivision of
parishes, under a commission which was responsible to
Parliament, viz., the ecclesiastical commission. (Hear.)
Mr. PALK thought Sir R. Peel's act defective, inasmuch
as while it provided for the endowment of the church it
made no provision for the building of the church. The
act, however, was a valuable one in many respects, and
with some additions it might be made practicable for its
purpose.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE considered ten years too long a
period for the continuance of the commission, and pre-
ferred the period suggested by the noble lord—viz., two
years—during which means might be taken to consolidate
the existing acts.
The house then went into committee.
On the Ist clause, which proposed the continuance of the
act until 20th July, 1856,
Mr. HADFIELD moved as an amendment that the time
for the continuance be limited to one year from the expiring
of the acts and to the end of the next session of Parliament.
He urged that this bill intended a continuation of a series
of acts, 18 in number, which commenced 36 years ago, and
originating in two grants for church building purposes of
one million and half a million. He then stated that 2,029
churches had been built in 20 years at a cost of six millions,
of which five millions and a half had been contributed by
voluntary subscription, and urged that it would be better
to leave the matter to the operation of the voluntary prin-
ciple. The acts in question were in great confusion, and
ought to be consolidated.
Mr. ALCOCK supported the amendment, on the ground
that many of the acts were inconsistent with each
other ;
as, for instance, the act which constituted the ecclesiastical
districts exempted those districts from the payment of
church rates to the mother church, while districts formed
under the Chapelry Consolidation act were not so ex-
empted.
Lord PALMERSTON said that it was important that
the period of duration of a commission of this sort should
be definite, and that the day on which its functions were
to cease should be accurately known. He proposed that
it should cease in two years from July 20, the day on which
the act expires, which would be on July 20, 1856 ;
whereas his honourable friend had proposed that the acts
should expire in one year from the passing of the continu-
ance act, and after the next session of Parliament ; so that
as the act would expire in the middle of next session, the
effect of the amendment would be that, as it would include
the period to the end of the session after that, if that ex-
tended to September or October, his noble friend would
continue the commission two or three months longer than
he (Lord Palmerston) proposed to do. (Laughter.) He
hoped his hon. friend would be content with the precise
period of two years, and not insist on the contingent excess
which he proposed—(laughter)—and that he would agree
to the clause as it stood, and make the concession to him
(Lord Palmerston), which would be in accordance with his
argument, though not with his motion.
Mr. HORSMAN urged that it appeared before a com-
mission, of which he was a member, and which inquired
into this subject in 1816, that this Church-building Com-
mission had only 12,0001. remaining, to which was added
a sum of 17,0001. of debt on the security of church rates,
and to administer that small sum the expense of the com-
mission was in round numbers 5,0031. a-year. The mem-
bers of that board were then the same as the Ecclesiastical
Commission and the Queen Anne's Bounty Board, princi-
pally ex officio members of the episcopal bench, and the
three together cost 15,000/. a-year for the expenses of ad-
ministration. The Ecclesiastical Commission had since
been made a practically efficient lay board, and he
urged that instead of three separate establishments for the
Ecclesiastical Commission, the Church-building Commis-
sion, and the Queen Anne's Bounty Board, the duties of
all of them might be performed by one efficient lay board
at one expense, and a saving of 10,00 W. a year. He thought
the Church Building Acts should be continued till 29th
July, 1855, and in the meantime the Government should
bring in a bill to consolidate the three boards he had men
tioned into one.
After a few words from Mr. HADFIELD, explaining that
he meant only to continue the acts until the end of nexl
session,
The committee divided--
For the clause 153
For the amendment 49-104
The clause as it stood was thus agreed to, and
The house resumed.
. HIGH TREASON (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
- BRIBERY PREVENTION BILL.
Sir F. KELLY moved the second reading of this bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP ventured to designate the bill as
~!ow, mean, and dirty. Its object was to set spies to watch
about people's houses. He mils- wished he might catch
them about his house. (Laughter.) He viewed the bill
as the suggestion of a lawyer, and he feared lawyers as he
feared the Devil. (Laughter.) He warned the house
against the Emperor of France, the Emperor of Russia,
and the Emperor of Austria, and against wolves in sheep's
clothing in general. (Loud Laughter.) Ho thought a mem-
ber who had had so many anxieties on his mind ever since
the sitting of the house might be excused an occasional
lapses lingua. (Hear, hear.) He was sorry to see such a
bill brought in on that side of the house. Ho really began
to suspect that side. (Laughter.) He begged to move that
the bill-be read a second time that day six months.
No one seconding the amendment,
The-bill was read a second time.
THE IRISH CORRUPTION COMMITTEE.
Mr. HENLEY moved that the Solicitor-General for
Ireland be discharged from further attendance, and that
Mr. J. Fitzgerald be added to it.
Mr. FRENCH expressed his surpaise that the right hon.
gentleman should have made such a motion without stating
some reason for it. He (Mr. French) had objected to the
appointment of the committee, and he had seen no reason
why he should change his opinion. He was precluded by
the rules of the house from referring to what had taken
place before it ; but he would ask them what they would
think if they saw one of a number of judges appointed to
try a case stepping down from the bench into the witness-
box, from thence be transferred to the dock and be tried as
a criminal, and finally return to the b 0124 to give jacig.

meta? (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. French) had happened
lately to go into a room in that house where he saw a wit-
ness with a paper in his hand, which he said contained the
substance of a letter. The witness refused to hand it in, to
read it, or to assert that he believed it to be true ; and yet
that witness was allowed to state the substance of it.
(Hear, hear.) Now, supposing that this committee had
conducted its proceedings in such a manner, would hon.
members consider that it was for the ends of justice, or for
the honour and dignity of the house that it should con-
tinue its sittings ? (Hear.) If a gentleman connected with
the press were examined before that committee and, re-
fusing to betray private confidence, should act according to
what was his own opinion of honour and justice; if that
gentleman should set the committee at defiance, and the
committee should shrink from the conflict with him, such
a man would have his (Mr. French's) warm approval, and
he trusted the approsial of a majority of that house.
(Hear.) Feeling convinced that the committee could an-
swer no useful public purpose, and could add nothing to
the character of the house, he (Mr. French) begged to
move as an amendment that the committee be relieved
from its irksome and invidious duties, and that it be dis-
charged. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said he had consented to act upOn the
committee very much against his will. Like the hon.
gentleman, he was precluded by the very proper rule of
the house from referring to its proceedings, and he must
express his surprise that the hon. gentleman, while avow-
ing his knowledge of such a rule, should not have felt him-
self also precluded from offering the criticisms upon the
proceedings of the committee in which he had indulged.
(Hear.) He.would not follow the hon. gentleman in that
discussion, as in so doing he should infringe the rules of
the house. The time would come when he should be able
to go into the whole matter, and he had no doubt of being
able to justify everything he had done. (Hear, hear.)
The motion for the discharge of the Solicitor-General for
Ireland from the committee had been made by him at the
request of the committee. The character of several mem-
bers of that house and others had been impugned before
the committee ; and it was due to them that they should
have an opportunity of justifying themselves before the pro-
ceeding of the committee were brought under discussion.
Mr. HUME said he never heard such an extraordinary
proposition as that the committee should be discharged.
It was most unfair to enter into a discussion of their pro-
ceedings before these proceedings were brought to a close ;
and he hoped the house would not sanction it. From the
great experience of the hon. member for Oxfordshire, he
was confident he would not fall into any such irregularities
as had been imputed.
Mr. FRENCH, in withdrawing his amendment, dis-
claimed any intention of imputing any irregularity to the
twe last speakers.
The motion was then agreed to.
SLIGO ELECTION.
Mr. K. SEYMER moved " That the Attorney-General
for Ireland be instructed to prosecute Michael Gethin,
Henry Simpson, and James Simpson, for, their conduct re-
ported to this house by the select committee appointed to
inquire into the allegations of the petition of John Patrick
Somers, Esq., complaining of irregular and unconstitu-
tional proceedings in the matter of a petition complaining
of the return of John Sadleir, Esq., for the borough of
Sligo." He had brought forward this motion in compli-
ance with an opinion expressed by the noble lord (Russell),
and he hoped that no legal objections would be offered to it.
Mr. WHITESIDE thought it would have been better if
these offenders had been brought up to the bar of the
house ; but he should be satisfied if the prosecution were
vigorously conducted. These men had been guilty of
bribery, perjury, and subornation of perjury, and he hoped
they would be punished.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it had appeared to
the Government that the offences were of a very serious
and grave character. He did not wish to enlarge upon
them, seeing that the cases were likely to come before a
legal tribunal. Had the offenders been brought to the bar
of that house they could only have been imprisoned during
the sitting of Parliament ; but if they were convicted of
the offence with which they were charged, that imprison-
ment would be thought very inadequate. (Hear.) It
had, therefore, appeared more proper that they should be
prosecuted by the Attorney-General for Ireland, and in
that he had the concurrence of the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Stamford. (Hear.)
The motion was then agreed to.
The house adjourned at a quarter after eleven o'clock.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

TATTERSALL'S.-MONDAY.

Betting on the Northamptonshire Stakes was carried
on with much spirit. Defiance exhibited a marked im-
provement, and Swiftsure (brother to Little Swift) took
a decided lead of his stable companion, Mr. Sykes, not-
withstanding the preference which was shown for the
latter at the recent meeting at Warwick. 10 to 1 was
taken to fully 1701. about Lamprocles, and 16 to 1 to
various small sums about Chief Justice, backed in the
course of the morning in the City for a good deal of
money. Red Lion did not, however, appear to be
much disturbed by the movement. Veteran was fre-
quently inquired after, but the investments on him at
12 and 13 to 1 were few and unimportant. At the
commencement 20 to 1 was taken to 1251. about Hun-
,gerford ; at the close 16 to 1 was booked to a pony.
25 and 20 to 1 was taken about John Bull. Very little
was done with regard to Bracken.
GREAT METROPOLITAN STAKES.—SOMO strong sup-
port was given to Jonathan Martin at 6 to 1, and a
heavy commission was sent in to back Royalist ; most
of the money was got on at prices varying from 14 to
12 to 1 ; the last quotation was only 10 to 1. 12 to 1
was taken to a small sum about Muscovite. 20 to Ito
upwards of 1001. about Lamprocles.
CHESTER CUP.—Notwithstanding the sinister reports
respecting Newminster, he was backed at the rate of
1.000 to 60—odds which were taken about Brown
Brandy. The other transactions on this event were com-
paratively trifling.
DERBY.-1,200 to 400 taken about Autocrat and
King Tom coupled, and 7 to 1 separately about the for-
mer to 1001. Dervish was steady at 9 to 1 ; 14 to 1
taken to 170/. about Wild Huntsman ; 30 and 25 to 1
Acrobat ; 30 to 1 Andover, 33 to 1 Bessus, and 45 to
Old Noll.
Closing prices :

BIRMINGHAM STEEPLECHASE.
4to 1 agst Needwood (taken).
4to 1 agst Vainhope (taken).
Bto 1 agst Spring (taken).
NORTHA3IPTONSHIRE STAKES.
4to 1 agst Defiance (taken).
8 to 1 agst Swiftsure (taken).
10 to 1 agst Mr. Sykes (offered).
10 to 1 agst Lamprocles (taken).
10 to 1 agst Bracken (taken).
10 to 1 agst Red Lion (taken).
13 to 1 agst Veteran (taken).
15 to 1 agst Pancake (taken).
16 to 1 agst Chief Justice (taken).
16 to 1 agst Hungerford (taken).
20 to 1 agst John Bull (taken).
25 to 1 agst Ptolemy (taken).
10 to 1 agst Benita and Pancake coupled (taken).
St. Faith, Diomedia, and Nutpecker were struck out
at 4.30 yesterday afternoon, and at the same time Oscar
was declared not to start for his engagements at Bir-
mingham and Cheltenham.

METROPOLITAN.
6to 1 agst Jonathan Martin (taken).
10 to 1 agst Royalist (12 to 1 taken freely).
10 to 1 agst Muscovite (12 to 1 taken).
20 to 1 agst Lamproeles (taken).
20 to 1 agst Lindrick (taken).
CHESTER CUP.
100 'to 6 agst Newminster (taken).
100 to 6 agst Brown Brandy (taken).
33 to 1 agst Swiftsure (taken).
40 to 1 agst Duchess of Lorraine colt (taken
50 to 1 agst Horatio (taken).
50 to 1 agst Talfourd (taken).
50 to 1 agst The Black Doctor (taken).

DERBY.
7to 1 agst Autocrat (taken to 1001.)
9 to 1 agst Dervish (taken).
14 to 1 agst Wild Huntsman (taken).
25 to 1 agst Acrobat (taken).
30 to 1 agst Andover (taken).
33 to 1 agst Bessus (taken).
45 to 1 agst Old Noll (taken).
1200 to 400 agst Autocrat and King Tom coupled (taken'

BIRMINGHAM STEEPLECHASES—MONDAY.
The KNOWLE STEEPLECHASE of 31. each, with 201. added.
Optional selling weights. Winners extra. About
3 miles.
Mr. Robinson's Ace of Trumps (1001.), 12st

(S. Darling, jun.) 1
Mr. Clegg's Countess, aged (201.), lOst 121 b (in-
cluding 51b extra)
Mr. Bill's na Louise (201.), 10st 71b (Mr. Walker) 3
Betting—Even on Ace of Trumps, 2 to 1 agst Coun-
tess. Won easily by three lengths ; a long interval be-
tween the second and third. The winner was not sold.
GRAND MILITARY HANDICAP—a plate of 1001. Three
Capt. Hutchinson's (13th Dragoons) Torrent, 12st 91b
(Owner) 1
Mr. E. R. King's (13th Dragoons) Beckbury Lass,
list llb (carried list 41b) (Mr. Severne) 2
Betting-5 to 4 agst Beckbury Lass, 7to 4 agst
Torrent, 3to 1 agst Mina. After a smart race, Torrent,
won easily by a length. Cid and Mina baulked in the
early part of the race, and were "nowhere" at the finish.
The 13IR3IINGHAM and WARWICKSHIRE HUNT STEEPLE-
CHASE, a plate of 1001., for 4-yr olds and upwards.
Gentlemen riders. Professionals 101 b extra. Four
miles.
Mr. Hassall's ch g by California, 5 yrs, 13st 31b (in-
cluding 101 h extra) (S. Darling, jun.) 1
Mr. Hassall's Front de Bceuf, 5 yrs, 12st 71b
(Mr. Dobbs) 2
Mr. Pemberton's Teddington, 5 yrs, 13st 31b (includ-
ing 101 b extra)
Betting-6 to 4 agst gby California, 2to 1 agst Ted-
dington. Won by a neck. Teddington a bad third.
Nothing else up.
FREE HANDICAP STEEPLECHASE.—Stevens weighed
for Graziella, and Sly, jun., for Stretford Lass, but as 1
the added money according to the conditions was with
held, it was no race.
The weather was very fine, attendance good, and ar
rangements satisfactory.

POST-BOXES IN THE QUEEN'S PRISON AND WHITE-
CROSS-STREET Pitrson—lt will be remembered, that
some time back the authorities of the Post-office
removed the post-b.axes at the Queen's Prison and
Whitecross-street Prison, where they had been placed
for a number of years. The prisoners complained
of their removal, and the keepers of the prisons repre-
sented the matter to the Post•office. It was however,
determined that the boxes should be discontinued.
Since their removal a oxiodi deal of inconvenience had
been experienced, and, abfter much consideration, it has
been resolved that the prisoners shall have the privilege
restored, and the boxes are to be forthwith placed as
heretofrre. it is expected that their restoration will
take pace at the beysixmjpg of the ensuing month,—
Tina