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

claims of the Irish and Scotch poor were fully as irre-
sistible 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 owu
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-
' hers 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
impossible 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 phyical 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 case 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 he 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
members. (Hear, hear.) The Government said that
they considered the claims put forward by the Irish
members to be irresistible, and had made up their mind:
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 not 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
would no doubt remove some of. the difficulty of the sub-
ject, 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. lie di-I 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 behalf 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 anew
course. My right hon. friend the President of the Poor
Law
Board declared very early what was the object of
the bill—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-
mera, of my noble friend the head of the Government,
and, that the substance of his answer, as circulated
taroughout the country, was that the Government ad-
mitted that the law with respect Irish
. paupers re-
quired revision andalt'
alteration • that revision and altera-
tion would be mad, ; that materials were not quite
sufficient ; that further
that it was not till that information
nn
had
ds
b n requiredobt
a;
i andne obtained
that legislation would be proposed. Andee
noble
friend further said that the bill with respect tot"
and settlement would not be postponed on that removalaccount
on the second reading. That answer was in conformity
with what my right ho n• friend, the President of the
Poor Law Board has
!stated tonight. But, sir, I think
there is a general agreement in the house, in conformity
with what was stated in the letter of noble friend
the Secretary of State for the
h Horne
Department,y that
if you declare that it i.schathearalslhiP resided in England,
to remove persons
from the' parishes in which
you admit that it is a hard,yshipa.vealno
to remove Irish
paupers who have resided in English
Parishes, and have
given them the benefit of their labour and industry. I
stated, however, on Friday evening, that I thought pro-
visions for that purpose could hardly be introduced on
the present occasion, and that great caution would be
required in framing them. Now, the hon. member who •
spoke last, and the hon. member for Portarlington (Col.
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 sense was the last thing to which
the right hon. 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 then 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
shred 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 ha a, great benefit
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 common 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
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 said 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. SIBTHORP 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 diffi-
cult to tell 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 had 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 bo
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 101. 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
it was folly to keep up a religious agitation for the sake of
the 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
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 acid 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. FIUME 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.
Mi NAPIER opposed the amendment. Every conces-
sion in de 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 had 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. (Heat.)
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 seals 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.
por+ 9

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 deserviir, of consideration, but they would reire
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 comlicated,
and some years ago it was attempted to consolidatpe 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 Peel'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 be 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
,listricts 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 29, 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 nextsession, the
effect of the amendment would be that, as it woul
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 1846, that this Church-building Com-
mission had only 12,0001. remaining, to which was added
a sum of 17,0001. of debt on the seourity of church rates,
and to administer that small sum the expense of the com-
mission was in round numbers 5,0001. 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 15,0001. 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 10,0001. a year.. He thought
July,the e hl uBrscsl:
eßnudi 1 di
ni n gt
hAe
meantimet s sh ou d
thebe Gcontinuede e tti lel
h2O
dh
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 next
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.
BEIBERY PREVENTION BILL.
Sir F. KELLY moved the second reading of this bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP ventured to designate the bill as
low, moan, and dirty. Its object was to set spies to watch
about people's houses. He only 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.) He thought a mem-
ber who had had so many anxieties on his mind ever since
the sitting of the home might be excused an occasional
lapses lingua. (Hear, hear.) Ho was sorry to see such a
bill brought in on that side of the house. He 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 bench to give judg-

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 t,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 - 71
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 the 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 of said 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 in
fact subversive of the whole bill. With regard to the sum
invested in the funds, that was only done as a measure of
sari? entody, not because the money was not required
lita.A.far:.mmEAEF:lodrfallneihwGetseltaPrta:tmEora;s. Mr. HADFIELD:
:::::::::
th
The committee divided—
moved : : ''''''''' 3.
The committee divided—
For the clause
Against it ......
Clause 4 was carried without a d vialoD as were also
el;,uszs to 10 inclusive.
Mr, VANCE moved the addition of the following demo

76

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 28, 1854

—" 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 an 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
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. DUNOAN, the bill was read
a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday
next.

ment ? (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 approval 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. VERNON, a member of the committee, justified
the course they had taken.
Mr. BENTINCK complained of the irregularity of the
amendment, and said that he had never seen anything
more imperfect and incorrect than the reports in all the
newspapers of the proceedings before this committee.
Mr. FRENCH, in withdrawing his amendment, dis-
claimed any intention of imputing any irregularity to the
two 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.

gave hint, on account of that bill, and I think, another,
which he had previously brought to me, 2501., the sum
he requested. The bill was due on the 9th of this month,
and was returned to me as unpaid. I have since made
enquiries of Messrs. Joule and Co., and I believe, from
the information communicated to me by them, that the
acceptance is a forgery. If the prisoner is remanded, I
have no doubt of being able to prove that it is a
foegery.
The prisoner who, in answer to the inquiry, whether
he wished to ask any question of the witness, said "No,"
was then remanded till Friday.

BOW-STREET.—INSURING THE LIVES Olt THE POOR.
—Mr. B. H. Strousberg, the manager and actuary of
the Oak Mutual Life Assurance and Loan Company,
waited upon Mr. Jardine to make a statement in refe-
rence to the application of two women, and his worship's
observations upon it, as reported in the papers of Satur-
day last.

Mr. Strousberg stated that at least a hundred appli-
cations bad been made at the office of the company in
Moorgate-street, in consequence of what his worship
had thought proper to say. and the greatest injury was
likely to result to the society.
Mr. Jardine—ln the first place, what was said ?
Mr. Strousberg--you said it was very wrong.
Mr. Jardine—l said nothing of. the kind, to begin
with.

Mr. Strousberg--According to the report in the papers.
Mr. Jardine--The report says nothing of the sort
either, so we see what comes of a misquotation.
Mr. Strousberg repeated his complaint, that whatever
was said was likely to have a very injurious effect upon
the society, which was one of great respectability, number.
ing among its directors some of the first merchants of the
City. A distinct branch of it had been devoted to the insur-
ance of poor people's lives for 101. and 121., by weekly
payments of 2d. and 3d., in lieu of the burial societies,
which were so numerous all over the country, and had
worked so unsatisfactory. His worship appeared to
have expressed some objection to uneducated persons
being employed to collect these payments, but it was
obvious that only such men would undertake the work,
and he begged to say that the agent especially referred
to was a respectable working man. Mr. Strousberg
continued to explain the operations of the society, with-
out denying any statement in the report, and declared
his opinion that the women who came to the court had
done so at the instigation of an enemy. They had no
complaint to make, and having since been to the solici-
tors, they had none to make now. Anybody who was
dissatisfied could apply to the office of the company.
Mr. Jardine stated that he did not say anything against
the respectability of the society, neither was he so re-
ported. What he did say (when two poor ignorant
women came to him, and related the circumstances of
the case) was, that he thought it was a dangerous
practice to send agents of the class described into
the poor districts to canvas for the disposal of poli-
cies, evidently without being able to give proper
explanation to the people who paid him their small
sums weekly in the expectation of 101. or 11/. at
their death. He (Mr. Jardine) also expressed
his opinion that the expense of proving their title to the
money would be equal to the premium ; and he saw no
reason, from what had been said to-day, to alter his
opinion on either of these points.
Mr. Strousberg replied that, practically, this would
not be the case. At any rate, it was no fault of the
society 'that they must comply with the laws of the
country,

Mr. Jardine—The matter is not before me for acfju
dication, but I still adhere to the opinions I have ex
pressed.

Mr. Strousberg (with warmth)—Then I must say
that I think a magistrate is not warranted to express
opinions upon ex-parte statements. With every desire
to be respectfal, I wish it to go forth that I think it is a
magistrate's function to decide upon facts, and no tto
give opinions.
The manager of the company then left the court.

INSTITUTION OF OIVIE ENGINEERS.

At the last meeting of this society, Mr. Jas. Simpson,
president, in the chair,
The first paper read was " A Description of Martin's
Improved Jacquard Machine," by Mr. Edward Laforest.
After stating the very general application of Jacquard
machines to all ornamental weaving, the paper described
the old machine, and the manner in which the patterns
were produced, by means of bands of punched cards,
acting on needles, with loops or eyes, which regulated
the figure. It showed, also, the great wear and tear to
which these cards were subjected—indeed, so much that
for the carpet trade they were often required to be made
of sheet iron. In Martin's new Jacquard machine, the
object had been to substitute for the heavy cards a sheet
of prepared paper, punched with given apertures, like
the cards of the old machines ; but, instead of being a
series of pieces 21 inches wide, laced together, the
punched paper formed a continuous band, only a of an
inch wide, thus so diminishing the bulk that the weight
of the new band, as compared with that of the old cards,
was in proportion of 1 to 11. The method by which this
desirable result had been attained' was then explained to
be, chiefly by an arrangement which permitted the four
hundred rpiral springs on the needles, used in the old
machine, to be dispensed with, when as a consequence the
force of wear and tear due to their resistance would be
done away with, and fine and light wires could be made to
do the work of strong and heavy ones. In order to render
this clear, one of Martin's machines, with a part of an old
machine; with bands of equal numbers of cards, under
each system, were exhibited. The next point demon-
strated was, that like the bulk and weight, the cost of
the cards, under the new system, would be greatly re-
duced. It was shown that, by an improved system of
punching machinery, the bands could be cut from a de-
sign previously perforated, at the rate of 3,000 cards
per hour, and any number of duplicates could be pro-
duced with equal celerity ; it was also stated, that by
these means, when a pattern became fashionable, any
number of looms might be set to work on it, in about
as many days as it had previously required weeks, under
the old system. The price of the old cards was 6s. 9d.
to Bs. 6d. and upwards, per 100, for new sets, and
ss. 6d. for recuts ; whereas the new paper bands would
cost ls. per 100, and 6d. per 100 for recuts. The com-
parison of cost of 3,000 cards (an average band) would,
therefore, stand thus :-3,000 cards at 6s. 9d. per 100,
cost 101. 2s. 6d., weight 901b5., length 600 ft. ; 3,000
new bands, at ls. per 100, cost 11. 103., weight Blbs,
length 63ft. 9in. In reference to durability, it was
stated, that a band had been in constant work for two
years, although used on a heavy waiscoat piece.
The second paper read was "An Account of the
Deep Sea Fishing Steamer Enterprise, with Ruthven's
Propeller," by Mr. D. K. Clark, Assoc. Inst. C. E.
The vessel was described as having been built for the
Deep Sea Fishing Association of Scotland, under the
direction of the author, the consulting engineer to the
company, who had recommended the trial of Ruthven's
propeller for fishing uses, in preference to the paddle or
the screw, chiefly on account of there being nothing
likely to interfere with the fishing nets, and also because
the success of the previous trials of this means of pro-
pulsion, on board of boats 30 feet and 40 feet in length,
when a speed of 7 miles per hour was attained, appeared
to warrant its being tried on a larger scale The chiefdimen-
siens of the enterprise were stated to be—length on deck,
fly feet ; length at the water line, 87 feet ; breadth of beam
16 feet ; depth, 8 feet ; draft to load water line, 4
feet ; burthen 100 tons. The propelling power was de-
rived from two pairs of horizontal oscillating cylinders,
12 inches diameter, and 24 inches stroke (with corre-
sponding air pumps and condenser), working on a verti-
cal crank shaft. There was one cylindrical boiler, 6 feet
in diameter and 5 feet long, with two through fire tubes,
22 inches diameter, and 105 return flue tubes, 5 feet
long and 2 inches internal diameter. The propeller con-
sisted of a fan-wheel or centrifugal pump, 7 feet in dia-
meter, with curved blades, keyed on the lower end of
crank shaft • it revolved horizontally in a water-tight
wheel-chamber, into which the water from the sea flowed
along a covered passage, or water-chamber, through
crescent-shaped openings in the bottom of the hull ; and
the water was expelled laterally from the fan-wheel in
two continuous streams by curved pipes, with nozzles
10 inches diameter, through the sides of the hull. The
noozles worked in collars affixed to the sides. so that they
could be pointed astern or ahead as required for forward
or backward motion, or vertically downwards when the
vessel was to remain at rest. These changes were made
rapidly and easily, as the nozzles alone were operated
upon, whilst the engine continued to work at full speed.
By setting the nozzles in different directions, one point-
ing ahead and the other astern, the vessel could be turned
on the spot, swinging on her be im, without the aid of
the rudder; the vessel could thus be steered by the
nozzles in case of the rudder being lost or disabled. In
fact, the manoeuvring of the vessel was entirely in the
hands of the persons on deck. The fan-wheel and water
passages were entirely of wrought iron, and all the
parts were formed to avoid sudden enlargements or
quick turnings, and the consequent absorption of power
in the passages by friction and eddies. The motion
of the vessel was very smooth, and all tremulousness
was avoided by the uniform and continuous action
of the propelling streams of water. In a trial trip
with the Enterprise on the 16th January 1854, from
Granton to Kirkaldy and back, a distance of 101 miles
each way, the average speeds obtained were, 9.69 miles
per hour going, and 9 miles per hour returning, giving
a total average of 9'35 miles per hour, running against
the tide for the greater part of the trip, and with a
breeze ahead on the return trip. The engine made 50
revolutions per minute, and was calculated to have ex-
erted 40 indicated H.P., from the observed average
pressure of 201bs in the boiler, with the valve gear
cutting off at one-sixth of the stroke. The consumption
of fuel averaged Sibs of coal per estimated horse-power
per hour. On another occasion, in a trial of her speed
with one of the Granton and Burntisland ferry boats,
the Enterprise kept pace with the ferry-boat, at the re-
gular speed of twelve miles per hour, the engine making
70 revolutions per minute. In the estimate of the effi-
ciency of this method of propulsion, with respect to the
power applied at the fan-wheel shaft, three sources of
loss were admitted ; first, the friction of the water in
passing through the fan-wheel and ;passages ; second,
the excess of the effluent velocity of the water at the
nozzles above the speed of the vessel ; third, the eleva-
tion of the water-jet above the sea level. The first had
been found, by careful experiment, with a small model,
to amount to 16 per cent, of the power applied to the
wheel-shaft ; the second was estimated, from the known
data, at 12 per cent. ; and the third, at 8 per cent.—
making a total loss of 36 per cent., and leaving a useful
balance of 64 per cent, of the power applied to the wheel
shaft. Reference was made, for comparison, to the
performances of Appold's pump, and of Barker's mill,
as tested by Mr. W. Buchanan, of Glasgow. After
suitable allowances were made, corresponding to
the loss at the nozzles, and the loss by elevation of
water, the following percentages of useful effect were
arrived at :—Rutbven, 64 per cent, ; Appold, 57 per
cent. ; Barker, 67.8 per cent. giving a mean of 63 per
cent. of the power applied to the wheel-shaft. The fric-
tion of the engine was taken at 20 per cent. of the indi-
cated power on the piston, leaving 80 per cent. delivered
at the wheel-shaft. It therefore appeared, finally, that
of the whole indicated power of the engine, as applied to
work Ruthven's propeller, 50 per cent, was lost by fric-
tion and other causes, leaving a balance of 50 per cent.
for useful work done. It was further argued, that by
careful design, and good proportion of parts, so as to
reduce the friction of the machine, the excess of velocity
of the effluent water, and the elevation of the nozzle, 70
per cent, of the total indicated power of the engine
might be utilised by Ruthven's propeller. The draught
of the vessel, during the trial, was stated to be 3 feet 2
inches, and the immersed midship section 40.5 square
feet. The united area of the nozzles being 1.09 square
feet, the ratio of the area of propulsion to the immersed
section was Ito 37. To the load water line, the im-
mersed midship section was 35 square feet, and the ratio
Ito 50. Many advantages of Ruthven's propeller, for
large vessels, were pointed out and contended for.
Several nozzles could be applied to one vessel, one act-
ing for another in case of accident ; whereas pad-
dles and screws could not be so multiplied, and a
number of engines and nozzle-propellers, of moderate
size, worked at high speeds, would, it was contended,
be less weighty, more compact, and more manageable,
for a large vessel, than the huge engines and appurte-
nances required on the present system.
The discussion was adjourned until the meeting of
Tuesday, March 28, and it was announced that the dis-
cussion on Mr. Yates's paper, "On Decimal Coins,
Weights, and Measures," would also be resumed, and,
if time permitted, "A Description of the Embankments
across Morecombe Bay," by Mr. J. Brunleea, M. Inst
C.E., would be read.

BUCKINGHAM PALACE.—On lately viewing the new
wing, on the Pimlico side of Buckingham Palace, it oc-
curred to me that uniformity would dictate the necessity
for a similar erection at the opposite or north end of the
palace. Why might not this new part comprise accom-
modation sufficient for all the purposes of levees, drawing-
rooms, &c., and so render it unnecessary to continue the
present inconvenient migration to St. James's Palace
on such occasions ? The grounds of Buokingharn Palace,
and the approaches in various directions, would give
facilities far greater than are now presented by the
blockade of St. James's-street, Pall-mall, &c., with car-
riages. The site of St. James's Palace and its appurte-
nances might then be Appropriated to valuable public
objects, affording, at the same time, an opportunity
for making a better entrance into the park in a line
with St. James's-street. I recollect the remark being
made that we could not consistently abolish the his-
torical associations of St. James's. Well, then, we can
dispense with the term Buckingham, and let it become
the future Court of St. James's.—Correspondent of the
Builder.
REPRESENTATION OP WESTMORELAND.—The election
is to be on Tuesday week. The Earl of Bective, who
married Mr. Alderman Thompson's only child, is a can-
didate, and there is no one else in the field at present.
He is a Conservative, and states in his address that
"the political principles which he shall advocate will be
the same as those upheld by his lamented relative."
Lord Bective is the eldest son of the Marquis of Head-
fordt, who sits in the House of Lords as Baron Kenlis.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills the greatest
wonder of modern times.—They correct bile, prevent
flatulency, cleanse the liver, purify the system, renovate
the
the debilitated, strengthen the stomach, increase,
appetite, invigorate the nerves, promote health, and re-
instate the weak to an ardour of feeling never before ex-
perienced. The extraordinary daily sales of these in.
valuable pills in all parts of the globe astonish everbody,
convincing them that there is no other medicine in ex-
istence equal to Holloway's pills for removing the com.
plaints which are incidental to the human race ; they
are, indeed, a blessing to the afflicted, and a boon to
those who suffer from any disorder, internal or external.
—Sold by all druggist, and at Professor Holloway's
Establishment, 244, btraad, London,