The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-22 00:00:00

IRISH COLLEGES BILL.

Mr. J. O'CONNELL wished to know from the
Bight Hon. Baronet opposite whether there was any
objection on the part of the Government to bring in any
measure during the present session to amend the Bill for
the founding of colleges in Ireland, which was passed
last year? To that Bill there were the strongest objec-
tions in the country, and he wished therefore to ask him
whether he was inclined to take the whole case into con-
sideration, and thus to satisfy the feelings of the nation.
The Right Honourable Baronet was aware that the
whole of the Catholic prelates, an overwhelming body
of the Catholic clergy, and the whole of the Irish peo-
ple, almost without exception, were opposed to the Bill
as it now stood.

Sir J. GRAHAM—There is no intention on the part
of the Government to introduce any alteration of that
Bill.

IRISH COUNTY ELECTIONS.
. .

Mr. F. FRENCH wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet whether there was any intention on the
part of the Government to introduce any Bill for
shortening county elections in Ireland.
Sir J. GRAHAM—It has &ready been stated in the
course of the present session that her Majesty's Govern-
ment intend,el to introduce a Bill for amending the Act
which regulated county elections in Ireland. The Bill
was already prepared.
SIR ROBERT DICK.

Sir DE LACY EVANS believed that the Government
Punjaub were:aas•are that Sir R. Dick. had fallen in the
campaign, as well as the other officers whose memory
it was the intention of Parliament .to honour, and he
wished to know whether this gallant officer was to be
remembered along with them?
Sir R. PEEL-In the course of the several conversa-
tions which have arisen on the Punjaub campaign, I
have stated that it is my intention to recommend the
same memorials should be erected to all the officers en-
joying the rank of Major-General, and I shall there-
fore deem it my duty to recommend the same tribute of
respect to Sir R. Dick as to the other gallant officers
who have fallen in this contest.
CANADA TIMBER.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that he rose to ask for an
explanation of a false return which had been made to
that House. He had had the honour of moving for a
return of the prices of Canada and bevelled timber
during the last seven years, he made the motion for that
return the last week in January, or the first week in
February ; that part of the return which appeared tohim
to be false is dated from the Landed Surveyor's-office on
Feb. 13, and it was consequently on the 13th of Feb.
that the return must have been made before the
Uard of iraue. mat return was not presented to the
House until the Ist of Apra-Men. 11 •qf
of lila moving cur tne return IC,IrYoI tric.,Vv
light on the debate which was then going forward on
the timber duties. The return! which had be ,n
made to the House had given the Mlowing as the
prices of bevelled timber. It stated that the prices in
1840, were from 5/. ss. to Si. 10s. per load, duty paid
In 1841, it stated the prices were from Si. ss. to 5/. 7s. 61
la 1842, the prices were stated to be from 41. 17s. 61
to 51. per load. He begged pardon of the
House, he had been giving what he believed
to be the real prices of timber during the periods
he had mentioned, and not the returns furnished by the
Government. The following were the returns presented
by the Ministers :-In 1840, the price per load of be-
velled timber duty paid was said to vary from 8/. to
8/. ss. ; in 1841, it was said to vary from 71. 15s.
to Ml., and in 1842, from 71. 15s. to 81., the
duty being 555. per load. The average of the three
years he had mentioned, by referring to the returns laid
on the table by her Majesty's Ministers, was Si. Is. 81
In 1842, the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the
Government introduced his changes with respect
to the duties on timber, and he reduced
the duty to 255. per load in 1844. The return went
to state that the prices in 1842 varied from 5/. ss.
to 51. 103 ; in 1845, from 51. to Si. 7s. ; and in
1846, from Si. 12s. 6d. to 51. 17s. 6d., making an
average of 5/. 12s. 6d. Now, the result of these re-
turns went to show to that House, and to the country,
that the consumers had gained by the remission of 30s.
duty, not only the whole amount of duty of 19s. 2d , over
and above the duty, making the whole gain 495. 2d. by
this reduction of 20s. alone upon timber. Now he be
iieved it to be the fact, so far from these returns being
true, that if a true return had been made to the House,
it would have been found that the prices from 1840 to
1842 were as follows :-In 1840, Si. 10s. per load ; in
1841, 51. ss. ; and in 1842, Si. ss. ; showing an average
of Si. 65., the duty 555. per load, whilst in the last
three years since the duty had been reduced from 655.
to 30s. He believed that if a true return had been
made, it would have shown that the prices were 4/. ss.
in 1844, 41. ss. in 1845, and 41. 12s. 6d. 1846, showing
an average price of 41. 7s. 6d., so that the consumers
upon the average of three years since the duty was
taken oft', instead of gaining, as it was represented by
the return, 49.;. 2]. per load, only gained about 19s. 2d ,
while the balance went into the pockets of the producer..
Now it was a most important matter to that House
that they should be able to rely on the truth
and accuracy of those statistical papers which were
laid before it by the Board of Trade, and on which tee
House founded its legislation. He considered it a serious
matter, and his first intention was to move that
the subordinate officer should be called to the Bar to
explain his instructions and his object in imposing
upon the House. It might be all very well for
gentlemen connected with the commercial inte-
rest to discover these false returns, and to be
uninfluenced by them; but these returns passed
current with the vast majority of the people
and with the House, and leading articles, written by
learned editors of newspapers, were founded on
them, proving the great advantage to be derived
from free trade. He considered it therefore his bounden
duty to explain these circumstances, and the falserseven
turn had lain upon the table of the Houefo
the
proper
weeks, and it was not until the Ist of April
and correct one had been given.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he could not o
feelpn the
o
him-
self justified to enter insttoennytheargfacts.
His atten-
tion had not been calledsubject, but merely tu at
to the error untiltheoT orrble-
Lord had intimated his intentionsto the G
merit. As to the
t returns, though made by her
Government Majesty's G
to the House, he was sorry
to say that it was impossible for any Minister to un-
dertake to be responsible for their faultless accuracy.
Having discovered that an error had occurred, he had
ordered that a correct return should be immediately
presented to the House, and it would be in possession of
Hon. Members to-morrow. He had also made inquiries
as to what department of the Customs the error had
occurred in, and he held in his hand a le; to from
the officer by whom the accuracy of the re-
turn was certified. The letter was to the
following effect:-In answer to your requisitim, calling
on me to state in what department of the Customs the
error in the return on the Memel and Canadian
timber arose, I regret to state that it was
in the landing surveyor's department. The mis-
take appears to have arisen from the officer
taking the average price from the price current, which
is not an official document, and in which the, prices are
quoted, sometimes including the duty and sometimes
not. He (Sir It. Peel) apprehended that there could be
no doubt as to how the mistake had arisen. He could
only express his regret that the mistake had occurred,
but he had taken every measure to rectify it.
TENANT RIGHTS IN IRELAND.
Mr. P. SCROPE rose to put a question to the Right
Hon. Baronet on the subject of the legality of tenant
rights in the North of Ireland. There were one hun-
dred millions of property unprotected in the north of
Ireland. The public should be made aware of the bad
state of the law on this subject before they proceeded to
discuss the present law of landlord and right. It should
be ascertained beyond all doubt whether the outgoing
tenant in Ireland had really any right to sell his ge d-
will to the property which he was a.otit, to give up, or
whether the tenant was entitled to compensation from
the landlord when be ejected him, That claila had been

--
1 recognised in a great part of the north of Ireland for a
long series cf years, and to a very great extent. To
• !ktic'a an extent, in fact, had that right been recognised
that. in some instances the outgoing tenant sold their
k good- will at 11 co, ten, fit teen, twenty, and sometimes
oven more years' purchase on their rents. It had there-
fore become a recognised practice ; the tenant had in
fact gained a sort of ownership in the soil, which he
might dispose of when and as lie pleased. Evidence of
that right being recognised regularly in Down, Armagh.
and the other counties of Ulster, was given by several
I witnesses before Lord Devon. ut it appeared that the
landlords were now invading that right of the tenants,
and continued nibbling at it till they hoped they might
destroy it. If the tenants were not in fact entitled to
such right, the public should have a definite answer to
that effect from the Government ; and, after it had been
recognised for so long a period, he wished to know
whether the landlords of Ireland had it in their power
to call in the aid of the military or civil force to eject
their tenants, without gising them any compensation.
There were cases in which a number of tenants were
located on large tracts of land, and where the sheriff of
the county was called upon to eject those tenants, with-
out any reference to the right that the tenant had to the
sale of the good-will of his farms. The Hon. Member
concluded by reading his question.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the question put
by the Hon. Member involved no fewer than three other
questions—namely, a question of common policy, a
question of common right, and a question of common
law.—(Hear.) With regard to the civil rTglits of the
tenants in the province of Ulster in Ireland, be begged
to say he believed that such a right was not recognised
by the written law of the land, but by the law of
usage ; and if he were asked whether that right
was recognised by the Courts of Law in Ireland,
he should say he believed it was not.—(Bear,
hoar.) With regard to the law of ejectment or
habare, in such cases the sheriff had no right whatever
to exercise any judgment of his own, but to proceed to
execute the writ ; and it was the duty of all authori-
ties, civil and military, on the requisition of the sheriff,
to attend him and assist him in the execution of that
writ. Therefore, if a writ of injunction, or habare,
were issued, it would be the duty of the sheriff, and of
the civil and military authorities, to act as he had des-
cribed. Again, he had only to say that the question of
the Hon. Member was OM. of law and not of policy.
THE INFERNAL MACHINE.
Mr. CALEB POWELL wished to draw the attention of
the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department to a statement which had appeared in a local
journal, stating that a machine, which had been aptly called an
"infernal machine," had been found in a warehouse in Sheffield.
The mischief that had resulted was comparatively trivial, but
this was nothing when compared to the fear which was engen-
dered in the public mind by such a state of things, and which
those by whom these machines were invented, were desirous to
nphold. Now if such a statement had been furnished, he
wished to know whether it was in the contemplation of the Go-
vernment to found a Bill upon it, for the better protection of
the lives of that portion of her Majesty's subjects, on whose
premises such attempts had been made ?—( Laughter. )
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he had heard by accident of
the machine to which the Hon. Gentleman had adverted. He
was understood to say that the Government did not intend at
the present moment to introduce a Bill en the subject, prefer-
ring to leave the Punishment of the offenders to the law.
PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY
(IRELAND).
Mr. C. BULLER said he wished to call the attention of the
Government to a subject in which the promotion of the busi-
ness of the House was involved. On the 20th of March he
moved for certain returns, with respect to the outrages re-
ported by the constabulary of Ireland since 1841, which he had
hoped would have been laid on the table of the House before
this. Similar returns np to 1841 had been furnished and were
ROW in the library of the House. He did not wish to make any
disturbance about the matter—( A laugh)—but he was anxious
to know when the returns moved for would be laid on the table
of the House ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM, who spoke in a low tone, was un-
derstood to say, that the returns would be laid on the table of
the House with the least possible delay.
Mr. C. BULLER said, looking at the way in which the
public business of that House was conducted by the Right
Hon. Baronet—(Hear, hear)—he was sure no unnecessary
delay would take place.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL also inquired when certain returns
he had moved for with respect to the number of agrarian out-
rages in England, would be laid on the table ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM also said no unnecessary delay
would take place in supplying them.
The dropped orders of yesterday were then disposed of.
THE CORN IMPORTATION BILL—CUSTOMS
DUTIE:, BILL.
The Committee on thee two Bills was postponed till Friday
next.

PROTECTION OF LIFE (IRELAND) BILL.
The adjourned debate on the first reading of this Bill was
postponed till Friday next.______
__

SUPPLY.
On the motion of Mr. GREENE, the report of this Com-
mittee was brought up, and the resolutions agreed to.
POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. CHRISTIE rose to move for copies of all correspond-
ence hetween William Day, Esq., late Assistant Commissioner
of Poor-laws and the Poor-law Commissioners, and the Secre-
tary for the Home Departieent, relative to his involuntary re-
signation of his Assistant Poor-law Commissionership; and of
all Minutes relative to Mr. Day's resignation, and to the ap-
pointment of Colonel Wade as his successor. Also, that it be
be an instruction to the Committee on the Andover Union to
inquire into all the circumstances under which Mr. Day was
called upon to resign. In asking for these papers, he thought
that he was only asking for, that which was requisite, from a
reason that under the circumstances it was just:and necessary for
the public service, and which seems on every ground to require
exslanation. He trusted that there would be no objection
made by the Government on this occasion, although he was
aware that the Poor-law Commissioners had, under the Act,
the power of removing an Assistant-Commissioner; but at the
same time, he was aware that the Act of Parliament which
gave the discretion also required that it should be exert;- snly
upon due cause being shown; and he wished to hojw
-er
communicationae‘tfcsatreedveraynLinee
Actbe(h simt-gdw4a st° st"th.r eeqlsTibrdiell epartment e Ely :hat
d;'hr
e
missinners the secretary should be present, and witheee hies:
t meeting
f th(
the board was not considered tit eaten or these
meetings also it was required that the secretary should take al
full note of the proceedings, the minutes of which should be
forwarded according to the regulations of the Poor-law Amend-
ment Act. ( The Hon. Gentleman here read the 7th section
of the Act, which regulates this proceeding.) He wished to
know whether these minutes had been made, and whether they
had been submitted to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite?
Mr. Day applied to the Poor-law Commissioners, and to the
Right Hon. Baronet, for all the minutes relative to the call
upon him for his resignation. Reasons had been given to him
—reasons which he should show presently did not at all tally
with one another. He thought he might safely say that the
facts and circumstances of the case fully and clearly disproved
every one of the reasons which had been advanced. These
reasons being totally unsatisfactory to Mr. Day, he applied
to the Poor-law Commissioners to ascertain the real cause of
his dismissal, but the only answer he could get from them was
an evasion of the question, and from the Right Honourable
Baronet an acknowledgment of his letter. He would
new proceed to detail the circumstances of Mr. Day's
case. At the time when he was unexpectedly re-
quested to send in his resignation, he had been an Assistant
Commissioner for a period of eight years. Mr. Day, long
before the passing of the Poor-law Commission Act, had
paid special attention to the working of the poor-law, having
been for some years in the commission of the peace for the
county of Sussex, and had watched its Operations with great
interest. At the time of the passing of the Act, Mr. Day
gave to the:Commissioners the benefit of his experience, and
sent them a report, the value of which they at once admitted,
and which they printed and placed as a preface to their own
report. Mr. Day continued to give them the benefit of his
observations after the formation of the board at Somerset
House, and the sense which the Commissioners had of his
assistance was proved by the fact, that when, towards the close
of the year 1935, it was determined to appoint six additional
commissioners, it was proposed to Mr. Day, without any soli-
citation on his part, that he should undertake one of those
appointments thus placed at their disposal. He believed that
he might say the applications for cemmissionerships were ex-
tremely numerous, and out of a large number of candidates
for the appoiritnaent, many were persons of distinction and
ability. Mr. Day, however, was the person selected to fill
one of the six cemmissionerships. He did not accept the
appointment without come solicitation, as he had embarked
largely in farming, in Sussex, and it occurred to him that his
acceptancE of the appointment would withdraw him from the
pursuits in which he was engaged, and there would be nothing
in the appointment to recompense him for the withdrawal.
Mr. Day accepted the appointment, and from that time con-
tinued in the situation for eight years, during which he zee-
lously and faithfully discharged his duty, and received the ap-
probation of his superiors. During the whole of that period he
was only absent eight weeks, and he was never subject to the
slightest expression of disapprobation. The only fault—if
fault it could be called—that was found with him, was Mr.
Lewis requesting him in his communications to write his cha-
racters larger. The eieht weeks absence arose from an acci-
dent which Mr. Day met with in August, 1e43, by which he
was laid up ior five weeks. On the Bth of September he re-
sumed his duty, and he continued improving in health and
strength, and had almost forgotten the accident, when he was
reminded of it about five months after it took place by receiving
a communication from the Poor-law commissioners. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman here read the letter which Mr.
Day received, which was to the effect that the condition of the
district had been brought under the consideration of the Poor-
law Commissioners, and they were satisfied that an active As-
sistant Commissioner was necessary and indispensable. On
this account, from the accident that had oceured on the 19th
August, and as they were precluded from
appointing any
supernumerary, they were un ter the painful necess of coming
to the conclusion that he (Mr. Day) could not make the exer-
tion necessary to the due fulfilment of theduties of the office, and
suggested his resignation. This was signed by Mr. Nicholls.
Mr Day did not resume his duties till the 25th September,
but he had reason to suppose that the Poor-law Commis-
sioners believed that he had recovered from the effects of
hisaccident before that time, for he had a letter from a Mr.
LewisL of a previous date, stating that he was glad that he
was able to resume his duties, ahheueh he would still, no
doubt, feel the effects of the accident for some time to come.
Mr. Day replied to the communication from Mr. Nicholls,
and stated, that as far as his bodily health was concerned,
he was as well as ever, but he was convinced that had he
asked leave for a quarter he should have been well much
sooner ; but he added, that, under the circumstances, he
could not think of asking leave for such a period.
. Day got no answer to the letters which he forwarded to
the Poor-law Commissioners, further than expressions of sin-
cere regret that they were compelled, from a sense of duty, to
abstain from giving the reasons of his dismissal. Sentiments
of such regret were certainly lavishly used, and they disclaimed
all intention to injure him, and all absence of personal feeling
in the matter. The Commissioners had received evidence
against Mr. Day with closed doors, and that gentleman had no
opportunity of ascertaining the grounds of his dismissal. He
had from time to time written to them, praying and beseech..
ing them to reveal to him those reasons, but he had not, up
to the present moment received any such information. Now
he (Mr. Christie) considered it a painful injustice that an old
and long-tried officer, slr. Day, should be treated as he had.
Mr. Day wrote to Mr. Lewis, asking him to give him the rea-
sons of his dismissal, to which Mr. Day received an answer,
but the writer scrupulously abstained from giving any reasons
for his dismissal. The writer of the letter wrote another to
the Chairman of the South Wales Union, and received an an•
swer, in which the writer declared that lie had never heard
his name mentioned before Sir James Graham, so that that
point that Mr. Day's dismissal had not been owing to any re•
presentation that had been made to the South Wales Come
naiseioners. When Mr. Day could get no satisfactory explan-
ation from the Poor-law Commissioners, he applied to the
Right Hon. Gentleman, from whom he received a letter,
which the Hon. Member read, and which was to the effect
that the Poor-law Commissioners alone had the exercise of .
the authority of dismissal, and that dismissals had taken piece
in consequence of a reduction of the establishment Wing be.