The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-14 00:00:00

REPORTS.

'lle following reports on Bilis were considered and
adopted:—
Billingsgate Market.
Cameron's Coalbrook Steam Coal and Swansea and
Leugher Railway.
Derbyshire, Statljrdshire, and Worcestershire Junction
Railway.
Newry, Warrenpoint, and Rosstrevor Railway.
Tunbridge Wells Improvement.
York and North Midland Railway (widening and en-
largemtut).

- THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and
passed:—
Dublin and Kingstown Extension Railway
Forth and Clyde Navigation and Bowling Bay Improve-
ment.

MANCHESTER AND SOUTHAMPTON RAIL-
WAY.
Mr. HOPE moved the consideration of the report on
this Bill. The report was then consid ted and agreed
to without discussion.

CURTIS'S DIVORCE BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
PLYMOUTH GREAT WESTERN DOCKS BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and patskci.
WEXFORD HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
SLIGO SHIP CANAL BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
CAMBRIDGE IME'ROVE.VIENT BILL.
The report of the Committee on this Bill was con-
sidered and adopted.
BISHOP OF JERUSALEM'S NATURALISATION
BILL.
Mr. HODGSON moved the second reading of this
Bill.

After a few words from Mr. GREENE and Lord CLIVE,
Dr. BOWRING opposed the Bill, and said that in Ids
opinion the appointment of a Bishop of Jerusalem of it-
self would lead to great di: satisfaction and disadvantage.
He contended that a reverend gentleman, because he had
been appointed to that bishopric, he had no right to
come to that House and claim to be naturalised.
Mr. HUTT also opposed the Bill, because he thought
it was framed in direct opposition to the spirit of the
Act of Parliament at present in force on the subject of
naturalisation.
Lora JOHN MANNERS advis, d the Hon. Member
who had introduced the Bill to withdraw it.
Mr. BOUVERIE was also opposed to the Bill.
Sir W. JAMES said he should be sorry, if the
reverend gentleman really wished to • avail him-
self of the privilege possessed by British subjec.s
to give any opposition to the Bill. But as long as the
Rev. Gentleman was not about to reside in England,
he could not see why he should seek for such privileges.
Mr. HODGSON said that it was the first time he
ever heard any objection to the second reading of a
naturalisation Bill, and his Hon. Friend, before calling
on him to show his reason for such a Bill, should have
stated his reasons against it.
Mr. ESCO I'T said that this case did not come within
the provisions of the Act, but still he thought that no
obstacles should be thrown in the way of the reverend
gentleman.
Mr. J. COLLETT moved that the second reading of
the; Bill be posponed until that day .week, as the
Government should certainly know the object of such
a Bill.
Lord CLIVE seconded the motion.
Mr. HUME regretted that her Msjesty's Ministers
were not present to explain.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that it was desired that
the Swiss gentleman, who held office as Bishop of Jeru-
salem, should be Bishop of Jerusalem for England; and
in order to effect that, it was necessary to grant letters
of naturalization. He saw no objection to such a course.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that there were some inaccu-
racies in the statement made by the Hon. Member for
Finsbury. In the first place, the appointment of the
bishop did not rest with the British Government, but
wth the King of PrusLia. Under an Act which had
been passed power was given to the Secretary of State
to advise her Majesty under certain limits to grant letters
of naturalisation, and one of those that the party should
be resident in this country. He cid not know the
circumstances under which the present Bill was brought
forward, nor the advantage which the Rev. Gentleman
proposed to himself by wishing to be naturalised ; but
he presumed that it could be explained by the
Hon. Gentleman who brought forward the motion.
He did not think the Bill should be passed as a matter
of course. Special reasons should be shown for grant-
ing this naturalization. If those reasons were shown,
aid appeared sufficient to him, he should not oppose the
Bill. The onus of proving these special reasons rested
with the promoters of the Bill.
Mr. EW ART quite agreed with the opinions of the
Right Hon. Baronet who last addressed the Reuse
he thought the proper course would be to have the Bill
printed, the House would then be in a position to judge
of the merits of the question.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no
division took place.
. After a few words from Dr. BOWRING and Mr. T.
DUNCOMBE,
Mr. HODGSON consented to the postponement of
the question for a week.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the question should be
postponed, not merely for the purpose of having
the Bill printed, but that when printed, it should be
placed in the hands of some of the members of her Ma-
jesty's Government, in order to have from them a
statement of the course they would adopt with
reference to the Bill he did not wish to see it
thrown out at once without any enquiry--
There could be no doubt that the Rev. Gentleman was
de facto the Bishop of Jerusalem. He would suggest
that the matter should stand over for a week, in order
that it might receive the consideration of the House.
Mr. HODGSON said as many Hon. Members had
expressed a wish to have further information on the
subject befbre the Bill was read a second time, Ile begged,
by the permission of the House, to postpone the mutton
until Friday.
Mr. COLLETT moved that the Bill be printed, in
order that the House might be in possession of the details
of the measure, but as the motion was not seconded it
fell to the ground.
Mr. HUTT reminded the Hon. Member that the
House was fully in possession of the facts, and that no
advantage would be gained by going to the expense of
printing the Bill.
Lord Kinnaird's (Sir John Webb's) Estate Bill was
read a third time.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,
Mr. TfIORNELY presented a petition from Bury,
in Lancashire, praying for the abolition of the punish-
ment of death.

NOTICE OF MOTION.
Mr. B. ESTCOTT gave notice that on Friday next,
he would move for a return of all persons who had been
committed for vagrancy in Ireland, or who had been
sentenced to transportation or subjected to any other
punishment for the last twelve months.
WINDOW TAX.
Lord DUNCAN begged to put a question to the
Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It appeared from a circular he held in his hand that the
Metropolitan Buildings Act came into operation on the
Ist July last, and by that Act certain penalties
were inflicted far not having a sufficient number
of windows in any cellar or building used
as a habiitation. Now a party with whom
he (Lord Duncan) had been in recent communication,
had seven windows in his house, and by the Metropolitan
Buildings Act, be should have eight. If he added an-
other window he would incur a duty of eighteen shillings
and a penny, and if he neglected to comply with
provisions of the met, he would be liable to a penalty not
exceeding 203. a day for every day he remained without
complying with the provisions of the act after due notice
had been given to him. Under these circumstances, he
(Lord Duncan) wished to know from the Right Hon.
Gentleman, if such a person would be exempted from
payment of the window-tax?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who
was almost inaudible in the gallery, was understood
to complain of having received no notice of the Noble
Lord's intention to put such a question. He was not
aware of the particular provisions of the Metropolitan
Buildings Act, but he would make inquiry on the sub- ,
ject, and communicate the result on a future occasion.
YOUR,-LAWS (IRELAND).
Mr. HUME moved that a message be sent to the
Lords, requesting a copy of the evidence taken before a
committee of their Lordships respecting the working of
the poor-laws in Ireland.—Agreed to.
SUGAR DUTIES.
Mr. BAILLY wished to know from the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government if it was
his intention to bring forward on Thursday rte ti t
a distinct measure in reference to the sugar duties. The
reason he asked the question was, a great many Mere.
hers were desirous to leave town, and the Noble Lord's
answer to the question might to a great extent aft,c‘
their determination.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had -'
preceding evening thet on Thar—,

..e.ted eu the
he.woilld state

nest

IMPERIAL PARL IA 31 ENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 13.
IRELAND.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that as considerable anxiety
prevailed on the subject in Ireland, he wished to know
from the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State
for Ireland what course was to be pursued with regard
to the three Bills' brought in by the Noble Lord the
late Secretary. Did the present Government intend to
brine the Bills forward in any shape, or did they intend
to introduce any of their own ?
Mr. LABOUCTIERE said; in reply to the question of
the Hon. Gentleman, he thought it would be more con-
venient if he delayed till Thursday next to state the
course which the Government proposed to take. All
he would say'at present was, that ho was engage d in a
careful consideration of the whole quest'on, and he would
undertake to say that no benefit secured to the Irish people
by these Bills would be lost. On Thursday, hewever,
he would state the course which the Government in-
tended to pursue.
REGISTRATION OF MEDICAL OFFICERS.
Mr. WAKLEY wished to ask her Majesty's Govern-
ment whether they would consent to the pe.ssing and
enactment of a Bill during the present session provid-
ing for the registration of duly qualified members of the
medical profession?
Lord JOHN R USSELL did not think there would be
sufficient time during the present session to eurisidel fully
a measure of so much importance.
Mr. WAKLEY considered it a very small measure,
and would not lone' occupy tie attention of Mini, ters.
CAPTAIN WARNER'S INVENTION.
On the order of the day being read for going into a
Committee of Supply,
Lord INGESTRE rose, pursuant to the notice
he had given, to c.ll the attention of the House to
the subject of Captain Warner's recent int-ea:ions. He
proposed that a humble address i.e pre,ented to her
Majesty, praying that she would be- graciously pleased
to give directions for the investiention ef Captain War-
ner's inventions. He was sorry that this subject had re
ceived so little of the attention which it des,reed from
Parliament : he felt coteident, however, that before
long that inattention would be at an end. Attacks had,
upon former occasions, been made upon the veracity of
his Gallant Friend; those attacks had been utterly un-
founded. He hoped that this question might be con-
sidered by her Majesty's Government, for he could
assure them that, however much disposed they
might be to treat it lightly, he considered it one
of the most important subjects which could be
brought under their notice. He wished, in the
first place, to correct a strong impression which had
arisen out .of an erroneous statement made an that
House, and he was sorry to see that the Right Hen.
Baronet who made the assertion was not in his
place. The Right Hon. Baronet had said, in
1842, • that Captain Warner refused to make
any communication unless he had the distinct
promise of 400,0001. In the correspondence which he
had moved for in 1844, there had been omitted by a
mistake a letter which he could produce to the House,
and in which he distinctly stated that he would leave
the question of remuneration to her Majesty's Go-
vernment, provided he received a guarantee that
he should not go without remuneration. There
had also been a statement read that a hen the experiment
was tried at Brighton several pilots said that there were
several ropes hanging over the side of the vessel.
leaving ample room for any deception. He had a com-
munication from a gentleman who had ascertained the
truth of the statement, and he could show that the pilot,
as a body had denied the assertion, and had stated that
there were no ropes hanging overboard but the tow rope!.
Captain Warner had made many similar offers, and had
desired to be called before the Prime Minister or the F.rst
Lord of the Admiralty, offering to explain his invention
to them without any stipulation for a reward, but he had
very properly refused to explain it to any Commissioner,,
who were not authorised to do more than make a
report upon the subject. He said, if any one would take
the trouble to look into the history of this affair, h(
would find that offer :Veer offer had been made by Cap-
tain Warner to the late Government, and
all bad been rejected. The Noble Lord re-
ferred to the language of Sir George Murray on
one of these occasions, to show the over degree of caution
which they had taken, treating Captain Warner as
though he were an unprincipled person and a swindler
He oust admit that the Right Honourable Gentleman
(Sir Robert Peel) had always paid great attention
to him (Loid Ingestre) when he brought the matter
before the House, but he would never look into it him
self, referring him continually to the ordinary channels,
which channels he (Lord Ingestre) found as continually
shut against him. He might refer, he said, to the first
Commission on which the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Liverpool (Sir H. Douglas) was, in evidence of what he
said. The two subjects of experiment were the invisible
shell and the long range. It was agreed, after a great
deal of correspondence, that the long range should be the
first subjected to experiment ; and an estimate of the
expense was made up, which fixed that 2,5001. was neces-
sary to carry out the experiment. But another course
of correspondence ensued, which ended in 5001. being
offered for the purpose. Of course Captain Warner re.
pudiated the offer, which was but one-firth of the sum he
had named first of all, us required fur the experiment.
Ho could not characterise such conduct other than most
unjust and most unfair to Captain Warner, who had not
had fair play meted out to him. He then alluded to the
ship on which Captain Warner experemi nted at
Brighton, for the destruction of which by Captain War-
ner he (Lord Ingestre) gave the signal, and a minute
after ha did so, although he. did not speciff the exact
time he should do so. it was destroyed. He also mat;
papers to show that Captain Warner bail been most un-
fairly and improperly dealt with. He could not think that
any thing could be done without the effi:ct of the private
Committees being perfectly understood. He might al-
lude to the railway which was justified by the report of
the Hon. Sir R. Keats, who had been the great authority
on those points. Ile might also cite the opinion of
Lore,Melbourne, whose motion stood for the 14th of May.
If these records were taken, there was not any doubt
that the claini under Sir Robert Peel was admitted. He would not allude to the dealings of Captain Werner, be-
couse he believed that great loss had been sustained by
that individual, and under these circuinstaeces be
thought that there was sufficient ground for the principle
of which he had spoken. Such being the case, he (Load
Ingestre) was naturally anxious to ascertain why this
principle should be entertained. On this ground, then,
he thought there. ought to be an allowance, and a suffi-,
cient allowance. The experiments made at Brighton
were quite satisfactory as to the complete success of
Captain Warner's invention. There was no connexion
whatever between the ship which was blown up and the
steamer that towed it, much as had been said of this
matter at the time. He (Lord Ingestre) had looked at
the whole question as a naval officer for many
years, and he was firmly persuaded of the
truth and value of the invention. Much as it had been
sneered at and contemned, he must still persist in that
opinion. It was a remarkalele fact that all great inven-
tions of this kind were mee by ridicule. He need only
refer to the origin of gas, :es a proof of the mariner in
which important inventions: were first received. Only a
few years ago, Dr. Lardner said that it was impossible
for steamers to cross the Atlantic, whereas now they
crossed that great sea almost every week. Then let
them look at railways ;, mark the circumstances under
which they were first projected, and their great success
at the present day. Whin the first line was laid down
it was said railway trains ; Would not much exceed the
speed of mail coaches v /About great danger ; but now
they were daily runnin• at the rate of 25 and 30 miles
an hour, yet no exy Ilsions or accidents were the
result. When they 7 were expending such large sums
on fortifications, they should pause ere they
rejected the due e •onsideration of such a great
invention as the one under the
Would engage
with only one ship, to blocade any harbour on the coast
of England,- or attack my fleet that •
Tight be brought
against him. They we; 7e a
at
people, atel he
implored the Governmuertethtaodgtre. the subject a dispas-
sionate consideration,
bringing the subject utterer• 0 interest whatever in
House, beyond doing gaDd to *tie country,
rile consideration of the
it against all chances ( if f and protecting
had occupied the Roll vt; ,he
danger. Though be
could not sit down with. - for n considerable time, he
had received from C ant reading a letter which he
The Noble Lord the "I: 4zin
Warner a few days ago.
which was in eftet a n 'Pia the letter,
,dated July 2,
rex-
ment he had h ithert-on toveseion of regret at the treat-
.
,e'slued, and expressing a deter-
mination to apply to fel
a ;new
.Administration
for their
assistance in the matter. d into a vin-
dication of the co 1, e It further entered
urse
4' lei Id Pursued in regard to the
remuneration he sowelit fi. the invention, and in respect
to his objection to the is iof arbitration proposed by
the Governmen had fres • , drather
p
-00 16e•- fat, hat
atentue et thas .e

the "louse, but
A t ~ ~ntion of
4ig ha. sing. done so ; and what-
- upon Limo ~
the
subject would be
ne trust 6 ed that the imporkune. 9 _
ia sufficient excuse for
ever Wight be the resultfthe c cUssioll, if it bad the