The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-25 00:00:00

RYE ELECTIONS.

Tha report of the Rye election committee was brought
up. It declared that Mr. L. B. Mackinnon was duly elected,
and that the allegations of bribery were frivolous and
vexatious.
THE BISHOPRIC OP NELSON.
In reply to a question from Mr. SELWYN,
Mr. CAItDWELL said it was quite true that represen-
tations bad been made to the Government, in consequence
of their not giving their assent to the consecration of tha
Bishop of Nelson. The refusal had arisen in
consequence of the] law proceedings which had taken
place in the Privy Council with respect to
Natal. The Government were of opinion that
before any action was taken by the Crown a bill
ought to be introduced, when the whole subject could be
considered by Parliameht. That was the sole reason for
the refusal of the Government. With respect to Prince
Rupert's Land, the bishop had been appointed, and was
awaiting consecration previous to the delivery of the
judgment of the Privy Council.
COOLIES FOR THE EAST INDIES.

Mr. B. COCHRANE asked the Under Secretary for
Foreign Affairs whether he could inform the house if 'the
French Government did not intend to press for a renewal
of th© treaty for the immigration of coolies from the East
Indies ?

Mr. LAYARD said at that moment he could not give
the hon. gentleman the information he required.
NEW ZEALAND.

Mr. ADDERLEY asked the Secretary for the Colonies
what reply the Government had given to the addresses from
New Zealand for the separation of the two islands under
distinct Governments ?
Mr. CARDWELL said the Government had intimated
that they were not prepared to sanction such a proceeding.
THE FENIANS.

Lord DUNKELLIN asked the Secretary of state
the Colonies whether her Majesty's Government had f
re-
ceived any intelligence of an attack made or threatened b
the Fenians on any of our North American colonies ; and
if he would communicate the purport of it to the house?
Mr. CARDWELL said that he had no account. of the
attack of the Fenians on our North American colonies.
There had been threatenings, however, for some time past,
but that had given rise to a manifestation of loyal feeling
on the part of her Majesty's subjects there, and the most
attl" steps had been taken to meet, both by sea and land,
any such threatened attack.
mr WESTMINSTER BOITLEVARDS.
. B.
•
move I eCCHEANE said on Tuesday next he should
c°varait
provision wag madetee to inquire and report whether proper
west.for the poor in
tion of thethe proposed construe-
RATES oisT oder Boulevards.
Mr. Alderman s4TTENMENT PROPERTY.
emption from local rates called attention to the ex-
and buildings in the occupation claimed for houses, lands,
mts throughout the 0)11i:tote of the Government Depart-
open inion of this house, her Majesty's
and moved that, in the
consider the expediency of r lestre Government should
that all lands and buildings amending to Parliament
purposes ought to be /table to localaria occupied for public
• ner as other property, and pay ratesltes 131 the same man_
different parts
ng
moeitit buildings
hon. gentleman took the opportunit faZ;dinglY• The
Whole
Early unjust it was to the ratepayygros So
how
of the metropolis. In Chelsea the Governi
occupied 72 acres, which was about 1-10th
parish, the amount of the taxation for which was
to which the Government only contributed £.515e. 45°'
Green-
wich also suffered very severely from the same cause, and
did not see why post-offices and savings banks shounleld
not pay their quota to • poor rates like any ether
buildings.
Mr. TITE seconded the motion, because he knew how
grievous the burden of the poor rates were in Chelsea.
In that part of the metropolis the poor into amounted to
one-fourth of the rack rent paid by every small shopkeeper
in Chelsea.
Mr. VT. MARTIN supported the motion.
Mr. CHILDERS hoped the house would hesitate before
-.they agreed to the motion of his hon. friend, because it not
only proposed to bring all existing Government property
under local rating, but it proposed also to deal with imagi-
nary property. It appeared to him that the motion went
to the extent of saying that because a large area
Of building land was held by the Government, but was
not built upon those imaginary buildings should pay rates.

If Government were called on to pay on this basis, there
was no knowing to what extent the general taxpayer
might be called upon to pay local rates. At the present
time the Government paid rates on great deal
of public property where a beneficial occupation
was proved. He, therefore, call 3d ulon. the house
not to adopt the principle laid down in the resolution, be-
cause it would lead to changes of which the hon. member
who brought forward the motion did not himself see the

end.
Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Denman, and Major Dickson sup-

ported the motion.
Dr. BRADY opposed the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
motion of the hon. member was most extensive in its ap-
plication, and he thought it would be unadvisablo at the
present moment to force it to a division. He would freely
admit that it was a subject which demanded full inquiry.
The motion was ultimately withdrawn.
POOR-LAW EXPENDITURE.
Mr. KNIGHT moved the following resolution—" That
in the opinion of this house it is expedient that all items of
poor-law expenditure throughout the United Kingdom, not
being in maintenance or out-door relief, or otherwise under
the immediate control and direction of board of guardians
or parish officers, should become a national charge." He
was not proposing that the whole burden of police rates,
salaries of masters and mistresses in workhouses, and other
items of expenditure, should be thrown on the Imperial
Exchequer; but, in considering that £169,000,000 of the
property of the country was not assessable to the relief of
the poor, he thought it most desirable that the proposition
he had made to the house should be considered. The
country was gradually inclining towards the adoption of a
national rate, and he hoped that whatever great change
was effected in that direction the burden of relieving the
poor would be thrown on the land. He hoped, if he re-
tained a seat in the house, he would have an opportunity
of bringing the matter more fully under the consideration
of Parliament.

Mr. WARNER seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER heard
with satisfaction the statement that the hon. gontlenaan

intended to bring forward the subject on a future occasion,
as it was an indication that he did not at present intend to

take the sense of the house upon it. The subject was one
which involved many difficulties. The charge which the
honourable gentleman would transfer from the local to the
Imperial Exchequer would be ab0ut£2,250,000, and if that
were allowed, a corresponding claim would be raised on
behalf of Ireland and Scotland. Of the two and a quarter
millions of local taxation, taking it at a very low estimate,
the working classes paid at least half. The matter was,
therefore, one which involved very serious issues, and he
therefore hoped the hon. gentleman would very seriously
consider it before he pressed it on the attention of the house.
Mr. KNIGHT said that the right hon. gentleman's ar-
gument would have been perfectly applicable before the
passing of the act of last session, which introduced a per-
fectly new state of things.
The motion was then negatived without a division.
FIRE INSURANCE.
In answer to an appeal from Mr. HODGICISSON,
Mr. SHERIDAN consented to withdraw his motion on
this subject..
HARDEN, MANCHESTER, AND SALFORD
PETITIONS.
Mr. FERRAND—in moving for a select committee to
inquire whether the signatures to the petitions presented
to this house upon the 12th and 13th days of April, 1866,
in favour of the Representation of the People Bill, and pro-
fessing to be petitions from the inhabitants of Harden, near
Bingley, in the county of York, and of Manchester and
Salford, are the genuine signatures of the persons whose
signatures they profess to be, and, if not, by whom and
under what circumstances such signatures were annexed—
complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer hadacted
most offensively towards him the other night, when he
brought under the notice of the house the manner in which
the Harden petition had been getup for presentation to the

house, by putting into his mouth words which he had never
used. Thr right hon. gentleman made him say that the
men, as they left their work in the mill, were asked and
required to sign the petition, whereas what he said was,
that it had been intimated to them that they should sign.
(Hear, and laughter.) An intimation, however, from the
millowners in question was tantamount to a command, as
he would now show the house. A short time since they
found that several of their hands attended the parish

church and Sunday school, upon which, they being them•

selves Dissenters, they threatened to dismiss them unless
they gave up the practice. Some of them forsook their
religion for the sake of keeping their employment, but the
greater portion of them, true to their faith, preferred to
trudge through wintry roads a distance of two miles to get

employment at another mill. It was usual to get up peti-
tions at the mills in Yorkshire. Of thathe did not complain,
VII' the Harden petition was signed three times in different
handwriting by the same person, twice by another, and in
four instances the names were those of children. After all,
Harden was but a sample of what was done in other parts
of England. A letter he had received from a highly respect-
able person said that Manchester beat Harden out and out
in the manufacture of petitions. The petition, as large and
as hollow as a drum, which had been presented in favour
of the Reform Bill, had been signed over and over again by
the same persons, many of whom did not live in Manchester
at all, but in the outlying towns whore they had signed
similar documents. Boys, too, had signed the Manchester
petition for the fun of the thing ; and one boy said he did
so because he understood the man who had charge of the
sheet was paid in proportion to the number of signatures
he obtained, and that he wished to help the poor fellow—
he looked so cold and hungry. (Laughter.) In some in-
stances where men refused to sign. their names were never-
theless appended to the petition. (Name, name.) It was not
usual to give names, but he would prove the facts whichhe
had stated before a committee of that house. The same
thing had occurred with respect to the reform petitions from

Bradford, which had been signed in a warehouse in Brad
ford. Such things had occurred before, and he need only
mention the petition presented to that house in favour of
the Charter, which professed to be signed by 3,000,000, but
which was proved to be signed by only 800,000. It con-
tained the name of the Duke of Wellington, which was
signed 50 times, and the name of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was also appended to it, although he did not be-
lieve he had signed it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
instead of assisting him to put a stopto the scandalous ma-
nufacture of petitions, had acted mostunfairly towards him
in reference to this motion. (Oh, oh.) Hon. members might
say that, but he contended that what he had stated was true.
The hon. member then referred to a speech of the hon. mem-
ber for Walsall (Mr. Forster), who, in speaking of the sub-
ject of forging signatures to a petition, described it as a gross
breach of the privileges of that house. He hoped the right
hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would second his
motion on this subject. He trusted that any parties who
were proved guilty of forging signatures to this petition
would be punished, and that if they were members of that
house they would be expelled the house. The hon. gentle-
man concluded by moving for a select committee in connec-
tion with the matter which he had brought under the con-
sideration of the house.
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS seconded the motion.
Mr. W. E. FORSTER contended that there was no
ground for the hon. member's charge of unfairness against
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentleman
was perfectly willing that an inquiry should take place. All
that he stipulated was that there should be an inquiry into
all the charges made by his hon. friend. His hon. friend said
that when the workpeople of a manufacturer at Harden
came to receive their wages a petition was handed to them
with an intimation that they should sign it. (Hear, hear.)
His hon. friend distinctly intimated that the master of the
mill required his people to sign the petition.
Mr. FERRAND—No.
Mr. W. B. FORSTER—That was the feeling of the house,
but now it appeared that his hon. friend did not intend to
convey that impression. It mattered little what charges his
hon. friend made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer
or himself (Mr. Forster), but the charge against this ma-
irufacturer was a serious one. newhhaodwraes jealousceiveda
of
letterhis
from the manufacturer in question,
character, and it appeared that not the slightest pressure
. of any kind had been put upon his
workpeople to in-
duce them to sign the petition. (Ch
surprised that his honourable friend, aftereers.) He was
declining to
frame his motion so as to obtain an inquiry
truth of the charge against this manufacturer, should
i
make out this charge against him by saying into the
who
man to
abouthave this
sd
gceoetrlceimoyn,ug that he
twoastenthesosmoorkootf mher
story
totally unconnected with this petition, without
giving aildthen
was
(Mr. Forster) the slightest information of the charge him
he
was going to make. The result of this committee would
show what credit was to be given to his hon. friend's state-
ments with regard to other petitions—(hear, hear)—and
might induce him to be more careful in his statements in
future.
Sir F. CROSSLEY, having pßradford peti_
tion, wished to bear testimony to the respectability of the
and to express his conviction
manufacturer in question, a
that the petition was genuine.
Mr. BAZLEY also bore testimony to the genuineness of
f reform. Had not
the petition from Manchester in favour o
the people of that place been ardent friends of reform he
would not have been there to represent them in that house.
Mr. W. KNIGHT said he had received a letter from
Manchester, in which it was stated that factory children
and others of that class and age had signed the petition for
reform from Manchester.
hot'''. GLADSTONE said he had made a proposition to the
gentleman (Mr. Fernand) in refekence to this motion,
which he thought h e had acceded to, but it would seem that,
having taken five or six days to deliberate on the subject, he
had declined to
case amount to ? Why, that
it. What did the charge in this
h that the owner of a mill had called
upon his men to sign thisepotition under compulsion, and his
right hon. friend the Hluc'' Secretary said that it was the
duty of the house fully to
quire into the matter. Now he
(Mr. Gladstone) quite concurredl
com-
pelled to sign a petition to that house that
if
persons were
privi-
lege was committed by the persons
S a gross breach of
manner. The hon. gentleman found f
who acted in such a
fault with him because
he said he understood
rstood him to say he used that
be-
cause he did not recollect the words of the hon. gentleman.
The proceedingpart o
---n his Was a on. gentleman.
very proper one, andie