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

THE BISHOPRIC OF NELSON.

In reply to a question from Mr. SELWYN,
Mr. CARDWELL said it was quite true that represen-
tations had 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 Parliament. 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 TEE EAST INDIES.

Mr. B. COCJIRANE 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 the 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 for
the Colonies whether her Majesty's Government had re- '
ceived any intelligence of an attack made or threatened by
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
theon part of her Majesty's subjects there, and the most
active steps had been taken to meet, both by sea and land,
any such threatened attack.
WESTMINSTER BOULEVARDS.
COCHRANE •
d on Tuesday next he should
move for a toward. said
provision was committee to inquire and report whether proper
tion of the Westixa:so.r the poor in the proposed construe-
-0:3 :or Boulevards.
RATES
Mr. Alderman sit.LoilitNMENT PROPERTY.
emption from local rates called attention to the ex-
and buildings in the ocen Claimed for houses, lands,
patios the Government Depart-
ments throughout the coutiya.;, and
moved that, in the
opinion of this house, her
consider the expediency of )etY' Government should
recommending to Parliament
occupied for public
that all lands and buildings usd
purposes ought to be liable to loealarn
ner as other property, and pay rates" in
the
same man-
hon. gentleman took the opportunity of Stating The
liarly unjust it was to the ratepayers of different-city
part_
of the metropolis. In Chelsea the Governmet
occupied 72 acres, which was about 1-10th of ttil•lrih,,lee
parish, the amount of the taxation for which was 455,000,
to which the Government only contributed £513. Green-
wich also suffered very severely from the same cause, and
he did not see why post-offices and savings banks should
tot pay their quota to poor rates like any ether
buildings.
Mr. TITE seconded the motion, because ho knew ho3v
grievous the burden of the poor rates were in Chelsea.
In that part of the metropolis tho poor rate amounted to
one-fourth of the rack rent paid by every small shopkeeper
in Chelsea.

Mr. W. MARTIN supported tho motion.
Mr. CIIILDERS hoped Jhe 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
not fbllllding land was held by the Government, but was
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, called ukon 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. and Major Dickson sup-
Mr. Ferranti, Mr. Denman,
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 unadvisable 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. gentleman
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
considerit 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. HODGKINSON,
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 had acted
most cffensively towards him the other night, when he
brought under the notice of the house the manner in which
the Harden petition had been gotup for presentation to the
house, byputting into his mouthwords 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 Avas-usual to get up peti-

tions at the mills in Yorkshire. Of that he did not complain,
Litt 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 largo an

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 pet=sons, many of whom did not live in Manchester
at all, but in the outlying towns where they had signed
similar documents. Boys, too, had signed the Manchester
petition for the fun of the thing; and ono 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 ho 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 no'

usual to give name; but ho would prove the facts which he
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. Tho Chancellor of the Exchequer,
instead of assisting him to put a stop to the scandalous ma-
nufacture of petitions, had acted most unfairly 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. E. 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
horon. friend made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer
(Mr. Forster), but the charge against this ma-
nuhfairtuseriefr was a serious one. Ile had received a letter
from the manufacturer in question, who was jealous of his
character, and it appeared that not the slightest pressure
of any kind had been put upon his work people to in-
duce them to sign the petition. (Cheers.) $e
wa
s
surprised that his honourable friend,after
declininframe his motion so as to obtain an inquiry into gthatose
truth of the charge against this manufsaactur,er,
that
h
then e
should
make out this charge against, him by in
was the sort of man to have used coercion, and
to tell some other story, about this gentleman w h
who
,
totally unconnected with this petition, without giving him
(fr. Forster) the slightest infornrition of the charge 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.
testimony to the respectability of the
manufacturer in question, and to express his conviction
tioSnir, wSFihCelid° toSSberjaErY'having presented the Bradford peti-
tion,
'n favour of reform. Had not
that the petition was
the petition from Manchester 1
genuine.
Mr. BAZLEY also bore
testimony to the genuineness of
the people of that place been
ardent friends
in
ds
efthraetfoiho
would not havq been there to represent 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 ago had signed the
petition
reform from Manchester.
Mr. GLADSTONE said ho had made a proposition to the
.e for
.
bon- gentleman (Mr. Ferranti) in reference to this motion,
which he thougbt he had acceded to, but it would seem that,
having taken five or six days to deliberate on the subject, he
had declined to act upon it. What did the charge in this
case amount to ? Why, that the owner of a mill had called
upon his men to sign this petition under compulsion, and his
right hon. friend the Home Secretary said that it was the
duty of the house fully to inquire into the matter. Now he
(Mr. Gladstone) quite concurred that if persons were com-
pelled to sign a petition to that house a gross breach of privi-
lege was committed by the persons who acted in such a
manner. The hon. gentleman found fault with him because
he said he understood him to say ho used that phrase be-
cause he did not recollect the 3vords of the hon. gentleman. ,
The proceeding on his part was a very proper one, and ho