The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-18 00:00:00

VIE EXPERIMENTS WITH THE ARM- IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
STRONG GUNS.

(From the Times.)
To witness the experiments at Shoeburynesa on Thurs-
day last, for the purpose. of testing the Armstrong guns,
there were present—Lord Herbert, Secretary of State for
"War; Major-General J. Bloomfield, Inspector-General of
Artillery ; major-General Sir H. J. Dacres, K.C.8., the
Commandant at Shoeburyness ; and their respective staffs,
together with a large number of Artillery, Engineer,
mud other officers. The experiments were directed
against two batteries, composed respectively of 10-inch
mud 8-inch iron bars. The 10. inch bars were sup-
Torted at the end by strong iron struts and by
four upright bars, into the slots of which some of
;the horizontal bars, backed with dovetails, were shipped
'anal keyed by wedges, a contrivance which braced the whole
'of the horizontal bars together. The screen of 8-inch bars
was backed at each end by six or eight feet of cemented
zaasonry and brickwork. The guns employed were a 100-
Tounder rifled Armstrong, and a 120-pounder shunting
Armstrong, which broke the bars with almost every shot,
reducing cracks in the bars both above and below, while
the whole mass was moved by every shot, the 10-inch screen
being driven back one or two feet, and the masonry which
supported the 8-inch screen being, at the points where the
screen rested, forced bodily back about three-quarters of an
inch. The remainder of the masonry was cracked through
and through from top to bottom.

(From the Mousing Post.)

A second series of experiments was carried out on Friday
last at the Government practice range, Shoeburyness, with
a view to test the power of Sir W. Armstrong's heavy guns
when opposed to the strongest combination of iron and tim-
ber. The Admiralty steam-vessel Vivid proceeded down
the river with a numerous party to witness the proceedings,
and amongst the passengers were the Duke of Somerset,
First Lord, and other members of the Admiralty; General
Sir R. Dacres, Commandant at Woolwich ; Col. Tulloh ;
Brigade-Major Wilward ; Majcr Field, Deputy-Assistant-
Quattermaster General; and other artillery officers. The
target used was, as on a former occasion, composed of a
solid wall of iron plates 10 inches thick, backed by heavy
timberwork braced with iron bars, and constructed on
Thomcroft's system of dovetailing. Instead of the former
-range of 600 yards, the fortification was attacked by Arm-
strong 100 -pounders at 400 yards' range. Without detail-
ing the result of each shot it may be stated that the experi
meats fully proved the fact that the heavy rifled ordnance of
Sir W. Armstrong is the most destructive agent known in
modern warfare, as the mass of iron and timber was re-
peatedly pierced and ultimately completely shattered.

(From the Daily News.)
During last week a series of experiments were carried out
at Shoeburyness, under the immediate direction and supe-
rintendence of Sir W. Armstrong, in the presence of Lord
Herbert, Secretary of State of War ; General Bloomfield,
Inspector-General of Artillery ; General Sir R. J. Dacres,
K.C.8., and a considerable number of officers. The prac •
tics commenced on the first day by firing at a battery
formed of wrought iron, 10 inches in thickness, at a range
of a quarter of a mile, the gun used being the 100-pounder
Armstrong rifled cannon, with 68 grooves in the rifling, and
the iron shot, which was of the elongated pattern, cased
with lead. At this distance the practice was something
astonishing, the shot breaking the solid bars of iron,
although the whole were dovetailed together in one mass,
and passing completely through the battery. The 120-
pounder Armstrong rifled gun was next tried at the same
abject with a precisely similar range, and here the results
were equally decisive, the battery being so shaken as to be
nearly destroyed. Some experiments were next made upon
a solid oak battery, 7 feet in length by 6 in thickness, with
120-pounder, 100-pounder, and a 7-inch howitzer. Only a
very few shot and shell had been fired before the butt was
completely destroyed, scarcely a vestige of it being left
standing, notwithstanding its great thickness. By direction
of the Admiralty, the Hussar has been sent from Chatham
to Shoeburyness to be experimented upon with Martin's
liquid iron shells, in order to test their effects when fired
into the sides of vessels of war.

On the subject of the effect of shot from the Armstrong
gun on iron plates, the correspondent of the Times writes as
follows :—ln the Times of the 17th appears a letter signed

" W. I. C.," professing to give an account of the exPeri-

mental firing upon two iron plates affixed to the side of the
Sirius target-ship in Porchester Creek, on the 11th inst., and
in which he states that the gun used was a new Armstron
200-pounder, with a range of from 200 to 400 yards, &c.
and describes the havoc made by the projectiles from thi
weapon upon the iron plates and ship's side, &c. At the
trial in question I was allowed to be present as your corres-
pondent, and forwarded you a detailed report, which was,
however, so much at variance with what is now stated by
"W. I. C.," that I must beg you to allow me to state

the facts of the trial, which took place in the presence
of several of the members of the Iron Plate Committee, in
as short a manner as possible. Not a shot was fired from
an Armstrong gun, all the practice being from a 95 cwt.
68-pounder smooth bore gun at 200 yards range, with a
charge of 161 b. of powder. The result of the firing proved
the small plate to be of too brittle a nature to resist the
impact of the solid 68-pounder, but the large plate, manu-
factured by Messrs. Beale, and referred to by " W. I. C.,"
gave very different results, and proved to be of a very superior
fibrous nature to any plate that had yet been experimented
upon from the solid shot 68-pounder in Porchester Creek.
Where this plate was struck fairly in its centre by the shot,the
lattermade an indentation of two inches on the plate's surface
and then dropped off innocuous. Three shots struck the plate
and fell back from its surface, leaving three two-inch in-
dentations in a triangular form. with about 18-inch base.
The plate was afterwards struck by two other shot in the
area of the triangle, but still it was not penetrated. One
corner of the plate was carried away by successive shots
striking it in the same place, and two pieces were broken
out of its edges, tut these could only be considered in the
light of unfair blows, as those parts of the plate were with-
out the support they would receive when fixed on a ship's
side, in company with other plates, and tongued and grooved
as is the case with the Warrior's plates. The only instance
of the plate being penetrated by a single shot was in its
midship part, where it had been placed over one of the Sirius's
maindeck ports for the purpose of testing the difference in
the effects produced by the solid 68-ponnder upon iron 41 •
, inch plates supported upon a bed of timber, as we
are now constructing our iron-cased ships, and upon iron
plates without such support. In this instance the result was
in favour of the timber backing, the plates, as I have said
being penetrated by a single shot, which was crushed into
fragments in its passage through the plate and strewed upon
the frigate's deck. The fracture of the plate at this part
proved its tough, fibrous quality, its splinters being confined
to pieces thrown off within a diameter of 18 inches of the
spot where the shot passed through, and leaving the plate
without any of those fearful fissures that have been so often
witnessed in other iron plates ; indeed, it was one of the
most remarkable features in this plate that it should be so
free from those cracks, which generally extend between the
bolt holes and edges of the plate, after the tremendous
pounding it had received.
The Sirius has been target-ship at Portsmouth for some
lime, and the damage referred to by "WlC"which she
has received on her:port side, has been inflicted by
bythe hun-
dreds of solid shoted
haveat and through various descriptions
of armour plates
whichria been bolted on to her sides for
would that purpose. Whathave been the result of all the
firing at the Sirius had there beent no armour plates ?
Armour-plate experiments
a
with firing shell at them, which Portsmouth commenced
Po
as glass bottles would have done, and
about as efficacious
the solil shot from the 95 cwt. gunas ended so far with
, With this
weapon experiments have been made upon
many er
41 inch
lateq both iron and sheet, some of which
pit has smashed
at once, and others after a succession of blows, not neces-
sarily upon the same spot. Others have been penetrated 13
a single shot, as in the case of the chain armour, while
others again have withstood the crash of 68 in a wonderful
manner, as instanced by the Warrior's scrap-iron sample
plate, and the large plate referred to in the present instance,
and which may be looked upon as the most successful in-
. 4 met s on record at Portsmouth of the resistance offered by
41• inch plates, placed in a vertical position, to the solid
cast-iron shot from the 95 cwt. gun.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY.

THE VACANT SEATS APPROPRIATION BILL.
The house went into committee on appropriation of the
seats of St. Albans and Sudbury, and resumed at clause 3.
Sir F. GOLDSMID regretted the absence of the right
hon. baronet the member for Carlisle, but he gave notico
that he would move the amendment which he (Sir James
Graham) had put on the paper for the London University
being substituted for Chelsea and Kensington in the dis-
tribution of those vacant seats.
Mr. DUNCOMBE moved that Burnley be substituted
for Chelsea and Kensington.
Colonel DUNNE proposed that an additional member
should be given to Cork, but was called to order, the hon.
member for Finsbury being in possession of the house.
Mr. SCULLY—I move that the Chairman report pro-
gress and ask leave to sit again that day six months.
Mr. MASSEY (the Chairman of Committees) called the
hon. and learned member to order.
Mr. DUNCOMBE then urged the claims of Burnley to
an additional seat, on the ground of its increasing popu-
lation and wealth.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said the Government did not bring
forward this bill as a comprehensive measure of reform, but
merely to enable the house to distribute certain seats fin
conformity with the act of Parliament. He denied,
however, that the present bill was an insignificant
measure, as was shown by the anxiety of different places to
get one of the vacant seats. He admitted the importance
of Burnley, but, considering that 13 seats had been appro-
priated to South Lancashire and the North Riding, he
thought giving the fourth member to Burnley would be
conferring too much on a limited district.
Mr. SCULLY then brought forward his motion, and
urged at considerable length the claims of the county of
Cork to one of the vacant seats on the ground of its extent,
population, and wealth. He pressed this proposal on the I
very ground that it would give one member more to Ire-
land, for which country alone Catholic members could by
any possibility be returned. (Oh.) It might be said that
Catholic constituencies elected Protestant members because
they found Liberal candidates coming forward, and that,
though there were :liberal Protestants, there were no libe-
ral Catholics, and therefore a Protestant constituency could
not select a Catholic member. But he denied this, for there
were many Roman Catholics who were not ultramontane,
but were as liberal as Protestants, and the fact of the elec-
tion of Protestants by Catholic constituencies was the best
proof of this liberality. Perhaps it was the fault of the
Roman Catholics for not having courage to face the turbu-
lence of the mob at an English election—(a laugh)—and if
his proposal were adopted, he should perhaps test the mat-
ter by standing for Marylebone, on the express ground that
he was an Irish Roman Catholic, and wished to prove it to
these rare Liberal Protestant constituencies in England.
(A laugh.) He had cut out of a paper an extract from an
article written by a Roman Catholic writer, who ho was

sure would not object to his (Mr. Scully's) mention of his

name. (Oh, oh, and divide.) It was said that eloquence
depended more on the audience than on the speaker, and it
was certainly impossible for an Irishman to attempt elo-
quence in the house, for the moment he began to be carried
away with his subject, some gentlemen whom he would not
describe (for Irishmen were always civil) would interrupt
him with rude remarks. (Much laughter.) He thought
under the circumstances he had better sit down. (Hear,
and much laughter.) He should cenclude by moving that
the blank be filled up with the words county of Cork, in-
stead of Chelsea and Kensington.
Mr. AYRTON moved that the Speaker report progress.
He made that motion because he thought something was
due to the house at the hands of Government, in order to
extricate them from the state of bewilderment into which

they had been thrown by what had occurred. (Hear, hear.)
Four propositions had been made by different members.
One hon. member had announced; but not moved, a propo-
sition for giving the seat to the universities. Another had
shadowed forth a proposal, which he also abstained from
proposing. The hon. member for Finsbury spoke in favour
of a proposal which he did not move, though the speaker,
by mistake, had put it to the house ; and now the hon. and
learned ,member for Cork had delivered a tremendous speech
in favour of a proposal which could not be put. (Laughter.)
But what was the position of Government? They them-
selves had, at the former debate, proposed to report progress
in order that they might have time to consider what to do.
He fully expected that her Majesty's Government would
have stated to the house the course which the Government
intended to do with respect to supplying this vacancy.
Were the Government to be permitted to throw the bill on
the floor of the house, and say " scramble for the seat as
you best may ?" This was not a proper mode of dealing
with a great question involving grave constitutional consi-
derations. The principle of the Government had been
negatived, and he had made the suggestion that the chair-
man should report progress, in order to afford the Govern.
ment an opportunity of making some distinct statement on
the subject.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the difficulty in which the
committee found itself placed was due to the course of pro-
ceeding which had been taken on a former occasion, of
striking out certain words from the clause without meaning
to substitute others for them. The consequences of cat rying

that amendment had been to create a blank in the clause.
Propositions were made by several hon. members to fill up
that blank, and it was not in the power of the Government
to interfere. The motion before the committee was that
Burnley be inserted in the bill. Her Majesty's Govern•
ment would not give support to that amendment ; they
would prefer that the vacant seat should be given to Middle-
sex, and when the time came for bringing forward that pro-
position they would give it their support. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. DISRAELI considered that it was understood that
her Majesty's Government were to consider their position
with respect to this bill, and that when the house again
went into committee, they would give some distinct state-
ment as to the course intended to be taken. The amendment
carried on the last occasion for striking certain words out of
the clause, was not an unusual nor an unprecedented one,
and the hon. member who submitted it had acted with per-
fect propriety. It was no doubt an inconvenient course to
the Government now that it had been carried. Bat if that
course were inconvenient a week ago, it was no reason why
they should not now be prepared with some proposition
which would prevent the house from suffering any inconve-
nience in consequence. The Government ought to come for-
ward and guide the opinion of the house in the difficulty in
which it was placed. There was a question of policy in re-
ference to this bill which was especially the province of a
statesman and a cabinet of statesmen to deal with upon
broad and comprehensive grounds. He entreated the Go-
vernment to assume the responsibility of this bill, and to
give it that consideration which its importance deserved,
and which would come with that authority which would
command the attention of the house. If the Government
were not prepared at the present moment with any proposi-
tion, he thought that the best course would be to adopt the
proposition of the member for the Tower Hamlets for re-
porting progress.

Lord PALMERSTON said that he did not complain of
the debate which had taken place on the former occasion.
Her Majesty's Government had chosen four places which,
in their opinion, were the most fitting to lit-Carn four mem-
bers. The house concurred with the Government with
respect to three of them, but declined to accede to the pro-
position of giving a member to Chelsea and Kensington,
and there were then several propositions before the house
for appropriating that single seat. The Government had
taken time to consider which of those proposals they
thought was upon the whole the best for the house to
adopt, and had come to the conclusion that the third mem-
ber for Middlesex would be the best. If the committee
concurred with the Government in that opinion there
would be an end of the matter. (A laugh.) He did not
think it was necessary to adjourn the debate in order to give
the Government an opportunity of bringing in a great and
comprehensive measure for disposing of a single vacant seat
C
in the house. (A laugh.)
Col.
V/. PATTEN had received communications from
Burnley, complaining of the statement made by the Secre-
tary of the Home Department, that the population of that
was but 26, 000,whereas it was at least 38,000. It had
that Burnie a
v strong shouldi neverymeasure since the great Reform Bill
felt they had
trnatag
have a member, and the inhabitants
able consideration
claim upon the house for favour-
been brought on at so eartluuatalY
for Finsbury that he felt abruytthe case of Burnley had
period by the lion. member
littlea confidence in the result,
as every other member who
ha
ahto that town. (Hear.)
motion on the subject
the course which
would
Tvo.tse.agDatrinNstegoilnhgEthe nieroexplainedthatconsequenceiao the Govern-
ment
they intended
had arose
he had followed was taken in
ment not giving any information as to what
to do in the matter. The four vacancies ha
borough seats, and he thought it would beunfacitrrotsoagifrvott from
majority of those seats to the country representation.
Col. FRENCH suggested that some member of the Go-
vernment should move that the vacant seat be given to Mid.
dlesex, for the purpose of raising that question fairly before
the committee.
Sir G. GREY said that the question of Middlesex could
not be entertained until the other amendments were disposed
of. It was not possible for the Government to overrule the
orders and regulations of the house.
Mr. DISRAELI pointed out that the statement just made
by the right hon. baronet proved that there was nothing
inconvenient in the course taken by the committee in strik-
ing out Chelsea and Kensington. _ I

Lord J. RUSSELL said it was not complained that the
course adopted was irregular; and when the motion for
inserting Middlesex was brought forward, the Government
would be prepared to give it their support.
Mr. BENTINCK complained that the waste of time
which had been incurred in dealing with this question was
due entirely to the conduct of the Government, who
appeared to have been holding a cabinet council on the
Treasury benches on the subject. (A. laugh.)
After some discussion on the order of proceeding, the
motion for reporting progress, and the amendment for giving
Burnley the seat were withdrawn, and Mr. KNIGHTLEY
was proceeding to move that a third member be given to
the county of Middlesex, when
Mr. BLACKBURN rose to order, on the ground that
the amendment in favour of the London University had
precedence on the paper, and moved a portion only of that

amendment, notice of which had been given by the right
hon. but. the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham.)
Sir G. GREY said that by the amendment, in the form
proposed, the proceedings of the house would be turned
into ridicule, and the proposal was trifling with the time of
the house.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that no county had such claim
for the vacant seat as Middlesex. He was born in that
county— (a laugh)—and was well acquainted with its claims
in consequence of his having acted for some time past as
chairman of the Middlesex Registration Association. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the best course would
be to permit the amendment in favour of Middlesex to be
proposed.
Mr. BLACKBURN withdrew his amendment.
Mr. KNIGHTLEY wished to say a few words in sup-
port of the amendment of which he had given notice,
namely, that Middlesex be entitled to return three knights
of the shire instead of two. He'contended that Middlesex
had strong claims to possess an additional representative
upon the ground of population and property. The member
for the University of Cambridge had suggested the other
night that Middlesex ought to be divided, and that each
division should return two members. He (Mr. Knightley)
cordially concurred in that view, and that it was a much
more preferable plan to the one he was now proposing, and
if he thought it had the slightest chance of being sanctioned
by the committee, he should very willingly have pro-
posed a motion to that effect. But under the circumstances
he begged, with great deference, to propose his amendment,
thinking that, upon the whole, it was a fair and reasonable
recognition of the strong claims which Middlesex possessed.
Lord ENFIELD expressed the pleasure he felt at being
in a position to corroborate the observations which had
fallen from the hon. member for North Warwickshire (Mr.
Newdegate), that, after the West Riding of Yorkshire,
Middlesex had the strongest claims to be represented by an
additional member. There were seven counties in England
returning three members to Parliament, and the largest
number of electors any one of these contained was 7,000,
whereas Middlesex contained 15,000. There were 15 coun-
ties returning four members, and each of these contained a
fewer number of electors than Middlesex, which had only
two members. The annual value of property in Middlesex
was £1,616,400, and the rental was £1,819,566. He gave
these statistics from Parliamentary returns, respecting the
accuracy of which, he presumed, there could be no doubt.
Mr. BLACKBURN here, with the leave of the house,
withdrew his amendment.
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped the committee would not
come to a division under any erroneous impression. It
had been said by the hon. member for North Warwickshire
that the question as regarded the West Riding of York-
shire had already been disposed of, but it was necessary to
state, in reply, that the hon. member for Knaresborough
had a notice of motion still standing on the paper to give a
seat to that Riding. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Pakington)
agreed with several previous speakers that the claims of
Middlesex were strong, and the best thing Government could
have done was to give two members each to Yorkshire and
Middlesex. His own intention was to vote against every
proposalin order to support the motion of the hon, member
for Knaresborough.
Mr. COLLINS said he would certainly raise the ques-
tion whether the West Riding of Yorkshire should or should
not be divided. This had not as yet been decided. If it had
been, the Government might have been saved from the hu-
miliation of a defeat. (Hear, and laughter.) If the West
Riding were divided, there would be 21,000 electors in one
division, and 19,000 in the other. Yorkshire stood first on
the list for increased representation, and he and others felt
themselves fairly entitled to vote against any proposition
until justice was done to that county. (Hear.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS said the first clause had been already
agreed to, which assigned three members each to Lancashire
and Yorkshire, and that if the hon. member who had just
spoken wished to have the West Riding divided, that could
only be done by the election of a fourth member, and the
latter could only be elected after the present Parliament.

Mr. DISRAELI reminded the honourable member for
Knaresborough that he would have a right to submit his
proposition on the bringing up of the report. He (Mr.
Disraeli) entirely objected to a plurality of votes for coun-
ties. He thought two members quite enough to represent
any place. The subject was discussed in a former session,
when there was a general feeling in favour of that prin-
ciple. Members were not sent to that house to represent
the power of a place, but the opinion of a place. (Hear.)
It was true that there were some precedents yielded by the
Reform Bill of 1832, which placed some counties in a very
false position. He would support connty representations
by means of division of counties. He would vote against
the proposition of giving a third member for Middlesex,
although not from any want of sympathy with the claims
of that county.
Mr. SCULLY said that the county of Cork had a larger

number of electors than the county of Middlesex, and that
• • •

the proposition to give another member to the latter had
been virtually rejected by the vote of the house the other
night.
Mr. HUMBERSTONE said that, as some allusion had
been made in the course of the debate to the county of
Chester, he wished to observe that that county had only
three boroughs in it, while boroughs in the county of Mid-
dlesex returned 12, 14, or, ho believed, 16 members.

Mr. NE WDEGATE said that if a third member were
given to Middlesex, the claims of labour in that county
would then be somewhat adequately represented.
The committee divided—
For Mr. Knightley's amendment 186
Against it
Majority against it —5O

Lord PALMERSTON was sorry the house had not
agreed to the amendment of the hen. member for North-
amptonshire. He thought the best course now to pursue
would be to take the clause for giving a seat to Birkenhead,
and then they could discuss the question afterwards of
giving four members to the West Riding, and whether that
riding should be divided, or should remain undivided. (Cries
of "Divide.")

Mr. COLLINS was quite ready to fall in with the noble
lord's views.

Mr. AYRT ON protested against four members being
given to the manufacturing interests, and called upon the
committee to proceed upon some definite intelligible prin-

ciple.

After a few words from Mr. BLICBURN and Mr. B.
COCHRANE,
Mr. DISRAELI said the decision to which the committee
had just arrived, had very much altered the character of
the measure, and it was of the utmost importance they
should consider the changes now proposed in all their cha-
racter. There was an amendment on the paper by the right
hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment to increase and alter the boundaries of Birken-
head. He thought the committee should have the data be-
fore them before this amendment was introduced, that the
chairman should report progress, and that the Government
should take time for consideration. He believed the best
arrangement that could Le made would be to divide the
West Riding and the county of Middlesex, and to give the
four seats to those two counties. He would not wish to
take any step which might appear uncourteous to the Go-
vernment, but he would suggest delay, and trusted that the
noble lord would, as leader of the house, accede to the sug-
gestion.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the Government adhered to
the clauses which had already been proposed by them.
With regard to Birkenhead, he had given notice to add a
small township, but had since heard that the proposal was
opposed to local views on the subject, and he therefore
should not press his proposal.
Mr. TOLLEMACHE advocated the claims of Birken-
head on commercial grounds, as well as on the main ques-
tion of population. He believed that the duties of the pro-
posal member for Birkenhead would be excessively severe.
Mr. SCULLY said that the house had already, on the
grounds that the metropolis had already sufficient repre-
sentation, come to a decision adverse to the proposal of the
Government, and on that ground the objection was as strong
against Lancashire as Yorkshire, and he begged to move
that the Chairman report progress.
Mr. BENTINCK supported the amendment, but on
different grounds than those taken by the hon. and learned
gentleman. In England the rural districts were without
sufficient representation, and every seat given to a borough
was an act of gross spoliation. (A laugh.) Hon. members
might laugh, but he was quite prepared to prove the asser-
tion, and he wished to remind every rural representative
that if he voted for the appropriation of any one of these
seats to an urban representation, they would be injuring
the constituencies which they represented.
Mr. NEWDEGATE admitted the principle that the
counties of England were not properly represented, and he
trusted that the house would take that into consideration.
Without flattering the noble lord the member for London,
he could only say that his bill of 1854 was the most com-
plete bill which had been introduced into the house, and he
had proposed to give 40 additional members to the English
counties.

Sir G. LEWIS said that the question before the com-
mittee was that of reporting progress, but he could see no
course more unreasonable at that hour of the evening than
adjourning the discussion, and he trusted that the house
would agree to proceed with the debate till a more advanced
hour.

Colonel DUNNE could not admit the wish expressed by
an honourable member thantonol more should be heard of
hthiat.thechoo-uo
place so badly represented as
Irishlreland. el
a i ms
(LoudT hlearuejtatesr . )
ealurishmerobers, denieded that Ireland was
represented adequately, and he hoped
hear more of it, and h® trusted thatp t
co-operation,
house
ra ti wouldo
n ,
de-
spite of vituperation, would see the v
which
and vote for no Government, whatever theeof
be—(a laugh)—which was not prepared to donlenssotilitmoilre-
land. lle agreed that the landed interest was properly
represented in England, but still Ireland had Claims
ought not to be paiscd over.
..

After some further conversation,
Sir J. SHELLEY said that the Government ought either
to withdraw the bill altogether, or else take further time
for consideration. He objected strongly to the scrambling
way in which the question had been dealt with.
Sir G. LEWIS could not admit that the Government had
trifled with the subject, for they had gone on a well-defined
principle, and they did not ask for any time for considerar
tion.

Mr. SLANEY thought that the question was essentially
an English one, and whatever he might think of the P 144118
of the Scotch or Irish members, he could not, on the pre-1
_

sent occasion, take these into consideration, and he trusted
that Government would proceed with their proposal, and
not consent to delay.

Mr. C. BRUCE thought that they ought not to report
progress, but that one of the seats should be given to Birk-
enhead. He protested against the motion that these four
seats cou'd be assigned only to English constituencies.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that though additional mem-
bers were given at the time of the Reform Bill to Scotland
and to Ireland, it did not follow that they should on every
occasion disturb the proportion of members allotted to each
portion of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire-
land.

The motion for reporting progress was negatived without
a division.

On the question that clause 4 stand part of the bill the
committee divided

Ayes 163
Noes
Majority in favour of the clause —137

The remaining clauses were then agreed to.
Sir F. GOLDSMID did not see the fairness of giving all
the four members to one part of the c,.•untry, and should, at
a future stage, call attention to the case of the London
University.

Mr. AYRTON said he should, on the bringing up of the
report, move the recommittal of the bill.

Mr. STIRLING gave notice that, on the report, he
should state the claims of the Universities of Scotland.

The preamble was then agreed to, and the house re-
sumed.

COUNTY SURVEYORS, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. SCULLY:suggested that the best course would be to
have a select committee to inquire into the principle of the
bill, and moved that the bill be read a third time that day
three months.

Mr. ST. GEORGE said that he had received from his
constituents numerous strong expressions of dissent with
respect to the bill, and supported the amendment.
Lord J. BROWNE, as one of the Irish members who
had recommended the introduction of the bill, thought that
the salaries at present given to the county surveyors were
not adequate pay for their services. The salary was nomi-
nally £3OO a-year, but the travelling expenses were at least
one-third of that sum. The objection which had been
urged against the bill, that no taxation ought to be levied
upon Ireland until first sanctioned by the presentment cess,
he admitted had some weight, and was deserving of consi-
deration. It was not c•rrect to state that the bill proposed
to double the salaries of all surveyors, as the proposal would
only:be applicable to a small portion of the Irish counties.
He regretted the opposition to the bill, became the measure
carried out the recommendations of a committee which sat
•
upon the subject.
Sir E. GROGAN said the question was whether the bill
was one in the right direction. He thought it was not.
The question required great consideration, with the view
of having competent surveyors in every county, devoting
their time to the duties of their office, and not appoint-
ing delegates to work for them.

Mr. HERBERT said that a large majority of the Irish
members had signed a requisition to the Secretary for Ire-
land praying him to bring in the present bill. There had
been a:searching investigation into the subject in the year
1857, and there was not a single clause in the bill which
had not been recommended by the committee who sat upon
that occasion. Any postponement of the measure would
be doing an act of great injustice to a very deserving body
of men.

After some remarks from Mr. BUTT,
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that, as a cess payer, he objet•
ted to the Government proposal, and could not in any way
agree with the argument of the honourable member for
Youghal, which appeared to him to establish all the objec-
tions to the principle of the bill. The measure would open
a rich door for the increase of taxation. He hoped
and trusted that the house would not get into
committee on the bill, but would at once reject it.
He objected to the appointment and superannuation of sur-
veyors by the Lord-Lieutenant, and hoped the house would
not allow the bill to go into committee.
Mr. CARD WELL said that though the bill had met
with more opposition than he expected, yet the support
which it had received showed that it had not been intro-
duced in defiance of the feelings of the people of Ireland.
In 1857 a committee had inquired into the subject of county
surveyors in Ireland, but the bill now before the house was
intended to carry the report of the committee into effect.
That committee came to the conclusion that the salaries of
surveyors should be increased, and that they should be
entitled to superannuation allowances. A memorial nu-
merously signed by Irish members, had been sent to him on
the subject, and a large majority of the grand juries of Ire-
land had declared themselves in favour of the bill, while
not one petition had been presented against it. The inten-
tion of the Government was to pass this bill as it stood, but
he should be ready in committee to listen to any sugges-
tions on the-sul ject. (Hear, hear.)
After some further discussion,
The house divided, when the numbers wet e--
Ayes
Noes 59
Majority

The house then went into committee on this bill.
(manse Ito 3 were agreed to.
On the motion to agree to clause 4, which gave power to
increase the salaries of the county surveyors,
Mr. HASSAItD moved to insert the words "from time
to time," in order to give the grand juries power to revise
the clause at different periods.
Some discussion ensued upon the amendment.

The amendment was negatived without a division.

Mr. B. OSBORNE moved the addition of a proviso, to
the effect that the application for the increase of salary
should be made, in the first instance,lo the presentment
sessions.

Some discussion followed, in which Lord Naas, Mr.
Butt, Mr. M‘Mahon, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Scully, Lord C.
Hamilton, and other members took part.
Ultimately a division was taken, when the numbers
were—

For the amendment 5l
Against
Majority..

A motion was then made that the Chairman report pro-
gress, and the committee divided, when the numbers were—
For reporting progress 24
Against

Majority
The discussion was accordingly continued, and various
verbal amendments were agreed to, when another division
was taken on the question of adjourning the discussion,
when the numbers were—

For adjournment . .
Against 59
Majority —3B

Some further conversation ensued, and it was agreed
that the Chairman report progress.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at half-past two o'clock.