The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-23 00:00:00

the whole matter sifted to the bottom, and the ultimate ob-
ject which he had in view was that they should have an
efficient local administration, and, above all, that a city like
that of London should be represented fairly. He was de-
sircus to see an efficient representative scheme adopted, and
with that view he begged to conclude by proposing his mo-
tion for a select committee in an amended form.
Lord ENFIELD seconded the motion.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said with respect to the Corporation
of London, he might say that it was a subject which had
been fully investigated by the commission, and though ho
would not say it might not be possible to propose fresh
changes in the constitution of the Corporation, he doubted
very much whether any addition could be made to the facts
already in the possession of the house. To that extent,
then, he was ready to assent to the motion, and to anticipate
useful results from it; but he did not understand that the
committee was to hang up every measure of useful reform
in the present year, especially one with reference to the coal
duties, as to which legislation this session had become a
matter of absolute necessity.

Mr. LIDDELL said ho should have been glad to hear
from the right hon. gentleman something like a promise
that he would not listen to any deputations which might
present themselves to him relative to the metropolitan coal
tax until the whole question had been gone into and sifted
by the committee. That tax was a most odious and unjust
one, both to the consumers and the producers of coal in the
north, to whose body he belonged. Ho had heard some un-
pleasant rumours abroad as to two parties who were very
much interested in the tax. The corporation of the City of
London and the Metropolitan Board of Works were strongly
interested in the continuance of the tax. At the latest the
liabilities to this tax would expire in MS, and the house
ought to be extremely jealous of any undue influence by
which the tax might be renewed.
The motion was then agreed to.
CLARE'S IRON VESSEL PATENTS.

Mr. P. HENNESSY moved an address for copies of cor-
respondence which has passed since Nov., 185 g, to the pre-
sent time, between John Clare and the Board of Admiralty
and the Surveyor of the Navy, on the subject of Mr. Clare's
patents and plans for building iron vessels for the Royal
Navy; and of similar correspondence with the Board of
Trade and with the Treasury. Mr. Clare alleged that his
plans of 1853, which he had patented, were those plans on
which the Warrior and other vessels were built, and that
the Government had not given him any compensation or
fair play. He understood that the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty would object to the return, on the ground that the
correspondence was very voluminous, and that it related to
the subject of iron vessels generally. If that were the case,
he should be willing to modify the terms of the motion, so
that would it oomprise a return of the essence only of Mr.
Clare's original plans, and of the decision of the Govern-
ment with respect to them.

Lord C. PAGET conceived it to be his duty to refuse the
return. There were no less than 80 letters from Mr. Clare ;
and in the opinion not only of the Admiralty, but of the
comptroller and solicitor of the navy, there was not the
least foundation for Mr. Clare's claim.
Mr. BENTINCK regretted that the return had been re-
fused, as this was not the first time that charges of a simi-
lar nature were made against the present and previous Board s
of Admiralty. Without offering any opinion on the merits
of the case, he thought there ought to be no objection on
the part of the Admiralty to grant the return in the modi-
fied form which the hon. member had stated would satisfy
him.

Mr. JACKSON said this was a special case, and in jus-
tice both to Mr. Clare and the Admiralty the essential part
of the correspondence ought not to be withheld. If Mr.
Clare's plans had been used, then he was entitled to com-
pensation, but if his claims were without foundation it
would be seen that his schemes were not worthy of consi.
deration. He would not say what would be the effect on
the minds of the public by the return, but he thought the
return should be made.

Sir J. PAKINOTON expressed a hope that the noble
lord would accede to the motion in a modified shape.
Lord C. PAGET said he would agree to the produotion
of a portion of the return.
Agreed to.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND).
Mr. CARDWELL moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the administration of the relief of the poor in
Ireland, which was agreed to.
METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTS
AMENDMENT.
Mr. TITE obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the
Metropolis Local Management Acts. He said that the bill
was similar to that brought in last year, but last year it was
objected to by a committee of the house on the ground that
it contained a clause which gave the Metropolitan Board
the power of making provision for debts to which the board
was liable.

POOR RELIEF.
Mr. VILLIERS moved for a select committee on poor
relief, to consist of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, Mr. Bazley, Mr.
Ayrton, Lord Fermoy, Mr. Villiers, Mr. Walpole, Mr.
Edward Pleydell Bouverie, Sir Arthur Buller, Mr. Keke-
wich, Col. Pennant, Lord Stanley, Lord R. Cecil, Sir W.
Jolliffe, Mr. Lowe, Sir John Acton, Lord E. Howard, Sir
G. Bowyer, Mr. Caird, Mr. Alderman Sydney, Mr. Lyall,
and Mr. M. Milnes ; power to send for persons, papers, and
records ; five to be the quorum.

Sir J. PAKINGTON complained of so large a number
being on the committee, and the inconvenience in conse-
quence which would follow to the public business.
Mr. VILLIERS said he only followed a precedent, and,
in point of fact, so many requests were made to him by hon.
members that he could not aveid appointing so large a
number.

The motion was then agreed to.
UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS BILL.
This bill was read a second time, and the house adjourned
at a quarter past 12 o'clock.