The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. FRIDAY EVENING. JULY 10, 1944

SOUTH AMERICAN DEBTS.

A correspondent at Cleveland, in Yorkshire, begs
the insertion of ,his letter, which we readily accord,
merely premising that as yet nothing satisfactory has
transpired in connection with the Mexican or Co-
lumbian debts, but that we trust the spirit of inquiry
and indignation evinced by numerous other parties
besides our correspondent will not be without a sa-
lutary effect. We shall revert to this subject again,
and in the meantime Subjoin the communication :
" I have been an old subscriber to your very ta-
lented and influential journal. I will thank you to
inform me and others, through the medium of your
widely-extended circulation, if there be any appear
ance of the Mexican agents paying the half-years'
dividend, due the Ist of April last, as I saw in your
journal ten days or a fortnight ago that above
160,000 dollars had arrived for that purpose, and IN ith
the previous arrivals in hand, it was judged sufficient
to pay the April dividend. And, likewise, can you
enlighten me and numberless others of the unfortu-
nate Columbian bondholders when the New Grenada
Government intend to commence the payment of the
interest on their portion of the Columbian debt, which
was agreed upon to be 50 per cent.; the only payment
that has hitherto been paid by that Government was
the paltry sum of ss. 6d. per 1001. bond. Sometime
last year, I am told, and I believe it is coirect, that
M. Maquirree, the Minister for New Granada, in this
country has funds in his hands to the amount of
60,0001. or 70,000/., and hitherto he cannot be pre-
vailed upon to pay this money to the legitimate
owners of it, viz., the unfortunate bondholders. It is
really " too bad" that this individual should hold this
money in his hands so long—he cannot look very
comfortable at the levee days amongst the other dip-
lomatists I should suppose. Please give insertion to
this letter with your energetic comments upon it,
and upon the conduct of these non-paying States,
and it may tend to elicit information from other
correspondents.—l remain, Sir, your very obedient
servant,

AN UNFORTUNATE HOLDER OF
MEXICAN AND COLOMBIAN BOND*"

ALFRED LIFE ASSURANCE.

On Wednesday, the General Meeting was held-at
their offices, No. 7, Lothbury. The chair was taken
by Sir David Scott, Bart. From the report it ap-
peared that the Company had been established five
years, and over and above the paid-up' capital, had
accumulated the sum of 48,5371. 14s. ld. Since the
formation of the Association, 513 policies had been
issued, assuring the sum of 442,4281. The number
of claims from death had been six, upon which 3,7501.
had been paid. _The profit realised from lapsed poli-
cies amounted to 3,5951. 18s. 10(1., consequently the
difference between these two sums, viz. 1541. Is. 2d.,
was the only charge upon the assurance fund for de-
cease of lives assured. Such a result was very re-
markable. as upon the most moderate calculation, six-
teen or eighteen should have occurred, upon which
from 14,0001. to 16,0001. should have been paid. It
appeared that the annuity branch of the Company's
business had been equally satisfactory ; 31,8271.55. 4d.
having been sunk with them for the purchase of
annuities. Of the annuitants five had died, relieving
the office of annuities amounting to 5441. 6s. 3d.
The report was considered highly satisfactory, and
unanimously adopted ; and thanks having been voted
to the Chairman and Directors, the meeting separated.

IMP..4!lnaitia PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 18.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
Messengers from the House of Commons brought up
the Southampton Improvement Bill, the Glasgow Rail-
way Extension Bill, and another private Bill.
SCHOOLMASTERS OF SCOTLAND.
Lord MINTO, in presenting a petition from the paro-
chial schoolmasters of Scotland, complained that the dis-
cussion which took place when he formerly put some
question upon the subject to her Majesty's Government
had been misreported in the provincial newspapers.
It had not been said in that House that her Majesty's
Ministers had washed their hands of the subject. That
was the very contrary of what occurred ; for his Noble
Friend opposite had said that the Government were
willing to give the subject a favourable consideration,
but were unable to take it up at present. The petition
which he now presented originated in a mistake of his
Noble Friend's answer, in consequence of the imperfect
manner in which it had been reported.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that his Noble
Friend had rightly .understOod the answer of the
Government.
DETACHED PARTS OF COUNTIES BILL.
Lord -HATHERTON moved the second reading of
this Bill, which, he said, was intended to remedy the
inconveniences to which come counties were subjected
by having parts of other counties embodied in them and
completely detached.
After a few words from the Marquis of SALISBURY
and the Duke of RICHMOND, the Bill was read a second
dine, and ordered to be committed on Monday.
AGRICULTURE.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented 120 petitions in
favour of agricultural protection, some of which incladed
a prayer against the Anti-Corn-law League.
THE RACE-COURSE GAMING BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL presented the petition of which
he had given notice, from Charles Henry Russell, to be
heard at the bar, by himself or counsel, against the
Actions for Gaming Discontinuance Bill. He thought
the petitioner was entitled to be so heard—an indulgence
for which there were many precedents : amongst others,
a case in which his Noble Friend Lord Brougham held
a brief shortly after he was called to the bar. The
Noble Lord on the cross bench (the Duke of Richmond)
had said that there was some doubt whether Russell had
a right to be heard, as it was supposed that he was only
the nominal plaintiff. But the fact was, that Russell
would be liable to the Costs of the whole proceeding,
if he should lose his actions, and he was therefore im-
mediately interested. He (Lord Campbell) therefore
hoped the House would grant the application.
After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND,
the petition was laid on the table.
Lord CAMPBELL then moved that the petitioner be
heard at the bar, by himself or counsel, on the reading of
the order of the day that the Bill be committed.
SALMON FISHERIES BILL (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of RADNOR in presenting a petition
against this Bill, said he understood it could
not proceed further without her Majesty's con-
sent being previously given, as was the case
with another Bill recently abandoned on that ground.
But he hoped, whether that objection applied to this Bill
or not, their Lordships would reject the Bill.—(Hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the object of
the Bill was a very fair one ; but he would not object,
if opposition were persevered in, to postpone the Bill till
another session.
The Earl of RADNOR complained that no notice had
been given in the orders of the second reading. If any
such notice were printed in the orders, he was very much
mistaken, and he had paid great attention to the progress
of the motion, as he looked with some suspicion on the
appearance of a new Salmon Bill for Scotland or Ireland
every year —(A laugh.)
The Duke of RICHMOND ultimately agreed to put
off the Committee en this Bill (which stood on the
paper for to-night) till Monday fortnight, in order that
he might make himself master of the subject in the mean-
time ; for ho must confess that he knew nothing
about it when he moved the second reading.
• THE ALIENS BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM begged to draw the attention of
their Lordships to the subject of a Bill which had
come up from the other House, and which
steed for the second reading. As the law now stood,
aliens were subject to great disadvantages in this
eountry. They could not hold office, nor inherit free-
hold property, nor possess leasehold property ; neither
could they own a share in any ship. The law would ope-
rate with great severity in cases of persons born of
marriages in a hich one or other was a foreigner.
He knew a most eminent lady who held an
English and Scbtch p erage in her own right ;
but she had married a Preach nobleman ; and if she
!lad a son born in France, that son could not inherit her
titles or her estates in the kingdom. The law of Ent,r-
land was the most illiberal of any nation in the world.
In France the nation of any country was allowed to
buy or inherit land or any kind of property,
an-1 to hold offie, just as if he were a native of France.
In respect to Ireland, however, the legislation of that
country had been as liberal to foreigners as that of
France, for aliens could purchase property, hold
office, or even sit in Parliament, as freely
as a native, until the 36th of George the Third.
The object of introducing into the Act of settlement the
disqualification of foreigners from holding office, was to
prevent the foreign favourites of the King from being
preferred to Englishmen.—(Hear, and a laugh.) But
the Spitalfields weavers—or such as were foreigners—
were disqualified even from holding the office of parish
constables in their own parish. Now the cost of an Act
of naturalisation could nut be less than 1001. But were
there not many foreign artisans whose skill would
be of great value to this country, if they were not dis-
qualified in such a way, and could not get over the
disqualification, except at such an enormous; and,
to them, insuperable expense ? The report of the
Committee of the House of Commons was a most
just one, but in some respects he did not altogether con-
cur in its recommendation. In the Bill which he was
now about to call their Lordships' attention to more par-
ticularly—the Bill to which he alluded in setting out—
he proposed to add a clause, that the wives of British
subjects should be naturalised by the fact of their marri-
age; and that in all Acts of naturalisation the clause
prohibiting a naturalised person to sit in Parliament, or
hold office under the Crown, should be omitted. It was
a strange anomaly that the naturalised foreigner could
not hold the humblest office under the Crown for fear
he should betray the country to foreigners, whereas if
he were chosen as the husband of the Sovereign, the
Act of Settlement would be so far suspended, and he
would be endowed with all British privileges.
Lord. MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the
Chamber of Commerce, Dublin, in favour of the Dublin
and Cashel Railway.
The Marquis of WINCHESTER presented numerous
petitions in favour of agricultural protection.
ART-UNIONS.
Lord MONTEAGLE moved the second reading of the
Arts-Unions Legalisation Bill. He stated that the ob-
jeet of the Bill was to exempt the members of those in-
stitutions from the penalties to which they were sup-
posed to be liable under the Lotter ies Suppression Act.
'These institutions were founded upon the report of a
Committee of' foists and friends of art, and were in imita-
tion of the one established in Prussia, under the auspices

of the King and the direction of Baron von Humboldt.
Since the art-union of London was established, it had
distributed more money for the encouragement of art
than the liberality of Government had contributed in the
same time.
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE-10,0001. more.—(Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE—Members of both Houses of
Parliament, and of the present as well as of the former
Government, and those distinguished persons, with
13,612 other subscribers, were liable to penalties, as en-
gaged in illegal lotteries. Theft{ Lordships had lately
sanctioned the principle of a Bill to giVe to the persons
who incurred penalties in gaming on horse-racing the
same protection which he asked them to give to those
most laudable institutions. The enactments of his Bill
were two—first, an indemnity for all the proceedings
that bad taken place; and secondly, that any art-union
which should in future obtain a royal charter on the ap-
proval of its rules and regulations by the Board of
Trade, should be a legal body, arid be empowered to dis-
tribute works ac .ording to the provisions of such charter
of the Crown, or permission by the Board of Trade.
The petitions in favour of the Bill had come from every
important town in the United Kingdom; and he hoped
their Lordships would now allow the second reading, not
binding them or any Noble Lord to the precise terms of
any part of the measure.
The Bill was then read a second time.
SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave notice .that, on
Monday next, he would move the second reading of the
Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill. He would also move
that counsel be heard against the Bill, as they hid been
heard in the other House.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' BILLS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR brought up the repon
of the Select Committee on these Bills.
Lord BROUGHAM suggested that their Lordships
should at once refer the report of the Select Committee
to a Committee of the whole House, as it was desirable
to lose no time in passing so important a measure at
this period of the session.
Lord CAMPBELL thought that, in the absence of
Lord Cottenham, who had had no notice of the Noble
and Learned Lord's proposition, the Bill ought not to
proceed another stage.
After a very desultory conversation (amidst much in-
terruption), in which Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell,
and Lord Mountcashel took part,
Lord BROUGHAM moved that the report be now
referred to a Committee of the whole House. His Noble
and Learned Friend who was absent would have ample
opportunity of expressing his views of the report at a
future stage.

Lord CAMPBELL continued to oppose this proceed-
ing, on the ground of its irregularity and the absence of
notice.

After some further conversation,
Lord BROUGHAM postponed his motion until to-
morrow, with the hope and distinct understanding, that
no person would take advantage of the late period of the
session to induce persons elsewhere to defeat the Bill.
•
EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL, in bringing forward
the motion of which he had given notice, said that he
had to accuse the Commissioners of Education in Ire-
land of having unlawfully applied the school funds, and
usurped the school land, and of other violations of their
trusts, and excess of their lawful powers. In one case,
in which he was a trustee with another Peer, with a
Miss Stannix, he was refused by the Commissioners all
information as to what had been done with the property.
He communicated with the lady, and she informed him
that she was induced to make over the property to the
Minister without consulting him as a trustee, through
the influence of her solicitor. The Noble Lord was in-
terrupted whilst reading the lady's letter by the an-
nouncement of

A message from the Commons. The messengers
brought to the bar several Bills which they had passed.
The Earl ofIIIOUNCASHEL said it was now sug-
gested to him, that he ought to take the case into Chan-
cery ; but that would be useless, as the Lord Chan-
cellor of Ireland was one of the Commissioners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—You could take it into
the Rolls Court.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said the Master of
the Rolls was also a Commissioner.—(Laughter.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Oh, pray, don't bring
it before me.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL was proceeding with
the statement of his case against the Commissioners
v, hen he was again interrupted by
Lord WHARNCLIFFE, who said that the House
could do nothing in the matter, which was one for a
court of law only to determine, and he asked the Noble
Lord whether it was worth his while to occupy the time
of the House when his speech could lead to no result ?
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said, if their Lordships
would hear him, he would show that the House had
power to interfere. He then proceeded to argue that
the CoMmissioners had made inaccurate reports to the
House as to the instalments which they had received
out of this property. That was a matter into which the
House ought to inquire. They (the Commissioners)
had 1,200/. to account for, and to the schoolmaster of the
school, in Clonmel, to which the property belonged,
they had only paid 1001.. He concluded by moving for
a Select Committee to inquire into the charges which
he had made.

Lord WHARNCLIFFA recommended his Noble
Friend to lay a statement of his case before the Lord
Lieutenant, and, no doubt, he would receive some kind
of answer. The Commissioners were gentleman of the
highest responsibility, and, no doubt, they would explain
their conduct.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the House
ought not to expresss an opinion on a case which ought
to go before the Court of Chancery. He was surprised
to hear that the trustees would not bring their case
before his distinguished friend the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland, because that Noble and Learned Lord was one
of the Commissioners of Education. •

After a few words from Lord GLZNOALL, and from
Lord WITARNCLIFFE in explanation,
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the case
brought forward was subject for inquiry in the Court of
Chancery. He had not been able to understand what
the case of the Noble Lord was.—(A laugh.) There
was a Board of Education, and there were Commissioners
of Education, and it was impossible to guess against
whop the accusation was made.—(Hear, hear.) There
was an Executive Government and a Court of Chancery,
who would do any aggrieved persons justice.
HORSE RACING BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, counsel
for the petitioners against this Bill will be heard to-
morrow (this day) at four o'clock.
The Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill was read a
third time, and passed.

The House then adjourned at Half-past Seven o'clock,

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 18.
POOR-LAWS.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM had two objections to the
amendment. It would be quite inconsistent with the
provision agreed to by the House yesterday, and in the
second place he believed the control of the Commis-
sioners was as much required in parishes managed under
a local Act as in any others.
Mr. SPOONER, supported the amendment of his
Hon. Colleague (Mr.,Munts). The Right Hon. Baronet
objected that it would undo what had been done yester-
day. That was exactly what he wished to effect. He
hoped the Committee would pause before it interfered
with a system that had worked so well for so long a
period. The guardians would be the protectors of the
poor, and would be faithful to their trust to the rate-
payers, but they would not be the tools of the Poor-law
Commissioners. The local Act had worked well, and
had given general satisfaction in Birmingham; but the
guardians would not be interfered with. He objected to
the principle of the poor-law, and thought it proper,
while they Were on the details, to attempt to ameliorate
it. He should support the proposition of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. WAKLEY said they were all indebted to the
Hon. Gentleman for his speech, but somebody had evi-
dently made a mistake,—(!fear, hear.) The Hon. \rem-
ber spoke strongly in favour of the Birmingham local
Act, because under it the guardians were elected tri-
ennially—(Hear, hear"—the vote was by ballot—(Hear,
hear)—and the suffrage was universal.—(Hear, hear.)
Was this the Birmingham Tory?—(Hear, hear, and
cheers.) If it was, he heartily hoped they would have
more like him in time.(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mem-
ber was returned as a good Tory, but he would find
there was a reforming party even on those benches.
With respect to the amendment itself, it was totally in-
applicable to the law its it now existed, and he should
vote against it.
Colonel SIBTHORP congratulated Birmingham On
having returned to its senses, and stated that he should
support the amendment.

llr. MUNTZ begged to observe that his amendment
did not do away with all interference with the guardians
—it only rendered it necessary that application should
be made by a majority of the ratepayers before such in-
terference could take place.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Muntz's amendment 23
Against it 7B
Majority against the amendment —ss
Colonel WOOD moved the following addition to the
claese:—" Provided always, that the said Commissioners
shall, by order under their hands and seal, upon applica-
tion in writing of two-thirds of the guardians elected for
any parish in which the relief of the poor is now admi-
nistered by a board of guardians, or a board of trustees,
under a local Act, and which is united with any other
parish or parishes for the administration of the relief of
the poor, if such parish, according to the enumeration of
the population published by authority of Parliament,
contain more than twenty thousand persons, to declare
such parish to be separated from such union; and the re-
lief of the poor shall thereafter be administered in such
parish by a board of guardians, elected according to the
provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act, or by a
board of guardians or trustees, elected under a local
Act, as the said Commissioners may direct." He had
presented a petition from Kensington on the subject, and
be thought parishes with such a population ought to
have the power of separating from a union without
coming to Parliament for a local Act. He hoped the
Government would consent to the amendment, which ;
would have a tendency to reconcile the ratepayers and
the poor to the operation of the law.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said this question ought to
be decided upon principle, and he had last year admitted
that many of the unions embraced too large an area, and
he had proposed that committees of guardians should be
formed to receive applications for relief in the distant
districts. lie saw a notice given by the Hon. Member
for Westmoreland to give power to the Commissioners,
even without the consent of guardians, to alter the
boundaries of unions. He thought it would be better
that the decision of the Committee should be first tahert
on the proposition of the Hon. Member for WeAttaoreland;
if that proposition should be 4doiated thisrovise would '