The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 10.
Their Lordship; met at Five o'clock.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that ho
should, on Monday, move the second realing of the
Advauces to Ireland Bill.
DISTRAINTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Earl of LITCAN introduced a Bill to alter the
law as regarded diatrainta on growing crops.
POOR-LAW (IRELAND).

In answer to the Earl of lAJCAN,
The Yarquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to
say that it was not at present the intention of the Go-
vernment to renew the measure authorising the appoint-
ment of vice-guardians in Ireland.
Lord MONTEAGLE would submit that in the mea-
sures now in progress for dividing unions, powers should
be given to the guardians to employ a man of experience
to assist them in the administration of the law.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would wish to avoid
the introduction of any measure which should tempt the
guardians to transfer the execution of their duties to a
paid officer.
After a few words from Lord Stanley and explana-
tions from the Marquis of Lansdowne and Lord Mon-
teagle,
Lord BEAUMONT said he thought the ratepayers
should be consulted before the appointment of any paid
officer.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said such would be
the case.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said the duties of
the boards of guardians were so heavy that they would
never be performed unless paid officers were appointed.
Several had already been appointed, under the expecta-
tion that the House of Commons would grant them re-
muneration.

The subject then dropped.
PETITIONS.

The Earl of POWIS presented a petition from
Salop against any alteration in the law of marriage.
Lord STANLEY gave notice that on Thursday the
Marquis of Salisbury woeld present a petition from
Harts complaining of distress.
The Earl of CARLISLE presented several petitions
against the shift system in factories.

CASE OF MR. RYLAND.
The Duke of ARGYLL rase to move the following
resolutions of which be had given notice:—
" 1. That i% is the opinion cf this House that the case of
George Herman Ryland, late clerk of the Executive
qouucil of Canada, as set forth in a petition presented
With House on the Bth of June, 1849, and as further
set forth in addresses ♦oted to her Majesty by the Le-
gislative Assembly, and by the Legislative Council of
Canada, in 1846 (on the report of a Committee specially
appointed to inquire into the circumstances of. the said
case) is one of great hardship and injustice.
" 2. That it appears from the papers laid on the table
of this House, that this hardship and injustice has been
acknowledged both directly and indirectly, by successive
Governor-Generals of Canada, by both branches of the
Legislature in that province, as well as by the Imperial
Government.

"3. That it is the opinion of this House, that the
guarantee given by Lord Sydenham to the said George
Herman Ryland, bearing date the 23d of August, 1841,
constituted an engagement, to which the faith of the
Crown war pledged.
" 4. That it is the opinion of this House that the funds
derived from colonial sources, but placed at the disposal
of the Crown, independent of the colonial Legislature,
were those liable for the fulfilment of Lord Sydenho.m's
guarantee, but that the voluntary abandonment of the
said funds, or of any part of them, by the Imperial Go-
vernment, dues not absolve it from the obligation of re-
deeming the promise of the Crown:—
" 5. That it is the opinion of the House that the
claims of the said George Herman Ryland, which have
heretofore been officially acknowledged, ought not to
be avoided or overlooked, and that he has a right to ex-
pect that the agreement entered into between him and
the Governor-General, of which he has performed his
part, should be carried into effect according to its terms;
or as they may now be impossible, that he shonld be
compensated for the non-fulfilment thereof."
The Noble Duke entered at great length into the cir-
cumstence of Mr. Ryland's case, which have already
been very fully laid before the public, and concluded by
expressing his opinion that the Government were bound
to award compensation to Mr. Ryland tor the abolition
of his office as clerk of the Executive Council of Canada,
to which he had given his consent on the express gua-
rantee of Lord Sydenham that he should be appointed to
a new office of equal value, and which guarantee had
never been fulfilled. They might resi3t the claim on
the ground that Lord Sydenham, who made the promise
to Mr. Ryland, did not live to explain the reasons why
he had made the promise. He trusted, however, they
would urge no such reason, for there was nothing in it,.
There was another ground on which this claim might be
rested, and it was this—that Mr. Ryland might have
conducted his office in such a manner as to realise all
his'expectations in respect to it. This would be no
answer to the promise made by Lord Sydenham, but he
must deny that there was any truth in the statement
that Mr. Ryland had not conducted his once with due
economy. The Noble Duke concluded by saying that
the Government were bound to see that the promises
made by the representative of the Crown were fulfilled.
Earl GREY entered into a brief history of this case.
In 1838 the Earl of Durham, the governor of Canada,
appointed Mr. Ryland to a higher office than he then
held in Canada. In 1839 Lord Norman by, when Secre-
tary for the Colonies, in a letter to the Governor of
Canada, stated that in the event of the Canadas being
united, and Mr. Ryland losing his office, he was not to
have compensation for the loss of his office. The. union
took place, and accordingly Mr. Ryland would be only
entitled to a compensation of so much per month for the
time ho held the (Alice, that being the principle upon
which the Board of Treasury compensated persons in
Mr. Ryland's position. But Lerd Sydenham did give
the promise referred to, and he (Earl Grey) thought the
provincial Government ought to have carried it out.
Lord Metcalf, although he felt that Mr. Ryland had no
claim on the Government, yet gave him the office
of registrar of Quebec, and gave him 1504 a year
in addition, to make up the emoluments of the
office; subsequently Mr. Ryland was appointed
to another office and the pension was taken away
from him by Lord Metcalf, who felt that the proceeds
of the new office were equal to all that could fairly
be required by Mr. Ryland. Lord Metcalf's conduct in
this matter was approved of by Lord Stanley, when se-
cretary of the colonies. Lord Motcslf had written home,
declaring Mr. Ryland had no claim for compensation.
It appeared from the last minute of the Executive Coun-
cil that the claim of Mr. Ryland were still ander consi-
deration of the provincial Government, and for this rea-
son alone, were all others wanting. He conceived their
Lordships would be of opinion that there was no evi-
dence to show that the colonial Government were indis-
posed to deal with Mr. Ryland in a proper spirit, and
therefore that there, was no ground for the interference
of the House. Under the circumstances of the case,
however, he should mot meet the motion of his Noble
Friend with a direst negative, but he should only ask
their Lordships to refuse to allow the question to be put,
by mot ink the previous question. If the Noble Duke,
wha had brought the question forward, had had the ex-
perience which he (Earl Grey) had had in the other
House of Parliament, and knew as he knew, in what
temper such a question would there be entered upon, he
thought that his views on the subject would at least be
considerably modified. The Noble Earl concluded by
moving the previous question.
Lord STANLEY said he thought that all of their
Lordships who had followed the clear and comprehen-
sive statement of the Noble Duke behind him, would
agree with him in thinking that he had brought to their
notice a case of gross and grievous hardship. It ap-
peared from the correspondence relative to it, which ex•
tended as far back as the administration of Lord Goe-
ferd, that no fewer than six Governors-General of Ca-
nadat had taken a part in the several circumstances de-
tested in it, then:l3,-4es of no inconsiderable complica-
tion, An application had been made to the Government
that Mr. Ryland might be Clerk
.t) the Council after
the death of hispfraethiri,tewdho had held the office before.
Lord Gosford
thea trrangement, hut Lord
Durham went out, and with knowledgerar of the corres-
pondence and instruction to the e
ap-
pointment, but without reporting y, mad© the
deLnthrde Norman by
being afterwards requested to frvvt.
Mr. Ryland believing that he held tatri
consented to forward it on condition of able
officeil4 by patent,
to hold the office, notwithstanding the union obfetinhge
pro-
vinces. When the office had been held fora year, Lord
Sydenham took upon himself the responsibility
of entering into an engagement with Mr Ry-
land land that he should have another office of equal emolu
went, or that his income should be made
(rem some
other source, in case that which ho held should
fall off in its revenue. Lord Sydenham had no right to
do that, but he (Lord Stanley) thought that Mr. Ryland
was entitled, nevertheless, to a retiring allowance. Al-
though quite unable to enforce by law the fulfilment of
the engagement made by Lord Sydenham, ho thought it
due to the maintenance of good faith between the Crown
and its deserving servants, that their promisesr should be
made good, and he instructed Lord odo so
accordingly, as far as it was possib Earl opposite (Earl
Grey) whether he had handed over to the local Govern-
ment the money which should have been applied to this
purpose whether he had voluntarily sacrificed the
rights of the Crown, and placed its faithful servants at
the disposal of a legislature which, if it might be judged
by the acts of its officers, were so far effected by demo-
cratic views, as to repudiate instead of confirm appoint-
ments previously made in good faith? His Noble Friend
did not ask either House
this loss. That was the of Parliament to make good
Govern-
ment, and all that this province of the local
mo't!oecontemplated, was an ex-
pression of their Lordehity
opinion of the injustice and
hardship with which x
his Noble Friend Rylandpressed his
had been treated. If
iresolations to a division, he
should certainly support himnotille Ist, 2d, and sth.
Earl GREY rose to answer
question put to him
by Lord Stanley. He said, ese
not sacrificed the
that matter
L'e'llitiealltr, that he had
it'ln,;ll to the Crown,
others relating
but had noted in that matter, a 3
tie Canada in the way which he considered most condu-
cive
vi tonces the perpetuation of harmony between the two
and e on-
pro.
Lord BROUGHAM supported the motion
tended that it was not only a hardship, but an injustice,
to Mr. Ryland, to refuse him the compensation which
he was promised by Lord Sydenham.
The Earl GRANVILLE said that moving the pre
as the most respectable way of meeting.
vious question w
the case.

Lord GLENELG said that, f:er all he had heard, the
impression left on his mind was that a great injustice
had been done to Mr. Ryland. The question was not a
mere colonial one, it was an Imperial one.—(Hear.) The
guarantee, therefore, or the Queen's representative
ought not to bo overlooked. If the colonial funds were
not available to west the premise made ha this case,

means should be taken to meet the matter through the
medium of Imperial funds.
The Duke of ARGYLE replied, and said he would
move only the first, second, and fifth resolutions.
Their Lordships divided, and their numbers were—
Contents for the resolutions ... 22
Non-contents ... •-• ••• 19
Majority for the resolutions... —3
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COAGIONS, May 10.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bilis were
considered and agreed to:—
Architects, Civil Engineers, Builders, and General
Fire and Life Insurance, Annuity, and Reversionary In-
terest Company (incorporation of the company under a
different name).
Clerical, Medical, and General Life Assurance Society.
Wakefield Borough Market.
The following Bill was read a third time and passed—
Groat Northern Railway Deviations. Amendment of
Acts, Alteration of Tolls, and of East Lincolashire
Railway Tolls.
The following Bills as amended were considered and
agreed to—

Liverpool Corporation Waterworks (Extension of Time
for Purchase of Land, &c.)
Waterford and Kilkenny RAilway.

MANCHESTER RECTORY- DIVISION BILL.

Mr. GOULBURN proposed an amendment to this
Bill to the effect, that the salary of the canons of Man-
chester should be 7501. instead of 6001. a year.

Mr. M. GIBSON opposed the amendment on the
ground that after a full consideration of the Bill by the
Committee they had come to the conclusion that 600/.
was an ample remuneration for the canons. The object of
the Bill was to apply the parochial revenues to the pa•
rochial purposes generally of Manchester, and if the
amendment of the Right lion. Gentleman were agreed to
the result would be to trench further upon the surplus
fund, out of which the poorer clergy were paid. The
amendment was inconsistent with the whole principle of
the Bill, and he was therefore decidedly opposed to its
introduction.

Lord JOHN MANNERS supported the amendment.
Mr. PLUMPTRE thought the Bill would be far
better without the amendment.

Sir BENJAMIN HALL thought the salaries of the
canons should be decreased to 5001. a year instead of
augmented, because they did not properly discharge the
duties of their office, and most of them left those duties
to be performed by deputies. There were as many as
fifty or sixty churches in Manchester, and the average
endowment did not exceed 801. a year, and he thought

it would not No just or fair to deprive the poorer clergy
men, who really did their duty, of a portion of their re.
muneration for the purpose of increasing the salary o

the canons.

Sir GEORGE GREY cansidered the Bill was a most
valuable one, and should be sorry if it did not receive
the sanction of Parliament. Tho Bill as it originally
stood proposed to give the Canons 5001. each, but the Com-
mittee, atter due deliberation, raised it to 600/., and he,
therefore, thought some strong grounds ought to be
stated before they consented to depart from the decision
of the Committee.

Mr. DEEDES, having had the honour of sitting as
Chairman of the Select Committe, was anxious to say a
few words upon this subject.—(llear, hear.) The
Committee were not unanimous in fixing the income
at 6001., but three years ago Parliament passed a public
Act, fixing the future income of the Dean at 2,0001.,
and that of the canons at half that sum, and the Com-
mittee did not feel altogether justified in changing that
law.—(Hear, hear.) It was therefore proposed that as
the income of the Dean was 1,500/., that of the canons
ought to be 750/., but eventually the income was fixed
by the Committee at 6001. He ass sorry that his
Honourable Friend the Member fur Marylebone
had thought proper to introduce personalities into
this debate, because he knew that when the evi-
dence takes before • the Committee was printed, it
would turn out that it did not justify the strictures which
his Right Hon. Friend had passed upon setae of the gen-
tlemen interested in the 13i11.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CHILDERS assured the House that the reason
the sum was not fixed at 750/. was, the desire of the
Committee to be as unanimous as possible upon the de-
cision they came to.—(Hear, hear.) Th©y ought to
look to where that additional sum, amounting to 600/.
a year, would go. It would go into the parish of Man-
chester, consisting of 400,000 inbabitants.—(Hear, hear.)
Under these circumstances be could not help thinking
the House would do better to adhere to the opinion of
the Committee.

Mr. HORSMAN thought the House had every reason
to be satisfied with the proceedings of the Committee on
this Bill. This was not a question of payment, but it
was one of apportionment and distribution; and be called
on the House to remember that in every 120/. they gave
to one of those canons they took a living from a clergy-
man, and a pastor from his congregation.
Mr. W ADDINGTON bore his testimony to the effi-
cient manner in which the Dean and Canons of Man-
chester discharged their duties, and he did not think it
fair under these circumstances 1,0 come forward and at-
tempt to throw opprobium upon these gentlemen.
Mr. HUME wished to know what the parochial duties
were which these gentlemen had to perform. On their
own admission they never considered they had any
duties to perform, and they never had any to perform.
Sir 11. IL INGLIS aupport•.l the amendment.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said that th• question of
pluralities Ras not an ecclesiastical question, but a
question of common sense. It was an abuse which
would not be suffered in any other service but the service
of God. If these gentlemen were forced to do all their

duty they would have to hold service in the cathedral
every hour it: the day from six to six.—(Laughter.)
Gentlemen might laugh, but that really was the origin
of cathedrals.

Mr. BRIGHT wished, as a representative of Man-
chester, to say a few words on the matter.
It might be considered presumptuous for a Dissenter, as
every one knew him to be, to express an opinion with
regard to the funds of the Church; but, looking at the
decision of the Committee as a Member of Parliament,
and as a citizen of a community, he. thought the Com-
mittee only did what any body of six or a dozen sensible
me❑ would have done with regard to the funds brought
under their consideration.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") The Bill, as it came from the Cotn-
mittee, would give great satisfaction to all persons who
where in the habit of attending the services of the
Church in Manchester. The way in which the funds of
the Church had been appropriated there had always
been pointed at as an argument, and a very strong argu-
ment, against the management of Church affairs gene-
rally. What the Committee proposed was simply that
the canons should receive 6001. a year, and rectors
2501., besides certain fees, which could not be
defined in the Bill ; and if they raised those
sums, the result would be to defer the accumulatio❑ of
the fund which it was expected would be derived frem a
better management of the collegiate establishment. The
Bill would give satisfaction not only to Churchmen but
to Dissenters in Manchester, and he therefore trusted
the House would pass the Bill in its present shape.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ....
Against it
Majority against
The amendment was accordingly rejected. The other
amendments were then considered and agreed to, and
the Bill ordered to be engrossed.
NOTICES 01? MOTION.
Lord NAAS gave notice that on an early day after
Whitsuntide he should call the attention of the House to
the duties charged on home made spirits in Ireland; and
also, that in consequence of not being able to obtain car-
t tin returns, he should not be able to bring on his motion
which stood in the paper for Tuesday evening.
IRISH ENCUMBERED ESTATES.

Mr. FRENCH wished to ask a question of the
Solicitor-General. It was in reference to a sale of an
estate in Westmeath under the Encumbered Estates
Act, in which the surveyor had included 44 acres of a
neighbouring estate which had been sold and a Parlia-
mentary title given to them; he wished to know what
steps the owner of these acres must take ii order to re-
cover them.
The SOLICITOR•GENERAL said that ho had re-
ceived no notice of this question, and as he suspected
that the lion. Gentleman must be mistaken in his in-
formation, he thought that it was desirable that he should
have some days' notice of the question. He had had no
information on the subject himself.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. HORSMAN asked the First Lord of the Trea-
sury when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to pre-
sent another general report; and, also, whether any and
what proceedings had been taken either by them or the
Bishop of hoe
r Gloucester, since 1848, in the ease of the
estate of Horfield?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that he was unable to say
when the neat
general report of the Commissioners
would be laid before the House, and as to the
second question, that
of
olitrfithe arrangement with re-
eld was still under the con-
ROYAL
sideration of the le
d'OLLEGr? of
spect to the estate
the Crown.
Mr. STAFFORD asked E OF
Dome Secretary whether
SURGEONS.
ttit was the intention of her i
jeity's Ministers to sanc-
tion such an alteration in the charter of the Royal Col-
loge of Surgeons as should enable the council to elect
fellows
GwiGthßoEutyex,at naunderstoodtion: to state that the Go-
vernment had, at present, no intention to make such an
alteration in the charter of the Royal College of
OF
SAVINGS' GOVERNMENTBANK IN RE.
Surc,reens.
BANKS.
of
RESPONSIBILITY
TITYO
Mr. WILLIAM FAGAN asked the
G
the Exchequer whether it was intended that the Go-
vernment should be responsible for all moneys
from depositors of savings banks by the treasurer
v"
or his clerk. Also, whether ho would h
any objection to introduce a clause in the Bill,ev
distinctly assuming this responsibility; if, on the other
hand, it was not intended that Government should be
responsible. whether it was proposed to make the
trustees •
liable for such default?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was intended that the Government should be responsible
for all moneys received by the treasurer of a savings
bank or his clerk. Tne treasurer and his clerk would,
in fact, be the servants of the Government. He did not
think it would be necessary to introduce a clause into
the Bill with regard to the responsibility of the Go-
vernment.
PAYMENT OF ASSISTANT GUARDIANS.
Mr. TAYLOR asked the Home Secretary whether
the Government meant to make any provision for the
Payment of assistant guardians to unions in Ireland?
G.
GREY replied that it was not the intention
of theil.
the Government to make the slightest provision for
were
P aYt:nelit of assistant-guardians, but observed there
certain cases in an which inspector might be ap-
pointed to act in the
he capacity of an aissistant-guardise,
and that be might be
paid,