The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-18 00:00:00

GAOLS.

Mr. MACKINNON moved for certain returns on the subject
of gaols.
Sir W. CLAY presented a petition from the Tower Hamlets
in favour of the Dissenters• Chapels Bill.
CUSTOMS ACTS.—COAL. _ .

On the motion that the Order of the Day for goin:, into
Committee on the Cu,toms Acts be read,
Lord lIOWICK said that the coal return, which had been
asked for a long time since, was not yet in the possession of the
House. He thought it very hard that this return, so essential
to the c nsideration of the subject of the coal duties, was not
yet in the hands of Members.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
when the return wai asked for, he sent directions to have it
made out, but owing to some difficulties that presented them-
selves, they hid not been able to make it out yet.
CHURCH. _

Mr. WARD said that he wished to ask a question of the
Nob!e Lord opposite, the Secretary for Ireland, on the
subject of the Irish Church. In the debate which had taken
place last year on the Irish Church, he (Mr. Ward) had given
an estimate of the revenues of the Irish Church which
amounted to 552,75'1. The Noble Lord, who censured him
on that occasion, also gave an estimate which amounted to
432,023/. which he received from the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners. The Noble Lord subsequently explained to
him (Mr. Ward) that his (the Noble Lord's) estimate
was inaccurately made up, and that a mistake of 120,0001.
had been made. Thus both estimates would nearly
agree. An estimate had since been made out which,
though it took twelve months in the preparation, was ex-
tremely defective. He wished to ask the Noble Lord whe-
ther he could reconcile it to his conduct and his duty to lay
such a return on the table as the only information which the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners could give Parliament on the
subject ?
Lord ELIOT said that the Hon. Gentleman had accurately
stated what had taken place last year. The estimate which
he had given was derived from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
but Mr. Irck, the gentleman who prepared it, being engaged
in other business, had committed an error of 120,000/. in the
calculation. In order to prepare an accurate return, it was
necessary that the dignitaries and bishops of the Church should
make returns of their revenues ; but neither the Government
nor the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had the power to compel
them. They could only give perfect returns of the revenues
of those particular livings which had become the property of
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and of those livings which
came under the operation of the Church Temporalities Act.
After a few words from Mr. SHAW,

Mr. SHEIL wished to know from the Noble Lord whether
he had any objection to lay the letter of Mr. lrck on the
table of the Howe ?

Lord ELIOT said it was a private letier, and he did not see
what good could be obtained by its production.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said the course pursued in this
matteron the part of the Noble Lord and the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin University, after the mistake of Mr. Irck,
was most strange. The Learned Recorder had moved last
August for a large detailed return of the revenues of the Irish
Church, but those papers had not been laid before the House.
If Ilse papers were laid on the table of the House, they would
have a full body of information on the subject.
Lord ELIOT di3claimed any intention to conceal any infor-
mation on the subject.
SIX CLERKS—COMPENSATION.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Right Hon. Baronet had

stated the other night that Lord Cottenham had given his as-
sent to the compensation clauses in the Bill relating to the abo-
lition of the office of the six clerks. He (Lord J. Russell) had
since understood from that Noble and Learned Lord that, so
far from giving his approbation to those clauses, he had de-
clined giving any opinion on the subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM said if the Noble Lord had intimated to
him that he meant to draw the attention of the House
to the matter, he would have brought down a letter vs hich
had been handed to him by the Solicitor-General, and which he
(Sir J. Graham) had in his hands when he made the state-
ment. That letter was from Mr. Wainwright, and he stated
positively in it that ho had waited on Lord Cottenham, and es-
pecially called his attention to the clauses giving compensation
to the parties, not only during life, but extending to a period
after their death, in consideration of the transferring which had
been exercised for a long period, and that Lord Cottonham
made no objection whatever to those clauses.
Lord J. RUSSELL—It was not that he made any objection,
but that lie declined giving any opinion on the subject.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—That was not the representation
of Mr. Wainwright.
Mr. C. BERKELEY inquired whether the Government
meant to introduce a Bill upon Charitable Trusts? The Right
Hon. Baronet had said same time ago, that it was the intention
of the Lord Chancellor to introduce such a Bill into the House
of Lords.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM •aid that it was the intention o:
the Lord Chancellor to introduce a Bill on the subject.
STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

Mr. 13ORTHWICK complained of the state in which the
public business was at present. He wanted to know when the
Poor-law Amendment Bill would be brought before the
House. There were several other Bills too, such as the County
Courts Bill and Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, which he was
also anxious to know when they would be brought forward.
The House was so frequently counted out that it became quite
an abuse; and last night so thin was the attendance of Hon.
Members that he could have minted it out when the First
Loud of the Treasury was speaking.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was afraid he could not set the
Hon. Member's mind at rest with regard to the House being
counted out on motion nights; but he was not aware that it
had been counted oust on a single order night. The Right
Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury had given notice
of his intention to move, that after the first week in June
orders should take precedence of motions. He (Sir J. Gra-
ham) could not give any definite answer to the Hon. Member's
question with respect to the Poor-law Bill, but he would en-
deavour to do so before the Whitsun recess. He had hoped
that some progress would have been made in the County
Courts Bill before Whitsuntide, but a difficulty had arisen
which ho did not foresee. A very grave question was now
pending in the other House with respect to the abolition
of imprisonment for debts in execution. The principle had,
in fact, been affirmed by the other House. Now, it appeared
to him important that the sense of the House should be taken
on the principle of that measure before they proceeded further
with the discussion of the details of the County Courts Bill,
which proceeded on the opposite principle, and would not only
continue imprisonment for debts in execution, but even extend
its operations to debts of smaller amount. Upon the whole,
he thought it would be expedient to postpone the further
consideration of that Bill until the other Bill, to which he had
referred, had been brought before the House.
_ _ MONTE VIDEO AND BUENOS AYRES.

Mr. MI/ART said he did not know whether it was in the
power of the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the
Treasury to answer the question of which he had given him
notice, with respect to the war between Buenos Ayres and
Monte Video. A vast amount of property was at stake. He
believed he was justified in saying that the Right lion. Baronet
had stated, some time since, that it was desirable that some
interposition should take place, on the part of the French, the
British, and the Brazilian Governments, for the purpose of
putting an end to the war. Since that time, the fears of
British subjects had increased by the continuance of the war.
It had been stated by General. llosas, that he could not be
answerable for the safety of the property of British subjects, or
of their persons. In a battle which had recently taken place, the
Monte N ideans, contrary to general expectation, had been victo-
rious, bat this victory had only tended to prolong the war, not to
bring it to an end. Ile wished to ask if the Right Honourable
Baronet could hold out any hopes of intervention on the part
of the British and the French Governments, for the purpose
of bringing the war, now raging between Monte Video and
Buenos Ayres, to a termination, and opening the commerce
of the River Plate.

Sir R. PEEL regretted that the war between Monte Video
and Buenos Ayres still continued, characterised, as that war
was, by the most revolting atrocities ; and looking to the-spirit
in which that war had been conducted, he was afraid that
there was little chance of its speedy termination. In every
case in which any violation of the rights of nations had taken
Place, with regard to British subjects it was the determi-
nation of the Government to give protection to its subjects,
even by a recourse to forge if necessary ; but so long as
aenr e
there was no violation of the law of nations, he was not pre-
pared to interfere. There could be no doubt but that it
was extremely desirable that these hostilities should cease.
Englandwond offered
datt interventionintervention
heirhad
to the
accepted by one of them. '
believe, France, he had every reason to
took the same view as England didof doubt it was possible, by a forcible •
temporarily to these hostilities ; thenbutin
to take military possession of the country,
this subject. No
intervention, to put an end
they must be prepared
for its internal government, for, as soon as their force
be removed, hostilities would be renewed. The re
and to provide
eeie shouldt
would be dangerous, for other powerful States,P sanctioned by
our example, might take upon themselves to interfere in they
domestic politics and internal arrangements of States subordi-
-1 nate to them ; therefore they ought to pause before they inter-
fered in such a manner.
11r. M. GIBSON admitted the justice of tho Right Hon.
Baronet's remarks as to the impropriety of direct interference,
but he wished to ask if the Government had taken care to pro-
vide means to ensure the safety of the persons ar.d property of
British subjects in Monte Video and Buenos Ayres.
Sir. R. PEEL said that there was a British naval force in
the River Plate, and which would afford all practical protee- 1
ugh to British subjects itAd property.

IRISH ESTIMATES.

In answer to a question from Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he would
bring on the Irish Estimates on Friday.

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

Sir R. PEEL stated, in answer to Mr. Shell, that the
Dissenters' Chapels Bill would not be discussed this evening.
If there was time before ten o'clock his Hon. and Learned
Friend (the Attorney-General) would, in moving the second
reading, state the object of the Bill ; but he would take care
that there should be an opportunity afforded of considering the
Bill at a future stage some other evening.