The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-07-08 00:00:00

THE IRISH CHURCH BILL.

On the motion that the house go into committee on the Irish
church bill, Sir. G. SINCLAIR expressed his astonishment that
this bill was pressed forward with the " appropriation" clause
in it; and at the tenacity with which ministers adhered to their
places.
The house then went into committee on the bill.

Lord MAHON rose to move the omission of the Stith and 51st,
or appropriation clauses. He began by stating that there would
have been no difficulty in adjusting all the other clauses, but
upon the principle of the inalienable nature of church property
there could be no compromise. It was therefore that he moved
the omission of the appropriation clause in the bill. He be-
lieved that the charge of negligence might apply to the Irish
church at an earlier period of its history, and to that circum-
stance might be imputed the little progress which protestantisin
had made. But speaking of the present day he did not believe
that there was in the world a clergy more pious, more ex-
emplary, or more remarkable for every christian virtue than the
suffering clergy of Ireland. He admitted that an anomaly did
exist in the Irish church at present; but he denied that the ap-
propriation clause did anything to remove that anomaly. The
anomaly was the disproportion of the church to the population.
But he denied that this, though an anomaly, was an abuse, fur
though the majority of the population was catholic, the majority
—the great majority of the property was protestant; not less
than 19-20ths of the property was in the hands of the protestants.
After some further observations to the same effect, the noble
lord concluded by moving " that the sUth and 51st clauses
should be omitted."

Mr. Pour-Tait contended that the clause did not propose the
alienation of church property; it only proposed to set aside
the real surplus for the moral improvement of the people. The
two houses of parliament might differ as to details; but in the
present instance they differed to the whole extent of the princi-
ple upon which the government was founded. At the same
time he was an enemy to all extremes, and wished to see the
privileges of the House of Lords sustained.
Mr. PLUMPTRE opposed the clause.
Mr. E. TENNENT said that, for a long series of years the
peace of Ireland and the whole of this country had been dis-
turbed and destroyed by a demand for an adjustment of the
question of the Irish Church, and that adjustment was on the
eve of being effected by the right hon. baronet below him (Sir
R. Peel) on terms which he (Mr. E. T.) firmly believed would
have been satisfactory to all parties, when the forcible introduc-
' tion of this appropriation principle flung back the question in-
to its original position, and interposed an insuperable barrier
to its settlement. Thus, with a ministry on one hand, sup-
ported by a majority of that house, pledged to resist every set-
tlement of this question which did not involve the principle of
appropriation—and, on the other hand, the remaining branches
of the legislature, and the majority of the people of England,
equally determined to resist any arrangement in which it is in-
cluded, and most certainly not likely to relax that resistance;
is it not a lateral and undeniable fact that the tenure on which
the present administration avowedly. retain their power is a so-
lemn and positive engagement against any adjustment of the
Irish tithes, or any possible settlement of the Irish Church?
Was it probable, he would ask, or is it possible that a ministry
could continue to hold office on such terms ? In the face of an
unavoidable confession of their inability to effect a settlement
of some of the most important questions which can occupy the
attention of the legislature? Is it " Justice to Ireland" to
keep open this fertile cause of discontent, festering and irritat-
ing from year to year, for no other assignable object than the
retention in place of one set of men, who cannot expect a satis-
factory adjustment, to the exclusion of others who can ? (hear,
hear.) Above all, is it justice to the poor Irish, to the payers
who have had in their power for some time past to obtain an
abatement of from 20 to 30 per cent., which the tithe-owners
were willin'r to pay to them in consideration of the increased
facilities of collecting their income, which an equitable com-
mutation would afford them? Is it fair or just, he would say,
to them, to declare that they must forego this advantage, be-
cause the abstract resolution of 18.35 prohibits them from en-
joying it? He (Mr. E. T.) knew that there were considera-.
tions which now occupied the minds of men out of doors, who
last session were eager for the adoption of this appropriation
clause, and he felt satisfied that in that house there was no
party more anxious for the abandonment of that clause than
the partizans of the right hon. gentlemen who occupied the op-
posite bench, provided any decent expedient could be devised
for " shaking off their engagement" (cheers.) But there is
another class much more numerous and influential with whom
during the last year this appropriation clause has ceased to be
popular—he alluded to those moderate and well-meaning men
who, without being partisans on either side, were deluded by
declamation and misrepresentations of the wealth of the estab-
lished church, and allured by specious professions about the
promotion of education and the moral instruction of the people
with which the annunciation of this proposal was accompanied,
and wile, without investigating the principle of the alienation,
saw nothing in the result but the application to one legitimate
purpose, of a sum which they conceived was not required for
another, and believed that they were ensuring peace to Ire-
land and contentment to the Roman Catholics, without injury
to the Protestant Church. In every one of these particulars
the parties have been successively undeceived. The vaunted
riches of the establishment have exhibited on a scrutiny a de-
ficiency rather than a surplus; and the tone of exultation with
which the proposal for their alienation has been hailed by the
Roman Catholics of Ireland has satisfied them that the pass-
ing of this clause, so far from being the end of agitation, is
in reality but the beginning of change (" hear," and cheering.)
As a political measure it is pregnant with mischief and danger,
and, having served its purpose as a political engine, it has not
only ceased to be an assistant, but has actually become an in-
cumbrance to its promoters. Like the horse in the fable they
sought the aid of an ally, but have effectually saddled themselves
with a rider. (Cheers.) There was but one other point con-
nected with this question on which he (Mr. Emerson Tennent)
was desirous of offering an observation, and that was the power
of parliament to interfere in the manner which was here con-
templated with the property of the church. He did not mean
the absolute and irresponsible power which parliament possessed
to effect that or any other object, but the right and equity of
such a proceeding as was threatened. He did not mean to
enter upon the general question of such a power, but simply to
allude to one of al., :oust prominent arguments which had been
used in favour of it by the supporters of this bill, and which he
conceived, though constantly adduced, by no means afforded a
case in point. He referred to the argument drawn from the
confiscation of ecclesiastical property at the period of the re-
formation, and the appropriation to the uses of the
.protestant
church. Parliament, we are reminded, gave its sanction, in the
reign of Henry VIII., to the transfer of church property from
the monasteries and clergy of the Roman Catholics to the pro-
testant establishment, and, consequently, they argue it possesses
an equal power to reconvey it from the Protestants to the Ro-
man Catholics, or to any other parties at the present slay. The
assertion was made in a total forgetfulness of the relative posi-
tions
of the parliament and the church at the period of the re-
formation and at the present time. The Roman Catholic church
then claimed to hold its property altogether as an independent
and irresponsible corporation, confessing allegiance to Rome
alone, and acknowledging no authority or right of interference
in the crown or parliament. Even the power of their own tax-
ation was then, and till a period long subsequent, solely in the
hands of the convocation of the clergy. One great constitu-
tional effect of the reformation was the destruction of this imps-
rum in imperio, and the transfer of its property to the protestant
church, and other lay subjects of the realm, who acknowledged
the crown as their head, and received their endowments under
the guardianship and protection of the legislature. Parliament,
in fact, neither claimed nor exercised any species of authority
over the property of the church till it had been transferred from
the monasteries to those who had acknowledged themselves sub-
jects of the crown; and the effects of the change were amply
attested in the reign of Queen Marv, who having restored the
Roman Catholic religion, applied for the sanction of parlia-
ment to restore to it its property likewise, which parliament,
although chiefly composed of Roman Catholics themselves, re-
solutely refused, on the grounds that having by its confiscation
from the church of Rome, become vested in their trust for the
subjects of the crown, they could not without a violation of all
faith permit it to be alienated. (Hear, hear.) The conduct of
the parliament in the reign of Queen Mary, therefore, rather
than in that of Henry VIII., affords the precedent by which
this house ought to be guided. transfer to the church of
England by the latter was an act of power without involving-a
breach of trust; but its reconveyance now would be a violation
of the faith of the legislature and the honour of the crown. He
(Mr. Emerson Tennent) knew how futile it was to rely upon
' reasoning of this kind, as arguments to alter the foregone con-
clusions of the majority of that house. He knew bow vain it
was to hope that anything but popular influence could affect the
decision on which they were about to come on this question.
Among the many evils which agitation had inflicted upon the
country, it was riot the least alarming that it had gone far to
destroy the deliberate functions of that assembly; and that
questions which formerly exercised the judgment of the legis-
lature were now settled at the chapels and the hustings whence
representatives were delegated to record their decisions in Par-
liaraent. lie (Mr. E. Tennent) had little expectation that any
observations of his could have weight with gentlemen who were
citabhidpluyltsehf,reeemefilli
lingtohahvelet
ainconveniencesonly
inducedthis
u arisingcttoiipitot
ohr ftdtraiortnaentwi
about to vote under such influences; but he still cherished a
on
hope that his Majesty's ministers,
who, of all others, must most
ttiei
sssfftaari
co,p,
tr
nnpo.rro,t(,phhareii.naedtat, i
riohl.
bill,
and
sqat
The house was then afterwards addressed by Mr. J. O'Connell,
Sir F. Trench, Dr. Baldwin, Mr. Hardy, and Lord Morpeth.
Mr. SHEIL repeated the arguments of the ministerial party,
and was replied to by
Lord STANLEY.—After referring to the very eloquent speech
delivered by Mr. Shell, he said the first principle of the estab-
lished religion of this country was that it adapted itself to the
condition of every class of society. 'nose who pi ofessed were
taught not to resist the ordinance of man ; they were taught
to respect the laws of the country, to give all inen their due,
and take care to owe no man any thing. The Imn, and learned
‘vent. told the house that the people of England were in favour
of the appropriation clause. But let him speak out at once,
and tell the people of England what his ultimate objects were.
Let not the hon. and learned gent. deceive himself with the
idea that a bare majority— a majority which was daily and
hourly diminishing, which-had, for the sake of peace, sanctioned
the delusive and mischievous provisions of this bill; would go
the length of consummating the annihilation of the established
church in Ireland. (Cheers.) The people of England are with
you—are they ? (Loud cheering- from the Opposition benches.)
Would the honourable and learned member honestly tell the
people of England what his real intentions were, for they knew
that under this bill there was no peace ? (Tremendous cheer-
ing.) Would he tell them that which many of his friends would
say in private? Let the noble lord look to his majority. Let
hirn analyse that majority. Let him in the secrecy of his own
closet ask himself with how man)' that majority he believed the
permanent object to be the reformation of the church; and, Is
him ask himself also whether, if the question were, shall we
support, shall we approve of the church of Ireland--shall we go
no further— ?—how many of these who make up this majority
now will be prepared to support him then ? The honourable

and learned gentlemen said that the people of England were
beginning to ask what was the use of the church establishment
at all? If that were the question we were to discuss, in God's
name, let us discuss it; and with the people of England, of
Ireland, and of Scotland let us join this issue, aye or no,
throughout the dominions of the Crown of this realm—will you
or wilt you not have the Protestant establishment He should
be glad if the house could come to this issue, but he hated this
bush-fighting in the dark. He hated to be told we were fighting'
a shadow and delusion, and that we must not touch the sub-
stance that lurked behind. We were placed in this difficulty.
If it were said that the tendency of the proposition was to de-
stroy the Church of Ireland, that was met with an indignant
disclaimer, that nothing could be further from the views of its
supporters. It was said, however, that there was an extrava-
gant, exorbitant, and bloated church; that so much would be
given as was absolutely necessary for the church itself; and that
the surplus wonld be applied to the purposes of education. Any
surplus, however small, would be applied, said the honourable
member for Tipperary, to strictly Protestant ecclesiastical pur-
poses, and that was the general diffusion of education. When
the honourable and learned gentleman said, if you desire to
extend the Protestant religion, educate the people, break the
yoke—(cries of "Oh, oh," from one honourable member, upon
which Lord Stanley observed, "education may be usefully ap-
plied in that quarter")—what was his answer to the hon. and
learned gentleman ? For so natural a purpose ask the sum you
want, and the Parliament of Great Britain will grant it. There
is no limit to the demand that this country will not be prepared
to grant. When the honourable and learned gentleman said in
one breath that his only object was to obtain sufficient funds
for an ecclesiastical and Protestant purpose—education, he
(Lord S.) was ready to meet him to the full extent as to the
argument. He knew that it was not a sincere argument. He
knew that with him and those who thought like him, the object
of the bill was not the promotion of education. He knew well
that it was the assertion of a principle, comparatively valueless,
but which he would drive further; and every argument which
he (Lord S.) had heard put was to this effect :—the Catholics
are a large numerical majority, the Protestants are an insig-
nificant minority, the church of the majority is that which ought
to be maintained, the church of the minority Honourable
gentlemen were kind enough to interrupt and dispute these
views. Would any one honourable gentleman get up in his
place and say he believed there was a chance—the remotest
chance—that this bill, standing as it did, would be the end all
and the be all of Irish agitation on the church question—would
be the full extent to which they would consent to push the prin-
ciple of appropriation? Was there one man amongst them (his
Majesty's ministers included) who would tell him chat; With
what face did they come down to discuss the principles and
provisions of this bill, to say that this bill was harmless—
that its purposes were laudable—that its objects were truly
national and Protestant—and that it would be a disgrace to
a, Protestant country to refuse to pass so Protestant a bill,
After referring in detail to some of the clauses of the bill, he
continued :—lt was said, that the noble lord at the head of the
government had confessed, with a rashness which hardly became
one who spoke of the rashness of younger men, that this bill
would inflict a heavy blow upon protestautism. Let that be told
to the people of England—let it go forth that the prime minister
of England acknowledged that his measuie inflicted a heavy
blow upon protestantism. Bat the noble lord at the head of the
government said "We cannot help it." Was this an argument?
We know it is dangerous to the church, we know it is a heavy
blow to protestantism, but we cannot help it, and why? because
we are driven on by those who are aiming at other things—
(cheers,) because we can neither defend our measure upon its
own merits, nor can we part with the support of those whose
support is indispensable. It was said, " You must give con-
tentment to 7,000,000 of Irishmen"—(cheers from Mr. P. Me-
thuen.) Would the hon. gentleman, whose cheers were so sig-
nificant, say that from his knowledge of the state of Ireland he
was of opinion, differing from the whole of the rest of the house,
that this measure would afford the slightest degree of content-
ment ? There was 1,503,000 persons who had no sort of direct
interest in the settlement of this question. Take the 7,000,000
with whom we were threatened by the hon. and learned doctor,
and he would ask whether the hon. and learned gentleman, in
his publication to the people of England, held out that prospect
of peace which the hon. member for Tipperary was desirous of?
Did the hon and learned gentleman hold out any expectation
that these 7,000,000 of whom he was the representative, would
have the least satisfaction and contentment at the bill? If we
were told that the measure was dangerous to the protestant
church—that it was objectionable to a vast number of persons—
carried by a majority, in the House of Commons—opposed by
a vast majority in the Lords,—nevertheless if it were to be
carried for contentment, was it reasonable to ask, will it obtain
that contentment? The hon. and learned gentleman said that
.the Rev. Mr. Longfield wished that he should pay him £5O a
year for tithes, and because he deemed this dentand unreason-
able, caused a bill to be filed against him in the court of Ex-
li chequer. But he did not say that if this bill passed he would
have done with Mr. Longfield and his claim—not at all; but he
said, "I think my religion better than his, and therefore I will
never pay him ls. ' He thought the hon. and learned gentleman
I must really mean to refer to this bill, for he put it emphatically
—" Come what come may, let this bill be passed or not, I never
will pay him one single farthing," because he thought his reli-
gion better than the religion of the State. Could the house
sanction the doctrine that no man was to pay who thought his
religion better than the religion of the State ? and therefore
that Irish Roman catholics, following the example of the hon.
member for Kilkenny, as they had followed his advice before
very much to their own detriment, was not to pay—
Mr. O'CONNELL.—That is untrue.

Lord STANLEY.—The hon. and learned gentleman is the last
man who ought to make use, in this house or elsewhere, of the
offensive expression which he has just used, most indecently
interrupting me—(cheers;) in the midst of which
- -

Mr. O'CoNNELL said,—Have I not a right to be heard when
a charge is untruly made against me ? He first garbles my
letter—(" No, no.") He did, distinctly. He next says that
others have followed my advice to their detriment. It still
less becomes the noble lord, whom I have observed to shrink
from every man but me—(loud cries of " order," and "chair,"
from the opposition benches.)
The confusion into which the house was thrown by this excla-
mation of O'Connell's lasted for some time.
Several hon. members rose to order, and a scene of the greatest
tumult ensued. At length, Mr. Bernal, the chairman of the
committee, declared that Mr. O'Connell was out of order. Lord
John Russell concurred with the chairman, and was sure that
Mr. O'Connell's interruption was quite disorderly. At the same
time he appealed to the chair not to allow Lord Stanley to re-
peat the charge he had made against ministers that they were
not acting on their own opinions, but were driven on by others.
Lord John Russell was himself stopped by loud cries of "Order,"
and when the noble lord resumed his seat, there was a general
call for Mr. O'Connell to explain. The latter rose and retracted
the expressions which the chairman had pronounced to be dis-
orderly. He would have added some other observations, but he
was prevented by cries of " Order," and calls for Lord Stanley.
His lordship said he thought it would have been more consistent
with the rules of the house if Lord John Russell had objected
to his expressions at the time he used them, instead of mixing
them with another question of order, which had no reference to
them. Lord Stanley, however denied that he was out of order.
He had shown to the house that Lord Melbourne, admitting the
measure to be a heavy blow to protestantism, added, " but we
can't help it." Was it disorderly for him to infer from these
admissions of the Prime Minister that the government were
driven into measures against their will? Hereupon Lord John
Russell again rose to order, said that nothing could be more
dishonourable than the conduct Lord Stanley attributed to the
government, and appealed to the chairman whether Lord Stan-
ley was not out of order. Tbe chairman decided that Lord Stan-
ley was not out of order.

Lord STANLEY resumed. Fortified by the opinion of the
chair, he was now entitled to consider that in bringing this
charge against the government, founded upon the representa-
tion of the prime minister, he did not transgress the rules of
order. He was showing before he had been interrupted, that if
the argument upon which they were to rely in support of this
measure was that it would produce content amongst a large
proportion of the population of Ireland, he must be satisfied
before he made the sacrifice that he would attain the object for
which it was made ; and, in order to show that the bill would
not effect that object, he had quoted the opinion of the hon. and
learned member—well, then, he would venture to request the
attention of the committee, to the opinions it contained ; and
as he bad been charged with garbling, he was sure the com-
mittee would give him an opportunity of showing whether he
had garbled it. He had not only read the hon. and learned
member's letter, but he had often heard him declare those opi-
nions, and he had been going on to read another passage, in
which the hon. and learned gentleman stated a case of a parish
where there were 10,000 catholics and 200 protestants, and he
said, " In the case of the catholics there is a feature of greater
strength and more distinctness; it is this—these tithes were in-
stituted, these glebes were set apart, not by protestants for pro-
testant worship, but by catholics for catholic worship. They
were ours; we assigned them for our purposes, the purposes of
the 10.000. The force of law, or rather the law of force, has
unjustly torn them from the catholics, whose property they
were, and given them to the 200 protestants, whose property
they are not." What, then, is the meaning of the cry " Justice
to Ireland?" It means, that as it was an injustice to tear these
tithes and glebes from the catholics, you must do justice and
restore them to the catholics again. (Hear, hear.) There
was some sense in this argument—it was a conclusion from the
premises—there was some logic in this, that having taken away
the tithes and glebes from the catholics, you will do justice by
restoring them to them again. But the people of Ireland are
more moderate than to expect this at present. "Don't demand
all this at present," says the hon. and learned gentleman : " the
Irish are at present more moderate—less would now content
ui." -How long ? -(Cheers.) How • long would it be before
we should be pressed for all that would content them ? "We
desire to have tithes totally abolished: or if any part remains
to be levied, that it shall be applied to the purpose of giving
education to all classes of the people. We do not, at present,
demand the glebes for the residence of the pastors whom the
people prefer." But how long will it be before they will be
demanded? (Hear, hear.) " But I candidly acknowledge
that if the contest continues and grows warmer, or the protes-
tant clergy identify themselves with the wholesale slaughters in
the field, and with the more vexatious and exasperating villany
of the exchequer attornies, as the ideas they excite are of the
Rathcormacs, red with the blood of the sons of widows, or of the
odious exchequer rebellion writs,—all connexion with religi-
ous institutions is forgotten, and the Irish Juggernaut of
plunder and massacre stands prominent, as demanding these
sacrifices, which LienerlY thought were only made to a
mere difference in religion. 'The time is, from these causes, fast
arising when a compromise will be impossible"—(hear, hear)—
a compromise not on the basis of the total abolition of all
tithes (hear)—" and those who now refuse an amicable and
moderate arrangement will have to blame themselves when a
similar arrangement shall he rejected indignantly and con-
temptuously by the people of Ireland." (Hear, hear.) Now,
did his noble friend, the Secretary for Ireland, recollect the
division that took place three nights ago? How many of those
who assumed to themselves to be representatives of all Ireland
voted on that occasion? That was a division on an amend-
ment of another bill, and it was for the abolition of all tithes.
Did his noble friend recollect if he did not he would see by the
lists, that of the 22 members who represented all Ireland, four,
including the hon. and learned member for Kilkenny, support-
ed his Majesty's government, and 16 out of 18 voted for the
abolition ? That was a practical comment upon the letter of
the hon. and learned member, and upon the chance there was
of making the compromise final. But he had said enough to
show that this was a dangerous measure, that it was a danger-
ous principle, and that the machinery was dangerous—that it
tended to the destruction of the protestant church, and, as the
Prime Minister hail said, it gave a severe blow to protestantism.
They were told that it would strengthen the protestant church,
and content the Irish people; but he (Lord Stanley) said it
would do neither the one nor the other. Ministers relied upon
the trifling majority in that house, but the people of England
were against them. (" Hear, hear," and " No, no !") Plain
sense and plain reason were against it, and though they had
been permitted, under the fallacious hope of a compromise, and
of strengthening the Irish protestant church and the protestant
religion in Ireland, to go so far, this argument, as it was now
used, if it meant anything, meant this inevitable conclusion—
the fall of protestant sin and the substitution of the Catholic re-
ligion. (Cheers.)
•

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON reiterated his chartrps-against the
commissioners of public instruction, and entered into a minute
refutation of their statements. His answer to Lord Morpeth
was loudly cheered.

Lord JotiN RUSSEIL closed the extended debate. In the
course of his speech he said, if the division were less than it
had been, or if he were left in a minority, then as a minister of
the crown, or as a member of parliament, he would not hold
himself responsible for attempting the settlement of the question
as regarded Ireland.
The house divided. The numbers were, for the clause 290,
against it 264, majority in its favour being only 26 ! a falling off
since the former division on this subject.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAT.
WAR IN SPAIN.

Sir It. PEEL said he wished to ask a question relative to a
document which he had seen in the public papers. it purported
to be an order-general by the Commander of the British
Auxiliary force in the service of the Queen of Spain, and which,
though drawn according to ordinary forms, still bore all the
internal evidence of its being a fabrication—(hear, hear). It
professed to state that as the British Auihary Legion was acting
in unison with his Majesty's forces in Spain, all those who were
found in the service of Dun Carlos should on that account be
considered as rebels, and punished by immediate death—(hear,
hear). He presumed that this was not—could not be an au-
thentic document, and he therefore asked if the noble lord was
in possession of any information on the subject, knowing that
if he was, he would avail himself of the earliest opportunity
of communicating that information to the House ?—(Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON said the right hon. baronet was aware that
the question was one relating to the acts of an officer who was
not in the British service, nor under the orders of the British
government, who could not therefore be responsible for his acts,
of which indeed they could not be officially apprised —(hear,
hear). He had seen the document referred to in the papers,
but had received no information upon the subject. If the right
hon. baronet asked him his opinion as an individual, he felt
bound to say that he believed some such order had been given
(loud. cheers). He was asked the question, and he felt bound
to answer it (continued cheers). He might observe, however,
that no order issued by a general in the Spanish service could
be considered as any interpretation of the law of England.
Lord MA noN wished to ask one simple question—Were we
at peace or war with Spain ? It must be a tortuous policy, in-
deed, which would not admit of a simple answer to such a ques-
tion. Toe noble lord (Mahon) was proceeding, when he was
interrupted by loud cries of " order."
Lord PALMERSTON said that the nublelord, in putting a plain
question, need not have entered into a tortuous argument—
(a laugh). We had signed a treaty with the Queen of Spain,
by which this country was bound to give the operation of its
naval force, if necessary, in aid of her forces in the north, and
the government was now exercising that obligation—(hear).
An Hon. MEMBER said that a large detachment of forces
was now in the river, detained for Spain. He wished to know
what clause in the treaty justified the British government in
sending out that force ?
Lord PALNIERSTON. said that Lord John Hay was obliged
to erect some batteries, and he stated that he had great diffi-
culty in carrying on the works, Awing. to the inexperience of
his men in that sort of employment. The detachment alluded
to consisted of an officer and company of sappers and miners,
who were to give the required assistance to Lord John Hay.
Several petitions were presented during the early part of the
sitting upon a variety of subjects.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY and WEDNESDAY.

Nothing of importance transpired in the House of Lords on
either Monday on Wednesday.