18 DECEMBER 1847, Page 2

Debates an Ilittotetbings in parliament.

THE IRISH Cozaciox BILL. In the House of Commons, on Monday, the order of the day for the third reading of the Crime and Outrage Bill having been read,

Mr. Joan O'Colninkt, moved as an amendment, that the bill be read

that day three months. Part of his speech consisted of the statement re- speeting Major Mahon, from the Reverend Mr. M'Dermott, of Strokestown, which we quoted last week. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN seconded the amend- ment. He argued that the House was proceeding on a wrong principle altogether; that they ought as much as possible to encourage self-reliance, abandoning the system of military police. Mr. Moaner( Joax O'Comigra. supported the third reading. The bill was not the bill of 1846: it was a moderate bill, for whilst it respected the common-law right of carrying arms for self-defence, it prevented the car- rying of them for purposes of molestation. Mr. BRIGHT also appeared as a supporter of the bill, in a long speech, distinguished more by -vigour than novelty of argument. There is in Ire- land, he said, a spirit utterly unknown in'England, which calls for extra- ordinary powers to cheek it. No one could say that this bill would be effectual, but it was the bounden duty of Government to put a stop to the present state of things. Mr. Bright taunted the Irish Members with never bringing forward measures of a practical character. Had there been an Irish Parliament with 60 English Members in it, they would at least have shown some knowledge of their business. Ireland suffers because Ireland is idle. Irish labourers, when regularly employed at fair wages, are ob- served to be as conservative of the peace as Englishmen. There was a new cry for a tenant-right bill; but if the object was to give the actual ownership to the present occupier of the land, no measure could be more fatal to the prosperity of Ireland. Mr. Bright asked why the Encumbered Estates Bill was not ready: if it was ready, the Government were to blame for not sooner bringing it forward. The whole mischief lies in the way the land is enthralled; and so long as that is the case, nothing can be done for Ireland. The condition of Ireland is not only a disgrace, but an evil, to England. Many of the evils attributed to the manufacturing system arise from the overflow of a miserable population from Ireland into the districts. Taxes and poor-rates have thus been enormously increased. He protested against the maintenanoe of a class system tending to drive off from Ireland a vast portion of the population in search of food which under a better sys- tem might be found at home. In reply to Mr. HUME, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, that the Encum- bered Estates Bill would be introduced in the House of Lords as it was last year; but that the time of that House would be sufficiently occupied before the recess with the consideration of the Crime and Outrage Bill. After a few words from Sir BENJAMIN HALL in support of the measure, the House divided; and the amendment was negatived byl73 to 14. The bill was read a third time, and passed. The bill was carried to the House of Lords the same night, and read there a second time on Wednesday. The only discussion was taken on the motion for going into Committee, on Thursday. It went over ground al- ready traversed more than once in the House of Commons. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained the objects and provisions of the measure • citing cases of outrage as Sir George Grey had done. The bill was supported by all the other speakers except one,—by Lord Fanienkm, Earl Fixzwv.r.i.s.m, the Earl of St. Gramm a, the Marquis of SALISBURY, Lord BEAUMONT, Earl GREY, and Lord Baomanam; though some expressed a fear that it 'would prove insufficient, and a hope that if it should, Ministers would ask -for further powers. Even Lord STANLEY did not oppose the bill, although he severely criticized it. Lord FARNHAM mentioned some recent cases to illustrate the increase of disorder in Ireland. Several country gentlemen have been obliged to fly; and four ministers of the Established Church have done so. He again drew attention to the conduct of the priests; though he disclaimed any at- tack on the priesthood as a body. In particular, Lord Farnham stated several facts relating to the conduct of the Reverend Mr. M'Dermott. That priest formerly professed great regard for Major Mahon. On the Major's return from England after an absence of six or eight months, he attended the first meeting of the Relief Committee, on the 27th of August. Major Mahon has left behind him an autograph note of what passed. It stated that there had been no meeting of the Committee since the 24th of July; and that in consequence of the uncourteous manner of Mr. M'Der- mott, Major Mahon addressed some questions to Mr. Costello, the clerk; asking who had revised the relief-lists ? For some time he received no answer' but on his pressing for ong6,114. Costello saki," The Committee.° The clerk was asked, Who were on the Ocentafttee? He replied, Mr. JPDermott and the clerks. These inqui- ries put Mr. M`Dnanott into a great passion: he asked Major Mahon how he dared to come there fit fee eleventh hour, after leaving Nal to bear all the work, to attack him by aide-wind allusions; \and accused Major 'Mahon of not doing any- thing for the poor, but amusing, iimself by burning houses and turning out the people to starve. Major Mahon averred that he intended no hostile allusion, and xemmded Mr. M'Dermott of a previous conversation between them. "His im- mediate reply," says the memorandum, "was, It is false, it is false; an yd on know it to be false, although you say it.' I referred him to Dr. Shaky, to know if it was not so; but he would not listen to anything. He continued to abuse me in the most insulting manner. I was a stupid ass. I had not common sense.' He only wondered where, or if I had had any schooling; far a more ignorant fellow he never met—such an ass, that if I had had any school- ing it was quite thrown away on me.' He then said, turning round to his clerks and Dr. Shanley, Here have I been for two hours trying to drive into his stupid head some information, and he is so ignorant be cannot understand it."' On the 8th of September, Major Mahon wrote a letter to Mr. IdDermoth mentioning a report that Mr. M'Dermott had repeated these .charges in his chapel on the Sun- day after the meeting; and challenging the priest to afford him an opportunity of refutation at the next meeting of the Committee. Mr. M'Dermott, in reply, declined to meet a person "whose conduct seemed so extraordinary, and who seemed to disregard the ordinary forms of civilized society "; but he made no allusion to the charge of having denounced Major Mahon in his chapel. Lord BEAUMONT rose to perform the painful and disagreeable task of noticing the accusations made by Lord Farnham in so distinct but guarded a manner against the priests— The charges brought against a certain number of their body, must or ought at least, to be felt by the body of the priesthood as casting on thema kind of stain. If no other instances than those adduced by the noble Lord had been or could be brought forward, they were still sufficient to rouse up the whole body of the priesthood. It was the duty of a bishop to watch over the conduct of his priests, as it was the duty of the priest to watch over the conduct of his con- gregation. Charges could not be brought against the one without casting some sort of stain on the rest. When that accusation was coolly and systematically brought forward—when it was supported by sufficient details of evidence as led him to believe that to its extent it was trne—they did not find from the assembled Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church any measures taken to sift the charge. But could he address them, he should say, there was a stain on them and him- self, on the whole priesthood of Ireland, and more or less on the laity of Ireland, if they did not rouse the priests to exertion. There were charges to be examined; there was room for measures to prevent the repetition of such denunciations as had been described: an order might be made, that any priest hereafter denouncing

a the

.any man from altar, or otherwise alluding or indirectly referring to any io- dividual before his congregation, should be worthy of censure. The Roman Catholic Prelates stood in a different relation to the Government from that which they held some time ago. Being now to a certain degree acknowledged by the State, they were on that account bound, and the Lord-Lieutenant should be authorized to call upon them, to assist him in bringing to justice those who bad abused and disgraced their calling. Lord STANLEr concurred in that view— So long as such conduct remained uneondemned in any part of that body—con- sidering the intimate connexion that subsisted betwixt its whole members from the largest to the smallest, considering the weight, of authority that could be brought to bear on the offending portion of the Church—so long as the heads of that Church, and those in spiritual authority over the clergy, permitted such con- duct to remain nnrebaked in the abstract and not deeply censured in the act—so long would the reflecting people of this country and of the world at large lay upon those parties the stigma of the moral culpability that attached to those denuncia- tions, and also the stain that attached to neglect of duty on the part of those who had the power of censuring and condemning, but by whom that power was not exercised. Lord Stanley endeavoured to show, by an examination of its separate provisions, that the bill was insufficient for the occasion— The mere withdrawal of fire-arms would not prevent murder, since every ditch and every road supplies weapons: in one of the most revolting cases, a man was murdered by a stone, which the blow embedded in his skull. It is notorious that the majority of crimes are committed, not by persons residing on the spot, but by strangers brought from a distance under a solemn vow to murder any individual that may be pointed out to them on receiving the reward of a few paltry shillings. Though he did not rely very strongly on the passport system, he thought it might usefully prevent the influx of strangers into the disturbed districts; and it would no doubt be of infinite importance if strangers coining into the proclaimed districts were to be apprehended by the authorities. He found, however, no such provision in the bill. He objected to the provision for calling out the people to join in pursuit: fugitive criminals would only be lost in the crowd. And so-he proceeded with other provisions; concluding with a hope that if Ministers found the bill insufficient, they would take larger powers. Lord Baorransar joined in calling for authoritative interference with the priestly denunciators— At present he did not accuse the great body of the Roman Catholic clergy; • bqt if he fond nothing done, and these guilty priests continued in the same func- tions, he should be compelled, however reluctantly, to say that the stain which might have been kept confined to these individuals extended itself much mote largely to the body itself. The bill passed through the stage of Committee, and was reported with out amendments.


In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Lord JoHx RUSSETS. moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the removal of the civic and political disabilities of her Majesty's Jewish subjects. He admitted that the question did not affect a very large portion of the people—not more than thirty or forty thousand; nor was any. formidable agitation likely to ensue if the claim were refused: but he argued it solely on prin- ciple, and exhorted the House not to occasion a belief that it would only


yield to the influence of petitioning multitudes, and not to principle. Lord John took his stand on the ground, sanctioned by declarations of bdth Houses, that every Englishman is entitled to the honours and advantages which the British constitution gives him; and he further maintained, that religious opinion ought of itself to be no disqualification. To exclude Jews from these rights, strong grounds of disqualification must be shown. Jews are bound by the same morals, bear the same burthens, and perform the same duties as their fellow citizens. He did not argue that civil offices and seats in Parliament are totally separate from religion; but he denied that by a mere declaration of words in an act Parliament—by a mere postscript of an oath or fag-end of a declaration—you can insure religions motives and religions obligations. It must depend upon the general state of opinion in the country whether or not there is a Christian Par- liament. No declaration of acting "on the true faith of a Christian" could have secured a more Christian Parliament than that in which Hollis, Vane, and Falk- land met; no oath of that kind would have been binding on an aristocracy among which were the disciples of Voltaire, or on a democracy of Rousseau—on a Mira- bean, a Condorcet, or a Robespierre. Our own country furnishes another illustra- tion. Was there ever a man who more sneered at Christianity—was there any Jew of the last century who used such language, with the view of depreciating the doctrines of Christianity, and destroying the belief of it in the minds of the people, as Gibbon? Yet Gibbon tookyour declaration. He came to the table and swore "on the true faith of a Christian." (Cheers and laughter.) "He held office under George the Third; he sat on the Treasury bench under a Govern- ment which was more of a High Church Government, which was more disposed to raise the. cry of Church and lag,' than perhaps any Government which ever existed during the reign of that Monarch." Again, Hume held office for a short time in the British Embassy at Paris. " There was no man in the last century who wrote essays so much calculated to undermine religion as Mr. Hume; and yet, if he had been returned to Parliament, and had to make the declaration on the true faith of a Christian,' he would have taken the oath—with a smile or a sigh as the case might be, but he would have taken it, and the cobweb would have been swept awl. I hold that it is not by a declaration of this kind that you can obtain security. The English people is a Christian people, although it includes some thirty or forty thousand Jews; therefore the Parliament of that people would still be a Christian Legislature, although it might include some .half a dozen per- sons professing the Jewish religion. Lord John showed historically how the Oath of Abjuration originated, to prove that it had in fact no reference to Jews. Down to the time of Elizabeth, there WAS no thought of excluding "heretics"; they were dealt with summarily by burning and other penalties. But at that time arose a new distinction, of a poli- tical rather than a religious bearing. The Roman Catholics of that day, thinking that they had no chance of supremacy under Elizabeth or James, entered into re- peated conspiracies with a view to change the succession of these realms. The words " on the true faith of a Christian" were first introduced into the act 3d James I. c. 4: the preamble of that statute alludes to the Gunpowder Plot, and section 15 prescribes an oath to be taken, " on the true faith of a Christian," to prevent conspiracies against the Sovereign and succession; the person who ?ekes the oath saying, inter alia, " I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position that princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever." In the seventh year of James the First another act was passed, by which Members bf Parliament were required to take the oath of allegiance according to the oath in 3d James L c. 4. s. 15, that is, " upon the true faith of a Christian." Now, this shows clearly what the intention of Parliament was in inserting that declaration, " on the true faith of a Christian." It was intended to meet the cases of those Roman Catho- lics who bore true allegiance to the Crown of this realm, and to separate them from those who declared that their prince might lawfully. be murdered. There- fore these words " on the true faith of a Christian," were intended not to exclude either Jews or Infidels, but to give a greater sanction to the oath which the Ro- man Catholic Christian took when he declared himself a faithful and true servant of the Crown. Similar political reasons prescribed the same form of oath in later years. If Roman Catholics were excluded, it was on the score that they failed in their allegiance to the King; and if Protestant Dissenters were afterwards ex- cluded, it was because their hostility to the Established Church as one of the in- stitutions of the realm was presumed. Those disabilities were removed in 1828 and 1829; and if Parliament is broadly a "Christian" Parliament, it has become so since that time.

" One ground which has been stated for their exclusion is, that the Jews are a separate nation. But the Jews themselves utterly deny this allegation. They say that they are not attached to any foreign state; that, as the Jews in France are French subject; those of England are English subjects; and that they are 'ready to do their defy as all good subjects should do, either in time of war or otherwise. If they are aliens, to what country do they belong? An alien is one who has another king and another country, to whom his allegiance is owing; and therefore he cannot pay perfect obedience to the laws of the state in which he lives, and is subjected to some necessary disabilities. But those Jews who have lived in this country for a century or a century and a half, who have their pro- perty in i England, their wives and their families, to what other king or country rt

can they resort order to pay their allegiance? To none whatever. It is ob- vious to all the world that their attachment is to England, and to no other coun- try. I believe that in France the Jews enjoy all the honours and emoluments which the state has to bestow; and M. Dupin, and some other eminent persons who have been elected to seats in the Legislature, are of that persuasion. Do not, therefore, I teg of you, .rest their disqualification npon your former proscription; and do not argue that, if you take it awsy, you will not find the Jews fulfilling the obligations of citizens like other men in similar circumstances. "But we have been told also, that there is a very solemn denunciation in the prophecies, which would prevent our granting to the Jews the rights which they -claim. It is obvious, that if such be the meaning of the prophecies, it is not for us to decide what should be done, but that Providence will accomplish by its own means its own purposes. But I would ask where it is that those who use this argument would draw the line? A Jew has been a Magistrate, a Jew has been a Sheriff, an Alderman. I ask you what right or business have you to interpret a prophecy so as to draw the line between an Alderman and a Commissioner of Customs—between a Justice of the Peace and a person having a right to sit in Parliament? What enabled you or authorized you to say where the line intended by the prophecies should be drawn; and how can you take upon yourselves to draw the limits of the line the Almighty intended to mark out? It would be, in respect to the Almighty being, to "'Strike from his hand the balance and the rod,

Raindse his justice—be the God of God."

The popular prejudice which induced the Administration of 1753, after passing in act for the naturalization of the Jews, to come down in a hurry in the next year for the purpose of repealing it, has very greatly died away. That it has subsided in the city of London, is proved by the 7,000 votes given to a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion, known for his extensive wealth, his charity, and his liberality. The House therefore must not rely on that prejudice. Lord John called upon them to adopt his motion, in the name of the constitution, of freedom, of justice, of common brotherhood in the human race, and of that highest princi- ple of Christianity itself—" Do unto others as you would have they should do unto you." (Much cheering from all parts of the House.)

Sir ROBERT Imams announced that he would not trouble the House by much opposition at present, but that he should oppose the measure in its future stages.

• He opposed it on the ground that Parliament ought to be a Christian Legis- lature, and that the measure would deprive it of that character. He denied that the Jew labours under privation from his exclusion, any more than the multitudes who are excluded by want of the property qualification ; and he insisted that they have already all they can claim, in the perfect toleration which they enjoy in the land where they have taken refuge.

. Mr. W. J. Fox supported the motion as a necessary act in that develop- ment of religions freedom which has succeeded to the principle of religious unity; a principle to which the Toleration Acts put an end. The real question, however, was, whether they would disfranchise the city of Lon- don, which has conferred its suffrages on Baron Lionel de Rothschild, and cannot be expected to retract; and he warned the House not to enter into a contest more embarrassing than that which it encountered in the perti- nacious reelection of Wilkes for Middlesex.

Lord ASHLEY grounded his opposition on religions principle and long- established usage; maintaining that Christianity ought to govern the Legis- lature.

As to the argument that such men as Home and Gibbon might penetrate to the Legislature, he would ask, whether that pretended Christianity would not be better than the profession of open Infidelity; as, in a parallel matter, the observ- ance of the laws of decency was far better than open obscenity and profaneness. He objected to further concession. In 1829 they made a stand for Protestantism; but the Protestant party were beaten. Now they made a stand for a Christian Parliament; if they should be beaten, he foresaw that they would have to stand out for a White Parliament, and perhaps after that for a male Parliament. Lord Ashley defended himself from a charge of inconsistency which might be brought against him, for voting in favour of the bill of 1845, admitting Jews to corporate offices, and opposing the present motion. He largely vindicated the estimable qualities, the learning and abilities of the Jews, who have relinquished their anti-social doctrines; but he drew a distinction between admission to ex- ecutive offices in which the set law is to be obeyed, and admission to a legislative seat where laws are made.

Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE turned Lord Ashley's eulogium on the Jews in favour of the measure; and followed up its support in a long dialectical speeeh, of much neatness and point, but forbidding abbreviation. Mr. ROMILLT spoke on the same side: on the other side came Mr. BANKS; Mr. Goenanaw, Mr. PLIIMPTRE, and Sir Thomas Acr.Awn.

Mr. DISRAELI observed that Lord John Russell and Mr. Goulbialm equally took their stand upon " principle "—Lord John Russell supported the motion upon the principle of religions freedom; Mi. Goulburn oppoeed it upon that of religious truth. He presumed that a majority would support the measure on the ground of religious freedom, and he need not defend that principle; but for himself he thought that there was something still more excellent—religious truth; and on that ground he supported the measure.

He described the large share of civilization, nay even of Divine knowledge, which Christianity owes to the Jews; and presumed that an appeal from that people would prima facie be received with favour by a Christian senate. Lord Ashley had spoken out honourably when he admitted that the cause of prejudice against the Jews in this country is that they are regarded as having incurred some penal retribution for the crucifixion of our Saviour; but Lord Ashley ad- mitted that he could not bring his mind to believe that the existing Jewish po- pulation were in consequence of that mysterious but most important event in the annals of human nature liable to any penal infliction. Long before the Cruci- fixion, the Jews were dispersed into many lands; and a great part of the Jewish population in many countries have sprung from those who left Palestine long be- fore the Christian sera.

"If faith be valid as a sanction of conduct, with what consistency can a Chris- tian people say that those to whom they are indebted for the documents of their own faith—those who profess the religion which every gentleman in this room does, for every gentleman is a professor of the Jewish religion—(" Oh, oh! ")—and believes in Moses and the prophets—(" Oh, oh!" and loud laughter)--I say, how is it possible for you—(Renewed cries of " Oh, oh!" and laughter.) So, I find there are gentlemen here who do not believe in Moses and the prophets! And the fact gives some strength to those observations which we have heard about Mr. Gibbon and Mr. Hume. (Laughter.) But I should have surmised that I am at least taking a position in the argument which would be listened to with reverence. I say, then, that if religion be valid as a sanction of human conduct, you have it in the instance of the Jewish people—a people who profess the true religion. It may not be so in your more comprehensive view. You may say it is not the true religion; but you will admit, that though the Jews may not profess all that we profess, still that all which they do profess is true. You must admit that they are men who are themselves influenced by the Divine revelation which you ac- knowledge, whose morality is founded upon the sacred articles to which we all bow. So that, I repeat, as far as religion can be a sanction of conduct, or a se- curity for public morality, you have in the Jew—in the religion of the Jew—the best ranction in the world excepting that given by the faith of the Christian. • • * Admit Jews because they have a near affinity to Christians. (" Oh, oh!") Have they not? Where is your Christianity, if you do not believe in their Judaism? (Cheers.) Do not mix up the consideralion of a question which is a religious and a sacred question with those which affect the Pagan; which affect the Mahometan. Lay down the broadest principle of the importance of maintaining the religious character of this House and this country; and yet in these very principles you may find, on these very principles you may found, the best of arguments for the emancipation of the Jews. • • * I cannot give a vote in defiance of what I believe are the real principles of religion. Yes, I say it as a Christian, that I will not incur the awful responsibility of stigmatizing by my vote this night that religion in the bosom of which my Lord and Saviour was born." (Cheers.)

On the motion of Mr. Law, the debate was adjourned.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION. • On Tuesday, Mr. Housaart brought under notice the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The case lay in a very small compass, and the facts were embodied in enactments which proved the intention of the Legislature.

The duty of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was, to carry into effect the act of 1836 for the augmentation of the smaller bishoprics out of the revenues of the larger and wealthier sees. He had always thought one provision of the act inert- et—that which limited the revised scale of income to the avoidance of a see, of the light in which it could not fail to be viewed by the public. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, virtually declared the present income of the see to be too large; he fixed the proper amount at 15,000L a year; but, instead of advising that this Change should take place at once, he appeared to say, " Al- though I recommend this as a general rule for other people, I must insist on its not being applied to myself." So the Bishop of London, declaring that he ought only to have 10,0001. a year, expressed his determination to enjoy the surplus during his own lifetime.

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners proceeded to act on returns made to them of episcopal incomes. The first column of the returns contained the average in- come of the Bishops for three years ending in 1831; the next column gave the probable amount of income in future years. Now, the results of the predictions as to future income were most extraordinary, and even ludicrous. In the first place, the statement of the gross income of the Archbishop of Canterbury was 22,0161., and the net income 19,1821. In 1830, Dr. Lashington said, in the House of Commons, that it had been clearly proved before a Committee of the House that the income of the Archbishop was " only" 32,0001.: in the following year, 1881, the Archbishop's return gave the average income as only 22,0001.; and he esti- mated that the income would be so diminished within the next seven years as not to realize more than 17,0001.: but by the return published in 1843, the income had actually risen to 21,000/. The return for the income of the see of York gave 18,000/. gross and 12,0001. net income, and a decrease of 20 per cent was predicted; accordingly, 10,0001. was put down as the income in expectancy: but by subsequent returns, instead of falling, the income realized 14,5501., or an in- crease of 40 per cent instead of a decrease of 20. The neat was a really re- markable case. The Bishop of London gave his income at 13,0001. net, and stated that s decrease of 1.725/ mug be expected; the Commissioners therefore put down the income at 12,2041.: but by the next return the income bad somehow reached 14,5521. The see of London owns all that property flanked by the Edg- ware Road on one side and the Uxbridge Road on the other, occupying the whole of the immense angle running up to Hyde Park Square, Weetbourne Terrace, and Kensal New Town, down to Oxford Square and Cambridge Square. The whole of that mass of buildings had arisen within the last ten years; and it did seem strange to find a marginal note prophesying a decrease of 1,725/ a year in the face of so vast an element of increased wealth. How came it that after about 400 acres bad been covered with handsome buildings, and the Bishop had signed about 2,000 leases, the ordinary roles of cause and effect were completely reversed as respects ecclesiastical estates, and town property became less valuable the more it is built upon ? Mr. Horsman went on quoting from the returns, and showing the identical process of estimated decrease and actual increase in other sees—Durham, Worcester, St. Asaph, Bangor, Chester, Chichester, Lichfield, Lincoln, Llandaff, Norwich, Oxford, Salisbury. How it happened that they were all incorrect, and all on one side, he could not say; and he would leave the House to form its own opinion—he merely stated facts.

He came now to the manner in which the Commissioners made the pay- ments from the richer to the poorer sees; and he thought he could show that in no case had the Commissioners applied the returns as fairly as they might have done.

Where they had money to receive from the richer sees they took too little, and where they had payments to make to the poorer sees they paid too much. The Archbishop of Canterbury's present income is 28,0051.: it has been arranged that out of this should be paid in future 9,0001.; leaving the income at 19,0051., in- stead of 15,0001. as fixed by the act of Parliament. The same thing occurred in each case; and all the Bishops would thus receive more than they were entitled to by law. In every episcopal charge, delivered in every part of the country, we are told of the spiritual destitution prevailing: and in every Bishop's address it is made a subject of lament that such numbers should be without the means of mo- ral instruction. At the same time, we hear of great exertions making to meet this destitution. We were told that in the diocese of Ripon alone, no less than 250,0001. had been contributed towards the fund for church-extension. But though churches had been thus erected on an engagement from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they would endow the same, no such endowment had taken place. The Commission was declared bankrupt, notwithstanding that the Com- missioners were dividing no less a sun than 26,0001. a year out of the ecclesias- tical revenue of the country. Should such matters be permitted to remain amongst those who had been placed as trustees to administer the ecclesiastical property of the country for ecclesiastical purposes? And at what a time was such a mismanagement allowed? When 2,000,000 of the people were without re- ligions teachers, and when there were 2,000 clergymen with incomes under 1001. a year, while some were only 501., 20/, and even 101. a year.

The sufferings and privations of the poorer clergy had never been heard of be- fore in a rich and civilized country like this. He could give instances of poverty and privations, on the part of these men, of which the House had no conception. It had been said that they knew little of the sufferings of the working population; but he might say they knew less of the condition of the ...r working clergy. He could tell of cases where these men were without f... for their families, and without clothes, obliged even to casual charity for the coats with which they visited their poor parishioners. It was for the sake of these men that he had brought this subject before the House, and not from any desire to expose the Ec- clesiastical Commissioners: he had the highest friendship for some of the Com- missioners; but his warmest sympathies were with the poor labourers and ne- glected pastors of the Church. They were the men whom it was their duty to multiply and extend—the men who formed the link between the poor and the rich in this country. Every shilling of superfluity given to the hierarchy was so much extracted from these poor working clergy, and so much religions instruction denied to the poor. It was for these poor that they had the Established Church, and the revenues of the church were the heritage of the poor.

Mr. Horsman concluded by moving the following resolutions- " 1. That the Act 6 and 7 William IV. c. 77, contained, among others, the following enactments : That, in order to provide for the augmentation of the Incomes of the smaller bishoprics, such liked annual sums be paid to the Commissioners, out of the re- venues of the larger sees respectively, as shall, upon due inquiry and consideration. be determined on, so as to leave as an average annual income to the Archbishop of Can- terbury 15,0001., to the Archbishop of York 10,0001., to the Bishop of London 10,0001., to the Bishop of Durham 8,0001., to the Bishop of Winchester 7,0001., to the Bishop of Ely 5,5001., to the Bishop of St. Asaph and Bangor, 5,2001., and to the Bishop of Wor- cester and Bath and Wells respectively 5,0001. And that, out of the fund thus accruing, fixed annual payments be made by the Commissioners, in such Instances and to such amount as shall be In like manner determined on, so that the average annual incomes of the other Bishops respectively be not less than 4,0001. nor more than 5,0001. And that at the expiration of every seven years. reckoning from the let day of January 1837, a new return of the revenues of all the bishoprics be made to the Commissioners and that thereupon the scale of episcopal payments and receipts be revised, so as to pre- serve as nearly as may be to each Bishop an amount of Income equivalent to that which shall have been determined in the first instance to be suitable to the circumstances of his bishopric ; and that such revised scale take effect, as to each see respectively, upon the then next voidance thereof.'

" 2. That on the 1st day of January 1845, a new return of the revenues of all the bishoprics, as ordered, from the 1st day of January 1837 to the 31st day of December 4843, was presented to Parliament ; and subsequently, on the 6th day of February 1846 and the 16th day of June 1846 respectively, were presented the first and second general reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, showing how the provisions of the above- named act had been carried out.

" 3. That, from these reports, fhrnlsbed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners them- selves, it appears to this House that the provisions of the Act 6 and 7 William IV. c. 77, so far as relates to episcopal incomes, have not been carried out according to the in- tentions of Parliament."

Mr. I'LusErritE supported the resolutions. If the object of the act was that any surplus funds should be applied to promote the comforts of the working clergy, unquestionably they ought to be so directed.

Sir GEoRGE GREY heartily concurred with his friend Mr. Horaman as to the importance of the subject, as to the great necessity for supplying the spiritual destitution in the country, and as to the importance of rendering every means available for meeting that destitution as efficient as possible. But he would ask whether the third and last of these resolutions would advance one step the object in view? Mr. Horaman had alluded to the returns made in 1831, and he assumed that - the Ecclesiastical Commissioner: could from those returns draw a right conclu- sion as to the income of future years: whereas the fact was, that those returns of

• 1831 in no one instance gave an accurate report of what the incomes were. Sir George did not mean to say that the arrangement was not open to objection, nor that it was incapable of amendment; but he contended that the arrangement to which their attention had been drawn was part of an act of Parliament, and that in carrying out that arrangement the Commissioners were merely carrying out the law. He did not cranial the returns had anything to do with the point. Mr. Ilorsman bad said that it was the duty of the Bishops to contribute largely to relieve the spiritual destitution of the country: but the Archbishop of Canter- bury, the Bishop of Durham, and other Prelates, had contributed largely.

Sir George proposed to meet the first and second resolutions by moving the previous question, and the third if persisted in with a direct negative. air. HumE observed, that Mr. Horaman had shown a violation of the act of Parliament, and it was the duty of the Government to look after the ..eiteoution of the act. The gross amount received by the Commissioners in 1843 had been 197,0001, and the net amount 150,0001.; and this had not been appropriated according to the act. It turned out that about 30,0001. a year had been applied to the building of Bishops' palaces. No Prelate should have more than 2,0001. or 3,0001. a year; the Bishops would then be more on a level with the other clergy. He advised the Government to give a pledge that they would bring in a bill to amend the act.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS stood up for the Bishops— The property of the Church was as much the property of that corporation as the property belonging to any other corporation. It had been said that the Bishops indulged in the vanities of worldly luxury: he had not seen any of these rases, but he had seen instances of splendid liberality by which the Bishops had honoured themselves in the face of the world. He thanked God that they were not the salaried servants of a majority of the House of Commons—for the Church Establishment does not depend upon an annual vote of Parliament; it stands upon its own foundation as the first body in the state. The Bishops are not pensioners for what they receive—they are donors for what they make over. It was not for him to defend in detail all the acts of all the Bishops mall times—(Laughter) —it would be extravagant if he were to desire to defend all the acts of the Bishops even in the present time: their claim to the support of Parliament rest on their right as great proprietors exercising over their property a free control. The analysis of the returns by Mr. Horsman was thick set with insinuations of this sort—" if it had not been from a Bishop, one could not have supposed it"; their mistakes in their calculations were stated to be all one way: but what conceivable motive could any Bishop have to deceive any one? The Paddington estate had been mentioned: the Bishop of London has as much right to the whole profits of the Paddington estate, and the Archbishop of Canter- bury to the Lambeth estate, as the Marquis of Westminster and Lord Portman have to their estates.

Mr. WOOD agreed with Sir George Grey in the construction of the act— He would not enter into the question whether the 26,0001. mentioned by Mr. Reisman should be devoted to the creation of new Bishops, or to further endow- ments for poor clergy. There were Bishops of his own Church, in Scotland, who received very small incomes. Remembering that at this moment there was a diocese extending from Jersey to London Bridge, and till lately there was one stretching from the Humber to the Thames' it was easy to see how a Bishop might be unacquainted with the destitution in his diocese. An increase of work- ing clergy was much needed. The laity of the church, and even some of the clergy, were not satisfied with the Commissioners; and if this motion should lead to a reconstruction of the Commission, they might find more than a surplus of 26,0001. The clergy bad no doubt contributed largely, but so also had the laity. Dr. Hook of Leeds had in ten years raised no less than 100,0001. for the purposes of religious worship. His reverend friend recently informed him, that after having promoted an act which had the effect of depriving him of half his income, he had been theatened with an action for the expenses of carrying that act through Par- liament. Those very struggles on the part of the clergy, to assist in advancing the cause of religion, showed how extremely important it was that the powers of the Commissioners should be revised.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL enlarged on the great difficulties which beset the question. He hoped, as Mr. Horaman could not possibly expect to carry his resolutions, that he would withdraw them. The act had been carried out so far as the Commissioners are concerned. He would not pledge him self to bring in a bill to change the present distribution of the funds; but he would be glad if any better plan could be devised, which on the whole would be better than the present.

The motion was opposed by Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR and Mr. Goya.- ERRE; and supported by Mr. AGLIONBY. Mr. HEYWOOD said, that if Mr. Horsman would erase from the third resolution the words conveying censure on the Commissioners, he would vote for it.

After some further discussion, the previous question was put and carried, without a division, as an amendment on the first and second resolutions. Dr. BOWRING then moved an amendment on the third resolution; which was put, with the concurrence of Mr. Horsman, as a substantive motion. The House divided: for the motion, 65; against it, 130; majority against the resolution, 65.


On Monday, Sir CHARLES WOOD moved the following list of Members to compose the Committee on Commercial Distress, &c.; twenty-six in number— The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Lord George Bentinck, Mr. Hordes, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Labouchere, Sir James Graham, Mr. Francis Baring, Mr. Thomas Baring, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Spooner, Mr. William Beckett, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Hud- son, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Glyn, Sir William Clay, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Thorne- lay, Mr. James Wilson, Mr. Home Drummond, and Mr. Tennent.

Mr. HUME objected to the unusually large number of the Committee, and to the needlessness of the inquiry; the subject having been exhausted by previous Committees. He moved that the debate be adjourned till the 4th of February. Colonel SIRTHORP seconded the motion. After a discus- sion, it was negatived by 146 to 57. Other objections were taken. Mr. HERRIEs wished to be excused from sharing in a supererogatory inquiry. Several Members objected to certain exclusions, such as that of Mr. Muntz. Lord GEORGE BENTINCH moved to increase the number from twenty-six to thirty: negatived by 136 to 45.

After farther contest, Sir CHARLES WOOD agreed to postpone the selec- tion of names for the present; and the House simply resolved that the Committee should be twenty-six in number. The discussion was renewed on Wednesday; the debate branching off into very discursive remarks on banking, &c. Sir CHARLES WOOD began by defending the composition of the aommittee. He explained that it was intended to include three members of the present Government, three members of the late Government, and three members of the future Go- vernment. Sir Charles went over the whole of the names in his list; showing that there were nine who would probably support the Bank Charter Act of 1844, ten whose opinions were unfavourable to the act, six who had expressed no opinion at all, and Mr. Francis Baring, the Chair- man. Lord GEORGE BERTINER stated the nature of the alteration which he proposed to make; explaining that he took no exception personally to any member, but that he wished the Committee to include the represen- tatives of other opinions. He proposed, for instance, to strike out Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Cardwell, as the gentlemen holding the lowest official rank among the members of the late and present Ministries: in place of Mr. Cardwell he would put Mr. William Brown, as the virtual representa- tive for Liverpool; he would substitute Mr. Archibald Hastie for Mr. La- bouchere, Mr. Pattison for Sir William Clay, Mr. Henley for Mr. Ricardo. Several other Members criticized the proposed composition of the Committee, and still more the futility of the inquiry. Eventually, the names were taken seriatim; and Lord GEORGE BENTINCK moved his amendments. The House divided in each case, affirming the names proposed by Sir Charles Wood. Mr. Labouchere's name, in opposition to Mr. Has- tie's, was affirmed by 194 to 77; Mr. Cardwell, in opposition to Mr. Wil- liam Brown, by 167 to 101; Mr. Ricardo, in opposition to Mr. Henley, by 172 to 105; Sir William Clay, in opposition to Mr. Pattison, 152 to 122. gr. WAHLEY struggled hard for the omission of Mr. Hume, who had left the House with an assurance that he would not serve: Mr. Wakley wished to substitute Mr. Mentz. But Mr. Humes name was retained by a vote of 188 to 97. Sir CHARLES WOOD stated, that if Mr. Hume persevered in desiring to be released, there would be no objection to the substitution of Mr. Mentz or Mr. Hastie.


Also on Monday, Sir Cminula Woon moved that the report on the Rail- ways Bill be received.

On this, Mr. STAFFORD rose, not to oppose the bill, but to call attention to the state of the railway labourers, and the effect of

diminished employment on their condition. The only act specific- ally relating to labourers is the 1st and 2d Victoria, to check "out- rageous and unlawful behaviour of labourers on the railroads," &o.; and Mr. Stafford proceeded to show the results of that negligence. He read extracts from the report of Dr. Bowring's Committee on Railway Labour-

ers; describing the wretched huts in which they live—sometimes a mere low shed of boards against a hedge or bank, without provision for any decent separation of the inmates; the deduction of their money for beer, of which they are compelled to take certain quantities; the total ne- glect of spiritual instruction, and of medical assistance in many cases of ac- cident or disease. One case mentioned was that of a labourer whose spine had been fractured, and who pleaded in vain for the Scriptures to be read to him while he was sinking. There is a regular system for concealing crime. Men who commit crimes in one district fly to another under false names. Their strength procures them work, with large wages; which are wasted in demoralized and improvident habits. One consequence is, that the average age of these men is ascertained not to exceed forty years. Now the stimulus of commercial enterprise is to be checked, and he vainly looked in Mr. Strutt's bill for any mention of the railway labourers—that army of 400,000 men. Would it be wise to continue this neglect, when the House remembered their number, their strength, and their lawlessness? Mr. Stafford mentioned certain cases in which the men had been, taken bbtter care of, and observed that works so conducted had probably paid hettor on the whole than those where cruel treatment had been practised. Sir GEORGE GREY thought that Mr. Stafford overrated the power of Parliament to effect the object which he desired; and pointed to sponta- neous improvements, as in the instance of Mr. Pete, who has 9,000 men em- ployed, and provides a regular staff of religions instructors.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK vindicated the railway companies on the score of the large amount which they contribute to the poor-rates-400,0001.; and of the large employment which they give-57,000 on the completed lines, and 246,000 on railways under construction.

The report was received; and Mr. STRUTT explained some amendments -which he proposed to make in the bill; the object of which was, to enable the provisions for extending time and compensating landowners to work more conveniently. The amendments were adopted.


' On Tuesday, Mr. WAKLEY moved the appointment of a Select Com- thittee to inquire into the allegations of a petition from a large body of the electors of West Gloucestershire, complaining of the interference of Earl Fitzhardinge with the late election of Members.

The petitioners were hhly respectable: one was Mr. W. Leigh, of Woodehes- thr Park, belonging to Lord Dude; and several of them were equally wealthy and respectable. As the House had refused to grant the protection of vote by ballot,—at the same time denying that corruption and intimidation existed to any considerable extent,—it was their bounden duty to institute an inquiry into every case of alleged bribery which came before them. There was a resolution on the journals declaring it to be an infringement of the privileges of the Commons for a Peer to interfere in elections: it would be a farce to continue that resolution on the journals if they refused to investigate the present case. The petitioners stated, amongst other things, that during the last general election, Earl Fitz- hardinge, a Peer of the realm and Lord-Lieutenant of the county, did, both per- sonally and by his agents, interfere with the rights and privileges of the electors; that he had coerced his tenantry to quit the troop of Yeomanry commanded by the Honourable Grantley Berkeley; and that he had caused a bribe to be offered to Mr. Grantley Berkeley to induce him to retire from the representation of West Gloucestershire; that failing in this, he had advanced large sums of money to Mr. Grenville Berkeley to defray the cost of his becoming a candidate in opposition to Mr. Grantley Berkeley; and that he paid large sums for votes and for organizing a system of violence, gross immorality, and corruption. Mr. Wakley had himself received a communication from one of the electors of West Gloucester, stating that Lord Fitzhardinge had caused brandy and water to be supplied to the people in buckets.

If it were asked what he would propose to do with the Lord Fitzhardinge in the event of his being found guilty by the Committee, Mr. Wakley must Candidly confess he could not tell.

Dr. Bowithwo having seconded the motion, a pause ensued.

At length the ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose, and cited a number of cases in order to show that the House of Commons had not actively interfered on such occasions.

• The first case occurred in 1780, when an application similar to the present was made against the Duke of Chandos; of whom it was complained that, being Lord- Lieutenant of Southampton, he signed letters with his own hand respecting the election, thereby committing a breach of the privileges of the House. The ques- tion was referred to a Committee of Privileges; who reported the charges to be substantiated; but instead of the House taking any proceedings against the Duke, a motion for considering the question that day four months was carried.

Mr. WAKLEY—" That was not in a Reformed Parliament."

. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proceeded. The next case occurred in the follow- ing year: a complaint was preferred against the Duke of Bolton for a similar transaction at Southampton; but the House took no proceedings in the matter, the motion being withdrawn. On the same day, complaint was made against a Bishop as a Peer for interfering in an election; but in this case likewise a motion to refer the question to a Committee was withdrawn. Sir John Jervis mentioned several other cases: in 1841, Lord Cawdor was charged with having interfered in the county of Carmarthen; in 1835, the Duke of Marlborough was accused of interfering at Woodstock; in the same year, the Marquis of Salisbury at Hert- ford; in 1833, Lord Lauderdale at St. lye's election; in the same year, another Peer was accused of interfering at Launceston; in 1836, the Marquis of Aylesbury at Marlborough; in 1820, the Marquis of Hertford, at Oxford. In all these cases the House retrained from adopting any proceedings. The reason was, that there remedy in the hands of the House. Mr. WAELEY—" Earl Fitzhardinge is Lord-Lieutenant of a county, and he may be dismissed."

The ATTORNEY-GettettaL would come to that point presently. It was not pretended that this case came under the Controverted Elections Act. And in re- ference to the point of dismissal, there was no allegation in the petition that Lord Fitzbardinge bad acted in his character of Lord-Lieutenant.

Captain BIDIKELEY defended Earl Fitzhardinge by declaring the charge to be " the foulest falsehood that ever disgraced any set of men." He had never used his influence as Lord-Lieutenant at the election.

Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY assured the House, that he had in his pos- session letters from the tenantry serving in his troop, telling him that they should not have left him if they had not been coerced by their landlord. These letters he could produce to the Committee. So many men deserted simultaneously from his troop from this cause, that in sending his muster-roll to the War Office he thought that he was bound to state the reason in the printed column, lest it should be supposed that the desertion was caused by any error of his own: but he was not permitted by his command- ing officer to send the roll with these remarks; and he erased the words.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS thought it a fit subject for consideration, whether it was in their power by a resolution of the House to disfranchise any indivi- dual whatever. He held that a Peer had a right to vote equally with the forty-shilling freeholder: forty years ago the Duke of Norfolk regularly, voted in half-a-dozen boroughs in which he had the franchise. The House would exercise a sound discretion in reconsidering the propriety of that brulum Aileen which they were in the habit of hurling year after year, session after session.

Mr. Hums and Lord DUDLEY STI7ART supported the motion. It was opposed by Lord Join( RUSSELL.

Sir FREDERICK THESIGER said, if the Attorney-General had pursued his researches a little further, he would have found that in the year 1701 the House had taken proceedings in a similar case—

In that year the Bishop of Worcester, being Almoner to the Queen, interfered in an election for Worcestershire, not as Almoner, but being Almoner. Sir John Pakington presented a petition complaining of that interference. The House in-

Quired; decided that the charge had been proved; and agreed to an address to the ueen that she would remove the Bishop from his place of Almoner: he was re- moved accordingly.

Sir GEORGE GREY was not prepared to deny that some inquiry ought to take place in this case; but the Ronk ought to proceed with great caution. The petition did not allege that the parties presenting it were parties who had a right to vote; nor did it offer that they should enter into recog-. nizances to substantiate the charges. He did not feel sure that the case- was not provided for by the statute; but, having only read the petition since he came down to the House, he suggested that it might be better to adjourn the question for a day or two, in order more carefully to con- sider it.

Sir ROBERT PEEL enforced Sir George Grey's suggestion. He was sum the House would act wisely in recognizing the legal tribunal, and by taking at least twenty-four hours to consider more fully what ought to b4IF done.

Mr. WAKLEY having consented, the debate was adjourned to Friday.


On Monday, Mr. LABOUCHERE introduced a bill to suspend certain pro- visions of the act passed last year for the government of the colony of New Zealand. He reminded the House of the petitions and desires for representative governnient, in conformity with which that act was in- troduced by Lord Grey and passed unanimously by. Parliament. It went to establish municipal corporations in those places where considerable numbers of British colonists were assembled; the municipal bodies to be the basis for a system of representative government, of which the members were to be elected by the municipalities. Large territories would have remained chiefly inhabited by Aborigines; and security was taken that the representative system should not unduly interfere with them. Geyer-, nor Grey, however, had represented to the Imperial Government strong ob- jections to carrying out the new constitution- " By the introduction "said Governor Grey, "of the proposed constitution into the provinces of New iealand, her Majesty's Ministers would not confer, as it was intended, upon her subjects the blessings of self-government, but would be giving power to a small minority. She would not be giving to her subjects the right to manage their affairs as they might think proper, but would be giving to a small minority a power to raise taxes from the great majority. There was no reason to think that the majority of the aboriginal inhabitants would be satisfied with the rule of the minority; while there were many reasons for believing that they would resist to the uttermost. They were a people of strong natural sense and ability, but by nature jealous and suspicions. Many of them were owners of vessels, horses, and cattle, and had considerable sums of money at their dis- posal; and there was no people he was acquainted with less likely to sit down quietly under what they might regard as an injustice." Ministers thought that it would be the height of rashness prematurely to force new institutions upon the colony of New Zealand in opposition to an opinion thus expressed; and therefore. Lord Grey did not hesitate to call upon Parliament to suspend the operation of the provisions in the bill of last year which related to that part of the constitution. It was also proposed somewhat to modify the qualification of municipal electors— The present qualification of voters for members of the municipal institutions was the possession of a house, and the ability to read and write the English lan- guage. It was certainly enclosed, at the time the act of Parliament was passed, that very few of the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand resided in the districts- in which municipal institutions would be established: but this opinion did not ap- pear to have been formed on valid grounds; and he thought it would be extremely improper to exclude the Aborigines from the advantage of the proposed municipal institutions. He hoped, indeed, that those institutions might be made the means of preparing the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand for the full enjoyment of constitutional rights. The aboriginal inhabitants could very generally read and write their own 'language, but they were seldom able to read or write English; and there were also in the coleny many natives of France and Germany, who, though they were men of property and education, did not possess much acquaint- ance with the English language. It was therefore proposed so far to modify the qualification as to enable the Governor to give to respectable persons, whether foreigners or aboriginal inhabitants, residing within the limits of the several mu- nicipal districts, certificates which would confer upon them the qualification to vote. The bill he was now asking leave to introduce would suspend for the pe- riod of five years so much of the former act, of the letters patent, and of the in- structions founded upon the act, as related to the Legislative Assembly. The bill would revive, during the period of such suspension, the old Legislative Coun- cil of 1840; but it would also give the Governor the power of adding to the num- ber of that Council. The Legislative Council thus constituted, together with the Governor, were to have the power of constituting Legislative Assemblies for each of the two provinces of New Ulster and New Munster, in such manner as might,

be thought most expedient, either by directly nominating the members or by-au- thorizing an election. In the discussion which followed, and which mainly turned upon another subject, the Government measure received a general approval.

The other subject was raised by Mr. W. E. GLaissroxe, in allusion to a step taken by Bishop Selwyn. He was asked whether the Government intended to produce papers relating to the disposal of public lands, and especially a despatch from Governor Grey to Earl Grey, referring to a protest by the Bishop of New Zealand. The Bishop declared, that as Lord Grey's instructions to the Governor on the subject of public lands asserted doctrines at variance with the treaty of Waitangai, he deemed it his duty te protest against such doctrines, and stated that he would think it proper to in- struct the people committed to his charge in the rights which they had acquired as British subjects under that treaty. Mr. Gladstone forbore to express any opinion on the course thus taken; which certainly looked like a gratuitous and penned interference on the part of a spiritual person in political affairs; but the slightest knowledge of the Bishop must have convinced anybody of what might be called a shrinking aversion on his part from politics. Mr. Gladstone refrained also from expressing any opinion on the merits of the treaty, or its present force; and he assumed that the Bishop's protest was not intended for circulation among the Natives, but as a representation to the Government. He pointed out, how- ever, the dangerous eflbct which such a document would have should it be circulated among the Natives.

Mr. Veltman SMITH followed up these remarks, which he called an elaborate defence of Dr. Selwyn, with some further exposition of the Bishop's proceedings.

If he were to judge of him only by this protest, he must say that he was the mast agitating Bishop he had ever seen. Honourable Members had that morning seen evidence of what agitating Bishops could do, [alluding. to the letter ad- dresaed by thirteen Bishops to Lord John Russell, published in the newspapers of Mendez; an allusion which the House acknowledged by cheers and laughter3; but this right reverend gentleman went further than any of them. He said, in reference to the doctrine propounded by Earl Grey in his despatch—" Against this doctrine I am called on to protest, as the head of the missionary body." It would be observed, that he did not say, " as the head of the clergy of New Zea- land," but " as the head of the missionary body ": and Mr. Smith could not help recollecting how often the zeal of the missionaries in New Zealand had overstepped their discretion, and injured the cause and retarded the prosperity of the colony. the Bishop also said in his protest—" It is my duty, and I amdetermined, God being my helper, to inform the Natives of their rights and privileges." It was evident, therefore, that the Bishop intended to agitate on the subject; and he thought that the phrase "God being my helper" was one of the strongest ex- pressions which he ever recollected to have been used by a Bishop when speaking cif civil or political rights. Other Members also censured the Bishop. Mr. HUME thought that the venerable Prelate, who was so amiable until he left this country, must have had his head turned the moment he landed by the salvoes of artillery which announced his arrival. It would be the duty of the Government to remove him to a better climate and more favourable station: the House should at least stop his salary. Mr. Hume revived some of the facts re- lating to missionary encroachment—the absorption of 96,000 acres by Members of the Church Missionary Society and other bodies; the posses- sion of thirty or forty thousand acres by one missionary of the name of Williams, ago.

Bishop Selwyn was defended by Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER, Mr. CARD- INEI.L, SIT EDWARD. Bux.rox, Mr. PLumeiraz, Lord CLIVE, and the Earl Qf AittlaWriL; chiefly on the score of his well-known integrity, and of his obvious duty in supporting the Natives, who were virtually intrusted to Iris charge., Mr. LABOUCLUIRE hoped that this debate would go no further. He Could not but; regret that the Bishop had put himself in opposition to the Government, and had commenced a course of agitation. A more ill- advised course could not have been adopted; and the Government, had in consequence been compelled to notify their great disapprobation. No other documents remaiiied to be produced.

Leave was given to bring in the bi]L LORD MINTO'S MISSION TO ITALY.

In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, Lord STANLEY called attention

to the continued absence from this country of the Lord Privy Seal.

This absence would have called for animadversion even if the state of the country had not been such as to require the meeting of Parliament; but at such a time no Member, and more especially no Cabinet Minister, should be absent. Lord Stanley was not aware whether any provision bad been made for discharging the duties of Lord Privy Seal during the absence of' Lord Minto. A general be- lief existed that the Government intended to establish diplomatic relations between the Crown of England and the See of Rome, and that Lord Minto's mission was intimately connected with that intention. It might at least be assumed that Lord Minto was not a casual traveller in Italy. Lord Stanley did not pretend to be particularly acquainted with the existing state of Italy, and was not prepared to go into details; but it was pretty generally understood that, under the auspices of the Sovereign Pontiff and other important personages, a state of extreme dis- quiet and extraordinary political movement prevailed. It was natural, therefore, to feel some anxiety in this country, because various schemes of political change are afloat, to which persons in Italy give their assent more or less reluctantly or. willingly. If the movement wereof a purely internal nature, it would be unneces- sary for this country to interfere; but if it should be of a nature to affect our com- mercial interests, there can be no doubt that its progress ought to be attentively watched by the Government. If there is a confederation going forward with ul- terior political views that should demand the serious attention of the Government; and the hat thing that a British Ministry ought to do would be to countenance such projects. ':here was a talk of the 'independence of Italy ": if that meant that noloreign power ought to have any concern in the affairs of Italy, such a principle should be steadily resisted. It appeared by the public journals, that Lord Minto, as the representative of the British Government, had presented him- self on a certain :occasion in a balcony and shouted " vicars " for the independence of Italy : Lord Stanley trusted that there was no foundation for this report.

He concluded by asking, whether Lord Minto was accredited—not to the Pope, for that would be illegal—but to any of the states of Italy; and what were the precise functions and limits to the authority assigned' to Lord Minto by the Government?

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was anxious to give every explanation in his power.

As Lord Stanley was aware, the duties of Lord Privy Seal did not require the constant attendance of the individual holding it. The importance of the mission rendered it particularly desirable that the selection of the individual should NI on a noble Lori possessing the entire confidence of his colleagues, and acquainted with the recent transactions of Government; and no choice was more natural than that of the Lord Privy Seal. Aocordingly, he went at a time when there was no immediate expectation of the assembling of Parliament.

" I have no hesitation in saying, that I view the recent transactions in Italy, as events of the highest importanoe to the country; leading as they. may do to con-

sequences highly advantageous in themselves, and conducive to the.preeperity oe each Italian state, but, possibly, also mischievous and unfortunate in their nature as they may involve the relations of Italy with other countries." In the simulta- neoas movement for reform now prevailing throughout Italy—a movement which though now temperate might from its character become intemperate—it was ne- cessary that not a moment should be lost in offering the friendly advice and inter- ference of England in a manner calculated to be useful. A state of things could not be conceived in which it was more material that England should be repro seated in Italy through the medium of some person of the highest authority from the position he held, as well as his capacity for obtaining the information so much needed. " I have no hesitation in telling the noble Lord, if he is stilt anxious on the subject, that Lord Minto has not been a mere traveller in Italy during the last month, but that he left this country accredited to all the Sovereigns of Italy, with the exception of one, to whom, undoubtedly, by the law of the land as that law is understood, he could not be legally accredited. Lord Mace was instructed to proceed to Italy to communicate with the respective So- vereigns, and to offer them the friendly advice of England, confining that advice i

however, to objects connected with the internal improvement of each state; aad farther to recommend a _prudent course to each state, in order to prevent circum- stances, advantageous in themselves both to those states and to Italy at large, from exciting apprehensions in other Powers, and avert any invasion of theigaj, of those Powers, which, I believe, it is most material should be observed. I hope I have answered that question distinctly. The noble Lord will understand, that not only is her Majesty's Government deeply. sensible of the importance of ob- serving those claims, but that it is most anxious to prevent any collision which may arise out of excitement and excesses: I should deprecate those collisions am much as the noble Lord himself. Lord Minto, under these circumstances, has communicated with the Italian Sovereigns; and I am justified in saying, that those Sovereigns have severally expressed &cordial satisfaction, almost amounting to gratitude, at having had an opportunity of receiving from so authentic a source the advice of England, and of making their views known to it through the same channel. I am persuaded the presence of Lord Minto in Italy has tended to mo- derate any disposition to excess that might have existed there, and above all, to preserve that good understanding between the people and the Government which is so essential."

The noble Lord asked whether it was desirable that a communication with the Court of Rome should be legally established by this country. Lord Spearszr—" The noble Marquis is mistaken; I did not ask that question."

Lord Leamnovner.—If not put as a direct question, it was part of the noble Lord's speech. The noble Lord had evaded giving his opinion, but he (Lord. Lansdowne) would express his own. "I think it is most desirable such a com- munication should he established. I venture to say? it is monstrous, that while in, this country is represented in and has the means of procuring the best informa- tion through official channels from, every Court and Government in Europe, Ame- rica, and Asia, of all climates and all creeds, there should exist in the very centre of Europe onestate where we have no means of procuring such information; that in the centre of Europe there should be one Court where- we have no means of communicating to it either information or advice. And I believe there is not a court, in the world in which it would be more useful for this Government to be enabled to explain the nature of its own transactions, and to lay open to that Court, with the peculiar sort of influence it possesses, the condition of every

of her Majesty's dominions. That cannot now be done by law • but I thong only fair, open, and frank, as the noble Lord called on me to speak directly on the subject, to state explicitly what I feel with regard to it." Lord Lansdowne could not state the circumstances under which Lord BEnto was described in the public journals as having given pithlic expression to- his- sympathy with popular feeling: there were no- authentic accounts of the cir- cumstances: but he was sure that any. expression of opinion made by Lord Minh) was founded in a desire to promote by friendly means the improvement of each state of Italy. Lord Minto's duties bad been performed in his absence by a Commission.

Lord BEAUMONT could.not refrain from expressing his gratification at- the manly assertion by Lord Lansdowne of the opinion entertained by the Government.

NATIONAL DEFENCE. On Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, referring to a notice by Mr. Osborne, made this statement—"The honourable.gentleman the Member for Middlesex has given notice of a motion, for which I believe no day is fixed, with respect to the defences of the country. I shall have shortly after the recess for state, on the part of the Government, both what. has been done and what is pro-' posed to be done upon that important matter; and it seems to me that it would: be better for the public interest that the subject should come from a member of the Government than that it should be brought forward by an independent Mem- ber of this House. ("Heart hear!') Of course, if the honourable Member is not satisfied with my statement, it will be in his power at any time to make his, motion; but I have to request of him that he will postpone it till he has heard that statement." Mr. OSBORNE could not have a moment's hesitation in complying with the request. In reply to Lord INGESTRE,. on Thursday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was entirely, Ignorant of a letter in the newspapers purporting to be written by the Duke of Wellington respecting the defences of the country; but soon after he came into office, he wrote to the Duke on the subject, and had since been in fres quent correspondence with him.

Pearnistara MEDALS. On Tuesday, the Duke of RICHMOND inquired when the medals world be given to the Peninsular officers and soldiers; and if it. Wags intended to extend the grant of such medals to other officers, soldiers, and sailors, who served in the late war? Earl GREY replied, that with regard to the Army he was not aware that there would be any extension of the grant of medals be- yond that announced in the order of the 30th Jnne last With regard to the Navy, some extension was deemed necessary. Of the dahlia 2,000 had already been decided, 400 had been rejected, and 16,000 were still under consideration. He hoped that the medals, which had been delayed by an accident that had hap- pened to the artist, would be ready in three months.

Rio DE LA PLATA. In answer-to a question put by Mr. THOMAS. BARING, on Monday, Lord PALMERSTON said that the blockade of the Plata attracted the anxious attention of her Majesty's Government; and communications had been made with the Government of France; which manifested the most sin- cere desire to cooperate with the British Government- for the purpose of putting an end to the present one.t;sfactory state of things.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS ORDERS. In reply to Mr. Austen on Thurs- day, Sir GEORGE GREY said that it was his intention during the recess to give his attention to the subject of the religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church, and the provisions of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill touching those orders.

MIDNIGHT ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATES. On Wednesday, Mr. BROTHEBTON moved a resolution, that whenever any new business is brought in after twelve o'clock at night, if it be moved and seconded that the debate on such question be adjourned, Mr. Speaker shall immediately declare the debate adjourned, without putting the question to the vote. Mr. LWART advocated day sittings both for Committees and debates. Sir GEORGE Gnirr opposed the motion • contending that the-public convenience would be better consulted by. leaving a discretion with the House than by laying down anT rigid rule which might prove embarrassing. , He did not think It practicable, if Committees were to sit, that the House should I meet in the day-time every day in the week. Lord GEORGE Bmil,DTCK likewise

the motion. They really wanted an additional day as it was. He was aid that the abstemious habits of the honourable Member for Salford—his vegetable and water diet—would prevent him from taking a lesson from the old convivial song, "The best of all ways to lengthen our days, Is to steal a few hours from night, my boys."

On a division, Mr. Brotherton'a motion was negatived by 57 to 33.

NEW Warrs have been ordered, for the borough of Tamworth, in the room of Mr. William Yates Peel; and for the borough of Sunderland, in the room of Mr. David Barclay: both these gentlemen having accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. ADJOURNMENT OF PARLIAMENT. Lord Jolts. RUSSELL gave notice, on Monday, that if the Irish Crime and Outrage Bill should have received the Royal assent by Monday next, he would then move the adjournment of the House to the 3d of February.