13 data net rutn1iiug inVarliantrut.

PRINCIPAL BITSINESS OP THE WEEK.

Horse or LORDS. Monday, June 20. No sitting.

Tuesday. June 21. Income-tax Bill, read a second time—Encumbered Estates Court (Ireland) Continuance Bill, read a second time.

Thursday, June 23. Income-tax Bill committed—Charitable Trusts Bill, commit-

ted. '

Friday, June 24. Episcopal Revenue ; Bishop of Salisbury's Defence—Six-mile Bridge ; Lord Cardigan's Charge.

Horsy OF COMMONS. Monday, June 20. Licences ; Mr. Gladstone's Statement —Jamaica: Lord John Russell's Announcement—Greece and Turkey; Question and Answer—Succession-duty Bill, in Committee. Tuesday, June 21. Episcopal and Capitular Property Bill, introduced by Lord Blandford, and read a first time—" Count out."

Wednesday. June 22. Nunneries Bill ; Mr. Phinn's Amendment for Inquiry ; second reading of the Bill rejected, but the Amendment not disposed of.

Thursday, June 23. New Writ for Stroud—India Government Bill ; Lord Stanley's Amendment; Debate adjourned—Excise-duties on Spirits Bill, passed by 121 to 41 —Assessed Tax Bill, read a second time—New Writ for Sligo—Newspaper Stamps Bill, read a first time—Nunneries Bill; disposal of Mr. Phinn's Amendment fixed for the 20th July.

Friday, June 24. Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill, committed—Tenant Compensa- tion (Ireland) Bill, committed—India Bill; Debate resumed, and further adjourned— Evidence Amendment Bill, read a second time—Soap-duties Bill, passed—New Writ

TIME

The Lords.

,, T. Commons.

Hour of Hour of

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjourornent.

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday No sittlog. Monday 4h .(m) 21, Om Tuesday 5h bh 10m Tuesday 4h 8k 051 Wednesday

No sitting.

Wednesday Noon .... 6h Om Thursday 5h 71,20w Thursday

411 . fro) 2h 45m

Friday 20 skis,,, Friday Noon .... 51,50w 6h .(m) lh 15m

Sittings this Week, 3; Time, 101, 15m Sittings this Week, 6; Time. 41k 50m — this Session, SS; — 2041,25w — this Sesaion, 115; — 7921,48w

THE INDIA BILL.

On Thursday, in a very thin House—at one time not more than five Members sitting on the Opposition benches—and in almost perfect silence throughout, Lord STANLEY moved the resolution of which he had given notice as an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the bill. His amendment did not profess to deal with the question of govern- ment, but with the question of delay. This he asked on the ground that the session is near its close ; that the European public opinion in India, and opinion in England, is not known in the one case and not matured in the other ; and that the Committees have not reported. As to time, he cited a variety of cases—the Reform Bill, the Corn Bill of 1846, the India Bills of 1783, 1813, and 1833—to show. that longer time had been given to discussion in Parliament. At great length he argued against the pro- bability that delay would cause agitation or insurrection in India ; and insisted that the provisional character of the bill would place a premium on agitation. The late Government had not intended so to act ; they had intended to legislate on the reports of the Parliamentary Committees. Lord Stanley occupied a third of his speech with a criticism of the Go- vernment measure. He objected to the renewal of the statute for an in- definite period ; he quarrelled with the regulations respecting patronage, while approving the making of appointments depend on examination; and, admitting the necessity of a double government of some kind, he found fault with the proposed change of the constitution of the Court of Direct- ors as placing too much power in the hands of the Minister of the day. It is the Court of Proprietors that requires reform. Lord Stanley en- tered into a general review of the past government ; dilating on the ex-

for Tralee.

pensive wars, the small proportion of revenue applied to educatiodand public works, and the maladministration of justice; and contending that he had made out a ease for a searching investigation of the conduct of the Indian Government before that eonduct should be approved, or the powers they had enjoyed should be continued in their hands. He moved,

" That, in the opinion of this House, further information is necessary to enable Parliament to legislate with advantage for the permanent govern- ment of India ; and that, at this late period of the session, it is inexpedient to proceed with a measure which, while it disturbs existing arrangements, cannot be considered as a final settlement."

Mr. LOWE made a vigorous speech in reply. The question is, how should the government of India be dealt with : Lord Stanley's amend- ment raised the question whether they should deal with it at all. Mr. Lowe criticized the terms of the amendment, and shOwed that the first part had nothing to do with the question before the House, while the se- cond offered no adequate reason for delay. Lord Stanley made the pro- visional character of the bill matter of objection, and then he said it was too late to pass a permanent bill. With respect to the main topics of debate, Mr. Lowe showed that the present bill was introduced six or seven days earlier in the session than the bills of 1813 and 1833 ; that few Members take an interest in India,—witness the state of attendance when Lord Stanley himself was addressing the House ; that for those few there would be ample time to discuss the bill ; and that two years' delay would not solve the chief question—that of the double or single govern- ment. It is desirable to legislate now ; for there is commotion from ono end of Asia to the other—from China to the Bosphorus, and we are bound to make our government as strong as possible. Mr. Lowe took up the objections of Lord Stanley one after the other, and replied to them ; and dwelt especially on the advantages which it is hoped will flow from the reform of the civil service by making appointments on the ground of merit. No case had been made out for delay. Mr. PHINN complained that the Whigs had departed from the princi- ples of Mr. Fox, in not placing India under the direct government of the Crown. Upon that principle he took his stand against the bill. He also reviewed, with more force and point, the past history of India under the Company, chiefly in refutation of Sir James Hogg's statements. He en-

larged upon the constituency of the Court of Directors ; drew an un- favourable picture of the state of the Natives, and condemned the conduct of the Company towards the Native Princes. In Committee he should propose that the government of India should be administered in the name of the Crown.

Sir ROBERT brows objected both to the bill and to the amendment ; but he would prefer amending the bill in Committee to postponing all

legislation. In the main, he was for standing by the arrangement of 1833.

Mr. HENRY RAILLIE replied to Mr. Lowe on behalf of the amendment. Mr. HERRIES took the same line as Sir Robert Inglis ; objecting both to the bill and the amendment, but especially to the latter. He could

never agree that Parliament is not competent to legislate on India ; and he would rather amend a bad bill than agree to an amendment which would embarrass the Government, and probably endanger our Indian empire.

On the motion of Mr. /luxe, the debate was adjourned.

THE INeoras-Tax.

In moving the second reading of the Income-tax Bill in the House of Peers, the Earl of ABRHDREN stated the reasons why Government had proposed it, and briefly repeated in substance the statement of the whole budget as made by Mr. Gladstone in the other House. He did not deny that the tax is objectionable ; but it was impossible to avoid its renewal without imposing more objectionable imposts. Government had there- fore been compelled to consider the best mode of effecting its renewal ; and Mr. Gladstone had succeeded, not only in proposing a plan, but in silencing opposition to the plan that he had proposed: Lord Aberdeen did not recollect an instance in which the triumph of reason over strong conviction was more distinctly displayed. Mr. Gladstone had proved that any other mode of assessing the tax is impossible ; and he had provided that, with the consent of Parliament, it should cease in 1860. Ministers never contemplated making it a permanent tax. Having stated the main outline of the Budget, Lord Aberdeen characterized it as a solid system of finance ; and anticipated that if peace be preserved, this country will see years of happiness and prosperity never before witnessed. The Earl of DERBY would not offer any opposition to the second read-

ing: he submitted because the tax is inevitable, and the state of the finances such as would not enable the present or any Government to dis- pense with the large sum accruing from the Income-tax. But he ob- jected to its principle ; and he entered into an elaborate criticism of the Budget to show that the calculations were vague and illusory, and the conclusion a contradiction to the premises. He questioned the probability of the cessation of the tax in 1860; and referred Mr. Gladstone's success, not to his powerful reasoning, but to the counter-attraction of a heavy tax on landed property. Lord Derby maintained that it is erroneous to suppose Mr. Disraeli had not matured plans for carrying out his policy; the fact is, time was not given him to develop them.

Lord PORTMAN and Lord Briaireas adversely criticized the Income-tax Bill and the Budget. Lord Baounnem put several cases to show the in- justice the present Income-tax inflicts on capitalists, professional men, and traders. He also strongly objected to the principle, but despaired of the discontinuance of this execrable tax at the end of the next, or the next following, seven years. The Marquis of OLANRICARDE also feared for its discontinuance in 1860.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the Ministers are perfectly sin-

cere in their provision for the cessation of the tax. They do not contem- plate extending it beyond 1860. He had always opposed it as a perma- nent tax, and his opinion has not changed. Ministers have now put it in the power of Parliament to discontinue the tax, and that is all they can do.

The Earl of WICKLOW defended the bill, and its extension to Ireland. The second reading then passed without division.

On the motion for going into Committee, the Earl of CLarres.arz at- tacked British rule in Ireland ; renewed some of the old objections to the extension of the Income-tax to that country ; and urged the old com- plaint that Ireland is taxed for the relief of England. The Earl of ABER- DEEN suggested that such a speech should have concluded by a motion for the repeal of the Union. He replied to the assertions of Lord Clan- carty ; and the House went into Committee. The clauses of the bill were agreed to without opposition. SUCCESSION-DUTY Bus.

In the Committee on this bill, on Monday, the discussion lasted several hours, and was confined to clauses 20 and 21. As before' the discussion mostly turned on technical points, and was a "business" debate. On clause 21, laying down rules for valuing land, houses, ere., there was great debate, with a division against the Government. The main topic of dispute was the valuation of timber. Sir Joins HANMER and others objected to taxing timber at all : we are taking the duty off foreign timber, then why put it on home-grown timber ? But while objecting to the mode of assessing the tax, Sir Dimas Acsarrn and others did not think timber should be altogether exempt. Sir JOHN Tnousarz moved the omission of the words taxing all timber not planted or left standing for the ornament or shelter of a mansion, or valued therewith. As Mr. AGLIONBY, Lord SEYMOUR, and Sir ROBERT PRICE took exception to the clause, and seemed to support the amendment, cheers broke forth from the Opposition. Mr. GLADSTONE and Lord Joust RUSSELL pointed out, that they were not going to divide upon the question whether the tax should be levied in this way or that, but whether timber should be taxed at all. But on a division the amendment was carried, by 153 to 150, and the numbers were reported to the Committee amid loud Opposition cheering. - Sir Joins TROLLOPE moved a proviso to the effect that the value of any growing timber should not be included in the estimate. Mr. Mumasios moved that the Chairman should report progress : a motion which was negatived by 157 to 119. On the suggestion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, Sir JOHN TROLLOPE withdrew his proviso, and left it to the Government to bring in a proposal. At length, after much bandying of retorts, it was agreed that the Chairman should report progress.

TRADE LICENCES: STAMPS: CUSTOMS.

In reply to Mr. PHINN Mr. GLADSTONE stated, that upon examination he had found that the scale of licences, as originally devised, would be in some cases oppressive ; that he had revised it, but that the revision had materially lessened the estimate of the proceeds; and that it became a question whether, supposing he could spare the money, it would not be better to let the whole matter stand over, until publicans' licences and others of that class could be considered. But it must be clearly under- stood, that in making this statement he did not bind the Government ab- solutely to any course.

On the same occasion, he laid on the table the Stamp-duties Bill, and a list of the articles upon which the extra Customs-duty of 5 per cent will still be chargeable.

EXCISE-DITTIES ON SPIRITS.

On the motion that the bill do pass, Mr. CONOLLY renewed his opposi- tion, and complained that he had last Friday been met by taunts put for- ward in a tone of offensive familiarity. The main topic of the brief discussion was the employment of the Constabulary in the collection of the spirit revenue. Mr. GLansrosra assured the House that this service should interfere as little as possible with their regular duties. On a divi- sion, the motion was carried by 121 to 41. The bill accordingly passed.

Taw NUNNERIES Buz.

The presentation of shoals of petitions, the majority against the mea- sure, preceded the motion, on Wednesday, for the second reading of the bill for the recovery of personal liberty.

Sir ROBERT IttGias was the first speaker. He dilated considerably on the point that many of the adverse petitions misdescribed the bill: one as a bill for the inspection of nunneries," another the "visitation of nunneries," and one Member had called the bill "the act for the dese- cration of nunneries." He submitted that these descriptions were incor- rect; that the bill was not levelled at the Church of Rome only, and that it was strictly a bill for "the recovery of personal liberty." Sir Robert argued, that the mere probability that abuses existed,—and that probability was recognized by ecclesiastical authorities from the Coun- cil of Trent downwards,—made it imperative on Parliament to provide a security. On the Continent, even the Roman Catholic states were not be- hind in providing a remedy for those abuses. It was not possible to conceive that out of 3000 persons there should not be some who pined after the world they had renounced—not the world of sin and gayety, but of kindness and affection. He denied that the existing law is sufficient for the purpose. To talk of the writ of habeas corpus being available in these cases, is to recom- mend the old remedy of catching a bird by putting salt on its tail. There are many cases where the requisite authority cannot be given by the party herself. Let the writ issue where there is reasonable ground to believe an inmate of a convent is confined against her will. If there are women con- fined against their will, then they ought to receive the sympathy of honour- able gentlemen opposite ; if there are none, then the machinery of the bill will not be required.

Mr. Pam/ moved as an amendment, that it be referred to a Select Committee "to consider whether any and what regulations are necessary for the better protection of the inmates of establishments of a conventual nature, and for the prevention of the exercise of undue influence in pro- curing the alienation of their property."

Apart from the religious difficulty, the bill is unconstitutional in its na- ture. It begins with a false recital, and terminates with a provision de- structive of the first principle of English law, that every man's house is his castle. He challenged any one to point to a case where a habeas corpus had been applied for and had failed. He traced the prevailing feeling to the proceeding of those Protestants who are playing at Roman Catholics—like the "Sisters of Mercy" at Plymouth ; and again repeated his challenge re- specting the writ of habeas corpus, which writ the preamble declares there are difficulties in obtaining and applying: Are the Roman Catholic gentle- men so much under the control of their priests as to allow their sisters, nieces, and cousins, to be immured against their will ? He showed that un- der the bill the individual liberties of the country would be in the hands of the Government, as the bill gives the Commissioners the right of forcible entry into any house between eight o'clock in the morning and eight o'clook in the evening, upon "reasonable grounds" shown. If there are grievances, with respect to property which persons who take vows are bound by those i vows to renounce, Parliament s bound to legislate ; but they should first inquire. Having alleged this as a reason for the appointment of a Committee, Mr. Phinn said there are four points on which legislation would be beneficial. In the first place, it ought to be provided that these establishments should be under registration ; secondly, no persons should be allowed to take the vows until they have arrived at the age of twenty-one ; thirdly, proper restriction should be placed upon their power of alienating their own property ; and in the fourth place, .it ought to be enacted that every person upon entering a convent should name two persons of her own family who should have ac- cess to her at proper and stated periods. He believall that if improper im- prisonments had taken place, the Roman Catihnoltioe relations of the persons who had suffered would themselves have co rward to denounce and subvert such a system. (Neers.) Urging similar arguments, and coming fort' for the sake of Protest- antism itself, Mr. Isa..s.e Burr seconded the, endment.

Mr. FAGAN believed sincerely that there is no abuse either in England or Ireland. There are guards and checks to admission ; and one rule is, that discontented nuns are dismissed. He thought the amendment as offensive as the original motion.

Mr. NAPIER thought it desirable that the House should accept the amendment ; he could not vote for the bill.

Neither the proposed inspection nor the habeas corpus would remedy the evil. Some step should be taken as to the predisposition of property ; and in illustration of this he cited some law-eases. Miss White entered a convent as a lodger ; she was not to take the veil until she was twenty-one years of age ; she did take the veil before that time, evidently under undue influence ; in 1829 she became unwell ; her brother was not allowed to see her ; and under these circumstances she assigned 1100/. and her real estate to the members of the convent. In the case of Fulham versus Macarthy, Mr. Napier was counsel ; and he read testimony clearly showing that by the vows of their order two ladies, Maria and Catherine Macarthy, were compelled to assign their pro- perty away from their relations. Miss Maria did so weeping bitterly, and saying when she signed the deed, that "a pen might as well have been put into the hands of a corpse as into hers when she signed the deed, as she knew she came to do an act contrary to her conscience, and let the sin be upon those who caused her to do so."

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, repeating the arguments of Mr. Phinn, and lay- ing great stress on the powers given by this bill to the proposed Commis- sioner, who might break into any man's house if he supposed a woman was confined in it against her will, condemned the measure. It would establish a general tyranny. "Pass this bill, and where will be the safety of our houses ?" Differing, however, from Mr. Phinn in this, he con- tended that if the bill raised an alarm in conventual establishments, the proposed inquiry would only increase it. The general policy of the law with respect to the disposition of property may be a fit subject for legis- lation; but don't restrict it to convents. The case cited by Mr. Napier showed that justice could be obtained in the ordinary courts.

Mr. GEORGE HENRY MOORE denounced the measure in a style of free language. The Commissioner would be the Jack Ketch of bigotry, and the officers to carry out the measure must be fetched from Turkey. Mr. IlExcirv reproved Mr. Moore, but opposed the bill. Mr. ROUNDELL PAL- MER supported the amendment : some measure for the regulation of con- vents is necessary. Mr. CHAMBERS replied. He would not put the House to the trouble of a division, but would accept the amendment. Sir GEORGE GREY spoke against both the bill and the amendment. Sir Ionic PAKINGTON, "speaking for a vast number of gentlemen" on the Opposition side, announced his intention to vote against the second read- ing, in order to vote for the amendment. The House divided on the motion "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question "—Ayes, 178; Noes 207 majority, 29. Before the next division could be taken the clock struck Next day, Mr. Pan,-st moved that the debate be further adjourned un- til the 20th July. Mr. GEORGE HENRY MOORE moved that it be ad-

journed to that day six months. Briefly debated, the amendment was rejected by 83 to 35; and the debate was postponed to the 20th July ac- cordingly.

CHURCH PROPERTY.

The Marquis of BLANDFORD moved for leave to bring in a bill to make better provision for the management of Episcopal and Capitular property. At the same time he presented a petition from 800 incumbents of parishes, showing that the value of a number of benefices endowed under the Church-building Act do not exceed 13/. a year ; and that upwards of 4000 incumbents receive less than 150/. a year.

He described the proposal he was about to make as neither hazardous nor unconstitutional. He briefly mentioned some of the many instances in which Parliament has interfered to regulate Church property,—such as the Church-building Act, the Tithe-commutation Act, and the act for prevent- ing Pluralities ; not to speak of more ancient interventions of Parliament since the reign of Henry the Eighth. He showed by copious extracts the great wants of the parochial system ; the shameful and sinful system of leasing and taking fines on renewals, introduced at the Reformation ; and the inevitable bad management of Church property by bishops and chapters —matters irrelevant to their occupation. He showed that the subdivision of parishes ought to go on concurrently with the increase of population ; ad- verting to the petition he had presented in proof thereof, and citing some letters from clergymen of churches in poor and populous parishes whose en- dowments and allowances from the rectors of the parent churches are totally inadequate. The annual charge to meet the wants he had made out —the endowment of 1670 churches including 580 not yet built, at 150/. a year—would be 350,9671. By an elaborate calculation he showed, that, properly managed, episcopal and capitular property would yield an available surplus of 415,968/. to meet the charge ; thus not only providing for the pre- sent but for the future.

He then stated the provisions of his measure. It was simply to transfer the management of the Church property ô State Commissioners, investing them with legal authority, and empowering them to receive all the rents and profits, except such as are derived from land analogous to glebe-land, and sums derived from money invested in any public security. He was anxious that the measure he proposed should come into operation with as little sudden change as possible, but that the property should gradually be taken from the corporations in which it is vested. A separate agent should be appointed to watch the affairs of each corporation. With regard to the transfer of property, the measure provided that the powers given by the act of 1851 should be referred directly to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in order that the work might proceed at once, and that estates mig'ht be as- signed to each see sufficient to yield its annual income. In the event of the money not being paid to the Commissioners in proper time, powers of re- entry should be conferred. Since 1841 some sees had received fixed incomes, and some varying ones ; but that would require consideration. All capitu- lar estates are intended to come under the operation of this bill.With re- gard to those sees which had been filled before the year 1848, it is proposed

that the operation of the act should be delayed until their next avoidance. The bill provides that a half-yearly return should be made of the sum de- rived from the excepted sources. With regard to the sums to be paid for the maintenance of chapters, many of the canons at present, have no fixed income, and the present bill provides that such a sum should 'be paid to them as should make up the sum they would have been entitled to receive before the present act comes into operation. As long as the major part of the ca- nons are not under the operation of any existing law, the Commissioners should pay them the sum necessary for the expenses of the cathedral; but when a majority has COMO to receive a fixed income, such sum should no longer ho paid. He would say that such steps as he now proposed are the necessary consequences of all previous legislation, and are necessary to ren- der it complete. Under the proposed system, the poorer sees would receive an annual sum from the common fund, and the surplus of the rich sees would go into the hands of the Commissioners ; and the Bishops would not be stipendiaries, because the lands of their own sees would pay their income. The only way of efficiently contributing to the church-building fund, is to hold out to each district the prospect of a permanent endowment ; but to do that somenew system of management must be introduced. Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave Lord Blandford great credit for his devotion to the interests of the Church. Heartily concurring with the motion, he thought it would be better that the House should have the details of the bill before it, than that a discussion should now take place ; and he hoped that it would not be unduly pressed at this late period of the session. Then followed a chorus of assenting speakers—Mr. Hine; Mr. HEAD- LAM, Sir BENJAMIN HALL, MP. EWART, MT. FERGUSON; each reserving his opinion on the details. Leave was given to bring in the bill.

CONTINUANCE OF THE IRISH ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT.

On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, a bill for continuing the Encumbered Estates Court of Ireland for two years, and for making some technical amendments of the previous act, was read a second time.

NEWSPAPER STAMPS.

Mr. GLADSTONE brought in a bill to amend the law relating to the stamp-duties on newspapers ; and it was read a first time.

JAMAICA.

In the course of a reply to Sir JOHN PexneoTox, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, that a plan has been proposed which it is hoped will put an end to the embarrassments in Jamaica. Probably the plan will affect the finan- cial powers of the House of Assembly ; but in a week or ten days the Duke of Newcastle in the House of Peers, and Lord John Russell in the House of Commons, will state the details of the Government plan.

GREECE AND TURKEY.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply to Colonel DUNNE, stated that there had been no arbitration upon the differences between the Governments of Greece and Turkey respecting the possession of certain frontier villages. The Turkish Government claimed those villages ; the Greeks disputed the claim; and intimations were given that force would be resorted to. But the representatives of foreign powers had recommended that nothing should be done until the subject be considered. On consideration, they had decided that the villages belonged to Turkey.

"COUNT OUT."

'When the discussion on the motion of the Marquis of Blandford had come to an end, Lord DUDLEY STUART was called upon to move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the Septennial Act : but, on the suggestion of Mr. Hume, he withdrew his motion. Mr. MO:STAGUE CHAMBERS then began to move for a Select Committee to inquire concerning an unlawful seizure of watches by Customhouse-officers, in February 1852—the pro- perty of Lucien Merchant : but notice was taken that forty Members were not present. The Speaker counted only thirty-five ; and the House was adjourned before eight o'clock.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

The Committee on the Liverpool election has terminated its long in- quiry. The sitting Members did not call any witnesses in defence; and the Committee declined to examine Mr. Turner. They have found that Mr. Forbes Mackenzie and Mr. Turner were not duly elected; that the election is void; that numbers of persons were bribed with payments of from 4s. to 103.; that the bribery and treating took place without the knowledge of the sitting Members; that no evidence of any irregularities on the part of the other candidates had come before them ; and that, since much of the bribery and treating had not been a primary motive in de- ciding the votes, the Committee did not recommend the suspension of the writ.

The Benciek Committee made a strange report. They acquit Mr. Forster of attempting any compromise, and Mr. Hodgson of offering to withdraw the petition on the receipt of a large sum of money. They restate the facts respecting Mr. Hodgson's offer of a bet, exactly as they have been stated more than once; they recite Mr. Taylor's overtures ; and they then state that Mr. Coppock made the compromise which ulti- mately took place without the knowledge of Mr. Forster.

Sir John Ramsden has been declared duly elected for Taunton. Two cases of bribery were proved ; but the Committee express their belief that they were not committed with the knowledge or consent of Sir John or his agents.

The Committee appointed to inquire into the withdrawal of the peti- tions arising out of the election for Durham in 1852 sat on Monday and Wednesday, and resulted in some amusing disclosures. The principal witnesses were Mr. Brown, Mr. Coppock, and Mr. Atherton the sitting Member. Mr. Brown showed that a petition was presented against the return of Mr. Atherton, on the ground that the poll was closed before four o'clock, and praying for the seat on behalf of Lord Adolphus Vane. Mr. Granger, the other Member, was dead when the petition was presented ; and Mr. Brown offered to withdraw the petition against the return of Mr. Atherton, provided the influence of that gentleman were exercised to pre- vent any opposition to the return of Lord Adolphus Vane. Nothing came of this. Mr. Coppock being examined, related an amusing instance of his own adroitness. He described the petition against Mr. Atherton as vexatious. It would not have had the effect of stopping the writ conse- quent on Mr. Granger's death ; but it occurred to him, and he made a merit of hitting on such a happy idea, that if a petition were presented against the return of Mr. Granger, praying for the seat for Lord Adolphus Vane, the writ could not be issued. Mr. Bentinck, one of the Members of the Committee, very perseveringly tried to get a direct an- swer to the question, "Was the object of the petition you drew in accord- ance with the prayer of it ? " But he failed. Mr. Collier, however, drew forth the following explanation- " Mr. Brown had always sought me, not I Mr. Brown ; and I have had other communications with him about exchanging petitions. I had Durham offered to me in return for Hull, and several others; among them West Nor- folk, to which Mr. Bentinck [turning round and inclining his head towards that Member] was a party. It was for all these reasons that I came to the conclusion that the petition was got up to intimidate Mr. Atherton's sup- porters from opposing Lord Adolphus Vane ; and I made use of the ma- chinery available to defeat their intentions. The proceeding was a novelty

to me, for I never before prayed for a seat for a political opponent, and I believe there was no precedent for it in Parliamentary law ; but I had no other means."

The upshot was, that Mr. Brown, defeated in his attempt to compro- mise with Mr. Atherton and so to secure a walk over for the seat, and frustrated by the presentation of Mr. Coppock's unusual petition, pro- posed that both should be withdrawn. This was accordingly done.

Mr. Atherton gave a detailed aocount of the origin of the petition against Mr. Granger, and put in his claim to its invention. At first they were going to present a petition simply against the return of Mr. Granger; but "a gentleman," whose name was not mentioned, [was it Sir Alex- ander Cockburn?] accidentally coming into Mr. Coppock's dace, pointed out that to stop the writ they must pray for the seat. This Mr. Atherton intrusted Mr. Coppock to carry out, and he left the matter entirely in his hands. Mr. Atherton also clearly showed, that according to law, anybody may present, prosecute, or withdraw any kind of petition against a return. The question for the Committee was, whether Mr. Atherton had com- mitted a breach of privilege in the share he had taken.

Recalled, Mr. Coppock gave a spirited resume of the business. He in- timated that he had been urged to give up the petition against the late

return of Lord Adolphus Vane, and so get rid of the present inquiry ; and he implied that he had some conversation with Mr. Bentinck, which he refused to relate although Mr. Bentinck pressed him to do so. He then said—

"I think the conversation I referred to was held in the House, and I am accustomed to hold such conversations sacred, unless released. The pro-

ceedings on this petition have been rather curious. The first was presented to secure a quiet return for Lord Adolphus Vane ; the second to place Mr. Atherton and Lord Adolphus Vane on equal terms; the third petition was presented, and has been proved to be on bond fide grounds ; and this one was

to get rid of that bond fide petition which unseated Lord Adolphus Vane a few days ago. This is my impression from the communications I have received ;

but I do not think I ought to state the name of the parties; I do not think that when any person speaks to me in the lobby I ought to mention his name; but I draw my own conclusions from the communications made." Mr. Churchward has been examined by the Committee of inquiry re- specting Plymouth. He described himself as accustomed to have dealings with the Admiralty for journalistic purposes. He also wrote to Mr. Grant, the private secretary of Mr. Stafford, for appointments; and he excused himself for so doing by saying that when a vote was promised he thought it no harm to obtain a place for the voter. He had destroyed the pocket- book containing the names of voters and friends of voters, probably amounting to 600 or 700, who applied to him.