Vrhatrg frn Vrurrrhings iu parliaturut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOVER OF LORDS. Monday, July 28. Appellate Jurisdiction in Scotch cases— Smithfield Market Removal Bill ; Amendments of Select Committee rejected, and report received—Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill, read a second time.

Tuesday. July 29. Ecclesiastieil Titles Assumption Bill, read a third time and passed—Charitable Trusts Bill, passed through Committee. Wednesday, July 30. No business of importance. Thursday, July 31. Stock in Trade Bill, and Charitable Trusts Bill, read a third time and liaised—Court of Chancery and Judicial Committee Bill, read a second time—Metropolitan Interments; Conversation—Collieries. Friday, August 1. Promotion in the Navy—Royal Assent to the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill, and many other Bills.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Saturday, July 26. Improvement of Towns (Ireland) Bill, considered in Committee—Other Bills advanced a stage.

Monday, July 28. Medical Charities (Ireland) Bill, considered in Committee— Valuation (Ireland) Bill, abamloned by Ministers—Park for Finsbury—Jew Questions: Greenwich Petition to hear Counsel in favour of Alderman Salo- mons, refused by 135 to 75; London Petition respecting Baron Rothschild, refused by 77 to 41; Lord John Russell's Resolution against admitting Alderman Salomons, carried by 123 to 68—Conveyance of Mails by Railways Bill, considered in Committee ; Ministers defeated in a division. Tuesday, July 29. At Morning Sitting— Case of Ann Hicks—Decoration and Ventilation of the New House of Commons—Ballot Bill, read a first time— Me- tropolitan Sewers Bill, passed through Committee. At Evening Sitting— Hop- duty ; Mr. Frewen's Motion, rejected by 59 to 30—The Crystal Palace; Mr. Hey- wood's Motion for an Address to the Queen, carried by 75 to 47—Transportation to Van Diemen's Land ; Mr. Anstey's Speech cut short by a count-out. Wednesday, July 30. Steam Communication with Australia—Patent Law Amend- ment Bill, Committed pro forma—Church-Building Act Amendment Bill, passed through Committee—Other Bills advanced a stage. Thursday, July 31. At Morning Sitting.—Metropolitan Sewers Bill, read a third time and passed -Metropolitan Interment Bill, passed through Committee—Petty- Sessions( Ireland) Bill, considered in Committee—Several other Bill, advanced a stage. At Evening Sitting—Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management (No.2) Bill, second reading opposed, but carried by 45 to 34—Constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill, and many others, advanced a stage. Friday. August 1. New Writ for Downpatricki Mr. Richard Ker resived- Metropolitan Water Supply—County Courts Further Extension Bill passed through Committee—Episcopal and Capitular Estates (No. 2) Bill, after two divisions, com- mitted pro formi—Refining Sugar in Bond ; Sir John Pakington's Motion ; House counted out,

TIME- TABLE.

Friday 51, Rh Om

Wednesday 515 . . h 15i0 Thur.Lay 512 . 7h 53to

Monday 515 8h 10m Tuesday 5h . Ilh 1.3m The Lords.

Meeting. Adjournment. Hour of Hour of

Wednesday Noon .... 51. 58m Thursday Noon .... 311 I3m

Friday lh 85 45m

Tuesday Noon 9h 3ont Monday Noon .... 315 Om The Commcns.

Meeting. Adjournment.

Hour of Hour of

Noon

611. .... 1015 45m

51h 1111 43m 5h . (as) 2h 30m Sitting, this 5A eels, 5; Time. 15n 95'in Sittings this Week, II; Time,4115 431.1 chi, Session, 81; — 207h Du — this Session, 127; — 858h ein

THE JEW QUESTIONS.

According to the arrangement made on Thursday, the petition from the electors of Greenwich, that the House of Commons should bear counsel in favour of the right of the constituency that Mr. Alderman Salmons their Member should take his seat, was debated on Monday. The SPEAKER first read a letter which he had received from Mr. Salo- mons, communicating that two actions at law have been commenced against him for the penalties incurred by him in sitting and voting in the House on Monday last. Sir BENJAMIN HALL then made the motion above referred to, on be- half of the Greenwich electors ; supporting it by arguments legal and political.

The Attorney-General himself had admitted that Mr. Salmons had taken the oaths so substantially that he would be liable to the penalties of perjury. In the only unreformed corporation in the realm, that of London, the Court of Aldermen rejected Mr. Salomons when twice elected to be a mem- ber of their body, but admitted him on the third election : let the House not be ashamed to follow that example of retractation. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the motion ; as no further light could possibly be thrown on the subject. Sir Benjamin Hall was supported by Mr. ANSTEY, MY. VILLIERS, Mr. Alderman SIDNEY, and Mr. M'GREGOR. The Attorney-General was supported by Sir FREDERICK THESIGER, Sir Jour/ HAMMER, Sir ROBERT INetis, and Lord JOHN Ressztt. The motion to bear counsel was rejected by 135 to 75. Mr. Rtizss CURRIE then stated, that he should forbear to call for a fresh decision in the precisely similar case of Baron Rothschild. He had to present a petition from, amer important meeting in the city of London ; but he thought it would be more (lOrdluoive to the ultimate ob- ject .ef the pistaioners Aberaolves if beal,ealieed entering on a renewal of the cussiost en this mom. Rowan. My. Currie reminded Lord John Russell of his Aselaratiae mile last eassion, and observed that if those words comivg from .the sleuth el dike .Primealinnise meant anything at all, they meant that the whole plower,of the Goverment-should be thrown into the promised legislation. If therweant not that, they meant absolutely nothing, and were a mere delusion and a snare. (" Hear, hear !") They had heard of former Administrations which had pretended to show fight, and had brought measures forward only to be rejected ; but surely the city of London had a right to consider that the noble Lord would act in a very different spirit, and that when he spoke of legislation he was in earnest, and was ready to stake the existence of the Government upon the point. (" Hear, hear !") Look- ing from the past to the future, however, Mr. Currie hoped that the pro- mised measure of reform of next year would be worthy of the noble Lord's ancient character. He had hinted to them that the remission of the pro- perty qualification would be one portion of that measure. Mr. Raikes Currie earnestly hoped that a much larger change than that would be effected, and that the abolition of all oaths to be taken as religious tests would form an integral part of that measure. He meant by integral part, such a part as would make it a question on which, by its success or failure, the Govern- ment were determined to stand or fall. In the course of his observations, Mr. Currie had stated that the origi- nal form of the petition he presented was that the House should call on the Ministry to make the question a Cabinet question ; and that a prayer subsequently engrafted, that counsel should be heard on behalf of Baron Rothschild, did not meet Mr. Currie's concurrence. It seems that this alteration of the original petition was due to the intervention of Mr. Anstcy at the meeting ; and that a third alteration had also been made as the result of a compromise between Mr. Anstey and Mr. Aglionby, who also appeared when the meeting had made some progress. Mr. ANSTEY now conceived himself somewhat struck at by Mr. Currie's disclaimer of that portion of the petition which he fathered : he accordingly rose and supported the petition in its integrity ; and, moving that the petition be taken into early consideration, he begged to inform "his doubting or timid friend," that he need not waste time by endeavouring to persuade him net to call for a division. Mr. AOL/ONDY having briefly supported the motion, and added some words of personal explanation, Mr. RAIKES CURRIE rose again, and defended himself in a speech of facetious irony. It so happened that he was called on to preside at the meeting. He went there after many nights in that House—he had the voice of the honourable and learned Member still ringing in his ears—the announcement with which they were all so familiar, "Mr. Anstey left speaking "—(Laughter)—was yet visible in his mind's eye, and lo ! even as he took the chair the honour- able and learned Member stood beside him in all his pristine vigour, with the well-known pocket handkerchief in one hand and with an amended pe- tition in the other. (Renewed laughter.) What an apparition for the chair- man of a public meeting ! Honourable gentlemen might well conceive his feelings at the sight—he absolutely quailed before it. Well, the honourable and learned Member said, "You are all wrong ; I am quite right: you have done much mischief; I am come to remedy it." It was in vain he appealed to the honourable and learned gentleman' he exclaimed, "I will carry my amendment." At this crisis of their fate—at this terrible nodes in which the honourable and learned Member threatened to bind them, fortunately dews interstt ; Minerva came down to them in the shape of the honourable and learned Member for Ceckermonth (Mr. Aglionby). The honourable and learned Member, as the House well knew, carried rhetorical guns of large dimensions, of no mean range, and of no inconsiderable bore. (Great laugh- , ter.) When he beheld the honourable and learned Member for Youghal, he ! no doubt "Felt the keen joy which heroes feel but, happily, they both agreed to that greet political panacea called a corn- At, foetnen worthy of their steel": promise, thanks and immortal honour to the honourable and learned Mem- ber for Cockermouth, who had used the short interval allotted to him with the greatest possib'e ability. Would not any honourable Member who had ever been chairman of a meeting under similar circumstances gladly have consented to that compromise? (Cheers and laughter.) There were three prayers to the petition as it had been presented to the House. The first prayed the House to call on the Ministry to give such pledges of their sin- cerity as might induce theta to introduce as a Cabinet question a proposition to admit Jews into Parliament ; the second prayed the House to adopt a re- solution admitting Baron Rothschild to Parliament ; and the third called on the House to hear counsel at the bar in support of the petition. These two prayers were begotten on the corpus of the petition by the two honourable and learned Members. Was he to be taunted with deserting his duty as chairman in not supporting these two extraneous prayers, from which he dissented ?

Mr. OSBORNE threw in a few words for Mr. Ansley. Mr. Currie might be a very good chairman of a meeting, but he was a very bad advocate for a great cause like this. And, however successful he might have been in moving the risible faculties of the House by allusions to an honourable and learned Member superior to a great proportion of them in learning and moral energy, he was not doing any service in advancing the cause he professed to support. Had it not been for the honourable and learned Member for Youghal, the question would not have stood in its pre- sent position. Mr. NEWDEGATE and Sir JOHN TYRELL opposed the motion. Mr. HOBHOUSE very heartily supported it ; and assured Sir John Tyrell that Mr. Osborne will be returned again for Middlesex, although Sir Yohn will not give him a plumper. Mr. ANSTEY replied ; and the motion was ne- gatived by 77 to 41.

The adjourned debate on Lord Join; RUSSELL'S motion then became the order of the day— "That David Salomons, Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, or to sit in this House, during any debate, until he shall take the oath of abjuration in the form appointed by law." Mr. ANSTEY moved the following addition— "And this House, having regard to the religious scruples of the honour- able Member for Greenwich, will use its undoubted privilege of forthwith making such alterations, by resolution, in the form of taking the oath of ab- juration, as shall enable the honourable Member to subscribe the same." From the resolution he entirely dissented, and even if amended it would not entirely meet his views; but he would accept it as affording a solu- tion of a very unpleasant question. Mr. Anstey was briefly opposed by Mr. HEADLAM, who unwillingly came to the opposite legal conclusion; and he was supported by Mr. EvAus. The amendment was rejected by 88 to 50.

Mr. &Pram, then spoke at some length against Lord John Russell's resolution.

The question had now been evolved, whether a citizen of this empire

should be excluded from a seat in the House on the ground of his religious faith ? This question never was raised in the ease of the Roman Catholics; they were excluded, not on the ground of their religions faith, but because it With believed that they held a particular political tenet—namely, that subjects might be absolved from their allegianee. This question having arisen, and the principle being at stake for which it was the pride of the noble Lord that he had struggled, he might, the moment that technicality was introduced, have risen in his strength and crushed the attempt. He might have appealed to a great principle, if he had faith in it, and the House and the country would have abided by it; he might have declared that the Jew, not excluded by common law principle, or by statute, ought not to be excluded by a wretched attempt to convert formal words into substance, to pervert words to a purpose utterly alien from their intent. But the noble Lord bad played the game of his adversaries. If there were any difficulty in "another place" the Judges would have been called in to deliver their opinion on the con- struction of the statute. But Lord John had refused to permit further dis- cussion, and was now prepared to contend that the matter should not be put in a course of investigation and trial before the proper tribunals. Yet, do what he might, a trial in a court of law would be had, and the opinion of a court of law would be pronounced ; and what would be the character at- taching to the proceedings of the House, if, after preventing further discus- sion by this resolution, the law laid down by the House should be found to be at variance with the judicial, the rightful interpretation, of the Courts of Westminster hall? He would ask Lord John to leave the matter, this ses- sion, undetermined in that House, and in the mean time endeavour to obtain the interposition of the tribunal to whom the constitution committed the pro- per interpretation of the statute. Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended himself historically, and reiterated the arguments already advanced in favour of his resolutions. Mr. Arts.= briefly implored him, even at the eleventh hour, to withdraw the resolution. Mr. JOHN ABEL SMITH deplored his reliance on a party whose aid should be matter of suspicion to him, rather than encouragement.

On a division, the resolution was carried by 123 to 68.

PAPAL AGGRESSION.

The third reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill in the House of Lords, on Tuesday, gave rise to a new debate ; mainly kept up by the opponents of the measure, but without much variation from the course already taken.

The Earl of ABERDEEN repeated some of his general arguments against the measure; announcing that he intended to exercise his privilege of recording a protest against it. In the course of his speech he vindicated the right of opposing the measure.

It had been said that in opposing this measure their Lordships were en- couraging disobedience to it, and exciting resistance against it in Ireland. Well, here was a measure proposed by the Government. which some of their Lordships thought full of danger. Was it not their duty to resist such a measure, and point out the difficulties likely to result from it ? If they were to take every Ministerial proposition as a law, they had better leave their seats altogether and make room for parties more compliant. But until a Ministerial proposition was placed on the statute-book as a law, their Lordships were at liberty to denounce the evils which they considered likely to result from it. When it had become law and found its way into the statute-book, then, although he did not think that it changed its character by becoming law, still the mode in which he should speak of it would be altered. Ile did not mean thereby to say that he would not lend his aid to repeal it; but, whilst it existed as law, it should be received with respect and obedience.

He argued that this bill would prove most injurious to the public interests ; he anticipated from it greater evil than he could contemplate "without feelings of the deepest horror."

The Bishop of OXFORD made a speech of some length to explain the reasons which would have induced him to give his assent to the second reading of the bill. [It will be recollected that Dr. Wilberforce was rather suddenly cut out of his speech by the Lord Chancellor.] His main argument in favour of assenting to the bill was, that the appointment of Roman Catholic Bishops constituted an aggression in this country ; and he argued into that conclusion by "differencing" the act of the Bishop of Rome from certain acts of the central Christian authority at Jerusalem in olden times, appointing bishops in certain foreign countries still under heathin control.

England, he said, is a Christian country, and the new Bishops are appointed to supersede the Protestant Bishops ; so that if there were a revolution in favour of the Roman Catholic faith,—" which may God avert,"—the Bishop of Rome would have swept away all our ancient sees, would have no necessity to try the existing Bishops for heresy, but would find his work ready done to his hands, with his new Bishops in full power. Thus the Bishop of Rome has interfered with our institutions, and particularly with those religious institutions which England has established for the instruction of her people. It was on these grounds that he supported the bill,—first, because the Bishop of Rome had endeavoured to remove us from the categor of Christian people ; and secondly, because he had been assailing the Churc of England, by attempting to abolish, and as far as his rescript went ac- tually abolishing, its separate bishoprics. Such aggressions he held that, as a nation, we were bound to repel.

Dr. Wilberforce accepted the bill for that purpose; but avowed he was quite discontented with it. He totally objected to persecution. He objected to a concordat according to the general idea, but regretted that there was no arrangement to regulate the admission of Papal bulls : such a regulation would have prevented all this unhappy dissension. He regretted various amendments that have been lost in the Commons ; and, inter alia, he regretted the want of a provision for controlling reli- gious houses by a visitation.

The Duke of ARGYLL defended the bill against the support of Dr. Wil- ' berforce, and himself against some glances which the Bishop had made at I him. He remarked, that though he was willing to defend the Church of England, this was not the time to be singing lo Pmans upon the state of that Church, which is the only Church day by day and week by week giving ferth converts to the Church of Rome.

The bill was supported by Earl FORTESCUE—who looked for a more stringent measure from Parliament if the provisions of this one should be evaded; by the Earl of GLENGALL, Lord REDESDALE, and Earl GREY —the last mainly in defence of his own consistency. It was opposed by Lord STUART DE DECIFS; by Earl NELSON—who objected to the aggres- sion, but also to penal legislation; by the Marquis of Sums, and Lord GAGE Lord GAGE denied that the bill was calculated to check the spread of Popery— If it were only intended to prevent a Roman Catholic prelate from signing his HMO in public documents as "Nicholas, Archbishop of Westminster," it would indeed be much ado about nothing. Yet this was all it was calcu- lated to do, or that it would do. The increase of convents and monasteries was the real Papal aggression ; and, if their Lordships were in earnest, and wished to check the mischievous advances of that Church, why did they ig- nore the real insult and the real danger ? Popery laughed at their Ecclesias- tical Titles Bill, while Parliament left its convents and monasteries untouched. The case was different in the United States of America. The people there eared not one cent, for the appointment of an Archbishop of New York or New Orleans, although they would not present them to the President under those titles ; but they were keenly alive to the danger of permitting monasteries and convents to inherit property, or to sanction the unlimited absorption of wealth by such religious bodies. In France, too, this danger was perceived and guarded against. It was because he thought that the Government were withdrawing attention from realities to fix it upon trifles that his name ap- peared in the minority upon the second reading. The present bill would of- fend many and would please none ; and he should be glad to see the Govern- ment abandon the bill, and boldly meet the-real danger to which he had ad- verted. He was not inteleraut, but things had happened in these establish- ments which might very well happen again, and which, if the Government permitted such establishments to exist, they were bound to guard against, so far as they could.

The bill having been read a third time, Lord MONTEAGLE moved the addition of the following clause- " And be it further enacted, that neither this act nor the hereinbefore re- cited enactment of the 10th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George IV. shall apply, or be held to apply, or in any way to affect, any act done by any Archbishop, Bishop, or Dean, by virtue of his appointment by the See of Rome, or to create any penalty, disability, or offence, by reason of an instrument of appointment, or the assumption or use of an ecclesiastical title conferred or purporting to be conferred by the authority of the See of Rome; provided that the ecclesiastical name, style, designation, or title as- sumed, used by any such Archbishop, Bishop, or Dean in the holy orders of the Roman Catholic Church, shall be the style or title of Roman Catholic Archbishop, Boman Catholic Bishop, or lt,mnan Catholic Dean, as the case may be, officiating or haring episcopal functions within the diocese or dis- trict in which he is authorized to officiate, in respect to all persons and con- gregations of persons professing- the Roman Catholic religion within the said diocese or district."

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE. maintained that the addition was needless. He would say at once and without hesitation, that if the Pope had desired to secure, as it was a lawful object for him to secure, the benefit of episcopal administration to the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen—if he had in- formed the Government that such was his intention—and if he had confined himself, both in his brief and in the mandate announcing the brief, to the designations which were contained in the proposed amendment—there would not have been the least objection to his so doing. Lord Lansdowne would go further, and say that even now, although the Pope had not taken that course, there was not one of the spiritual functions of the Roman Catholic Church which, stripped of all connexion with the assumption of territorial titles, • could not be sufficiently exorcised under the bill as it now stood, without the addition proposed by his noble friend. After a brief debate, the amendment wao withdrawn on the faith of Lord Lansdowne's explanation ; and the bill passed.

CHURCH-BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT.

In Committee on this bill, on Wednesday, there was considerable dis- cussion, and great variety of opinion as to the value and justice of tlke first clause by which the Church Commissioners were authorized to ail? sittings to the poor of the parish. On the whole, the balance of opinion went decidedly against the clause. Ministers did not strenuously defend it ; suggestions were made with a view of modifying its provisions; but the expressed dissatisfaction was so great that the clause was struck out, without a division.

On the 9th clause, the Committee divided upon the motion of Mr. HEADLAM, to drop the words exempting grants or endowments for a re- pair fund from the operation of the Mortmain Acts, with the addition of a proviso that nothing in the bill should give validity to any endowment which would be void under those acts. The Somerroe-GEXERAL declared that no new principle was introduced, only a reasonable application of a principle already existing. The Committee divided, and rejected Mr. Headlam's amendment by 49 to 19.

A very curious incident occurred. Mr. PREWEN moved that a clause be inserted, setting apart the revenues of any benefice in which there were upwards of forty persons but no church, for the purpose of building a church, and providing that a room might be licensed for Divine service. After some discussion and opposition from Ministers, the reading of the clause was carried, by 40 to 37. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL renewed his objections on the motion that the clause be added ; and then, after sonic conversation, it was negatived, without a division.

The preamble was agreed to, and the bill passed through the Com- mittee.

METROPOLITAN SEWERS BILL.

of the works planned and executed under the Commission, up to the 26th of July, was 200,000!.; and these works had been performed at half the cost for which similar works were executed by their predecessors. He intimated to Lord John Russell, in finishing his speech, that he must either make up his mind to carry out sanitary reform, or give up the subject.

Sir BENJAMIN HALL and Mr. HENLEY spoke against the doings of the Commission; denouncing them as inefficient and incompetent. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that "those who wished to remedy the in- convenience would adopt the plan of the Government ; those who wished to keep alive the grievance for another debate, and to turn out the fox next year, would oppose it." The question must stand over until next session, as no decision could be come to about the water supply, and both these questions ought to be treated together. He WES just as anxious as ever for sanitary reform ; but he thought sanitary refermers might commit errors of judgment as well as other people. After a few words from Lord DUDLEY STUART and Mr. Alderman COPE- LAND, the galleries were cleared for a division ; but none took place, and the House went into Committee.

Sir BENJAMIN HALL asked whether it was true that the engineer to the Commission, who was paid 1500/. a year, commenced opening a sewer at two opposite ends, and that it did not meet in the middle ? Lord EBRINGTON said, there had been a "deviation," but it was on the part of the contractor, and had long since been repaired. Mr. HENLEY succeeded in an amendment to make the maximum rate 3d. ; and failed, on a division, by 33 to 22, in striking out the clause empowering the Com- missioners to borrow money. There were altogether three other divisions, but they went in favour of Government ; and the bill passed through Committee.

THE CRYSTAL PALACE.

Mr. IIETw000, on Tuesday, moved the following resolution for the provisional maintenance of the Crystal Palace-- " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct, in such manner as to her might seem fit, that the Crystal Palace be preserved until the tat May next, with a view to determine if that novel structure, or any portion of it, could be adapted to purposes of public utility and recreation." He asked the House to preserve the building partly for pleasure and partly for scientific purposes ; and he thought the project for converting the interior into a winter garden well worth consideration. Various pur- poses had been suggested,—a ride ; a supplemental department of the British Museum for the reception of the specimens of natural history ; and lastly, the palace itself might be described as the nearest approach to a ladies club. He was sure that the proposed conversion of the building into a place of public resort would at once conduce to health and promote scientific pursuits.

Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the motion, and delivered a tirade against the Exhibition ; which he believed was "morally, religiously, and socially, a great curse to the country,"—sucking up all its wealth, causing "gross desecration" of the Sabbath, demoralizing the people, and disuniting parties.

Mr. LABOLTHERE and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appeared on I ehalf of the Government. As members of the Government and the Con m'ssion, they felt that it was their duty to fulfil the conditions of the contract to remove the building from the Park by a given time ; and Sir Charles Wood added, that the House ought to reflect on the expense which would necessarily attend the conservation of the structure. They would not express any opinion on the motion, nor would they vote ; thus shifting the responsibility from the Government to the House.

The real opposition to the motion Caine from Sir ROBERT INGLIS- who urged that the contract could not be set aside without an act of Parliament ; and Mr. GouLnique—who was of the same opinion; contend- ing that nothing could warrant a departure from the original arrangement. He said the building would never have been erected had not the public received a distinct assurance that it would be pulled down.

Mr. WARLEY observed that the contract was not between the House and the country, but between the public and the public.

"He might be wrong but it was his conviction that if they deter- mined to destroy the Crystal Palace, the labouring men of London would unanimously resolve not to lay their hands upon it."

Mr. BANKES concurred with Mr. Goulburn ; and suggested that perhaps Mr. Wakley would have no objection to have the Crystal Palace removed to the new Park, the formation of which he promoted in his own borough. Lord SEY3IOUR separated from his Government, and, for the same reason as Mr. Goulburn, declared he should vote against the motion.

Mr. VILLIERS reminded the House, that the reason why the stipula- tion was made by the contracting parties that the building should be of a temporary character was, that almost everybody was at the time of opi- nion that the thing could not succeed, but must fail. The ground on which that stipulation was made no longer existed. Mr. CLAY' Mr. HEAD- LAM, and Mr. &EACH, severally supported the motion. On adivision, the motion was carried, by 75 votes to 47.

CONDUCT OP BUSINESS.

In both Houses, on Thursday, discussions incidentally arose on the delays and unsatisfactory discussion of measures.

The Earl of MALMESBURY objected to the annual passing of the Stock in Trade Bill. He condemned the slovenly practice of dealing with such a subject by the yearly continuance of a bill originally meant to be tempo- rary; and he asked why Ministers had not grappled, this session, with the subjects of rating and settlement ? Earl GREY declined a discussion on that point : he held out no hope of a national assessment, which would be very ruinous ; and said that a bill on the subject of settlement had not been introduced into the House of Commons, because, owing to cir- cumstances unfortunately but too well known, there was no opportunity.

On the third reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill, the Earl of MaLsissnuur said, it was not fair to send down a bill like that, contain- ing ninety clauses, within four days of the prorogation. Passed never- theless.

Lord MONTEAGLE called Ministers to account for the want of progress under the Metropolitan Interment Bill. The population of the Metropolis has increased since the last census by 405,000; the average number of burials in the year is 50,000; and yet no result has been realized in pre- venting intramural interments.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY detailed the delays which the Board of Health had encountered from the Treasury. After preliminary inquiries, they presented a plan for bringing the act into speedy operation, including the purchase of existing cemeteries ; that plan was presented on the 234 of November; no reply till the 228 of-Ja- nuary; on the 20th of March, permission to proceed, with recommendation to take the cemeteries separately. Notice of the valuation was immediately given to two cemeteries : the companies chose, under the act, the tedious plan of arbitration ; and no award has yet been given. On the 28th of April, the Board asked permission to purchase ground for a new cemetery near -Erith ; permission given on the 15th of May. On the 13th of May, the Board ob- tained leave to contract a loan' on the 18th of June the Guardian Insurance Office declined to lend money to a temporary body ; the Royal Exchange As- surance likewise declined on the 10th of July.

He gave further details of the same kind, and moved for copies of the correspondence on this subject. The Earl of CARLISLE averred that Ministers were anxious for better progress ; and he threw the delays on difficulties which had arisen in the conduct of public business in the House of Commons. The Earl of Hen- 110WBY had heard that some members of the Government in the Commons were anxious not to carry out but to frustrate the objects of the act. Earl GREY said, somewhat warmly, that such charges ought not to be made without ample notice and information. Lord MONTEAGLE remarked that there had been a week's notice. Here the subject dropped ; it being un- derstood that the returns would be furnished.

The Metropolitan Interment Bill, authorizing the loan of 137,000k, passed through the Committee in the Commons, in spite of some desultory opposition, and a division moved by Sir BEN-Lamm HALL on the motion to report ; which was carried by 42 to 7. The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Bill was opposed in Committee, for its oppressive enactments, especially the giving much power to one Magis- trate in Petty-Sessions : but the opposition was waived, on the under- standing that Ministers would remove all that portion of the bill. The Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management (No. 2) Bill was op- posed, on the second reading, by Colonel SIBTHORP, Sir BENJAMIN HALL, and other Members, not only on the substantive ground that such manage- ment of estates ought not to be left in the hands of the Bishops, but also on the ground that the bill should not be delayed till the end of the ses- sion and then hurried through. The second reading, however, was car- ried, by 45 to 34; Ministers expressing a hope thatjobjections might be removed in Committee.

A number of other measures were "forwarded a stage," on the same day ; with an occasional protest of the same kind.

COUNT Our.

The House of Commons was counted out on Tuesday. Mr. Asisrey had just time to state that he was about to call the attention of the House to a petition from Van Diemen's Land against transportation ; and then some Member moved that the House be counted : only 27 Members were present, and the House stood adjourned.

SMALL MINISTERIAL DEFEAT.

In Committee on the Conveyance of Mails by Railways Bill, the first Cl/111SC Was opposed by Mr. DENISON, MT. COWAN, Mr. MANGLES, MT. LOCKE, and other Members representing the Railway interest. The clause allows any Post-office official to stop a train at any place on a railway and drop or take up bags, on consideration of his paying the fare of a passenger to that place. Mr. CORNEWALL Ltwis and Lord PALMEESTON explained, that the clause only makes clearer the present intentions of the existing law. The Railway Members answered, that the bill is an attempt to steal a march—a sidewind to get rid of the act of'1844 establishing arbitration. On a division, the Government Were outvoted by 58 to 53, and the clause was lost.

PAUPER MEDICAL RELIEF IN IRELAND.

The session drawing to a close, Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE, on Monday, in Committee on the Mediaal Charities (Ireland) Bill, felt obliged to make a sacrifice of an important feature of the measure for the preserva- tion of the skeleton. A proposition rejected a few weeks since is now recalled and accepted by Government, and the measure is to be confined in its operation to dispensaries alone. An amendment proposed by Mr. G. A. HAMILTON, to enable clergymen to have ex !officio privileges of charity, was opposed by Government, and negatived by only 22 to 21. The bill was reported.

On the same day, the Valuation (Ireland) Bill was east over entirely by Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE.

Hop-Durres.

Mr. FREWEN, on Tuesday, moved the following resolution- " That the Excise-duty on hops is impolitic and unjust., and ought to be repealed at an early period." This resolution was met by an amendment from Mr. HODGES- " That on any reduction of Excise-duty on hops taking place, it is expe- dient to reduce the Excise-duty on British hops and the Customs-duty on foreign hops by ld. per pound weight each, together with the 5 per cent additional duty thereon granted by the act 3 Victoria, cap. 17." The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER objected to the resolution, on the ground that the financial arrangements of the year were already made. Mr. COBDEN heartily supported the resolution. The amendment was withdrawn, and the House divided—for the motion, 30; against it, 59.

SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL.

In Committee of the Lords on the Smithfield Removal Bill, the Earl of GRANVILLE moved that amendments proposed by the Select Committee should be struck out. The amendments. proposed to accept as final the refusal of the Corporation to manage the new market, and to grant com- pensation. The Earl of Powis and the Bishop of GSSORY supported, the amendments. On a division, the amendments were rejected, and the original text was restored, by 59 to 15.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN SCOTCH CASES.

The Earl of ABERDEEN, on Monday, referred to a communication which he understood had taken place between Government and the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh relative to appointing a Scotch Assessor or As- sessors to sit with the Lords in eases of appeal. He understood also that Lord Brougham is referred to in the correspondence as favourable to the particular plan : but the opinion of Lord Brougham is quite the reverse ; for Lord Eldon and his successors .on.the w.00lsack.had often con- sidered the subject, 'and they were all of opinion that such an appoint- ment was both unpolitic and impracticable. Tbe Marquis of LAREDOWNE was understood to say that such a correspondence has taken place, but that no decision has been come to.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT.

This bill went through Committee pro forma on Wednesday, with the understanding that a searching inquiry should be made into the whole matter next year.

PARK root FINSBURY.

In reply to Mr. ISTAILLEY, it has been stated by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, that the memorials from inhabitants of the borough of Finsbury and the city of London for the formation of a park at the North-east end of the Metropolis are now the subject of inquiry and " arrangements" ; but no final step has been taken, and of course nothing conclusive can be done this session."

Ms, H10E.E'S CASE.

At the morning sitting on Tuesday, in reply to Mr. OSBORNE, Lord SEYMOUR gave his account of the ejection of Ann Hicks from her cottage in Hyde Park.

She did not hold the house by any gift from George the Second or any other royal personage. In 1843, Mrs. Hicks had a stall in the Park, where she sold apples and gingerbread. She wrote several letters in succession to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, asking for a place to lock her gin- ger-beer bottles in. First she obtained a stand similar to the cow-stands in St. James's Park ; then permission to make her stand of " brick " instead of wood ; and finally, a "little hut," which was permitted to be five feet high and no higher. Then she put in a request for a fire-place, as "it would be of great use to make her a cup of tea." But this was refused. Later she wrote for and obtained leave to repair the roof of her hut, to keep out the rain. When these repairs were made, the Commissioners found that the hut had a roof and a chimney; and when Lord Seymour came into office, in 1850, it had not only a fire-place and a chimney, but there was a little garden attached, with hurdles round it. At this period, he said, Mrs. Hicks was continually engaged in disputes with the Park authorities. "The hurdles were eontivally advancing. (Laughter.) She was told to put them back ; but she made so much noise and abuse about it, that none of the Park authorities would meddle with her. They all gave him very bad accounts of her." It then occurred to him that she ought to be removed. The law was against her. He consulted the Duke of Wellington, the Ranger of the Park ; who looked into the case, and recommended Lord Seymour to take legal ad- vice. Finally, the correspondence was put into the hands of the solicitors of the Board, and Mrs. Hicks was served with a notice to quit; but was in- formed that if she would go from the Park, and not give any trouble, Lord Seymour "would take care that some allowance should be made to her." However, she iefused to remove ; said it was her ground ; and at length they were forced to eject her by course of law. Five shillings a week was allowed for the next year. With respect to any other cottage being built in the Park, said Lord Sey- mour, Prince Albert had put up a model cottage, but Lord Seymour had in- formed the Prince it could not remain, and it was to be taken down in No- vember next.'

Colonel SIETHORP said, he should take another opportunity of bringing the case more fully before the House.

THE NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Strong complaints against the new House were renewed on Tuesday. Mr. Osnoxxx-pterticularized the unmeaning heraldic devices. Lord DUD- LEY STUART said that the distance of the new chamber from the library made it very inconvenient; and wished to know whether any more sit- tings would be held in the new Rouse this session. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought it would be "desirable." Mr. Wexixv com- plained that the atmosphere was positively dangerous, painful, and offen- sive. Nobody could sit long in it without being ill. He might add, that if ladies were to be allowed to hear the debates, they ought to be treated like human beings, and not kept, like wild animals, behind the doors. No response.

PROTESTS AGAINST THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES PILL. DIESENTiENT-1. Because, while ready to uphold and to defend the rights and prerogative of our Most Gracious Sovereign and the honour and the independence of our country against all aggression, we do not feel ourselves justified in support- ing a bill which trenches on that religious freedom which her Majesty has been pleased to assure us "it is her desire and firm determination, under God's blessing, to maintain unimpaired"—which it has been the object of the Legislature during the last sixty years to extend and to secure, and which now happily forms a fundamental part f our constitution, and is inseparably bound up with our civil liberties. 2. Because it is irreconcilable with the spirit and with the letter of the Roman Catholic Relief Act to impose new and to increase existing penalties, falling exclu- sively on the Members of one religious communion ; and our objection to this fatal course is augmented when it is announced that this bill may lead to other measures of a similar character, in case the stringency of its provisions is not found salcient to answer the purposes of its framers.

3. Because we view with alarm the declaratory enactments of this bill, undefined as they are in their legal consequences, rendering solemn antecedent acts and pub- lic instruments unlawful and void, and rendering unlawful and void likewise all the "jurisdiction, authority, preEminence, or title," derived from such acts and in- struments.

4. Because these alarms are increased from the want of any clear definition in this bill fixing the incidence and the limits of its penalties, thus creating all the dangers which must ever attend vague and uncertain laws, exposing the Roman Catholic laity to wrong and privation, interfering with the jurisdiction and eccle- siastical functions of the Roman Catholic clergy, and leaving it a niatter of grave doubt whether both parties may not be exposed to criminal prosecution as well as to civil penalty.

5. Because it is irreconcilable with the wise policy of late years, shown in the repeal Of barbarous penalties contained in ancient and intolerant laws, to revive and give robustness and energy to a severe penal statute, passed nearly five hundred years back, enforced only once since its enactment, and that in the year 1607, in a case which we are informed is of doubtful authority.

6. Because we cannot reconcile the Charitable Bequests Act, which recognizes the status and existence of Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops and their successors, officiating and exercising episcopal functions in Ireland, with this bill, which interferes directly with the appointment of such Archbishops and Bishops, and declares the official instruments and official acts required for such appointments, as well as" all jurisdiction, authority, preiMinenee, or title," derived therefrom, to be unlawful and void. Nor is this difficulty removed by the saving clause, which leaves it doubtful whether the 4th section may not defeat other portions of the bill, or whether the general import of the bill may not deprive that saving clause of its efficacy. 7. Because it seems illogical, inexpedient, and unjust, when the rescript or letters apostolical of the Pope, of the 29th of September 1850, are relied on as the cause and justification of this bill, that we should extend its restraints to a part of her Majee- ty's dominions to which that rescript has not any possible application.

8. Becanse it has been admitted in debate, on high legal authority, that the penal- ties of this bill are limited to what are described as being "pretended sees," while other sees or districts are subjected only to the less severe provisions of the 10th George IV. chap. 7. It therefore follows, that a different state of law will exist in England and in Ireland, as well as in different parts of Ireland, producing anoma- lies and contradictions incompatible with sound legislation; the seventy of the law and its penalties not varying according to the nature of the imputed offence, but according to the geographical limits within which such imputed offence may have been committed. 9. Because, if it should be true, as has been stated in debate by the supporters of this bill, that if it becomes a law it cannot be carried into effect, but must remain " a dead letter," we consider that it is still more inconsistent with sound legislation

to pass a bill which, without giving any security whatever, tampers with all the principles of religious freedom, creates discontent and alarm, and by bringing the law into contempt lessens its force and rightful authority.

10. Because a determined resistance has been 'offered to all suggestions made during the progress of the bill for the correction even of obvious and verbal errors, as well as for the amendment of certain provisions of which no justification has been attempted ; and because the reason assigned for taking this course, arising from the possible inconvenience and delay apprehended if this bill were returned to the House of Commons, is inconsistent with the free deliberations of this House, and derogatory to its just rights and authority as a branch of the Legislature.

11. Because, upon these grounds, we caunotbut consider the passing of this bill to be most inexpedient and most unjust. We consider it ill-adapted to protect either the prerogative of the Crown or the independence of ourccuntry, while calculated to revive civil strife and sectarian dissensions: we protest against it, likewise, as a de- parture from those high principles of religious liberty to which our greatest states- men have devoted their intellect, their genius, and their noblest exertions.

MoNTEAGLE of Brandon. Roams (Kinnaird). VAUX of Elarrowden. FINGALL.

LOCAT. CHARM:MONT.

CAMOVS. LEITRIM.

Moat EAGLE (M. of Sligo). ARUNDELL of Wardour. DORMER.

DisSENTiENT.-1. Because no such measure as the present is consistent either with justice or expediency.

2. Because the bill appears to have been mainly dictated by the excitement which has recently prevailed; ail excitement whirl, it was the duty of the Gevertneent and the Legislature rather to allay than to encourage. Any attempt to interfere with doctrines by act of Parliament is not only likely to fail, but may even promote what it is intended to repress.

3. Because it is most unreasonable and inconsistent to profess to grant full tolera- tion to the Roman Catholic religion, and at the same time to prohibit that species of communication with the See of Rome which is indispensable for its perfect discipline and government.

4. Because the undue assumption of power involved in the terms of the Papal re- script of the 29th of September 1850, and of other documents connected therewith, however justly open to exception, can supply no reason for depriving her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of a regular and ordinary part of their ecclesiastical orga- nization.

5. Because the appointment of eeelesiastical officers is essentially a matter of re- ligious concern ; and although it may be expedient in particular cases that such ap- pointment should be under the control or influence of the civil power, and although it is the undoubted duty of the Legislature to provide that no temporal powers are exercised, and no temporal rights impaired, under the pretext of ecclesiastical regu- lations, yet to restrain a religious community not est.dilished by law in the manage- ment of its religious concerns, otherwise than by confining them within the sphere of religion, is inconsistent with the spirit of all our recent legislation. Such restraint involves the principle, and may lead to the practice, of religious persecution. 6. Because the act of the 10th of Geo. IV. c. 7, which, for the first time since the Reformation, secured to the Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown an equality of political rights, constituted a solemn expression of the intention of the Legislature, and a pledge to the Roman Catholic community that they should thenceforward en- joy a full religious toleration.

7. Because the 21th section of the 10th of Geo. IV., which prohibits all persons other than those thereunto authorized by law from assuming the titles of Arch- bishops, Bishops, and Deans of the National Church, affords no precedent for this bill, inasmuch as the former simply defends front invasion certain known legal titles already appropriated, and importing high tlignitieS and valuable rights, whereas the latter amounts to the total prohibition of a diocesan episcopate.

8. Because the penal provisions of this bill not only differ in the above-named re- spect from those of the 10th Geo. IV., but they differ further to the prejudice of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects inasmuch as they are preceded by recitals and de- clarations of law, concerning which the 10th George IV. was silent, whereby a new and extended construction may be given both to the penal provisions of this mea- sure, and likewise, retroactively; to Illose of the 10th George IV. 9. Because the ancient statutes against the exercise of a foreign jurisdiction, or restrictive of the importation of bulls briefs, and reseripts, which are cited in justi- fication of the present bill, are unavailable for such a purpose. Those statutes have long been suffered to remain in desuetude. If now revived, they nrarlat found to as- sert powers for the Crown which would be destructive of the religious liberties se- cured to Protestant Dissenters as well as to Roman Catholics. They have no siiecial reference to the establishment of provinces or sees, or to the assumption of titles, but are equally and indifferently directed against all exercise of jurisdiction, whether by diocesan bishops, or by vicars-apostolic, and are therefore incompatible with our recognized principles of toleration and religious freedom. 10. Because there is a peculiarly harsh and ungracious character in the present prohibition of diocesan government to the Boman Catholic community, as it is not disputed that, at various periods. from the Reformation down to a recent date, the secular clergy, and more especially the Roman Catholic laity, have sought for the introduction among themselves of a diocesan episcopacy with the approval and en- • courao*cinent of the British Government. 11. Because there are presumptive grounds for believins.' that the late measures of the Pope have been adopted under the persuasion that, if he should do what, in his judgment, was requisite for the spiritual wants and interests of his own commu- nion, the advisers of the Crown not only would have no desire, but had in fact pub- licly disclaimed all intention and all title to interfere. 12. Because this bill, while it professes to refer to Roman Catholic titles, enacts a further and wholly gratuitous interference with religious freedom, by forbidding the assumption of episcopal titles on the part of any other persons than the prelates of the Estabhshed Church, and the prelates of the Scottish Episcopal communion. By the exception from its provisions of the last-named prelates, who are appointed inde- pendently of the Royal authority, the bill plainly admits that the appointment of Bishops is in its essence a spiritual matter, and thereby condemns its own principal provisions.

13. Because it is inexpedient to protect the rights of the Episcopate established by law by needless and unjust restraints upon the religious freedom of others. Such protection is likely to Weaken, rather than to strengthen, the National Church in its proper office of maintaining and eularg,ing its influence over the people by moral and spiritual means.

GORDON (Aberdeen). WIIARNCLIFTE. NEWCASTLE. LYTTELTON.

CANNING. MONTEAOLE Of Brandon.

Sr. GERMANS.