Dtbates anb iprottefings in Varliament.

Cntinco-ErePAkitott.

In the Hosts, of Commons, on Tneedey, Lord Jonx RUSSELL moved the wend reading of the Bishopric of Manchester Bill; which recites the expediency of opting four new Bishoprics, but only establishes one of the four—that of Manchester.

The bill was received with approval by Sir ROBERT INGLIS, so far as the creation of the new bishopric; but he objected to the anomalous posi- tion in which it would place the junior Bishop, without a seat in the Rouse of Lords.

Mr. Holtzman opposed the bill, as far too important a measure to be passed at the end of the session ,• and he suggested a different mode of disposing of the surplus in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners— There is 17,0001. per annum to be disposed of; and the best way to dispose of the money was presumed to be the creation of new bishoprics and the improve- ment of episcopal residences; whereas, Mr. Horsman contended, the original advice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' in 1836, ought to be fulfilled, by the aug- mentation of poor sees and of poor benefices. Mr. Horsman read an account of the way in which monies have heretofore been appropriated; showing that " what had been done for episcopacy "—that is, to improve the comfort of the Bishops— was 249,0001.; for the augmentation of poor livings, 167,000L The larger sum includes 143,0001. spent in building or improving the episcopal residences of Ripon, Bath and Wells, Exeter, Oxford, Worcester, Gloucester,- Rochester, and Lincoln; the average expenditure on six of that number being 23,0001. In those eight bishoprics there are 2,971 benefices under 1501. a year, .502 under 1001. a year, 861 under 501., and one even under 101.; 4,537 clergymen are without houses. The pay of some of the gentlemen was under that of the masons employed on the episcopal residences: eight were receiving 13d. a day, and one was receiving 6-id. There was an impression abroad that the present bill had been introduced not so much to meet the necessities of the Church as to meet the necessities of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They found, after all they had expended, that there was still a surplus—that wealth continued to grow upon them, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners did not know how to dispose of it. It lay concealed for a time; but they feared that the prying eyes of Parliament would be upon it, and that the profane hands of Parliament would dig it out. In a lucky moment they thought of the new Bishops expedient, and they induced the noble Lord to give them four new Bishops. The noble Lord did not demur to the laudable - posal of the new Bishops, but he demurred to the question of endowment.

was what the Commissioners desired. The noble Lord having assented to the Bishops, they charged themselves at once with their board and lodging; and at their next meeting the Commissioners congratulated each other on the country having at last a Premier who was a real friend to the Church. Mr. Horsman was one of those who thought that church did not mean clergy. Be thought the congregation was one of its component parts, and the most important part; and he stood up for the right of the congregation to be consulted in this matter.

Mr. Horsman came to another branch of the subject—the numbers of the clergy as compared with the population: the picture is an appalling one. The population of England and Wales was 16,000,000. There were 13,154 churches and chapels, and 16,010clergymen. Of these 16,010, there were 1,568 clergymen having no duties; dignitaries, heads of colleges, &c., 1,147; chaplains in men-of-war and on foreign stations, 372; leaving the total of the working clergy, 12,923. This would give one clergyman to every 1,230 of the population. Now, there were 1,907 parishes with a population under 100, 4,774 under 300: there were, there- fore 1,623,900 of population in 6,681 parishes,—that is, in three-fifths of the parishes there were only one-tenth of the population leaving nine-tenths of the population in two-fifths of the parishes. Thus, therefore, there were 6,681 of the clergy occupied with only one-tenth of the people; leaving to the rest of the parishes only an average of one clergyman to 4,000 of population. The parishes, again, were so unequally divided, that to 10,000, 20,000, and even 30,000 of population, there was often but one clergyman and one church. In St. George's Southwark there were five clergymen to 50,000; in St. George's-in-the-Bast, four to 42,000; in Limehouse, two to 22,000; in St. Leonard's Shoreditch, three to 35,000; in St. James's Clerkenwell, two to 30,000; in St. Barnabas St. Luke's one to 14,000. With such a state of things, he was a bold Minister who would take any additional fund at his disposal and cast it to the Prelates.

With the good done by the Commissioners Mr. Horsman contrasted that done by twelve charitable Societies in the Church of England, excluding from the cal- culation those supported mainly by the clergy : the Commissioners have expended 70,000/. a year, the twelve Societies 492,0001.

Mr. Horsman took occasion to contradict a rumour that he was actuated in his somewhat free criticisms by personal disappointment; as men who had stood in a nearer relation to Government were naturally supposed to be. So utterly un- founded was such a supposition, that he must be permitted to say, that when the noble Lord was called on to form his Government, he was pleased to notice his small pretensions to form a part of it in a manner beyond his expectations, and still more beyond his deserts; and if office had been an object of ardent desire to him, the kindness of the noble Lord at least did not deny him the opportunity of gratifying it. But, feeling that he had great difficulties to meet, and knowing that by taking office he might serve himself but mild not serve the noble Lord, he acted that part which he felt most becoming in himself and just to the noble Lord, and relinquished voluntarily and cheerfully on those grounds, and those alone, what in common circumstances might have been to him or to others an object of ambition. And if since then, he had freely criticised the Government policy, he could only say that indiscriminate praise was not always a proof of friendship, nor occasional condemnation an evidence of hostility.

Mr. Horsman propounded a scheme of his own. It was proposed to endow four Bishops with a sum that would provide for 133 additional clergy; and to lay out on four residences what would build 75 churches containing 600 each. The question, then, was-4 bishops or 133 clergymen, 4 palaces or 75 churches? He would show, if they must have more Bishops, a better scheme. It had been cal- culated that the public wants would require fully four thousand more clergymen and fifty new Bishops. Is there any hope of getting them? Need they all be of the present grade? or is it even desirable to maintain the wide distance which exists in this country between the rich and the poor? He proposed to restore the order of Suffragan Bishops. Instead of four now as an instalment of the sixty needed, he proposed to create sixty Suffragans; that they should be in the great towns and populous districts, with ample, not extravagant salaries, say 1,5001. a year, requiring 90,0001. Dividing the population into 86 districts, there would be about 186,000 under the superintendence of each Bishop; and the work of superintendence would be complete. But then came the question of their pay. Lord Henley suggested, that instead of a large number of constantly shifting sine- curists, the whole should be under a dean with the assistance of his chaplains Our present cathedral establishment consisted of 26 Deans, 104 Canons, and 156 Minor Canons; whose incomes amounted to 150,2801. By abolishing 25 Deans and the 104 Canons, an ample establishment would be left, and there would be a total saving of 100,8801.; the sum required for the Suffragan Bishops was only 90,0001. Two things, however, were essential to render the superintendence of the Bishops entirely satisfactory,—the qualifications of candidates for holy orders must be raised; and superannuation allowances must be given to the Prelates. The last was especially desirable.

Mr. foreman read a passage from a pamphlet addressed by a layman to the Archbishop of Canterbury against mere expediencies and makeshifts in such mat-

ten; and concluded by moving, as an amendment on Lord John Russell's motion, the following resolution—" That, at this late period of the session it is not expe-

dient to proceed with a ineasure which, involving new and importalit principles de- serving of the utmost consideration, would be more fitly discussed in another ses- sion of Parliament, on the introduction of a general and comprehensive scheme for increasing the efficiency of the Church and lessening the spiritual destitution of the people."

Mr. Jonte CoLLErr seconded the amendment.

Sir GEORGE GREY opposed it; slightingly dismissing Mr. Horsman's scheme as impracticable: if they were to wait for that before affording any assistance to the Church, it must remain in statu quo.

Mr. Horsman had totally overlooked the great increase which had taken place in the number of clergyman and of churches, and the acknowledged zeal with which the clergy perform their duties. The increase in the number of clergy demands an increase in the episcopal supervision; and Sir George believed that not one of the Commissioners would adhere to the opinion which they gave ten or twelve years ago, that there ought to be no increase in the number of Bishops.

That was the question really before the House—whether the Bishops should-be increased beyond the number of twenty-four or not—whether the new Bishopric

was required or not; and Sir George contended that it was. He corrected some errors in Mr.Horsman's statement. The principal which the Commissioners were now paying towards the augmentation of small livings was 64,0001. a year. They had increased the revenues of 620 livings, in districts representing a population of 1,718,000; for whom spiritual accommodation had been provided, and where the clergyman's income in all eases was at least 1501. a year irrespectively of pew-rents and other payments. With regard to the episcopal residences there had been a great misrepresentation of the facts of the case. In many instances the revenues which his honourable friend supposed were derived from the surplus funds of Deaneries, Canomies, Ste. merely resulted from the sale and exchange of property. His honourable friend had said that 23,000/. had been laid out upon an episcopal house for the united Bishopric of Gloucester and Bristol; whereas the sum ac- tually paid was only 1,072/. The two residences having been consolidated, one of them was sold and the proceeds applied to the repairs of the other; and the only sum actually paid by the Commissioners was 1,0721. There was at the same time property belonging to the same bishopric sold, amounting to 6,4254 which was carried to the credit of the Commissioners.

Mr. BROTHERTON and some other Members objected to the bill as an extension of the Established Church. Mr. THOMAS DCJNCOMBE said that it was a breach of the compact with the Liberal party in 1836; when Mr. Charles Buller and other members of the present Goverment opposed the so-called Church Reform Bill,—because it went to increase the number of Bishops. And Mr. Duncombe asked what the present Ministers have done towards the abolition of Church-rates?

The bill was supported by Mr. ErrrwisLE, Mr. G. A. HAMILTON, Mr. W. 0. STANLEY, Lord CLIVE and Lord SANDore.

Eventually, to accommodate the wish of the House for a direct vote upon the bill itself, Mr. HonsmAN withdrew his amendment. Mr. Maim then moved another, that the bill be read a second time that day six months. On a division, this was negatived by 124 to 15; and the bill was read a second time.

The debate was renewed on Thursday, when the order was read for going into Committee. Mr. FREWEN objected to the bill for its partial character. If the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor were preserved separately, the same principle ought to be carried out throughout the kingdom. Mr. HUMB, seconded by Mr. MARK PHILIPS, spoke with more vehemence against the bill as an encroachment on the part of the Church. He objected to the abstraction of a farthing of money from the small livings for the purpose of the bill; and moved that it be committed that day six months.

Lord Joint RUSSELL briefly defended the bill; observing that the House had sanctioned its main principle by a majority of 124 to 15. If there was any compact, it was the compact entered into ten years ago, for founding the Bishopric of Manchester.

Sir Jeatzs GRAHAM did not support the amendment, but he attacked the bill— He said that he could not have supported Mr. Horsman's motion; more es- pecielly be could not concur in that gentleman's views as to time: he could not admit that there was any surprise, nor did the bill violate any compact. It is high time to revise the income enjoyed by the Established Church, with a view to the making it available for the future religious instruction of the people in connexion with the Established Church. Taking into consideration the divisions which have prevailed on religious subjects, he could not help thinking it visionary to imagine that the pecuniary necessities of the Church could be supplied from the public taxes. On the other hand, the property of the Church is limited; and it becomes a grave question how it can be applied to meet the growing wants of the popu- lation. The bill proposes to create one bishopric, and announces the creation of three other bishoprics. Other Members further hinted at an immense increase in the number of Bishops, and the creation of Suffragan Bishops, He was disposed to say that it would be better to make a stand now, by declaring that there shall be no more Bishops. He would abolish all distinction between the episcopal fund and the common fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and would devote the joint fund to the augmentation of poor livings and the erection of churches by the endowment of additional benefices, or by diminishing the number of district churches which are supported by pew-rents.

He was in favour even of uniting the bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor; a course approved of by the Earl of'Harrowby, (Lord Sandon's father,) Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Melbourne. The sees of Gloucester and Bristol were united; and the number of Bishops was then reduced from twenty- four to twenty-two, without any evil effects. For what are the duties which the Bishops have to perform? There is the ordination during the three "Ember weeks" in the year; the visitation,—which even if it be annual is facilitated by the rapid means of travelling; the ceremony of confirmation; the control and regulation of the clergy,—though he was not one who thought it most conducive to discipline that the Bishop should hold daily intercourse with his clergy; and finally, the consecration of churches,—though if a Bishop has two or three churches to consecrate in the course of a year he is fortunate. He had known all the duties which he had enumerated performed by an Archbishop whose age exceeded eighty years; and the duties in the two sees of Salisbury and Bath and Wells had been performed for a considerable time by Dr. Denison, Bishop of Salisbury. Sir James thought the duties of the see of manchester might have been undertaken by the Bishop of the united sees of Ban- gor and St. Asaph.

As that, however, had not been found convenient, nothing remained but to as- sent to the-erection of the Bishopric of Manchester; and he was the less disposed to resist as the principle had been assented to by a large majority of the House of Lords. But he would make that arrangement once for all, and would obliterate the distinction between the episcopal and the common fund. In Committee, he would propose to strike out those words in the preamble recognizing the intention of the Crown, and also the clause excluding the Bishop from the House of Lords. That provision would lead to invidious comparisons between the junior Bishop re- siding in his see and that of the Bishops spending six months in town.

Sir James read largely from the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1836, showing the deplorable want of church-accommodatke; and he insisted that, though praiseworthy efforts had been made to increase the accommodation, the population has increased proportionately. If you wish to increase the disci- pline of the Bishops over their clergy, you must do it not by multiplying the number of Bishops, but by adding to the efficiency of their staff in the shape of Archdeacons and Rural Deans.

With these views, Sir James could not resist the motion for going into Com- mittee.

Mr. ACLAND, who spoke with some excitement, observed, that in the course of ten years the Bishop of London had built fifty-five churches. Lord SANDON protested against Sir James Graham's low mechanical view respecting the duties of a Bishop— In the diocese with which Lord Sandon is connected, the Bishop never rests: the building of new churches, the erection of new schools' the direction of mis- sions, the machinery to provide for the growing wants of the population, all de- mand the assistance of the Bishop; who must moreover be the living principle and example to his diocese. He had been told the other day by a right reverend Pre- late, that few days passed without his having written fifty letters in the morning. The Bishop is the guide, the director, of his clergy and of his laity; and Lord Sandon would never be content until he saw a Bishop in every county of England. He laid no stress on their possessing seats in the House of Lords. The debate was continued at some length; but we can do no more than enumerate the speakers. The bill was supported by Mr. MONCIETON MILNES, Mr. EVELYN DENISON, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Lord CLIVE, Mr. GOULBURN, Mr. WYNN, and Sir ROBERT IsioLis. It was opposed for its imperfections by Mr. HORSKAN. It was opposed on its principle by Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTIL Mr. AGLIONBY, and Mr. Joure CoLLerr. Sir James Graham's view was supported by Mr. ESCOTT and Mr. OSBORNE. On a division, the motion for going into Committee was carried, by 138 to 20.

•

On the question that the Speaker leave the chair, Mr. DUNCOMBE moved an adjournment; declaring that the vote which had been come to was most disgraceful— The SPEAKER Order, order!" Mr. DUNCOMBE--" I repeat my state- ment." The SPEAKER again called " Order ! " Mr. DUNCOMBE—" I say the vote is most disgraceful to her Majesty's Govern- ment." (Laughter, and cries of" Order!") The SPEAKER—" However much the honourable Member may regret the vote to which the House has come, he has no right to revile the vote of the House."- Mr. Escorr insisted that Mr. Duncombe's language was not unparlia- mentary. Mr. DUNCOMBE also insisted that it was not. The vote was disgraceful to an Administration professing to be swayed by Liberal prin- ciples; especially when he recollected the conduct of many members of that Government in 1836, on what was called the Bishops' Bill. "The honour- able Member for Lambeth called me to order—corrected me just now "— This Mr. HAWES denied ; but Mr. DUNCOMBE repeated the assertion, and proceeded—" Then, perhaps the honourable gentleman will do me the fa- vour to account for his vote on this bill, and say how he reconciles his vote now with his vote and conduct on the Bishops' Bill?" A scene of much confusion now took place; Lord CLEMENTS speaking vehemently against the bill; Mr. WAKLEY crossing over to speak to Mr. Duncombe; and the House greeting one or two Members who rose with tries of " Spoke!" " Order!" laughter, and so on. Lord Joust RUSSELL charged Mr. Duncombe with "quibbling"; Mr. Osisonsot and Mr. ESCOTT retorted the charge on Lord John. Ultimately the debate was adjourned.

IRISH REPUDIATION.

At the noon sitting of the House of Commons on Saturday, the Howe went into Committee on the Recovery of Public Monies (Ireland) Bill. In the midst of the discussion of the clauses, Lord CLEMENTS protested against the conduct of the Government and the Legislature with regard to Ireland—

The bill before the House was a most objectionable specimen of paltry and miserable legislation. He must denounce on the part of Ireland the creel injus- tice of the attempt on the Fart of the Government to recover the repayment of a single shilling of the loan which had been advanced. Could anything be more cruel and wretched than the condition of the people of Ireland? which was get- ting worse from day to day; and yet the Government and that House were almost apathetic on the subject. He would tell them to try as mach as they pleased—to use all their power even to the point of the bayonet, to enforce this bill, and they would not succeed in enforcing the repayment of this money. He must protest in the name of his country against the cruelty and hardheartedness manifested towards her by that House and the Government. This was only another speci- men of the gross injustice with which Ireland was treated. Mr. HAMILTON expressed his deep regret at this language; and begged the House to believe that the opinions which it expressed were not gene- rally entertained in Ireland.

Mr. HUME was astonished at hearing such language, instead of gratitude for the enormous sacrifices which England had made— He feared that the present and future Governments would be compelled to sus • pend all future assistance to Ireland, however great might be the distress and destitution there, if such notions as those entertained by Lord Clements were found to exist there. Nothing could have been more injurious to Ireland than his speech. If the 'secede of England saw that only ingratitude followed the great sacrifices which this country had made, depend upon it, they would not consent to have heavy burdens imposed upon them for such a purpose. Mr. PouLErr ScrtoPE also alluded to the ingratitude and the jobbery of Ireland; and observed that the landlords of Ireland should have been in- formed specifically what they had to repay. Sir JAMES GRATEAst expanded Mr. Hume's cautionary strictures— Within the last twelve or fourteen months, 9,000,0001. of the public money had been advanced to relieve the distress existing in Ireland. It was now proposed, by an arrangement which he regarded as most just, that of the 9,000,0001. so ad- vanced 4,500,0001. should be considered as a free grant, and all claim for repay- ment cast aside; but the remainder was to be repaid by instalments, extending over a long period, from a charge on the land. It could not, however, be denie4 that in some parts of the country, in consequence of the prevalence of extreme distress, there would be found great difficulty in enforcing the immediate and regular repayments of the instalments becoming due; and he thought that it would be expedient to give some discretionary power to the Goverument as to the mode and amount of the repayments to be made from such districts. Repayment generally must be enforced; but disastrous circumstances might arise in some in- stances, so as to render the repayment most difficult, if not almost impossible; and he was sure that Parliament in such cases would not go to the extreme in en- forcing repayment Lord CLEMENTS made another speech— He did not complain of the English people, (in gratitude towards them he !maid yield to no man,) but of the English Government and Legislature; and he main- tained that the course they had taken was most imprudent and perilous. They might as well call upon a beggar in the street to make A large payment BB to charge this loan on the lend of Ireland. If they seriously reflected on the matter, they could not expect repayment. Now it was entirely out of the power of Ireland to make such payments; and it was only right the House should be informed of the extreme distress which prevailed there. Throughout a fun half of the country the land was not cropped. In many large districts the ground wascompletely ex- hausted, and would not produce anything. The people were positively devouring the soil. The people of Ireland had been starving; they were starving now, and would be starving next winter. What the Government had not dared to do in England, they had done in Ireland with impunity. All that he claimed was, that his country should be placed on the same footing as England. Sir CasaLza WooD repeated Sir James Graham's reproofs; showing the amount of the sacrifices already made for Ireland, and the danger of such speeches as Lord Clemeuts's

Mr. WILSON PATTEN also declared that he should oppose the bill if he believed such sentiments to prevail generally in Ireland. He spoke of in- jury inflicted on Lancashire by the multitudes of Irish paupers, who import distress and infection. In Liverpool alone, 70,000 Irish paupers are sup- ported out of the poor-rates.

Lord CLEmitatrs said, that if there was one place on the globe rather than another which ought in fairness to be taxed for the support of the Irish poor, it was Liverpool—

He had heard with surprise complaints of the number of poor Irish at Liver- pool, where they had done so much to increase the gains of that place. Liverpool had derived very great profits from its commercial transactions with the people of „Ireland. There was not a town in Ireland from which the shopkeepers did not go to Liverpool to buy goods. Look also at the large amount of gains made at that place through the great number of Irish who made it their place of embarkation when about to emigrate.

Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. BROTHERTON, the Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY, Mr. BROWN, Lord WILLIAM PAULETT, and Mr. AINSWORTH, expressed their regret at Lord Clements's language. Sir ROBERT FEmansorr joined in Mr. Hamilton's assurance that the feelings entertained by the Irish people were very different. That subject having dropped, Mr. POULETT SCROPE delivered a few remarks on the absolute necessity of making Ireland support herself by a better system of culture especially by redemption of the waste lands. It is precisely in the most distressed districts that the natural resources have been most neglected, and that the soil is most fertile.

The bill passed through the Committee.

NEW POOR-LAW COMMISSION.

At the third reading of the Poor-law Administration Bill, in the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord BROUGHAM recorded his opinion against the measure, by moving that it be read a third time that day three months. Me took the opportunity of pointing out an injustice done to Captain Nicholls and Mr. Chadwick by their dismissal. They might be said to be the authors of the New Poor-law; and while others were disposed to flinch from enforcing it, they stood firm and bore the brunt of the contest. Cap- tain Nicholls gave up 2,5001. a year when he took office; so that he has lost not less than 9,0001. Mr. Chadwick relinquished his chance of prac- tising at the bar. How unjust then would it be if they were now left pen- niless, without any retiring pension!

The Bishop of LONDON bore testimony to the character of Mr. Chad- wick, and especially to the intelligence and activity with which he carried into effect the New Poor-law. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH also severely condemned the attempt to get rid of Mr. Chadwick by act of Parliament; Ministers being ashamed to dismiss him in the usual way, by letter. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE replied to Lord Brougham and the Bishop. Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Nicholls were not entitled to any pension, for no such prospect was held out to them; but he was far from saying that their claims, either in regard to their services on the preliminary inquiry, or afterwards in carrying out the law, should not be attended to by the pre- sent or by any succeeding Government. On a division, the third reading was carried, by 32 to 10; and the bill passed.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

On Monday, Lord Bnotronem moved the following resolutions- " 1. That it is the bounden duty of both Houses of Parliament to adopt, at the

beginning of the next session, whatever means may be most effectual for detect- ing and punishing acts of bribery and corruption which may be committed during the ensuing recess at the election of Members of Parliament and Peers of Scotland and of Ireland; such offences being altogether subversive of the freedom of election, destructive of the independence and purity of the Legislature, leading to the moral guilt of perjury in encases, and the actual commission, in many, of that most foul and heinous crime.

"2. That it is also the duty of both Houses:of Parliament to inquire of and visit with punishment all acts which may be done during the recess for interfering with the free choice of Members of Parliament, of Peers of Scotland and Ireland, by intimidation or otherwise. "8. That it is the duty of both Houses of Parliament to inquire of all corrupt bargains, whether by compromise or otherwise, made during the recess, for the purpose of preventing and frustrating the inquiry into such corruption or inti- midation at elections of Members of Parliament, or of Scotch or Irish Peers." Lord Brougham supported these resolutions in a speech. He began by insisting on the competency of the Lords as well as the Commons to be the guarclians of purity and freedom of election. He reverted to the abuses before the Reform Bill. When the late Mr. Canning stood for Liverpool, in 1812, there were 84,000 votes to be given; voters were brought from the Land's End and from the North of

• Scotland; and the expenses amounted to 40,0001. The ordinary expenses of an election at such a place were 15,0001. for each candidate. Under such circum- stances, it was impossible to discriminate where the legal expenses ended and the illegal began. The Reform Act, however, supplied a test for examination, as there are no out-voters, and treating is unlawful. He cculd not reflect on the degree in which the election of 1841 tarnished the reputation for honesty of the people and legislature of the country, without adverting to the opinion of foreign countries. Charges had been brought against persons of the highest rank and proudest official station in France, which he was bound in justice to believe groundless; but when allusion was made to those charges, his friends across the Channel asked him how the English could stand up for purists?

Those who resorted to corruption at elections are actually guilty of causing per- jury. Every man who goes up is likely to be offered the bribery oath; and how -many would refuse ?—not five in a hundred. Lord Brougham premised that if he were spared till next session, he should then propose measures in addition to these suggestions. He glanced at the approaching contest; and he drew no consolatory anticipation from the dislocation of parties. For what might be seen in consequence of the watch-words of " Wing and Tory," ative " no longer being found as in the olden times to divide "Liberal and

the country ? , men were to be found coming forward who were wholly un- known—probably well known, and as much trusted as known, in their own pri- vate, secluded, aiit. ceedingly select circle, but wholly unknown to the country

at large : that, so might say, signified little—but wholly unknown to the places for which they were going to stand; and their addresses showing that they were unknown, and that his own ignorance of them did not " argue himself un-

known," for they came forward one and all with an apology for soliciting suffrages in this predicament. He had made inquiry into about half a dozen of these cases; and he found that no human being in the places where these men were praying for the greatest trust that could be vest.d in mortal hands—that of being law_ givers—knew anything about them save, perhaps, some attorney. How long known to him was another question; buCtheir intercourse possibly, though short, had been passing sweet; and as the candidate had brought with him a letter of credit, there was no difficulty in quietly getting a resolution come to,—" We, the people of Andover," " we, the people of Barnstaple," or as the case might be., are of opinion that Mr. So-and-So is a fit and proper person to represent this place in Parliament." The attorney ran up a bill, and the intermediate agent had his

commission; and the representative might be a fit man enough, but when better known he might not happen to represent the place, having had a taste of the ex- pense of the honour. It might be as with a worthy gentleman who said when returning thanks for being elected, " Gentlemen, I have bought you, but I will not

sell jam." " Hear, hear !" said the electors, " we hope you will come again." " Oh, no," he answered, " I can't come again; it costs too much for that." (Laugh- ter.) These gentlemen might nominally represent a borough, but really they re- presented their own purse. Looking upon this election as a contest in which bribery was likely to occupy a huger place than before,—an election in which so many unknown men were coming forward—men only known as wealthy,—he thought it right now to move formally the first resolution. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE objected to the abstract nature of the re- solutions; which seemed to indicate an intention of proceeding further without putting the House in possession of what the further proceeding was to be—

The only resolution of an abstract nature in which he had ever concurred, and which be had seen attended with a beneficial effect, was the one which he had

the distinguished honour of bringing up from the other House when he was a very young Member of Parliament—the resolution that it would be expedient in the next session to take measures for the abolition of the Slave-trade. The pre- sent resolutions would be a mere brutranfulmen. The act of 1842 would be the means, not perhaps of entirely uprooting the abominable practices in question but of surrounding them with far greater difficulties. After all, however, the people are their own best protectors in this matter: as Mr. Wyndham said, it is

the people individually who cheat the people collectively ; and if those who were notoriously engaged in practices of this nature were visited with disgrace, a much wider effect would be produced than by any legal prosecutions or penalties. Nevertheless, their Lordships would be always prepared to assist in passing any measure which may prevent those crimes. "The present discussion will be use ful when it goes forth in conveying to the public the unchanged opinion of this House upon the enormity of these offences, confirmed as that opinion is by all the

former proceedings of your Lordships in reference to this subject. Under these circumstances' I think it will not be necessary to adopt the resolutions of my noble and learned friend; and I hope he will not think it necessary to press the matter further at present."

Lord BROUGHAM was understood to express his satisfaction. He wished to see a small bill passed making a declaration on the part of Members of Parliament immediately upon their return necessary. A solemn declara- tion, he would not say an oath, such as was contained in a former bill, but thrown out, would answer all the purpose.

CONDUCT or BUSINESS IN PARLIAMENT.

On Monday, Lord BROUGHAM presented to the Peers the subjoined re solutions, drawn up by the Select Committee to whom the subject had been referred-

" 1st. That the Lords are willing to receive from the Commons, in one mes- sage, all Commons' bills when first brought up to this House, all Lords' bills re- turned from the House of Commons without any amendment moved thereto, and all Commons bills returned therefrom with the Lords' amendments thereto agreed to without any amendment; a list of such bills, with a statement of the assent of the Commons thereto, being brought by the messengers from the House of Com- mons and delivered together with the bills so brought up.

"2d. That whereas, by custom heretofore, all messages from the House of Commons to the House of Lords have been attended by eight Members of the House of Commons, and whereas the attendance of so many may occasionally be inconvenient to the Members of the said House, the Lords desire to communicate to the Commons their willingness to receive such messages when brought up by five Members only." The resolutions were affirmed; a deputation of Peers was appointed to attend a conference with the Commons; the conference was held; and the resolutions were left with the Commons.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY.

On Monday, the House of Commons went into Committee on the Bank- ruptcy and Insolvency Bill; the nature of which was explained by the Attorney-General. There was a discussion before going into Committee, and in Committee; but the purport of both was similar. The object of the bill was twofold. One portion of it, the three first clauses, would abolish the Court of Review, and transfer the jurisdiction of that court to the Court of Chancery; the business of the Court of Review being in fact already executed by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce. The other portion of the bill would abolish the country circuits of the Insolvency Commis- sioners; transferring the jurisdiction to the Local Courts.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM took a considerable exception to the three first clauses of the bill. The Mixed Commission appointed to consider the sub- ject had recommended that Bankruptcy proceedings should be entirely severed from the Great Seal, and that a separate tribunal should be estab- lished. It would be necessary, in fact, to revise the whole subject; and Sir James objected to this so-called nominal change, which went to perpetuate an arrangement that serves very well for temporary purposes. He there- fore suggested, that the three first clauses should be struck out of the bill. Mr. STUART took somewhat the same view of the bill, but went further. He entered into the details of administering bankruptcy business; showing the vexatious delay and the oppressive expenses. He objected to the piece- meal legislation by which jurisdiction is given to the Local Courts, bit by bit, instead of endowing them on definite grounds with a definite jurisdic- tion. He suggested, therefore, that Ministers should not proceed with the bill at all, but should reserve the subject for more deliberate and perfect legislation. The House, however, went into Committee; and the first clause, opposed by Sir Jamas GRAHAM, was affirmed by 44 to 37. The two next clauses were also affirmed; and the bill passed through the stage of Com- mittee.

THE NEW ZEALAND SETTLEMENT.

On Monday, Mr. HAWES moved the second reading of the New Zealand (No. 2) Bill; the object of which was to carry out the arrangements be- tween the Government and the New Zealand Company, distinctly stated in the Spectator of the 29th of May. In the course of his explanation,

Mr. Hawes insisted upon the policy of maintaining the colony; recognized the public debt due to the Company for their active and enterprising ope- rations; and lauded the energy and ability with which the present Go- vernor has surmounted difficulties that seemed to be almost insuperable.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK observed, that this measure did not accord with the principle laid down by the Government as one of their leading rules of action at the commencement of the present session— They said at that time, that the Government ought not to be money-lenders. This great commercial company had got into a scrape: but it was well supported in the House; its supporters constituted, in sporting phrase, a strong covey—there were eighteen or twenty of them choking together like partridges: if the specu- lation succeeded, the House would hear no more of it; if it failed, the Govern- ment must become the Company; and he hoped they would not become "destitute shareholders."

Sir ROBERT INGLIS said a few words in favour of Captain Fitzroy, and In praise of the forbearance and magnanimity shown by the New Zealand chiefs, especially towards women in the recent contests.

Mr. WILSON Parritte and Mr. VERNON SMITH suggested doubts; to which Ministers replied. Mr. Hamm explained, that all questions of ac- count were settled matters: all past liabilities had been estimated, and nothing could be done by the Company now without the sanction of the Secretary of State. Mr. CHARLES BOLLER explained that the Govern- ment had not become subject to the liabilities of the Company. The Company was merely enabled to go on and compensate itself by its own success. And from the experience of the past, he argued that colonization could be better carried out by the agency of a commercial company, than by the direct action of the Government. Mr. HUME represented the bill as virtually a demand upon the country to pay 130,0001., the penalty for the mismanagement of an incapable Co- lonial Minister— He did not object to the bill, the land of the Company being made liable for the advance; but he wanted a clear account as to whose fault it was by which the mischief had originally been done. He was not disposed to trust the business of colonization to Government: it had shown itself so incapable he did not expect anything better from it for the future. Let it give the Colonies self-government, and allow them to manage their own affairs; and then they might expect a better state of things. Private enterprise was better than public meddling. A Govern- ment never succeeded in commercial speculations: however well inclined, they had influences brought to bear upon them which prevented them from employing the best means or the ablest persons.

Mr. WILLIAMS echoed the burden of Mr. flume's speech. The payment of these large sums he imputed to the failure of the Company; and that to the incapacity of the Colonial Office.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM deprecated these hostile allusions to Lord Stanley; whom he defended in general terms. The arrangement between the Go- vernment and the Company he regarded as being on the whole a judicious one; and he hoped that the effect of it would be to restore the prosperity of this enterprising company.

Lord INGESTRE expressed his thanks to Government for the arrange- ment. In reply to a question from Mr. EVELYN DENISON, Mr. AGLIONBY admitted that he should have been better satisfied had the amount of the advance been larger; but he thought it was sufficient to afford a reasonable expectation of success.

. DISRAELI took up Lord George Bentinck's position, that the scheme was liable to the reproach which Ministers had thrown against Lord George Bentinck's railway scheme, of being for the benefit of "destitute share- holders "—

He wanted to know whether the "destitute shareholders" have any interest in the grant now proposed. Here was a joint stock company in distress: it had wasted 600,0001., and then began to circulate rumours and accusations against the Ministers of the country. It circulated an immense book of 1,078 pages; and he could not help thinking that its printer's bill would go far to account for the dis- appearance of 600,0001. Notwithstanding all its blustering, the Company retired from the field; and it was not until Lord Stanley, for the misfortune of the coun- try, was removed to the other House, that the accusations against him were brought forward. Admitting that both Irish and New Zealand shareholders were destitute," perhaps the Irish railway shareholders were not 8o destitute as the New Zealand Company. A few days ago, however, Government had advanced money to certain Irish railways at 5 per cent: they now advanced it to the New Zealand Company at 31, per cent; practically declaring that the security of Ireland is inferior to the security of New Zealand He wished that fact put broadly at the hustings on the general election, and for the electors to be asked, "Will you vote for the man or will you support the Govern- ment that declares this?" Mr. Disraeli made a side-hit at Sir James Graham. "Perish the world sooner than compromise a principle," had always been the policy of the Member for Dorchester, and recently recommended to them; yet night he did for the New Zealand Company what some short time since be had refused to do for Ireland; and the Government, with a glaring inconsistency which nothing but the fag-end of the session, and the conviction that public attention, jaded with all the disasters of the last six months, was no longer fixed on them and no longer played the critic of all their political pranks, would have permitted, came forward a second time to violate every one of those declarations which at the commencement of the session they insisted to be of paramount importance. He was glad that they had acted with so mach wisdom' but, while they were thus registering their own condemnation, they were, in fact, giving an proof of the soundness of the policy which the Protectionists had consistently supported. (Cheers.)

The bill was read a second time.

WELLINGTON STATUE.

On Monday, Lord Joint RUSSELL stated the result of the reference which had been made to the Duke of Wellington—

"I wish now to fulfil the promise which I made to the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Bentinck) with respect to the Wellington military memorial, respecting which a motion from the noble Lord appears on the paper. Since the tune I last addressed the House, I have had a communication with the illustrious Duke as to the statue erected in his honour on the arch in the Green Park; and

the substance of his reply to my was, that he considered the 9nestion to be one which ought to be disposed of not on individual but on public grounds alone; that many persons considered, and the committee who proposed the monument had considered, that its removal from the arch would be considered as a mark of disapprobation on the part of the Crown towards the individual; but that for his part he had received too many proofs of the favour of the Crown to induce him to suppose that the removal, although it were ordered, was directed with the intention of expressing disapprobation towards him. Still, if the removal did take place, such an opinion would prevail; and he would therefore deprecate on public grounds the removal of the statue. (Cheers.) This statement was communicated to her Majesty; and I have her commands to say that her Govern- ment will not proceed any farther in respect to the removal of the monument. (Continued cheering.) The noble Lord will therefore see that his motion is un- necessary." lassiePEERAGE. The House of Lords sat on Tuesday as a Committee of Pri- vileges, to consider Lord Ashbroke's claim to vote for Representative Peers for Ireland. The claim was decided to be made out.

GREENOCK ELECTION. On Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL alluded to a notice which Mr. Seine, the Member for Greenock, had given, of calling attention to the interference of Government with the constitutional privileges of the Parliamen- tary electors of Greenock. Lord John hoped that the motion would be with- drawn, as he was enabled very distinctly to assure Mr. Baine, that Government had no intention of interfering with the privileges of the electors of Greenock, or of favouring one candidate to the detriment of another. Mr. &urea intimated that this assurance was satisfactory; and he withdrew his notice. Mr. Fox ALtute personally disclaimed any interference. Mr. TUFNELL also explained, that, though he regretted the publication of his letter to Lord Melgund, he did not accuse Lord Melgand of breach of confidence.

THE COUNTY COURT BENCH AND SEATS IN THE COMMONS. In reply to ST J.t.mas GasnA3r, on Wednesday, Sir JOHN JERVIS, the Attorney-General, de- clined to give an opinion whether the judgeship of a County Court is a "place or office of profit under the Crown" such as to render the occupant ineligible for a seat in that House: precedents might be cited on both sides; and whatever opi- nion he gave might be reversed by an Election Committee. Sir Jasims GRAHAM accepted Sir John's reasons for not giving an opinion; but announced that, on the third reading, he should propose a clause to remove all doubt by declaring the Judges of the County Courts ineligible.

THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS BILL, introduced by Sir DE LACY EVANS to extend the period for paying rates by six months more than the present allow- ance, was thrown out at the second reading on Monday. There were two divi- sions. Mr. CRIPPS moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months. The House divided first on the question that the word " now " stand part of the question, and the numbers were equal on both sides--54: the Speaker gave his casting-vote against the amendment. The House then divided on the question that the bill be read a second time: this was negatived, by 53 to 52.

THAMES CONSERVANCY. On Tuesday, Mr. WARD announced that, in con sequence of the opposition which the Thames Conservancy Bill was likely to en- counter on its further progress, he was reluctantly compelled to give it up for the present.

Mn. LANGSLOW'S CASE was brought before the House of Commons on Tues- day, by Mr. BICKHA3I Esoorr, with more details but without any material ad dition to the explanation given in the Spectator for the 26th June respecting Mr. Langslow's dismissal from his post as district Judge in Ceylon. Mr. Escott moved an address, praying the Queen to grant to Robert l.angslow such relief as to her Majesty should seem fit. Mr. IlAwEs defended Lord Grey for having refused to disturb the decision of his predecessor Lord Stanley. No new circumstances had been advanced to justify a reopening of the case. Unless it could be shown that there was some new matter, there would be nothing to prevent a case which had occurred during the last twenty-five or thirty years from being immediately brought under the attention of the Secretary of State, to the utter stoppage of all public business. Mr. G. W. HOPE defended the conduct of Lord Stanley; pointed to the fact that succeeding Colonial Secretaries have not appointed Mr. Langslow, as proving his unfitness for office; and adduced further proof from the printed papers. One example was an advertisement published by Mr. Langslow, announcing the sale of his library, because the lowness of his salary incapacitated him from keep- ing a library for the service of the colony. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK stood up for Lord Stanley. Mr. Fnazicis &tunic supported Mr. Langslow's claims. In the end Mr. BICKHAM ESCOTT withdrew his motion.

DR. SALLEy. On Thursday, Sir ROBERT INGLIS asked for correspondence relating to the case of Dr. Kelley. Viscount PALMERSTON entered pretty fully

into the case of Dr. Kalley's treatment in Madeira. He showed how that gentle- man's attempts at conversion to Protestantism contravened the laws of the island; likening it to the supposed case of Spanish or Portuguese Jesuits coming over to

this country and trying to convert the people to their views. Of course that would wound the prejudices and feelings of the English. Lord Palmerston showed that steps had been taken to obtain pistioe for the violence committed on Dr. Kalley's property; but he declined to insure Dr. Kelley against popular or indivi- dual insult if he should return to Madeira and continue his course of proselytizing against the law. Sir ROBERT broiss said that after Lord Palmerston's full ex- planation he would not press the motion.

Coma DE TOJAL. On Monday, at the instance of Mr. MACKENNON, Mr. OSBORNE explained away an assertion that Count de Tejo], the present Finance Minister of Portugal, had been a defaulter in this country. It appeared that the Count de Tojid was formerly in the wine-trade in this country, and through some misfortune he became bankrupt: some of his debts were of very long standing, but he had lately come into some property, and he had, with that sense of honour which a finance minister ought most especially to observe, discharged all those debts which he had contracted as a wine-merchant in this country. -It was clear, therefore, that he was not a defaulter; and he had since risen to the high office of Minister of Finance in his own country. Next night, Mr. Osborne added the further explanation, that the house with which the Count was connected had only " suspended " payment.

PROGRESS OF RAILWAY BILLS IN PARLIAMENT.

WEDS.

PATARDLE8 PnoVnD IN cox:rims. July 120i.—Sonth-1>evon extension and amend- ment. Caledonian (Edinburgh station, and branches to Granton and to the Edinburgh- and Granton).