The Express. — London, England, 1847-07-14 00:00:00

the best security for peace was being prepared for was; although there was no appearance of the disturbance of that tranquillity which he hoped would long continue. The increased communication between European countries would render war more horrible than ever, and, therefore, he rejoixd in thew measures of free trade which would have the effect of rendering it as impossible as it was horrible. Lord BROUGHAM, having thanked his noble frieno behind him for his eloquent and manly statement, was, at the same time, unwilling it should go forth that the naval and military defences of the country were in a state of week nese. This country had new a s•urce of strength which he believed it never had before, and that lay in the perfect union of feeling with which all parties and dares would enter into the struggle. If ever the voice of war should again go forth, he believed we should be found— - Tete esrMeim mew, mod. Tbe bill wee then read a third now end passed. POOR RELIEF SUPERVISION (IRELAND) BILL On the order of the day for the committee on this bill being reed, Earl St. GERMANS moved that the bill be committed that day three months. He objected to the bill as putting the chief secretary in Ireland in the same position of imam mnience as the chief secretary in England, with reference to the poor-law authorities of Somerset House. That was to my. he would have, on every cue of difficulty, to apply fat information to the supervisors under the bill. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE defended the bill. It would give the principal power to the Lord Lieutenant and thief secretary, where it no doubt would be must efficiently exercised. Lord MONTEAGLE would support the amendment el the noble earl. From all he had heard, the office of Lewd Lieutenant of Irelaud was net likely to be permanent; and, therefore, he was not willing to encumber it with any sow powass. The Earl of WICKLOW was of opinion that the treaties of a separate poor-law jurisdicion for Ireland, distinct fetes, and independent of, the English poor-law commission, wee a measure entirely uncalled for, and be agreed for that rams with the noble earl (St. Germans) on the other side in Ids opposition to the bill. The Earl of ROSSE urged upon the government the no. amity for calling the landlords of Ireland into active or operation with the poor-law commissioners about to be established under the present bill. He hoped care would be taken in selecting proper persons to administer the poor bee in Ireland, by which he meant persons who were acquaineed with Irish society in all its details, and he further mese express a wish to see the new Irish poor-law commission connected with the English commission, in order to have the advantage of being supported by the aathority and ear& ence which had been acquired by the latter. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that the question before the house was not as to details, but whether the Irish poor.law commission wu to be under the immediate super intendence and control of the Lord Lieutenant, or to be in connexion with, and subordinate to, tha English poor-law commission On this point he differed tato eel° from his noble friends on the bench below and opposite (Lords Mont eagle and St. Germans), and he begged to tell attention to the fact, that the connexion with, and subordination to, the English poor-law commission of the Irish commiasion was a necessary consequence of the want of experience, which had since been acquired in all matters relating te Irish pauperism. The amendment was then negatived without a division, sad the bill went through committee, and was ordered to be reported on Thursday next (to-morrow). The house adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock to Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY, JULT 13. The 9 took the chair at 12 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. FIRST RFAlDlNG.—Comohnated Feed SRL REPORTS CONSIDERED.—BristoI and Exeter Railway (Branch from Bleadon to Wells, Glantonbary, and Street); Bristol and Exeter Railway (Minims and Castle Cary Branch) ; Exeter, Veo , B. and Dorehmter itowayand Branches; Great Writers Railway (Fates. dm of the Berea and Hants Railway from Huncerford to Westbury, with a Branch to Devisee) ; London sad South Western Railway; Salisbury sad Yeovil Railway; PUBLIC BURIZIEBIL PETITIONS.—By Yr:i.EinZif;ll the bankers and traders of London egainsa the Bonk Charter em —Mr. T. Dvscones., front Syd. aim, New South Wales, alined by 3,000 persona, against transport. ation to that colony ; also from JaMtA J. Rarly, of Cork, which stated that • gentlemen of the name of Cuthbert had been subject to great enmity for nine Teen in • lunatic asylum in that county, praying that an inquiry might be instituted. The petition won acornpanied by • certificate from • medical gentleman, amiss that Mr. Cuthbert was perfectly one. SECOND itiUDlNO.—Ccouncos Inc-loom (No. 3) BILL COAIMITTEM —New Zealand (No. 2); Militia Pay; Trustees Be. lent; Bills. REFORM—Treat Monies Timestinent ; Conetatalary Force (Tre- Lod) ; Destitute Peruse (Ireland); Public Works and Drainage psciancil ; London Bridge Approaches Fund; Canal Companies; t Wanks ; BUIL READlNG&—Recovery of Fablie Monies (Ireland) ; Poor Demerol Act Amendment (No. 2) ; BPTURN ORDERED.—On the elution of Mr. T. Dersconar,—Re tam, containing the names of all persons to whom pendons have has granted dace the establohnsent of the separate fond of 1,2001. for the reward of scientific, literary, end other civil services ; speci tylft the grounds upon width such peasionshme bees granted : and, Of all pentan e granted as *boys, which ham fakers in, showing whe ther by death or resignation of the recipients. REPORTS. The reports of the committees of supply, and ways and moans, were brought up and received, and leave was given to bring in a bill founded thereon. MANCHESTER BISHOPRIC BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL mid. that in moving the second read ing of this bill, he would address some explanation to the house as to its objects. The report of the ecclesiastical com missioners, appointed ten years ago. on the subject of the ecclesiastical state of England and Wales, advised that two bishoprics should be united with others. Mr. HUME rose to order. This was an order of the day, and he apprehended there were come notices of motion which ought to be disposed of before it mime on. He had ma on the paper, and he appealed to the Speaker whether he bad not a right to proceed with it. It would not occupy much time ; but he had no objection to take it after this tulL The SPEAKER said that en the preceding day an order had been made that this bill should be taken at 12 o'clock. Mr. HUME.—But there was no order for postponing the notices of motion which take precedence this day. The SPEAKER.—The Fleets business will not come on tall five o'clock, and after that the notices of motion will be taken. Mr. HUME had no objection, so lam as it was understood that he should then proceed with his motion. Lord J. RUSSELL said he believed that was the usual course of proceeding when the house sat at twelve o'clock on notice days. The ecclesiastical commission had proposed that the diocese of Bristol should be united with that of Gloucester, and Bangor with St. Asaph, and that two new bishoprics, those of Ripon and Manchester, should be con stituted. The first arrangement had taken place, and there had been no well-founded objection to it. It bad been car ried into effect, though with some hesitation on the part of the chapter of Gloucester ; but all the information showed that the arrangement had been satisfactory. The bishopric of Ripon had been created, and had been a very great relief to the arch-diocese of York, which had become time= populous. The other arrangement had not yet been into effect ; the first vacancy in the two Welsh sees had only occurred last year, by the death of the bishop of . Bt. Asaph. Very greet objections were then made to the ”...non, which was considered equivalent to the suppression of one of them ancient sees, on the ground of the strong local feeling le Wales, that it would be a great injury to deprive North Wales of the revenues, and that the church and clergy oh jetted to the loss of an ancient see. This feeling p and had so much influence in the other house, that ir 1 was carried against the influence of the present government, and against the opinion of those who had preceded them. When the bill came to this home, he was not prepared to made to it ; but promised to remaide the 'subject generally, Moog with other arrangements ttat e ahs a=l: Amp wee made in the original if tied oiserwiniesers. The bill now Ihrlettefi ad Mt ripen to Ile away entirely with thee errearaltsal. ISM use .sat the mesa of the two soy but it pagmeeh WENN a new bbissris of Manchester, tie by oda, one in As amber al efts Tim original sinwe had gene upon the lo of me imam I. the ameba. _ logyeerod to his Pi th:Noy imam en le be arls, It timid net he by ems. but a gnaw wombat. Heist% written a Wrens that eihet to Ike Audible" of Onalssibary ; he we s sheeting of the bi er ; awl dry weed OW then wore reads Ow .proposing the sesseleat of fans ow That. hows t ma coat the erepesidea ef the penal white only w se to emote th e - single bishopric ef . lb. =r ad have to Madder, with rapid to the meal ot this bilk—lnk whether the eldest's= le Se odes el the seat ef St. Amok and imp" of wifekifififr string le inns, limn te wind se meek of an est mai& had paned atm yeas eget ansli.ssesaily, if sf that gilt , whether they would ammee le dle wooden eta Mambo/ter, mitiesed givleg ea aMilimail seat to t b i l oreitly in the Sew el Leak Oa dreamt pint, ha was of that the Maws, bribe whisk bed been maatereod tat ia leu and in the einsell Ossithift, tree a ealleisat peed he the house to rorwasitimillar (Herr, heor.l And B&W were proper, its taut thelialie dal*, basso Weald re consider Its ember In the poems seedes; fir If the bIB should not pow sad the Mop • 1 Wow amid anemia nattly die before an act passed, dm prenst met would have t o b e carried into effect, the two diemess would be united, and the see of Bangor would be sapwood. Therefore, if the house thought the two diocese Weald smarm.) ' it was desirable that they should ism* this proposition in tke present session. As to the mini point, it could not well be deified that the present diocese of Chester was so large as to call for the labour, care, and attention of two bishops. If the present bill were carried, the diocese of Chester, as re duced, would still contain 912,449 inhabitants, an area el 1,408 square miles, and 302 parishes or &trims ; while the diocese of Manchester would contain 1,123,578 inhabitants, 1,220 square miles, and 313 parishes and districts. If this new see were the same funds would be devoted to it which were ' y intended to be applied to the united c, l dioceses of St. ph mad Bangor, and to the bishopric el Manchester; there would be sufficient for the maintenance 0 the two ancient sees and the creation of a new one else where. There would be a* new fluids applicable to the purpose. It was further proposed : that when the new bishop was created the number of bishops in the House of Lords should sot be increased, and that the new bishop should not take his seat there. That was founded on the belief that the number of bishops Ia the House of Lords was sufficient; the number had continued the same for a rat many yeah, and there seemed no valid reason for increasing ft. With that proposal was combined an meat which would be very much for the advents:e rr :PlT; country, as will as of the bishops. Instead of a newly-ap pointed Bishop of Gloucester or Exeter at once taking his seat, the Bishop of Manchester, who had been created be fore, and bad done homage, would take his scot in the House olf Lords, and the newly-created bishop would remain till thee, was a further vacancy. By this means the bishop would Nave the edractage of becoming thoroughly as. qualated with his diocese, and making himself ranter of the various onerous duties imposed upon him, before he sec needed to a seat in the House of Lords. It was not peopssed to extend the principle of this arrangement to Arch bishop of Canterbury or York, or the Bishops of Lyndon, Durham, or Winchester , _ who would remain on the same footingas at present. Ho did not think it necessary to enter further into the details of the bill, which would doubtless be alluded to in the iliNill4ol3. Mr. COLLETT asked if it was intended to establish any new bishopric in the diocese of London ? Lord J. RUSSELL said, though not immediately con cerning this bill, it was part of the government's plan, that • report should be made to her Majesty by the bishoprics' commission, recommending the establishment of a bishopric of 8 t. Alban's, in relief of that of London; a bishopric of f3outh well, in relief of the dioceses of York and Lincoln ; and a bishopric of Bodmin, in Cornwall; but those must each be the subject of a separate act of parliament. Sir R. INGLIS said he would not discuss the whole plan of the government, but would limit himself to the measure before the house. On en early occasion he hoped that oppor tunity might be given for a discussion on the state of the church generally and the means of its adaptation to the growing wants of the population. He cordially concurred in the two objects of this bill—the preservation of the see of St. Armpit: and the establishment of a new diocese at Man chester. For the first object they were mainly indebted to Earl Fowls, aided by the noble lord at the head of the government, who had conscientiously supported this object. lint he di" approved of the means by which the noble lord sought to carry out his object For above a thousand yeses the bishops had had seats in the House of Lords; and cormidering the proportion whirl the spirit ual peers had formerly borne to the temporal peen, be thought their number might have been safely increased, so as to bring it more in proportion with the population. In 1547, the proportion of spirituel to lay pee n , when every mitred abbot had • seat in the House of was vastly greater than at present. At the Reforma tion, when the population of the country was only five millions, twenty-six suffragan bishops were created ; and be wished that;that order had now been revived. If the same social and civil position could not be given to the new bishops to be created, it would have been mull better to have en forced the act of 28 Henry VIII., cap. 14, which might have been done without the interference of the house ; and then, wherever a bishop was called for, the crown would have been empowered immediately to create one, on the applica tion of either of the archbish op s. It was surprising that this power was so little known, and that her Majesti and het immediate predeceemes had not been called on to exercise it, although it had been exercised foe 100 years after it was given. With an increase of population from five to at least eighteen millions, he much regretted that the noble lord at the head of the government had not advised the archbishops to evoke this power of the crown. As to the maintenance of the new bishops, he believed that the diffi culty of providing it had been much exaggerated. lie ob jected in general to • bishop . holding another living, as • vicar ; but where other provision was not made, thee must accept the best arrangement that could be obtained. Ye objected to the proposal for always keeping the last new bishop out of the House of Lords; it might prevent the members of the hierarchy from taking a part in the legisla tion till they were at • comparatively advanced age. He regretted that the noble lord had hesitated to increase the number of the hierarchy, for though the measure might have been opposed , its defence might have been abundantly justified on principle. There were other objections, which he would reserve for • future discussion ; he should support the second reading of the bill as it stood. Mr. HORSMA.N said he was compelled by long and se rious consideration of the measure to propose an amendment. He entirely concurred in the objects of the last speaker, and gave the government full credit for the purity of their motives; but he could not think it desirable, at this period of the session, that this bill should be reed • second time. It touched most ineffectively a great principle, innovating without improving, and evading the most important part of the question—the con fessed inefficiency of the church establishment both at home and in the colonies. There were three points on which he objected to the bill—it repealed part of the act by which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of 1836 were constituted ; it de prived some members of the hierarchy of a seat in the upper house; and it diverted ecclesiastical property to uses for which it had never been designed. Without contending that all these objects were wrong, the great importance and seriousness of the measure was sufficient to justify him in urging its postponement after so many other bills had been withdrawn. The first object of the bill was to prevent the amalgamation of the two Welsh bishoprics, a measure which had been considered and acquiesced in for seven years, down to 1843, when the first objection was raised to it, notwithstanding its approval by the dignitaries of the church. These two Welsh bishopric' only contained 253 benefices, and their united population was only 339,000, smaller than that of the average of the dioceses in England. The Arch bishop of Canterbury and the other prelates bac: declared that not only might the two dioceses he united advantageously, but that one bishop was sufficient for the performance of the duties. The same opinion was expressed by the Duke of Wellington and other members of the late government It might be right to maintain the two Welsh sees, but it was • question which required due deliberation. One error led to another; and now it was proposed to create • new see, which bad been considered heretofore as an objectionable measure, and to create • bishop without giving him • seat in the house. In the very l ast session, the Bishop of London and other prelates had declared that this was • most serious in• noration. Another sad more important point was the dis posal of • sum of 17,0001. a year, for the creation of the four new bishoprics. Four new residerees were also to be built for them, which, according to the late estimate of the Bishop of Ripon's palace, would cost 60,0001. It would be a much better wayof spending the money to inereaee the number and the stipends of the poor clergy, so as to enable every cottager to have one whom he might consider his spiritual pastor. Before sanctioning this expenditure, it was right to inquire into what had been done by the ecclesiastical com minion appointed in 1836. The first objection to this body was its constitution ; it was a continually shifting and changing body. The funds the commission was to receive were from two sources : one, from the surplus of the richer sees, which were to be applied in augmentation of the smaller meg ; another source was the suppression of vacant enaoaries and cathedral dignitaries, the funds of which were to be applied to the pas meat of the poorer clergy. From the former source they had received 167,0001.; from the latter, 194,0001.; in addition to 600,0001. which they bad been em powered to borrow, and of which no account had been pub 6hed. The application of these funds was strictly limited to the two objects named ; no part was applicable to the establishment of new sees, until the other objects were fulfilled. There were upwards of 10,000 benefices in England and Wales, of which 5,947 had no suitable residence for the clergyman ; 6,860 of these were under 3001. • year, and 3,500 were under 1501. Notwithstanding this, in round number, the commission had only expended in aid of poor livikes. 167,3211. ; and in augmentation of the poorer sees, 106,0004 ; while upon epic copal residences no less then 143,0001. had been expended; making a total of 249,4004 expended in aid of episcopacy, against 167,300/. in aid of poor benefices. (Hear, hear.) It was true that the law enabled them to build or improve episcopal residences • what was their idea of an episcopal re sidence might be ga thered front the aunts expended to this way. In the diocese of Ripon, 16,0111. had been expended ; in Welt., 3,0001. ; in Hereford, 3,5001. ; in Oxford, 6.5001. ; in Worcester, 7,0001. ; in Gloucester, 28,7001. ; in Roches ter, 28,832/. ; in Lincoln, 54,4464 ; being an average of 18,0001. for each. (Hear.) The commissioners had received their funds all in hard cash, and were answerable to the public for the way in which they had expended it, In these eight dioceses, where this enormous expenditure had been made on episcopal residences, there were 85 livings under 501. a year the clergymen receiving actually less than the masons employed on the palatial residences of the bishops. (Hear, hear.) It was remarkable that in the dioceses where the greatest mum had been expended on the residences, there were the greatest number of poor living' ; and yet the whole sum applied in augmentation of these livings, in the whole 8 dioceses, was 6,2771., only one-twenty eighth part of what had bees applied to the building of Whops' residences. (Hear.) These details were necessanly *sass ; tat this was the first opportunity he had had of bringing thins ihrward. It might well be asked why the Musa af lea tared was to be nothing but a collection of bsosaa and amber—the rich Dives in the bishop's palace, poor beep, at his gate, in the character of the poor clergyman. The Issas writer (Sydney Smith) had later observed, that this anomaly arose from the fact that all te meashrod that taking tare of the church meant ialds e gn elo al the bitim (Neer, hear.) Would the Muse, than, madam the &DMus et the ecclesiastical tom ndesioneele—litat the fends arid% from the richer sees, and ailed the ophoopal fund, was to be applied only in aug neentadoa of mailer sees, without any reference whatever to the wants of the smaller bensiess ? . - - CoidJOHilitinG2LCZEnt G not that she tbetlesilee of the act of parliammt constituting the comeabista Mr. 110GeldEAN said it was not. The Mem of the net is the emplus_ maeggespriated, it not being medelpriel that soy - tweed what wee neememy lrr the manor me wadi arise. If a sum was Amend to be token trim the ere of Durham to that of Gloucester, was It to De seatended that it could only be applied to episcopal pur poses, and net to the increase of small benefices? Was the government prepared to take that view of the matter? It was necessary that this should be understood before this bill was proceeded with ; for there was a belief that the bill had been introduced merely to meet the views of the ecclesias tical commissioners. Wealth had Bowed in upon them ; and though they built splendid episcopal residences, they had not been able to dispense it all. Then came the scheme of the four new bishoprics. The noble lord at the head of the government had demurred as to their endowment ; this was precisely what the oommimioners wanted, and they had taken upo.. Am:wives the support of the new bishoprics. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the church did not want new bishops ; in his opinion the coope ration was the most important part of the church. (Hear, hear.) It was one of Lord Bacon's maxims, that those who served at the altar should live by the altar. Another portant consideration wee the number of those people who were altogether destitute of spiritual provision. The popula tion of England and Wale. might be taken at sixteen mil lions ; the number of churches and chnpela belonging to the establishment was 13.164; of clergymen, 16,010, of whom 1608 had no duty, 1,147 were dignitaries, and 372 were chaplains in men-of war and at foreign stations, leaving the number of working clergy 12,993. But of these, 6,681 were in small parishes, whose population only amounted to 1,624,000, leaving only 6,312 clergymen for about nine tenths of the population. In some of the most populous parishes in London, including St. George's, Southwark, NI ()rem, Poplar, and Shadwell, there was only one clergy man to about 10,000 or 12,000 of the inhabitants ; and in seine places the proportion was one to 60 ; 000. A visitor of the poor in the metropolis had reported, that out of 637, two-thirds had no mune:ion whatever with any place of Worship. Vatter such circumstances, it war U. THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 14, 1847. tryingly wrong to take any of the funds available for church purposes, and apply them to the in crease' ef bishoprics. This bill Mine forward under the =tide ed• bill far founding • bishopric of Man he would rather call it a bill fee continaing spiritual &stilettos. (Hier, hear.) While the eoclosia etkal commisika had bean expanding about 70,0001. a year kr eceledastical purposes, the various religious societies, includ ing the bible moiety, church bailding society, and others supported principally by laymen, had been raising and ex pending half-a-million • year for the purposes of charity. (Hear, tear.) This roved that the laity were up and doing on all questions !skims to the wants of the people ; and that It was unwise to legislate without considering this feeling. In the statements he had given, he had omitted all reference to the dissenters, not because he undervalued their services, but because the government were bound to meet the demand for spiritual instruction. This demand he knew had been greatly met by the dissenters, whose seal and exer tions he admired ; and he could not but wish them success. In speaking of the ecclesiastical commissioners, he hoped he had not gone beyond the proper bounds in canvassing public acts. He opposed this bill strenuously. It had been insinuated that he had been influenced by private considera tions; so far from this being the case, he felt bound to state that the noble lord at the head of the government, when forming his administration, had requested him (Mr. Hors man) to call upon him to consult us to whether any office could be given to him; but he had felt it desirable lathe diffi culties which then surrounded the noble lord, not to form part of his administration, and after the government had been formed no one had given it a more hearty support— not by indiscriminate approval of all its measures, but by a support founded on principle. He had said it was desirable that a more general and comprehensive plan should be adopted, and he would suggest how this might be done. It was said the church required 4,000 additional clergymen and 60 more bishops. It was impossible this could be carried out. The distance between the bishops and the clergy was already too great, and he was rejoiced to hear the right hon. baronet (Sir R. Inglis) advocate the revival of the order of suffragan bishops. Let 60 suffragan bishops be appointed if necessary with 1,5001. a year ; this would give a bishop to the superuitendence of every 180,000 of the population. For their payment, he would adopt the plan of Lord Henley. Every one knew that our cathedral churches were ill adapted to public worship ; the version there were deed and lifeless; the 'aeries *eyed by the 26 deans and 104 canons might be reduced by 1(4,0001. • year, without touching the minor canons ; and this sum might be made applicable to other ecelesisstical purposes. What this country wanted was an able, active, working staff of clergy, who would spread the light of the gospel into quarters where it bad not yet reached. In conclusion, the hon. member quoted a memorial which had recently bees addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury, on the subject of extending the benefits of the church ; and urged on the noble lord at the head of the government not to avail himself of a make-shift, but to adopt a bold and com prehensive measure. He moved as an amendment a resolu tion declaring that the bill could not be fitly entertained in the present session. Mr. J. COLLETT seconded the amendment. Sir G. GREY regretted that the hon. member, after ex pressing such decided hostility to the bill, had not moved that it should be read • second time this day three months. The principal objection appeared to be that the bill was not comprehensive enough ; and he advocated the appointment of sixty suffragist bahope, at a cost of 90,0001. • year. If nothing was to be done till such a scheme could be carried out, the result would be most unfortunate. (Hear, hear.) In much that the hon. member had stated, he (Sir G. Grey) concurred, as to the deplorable extent of spiritual destitution, but he appeared to have overlooked the great lacrosse that had been made in parochial superinten dence of late years, the increase of clergymen, the division of parishes, and so on. (Hear, hear.) But the hon. mem ber seemed quite to overlook the value of the bishops in superintending the church, and to regard them merely as the recipients of public money. (Hear.) But it was grati fying to know that, in many parts of the country, the watch ful eye and guarding hand of the diocesan were beneficially exerted for the good of the church at large. (Hear,' hear.) Reference had been made to the report of the commission, which disapproved the appointment of new bishops without seats in the House of Leeds; but it should be known that nearly all the coin- miasioners had now changed their views on that subject. ( Hear.) As to the application of the funds of the Roclesias tical Commissioners, he did not hold the opinions 'stated by the hon. member, nor did he know that the commission did. He thought it most desirable that the surplus funds should' be made applicable generally to the spiritual instruction of the people (hear, hear); but this bill interfered not at all I with such application ; it merely proposed the endowment of the new sees, not the erection of residences, out of the surplus funds of the commission. When the hon. member advocated the augmentation of small livings, he should re- I member that the funds which he would apply to the payment of his sixty suffrsgan bishops were at present actually applied by the commission in the augmentation of small benefices—the fund derived from the deaneries and canonries being so applied. Mr. HORSMAN said this was a mistake ; he would re duce the cathedral establishments still farther, es as to pro- I duce 100.0001. Sir G. GREY said if that could be done advantageously, the funds so derived, under the present arrangement, would go in augmentation of the smaller benefice. He had introduced questions which involved very serious considerations of church discipline; and if these questions were to be mooted and discussed before anything was done, it would be most objectionable. He did not understand the hon. mem ber to deny the want of a bishop in the vast population of Lancashire ; and though the scheme proposed might not be a perfect one, it was the best arrangement that could be made ender the circumstances. As the constitution of the ecclesiastical commission was now undergoing re-considera tion, it was scarcely the time to enter into a discussion of the course the commission had taken. As to the amounts ex pended on episcopal residences, he believed the hon. mem ber had overlooked the difference between a principal sum and an annual payment. The rum of 64,0001. was annually • lied in the augmentation of small livings, and upwards of had been thus augmented. It was an error to say that 23,0001. had been expended by the commission on the diocese of Gloucester and Bristol: it would be seen, on reference to the reports, that the net sum was only 1,7001., de ducting the sum realised by the sale of the vacated pa lace. In another case, that of Rochester, there was actually a balance in favour of the commissioner'. (Hear, hear.) Now, disputing that there were ample grounds for inquiry into the commissienen' expenditure. he wished the house not to run away with the idea that they were spending about 160,0001. for episcopal purposes. (Hear.) The right hon. baronet (Sir R. Inglis) had objected to the exclusion of the last-elected bishop from the House of Lords, on the ground that he might not enter the legislature till late in life. If that was an objection, he ought to move that bishops should vacate their seats after a certain age, so as to make way for the younger members of the hierarchy. (Hear, and laughter.) No one could deny that a very strong and decided feeling had been expressed against the extinction of one of the Welsh bishoprics, both in parliament and in the c•untry ; and to meet this feeling the present arrangement had been made, by which a great expense would not be in volved. It had been urged that it was necessary, in order to settle the question of the Welsh bishoprics, that this bill should pass in the present session ; and he therefore hoped that the house would now consent to its second reading . Mr. HORSMAN explained the plan which he had pro posed for the payment of the 60 suffragan bishops, which he said the right hon. gentleman bad misunderstood. Mr. BROTHERTON, though be would not support the amendment, was convinced this bill would be unacceptable to a great number of his constituents. He had suspected that the measure was objectionable when he found it so warmly supported by the right hon. baronet below (Sir R. Inglis). (Laughter.) He was opposeckto the numerical in crease of the hierarchy, and thought the ecclesiastical reve nues might be much better applied. Nearly all classes in Manchester were against this bill ; the evangelical church men did not like it; and the dissenters opposed it, because they thought it would increase the power of the church. (Hear, and laughter.) Though the bill did not give the new bishop • seat in the Howie of Lords, there was nothing to prevent his being called there afterwards. He thought the proper course would have been to move that the bill be read a second time that day three months; and if any hon. mem ber made that proposal ho would support it. Mr. ENT WISLE said this was not • question affecting the dissenters, hut the church only, as it related to a re distribution of its funds. (Hear.) He thought the mea sure calculated to produce great good ; it would relieve the burden now weighing on the Bishop a Chester, who could not possibly exercise a proper spiritual control over such • wide and pepnlons diocese. The exertions of the ;Parochial clergy would be thereby stimulated ; and the church at large would be benefited. The exclusion of the newly elected bishop from the House of Lords had been advocated, not on principle, bat as a matter of convenience, to give him time to make himself intimately acquainted with his diocese. Hs doubted the policy of this provision ; it was an adoption of the principle of exclusion , which would be made applicable, la turn, to all the junior bishops when first elected. It would be much better that the Bishop of Man chester, who would have such an extensive and populous diocese to superintend, should be permanently excluded, than that the exclusion should be made applicable to nearly all the bishoprics in turn. (Hear.) Mr. HUME objected to the bill on principle, and should take the sense of the house on that principle. It broke the compact entered into with the church in 1836 and 1838.1 whereby it was provided that a better distribution of the church property should be made, and that for the benefit of the church. ( Hear, hear.) AU the commissioners then concurred in not eking any new bishoprics necessary, and in recommending the union of the two Welsh bishop- ' I rice, whence they anncipated the benefit of a fund appli cable to the increase of benefices in poor and populous districts. Thus the present bill violated that first principle of the commission—the increase of small benefices—and' divertedtliefuntis of ihe;;Oeni;..iontotheiurpOsesof prelacy. They were the true friends of the church who proposed the abolition of pluralities, and the equal payment of the clergy,—not those who sought to augment the sees in value, and increase their number. (Hear, hear.) Undoubt edly, it was clearly understood at the time, that 139,0001. was the utmost sum that should be devoted to episcopal pur appli ca tion thsding, it was now might to continue theof these funds to similar purposes. The funds were the property of the state ; and instead of applying them to the education and spiritual instruotioa of the people, this bill went to divert them to other purposes. The amount of ignorance in some districts of the country was most alarming, especially where the clergy were everpaid—(hear, hear) ; and he would have no clergyman with lees than 3001. a year. (Hear, hear.) He ought to be able to exercise a metal influence on his flock, by residing amongst them and promoting their spiritual and temporal welfare. As it was, the good that ought to arise from the church was not ob tained; therefore why increase the number of bishops ? They were above visiting and relieving the poor; they were too much in the habit of regarding themselves as peers of the realm. (Laughter.) it war idle to say that the sup- www..." MMINFIIIME motion of the Welsh bishopric had been opposed by the people of the principality ; all the opposition bad bean got up by parties connected with the church. Of the 367,000 inhabitants of the two diatoms not lees then 300,000 were dimmers ; and if their opinions were col lected, the fate of the bishopric would soon be settled. He wished every person to pay for his own clergyman, as be did for his own doctor ; and he was there fore opposed to any farther increase of the number ofbishop• As soon es he had the opportunity, he would move that the bill be read this day six months. Mr. J. COLLETT opposed the bill because it was unjust and metalled for. The act of 1837 at once provided for the consolidation of the small sees, and declared thatno new ones were nesessary • hence the present bill was a breach of faith in both these respects. It provided for four new bishops; end if them were granted, no one knew how many we should have. He would sooner vote to decrease their number ; so would the country, if polled from one end to the other : they would vote spinet any more bishops se well as against the game law.. (Laughter.) He thought that many of the bishops had done great harm. The Bishop of London tape eially bad done his utmost to promote dimension in the church ; the service was now conducted in twenty different ways in his diocese; and recently he had refused to license a clergyman because se was en Irishman. (Hear.) He was decidedly opposed to giving the new bishops seats in the House of Lords; but he thought that four bishops without seats would be as repugnant to the feelings of the country as two bishops with mats. (Laughter.) He regretted that this measure should have been submitted by a liberal govern ment ; the late government would have He no such bill. (Loud cries of, " Hear, hear.") He would omit no opportunity which might offer of defeating this bill. - Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said it was true that a charge had been made against the Bishop of London far refusing to license an Irish clergyman; but, in consequence of a subsequent commanication from the Archbishop of Armagh, the rule on the part of the Bishop of London no imager existed. (Hear, hear.) Mr. W. 0. STANLEY rejoiced that the present liberal government had brought forward this bill; he believed the rate government would have done the same, had the same aeoesoty been presented to them. Learning that the government was willing to relieve some of the overburdened dioceses of England by the appointment of four new bishops, , and at the same time to allow the two Welsh bishopric. to continue, he cordially approved of the course they had taken. The hen member for Montrose had alluded to the large number of dissenters in the two Welsh dioceses ' • but he should recollect that this was mainly attributable to the want of efficiency in the church, which this bill would be one means of supplying. (Cries of " Divide.") Mr. HOESMA.N expressed a wish to withdraw his amendment, and move the second reading of the bill that day three months. Lord J. RUSSELL said there would be no objection to the hon. member's pursuing this course; but he had better wait till the close of the debate. Lord CLIVE said, the real question was not the distribu tion of the funds of the exleseastical commission, but whe ther there was • necessity for a bishop in Manchester, and whether that want should be honestly met, or should he supplied by robbing Wales. This bill met the difficulty fairly, and ahould therefore have his support. He must thank the noble lord at the head of the government for having proposed it. To make the church efficient, there must be more bishops, and they must be more seen in their dioceses. (Hear, hear.) In Wales, great injury had arieta from English bishop; net being acquainted with the Welsh language ; if they were all like the Bishop of St. David's, the greeted benefit would be conferred on the people at Mr. HINDLEY asked how the bill would affect the eccle siastical courts in the diocese of Chester ? ----- • Lord 3. RUSSELL said that until the bmndaries of the diocese were properly arranged the jurisdiction of the eccle siastical courts of Chester would remain unaltered. Mr. AGLIONBY was anxious that the bill should be postponed, rather than rejected altogether. Time should be allowed for the completion of the inquiry into the con stitution and proceedings of the ecelemastmal commission, and until that was done this bill ought not to be proceeded with. The hon. member for Cockermouth had only alluded ' to the revenues of the commissioners in money; did any hon. member know what immense revenues they derived from lands? (Cjies of " Divide.") Lord SANDON, though he would not support all the views of the hon. member for Cockermouth, should be glad to see an inquiry into the proceeding' of the ecclesiastical commission. He hoped this bill was only a beginning; and that four would not be the limit of the additional bishops. The amendment being withdrawn ' Mr. HUME moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months. W Mr. AKLEY seconded this amendment. He thought that the principle of the bill was most objectionable ; and the facts in reference to the ecclesiastical commission had laid abundant ground for the postponement of the measure till another manon. After the contract of 1836, it was wholly unnecessary and improper to make an addition of four to the existing number of bishops. It was disgraceful that, while so many clergymen were underpaid, measures should be thus taken for augmenting the numbers and revenues of the hierarchy. Dr. NICHOLL said the original proposition of the eccle dutical commission was the best, and be regretted that the government had been induced to depart from it. His ob jections to the bill as' it stood had been greatly increased by the statement of the noble lord,—that residences were not to be provided for the new bishops. If this was not to be done for the Bishop of Manchester, he feared it would not ba done for the Bishop of Bangor. He would not op. pose the bill, not being prepared to deny the necessity for a Bishop of Manchester ; but he moat enter his protest against the statements in the preamble. He hoped that the objects of the ecclesiastical commimion would soon be extended and defined, and that the funds would soon be applied, not ex clusively to episcopal wants, but to relieve the destitution of the people. (Hear, bear.) Mr. T. DUNCOMBE referred to what had taken place in 1836, on what wee called the Bishops' Bill. One principle then advocated was the application of the surplus church revenues In lieu of church rates; but a bill had been pro mised for the abolition of church rates, and nothing had ever been beard of it since. (Hear.) The noble lord at the head of the government, in 1836, had advocated the bill because it created no more bishops. Who required more bishops now? Where were the petitions for their increase? (Hear, hear.) All this legislation was founded on the ecclesiastical commis sion and its reports, which were unworthy of public confl. denim. If this bill was pressed, after all the measuresof any public good had been withdrawn, the noble lord must' expect to sit here other six weeks. (Laughter.) . Lord J. RUSSELL, in reference to his statement in 1836, said it would be carrying the doctrines of finality to an ex traordinary extent to say that what was done in 1836 was never to be altered. It was erroneous to represent this bill as a bill to increase the number of bishops by four, as it only provided for one additional. Mr. E. DENISON &aid thatafter the allusions which had I been made to the inquiry, of which he was Chairman, as to the powers and objects of the ecclesiastical commission, it might be expected that he should say something on that subject; but in the present state of the inquiry, he thought it best to refrain from doing so. The House divided—For the second reading 124 Against it The bill was then read a second time, and the Committee fixed for Thursday. THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL. Mr. WARD stated that in consequence of the opposition which was threatened to this bill in the other House, the government had thought it better to withdraw it. (Rear). The Rouse then adjourned till Ave o'clock. The S resumed the chair at 5 o'clock. EDINBURGH AND BATHOATE RAILWAY BILL. Mr. W. HAILLIE moved, "That the instruction (9th July) to the committee of 'election to appoint the committee on the Edinburgh and Bathgate Railway (Deviation and Amendment) (No. 2) Bill to sit and proceed this day, be die chsrged. That it be an instruction ti the committee of se lection that they have power to treat the said bill as any other unopposed bill, notwithstanding anything to the con trary contained in the resolutions of the house of the 3rd day of February last relative to Railway Bills, and that they be further empowered to appoint the committee on the bill to sit and proceed upon Thursday next That the commit tee on the bill have leers to report upon Thursday next." Agreed to. EARL OF DEVON'S ESTATE BILL. Sir J. DUCK WORTH moved, " That the Euminer of Petitions for Private Bills have leave to sit and proceed and report upon the Earl of Devon's Estate Bill this day." Agreed to. SUNDERLAND IMPROVEMENT BILL. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the second martini of the Sunderland Improvement Bill. Mr. BARCLAY seconded the motion, Mr. LIDDELL moved that it be red a second time that day three months. Mr. HUTT thought the bill a very desirable one, sad one which the house would do well to par. Lord G. BENTINCK opposed the bill on the ground that all the respectable inhabitants of Sunderland were ad verse to it. He wu not surprised that the hoe. member for Gateshead did not move the second reading, as it required some more desperate and dare-devil member like his hon. friend the member for Finsbury to do so. After a few words from Mr. AOLIONBT and Mr. BROTHER. Ton, the bill was withdrawn. _ _ AUSTRALIA. Mr. HINDLEY wished to know from the hon. gentleman the Under-Secretary of the Colonies, whether it was the in tention of the erown to sanction an act of the legislative council of Australia which authorised a vote of money for the payment of certain sects ? Mr. HAWES wu understood to my that the money was voted out of the fund of the colony, and that the subject would come under review hereafter. DISEASE IN EMIGRANT VESSELS. Lord J. MANNERS wished to put a question to the hon. gentleman respecting mortality on board emigrant ships. The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the government was, whether it would not be desirable to pro vide medical aid in every emigrant ship. He wished, there fore, to ask whether the government would take the subject into their consideration, so as to prevent any emigrant weird leaving Ireland or England from being subject to those pesti lent diseases, which they had reason to believe carried off so many of their fellow-subjeets ? (Hear, hear. ); Mr. HAWES said that the noble lord, at the head of the colonial department, gave the moat anxious consideration to this subject. The mortality in the preeedt year was occa sioned by the very large *migration which hd taken place, and the state of Ireland. But there was this difficulty in the way with regard to sending a surgeon in every emigrant vessel —namely, that about 700 emigrant vessels left the poets of this country this year, and competent medical authorities who had been consulted on the matter stated that it would be almost impossible to find surgeons for such a number Of ships. It mien be noomoory to tonoolidato tyq Todoni acts relating to the conveyance of emigrants, and he would use every exertion to overcome the practical difficulty he had stated. Lord O. BENTINCH naked whether the fact was not that the law exempted vessels going to Canada and the United States only, to which the great flow of emigration was directed, from carrying surgeons? Could not a short bill be even now introduced on the subject Mr. HAWES said it would not be expedient to do so, now that the season for emigrating was ob taining W 6OO AIE . L 7 E OO Y s sai . d there Aoebr i n .. ..o de d g iffic .. .l i ty y pai in d. ob- CASE OF R. BENNETT. In answer to a question by Sir F. Kitty, Mr. HAWES said it was not the intention of his noble friend (Earl Grey) to refer the case of Mr. R. Bennett, a magistrate of Ceylon, to the law-officers of the crown, or to make him any compensation. CASE OF YR. LANGSLOW. Mr. ESCOTT said the complaint he bad to make to the house in the ease of Mr. Langslow was of two kinds. The first was that a personal wrong had been to Mr. Langslow ; and the second was that a wrong was done by his dismissal to the people of the colony, to whom, for some years back, the fair and impartial administration of the law had been a manifest blessing. The noble lord at present at the head of the Colonial-office thought it right to abide by the decision of Lord Stanley, who dismissed this gentleman. But he was not to be prejudiced by the acquiesence of the noble lord, or of his predecessor, Mr. Gladstone, in the decision of Lord Stanley. He did not mean to impute personal motives or personal interest to Lord Stanley, in coming to the decision he had, but that he dismissed Mr. Langnlow without giving him an opportunity of answering the statement. made against i him, and behind his hack. The judgment that he pro- non:iced improvide emanavit, and he called upon the House of Commons to reverse it. Mr. Langalow was a person of considerable learning, and had every prospect . of ultimately succeeding at the bar. In 1832, he was appo inted attorney general at Malta, but that office being abolished, in 1838, in consequence of the report of a commission, Mr. Langslow re turned home, and had a retiring pension till he rot some other employment. In 1840, • great change having taken place in the administration of justice at Ceylon, Mr. Langslow was appointed to the office of district judge. Thelon. member then proceeded to state the circumstances attending Mr. Langslow's suspension by the executive noun cil of Ceylon in 1843, on the ground of dilatoriness in the discharge of his duties u a judge—a ground utterly irrecon cilable with the fact stated, and not disproved, that within a given period he had decided five times as many cases as his predecesior. There was, indeed, a certaM period Chen the criminal business of the court almost stood still, owing to • dispute, upon an abstruse question of practice, between Mr. ow and the Queen's Advocate ; but he appre hended that in every case of that kind the judge was bound to decide according to his own judg ment. After the suspension, Lord Stanley, as colo nial secretary, had to sit in judgment on the acts of the governor of Ceylon. Ultimate!, he revoked the Queen's commission, and dismissed Mr. Langslow from her Majesty's service. In his despatch Lord Stanley said it was not big intention to express an opinion as to any act performed b Mr. Langslowof his ocial cap acity , cognisance of which did not belong to the Queen s privy council. Instead of that, his lordship had recourse to charges made when the accused was practising at the Maltese bar. One of those charges had reference to a case in which Mr. Langslow's son was fined Ss. for smoking a cigar in the streets, an offence of which many members of that house had frequently been guilty—(laughter)—and in which the father was of opinion that the apprehension of the son was illegal. Mr. Langslow had long been aware that he had had enemies in Malta; but it was not till lately that he ascer tained the name of his principal enemy. It now appeared that in 1838 Sir Henry Bouverie, Governor of Malta, wrote to Lord Gleneig certain statements which Lord Stanley had thought fit to revive, and to make the ground of his decision. One of these statements • as, that Mr. Langalow had set himself up as the leader of • factions and discontented party in the island, an allegation the truth of which was quite inconsistent with his obtaining a pension on retiring from his office under the crown after six years' ser vice. (Hear, hear.) That Sir Henry Bouverie did not write merely on account of the public interest might be inferred from the fact that, at the moment when be wrote he knew that the office held by Mr. Lanplew had actually been abolished. The real motive of Sir Henry Bouverie's conduct, as he himself confessed, was a desire to prevent Mr. Langslow from obtaining a pension. Lord Glenelg, instead of acting on Sir Henry Bouverie's representations, ob served, in the House of Lords, that he was surprised that any one should imagine that there was anything in the mode in which Mr. Lengslew had quitted Malta which at all detracted from his high character as a gentleman and a lawyer ; and the noble lord at the head of the government subsequently selected him for a judgeship in Ceylon. Equelly strong testimony in his favour had been boyne by Chief Justice Oliphant, of Ceylon, and by Chief Justice Stodhart, of Malta. He was at a loss to account for the opposition which had been raised in Ceylon to Mr. Langslow ; the only probable cause for it which be could conjecture was, that Mr. Langslow had taken • very active part in enforcing a des patch requiring persons engaged in the civil service to pay less attention to their plantations and farms. It was very difficult to make out the precise charges in consequence of which the dismissal took place. In an able letter, how ever, written by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, by the direction of Earl Grey, those charges ranged themselves under three heads: the first was that, as a judge, Mr. Lang slow was in the habit of embarrassing the government. A more vague charge it was not possible to imagine. If a dis pute arose between a coffee planter and the civil government, and the judge pronounced against the latter, that might be called an embarrassing of the government. The next charge was that of indecorum in Mr. Langslow's communications with the civil authorities. There might have been the use of unguarded phrases, but that alone could not form a sufficient ground for dismissal. However incautious the accused might have been, he apprehended that he never called the executive council thimble-rigger,. (Hear, hear.) There was no judge, perhaps, who did not sometimes use expressions which he subsequently desired to real. The third charge related to Malta, and was based on the assump tion that, not having been punished as attorney-general in Malta, he ought to be punished as judge in Ceylon. The hon. and learned member then read a memorial signed by the practitioners of the supreme and district courts of Cey lon, remonstrating against the suspension of Mr. Langslow. The merchants and landed proprietors of Colombo forwarded, to the number of 1,800, a petition to the council, praying that Mr. Langslow might not be suspended. The suitors of his court, to the number of 2,095, also petitioned in his favour. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Escott) ear nestly prayed the government and the house to take such measures u would afford Mr. Langslow suitable relief, beg ging them to remember that if a judge was to be removed unheard, the administration of justice was not safe. Mr. HUME seconded the motion, and the question being put, Mr. HAWES complimented the mover on the way the motion was brought forward, and admitted that an appeal to parliament was the proper and only remaining course for Mr. Langslow to take. It was not necessary for him, how ever, to go into a consideration of Mr. Langslow's case, and he was thereby spared much pain, for he knew Mr. Langs low himself, and had the pleasure to be acquainted with many of hle friends. The course which he bad to take was merely to refer to the reasons why the present Colonial Secretary' considered it unnecessary and improper to re-open the question. The grounds on which Earl Grey took that ems° were these. The late Secretary of State had considered all the circumstances. The present colonial admi nistration was in possession of Mr. Langslow's cane, as brought under the consideration of Lord Stanley, and he (Mr. Hawn) was bound to say that no new circumstance was advanced. Earl Grey, therefore, felt himself in that posi tion that It would not have been delicate or proper for him to interfere. But there was another circumstance. Mr. Laugelow came home in May, 181.5, when he was put in possession of Lord Stanley's decision, and lie made no attempt to re-open the question until the end of 1846. That was an exceedingly strong fact, especially as Mr. Langslow, on a previous omission, had petitioned Lord Stanley, not to set asideltia judgment, but merely so to modify it, sato enable him to obtain his retiring pension. The rule of the present Colonial-office not to re-open cases unless new facts were be fore them, was one that was absolutely necessary. As re lated to the merits therefore, he left the sae to his hen friend opposite, whose acquaintance with it would, very possibly, enable him to satisfy the house. He should, (jr his own part, move the previous question. The amendment was put, when Mr. G. W. HOPE rose, and said that he should endea vour to compress his statement into the shortest possible compass. He must first of all say that Lord Stanley had stated to Earl Grey that he should be glad if any one in the Colonial-office could tote a different view from himself as to Mr. Langslow's dismissal, and that it was per fectly open to him to consider whether Mr. Langslow was fitted for ether employment. He did not think, therefore, that the speech of the present under-colonial secretary was satisfactory sa to the reasons why Earl Grey had not re-opened the question. The hon. mover had asked for what Mr. Langslow had been dismissed ? If the hon. member had consulted the Blue Book, he would have found that he was dismissed for want of tamper, self-control, and discretion in the way in which he had fulfilled the duties of his office. But the hon. member said the only excuse for his dismissal would be dilatoriness. Well, between the 17th August and the 24th October in one year, Idle Langslow bad only de cided two criminal appeals. The hon. member spoke of the high character of Mr. Lengelow. It was no wish of his to press heavily against that gentleman, but he was bound to look at the evidence before them. The Maltase inquiry commission had reported that Mr. Langslbw neither understood the Maltese law nor the Italian language, and consequently was a very inefficient officer. He aitogether denied that Mr. Langslow had been dismissed from his judgeship at Ceylon, on account of hie previous conduct at Malta. He was dismissed solely by reason of his acts at Ceylon. The hon. gentleman referred to the pro. ceeding of Mr. Langslow in inserting an advertisement in the public papers of Ceylon, announcing the sale of his law books, for the reason " that the salary given him by the go vernment was not sufficient to enable him to live respec tably, and that he could no longer keep up a law library fir the use of her Majesty's government." This proceeding the hon. member denounced as wholly indecent on the part of a judge, or, indeed, of any public officer. Sir Colin Camp bell, in more than one despatch, found it necessary to speak in the most emphatic terms in reprobation of the conduct of Mr. Langslow, at Ceylon, The hoe. member for Win chester had spoken of the reference by the Colonial-0154e to a breach of the peace committed at Malta by a son of Mr. Langslow, as most unfelt., but it hadizil been referred to in connexion with another had_ of the peace committed by the mama party at Co lombo. He contended that, upon a review of all the papers on the subject, the government at home was perfectly justified in the conclusion that Mr. Lan 'a Lopractkobla wiper, sad spiessatic f og sack I It practically was, to the local authorities, had rendered it Impossible for the government, consistently with the due a d. ministration of justios, to retain that gentleman in office. , Mr. F. T. BARING considered that the removal a a judge, whether domestic or colonial, without an opportunity being given him of exculpating himself from charges that might be made against him, was a most grave injustice. Giving Lord Stanley credit for the purest motives of conduct, he regarded the noble lord as having seed, in this matter, upon erroneous grounds. He admitted that, in reference to the imputations against Mr. Langslow in his judicial capa city, Mr. Langslow had had opportunities of meeting the., but as to the many charges privately got up again s t Mr. Langslow in other respects, and upon which Lord Stanley had mainly proceeded, Mr. Langslow had not had any op portunity of meeting them until after his dismissal. As to the charge of insubordination, he should be glad to under. stand in what legal terms the indictment of a judge, insub ordinate to the civil authorities, would be framed by legal authorities. Nothing could be more vague than the cue of the dismiesing parties on this point; while, on the other hand, nothing could be clearer than the admission of even the hostile local authorities, as to the firm and competent conduct of Mr. Langslow on the bench. He wu not then to defend the conduct of Mr. Langslow from the imputation of several acts of iediecretion, such as the advertisement re ferred to and various disputea with other authorities, but he would contend that in his indiscretions Mr. Langslow had net been by any means without provocation. There was this very curious feature in the charge against Mr. Lengslow, that, being dismissed for quarrelsomeness and au insub ordinate tendency to quarrel with everybody and everything„ he was at the same time accused of having quietly sat Ulm under his dismissal in a most submissive manner. The chief point, however, was less the individual case of Mr. Langs. low than the general case of a judge being dismissed with. out an opportunity of vindicating himself from the charges made against him. Lord G. BENTINCK defended the conduct of Lord Stanley in dismissing Mr. Langslow. It was impossible to read the papers before the house without coming to the con elusion that Mr. Langslow was wholly unfitted to fill the office of judge. The council of Ceylon were unanimous— after the matter had been seventeen days before them and after having fully investigated the case—in the opinion that it would be unsafe to have Mr. Langslow continued as judge. But Lord Stanley did not dismiss Mr. Langslow upon this. It was a year after this—namely, in 1843—that Sir Colin Campbell wrote to Lord Stanley, informing him that, in conformity with the desire of the council, he had suspended Mr. Langslow, whose conduct in his office was such, that, were it not for the peaceful disposition of the people, an outbreak must have taken place. Mr. Temple was appointed successor to Mr. Langslow, and the come quenee was that more busintsa had been disposed of in eight days by him than had been disposed of in four months by Mr. Langdow. The right hon. gentleman who had just sat down said that Lord Stanley had dismissed Mr. Langslow on grounds that would not justify the dismissal of an C261(111110. But he thought the house would agree with him that Lord Stanley and Sir Cohn Campbell had borne with Mr. Lang. slow too long—till he had, in fact, brought the judicial bou nces of his court into utter confusion. It was impossible that a more unfit person could hold the office of judge ; and Lord Stanley and Sir Colin Campbell only acted in the interest of their sovereign and of the people of Ceylon when they dis missed bim ; and if he wanted a proof of that, he would find it in the circumstance that the memorial in favour of Mr. Lsngslow was only signed by one European—the editor of a newspaper. He would say "No" to this address to the crown. Mr. ESCOTT replied, and said that after the Atatemeut of the colonial under-secretary, he would not divide the house. He hoped that on some future occasion justice would be done to Mr. Lan slow. THE GREAT CLOCK FOR THE NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. Mr. E. DENISON, in moving for all the papers and cor. respondence relating to the great dock and all other decks for the new palace at Westminster (omitting drawings and descriptions of mechanical details), said he understood Mr. Deat had offered to make the great clock for 1,600!., but the reason why he offered to undertake it (or that sum was, that he would be allowed to compete for the small clocks. Now these clocks had been made by Mr. Vulliamy. who declined to compete for time great clock. He understood that the cor respondence was not complete, and he was anxious that all the sorresponder.ce which passed on the subject should be laid on the table of the house. Viscount MORPETIi said, that with respect to the smaller clocks in the department to which he belonged, it was not the custom to make them the subject of competition. It was desirable that the best clock should be obtained for the large tower of the palace at -Vestroinster, and the opi• Dion of the astronomer royal would be taken before it was decided on. POOR REMOVAL (No. 2) BILL. On the order of the day for the adjourned debate on the second reading of this bill, Mr. BODKIN opposed the bill, on the ground that it would throw numbers of paupcn on the country who had hitherto been located in particular parches. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected ta the bill because it went to settle a point of law now before the Queen's Bench. After • few words from Capt. PICHELL, the house divided, au amendment having been proposed the previous evening that tie bill be read that day three months. For the second reading For the amendment 44-39 POOR REMOVAL ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL On the order of the day for the thi.d reading of this bill, Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the bill. As her Ma jesty's ministers intended to introduce comprehensive mea sures next session, be thought that in the present state of the house and the session, It would be injudicious to press the bill before the house. He moved that it be read a third time that day three menthe. Mr. B. DENIXON and Sir W. JOLLIFFE severally sup ported the bill. Mr. CHRISTOPHER withdrew his amendment, and the bill was read a third time. On the question that the bill do pass, Sir W. JOLLIFFE complained of the power of removing paupers who had been five years in a union which the bill contained. He had prepared • cleave to remedy the evil, but the forma of the house prevented his bringing it forward. The bill then passed. FORMS OF THE HOUSE. Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the report of the commit tee appointed to consider the subject of messages between the two houses of parliament. The committee bad resolved that the resolutions of the Lords might be adopted with pub lic advantage, and that the Commons might receive the mm sages from the Lords at the bands of one instead of two Masters in Chancery. The noble lord moved that the home agree with these resolutions; 'and the motion was adopted. RULES OF THE STAMP AND TAX OFFICE. Mr. HULLER brought under consideration the nab. jest of a petition presented on the let of July from Jame Eaton and others. A Mr. Meakings died in 1832,1eaving property, which was the subject of some dispute. It was necessary for the legal representative of deccascd, a Mrs. Humphrey, to obtain some account of his estate. She had no such account herself—the solicitor Mr. Meakings had em ployed was dead, and the only possible means of getting at the facts was by a copy of the residuary account in the Legacy Duty Office. Mrs. Humphrey had petitioned the Board of Stamps to permit her to obtain such account, offer ing to pay all the expenses of the search, but she was pf.- remptorily refused. He thought this a great hardship, and moved for copies of papers on the subject. Mr. PARKER, who had no objection to the production of the papers, defended the Board of Stamps. The beard was a fiscal board, and not a board of registration. The principle once admitted, there would be no end to the prac tice of applying for copies of documents, and matches for old papers would be attended with greet waste of time and inconvenience to the service.—The papers were ordered. The house adjourned at a quarter to 12. Wu. Oporto. }WM. ---- the West India eaells, eneladsost War ler Weak*, Hoorlwas, sag tb Etersanah, will be sob upon themes's/lag cribs 17th July. The =Ps for %%go, Nato, Listen, Ilsbelre, Odle, and Gibraltar will be erne up on the seeming of the Mk hip. The mils kr British Sera knee" Ihenselke. sad the Wee/ —J elate% inh be Erie up es the emits ei the Nth lelp Ile eeerlehil mile ter 011edeer laellmAkeeek the f r.= ellihAdlikorbol7l4% maiessederimeeraJuly. Clink ele pm ea the =A The semis/ed dime =elk his likavaliss, be the neellsweeellne ds% ,f 7l July3N lad* Meg Kw& is.. win b• sbd• op se ft h . The hells hr New Smith Waite, Tan Dtersen's Land, a d lien ZatimitiShe mush wp en theevedeg et the 91st July. The ma eke w Iseeek, i l wam he Rivet Piste, Monte Vldek New =h etas OAK MN " aid 4th nne. Ayres, will be made up ea tbe 001111111tONDINTS. 411yeetimmovett Wori7llmr Itsprrs. Lake nests( papir...g at Ur Moe by Two Veleek es tbe day of p.blleetlea. NIGH WATS/ AT LONDONAIRI DOT. Tv. D.l-343r3AaA pout 3, Aftarosa. 30 .31. pot 3. T.-111 — 11.4.44 e. 47 WA pea 3. Aftweam. f mi. 3.4 41 4. LONDON,WEDNESDAI',JUL Yl4 In the House of Lords yesterday the Seduction sod Prostitution Suppression Bill, being opposed by Lards BROUGHAM, DENMAN and CAMPBELL, as calculated rather to encourage than to suppress the evils it pro posed to remedy, was withdrawn by the Bishop of ORWICH, who, in so doing, expressed his hope that the time would shortly arrive when an unobjectionable measure in reference to the subject would receive the sanction of the legislature.—The Militia Ballot Sas- • pension Bill was opposed by the Earl of ELLarrno• ROUGH, who called upon the government not to " give up a force which, however objectionable in itselfr was yet one which gave a serious advantage to this country, unless it was prepared to substitute 1i5t14. 4 more efficient protection for the security of the natio& —Earl GREY, in the course of his observations is reply, stated that if the bill were rejected, the arias must be called out, and no arrangements were auk . for meeting the expense, or for organising an Acid SI force. Under the new system a force of 10,000 men had been organised in the dockyards, who were equipped and ready for service at tbs.. shortest notice, while other measures of protsethS were in propeta to which he could not however more particularly refer. He concurred in the opißiell •!, that the best security for peace was being prepsla for war, and he rejoiced in those measures of fro •; trade which led to locremed ooraraunicatien