The Express. — London, England, 1851-07-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. MOOSE OP LORDS.—TIMSDAT. JULY 17. The Low, cm IO:Am talk his seat at f~ Valera. PETIT NS PRESENTED. (Urn or AWOL/MO:4 (Jaws) BILL.—By Lord NEIr SON, frau a pbee is FANS, sad abo from Stafford; Lora REDESDAL ham Mt members M the English bar, aml hem several plum; sad the Bishop of OXFORD, he. I=in the mambas of Barba, Buckingham. Oahri, y, Derby, and Sufkdk ; against this ha Cs P Lam—Lord BEAUMONT. holt Twain, maiast the removal of the Crystal Palace. MILITIA BALLOT BILL—ASSESSED TAXES COM POSITION BILL—PUBLIC WORKS. 1 1 1811EIME8, ilbe. BILL. ?bac hills severally paned through eammittas. HIUHWAY RATES BILL. This bill was read a third time, and passed. ST. ALBANS BRIBERY COMMISSION BILL. This bill west through ananattce, sod was 'epochal to the OATH OF ABJURATION (JEWS) BILL. The order of the day on the sawed raiding of this ball having been read, TM LORD CHANCELLOR said this bill was the shortest which had come under their lordships con sideration daring the present session ; the whole object of the bill was to omit certain words, at tached to the oath of &Napalm, those words being " upon the true faith of • Christian," which at present bad the effect of excluding conscientious Jews from admission to parliament. The subject was by no means • novel one, and it had been so often under their lordships' consideration that it could not be expected that anything ye ry new could be produced. Many arguments, eloquence the meat spleudiel, and declamation almost inex haustible, had been applied to the subject. It was said that in the result truth always prevailed, and no doubt it did ; but it had pleas e d Providence that the discovery of truth should be the reward of consideration and deliberation, for its briehtnees and forte were not always apparent at first. (Me of the most valuable features in their lord ships' house was that they offered • ben to moon and donotrous innovatiens ; and it wee eh* hums that in their lordships' house perpetual relleaftlas not found to the general sense of the nation. It, air due delibs ration, the sense of the country was head in favour of e particular measure, and their lordaldps, wpm further comideratMo, saw that it was not likely to be pre• judicial to the interests of the country, after havingezer eie (I their caution, they had fregently altered their opinions and lased measures which they had before rejected. The bill which lie hail the honour to present to their lonlehips bad fire times passed the other house of parliament. (Hear.) The country, always excited upon propositions interfering with religious liberty, had shown's strong interest in mea sures fur the removal of the disabilities of the Jews. The absence of petitions on the present occasion was no proof of India . ..nue, on the part of the country to this subject. It was au unlucky time fur such an argument, fur they had had lately an opportunity of seeing the number of pe tition% which hid been presented when it was thought that the temblished religion of the country was in danger; and yet how few were the petitions which hail been pre sented against thin measure, notwithstanding the circum stance that the bill had so often paned the other house of parlieueut which must have put the country sufficiently on its guard. Ile had now to pray their lordships to do an act ofjuetice to the Jews, and ho would briefly call attention to the situation in which the Jew. were now placed. What ever doubt hid been herebefore entertained as to how far the Jews might be admitted to the enjoyment of the rights, of citizens, it could no longer exist, fur they had now been' admitted in the fullest and freest manner to partici pate in civil immunities. They were now magistrates and capable of tilling every municipal office; and they might now sit in judgment on life and death on the bench. They relied on the Jews fur everything valuable in society, liberty, and property; and who ever heard of any injustice, any partiality, any misconduct, on the part of the Jew.. in the administration of those duties? Nothing of the kind had ever reached his can ; and the bar which this bill pro. 1 poled to remove was the only one which now prevented the subssiesiou of the. Jews to all the rights of citizens. Fur every purpus, for all the burdens, and all the duties of the country the Jews( were British subjects, and he apprehended that British subj. eta were all, without regard to religious opinions, entitled to the free exercise and enjoyment of civil rights. With new reception, he perfectly agreed in the lan guege of a 'Wit rev. prelate, ' that all those rights were trusts ; and he hilly admitted hat there must be a capacity for the full and faithful discharge of these trusts before the rights could be given. Society which was associated few mutual ben, lit and advantage, afforded no right to any man who was not in a situation to fulfil the duties lie asked for to the advantage of the whole, and if it should appear to their lordships that there was anything iu the Leith or conduct of the Jews, which imbued them fur the discharge of legislative shake, they would be right in refusing to grant them. But he thought no one could eseert that there was anything in their feiti or conduct, which unfitted them for a hill and faithful dis charge of those duties. What were the requisites for their proper performance ? lied the Jews sufficient intelligence? where would they find greater ? Did they understand the value and the rights of property ? (Much laughter.) Ile wished that to every proposition he bad to isdainee e be could Mitain so ready and so audible an awn& Int It wa use isieliusiderable qualification fur a legislator, that be understood the value as well as the rights of property. Having, on the authority of quotations from Vattel, from th, es elenee supplied by the correepoudence of Mendeheolin with Livid, r, and from other sources derived arguments in support of tie• till, denying at the same time that any of the nation il•eareete risme of that peculiar people, the Jews, dieeutith d them to the rights of British subjects, or give to the supreme power in this country any right to add to their affictione, the noble and learned lord observed that it was true renierks were sometimes made that Clod had visited his displeasure on the Jews; but that great and Rost man wise ly called their attention to how Oat marked th ee , w i l e h e el thought fit to add to their punishment. Owl hard( nod the heart of Pharaoh, that he would not let them go from Egypt; he hoped Ile would not harden their hearts, that they would not let them be free. Afflictions ware imposed by the Almighty to prepare us for another sad a better life; but although the Almighty, in the in mendable via). of Providence, afflicted neenkiwe it was not the part of a Christian to add to that affliction. Nay, tuitions had drewn down divine vengeance upon them for that per version of duty. If the Jews were in distress, it was their duty to relieve them. It was 'so part of their slaty to add le the rap of bitterness which that nation had to drink. Ile said, therefore, leave to the Almighty the accomplishment of his own prophecies. It was for them to soften w re teliednies and to relieve from persecution, where ver they f mud it. Did vain man suppose that by any act of his he could arrest the accomplishment of prophecies at add to their force? It was next said that this was • Chrietieti country. Thank God it was. He might say be thanked God he halievell it would ever remain 10. big would any 111.411 say it would lose its Christianity lessues eight or eine Jew. were admitted into parliament t They required • security that they should have none bah Christians in the legislature. They celled upon men pledge thenuelves with words. They could not always real their heels. But did they by these worth exclude infidels? Certeiely not An infidel could by deception introduce himself into the legislature. What danger was there in admitting the Jews? How many chases &decree to the establiehmeat had been admitted into the legislature, while the Jew was in no respect adverse to it ? The Jew was of ' the *ad of Abraham ; he wished not to make proselytes. lie was WO prowl, too jealous to allow of others to be ad mitted into Ilia fraternity. Their lordships looked to the established church as our of the means under Providence by which to preserve the Christian religion. If the Jew was an enemy endeavouring to diminish its authority or Its claim to the respect, and honour, and obedience of his fellow subjects, he gave up the case. But where was the evidence that the Jew had ever shown any disposi ties to mak e proselytes, any disposition to do aught that would affect the established church ? Regarding it as one of the securities of the peace of this country the Jew was inte rceded in the prosperity of the established church. Hie own church ho could never set up—he had no wish. (Hear, hear.) Should he advert to the cir cumstance of the Jews being the erucifiers of our Lord—should he enter into that? They had a good ex ample in this respect. When the Jews were pursuiiig that conduct, Jesus sail, "Oh, Father, forgive them; they know not *het they do." Ue mid, therefore, that any re ference to that subject was irrelevant, and that it would lead to disc witou that was unavailing. Ile presented to them, therefore, the Jews as faithful to their creed, of which it was 110 part to do any set or make any attempt In consistent with the perfect good of this nation in every , temporal and spirituel thing. Why, then, withhold from the state the benefit of the wisdom and experience of these men, and why withhold from them the right to which they were entitled? There was no Food foundation for such exclusiou. and their lordshipe having had this subject repeatedly under their consideration, he trusted they would bestow upon it that intelligence and that wisdom that he applied to their lordships, and he said to them " do justice, and love mercy." His lordship concluded by moving the second readiest of the bill. Earl NELSON contended that neither the concession nor the use of merely administrative powers gave the Jews any right to claim legislative faattioas. If this Me were allowed to cuter parlimmat without Inking the oath to respect and defend the protestant ditnlefew coal& • formula of that teaor be required hem ea ether Christian sects ? After briefly disiessang tan e sigimeates sewed in defence of the bill by the Lord anoresleg, ties amble lord strenuously molested the position of the Lena Chancellor reepecting the ' usenet or paucity et Indies ; ark though be admitted ! that in one sense the pribmist tetlinghad was not strictly Christian, yet UM lest ellesisi die strenpan aegernent against the PrCrild 111111•11 Pis In seedleer some, rear kph !antra was Chemise; as;, V hhaltisil a Jew to • seat in the other home, ihry May emiwis sea of so creed from an y office art way sd en initypennas les mewed that the WI be reads saint tine Int fey in panda Lord WODEROUIIi et now is•Z e te ss ameds thrtU a t * lllia • W ir a r ee b• mein awl embed upon the dipeleink et the i M i s i Zreeep enema et nrallertty Fliggisisealsieg that warn Clerhthert henna the mojnity delay eve mesh, were estillel Mein in own home = g a wk sh • awns sal esnilmeeen. The UN woe as nesse alhas than were the deenniente et any =rgaselisi _ d, sad be hepaa In a aigidia ens pira that this penseiben et civil and pdillips was sot to be isgsaisei spa religions The Asslllals9 DraLrs stns oollorhimed the sane asstlesets sa Me subject which he hi hid for way and wool& asset, ea the present ocenies recapitu late • kw of the asinine why be bed hitherto vend, awl Wended mill to vote; in favour of each measures es the • Present. In all that he had said and written on this Inds oset, he bad never in as many weeds admiration the 'daili es= of Jews to parliament. All ha had dose was to core tend that the matter was one which ought to be left to thie electors. (Cheers, sad "Year, hoar.") He had set 'xi pressed say /realer sympathy in the ease of tho Jews= that of the Hiadoos and Kakommedann bat he bad for the removal of all the restrictions whisk were pissed on the electors, sakes it could be shown that some pallti eal danger was to be apprehended from allowing the else tors the free nee of their judgment. (Hear.) He had not particularly spokes of the Jews, but had, on the contrary, always abstuned from saying anything in their favour— (laughter)—not because they were not Christians, but be muse he considered all religious denominations had to be considered in a matter of this sort, and that no secular penalties or civil disabilities should attach to a man on ac count of his religious belief. (Chums, end " Hear, hear.") la considering this question he had proceeded on the ground which our Lord himself had laid down, that his kingdom was not dais world, and that they were to render unto Cesar t h e things that were Cesar's, hut unto God the things that were God's. (Hear.) lie did not think that any person voting for the present bill would be acting an taw:gneiss:at part in recommending the choice of a Christian in plate of a Jew candidate, for the gesetion at issue he held to be simply whether W electors should be allowed to choose whom they thought flt, or have their hands tied up. He regretted that this bill did not take that comply- hensive hold of the subject which it ought to have done. The bill ought to have been a measure for the removal of all disabilities on account of religious belief, and not a bill simply for the removal of Jewish di,ahilities. (Hear, hear.) It was too much the fault of our legidation to meet only this, that, and the other case, without taking a broad view of subjects and principles. He knew, however, that difficulties often stood in the way, and he was glad to accept the present bill as a step in the right direction. lie thought that if danger was to be apprehended from the ad mini= to parliament of members of any particular sect, that danger should be br.Lved by the spirit of the Christian religion ; and whatever parties might think as to the danger of admitting Roman ca tholic* and other dissenters, the danger of admitting Jews was less than could be attributed to the admis sion of any other class, for no one imagined for a moment that the Jews were at all likely to Judisise the state. He trusted that neither under victory nor defeat, calamity nor prosperity, they should be deposed to disregard religion, but he could not see how oar victories ought to he connected with religious disabilities, for we wore ever ready on such occasions to avail our selves of the services of men of all religiuus per soasions—(hear, hear) —and in respect of the par ticular ease of India, he wondered where our victories would have been if we had disbanded all those who would not take an oath " upon the true faith of a Christian," for nine-tenths of the army had been Ilahommedans and Hin does. (Cheers, and " Hear, hear.") The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said it was impossible to approach this subject otherwise than with the deepest feel ing of carnotness and solemnity. He, however, very much regretted :hat the question had been again revived, for no thing new had occurred to alter any of their opinions. The ' same proposition was offered, and it must be met by the same resistance and the same arguments as formerly, for She question was so simple that it did not allow of being re garded in different lights, and did not admit the aid of a variety of details. (Hear, hear.) His objections to the bill wen not grounded on any intolerant feeling of hostility to the Jewish people. They did not seek to exclude them as a disloyal and incompetent race, nor because they were few, nor, as had been remarked by the late Sir Robert Peel, from soy feeling of vengeance or hostility. (Hear.) The real difficulty lay within ourselves and was nut with respect to the Jewish peo ple, but arose from the intensity of our own principles. like Jews had demanded to be admitted to parliament, but how ever reasonable that demand might be he ventured to assert and would endeavour to prove, that it was a demand which the Jews had no right to make, and which their lordships had no power to meet. (Hear, bear.) Let them look to the peculiar character and pusitiou of the Jew. They might admit that he was an honourable and upright, and a liberal and humane man, one of high intellectual acquirements. But let them recollect that his very existence and profession were a perpetual and manifest protest against the recep tion of Christianity. He declared that it was in all its forme and circumstances false. If he were conscientious he must publicly, and at all times, and under all circum stances, maintain that protest and give it force. (Hear, hear.) lie must also take all opportunities of advancing his creed. It was hie duty under all circumstances—it was necessary, as it were, to his very existence to place himself in decided opposition to the advance, either directly or indirectly, of the Christian religion. And he demanded a seat iu the British legislature for the purpose of making laws that ahuuld bind indirectly the church of Christ and directly the church of England, which was a Christian and a protestant church. (Cheers and " Hear, hear.") lie wished to strike out the words " on the true faith of a Christian." He denied the true faith of Christianity, and asked them to strike out the words as improper and unne cessary. Now be (the Harlot Shaftesbury) maintained that no one had a right to make such a demand as that. It was going beyond the legitimate bounds of what one could de mand from another. The Jew denied the words which ' they considered vitally true, and called on them to withdraw the words in order that he might take his scat in the ' legislature and give effect to that denial. (Hear, hear.) But he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) maintained, on the other ' hand, that their lordship,, hail no right to make the comes ' siun. (Hear, bear.) Now this was a declaration either actually or virtually made by every one who had assumed a seat in parliament fur the lost two hundred years. The question was not simply one of expediency. They had full power to give to the Jews a share of the rights and privi ' leges enjoyed by other classes of the community, but they had no right to give them the power of legislating in mat tees of religion—to afford them the means of extirpating I Christianity. (Hear, bear.) An argument bad been de -1 dueed in favour of the admission of Jews, from THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 18, 1851. comeitered with imbrues to the suldeet matter in head, and te the eraNdista wd eircrartswees under which it was be he eggibi=haderenrlrren be the ease before these wire the eilihren el fur atria bib* -Id, if MI se" tided theinetre le th br eawaleacts et their te kol a ef the co. rid ere• be whbit wee that the desired= wilai j n= eked **Ned ee l He n e wareggra b wet et d ew •ne bed AM be by ihr the iihnielen er risbeties _per= to their goverment .• but the Mtge = e et et dal red* bad privileges ef • high , " end Aare_hey dressier, whisk timid set dd raferred ill et Mir, add privileges,: i d idedireillia, MlONottokes, and eeelw dim Mari limy wassivia that if Chris ' *Eby regeirl ttt4 bet derived ken itself to be im plied as a eseillien is the trerierilles et worldly works it would here bass sore is aecerdesee with the true spirit and gages et Christianity to impels that test upon the Clof esemiset rather thew es the ground of belief. it g al .as Mated the sublet* as • question of policy of. renew led he adverted to the risk they " es per i perred omm fre: year ar ti ' l l . refusing a her —(hear, eosatltatiea Mar —bat he busted their ferillhipe wil would give their resat to this just and neetwary assure. The Ern of WINCHILSE A earnestly impressed on their l o r d s h ips the duty and necersity of rejecting the bill, and be flit gaits coavineed that the paucity of petitions was te be berated to the ambience with which the people inked lerweed te the &shim of their lordships' house. He Wigged that weeny a begs majority of the public a reli giose bang erred whisk would suffer a serious outrage from the Bed - et the present measure. The Bed WICKLOW referred to the repeated majo rities Whisk the principle of the measure hail been af firmed in the House of Commons, in the face of which he maintained their lordships ought not to persist in refusing to adopt it. He proceeded to argue that the boon now sought for the Jews had been well deserved by their put conduct and tried loyalty, and could in no way endanger the Christianity , of the country. Hut, though differing from ' the principle of the measure, he denied that they were pro. ceeding in the best manner to remedy the wrong . indicted on the Jews. There should be, in his opinion, a more general and comprehensive mode of dealing with these oaths. The Duke of ARGYLL had been anxious to address their lordships immediately. lie would go seriatim through the closely lcgical argument of the noble earl (Earl Shaftesbury) in order to offer justifications for the vote which he had now to give. The noble lord stated, in . . the first instance, that thii concession the legislature 'was now called on to make wm a concession different from my concession yet made. Ile (the Duke of Argyll) admitted that it was a different concession from all former conces- ;Tons:" but he would contend that the difference was one in degree. (Hear, hear.) The main argument of the noble carl wu that the presence of a Jew would be a stand ing protest against Christianity. The presence of a Jew— where ? The noble earl would probably admit that the presence of a Jew in a court of justice administering the laws of a Christiana:matey, or lulus own dwelling-house,would not be • very practical standing protest against the truths of Christianity. (Hew.) In a certain sense, the presence of a Jew anywhere, in any satiety, in • Christian country, was to be regarded as a protest against that individual's admission of the truths of Christianity. But the protest of his presence in the House of Commons was not in any respect greater than his protest on the bench of a court of justice. (Hear, hear.) It was in this light that they were to regard the objection of the Jew to taking the oaths pre sented to him on his rppearing in the House of Cannons. The noble earl obviously considered that these oaths were a religious test. He (the Duke of Argyll) be- tiered it to be historically untrue that they were to be re garded as a religious test. (Hear, hear.) He was satisfied that the very form of the wording showed that tho re ferences to the faith of a Christian had been introduced solely as enforcing the strongest possible moral obligation on the person taking the oath, and who, it was taken for granted, would be a ChriAitin. (Hear, hear.) The noble can maintained that to admit Jews into parliament would be to confer on Jews a power, in degree, of opposing the maintenance and spread of Christianity. So far as the fact went, he (the Duke of Argyll) believed it to be altogether untrue that the Jews had any proselytising spirit whatever. (Hear, hear.) He did not believe that the Jews were anxious either to extend their own belief, or to alter the fief that Roman QUIZes aal the various sects scoters were admitted ; but they must recollect that these bodies were all, She the Jews, hostile to the very forms and Aids ef Cleblisaity. It had been asked, if iu opposing sulks iiiiiiinie as the present they entertained any fear of 1 the Jews beteg able to Judaixo the country. No such Wag; but they hoed that a sacrifice of principle on thole islet might be pesdactive of very serious evils. (Hear, base.) They might concede what was their ova—their ports, doh privileges, their dignity, and, if noorassay, the Mds aft church itself ; but to this demand ei the lows they oseillast accede—they could not assert the which a Mo. owl roasent to withdraw, as in thin use, that I winds was hue. (Cheers, and " hear, hear.") The truth which was muted in these words, which the Jew do. Mande,' should be struck out, was no ordinary truth. What they asserted was the great and preeminent prin ciple of Al public and private morality—the Alpha and the ' Omega of all virtue—the pillar of cloud by day mad of tire by night to guide them in their path. (Cheers.) He put it to their lordships whether, if further changes of Ibis kind were contemplated, it would not be butter to roped oaths altogether, rather than proceed in this Wombs ow day after day and year after year ? It had been WM that by the use of oaths they had not been able to exclude the In fidel, and that Lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Gibbon had ob tained admission. Although, however, Lord Bolingbroke and Mr.:Gibboa had been admitted, they had been obliged to take the oaths, and although by doing so they had jeopardised their own souls, yet they had borne their public testimony to the principle. (Cheers.) There was a wido difference between administrative and legislative functions. lie rejoiced that the Jews had beta admitted to administrative functions ; he rejoiced they wets shut out from nothing save this last point they sought to gain ; but there was a wide difference between what had been already granted and what was now asked. The yrs son wh3 accepted an administrative oSlee knew Ord he must exercise it for Christian objects, and he was been& by the limits of the law, and could not ;go beyond the., tit he was responsible to the law for his conduct in Wass; bat the same person in a legislative capacity was fres to all an he pleased, he was responsible to no one, and could any into effect his own principles. Administrative faaideas were given subject to the condition of discharging the duties, but by the measure before the house it was proposed to give full legislative functions, without any conditions whatsoever. The Earl of CARLISLE observed that the case did not certainly admit of fresh view or new arguments, although, in his humble judgment, the of time and the course of e s estimo events bad 'materia ll y str the motives for the favourable reception of such $ bill. The Wile earl who had reeved the rejection of thablimade It a aleuad Omani ambit it that the promisee had ajMaiad from banging wash a rowel • beim the boon in the omens of the hoes soodets. sod amiss bad :also been was to the shrines ef politieen Ha eurtainly was not swore thetas, politsumber se rill= bid been presented an sae side et MIS Oboe; but at that samsea he held la his bud • petitiso whisk Ise or owlle% of bis oollsogars had boos yortrotod pramatng be ad is of hole Whip hem ! osadderatios„ litypessodod Wth fro wa m th: ct tl end eseyoutiewonbe City of London, was ha ll = s emeaa ajimi , alge meceems. end. as he believed, it "- =the suatiesents id the whole or that important and tial body, which would show that they persevered in thusliberal sentiments which they had before expensed. Bat he obits& to sureW hie tessentious to ono tingle boa duswods. mod; as dors ins inky ow objeehon dash bo oessahod to boa id any _led** smug hoes with whoa the promise, of the YEW to battle, and Ipso that ore his noble tricot bad makOgalka. It might _liie termed ha religious ob i ena. lie was ones heir h4s would eel allow the hoe of rwedivaddillell 11l = or &gists to irersal t globs to &I JOIN. TY drew— and holed of the Jews in dab asogley woe olibinit gamagess against any such ="ea than, and be was are their lordships MSS such grounds refuse to grant the natural wiii they allielained to be put on a footing with their no ally area at tie oppoosata of thar s ill 111 =hr thelemghs easembhieg the Whin atom who, It was aidltolga of bomb, had set by *dr eloolleet disentitled tbegedem Arun the Mahout of thou, was • feeling dad It would be en elk IS It were, of disloyalty egglagt the Divine litNieher of 013 , oeligise, and that et the only thing we fighting he or worth living he, was the exuarion at Ills mph, Igoe earth, they 1111111 / as by their faith net to coeseet ft seals an act oe soallhase is So bill proposed. in :VC ma, who went bond W tai to gems test the sentiment cabanas/ MilailusW_ _ . Ullist obi woes well foondad. it andadoi dl roam mato verolr thea d tr ombobsithstendiso. hat he dowadths of C r ler, tWagoestka ha his setae Masi woe • rah podded la ose faith—. Do unto ells as ye weehl they shadi do lath you." (Hear.) Ss admitted that that presort mod 1111 them to be a I tendon ? p pun*. sr**, how did that bear upon the they awe allegiance to any other power ? Was there any evidence or argu e that they would not continue good atirens of this country after their admission into par liament ? (Hear.) With regard to the question of principle, it was an undisputed fact that the words in the oath bad been introdimed with no other view than to bind the party taking it to its subject-matter by an obligation binding on his nonscience. The words amounted to a de- aeration not of the faith of the individual, but of the nation. Had the principle so stoutly contended for been wesmired ? Did it exist in the case of tho quaker*, the Nomvians, and the separatists ? It did not. What then became of the principle ? The house had been relaxing oathsin most respects wisely. They had allowed members to enter the House of Commons who had taken the oath containing the words in question. The principle bad, therefore, utterly failed in point of fact. (Hear, hear.) It had been said that a great shock would be given to the moral feeling of the country if the present bill were passed ; but why had not that shock been given when the Jews were made eligible for election to municipal offices ? Again, it had been said that this was a new bill, but how could it be called new when the House of Commons had, year after year, been sending it up to their lordships' house ? Every time it mado its appearance it came with renewed claims to their consideration. With respect to the right rev. prelate on his right (the Bishop of Oxford) he could only say that that right rev. prelate had opposed the Jew bill hut session in a very powerful and argumentative speech, hut on this occasion, though he had risen before him (the Lord Chancellor) to address the house, he had lost the opportunity of delivering any address whatever, as the reply was now made. (Loud laughter.) He would not further occupy their time, but would call upon them at once to proceed to the division. Both sides of the house were for some seconds literally convulsed with laughter when the Lord Chancellor con eluded at finding the Bishop of Oxford quite prepared, with a pile of documents before him, to deliver himself of what apparently would have been a lengthened, and no doubt an eloquent oration, against the bill, but being pre cluded from saying even a word by the rules of the house, and the adroitness with which the Lord Chancellor suc ceeded in following the Earl of Galloway, and delivering the reply. The bishop seemed to bear the unexpected disap pointment with the utmost good temper, even though the Lord Chancellor joined heartily in the laughter raised at his expense. Their lordships divided— Their lordships then divided, when the numbers were— Proxies Non-contents—Present B2 Proxies Majority against the second reading 36 Their lordships then, at a quarter past ten, adjourned. HOUSE OF COMNIONS.—TIIVILSDAT, JULY 17. The Sramthit took the chair at a quarter before four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. The Right Hon. E. STlit:rr took the oaths and his seat for the borough of Arundel, in the room of the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, who accepted the Chiltern Hun dreds. PRIVATE BUSINESS. Upton's Estate Bill was read a third time and passed. Lord SEYMOUR moved that the following be the select committee on the Batteries Park Amendment and Exten sion Bill—namely ; Lord Seymour, Mr. Alderman Hum phery, Mr. D'Eyncourt, Sir Wm. Clay, Mr. Vm. Wil liams, Mr. Alcock, and three members to be nominated by the committee of selection. Three to be the quorum.— Agreed to. PUBLIC BUSINESS. PETITIONS PRESENTED. TEE CRYSTAL PALACE.—By Mr. 1111.0ADLEY, from Pocklington, Yorkshire; Mr. 1. THORN ELY, from Dan bury; Mr. MUNDY, from Ashbouruo ; Mr. IL WdE, from Chelsea ; and Mr. LAMM:C:IIEIIE, from Taunton ' • Mr. HODGSON, front the committee for promoting the Great Exhibition at Car:isle, and one from the inhabitants of the same place for the maintaining the Crystal Palace as a winter garden. THE PAPER DUTY AND THE TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE.— the belief of others. (Hear, hear.) The; noble earl By Mr. M. GIBSON, from the National Temperance Se amed that as far as their influence went, the influence ciety, complaining that they arc impeded by these taxes in of the Jews would be hostile to Christianity ; and he their efforts to disseminate information amongst the poor anticipated the reply that the Jews admitted to parliament on the subject of alcohol and the laws of health ; Mr. HEY would be but few, by asserting that this was n question of WORTH, from Derby, for their repeal. principle, and that from the principle we ought not to swerve Tim WESLIVIAN CONEENENCE.—By Mr. COBDEN, one hair's breadth. He (the Duke of Argyll) thought it was f rom the Wesleyan methodist societies at Leeds, Otley, and suite clear that the principle was gone al - ready. The noble another place, complaining of the oppression of the wo oed seemed to believe that there was • difference between (entice. administering and making the law; but he (the Duke of THE MILLING INTERESTS.—By Mr. FITZROY, from Argyll) could not see the difference. As regarded, how- the guardians of Donoughmore, Queen's county, preying ever, the making the Dew, the principle was gone. The the house to take into consideration the state of the milling Jews had been admitted to the privilege of the electoral i n t eres t s . franchise ; and the Jew, therefore, exercised, in the most CO UNTY RATES AND EXPENDITURE . complete manner, legislative power. (Hear, hear.) The Mr. M. GIBSON, in reply to a questiou from Sir J. Pa. noble earl said that this was a matter (of abstract prin ciple ; and, of course, he excluded all question of degree. KINOTON, respecting the bill on the subject of county rates and expenditure, said that as the bill had been very The noble earl pointed out that avowed infidels had been much altered by the government from the form in which it returned to parliament ; but he went on to say that it was was submitted to the house, and as the Home Secretary, a satisfaction to his mind that although such men as who had taken a very active part in the committee, was Bolingbroke and Gibbon had obtained seats in the House of absent, he should think it could hardly be proceeded with Oanunous, known to their constituency and to the House of before the end of the session. As, however, the bill was Commons to be infidels, they had nevertheless been coin. ordered to be committed, the house would of course go into •d, before taking their seats, to go through the forms committee upon it on the day fixed for that purpose, unless imbratory of their faith as Chksti aus. lie (the Duke of the hon. b aronet saw fi t to move t h at i t be committed that Argyll) could see no reason fur satisfaction in a day three months, which would of course dispute of the I elecunistance which induced hypocrites to a gg ravate matter. their hypocrisy ; and he could not understand what BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—MR. BERRIES' possible gratiination the noble earl could perceive in it. (The Earl of Shaftesbury : I did not say Out) Ile had MOTION ON THE NAVIGATION LAWS. Mr. DISRAELI begged to ask the right hon. gentleman understood the noble earl to say so distinctly. The Earl of SHAFTESIILRY explained. He hail the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the discussion upon the navigation laws was to take place or not, because limply said that Bolingbroke and Gibbon had jeopardised Moir own tenets in being compelled, though infidels, to several inquiries had been made by gentlemen on both sides boar public testimony to a principle which privately they ed. of the house whether it was certain that the question would be brought on to-morrow (this day)) ? illsal The Duke of ARGYLL considered that the noble earl The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that had confirmed his (the Duke of Argyll's) representation of no announcement had been made on the subject because Me argument of the noble earl. (Hear, they could not tell at resent how long the committee of na nee any difference in the statement O hear.) lie could f the noble earl and supply would take. T progress made in supply on Moli im statement which he himself had made to their lord- day had rendered it very doubtful whether they would close skips. What was the principle involved ? The consti• the committee of supply to-night ; but if they did not he testacy, theoretically re sired to elect a true Christian, hoped that they would be able to do so to-morrow, and then broke through the p ri nciple q in electing a known in fi del; the right hon. on M onday. member for Stamford's motion could be sad there could be ne satisfaction ins seeing the house im- brought forward pose a peculiar form of words profcssive of the faith of a Mr. DISRAELI—Then, are we to understand that the Christian upon • man who was known not to be a Chris- discussion on the navigation laws will take place on Men tion. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl virtually acknow- day. whether the committee of supply has terminated lodged that no principle was involved in confessing, towards or not ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No. the close of his speech, that had these words not been We propose to take the supply, in preference to all other already inserted in the oath ho would not now approve of their insertion. These words being there, the noble earl business, until it is finished. was unwilling to see them struck out; because, said the Mr. M. GIBSON begged to ask the right hon. member noble earl, to do this would appear in the eyes of the for Stamford what were his intentions with regard to the people to be an abandonment of Christianity. But this discussion on the navigation laws. Mr. lIERRIES—It is my decided intention to bring for beargument could be easily overcome. The people ought to untructed that these words were never introduced for the ward my motion u soon as I can, and I be on Mon denied from what assertion of a principle, and that in striking them out we has fallen from the right hon. baronet, it will denied no principle. It was easy to strike out these words, day next. (Cheers.) while at the same time letting the world understand that Mr. E. B. ROCHE begged to ask • question of the we were not indifferent to the great truths of Christianity. right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Me had an immense admiration for the theory propoun d e d sod, in order that he might be in order, he should conclude by the late Dr. Arnold, in regard to the re aloes which by moving that the house do now adjourn. The question ought to subsist between the church and the state. was as to the mode of conducting Irish bills and Irish busi- Theoretically it was the highest position to which human nese in that house. For a long time past he, as well as all society could aspire—the church to be one with the state, and the other members who took au interest in Ireland--- the state one with the church. But he (the Duke of Argyll) Sir J. PAKINOTON rose to order. He thought this bad to recognise the present actual state of society, its re- practice of making speeches on any subject whatever under ligious divilwas, and religious controversies; and his belief the pretext of a sham motion of adjournment was one to was, that this theory would never be realised. (Hear, which the attention of the house ought to be directed. bear.) He was afraid that, in despair of the rea li sation of (hm'. hear.) He did not wish to be in the slightest de ibis thewy, they would hays to go to the opposite extreme give discourteous to the hon. gentleman, but he ventured —upon the broad and distinct principle, that spiritual and to submit that this was a most inconvenient practice, and evil affairs must be completely separated. On Monday he wished to know whether it could not be checked, by next he would enter more fully . into that argument; but making it imperative upon all members that should adopt he had no hesitation at once in pronouncing the opinion such a course to confine themselves strictly to the motion that spiritual and civil affairs ought to be why separated, itself? (Cheers.) mad that the action of parliament would never be benefited The SPEAKER said that (as he had remarked on a by interference or connexion with any matter purely B pi. former occasion) this was a most inconvenient course. Al tttual. Convinced that it was unjust and inexpedient to though hon. members had a right to move the adjournment exclude from parliament any individual of an class on the of the house, they ought to confine themselves to the rea ground of his religious faith he should vote for the second sons why the house should be adjourned. (Cheers.) reading of this bill. (Cheers.) Mr. ROCHE, resuming, said that if the hon. baronet had The Bishop of NORWICH apprehended that the re- only waited, he would have seen that he (Mr. Roche) only sistance so often repeated against the measure disparaged meant to carry out what had been expressed from the chair. the character of the country for Christian toleration; and He intended to move that the house do adjourn, and his fearing no real danger from passing it, should vote in reason was because Irish business was kept in abeyance favour of the second readiug. while English business was conducted. Now he meant to The Bishop of Oxford and Lord Abinger rose together. move that they should adjourn for the purpose of ascer- There were loud cries for the rev. prelate ; but the noble taming whether the government meant to give them an op. lord maintained kis position, and, eventually, the Bishop of portunity of fairly discussing Irish questions in that home. Oxford gave way There were twenty-nine motions on the paper for that Lord ABINGER would vote against the bill. It had night, of which eight were Irish, and of them three or four never been the intention of the framers of these oaths were of the greatest importance. He thought the govern to permit Jews to enter parliament, and he considered merit ought to allow them, if not a night, at least a day, for that, humanly speaking, there were special reasons the consideration of those motions ;'and he therefore begged why the Jew was not entitled to a participa leave to move HIM the house do now adjourn. tins in the privileges of a Christian community. contended that toleration had its limits, and that sects The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did no t He think the hon. gentleman had made out • very elear ream s ht arise in this country to whom it would be most lin e tic to grant cinl rights. Where did they ever h ear be- why they should adjourn; and certainly an odioasunient was not a very obvious way of expediting the transaction of of a nation which was anti-social as the Jews ? It was their business. (Laughter.) With respect to the charge said that the blood of the Chaldeans ran as purely in the of the hon. gentleman, that English business was preferred veins of the Jews now 111 l it had done in the days of the to Irish, he had only to observe that the intention was to of su pp l y, Mosaic dispensation. This it was which had caused their Eurizigdh with the th lr e ish aa ; nuni and lte i e t wh i ch 11 i th c a h t was out of n o the i 1.4 expulsion from Egypt, and which at the present time con- E Moved them as a separate people in the bosom of every nos- votes before them that evening, 10 were Irish. (Cheers Ilna In the world. and laughter.) It was certainly very desirable that many TM Earl of GALLOWAY said he wo u ld en d eavour to of the bills to which the hon. gentleman hail alluded should explain in a single sentence the vote he intended to give be discussed; but the committee of supply was of yet upon this bill. In the New Testament it was said th at greater consequence, and it would have been terminated without faith—the faith of Jesus Christ—it was impossible I on g since if it had not been for the numerous modem so please God. Now, the Jew not only had not, but, while which hon. gentlemen had placed upon the paper. (gem) be remained unconverted to Christianity, he could not have THE HORFIELD AFFAIR. that faith. Therefore, in the administration of our affairs Mr. HOESMAN observed that after the amnia WI he could not please God. With the Scriptures of truth in the Horfield estate, an understanding was came to One W hand, he rejected the truths they contained, and there- they should have an explanation from his hon. friend oppo. poi be was unfit to legislate for a Christia n people. (H ear , site (Mr. P. Miles), and therefore he wished to ask INGO whether it was his intention to bring on the subject that The Bishop of Oxford, who was expected to follow nig ht? i nest in the debate, had, during the delivery of the Earl of r. P. MILES said that if he were called on for an eze Galloway's few remarks, left hie seat for the purpose of con- planation, he should be perfectly ready to give it then. mning with a noble lord near the throne, and, when that Mr. HORSMAN said the Chancellor of the Ex , noble earl had concluded, had either not returned to the could have no objection to the explanation being gil l = ecclesiastical bench, or was desirous thee another speech in the first vote in supply. favour of the bill should be delivered beim he &darned The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied the house against it. that he should strongly object to any motion that inter- The LORD CHANCELLOR, availing lionit of th e freed with the supply. (La ug h ter .) I momentary mums which ensued, ma man bo i ght er to The motion for adjournment was then withdrawn. reply, it being • well landsesteednde la the isms of Lords HARWICH ELECTION. that after th= Ms lisis ask as dime met temii- Mr. BANKES, in furtherance of his motion of Wedlleo- NSW He thee the mar eigestlers node to the day, moved that it be an instruction to the ral e commit blll wok doe die Jews were • eamsento neidea, and that tee of elections to select a chairman and six other m em bers ask amain Involved a greet gedwilgle. Supposing to be the select committee to inquire into the Ai allegations at a petition relative to the last election for the borough of Herwieh. Mr. COBDEN did not oppose the motion, as the govern meat had assented to the inquiry ; but, with reference to the character of the borough, he observed that this would be the fourth committee which would have eat upon this borough during the present parliament ; that it stood pre eminent for corruption in every possible form; and he thought that 24 hours should elapse after the writ was moved for before it issued, believing that it would be the unani mous opinion of the house that it ought not to issue. Mr. BUNCOMBE likewise did not object to the com mittee, though the allegations in the petition were the loosest he had ever heard; but he asked who was respon sible for it ? The house might legislate against tho borough upon public notoriety, as in the case of St. Albans, without inquiry'. Mr. J. bit ItlIT said the disfranchising a borough without inquiry, depriving men of a sacred right, was re pugnant to every principle of justice. Mr. OSBORNE said, the borough of Harwich had been long proved to be corrupt, and it ought long ago to have been disfranchised. Inquiry was not wanted; the borough I should be put at once into schedule A. Sir B. ![ALL expressed the same opinion, adding that when a new writ was moved for he should move that it do not issue. Mr. V. SMITH said the question raised by the petition, as to the conduct of government officers, should be decided by the house upon the grounds laid by the member who brought forward the charge. M. HUME objected that the house was about to appoint a committee without having any evidence before it, and it ought to ascertain who was the responsible party and who was to bear the expense. Mr. DISItAEL[ said this objection might be a very good one in the mouth of the ministers ; but, after they had as-, rented to the inquiry, it was not for the house to stop an in vestigation which concerned its own privileges. Whatever might be the purity or impurity of this borough, or the paucity of its constituency, the question at issue was as to the interference of government at an election. Mr. E. DENISON objected to the mode proposed of no minating the committee. Mr. BANKES, in reply, justified the course he had pursued. The house then divided— For the motion Against it HAULBOWLINE. . . evidence, to which Mr. Miles had not made any ann. sion. And let hint remind the house of the statement which he made. The lion. gentleman repeated the charge he had made on the former occasion, namely, that the present Bishop of Gloucester granted a renewal of the lease of the Hoekld estate, which his two prede cessors, Bishop Grey and Bishop Allen, had abstained from doing. Now he made this statement on the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Richards ' rector of ilordeld, who had been for twenty years perpetual curate there, and appeared to be well acquainted with all the circumstances connected with the estate during tho lifetime of these bishops. Mr. Richards in his evidence stated that he talked seve ral times with Bishop Grey on the subject of the renewal of the lease, that the negotiations about it had been broken off on accountj of the inade quacy of the sum offered; that some time before his death he had given up all idea of a renewal of the lease, and that he said he would rather have the money go to the see after his death than to enrich his own family. Such was the evidence of Mr. Richards. It might be true or it might not, but at all events it was the precise state ment he made the other night. But the evidence of Mr. Richards was not the only evidence on the point. Them was also the letter of Bi-hop Grey's son on the subject, which he had shown to the hon. geutleinan. Mr. they in that letter says: You were quite right in denying, bs(ore the committee of the House of Commons. that the non-renewal of the Hayfield ham by my late fath , r, whin Bishop of Bristol, was attributable to his sudden removal by death. His lot illness W. protracted, having lasted up. wards of a twelvorgonth, ant its probable terminating was foreseen by his family for some time before bin dmth. Neginiataogg for • re newal had been going on, I think I may softly say, not less than three years before that event (I speak, however, from memory), at en early stage of which it was intimated that the then lessee (Dr. Shad. well was prepared to pay thesmne flue as upon the last renewal. At a tatar stage. same months before my It ther'a death, a larger sum (either 3,0001. or 6,00°1.) was offered as a line for the renewal of the team. Oa both occasions the Bee was refuge las inadequate. Upon either my lather mitht ,blive renewed lies lease, hat he been so minded. He was, however, as you know, not the man to do dirty work by swathing his family at the expenge of his successors. • But was not the only proof. Thero was the letter of Bishop Allen on the subject: A. f w.. prepared. if my opinion bad been reared by the eeclesiaeti• cal commtesioners, to have recommended tae llorti, 4 property, i• the diocese of Bridal, to be assigned over to the coimnissioners for the building of a palace, and for other purposes under the wit, be. fse a new bi.hop was appointed, ea in my own case I c n have no ob. jecti.in to the dr. Alban's property of the see of Ely, woWli is nearly similarly circumstanced 411 to the age of the remaining life and life tenure of the lams to the lierfteld property, being transferred to the commis-sinners, it being my decided opinion that nettlair of these I•nt-ea should be renewed for lives, and that upon their eeplration t►e Mum for the lull terms of II yearn ihoutd be at the disposal of the cerlerhaticalcommbsionere for general purposes. Mr. Serjeant to call attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the want of accommodation for the repair of steam-vessels at Ilan'bowline, and to ask whether it was the intention o: the government to provide the same. It was desirable that a dock ing establishment should be erected in Ilaulhowlinc. In conclusion, he moved for a committee to inquire into the necessity and propriety of establishing the necessary ac commodations fur the repair of steam-vessels at Haul bowline. _ _ The motion being seconded, Sir F. T. BARING mid, it was with regret be felt him self bound to oppose the motion of the hon. and learned member for Cork. The question was decidedly one of money, altogether apart from the consideration whether or nut un additional naval depot was required. Experience showed that their present factories or depots were sufficient for the performance of the duties required of them ; nod, therefore, on behalf of the government, he should say he could nut hold out any expectation that the views of the hon. and learned gentleman would be acceded to. Mr. E. 11.1tOCHE said, that whilst the government were prepared to expend two millions of money or. Holyhead, and a million and a quarter on Devouport, they were determined not to expend sixpence in improving the ports of Ireland. Here was the finest harbour in the Queen's dominions without the means of repairing a single steamer. Capt. BOLDER° should say, in proof of the want of ac commodation in Ireland, that the 12th Lancers, when or dered from Ireland to the tape a short time since, had to be brought to England in the first instance and there em barked. After a brief discussion the house divided: _ _ For the motion lO4 Against it 1101LFIELD ESTATE. Mr. P. MlLEsaiT,;i7llihepeivni.;slon of the house, he would now proceed to vindicate the character of his right rev. relative from the attacks of the hon. gentleman oppo site (Mr. llonman). In the first place lie must observe that Mr. Murray himself said, when prcsied by the hon. gentleman, that he thought it might be shown that there was no obligation resting on the bishop, either direct or in direct, not to renew the lease. Ile also stated that both Bishop Grey and Bishop Allen had attempted to renew the lease, and would have dune so if an advantageous fine could have been obtained ; the sum offered not being consi dered sufficient they had refused. As regarded the case of Bishop Allen he would refer to the following letter: 'llw bishop his been most hardly treated in this business. The real points in the case are not many. I know from Mr. Marmont (Mr. tihadwell's agent) that if Bishop Gray had happened to have lived a little longer, a renewal of the tease would hare been arranged. It is not true (as alleged by Mr. Borman) that the negotiation for a renewal was entered upon on the dropping of one life, and was beckon uiron the death of two—the facts being that no negotiation was em entered upon until two lives had dropped. With respect to Bishop Alien, it is notorious tint, when Bi-hop of Bristol, he felt himself at liberty to renew the lease (dais can be proved, if neeemary, by my father, who was very much in Bishop Alien's confidenee, and bad discussions with him upon the subject), ant we all weal know that when our present bishop took the see of Bristol, and *Name rimmed of the endowments, that not a shadow of a condition was ever expressed or implied that his lordship wen to stand, with respect to the I lortlead property, on any different tooting from that on which Is stood with respect to the other mules menus of the pee. Ile did not think that any moral obligation on the part of the Bishop of Gloucester not to renew the lease had been proved, and the Bishop of Gloucester himself, in a letter which he addressed to the prime minister in July 1818, said that he was bound by no conditions of that kind. !lose no time In assuring year la dithip that no Fuca engagement or understanding as is hoe iusinuated ever took place • nor were there any other eueditions mentioned or implied, dire ctly or in. directly, except those which arc detailed by the order in council of October 1, 1834, by which the see of Gloucester sal Bria:ol wan con stituted. and which I . me tit perfect liberty le deal with that estate as with the other property of the see. Indeed I never beard, till a tow days ago, that such an opinion as that spoken of by Mr. Ilersemo, had been breached. Atow me to add, that in offering to dispose of my interest In this exist- to the ecclesiastical commis. .beers, my sole motive has been to promote objects of public benefit end imprommisnt. The ecclesiastical sommi.sioners also said that there was no impression on their minds that much an engagement ex isted. Th.y consider the elreameancee of their having entered into& con tract to purehate my right of renewal in the I Winch! estate (which, in toe ',eat of their be:ief in the existence of any such engagement or understanding, they would not lora been kindled in entertaining), was by them considered as sudicieutly preying that there was no ins. presided ea their naiads that ally ouch engagemeua or understanding Such was the evidence on which he made the statement he did. The hon. gentleman the member for Bristol did not refer to any portion of that evidence, but a right rev. prelate in another place sought to upset the case on what he called evidence of unirnpeachabl, veracity. The wit ness he referred to was Mr. Vincent Stuckey, who the bishop says, stated that "the two late bishops refused to renew, because the lessee refused to give the fine they asked." That was the statement. Now he turned to the evidence, and he found that the words were, " I understand that the two late bishops," &e. Ile would ask them whether the positive testimony of two witnesses was to bo set aside on the evidence of a person who could only say that he " understood." Again, Mr. Stuckey says, " What l state comes not front my own knowledge, hut from others." " The present bishop would not tako the sum offered for the lease, as I on informed." Thus every single answer given by this witness of " unimpeach able veracity" showed that he knew nothing whatever of the circumstances of the case. Now, this Mr. Stuckey woe the person whom the bishop referred to in a letter as a person who was notorious for his unfriendly feeling towards the church and churchmen. (" No, no; Mr. Sturge, tho surveyor.") Well, at all events, it was clear from the evi dence he gave that he knew nothing of the circumstances of the case, for all his evidence was hearsay. Now he came to the evidence of Mr. Sturp, who was the next wit ness quoted by the right rev. prelate in another place. Mr. Sturge was acquainted with some of the church property in Bristol, and the right rev. prelate quoted him as a strong witness on his side; but, if he was so strong a witness in favour of the Bishop of Gloucester, he mi4lit have been quoted in his owu language. If he had done so, it would be found that the " late bishop" alluded to, was Bishop Grey, and not Bishop Allen. There watt one other evidence, that of the Bishop of Gloucester himself, who said that, in a conversation which lie had with Bishop Albin, the latter told him that he was perfectly at liberty to renew the lease. lie now came to the correspondtace, which, it was said, he had erroneously stated com menced in 1812, and the existence of which as now de nied. The hon. member for Bristol said that his state ment on this point was extremely confused, and that it was impossible to understand what ho meant, and diffi cult to conceive where he got his information. Ilia statement was a very plain one, sod it was amply borne out by the evidence. lie stated that in 1412 there were rumours that the Bishop of Gloucester intended to renew the lease; that the ecclesiastical commissioners being alarmed, desired their secretary to communicate to kim the moral obligation which rested upon hint not to renew; and that the bishop wrote a letter, in which lie stated what would be the opinion entertained if he dial take that course. The first inaccuracy was this. lie said that there was a rumour, and that a communication was made to the bishop by the secretary of the commission in consequence. N.w the fact was that between 1812 and 1847 there were two rumours. There was a rumour in 1812, and a communication was made at the instance of the ecclesiastical commissioners, — The hon. member for Coekermouth, when he made state ments in that house reflecting on the character of others, should he particular as to the details. In the present in stance the hon. gentleman had made a mistake of no less than five years in one of his dates, and his whole account was so confused that he could not imagine where the hon. gentleman got his information. With regard to the Horfield estate the facts appeared to be these. In 1848 negotiations were carried on respecting the re newal of the lease through Mr. Murray, the secretary to the ecclesiastical commission. Subsequently to this an offer was made directly to the bishop by the ecclesiastical com missioners asking if he would sell the lease for 11,5001., but the negotiation was broken off through some legal techni calities. From that period to the death of Dr. Shadwell no steps were taken to bring the matter to a settlement. The hon. gentleman laid great stress on the bishop giving the renewal of the lease to his own secretary, and putting in his children as the lives. Neither was that an accurate statement, for the lives in the lease were those of the three royal princesses. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Horeman.) Then the hon. gentleman laid great stress on the valise of the estate, which he estimated at between 3,0001. and 4,0001. a year, but its real value was only 5441. Now when the bishop leased the estate to has own secretory, he held a living in Northamptonshire worth be tween 7001. and 8001. a year, which he gave up, so that at the present time he had a smaller income than he had before. The reason why the Bishop of Gloucester took the course he did in leaving the Ilorfield estate to his own secretary was, that ho wished to retain the control of it in his own hands. But he could not do better than state the bishop's reasons in his own words. He says: I. It was no fault of lathe thst tb estate low on each a tenure nor, if the story of the km, Wag lataationalty left unnamed by my two rs preakereens bad begs ea true es It le =kr need that Mw he a tle ere melon the bre had Ire ereserelerd. Wire. ea the lam was pos the wry upper. 1. our the err are I. say beads I sort arrow le eke it avenable be sorry a sum upon my dis ere 1w the hirer of smell Or em The law of her( eta a star my title, no one would hare par ch d • Goatiliret lawaeit I therefore lamed It lkit three lives to my earn , ea • mar of retaining in my own bands the tall owl satire and direction of all that should be done. They who eamiumm me Ite so dolag an ern 1 to state what I cart to hays err a re as I ten see, there were eslythree Noire cares W d Mls sos;-4. Witt have haft the ritibeerffli NS it wig, is bad. elft leemblEM • a IMight bre It kw St I webs b be re kr Ores Ma bra las lest pia I most yea have tell the property la re e beware deledstaler have sepesred retwerses 4 cry reberd err et rearniks ; sot bevel were haw bra rear spa srb • title se I seer Mee era ; erredissrat, drearbe, be. ward have her eat et the lus tier bee re Neer ere, theme veer have Wee a still rear elleis la re Tr of say pid eilialaL err reel bee ins lee short let ibed—trite wild have Ws best alleribe la the way of reersireaset—the trim of the tabbed= king our them Oft d the egsyksielma sad the Of a kinds maid hew Ferr l 4 MO Mos peffetteakte Imr = l" in bised N seer bre hese ewe le re err the empletely Thie seer reemeres erne wee W i t whir I Ire erred. It wee retry =red ley writ I emir do ry per le my terear Where, wry views wan star et Ist the ride jeer. I. the lac I reser that the benstee 4 le. err eared Mt kr rellPri • Triomf I held be ermares; I die a j ar ampler repair ot the rectory herb writ beeperdl la he jot tra la I frestrately ter ere= Sew serrelleer Ute reiwrial ts Into kr, and pro. rag se* a emellielee the r err roar It eve& ere Ihr er br esserlisr Bar lbws ="811re Is peeper ate sorireehle rear As Weer surrei orirevere el Mira Is err r e e ems la creates err. ft Mir Or rears hes pe eyed he re a hrry sed sew us leer ite he mai ( het • tar eel Ms her or Mate be mete Wart et Oribrob. _ _ though not by their secretary, with regard to that rumour. The rumour died away. It was revivtd in 1816 and then a second communication was made by order of the commissioners, through their secretary, to the Bishop of Gloucester. Mr. Murray, the secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, made a communication to Mr. Holt, the secretary of the bishop, expressiug the wish of the com missioners that he would not renew the lease for lives. Ito (Mr. Ilorsman) therefore did not think that his statement , was substantially incorrect. lle now came to another . part of the evidence. The Bishop of Gloucester himself, in a letter, denied that he gave any answer but that which ho (Mr. Humana) had attributed to him. The hon. gentle man made no allusion to that letter in reply, and people were consequently led to believe that his quotations from that letter were purely a fiction. It had been asserted that no such letter was in existence, and he had been surprised at the manner in which the denial had been given. Tho hon. member then read a quotation from a letter of the Bishop of Gloucester, which contained the denial, and as serted the statement to be a calumny injurious to the bi shop's character, and disgraceful to his family; and called the attention of the house to the ingenuity of the man ner in which the denial was conveyed. By the state ment that no letter was written by the secretary in 1812 people would be led to inter that no letter at all was written In 1812 • the letter of the bishop, written frankly and confidentially, being altogether omitted. Then, from the He trusted he had now exesserated the Bishop of Glou cester from any blame in this transaction. That right rev. prelate was well known f/or hie great liberality and gene rosity. Hie subsoriptione ter church purposes were as large, if not larger, than these of any bishop who held the see before. (Cheers.) He did not complain of the harsh need by the hon. gentleman; but, after what he i h a ff:t a a g ted, he thought the house would be of opinion that the Bishop of Gloucester would be able, in the words of the hon. gentleman, " to hold up his head in public as an honest man." (Cheers.) Mr. HORSMAH acknowledged that no statement could be more fair and no criticism less disagreeable than Mr. Miles's ; but he (Mr. Horsman) had:founded his charges, which were not confined to a gurgle individual, upon public • statement _lat the communicatioe was between the solidi tors iu 1817, and that no mention was made by them of moral obligation, it would be inferred that there was no mention made of moral obligation in 1817 by any one. The expressions used would lead to the infereuce that there was no genuine letter in existence. The Bishop (Oxford) said the idea that this reply was a genu ine document had produced on impression very injurious to the character of the right rev. prelate., and then he attempted to show that the basis of the inference being wrong, the letter itself was not genuine. Well, now, the letter which had been alluded to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miles), and which was not referred to by the right rev. prelate an another place, contained the whole case which he (Mr. Horsman) made out in his statement the other night. lie i admitted that when the bishop succeeded to his eithee, thew was no pledge given ; he admitted that up to that Um° there was no understanding or moral obligation subsiiting on the part of the bishop. But w het communicated with on the subject of the prevalence of a report that he was about to do so by the Ecclesiastal Commissioners, he en tered into reasons why he had not before communicated with them on the subject, and that showed, at least, the ex istence of a moral obligation. His evidence had been found fault with, but he had quoted it from a blue-book containing the published evidence of the House of Com mons, with the unpublished letter of the Bishop of Glou cester to his clergy; and the evidence of the blue-book ought to outweigh the authority of an unpublished letter written by the Bishop of Gloucester. Independent of that, no sense could be made of the sentence as read by the hon. member—(Mr. Miles)—it was neither English nor common sense—and, besides, the context explained the real mean ing of the letter, so as to avoid all mistake. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member here read the letter, and contended that it born out his former statement. lie would state ono word with respect to the omission from the letter which ho had been frequently accnsed of making in that house. Evidence hail been given by Mr. Murray before a committee of the House of Commons; he spoko in the presence of four Ecclesiastical Commissioners: he then read from that letter, which had in tho evidence been laid before the house, and of course known to the Bishop of Gloucester ; and yet, up to now, after a lapse of three years, no public denial had ever been given to that evidence by the bishop. (Hear, hear.) At the end of three years, when he quoted from that letter, the Bishop of Ox ford had stated that it was on his (Mr. Herman's) part an embellishment and a fiction, tied that he was not justified in =Wag the statement. (Hear, hear) It was now said that 31r.lturray was the evil . genius of the Ecclesiastical Comnihnion; but, in his opinion, the Ecclesiastical Com minutes IRS the evil genius of Mr. Murray. (Laughter.) This gentleman had entered the service of the commission with an unblemished reputation ; but ho had been ruined and debauched by the commission. (Cheers.) Mr. Murray was their own witness, and an unwilling one, before tho committee; he was put forward by their direction, ho wag their confidante, and it was hardly fair now to say that Mr. Murray was not a creditable witne s s. (H ear , h ear .) He was willing to admit an inaccuracy in date of one year in his former statement, but he denied the alleged inaccuracy of five years, which, if true, could not be made to bear oil the subject. He came now to 1818, when the Bishop of Gloucester made an offer of the lease of liorfield to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, stating at the same time that he had another party who would buy it if they would not. The offer was referred to a committee. It had been stated that Sir James Graham was at the head of that committee, and that there was, therefore, no danger of the perpetration of a job. He admitted that the pre sence of the hon. baronet was a better security against tho perpetration of a job than the presence of the whole bench of bishops—(laughter)—but, after all, he thought that the hon. baronet perhaps only recommended the acceptance of the offer to prevent the alienation of the estate for a long term of years. (Hear, hear.) His statement the other night had been made in the presence of Ecclesiastical Commis sioners, who had given no reply contradictory of that state -1 meat, although they must have been cognisant of all the facts of the ease. Tho hon. member for Bristol (Mr. Miles) might I have appealed to them ; they wo u ld ro t h ave su ff e red such I a charge to pass without contradiction if false, but it was