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

apparent that hon. gentlemen were not willing individually to defend promediugs which the Ecclesiastical Commis sioners as a body could not sanction. (Hear, hear.) To another point he wished to call the special attention of the Mesa The bishop sold his irate west to the Commissioners for 11,500!., and asserted that, having lest 3,0001., which he had advanced as • loan to the college of Bristol, he cons adored himself justified in applying that pottiest of the amount to his own use. These was, at the union of the sees of Gloucester and Bristol, a dispute as to the future become of the bishop, who returned the united in- 1 seems as being 3,12.1., and a resolution was passed that it stemma be raised to 5,00 W. The bishop, however, claimed hie oreamendams in addition, although there was an act prohibiting the practice. The subject was referred to the legal arbiters at the commission, who decided that he was linable to hold his commendains. Yet, after fourteen the income of the see amounted, instead of li,oooo. to 7,2821. ; and in the year 1818, the very year in which the bishop stated that he lira 5,0001., and after ultimately obtaining the oommendams and applying for a canonry in Lonuon, the income of his we had been 11,1071. In four teen years, from episcopal sources alone, the bishop's ex cess of income over the 4,0001. provided by act of parlia ment, was not less than 3,2001.; and yet he said the lee Of 6,000!. justified the sale of his interest in this estate. Amll all this might have been prevented under the act of 1861 L He stated the other day that he thought the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were wrung in the arrangements which they , had made. lie thought they were wrong, in the first place, in making the stipulation, and also wrong in not maintaining the commendams with the bishopric, but 1141 thought they were most wrong in not availing themselves of the clause in the act which invested them with the tem poralities of the see of Bristol, when they knew it was the intention of the bishop to renew the lease. They were per fectly justified in saying that if the bishop renewed the team they would have recourse to an order in council. (Hear.) Be now same to the moat important point of the ease. On a previews emasion be stated that the Bishop of Gloucester had emend the lease for three years, and, as the emu mites. appehendial, for the benefit of his own family ; that he had given the lease to his own secretary, adding M the mina tine, that lie was informed that the lima were for his awn children. It, however, appeared that the lease was for the lives of three of the infunt children of the royal family. 'f he Bishop of Gloucester had taken the lives of a family which was naturally one of the longest lived families in England, therefore speculating en these lives in putting them into the lease. Ile (Mr. linesman) thought no act was more unhappy thau the associating the Queen of England, who was the head of the church, with • transaction which he considered was most injurimas to it. ()fear, hear) But he would make no further comment upuu the transaction, which spoke fur itself, and on which the public would form their own opinion. This, however, was not the least unhappy or least discreditable feature which marked the whole traneartion. The bishop had now taken legal pos session of the estate. At this moment, to all intents and purposes, he had made himself entitled to the estate during three lives. Then came the question, whether this was a legal lease. Ile should himself rather doubt its lega lity. An order in council was passed, taking the estate from the we of Gloucester after the decease of tho bishop, and limiting the benefit of it entirely to his own life, and he (Mr. Ilorsmaa), therefore, was disposed to think it ex tremely doubtful whether the bishop had power to grant a lease for three lives. (Hear.) Then came another ques tion, as to the morality of the transaction. On that point they hail the bishop's own version of the affair in his letter to the rural deans. What equivalent did he give up for the estate of llortield. Ile gave up a living which he (minuted at worth between ‘oo'. and 8001. • year, but which might be set down at worth only 5004 - Now the manor of 'forbid.] contained 1,23.5 acres of land in the im mediate vicinity of Bristol, and we, stated by successive witnesses and by the Bishop of Gloucester among the rest, to be favourable for building villas and other erections. The reek rent was upwards of 3,001)!. a-year, end this sum was further augmented on the death of Dr. Shadwell, in consequence of tithe rent charges, &c. falling in. Here, then, he gave up a living of 5001. for the life of a prelate about 68 years of age, in return for the immediate possession of an estate for three lives, producing wrack rent of 30001. a-year, and which perhaps before the o lives" fell iu, in consequence of holdings being erected upon it, might i he worth 30,000/. (Hear, hear.) What was the value of the bishop's interest inert estate of this kind taken for three lives? According to Mr. Fiulainsun'e mode of calculation, • lease conferred fur three limo was equal to 73 years and a half, and was nearly sufficient to extinguish the expectancy of an heir. (Wear.) The Bishop of Gloucester had enfranchised the estate, by which one-third of the advantages of the enfranchisement eamo to himself. Here at least they had the fact, that one of the most valuable estates of the church, which had been taken possession of by the Ecclesiastical Commissioner under an order of council, was absolutely at this moment alienated from it for the period of three lives, by a lease granted by the Bishop of Gloucester to himself. They had been told that the Bishop of Gloucester had benevolent intentions with re gard to the estate, but even supposing he had, what guarantee was there as to the proper disposal of the proceeds ? If the bishop died intestate, it might be said, perhaps, there was a moral obligation that his heirs should give up the estate; but they weld not be , compelled to do so, and probably might say they felt justified in keeping it, out of regard for the memory of their parent. (A laugh.) Besides, men often changed their minds, and the mind ova bishop was as variable as that of others. They had been told that what the bishop had done was perfectly legal. He admitted its legality; but more shame to the legislature for making it so. (Ilear, hear.) It was because legislation for the church b ad' been left to the bishops, that such • power was allowed to continue as it had done up to the present time. Still he maintained that moral obliga tion had been violated by the transaction. it was clearly shown that a moral suspicion attached to the act, because the bishop would not grant the lease to himself. The legislature swilled originally to have thought the sacred character of the bishops a sufficient guarantee that the pro perty of the church would not be alienated, but in subs*• quent times, when it was found not to be so, various laws were passed, restraining and limiting the powers of tho td. shops. There was first, the 13th of Elizabeth, which al luded to the abuses then existing, and the intention of parlias went with respect to them, and provided that no leases should be granted beyond 21 years, or for more than three lives. Then came the act of 1836, which made it compulsory on the bishops to render a return of their incomes to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But, as he had already said, they were told that the bishop had benevolent intentions and designs, though they had not yet been carried into effect, nor had any one ventured to describe the character of them. (Hear, hear.) In his opinion, bishops of the church held their lands and projerty under the highest morel responsibility. They were expected to set an example of piety, self-devotion, and indifference to worldly interests , and tube the teachers and guides of others in the higher and more important duties of life. A right rev. prelate the other night, in a debate connected with the church, said the church was weakened because her divine mission was forgotten and not acknowledged. lie would really ask by whom was this forgetfulness displayed? When—said the honourable gentleman, in conclusion, — we look at the return recently laid on lia table, on the motion of my hon. friend (Sir B. Hall), and the description there given of tho pro ceedings in their episcopal arrangements—the scramlilinp: which there goon—the way in which they take care of each other—how one is said to get 1,0001. a year more than another, the one who receives the 1,000!. • year less never paying in what he is directed to pay—and how those who receive 3,0001. or 10,000!. • year more than they are entitled to make no return—when we see the manner in which three prelates have received in the last fourteen years a quarter of a million more than the act of Bement intended they should receive, I say it is who forget the high mission of tho church. (Loud cheers. And when we are accused of making attacks on individuals, I answer it is only by individual example that great abuses can be exposed and rooted out. (Hear.) On all these occa sions it is the church that suffers. (Hear.) We are told we ought not to attack venerable prelates. (Hear, hear.) Let me ask this question. Take the quarter of a million which has gone into the pockets of the three prelates I have alluded to how many: curates might it not have provided for ?--to how many poor cottage's might it not have brought home the blessings of reli gious truth ? (Cheers.) And when I am told that the prelate we are attacking is old and iatrm, I ask what is the number of poor people old and infirm too who have been deprived in their last days of the blessings of religious con solation—who have seen their children sink into nee, ;their sons sent to penal settlements—their families dispersed, criminals and convicts, to the hulks or the gibbet—and themselves brought down broken-hearted to the grave ? and how many might have been saved from ruin if that which was bequeathed for spiritual parpaes by the bene volence of our forefathers had aft been, b the bishops of the established church, diverted them is pur poses—if they themselves had not been the imostators, the robbers, and the plunderers of the gossolbeis It wen their divine mission to guard, and if deg Waft dems Injustice to that chunk sad destroyea imeddeseelejat faith of which they were appal*** Os goariana, of which they ought to have bees ilha Madam CLIO aeon.) Mr. GLADSTONE MI art oareled - Shit She honour able member would WM 11 1 • 1 11 441 OW Ss Lion of his statement d the other ohne Ws = mon of the revenues of the sem of Oloomelor sal Ilebtol, and • violent attack on the bishops pas= scribing them as robbers devastat sad pl In 16M the finesses of robber, see at r wen set 9,3001., se the ken . mamba stated, b eg . a year, sub. Ire jest to • destostica of MK He lib that the bishop bad resalved • serplus of WOOL eierlii proper Moons. Yaw, ho mall not find anything la She means before the lam which et all justified seek se swertioa. (Hear.) The somause In 1844 were 3,300/. ; in 1643, 3,4001.; in 1816, WISSI. ; in 11116. 2,9001.; in 1848, 6,0001. ; in 1849, 4,5001.; eel be IMO, 3,9001. That was the list for seven years, sad 6 would puzzle the ingenuity of the hon. mambas to mobs sat frame it the surplus of 31,0001., which he alleged had been received from the-- Mr. HORSIIAN said he meant from the year UAL • Mr. GLADSTONE did net think Mr. 11011•111111 meld viadisehe bh solomeat if be flamisi it oa the basis of the Skid premoted to Ys- beam. He folly concurred ebb the Me gentleman so to the duties of the Hamm seal es to the view which be lea of their position, hut, eed empeasibllities. H. eimenned with every syl lable be had otterei es this subjeet in the ab ased. hat Ss woe bassi Se say that our law and poillisal etroagomeste proomied sa diEsreat ides- and treppoillens. Em s booft.) An to the miser of Hoolleld, Es sesotion div ( ided bu ff foto two poiato—b*, wisdom the Mk" of Glom:edge Wham a course that west for the Swam of this hose ; amid, secondly, wisest an hon. member of this lease hod szendeed dae Mirage sod an is the stobemat which be bed ealmittal to thebrew, owl is wide ea ewe semisn he had hoes* op the beam to • very high pitch of feoliog. The has. member had midi, here is poverty which has bees alienated from tics church. The his. ostiense bad stated 'settee whisk was very At he the embleellien of the Weep et Oleneseler, bat the BLOB* Olooeunse bail eel l i to gi rest halation et dare what taw bon. le Japans. As tar as vri be bad doese,C a la u ressed ble bid power. Let an es Math be wads the Siam et elenseitot hr les vistatien of alsehne fee the Wash et co- . IlpflaSMS whist Mee ben tbir fueler wet at de bee of A weal& i Mass. Ifletever Wait be nations of the Nay of olsnmbr he seal sat sae that be was Wend to &elm then ihnlises at the resent me. mat. Se knew ne mealismea who wishes lesion them. Übe were to de se. I Weald . deprive Ns of ell faeons, whatever aet he night sentemplats psehemies as the part of tbc church. He tbseibt the Bishop et Cliansealsr would act on his own dime*. It he saw IINININIS V MS to the church; but it wee ant Me sendona beforehand merely beams the his had Wrested bia bi trl great power, which yes bid net the slightest Willed.= of his intending to ahem. H. would state what were the main allegations of theme of the ben. gentleman according to the impression they made upon his mind the other night. The first point was that bishop deep at a certain period before his death determined to renew the lease of the manor of Horfield, but to let it nut eat he the benefit of the church. Tbe hon. gentleman had quoted a letter to-night, writen by the son of Bishop 'Trey, which declared that so lately as a few months before his decease au offer was made to Bishop Grey, which he refused because the offer was inadequate; and the hon. gentleman had given a contradiction to his own statement that Bishop Grey had determined that there should be no renewal of the lease. The second allegation was that Bishop Orey had been bound by Lord Melbourne to renew the lease during his incum bency. The hon. gentleman had admitted that he had spoken from presumptive evidence. Mr. HOIUSMAN-1 did not admit anything of the kind. Mr. GLADSTONE had understood the hon. gentleman to withdraw his allegation on that subject. The hon. gentle man, an a former occasion, had spoken of it as a matter which was not within his personal knowledge. It was, at all events, a matter beyond reasonable doubt. What the hon. gentleman had now stated was entirely from inference and presumption. As to Bishop Allen, what did he say that Bishop Allen did with the lease of Horfielll He read a letter in which he said he thought it right that the Ec clesiastical Commissioners should take the lease of Horfield into their own hands, but they were not to preju dice the personal rights of Bishop Allen—(hear, hear) —they were to become purchasers of his lease, as a lessee would have been a purchaser. So that he said again that the evidence which he had quoted from Bishop Allen destroyed the hon. gentleman's own statement, be cause his statement was that Bishop Allen was determined to sacrifice his own personal interest, and not to renew the lease. He (Mr. Gladstone) said, on the contrary, that this letter showed that he had not an intention to sacrifice his interest at all. Then the hon. gentleman had referred to a letter of the bishop, and this reminded him of a remarkable part of the statement of the hon. gentleman, which had beet receired:ssith tumultuous cheering. The hon. gen tleman said, iss a former occasion, when the secretary to the Ecclesiastical COUVIII/181017, wrote to the bishop, that the bishop wrote back that he knew nothing of moral obli gations, but meant to stand on his legal rights. Did the hon. gentleman adhere to that portion of his statement? Did he understand the hon. gentleman to adhere to that portion of his statement ? Mr. HORSMAN.—I adhere to all I said before. I will not adhere to the right honourable gentleman's representa tion of what I said. Mr. GLADSTONE—It would be open to the hon. gen tleman or those who agreed with him, to object to his (Mr. Gladsteine's) misrepresentation. Ile distinctly stated the lion. (gentleman to have imputed to the bishop in writing, and in speech that ho did not know anything about moral rights, but that he intended to stand on his legal rights. That allegation had totally fallen. Then he under stood the hon. gentleman distinctly to state, and that was another of the capital points in the case, that when arrange ments had been made between the ecclesiastical commis sioners and the bishop, the arrangement was stopped ut the last moment in consequence of its being depicted as a job. Did the hon. gentleman adhere to that portion of his state ment ; or hail he nit given up one jot or tittle in support of that portion of his statement ? And the absence of evi dence on this point was an argument not mate rial, because the honourable gentleman well knew that distinct allegations had been made elsewhere ; that the failure of the arrangement had nothing to do with the disapproval of its merits, but it had failed simply upon a technical and legal point. The hon. gentleman knew that a statement had been made, and the hon. gentleman, in the course of two hours, had not found himself able to bring in one tittle in opposition to it. These appeared to be the most important allegations of the speech of the hon. gentleman ; and they finished only by the speech he had delivered to-night. lie hod laboured, and he thought un necessarily, in his statement as to the letter of the Bishop of Gloucester to the rural deans of his diocese. The hon. gentleman said, that a statement had been made in another piaci°, to produce the impression that no letter had been written by Bishop Grey. He assured the hon. gentleman that he was entirely wrong. Ile had taken his statement from a report which it was not safe to rely upon. The statement most distinctly was this, that no letter had been written by the Bishop of Gloucester of the nature to which the hon. gentleman had alluded. What was the charge made by the hon. gentleman es to this letter ? that the Bishop of Gloucester had written a letter, in which he treated, as disparaging to himself, the idea that he wet about to renew the lease. That was the charge made by the hon. gentleman, but the Bishop of Gloucester did not treat the idea of renewing the lease as disparaging, that which the Bishop of Gloucester treated of was merely the renewal of the lease in the particular form in which he thought it convenient. Hero were the words of the bishop in the letter itself. He said he regretted to learn that the report of his intention to regrant the lease for years of lives, had been spoken of in terms of condemnation. In another part he said he had received a letter from a friend, telling him he had heard of his intention to regrant the lease on the same tenure. It was said that the renewal of the lease was that of which the bishop had spoken as dis graceful to himself, and therefore that part of the charge fell away, because the hon.member said he had renewed the lease, and treated the matter in a manner which was dis graceful to himself. If the hon. gentleman thought that the Bishop of Gloucester was capable of falsifying his letter, there was the letter, us published by the author, in the highest terms of authenticity. Mr. lIGItSMAN—f quoted from the parliamentary blue-book. . _ _ GIADSTONE —He was speaking of the hon. gentleman's statement. This statement was that the Bishop of Gloucester had treated as disgraceful and driparaging to , himself a report that he was going to renew the lease. Ho , said the statemeut was that he treated as disgraceful • report that he was going to renew the lease fur lives upon , that particular tenure. It might be said that they objected to the bishop having a joint power of lessor and lessee. , That was entirely a different case. As far as he had been able to follow the statement of the hon. gentleman, he had entirely . failed in proving his own case with regard to the imputation which he threw upon the Bishop of Gloucester. The case of the Bishop of Gloucester, as he uademased it, was this : he had made use of rights which he possemsd in common with every other oceissinslisal proprietor. Tee might say that ecclesiastical privet/ seed not to poems such right, ; that was open to oppeesmie to allege, bat lee said that opinion upon the merle of the system wee case thing, and misrepresenting and mhusistnnag the esedact of a man who acted under the epolem, was eareher matter altogether. As far as a dlMimaYsm'esti ha takes between Horlield and the acts of seeleilmeisel proprietom ia general, he said that the dis timid= wee in favour of the ishop of Gloucester. He had bees new with munificent intentions towards the church. He bed a perfect confidence in his worth and in his honour; sad ia his belief the bishop did not intend to act upon the peisoiples which he had laid down ; but he had dotingly ststsi that he thought it was his duty to make the lease seleavisat to the interests and purposes of the church. In the *et as respected the fine to be taken on the renewal of the loses,; it met with favour from the ecclesiastical com seleshimen. Each ecclesiastical commissioner had described it as liberal, demanding acknowledgement on se alant of its liberality. 'Then as to destination which it was intended to give to the money to be received, it seemed perfectly clear that the intention of the Bishop of Gloucester wan, that he bound himself, in this printed paper which he had addressed to his clergy, to apply the greater part of whatever money he might re ceive for the renewal of the lease to the very purposes which the hon. gentleman considered so desirable to pro mote, viz., the augmentation of small livings, and to the maintenance of higher stipends to the poorer clergy of his diocese. He hoped these thirty would be recollected, that the generosity of those intentions which the Bishop of Gloucester was proved to have entertained at a certain period, would not be taken to be mere acts of hypocrisy on his part. As the hon. gentleman and the house also looked to the good of the church, he hoped that they would exercise that care in ascertaining all the details which was to con ducive to the public interest, and so compatible with the dignity of their own characters as members of the house. Mr. HORSMAN observed, that as to the Bishop of Gloucester having made ostentatious as to what his after receipts would be, they showed that if he were allowed to hold commenerlarru, ho had received 6,000/. over and above the calculations which be bed previously given. Mr J. GRAHAM said that he was not in the least'''. peas& when ho entered the house this evening, to join in this debate, and he was net sure that it was for the public Wawa that it should be prolonged. Ha was afraid that Ida leaMmightbemlmssereed; at all events silence under these ebeameteaseee, would not be expected from him. In the Mt elate he would wish to observe, that he was not a of the ectlesiutical commission of 1845, and therehre be bed not directed his attention to transactions of tie emeestelea of es eateesibmt date. He wished also 46111.1111 that be bed ibmiteetly, on former occasions, ex primaa Wm. apielea dot the law with regard to the embelastkel emeedeska, gad the amendments of the last meek" wee% is his Welds lodgment, in a satisfactory state. He NUM, of the distinction between the episcopal bed aced the ammoa fund, and had always dieser that the 'Bewares hr 7 years to receive a gives sum, whether raves er = s ee slant disadvan arrimgemeat both to he themselves and the of the clinch. meld have wished that there might have bees sear hetwarance in canvassing pest anorresests sod the erns Incident to an arrangement whisk la lie jambeemet, was inexpedient. He had no ac• sprirlimes milk Si Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, ex cept innit i =iseestas IS INN from intercourse at the be of they WINO smamon members ; but as a tessaber of the shed of Inland, he must my that he Vways heed the WA, ooff Glourester an accomplished aabaisr, a emelores et high reputation--above all, he 111111 my by bed always considered him sot niggardly THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 18, 1851. in postale:7 matters. He bid always thought of hits as an etireisat el Ow church ; be had arrived at aa soar Wad amid 70, with a wire nine and sir realer, and be enamel Its et Ineenvealsat any triniestions wbldt the Yea. member Am Cockermout h had driesbt it was time duty is Twitr meter the notice of the hems on this amiss amid, her one moment, cast on. diode of deed* WIN tbst aped= reputation. (Hear.) He Mug my that with tempest le this transaction the part which he had primarily Man led him to entertain no suspicion whatever either albs motives or of the conduct of the right rev. prelate. He had no doubt, from the terms of the resolutions to which he wagon assenting party that his legal and equitable right to exercise the right whichhe posaased over the manor of Horfield was undoubted. He, after full inquiry, satisfied himself that his right, legal, and equitable was indisputable. He was satisfied that it was the intention of the Bishop of Gloucester to apply the fund which would have arisen to purposes conducive to the benefit of the church and of the diocese. He was sorry they could not have a free conference, because the hon. gentleman would then have found that the bishop would meet him on equal terms in a common tribunal; he would find those right rev. prelates to be as acute as he was. (Cries of Hear, hear," amidst much laughter.) But he appealed to them whether it was • worthy act to hold up the Bishop of Gloucester as a robber and plunderer ? (Cheers.) His bitterest enemy in any grade of life would hardly condescend to attack his character in such a way; and he . (Sir James Graham) almost blushed to hear such expressions as had been used. (Cheers.) He could only say be had satisfied I imself that the bishop had a legal and equitable right to deal with the estate; the bishop was aware of that right, and he (Sir James Graham) hail reason to know that he intended to use it. He altogether disbe lieved that either Bishop Grey or Bishop Allen had hesi tated in the least as to their right to exercise a similar power. He did not believe that Lord Melbourne ever im posed any condition such as had been spoken of. Ho did not believe that Lord Melbourne had any reason to make that stipulation; and if he had it would have been a viola tion of the law. (Hear, hear.) Besides, he did not think that it was consistent with the high and generous character of that noble lord to impose such a condition. (Hear, hear.) Ile thought, too, that the evidence was conclusive, that the bishop's .. predecessors did not exercise the powers they possessed, simply because they did not obtain • hat they considered its lull value. He believed, with his right hon. friend, that the Bishop of Gloucester, in the step he had taken, had placed himself in the position both of lessor and lessee, and could exercise testamentary power complete it all its parts. His (the right honourable baronet's) firm belief was, that while the right reverend prelate would not yield to pressure, nor by giving up anything ap pear to justify the aspersions which had been cast upon him, he would, nevertheless, use the legal and equitable right which he possessed over the estate in a manner that would neither be unworthy of his high position nor disad vantageous to that sacred institution of which he was the trustee. (Cheers.) He (Sir J. Graham) should be very much disappointed if the event did not prove as he had said, and the Bishop of Gloucester might well be content to leave to the event such charges as this which had been brought against him by the hon. member for Cockermouth. lie had lived down all similar accusations up to the present time, and his reputation would survive unblemished, for his acts would falsify the predictions of his enemies. (Cheers.) Sir B. HALL hoped that the government would appoint a commission to inquire into the whole temporalities of the church, _____ . . . Sir It. INGLIS trusted that, if the government listened to this advice, they would not proceed upon the suggestion which had been thrown out that evening, that this bishops were creatures of the state. Mr. AGLIONBY inquired of Sir J. Graham, who had affirmed the legality and equity of the bishop's right, whe ther he was equally satisfied that it was a moral right ? Mr. MANGLES reiterated the question. Sir J. GRAHAM read the rewlution to which he had been a party at the Ecclesiastical Board, awl which declared that the bishop was under no obligation, legal or equitable, to deal with llorfield otherwise than with any other estate ; and added, that he had offered it to the Ecclesiastical Com missioners on very low terms, below the market price. Mr. REYNOLDS complained of the enormous endow ment of the established church of Ireland—the church of the minority. Mr. LENNIRD considered Sir James Graham's answer evasive, and wished for one more explicit. Sir James Graham did not reply, and the subject then dropped. SUPPLY. _ _ . _ The house then went into ieomMittee of supply. Tho first vote was 148,4901. for the consular establish ments abroad. Mr. L ItQL IT ART observed that the committee on of salaries had !commended a •ery _ large re!lucti29, but only a ass ll ana bad actuallj heal made. He complained that there was no properly defined qualifi cation for the consular service, no examination, and no trial, though he admitted that many gentlemen employed in the service possessed very high ability. The case was different in the French consular service, where the candi dates underwent a regular examination, and the organisa tion was admirable. One great objection to our system, as pointed out by the committee, was that it was governed by no general principles. In moving a reduction in the amount voted for this service, he hoped to show to the government that greater efficiency was required. Oa looking through the list of allowances to the different consuls, he found great discrepancies; while one had 1,0001., another, at a more important place, had only 1001. He objected to the arrangement in India, where there was a consul-general and vice-consuls, whose s alaries were high, and might easily be reduced by 001. At Constantinople the expense might be reduced from 1,5001. to 1,0001. ; and at Smyrna, from 8001. to 500/. The bon. gentleman went through the list, recommending reductions on each consulate ; but the low tone in which he spoke, and the noise prevailing in the house, prevented his o bservations from reaching the gal lery. The reductions he proposed amounted to - 16,250/., but he would only move the reduction of the present esti mate by one-fourth that amount. Viscount PALMERSTON said the hon. gentleman seemed to think that the consular service was ill organised, and inferior to that of other countries. Perhaps he (Lord Palmerston) was better qualified to speak of it—(hear, bisar)—and he would take upon himself to say, without any j eseeptiam that no consular service in the world was better than that of this country. (Hear.) Though rUTert be organised in a more regular manner and more maikontably to the notions of the hon. gentleman, anybody who had filled his Mies would bear testimony to the fact that, judging of the elks by the abilities of the consuls and the imam la width they performed their duties, it was the alma ollamileastalar service existing in any country. The dodge of the ermelde were very various and very ar duous ; not matt' had they to perform all kind of duties caseated with the commercial interests on the "pot, but dewy collected valuable information of all kinds, and trans mitted it to the Foreign-office, by whom it was handed to the Board of Trade ; and he ventured to say that in point of efficiency awl ability they were entitled to the highest praise. In speaking of the different appointments tho hon. gentleman had put first and foremost an office held by a gentleman who had had the misfortune, on another occasion and in another country to have a little difference with the honourable member ; of course that consi deration could nut have weighed with him for a mo• meet in wishing to reduce the salary of the consul at Warsaw. (Laughter.) Anybody who knew the scale of expense which prevailed in Warsaw, and who compared the salary of our consul with the salaries of those of other countries, would be of opinion that that salary was rather below than above what was required. The hon. gentleman said that at Paris the consul had 2001. ; why should not the salary be the same at Warsaw ? With regard to the consuls in Wallachia, Servia, and Moldavia, they all had duties more of a political than of a purely commercial nature ; and the parts of the world where they were sta tioned were. those in which we were considerably inte rested, and where it was very important to have parties who could give information both political and commercial. The hon. gentleman said the consul at Constantinople ought to have been reduced, because be (Lord Palmerston) had intended at a future period to abolish the appointment. He had had that intention at one time, owing to want of information, under which the hon. gentleman still but he was now satisfied of the importance of the o la ffi b eZ6 of the necessity of retaining a eonsul-general there. He had not only commercial, but also judicial duties under the treaties with Turkey, and his salary was not more than ma required. It was said the committee bad recommended that the consul at Smyrna should bo reduced Rua 6001. to 5001., but he thought 800/. a very small salary, considering the extent of the duties of that officer. There was great commerce at Smyrna, and the ex pense of living was very high. The cons ulshipi in Syria was created after the campaign of 1841; he had then thought it necessary to have there an officer, not morel commercial but political, of the rank of consul-gene He had since thought that the same reason no lonw existed, and had taken advantage of a vacancy in the secretaryship to the embassy at Constantinople to transfer to Adrianople the consul-general at Syria and to abolish the office, Egypt was in a different position from Syria. It was governed by a Pasha who was hereditary, and as such did not stand in the same position as the governors of other provinces of Turkey. He received revenue in his own trea =gad paid tribute to the Sultan. He was, in fact, to a degree governor-in -chief of the province in which he ow Puha, and therefore, as consul-general, he pos sessed ounneselml ae well as political influence. Moreover, was new the greet thoroughfare for English travellers ,to a , and therefore the consul-general had forced on hint ' the duties of hospitality, which, of course, infringed his imume. (Hear, hear.) In Tripoli ha (L ord Palmerston) lateaded to abolish the consul-goneralstup, and was only Width* for information as to the period of service of the consul-general with a view to submit such to the Treasury, that it might there be considered what compensation he might i t; entitled to. All things considered he thought an consul would be quite sufficient for the perform ' sage of the duties there. With regard to the consuls in I Ilea* Ameriea, they were diplomatic and political, as well • semmenisl elßeers. The hon. member inquired why a I linger astray was paid the consul of Monte Video than the ' etered of Buenos Apes. In the latter place the consul twits merely a commercial officer, whilst in the former he MU ngt se a commercial officer, but also charge d'af rreetive. la Venezuela, so far from the consul having hiai to do, he could assure the house that be had ten , de red moat important service, not alone in that locality, bat also to British commerce, by causing the abolition of the "law of despair," by which law it was attempted to animate the sums due to British creditors. However, the wasal-general backed by the instructions of the ' had been successful; and be (Lord ) hoped that in a short period the claims of Midi merchants would be satisfactorily arranged. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the consuls of North America, he had reduced the salaries of two of them — namely, the consuls at Beaton and New York, to a much lower rate than might appear necessary. But he did so in. ominguenes of the great amount of fees received by them in the last two years, and it seemed to him only fair that, in the event of these fees falling off, their salaries should be increased in proportion. (Hear, hear.) In Algiers he had abolished the o ffi ce of consul, and substi tuted that of vice-consul. In Tripoli he had abo lished the office of consul, as also in Smyrna, without providing any substitute. On the whole, he could see no reason for reducing the salaries of these officers. Yr. ALCOCK felt bound to express his dissatisfaction at the conduct of the consul at Peru. He thought it the duty of a consul to exert himself to facilitate commercial affairs. But in the case of Peru, in " . the important article of guano—(laughter)--he thought the coward had not done his duty. Lord PALMERSTON thought that if guano was not more plentiful , the consul of Peru was not to blame. (A laugh.) Some two or three years since the right hon. baronet Sir R. Peel, who took a deep interest in the pros perity of agriculture, applied to him (Lord Palmerston) to interfere with the Peruvian government, to induce them not to continue the monopoly of guano, hut to permit its exportation in abundance. 1 hey were to ice applied to by him (Lord Palmerston), but without success, the govern ment alledging that the sale of guano supplied them with the means of paying their bondholders; and that if they permitted an increased suppply the prices would fall, and they consequently would be deprived of the means to pay these bondholders. He would not take on himself to say whether the principle of prohibition was or was not a new method of procuring plenty. (Laughter.) He rather thought that, if the prohibition were to apply—at least, the prohi bition to pay the bondholders—it would be submitted to by the Peruvian government more patiently than the agriculturists of England would submit to the deprivation of glum. (Laughter.) Mr. WILLIAMS could not consent to the principle of taxing the people of England for the maintenance of these consuls. He should like to know whether the fees of consuls were accounted fur, and whether they were in addi tion to the salaries? Lord PAL3IERSTON said, with regard to the fees, the consul. rendered an account of them and of the expenses incurred, and they were applied towards the expenses, which were considerable. In some cases, as in North America, the fees were so high as to exceed the expendi ture, sad he had on that account thought it right to reduce the salary. After a few words from Mr. Lcnnard and Lord Palmer ston, and from Mr. Urquhart in reply, The committee divided— For the amendment Against Mr. URQUHART understood that Sir James Brooke was engaged in trading tran,actions; and unless he bad to thu contrary, ho could not agreo to the vote. Viscount PALMERSTON was not aware that Sir James Brooke was engaged in trade. Mr. URQUHART must have a distinct assurance on the point. Mr. HAWES could state, on the authority of Sir James Brooke himself, that he had not been engaged in trading transactions since ho had become governor. The vote was then agreed to. 16,090/. fur extraordinary disbursements her ?dainty's missions abroad. Mr. EWART inquired why the promise of the noble lord as to the examination of candidates for the diplomatic ser vice had not yet been carried out ? Viscount PALMERSTON pleaded as his excuse the ex treme pressure of public business. He would with as little delay as possible carry out the pledge he had given. After some further conversation, Mr. UIIQUHART said there was a sum of 2,750/. for in terpreters included in this vote. He objected to the present arrangements regarding interpreters as involving an none oessanly large outlay, and moved that the sum be reduced by 7501. Lord PALMERSTON admitted the desirability of c ploying British born subjects as interpreters in Constan tine d e ; and he had, therefore, some years ago, applied to the Vice-Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge to recom mend two or three young men to go to Constantinople in order that they might acquire the Turkish language there. lie trusted that when the present dragomuis died they would be able to introduce the new system of employ ing British born interpreters. Mr. URQUHART said that the French, Spanish, Prus sian, and Austrian governments had natives of their own country as interpreters in Turkey. Ile should divide the house on the vote. The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place, the vote having been agreed to. The following votes were agreed to : 108,2051. for the superannuation of persons employed in the public service. 3,7501. for the relief of the St. Domingo sufferers. 2,000/. for the vaccine establishment. 325/. for the refuge for the destitute. 4,450/. for the Polish refugees. On the vote of 6,166/. for the dissenting ministers, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that, with regard to the first item in this vote, which was that for the protestant dissenting ministers in England, such a feeling of opposition to its continuance had been exhibited by the dissenting body that the present government, if in office, would Rot place it on the votes of next year. (Hear.) It was placed on the votes this year because it was considered that it would not be right to withdraw it with- Sat notice. Mr. W. WILLIAMS would divide the house against the Tote. Mr. HINDLEY hoped the hon. gentleman would not persist in that intention after the declaration of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer. Mr. KERSIIAW thanked the Chancellor of the Exche quer, in the name of the dissenters, for the course he had expressed his intention to take. Col. SIBTHORP had no faith in the government. They only wanted to get their votes passed, and then have a com fortable prorogation. But it was a serious thing to be tak ing the money out of the pockets of the people without car ing how it was disposed of. Mr. C. LUSHINGTON had come down to the house to Oppose the vote but after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it would be unreasonable to press WILLIAMSMr. W. had received so many representa tions, from all parts of the country, that he had determined to take the sense of the house; but as the government had promised that this should be the very last vote, he would not press his opposition now. He had objections, however, to other parts of the vote, such as the items for French refugees, and preachers in Lancashire. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER told the hon. gentleman, that he would find those matters fully explained in the report of the committee on the Civil List charges. The vote was then agreed to. The next vote was 650/. for the Foundling Hospital, Dublin. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that the vote for the Irish hospitals was more than last year. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the reduction of these votes had been determined upon, but the Lord Lieutenant represented that it was hard they should be reduced at once, and that they should be di minished gradually, at a rate not exceeding 10 per cent. That had been effected in the case of so veral hospitals, but in the case of two it had been shown that great injury would result to the medical school of Dublin, and the government did not therefore purpose to reduce the votes of those two. But he would take care that the subject should receive full COnal deration by next year. Mr. W. WILLIAMS objected to proceeding with those Irish votes at that late hour, and said he should move that the chairman report progress. The vote was agreed to. Mt. AGLIONBY complained that there were still twenty orders of the day to be gone through, and members were wearied out at one in the morning with watching them. The house then resumed, and the chairman reported pro gress. The Marriages (India) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill, u amended, was considered. Verbal amendments were made by Mr. LA noreasan, and the order for the third reading was fixed for Monday. The Collection of Fines (Ireland) Bill passed through with amendments. moved the adjournment of the connected with committee, Mr. BROTHERT-611 Sir W. SOMERVILLE here entreated the house to go on with the unopposed bill ; and Mr. Brotherton gave way. Several orders were then disposed of, others postponed, and at a quarter to two the house adjourned. MCSIC.tL FETE AT MrLCRAVE HOCSE.—Yester day, by the liberality of Viscount Itanelagh, the military musical festival lately held in the Gardens of Chelsea Hos pital was repeatedin the grounds of Mulgrave House, on the banks of the river between Parson's-green and Ful ham. The bands of the six Household regiments, with that of the Royal Artillery, played in concert overtures and selections from the Camp of Silesia, Le Prophctc, and other favourite compositions, with great effect. The com pany was rather select than numerous, owing in part to the clouded sky of the early afternoon. The .Committee of the Hospital for Consumption are anxious by these en tertainments to raise funds sufficient so that the works al ready commenced for building the east wing of the institu tion may be carried on without delay to their completion. THE FRIENDS OF THE PEACIi MOVEMENT had a meeting at the Town.haLl, Manehester, ea Wednesday evening, to appoint delegable ot approssidos Pesos Convention. Tbs 'allowing resolution musiisflod: " That this awAisti. &deer of secortag the posimt extent a state of peeemoolo peace and laelneheok eon believing that the " amps= el Kansas," sounomul la landau on 1 the 2241 kit" ompeeilly eekiell se the ponent junc ture to foam semis bereveleat end Christina *ea. has Weldialsifila preeerlog the knissfoi gentlemen as sepresoot the town et Armhoer, /Maley, Iltandiester in ths sai ge d =eaus to :--Sir iamb not. Geor , Dr. Dailies, George - Hadfield, Wm. Harvey, Philip Thomson, ail Gongs Bradshaw." The Antwerp Company's new iron steam ship Dom Osy, moiler the command of Captain Jackson, mind yesterday morning at St. Katherine's Wharf, with a hill complement of goods and passengers. This, her first voyage, was performed in 18t hone from Antwerp to the Tower. DEATH OF ONE OF THE LIVERPOOL RIOTERS.— One of the rioters, an Irishman, named Mellie, died on Wednesday evening, from the effects of a gunshot wound received during the late disturbances arising out of the attack made upon the Orange procession. ghe erprefigi. TO CO] 11 lidltiast iioiipres. --- ";isTtaT;inie its mai eveaing's Gazette." Is published every Tuesday aad Friday alubt, la dm kr pest Adwartmesaentalatseded far "Ile isprom," maim Essaleg paper, least be at ths Moe, 10, Bouveziesslreet, by Two Olio& oa Use day of riblicatim HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE Tso DA —Morale. M. 611. Aroma's. 31k. Tasessow—Korstsg. Sh. 4215. .A Soma. ak. Cm. LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 18. THE public will learn without surprise that the Jewish Relief Bill has been rejected by the Lords. The question now is what steps ought to be adopted by the supporters of the measure in the other house, and out of doors. It is, however, a question which we believe neither of hese parties are prepared to answer; they have of late been thinking of anything else but the bill, and though pretty certain what was to be its fate, have made no preparations for their next move. Of course it will be again pre sented to, and pawed by, the Commons next session ; and we believe a very moderate exertion will then be enough to prevent the Lords from rejecting it again. Proxies and presents included, 232 peers 'toted on the question, and the majority was 36. This is not a majority that can keep its ground against a pertinacious determination of the people and their representatives. NEITTIER episcopal explanation in the Lords nor popular discussion in the Commons, has at all altered the opinion we first came to and expressed on Bishop ?domes dealings with llorfield Manor. Lc. ally and substantially, it has been alienated from the church by that prelate; it is now his lease hold estate, his goods, his chattels, his personalty ; for three lives, that is, for the next half century in all human probability, it will, under its present tenure, remain the property of the bishop, his repre sentatives, executors, administrators, or assigns; and, whilst it so remains, the church will be deprived of what he or they thereby gain. Dr. 1410xE can, of course, give the church the benefit of the lease he has granted to his own nominee. After having got possession of the estates, and when scandal has been attached to his manipulation of it, he says he will do so. When, therefore, that has been done by good and perfect assurances in the law, the public will treat llorfield Manor as having been rightly and properly dealt with. But until the deeds are signed, sealed, and delivered, the act of parliament obtained, or the applieat ion of the property in some ot her way set tled by law, neither charity nor justice, neither logic norfair dealing, can assent to the proposition, that, in this matter of liortield, JAME ? , HENRY MONK, one of the rulers of our church, as yet "has done his duty in that state of life to which it has pleased Gou to call him." For, in so serious a question of property, no man is entitled to substitute even pub licly announced intentions for their execution, or to demand from his fellow-creatures applause and ap probation for designs which no one ever heard of; until his moral conduct was impugned in consequence of his legal acts. With this expression of opinion, adding, however, thereto, that Mr. llousansx, in bringing to public gaze the whole affair,has deserved well of the country, that the inferences he drew from the evidence before him were fair and reasonable inferences, and that in the laborious task he has set himself of cleansing the Augean stable of English episcopacy, he must be prepared to have his motives aspersed, and his regard for the church depreciated by the corrupt, the un clean, the weak, and the timid ; with this expres sion of opinion we propose to leave the Ilortield case. Not because we think it a small matter ; but because there is an attempt to convert it, and sympa thy for Bishop MONK, into a screen and a cloak for the monstrous state of episcopal "facts rendered to the country by the bishops themselves in their sep tennial returns; and against that attempt it is our chief duty to warn and protect the public. The real questions which those returns have raised, which must and shall be discussed, and which parliament will have to reconsider, are—first, even assuming that recent statutes have fixed at pro per amounts episcopal incomes, ought the bishops to have such means and opportunities of evading the in tentions of the legislature as they now have and now exercise ? and, secondly, have their incomes been fixed at proper amounts? To both these questions we arc prepared to give the most decided negatives. On the former, however, we shall have little con troversy or difficulty. For, to preserve the liberal and large sums parliament consented, at a timo when political parties were so nicely and evenly balanced that episcopacy itself could turn the scale either way, the bishops should enjoy, they will very readily and eagerly agree to be placed on fixed stipends, and to resign all management of the pro perties of their sees. So that, it is the latter gum tion only . which we have seriously to tackle. And m considering it, we may start from this point, the', in no country in the world, in no Chris tian Church, have bishops revenues and advan tages at all approaching to those of this country and of the Church of England. We have now before us two public documents which enable us to form some comparison between the pecuniary position of episcopacy in this and at least two other European countries. They are the French Budget for 18.51, and the Concordat concluded between the Holy See and the Queen of SPAIN on the Kith day of March, 1831. In the former we have the opinion of a . government ex tremely.desirous, from the emergencies of its politi cal position, to conciliate ecclesiastical favour and procure episcopal support, as to the fitting incomes of the episcopacy of France with its 30 millions of people. Aud, more important still, we have in the other the amounts which, in the solemn and de liberate judgment of the SOVEREIGN PONTIFF, are proper and suitable for the due maintenance of the •prelates of Spain—a country in which, be it recollected, there still remain colossal private fortunes, and in which, by this very concor dat, the Roman catholic religion is declared to be the faith of the nation, " to the exclusion of every other." These, then, are early not documents to be treated lightly, or to be disposed of by the illusory remark, that the circumstances are not parallel or comparable. To the comparison then. It appears from the sep tennial returns just laid before parliament, that the cost to the church of English episcopacy—in all 25 bishops—is about 200,0191. a year. In France, we gather from the budget, the cost of its 80 bishops in 1851, is about 42,4801. to the State. And in Spain, the sum total of the revenues the POPE has; sanctioned for its 48 bishops is 61,9901. So that the cost of episcopacy . in England, where one-third at least of the population conscientiously dissents from an episcopal church, is , greater by 157,539/. than in France, where there are one million of dissenters, and by 139,010/. than in Spain, where no other faith than the Roman catholic is tolerated. This, we say, is a contrast as important and suggestive as it is striking; yet it excludes altogether the cost of protestant episcopacy in Ireland, which is a fair element of consideration, but which we have at present omitted, rather than in any way . overlay or embarrass the suect. The Primate of the Church of England has 15,0001. a year and two palaces, the repairs of which —(and their repairs during Dr. HOWLEY'S incum bency cost 60,0001.)—are now a burthen on the church. The Archbishop of Paris has a stipend of 1,6001. a year, with a palace, and a small allowance for " frais d'aablisaement," included in the total cost before given; and the Primate of Spain, the Arch bishop of Toledo, has the same annual sum. The other fourteen archbishops of Franco have each 6001. a year; and its sixty-five bishops but 4001., with residences and similar al lowances. In Spain, the classification, ar• ranged by the Fora, is somewhat more extensive. There, the other eight archbishops have incomes varying from 1,5001. to 1,3001. a year; and the fortyt bishops, from 1,100/. to 4001. a year ; with fts, if, as the concordat runs, " they have not been sold ;" and some 5,000/. a year is allowed amongst them all for the expenses of episcopal visitation : an item wo have also taken credit for in the 61,9901., to which the total cost of prelacy in Spain is limited. Nor let it be supposed that in so fixing the in comes of Spanish bishops, the POPE merely eon ' seated to take all he could get. The contrary was obviously the case. For in regulating the stipends of the cathedral clergy of Spain, and the expenses of maintaining public worship, the POPE has procured from the crown of Spain the concession that both shall be increased "when cir- em stances permit;" whilst in favour of the bishops he has made no such stipulation. We have a right, therefore, to infer that in this, the Spanish concordat, we have a general estimate of what ought to be the incomes of epi9copy in the opinion of Popo Plus IX. and his advisers. Now, making every allowance for all reasonable difference of circumstances between England and these two countries, for the parliamentary duties that we here add to the spiritual and ecclesiastical functions of our prelacy, and for the claims of mar ried life, still the contrast between our episcopacy and those of France and Spain as to incomes cannot be justified or upheld. Whilst there are 6.5 bishops in France with only 4001. a year each, or 26,0001. in all, the gross in come of our bishop of WINCHESTER in 1850 was 28,3881. Os. 7d., or 2,388/. Os. 7d. more than all the bishops of France received by way of stipend from the state. Is this reasonable, proper, or decent ? The fifteen archbishops of France annually cost tho state 8,4001. by . way of stipend; and the nine arch bishops of Spam receive amongst them 124001. a year. Whereas our two archbishops have between them 23,0001. a Tear, or 4,000/. a year more than tho 14 archbishops of those two Roman catholic countries. In 1850, the Bishop of Duniust received 25,419/.; and for that sum in Spain 23 bishops would have been supported; and for the 24,272/. which our own diocesan, Dr. BLoMFIELD, received in 1848, tho a Bishop of 11°31E," as he calls the head of the Ro man catholic church, would in France have kept GO prelates; all equally boasting with him of apostolic descent. It were, however. tedious and painful to pursuo this contrast. Enough has been done to-day, at least, to show that the church gets infinitely more for its money in France and Spain than in England. Yet here wo boast that we arc the more practical people. Vbe Court. The Queen held a Court and Privy Council at ono o'clock yesterday at Buckingham Palace. At the Court the Earl of Derby had an audience of tho Queen, and delivered to her Majesty the ensigns of the most noble Order of tho Garter, worn by his father the late Earl of Derby.—Count Buol-Schatt enstein, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni potentiary from his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Austria, had an audience of the Queen, and de livered his credentials from his sovereign. His Excellency was introduced by Viscount Palmerston, G.C.8., the Queen's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and conducted by Col. the lion. Sir Edward Cast, her .Nlajestv's master of the ecru monies.—Mr. Sheriff Robert Walter Carden and Mr. Sheriff George Edmund Hodgkinson were presented to tho Queen by Viscount Palmerston (officiating for Sir George Grey, the Home Secretary), when her Majesty was graciously pleased to confer the honour of knighthood upon both the sheriffs.—Lord Harris WaS presented to the Queen, on his return from abroad, by Earl Grey, Secretary of State for tho Colonies. The Privy Council was attended by Prince Albert, the Lord President, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretaries of State for the Foreign and Colonial Departments, the Pint Lord of the Admiralty, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan caster, the Lord Steward, the Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Horse, and the Groom of the Stole to the Prince. Her Majesty having been pleased to appoint the Right Hon. Charles Earl of Sefton to bo lord-lieutenant of the county of Lancaster, his lord ship took the customary oaths. The lion. William Bathurst was the Clerk of the Council in Waiting. The Marquis of Lansdowne had an audience of her Majesty. The court was attended by the Treasurer of die Household, Viscount Combcrmcrc, Gold Stick in Waiting, Lord Elphinstone, Lord in Waiting, and Sir Edward Bowater, Goom in Waiting. The Queen and Prince Albert, accompanied by tho Princess Ilelena, and attended by the lion. Lucy Kerr, Lord Charles Fitzroy, and Lieut.-Colonel Francis thigh Seymour, visited the Exhibition of the Works of Induatry of all Nations yesterday morning. Iler Majesty and the Prince remained one hour at the Exhibition, and then returned to Buckingham-palace. The Duchess of Kent visited her Majesty yesterday. l'rincc Albert presided yesterday: afternoon at a meeting of the Commission for Promoting and Encouraging tho Fine Arts in the re-building of the Palace of Westminster. His royal highness arrived at three o'clock at the Palace at Westminster, attended by Licut.-Colonel F. 11. Seymour. The commissioners present were, the Earl of CarlWe, Lord Colborne, the Right lion. Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert 11. Inzlis, Dart. The Secretary, Sir Charles L. F.astlake, and Mr. Aubrey Bezzi were in attendance. The meeting broke up at five o'c l oc k . . . . . Puttee Arthur and the Princess Louisa took an airing in an open carriage and four yesterday. Her Majesty, accompanied by the Princess Alice and As Princess Ilelena, and attended by the Countess of Mount edgcumbe, took a drive in an open carriage and four yes tenlay afternoon. Lord Charles Fitzroy and Lieut-Colonel F. 11. Seymour attended on horseback. The Queen and Prince Albert honoured her Majesty's Theatre with their presence last evening. The royal suite consisted of the Countess of Mount Edgeombe, the lion. Amelia Murray, the lion. Lucy Kerr, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Charles Fitsroy, and Lieut.-Coloacl F. 11. Seymour. The Duchess of Kent, attended by Lady Augusta Bruce, Baroness de Speth, and Lord James Murray, honoured the Royal ltal.an Opera with her presence yesterday evening. The Duchess of Gloucester honoured the Earl and Coun tess of Jersey with her company at dinner last evening, at their residence in Berkeley-square. A. deputation respecting the coal duties had an interview with Lord Seymour yesterday at the office of her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests, in Whitehall-place. The deputation consisted of Sir James Duke, Mr. Morton (Lord Durham's agent), Mr. Taylor (Duke of Northumber land's agent), Mr. Wood (Helton colliery), Mr. Davey, coal merchant, and Messrs. Potter, Hill, and Milne, co4l factors Mr. Tennent, M.P., and Mr. Mae Adam, Secretary to the Royal Flax Society of Ireland, had an interview yesterday with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir George Grey, Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment, is recovering, and was much better yesterday. The Oxford University Commission had a meeting yester day at the official residence of the First Lord of the'frea oury, in Downing-street. Present: the Bishop of Norwich, the Dean of Carlisle, the Mastcr of Pembroke, the Rev. IL G. Liddell, J. L. Dampier, Esq. ; the . Rev. Professor Powell, the Rev. G. 11. S. Johnson, and the Rev. A. P. Stanley (Secretary). A general meeting of the Ecclesiastical Commis‘ionert for England was held yesterday, at their office in White hall-place. FRANCE. nuus, Timm)Ay EVENING. It is hardly necessary to say that the papers are occupied with M. Berryer's speech, which is gene rally admitted to have derived its principal success from the abrupt contrast to that of Michel de Bourges. He said : By assailing the monarchy, M. Michel de Bourges had made an attack upon the history of France. That great stream of civilization, flowing through so many ages, had been represented as a blind, implacable tyranny against the people. He and his friends had demanded revision, not on account of those petitions solicited—snatched—from the po pulation, nor as a satisfaction to their individual opinions; but u the only mcaua of averting the dangers reulting from the situation of the country. The legitimists had accepted the republic ; they had not protested against it, because the country could only be saved by the union of all, and the combined efforts of ad the men of order against the perils which daily menaced it. He should pity tho country if, in s-earch of the least violent transition it continued what was, and embraced the detestable remedy of breaking the law; for he feared no less than the invasion of the enemies of social order the re-election of the present head of the executive. (Interruption.) The royal ists were bound to support revision. The events of Juno had shown in a glaring light the consequences drawn by the muses from the principles defended by the Left of the As sembly, whose orators still rendered homage to the men and times that the whole age concurred in reprobating. Did those who talked of the convention being the Iliad of French history remember that the sons and nephews of its victims were m that Assembly listening to them. It was said that the legitimists had become republicans by accepting the I principles of 178 J. But the republic had killed 1789. Had not Bailly and his great brother-reformers perished on the scaffolds of the:republic ? The liberties of 1789 were founded by • virtuous martyr-king, whilst the republic had delivered the country over to despotism. Later, monarchy had pro cured for France 30 years of prosperity. It was said that the interests of capital and labour could be only recon ciled by the republic, which killed capital The I restoration had not encouraged Utopias, but fos tered the public wealth. It had emancipstsd Greece, and crushed that nest of pirates, Algiers. fbe indemnity to emigres was a just and wise reparation. The icor, of the country had not been, it was true, opened to regicides until 1830 ; but every one remembered the regicidal at tempts which followed. The free charter of 1814 had been, it was true, moditied by repressive laws; but bad not the succeeding monarchy and the republic been obliged alaot have recourse to repressive laws. As to the expression of divine right, that had not been invented by the legitimists ---.- t r~ .1 ~.~ _"; c.: s;'.4