The Express. — London, England, 1847-07-17 00:00:00

2 IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.-1 1 1IDAY, JULY 16. The LORD CHANCELLOR took WE oat at 5 o'clock. PUBLIC BUSINIBIL PETMONS.—TryLeoI laseenarn Dm lie ark CMOs Miner, M.A.. praying for aa smandosed Ole NNW OuoaralntlenAet ; Ban the C«Dorstlaa a/ deialkempOo Or as operative to dos laws of bsakruptcy and benleseey. /Ir. ILOwesr, s u ggesting • pima for impronug the axial emlMlr of the people of Ireland, and playing for a coawaittre to ~ON& SECONI) READINOL—CanaI Coropenirs; Destitute Persons ilreland) (No. 1); New Zolind (N 0.2); Militia Pay; Cop)right Coloairs); Public Weds and Draw* Ilrelend); Constabulary ace (Ireland); Lembo Oldie Aggiessies Pond; Bills. C)MMITTEEB.—Ifet Nselosana (N 0.2) ; Wesel Fisbestee (Prollane) ; Renner, ef Mb Noire (framed); Drainage el Loads (grathout) ; liIIRD READlNGS.—Oempenseisa itir Damages (Indeed) I Drainage of Lands (lrelead); Keck in Trade (Eiconption) Jobil Stook COrapaitif ; Holyhead Harbour; Polling at bonen. (trebled); Bilis. MESSAGES BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. A menace from the House of Commons, brought by Lard J. Rt.:meld. and others, desired a conference, on the cubist of the resolutions passed by their lordships with reference • the conveyance of messages between the two houses of p.. liament. 00 the motion of the Earl of SHATTEaIrURT, the coafew once as elev.ired was agreed to. and the following peers woo nominated to conduct it on behalf of tho House of Lords the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Radnor, the East of Wicklow. Viscount Sydney, Lord Redesdale, Lord Haw furly, and Lord !Stra ff ord. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE reported that the LB& nominated to conduct the conference had met the Cornmeal in the Royal Gallery, where the conference on behalf of the Commons was managed by(Lord John Russell, who had ONO munteated that the Commotos.had resolved, lint, that the resolutions passed by their lordships, with reference to the manner of bringing up menages from the Commons to the Lords, might with public advantage be assented to ; and secondly, that the Commons were willing to receive from the Lords messages brought by one Milan in Chancery, instead of two Masters in Chancery, as heretofore. The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod (Mr. Polman) shortly afterwards appeared at the bar, and announced another message from the House of Commons. The meow. gem having been called in, Mr. Brotherton appeared at their head, and the Lord Chancellor came down to the bar to receive them. Mr. Bratberton handed to the noble and leaned lord a list of the bills sent up, with which list his lordship returned to the woolsack while the bills were carried en moue to the table, by the doorkeepers. Lord ISEDESDALE moved that the list of the bills just brought up and laid on the table. bo read by the clerk of the house. The motion was agreed to, and the list read at length. PUNISHMENT OF VAGRANTS (IRELAND) BILL. CONFERENCE: A message from the Commons, brought by Mr. GREENS and others, desired a conference on the subject of the lords' amendments to the Punishment of Vagrants (Ireland) Bill. The conference was agreed to, and the following peers no minated to conduct tt : the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Radnor, the Earl of Wicklow, Viscount Sydney, Lord Redesdale, Lord Ranfurly, and Lord Stratford. The Martinis of LANSDOWNE reported to the house the 'Commons' reasons for disagreeing with the lords' amend ments to the bill. MUSSEL FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. Lard CAMPBELL moved the order of the day for the committal of the Mussel Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. Lord BROUGHAM objected to making the mere taking of mussels or oysters, which was only a trespass, • felony, as was done by this bill. Lord CAMPBELL said that the fisheries which were intended to be protected were a very valuable property. The bill then passed through committee. HOLYHEAD HARBOUR BILL. Oo the motion for the third reading of this bill, Earl POWIS opposed the bill, but said that he should not divide the hoses on the third reading, but should move that the word " refuge" be struck out, and the word " asylum" be substituted. The Earl of AUCKLAND said a few words in answer to the noble earl, which were quite inaudible. After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE, the amend ment was not pressed, the bill was read a third time, and passed, and their lordships adjourned at • quarter before seven. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY, JULY 16. The SrEALEA took the their at 3 o'clock. PRIVATE. BUSINESS. —Edinburgh and Bathgate Railway (Deviation THIRD REAL__ _. and Amendment) BBL PUBLIC BUSINFS& PETITIONS.—By Mr. Mrs; from merchants and other inhabit ants of Trinidad, praying for a have of assembly, in lieu of the existing form of government.—Viscount Moarrrn, from a place in the Wee Riding of Yorkshire, >o favour of the Juvenile Offenders BUL—Mr. B. O.OIWV, from the gusrdlinia of the Tipperary onion, for relief from the burden of the poor-rotes. and estimating a fear that the rates could not be collected without bloodahed. SECOND READlNO.—Emlesinstical Jurisdiction Amendment Bill. COMMlTTlLES.—Cormandated Fund (Appropriation) ; Fever Hos pitals; BUM THIRD Rh n ., Inekeure (No. 9) BEIL RETURNS MOVED FOIL—On the motion of Mr. IL Sodas. en address to her Majenty to give immediate directions that the maw Houses( Commons, and the buildings connected therewith. be mos pleted without further delay, fen the permanent meepatton of the members of parliament. Return of stamps for bills of exchange based by the Stamp-office in'esch of the years 1840 to 1846, Inclusive. NOTICE: OF MOTION.—Prsuc Buts.—Mr. Dram, on an early day. to move for • return of all the public bills Introduced in the pre sent sermon, with the nsme of their movers. PORTUGAL. Mr. B. OSBORN E said that by the second article of the treaty or convention betweoi the Queen of Portugal an the junta of Oporto, the Queen and the govirnment bound themselves to an immediate revocation of the article sus- pending the liberty of the subject and the liberty of the prese. He saw by the last Mario that a decree had been issued by the Queen, in which she continued the suspension of the liberty of the press and of the guarantees of indivi duals, fur an indefinite period. He wished to know If the noble lord at the head of the government was aware of this and was prepared to take any steps in remonstrance ? Lord J. RUSSELL, who was very imperfictly heard in the gallery, was understood to say that there was no doubt this decree was merely temporary, and would only continua in force until pomace:it arrangements could be made. Mr. ossortsis wished to ask further whether it was true that the French ambassador and the Spanish limbo& sador had entered their proto set against the convention whisk had been concluded by Col. Wylde at, Oporto ? Lord J. RUSSELL said it was true that they had air jected to it. POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL. Mr. HINDLEY wished again to ask the noble lord wird the government proposed to do with reference to the lortY amendsnenu in the Poor-law Administration Bill ? It em evident to everybody in the country that a certain claim had been rejected; and he wished to know what seams would be taken by the government in reference to this clams? Mr. FERRAND begged to add that not lee' *ea members of that house had gone into the country. lambi behind them • pledge to return, and vote for the re- molliefit of the clause alluded to, if the government would propose to the house. Lord J. RUSSELL said he should be very unwilling*. set the precedent of declaring that he would or would not consider certain amendments on the supposition that they would be suede In the other house. (clear.) But as soon as the bill came down to this house, he would desire that the amendments should be printed, with the view of their being taken into consideration on Monday next; and, at the same time, he would eignity the coarse which the government proposed to pursue. Mr. FERRAND asked if they were to understand that the bill would cease down this day ; otherwise, it could not be blought forward on Monday ? Lord J. RUSSELL believed that the bill bad been read a third time in the House of Lords on the preceding day ; and it would probably come down that evening. Mr. YERRAND asked the noble lord to give a pledge to the house that the bill should not be brought forward till a rather late period on Monday, to enable hon. members to come up. Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to decline to do so. METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS. Sir It. INGLIS mked whether there *many hope of the Chelsea embankment being carried out in the present year, after it had been unanimously 11001111/11111111141 by the Commis sioners of Metropolitan Imimuromemik. some arced by the Lords of the Treasury, and strengthenedlya caste of 20,0061. ? Viacount KORPETH said it was glebe true the Treasury bad authorised the advance of .2f4,0001 fir the Chelsea em bankemmt,,but tile commenema of the works had bean meeeeril tiliami•mill apromma gal be angst MN with At egeMemiand. *MOM _properV. dam of the AgegothAliwilgi Migaried Witt groat Malty, but '..tacithittg wad begranling on As part of the Train , to Agility* tile pram atilt Sir It. INGLIS. Mai tist i rr i" mailas of the noble lord me the bead of the govomast respasig the improvements ks .Covontipertion. The Deka 01;110dford had at tint stored to Om the ram of 10,000 L towards this improvement. ri• e use than willing to saddle ids property with a rate of I 00/. more. He further gave 1,0001., ; and on there being st m a OOfluency of hinds, ha oared to lend the sum re. qu tise 42,0001., declining to take more than four and a half p s , • sent. interest. Alter all, this offer, so munificent in ices If. and ao likely to lead to liberality in others, had been / t iff, Mitt* rill without being accepted by the goverment. Th e o t i.v.cireurnstanos which he could suppose had jailo r.om the government to decline it wm the fact of the noble duke being the brother of the noble lend at the head of the „y en: , want ; but the metropolitan improvements ought not to et a, v from any delicacy on the part of the noble lord. Lord J- :RUSSELL said that his right hon. friend had come d y noted the facts, as to me amount offered by the Duke of t ImMord for the ;Impose of the new street. But. w i th - rem dto his further inference, thatle si government ed b t h e l ege power of doing what we, pro —he had to mete t h a t, saidering the mount to oh' the Coal duties were now eha.Ked, they could not hamelfeeted this improve ment without s ihgesKst the coal duties to charges beyond t h e amoun t with eslbilitithel . were at present chargeable by law. It wad, tiliaggibm, ye been necessary lir Introduce a bill for the sam'lly OM for his part, both o u t of piece and in ° s ok 10 0 hail low of opinion that this was an objec tionable/ma whastrie derive funds. (Hear, hear.) Ho shay timillms have unit tale same answer to the of any Wpm penes as Ulm* done to that Of the M P e c tl DeKtird. 1 s (lasseakdr et do Exchequer and himself had eetasymlfitlb =Or My: tat; oat it woo not from any herd beinageppentil At imendoeffis brother that the offer hadbean minmelc bat tom tie maddorations which he had stated. ground for the home to interfere. He believed the son of the late Sir E. Wilmot was a person of ability and intelligence, but he did not think the house ought to interfere to fetter the discretion of the crown. • THE RAJAH OF SATTARA. Mr. HUME wished to take this opportunity of correcting some erroneous statements which were made in answer to his speech on • former occasion. It had been stated that the rajah was not an independent prince ; this he denied, and quoted facts to prove it. But if he was not a sovereign, why deny him the trial of a subject Let him, at all events, have justice as a subject. (Hoar.) The hon. member then proceeded to canvass the document' which had been brought forward on a former occasion by Sir J. C. liobhouse, and to matend that they were unworthy of credit. He then alluded to the conduct of Mr. Spooner and Mr. Hutt, the officers employed in carrying out the sentence on the rajah, and entered into • very lengthy detail to prove the charges of perjury and forgery against the rajah's accusers, and that he had been imprisoned until he was in duced to make a confession implicating himself. Ile had placed a notice on the paper, and he understood there would be no objection to his now moving, "That her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this house copies of the overtures made to Purtaub Sing, twenty years Rajah of Satter', and now an exile at Benares, to the effect that if be would renounce his claim to the sovereignty of Sattara, he should be allowed to change his place of resi dence, and enjoy other advantages in return for his compliance with these degrading proposals; also copies of the orders by which them overtures were made; also copies of the answer of the ex-rajah to these overtures; and, also, copies of the correspondence be tween Major Carpenter, the officer in charge of the ex-rajah at &norm, and the governor-general, and the secret com mittee of the court of directors in England on the subject. That her Majesty would also be Famously pleased to com ply with the petition of the ex-rajah, presented to her Ma jesty? in 184.5, and grant him such a trial as the poorest pea sant in her Majes4's dominions is by law entitled to claim." Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE said he was eertainly not prepared for this debate being revived. As the hon. member had only now answered what he had stated 12 days ago, per haps the most convenient course for the house would be, for him to take other 12 days in which to reply. (Laughter.) The right hen. baronet then re-stated the circumstance' at ' tending the rajah'. trial, and contended that he had been most fairly treated throughout. The person on whose evi dence it was sought to prove that there had been a eonspi • racy against the rajah, was one who had himself been con victed of forgery. He believed, from the statement of Mr. Hutt, which was certniely worthy of credit, that the story of the confession being extorted was wholly unfounded. The case of the ex-raja bad been examined by screed successive governments iii E ngland and India, and all of them had come to similar de. thous—which decisions bad been more than once confirmed by the House of Commons, and backed by the India-house and their servants in India. Under such circumstances, be was certainly surprised that the hon. gen tleman should continue to press this matter Cu the attention of the house. CONFERENCE WITH THE LORDS. Lord J. RUSSELL appeared at the bar, and stated that the Lords wished to have a conference with the Commons, in the royal gallery, but we could not ascertain on what subject. Several members then left the house, for the purpose of attending the conference. On the return of the managers, on the part of the Com mons, Lord J. Russets., announced the result to the house. Another conference was subsequently held on the Punish ment of Vagrants (Ireland) Bill. Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE having resumed, stated that the government of India bad a perfect right to dethrone the rajah, and take posaefsion of his dominions, instead of which they had placed his brother on the throne. which had given rise to the jealousy that had (*wad this matter to he so vigorously prosecuted. He was convinced, however, that what had already been done must be maintained, and he, I therefore, should oppose the motion. Gen. MORRISON made a few obserrations, which were quite inaudible in the gallery. Mr. WAK LEY would ask the right hon. hart. the Presi dent of the'Board of Control, if he thought the matter could remain where it was? Would the people be satisfied to see a man deprived of his possessions, and banished, without even the justice of a trial? (Hear, bear.) He regretted to say that it was almost impossible to get one government to review and reverse the decisions of a former government. He believed the right hon. gentleman's mind had been prejudiced in this case. It was painful to hear his hon. friend the member for Montrose, who had done so much for liberal principles in this country—to whose exer tions for thirty years it was mainly owing that reform had been carried, and that a liberal government was now in office—who had saved the people of this country thousands upon thousands of taxation, implore the government to grant a simple inquiry into this case, and to be refused. (Hear, hear.) And what did he petition for? Not that the rajah should be pronounced innocent, but that the question of his guilt or innocence should be inquired into. (Hear.) But he had said that the right hon. gentleman was influ enced by others in this case. Ho made this allegation because he held in his hand a statement made by Captain Copt*, a gentleman holding a respectable position in society, ' which stated that in an interview which he had with the right hon. baronet, the right hon. baronet raid that he would support the deposition of the rajah whether it was right or wrong, and that he would punish those who agi tated in his favour. He (Mr. Wakley) contended that a great injustice wsa!done in the case of the rajah, and if he had a seat in the next parliament, and could get eleven others to join with him, he would stop the supplies till • trial was ob tained. He thought that he was bound to take such • COMIC Lord J. RUSSELL said that some remarks had been made by the hon. member for Finsbury which he thought called for a reply. When this question had been before under discussion he did not think that the hon. member for Montrose had made • fair allowance for his right bon. friend, in discharging what he conscientiously believed to be his public duty. He (Lard J. Russell) might have said things of that hon. member which he ought not to have said— (hear, hear,) end which he regretted having said. dHear, hear.) There was so member in that house who, uring a long public life, had laboured more zealously in the public cause, and he would be sorry if he used any expres sions which were inconsistent with that sentiment. (Hear, hear.) But, whilst he said that, it was too much to infer that, because the hon. member for Montrose brought forward a case, there should, therefore, be an inquiry into it. With regard to this case of the Rajah of Sattara, there - .must be an end of trials, as there was an end of them in other oases. Suppose a new trial were granted, and that the decision were against the rajah, why should not another trial be asked for ? This case had been investigated by those who were best acquainted with the circumstances. His right hon. friend thought that the decision which had been come to was a right decision, and bewas of opinion that the government ought to support it. With respect to the statement of Captain Cogan, which had been read by the hon. member for Finsbury, he thought the house would agree with him, that it was such • tissue of im probabilities that it was not worthy of being listened to. Sir J. HOBHOUSE begged to lay a few words to the house in reference to the personal charge against him which had been read by the hon. member for 1' insbury, and to state what had occurred between Captain Cogan and him self. The right hon. baronet then stated that Captain Cogan had been recommended by him to Lord Palmerston to settle a treaty with the Imaum . of Muscat; that having executed this mission, he called at Bom bey, on his return home, and entered into corre spondence with the agent* of the Rajah of Setters. When he came to England he called upon him at the Board of Control, upon which he (Sir J. Hobhouse) told him, that be ing employed by the government on another service, he hail no business to go out of his way to make himself an agent of the rajah. If gentlemen looked into the blue book, they would find that he bargained for being an agent of the rajah at the rate of 1,5001. • year. He did not blame him for gel- ling his services at that rate, if they were worth it. On the first opportunity, he (Capt. Cogan) -detailed what he called the conversation between them, but which he (Sir J. Hob house), declared never occurred as he stated it. (Hear.) Mr. OSBORNE regretted that the hon. member for Fins bury brought forward the statement of Capt. Cogan. If private conversations were to be thus detailed there would be en end of all confidence. (Hear) He was glad that the noble lord, with that chivalry which was supposed to belong to him, made the amends honorable to the hon. member for Montrose. (Hear, hear.) It only remained for him to make it also to the unfortunate and ill-treated rejak of Setters. After a few words from Mr. WAILLET, in explanation, Mr. B. ESCOTT said that the Rajah of Satter* hail never been tried because he never received a copy of the charges against him. If the rejah were present at the trial, he was not placed in a position to rebut the charges made against him, seeing that he was deprived of all the ordinary mean' of defence ; while the daily bread of his judge* to some ex tent depended on his being convicted. From beginning to end the requidtes of justice were not complied with. Par. don was offered to the rajah on the condition that he should admit his own guilt ; a mode of proceeding which added in. dignity to injustice. It was admitted that the highest autho rities of the India House were in favour of inquiry; and no friend of the government ought, under the circumstances, to resist It. _ _ The subject then dropped. POOR.LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL. Oaths question that the Lords' amendments be considered, Lord J. RUSSELL said, he would now state the course which the government meant to pursue with respect to the thief amendments in this bill. On the motion of the hon. member for Evesham, a clause had been inserted in that house by the decision of a majority; while another clause, providing for the admi‘nen of rate-payers to the meetings of guardians, was agreed to without a division. His own opinion had been adverse to the introduction of the first clause ; but after the decision of the house, and considering that the attendance at the time when it was pronounced was better than it was likely to be again, be should be disposed to support the decision of the hou e, and would propose that the clause which had been expunged by the lords should be misserted. With respect to the other clause which the brie lei also expunged, he was dbuossed to woe to the eamaeat. Mr. WALLY iheasht the Delis Iced had exercised a very who dieuestioa In oho nem el the ant clause which he had mmaenad, nal be sash regretted that be had not taken the arm maim with to the second. Mr. CHRISTOPHER eo soldered it utterly impossible for any board of aliesrdiens to undertake the administration 04 the law if the beerd•roorn were open to all the rate pewee. (Hear, hoar.) Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to prepose, and the house to consent, that the amendments should be further considered on Monday. BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER BILL. THE LATE AIR M. WILMOT. Sie C. DOUGLAS salmi whether E wu intended in any .7a r r ot tre any paevtalen fee the featly of the late Sir E. Lord J. ItIIIMMILL did not :Dial than woo any public On th; order of the day Yoe ramming the adjourned debate, ..... Mr. HUME said he considered this bill a violation of the compact of 1886 by which it was arranged that, only in the event of the union of the nee of Bangor and Bt. Aaaph THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1847. should a bishopric be created for Maoahastar. Seeing that that union was not now to take place, the case originally contemplated had not arisen, and the bill proposed a appropriation of of public mosey. The crown had, in fact, through its advisers, directed conualisioners to Meet, in order to do that which was contrary to law. He could not but remark that in the majority in the division list of the pre vious evening, there were 90 tones, 30 members of the government, and 18 liberals. Where were the 300 whip? (Laughter.) They ought to be in their place, but they were not. (Hear, hear.) Ile hoped the noble lord at the head of the government would reconsider a bill so much against the tenor of his whole course of conduct. The hon. member concluded by moving the postponement of the committee till Monday. Sir W. MOLESWORTH said he would take every fair means of resisting the progress of the bill. He believed that the present number of bishops was sufficient ; and if it were not, the best and obvious course would be to relieve biehopa from their legislative duties. Mr. J. COLLETT supported the amendment. Mr. V. SMITH said the right hon. baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, bad stated on the pre vious evening that no one would be pledged to the appoint ment hereafter of any additional bishops by voting for the bill. If that were so, he would ask the noble lord (Lord J Russell) why the words in the preamble on that subject were to be retained,? (Hear, hear.) He saw no:reason why the house should retain words which might hereafter be said to have pledged parliament, by implicaisen, to the principle in volved. There could be no occasion for objecting to the postponement of the preamble, if the noble lord would con seat to the erasure of the words in question. Sir J. GRAHAM, before the noble lord answered the question, wished to state that, even though the alterations suggested were made, he should still seek to alter the preamble so fur as related to the exclusion of the new bishops from seats in the House of Lords. Lord J. RUSSELL, before adverting to the question of the hon. member for Northampton, must say one word more as to the statement of Mr. Hume that this bill sanctioned the violation of the compact of 1838. The whole of the state ment in the first report amounted to this—that the commis sioners were not then prepared to recommend any addition ' to the number of episcopal sees. Now that that report made in 1835 was to be considered bindiag in 1847, and for all sub sequent time, was an interpretation which he could not place upon it—(hear)—now that regarded the compact itself. As to the interpretation putupon it by Sir J. Graham, that right hon. gentleman had argued that though it was right to create a bishop of Manchester, it was proper to stop . there, and not to violate the rule that bishops on their nomination should be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. Now he (Lord J. Russell) begged the house to observe how all this argument hung together. If it was right only to create the bishopric of Manchester, then it was argued that it was right not to allow one bishop to be excluded from the House of Lords. That appeared to him, he admitted, a logical con sequence. But her Majesty's government had taken quite a different view of this awe. They did not think it right to lay down that the wants of the church would be satisfied by the creation only of one additional bishop. (Hear, hear.) He must say that he thought there were grounds for that decision. He did not think it right, having a church intended for the population of the country, to say that from tine to time, the circumstances of the church should not be suited to the varying circumstances of the time. (Hear, hear.) In all other churches it was considered fit and proper to increase superintendence as it might be required; and surely because the church of this country was united with the state of the country, it was not to be said that she was the only church to be made an exception to so salutary a principle. Surely it was but reasonable that when tke population increased, and the clergy increased, roper. inteneierce should increase also. Every mercantile house, every railway company, in proportion to the busi ness to be done, would increase the superintendence of their respective concerns ; and surely what applied ' to civil would equally apply to ecclesiastical bodies. ' • Well, then, what was their proposal ? The preamble (which he would propose in this case not to postpone but to consider ' first), recited the terms on which the bishoprics commission was issued, by the sovereign. That recital was a recital of a question of fact—not of a question in which the house was to legislate. But, reciting that fact, he considered it necessary to adhere to the words in the preamble, because he held, as he had said before, that new bishoprics might be and ought to be created where necessary, without seats in the House of Lords. He would not wish to bind the house to the crea. tion of four new bishoprics—the number might vary with varying circumstances. But if such bishoprics were to be created at all he thought it very desirable that no larger num• ber of bishops should have seats in the House of Lords. He thought it desirable that there should be no addition to the number, because he considered that the church was fairly represented in parliament already—that an addition to the number might give rise to jealousies among the dissenters—and because, as the commissioner of inquiry themselves represented, the expense of taking a seat in psrliament was very great and burdensome upon bishops on their first appointment. On these grounds be thought we ought not to limit ourselves to the creation of one new bishopric, and ought not to admit any additional number to the House of Lords, and he, therefore, proposed to adhere to the preamble as it now stood. (Cheers.) Mr. TRELAWNY reverted to the general question. Whilst the working clergy were so ill paid, we ought to do nothing more for the episcopacy ; and for his own part be felt some doubt whether more bishops were wanted at all. In the part of the country from which he came, the bishop, for example, had been the great cause of injury to the church, and certainly his example did not lead them to desire another. _ Lord CLEMENTS deprecated the hurrying a measure of such importance through parliament in the last week of the sssaiou. An opposition offered to a bill like the pre sent, brought forward at such • period of the session, and under such circumstances, could not be compared to the rise of rms .l f l t e h lte he Reform B w ill ere or de t v h e ised Co to rti• g tw e e °;:li ffect e : l : ll343 pop . ular inTl o ee ption as against a majority of the house. After some further conversation as to the circumstances under which a minority would be justified in using the forms of the house to defeat any measure, Mr. COLLETT coruicnted to withdraw his amendment, but intimated ho would still use every means the forms of the house allowed to defeat the bill in its future stages. --- - On the preamble being read, Sir J. GRAHAM moved the omission of the words bay ing reference to those additional bishopric'. The question was whether an addition to the number of kishope, or the parochial clergy, was most desirable to supply the spiritual wants of the people, and he certainly did not think there was any necessity for an increase of bishops. He might be charged with inconsistency for having formerly sup ported the creation of a bishop of Manchester, but it was now said that the union of tha sees of St. Asaph and Bangor should no longer be insisted on. He should have doubted the constitutional propriety of setting forth in the preamble of the bill the intention of her Majesty, in direct contravention of the existing statute. It was now proposed to add three new bishops, and the state of things was therefore entirely altered from what it was when he supported the creation of the bishopric of Manchester. When the qualifications of bishops were referred to, namely, learning, piety, benevolence, charity, and BO on, it must not be forgotten that the working clergy exhibited similar acquirements end virtues, ; and many poor clergymen in his neighbourhird, with only sixty er seventy pounds a year, readily contributed their mite to charitable purposes. He did not think the interests of the church herself would be promoted by the creation of additional bishops (hear, hear)—and if the number were once increased, there would be no limit to it in future. His noble friend the mem ber for Liverpool had indeed last night spoken of the desirability of having a bishop for every county. (" Hear," and a laugh.) He entertained the strongest opinion that both the propositions of the bill were dangerous. He con sidered it would be a disadvantage to those bishops who did not sit in the House of Lords, but he still thought it most desirable that they should re:ain their seats in the other house of parliament. He objected to the creation of more bishops. He should conclude by moving the omission of the words from " and " in the second line, page 4, down to tha word " voting," in line eight ; and he should also vote I against the second clause of the bill. Mr. COLLETT had not pressed ►is motion, because it was objected that it had reference merely to the recital of other acts ; but if the right hon. baronet was allowed to more such an amendment as he had proposed, he should also insist upon putting his motion. After a few words front Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Collett, and Mr. V. Smith, Lord J. RUSSELL said that the words in the preamble which were objected to did not bind the house to adopt the provision' which the bill its, It contained. The words were, however, of importance, as being introductory of the very first clause of the bill, which went to carry into effect a portion of the recommendations of the commissioners. Mr. DISRAELI said that was true, but this recital did not contain, as it ought, the whole of the recommendations contained in the commissioners' report. Mr. HUME thought the committee ought not to affirm any portion of the preamble, which he was of opinion was illegal and unconstitutional, and in direct contravention of an act of parliament. He would suggest that the whole of this recital in the preamble ought to be struck out. The SOLICITOR-GEN EHAL said it was clear that the preamble only stated a number of facts which could not be controverted. These facts had been thought by those who drew the bill to be necessary to be stated as the founda tion of the measure. For these recitals they had a precedent in thestatute 6& 7 Will. IV., c. 67. What was the house called upon to legislate ? Why, on the commissioners' re port and though the whole of the report was not set out, yet ti.e framers of this bill had honestly and ingenuously stated in their preamble, that beyond the foundation of the bishopric of Manchester, there was in the minds of the com missioners the future consideration of the establishment of other episcopal sees. (Hear, hear.) He thought this an in genuous and honest way of putting the matter; and even if the words Were struck out, as proposed by the right hon. baronet, any l►wyer or layman must refer to the report of the commissioners, in order to construe and define the mu sure itself. . . Sir J. GRAHAM admitted that the recital was honest and ingenuous; but, with the avowal ju•t made, was preg nant with consequences. In short, it was an avowal that the crown should do that which an act of parliament had de clared should not be done. . . . . . Mr. LAW expresmd his surprise th►t the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) should be moved by the loose argu masts of the hon. member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) on the subject of the illegality of her Majesty taking the advice of her constitutional and responsible advisers u to the altera tion or improvement of aay statute. It was absurd to say that such a procedure was either illegal or uncoastitutional. After a few words from Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Wortley, Dr. Nieholl, and the Attorney-General. Sir F. THESIGER addressed somo observations to the house in favour of the amendment moved by the right hon. baronet near him (Sir J. Graham), and contended it was for the house and not for the framers of the bill to select those portions of the recommendations of the commissioners as in the wisdom of the house ought to become the law of the land. . . . . ....... . Mr. ENTWISLE expressed his entire concurrence in the views of the right hon. member for Dorchester. Mr. ROEBUCK was of opinion that there were already quite bishops enough in parliament. Bishops came into the House of Lords without any of those hereditary feelings which, to a certain extent, operated to render the hereditary power of legislating less mischievous. It should be ever borne in mind that bishops had originally been admitted to seats in parlismeot, in virtue of baronial possessions, and in pilot of fact, as laymen. The abstract 'lotion of a bishop did lot include a legislator: he regarded a bishop as simiry a spiritual overlooker, superintending other spiritual persona, for spiritual purposes. In the present case there wail the re markable fact of a surplus in the hands of the government. What was the feeling of the people as to the distribution of a surplus ? First, certainly, that there should be no dif ference as to its application, founded upon religious distinc tions. The property here realised was essentially the pro perty of the public, and the public, the distressed, starving public, would not hear with patience the proposition that this surplus was to be applied to the preposterous payment of four new bishops, utterly useless officers of one among the many religious section. of the population. Why was this par ticular measure to be forced on, against the feeling of the country, when so many measures of the greatest national in terest were contemptuously thrown over? The selection was one most fatal to the character of the noble lord at the he,d of the government, and of the liberal party who, on general principles, supported the noble lord. The Health of Towns' Bill, nearly affecting the health of the whole community, was coolly abandoned ; so was the Incumbered Estates Bill ; but the measure, which, in despite of the whole population, except the more bigoted members of the Church of Eng land, forced upon the country new bishops, worse than need less, was pertinaciously insisted upon. Never mind the people—never mind the working clergy, but we will have more bishops, said the bishop-serving prime minister. The people, however, thought more of themselves, and thought more of the working clergy, than they did of bishops. And all of them who—as the great body were—were friends of the church, viewed the measure as one most dan gerous to the true interest, of the church. Mr. BROTHERTON said that as the house had already declared its opinion twice on the principle of the bill, it would, he thought, be more consistent with the dignity of the house not again to controvert the principle. As one opposed to the measure, he could have wished that his vote against it had been supported by the majority ; but as the opinion of the majority had been declared the other way, he depre cated a further division en the same point. Mr. ESCOTT called upon the noble member for Lynn and the hon. member for Shrewsbury not to allow the debate to close without declaring what they conceived to be the real opinion on the subject of those whom they represented in the house. Important party leaders as they were, they should not remain silent on such an occasion. It was said that they had no right to complain of the men. sure because there was no money taken from the people. What! was this groat question to be made one of pounds, shit tinge, and pence ? The question was, not where the money came from, bet was it to be empkyed to a good purpose in malting four new bishoprics ? (Hear, hear.) That was what he wanted to have proved by the noble lord the member for Lynn and the hon. member for Shrewsbury. He trusted that they would not content themselves with giving a silent vote on the question. The house divided.—For the motion For the amendment The house then went into committee on the hill. Mr. COLLETT (Athlone) moved that the chairman re port progrese, and ask leave to sit again. Mr. HIJ ME seconded the motion. Lord J. RUSSELL said, that no doubt it was oompetent for the committee to omit any portion of the recitals in the preamble or to add to them; but he thought the statement of the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham), supported aa it had been by the hon. mens'ier for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that there was something illegal and unconstitutional In her Majesty appointing a commio.ion with a view of submitting measures to the consideration ofliament, was moat extra ordinary. He (Lord J. Russell) r had never before heard that an act of parliament was so sacred as that the crown could not direct its confidential advisers to amend or repeal it. (Hear, hear.) He agreed that it was competent to the right hon. gentleman to move the omission of the words, and when they came to that subject he would be ready to dis cuss it. Mr. NEWDEGATE would suggest to the noble lord, as the preamble gave rise to so much uncustion, to postpone its consideration. . . Mr. M. PHILIPS was understood to say that he objected to the preamble altogether. Mr. HUME moved the omission of the preamble altogether. Mr. S. HERBERT wished to know how the house could agree to the preamble, when hon. members entertained such different intentions with respect to the alterations that ought to be made in it? The preamble was the essence of the bill, and he did not know why the usual practice was departed from on this occasion of postponing the preamble. Sir G. GREY said that the question before the house was the amendment proposed ly the hon. member for Athlone, and be did not see why they could not go into a division upon it. Mr. BUNCOMBE said that the preamble had been brought under discussion at the request of the hon. member for Dorchester. His (Mr. Buncombe's) object was that they should have the report of the committee on the eccle siastical commission before them. Unless the government wished to sit for some weeks longer they had no chance of carrying this hill. Why did they not persevere in carrying measures that would be useful to the people ? (Hear, hear.) The noble lord wished to please the bishops' party. The noble lord was at one time accused of making fool* of the bishops, but the noble lord replied that he was rather their utensil. (Much laughter.) Ile wished to mous the noble lord from the disgrace of being the bishop.'" utensil." (Laughter.) There were no persons out of that house in favour of the bill.. . . . Lord CLEMENTS said that the government having arranged their private conviviality for the end of the session, they ought not to salt the house to legislate on a subject of such importance. Mr. E. DENISON said that, considering the state in which the committee was, he thought that the best plan would be to postpone the preamble. Mr. 11011.SMA.N explained with reference to some obser vations of his with regard to the right hon. baronet the member for Dorchester. . . . Lord J. RUSSELL mid that the opposition of the right hon. baronet the member for Dorchester was that the sub stance of the recommendation was contained in the pre amble, and he proposed that it should be taken before the clauses. Ile (Lord J. Rumen) thought that reasonable, and moved that the house go into committee. He still thought that it was the best course. It was open to any hon. member to object to the preamble. He was ready to defend it, and the other parts of the bill. He was determined, despite what bad been said by the hon. member for Finsbury, to defend the bill as it was. ("Hear, hear," and cheers.) He believed it was a measure useful to the country, and, till the house decided by a division that they would not enter tain it, he should persevere. (Great cheering.) Mr. HINDLEY asked the noble lord what reason he could give for continuing both the sees of Bangor and St. Aseph That was the question in imue. They had no ob jection to a bishop of Manchester. (Hear, hear.) He asked most decidedly, and required a decided answer, why the bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor were continued 7 Lord J. RUSSELL said that was discussed on the second reading and on going into committee yesterday. Mr. ESCOTT wished to ask if it was a parliamentary rule that the name of the sovereign was not to be introduced in their debates, whereas it was mentioned over and over again in the preamble of this bill. Mr. GOULBURN intimated his entire dissent to the doc trine laid down by the hon. gentleman, as the mention of the queen's name was only a recommendation to parliament of the came nature as the speech from the throne. After a few wards from Mr. Hums, Mr. DUNCOMBE wished to know from the noble lord if he wished the preamble to be postponed. He so understood it. ("No, no.") The proposition to discuss the preamble was made by the right hon. baronet the member for Der. cheater, last night, aad seceded to by the government, and they had better go on with the discussion. After a few words from Mr. ALDAN; The committee divided—For the amendment 33 Against it . " • 132-99 Mr. M. PHILIPS repeated his statement that the bill was uncalled for by the people of Manchester. They had already a deanery and four canonries in Manchester, mesh. toting a machinery abundantly sufficient for the purposes of the church. The introduction of a bishop would be a signal for the introduction of fends, and for the commencement of hostility of the most active kind. He challenged the noble lord to say that he knew as much of the fee li ngs of the people of Manchester as he himself did. The hon. member eottcluded by moving the omission of the words in the preamble, " And for establishing a bishopric of Manchester. " After a few words from Xi. and cries of divide," Mr. B. OSPORNE ud Mt. M. PHILLIPS severally urged the hon. member for Athlone to withdraw his motion. . . Mr. B. ESCOTT suggested to the hen. met;;;;that he might move to strike out the objectionable portions of the bill in committee, a course which would be preferable to his present motion, as not looking so like a factious V. iti a 1 0 . 111113.7014 and Mr. MOVIIIICR also deprecated a division ; the latter describing the conduct of the hon. member for Athlone as calculated to make the minority in that house, by the aid of the forms, tyrants over the majority. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WAKLEY said that the forms of the how* were the only protection enjoyed by the minority. He thought the preeent was a case in which those forms might be freely need. He implored the noble lord at the head of the government not to commit political suicide by pressing this bill. Lord J. RUSSELL said that if • single hon, member, because he was sincerely opposed to a measure, was to resort to all the forms of the house to obstruct its progress, the con sequence would be that all bills so opposed must be stop and the minority have It, way, er else the forms of the house —most valuable forme—must be altered. (Hear.) He said most valuable, because there were occasions ' such u when a ri majoty attempted to force on an objection able measure at one or two o'clock in the morning, in which those forms might be most advantageously used. But, to say that this power was to be used by every member who felt sincerely opposed to a measure, was perfectly preposterous. (Hear, bear.) Neither the Reform Bill, nor the bill repealing the corn-laws, would be now on the statute book, if such conduct were genera ll y practised. He had not called the course now pursued " factious opposition ;" but really if the hon. member for Athlone persisted, he could hardly Hod a term which would more aptly express his opinion. Mr. AOLIONBY appealed to the hon. member to with draw has mot i on. . _ _ _ Afters few words from Yr. Roza um, • Mr. T. BUNCOMBE mid he would move that the chair man do report progress, unless some member of her myeety's government rose to answer the remarks of the hon. member for Manchester. (Hear, hear.) Where was the other hon. member for Manchester [Mr. M. Gibson] t (" Hear, hear," and laughter .) Had the government the power to compel their underlings to take whatever course they pleased ? (Hear, hear.) 'The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was trying to cram this bill down the throats of the house. No one on the Treasury bench had dared, or was able, to answer the speech of the right hon. member for Llorshemer, delivered on the previous evening. (Hear, hear.) Let the bill be at least postponed until after the session. It ought not to have been introduced in such a clandestine manner: it came, in reality, from the bishops. (Hear, bear.) Lord J. RUSSELL said, be did not rise to defend the creation of the bishopric of Manchester, having repeatedly done so already. The proposition rested on an existing act of parliament, which wee now in force ; and the effect of the bill would be to cause the appointment to take place forth with, instead of taking place on the death of the Bishop of Bangor. He did not pretend to know what might be the feeling of the people of Manchester at the present moment— (cheers)—but his belief was, that when the bishopric was created, they would acknowledge that this bill worked well for that town. Respecting the attacks of the hon. member for Finsbury, he had only to observe, that being convinced he wss doing his duty to the country, be would not be deterred therefrom by myth' kg that hon. gentleman might say. (Loud cheers.) Mr. HUME was of opinion that the appointment of a bishop to Manchester should not take place until the death of the Bishop of Bangor, an event which, in all probability, was not far distant. (Laughter.) Mr. W. EGERTON attributed the introduction of this bill to the differences which existed between the people of Manchester and the dignitaries of the collegiate establish ment of that town. Mr. M. PHILIPS defended the conduct of the people of Blanchester in reference thereto. Mr. S. HERBERT uid that the hon. gentleman's ob servations proved the necessity of an episcopal revision. Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the chairman report progress. Lord J. RUSSELL should certainly divide against that proposition.—Strangers were "ordered to withdraw. Mr. ROEBUCK said he would withdraw his motion. Mr. J. COLLETT and others objected, and the house divided. For the motion Against it . _ . On re-entering the gallery, we found An Hos. MEMBER repeating that the chairman report progress. Lard J. RUSSELL said he should not persist in dividing against these motions. He should move that the house do meet at 12 this day. Mr. OSBORNI objected to meeting on Saturday, and Mr. HUME moved that the chairman oak leave to sit on Monday. The gallery wu cleared. On our return, we found Mr. COLLETT moving that the house be called to morrow (this day). (Laughter.) Mr. T. BUNCOMBE said that if the present system were persisted in, if public opinion were to be set at nought, he rvould on a future day cad the attention of the house to the conduct of the administration in the violation of its pledges. On the present occa►ion he should move that this house do now adjourn. After a conversation, it wu arranged that the debate be adjourned until 3 o'clock on Monday. The house adjourned at 2si minutes to 1 o'clock to 12 o'clock this day. ROUSE OF COMMONS.-BISHOPRIC OF MAN- CHESTER, &c., BILL. lhmmec on question of the committal of this bill.—Ayes, 13$ ; i. 20. AVE& Arland, Sir T. D. D 61266.6, E. B. • Inglis, Sir R. H. Philipps,Sirß.l3. Arland, T. D. Dickinson. F. H. Jermyn, Earl Pinney. W. Antrobus, E. Disraeli, B. Jervis, Sir J. Plomptre, J. P. Austen, CoL Douglas, J. D. 8. Johnstone, Sir J. Plumridge, Capt. Barely, 11. Dockworth.Sir.l, Jones, Gird. Prier, Sir R. Baring, F. T. buncombe, 0. lAbouchere, If. Polslord, R. Boring, T. Dundas, AJm. Langiton,J. H. Reinert. G. W. I Barrington,Vise. Dundee, Sir D. Laseelles, W. S. Rich, H. Bennet, P. Du Pre, C. G. !Army, A. Richard., R. Bentinelt, 14.0. Ehrington, Vibe. Le Merchant, D. Remelt, Lord J. Illackuurne,J. 1. Egerton, W. T. Lindsay, Co/. Russell, I.d. C. Blalurmore, B. Entwiele, W. Lowther, Col. Rutherford, A. Boldero, 11. G. Estcourt, T. G. Mannem, I.d. C. Ryder, Hon. G. Borthwick, P. Fernharn,Wank, F. Sandon, Vier. Wales, Adm. Fermaon, Bir Meynell, Capt. E. ytner, 11. K. Brevolley, IL Ferrand, W. B. Milne*, R. M. Shed, IL I. Brown, W. Forster, M. Moffatt, G. Sonterset,tord G. Buller, C. Prewen, C. 11. Morpeth, Vise. Somerrille,SirW. Buller, E. Fuller, A. E. Miter* D. Stuart. J. Buller, Sir 1. T. Osaka, J. M. Mundy, E. M. Strutt, Rt. fin. E. Byng.RL Hn. G. Geri, Hon. B. Norld, Joseph Talbot, C. IL M. Carew, W. IL P. Goulburn, it. Neville, R. Taylor. E. Carendlah,ll.a.o Graham, Sir J. Newdepte, C. Troubridge, E. Cholmondeley,ll.Greene, T. NieboU, J. Walker, R. Christie, W. 0. Grey, sir G. Norreys, Lord Welpole, 8. H. Chi istopher,lLA.lLimikon, G. A. Norreyr, Sir D. J. Ward, H. G. Clayton, It. R. flatten, Capt. V. O'Brien, A. Wil.here, W. Clive, Vise. Hawn, B. Ogle, S. C. IL Wood, Sir C. Clive, 1 1 n. R. Heyter, W. G. Par ke, C. W. Wood, Col. T. awry, RL/in. H.llvatheote,StrW. Palmer, r. Wortley, J. 8. Courtenay, lard Ilenky, J. W. Palmer, 0. Wynn, C. W. W. (kowper. W. F. Iletbest, 6. l'ulmentas. Cr.*, W. G. Ilobbouae, Mr J. Parker, J. TRI.L/R6 1p R., W. Hodgman, F. Patten, J. W. Tutnell, H. It:downy, Lord Hothem, Lord Pennant, CoL Hill, Lord M. Denison, J. E. Logestre, Aglionby. IL A. D'Eyneourt, C. Heron, Si, R. Wakles, T. Aldan, W. Duke, Sir J. !Inuit's', C. Willman, W. Boureke, E P. Donna, (I. Domino, E. Brotherton, J. Duecorobs, T. klulessorth, W. TILLZIIi. Clements, Vise. &eat, B. Osborne, R. Thane, J. Collett, J. Evans, Ste D. L Thornely, T. Philips, N. A REPORT has been industriously circulated, and has found its way into several of the country papers, that the proprietors of "THE DAILY NEWS" have purchased "THE MORNING CHRONICLE," and that these papers are about to be united, with the price of "THE DAILY NEWS" raised to Fourpence. We beg to give the most formal contradiction to such a report, in which there is not one word of truth. Eht eproig. The mails for Britieh North America., Derinada, and the Tidied dtates, will be made up on the evening of the 19th July. The overland mails for Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, the lonian Wands, Orin, Aden, Ceylon, India, Hoeg-Kong, and China, ria Southampton, will be mode up on the morning of the 20th July. The overland closed Mat, as Wawalea, to the Meditemuman, ggypt, Aden, Ceylon, India, Hong Kong, Ac., sill be made up on the evening of the 21th July. The mails for 'lgo, Oporto, Lisbon, Madeira, Cadiz, and Gibraltar will be made up on the morning of the 27th July. The malls for New South Wales, Van Dielfleel'i Land, and Nes lea'snd will be made up on the senmits of the 31st July. The Weet India imimiler throe for Mexico, Honduras, and the l ',mash, will be mole up ma the meriting of the 2nd August. The mails for the Brut* the Leer Plate, Monte Video, Yana:s how, Halals Madeira, and Dram Ayres, will he made ap on the evening of the 4th August EllOll WATTS AT LONDON-lIIIDOT.. Tole Da • —Montag. SS WA pont 4. Attorvoos, 16 ode. put S. To Yossis& 34 Woo pan S Afteraoos. WA. post S. LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 17. IN the House of Lords yesterday the new regulation for receiving messages from the Commons was adopted. The bills were brought up en mane, in stead of individually, as heretofore, and a list of them read by the clerk at the table. This system is a great improvement on the old one, in consequence of the time which will be saved by it, while the Lord Chan cellor will be relieved to the extent of having to make but one journey to the bar and back to the woolsack, instead of many.—A conference was held on the sub ject of the Punishment of Vagrants (Ireland) Bill : and the Mussel Fisheries (Scotland), and Holyhead Harbour Bills, were read a third time and passed. • In the House of Commons, Lord J. RUSSELL, in answer to /sir. B. OSBORNE, stated, se was understood, that the decree issued by the Queen of Portugal, for the suspension of the liberty of the press, and the guarantee of liberty to individuals, would only con tinue in force until permanent arrangements could be made, and that it was true that the French and Spanish ambassadors bad protested against the con vention concluded by Colonel Wylde at Oporto.—A discussion on Metropolitan Improvements ensued at the instance of Sir R. H. INGtis.—A further debate, originated by Mr. HUME, took place on the case of the ex-Rajah of Sattara, in the course of which Lord J. RUSSELL made the atnetule honorable to the hon. member for Montrose, for certain observations the noble lord had made in reference to him in the former debate on this subject. The noble lord intimated with respect to the Poor-law Administration Bill, that he should on Monday, in moving the considera tion of the Lords' amendments, propose to re-insert the clause preventing the separation of man and wife in workhouses, when above sixty years of age, but not that which had also been struck out by the Lords, providing for the admission of rate-payers to the meet ings of guardians. The adjourned debate on the question of going into committee on the Bishopric of Manchester Bill was then resumed, upon which ques tion the house at length divided, when the motion was carried by a majority of 63 to 18. In committee, the preamble of the bill was taken first instead of last, according to precedent, at the suggestion of Sir J. GRAHAM, who moved the omission of the words having reference to three additional bishopric a somewhat lengthy and strong debate ensued, the committee dividing, when the amendment was lost by a majority of 132 to 33. Various motions for impeding the progress of the bill followed, upon one of which, for reporting pro gress, the committee divided, when the motion was negatived by 129 to 18. At length the house re sumed, when the further proceedings with the bill, in which no progress had been made, was adjourned to Monday. THE three great questions of education, of punish ments, and of the poor-law, are, in reality, closely bound up together, so that it is impossible to enter tain views in support of a plan of reform and progress, with respect to one, without instantly looking to th e probable effect upon the others. An article in the last Edinburgh Review treats of punishments, which it looks upon much in the 811118 light that this journal has done. It deprecates the sickly humanity which shrinks from severe or capital punishment, as a thing in itself intolerable, and which proceeds from this sentiment to argue, that severe punishments are as ineffectual as cruel. It also scouts the ides, which, carried too far, is cer tainly preposterous—viz., that reform of the criminal should be the great object of penality, instead of looking to the protection of society as the first aim. The reviewer, however, errs, we think, in a contra r y direction. He is much too severe and condemnatory upon Capt MACONOCIIIE and his experiments —a sub. ject we shall refer more amply to at our leisure—and altogether the writer pleads for too little consideration and indulgence to be bestowed upon criminals. During the last century, he mentions, our ancestors had no bowels of compassion for the condemned. The pil- . ferer and the forger were sent to the gallows by ex peditive justice, in the same breath with the murderer. And the gangrene of crime was cut off roughly and impitiably by the stern hand of Justice. But in truth there are reasons in the different states of society for the hard-heertedness of the men of the last century, and the susceptibility of the men of the present. There was then no pressure of population, no great difficulty in finding a livelihood : every path of life offered scope to the industrious. Agriculture, trade, manufactures, professions, were extending their means of employ, and premiums of success. Even the want of education was not felt amidst the super abundant rewards of industry. The English rogue of the last century was without excuse, and conse quently met with no pity. But at present who is there that contemplates the state of the poor, into which fortunately so many ars obliged to look,—who is there that examines their birth, prospects, habits, their forced recklessness, their minds imbued with so many anti-social tendencies,— who is there that in contemplating them will not draw from hence a feeling of commiseration and lenience towards crime, instead of the old unmitigated wrath of the stern law and the sterner judge? Agreeing with the Edinburgh Reriorer, that in a natu ral and justly ordered state of things crime ought not to excite commiseration, we cannot say that the present is such a state. And when we SEC men, whit have visited gaols, and made themselves acquainted with the fate and the number of that class which tar nishes criminals—when we hear such men exclaim against capital punishments, we cannot but descry reason as well as feeling in those misgivings of the righteousness of condemnation. If increased dis tress, if diminished education, if the allowance of large masses of the poor to agglomerate and rot physically and morally, do progress, what can we expect, but that the rigidity of the law and of the judge must relax in proportion, that the tide of corruption and of crime will swell with the disappearance of that energy which resisted it, and that, in fine, society will perish from its incapacity of either preventing or repressing the deluge of ill ? We wish that those pious and well-meaning people, who are at present getting up a crusade against education, that is, against all possible education, would bethink them how seriously their efforts may paralyse and retard one of the most efficient means of combating this corruption of our population. It is present to every mind that education is now required for the sake of combating the proneness of the indigent to crime : and it is im possible to persuade Englishmen that religion is not a necessary ingredient of such an antidote. If we are to have education at all then, it must evidently be with those religious admixtures. We should infinitely pre fer having that portion of education, which the public trcasury:provides for, independent of this mixture. But who does not see that it is impossible It is not impossible, however, to establish equality between sects and creeds, nor is it hopeless to improve and do away with stipulations and provisions which infringe this desirable law of equality. The way to do this is by reason and argument em ployed in the great forum of liberal opinions, instead of sectarians tasking band apart, deserting that forum, and seeking to set up a party of their own. Such a party, we are confident, would not only contribute largely to the defeat and declension of the liberal cause, including every liberal idea, but it would for ever preclude any possibility of extending and im proving public education, or of effecting any change on the side of mind. in the present desperate and de clining condition of our lower classes. WE oft-n hear grumbling on account of post-office irregularities and insufficient accommodation; and there can be little doubt that the working of the department is still susceptible of vast improvements; but when we compare the post-office of 1847 with the post-office of 1838, its increased efficiency as a public servant is astonishing. The returns moved for by Mr. WARBURTON, and ordered by the House of Com mons to be printed, supply data for the comparison. The fourpenny postage rate came into operation on the sth of December, 1839; the penny rate on the 10th of January, 1840; and the postage stamps on the 6th of May, 1840. The gross total of letters de livered in the United Kingdom, in the week ending 24th November, 1639, under the old high postage charges, was 1,85,973. The gross total delivered in the week ending 22d December, 1839, under the fourpenny rate, was 2,008,687. The gross total de livered under the penny rate in the week ending 21st November, 1846, was 5,890,704. In the week end ing 21st April of the present year, it had risen 11.1 high as 6,148,876. It is curious to note the steady increase of the weekly total from year to year. On the reduction of the rate to fourpence the weekly delivery rose at once from about one and a half million to two mil lions. On the introduction of the penny rate it again rose at once to about three millions, steadily increas ing in the course of She year 1810 to about three mil lions and a half. In the third week of February, 1841, the total delivery of the United Kingdom for the week amounted to four millions, a num ber which it did not again attain (though it never fell far below it) till the third week of January, 1842. The weekly average delivery of 1842 was about four millions ; towards the clue of 1843 it had crept up to about four millions and a half; by the close of 1844 it was close upon tee millions ; at the end of 1845 it was rather more than Elva millions and a half; at the end of 1846 it was close upon nix millions; and since the commencement of the present year it has been rather above tbst number. The returns of the London Post-office enable as to note a little more in detail the progress of the new system. The estimated average of chargeable lefts , passing through the London General Post (inwud and outwards) in four weeks of 1839 was 1,622,14 7 ; of which 1,358,651 were unpaid, and 263,496 paid. The number passing through during the four weeks ending January 4, 1840, after the fourpemil rate lied been adopted, had increased to 2, 102,281, but the proportion of the paid to the unpaid lid not much altered; the latter amounted to 1,5960 ; the former to 504,847. In the four weeks, bow' ever, ending 25th April, 1840, after the adoption d the penny rate, but before the introduction of stamps, while the total number passing through the pad had increased to 3,404,900, the proportion of the paid to the unpaid had been fairly inverted, the le tter amounting only to 423,930, while the former were as lees than 2,980,970. It was some time before the public got accustomed to the use of stamps. Do* the four weeks ending 20th June, 1840, oat d 3,655,193 letters which passed through the Leaden post-office, 367,831 were unpaid, 2,354,932 were pre' paid, without stamps, and only 942,430 stamped. Throughout that year, among the letters puling through the London General Post, the peolor", lion of prepaid without stamps to the sta m p s was nearly two millions and two hundred thee sand to one million and a half. During 0 0 , year 1841 the numbers of stamped letters sad if of prepaid without stamps was a b ou t equal. formly greater than that of the prepaid withal stamps. During the four weeks ending 17th Apra last the proportions were: unpaid, 456, 289 ; P a ' 2,891,494 ; stamped, 4,781,198. The comparatively alight increase which took Oa. in the number of letters passing through the Pot office when the fourpenny rate was a dopted, =V! un accoted for by the fact that many le tters wine, i 1842 the number of stamped was slightly but en had been transmitted by carriers or private oPixdi na _ / : ties, come to be entreated to the Poet-office al ea