The Sun. — London, England, 1848-02-16 00:00:00

esatmer that inquiry should be ten lucte4l The Hon Member said that the prt,sent amount of destruction to life and property by the wreck ur m T, , hant vessels was absolutely appalling. He had ref.con to believe that there were no fewer than 1,000 of our merchant vc,3scls wrecked every year, involving en immense loss of life, and a most 'serious destruction of property. In three: years the aggregate loss of coasting tal was 49 ships, the crews of which were all drowns-tl, anti 81, the crews of which were partially saved, and this was exclusive of those reported in Lloyd's retures. Taking the average of the three years, 1833, 1834, and 1835, the annual loss by shipwreck of seamen was 750, and the annual amount of property saerifiecd was 3,000,0001, a sum which he believed was below the reel value of the ships and cargoes wrecked. It was net his wish, if the Committee were appointed, that any lengthened evidence should be taken, but it, was rather with the view of bringing to bear the remedies for the existing evil, that had been suggested before former Committees, and in order to render any measure that might be brought in as efficient as it was possible. He hoped the Government and the Board of Trade would be prepared to take the subject into consideration, aed to bring in a Bill founded on the report of the Committee, and it was on those grounds he beggt d leave to move for its appointment. Captain FITZROY seconded the motion of the Hon. Member with great pleasure. The measures for placing the mercantile navy in a proper state of efficiency had been neglected and postponed in the most unaccountable manner by those whose duty it was to have brought them forward, and many Hon. Members unconnected with the Government would have introduced Bills for the purpose, but for the opposition they met with fro m the merchants and shipowners. If the Corarnitt, e asked • for was granted, he would undertake to say that such a vast mass of evidence would be adduced with respect to the incompetency of the masters of coasting vessels to navigate their ships as would prove perfectly convinc ing. Those to whom the coasters were entrusted never underwent the slightest examination as to their capacity to navigate a vessel round theßritish coast, and to their incompetence was to be ascribed the number of' wrecks that annually took place. There would also be another point upon which the Committee would obtain informa tion, namely, as to the state of the coast at Beechyhead : a great loss of lives and of vessels annually took place, and this because there was neither harbour nor any place of refuge into which vessels might run when over taken by storms off that dangerous line of coast. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that it was not his inten tion to offer any opposition to the appointment of the proposed Committee; it was to be hoped, however, that the Committee would avoid going over the same ground that had been travelled by previous inquirers, and that the members of it would confine themselves to an in quiry as to how the recommendations already extant could best be carried into execution; in this way the Committee would perform a most valuable service. Thee whole subject referred to by the Hon. Member was one well deserving the attention of the House. There did already exist a power of inquiry into the causes of steam shipwrecks, on the part of the Government; hut this power did net extend to sailing vessels or coasters. Captain Durham had already furnished more than one valuable report on the former subject, and no doubt if the powers of Government were enlarged e qually valuable information as to the causes of the frequent wrecks of sailing coasters and other vessels would be procured. He regretted very much to be obliged to express his concurrence in what his Honourable Friend had stated with respect to the low and deteriorated character of the mercantile navy. Government had re ceived from the consuls in numerous foreign parts statements respecting the bad conduct of the English mercantile sailors, which clearly proved how very much inferior the characters of the masters and mates were, in the estimation of foreigners, to those of the seamen of other nations. And there could be no ground for astonishment at the preference given by merchants and shippers to foreign ships and seamen. Ilia Noble Friend yllldord Palmerston) would shortly lay on the table of the • • •ouse some information on the subject of British ship e_ tag and seamen, which would be thought of the utmost • portance, and which would probably induce the l 'lkOtise to give a ready assent to some remedial measures, by, which the present disgraceful condition of the British mercantile navy might be put an end to. He assured the House that the subject in question had °mu - pied the serious attention of the Government ; and, Indeed, it was incumbent on Ministers to look most nar row!), into the state of the merchant navy, at the time 'when they proposed to the House to reconsider the exist .; int navigation laws. The motion was then agreed to. LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND). Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, he should probably best consult the convenience of the House if he at once proceeded to state what was the nature of the measure, as well as to live some details respecting the machinery by which it was to be carried out ; and also the means which the Government intended to propose for rendering it effi cient. The subject was at once delicate, complicated. and difficult to deal with ; and those characteristics led him to think that the best plan to pursue was to lay the whole of the details of the proposed measure before the Parliament, so that there might exist an opportunity for judging it, and comparing it with the difficulties which it was framed to meet. The Bill, therefore, might be said to embrace two distinct plans. The first was for affording compensation to tenants for improvements effected on their holdings. The second wou'd, he trusted, be found to embody several not unimportant changes in the present relations between landlord and tenant. The Bill proposed to encou rage the outlay of capital upon his holding by the tenant, by securing to him an adequate remuneration for that outlay in all cases where be had not derived the full benefit from it. This would be effected with as little interfereneewith the rights of the landlord aswas possible. It was not his purpose to linger over the subject at present, by insisting on the necessity for conceding this act of justice to the tenantry. The principle had al ready been admitted to be just by a majority within that House, and out of doors also. It was, moreover, no new principle; on the contrary, it was one of some antiquity; for in a work now a century old it was laid down that, inasmuch as it was not the custom in Ireland for the landlord to provide farm buildings for the tenantry, if the tenant, after having built such, was die possessed of his holding before- he had derived the full benefit of his outlay, he was entitled to be compensated to that extent. That principle came likewise with the recommendation of the Earl of Devon's Commission, and it had been embodied in a Bill 'introduced on the subject of landlord and tenant by one of his (Sir William Somerville's) predecessors, which Bill had been permitted to be read a first time. Ile would proceed to state how he proposed to create the machinery by which the compensation to be made for outlay of capital should be ascertained. From the pass ing of the Act all tenants having holdings above 101., and possessing an interest, as specified, whether under a lease or from year to year, might serve a notice (the form of which would be given in a schedule to the Bill) on his landlord, specifying the nature of the outlay in tended to be made, whether it be buildings, or drainage, Or sub so ili ng, or of any other descript i on, an d h av i ng acme so the tenant must proceed to name an arbitrator, c alling likewise on the landlord to nominate one on his ("' behalf. If the landlord did not nominate an arbi trator within twenty-one days, then the tenant might a pply to the petty sessions, where a landlord's arbitrator Was to be appointed and afterwards conjoined to that of • the tenant. The two arbitrators were then to choose belee, and if they could not agree in the e'ne, then the petty sessions was again to applied to, and the person there named Was to be umpire. The body thus constituted would Proceed to examine and decide on the notice served by the t enant on his landlord. They would have to survey the land and the projected improvements, and report on the value and the amount of additional rent which would true from them, and if their decision should be in /brour of the improvements, then they were to be em powered to make an award wherein they were to state the name of the superior landlord who would be bound !hereby.—(Hear, hear.) The award th us ma d e wou ld be deposit e d with the clerk of the peace, a copy of it would be nerved by the tenant on his immediate land lord. and the other intermediate landlords concerned in the land in question, up to the superior of all, were likewise to be served with copies of this award. An appeal might be made against this award within 21 days of its being notified to the landlord; the assistant bar • sister of the county would decide upon it, and his de cision was to be final. - The tenant was then to be em- Powered to to proceed to execute the works thus specified, upon their completion the arbitrators were to examine th fmt and to fur n i s h hi m w i t h a cert ifi cate o f t h e i r h av i ng been inished, after which they were to decide whether 1 11 1 dedu c ti on was to b e ma d e from the rent fixed, an their decision was to be filed by the clerk of the Peace, When the tenancy was to be terminated, it was aP:Posed th at if t h e per i o d o f 21 years h a d not elapsed lee the he outlay was made, the landlord, whatever mode might by take to regain his possession, was to proceed first serving a notice on the tenant, calling upon him no minate an arbitrator, and in case of neglect or i n ref usa l,. procu r i ng t h e a pp o intment of one, as in the first s ' l lee• The arbitrators of both parties would then proceed to examine the improvements and to make their 011,4 rd, of the amount of compensation to be trade to the "Mug tenant, which, however, was not three years' re ntal of th e holding. And the immediate landlord was 11 .. 12 _ 1 We the power of recovering the same amount from . zeudppweirthlinandlord, if his interest in the holding term s given and specified time of the improve 14ells be i ng paid for to the outgoing tenant. All the pro nas of th e Bill w hi c h h e h a d d eta il e d were o f a pro "reetative nature. Ther e w as a g r e at difficulty in making re trospective in some cases , but not so in respect to um inga under the annual value of 101, although it would be hardship the m t p to such a class of tenants to subject the pa? the machinery of the Bill. For that reason L et enacted that no tenant, whose holding was th_anautohyreeeten pounds, should be entitled to more v ery' years' rental for improvements of fi ve ar - standing, and the decision of the assistant rleter inha le d ~n a 1 cases was to be final. He had now ens explanation with respect to the tenants' im provements portion of the Bill, and would proceed to b e e l tt ai ee n that part of it which regulated the relation landlord and tenant. There were to be clauses teinest_erlend by which the occupying tenant was to be pro e "ya against a double distress for rent—(Hear)—whion was subjected to at present, as well from his imme dime as interests Plat for from his • superior landlord. The Bill enacted the future a tenant who held land under certain dise eesa tinheth6lueb. deprived ot the power of making a t vis h il e o n ul h d e b s e ublet his land ; and the Bill provided defentsegUenalits in these cases with an tquitah:e defence .perior courts of law. They already had such a was note 10tp.e courts of the assistant-barrister., but it tenant w 6..: in a court o f equ i ty , an d consequen tly th e tist er t. ci.epriTed of' the benefit of the assistant-bar . " ect slone It was proposed, therefore, to increase ft: TOE! SUN, LONDON. the powers of the assistant-barristers, the details of which would be found in the Bill. The measure pro vided afro that tenants-at-will might be ejected upon non-payment of their rent. This clause would be bene ficial alike to landlord and tenant, and it would not give the former any advantage which he did not already pos sess. lie believed that if the landlord had such a power j . the system of holding polices to quit, in terrorern, over the heads of tenants, would be no longer resorted to, and a great source of irritation would thus be done away with. It was proposed to couple that power of ejection with a provision that on parol demise no rent should be recovered which was of more than two years' standing;. Mr. F. O'CONNOR ask; d the precise meaning of the words parol demise? Sir W. SOMERVILLE—Where there was no lease; and the Bill also provided that every receipt given for rent should specify each particular gale for which it was paid, or else that such receipt should be taken as good fur the last gale due.—(Hear, hear.) Ile had now gone through the chief details of the proposed Bill, and in answer to the objections of those who urged the im propriety of interposing a legislative interference be tween man and min in their private transactions, he would reply, "Look at the state of Ireland, her undeve loped resources, her neglected agriculture;" and then he thought it would be admitted by all that the time was come when legislation ought to prevail, if ever it was to do so. For himself, he could only say that, provided justice was done to the landlord, the more generously the House legislated for the tenantry of Ireland, the greater would be the benefit conferred on that country.—(Hear, hear.) The question was not a party one. There was, he felt certain, no gentleman present who would not willingly help to frame a measure which should put an end to the existing state of affairs between landlord and /tenant in Ireland. The public mind there was now becoming fully alive to the im portance of agricultural improvement. It was out of his immediate province to advert to the great and striking success which had attended the Lord Lieutenant's exertions to diseminate information on this subject by means of agricultural lectures. but he could not help stating that the results of that happy movement had &ready far exceeded Lord ClarenJon's most sanguine expectations. All parties had assisted these gentlemen, and none more actively—and he was grateful for it—than the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. l i (Hear, hear.) It was, therefore, evident that never was there a more auspicious time for commencing the agricultural improvement of the country:4 He hoped that the Bill he was about to introduce would tend to that result, by inducing tenants to sink their capital in the land, and, if it did so, he should feel most happy at having in any way contributed to its success. Mr. S. CRA WFORD feared that the Bill introduced by by the Right lion. Baronet would only have the effect of producing general disappointment in the country it was intended to serve. The tenantry of Ulster would hear with dismay that the right which they were accustomed to call tenant right was about to be thrown overboard. As this species of right had been much spoken of, he should endeavour to define it ; and he could not do so better than by reading a petition which had been pre sented in the previous year from Derry on the subject. The Hon. Member then read the petition, which, after some abstract propositions relative to the sacredness of the right of labour, defined tenant-right to be the right which every out-going tenant had to compensation for all improvements he might have effected in his farm during occupancy, and a power freely to dispose of such right to the highest bidder. The Bill was to have no retrospective action in the case of tenancies of less than 101. annually, but this would be a small boon to the Ulster farmers who generally held large farms. To show the hardships attendant on the non recognition of tenant-right, he would mention one case which had come within his own knowledge. A man had taken a hundred acres of poor land on a lease for 31 years, at 10s. per acre. His capital on en tering was 800/., all of which he spent on the land, to gether with another 8001 of profits, which his improve ments enabled him to realise, for a house and offices. At the expiration of his lease he offered 255. per acre for a renewal, but his landlord refused, alleging that the profits bad returned the original capital invested, and that the house the tenant had built was too good for the land. Now, bow did the case stand as to the valu e o f this land? At the commencement of the tenant's occu pancy it was worth 10s. per acre, which would give 1,5001. as the value of the fee, but at the termination it was worth 255., which would raise the fee to 3,6001., all of which was seized by the landlord. He asked whether this was not downright robbery ?—(llear, hear.) The Bill before the House would not provide for such a case as that, seeing that by it every claim of the tenant on his land terminated with his lease of 21 years. It might be said that this Bill did not' interfere with tenant right. In his opinion it virtually abrogated it, for it would be used as a pretence by the landlord for inter fering with what was merely an old custom. In his opinion tenant right was the only legislation, not only for Ireland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom, an although some might call it interference with the rights of property, still there were times when the public interest called upon:the State to interfere. What was the origin of all the evils under which the people of Ireland were suffering? Why, want of employment.—(Hear, hear.) Provisions were neither scarce nor dear, but the people had no money, nor could they get any without employment, and employment would not spring up unless the employer had full security for the investment of his capital.—(Hear, hear.) lie gave full credit to the Lord-Lieutenant for good inten tions in sending out the lecturers; but their instructions, however excellent in themselves, would effect little with out some improvement in legislation with regard to land. What was wanted was security for the tenant, and the want of that security had created all the recent disturb ances in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) There were six counties in Ulster called the Plantation, which were originally granted to the undertakers on the condition that they should let the laud at reasonable rents and on cer tain tenure. This provision in time was evaded, and he believed ' that the present tenant-right was the substitute. For this reason the Ulster farmers had a peculiar claim on the Legislature for protection and con firmation in their rights. He did not wish to be misun derstood in his claim for tenant-right. He did not claim on tke score of mere occupancy although he was aware that such a definition had been given to tenant. right. His claim was only for cases in which money and labour had been spent in really improving the land and increasing its value. Ho was aware that claims had often been set up for compensation to the tenant where the landlord had actually a claim for depreciation ; but this all arose from the want of proper security ter the rights of labour. He confidently believed that if tenant-right were once established, in two years the spirit of improvement would spread from one end of Ireland to the other. He believed that the present Bill had been brought forward with the best intentions, but unless greatly improved, he feared it would fail of its desired object. Mr. HERBERT said that the Hon. Member for Rochdale had spoken of tenant-right as a matter not generally understood. He quite concurred with the Honourable Member, seeing that so few of its advocates understood it themselves.,-(Hear.) At a meeting held lately in Ireland on the subject hardly any two of the gentlemen present agreed in their definition of tenant right. The Honourable Member for Rochdale repudi ated any claim for occupancy, while he (Mr. Herbert) held in his hand a resolution passed at a late meeting in Tipperary, in which tenant right was defined to be "occupancy, including improvements." The same defi nition bad been adopted in the Irish Council, where ono Gentleman looked upon it as a transfer of the land from the owner to the occupier.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that all legislation should be simple, and certainly nothing could be more simple than this. If you adopted the principle of transferring one man's property to another, you would simplify legislation exceedingly.— (Hear, and laughter.) He believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find finance a very simple study if all he had to do in making up his budget was to ap propriate as much as he might require of the property of her Majesty's subject for the public expenses.— But he (Mr Herbert) believed that that House would never sanction such a transfer.—(Hear, hear.) He denied that the sale of tenant-right was any criterion as to its value, for there was no Member of that House who was not aware that in consequence of the intense competition for land in Ireland any sum, however ridi culous, would be promised for its possession. Largo sums might, it was true, have been paid for tenant-right; ; but how? By the entering tenant borrowing money, and thereby impoverishing himself.---(Hear.) Having read an extract from the report of the Devon Cometis sion to show that in-coming tenants often exhau.sted their capital in paying for tenant-right, and :mother to show that outgoing tenants often claimed for tenant right when in justice they should be sued for deprecia tions, the Hon. Member said that he did not want to in fere with the tenant-right of Ulster, but he protested against its introduction into Munster, where, he believed, it would prove, not only prejudicial to the landlord, but destructive to the tenant. He could not understand bow taking from a man his capital on going into a farm would assist him in its cultivation or in making im provements.—(Hear, hear.) There was one place in Kerry, called the Commons of Ardfert, where the fruits of tenant-right were exemplified. There the occupiers had subdivided the land among themselves, arid, at this moment, they were in the most wretched esondition pos sible to imagine. He must strongly protest against the scheme of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, which could only have the effect of raising extraordinary expecta tions, and thus marring the efforts of those who were anxious to promote the just righics of the tenants of Ireland. - Mr. FAGAN said that the groat question was how the cultivation of the land was to be promoted, and it was only'to be done by the !greatest encouragement and protection. He did not think that the [lon. Member who had just sat down had treated the Hon. Member for Rotschild—(Great laughter)—he meant Rochdale, fairly, in assuming that occupancy was part of his tenant-right. With respect to the present 13i11, he (Mr. Fagan) did not think it half so good as that of the Noble Lord the Member for Falkirk, which on itsin troduction had been so much sneered at in Ireland. According to the Devon Commission, no less than 400,000 families were living ova farms the largest of which was only seven acres; and what was the remedy? The development of the resources of the country, by which not only the tenant, but the landlord would be materially benefited. Circumstanced as Ireland was at present, ho did not think that itinerant lecturers, or agricultural associations, could effect, any good. Until the tenant obtained a substantial interest in the soil and a long tenure of his ]and he could not be expected to, and it was not human nature that he would, take an int e r es t i n th ose sc i ent ifi o l ec t ures upon agriculture which to men of independent means were not only a su bj ect o f i nterest, but amusement. They must first improve the condition of the tenant, and check that undue competition for land which would in evitably continue so long as they had 4000000 families existing on farms the largest of which was seven acres. It 'the Government would encourage the distribution of small farms of 20, 30, and 40 acres, they would, without the aid of emigration, or colonization, or tho forced cultivation of waste lands, do more to effect improvement than they could possibly hope to do by the proposed measure. Lord CASTLEREAGH said that the measure, as far as he understood it, would not come up to the expecta tions of the people of Ulster. The Hon. Member fur Rochdale held out expectations which he did not think could be fulfilled, aid he warned the House against falling into either extreme, and, by doing too much or too little, interfering with that good feeling and mutual interest between landlord and tenant IN hich was in practice without the aid of law in the north of Ireland. He must say that he could not consent to any measure which would constitute mere occupancy as property, or which interfered with the acknowledged rights of pro perty. Mr. F. O'CONNOR was of opinion that no part of the Bill went to the root of the evil, while its machinery was too complicated to effect the object proposed by it. Indeed, he was satisfied that that object could only be effected by granting a fixity of tenure to the tenant, who would then, instead of working like a slave, devote his free labour to the cultivation of his farm from morning till night, knowing that ho would be remunerated for it. If Lord Clarendon would carry out the scheme sugge►ted of establishing the small farm system, they would bear of no more murders and no more necessity for coercion. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN did not think the Bill satis factory, particularly in not having a more retrospective effect respecting compensation for improvements, which should not be limited to twenty-one years. He ob jected also to the retrospective clause being limited to small farmers; he saw no reason why it should riot be general. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL did not think it convenient to go into the details of the Bill at the present stage. He, however, concurred in the opinion of the Hon. Member for Limerick, that the distinction drawn re specting the class of small occupiers, towards whom the Bill was to be retrospective, was not a tenable dis tinction. If small holders were to be compensated, it was still more necessary to encourage the larger class of farmers. Ile hoped her Majesty's Ministers would reconsider that point. He believed that no measure would be of any use which did not give the compensa tion clause a retrospective effect, and there was no reason why the occupier of twenty acres should not be compensated for improvements as well as the occupier of five or ten acres. He could not, however, concur with his Hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, in say ing that there should be no limit to the period at which those improvements were made, otherwise they might have men claiming to be paid for an outlay on improve ments made a century ago by their ancestors. Leave west then given to bring in the Bill. AGRICULTURAL TENANT RIGHT IN ENGLAND. Mr. PUSEY then moved fur leave to bring in a Bill for the improvement of agricultural tenant-right in England and Wales. The Hon. Member explained that the Bill would be very similar to that of last session. Leave granted ; Mr. Posey, Mr. E. Denison, and Sir C. Lemon to bring in the Bill. IMPROVEMENT OF LANDED PROPERTY IN IRELAND. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN moved for leave to bring in a Bill to provide further facilities for the permanent im provement of landed property in Ireland. Leave granted. MR. ANSTEY'S MOTION. Mr. C. ANSTEY said that, before the orders of the day were read, he would fix his motion relating to foreign affairs for Wednesday week, on which day the only order (was the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts Bill, which, however unwilling, he would postpone in favour of his motion. Tile House adjourned at a Quarter past Nine. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 15. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack shortly after Five o'clock. JEWISH DISABILITIES. The Archbishop of YORK presented petitions from different parts of Yorkshire against th• Jewish Disabilities Bill. Lord DENMAN presented petitions from different parts of Derbyshire in favour of the Bill. EXCISE LAWS. Lord MONTEAGLE presented petitions from Scotland, praying for an alteration in the Excise laws. BANK CHARTER. The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition from Glasgow, praying for inquiry into the Bank Charter Act of 1844. NAVIGATION LAWS. Lord STANLEY gave notice of his intention on Friday week to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the navi gation laws. PRA MUNIRE. The Bishop of EXETER then rose, pursusnt to notice, to present a petition from certain clergy of Buckinghamshire, praying that so much of the statute of the 25th of Henry VIII. as subjected deans, chapters, and bishops, to the penalties of premunire might be repealed. It was no wish on the part of the petitioners to interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown, or the appointment and consecration of the bishop ; and for himself, he believed that the exercise of that prerogative was highly essential and necessary for the peaceful regulation of the Church. The petitioners did not refer to what had taken place at a late election of a bishop, or of the proceedings that had taken place upon it, but he trusted that the opinion of two of the Learned Judges, who were of opinion that the confirmati on o f a bi s h op was a j u di c i a l an d no t a ministerial act, would be declared to be the law of the realm. The fact of two of the Learned Judges being of that opinion gave him great hope that the object which the petitioners had in view would be acceded to. The Ri g ht R everen d P re l a t e , after adverting to what had taken place in the Court of Queen's Bench with r es p ec t t o th e e l ec tion of the Bishop of Hereford, and the judgment pronounced in that case by the Lord Chief Jus tice of the Court of Queen's Bench, stated that, in his opinion they must put an end to the apostolic jurisdiction in England if they wished to support the judgment of that Learned Judge. If the • law that had been laid down by that Learned Judge was the law of England, he would ventuie to say that it was without precedent. He was sure if the Noble and Learned Judge reflected for one moment on the effect of the construction he had put on the statute of the 25th of Henry VIII., he would recoil -from his own (pinion. The Bishops of England were ready, and willing, and desirous to obey the law; they would give up all their honours and their possessions; but he believed he stated the opinions of all of them when he said that they would be no parties, for the sake of worldly welfare, to the disobedience to the laws of the great Founder of their religion. So capricious was the Act of Henry VIII. that although the dean intimated that he intended to violate the law, it seemed that he broke no law, inas much as the election took place. If, however, there had not been an election, every oue who refused to vote would have been subject to the penalties of prcemuxire. He wished the Crown to retain the right of nominating to vacant bishoprics, but he hoped the opinions of the two Learned Judges who thought that confirmation and consecration were judicial acts, might be found to pre -1 vail and be the law of the land. The arguments which they had used declared the law of England to be in con formity with the Gospel, with the rights of theiChutch, and with the liberty of man. He hoped such a magna charta of tyranny as the Act of 25th Henry VIII. would not continue while a doubt existed, and it had been declared by the highest court in the land to be of adoubtful character, and that court also doubted whether the Bishop of Hereford had been legal!) confirmed. It 'was clear that the Court of Queen's Bench had not been able to prove that he had been. In the course of the argument a case was put, whether, if a person who had been convicted of felony was nominated to a bishopric, the dean and chapter would be obliged to elect him, and the archbishop to confirm and consecrate him, and the Attorney-General bad boldly asserted that they had no choice, and must obey the Act of Parlia ment. He would, however, waive the subject of confir mation and consecration, if a sufficient check were placed upon Ministers of the Crown is the first instance in the nomination of a person to a bishopric. He had alluded to the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General, but he might go on to say that a judge (Lord Denman) elevated by his rank, but more by his character—who would go down to posterity as one of the most able, learned, and independent judges this eountry had ever produced—(Hear, hear)—had said that if in the con scientious discharge of his duty the metropolitan could not confirm the election of a bishop who had been nominated by the Crown he might resign his office. The law must, indeed, be in a most atrocious state if such was to be the result of the honest convictions of an archbishop ; but be hoped it would still be found —in spite of the opinion of the Noble and Learned Lord —not to be the law. What would be the consequence, however, of such a step ? He had never heard in the history of the Church of an archbishop resigning ; but if it were so, in such a case as that supposed, a dis honest man must take his place—somebody must go about with a lanthorn, like Diogenes, but with a very different purpose—to find a dishonest man. Who, how ever, was to consecrate this dishonest archbishop ? The Crown must find four dishonest bishops to do it,but who would consecrate them? Why, they must put an end to episcopacy —to the apostolic succession in England altogether to carry out such a law. He was, therefore, certain that no man, be he Churchman, Dissenter, or infidel, would advocate the continuance of such an Act. This law, if ever it had been law. was without prece dent. The Noble and Learned Lord near him (Lord Campbell), who was a good communicant he believed, would shrink from the imposition of so tyrannical a law in Scotland. The presbytery there had the power of refusing the ordination of ministers whom they thought morally disqualified, and would their Lordships be content to see their privi leges trampled under foot ? His Right Rev. Brethren would, with himself, suffer the pains of prceminire or any other persecution, rather than submit to have a person thrust upon . them who was unfit f or the office. Since the discuFsion in the Queen's Bench he had referred to a book published by Cranmer, with the au thority of the King (Henry VIII.), and entitled " The Institution of a Christian Man;" and he might say in passing that he thanked the Noble and Learned Lord for his vindication of the memory of Cranmer, to whom we owed the prayer-book, the great body of the articles, and this book to which he had referred—but he still Wit ErWiIiNDAY EVEN 1 Pii rt i rittiihVAßY . 16' 2 18404 considered his recantations, frequent 53 they were whilst a hope of life remained, were Inu,l) more tk.s,:rv ing of condemnation than the denial of his mast , r by Peter. Crammer, however, nobly redeemed his errors by his death. The book to which he ha:l rcf,rred, and which was published after the 25',11 llcnry VIII., and revised by the King himself, plainly showed confirma tion to be a judicial act, and that the archbishop might reject any improper person presented to him for conse cration. The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by presenting the petition. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the Right Rev. Prelate had hoped the power of the Cronin in the nomi nation of bishops nsight be retained, and he also said thathewould not refer to a recent event. _ . . The Bishop of EXETER interposed, and said that he did not intend to allude to the Bishop of Hereford. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the Right Rev. Prelate was ready, then, to discuss everything connected with the proceedings, except the individual to whom they related. His (the Lord Chuncolli,r's) object was to st-,te what the law cow was, and what it would be if the pray, r of the petitioners should be granted, or if what the Right Rev. Prelate suggested should he adopted. As the 11w n. , ,w stood, the right of the appointwent of bbliovs was absolute in the Crown, anal the Right Rev. Prelate wanted it to be altered. The Bishop of EXETER—NO, no. The LORD CHANCELLOR, said that such appeared to be the prayer of the petition. At present the Crown appointed bishops without reference to any other power having the right to intervene. That was so by the Act of 25 Henry VIII. He did not sly anything in fevour of the manner in which it was enforced, but it was quite clear that it was intended the power shoal I be in the Crown, otherwise why subject those who did not obey the letters missive from the Crown to the per allies of prantunire?—(Hear, hear.) The form of the el , ction might be inconsistent and absurd, as many other forms were; but what did the petitioners ask? Why, that the penalty of preenzunire might be taken away; or, in other words, that the dean and chapter might do as they Why, Why was th e pena l t y o f p r a t nunirc enacted? Why, surely, in order that the power of the Crown might be preserved intact, and that the dean and chap ter might not have the power of putting, as it erre, a veto on the nomination of the Sovereign. The petitioners said it was very hard that the deans and chapters should be obliged to elect the persons nominated, which meant "give us (the deans and chapters) the power of electing the bishop, or, at any rate, of saying., we will not elect the person named by the Crown." The Right R-v. Prelate said, he was satisfied the peace and safety of the Church depended on the preservation of the royal pre rogative in the appointment of bishops; and yet, some how or other, he had pointed out the way he wanted the Church to interfere and take the power from the Sove reign.--(Hear, and a laugh.) The nomination of the Crown, before the Act of Henry VIII., was only formal, and the power of the Church absolute; but by that Act the state of things had been reversed; and he thought their Lordships would not be prepared to say that one of the bulwarks set up at the Reformation, and which was necessary for the preservation of the principles then struggled for, should no longer be supported As they valued the Reformation and the blessings which the Act of Henry VIII. secured to this Protestant country, he trusted they wculd not consent to alter the provisions of that Act.—(Hear, hear.) The Bishop of CHICHESTER said the Noble and Learned Lord had simply regarded the Act of Henry VIII. as one to uphold the prerogative of the Crown, but they had high legal authority for saying that its principal object was to exclude the p..wer of the Pr pe of Rome, and any one who attempted to construe it other wise would not give effect to its object and spirit. If he understood the Noble sad Learned Lord to lay down the doctrine that the nomination of the Crown was absolute, and that no consideration could prevent con secration of a bishop so named, he thouelit they had arrived at a most important crisis in the history of the Church. and he could rot subscribe to such an hit( rpre tatioe, for he felt that if such a doctrine prevailed there would be great risk of a schism in the Church.—(hear.) Lord DENMAN said, it did not appear to him a very expedient course to enter, in this place, into discussions respecting the execution of the laws.—(Cheers) lie could only say of this case, that upon no occasion in his recollection had he ever devoted so much time, or con sidered with so much anxiety, any subject coming before him. If he had erred in any way, it was not without the most painful and anxious endeavours to arrive at the truth ; and he had a most perfect conviction of having had the good fortune to arrive at it. It was under the severest sense of responsibility he ever experience,: that he pronounced that opinion which a judge had no right to withhold. However great the respect he felt for his Learned Brethren, and the extreme pain with which on every occasion one judge differed from another, still that judge must pronoun:ie the dictates of his own conscience and give full effect t. his own opinion. He was far from thinking that all that fell from him on that occa-ion could stand the text of the admirable sagacity with which the Right Reverend Prelate had observed upon it,; but he might say, with regard to the particular passage on which the flight Rev. Prelate had most en larged, referring tc the alternative of the Archbishop's resigning, that it was not exactly what he had stated. Ho had mentioned that as an alternative, but lie Led said also, it was a thing not to be supposed that the Crown would present any person to the Archbishop who was unfit to be confirmed in the office. The bishop is to be nominated by the Crown, and brought before the Archbishop for confirmation ; and it seemed >temp to him (Lord Denman) that all the world should then be allowed to come forward, and throw any scandal upon the Bishop elect. He would only add, with respect to the decision of the Court of Queens Bench, that it must be recollected what the judges of that court were required to do. They were asked to issue a writ of mandamus to the Archbishop, to hear any prson who chose to come forward to object to the new Bishop, on the ground of an ancient form of cone firmation, in which proclamation was made once in the church, and once at the door of the church, that all per sons might come forward and state their objections—a form which had never been known in any country or in any ago, except as a form, and it was a one-sided form, as had been stated by Bishop Gibson. Now, he was of opinion with his Noble and Learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), that it would be attended with evil consequences if the archbishop were to have the power of hearing objections and discussions as to the fitness of the person nominated to be a bishop. One expression had dropped from the Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) as to the opinions of his (Lord Denman's) two Learned Brethren on the bench who had differed from him, which the Right Rev. Prelate seemed to think it would confer a benefit upon the Church if they should become the law of the land. He (Lord Denman) thought that no one who had an opportunity of con sidering the subject could doubt that his Learned Bro ther, Mr. Justice Erle, and himself had conferred a great benefit upon the Church by putting a stop to the issue of the writ of mandamus.—(hear, hear.) The Right Reverend Prelate had read a document said to be written by Archbishop Cranmer, about the year 1537, w hich showed that he considered that some special power ought to be given to prevent improper appoint ments. But it appeared to him that this document had no weight whatever; it only showed that at that time there was an idea that there should be some special check to the exercise of the prerogative in the appoint ment of bishops; but none was interposed. With respect to the archbishop resigning in case of his disapproving of the nomination by the Crown of an improper person, he maintained that not any man, in any office, when called upon to slo an act contrary to what he considered to be his duty, should hesitate to resign his office; he must resign, he ought to resign, for nothing ought to induce him to offer violence to his own conscience. lie had not referred to the case of an archbishop, but the remark applied to every ease. The archbishop had an opportunity of previously conferring with the Crown respecting the person about to be promoted ; and ho might object, and the archbishop would not be called upon to do what he thought wrong. With respect to the petition which had been presented by the Right Rev. Prelate, he did not think so harshly of it as his Noble and Learned Friend the (Lord Chancellor). He looked at it us merely seeking the repeal of the penalty of praossunire, ris affect ing certain of the clergy; and as in his (Lord Denman's) opinion the archbishop was imperatively called upon to confirm the election of a bishop, he should be very glad to seer the abolition of the penalty of prantunire. Ile thought it very objectionable that persons should be put, as that penalty placed them, out of the protection of the law. He should not object to see that penalty entirely expunged from the statute-book. But he thought he could suggest a much better mode of proceeding, and he was going to refer to an Act of Parliament which appeared to have been passed with the same view, namely, the Act Ist of Edward VI., e. 2 (afterwards repealed), passed some years after the document of Cran mer was written, which enaeted that the dean and chapter should confer the episcopal once, by virtue of letters patent, upon the person the King should think most meet. To this extent he should be most happy to join in an amendment of the law. Lord CAMPBELL m ost hi g hl y approved of the line of conduct adopted by his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Denman), for it would be singular and derogatory in the highest degree to the character of his office if, upon the complaint of any one, ho should present him self before their Lordships, in an irregular manner, to justify his conduct in a judicial capacity. No judge who consulted the dignity of his character would do so. He (Lord Campbell) would abstain from entering into that question, but he could not hel p sa y in g that he c ons ider e d that the Court of Queen's Bench had decided the ques tion. It was true the judges were equally divided ; but the rule of law was, that, in that case, there was a de cision. The validity of marriages in Ireland without the presence of a priest was so _decided. U pon t h at question their Lordships voted, and were equally divided; but the judgment of this House was against the validity of that marriage, and such ma r ri a ges were now held by the law of England as invalid. The object of his pre senting himself to their Lordships was to answer the observations of the Right Rev. Prelate with respect to the pernicious consequences which would follow if the law should turn out to be as had been decided by the Court of Queen's Bench. In the first place, the Act of Parliament, though called the 25th of Henry VIII., and passed at a time when the Reformation was only begin ning, must be considered as an Act of the Ist of Eh:sa teen), when the Reformation was completed, and when it was considered fit that this course should be adopted. But the Right Rev. Prelate had compared this course to that which was employed in Scotland in the appointment of a minister of a congregation; and he had referred to an Act introduced by a Noble Earl (the Earl of Aber deen), by which a p. wer was given to object to the sufficiency of any person appointed to a living in Scot land. Both in Scotland and England there was, and ought to be, a power to object to the sufficiency of a per son nominated by a l a y patrols, against hi s mora li ty, h i s doctrine, or his learning; but when the Right Rev. Prelate said that a Jew, or a Turk, or an itifieel, might be made a:prelate of the Church of England, that was an exaggeration. His Noble and Learned Friend had an- ; swered this objection, by saying that a bishop must have been previously ordained, end must be nominated by the heed of the Church; and, as his sufficiency must be deter ruined in some quarter, he (Lord Campbell) said, with great respect, that it was as possible that the Sovereign might come to a right conclusion as any other authority, wail respect to the learning, morality, and orthodoxy of the party nominated. The Right Rev. Prelate laboured ceder a mistake in supposing that the subject under consideration by the :judges of the Court of Queen's Bench was whether all mankind assembled in Bow , Church should be at liberty, at the confirmation of a bishop elect, to bring forward all objections they thought proper. All that was to be done on the :occasion of a confirmation was to see whether the election had been properly conducted. But there was another ceremony which the bishop elect passed ;through, that of conse oration, which the Legislature thought a sufficient test, and, unless the bishop elect could go through it, he would net be competent to assume the functions of a bishop. The Church and the Legislature had come to the cotedusion that, with a Christian ruler of the land, there were sufficient guaiffs against the consequences to which the Right. Her. Prelate referred.—(The Noble and Learned Lord here read parts of the office for con secration of bishop,:.) Did not this afford a guard aeaiiist the consequences to which the Right verend Prelate referred ? And was a new system new to be intr ,duced, contrary to the notions of the Church in former times, and contrary to the practice of three hundred years? His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Denman) and Mr. Justice Erle, by refusing the rule for a mandamus, had been the saviours of the Church. With respect to the penalty of prannunire, he thought it might be repealed, leaving the law substantially as it was; but if any attempt was made to alter the law in this matter, it would be productive of the most mischievous consequences. The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S did not think that their Lordships should be impressed with the belief that all the objections urged by the Right Rev. Prelate met with the unanimous concurrence of every Prelate on that bench. There were many parts of the Right Reverend Prelate's argument in which he most fully and heartily concurred; but he could not take the same view of his arguments as the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool sack, or consider them of so alarming a character. It was unavoidable that he should take some exceptions to the remarks of his Right Rev. Friend. He might even say that in the whole of his Right Reverend Friend's address there was something which he (the Bishop of St. David's) had regarded as the sinister augury of an approaching storm, which might, perchance, unless averted by the firmness and wisdom of Parliament, shake the Church, and even the State, to their very foundations. There might be reasons why an alteration in the direction pointed out would be advisable; but though the evil pointed out re mained precisely as it was, he could not see that the epithets " tyrannical," " monstrous," or " oppressive," would be at all applicable. If the petition had gone no further than to express a wish for an alteration in the law so far as regarded the appointment, election, con firmation, and consecration of a bishop, he should have opposed no objection to the prayer. Such a petition would probably have had the concurrence of the great body of the members of the Church. The time had come when circumstances required a decided change in the law, and he was glad that his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Campbell) seemed to be of that opinion. Some persons were loud in their demand to sweep away all sorts of "factions," constitutional and ecclesiastical; and if, indeed, a " fiction" were proved to be mis chievous and troublesome, it was high time to alter it, and to supply an effective substitute. So far, there fore, in desiring an amendment in the law, he ap proved of the petition, and agreed with his Right Rev. Friends; but they went much farther than this—they proposed the remedy. The inevitable tendency of that which they now proposed was, to make a transfer of the power which now rested with the Church to some other body. The Bishop of EXETER—No, no. The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S did not mean to say that his Right Rev. Friends had mentioned the parties to whom they would entrust such a power; but the real tendency of their suggestions based upon the petition had undoubtedly been, and it was pointed out by the Noble and Learned Lord ou the Woolsack, to effect some such object. They asked that the power of the Crown should be taken from the Crown, and the only point in their recommendation which they reserved was, as to the body in whom they would invest such authority. The alteration which he, however, contemplated was, that the power which now substantially resided in the Crown should be really secured to it; he was not at pre sent prepared to go one step further. He trusted and believed that it was not desired, among the great body of the community, whether laymen or ecclesiastics, that the Legislature should attempt more than this, and he did not et all think that there was abroad that deep discon tent with the institutions under which they lived hinted at in the course of this debate. His Right Reverend Friend was undoubtedly right in his condemnation of the anomaly in question, but a great number of modify ing circumstances had been entirely overlooked. His Ilieht Reverend Friend had spoken as if the power which had hitherto been exercised, in substance, by the Crown had been an absolute and irresponsible power. Now, it was not by any means a power of that descrip tion. His Right Rev. Friend had forgotten this very important feature in the case, that when the Crown exercised this power it was strictly limited as to the object selected for nomination. It was not a power to nominate anybody whom the Crown might think proper; but it was a poster limited to a certain known class of persons, who in the eyes of the law were equally well qualified to be the object of nomination. His Right Rev. Friend, in arguing this point, had made much too greet a distinction between the inferior and superior , orders of the Church; he appeared, at the moment, to ' have forgotten that g there was no ulterior qualification required for the functions of a bishop which was not equally required for the functions of a presbyter. The qualifications required for the presbyter, and which fitted the presbyter for the after functions of a bishop, were the main qualifications; all others were secondary and comparatively immaterial. His Right Rev. Friend had given imaginary cases of unfitness, and, no doubt, there were various degrees of unfitness. The choice of the Crown in every instance might not fall upon the best qualified and most suitable individual; but, being one of a class, those qualities in which he was found deficient were of a very inferior and comparatively incon siderable moment. The law presumed, until the case be preyed to be otherwise, that all presbyters, the only class from which bishops could be selected, were all equally well qualified to fill that high office. In in vesting the head of her Majesty's Government with such a power as this, the Church, therefore, was not sub mitting to a state of things of which any of her members had reason to complain as a great grievance or a grinding tyranny. And this was not the only limitation to which the license of the Government was subjected. His Right Rev. Friend would surely acknowledge that the force of public opinion frequehtly directed the nomina tion. There never, in fact, was a period in which the power of the Crown in the appointment of a bishop was more subjected to:the wholesome and legitimate iefluence of public opinion, and—he would go one step further — there never was a time in the history of this country when there existed more probability of the public exer cising a wholesome and legitimate opinion on such a matter. The petition now before their Lord ships was for a radical and fundamental al teration in the law, and it was certainly a remarkable circumstance that in this particular epoch in the affairs of the Church such a demand should have been made. The petitioners, it was quite clear, laboured under an exaggerated fear of the evils of the present state of the law, and it was only natural that the reme dies they proposed should be excessively imperfect and confused. lie was ready to admit that their present position was not the best possible; he might see as clearly as another man the wide difference which separated the present form of procedure from that which prevailed in the primitive ages; but this was not the point for con sideration. The evil being pointed out the Legislature, in inquiring for a remedy, would have to compare the present state of things,: not with one which existed in a time long past, but with any which existed in their own day, or which by any legislative enactment they would be able to bring about. And, however I bad might bo the state of things in the Church of England in this respect, when he compared the cir , cunestances with those in other religious communities, he did not see the difference was at all so disad vantageous or so humiliating to the faithful members of the Church of England as would appear on the face of the statement made by his Right Rev. Friend. Ho, for these reasons, did not wish to see the power of the Crown transferred either to an ecclesiastical conclave or to a popular assembly; he preferred to retain exist ing institutions, with all their admitted anomalies and inconveniences, to the evils which such remedies would produce. He would leave the question with perfect tranquillity in the hands of the Legislature, and, even it they should do nothing, even if the law should re main unaltered, his Right Rev. Friend might find con solation in the fact that, then, they would only continue to suffer from grievances which had been endured un complainingly for some centuries past. He entertained strong hopes that they would be able to accomplish some wise and cautious change in the form of the law, but at the same time he would prefer things being permitted to remain as they were, rather than open the door to an invasion of which no man could foresee the legitimate results, but which clearly threaten both the Church and the State with consequences the most calamitous. The Bishop of EXETER replied. His Right Rev. Friend had mistaken his object in presenting and sup porting this petition. No one thought it of more im portance than he did that the Crown should retain this power of appointment. He desired no change in s t h n o a p t e ; I rbeustp whatect ; he ha wished e r the u C g h r o t w w n a sabsolutelytha that the A to rc n h o b in i Canterbury in the province of Canterbury, and that the Archbishop of York in the province of York, should have a right to decide if they would consecrate the party nominated, and in the event of substantial charges being brought against him, to exercise the privilege of pro nouncing him unfit as uncanonica 1. Ile regretted their Lordships had been so long detained upon the presenta tion of a petition, but hoped that some good might arise if lie had been able to lay before her Majesty's Govern- Merit u practical mode of getting oat of the difficulty which now prevailed, Their Lordships then adjourned, at a Quarter to Eght o'clock. ADVERTISEMENT.] — Tnu EARL OF ALDBOROUGH AND HOLLOWAY'S PILLS.—An astounding cure by this miraculous medicine, after every other means had failed. See extract from kis Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 21, 1845. Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint YOU that your pills have effected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach all the most eminent of the facnity, at home and all over the continent, had not been able ts effect; nay, not ever the waters of Carlsbad or Ma rienbad. (Signed) .` Ahnuoaouun." These wonderful pills will care any disease of the liver or stomach.—Sold (also Holloway's Olutnituit) at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, and by sil median* vendors throughout lb. ayilloal world. TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION. Sir,—On Monday, the 14th, the New Zealand Bill went into Committee. New lights are brought out in the progress of debate. I request to correct an inaccuracy in my earlier reports. It was not for the office of town-councillor, but for the exercise of the elective franchise, that reading and writing were re quired in a New Zealander. Out of sixty-seven natives employed in. the Ordnance department, the whole could read in their own language, and all but one could write. This is the missionaries' doing, who are manifestly going to be the founders of an empire at the Antipodes. The state of things is extra ordinary ; and was explained, between joke and earnest, in a most amusing manner by Sir Robert Peel. The Governor of New Zealand holds his ground by the assistance of one half of the native inhabitants against the other half, his own strength being barely sufficient to turn the scale; and he writes very deliberately to the Govern ment, to intimate that there can be no such thing as taxing his native friends without their consent. Would that the nations of Europe had their Govern ments at this hay ! What is clear at the same time is, that the Governor of New Zealand has made up his mind to be the father of free institutions with their feet towards ours, and he and the i'ope must go down to posterity together. On Tuesday, the 15th, in reply to a motion by Dr. BOA ring for correspondencc, the Secretary fi.r. Fo reign Affairs repeated the scene in w: ich he gave so much satisfaction to the House and the country on the question of Switzerland. lie gave the most une quivocal assurance Gf the interest felt by the Govern ment in the progress of liberal institutions in Italy, and added the agreeable intimation that within twenty-four hours he had received distinct informs tioa that it was not the intention of the Austrian Government to attempt any forcible interference. The House adjourned at nine o'clock. I am_ , Sir, your obedient s e rvan t, T. PERRONET THOMPSON. Blackheath, London, Feb. 16, 1848. FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE OF TUE SDAY. At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 11th day of February, 1648, present, the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. This day his Grace Thomas Lord Archbishop of York and the Right Honourable William Goodenough Hayter were, by her Ma jesty's command, sworn of her Majesty Honourable Privy Council, and took their respective places at the Board accordingly. Her Majesty having been pleased to appoint the Right Hon. Charles Lord Sudeley to be Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of the county of Montgomery, his Lordship this day took the oaths appointed to be taken thereupon, instead of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 11th day of February, 1848, present, the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. Her Majesty in Council was this day pleased, upon the representation of the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education, to appoint the Reverend Frederick Temple, M.A., to be Principal of the Training School for School masters at Knellar-hall. Her Majesty in Council was this day pleased, upon the representation of the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education, to appoint the Reverend William Henry Brookfield, M.A., to be one of her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in England, vice the Venerable John Allen, now Vicar of Frees and Arch deacon of Salop; and also to appoint John Daniell Morell and Zelinger C. Symons, Esqs., to be two of her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in England and Wales; and John Gibson, Esq., to be one of her Ma jesty's Inspectors of Schools in Scotland. ST. JAMES'S-PALACE, JAN. 31. The Queen has been pleased to appoint David James Harmer, Esq., to be Standard-bearer to her Majesty's Honourable orps of Gentleman-at-Arms, rice Matthew Wyatt, Esq., promote-d. ST. JAMES'S PALACE, JAN. 31. The Queen has been pleased to appoint Mat thew Wyatt, Esq., late Standard-bfarer to her Majesty's Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, to be her Lieutenant in the same Corps, Tice Sir Henry Robinson, Knt., retired. ST. JAMES'S PALACE, JAN. I. The Queen has been pleased, on the nomination of Lord Foley, to appoint William Majoribanks Hughes, Esq., late Captain Ist the King's Regiment of Dragoon Guards, to bo one of her Majesty's Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, ♦ice Tyrwhitt Walker, retired. DUCHY OF LANCASTER, FEB. 11. The Queen has been this day pleased to appoint Sir Thomas George Hesketh, of Rufford-hall, Bart., to be Sheriff of the county palatine of Lancaster for the year ensuing. PRINCE OF WALES' _ COUNOK, CHAMBER, SOMERSET-lIOUSE, FEB. 14. Augustus Coryton, of Yentalie Castle, in the county of Cornwall, Esq., has been appointed Sheriff of the county of Cornwall. FOREIGN-OFFICE, FEB. 11. The Queen has been pleased to approve of Mr. Vic tor Weber, as Consul at Ramsgate, and of Mr. Thomas Jenner, as Consul at Rye, for his Majesty the King of Hanover. Commissions by the Lord-Lieutenant of the County of Middlesex. The Royal West Middlesex Regiment of Militia— Henry Tufnall, Esq., M.P., to be Captain, Feb. 10; Ernest Oswald Coe. Gent., to be Lieutenant, Jan. 7. ADMIRALTY, FEB. 14. The following promotion has this day taken place, consequent upon the death of Rear-Admiral the lion. James William King:—Captain Villiers Francis llatton to be Rear-Admiral of the Blue. BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED. John Bond Cooke and George Shaw, hat manu facturers, Denton, Lancashire. Robert Murray, woollen draper, Liverpool. BANKRUPTS. Thomas Phipps, saddler, High Holborn, to surrender, Feb. 24, at twelve, and March 30, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-street; Abbott, Jenkins, and Abbott, New inn. _ _ Stephen Charles Taylor, wine merchant, New Peck ham, Surrey, Feb. 25, at hall-past one, and April 1, at half-past eleven. Green, official assignee, Aldermanbury, London ; Axford, Poultry. Thomas Freemantle, builder, Clapham-rise, Surrey, Feb. 24, and April 1, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Follett, official assignee, Sambrook-court, Basinghall-street ; Adams, G eorge-street, Mansion-house. Henry Burrell, lodging house keeper, Bull and Mouth street, City, Feb. 23, at one, and March 31, at twelve, at the Court, Basinghall-street. Pennell, official assignee; Young, Warwick-square, Newgate•street. James Haddon Brownlie, cabinet maker, Richmond street, St. James's, Feb. 21 and April 3, at half-past eleven, at the Court, Basinghall. street. Turquand, official assignee, Guildhall-chambers; Kinsey, Blooms bury-sgaare. Henry Harvey, stock and share dealer, Stock Ex change, Feb. 21, at half-past one, and March 31, at half past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee, Coleman -street; Harrison, Walbrook. Charles Slade, market gardener, Grange, Kent, Feb. 21, at two, and April 3, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee; Galsworthy and Co., Cook's -court, Lincoln's Inn. Henry Clark, warehouseman, Aldermanbury, City, Feb. 25, and March 3u, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Bell, official assignee, Coleman-street-buildings; Baxter, Lincoln's Inn-field& Robert Oakley, market gardener, Southampton, Feb. 24, at half-past one, and March 30, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee, Coleman street-buildings ; Tinder, John-street, Bedford-row; Sharpe and Harrison, Southampton. George Stokes, jun., cheese dealer, King' s Arms yard- Snow-hill, Feb. 23, at half-past eleven, and March 23, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, Basinghall- street ; Buchanan, Basingh all- street. William Henry Mann, colour merchant, Maiden-lane, Cheapside, Feb. 25, at two, and March 24, at twelve, at the Cout tof Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street. Groom, official assignee, Abchurch-lane; Duncombe, Devereux court, Strand. Mary Emma Edwards, banker, Bristol, Feb. 29, at twelve, and March 2 8 , at eleven , at the Bristol Dis trict Court. Miller, official assignee, Bristol ; Sraitit, Bristol. Ellen Edwards, banker, Bristol, Feb. 29, at twelve, and March 28, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Miller, official assignee, Bristol ; Smith, Bri s t o l. Eliza Anne Ed wards,- banker, Bristol, Feb. 29, at twelve, and March 28, at eleven, at the Bristol Dis trict Court. Miller, official assignee, Bristol ; Smith, Bristol. Evan Parry, draper, Pontypool, Alonmouthshire, Feb. 28, at twelve, and March 27, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official assignee, Bristol ; Philpots, Newport, Monmouthshire. Lewis Povey, printer, Wootton-under-Edge, Glouces tershire, nb. :18, and March 28, at half-past eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Acratnan, official Assig nee, Bristol ; Gray, Bristol. John Stephens, grocer, Bath, Feb. 28, and March 28, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official assignee, Bristol; Gray, Bristol. Richard Jewell, bootmaker, I3eeralston, Devonshire, Feb. 24, at one, and March 22, at eleven, at the Exeter District Court. Hirtzel, official assignee, Exeter ; Tucker, iTavist oc k ; Stogdon, Exeter ; Jenkinson, Lombard -street, Lonon. William Stanbury, grocer, Cawsand, Cornwall, Feb. 28, at eleven, and March 23, at one, at the Exeter District Court. Hirtzel, official assignee, Exeter ; Rooker, Plymouth; Stogdon, Exeter; Blower and Co., Lincoln's Inn-fields. Henry Tucker, linendraper. Colyton, Devonshire, Feb. 28, at eleven, and March 23, at one, at the Exe ter District Court. Helmsman, official assignee, Exeter; Terrell, Gray's Inn-square ; Hancock, Colyton; Ter rell, Exeter. Bobert Burns, general draper, Exeter, Feb. 28, and March 22, at eleven, at the Exeter District Court. Hirtzel, official assignee, Exeter ; Turner, Exeter ; Cowlard, Lincoln's Inn-fields. Alfred Furniss, grocer, Derby, Feb. 25, and March 17, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. Bittles • ton, official assignee, Nottingham; Moss, Derby, Thomas Cattel Wilcox, linen draper, Birmingham, Feb. 29, and March 21, at eleven, at the Birmingliain District Court. Whitmore, official assignee, Birming ham; Hodgson, Birmingham. Thomas Lowe, sen., and Thomas Lowe, jun., bone and guano dealers, Wbitchurch, Feb. 2s, and March S ( A,• , , . ~,,,,, •.,, in, at the Birmingham District Court. , -.' cial assignee, Birmingham; Hodgson, Birmln ^ min-- •-----• Jabez Rubery, lock manufacturer, Darlaston, Stafford- . shire, Feb. 26, and March 25, at eleven, at the Binning' ham District Court. Christie, official assignee, Dir minglEr.m; Phillips, Wolverhampton; Motteram and Ca-. Birmingham. Thomas Butterworth, woollen manufacturer, Green booth-mills, Rochdale, Feb. 25, and March 17, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court. Hobson, offinial assignee, Manchester; Norris and Co, Bedfo rd - r° w ' London ;Wood and Jackson, Rochdale. William Henry Bushell, innkeeper, Mancft es ter, Feb. 26, and Mar c h 17, at the Manchester District Court. Hobson, offici a l ass i gnee , M anc h ester; Ch es t er .mod Co" Staple Inn, Lond on • Wilson, Manchester. S. Rutland, coaAmaker, Hosthorp, Lincolnsi iiri t March 1 and March 22, at half-past ten, at the To , "" hall, Kingston•upon-Hull. Stansfeld, officiel assigne,', Hull; Tooke and Co., Bedford-row, London; staniland and Co., Boston. DIVIDEND:;. At the Court, Basinghall street. J. W. Falshaw, Farrin , .:,el,n, Berkshire, grocer, March' 7, at two—J. Sedman, Queen-street, Cheapside, colour merchant, March 7, at two—C. W. Maebryde, Watling st reet, City, wine merchant, March 10, at twelve—J. W. Roby, Upper John- street, Fitzroy-square, builder, March 8, at half-paq one—G. Spearman, Leeds. silk mercer, March 8, at two—J. Flint, 1., - -ves, Sussex, linen draper, March 9, at two—J. Tilley, High-street,l Southwark, woollen draper, Match 9, at two—S. Hantsconab and E. Handscomb, Woburn, Bedfordshire, dealer in watches and clocks, March 15, at eleven—E. Seppings, Cromer, Norfolk, victualler, Match 7, at half-past ten—P. Patti son, Cornhill, tailor and draper, March 7, at twelve— J. Shea, Aldeimanbury, woollen warehouseman, March 7, at two. ___ _ In the Country. G. Edwards, Newton Abbott, Devonshire, coach builder, March 8, at eleven, at the Court, Exett`r—N. Bishop, jun., Honiton, Devonshire, victualler, March 15, at eleven, at the Court, Exeter—W. D. Scurtield, Livtir pool, shawlrnan, March 10, at twelve, at the Court, Liverpool—J. C. I)reaper, Liverpool, corn merchant, March 10. at eleven, at the Court, Liverpool—R. Yates and T. Hartley, Manchester, merchants, March 8, at eleven, at the Court, Manchester—W. T. Watson, Leeds, commission agent, March 8, at twelve, at the Court, Manchester—M. Johnson, Leeds, spindle maker, March 7, at eleven, at the Court Leeds—J. Robinson, Beverley, Yorkshire, spirit merchant, March 8, at half-past ten, at the Court, Kingston-upon-Hull —P. Loyal, Kingston upon-Hull, miller, March 8, at half-past ten, at the Court, Kingston• upon-Hull. PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS. J. Brittan, Downton, Wiltshire, market gardener and nurseryman, 9id., on any Wednesday, between eleven and three, at the office of Mr. Whitmore, Basing hall• street. D. C. H. Lomer, London-street, Fenchurch-street, merchant, Is. id., on any Wednesday between eleven and three, at the office o f Mr. Whitmore, Basinghail street. ___ _ _ J. Turner, Ludgate-hill, jeweller, Eid., on any Wed nesday, between eleven and three, at the office of Mr. Whitmore, Basinghall-street. F. W. Gerish, East-road, City-road, ironfounder, 2u., on Wednesday,Feb. 16, and two following Wednesdays, between ten and two, at the office of Ur. Turquand, Guildhall Chambers. W. Oliver, Darlington, Durham, printer, bookseller, and stationer, Is. Id., on any Saturday between ten and three, at the office of Mr. Wakley, Newcastle•upos- Tyne. J. Wainwright, Birmingham, draper, 2s. lOd., of any Tuesday between eleven and three, at the office of Mr. IVhitmore, Birmingham. W. E. Holmes and W. Butcher, Lichfield. cowl builders, 6s. 6d., on any Thursday (except Feb. 24th instant), at the office of Mr. Valpy, Birmingham. NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES. At the Court, Basinghall-street. — A. Israel and W. Turner, Great Tower•street, mer chants, Mareh 8, at eleven—J. W. Cole, Great Win cheter street, City, merchant, March 8, at twelve—T. Raymond, Bishop's-road, Paddington, builder, March 8, at twelve. In the Country. T. Carter, Leeds, currier, March 7, at eleven, at the Court, Leeds—W. Sheppard, Manchester, wine and spirit dealer, March 9, at twelve, at the Court, Manches ter—S. Dethick, Newton-heath, near Manchester, coua-- mon brewer, March 7, at eleven, at the Court, Manches ter—G. Edwards, Newton Abbott, Devonshire, coach builder, March 8, at eleven, at the Court, Exeter—R. Roberts, Denbigh, innkeeper, March 7, at eleven, at the Court, Liverpool —S. Knight, Prhnethorpe, Leicester shire, hosier, March 9, at eleven, at the Court, Bir mingham. _ At the Court of Review, March 7. J. Morison, Railway-plaoe, Fenchurch-street, dealer in sacking and canvass—J. 11. Page, Pancras-lane, City, illaCtiOneer—W. Hammer and J. Hammer, Whitechapel road, coachmakers—W. Knight, Reading, wine mer chant-3_ Murray, Edgware-road, stationer and book seller—G. W. Longridge, Sunderland, ironmonger —J. Jones and Alice Brown,,Shoreditch, licensed victuallers —C. Holt, Bouverie-street, Fleet-street, hotel keeper— ' J. Butler, Saffron Walden, Es,ex,upholsterer—G.Heath, Canterbury, draper—T. Oldaker, High street, South wark, hop merchant. _ _ PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. J. Sharpies and S. Mayall, Lower Moor, Oldham, cotton spinners —J. Forest, W. 11. Hornby, and W. Ken worthy, Blackburn, cotton spinners and powerloom cloth manufacturers—P. Hughes and J. R. Lancaster, Shad Thames, Tooley-street, coal merchants—J. Cal vert and T. Calvert, Bradford, Yorkshire, woollen drapers—S. Wakefield and S. Smith Nottingham, lace manufacturers—R. Rowe and J. Unsworth, Chorley, Lancashire, manufacturing chemists T. Paton and C. Melville, Liverpool, engineers and boiler makers —H. Goldthorp, S. Goldtborp, and T. H. Archbell, Tadcaster, Yorkshire, grocers, druggists, and seedsmen —E. Moorhouse and S. Moorhouse, Downshutts-in- Scholes, Yorkshire, cloth manufacturers—J. M. Rendel and N. Beardmore, Great George street, Westminster, civil engineers —J. Tomkinson, J. T. nil) nes, W. Lup ton, R. Kneeshaw, and T. Brassey, Dwygyfylchi and Llysfaen, Carnarvon, quarrymen (as far as regards J. Tomkinson)—R. Hadland, J. Lackland, and J. F. Ben nett, Eccleston, Lancashire, glass manufacturers—A. Whitfield and S. Mansell, Bermondsey-wall, coal mer chants—D. Holme and S. Smithard, Derby, clock and watchirnakers—T. Wilson and W. H. Stafford, Eckington, Derby, plumbers, painters, and glaziers—F. Coxson and P. Jones, :Heaton Norris, Lancashire, brush manufac turers—NV. Clay and H. Janson, Cheapside, warehouse men—J. Crook, jun., and 11. S. Diaper, Gosport and Ports mouth, auctioneers and appraisers—J. Howarth and J. Gregory, Middleton, Derbyshire, cotton spinners —L. H. Tentyman and G. Warner, Cape Town,Cape of Good Hope, merchants—R. Kettle and G. Lowe, Sheffield, woollen drapers—B. Welch and J. Pace, Panton-street, Hay market, window glass and lead merchants—J. Senior and C. Pickering, Batley Carr, Yorkshire, cut nail manufac turers—G. S. Lee and E. A. Cox, Danescurnbe, Corn. wall, mill board manufacturers—T. Cargill, W. Cargil, E. Mounsey, and J. C. Mounsey, Newcastle upon-Tyne, iron commission merchants —J. Motteram and T. Knowles, Birmingham, attorneys and solicitors—F. Martin, S. D. Murray, and W. J. Young, Bombay (as far as regards S. D. Murray)—J. Cleminson and W. Cleminson, Shildon, Durham, quarrymen—G. Bentley, J. Wood, and J. Ilill, Idle and Bradford, delvers and stone merchants (u far as regards J. Atkins, jun., and J. Sercombe, St. James's-street, tailors-1% Pinches, J. Adkins, H. Adkins, and J. Boyle, Smeth wick, Staffordshire, soap and alkali manufacturers (as fa r as regards J. Bayle)—J. Woodcock aad H. Milner, Harrowgate, Yorkshire, silk mercers—R. Fiske and H. W. Clarke, Beecles, Suffolk, attorney-G. Reeves, men. and G. Reeves, jun., Cheltenham, riding masters and livery stable keepers. INSOLVENT PETITIONERS. James Wharton, Manchester, inkeeper. Matthew Steel, jun., Manchester, tailor and draper. George Pelee, St. Lawrence, Kent, porter to South Eastern Railway Company. John Dainton, Newport, Monmouthshire, ship steward. Thomas Lee, Rochdale, Lancashire, stone cutter. Daniel Walters, Llangunnnor, Carmarthenshire, farmer. Henry :Samuel Morris, Carisbrooke, Isle of Wight, draper's assistant. John May, West Cow es , N or th woo d , I s l e o f Wi g h t , dairyman and general dealer. James White, B ra di ng , I s l e o f Wi ght, shoemaker, Sarah Wright, Salford, Manchester, tea dealer. Robert Felton Ditchett, Balsall-heath, Worcestershire, accountant clerk. Julius Cesar Bradford, King's Norton, Worcestershire, retail brewer. George Simmons, jun., Sandwich Kent, publican. Hannah Couldwell, Rotheram, Yorkshire, shopkeeper. Thomas Ankrett, Walsall, Staffordshire, brasefounder. George Offord, Coddenham, near Ipswich, blacksmith. Stephen Hayward, Harrietsham, Kent, publican's as• sistant. John George Fuller Baines, Ipswich, attorney. William Knight, Brighton, bath keeper. Thomas Griffiths, Wolverhampton, blacksmith. James Pendrell, Wolverhampton, grocer's assistant. William Holmes, Wolverhampton, journeyman JaPanner• Thomas Gibson, sen., Liverpool, cabinet maker. William Wells, Liverpool, schoolmaster. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIO NS . t William Gray, Edinburgh, grain e Feb. 23, and March 15, at three, withinhn, to meet a Dow ell's R ooms, Edinburgh. W. M. Jamieson, Edinburgh , draper, to meet Feb. 21 and March 13, a t twelve, within Jo hnston's Temperance . rg . Coffee. house, Edinburgh. coachbuilder,to meet Feb. thehip Tavern, 19 D. and Y e o Marchw les s 9 :Edinburgh, a t twelve, withinb Edinburgh. C. Cumming and M. M`Kay, Thornhill, and Sanquhar, D um friesshire, storek eepers, to meet F e b. 19 an d Marck 11, at one, within Gibb's Hotel, Sanquhar. THE GHOST OP OLD BARTHOLOMEW'S...4n the course of a perambulation through the Golden-lane dis trict we were startled by an apparition of old St. Bar tholomew's Church, which used to stand by the Bank, with its curiously-finished, or rather unfinished, tower, looking as if the top had been blown down, leaving on each side a doorway, or window-frame, standing alone. It appears that the Bishop of London, when applied to for his sanction to the proposed removal of the old church, stipulated that a new church should be erected in the neighbourhood, and the internal fittings and decorations having been preserved, and apparently some of the stone work too, Mr. Cockerell, to whom the commission was given, has made the church as nearly like the old one as possible : the main difference inside is, that it has ne clerestory, which the original church had, and has gal leries, which the old one had not. It is nearly ready for consecration.—Builder. From private letters from Berlin, it would seem that Baron Alexander Von Humboldt is lying danger• only ill. ~~ ~, !!,~ I f ~. A; t~~s