The Sun. — London, England, 1856-07-25 00:00:00

- iIePERIAL PARLIAIYI'LIi T. pledge themselves t i bring, in a general measure next session, hut not of the character of the measure referred to the previous day by the right hon. baronet the mem ber for Carlisle. He hoped this measure would be taken as a precedent for the resi,inotion of bishops as none had taken plou,) since the Rettrotation, but not with regard to its details. He objected to the present state ol things, and was at a loss to understood how any C t rcbman could c insider that a " tolerably satislacto stal;e of things " where one bishop had to assist ann ., er on ac• count of his age and infirmities. A more dangerous ar gument could not be used by the friends of the Church. He urged on the noble lord in considering this subject that he would not confine any general measure he might introduce to provide for the retirement of bishops, but for the extension of the episcopate by the division of B.OUSE OF LORDS 1 7 _ ES TERDA.Y.) The LORD Cii..v.icgT.Loa took his seat on the wool ,!:Back at five o'clock. • Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from cer 3,:tain learned societies, c ,tnplainioF. , , of the existing translation of the Bible, and praying for the appointment f of a committee to revise the same. THE AFFRAY AT NENAGH, The M arq uis of CLANRICARDE called the atten• 'tion of the Secretary at War to the late affray at Nenaah . - between the militia and the regular troop, and asked what were the intentions of the Government with '''respect to that matter. He begged to off-r a tribute ';'of praise to the commanding officer, Sir J. Chatterton, " for his prompt meAsnres on the occasion. " Lord PANMURE said that the parties really gniity of the mutiny would he dealt with with firmness. The men of the militia who hal _ been dioceses. Sir J. FITZGERILD opposed the bill on account of its exclusive character. A general measure should be introduce I extending it to all the clergy. Mr. RILDYARD should object to any general mea sure based upon the principles of this bill. The most pressing spiritual destitution was the inadequate provi sion for tin, wcrking clergy, and he objected to the funds a pplicable to them being diminished under any circum stances. Of all functionaries bishops were looked at with less con iteration than any other, and as in reference to their religious animosities and prejudices showed themselves it was nece,...sary the utmost caution should t guilty of the outra!ze on this ncca-inn would be ' - hau-led over to the civil tribunals. Fr.lrn information he 'had received the rinqleadera had been identified, and would be brought to just,cr.. Lord ELLENTOIIOU TS bore his testimony to the merits of tie Irisu militia. From returns he had re ceived be found the desertions from the English ''militia were 23 per cent., the Scotch 20 per cent., and the Irish only five per cent. The English gave recruits to the army at the rate of 7 per cent., the —Scotch at 1. , q, and the Irish at 21. The latter was therefore the most valuable to the service of the country. THE LEGION OF HONOUR. Lord CALTHORPE called the attention of their lordships to the distribution of the Legion of Honour, and asked why it had not been conferred upon four gal lant officers who formed a portion of the staff of the late Lord Raglan, notwithstanding the wish of the Emperor ,• Napoleon, after the battle of Inkerman, to confer such a distinction upon the officers engaged. After a few observations from the Duke of CLEVE be usefi in dealint► with them. Lord PALMER:STON said that as to the intention of the Government with reference to a general measure he could not then give a direct answer. Had there been a general measure introduced there must have been clauses invi.inf, exceition;tf provisions for these two particu'ar sees. If the Government should bring in a general measure next session it would be on their re sponsibility, and nothing that had been said in the course of this dihata would be considered as a pledge to support or oppose such a measure. It must be con sidered entirely on its own merits. A bishop ought not to be allowed to retire at his discretion, nor at the wish of the Government of the day. A bishop willing to re sign should show physical infirmities and incompetency to discharge his duties, and when such existed, and the bishop refused to resign, he ought to be compelled. He considered special legislation in these cases objec tionable. LAND and Lord CoecnEseeo, Lord PA.NMURE said the C o mmander-in-Chief had forwarded eo officers commanding in the Crimea instructions to send over the, names of those officers entitled to the distinction. The names were transmitted by the Minister of Foreign Af fairs to Faris. He believed that General Simpson and Sir W. Codrington had made the selection of those names without any favour or affection. The Government were not reeponsible for the selection. He had referred to the Foreign-office to see whether any correspondence existed on the subject, but he could not discover any. " There was no slur whatever intended by the alleged omissions on the memory of Lord Raglan. (Hear. hear.) There was not an officer on the staff ' of Lord Raglan who bad not received one step in pro motion, if not two. Col. Somerset had received the dh• • tinction of Commandership of the Bath in addition to a Lieutenant-Coloneley before he left this country, and he was too young to receive the next step, because by such promotion being made a number of senior officers would have to be passed over. The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH said he believed the claim of Colonel Somerset was urged on the score of his father's services. Now, it was his opinion . that distinction should never be conferred fir vicarious services, otherwise there was a deception, and a soldier would be ashamed to wear it. The rule he had laid down when he was in India, he believed, was the cor rect one, and it was that a soldier should never receive • a military medal unless for services under fire. After a few words of explanation from the Duke of CLEVELAND and Lord CALTEIORPE the subject dropped. MARRIAGE LAW OF SCOTLAND AMENDING BILL. The LORD CHANCEL LOR moved the consideration of the Commons - amendments to this bill. Lord PORTMAN reminded their lnrdships,that by one of the standing orders passad in 1707, the puts of watching and explaining amendinedts made by the Com mons in bills passed by the Lords devolved upon the noble and learned occupantof the woolsack. Now it was quite impossible that the Lord Chancellor could find time to discharge that necessary and important duty, : - Anetelete woold e therefore - stegget to the Government the jerePriet3o,•f e tieineiliet'in e it tee afire (item else. r.m,LOttetiliiNCELLOß!riplied that the noble lord e , :teae probiGly riot; aware that it had b een a l rea dy an , ghat thiGoverrirnent bad it in contemplatiun to orapetethe appointment of an officer whose duty it should be to assist both houses with regard to the amendments e , made by each in the bills of the other. The amendments were then teceived. HOSPITALS (DUBLIN) BILL. This bill passedthrough committee. BURIAL GROUNDS (IRELAND) BILL Tbis hilt passed through committee. LUNATIC ASYLUMS SUPERANNUATION cee - - • - (IRELAND) BILL. This bill passed through committee. JOINT STOCKS BANK BILL. ,Tbia bill passed through committee. • The following bills were read a third time and passed :eeelncorne and Land Taxes, Stamp Duties, Racehorse Duty, Coast Guard Service, Corrupt Practices Preven tion, General Board of Health Continuance, Militia Pay, Cureitor Baron of the Exchequer, Lu na ti c Asylums Act Anietdment,'Deeds (Scotland), Judicial Procedure, &c. (Scotland) Bills. The Marriage, &c., Registration Acts Amended Bil was also read a third time, some amendments being in troduced relative to the mode of entering tho marriage The Commons' amendments to the Mercantile Law Amendment Bid were agreed to. PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL. - On the order for considering the Commons' amend ments to this bill, The Duke of ARGYLL said, knowing the majority which the noble duke opposite bad on this bill, he should not trouble their lordships to divide. He regretted that this bill, which was a compromise between the two par ties iu Scotland, was not agreed to by the noble duke. He conceived that they must fall back in Scotland upon what was called the denominational system. In Eng land there could be no doubt that that system, under the aids granted. by the Committee of Privy Council, had, on the whole, operated in favour of the Estab• liehed Church. In Scotland he did not believe that it would operate in the same manner. There was a feeling of jealousy and dislike on the part of the Free Church against the great landowners of Scotland, which was , aroused in 1842, and which he was sorry to say had not yet diminished. They had in Scotland a great rival body conducting most eueceesfully a system of education. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH urged that the compro mise was one which wentto get rid of the greet principle on which the Scotch parochial schools were founded, and he contended that there ought to he a religious test for the schoolmasters. This was the first step of an attack against the Church itself; for what was good reason for abolishing tests in the schools would he a good reason for abolishing them in the Church. He also urged that the school system of Scotland was essentially a national one, f :r the children of all denominations were freely ad ' mitted into the schools without reference to their profes sion of faith, and that with the consent of their parents. He regretted that it was impossible to do otherwise than move that the first amendment of the Commons be agreed to, but that the second be disagreed to. After some remarks from Lord PANSIURIC and the Earl of lIADDINGTON, The first amendment was agreed to, anti the second was negatived. Their lordships then adjourned. After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY, Mr. KINNAIRD said that the Bishop of London had admiuist&•red his revenue with liberality. lie had built a church at his own expense, with a rectory house, HOUSE OF COMAIONS.--(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after 12 o'clock. praVATE BUSINESS. The L :Hs' amendments to the Scottish Central Rail way Bill were considered and agreed to. and also those of the Perth Burgh and Harbour (No. 2) Bill. NEW MEMBER. Captain STMT took the oaths and hi 3 seat for the borough of D-rehester. THE BISHOPS OF LONDON A.ND DURHAM RETIREMENT BILL. On the motion that the house go into committee on this hill. were : and had endowed it. Mr. PELLA.TT supported the original motion. Mr. HADFIELD withdrew his motion. The house then went into committee. Ou clausel, providing for the retirement of the Bishops of London and Durham, Mr. GLADIONE, in moving an amendment ou the clause, denied that he and those who thought with him on the measure had raised technical objections to the bill, but had founded them on true principles, recognised throughout Christendom. One objection he had to the bill was, that it was a bill for sanctioning an individual bargain, which would not be necessary in a general mea sure, To raise the question, he moved that the words of the clause, " by the said Charles James, Lord Bishop of London" should be struck out, and the words "by any bishop of the province" inserted. Sir G. GREY said the alteration proposed would so affect the other portions of the bill that the adoption of the words would virtualy negative the bill, because it would give it a general character. Sir J. GRAHAM asked if the letter dated 21st June was the first communication received from the Bishop of Durham with reference to the amount of retiring allowance, and whether that letter was not the ultima tum that passed between the Government and the bishop. He understood there were repeated communications be• tween them, and that a larger sum was asked by the bishop. Lord PALMERSTON said he first heard of the Bishop of Durham's wish to resign in the autumn. After that he was informed the right rev. prelate did not wish to resign, and the matter dropped. After that he had a verbal communication from the bishop, and the first intimation in writing relative to the allowance was contained in the letter referred to. Sir J. SHELLEY said that with reference to the Bishop of London he was enabled to state that the only proposition ever made by him was contained in the pub lished correspondence. Mr. E. DENISON objected to the introduction of the words. It would be impossible to make this a general measure, and if they admitted the words difficulties would occur at every stage. Mr. HENLEY did not consider these words would have the effect of making the measure a general one, or would compel alteration in the other clauses of the bill. Mr. GLADSTONE said that was so. What he wanted to do was to make the Law of Resignation gene ral. This bill did not propose to authorise resignation but to allow it, and the alteration he proposed would remove any doubts that might hereafter arise in regard to filling up a bishopric under this bill. Mr. NAPIER having addressed a few remarks to the committee, The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, addressed the com mittee at some length, in the course of which he contended that the charge of eimony did not apply to the arrangement under consideration, and it was to be regretted it should have been introduced into the debate. Any person con versant with the law and ecclesiastical history must be aware that what was now proposed was in strict con formity with the law of the Church, and with the muni cipal and conventional law on the subject of simony. The hon. and learned gentleman cited the resignation of the Bishop of Durham in the 13th century, and that of Archbishop Grindell in the latter period of Queen Elizabeth's reign. In these cases stipulations were wade by the bishops for resigning their sees. Mr. GLADSTONE said the cases quoted by the learned Attorney-General did not touch the cases now under consideration in the slightest degree, and he had conveyed to the house an unfair impression of the cha racter of these cases. Tue point at issue was not that it was improper to assign a maintenance to a bishop on his resigning his bishopric, for that had been admitted by the hon. member fur Finsbury, who was not over favour able to bishops—(laughter)—but the question was whether the house could have, or ought to have, or there ever had been an individual bargain—(hear)—for a re signation in which there was an engagement to receive a pension made on condition .1 the resignation. (Hear, hear.) That was the whole point at issue, and the learned Attorney General ought to have known it. In the case of the Bishop of Durham, in the 13th century, there was no bargain for a resignation, and so far as Arch bishop Grindell was concerned he had an intimation of rather a significant character from the Queen to resign, which was more full of meaning than anything proceed ing from that house ; and it was after he had resigned unconditionally that he asked for a residence with some land at Croydon, The right hon. gentleman contended at some length that the bargain between the Bishops of London and Darharn and the Government partook of simony. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in reply, arid amidst much laughter, said that the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxford University had shifted his ground with the dexterity of a special pleader, and had shown how dangerous a thing was a little memory. (Laughter.) The learned gentleman reiterated that the cases he had quoted were in point. In the case of the Bishop of Durham, he stipulated, on resigning, that he should have his palace at Stockton, &e. ; ar v il as regarded Archbishop Grindell, he stipulated for three thing -e two of which were the dwelling at Croy don and to the freedom of dilapidation. Mr. GLADSTONE contended the learned Attorney- General was in error. The grounds, &c., at Croydon, asked for by Archbishop Grindell, were not, he (Mr. Gladstone) contended, conditions of his resignation. In the case of the Bishop of Durham, the enjoyment of the palace at Stockton was not a stipulation for resignation. Mr.NAPIER conte tided that there could not be by law a resignation with a condition annexed to it, and charged the Solicitor-General with attempting to mislead' the house on a simple point of law. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the Bishop of London had made no conditions contrary to the law of Henry VIII. The clause was then agreed to without a division, Oa clause 2, granting to the Bishop of London the use' of the palaee at Fulham, Mr. ROEBUCK moved its omission, but the clause was ultimately agreed to without a division. On clause 3. grantinQ• the two pensions, Mr. T. DVNCOUBE moved the omission of the words fixing the amount of pension as a condition of their . Mr. HADFIELD moved that it be committed that day three menthe. The imputation of this country was 27,000,000, out of which 9,000,000 only belonged to the Established Church, and yet they were asked to grant a retiring pen4on of 6,0001. a•year to the'Bishop of Lon don, and of 4,6001. per annum to the Bishop of Dertiam a year. The 6th anti 7th Viet. stipulated that the sa lary for the dinc e s e of Lond on s h a ll h e 10.000 i. per annum, yet the hiehop ac t ua ll y received 22,000/ whilst out of the 10,000 workin g clergymen throu Y170%4, the y . country room of their salaries d i d no t average-1 . annum. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gen tl eman then per, re ferred to the career of the Bishop of Londo n , and stated that be had received from the Church for four years during the time he was Bishop of Chester, 12,000/.,d for the2BYears he had been Bishop of London, 616,0. _9O/ , waking together 62 5, 0001 . , be - iies possessing the pa ' tronage of 97 livings, valued at 70,0001. The Bishop of Durham had received 320,0001., when he should have received bat 160,0001., and he also pos . Bossed the patronage of 47 livings, These rev, pre . later bad enjoyed an income'greater than any digni-i taries of any other church, and far above that paid to the Ministers of the Crown. Together these rev. gentlemen had received from the Church 973,0001., and it was diegraceful for them to come to that house and stipnlate'that they should receive a retiring allow ance for relinquishing offices they were unable effi ciently to discharge the dutiee of. Lie condemned' bishops having seats in the Upper House , . a nd sai s i pthzret.i. always. shown themselves. the obstructe rs of Mr. NEWbEd k^' , E • Fail that the 'fr ans wer that could he giv en to the n etrietur eso f 111 r. _..atifleld 'on the a • Bishop of London t tie necessity of their granting him a pension, was thefact before the honer', that his liherality to his Po,trer almost destitute. H e Su, ethren had left himn , and asked ported the m o ti on f or go i ng into committee, the nobl e l or d if i t Was his intention to int ro d uce next session a genera l measure on this subject, and d e ti u i ng the terms on which bishos . a e'ioulti resign ? p Toe Marquis of BLANDFORD WaS of °Onion that. The, home resumed G. O'clock. I MR. JAMES SADLEIR. general measure should he introduced, f.tr noti "- g (lo "h would 11ir. flousstAN.brought np a copy of the bills of indict bring greater scandal on the Church andwhentna(),ry e I s tl a e d ri l t ei f r o uncl by the Clonmel grand jury against Mr. Jas. mischief than introducing special measures when prelate wished to resign. He supported the second itsl . l3o WED SC iioOLzi IN IRELAND. reading of, this bill , because he thought the w an t s o f t h e Mr. Ka e IRK sk 1 whether the report of the commis diocese required efficient supervision, which could not . sioners on tbece'seli f oole was ready, or 'nearly so ? be obtained without a measure of this kind, If this Mr. HORSkAN said the report? was in a state of case were made a ,prece dent,be thought itwould have.:the furward n e effect of connecting the Church too closely with 'the night Of ne xt M ERSEY STEsess'onE (AL AND IRON COMPANY. State, and give it a political charact er it ou g ht no t to possess. Col one ORT.II a if there- would* be any obct e a Mr. MOWBRAY hoped the Government would' tion to lay o n t'• e table a copy of the report on th p prov- resizninc. Colonel NORTH complained of the manner in c! hich Mr. Hadfield had multidlied the income of the Bishop of London tit increase prejudice against him, and said that the Bishop of London hal not put it into his pocket, bat had distr hilted it in charity. Mr. HADFIELD replied with some warmth, and said the charities of the right rev. prelate ought not to be vaunted tefore the puhlie, seeing that he had 1, en charitable at the expense of the 10,000 clergymen et the country. - Mr. GLADSTONE interposed, and the further dis cussion on the point was put an end to. After some remarks fr om M r. HE A DL A M , Mr. CARDWELL suggeAed two divisions should take Waco lu the amendment, because he thought the Bishop of Durham should only receive one-third of his ree , goised salary of 3,0001 per annum. Tim committee divided, when the numbers were— For the clause lO5 Against it 30 Majority —75 Mr. 'ROEBUCK then moved that the sum of 6,0001. should he reduced to 3,500/., one-third of his recognised salary of 10,0001. a-year. Tue committee .agani divided, when the numbers For tae amendment Against it nii ,rity agauist the amendment Ti,e other orders on tthe paper were disposed of, and. i 1 ~ i H ~ fair o'clock, by the forms of the hou se it 3 s i t - , Ir s , tiog W3S su 'pentled. - -- 1 11 11. k SUN. LONDON, riturlAv EVENING i JULY t 1856 ing of the grm anmuractured by the above company, and what was proposed to be done with the gun ? Mr. PEEL said that the experiments were not yet complete. FRANCE AND SPAIN. Mr. MURP.OUCia askel whether the Government was pre pared to adopt any, and what, means, for the prevent:on of the armed, interference of France in the internal affairs of Spain ? Viscount PALMEIISION—I apprehend that there is nothing at present in regard to the affairs of Spain that could in any way lead to any interference on the part of the French Emperor in those affairs. With re gard to the general question, I may state that the Em peror of the French is a man of great justice, and will, no doubt, feel in any case that any foreign interference in the affairs of the Spanish nation would be unjust. He is also a man of great sagacity ; and the lessons of the past show that those of Franco who have been led to interference iu the affairs of Spain have always, sooner or later, found that their interference was more or less destrucr.,ive to themselves. (Hear, hear.) There can be no rea-on for apprehending that , any intention exists on the part of the French Government to inter fere in the affairs of Spain. (Bear, hear.) RONIAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS, &c., IN INDIA. Mr. GROGAN asked whether any minute had been made by the Governor-General of India recognising de legates from the see of Rome, under the style and title of vicars apostolic, as the official channels of communica tion with the Government in matters connected with the Roman Catholic Church, and admitting the propriety of addressing the aforesaid vicars apostolic in official Com inuuic4tous according to the ecclesiastical rank arid position bestowed upon them by the Pope ; whether the Roman Catiolic Bishops at each seat of government were to be allowed a certain salary to enable them to send re turns, and to correspond with the Government; whether a Roman Catholic priest, with a fixed salary. was to be ' allowed at every station where there might be British-born Roman Catholics, although there be no European regi ment a•ationed there; whether the Roman Catholic priests were to be allowed to receive medical attendance and medicines gratuitously in certain cases; whether grants were to be given in aid of building Roman Catholic chapels, and whether, although the Government orphan ages were open to Roman Catholic children as • to all others, a sum equal to the cost of maintaining each child was to be paid to Roman Catholic orphanages into which _ _ such child should be received ? Mr. V. SMITH said the hon. gentleman seemed to have t taken his facts from applications made to the Go vernor-General rather than from any instructions issued by him. There had been no such minute as he referred to. Instructions had been sent out that there should be no alteration in the status of Roman Catholic bishops from that established by previous orders. Those previ ous orders had always been that they should be entitled to rank or consideration cn account of the position they held in the itoman Cathode Church. The Roman Ca tholic bishops had for a long time had a pecuniary al lowance fir s ?aiding returns of their co -r Aigion . st4 ; this allowance was male to one bishop in each presidency. Priests were ene r eioyed at those stations, where there were British born Catholic subjects, whether in the civil or the military service. They had been allowed as a portion of their remun,!ration medical atteadance on account of the difficulty of obtaining it. He was not aware of any grants that were to be given in aid of building Roman Catholic chapels, or that sums were paid to Roman Catholic orphanages, equal to the cost of maintaining each child ; but instructions had been sent out that every attention should be paid to the treat ment of Roman Catholic cLildren in these parts. In answer to a further question from Mr. GROGAN, Mr. V. SMITH said that with regard to the manner of addressing vicars-apostolic, he could not answer more iitisfactorily than that they were entitled to no consi deration, on account of their rank or position in the Roman Ca' holic Church. CAVALRY REGIMENTS, 1;3. Colonel HERBERT asked whether the Government had decided to reduce the present establishment of ca valry regiments ; and whether they intended to supply the military forces at the Cape of Good Hope with an equip vent of mule litters for the conveyance of sick and wounded. Mr. PEEL save some answer, which was inaudible in the gallery. THE MISSION TO BELGIUM. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he had seen a statement of the airl of WestmorelaLd being sent on a mission to Bel gium, to congratulate the King of the Belgian?, he sup posed. He wished to ask at whose expense that mission had been undertaken ? Lard PALMERSTON—I am afraid my hon. friend will have to contribute his share to it. (Laughter.) MR. JAMES SADLEIR. On the motion for proceeding to the orders of the day, Mr. ROEBUCK rose and said—l believe, according to the ruses of this house, that I have precedence in the motion I am about to make for the expulsion of a member of this house. lam about to ask the house to exercise a power inherent in the house, of the greatest possible im portance both to its honour and to its efficiency and power in the country. I am not going to ask the house to exer cise this power on any light ground, or upon an occasion on which any one might turn round upon me and say that I am about to establish` a precedent which is dan gerous to this house. lam about to ask it to pass judg ment, not by way of punishment to the member whom I suppose to be guilty, but to free itself from the com panionship of a man who has disgraced himself in the eyes of his country. Ido not ask the house upon this oc casion to consider itself a court of judicature, for that it cannot be. It cannot administer au oath ; and all I ask of it is to satisfy its own conscience that what I say is correct. And if they will take the statement as statements of a member of this house are always taken, as conclusive as to the facts of which he is himself cognisant, I think upon this occasion I shall ask them successfully to accede to the motion with which I shall conclude. The motion I have to make is— " That Mr. James Sadleir, the member for Tipperary, he expelled this house." The grounds on which I make this motion are as follows : I do not say that the member for Tipperary is guilty of the charges brought against him. With that I have nothing to do. But all I have to say is, that charges have been brought against bins derogatory to his honour, destructive of his power and capacity as a member of this house, sucu as, if fixed upon him, and not rebutted by him, are a disgrace to this house so long as he remains a member thereof. I say these charges have been brought against him ; into their truth I will not inquire. But what I do charge him with is that he, knowing that these charges were brought againSt him, fled from jus tice, evaded the accusation, and did not attempt the defence. The charge then that I make is, not that he is guilty of the crime, but that having fled from it, he has confessed himself guilty ; and.all that I have to make out to this house is that he has fled from the accusation, and when I make out that the accusation is made and that he has fits', I lay sufficient ground for tins house to expel him. The first part of the accusation is that he has been charged with crime. I hold in my handsome papers which have just been laid on the table ot this house. The first is a bill of indictment found at the Clontnel assizes by the grand jury of that county, or rather a certified abstract of the bill of indictment; and it says that "upon search made amongst the records of the county, we find that at a general assize and gaol delivery held in Me mel in and for the South Riding of the county Tipperary, on the 13th day of July, in the 20th year of her Ma• jesty's reign, a true bill of indictment has been found against James Sadleir, charging, in the first count"— and so it goes en with eight counts, charging him with fraud. That is upon the 13th of July. Upon the 19th, of June the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, in delivering, a judgment, used these words—"lt is now necessary to Ito to the succeeding stage of this transaction, and which I believe is unparalleled in the annals of fraud." So that he was quite aware, so early as the 19th of June, that he was cearged with fraud. On last Friday I, in thiS house, gave notice that I should make a motion calling on the hon. member—l ought not to call him the hon. member —the member for Tipperary ; I gave notice that I would make a motion on Monday last that the member for Tipperary should attend in his place on this day, in order that he might appear in this house when I made a motion for the expulsion of that member. So that he had notice, first by a judgment delivered by the Master of the Rolls as far back as the 19th of June, that he waa charged with fraud. On the 18:1i July an indictment is ' found against him by the grand jury of Cloninel. Some time beture that warrants were issued by the Govern ent for his apprehension ; and we have sent down from this . house a messenger who has gone to Publin and to Tipperary in order to find him. Us is not there. We have b 'en unable to find him. Therefore I conclude that he has fl 'd from justice ; and having fled fr )m justice, with that ::barge over his head, I:ay that he is unworthy to sit as a ulember ot this house. It may be said that am about to make a dangerous precedent in this case, A dangerous precedent ! It may be sairs. to me—" Suppose that you had gone to America, and that some member had got up in his place and said, I shall, on Thursday seat. make a InUti , ) , ll that Mr. Roebuck do appear in his piaci., when I shall make a mention for his expulsion from the h -e," I answer that argument in this way. If there had oeen a charge made against me by the Master of the. Rolle --If there had bean an indictment found asseinet ins—if there had been a warrant issued against moe—it the beano had sent its messenger to find me, and I wa. , not in my pace— if I di I not a Tear personally— what objection could there be to such a motion as this ? But it may be said, " Why hasten this ? Where is the danger it 'se wait till next sesaien ?' Wait till next ses sion ! Have we not waited long enough already ? It is its if a man should he down by a dead bedy, and at tempt try repose himself in the noisomeness thereof. I B,v that this house, allowing a member who is thus et, 'voted to abscond irom justice, and allowing hint the imam: to '?a Ineinher of this house, does itself dishonour; and, .in t, *der to avoid that dishonour, I would cut off this peeesa3 no omber. It is not :is if, by the expulsion of this' inem eel., w e o:endered him incapable of being re-elected. The nee of ;elm Wilkes has establishe d that ae ex pulsion from thi s ' house does not 'render a Mail incapable of being re- e l ec t e Ct• Tip perary toqu e crow gnu',wised to night, h e On go de wn, if he pleases, into Supposing his expulsion to be propose himself It r Ts -election. But will he do so ? I ai apeal to this house--I appeal to every gentl eman h ere, if 1i . 0% is not sure in his heart that the man has evad e d j us ti ce , and that we are now ab out to do justice upo n h im , an d jt, polling him ? Ido nut fear this prec edent. It may be m There is Done ; but by propositi on I d o no t requ ire a , said that there i s no co n v i c tion. slice to ourselves, by e x. ;that tats fleeing from j us ti ce is of its: if su fficient for this house to isto s iy it s consc i ence that the man is guilty. Nobody prete n d e d t o sa y th a t he would n ot have a fair trr:al. The that lie is guilty, and ha s refore I say conviction. I say con fessed himself guilty by his flight. w ill now cite a few precedents f o r th e p rocee ding I prop ose. The 11 first gase_is: one w hi c h t oo k place- in 17 52 , in the . reign of George 11. A person named Geiirge. Robin- Own having been charged in Parliament with fraudu- lent pace in the management of a society for the ! rell.f of the ioduArious poor, and having decliued to Wend tho service of the houFe, though required to do 5..), he wal decared guilty of cootempt of the hon - se,.l a nd aas cxpuled, That ca:zo ian on Mt fiur.3 with this rase of Ja,nes SAAleir. IL IA charpi with ; he is I equired to attend the house, and he does nat ap• peer. Oa the 20th of June the Muter of the Rolls gave hint to ntsderAtand what was hanging over his head ; the grand jury of Tipperary found a true bill against him ; the Government issued a warrant for his apprehension; he could not be found ; and what is the inevitable con sequence? Why, that he fled the country to evade jus tice. The only other case which I will cite, though there are many of them, is that of Mr. Be.njamin Walsh, who was tried and convicted of fraud in 1812 ; and in that case, although the conviction had been quashed on technical grouuds, Mr. Walsh was expelled the house. Sir F. Burdett, who at that time was at the head of the liberal party, voted for the expulsion. Mr. Wynne, a high authority on such subject , said the house " ought to take an important trust out of the hands of a person who was unworthy to hold it." Mr. Perceval took the same view. So that in this case, after an acquittal had taken place, the member was expelled because the house was convinced that, though he was not legally, he was mo rally guilty of the fraud. We are not here as a court of justice, but we are hound to protect the dignity and honour of the house. These bting my opinions, and feel ing that the honour and dignity of the house are compro mised as long as James Sadleir remains a member of it, I beg leave to move that ho be expelled. Mr. NAPIER seconded the motion, and said that the qu sstion involving important considerations, the house ought to see its way clearly before they came to any decision. Tuts was a case in which the honour and dignity of the house and the rights of the constituency of Tipporary were concerned. A notion prevailed that the house had no materials, technically speaking, to act upon. But it was confounding the jurisdiction of a court of law with the jurisdiction of the House of Commons to suppose that the same kind of evidence was required in both. The House of Commons could not examine ,upon oath, they did not require the technicalities which were indispensable in a court of law ; it was enough for the House of Commons to have before it what would satisfy its conscience, especially with regard to mattersaffectiog the members of the house. It was enough for the house to know that it had facts before it on which it could fairly and reasonably act. The case was one in which they must be guided by pre cedent. In 1807 a committee of the House of Commons bad examined all the precedents of expulsion, they col lected all the cases and arranged them in chronological order. Some of these cases established the fact that it was enough for the house to be convinced of the moral turpitude of the offender, even though he had not been legally convicted of crime; and there were one or two re markable cases where the house expelled an unworthy member. and afterwards addressed the Crown that the parties might be prosecuted by the Attorney-General. The first case of expulsion referred to by the committee oc curred in 1558, and there were other cases in 1320 and 1710. In the case of Atkinson, who had been indicted for perjury, the Attorney-General moved that he be expel led the house after he absconded from justice. Sir S. Romilly said he would vote fur the expulsion of Lord Cochrane on the facts of the case, although he believed he had been improperly convicted. In the case of Walsh, the house expelled that person after he had been con victed of felony, though the judges subsequently decided that it was not a felony of which he had been found guilty. He admitted that the minority against the expul sion in that case, though only 18 in number, was respect able authority, including, as it did, the names of Sir E. Romilly, Lord Brougham, and the father of the present Speaker. He admitted they ought not, on the grounds of mere suspicion, to be carried away and vote the ex pulsion of a member. But this was a peculiar and special case. The facts were notorious. The Master of the Rolls declared that a gigantic fraud had been cOmnmitted ; the Attorney-General was of opinion that the party was guilty of conspiracy ; he einbeched that opinion in au indictment ; the grand jury found a true bill ; a warrant had been issued for the apprehension of the party ; he had not answered the summons of the house ; the constituency of Tipperary were eubstantially without a member ; and, if, under these circumstances, they shrunk from the duty imposed on them, they would be holding out a miserable example of their own timidity, and avowing that a man might be charged with a crime of the greatest turpitude, might fly from justice, and not respond to the order of the house, and yet be entitled to be called the " honourable" mem ber tor Tipperary. The SPEAKER asked whether the hon. and learned member for Sheffield wished to have the documents read by the clerk at the table ? Mr. ROEBUCK said he dil not think it would be necessary. Mr. WORTLEY appealed to the house whether it would not be better in a case of so much importance, whether it would not be the wiser course, to take more time for the consideration of these documents and the precedents which had been referred to ? (Hear, hear.) He believed he was correct in saying that none of the precedents quoted were identical with the present case. (Hear, hear.) Here was the case of a member charged, no doubt, with the greatest possible fraud— fraud for which there was no mitigation or excuse. That charge of fraud now resolved itself into one of conspiracy, and a prosecution was hanging over the head of the party on that charge. It appeared that he left the coun try before the warrant was out against him, and for aught they could tell he might yet appear. He knew cases where persons had kept out of the way that they might not spend three or four months in prison before trial, and who; surrendered on the day of trial. The house would be put in a curious and painful position if, after a resolution of expulsion, the party came back for trial, and substantiated his innocence. He therefore thought the present proceeding was premature, and, at all events, that a decision would be premature, unless they had the documents before them. He therefore begged leave to move that the documents referring to the case be printed, and that the debate be adjourned. Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD wished, before proceeding further with the debate, to show the house the exact evidence which they had before them. He protested against the principle that the house should act on state ments merely because they were said to be notorious. They had evidence of the fact that on the 4th of the pre sent month of July, informations had been sworn against James Sadleir, not on a charge of felony, but on a charge of misdemeanour, which charged him with conspiring with.his brother, John Sadleir, to cheat the publio by a false representation as to the state of the Tipperary Bank, and representing that it was solvent in order t 3 induce others to become shareholders. They had also this evi dence, that on the same 4th of July a warrant had been issued for the apprehension of Jas. Sadleir—that on the 18th of July, being the first day of the assizes, the grand jury found a true bill of indictment, and that upon that bill being found by the grand jury, a bench warrant was issued for his apprehension on Saturday last. That was all they had before them in the shape of evidence. There had been many charges and accusations which might or might not be true ; but of evidence there was nothing be yond what he had stated. He would next point out the course which the legal proceeding.; would take. Mr. Jas. Sadleir not being amenable to justice, not lasing arrested under the warrant, and not having appeared to answer the charge against him in the ordinary course of things, proceedings of outlawry would be taken. The law did not consider even a judgment of outlawry tantamount to an edraission of crime; but if that step was arrived at the house would have something on which it might, act, and if it thought fit expel Mr. Sadleir. He would note allude to another matter :--On Monday last the house made an order that James Salleir should attend in his place on that day. They had not yet before there what took place in pursuance of that order ; but he (Nit.. Fitz gerald) had seen the messenger of the house, who in formed him that he proceeded to Ireland with all expedi tion, and on Tuesday served the orders!: Sadleir's residence in the countyof Tipperary, andthen nextserved it in Dub lin at a house where he was stated to have resided, and on the solicitors who hail acted for him in the pr .ceelings connected wi-h the Tipperary Bank. He (Mr. Fitzge rald) made this preliminary statement to enable the house to form its judgment. He was not about to say that it was his intention to resist the motion, -nor that such was the intention of the Government. Let them see if the motion would ho justified by the precedents which had been cited. - The first of these precedents was that established by Robinson's case. Now, in that case there had been a select committee to inquire into the charge, end the member bad been expelled, net for fraud, but for contempt of the house in not having obeyed an crder that he should attend in his place. Then theme was the case of Walsh in the year ISt'. It appeared that Walsh had been foui,d guilty of fraud by a jury, al. thouge the judges afterwards decided that the fraud was i:ot a fel my. Toe house had however resolved that Walsh should be expelled on the ground that he had been guilty of the fraud, arid that was undoubtedly a very proper decision, for it was the duty of the house not to allow any man to continue a member who had been convicted of a fraueulemit transaction. In the case of Mr. Hunt a commission yeas appointed, who ri a to a repor, in which he wee charged with having mid aopropriated 83,0001. Ho had absented biensed as in the present ea 0., and on the 4.13 of April a member of the house brought the subject forward ; but on representa tion from the Speaker taat the notice had been too short he .withdrew the motion, and it canoe again before the house on the 231 May, 1810. By that time Mr. Hunt bad fled, notwith e t an di ng that the order of the house to appear bad been serve d u p n him. In his reply he ad mitted the charges to a certain extent, but denied that the offence was so great as alleged. The question hams fort - tally before the house on that occasion, and Vie mernb-r was expelled. That was the only precedent he could find, on w hi c h, without any inquiry, either in the house or in a court of law, .a resolution to expel a member had been passed, and then it must be re c .11ected that it was upon hi; own admission of guilt. There were mealy other cases, but he would not take up the time of the house by referring to them. Be ha -1 gone through the recants in the Irish Parlia ment fer the la•t century, and in no case hail he foiled that the members charged with iniic .n Ilia had been ex pelled without previous inquiry: He hoped, theiefere, that the advice given by Mr. Grenville in Willees's ease wild be follow e d. 'roe conduct of. Mr. James Sadleir was not impugned before the 4th of July. At all events, that was the earliest period with respect to which the house could take cognisance of his conduct ; and if it were advisable to institute any inquiry, in his opinion it would bo better to postpone it until after he had teen c Lilts I upon to appear to answer a criminal charge—' hen, if he did not appear, he would he outlawed. In conclu sion, the right hon. and learned gentleman hoped that no ;attempt would be made to give a political turn to the case, observing that his only object was to advance the purity and dignity of that house, which could not be seeored unless it had a duo regard to. justice. • :Mr. S. FITZGERALD agreed that this was a matter with which the house could not act with too much caution but aid net think that the learned Attorney-General had stated to the house what the real facts of the cAse were. I\-ir. James Sadieir's connection with the Tipperary Joint-Stock Bluk had .b--m the subject of inquiry in the highest court in Ireland, and the judge of that court that a letter had been , Aritten by the late I.lr. Svnetr to ins brother,' pointipg out by what means one of the most unparalleled frauds could be carried out. They had it before thorn that that letter had boon found iu the possession of Mr. James Saileir, and also that the directions contained in the letter bad been fully carried out by him. Too ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND-- 011, not Mr. S. FITZGr'ERALD—At all events they bad the fact that, in obedience to the directions contained in that letter, Mr. James Sa'lleir put his name to a fraudu lent statement in respect to the position of the bank, and also that a fraud of so gigantic a nature had been perpetratkal that the whole of the English shareholders, who in consequence of that fraudulent statement had invested money in the bank, were released from their liabilities. Those were the facts which had been laid on the table of the house in the documents which were pro duced ; and he must say he was strongly of opinion that they ought to take some steps to secure the honour and reputation of the house. It must be recollected that it would be impossible that any trial could take place be• fore the Lent assizes, and therefore until the mouth of March next Mr. James Sadleir would occupy the honour able position of a member of Parliament. He wished to know ,%hether any proceedings of outlawry could be t liken before that time ? Although it was very true that until a trial and conviction had taken place the house could not be put into formal possession of the facts of this else, yet he thought that no reasonable man could doubt—after what had been stated by a most upright judge, who had fully investigated the facts of the case— that a great fraud had been committed by Mr. Sadleir. Lits hon. friend opposite (Mr. Wortley) had moved as an amendment to the motion made by the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Sheffield that the papers should be printed. The effect of that would be to get rid of the motion altogether. The papers were very short, and hon. members had been placed in full possession of the facts of the case, therefore he thought there was no excuse for not coming to a decision upon the main question. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was most anxious to echo the advice given by his right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, that they ought to proceed with the utmost deliberation in this case. He believed that his hon. and learned friend the member for Sheffield was animated with no other desire than to up hold the dignity and the honour of that house. But it must be remembered that they were now exercising a judicial function; they must take care, therefore, that they did not act with precipitancy. The house must thoroughly understand that if they adopte I the motion of his learned friend they would establish a prece- dent ; for there certainly had never yet been a case in which the house had expelled an individual member, since law and justice had prevailed, except upon previous conviction or inquiry, where the accused had an oppor tunity of vindicating himself. As far as he (the Attor ney General) understood, Mr. Sadleir was not a party to the proceedings before the Master of the Rolls, neither had he had any opportunity of explaining or refuting the charges which had been brought against him. He (the Attorney General) did not pretend to assert that a conviction was necessary to justify a proceeding of this nature ; but, in his opinion, there ought to be some pre liminary inquiry by the house into the facts of the case. It must be remembered that the judgment of the Master of the Rolls had been appealed from, and even if it had not, that judgment was not formally before the house. He could not understand why it was necessary that they should act hastily in this matter. It was quite clear that within a few days Parliament would be prorogued. The house therefore could not be offended by the pre sence of Mr. Sadleir, neither could his constituents re ceive any injury, because in the interval between the prorogation and the meeting of Parliament they would have no need of his services. In the meantime Mr. Sadleir would be required to surrender and take his trial. Upon that trial he would be either convicted or acquitted. If he did not surrender the proceeding of outlawry would take place, and it had been laid down by the highest Parliamentary authorities that outlawry upon a criminal proceeding would be sufficient to dis qualify any man from sitting in Parliament. By a post p mement, therefore, they would avoid the charge of pre cipitancy, and they would avoid creating a precedent which might hereafter be converted into a political in strument. Taking all the circumstances, therefore, of the case into consideration, he thought that the better course of proceeding would be to postpone this motion until the commencement of the next session. Lord PALMERSTON thought that the circum stancee of the present case bad been so fully discussed that the motion for printing the papers was unnecessary, there being nothing in them of which the house had not full cognisance already, and if carried the motion would only involve further discussion. They were called upon to protect the honour, purity, and dignity of the House of Commons. No doubt, that was one of their most im portant duties ; but it must not be forgotten that one of the greatest elements ofpurity was a strict adherence to the principles of justice ; and, above all things, that they should avoid greeting a precedent which might hereafter operate injuriously. However clear in the opinion of members the guilt of Mr. Sadleir might be, they ought not to proceed to expel him until either a conviction had taken place or an examination, through a committee or otherwise, bad been made. (Hear.) Sir H. WILLOUGHBY considered that the notice which had been given of the present motion was too short. On that single ground, therefore, he hoped the hon. and learned gentleman would not press his motion. Mr. HENLEY agreed with the noble lord opposite that justice should be their first consideration, and even supposing the case of Mr. Sadleir to be worse than they imagined it, yet considering that the notice of this mo tion was given on Monday, it would not be fair play to proceei upon Thine day to expel a member who might reasonably be supposed to be absent from other amuses. He was not the man to condemn a person unheard. Mr. WORTLEY said he bad no objection to with draw his amendment if the hon. and learned gentleman below hint would withdraw his motion. (After apause.) Tres hon. and learned member for Sheffield makes no sign. (Wl laugh.) Under those circumstances be could only withdraw his amendment on the understanding that the noble lord would move the previous question. Mr. ROEBUCK—Sir, I suppose there will be no fur ther discussion on this matter. It strikes me from the statement of the right hon. and learned gentleman tbo Attorcey-Generel for Ireland that some political consi derations are mixed up with this question. (Cries of No, no.) I understood him so, and I think it a most unhappy thing that we cannot touch anything in regard to Ireland unless political feelings are imported into the discussion. I have done the best I could to support the honour and dignity of the house, and if I find the majority against me, of course I cannot help it. You talk about the dan ger of precedent. No man has pointed out what that danger is. What is this case? A man commits a crime dishonourable in itself. He is found by the Master of the It ills guilty of a fraud of the most atrocious description, and I ask, therefore, if such a man ought not to be ex pelled from the House of Commons I Tu talk about dan ger, and to affect a squeamishness of this sort, appears to me to be most inconsistent with the maintenance of the honour and dignity of the house. Sir, we stand dis honoured by the association with a pecc tnt member. I have done what I could to free you from that associa tion, and the blame must therefore rest with those who have prevente4 me. Lord PALMERSTON said that he was actuated en• tirely by the cansidera:ion of what was due to the hon. our and dignity of the house, which at all events ought to be influenced by the principles of justice. Mr. MALINS said that under all the circumstances of the case he should support the amendment, but only upon the distinct understanding that the motion would be brought forward at the earliest possible period next session. Mr. NE WDEGATE said he had not the slightest doubt in his own mind of the moral turpitude of Mr. Sailleir, aud, therefore, if the que.tion went to a division he should vote with the hon. and learned member for Shef field; but he recommende 1 him not to divide the house, because if he were in a minority it was quite clear that the member for Tipperary would escape alt igether. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the previous question having been put, was carried without a division. Mr. ROEBUCK—Sir, may Ibe allowed t tok whe ther, it in the interval of time between now and the next session of Parliament Mr. Sadleir applies for the Chiltern Hundreds the application would be refused ? L ird PAL NIERS fON —Most undoubtedly. msaors OF • LONDON AND DURIIANI RE TIREMENT BILL. The house then went into committee upon this bill. On clause 3, which provided that the sum of 4,5001. a-year be granted to the Bishop of Durham during the term of his natural life, Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the sum be reduced to 3,0001., observing that by law the income of that right rev, prelate was 8,000/. a-year, but that an arrangement had been made by which he paid a certain SUM of money to another person to perform theduties of the office, which considerably reduced his income. He therefore thought that one third of his income was a reasonable pension. The (14ferelice in the income of a bishop living in the country and in town diff;red, because it was supposed the latter had more duty to perform. That might be a reasonable proposition applied to an acting bishop, but c nil(' have no reference at all to a retirlog bishop. Bishops belonged to a class who professed to consider poverty a virtue. He considere I that 3,0001. a-year was a sufficient income for this etic.cessor of the apostles, and entertaining that opinion lie sheuld certainly divide the committee upon the question. Lord PALMERSTON said the bishops had received mote than 8,0001. a year. The bill wentupon the principle of a retiring allowance proportioned to the amount of the inc roe of the bishops and the sum, to be surrendered to the common fund. Giving the successor the 8,0001., and the retiring allowance of 4.500/.7 to the present bisliop, there would be a gain to the common fund. Lord R. CECIL said it seemed to be implied that if the bishop did not get 4,500/., be would retain the whole 16,0001. But he hoped the bishop had not so elephantine a hide--(hear, hear)--and would not stick so closely to the revenue of his bishopric wiaile unable t perforn. its duties. (Hear, hear.) The fact was, that 8,00(11. a-year was the sum fixed by law, and the i l ishop hF“; nt naged by an ingenious contrivance to g( t 16,0001, and now claimed a retiring allowance on that basis. (llear, hear.) Sir G. GREY defended the bishop, and declared that it was not by any "ingenious contrivance," but by a legal arrangement, which he (Sir G. Grey) admitted to j have been a bad one. (Hear, hear.).Being.theto in lawful possession of the larger income ho was entitled to re tinn g allowance proportionate to it. Living in , his din. cose he (Sir G. Grey) could say that the bishop devoted quent to the proclamation of the 19th claret ~Tanuary, a considerable pra-tion of his income to charity purposes. 1552: of any correspordence that has taken place be- Mr. CARDWELL said it was c,rtsinly the intention tween Meer Ali i'vloracl and the authorities in India, re- of the Leg stature that the slim of 8,0001. shoulf; he the 14114, of the bishop's revtinw., and toe retiring allowance ought to he calculated on that basis. (Hear.) Mr. SPOONER said he had voted 6,0001. for the Bishop of London, as that was the third part of his re venue: He was prepared to vote the allowance of the Bishop of Durham on the same principle. It appeared that the revenue of the Bishop of Burnam was 16,0001. a-year. The question was not what Parliament had in tended, but what Parliament had enacted. Mr. MOWBRAY confirmed this argument, and tes tified in favour of the bishop as to his munificence, espe• cially in the establishment of the " Maltby Fund," and giving 2,0001. a-year to the church purposes of his dio cese. Mr. DUNCAN spoke in favour of the bishop, stating that he augmented the incomes of the poorer clergy in his diocese. The committee divided— For the larger sum Against it Majority Mr. MO WBRAY desired to call the attention of the eco'esiastical commissioners to the question of the aug mentation of smaller incomes. There were many cases iu which poor cierqv were receiving additions to their in , come from the Bishop of Durham. Now, neither the sue cessor nor the present bishop with their smaller incomes would be able to keep up these payments ; and as the common fund would be benefited by the arrangement in progress, be suggested that these poorer clergy should have their claims considered by the commissioners, and have a " post charge" upon the fund. Sir G. GREY said the bishop had made these grants to the poorer clergy with the full knowledge that they could only last during his life ; but if the commissioners had the legal power, no doubt they would consider their cases. Mr. GLADSTONE said the bill had been assented to in a great degree on the understanding that a certain sum should go to the common fund. But now it appeared that a large portion of this sum was to be deducted for the benefit of clergymen who had enjoyed the private charity of the bishop. If so, the measure had been passed on false pretences or false representations. Sir G. GREY repeated that the commissioners must deal with the case according to the view of their legal powers. Mr. B.EA DLAM said he regretted that no ecclesias tical commissioner was present to make any definite pro mise as to the claims of those poor clergy who had been referred to. Mr. RIDLEY said a very small portion of the enor mous funds at the disposal of the commissioners was ap plied to the augmentation of small dioceses. Mr. FOSTER supported those equitable claims upon the common fund. Sir G. GREY remarked that the report of the com missioners, which was about to be produced, entered fully into this snbject. Mr. CARDWELL, as one of the commissioners, hoped that nothing that had passed in the present discus sion would be understood as committing them, and that the house would reserve their opinion upon it until they had read the report. The clause was agreed to. On clause 5, Mr. ROEBUCK moved an amendment, the effect of which was to make the new bishops subject to future arrangements of Parliament. Lord PALMERSTON said his right hon. friend (Sir G. Grey) was going to give notice of a similar amend ment upon the third reading, and it would be better to reserve any alteration until then. The amendment was withdrawn. Lord B. CECIL observed upon the words "any canons to the contrary notwithstanding" what " canons , related to contracts by bishops upon resignation ? Lord PALMERSTON said the meaning was that the bill should override any ecclesiastical law. (Laughter ) Lord R. CECIL did not desire to be informed that this was the meaning of the clause, but what was the ecclesiastical law in question. No doubt the noble lord was profoundly ignorant of ecclesiastical law—(a laugh) —but surely one of his law advisers ought to be able to inform the house. Mr. GLADSTONE objected to the words, as merely • unmeaning and unnecessary. The SOLICITOR GENERAL said the meaning was that the act should take effect, notwithstanding any ca nons to the contrary. (Laughter.) Lord R. CECIL said he should move that the words should be struck out as surplusage. Lord PALMERSTON hoped this motion would not be pressed. The words were words of form, and he would consider this matter on the third reading. He thought the words unnecessary. The amendment was withdrawn, and the clauses agreed to. Upon the preamble, Sir W:HEATHCOTE said it was objected to by his right hon. friend (Mr. Henley), who would move an amendment on the third reading, if it was not objected to by the Government. Sir G. GREY assented to this. Mr. GLADSTONE suggested that notice should be given of any seck important amendment. The SOLICITOR GENERAL said the import of this amendment would be to add certain words as to the sur render by the bishops of their sees. Mr. ROEBUCK said that the preamble was not a true preamble, stating, as it did, facts which had never occurred. The preamble was than agreed to, and, On the question that the bill be reported, Mr. GLADSTONE said he should oppose any amend ment for striking out the words " duly and canonically." The bill then passed through committee, and was or dered for third reading to-morrow (this day.) METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL. On the motion for the consideration of the Lords' amendments to this bill, Mr. WILLIAMS pressed for the postponement of the order, on the ground that an hon. friend of his had a petition against the bill, and was not able to be present to lay it before the house. Sir B. HALL declined to accede to the suggestion. Mr. BUTLER then moved the postponement of the order, on the ground that the Lords' amendments had only just come down to the house, and sufficient time had not been afforded to consider them. Sir B. HALL explained the nature of the Lords' amendments, which had reference to the appointment of parochial officers. The amendments declared that these officers should be elected by select vestries under the bill. Mr. PELLATT complained that the Lords' amend ments would destroy the whole vitality of the bill. Parishes now iu the enjoyment of open vestries would not like the measure, and he should move the omission of the Lords' amendments so far as they went to ex• punge the first clause. Mr. WILLIAMS said that the various parishes looked with great jealousy upon the infringements of their rights, as they would be affected by these amend ments. From time immemorial the parishioners had elected their own officers, and he objected to delegate the right to select vestries. Sir W. CLAY thought the Lords' amendments left much that was valuable in the bill. They also would prevent litigation. After the passing of this bill, a Courch rate could be made in open vestry, which he re garded as a great point in its favour. After a few words from Mr. WILKINSON, Mr. MAT IMO UGLI hoped the right hon. baronet who bad charge of the bill would have the moral courage to move that the L irds' amendinenu be not agreed to. The first clause was the most valuable portion of the bill. The motion was withdrawn. On the Lord.' amendments to the first clause being read, Mr. BUTLER moved that they be disagreed to. The house divided — For the Lords' amendments Against it 8 Majority —4s The Evidence on Foreign Suits Bill, and the Sheep,&c., Contagious Diseases' Prevention Bill, passed through committee. COURTS OF COMMON LAW (IRELAND) BILL. The L oafs' amendments to this hill were agreed to. NUISANCES' REMOVAL, &c. (SCOTLAND), (No. 2) BILL. The Lords'amendments to this bill were also agreed to. HAY AND STRAW TRADE BILL, The Lords' amendments to this bill were likewise agreed to, a clause having bean proposed by Mr. WIL LIAMS for the prevention of fraud amongst dealers, but withdrawn ou the representation of Mr. MASSEY that it would impose very onerous duties on the police, and be practically inoperative. FORMATION, c c., OF PARISHES BILL. Or, the motion for considering the Lords' amendments to this hill, The Marquis of BLANDFO RD moved that the amend ments should be agreed to. lie confessed he very much regretted that the clause which permitted the application of voluntary offerings towards the endowment of the clergy had been rejected from the bill. He felt very strongly on the subject of that clause ; nevertheless he felt it might endanger the passing of the bill if be were to insist upon its re-insertion. He should, therefore, con tent himself with expressing his complete adhesion to the principle of the clause, and he hoped that on a future occasion the subject would be taken up. Mr. GLADSTONE was very glad to hear the obser vations of his noble friend. He confessed he felt they were placed in a very unfortunate psition. The clause had been inserted in the bill with the unanimous appro val of a select committee, and it had passed through the house without II division. Mowever, it went up to the House of Lords at the end of the session, and it was re j.icted by a majority of two peers in a house of only 40 members. Although the mrijority againstlthe clause was no larger, he quite agreed with his noble friend, thatias it was within three days of the end of the ses• i t would endanger the passing of the bill if' they were to insist on its re-insertion. At the sam, time, having regard to the unequivocal expression of opinion in that house in favour of the principle of the c.au:e, he trusted tent at a future time attention would be ag tin attracted to the subject. T ee amendments were then put and agreed to.' THE SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (ME. TROPOLIS) ACT (1853) AMENDMENT BILL. The Lords' amendments in this bib were agreed to. MEER ALI MORAD . On the motion of Mr. I. BUTT the following returns were ordered :—" C o pi es „1 any despatches addressed to the Governor-General of India, in ret)ly to the despatch of Lord Dalhousie, dat e d t h e 2 7th day; of February, 1851, on the subject of the confiscation of the territories of the Atneei' Ali Morad : of all correspondence that has passed between his Highness Meer Ali Morad and the autho rities of India on the subject of that confiscation, sunse. • lative to his intended visit to England :. of the•deposi tions or other information on the claims of Alt Morao, recorded by Captain Pepe on the occasion of his visit to IChyrpoor, in Auoist, 1843, as stated by Captain Pope in his letter to F. Thomason, Esq., secretary to the go vernment of India, dated Sukkur, October 24, 1843, and published in page 63 of parliamentary Papers, No. 73. of session 1852: of all correspondence between the magis trate of Sukkur and the government of &uncle between the years 1843 and 1845, or during the same period be tween the government of Schiele and that of India, re specting the withholding from.Meer Ali Morad of the pengunnahs of Meerpoor, Mahtela, and Meherkee, and of any correspondence between the same parties relative to their restitution to him in 1845 : of the proclamat'on i of Mr. Commissioner Freere, dated the 19th day t. f January, 1852, confiscating the territories of the Ameer Ali Morad : aid return of the several pengunnahs and districts confiscated by this prodamation, and of the gross revenue received by the Indian government from each of those districts, in each of the years since the date of the proclamation." The house then alourned. Couatiry aarices,-, DERBY SMITHFIELD.-JULY 22. There was a better supply of fat beasts to-day, but tho demand was flat. Sheep and lambs mole plentiful, and some few lots of each left unsold. Calves a good supply. The number of fat pigs was about the average, and in re quest. The following were the quotations . :—Beef, 6d to 7 , 1 mutton, 7d to 7.d ; lamb, 70 to 8d ; veal, 61 tc —ti pet lb. ; pigs, 30s 6d to lls Od per score ; rough fat, 58 01 to 01 per 141 b. ; hides, 34d to 4d per lb ; calf-skins, 3-111 cn 5} I per lb. EDINBURGH GRAIN.-JULY 23. A fair supply of grain to-day. Sales dull for all sorts, and prices a little easier, with the exception of oats. Wheat, on the top, 5s Od down, and on the average 501 . down. Barley, Os (id down on the top, and 7d down on the average. Oats on the top 1.6 4d up—on the average. Os 4d up. Beans on the top is 6d down—on the average, 3d down. AVERAGES PER IMPERIAL QUARTER. Wheat Do. new ~. £4 0 2 5-12ths. ... 0 0 0 0-12ths. Barley -12ths, Oats 1 15 7 5-12 the. Beans BOSTON-JULY 23. Influenced by the favourable state of the weather and the splendid appearance of the crops, the wheat trade ruled exceedingly inactive, and the few sales effected, which were merely for present use, must be noted fully 2s per qr. lower than last week. Oats and beaus the turn cheaper. Nothing doing in other grain. _ _ . Prices :—Wheat, red, 65s Od to 785 Od; white, 785 Od to 80s Od extra, 83s Od. Barley, —s Oa to —5 Od. Oats, 22s to 295. Beaus, 411 Od to 485 Od. Peas, —. to —$ Od. per gr. NEWARK-JuLt 23. 'We had a good supply of grain of all descriptions. Wheat a heavy sale at late prices. Other corn as before. Wheat, white 84s to 88s, red 78s to 81s; barley, malting —s to —s, grindin g c , 38s to 425; oats , 12st. 34s to 375, list, 303 to 32s ; beans, 48s to 50s ; malt 64s to 72s ; peas, • - ""a to —s ; tares, —s to —s per qr. LOCAL SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, JULY 24 STOOL EXOFIA.NGE.—The market exhibits signs of im• provemeut to-day, and prices are a shade better than yesterday. MANCHESTER, JULY 24. STOOL EXOHANGE.—Thi6 market was inactive to-def. and prices were rather easier at the close. BIRMINGHAM, JULY 24. 3TOC EXCHANGE.—The market has been doing a very firm business to-day. There was a fair demand for all railway shards, and prices were steadily maintained. -LEEDS, JULY 24. STOOK EXCHANGE. —Midlands, 84—Manchester, Shef• field, and Lincoln, 341. SBABORNB MAILS. (N laminas that the malls aro sent from the General Post-oftli *, the night—and M by the morning—despatch.) Day when ra e From what 0, 1301INTRIX3. in Genera; Post- Port due I OMee, London.* Dispatehe. Ea laad. America(bylirit.pack)N ((very Friday ~.. Liverpool ... WeeklY 'merle?. (by United Ste. packet) Every Tuesday . Southampton Weekly America (by U. States . . Liverpool •» packet) ..........N Australia (via Liver hi 4th and 19th Liverpool .. Twig,* nut )ltto (via Marseilles) N Dover . t)itto (via Cape of Good flop.) •• •• .• •• •• ••14 Uncertain Africa (West Coast) .. N Is 4 of thP :non: 6th of too. Alexandria.......... N. 10th & 26th of r 0. Dover t 19th Alexandria trn %Jul of mon. 3outhamp,o, 14 &21of m ilahamas ...........X! 17th of the month Southamptcel6th Belgium .• •••• •4 .N Dai1y........ Dover •• •• • • Da;:y Brasil .......... M 9th of the month Southamp' oi July 16. Buenos Ayres 9th • , h. Ynontt gonthamstn. July 15 Cape of Good Hope ..N Uncertain Cape of Good Hope ..N Case de Verde ... tb-• month Sonthampiet. 16th of me ... Ceylon (see India) 10th and 26th lb & 29th 4 & t C o e h y a l n o n n e . l . N N 4 .4 th 0 : . n . w d ed 2o . t . h a Southamp en fu.To.rat. IV Id & 17th of month IlOuthamp o: 1 and 16 China ..... 4th and 10th . . - 4 and i 9 Constantinople oth and 26th rye , ' • 2 and 19 Constantinople 4th & 20th of mon Southamptns 7 and 24 Cont. of Europe hi & N Twice daily Dover ...... twice 407 Egypt (see India) France .• ~. ••••14 8s N Twice daily Dover .. •• • Twiee dail l Gibraltar 4.7.17.20,27 of m. Southampto n i• 7. 24. 2 *. Greece (see India) Greytown 2nd & 17th of mon. Southampton 1 and 1. tiamburgh ..........N Daily Load= O ali Y Ilavannah Al 2nd of the montl- South:4ll4p. 2d ot mo Rolland Dover Daily Honduras ..........M 17ta of the month. iouthampto; 16th India (viaSouthampt.)M 4th it 20th of mon. Plymouth .. and 21 India (via Marselllcs)M 10th& 26th of moth Dover lb !k 29:g6 lonian leos (see India) D0ver...... Ireland ........M & N Twice .. Holyhead Lisbon .............. hi 2d of n 0... Madeira 4th of the month Southampton 6..16,n5 e1. 234 of month Malta (see India) Malta 4, 10, 20, and 26 Dover 4. 21.13,1 Mauritius (see India) 3laurltius 20th of the month 13. 23 Ifordoo ..M 2n lof the month.. Sonthampt-n st Naples ..............N Dai1y............ Dover , New Granada 24 & 17th of month Southampt on July 16 New Zealand.... ...... Twice a month Various port Papal States Daily •... Dover ...... weekl.r: Peninsula iouthamptot Peru ..............M ld & 27th of mon. Southampton Ist & 161 11 Port Natal ..........N Ely private ship... Various port: Every Saturday.. Dever ..... Week!? Tuscany ..........N Dai1y.......... • • Dover ...... Venezuela ....,,.,,,M 24 & 17th olmonth iouthamptct 1& 16m( Van Dietnea's Lond (sec Australia) ith of m0n..... monthly Prot ladies , 1.. is •• r %outflow:W l et F and 16 When any of these dates fall on a Sunday, the mails will be de• spatche.d on the following day, with the exception of the India a ?oathampten), and the Mute, both of which will be despatch' d the preceding day. PARISHES OF ST. ANDREW BY THE WARDROBE AND ST. ANN, BLACKFRIARS.—The inhabitants of these united parishes presented the Rev. Michael Biggs with a purse of 50/. on Monday last, on his resignation of the Sunday afternoon lectureship, which he had held for nine years. THE ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY.—A well exe• cuted and appropriate medal has been struck to corn• tnetnorate the visit to Chelmsford of the Royal Agricul. tural Society. It is, we believe, the first medal ever issued upon such an occasion, and is, from the taste displayed in its execution, well calculated to form a ine• morial of it. The obverse is from a design by Harrison Weir, and is executed by Messrs. Pinckes, medalists to the Crystal Palace, and the prominent object is a five specimen of one of the many beautiful bulls exhibited at Chelmsford, In the distance are horses and sheep, and the plough is also introduced. The reverse of the medal represents the County-hall, Chelmsford. We notice the medal, not only because it is creditable as a work of art, but also to give a t opportunity to those interested in agriculture to preserve a souvenir of this very success. ful exhibitit n. BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 24th inst., at St. George's-terrace, Kensington the wife of Howard Jackson, Esq. O❑ the 23d inst., at 2, Mercer's-placa, Commercial-road east, Mrs. Henry Ridley Dale—twins. OF A DAUGHTER. On the 22d inst., atWimbledon•park, the Lady Hormian' Graham. On the 24th inst., at Croydon, tho lady of A. C. Camp' bell, Esq. MARRIED. On the 22.1 inst., at Milford, Surrey, the Rev. C. Vi r Be!grave, rector of North Kilworth, Leicestershire, to Annie, daughter of the late Vice-Admiral Deere& On the 22d inst., at Upper Brook-street Chapel, Msn• cheater, R. T►imble, Esq., of Liverpool, to Jane, the onlf daughter of lfr. Alderman Heywood, of Manchester. On the 23d inst., at St. John's, Clapham, Charles Cra'W shay, Esq., so❑ of Richard Crawshay, Esq., of Ottorshaw• park, Surrey, to Eliza Maria Jane, daughter of the late B• Cubitt, Esq., and niece to Sir William Cubitt, Clapham• common, Surrey. DIED. On the 23d inst., at 30, Lower Belgrave-street, John Polwarth, Esq., aged 72. On the 23d inst., at Tayies-hill, Ewell, Surrey, Frederic Millett, Esq., aged 57 . On the 22 inst., a, Brighton, Frelerick Winslow Yonne., Esq., of 37, Mortimer-street, Cavendish-square , aged 7.5. On the 23d inst., at Bishop's Well, Chiselhurst, Rent; Frances, widow of the late Gilbert Buchanan, LL.D., of Woodman-sterue, Surrey, aged 91. On the 23d inst., at James Cross, Esq., of Ripon, late of Blackburn, aged 60. On the 22d inst., at Forest-hill, Sydenham, Philip Law' ton, Esq., aged 81. On thr/ 19th inst., at Tur.bridge-wells, J. B. Moen° , Esq., of Upper Clapton, Middlesex, aged 60. raGICDOIT: Printed and Published by MITIVDO YOUNG of No. 112, Strand, FAnter, at The Stol4 Office, ISt strand, in the P,ecinct, of the Savoy * in t 1241 0011ati e , Tiliddlecet, Friday, July 25, 16.56. • 4'4 i• • , i Char] Edw, John Geor, willl Char Jona ha hi'/ 3,p1 'lna