The Sun. — London, England, 1836-07-26 00:00:00

IRELAND. DUBLIN, JULY 23.--ADDRESS TO THE KING FROM THE IRISH PEOPLE.—We announce with extreme gratifi ' cation, that the Address to the Sovereign, adopted at a re cent meeting at the Corn Exchange, praying his Majesty to exercise his constitutional prerogative in support of the claims of his Irish subjects to efficient reforms in their Mu nicipal Institutions, and a satisfactory settlement of the Tithe question, has already been most extensively signed in many parts of the country. It is probable that, before the lapse of another week, the document will be ready to be forwarded, with upwards of half a million of signatures. — Dublin Evening Post. GROSS JOBBING OF THE CORPORATION.—WhiIst the Irish Tory Members in the House of Commons are op posing Lord Morpeth's Bill, to prevent the alienation of Corporate property, the Corporators are actively engaged in appropriating that property in the most barefaced jobbing. Their " Honors" held what is termed their Quarter Assembly yesterday, when an order for granting 1501. on the pretence of repairing the Mansion-house, was proposed for adoption.—lbid.—LFrom a report of the pro ceedings of their " Honors" it appears that 4051. have been voted away to a clerk of the Town Clerk, for opposing a Bill, the object of which was to reform that Corporation.] THE TITHE WAR.—A plan of a winter campaign for the Tithe Commissioners has just been published, in anticipa tion of the failure of the measure now before Parliament, for the peaceable settlement of that vexatious question. It is set forth under the title of " Instructions to Commissioners in the execution of Writs of Rebellion." One of the Com missioners has set up a gig on the profits of his holy calling, and caused his arms to be emblazoned on its panels, viz., a pastoral crook, and a scroll or writ, with the device, " Sol vendce suit Decimal," in gold letters ; a witty parody, said to have been furnished by one of his Reverend employers, upon "Delenda est Carthago.'"chere are some who say it is not a parody, but a parallel. THE TODD FOEGERY.—Dr. Todd (quasi Dodd), the re puted author of the forgery which the innocent McGhee thought to pawn up on th e " goo d peop l e " o f L on d on , i s junior librarian of our university. About twenty-four years ago, a hoax of a similar kind was perpetrated in this semi nary by a man named Leyden, who was professor of the Irish language. ARREST OF ORANGEMEN.—WC can now add, on the authority of a letter from Cloyne, county of Monaghan, t'iat, on the 17th instant, Captain Macleod, R. M., in conjunction with the sub-inspector of police, issued war rants against upwards of one hundred persons for appear ing in processions on the Twelfth instant. Forty or fifty of these Orangemen were apprehended. We should mention that several of the Orangemen presented them selves in Orange insignia, when brought before the Ma gistrates to be bailed, viz., with Orange flowers and rib bons on their persons ; however, when informed that they would not be bailed, if they did not strip themselves of the gewgaws, they doffed the tawdry and departed. At. the same time Chief Constable Hill apprehended thirty other Orangemen, for walking in procession on the 12th of July in the same county. They, too, have given secu rity for their appearance at the Monaghan Assizes. This activity on the part of the police has had a very salutary (Sect, as the other Orangemen yet at large are coming for ward voluntarily and tendering bail. The activity and de cision of the Government have, in fact, been attended with the best effect. This is the first, or, at least the second time, during forty years, that no blood has been spilt by Orangemen on the 12th of July. GREAT ANTI-TITHE MEETING, NEAR CLARA.—An im mense assemblage of the landholders and other inhabitants of several parishes in the King's County, was held on the iOtii July, at 131ackhollow, near the town of Clara, to peti tion for the abolition of the hateful and blood-stained tithe system. There is no truth in the report that Commissary-General Haines has been appointed one of the Commissioners under the Dublin Police Act. The Cork Reporter of Thursday brings us an ample re port of the adjourned investigation i❑ that city on the pre ceding day, into the charges preferred against the police for improper and disrespectful conduct at the Imperial Hotel, an the night that his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant was entertained by the citizens. The secretary, several of the guests on the occasion, and the proprietor of the hotel, de 13;sA to the intrusion of the police into the dining-room on the night in question —to their " heedlessly disregarding" the directions to them to withdraw—and that a cry of "you lie," or " that is an untruth," came from one of them while Mr. Hayes was in the act of addressing the company at table. The citizens of Cork have at length discovered the traitor in the person of Pierce Lyons, the Mayor's sergeant. Lona M uLGRAVE.—We learn by the IVateifordChronicle that preparations are going forward to give his Lordship a reception, worthy of them, and the most popular Viceroy that ever brought peace to the shores of Ireland. "If any consideration," says the same paper, " could induce the people to cherish Lord Mulgrave with a still warmer at tachment, it would be the infamous and unjustifiable abuse, which is heaped upon him by the bigots and corruptionists. This abuse has Lord Mulgrave earned, solely by his anxiety to act with impartiality, and to administer justice with an even hand. At a meeting of the Cork Conserva tive Society, Billingsgate, in buckets full, was discharged aspen his Excellency : and this, too, in a great degree, by reverend! gentlemen. •The following is the language which one of these clerical Conservatives, of the name of Free man, thought it becoming to apply to the representative of the Sovereign :—‘ The deputy of Daniel O'Connell was going through the country disturbing its quiet repose that lie might get a cheer. He did not come amongst them as Lord Mulgrave but as O'Mulgrave, the deputy of O'Connell, who placed him in his situation, as he (Mr. F.) believed Lord Mulgrave was as much disliked by the King as he was by every gentleman in Ireland.— (Cheers.) The gentry showed their abhorrence of the deputy, as they have received him throughout the country as what he was, the fac simile of O'Connell.—( Loud cheer ing.)' fhis reverend railer is, we think, as good a specimen of a foul-mouthed parson, as could be desired. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.—This powerful body, to whose exertions we must now look for the peaceable work ing out of just and salutary reform, is daily spreading its branches in all parts of the country. TIPPERARY.—A meeting of the friends of Reform in this county was called last week, for the establishment of a Reform Registry Association in Tipperary, based on the general principles of the Reform Registry Association of Ireland. Another meeting was called at the same place of the inhabitants of the county, to co-operate with the General Association in protecting persons unjustly and ilk gaily persecuted on account of tithes, and using every legi timate means of obtaining municipal reform, and establishing a justice rent for Ireland ; and a third meeting was called in the evening, at the same place, for the latter-mentioned purposes, of the clergy, gentry, and inhabitants of Clonmel and its vicinity. All these meetings were held in succession. REMARKABLE DEATH.—On Whit Monday last a jobbing coachman, named Such, employed principally at Kent's stables, Southampton-mews, borrowed a butcher's knife for the purpose, as he said, of cutting a piece of leather from a boot, but in reality to cut his throat with ; for in a few mi nutes after he had obtained the loan of the knife from a slaugh ter-house at the back of the stables he was found with his windpipe cut nearly (or as reported) quite through, lying on a dung heap in the yard. The cause of this dreadful act was at the time generally attributed to the circumstance of his having lost more money than he was able to afford in one of the low gambling booths at Epsom races. He was immedi ately conveyed to the new London Hospital, Tottenham-court road, and the wound was sewed up, and every attention which skill could supply was afforded. Notwithstanding the dreadful nature of the in3ury the patient rapidly recovered, sustenance being conveyed into the stomach by means of a pipe introduced into the throat. The patient up to the middle of last week continued to gain strength, and an advance was made so far towards a complete cure as to admit of his walking about, and to allow of his dispensing with the pipe, taking care, however, not to attempt to swallow solid food. A day or two ago he asked and obtained leave to visit his wife, and again he re ceived a caution not to swallow anything solid. While at his wife's lodgings he was induced to neglect this advice, and, on attempting to partake of a mutton-chop, the first mouthful killed him. He was removed back to the Hospital, and, on examination, it was found, as was contemplated, that he had been choked by the food he had attempted to swallow. These facts were laid before a jury, who returned a verdict conform ably to the evidence. At an early hour on Saturday mornin g, not i ce was sent to every Police-office of the escape of a convict named Henry Williams, from Newgate, under very extraordinary and mysterious circumstances. From the statements that were made on Saturday, on astrict inquiry before the Sheriffs, whi c h lasted several hours, it appeared that the prisoner was locked up in one of the condemned cells at the usual hour on Friday evening, and he was missed from it between five and six o'clock on Saturday morning. The massive hinges on the door of his cell had been filed through, which enabled the prisoner to pull the door towards him, so as to make an aperture large enough for him to escape into the lobby, and it is conjectured that he then made his way into the Governor's house, and jumped through one of the windows into the Old Bailey, a task which no person could credit, were they to see the immense locks he had to pick, and the number of officers upon guard immedi ately upon that spot. The prisoner, although not more than twenty years of age, has been for many years one of the most expert and dangerous thieves in London. He was committed from Hatton-gerbil Police-office about fi ve weeks since, for a burglary in a dwelling-house of Mesdames Arabella and Ca roline Mann, keepers of a ladies' seminary; at Highbury, and several other robberies, upon which charges he was found guilty and sentenced to death. While in the custody of Wadding ton, the gaoler of the above Police-office, he several times at tempted to get at large, and was double ironed. The wife of a cannon founder at Lugunski, in Russia, was brought to bed on the 22d of May last of 5 daugh ters, of whom four are still living, and are doing well. The .Emperor sent 500 rubles to the mother, and ordered that she L'inuld want for nothing. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Juzr 25. The SPEAKER took the Chair at four o'clock. TRINITY HARBOUR. Sir A. L. HAY presented a petition from Edinburgh, in favour of the Trinity Harbour Bill. The Hon. Baronet moved the second reading of the Bill. The LORD ADVOCATE opposed the second read ing, and would state why he conceived it ought not to pass. He had not during the present Session opposed any of the proceedings with regard to this Bill. The promoters of the Bill had no right whatever to make a harbour within the bounds sought for by the present Bill. There was a judgment of the Court of Session by which a Mr. Alexander Scott had been prohibited for unloading goods. or making a dock for their reception within those bounds. Further, he had been prohibited from building, or erecting a harbour or dock, or from doing any thing so as to encroach on the rights vested in the Corporation of Edinburgh. There was only one point on which an express judgment had not yet been pronounced. The question the House had to consider under these circumstances was, would the House consent to pass a Bill empowering per sons to make an harbour within the limits of another harbour? It was clearly an encroachment upon the rights of property, and no case had been made out in the present instance to entitle the promoters of the Bill to in terfere with the rights and privileges of the City of Edinburgh, and the judgment of a Court of Law. He would put it to any Hon. Member of that House ac quainted with the rights of private property, whether they would sanction such a proceeding. The measure had been before the House of Lords, but from the omission of certain clauses, it had been again brought back to that House ; but from the decision which had been come to by a Court of Law, it was clear the parties had no right whatever to make such an harbour. There was no former instance of a Bill being brought in after passing that House, and being thrown out in the other. The other side cited one instance in the case of Leith, where a Mr. Dunlop petitioned against a Bill ; but if it was neces sary, he could prove that that case was not at all within the parallel. The Dock Committee had op posed the Bill throughout, and they had a right to do so yet ; but how could they do so now, at that late period of the session, and after they had already spent a great deal of money ? Under all these considerations, he hoped the House would not sanction the unusual proceedings, and moved that the Bill he read a second time that day six months. Mr. WILKS had a Parliamentary experience of thirty years, and had never before seen such an opposition shewn to any Bill which had ever come before the House, and he hoped, upon this occasion, the House would stand firm. The decision of the Court of Session which had been alluded to did not at all bear out the untenable claim of the Corporation of Edinburgh : it merely went the length of saying that Edinburgh was entitled to the Harbour Dues along the shore, and not that Mr. Scott should not raise a harbour. The Court of Session had determined that the Corpora tion of Edinburgh were entitled to Harbour Dues. Now look at the case of the City of London ; that Corporation had a paramount right to the navigation of the River Thames, and had, therefore, a right to de mand clues ; but would it be tolerated that the city of London had any claim to say they had not only a right to claim Harbour Dues, but that they could also prevent parties from erecting docks, or ally thing else, unless certain dues were paid. He was fully convinced the House would not allow the opposition that had taken place to be successful, but would sanction the second reading of the Bill. Mr. PRINGLE thought the opposition that had been made to the Bill had been made upon the best of all grounds —and that ground was supported by public opinion. There was a general satisfaction expressed when this Bill was thrown out. Various means had been tried to preju dice the minds of Hon. Members with regard to this Bill, and he held in his hand a paper which had been circulated for that purpose, to a few passages from which he entreated the attention of the Hon. and Gallant Member for Elgin (Sir A. L. Hay). He wished to ask the Hon. and Gal lant Member if he knew any thing of this pamphlet, or if be understood what it meant? Sir A. L. HAY said he was not answerable for it. Mr. PRINGLE would read a few passages for the Honourable and Gallant Member's information. The paper had been circulated out of doors, in order to prejudice people's minds.—(Hear, hear.) It complained of the unjustifiable opposition that was offered to this Bill, both in that House and elsewhere ; of the statements that had been made with regard to it, in which statements this pamphlet said there was not the slightest alloy of truth— that it (the opposition to this Bill) was grounded altogether upon the most palpable fallacies, and that as no just grounds could be stated in opposition to the Bill, the objections to it were grounded upon vague generalities and dullness. Now, lie asked if it was fair to circulate such statements ? The Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had stated in that House that this Bill had been lost elsewhere by a blunder, or somethin ,, worse. Now, the objections to this Bill were founded upon the forms of the House, which had been altogether set at defiance by the promoters of this Bill. These were the grounds upon which this Bill was rejected. He believed there had never been a case productive of more pertinacity than the promoters of this Bill bad exhibited in endeavouring to pass it through that House. The House would agree with him in thinking it ought not to give its sanction to such a measure.— (Cries of " Divide, divide.") Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— For the motion Against it Majority in favor of the second reading —45 On our return to the gallery we found Sir A. L. HAY on his legs, protesting against the sys tem which had been pursued. with reference to the present Bill, the object of which had been to defeat the progress of the Bill through the House of Lords. He should now move that the Bill be committed that day, notwithstanding the orders of the House. Sir GEORGE CLERK protested against such a course being pursued. There had been a good deal of irregularity connected with this Bill, and he hoped it would not be fur ther persevered in. There were more than a hundred in stances in which the Standing Orders had been dispensed with, but these were Bills to which no opposition was offered ; but there was no instance of such a course being taken when a Bill was opposed as this one was. The Leith Police Bill had been instanced, but it was not at all an analogous case. It had passed that House after a very strenuous opposition. In the House of Lords, by mutual concession and compromise, a new Bill was introduced and passed ; but it was not at all the same Bill, or anything like it. The Hon. Member for Boston had said the case was analagous to a wharfinger's building, a dock, or wharf along the Thames ; but in all such cases the parties built upon their own property, while there was no allegation that this harbour was to be taken out of the sea-beach, which was the undoubted property of the Corporation of Edinburgh, which extended so far as the turnpike-road. He hoped the House would not afford such a pernicious precedent, as to give a party a right by Act of Parliament to do that which the Court of Session had precluded him from doing by an injunction. Under these circumstances, therefore, he trusted that the House would postpone the committal of the Bill until the usual period of eight days, in order that the parties aggrieved might come forward. Sir A. L. HAY moved that the Bill be committed that day. The LORD ADVOCATE deprecated the establish ment of a precedent so contrary to every decision hitherto made by the House. Mr. WILKS was quite sure, as the suspension of the Standing Orders had not been moved, the House would make an order that the Committee should sit to-morrow. Mr. PRINGLE said that this was the first case in which such a precedent had been set, as that, in an opposed private Bill which was brought before that House, the promoters of it s h ou ld move th a t the Standing Orders be dispensed with, and that they should go forward in such an irregular manner in defiance of all the Standing Orders. Sir A. L. HAY merely rose to put the House in pos session of what was the real petition to be heard by Coun sel. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh reported yesterday, that at the request of a solicitor of London he had signed a petiti on w hi c h h a xi been sent to him agai▪ nst the Trinity Harbour Bill , of which he hoped that Counsel would a pp rove . C onsequent l y th e Solici▪ tor in London was the person to be heard. Sir G. CLERK said that the Hon. and Gallant Mem ber forgot to state that the imagistrates of Edinbugh had unanimously approved of what had been done by the Lord Provost. LONDON CEMETERY BILL. Mr. D. W. HARVEY moved the third reading of the London Cemete r y Bill. Mr. WILKS said every side of the House got up to say that these Cemetery Bills wee good, and requisite for the health of the metropolis, yet no-t one Bill passed without upholding the clergyman in exacting large fees for doing nothing. He would not opp, Ise the progress of the present Bill, but he gave notice that: next Session ho and other Members would oppose any Cemetery Bill wherein such unjust clauses were introduce d, or unless the whole of the ground was consecrated, and no fees exacted. Mr. POTTER wished to. know whether :he was not right in supposing that the le es attached only to that part of the ground which was cons(!cr ated, and not to the other part, which was not ? Mr. D. W. HARVEY w As /ell pleased that the Hon. Member for Boston would calA th e attention of the House to the subject at a future time. an the meantime he felt rather surprised that the two Honourable Members who spoke last, the able advocates of the Dissenters, should advocate the consecration of the whole of the Ce metery grounds.--(" No, no," from Mr. Potter.) In reply to the question, he h a d t o say th a t or i g i na ll y it was pro posed that each body should pay two shillings to the clergyman, but he opposed the plan. He said the sum was too small, and that he would oppose the Bill unless it was augmented. It was under those circumstances that the sum had been increased to that which had been fixed in other Bills of a similar nature. After some observations from Mr. WILKS, Mr. HAR VEY, and Mr. A. TREVOR, Mr. POTTER moved that the third reading be de ferred till to-morrow. Mr. HUME wished to know from the Hon. Member for Southwark, whether Dissenters would be compelled by this Bill to pay fees for interment in consecrated ground ? Mr. D. W. HARVEY could not give a direct answer to the question of the Honourable Member ; but but from his general knowledge he should say that Dis senters would not be compelled to pay fees. Mr. BAINES thought that the Bill ought to stand over till this point respecting fees was ascertained, so that there should be no ambiguity about it. Mr. HINDLEY thought the Dissenters in that House would not be discharging their duty, if they allowed this Bill to pass in its present shape. Mr. HARVEY consented to postpone the third reading till to-morrow, which was accordingly done. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 26, 1836. COMMUTATION OF TITHES. A Message from the Lords stated that their Lordships had agreed to this Bill, with amendments, and on the mo tion of Lord J. RUSSELL the amendments were ordered to be printed. GREEK LOAN BILL. Mr. ROBINSON wished to ask a question respecting the Order of the Day for a Committee on this Bill. The Bill had been read a first and second time without the House being cognisant of its provisions ; and now they were called to go into Committee on the Bill at, perhaps, two o'clock in the morning. Papers had been put into the hands of Members only that day, and he therefore asked the Noble Lord to postpone going into Committee, till they had time to consider the provisions of the Bill. He was satisfied that the Bill would never pass till the House had a fair opportunity of discussing its merits. Lord J. RUSSELL said that lie would not ask the House to go into Committee on this Bill this evening, and he would take care that due notice was given when the discussion was to come on. Mr. ROBINSON said that the answer of the Noble Lord was perfectly satisfactory. The House then divided, when there appeared, For the motion For the Amendment .. Majority in favour of the committal of the Bill to morrow -50 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (DURHAM) BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in answer to a question from Mr. A. TREVOR, said he should give directions for any thing to be done that was necessary to carry on the machinery of the Court of Common Pleas of Durham. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—MR. CUNDY. Mr. BENETT said that he rose for the purpose of saying a fell/ words with reference to his personal charac ter. He had been informed by friends, as well as by the reports in the public newspapers, that while he was attending his duty at the Assizes for Wilts, Mr. Nicholas W. Cundy had been brought to the bar of the House, and had made sundry answers to questions put by the Speaker and various other Members of the House. He had a copy of those answers in his hand ; and, if the House would allow him, he would go through them for the purpose of showing how perfectly void of truth almost every answer which Mr. Cundy had given was. Mr. Cundy had stated that he never solicited the attendance of Members on the occasion of the third read. Mg of the Brighton Railway Bill. He (Mr. Benett) dis tinctly averred that Mr. Cundy bad called on him, and had solicited his attendance on that occasion, when he stated that a proposition would be made on the the third reading of the Bill. Again Mr. Cundy stated the conversation was not commenced by him.—(Hear.) That was not the fact, because he (Mr. B.) knew nothing of any of the reports that had been made ; and he declared most solemnly that he had never heard anything of the re muneration to Landlords until Mr. Cundy mentioned it to him. He said Sir C. Burrell was to have 15,000/. for six acres of land over which the Railway passed, and further that Sir Charles supported his line until the remuneration was proposed, when he turned in favour of Stephenson's line. Mr. Cundy then gave evidence of some conversation held with him (Mr. Benett) relative to the compensation to the Duke of Norfolk. Now the fact was that he never had heard one word of the Duke of Norfolk, nor was he aware that he was a Proprietor on the Line, till he saw the Report of the evidence. Again, in his evidence, he denied that he had- ever said any member of the Committee had been tampered with ; the fact was that he (Mr. Cundy), had told him (Mr. Benett) that the ma jority had been got in favour of Stephenson's line by bribery, which had been extended to many Members of the Committee. He had also told him that'the Chairman o. the Committee had been very partial, because of his connee• tion with the Duke of Richr - nOnd, whose interest was much connected with Stephenson's line. He (Mr. Benett) had seen Sir C. Burrell, and found out that these statements as related to him were false, for that the whole compensa tion he could ever expect would not amount to 3,0001. Mr. Cundy called upon him after, and was shewn in unexpect edly ; he ( Mr. Benett) said he did not want to say any-thing to him, as his former statements had turned out false. Mr. Cundy then repeated all he had before said ; and said he had never denied one word of it to Sir C. Burrell.—( Hear.) Instead of over-stating the case to Sir C. Burrell, he had under-stated it. It was not his wish to bring any party to the Bar of that House—all he wanted was to assure the House that he bad not over-represented Mr. Cundy. He should not have considered it necessary to come to the House in a matter personal to himself, if the Report had not gone further than the House ; but reading the account he had done, he could not but think but that the facts had been overstated with respect to Sir Charles Burrell.—(Hear, hear.) He would say nothing more ; he did not wish to conclude with a motion as he had no desire to see Mr. Cundy at the Bar. S:r CHAS. BURRELL regretted that his friend op posite had stated what he had done. There was a peti tion affecting his character before the House, and he should have preferred that the statement should have been de ferred till that petition had been brought forward. He was ready to justify every action he had been engaged in, and every action he had had anything to do with, in the course of these proceedings. Lord G. LENNOX having been alluded to, begged leave to say a few words. He understood the Hon. Mem ber for Wiltshire to say that he (Lord G. Lennox) had been charged with partiality, and with being influenced by his brother in his conduct on the Committee. It was to vindicate his brother and not himself that he rose. He could assure the House that he never had directly or in directly 'communicated with his brother, until long after the Bill had been in Committee except on one occasion, when the Solicitor for the Bill called at Goodwood, thinking to find him (Lord G. Lennox) there.—(Hear, hear.) His bro ther wrote/go him, telling him that Mr. Clarke called to ask him (Lord George Lennox), to bring in his Bill, and recommending him to be cautious about pledging himself to support it. This was the only communication he had had with his brother. After the Bill had been in Committee, the agents requested him (Lord G. Lennox) to ask his brother if he would undertake it in the House of Lords. He wrote to him to that effect, and the answer was that he (the Duke of Richmond) could not pledge himself to undertake the charge of the Bill, as he was not at the time convinced that the line was the best or the most beneficial.—(Hear, hear.) It was not till long after the evidence was printed and published, that he undertook to conduct the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) As to any interest he had, this railroad would not go within twenty miles of his property. As to himself he would leave his conduct in the hands of the Committee. The Hon. Member for East Surrey (Captain Alsager) had himself moved a vote of thanks to him 'for his impartiality as Chair man of the Committee.—(Hear, hear, hear, and cheers.) There was a very full attendance of the Committee, and he was proud to say that the vote was carried unanimously. The subject then dropped. Lord J. RUSSELL rose, to move the Order of the Day, when Lord F. EGERTON took the opportunity of present ing a petition from various deans and chapters throughout the kingdom against the Ecclesiastical Bills before the House. The tone of voice of the Noble Lord prevented us from gathering the exact nature of the petition from hearing its prayer. Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from Man chester against Church rates, and against the erection of Manchester and its vicinity into a bishopric, as proposed by the Established Church Bill. Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the canons of the Cathedral of Christ Church, Oxford, against the pro posed Bills for interfering with the Established Church. He deprecated the habit of speechmaking on the presenta tion of petitions, but be begged leave to direct the attention of his Majesty's :Ministers to the fact that Christ Church was a College as well as a Cathedral. SPANISH AUXILIARY FORCES. Mr. MACLEAN wished to know whether there was any objection to the production of a copy of the last mus ter-sheets, showing the number of the marines employed on the north coast of Spain : and whether any communication had been received from Lord John Hay of the affair before Fontarabia ? Mr. C. WOOD was surprised that such a question should be asked without due notice given. Mr. MACLEAN said that the Hon. Gentleman could not be taken by surprise as to the last part of the question, viz., whether any communication had been received from Lord John Hay. Mr. C. WOOD was understood to decline answering the question. Mr. MACLEAN said he should take an early oppor tunity of giving notice of his intention to ask these questions. Captain BOLDERO was desirous of hearing from the Noble Lord when it would be convenient for him to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. He was anxious about it, as it involved the honour of a British of ficer and a branch of the service. [The motion of the Gal lant Officer is for a " Copy of the charge (if any) and minutes of evidence of a Court of Inquiry, held at Sheer ness in February last, touching the conduct of Lieutenant Hill, R.N., late in the command of his Majesty's steam vessel Alban, in the Mediterranean, superseded without inquiry: Lord. J. RUSSELL was inaudible in reply. The Noble Lord then gave notice of a motion for leave to bring in a Bill to-morrow ; but such was the noise that prevailed, that the nature of the motion did not reach the gallery. ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL, after giving notice that he should move to-morrow (this day) for leave to bring in a Bill for suspending the appointments to certain dignities and offices in collegiate churches, and sinecure preferments, then moved the order of the day for the adjourned debate on the Es blished Church Bill. The Noble Lord then proceeded : Although I shall not attempt to take this opportunity of speaking to the subject of this Bill, unless perhaps in case certain facts are stated which require explanation, and when I hope I may be allowed the indulgence of the House in giving an explanation of them, I do think that it will be for the convenience of the House, as well as it is the duty of the Government, to give some intimation of the course which is intended to be pursued with respect to the Bill on which I have moved the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate ; and with respect to the other Bills relating to Church matters before the House. It is my intention with respect to the Bill relating to the Established Church and the division of sees to move the third reading to-night. As I have said, I will not now enter into a debate on this question, but merely take occasion to repeat what I have often said before, and what, I regret to say, has not made such an impression as so notorious a fact was calculated to do, namely, that this Bill does not increase the number of bishops, but retains the same number exactly as there was before its introduction.—( Hear. ) With respect to the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, which relates to the deans and chapters, and the distribution of a great pert of their revenues to the cure of souls in popu lous parishes and districts, there has been, I am sorry to say, so much opposition raised to this Bill, that, at the pre sent advanced period of the session, I do not feel con fident that I should successfully carry it through the House ; and when I say that, I do not mean to imply that if I pressed it I ahould not have a majority of this House to support me ; I certainly do mean to say, that there is, from various quarters, so much opposition made to the Bill, that undoubtedly, at this advanced period of the session, we should be compelled to sacrifice a large portion of time in order to succeed in getting it through Parliament. That opposition has arisen from different quarters : one of the quarters whence it has arisen is from those from some of whom my Noble Friend opposite (Lord F. Egerton) has presented a petition this evening. This petition follows up a former peti tion, in which complaint was made of the provisions of that Bill in no very measured terms. And the present petition prayed, without going into any discussion of the present pro visions of the Bill, to postpone its consideration for another session. In treating of that Bill, I must say that I cannot consent to postpone it without stating that I do not attach weight to the statements made in the former petition, nor the principles on which it was founded. The statement there made is this—that there arc certain rights of patronage which they consider the same as a vested interest in other pro perty, and that Parliament ought not to interfere with them. This is in many respects a new claim. Ido not remember when one similar to it was made ; I am sure it has been very often the practice of Parliament to deal with patronage, to make a different distribution of offices, and to deprive persons and bodies of patronage which they otherwise would have en joyed, without making any compensation, or having their right to deal with such matters questioned. But besides the unsoundness of the principle thus laid down, I do not think it was altogether gracious on the part of these dignitaries to lay before the House such a ground of opposition to a measure of this nature.—( Hear, hear.) It has been the con sequence—it will be the consequence—of the measures taken for the reform of the Church, that a very considerable degree of patronage must be sacrificed by the Crown, not only with respect to prebendaries and sinecure preferments, but also with respect to the patronage, .which resulted from the ine quality of the bishoprics, and which made the patronage of the Crown more valuable than it will be for the future. There has not been on the part of the Crown any, the least, reluct ance to make whatever sacrifices were considered advan tageous to the Church, or likely to render it more efficient and more grateful and acceptable to the people at large.— ( Hear.) With respect to the patronage enjoyed by the bishops, I must remind the House of what has been a good deal overlooked, namely, that they have given up some most valuable patronage which was in their gift, and relinquished their right to nominate to certain prebendaries and preferments for the purpose of placing at the disposal of Government funds which might be better applied for contributing to the efficiency of the Church. I may mention one instance on authority which cannot be doubted. The Bishop of London alone has preferments in the cathedral of St. Paul's, and sinecure prefer ments, to the amount of ten thousand pounds, the whole of which he has expressed his willingness to relinquish.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") I say, then, that such being the dis position on the part of the Crown—such being the disposition on the part of the Bishops—l do think that those prefer the accomplishment of their object to the advancement of the ge neral good of the Church, who interpose the objection of a vested right in patronage in the way of a measure of Church Reform._( Cheers.) Sir, there is another opposition to this Bill, which comes from a very different quarter, and which is in the spirit of the petition which has just been presented by the Hon. Member for Manchester.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It is an opposition grounded on the opinion, that these reforms are not of the kind or extent of reform which ought to take place, and more especially on a decidedly strong feeling evinced by a great portion of the Dissenters that some step should be taken for making the funds which may accrue from the abolition of sinecure preferments supply the place of church-rates. Sir, as I stated that I do not agree to the opinions expressed by the deans and chapters, or of those who signed the petition on their part, so likewise I must say that I do not agree in the views stated by the latter class, to whom I have alluded. It is not, in my opinion, possible for Parliament in the next or any other session of Parliament to find in those preferments funds sufficient to replace church rates. It is my opinion that the wants of the Church are such that, supposing the House to say it is better that these wants should be attended to in the first place, and the ser vice of the cathedrals altogether neglected—( Hear, hear, hear)--even in that case the wants of the Church with regard to the populous districts, are such as to disable Parliament from making any portion of its revenues a substitution for church rates. Sir, that being my opinion, the only ground on which I can consent to the postponement of this Bill, and that with respect to the discipline of the Church, is that, instead of now meeting with general concurrence and approbation with which, I must say, this plan of Reform was received when proposed by me on a former occasion, and when it met with such general support—in which the Hon. Member for Middlesex and my Hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets joined—that an Hon. Member on the opposite side of the House got up and declared he wished to say nothing which would disturb the unanimity which prevailed in the House— I say, therefore, that instead of the general approbation and concurrence which were then expressed, it has appeared, on farther inquiry, that those who agreed in that opinion have considered these Bills to be liable to great objection, and to require much further inquiry. I certainly am of opinion, much as I regret that I should have occasion to express it, that it is not desirable, at this very late period of the Session, to enter into a discussion which would give rise to considerable delay and opposition, and that we shall be enabled to come to a more unanimous decision on these questions, by the post ponement of them, than we should do by forcing them on the consideration of Parliament. Sir, allow me to say, likewise, that although I do not consider the payment of church-rates any sufficient grounds for the postponement of this measure on the plea which has been urged—that cathedral property may enable us to find a substitute for them—yet I must say, that the object which we have looked forward to from the beginning of the session—the settlement, at the present time, of the whole of these questions, will n o t b e p er f ec tly a tt a i ne d unt il that question of church-rates is settled.--( Hear.) Sir, it was my opinion, and I believe I may say it was the opinion of my colleagues, at the commencement of this session, that we might, if we had sufficient time, put an end to most of those questions which have been the cause of dif ference and vexation, and hostility, which ought not to prevail between the Established Church and the Dissenters, as well as the lay members of the Church itself in this country. One question, for instance, with respect to which the Dis senters felt themselves aggrieved is the imperfection of regis try, and being obliged to conform to the rites of the Church of England with regard to marriage. We have brought in a measure to meet this evil, the result of which will be, to leave the Dissenters free and unfettered in the enjoyment of the same rights as those possessed by the members of the Church. As to another and a very great question (tithes), with respect to which the Bill which we brought for ward has been returned from the House of Lords, there is no doubt that there did and does exist, on that subject, ground for frequent occasions of disgust and quarrel be tween the clergyman and his parishioners. With regard to church -rates, they have been the occasion of the most vexatious and harassing disputes in different parishes be tween the members of the Church and the Dissenters. With respect to these Bills now under the notice of the House, I am of opinion that they are calculated to remove many of those defects and abuses in the Establishment which gave rise to much imputation against the members of the Church. I did certainly believe, that by submitting measures for the re form of the Church, in which the leading members of the Church itself were willing to abide by the decision of Par liament and the public opinion of the country, we should place the Church in in a state of security which it has not hitherto enjoyed. In saying this, Ido not mean to deny that there may not hereafter be ground for introducing other changes and reforms—though for myself I do not see any rea son for thinking such a proposition may be necessary ; but I do say that the members of the Church now giving an earnest of their wish and intention to purify it from all defects, there will not hereafter occur any of those questions which are the most dangerous, and with respect to which a peremptory de mand is made on the one side, and a peremptory refusal given on the other.—( Hear, hear.) As soon as you get rid of that state of things, as soon as you bring the question to one of de gree, from that moment you free the institution itself from danger, and you show it to be such an institution as that it rests on the good and sound opinion of the community.— ( Hear, hear.) So likewise with respect to the Dissenters, I do not think that they will be ever contented unless placed in such a situation that they do not feel themselves harassed or aggrieved, or interfered with in their spiritual concerns by the Established Church. Now, our great object has been the re form and security of the Church, and the complete freedom and civil equality of the Dissenters.—(Hear, hear.) There is one other Bill which I shall mention. It has been brought from the House of Lords, and relates to residence and plu ralities. Ido not think there can be any objections to the details of the Bill. I hope it will be formed into a law during the present session. I have now concluded; and I shall only express a hope that if there be any misunderstanding with re spect to a measure of such importance, and on which so much excitement prevails, I shall be allowed an opportunity of cor recting it.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME thought the Noble Lord ought not to have felt much surprised at the opinions expressed on the part of the deans and chapters on the subject of Church Reform. But the Noble Lord had stated that the wants of the Church were sufficient to engross all its revenues. He wished the Noble Lord would have stated what those wants were.— ( Hear, hear.) It was because he wished to see the Church properly provided for that he was unwilling that Parliament should give its sanction to a measure which provided that 148,4001. should be divided amongst twenty-six individuals ; that 2,026 persons should only have 141,0001.; and that five bishops' sons and sons-in law should be allowed as much as 300 curates. Therefore he thought the Noble Lord unrea sonable in asking the assent of the House to a measure so un equal in its operation. The Noble Lord had said that he ap proved of this Bill. He had done no such thing. On the contrary, he had, when it was submitted, given notice that he should take the sense of the House on its postponement. He candidly acknowledged that be thought it desirable to ab stain from all vexatious opposition to his Majesty's Ministers on this question, which might have the effect of transferring the Government to other hands ; a result which he looked upon as dangerous to the best interests of the country, and particularly with respect to the policy to be pursued towards Ireland. Ile considered it right, however, to record his opi nion on this subject, and to leave others to pursue whatever course they chose. Mr. L ENNA RD recommended a change in the Commis sion, and gave as an instance of the little reliance to be placed on the representations of those who were interested in sustain ing the Church establishment in its present state, that the pre decessor of the present diocesan of one of the bishoprics of Wales, said to be a very poor one, died leaving a sum of 100,000/. to his heir. Mr. TREVOR asked the name of the bishop. No answer was given to the question. Mr. C. BULLER did not think the Noble Lord justified in complaining of the opposition given to this Bill at a late stage of it, when considerable opposition had been given to it in Committee. It was with great satisfaction that he heard the Noble Lord express his willingness to give up two Bills. He only wished he had also given up the Bill now under consideration, which was rendered more inefficient by the withdrawal of the Bill by which it was accompanied. The Commission was not to be under the control of Parliament, and in addition it was to be composed of those persons who were the constant opponents of the present Government. He was glad that the Hon. Member for Middlesex intended to take the sense of the House on the third reading, and then to withdraw all opposition to the measure. . _ . Lord JO LIN . RUS SE L L said that the Commission to be appointed would assimilate as closely as possible to the Ec clesiastical Commission in Ireland. The Commissioners under that Commission were removable by his Majesty in Council, and under warrant bearing the sign manual. They would be similarly removable in that proposed. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the Noble Lord should at once state what were the modifications he proposed introdu cing after the third reading. Lord J. RUSSELL had but one additional proposition to make, and that referred to the appointment of the Commission. He should propose to constitute it of the Archbishop of Can terbfry, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, and certain others to be 'hereafter named : the two last-named Bishops, and the three last-named laymen, to be removable at pleasure. He had no other alteratioci to mention. Mr. ESTCOURT defended the conduct of the Church Commissioners from the aspersions sought to be cast upon them. The adjourned debate was then proceeded with. Mr. A. TREVOR should vote with the Hon. Member for Ilildlesex; but it was not to be supposed that, because he did so, he concurred in any of the propositions that Hon. Member or his party were likely to bring forward in respect to the Church.—( A laugh.) Mr. E WART regarded the measure as a most clumsy piece of legislation in the first place, and in the second as a very unnecessary- abandonment of principle on the part of Mini sters. It professed to be a measure of equalization, but it was anything else. All the gradations of Episcopal income from 15,000/. to 5,0001. a year, were preserved, and the only alte rations consisted in the arrangement and subdivision of the sees. To the proposed Commission he objected, on the ground that the controlling power over its proceedings was not vested in the people, through the responsible organs of the Government. He wished to see the Government taking the question of Church reform into their own hands, instead of adopting the reforms suggested by their opponents. Dr. B 0 WR ING said that from his cradle he had been taught to believe that it was not worldly pomp and power— not the possession of inordinate opulence—but the quiet, un ostentatious exercise of clerical duty, that was most acceptable to the religious principle. Froni the costly and opulent Establishment he turned to the Dissenting principle. The Dissenters asked for nothing from the State—nothing from the public purse. Were their children less carefully edu cated? Was there less of religious zeal or religious conduct among their professors ? Indeed, his objection to the Bill went far beyond most of the objections urged against it. He thought the Church of England did not answer the ob jects for which it was professed to be established. It was over-encumbered with wealth; its opulence was its bane; its enormous revenues were all barriers to its usefulness. It was in sad contrast to primitive Christianity. Of what was the Commission composed who were charged with the great duty of Church reform ? Was it not of those most interested in Church abuses ? Were not the changes in the episcopal system delivered over to the hierarchy of the archbishops and the bishops ? The public eye had not been inattentive to the fact that the primary object of the bishops had been to provide for themselves—to set aside enormous and unnecessary re venues for their own good service. They had acted wisely in their generation. But there was another principle in the Bill which he could not sanction. The Church of England called itself the National Church ; but in the nation immense numbers came not within its pale. Was that a reason they should be excluded ? He thought not. Opinion would never sanction those enormous appropriations which this Bill esta blished. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth called them the necessary support of decent and decorous dig nity. He saw in them nothing but the graspings of worldli ness and antichristian rapacity. Did Manchester and Ripon desire.to be favoured with bishops ? Did the inhabitants be lieve that their presence would lead to religious peace and har mony ? Far from it. Mr. GROTE said he had so liitle to approve of and so much to object to in the measure, that it was impossible for him to vote for the third reading. His principal objection to it was the one already expressed—he meant the truly exorbi taut and improper scale on which the episcopal incomes were to be measured. He looked upon the proposition of giving an income of 15,0001. a year to the Archbishop of Canterbury as one entirely indefensible on every ground.—( Hear.) If he were prepared to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury ought to have an income of 15,0001. a year as a remuneration for his services, he could not refuse a proposition for giving to the Pre mier, or Lord Chief Justice, an income of 30,0001. a year. Why, was it possible to conceive any set of duties which could be more easily or tranquilly performed, or which were more exempt from all those difficulties that required labour, assi duity, and talent to surmount them, than those allotted to the Archbishop of Canterbury ?—(oh, oh.) In his humble opinion, the lowest of the scales proposed would suffice for the highest see named in the Bill. Another ground of objection to the manner in which the episcopal incomes were fixed by the Bill originated in the comparison it was impossible not to draw between those incomes and the miserable stipends allotted to the working clergy. It was said 1001. or 150/. a year was a sufficient income for a curate. On what principle, then, could it be contended that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, whether in regard to education, position in society, ability, or general usefulness, was not the superior of the humbler individual so remunerated, required to have an income of 15,000/. ?—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord (J. Russell) had evinced great anxiety to prove that there was no surplus revenue in the case of the Established Church in England. Could it be expected that any Dissenter would believe that there was no surplus, when he found such a rate of income allotted to the bishops ? Certainly he never would.—(Hear.) Mr. BAINE S maintained that the provisions of the Bill were in many respects wholly inconsistent with its principles. The Commission which it proposed to establish would be worse than a revival of the Houses of Convocation, for its powers would be greater. He deprecated the ascendancy of the clergy in secular matters. Under the superintendence of the Noble Lord at the head of the present Government, the exer cise of such power might be pure; but it might not be so under future Ministers. To clause II he especially objected. By the Bill the average income of a bishop would be rendered seventy-six times as great as the average income of a bene ficed clergyman : and the income of the Archbishop of York would be two hundred and seventeen times as much as that of the greater number of his clergy. The complaints of the Dissenters of England and the Catholics of Ireland, had at length been, to a certain degree, listened to in that House. With reference to the former, the Registration Bill had been passed. But how had it been treated in another place ? Every one of its details had been objected to by the highest authori ties in the Establishment. Ireland had asked 50,000/. from the surplus of Church revenue, to dedicate to the purposes of education and religious instruction. That, however, was grudged; while twenty-eight bishops shared among them no less than 150,0001. It did not appear to him to be at all ne cessary to cress a Bill on the subject in the present session. He should vote against the third reading of the Bill. Lord HO WICK, in answer to the first objection of the Hon. Member for Leeds, against the compositi on o f t h e Ec clesiastical Commission, denied that it would have the powers which formerly belonged to the Houses of Convocation. The powers of the Commission to be established by the Bill were strictly limited and defined ; and they were powers absolutely necessary to enable them to carry into effect, with reference to any bishoprics that might become vacant, the recommendations contained in the Report which had been made to his Majesty on the subject. Nor would the Bill grant the bench of bishops one farthing more than they at present possessed. The Bill would diminish, and almost put an end to, translations ; for, if carried into effect, a bishop would be rather a loser than a gainer, in a pecuniary point of view, by being removed to any diocese except the bishopric of London, or either of the two archbishoprics. Undoubtedly he (Lord Howick) was of opi nion that a greater amount of Church reform was necessary ; but it was exceedingly desirable in the present instance to adopt a measure which should have the concurrence of the highest authorities in the Establishment. He thought, there fore, that the wise course was to take the Bill as far as it went in the hope that when the heads of the Church saw how hap pily it operated, they might be prepared to go further, and to carry into effect a system of improvement calculated to secure that which he was sure was the object of them all, namely, to diffuse as widely as possible the religion which they professed. Although the Bill might not effect all the reform which was desirable, it certainly would effect a great reform ; and he con fessed, therefore, that he was surprised at the acrimony with which it had recently been treated in some quarters. Mr. BROT HE RTON was desirous that the further pro ceeding with the Bill should be postponed until the Church rates were entirely abolished. He did not mean by that a transfer of those rates to the consolidated fund. The Legis lature would never consent to that, for in the event of such a transfer, five time more would have to be paid than in the pre sent circumstances. It could not be that so much injustice would be perpetrated. It could not be that the wealthy mem bers of the Church Establishment would thus press upon the means of poor Dissenters. Such was not the way in which in old times the Church was supported. Compulsory assess ments were injurious to any Church. Mr. D. W. HARVEY found it difficult to reconcile the course pursued by certain Hon. Gentlemen that evening with his recollection of what had occurred on Friday. Either they were in error on Friday, and acted upon over-heated feelings, or they were now pursuing a suspicious course. The Bill before the House was, as a measure of Church reform, utterly contemptible ; and was so considered throughout the country. It would give great peace to his mind, and no doubt would afford much comfort and satisfaction to the country, to hear from any Member of the Cabinet that this was but an infant measure, or that it was the first and feeblest of a series of measures to be introduced for effecting a reform in the Church ; but unfortunately it was presented to Parlia ment, and now urged upon the House, as a complete and perfect measure of Church Reform. There were three classes of persons in this country who took widely different views of almost all questions relating to the Established Church ; and to one of these classes, probably the present Bill might be perfectly satisfactory, but the other two would regard it with the contempt it deserved. Little attempt, indeed, appeared to be made to defend the Bill upon its own merits ; but they were told, " Oh ! if you do not take this measure, trifling and insignificant though it be, contemptible and worthless as you may well think it, the present excellent Government will fall to pieces, and then what will happen to us ?" This appeared now to be almost the sole argument on which the House was asked to give its consent to the measure. The Hdn. -Gentle man concluded in these terms :—To call this a measure of Church Reform is an insult to the understanding of reasonable men, and if it be carried it will prove a grievous disappoint ment to the expectations of the people. Dr. L U SHING TON said, of all quarters in the world, a charge of inconsistency came with least grace from the Hon. Member for Southwark, since it must be in the aecollection of every one whom he was addressing that at a time when all parties in that House seemed disposed to unite to effect the pacification of Ireland, the Hon. Member for Southwark was found to be a deserter from his ranks.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted that this Bill did not go to the full extent that he thought a measure of Church reform -ought to go—( Hear, hear)—but, at the same time, lie fully appreciated the diffi culties by which any Government must be surrounded who sought to improve the ecclesiastical establishments cf the country ; and he trust e d h e s h ou ld a t a ll ti mes b e prepare d to sacrifice his own individual opinions when he saw that they stood in the way of any advantage that might be conferred on the country. Mr. HUTT complained that whilst various measures had been introduced to benefit the members of the Established Church, no step had been taken in the course of the Session to relieve the Dissenters of the burdens of which they corm plained, and especially of that most objectionable one—liabi lity to Church-rate. Unless he received an assurance frogs the Noble Lord (Russell) that a measure of relief upon that subject would be introduced in the next Session of Parliament, he should feel bound, as an honest and conscientious man, to refrain from giving his support to the Bill then under their consideration. Mr. C. VILLIERS said the Church demanded other and greater Reforms ; and the time was rapidly coming when 110 thought it would be impossible to defer them. In reply to a question from Mr. PALMER (Essex), which .was not distinctly heard in the Gallery, Lerd JOHN RUSSELL said that the mode in which it was proposed to diminish or increase the emolument of any diocese was this :—Taking the Bishopric of Durham as a n in stance, under the provisions of this Bill, the income of that see was to be fixed at eight thousand pounds a-year. Suppo6eg it to be ascertained by the Commissioners that the prese'At in come of the see of Durham was nineteen thousand pounds, the Commissioners would then be required to pay over elevea thousand pounds from the income of that see towards the in crease of other bishoprics which had not the requisite sum. Mr. PALMER felt that the security to the Church wo uld be very small if the incomes of its chief dignitaries were // lade in any degree dependent upon a vote of that House. Mr. HINDLE Y rose amidst general cries of question- His only feeling with respect to the Bill was one of dissat..t' faction. The question was then put, and the House divided, when the numbers were— Ayes ... Noes . 44 Majority for the third reading of the Bill —l3l , When stran gers h a d w ithd rawn we un d erstoo d Lord JOHN RUSSELL declared, in reply to the appeal made to him 'of the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Hutt), that it was the in'ten tion of Government to introduce, in the course of next srasion , a measure for the regulation of Church-rates, but P:iter the opinions of Hon. Gentleman had expressed, he ww, s bound to say he thought it would not be satisfactory to him, On our return to the gallery, Mr. ESTCOURT said, that by the it was proposed that the Commissioners should make arrangements for carry' ing into execution the intention of the late Bishop of Durham to augment the small livings of that diocese. Now, what be wished was, that the name of the bishop should be introduced into the clause, in order that posterity might know who was the individual to whom the Act referred. He would therefore. move that the name of the Right Rev. William Van Milde,re be inserted in the clause. Lord J. RUSSELL assented to the proposition, ar: c i sur gested that after the words " Bishop of Durham," t} - 0 word° " meaning thereby the Right Rev. Bishop, William Van mil dert" be inserted. The words were inserted accordingly. Sir IL INGL IS wished to state, before the till was passed , that although he had voted differently from those with who° he was in the habit of acting, yet the reasons for which he had given that vote were b y no means those which had induce d Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to vote in 03 0 same manner. Mr. TOOKE had come down to the House, with the in -. tention of voting in favour of the Bill ; but after hearing tb 6 ' declaration mad e b y t h e N o bl e L ord (Lord John Russel:4P that it was his intention to postpone any measure of relief do" ing the present session with regard to church -rates ; r, ut i ther, that when any measure on that subject should I. i , hroul lit forward, he (Lord John Russell) did not expect: it wou ld be satisfactory, he (Mr. Tooke) was at once de',, erm i ne d upo 1 . ; the expediency of doing what he could towar measure of Church relief, in order that, r:c all events, tfle tv i° measures of relief might go on, pan i I 'assu, and that all pr° 4- postponin g pect of redress with respect to the. church-rates cut off, by hermetically sealing - the revenues of the notch.Chur After a few words from Al t .. A. TREVOR, a ' Mr. HUME wished ' migbt. b° to ask the Noble Lord whether it wag intended that the ticomes•of the bishops should be. I ,imited the sums now Set down for them ? Doubt had bear, expreE se upon this. point, and he wished that a proviso should be i ntro; duced. to the end th a t th e i ncomes of the bish ops should 0 in any case exceed the sums stated in the Bill. If, for U . stance, the A rc hbi s h op of C anterbury derived. 17,0001. a Yet; he would by this Bill have to pay back 2,00 W. But if, in o h course of years, th e 15 , 0 0 01 . should be increased to 20,0 0° or 25,0001. a y ear , i t did not appear that he would not be en , titled to retain the whole of it, Lord JOHN RUSSE LL said that perhaps the best an; swer he could g i ve to hi s H on. F r i end, was by stating t contents of a letter whi c h h e h a d rece i r,ed from the Bishop o London upon the subject. The lette r states that in truth t" Bishop of L on d on , un d er t h e prov i s i ons of an Act of Palia, ment, receiv e d on l y one - t hi r d o f the ground-rents of nigh; estate to which all us i o n had b een. made on a former nig" t and that the leases now existing would not fall in in less elit e, fifty or sixty yea r s. But th a t w h atever the addition might fat it would not go t o the bishop, b ecause the Bill provided t°, the Commissioners should : fla k e new returns, and should &oft time to time make fresh arrangements, so that the a mou rs , fixed by the Bill should.. no t b e exceeded. This was the ill; pression on the mind., of the Bi s h o p o f L ondon, and was als the impression on 'nis (Lord John Russell's) mind. Mr. HUME—It might be the Noble Lord's impressi' but the Bill did not fix the amount permanently. The Bill was then passed. POOLE CORPORATION BILL. Mr. POULTER moved the Order of the Day that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.. After a few w or d s f rom Messrs. Praed, Poulter and H°r 9ce Twigs, the House divided, when the numbers ware__ Ayes ........... 129 Noes . . 57 Majoriiy for the original motion On the queetion that the Speaker do le•ive the Chair-- a , Mr. PRAED moved " that it be an instruction to the C , ° ,:e mittee not to interfere with the clecti^r. of any parties o . " -- elections are not impugned by any legal proceeding." On the question being put, The CHANCELLOR of Cue EXCHEQUER saidtbee' Hon. and Learned Member sought in fact to worry the 0°11 :e into an abandonment of the :neasure, but he trusted the 0 ° 1 1, 9 would show that it wou ld not be worr i e d.—(Ch eers , and e ll of " Divide.") Mr. H. TIVIS:; observed that the Right Hon. Gentl eman Z j o warmth remirAlecl him of the old ada ge , He is warmest it a is most in the wrong." He considered that his 1-I°'