The Sun. — London, England, 1845-05-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 26. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Five o'clock. Lord REDESDALE presented several petitions against the Maynooth grant. Petitions against the grant were also presented by the Earl of Bandon, Lord Kenyon, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, the . Bishop of Gloucester, and the Bishop of Winchester. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition against the Cha ritable Trusts Bill. REGISTRATION OF DEEDS BILL. The NobLE LORD then laid on the table a Bill for the regis tration of all deeds and instruments respecting real property in England and Wales. This Bill was founded on the report of the Real Property Commissioners, and was framed upon the plan which had been proposed by Mr. Duval, one of the ablest real property'lawyers that had ever adorned the profession. —(" Hear, hear," from Lord Brougham.) That plan had been approved of by the Real Property Commission, over which he ( Lord Campbell) had had the honour of presiding. It had been considered for two sessions by the House of Commons, and had been favourably received in that House. The subject had not been mooted for twelve years, and he hoped that the prejudices which had been entertained against it had died away. The Bill was then laid on the table. RAILWAY CONIPENSATION COMMITTEE. The Earl of FITZWILLIA NI moved that the evidence taken before the Railway Compensation Committee should be printed for the use of their Lordships only.—Agreed to. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Messengers from the Commons brought up the Nottingham Waterworks Bill, and several other private Bills. MAYNOOTH. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Stockport, in favour of the grant to Maynooth. Mr. O'DRISCOLL. The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD then said he wished to draw the attention of his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, to a statement which he had seen in a Paris paper, quoted from an English paper, relative to the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll, an Irish magistrate, who had been twice removed from the Bench, and twice reinstated ; and if the statement he had read were true, he felt bound to say, that he had never heard of an instance in which the administra tion of justice had been brought into more flagrant contempt, than it had been by the outrageous conduct of this individual. Now it was possible that that statement might be true, although it had appeared in a newspaper—( A laugh )—and he hoped his Noble and Learned Friend would answer his ques tion, which was, whether or not Mr. O'Driscoll was still re tained in the commission of the peace. It appeared that O'Driscoll was the presiding magistrate at the Petty Sessions, at Skibbereen, at the time the transaction to which he alluded had taken place. (The Noble Lord then read the account which appeared in The Suit about a week since, of the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll, from which it appeared that Mr. O'Driscoll, or one of his brother magistrates, refusing to take certain informations, exclaimed, " By God, I do not understand these popularity-hunting magistrates," and that on Mr. Galway, the other magistrate, attempting to speak, Mr. O'Driscoll called out, " Sit down, Sir, and hold your tongue. You had better sit down, or I will meet you elsewhere.") So that here they had a magistrate sworn to keep the Queen's peace, and presiding over his brother magis trates, threatening to challenge one of them to break the peace, and making this challenge on the bench of justice itself. Now, if this were true, it exceeded in indecency all that he had -ever heard of as connected with the administration of justice. 'The Noble Lord then went on to read the report. On one of the magistrates remonsn atine ' , Mr. O'Driscoll said, " I tell you, man, I did not mean him at all ;" whereupon Mr. Fleming, another magistrate, said that if Mr. O'Driscoll did not give them an assurance that the affair should go no further, he should feel it his duty to bind him over to keep the peace. Now this attempt of one magistrate to challenge another on the bench, was one of the grossest breaches of the peace that could be committed. This took place the other day at Skibbereen. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had nothing to do es'eth the appointment of magistrates in Ireland. He knew that the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll had been made the subject of discussion last session, and that their Lordships seemed satisfied with his reappointment.—( Hear.) He had never heard any thing of the transaction to which his Noble and Learned Friend had alluded, and had nothing to do with the appointment or removal of Irish magistrates ; but he would, if his Noble and Learned Friend wished it, write for some explanation on that subject to the Lerd Chancellor of Ireland. Lord BROUGHAM said he did not mean to hold his Noble and Learned Friend responsible. He hoped he would not be satisfied with a mere answer, but would fully investigate the whole of the circumstances of the case. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he should communicate with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and direct his attention to the matter in question. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said, Mr. O'Driscoll being a magistrate in his part of the country, and knowing him very well, he wished to know whether the matter, to which the Noble Lord had called the attention of the House, was of re ;sent occurrence ?—( Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM said it was. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said it was rather remark able that it should have been alluded to in the French, and not in the English newspaper. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he had seen it in more than one Irish newspaper. The Earl of NOUN TCASHEL said he had no doubt that, if it were inquired into, Mr. O'Driscoll would not be found the guilty individual he was said to be. Mr. O'Driscoll was a Roman Catholic and a Conservative, and this was a crime not to be forgiver: in Ireland ; but a man who had the misfortune to be a Conservative was condemned to all eternity. —( Laughter. ) The Roman Catholics bore a great dislike to Mr. O'Driscoll for these reasons, and were determined to renew the warfare which they had evinced towards him on a former occasion. He again expressed his belief that the statement of the Noble Lord was incorrect. Earl FORTESCUE said, as the person who had brought forward this subject last session, he was desirous of saying a few words on the subject before the House. On that occasion he heard no defence of Mr. O'Driscoll in that House, and then the charges brought against him were not made be cause they appeared in a newspaper ; but after he had been convicted by a court of session, he now felt it his duty to say what he had said on the occasion to which he alluded—that the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll was most unbecoming in any one holding the station of a magistrate and of a gentleman. He had seen the statement referred to by the Noble Lord in both Irish and English newspapers. The reason why he was restored to the commission of the peace was, that it was expected to conduce to his amendment—( Hear, hear) —that he would have been prevented from repeating the conduct which he was stated to have been guilty of before. He be lieved he should be borne out in this statement. Mr. O'Driscoll had, however, a serious relapse.— (Laughter.) He hoped that if, after inquiry, the statements of the Noble Lord were found to be true, that he would not be suffered to remain any longer in the commission, that he might not again be suffered to fall into a relapse. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that was the first time he had heard of the subject, and he did not hesitate to say that more improper conduct on the bench could riot be pursued by a magistrate. Persons on the bench should conduct themselves in a decent manner, and like gentlemen, recollecting that they were conservators of the peace. It was unnecessary for him to say much up nt the subject. He was, however, glad to see the matter was in a proper course. MAYNOOTH. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from magistrates, bankers, and members of various professions in Belfast, in favour of the grant to Maynooth. The petition was signed by about 400 persons, Protestants of different denomina tions, three of them being deputy representatives in the council, twenty magistrates, nine bankers, and other persons of great respectability. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL presented two petitions against the grant—one was from the General Assembly of Presbyterians in England, and the other faom the county of Derry. Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from a congrega tion of Protestant Dissenters at Cambridge against the grant to Maynooth, and another from the same place in favour of it. The Bishop of CASHEL presented a petition, signed by 270 ministers of the Established Church of England and Ire land. He wns only a stranger in their Lordships' House, and be was not aware, therefore, whether he was quite at liberty to make any remarks on the presentation of a petition, but, if permitted, he did wish to say a few words. Their Lord ships were aware that in this city, at a certain season of the year, several religious societies assembled to hold their anni versary meetings. Such was also the case in Ireland; and during one of these assemblages this petition was signed in the course of two days by these 270 clergymen. Now, in advo cating the cause which these gentlemen wished to promote, he was free to confess that the Irish Church, at the close of the last century, had been in as low a state as pos sible, and that it had been made simply a political engine to serve the purposes of the Ministry for the time being. No institution could ever flourish under such treatment as that which the Irish Church received. If a coach proprietor had a horse that was restive and vicious, and that horse was put in a coach which it was not used to, no one would be surprised if the coach was sometimes upset. The present Government had disposed of their Church patronage in Ireland in a fair and honourable manner, and it must be evident, he thought, to all parties, that they acted upon the jut and sound principle of preferring those who were humane and good. Dr. Long, a very eminent prelate of the Roman Catholic Church, gave it as his opinion, that the clergy of the Irish Protestant Church uniformly showed the greatest kindness to all around them. He could nbt conceive a sight more melancholy, or an anomaly more egregious, than a church established for the teaching of one set of doctrines, which they considered the only right and pure, being engaged in the propagation of tenets which, on the other hand, they regarded as erroneous, superstitious, and ido latrous.—( Hear. ) The Marquis of NORMANBY, concurring in every word which had fallen from the Right Rev. Prelate, wished to put one question respecting the remarks which he had made on presenting the petition. It was, whether very distinguished clergymen of his own diocese had not refused to sign the peti tion, and expressed their entire dissent from the purport of the prayer ? Lest the Right Rev. Prelate should forget the circumstance to which he alluded, lie would name the clergy men who had entered their protest against the language of the document—they were the Rev. Messrs. Woodward, Darby, Palliser, and Hofferman. The Bishop of CASHEL denied that any clergyman of his diocese had refused to sign the petition, and fur the simple reason that they had never been asked. The petition had merely lain for signature in Dublin during the late Easter meetings in that city, and been voluntarily drawn up and supported by 270 clergymen as he before stated. Ile had hearth that an address, signed by 9 or 10 of the 160 cler gymen of his diocese was intended to be presented to him with an address in favour of the grant. He could only say that as yet Ise had re ce i ve d nothing of the kind, and even of its existence he merely knew by report. Earl FITZWILLAM protested against the assertion of the Right Rev. Prelate, that the clergy in his diocese were in faeeur of the petition, and that these who did not par take of that unanimity were great dereliction of duty, because they ou g ht atno,tu:ettoy of enjoy the endowments of Protestantism an d a party to the preaching of same time be a something which the Ri g ht R ev . Prelate did not "'exactly exp ress . No one could regret m ore than himself the difference s th at existed between of England and the Church of R ome . Thethe Church RightßevPre late drew a contrast between the mo d e o f distributing Church patronage at the present moment with w h a t it hadformerly been, and said that for a long period every a withppoi.ntrnent in Ireland—lay as well as clerical — had been made to English, and a neglect of Irish interests, He did not agree deference with that, nor that the Protestant religion in Ireland hailbad warmed more rapidly at the present time than during the days of Usher, Jeremy Taylor, King, and others. The matter then dropped. The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition from his diocese against the grant to Maynooth, which the petitioners considered in direct opposition to the constitution of the coun try. He would merely say, that he heartily concurred in the sentiments contained in the petition. The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented 746 petitions to the same effect from Wesleyan Congregations in Great Britain and Ireland, signed by 70,534 individuals. ire said the body from whom the petitions emanated had expended up wards of 100,0001. in promoting the extension of Christianity in all parts of the world. The chief of these p etitions was agreed to at a meeting of the Wesleyan body, in their Centenary Hall, on Friday, March 25th last, and as it woul occupy go throug h d hroug much of their Lordship? tutie if he were t o g th the whole of the petitions, he would, therefore, only state the grounds on which the petitioners based their objection to the grant. They stated that, in their opinion, the professors of the Romish Church since Pope Pius IV., promulgated the prin ciples of the Council over which he presided, which were, as stated in the terms of her Majesty's oath, superstitious and idolatrous. That they were intolerant and persecuting, and dangerous wherever they obtained the ascendancy. Secondly, that the meeting regarded all the grant for the promotion of such a religion as that of Rome, only as likely to increase that which was in itself bad, and calculated to bring down the displeasure of Almighty God on this country. Thirdly, that, although the meeting was anxious to bear its testimony to the wisdom and necessity for toleration of all religions which had not any principle of evil hostile to the truth, and though they were particularly anxious that this tole ration should be extended to their Roman Catholic fellow subjects, yet there was nothing in this desire for toleration which could call upon them for the support of this grant to the College of Maynooth. Fourthly, that the annual grant to Maynooth, and consequent support of the principles taught there, had been looked upon with deep regret by all sects of Christians in this country. Fifthly, that they could not but view this increase of the grant to Maynooth only as a permanent endowment of the Romish Church in this country. With this statement he should conclude his observations, except with the single remark that, whenever tho time should come for the people to express their opinions, whether it were early or far off, they would, unquestionably, be found opposed to this grant. The Earl of WINCHILSE A presented a hundred petitions against the proposed grant to Maynooth. As it had been cur rently reported that the clergy of the country were not opposed to this grant, he had to state that ninety-five of these petitions out of the hundred were from clergymen of the Established Church. One of these was signed by 179 clergymen in the archdeaconry of Suffolk, and another by 137 clergymen in the archdeaconry of Northampton. In addition to this, he would say that the Dissenters of every denomination in this country, with the exception of one—that was the Presbyterian body of Dissenters, who professed Unitarian and Socinian doctrines-- with the exception of these, he believed the Dissenters, to a man, were opposed to it. With these observations, he would read the:titles of the petitions, which, it appeared by the list, came from all - , arts of the country RAILWAY BILLS. Mr. STEWART WORTLEY moved the order of the day for the adjourned debate on Railway Bills. Mr. W. PATTEN said since the debate had been ad journed he had considered this subject fully, and he was in doubt as to whether they ought not to adopt the resolution altogether as it how stood. At the same time they ought to look that, in framing these regu lations, they threw no discouragement in the way of rail way companies. The House should recollect that they had in a former sesaion passed certain regulations which at the time were considered as not imposing any restrictions upon railway companies, but were afterwards found to prevent many useful schemes from coming before the House. The House, he again repeated, should take care that they enacted that which was calculated in the smallest degree to discourage the extension of these projects. Mr. HAWES said that the commission had proposed that in any railway Bill brought into the House which recited any railway Act already passed, this clause should be in troduced. Therefore they must consider this clause as extending to all railway Bills which had passed since the first railway Bill had been introduced into that House. The Hon. Member for the West Riding went as far as that—but the Noble Lord went much further. The Noble Lord further required that every railway Bill reciting any preceding railway Act should be subject to revision and alteration, as regarded the rates of fines. New if the House intended t 3 revise the rates of charges of all railway com panies, let the House distinctly decide that it intended to revise the rates and charges of all railway companies, after due notice given, and after the parties objecting had had an op portunity of being heard, It had been said that the charges were high—but by the returns which had been made it had been shown that for thirty-eight millions of capital in vested in railways the average return hail not been more than five per cent. Thus it did not appear that such an enormous profit had been made on the capital invested in railways as ought to induce the House to ifiterfere. It had been said that the charges in foreign railways were lower. Undoubtedly they were ; hut it should be recollected that in foreign railways a portion of the capital bad been fur nished by the State, while here the whole had been subscribed by private individuals. And in foreign railways, if there was not a certain return for the capital invested, taxation was imposed upon the people to secure the required amount. Therefore, the resolul ion in its present state, ought not to be passed, but, at all events, he could not consent to it unless he heard some explanation of the words which provided that if any future Bill should recite a former Act, such Act should be subject to the decision of Parliament. Such a resolution, he repeated, ought not to be passed by the House ; but be&re the House did pass it, he hoped Government would farm& them with their opinion upon the subject, because the resolution ie itself affected great masses of property, and was looked to wills great interest by the public. Mr. BARING said the House, by its previous legislation, never intended to sanction the monopolies which were exercised by some of the existing railway companies. If the House re ferred to the reports of former Committees, they would see that, so far from this being the case, a clause was introduced into almost all the Bills to prevent such monopolies, but that clause had since proved to be defective ; but, nevertheless, it was evident every Committee appeared desirous of establishing such a system of competition as would avert the existence of monopoly. He was, therefore, inclined to think the House had already the power to make additions and alterations in the Acts of companies, who should conic to them for extended powers ; but, in his opinion, they had no right to make these alterations until the companies did come to Par liament. He hoped, before the approach of the next session of Parliament, Government would take the whole subject of railway legislation into their serious consideration, and see if something could be done to improve the present system. It was evident such a system could not last ; and he thought Government could, if they liked, place railway legislation upon a more firm, settled, and satisfactory footing. Sir R. PEEL thought the resolutions contemplated two distinct things. In the first place they contemplated subjecting every railway company, whether new or old, when they ap proached Par.iamerit for new or extended powers, to such restrictions and additional legislation as the House might think desirable. The second resolution sub jected any railway which might hereafter come to Parliament to a resolution affecting the tolls and fares which might be charged on such railway, and he must confess the two resolutions appeared to him to be anything but objectionable. They (the House) had not time then to consider all these oh jections, but they said to the promoters of railway schemes— " We should be prejudicing your interests were we to postpone the passing of your Bill until we had time to give the subject due consideration. We shall consent to pain your Bills generally, without inserting this resolution ; Lut we shall reserve to ourselves the power of subjecting your tolls to such further control as we may see proper." That was to say, they would not exercise an arbi trary right on the subject of tolls generally, but they should deem it their duty to see that passengers were protected, and, holding these opinions, he should support the motion of the Hon. Member. Mr. PARKER said there was an absolute necessity for the discovering some mode by which the labour of the Committees might be abbreviated, and by which they might be put in a better position than on the mode by which they had been hitherto guided. Hon. Committees might well complain that their labours were somewhat of the greatest, when seventeen or eighteen days were consumed on each line, traffic evidence taking up a five day s ' cons id era tion, engineering evidence as much mere, and clauses, with counsel's speeches en either side, filling up the remainder of the space. He thought that no public duty should be imposed upon the Members of the House sitting on Committees. After a few words from Mr. DARBY, Captain MANGLES said lie thought the House ought to well and seriously consider the whole object be fore they legislated upon a subject of such importance. He thought it would be most desirable that her Majesty's Go vernment should take up the subject, and give the whole weight of their influence on a question upon which Hon. Mem bers so materially differed. After some observations from Mr. ENTWISLE and Lord EsatwaTou, Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he thought that evary Bill which would be hereafter brought forward ought to be subject to such regulations as Parliament might think fit. Go vernment ought to bring in some comprehensive measure on the subject of railways. Mr. COLLETT wished to know whether it would be a sessional or a standing order? Lord HO WICK thought that it would be better to make it a sessional order, as it would at a future period come under the consideration of the House. Mr. GLADSTONE said that be thought it would be im possible not to have some difference, but most of the railways had improved the accommodation of the third-class trains. The resolution, as amended, was then agreed to. Sir GEORGE GREY presented a petition against the South-Western Extension Railway Bill, and praying to be heard by cowls( 1. On the motion of Mr. SPOONER, the third reading of the Chester and Holyhead Railway Bill was postponed to Wednesday next. . Mr. CCiLLETT moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Norwich and Brandon Railway Deviation, and Diss and Dereham Branches Bill, that they hear parties on the petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of King's Lynn, notwithstanding the same was not presented three clear days before the day appointed for the first meeting of the Committee.—Agreed —_ , .—Agreed to. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion that the House at its rising adjourn to Wed nesday next, Mr. COLLETT moved that th e H ouse adjourn to Thurs day next. Her Majesty's Ministers would entertain their friends to-morrow. The Derby day would be the day after, and he saw no reason why Members should not be at liberty to attend it. Captain PECHELL seconded the motion. Sir J. GRAHAM hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not press the motion, it would certainly b e a very b a d precedent for the House to sanction. Hon. Members were at liberty to attend or not, as they pleased, but to acce d e to a mot i on t h at the House should not sit on a particular day, because there was a race, would be unbecoming the dignity o f th e H ouse. Mr. COLLETT had no objection to forego the motion, pro vided Hon. Gentlemen on the other side agreed not to make a House on the Derby day. Otherwise he would certainly press the motion to a division. POOR-LAWS. Sir G. GREY wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite to introduce further amend ments into the present , Poor-law Act, as, accordin g t o th e report of the Poor-law Commissioners, which gave full infor mation on the subject, several clauses in it were found to be particularly inoperative. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that he h a d rece i ve d t h e R eport of the Poor-law (Commissioners about a f or t n i g h t ago , an d quite agreed with him in_his earnest desire to amend the law. RAILWAY BUSINESS. Mr. L ABOUCH E.RE said that the subject to which he wished to call the attention of the House was the present state of the railway business before the House. It was unnecessary for him to go at any length into the state of that business, for it was a matter of notoriety that the amount and the delay of ra.lway business was, without exception, unparalleled in any foreign State. There bad been presented to the House during the course of the present session no fewer than 240 rail way Bills, 119 of which had received the approbation of the Board. None of these Bills had as yet passed through the . House, and it showed what an immense mass of railway legisla tion they had now to struggle with. In the year 1828 and 1831 the House adopted a certain course under circumstances of a far less aggravating descriptioa than this. The House resolved to pass resolntions to enable Committees to receive the minutes of evidence taken before former Committees, in order to save the parties concerned a re p e tition of the expense and trouble which they had already gone through. He would venture to suggest to the Right Hon. Gentleman whether it would net be better to do as was done in 1829. Many Bills in which the parties concerned had expended a great deal of money, would pass through Committees of the House, but at so late a period that it would be utterly impossible for the other House of Par liament to take them into consideration. He would call upon them to consider whether some means should not be devised to facilitate the business, and thereby do benefit both to the public and the parties concerned. It was of the greatest importance to all parties interested that whatever was intended should be announced without delay, that all might know what course they would have to take, and not be left to mere con jecture. — The question which hehad to put to the Right Hon. Gentle man was whether he was prepared now to announce to the House any intention h er M a j es ty's Government might have come to in consequence of the state of the railway business of the House ? And if he was not so prepared, whether or not he would be prepared at no distant period? Sir G. CLERK said that the question was of great im portance, ani it had not escaped the attention of her Majesty's Government ; but he could not say that it was intended to propose any measure to the House at present. But no inconvenience would be the consequence of delaying any pro position upon the subject for four or five weeks. The two in stances to which the Hon. Gentleman had referred, took place under very peculiar circumstances. They were both cases which arose f rom th e su dd en dissolution of Parliament—in 1829, by the demise of th e Sovereign ; and, in 1831, under circumstances of a peculiar kind. The object of the question was properly understood by her Majesty's Government, and it would be duly attended to, but there was no precedent fur the course which was now suggested. Lord J. RUSSELL said the Right lion. Gentleman was right in saying there was no precedent for the suggestion of his Right Hon. Hon. Friend. But the state of business was also without a precedent.--( Hear, hear.) He hoped that the Right Hon. Gentleman would not postpone the announce ment of his intentions for so long a term as six weeks. Supposing the Bills should pass that House, in time to pass the House of Lords, there would be an end to the matter for this session. But if parties saw that by de laying the Bills which they opposed, they could destroy them altogether, or make it necessary to go through all the expense over again next year, they would stop at no expense or shifts ' to procure the delay.—(H ear , hear.) He agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet th at t h e su bject required great attention, but he hoped that its importance would induce the Government to give it that attention without delay. Lord G. SOMERSET explained that the subject to which the Noble Lord referred had been under the consideration of the Government, Lord HOWICK remarked, that the promoters of Railway Bills were at a loss to know how they were to get on, as many of them despaired of getting their Bills through both Houses this session. If the Government, as he hoped they would see the propriety of doing so, would give an idea of their intentions respecting those measures, a great benefit would accrue. Defi nite information as to the course Government intended to take respecting Railway Bills that were unable to be carried through both Houses this session, would remove a great deal of difficulty. Sir JOHN WALSH wished to know from the Right Hen. Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) in regard to the resolutions he meant to propose, whether it was his in tention to move them altogether or separately? He asked this question, as the resolutions were quite distinct in the princi ples which they set forth. Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Gentleman had better wait till the close of his speech. Captain PEC H ELL said, that on Friday last he had put a quests :n to the H, n. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, respecting the conveyance of the mail to the Scilly Islands, and for copies of the correspondence which had passed between Mr. Augustus Smith and the Post-office authorities. Mr. CARDWELL answered that the papers were in the hands of the printer. In answer to Mr. MANGLES, Lord JOCELYN replied that all the returns :applied for were in the hands of the printers. MR. O'DRISCOLL. Mr. ROSS wished to know whether it was true what had been stated about the conduct of Mr. O'Dri , coll, a magistrate, at a recent trial at Skibbereen. It was reported that that gentleman had made use, on the bench, of the fo lowing ex pression—" By God. I don't understand these porularit)-hunt ing magistrates." If that were true, the matter ought to be inquired into, and taking also his general conduct into con sideration, it would be a question whether he ought to be suf fered to remain any longer on the bench. Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE said he saw an account of what the Hon. Gentleman had alluded to, in the public news papers. He was not, however, prepared to give any oiificial information on the sutject, but he would communicate with the Lord Chancellor as to an inquiry into the matter. Lord EBRINGTON said that Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House were not inclined to dispute that Mr. O'Driseoll had on a previous occasion been very properly dismissed. The excuse which was then given for his dismissal was, that from the infirmities of his age, and not of his temper, he was inca pable of continuing his duties. He thought that dismissal ought to have taught him a lesson to preserve a better guard over his temper. Dr. BOWRING would wish to know whether the negotia tion that had been going on between the Post-office autho rities of this country and Sweden, that had been for some time discontinued, had been renewed. Mr. CARDWELL said he was not aware that any proposi tion had been made for renewing the correspondence. INSANE CRIMINALS IN SCOTLAND. Mr. ELLICE begged to call the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to the case of a person who had lately been convicted of murder in Scotland. It appeared that the man was found to be insane, and was acquitted of the charge of murder on that account ; but notwithstanding that, the unhappy man had been refused ad mittance into any lunatic asylum, and he was now in a state of raging madness. The Hon. Member then read a letter he had received, stating that the man was in a dying state, yet there was no accommodation for him in the prison in which he was confined—namely, that of Cupar, in Fife. Sir J. GRAHAM said he was aware that this was indeed a melancholy case ; but, unfortunately, by the law of Scot land, the man could not be removed from Scotland. By the same law, no public lunatic asylum could be compelled to take him in, and no private one would. The man was at present in prison, where he was to remain during the Queen's pleasure, and could not be removed ; but all proper care should be taken of him, and further than that he (Sir J. Graham) could not interfere. Mr. ELLICE could only state to the House what his in formant had told to him. He said that there was a ward in the first Penitentiary in which lunativs could be received. Mr. ESCOTT wished to put a question to the Noble Lord (Lord Jocelyn) in relation to a case which involved great in dividual hardship, as well as an important general question. He wished to ask whether any Government return had been received from Bombay, referring to the ease of Lieutenant Collins, who had been tried by a court-martial in that Presi dency, and illegally dismissed the service of the East India Company—whether the Court of Directors and the Noble Lord did not think that if this decision were illegal—if it were unjust, full reparation might not be made to the individual who had been so dismissed by this illegal sentence ? Lord JOCELYN said that, by the last dispatches received some weeks since, it was determined on that the case of Lieutenant Collins should be reconsidered. The Government had not since that time received any official information that the subject had been so re-considered, and therefore he was unable to satisfy the Hon. Member on the matter in question. Mr. COLLETT said that, before withdrawing his amend ment, he should wish to be assured that a House would be made on Wednesday.—(Laughter, and " Oh, oh.") If he were not so assured, he should press the House to a division. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place, the original motion being carried. Mr. CHAPMAN presented a petition against certain claims in the Merchant Seamen's Act. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from Liverpool on the subject of Lord John Russell's resolutions. The peti tioners stated that some of the resolutions were objectionable, in asmuch as they had no reference to the extension of the franchise. He begged leave to present a petition, signed by three thousand silk handloom weavers in Middleton and its vicinity, expressing their great distress consequent upon the want of a law to protect their labour; and also a petition from the Pro testant Association of Cork, praying the House to withdraw all support to Alaynooth College. A petition was then presented from the Wesleyan Metho dists of the county of York, against the use of spirituous liquors. Mr. MILNER GIBSON presented a petition from the working classes of Manchester, complaining of the want of drainage and sewers, and praying for sanatory regulations. Mr. FERRAND presented several petitions, having refe ' rence to the resolutions of Lord John Russell ; one from the delegates of artisans in Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester, complaining of the increase of machine power, by which many of them were thrown out of bread ; also calling the attention of the House to the Fields Garden Bill, and praying for some provision in it which would save them from dying in a union workhouse. Also petitions from the inhabitants of Hartlepool, who complained that they had been deprived of many of their most valuable privileges, amongst others of votes in the election of the Corporation. CONDITION OF THE LABOURING CLASSES. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said, Sir, I rise to bring forward a motion of which I have given notice, and which embraces a subject of vast extent, and one of the highest importance. I would despair of being able to bring this question on with any effect, were it not that the subject was one which has occupied much of the public attention for tome years past ; and, in bringing it forward now, 1 look for the as sistance of this House, in the consideration and elucidation of those facts and opinions which have been already elicited in re ference to it. For my own part, I do not profess to have suffi cient confidence in myself to be able to deal with this subject of such great importance as it deserves ; but I perceive, that in regard to it, the Government are not prepared to come forward with any proposition ; that no other Member of this House has taken it into consideration ; and that various views and opinions have been expressed out of doors in regard to the mea sures that the Legislature should deem it proper to adopt, by which to improve the condition of the labouring classes. Sir, I do consider it a matter of great importance, that this House should have before it not ouly all the information that could be got in reference to any measure which may be proposed to be adopted for the permanent im provement of the condition of the labouring classes, but also whatever you may be able to learn from the expression of the opinions of persons who have given their attention to the ques tion, and the views which they may have taken of the various plans that may from time to time have been proposed for the approbation of the public, because while, in my view, some of those propositions may have appeared to be sound, others may appear to have been based upon erroneous views of what should be beneficial for the public interest ; and therefore, if not taken up in a determined manner, a measure may be brought before this House that would receive general acqui escence for want o f a better, or it may be that such a measure would be presented, on which a negative could nor be given with satisfaction, or an affirmative with safety.---( Hear, hear. ) Sir, I must here say a few words more as to the intention of this motion. Had 1 been of opinion that any such measure would be brought forward by her Majesty's Government, I would have taken care not to have done so , but as things stand at present, when all legislative means of this sort must originate with the Government—when the present Adminis tration has taken from this House to itself all attempts at legis lation, even upon minor importance, and have declared, more over, that whether in office or out, they will be responsible for all measures of legislation which they may pass, affecting the condition of the country. Under these circumstances it would have been idle of me to have taken upon myself to bring before this House any measure of this sort. In my view the reso lutions which I bring forward are closely connected together. I am of opinion that if the Government at the present moment wished to propose a measure useful to the country, and tending to the improvement of the condition of the people, they should consider all the subjects which are mentioned in these reso lutions. An Hon. Baronet addressed to me a question to-night, as if he considered that these resolutions were totally separate and distinct questions. Sir, I think it of importance that the House should have brought before it the whole of this subject, not only that they may consider any one measure in it which they may think proper to adept for the Purpose of improving the condition of the labouring classes, but also that tee may learn, from the opportunity thus afforded, the opinions of men of experience and weight as to the various plans which have been from time to time proposed for the acceptation of Parlia ment. Whilst, in my opinion, some of those views are per fectly sound, and would tend to improve the condition of the country, there are others which are founded on erroneous principles. Upon mistaken notions of the powers of the Legis lature to promote the happiness of the people, and which, if in dulged in, would lead to consequences entirely different from those anticipated ; my opinion in general is, that you should endeavour to free trade from restrictions—to relieve industry from those trammels which were chiefly placed on it by the Legislature, but that in so doing, owing to the legislation of the past, and owing to the present state of the country, it would be necessary to adopt other measures accompanying those measures for the relief of industry. And at the same time, it is my opinion that the great subject of education and instruc tion ought to form a part of the deliberations of Government, and of the measures brought before the House; and if any gen tleman tells me that this subject seems little connected with those that I have mentioned in those resolutions, and that they are separate and distinct, I beg leave to tell him why I differ from him. I think we cannot expect that any measure proposed for the general education of the people would be attended with success unless we improve the physical condition of the people. —( Isay, Sir,that I do not think that men struggling to obtain the subsistence necessary to support life, are able or willing to make those exertions which would be requisite for giving an education to their children. Therefore, generally speaking, I should say that, along with the measure for the improvement of education—assuming that to be your object— you should endeavour to improve the physical condition of the people. —( Hear, hear.) And, to bring this matter into de tail, I hold in my hand a paper that was signed by Mr. Ash worth in 18e0, in which is given a table, showing the earnings and expenditure of four different families, each consisting of a man, his wife, and four children. In the first, the weekly earnings %sere ss. 6d. ; in the second, 10s. 6d. ; in the third, 15s. 6d. ; in the fourth, 265. 6d. In the first case, where the earnings were only ss, 6d., it would be found that the greater part, in fact nearly the whole of that sum, was consumed in providing bread, flour, oatmeal, and potatoes for these six in dividuals—food which was absolutely necessary for their sub sistence. If I look at the second case, where the earnings are 10s. 6d., I fi n d money expen d e d f or soap an d can dl es, clothing, and some further expenditure for other matters which afford revenue to the State. If I turn to the third case, where the earnings are 15s. 6d., I find a consumption of tea and coffee, contributions towards a sick society, thereby show ing a certain degree of prudence and forethought. And when I come to the fourth instance, where the earnings are 265. 6tl. for six persons, I there find a further sum of 2s. for clothi ng , 6,1. for education, 6d. for a sick society, and Is. 4d. f or sav i ngs. _ ( Hear, hear. ) Th ese details show, as appears to me, that it is only when the condition of the labouring classes is comfortable, that you can expect prudence, at least, the ability which enables them to follow out the dic tates of prudence, and the means of obtaining education for ' their children.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore, I say at once, that if any person tells me that he thinks the subject of the condition and subsistence of the people unconnected with their education and instruction, my answer is—that so far from their being unconnected, they cannot be separated, and that you cannot take a general and comprehensive view of the situation of the people without taking within that view both means fur their physical comfort, and means for their religious, moral, and literary instruction.—(Cheers. ) In looking at the con dition of the people, I do not wish to go over details which must be familiar to most Members of this House, with respect to the wages on which a great portion of the p 'stele of this country subsist. It is well known that, in many counties in England—in many of the agricultural counties—the wages are not more than 7s. or Bs. a week. That has been stated repeatedly, arid when I asked gentlemen connected with these counties whether that is so—whether such was the amount c f wages the labourers earned—they answered that andJubtedly such was the fact—such is the condition of the labouring classes in these counties.—( Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, if that be a fact, I need not say whit privations it implies— what evil it signifies—and what an insufficient means of pro viding for the comfort of the labourers. Neither need I go icto details, in order to show that the dwellings of the labourers in many of the counties are totally insufficient for their ac commodation—that families are crowded together without any regard to the rules of decency—that many members of a family are obliged to sleep in tee same room—and that neither health nor comfort is consulted in the struggle which becomes necessary, in order to retain a room for which they can afford to pay.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") But, Sir, there are general considerations which, it appears to me, we ought to take into account, and which involve a retro spect for a very considerable period of time. I am now, there fore, going to trace the changes which took place in a long course of years ; going back to periods of the last century be fore the French Revolution. At that time we had a debt of about 250,000,0001., and between 14,000,0001. and 15,000,000/. was the sum then necessary for the interest of that debt and other expenses. There was then a poor rate amounting to 12,500,000/., and the practice of pay ing the allowance to labourers out of the poor-rate, was then altogether unknown to this country. In the course of the war which England carried on in 1793, various changes took place —changes, in my opinion, much for the worse, as regards the situation of the people—changes, the effects of which, 'think, we are still suffering under, and which have, from time to time, been brought under the notice of this House. In the first place, we have an immense increase of our debt, and a proportionate increase of our taxation. That increase of debt was, in my mind, made in the most ex travagant manner. Many of the loans were contracted in such a manner that more than 6 per rent. was paid for interest, and that not reducible, but remaining to the future. Sums were burrowed in the Three per Cents., as in 1797, when 2001. was given, besides other advantages, to the lender of 1001. So that it appeared, by the table at the end of Mr, M'Culloch's late work on taxation (the last edition), that the sum of 400,000,000/., which we borrowed during the war, entailed upon us the interest of a debt of more than 21,000,000/.—thus obliging us to pay more than 5 per cent. interest. When, in the beginning of the last century, debts were contracted in times of war, the interest which was necessarily engaged to be paid at the time and subsequently was capable of reduction, so that Sir Robert Walpole (during the long peace, begun in 1713), during his administration, was able to reduce the interest on the debt, by about half the total of the amount which it was at the end of the war. That course has not been possible with any Ministry of this country, considering the mode in which the debt of the last war was contracted. We have, therefore, in crensidering the taxation, to recollect that the payment of the interest on this debt is guaranteed by public faith, and that it is out of our power to alter it. The whole amount to which we could alter the expenditure consists between the amplest and the most narrow expenditure consist ent with a peace establishment, which is about 3,000,000/. ( Hear.) At the same time, in speaking of the subject of taxa tion, I think I should not omit to state that we have been able from time to time to abolish or diminish taxes which were laid on the necessaries of life ; such as the tax on leather, salt, and candles, which have been entirely done away with. If any one will look at the complaints of the weight of taxation in the last century, they will see that tax (the interest of the debt) pointed out as a tax most injurious to the interests of the country. Still the power which we have in one way or another, whether by direct or indirect taxation, to bear this great amount of interest for the debt was an obligation from which we could not escape, and any one who examines the proposal made by the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government this year for this com mutation of taxation—a relief of taxation by taking it from those things upon which it presses with the greatest severity and imposing it on those things which he and the House con sidered would be less felt—a change by which it was believed taxation would press less heavily on the industry and resources of the country. Another subject upon which great alterations have been made is that of currency, alluding to which the Right Hen. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) last year called it the fatal measure of 1797. The tendency of that measure was greatly to degrade the labouring classes.—( Hear, hear.) I say, the tendency of that measure went to diminish the wages of labour. These wages were neither increased in proportion to the rise which took place, nor to the rise which occurred in the value of money. At the same time that depression of the general currency of the country led to effects which such de pressi tr, has always produced—that extravagant mode of living —that sudden employment of high profits—that neglect of frugality and vigilance which those engaged in agriculture or in trade practise in ordinary times, and which neglect and exitement produce lasting evils in the country. I do not see that in this respect we can make any great change in the con dition of the labourer—at least to his advantage. I believe that the measure proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman in 1819, and the Bill proposed last year, are founded on sound principles, and without discussing what was their necessity or their adaptation to the particular time in which they were brought forward, I believe it would be the greatest misfor tune if the House would endeavour to depart materially from the principles sanctioned by those measuresr At the same time I think we must always remember that these measures in themselves produce their evils—that they have disadvantages accompanying them—that they produced a contracted cur rency which followed the measure of 1819, and at the time created great evils, amongst others injury to the industrious classes which lasted for a considerable time. But now, Sir, I come to another subject upon which I think Parliament may legislate, and with benefit—to overturn as they have the enormous currency legislation of the war p er i o d—l alludef to the policy of restriction and monopoly. If any one speaks of that policy—of the policy of monopoly and restriction, or, as ie is flatteringly termed, " protection to native industry," he speaks of it as of an ancient establishment, as a matter becom_ interwoven with the laws of the country, and therefore ex tremely difficult to touch. But, Sir, let us go a little further, and look at what has been actually the case. We shall find that the chief monopoly or restriction which now exists was intro duced by men who are still living—by persons who are still in Parliament—by those who, although not now in the direction of public affairs, still remain among us, and whose acts we must therefore consider as the acts of our own time. I allude to the system of restriction and monopoly, which was, in the time of Adam Smith, called the mercantile system ; and Adam Smith, in speaking of the restriction introduced by the corn-laws, says he believes that those restrictions in favour of the monopoly of particular trades were introduced by persons who were used to the narrow spirit of corporations—that from cor porations it became common to traders, and was by them adopted in the Legislature of the country—that the country gentlemen, whose nature was, generally speaking, generous, and alien to such partial restrictions, were induced to adopt this policy, of little value to them, but supposed to be bene ficial, because it was so considered by the manufacturer and the merchant. Adam Smith might be, and no doubt was, relating what was conformable to the experience of his own time, but the experience of our time has brought us to an entirely dif ferent state.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) We have a vast export of manufactures, amounting. perhaps, to 50,000,000/. ; our manufacturers sell their goods at all the markets of the world ; but they consider monopoly and re striction is of no use to them, and they are willing to admit the imports of every country on the same terms as they desire their own to be received in foreign countries.—( Hear.) They therefore, have adopted generally, with a few exceptions, the theory which Adam Smith and his followers proposed, and which all the political economists adopted—that restriction is mischievous—that it is unwise to favour one class at the ex pense of another, and that such policy is injurious to the labouring classes, above all the classes in the community. Well, Sir, if such be the case, let us look at the history of some of those restrictions. I will look at one which has relation to timber. ( The Noble Lord then quitted extracts from M'Culloch's Commercial Dictionary, and other books, to show that with a restrictive policy our imports of timber had been greatly diminished, and that trade had been thereby seriously injnred, and the same argument applied to wool, against restrictions upon which, the merchants of London petitioned the Legislature in 1828. ) 1 he present Earl Fitawilliam had said such a course would be going back to barbarism. Sir Mathew Ridley said he saw total ruin to the manufacturer in the proposed measure, and in the other House the Duke of Richmond proposed that a Com mittee should be appointed to inquire into the matter. Many considered that this system of only Id per pound duty would cause the entire destruction of the interests of all engaged in the trade. In the report of the Committee of which Lord Malmefbury was chairman, itswas stated there was a great de ficiency in the import of :foreign wool which was truly alarming. Such was the view that those gentlemen entertained of a high import duty on foreign wool. From the benefit which re sulted to the English wool-grower, it was highly desirable that foreign wool should be admitted, for there were many articles of English manufacture into which nothing but foreign w0 , .1 could be introduced. In the course of the last year the duty had been increased, but on the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Halifax the whole duty had been taken off, and the result hail been a much greater consumption of wool. The woollen manufactures exported during the first eight months of this year greatly exceeded the quantity exported last year, and the British wool grower obtained a better prise for his articles. I mention this as one of many instances of the beneficial effects arising from the abolition of high duties of late years, and it is an instance of the proposition which I am desirous of maintaining, via., that those laws which operated in restricting labour would impose on the people un necessary taxes. I think that proposition on general prin ciples cannot be disputed. It is impossible to deny, that if a duty caused a higher price on what the people wanted to buy it necessarily imposed a duty on their labour. If they imposed those duties the poor man was less able to purchase clothes and food, and to educate his children, and was most likely to be dissatisfied with his condition. There is an opinion which is still prevalent among a considerable party in this country who maintain that it is right to give protection to certain articles, and that it is right to protect the industry of the country. On the other hand, it was contended that all re strictions of a protective nature should be abolished. I think it necessary that one or the other of these opinions should be acted on, or let us imitate Mr. Vansittart in the expression of his policy that protection should be given to every branch of in dustry, or abandon the principle as false and unsound. For my own part, I hold it as false and unsound. I should be sorry to enter into an argument on the subject, as it has been proved so by the greatest writers on the subject ; and it is, moreover, a matter on which, as an abstract question, Parliament has no right to interfere. I do not think Parliament should say you mist go to the cheapest market, any more than they should tell you to go to the dearest ; but every man ought to be in a condition to go to thet market which he liked best—( Hear, hear)—and, if there was any obstacle to prevent him, let the Legislature interfere ; but if it was his wish to exchange his labour or his pro.'.uctions in any market for the advantage of himself and family, what business had the Legislature to in terfere and say you shall not make that exchange —you shall not go to any person in a foreign country and make that exchange you shall not dispose of the produce of your own labour in what way you please? But this Is not only an abstract theory, which is perfectly unsound in itself, but it is opposed to the common sense of mankind ; and it is a theory on which many mistakes have arisen. The Ministry, in 1842, proposed a great alteration on the subject. They were alterations in many articles immediately connected with the produce of the manual labourers of this country. But these alterations were made in a totally different manor, with respect to some of these persons, and with regard to others. There were many per sons greatly offended at the great extent to which they carried their measures. I, myself, as a Member for the City of London, knew of many individuals who were in a frenzy at the prospect of their trade being reduced. There were the rope-makers, who said that the ropes would be made in Russia, if a low duty were put upon the raw material. There were the corkcutters, the boot and shoemakers, who were all much inflamed at, the free -trade plans introduced by the Right Honourable Baronet. There were men who were earning a certain amount, averaging from 15a. to 255. per week, and who were therefore in a state of:ill1;i; and se7i tli , One of them told me he was skill e d a s rn. eh as any m an , ' hit ,. trade, but wi;li all his exertions he was only able to proai ne auc h self with meat for dinner during one day in the week' ha d was the case of the p ersons a ff ec ted by the measure t hat been introduced. I will say, that to introduce changes ea a these men was hardly fair, unless you introduced measure class,o corresponding nature among the members of another w ith who were represented by P eers o f no ble descent, covered eels honours, having gr at we i g ht b o th i n arid our of Par lam and who were most powerful to resist the alteration. I has: the opinion of Adam Smith as my authority, who stated the would include one party within the same law of restriction 3 0 ' t the other. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the late Preadei,nt the Board of Traci., has shown the effect cf these reanrdie na Iwill as far as our own manufactures were concerned ; a ho take out of his book so me i ns t ance s, which will show , little alarm was to be experienced, when it was most e xpia i t a l The article of bonnet s p ro d uce d 13,0001. in 1840, an d in 'art and 1844 this amount wa s re d uce d to 12,0001. With seslaw to cork, a duty of 7s. per pound had been imposed on 7 00 factured corks. The dut was reduced to 10s. per Pofaaetured the wood, and to Is. 'per pound on the manu _ a a corks. The amount of cork had been au,gmented, ma only 2} per cent., •in proportion to the r as ' The terial, was introduced in a manufactured s tate. where Noble Lord instanced a few other articles, which, aora the duty was hi g h, b a d b een di m i n ished in consurneitrites, and where, on the cont rar y, ti r e duty was small , a e t i tn ual yowling increase had t a k en place. These re turns, con a _ for the Noble Lcrd, show how very little reason th ere, a T t then the manufacturers to be a l arme d a t the changes wat e racturr d took place. This showed w ith res p e ct to all menu forriau articles, that we wer e a bl e t o s t an d i n c ompetition with ae 401 nations, and that nothing was to be dreaded from °a:natio. fab which foreign manufa c tu rers m i g ht ex hibit in their 'a be' e n re" With respect to forei gn manu f ac t ures , the duties hod s ar o duced to a great extent. Th e b oo t ma kers and ropernaker uld be not much considered when it was announced that they a e d the totally ruined. The right principle remained to be aru` h .e t oms duties were reduced within that reasonable compass,' a , if this petition could enter the field against thorn. I via, tn, e , n ain that principle is right—if it is right to reduce duties within /IN" compass—let us abandon altogether the principle tective system, and reduce all duties within that aomra f oar acting upon this principle with respect to any article ° w ith r e " facture, if you do not propose to abolish preaection to w h a t spect to one article, you will be in a similar posit i r if the t you were placed in with regard to the tariff of 18 4 =_ t i t is aa tariff imposes a dut of 20 per cent. I maintain that extravagant tax. 'I consider that the principle is '','eaasia false, and we should abandon it as a useless problens an s j o ; o rb tion. I now come to that great question upon whi en the discussion has taken place in the country—l re.er to an du ring „her tion of the corn-laws. As I have adverted on this a e n awing subjects--an the striking changes that had taken pla s e ten th e this session of Parliament—l will advert to what h a lot ee l). policy of the country with respect to them duri n g the last ce o " tury. There was, as Ad am Smith says, a duty in the as during tury against the importation of foreign corn ; hu t ', 0 0 the gr eater part of that century this Was an exporti%e of e or a et t the people had no great advantage of the lowest r sr a e t ; l a s as the corn sent to foreign parts found the best ma s , of towards the latter end of the century, wills the inc r.° a r tatie n e i population, it was found ne cessar y to prohibit that el s P cou ld If they had acted o n soun d er principles that cou rse ins tead:, have been adopted. When we became an i m porting et t he er tr ie an exporting country, it was con s id er ed necessary tti rea poab ss laws should be revi se d, an d t o preserveour interest s atop all protection should be given to corn, The protection ; ae on tended to 48s. per quarter, and consisted of a high dakt corn under that price. In 1791 another chart" tee„saoo, th it Mr. Pat said, in the cou rse o f th e d e b a te on t rb e aus civarte r, ibe if a protective duty was p u t on corn u p to 5 0 st N a il e d ° st ar would be quite sufficient ; b u t other opinions P re " i t 0 5 ' 0 a time, and the protection was carried up to f 4s • Such a ae and that was in effect a prohibitory duty. ria let a s the as this is quite different from the present systen", 3 ; a r O n ; t he how the change took place. During the time an -arid at tae" years of scarcity, corn rose to a very high Price" City a e et a same time the currency becoming d eprec iata t a o a ra t i l l s :. etdpeel fo ,o r c e ia.t,e; :: and d n declared they p re, ai that led the on 545. ,A1r. Fi w i a t s t, no i t n a iot, sufficient 1 11 ,a e ee te aeo which protection should cease. In 1815, wh e° a that i n 'osa was carried to its greatest extent, it was proPa'e Pro of 545., which was the utmost price to Which,_ l ?. pro''' . e' extended, that 80s. should be the price at said' ac he he the should commence. I consider that although it In o a ts tiee.97. cessary to check for a time the sudden flood of Or o , of ° t he introduction of that l a w was as f a t a l as the m en f r om h is —( Hear. ) We have been suffering ever fin e d tha t as s effects of that law. Many years it was consie er o e f it e, law was not sufficient. The effect of the price too l; I , j abot net liked, and another alteration of the wha le ai d° be which it was not necessary to refer to, in IStlat i a ha d th e t aere scheme of corn legislation was proposed, %%hi" tba t t the authority of Mr. Huskisson. The proposition Wa i ' oo , ba r i c e should be a high duty imposed when corn was a a , the P i ot duty was to be grad ua lly di m i n i s h e d in proportiaa ab ie °n ov a was increased. I thou g ht it was somewhat desaltbe ag or a head. Mr. Canning said, on the introduction °I iy of ~ t that at certain times th ere was a too plentiful suP t ii ie o' as/ it and at other times w e h a d b een su ffering from O . OO IP a n d importation, and he pr o p ose d this measure, as ltd priee'that itself to the pr o ice f corn, and tend to give a I et ted would consult the interest of all parties con cerne t ra su pa it was a plausible schem e ; an d for my own F ar o ra the r tio rs the Bill ; and altogether my opinin n , erien ce a r d l a favour of the fixed price. We have hao e 5 foun o r and I think it has been shown that the systeua lea .00 e r r a ice there ar e - 05 error, and that it failed in giving a stated posing the general principle is correct, or t t" e orn, i t wag t d to particular reasons for imposing duties upon than the te a ot , c t a lcela t e e aY s ' evident that the gradual or sliding scale was not Presca Parr tom, the desired effect. It was obsaous that entire trade t_oe ftif tern, as now carried on in corn, made the take more of the character of a hour sg ambling ad ffere d . 10 4 dealings of honest merchants, and losses in their speculations ; and fact within the last few years. Acßristol (alr. 3111e4yt, moved for by the Hon. Alember for s altered by the o t, appears that the operation of the taw, a stv's Governine-thog wse°enraqdalt n e g. xls t eri e t n b e e e rea tani t Hon. Baronet at the head of her alajt much the same as the law of 1828. a ntita ° trae # ' papers that since 1840 as before, the galffereetso tbe It was sho wn l'Y f 04° introduced was greatly increased at s. e a in especially during the three harvest inon t ,carod ue s the year 1840 the number of quarters of cs.heat ' or ter , the first six months of the year was 876, 87 ?5%79°,,itc' quantity during the three harvest months was "a. of el ' Ie la-9, during the first six months, which was a Y a e a s aaat tr esa 2,750,969 quarters ; the three harvest m onths "' t hree 'a a i the 1842 in the first six months 305,000; in th e d e ad a s ale months 2,663,160. Thus showing that the te n , ea {te a the law was to induce speculators to hold back till to/ frcat is a produce of the harvest, in order to derive a h en „ e e of th e :lo great rise in price. In the last year the experi e r n a a re was remarkable. In the last ear the price 01 _ to irl" ret a:: high, sufficiently high enough to enable personant at it into the country in any large anr n of nerating prices. In February the Pri c e e iea redt was 535. 3d. per quarter, and the quantity &earl:lair/4 quarters ; in Alarch, 565. 3d., the q uantitY_ taar ed, set ' se quarters ; and in July, 545., the quantityt.a'censaa„ t i e quarters. The only system that can benefit neata rat is at lead to a stability in the law, will be such a s Thaoai, be price from 565. to 645. and 665, per q uarto o f of evoce : t only sufficient price to allow for the import: ' the ell e rrat ie as less than that will stop and arrest it. I ha c_ rep ort e d atr t r be an assistant poor-law commissioner, who, in e a t h a t t i l e 0 f the time of the bad harvest, in 1838, declar pri tiog gin then existing was much aggravated by the ala t . o pera ea , • stead py t he' corn, and that a lower rate of price, in- of .00 juriously, would hare much benefited tn , ' br ioa &a rt' a , ana ureat er ddit i°ll lr enabling them to improve the wages labourers, or inducing farmers to einf""Y a t , in a, the pia' in the cultivation of their lands. This rep e a s , e tba' a i Pa s t the other evidence I have adduced, goes to Pr e ia ata erc o) sent law is opposed not only to all correct_ybee this ciplas, but to the interests of the fartnersa aoe t s out it not I will put another question to the House. P s rlr, (fence suggest to you that protection is an ev _ er it lead you to behold in it a check to improve:l'oa i pp! e l c , ture, and an enemy to both landowrr r t s ore a s a a n e re e t ei . (Cheers ) I may refer to the silk mantaa c un der ', n o el te r; Lion of the influence of monopoly. Win le he o ise a chs ra e ars five system during a century and a-latlf t „sect se al ring ployel was of the most inefficient and i d OP kept pe' o eta o l oo t now, under an improved system, lt 11a o f 0 1he respect with all tae other great ranetaesrniet. toke Ivo industry. So is it with respect to the I , a d to to/t ali: er e' of protection given him only tenalsehe way s t 10 0 an imperfect, slovenly, agriculturist, and % ling . wa itbe rt° o o o skilful and successful in his important cat e „ a d h _ e at as s moval ,if that restrictive system on whichlincae t S c g it t he ' a rt, for support. I hold in my hand the eau l a e og ee t i ai vet'Pd who made a motion in this House in 18 3 'a s , all' a the I r tisties of the country. That gentleman ya otir ovo snie rl e ara who said that he had taken great pains to a' that foi f oa k part his possessiorr, and out of a quantity of lan° non ce re tic 500/ a year, he received 800/., in conseaety tha t ' ea r provements. That gentleman further sra t . a stat e d bola 5 . 10; of England was covered with weeds, an d . T or o, s e he that the leases were fenced in with rester' e of t a t bars, so as to interfere with the free enerfeJ atit he i s od e s e sni t ) that the land was generally occupied by !,en a a n n d tbe fiet o,: e ree men careless how they treated the ' ren ts ' ( be ad u ( e bbs l 4l were indifferent so long as they got their aaht to . . o r To advance agriculture in the way it nuaa t areat c or e , are is rata c ps ,e a union of caital, skill, and labour , , he re- a , to a d been already dons in manufactures, and if the staa' a olta, e ,s o ,, one can employed. known to all, so will it be in farming, similar 'aecl doubtS Similar atrh causes that if for ei gn w illgPrro°wd u's were a l o u d kill e>3` re` rt e their produce into thi s country, i t sharpen The P into our agricultural system. It W ilt che ers. ) astera'aid at energy, and enlarge our capabilities•--( . a t he sa ac e, t t ir e time is most propitious for a change t i a " ken P o i ro t, , a commutation of tithes had lately lan ded in stateskill. rs considerable burden taken from off the , a a proPe! se of a e pie te , now there was every opportunity a nd the e aerc l aa a O cte t ', a • 1 and tn law for the employment of capital and avail tta ss4t of land were not satisfied with the Prottsw "ioup t ona tal s ( Hear, hear.) It was complained that e _ e e nt s yst a e eir be e a t e be re , them abandon protection, and theY, a c be o pen: r i c h e d a a ot , the improved markets which woulal being t n ,i n cf, 311 0 00 o t They would find their advantage re fla nri 'j ;P r ' ) where commerce and manufactures: _ aes f o r e cau se, e e s% employers being enabled to pay bett waa la thee' T itas e.s' t w oul d e re improved facilities given them, tannitara leaf o g.. eS e d es increase in the consumation of agraca c: vra But it was said that if corn were m ade supposing t. re al oleo reduced. 'faking this fact for granted, i ; as at ti c eet a s ti ta tit were not reduced in relation to tne t impetus tha, o t he t at beef, reduced to a certain amount, s ti ,_ ll ,.. s r o ie l : o 7 p r t orl woo h is h o. B eo 1 tage eemploymentsaind by the grea the ch ap ? " l A, a gr ar e i t° cc w sll to the of labour by not reaucsana idar the it', on the ether hand, wages were i n enab lt ,'"o e Lo ra .0 would at once be given to the artisan life; a a n jf Nobl e j ' a doe" mart an increase of the comforts 01 , The _ benefitects . at tae plea' ..nr the labouring classes would be i d tn the co , e President of the Board of Trade 1 1 bent efi t ° wee° t° of e° e 0 of 50,000 head of cattle was a distinctiongr bet es tate,. O te , this be so, then I cannot see any nm ilio q u i , hrga ta lle tation of 50,000 head of cattle. a i l r ,at a o f c or e n niass es ; Ot to We do not find that when the I th iu' opera tiv t, s wa n a tall correspond with it, as many °t o t h e subje a e as gi v . e e h I oe A Mr. Dent, aho had written wive , n ot a sha ons a bst that was theoretical and sin a cn of Co rn, fr ea l e ulan te to t ar o of wages in relation to the p e t ricouse. Th , egi ula t for a e l(' read a few extracts to toe 0 s tosoa n , vi bes pa se made from 1792. and grounclediup _ aeeasreftts. 0.1(7.11 made by Air. Malthus, of allofwant , rer - j t s li tu je 1 4, per qua rter- ss. on ia l t e l o arid toe price at bread 82s• aae of wheat 6d ., beiOg 10 _ a re w la e b r o e ur f e r, r i . in In 1795 t t o he l wage} heat 535. is. age, wages were 9s. 6d., Pri ce highest 465• ‘ 2 ` l ' es w ere in wages were 10s., and when in aa4l wag of gra , s , 10s., and wheat 665. 4d.; aS a „ r ice less in wages than the is of 0 ,,e 0r0ti 0.. 0 ° ave rage itt i Thaao °lap pill will show that the t n . ... ti a r a s ra n e f ; al p e now proceed to show the proh te ht it w ill hat a ll be e t he I m y belief t ha her o 0 (:11 a T,_ ef i ents ne ti t te he ';a; t to en s u g l a :t f li it f a a cr ,i m gri pa c t o ri r e n d . by It corresps ° many excess of importation a think , bit t een ow so it n aa ltilina a t he A ye prate of corn may not be h i g h e s tirove _ in t r o d ' at ionc t ` s hotaT ie re t will lead to a general I for In labour , 3 d so Vdha '605 , and 'and,With reg al os p roPa s i l og Pr o d; rests of all parties concerne d' law, cart() in bring s re if adopted instead of the presente the 1- In e to er°l )° ' e lita t a ieb been brought forward bean.. not so much cour arY• as t improve the demand d. ondaron no as to state the true c _ e, it Won my resolutims my object is o f the that were called upon to propose on .1 parts , . CHURCH AMENDMENTS ACT. The Bishop of LONDON explained that he had on Friday moved the bringing up of the Report on the Church Amend ments Act by mistake, and assured his Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack that he never intended to take any advantage of his absence. He should be always ready to meet the objections of the Noble and Learned Lord to the Bill, and to give the Noble and Learned Lord an opportunity of urging them. He begged to move that the order for the third reading on Friday next be discharged, and that the Bill be re-committed. The LORD CHANCELLOR was satisfied the Right Rev. Prelate had moved the adoption of the report under mistake or misapprehension, and was glad the Right Rev. Prelate had given him an opportunity of stating his objections to some of the clauses in the Bill. The motion was agreed to. IRISH LAND COMMISSION. The Earl of FORTESCUE asked the Noble Lord, the Se cretary for the Colonies, to name the day when he would bring on his measure relating to the improvement of land in Ireland, founded upen the report of the Irish Land Commission. Lord STANLEY could not name the precise day, but he an ticipated that in the course of the next week he should be able to bring the Bill for ard. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished to know if any other Bills founded upon the same report were in a course of preparation ? Lord STANLEY replied that the Commissioners had cer tainly made several suggestions, but in the present state of public business he was unable to say when Government would be enabled to act upon them. The Duke of DEVONSHIRE was understood to say that several Bills were in a great state of forwardness, but it had been thought advisable to postpone those relating to the occu pation and tenure of land in Ireland, until the Bill which had been entrusted to his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colo nies had passed through some of its stages. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE hoped that, when the Noble Lord brought forward his measure, he would put Par liament and the pubEc in possession of the titles at least, and some slight sketch of the nature and object of the other Bills which Government intended to bring forward. The vague hints which heretofore had been thrown out had awakened the expectation of the Irish people, and if, as he understood the Noble Lord, it was not intended to bring these measures for ward in the present session, their objects ought to be clearly defined. The Earl of WICKLOW did understand that the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had declared that these Bills were not to be brought forward in the present session, but at all events, if they were not, he would rather see the measure for the improvement of the land in Ireland held over till the next session. Lord STANLEY said he did not state that the Irish Land Improvement Bill was the only measure to be brought for ward this session, founded on the report of the Commissioners, but that he could not pledge himself to the precise day when he would bring his Bill in ; and if he did not st a t e it, - h e was sure he wished it to be understood, that other Bills were likely to be introduced in the course of the present session. He did not agree with the Noble Marquis that it was desirable to enter into all the various and important questions touched upon by these Bills when he brought in his measure for im • proving the land in Ireland. The matter then dropped. IRISH FISHERIES. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE begged leave to ask a question of which he had given notice, relative to the report of the Commissioners on the Irish Fisheries. Since he had given notice the report of the Commissioners had been laid upon their Lordships' table, and of course he must consider this as an an swer to one part of his question. The present condition, he might state, of the Irish fisheries was such that at no distant period he should feel it to be his duty to bring the subject under their Lordships' consideration, when he should have an oppor tunity of going at length into the report. He wished to ask the Noble Duke opposite whether it was the intention of Go vernment to take any particular steps in the present year in consequence of the report? The Duke of WELLINGTON said the Noble Lord was aware that the report was presented on the 10th instant, and in answer to the Noble Lord's question he was unable to state what measures Government intended to introduce in conse quence of the report. SANATORY CONDITION OF MANCHESTER. The Marquis of NORNIANBY, pursuant to a notice which he had given on a former occasion, presented a petition from the working classes of Manchester, praying the House to take some steps to improve the sanatory regulations of that town. The Noble Marquis said he wished at the same time to remind their Lordships that the last six months had been a period of great prosperity in Manchester, when prices had been low and the demand for labour almost unprecedented. And yet, from the last returns of the Registrar-General of marriages, births, and dcaths, he found that the average number of deaths in that district for a quarter of a year was 1,612, but in the last quarter it had risen to 1,934. Any measures for improving the sanatory condition of the people of this district, he there fore thought would not be complete unless some persons were appointed to fill the capacity of officers of health. He wished to ask whether the Companies applying for Bills to supply Manchester with water would be subject to any future sanatory regulations which Parliament might hereafter establish. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH replied that the Bills going through Parliament were being watched, and clauses were introduced into them subjecting them to the future provi sions of Parliament, for improving the sanatory conditions of large towns. The Duke of RICHMOND regretted to hear so sad an ac count of Manchester, and thought it would be much better for the Anti-Corn-law League to try and effect some improvement, instead of setting the men against the masters. The Marquis of NORM ANBY did not know whether it was the duty of the Anti-Corn-law League to interfere in this matter, but this he did know, that the Corporation of Man chester were taking efficient means for removing some of the evils the petitioners complained of. PUBLIC PETITIONS. A Noaut LORD presented a petition from the parish of St. Mary, Nottingham, signed by six thousand of the inhabitants, against certain clauses of the Inclosure of Lands Bill, at pre sent before their Lordships. Lord CALTHORPE presented three petitions from the presbytery of Selkirk, and other places in Scotland, against the licensing of toll bars (as we understood) in Scotland. A NOBLE Loan presented several petitions from places in Lincolnshire, against the grant to Maynooth. Lord STANLEY presented several petitions for and against the Maynooth grant. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS CONSOLIDATION BANK OF IRELAND. Sir H. W. BARRON presented a petition from the Rev. Dr. Clay (as we understood) against the National Bank of Ire land Bill. TTIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, MAY 27 1845 BILL. Lord COTTENHA rose, pursuant to notice, to move the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Courts Consolidation Bill. If this had been the first time on which their Lordships had been called upon to set aside the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts, and to adopt a new course of proceeding in regard to them. He should have felt it his duty to enter at large into the subject, but that was a subject which had been so often be fore their Lordship's House, that it was almost exhausted. And he should not, therefore feel compelled to dwell upon it at great length. He thought their Lordships would be of opinion, taking into consideration the reports which had been made on the matter in another House, and the Royal Commissions that had sat upon it, that he would be exercising a sound discretion in taking up as little of their time as possible. This was also the more necessary, as the result of all the reports and commissions on the subject had been a perfect concurrence in the object which the present Bill sought. Before, however, he should state the remedies which he wished to be applied to the state of things with which he found fault, he wished to relieve the case from the disadvantage under which it laboured, from the circumstance•of its being in troduced by him. In 1836, a Committee• had sat upon the question, and the Bill at present before their Lordships was identically the same as had been settled by that Committee. There might be some details which would require alteration, but he was anxious to present it in the same state. He would now proceed to detail the grievances, and the remedies he pro posed to apply. In questions of matrimony—a question whether a man and a woman (who was supposed to be his wife), were really married, these courts had jurisdiction. In all cases, too, where there was a question of the validity or in validity of marriage, and on the various relations by which the parties themselves were affected, as well as their children—in questions of choice, and of a mensa et thorn, these courts had jurisdiction. Another important matter upon which they were called upon to decide, was wills. Although they had no au thority over freehold property, they had over leases and terms for years, an.l all questions which arose out of there. So that although no immediate effect was perceived, freehold property was materially affected by their jurisdiction. There were other matters of less importance, but which in their results greatly concerned the public interest—he meant legacies, matters of tithe, and church-rates. The latter, particularly, had occasioned great disputes in the country, all of which were referred to these Courts. They also extended their jurisdic, tion to criminal cases—defamation of character, cases of incest and quarrels and broils in churchyards. Now there was no reason why these offences should be punished by an Ecclesias tical Court more than any other:But the greatest fault he found with them was the variety of their jurisdiction and the impos sibility almost of knowing, when a grievance had occurred, where to apply for redress. By the report of the Ecclesiastical Com missioners there were 386 of these Courts. Some of them ex ercised jurisdiction over all ecclesiastical matters ; some only in part ; some over probates of wills ; others over the appointment and regulation of those who were administrators to estates. There were also 70 of them who were judges over manors, and in cases where an unfortunate couple were living together, the validity of whose marriage was called in question, the case came before them. There was such a subdivision of ecclesiastical was bee eligible. difficulties oughtt functions that any The of those w h o were filli ng th e more su b or di na t e situationsto wh be ie a judge. Now that state of things existedmultiplicity of fortheth ceougrrtesat point s oi o n n t one of h e greatest not to to ascertain where the jurisdiction' lay—what court had the g. The consequence of this was, that the power of adjudicating. Archbishop of Canterbury. The Noble Lord then instanced s t o a f n o t e h d e great majority of cases were brought ita the some of the eases of difficulty which occur o r f e t d h under the ex isting state of the laws. Now, four-fifth s driven into the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. ese The eas were evil in cases of probates of wills was, that even if the parties dttt, great had obtained probates of the will and had administered estate, and if afterwards it was found out that 5/. to the belonged to the estate rme , ,vt,..re tie, the whole of the trans.. actions that had previously taken place, were void. That, hed t wAs a great =ow/mei:lee. In cases also of trusteeship, where the last party on whom the trust devolved had found the will proved in a wrong jurisdiction, the whole proceedings became void. Now this state of things, and other grievances and ineonveniences, would be remedied if the Bill befere their Lordships were passed into law. The difficulties at present were so great, the inconveniences were so severely felt, that parties were obliged to have recourse exclusively to the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But they were not safe even there. The probate under this jurisdiction was not void, but voidable ; and, until it was set aside, it was available. (Hear, hear. ) This was the difficulty as the law now stood, but it was one very easily removed, and he therefore proposed to do away with it. Their Lordships would not be surprised that every Commissioner had recommended that they should be done away with. With regard to wills, there was no proper place where they should be kept, and still more, there was a difficulty to ascertain what testamentary disposition an indivi dual had left, or who were his personal representatives. As these difficulties were so much felt, it was no matter of wonder that the several Committees and Commissioners had recom mended the abolition of all these inferior courts. The same objection held with respect to the Diocesan courts. In 1832, and again in 1E33, the Commissioners had recommended the abolition of the Diocesan courts, as there was not sufficient business to engage them. In that same year a resolution of a similar kind had passed the other House of Parliament. In 1836 a similar resolution had passed that House, and again in 1843 a Bill had been brought into the House of Commons for a similar purpose. In Salis bury it was proved that there had been no suit for three years, and at Chichester and Norwich there was, at the time the re port was made, no business whatever. This matter had been fully considered in the report of 1836, and he thought that the recommendation to establish one general Court in London for the administration of all effects under testamentary documents was a good one. With respect to the objection that this Court would do away with all local jurisdiction, he must ob serve that in one diocese, from Penzance to Exeter, was 120 miles; and iu Lincoln, he believed that the distance was not, in some cases, much less. He proposed to adopt precisely the same plan in proving a will as was now used, only that the bill should be sent to the central Court in London. instead of being sent to the diocesan Court. The only dif ference he would make was, that the original will should be kept by the Registrar of the Court fourteen days, for the inspection of all those who might have a right to inspect it, and then that a copy of it should be taken, as was now taken, and then the original should be returned to the executors. With respect to the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of York, all the Committees from 1832 to 1836, save of those that examined witnesses, were all unanimous in the abolition of one Court. The whole amounted to this, that there should be but one Court, and with respect to small property relief might be devised. There would then be one central Court in London, in which from the copies being kept there an opportunity would be given of investigating the tes tamentary dispositions of property in all future time. So far as the jurisdiction over wills or granting probates, it would be all centred in this single court. There were also some other things which it was improper to confide to an eccle siastical court, as for instance in the payment of legacies under trust. These legacies in some particular instances could not be paid without the interference of the Court of Chancery, and he thought it would be better, therefore, at once to transfer this business from the ecclesiastical courts to that court. With respect to church-rates, be proposed to class them with the poor-rates. There was every machinery in appeal to quarter sessions, or otherwise, for their recovery. With respect to tithes, it was proposed to transfer all jurisdiction respecting them to the Court of Chancery ; and with respect to all penal proceedings, he proposed to transfer them to the civil tribunals of the country. Such was an outline of the Bill, and this was no action of a set of men against another set of men, but was intended for the general benefit, in :which all parties were united. As early as 181'2 he found Sir William Scott, together with the three Chief Justices and four of the most eminent Judges, concurring in this view. The same feeling had prevailed in the opinions of all the Committees up to 1843. How was it that he was thus en gaged in the carrying this Bill through the House ? In 1836 he had brought a Bill to effect these objects into the House, but great difficulties had occurred at that time in carrying the Bill into effect. It was said that it would do away with the Bishops' courts, and therefore destroy the dis cipline of the clergy. This was unquestionably a difficulty, but he thought that it was not for him to meet it. He thought that the Bishops ought to meet it themselves, and provide for the discipline of their own clergy. Year after year passed by without the Bishops concurring in the measure intended to effect these objects. At length they concurred, and a measure was introduced which, however, did not become law until August, 1840, so that from the time the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was made, until the passing of the measure to which he alluded, all proceedings were suspended, no plan having been in force for the proper management of the clergy. In the early part of the session of 1841, he had a serious illness, and when he returned to the House, he found that matters were in such a state that any Bill he might have brought in would not be carried. He was, there fore, happy to see the matter taken up by the present Govern ment, and rejoiced that in 1843 a Bill was brought into the House of Commons. He would not stop to inquire why that Bill was not passed. Another attempt was made in 1844, which met with no better fate. In the present year he had abstained from bringing forward this measure, because he thought it was net in his province to interfere, and thought it better to leave it in the hands of the Government, but the Government had announced in the other House of Parliament that they did not intend to bring in any Bill for that purpose during the present session. Finding, then, this to be the case, he considered that, when he could best effect this object, he would do so, and had therefore brought the present Bill before their Lordships. It had been opposed, on the ground that it would interfere with the private interests of certain localities. No doubt, opposition must be expected ; but, if all public men agreed in the importance of the measure, and if the Houses of Parliament had expressed their approval of it, and considered that it would go far to amend the administration of justice, he should not expect to hear that the public should be prevented from obtaining a good measure because it did not suit persons in certain localities in the country. If Parliament were to be influenced by such mo tives as these, and were to discountenance the Bill, it would not be very creditable. He had no wish to exclude Members of either House of Parliament from expressing their senti ments on the subject ; on the contrary, he considered that their opinions should be treated with respect ; but if they were found to arise from private, and not from public interests, he thought it would be highly derogatory to Parliament not to pass the measure. He trusted that if their Lordships were of opinion that the measure was a proper one, they would not hesitate to give it their sanction, without any apprehension as to the opposition which it might create out of doors. It was the opinion of all the eminent men by whom it had been consi dered, that it was intended to do great good, and he trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would allow the measure to be read a second time. The Bishop of LINCOLN said he was not about to offer any opposition to the Noble and Learned Lord, but having been one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to whom he had referred, he was desirous to make a few observations. He entirely agreed with the Noble Lord, that one of the principal questions involved in the Bill was, how the convenience of the public would be promoted by it, and trusted that its machinery would be so constructed, that persons requiring a probate would not be put to greater expense or inconvenience than under the present system. In one clause of the Bill, which was very different from the one recommended by the Ecclesi astical Commission in 1842, the power of excommunication was giv ,, n to the Court, to be established under the Bill. Did they mean to invest a lay court with a power like this ? All matrimonial as well as divorce cases were to be referred to other courts. Marriage was of divine origin, having reli gion for its foundation, and was binding by a civil contract, so that such powers ought not to be invested in any but a spi ritual court. Lord BROUGHAM thought that the objection, or rather the doubts, which were entertained by the Right Rev. Prelate would be found on a little consideration to be without founda tion. He would submit it to his own judgment—the best judgment he could submit it to—his own mind. If they had a good foundation they would meet with due attention in the Committee. When he was in office in 1832 he framed a Bill on this subject, with some alterations from a report which had been made to him. It was divided into six parts, and was brought in by Dr. Lushington and Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, but from the excitement caused by the Reform Bill in that session nothing was done with respect to it. In 1833 it was found impossible to pursue the measure, and in 1834, from the changes which took place in the admi nistration of affairs, they were not proceeded with. With respect to the objection raised by the Right Rev. Prelate as to the court being invested with the power of excommuni cation, he thought no man was better able to discharge his duties as one of the members of this lay tribunal than Dr. Lushington. The late Sir W. Scott, afterwards Lord Stowell, administered such affairs ; but then the Right Rev. Prelate retouched his hypothesis, and said "of lay origin." Excom munication, though it sounded very large, and not very tem poral, yet was purely so in its object, and was like outlawry, compelling a person to put in an appearance. The spiritual jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was vested in the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the first of whom appointed the Vicar-General, and the other the Dean of the Arches, and a greater anomaly, or one more offen sive to sound principle than this, did not exist. It had always been so treated; and he knew, from a communication he had with the two Right Reverend Prelates in 1833, that they were perfectly willing that this anomaly should be put an end to, and the power of appointing the two judges vested in the Crown, but they required that the Crown should take upon itself the duty of providing the different judicial officers and judges of the Admiralty and Arches Courts. He had felt it to be his duty to state these objections to the Bill, and it only remained for him to hope that they would be removed when the Bill was committed. The Earl of WINCHILSEA said marriage was not only a civil contract, but a thing of Divine ordinance, and so far there. fore as matrimony was concerned, he did not think it advisable to disturb the present jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He objected to that part of the Bill which would abolish local diocesan courts for the registration of wills, because he thought it would entail expense on the poor man while it benefited the rich. A rich man could easily inspect a will in London, but a poor man could not accomplish this so easily. Lord CAMPBELL said there could be no doubt the pre sent state of the ecclesiastical courts was highly objectionable. It was allowed that the Church had nothing to do with the probate of wills or with actions for defamation of character, or with the revision of tithes, or with brawling in church yards, but yet the Church had the power of appoint ing the judges who tried these cases. But the Noble Earl who had just sat down had alluded to matrimony. Now he perfectly agreed with the Noble Earl that marriage'was some thing more than a eivil contract ; but still that was no reason why matrimonial disputes should not be settled in a civil court. The only real objection he had heard urged against the Bill was the necessity that existed for local courts ; but as he did not think it was possible that the functions of an ecclesiastical local court could be properly performed, it was, therefore, in dispensably necessary that there should be one great central court. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he should be acting in consistently if he did not support the second reading, because the Bill agreed in principle with one brought forward by the Government in 1843. After a few words from Lord APING ER, which did not reach the gallery, the Bill was read a second time. CALICO PRINT WORKS BILL. This Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday. RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION (SCOT LAND) BILL. The amended Scotch Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday next. Their Lordships then adjourned till Friday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 26. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. WHITTLE DEAN WATERWORKS. This Bill was read a third time. YORK AND SCARBOROUGH RAILWAY DEVIA- TION BILL. This Bill was also read a third time. CORNWALL RAILWAY. Mr. PENDARVES presented petitions from landowners and others in the county of Cornwall against the proposed Cornwall Railway. - WATERFORD UNION. Sir W. H. BARRON presented .p.tition from the guardians of the Waterford Union, praying the House to equaliac the roar rates in all the dif f erent utlions. A