The Sun. — London, England, 1839-06-05 00:00:00

EYE,/,TING JA 3TA MEETING OF PROPRIETORS. A meeting of planters, merchants, and others, interested U, tie island of Jamaica, took place yesterday at Willis's IZ The following is the petition to Parliament which was to by proposed, as expressive of the feelings of the meeting " That your petitioners are, as landowners, mort pgees, annuitants, and otherwise, interested in, and connected with the - island of Jamaica, and are in . :orested in, and most desirous of promoting, the zs of the great measure of emancipation. That heard, with great satisfaction, the abandonment ar Majesty's Government of a Bill To make s orary provision for the Government of Jamaica.' I 1 , • 7 considered its provisions subversive of the constitu t:i of the island, and dangerous to its welfare, as well a. njurious to the interests of petitioners. That it iie the opinion of petitioners that by evincing a spirit of conciliation towards the Assembly respecting the consti tulrmal rights and privileges of that body,—and abstaining from Parliamentary legislation, the confidence of the As sembly would be won ; and they would be induced, when the Governor was directed to convene them, to exercise their legislative functions ; and in such a manner as would best promote the welfare of all classes in the colony, and would satisfy the just expectations of Parliament and the people of Great Britain. That it was with surprise and alarm that petitioners heard a second Bill had been introduced into Parliament—entitled A Bill for Enacting certain Laws in the Island of Ja maica.' That this Bill, so far from being calculated to win the confidence of the Assembly, cannot fail to excite the greatest dissatisfaction among all classes in the colony :—yo the Bill enables the Governor and Council, by disagreeing to measures proposed by the Assembly, to suvend the functions of that body, and transfer them tclusively to tnemselves ; that the grounds stated in the preamble arc untenable, and subversive of the constitution of Jamaica; that they tend to degrade the Assembly in the estimation of all classes, and render ineffi 7ient the exercise of its legislative functions ; that nothing could be more calculated to offend the feelings of all classes Jamaica than adopting as a sample of legislative inter erenee, the Orders in Council made for the Crown Colo 'es, where another system of Government exists, and where not the common law of England, but foreign laws, are established; and petitioners therefore pray to be ieard by Counsel against the Bill." The meeting was called by Mr. Burge, the Agent for island. The Earl of Harewood took the chair. Mr. BURGE entered into a long statement of the com munications which he had with the Government. He said he had repeatedly represented to the Govern ment that their best course would be frankly, and in a spirit of conciliation, to abandon all idea of legis lation upon the subject, and to call upon the Governor to invite the Assembly to meet and resume their legislative functions. He had especially urged this in a conference with Lord Melbourne and Lord Normanby, but they were immovable, and were firmly resolved to persist in some Legislative measure. The effect of 'Mr. Labouchere's Bill was to give the Governor and Council the power of making, or reviving, or re enacting any laws which might not previously have been made, revived, or re-enacted by the Assembly, with refer e .ce to the hiring of servants, or the vagrancy regulations, &c. The effect of the clause would be to enable the Governor and Council to legislate without the intervention of the House of Assembly on any matter connected with vagrants, contracts for labour, or illegal occu pation of land ; for if the Council persisted in urging amendments to any measure brought forward by the Assembly on these subjects, in which the Assembly could not concur, or if the Governor, acting perhaps under instructions, were to refuse his assent to any Bill es regulating these matters, which bad passed the As eembly and Council, it would not become law, and he vs euld thus acquire the right of legislating. Lord Nortnatiby had been Governor of Jamaica, and must have known that no House of Assembly could proceed to the eeecution of its functions under the coercion of such a Bill as the present. Power was also to be given to the Governor to revive temporary acts. The meet iieg must be aware that the House of Assembly possessed the exclusive power of voting money Bills, We only granted for a year. These were amongst ants which would expire, and the Governor might revive these annual Money Bills, so that if the Assembly should think any of the annual taxes not fit to be re vived or continued, the Governor and Council might revive them under this clause, which in fact gave the Governor and Council the command of the public purse of the island. The clause transferred to the Governor the power of levying taxes, sad if he understood that this was one great ground of ob jection to the former Bill, it was impossible but the meeting mnst feel the same objection to the present one. In fact, it was even more objectionable than the former measure, because that stated, in language not to be mis understood, that it was intended to suspend the func tions of one branch of the Legislature, while this Bill does the same thing, but makes use of language calculated to impose. The fact was the Government never intended that the Assembly should resume their le gislative functions. They pretended to leave them a locus penitentic, whereas they left them none in reality, and this Bill was merely a pretext whereon to found a measure in the next Session to swamp the Assembly altogether; their intrigues had occasioned the adoption by the Assembly of the resolutions of lea, and now they wished to make Parliament participate in their dirty work of driving the Assembly to extremities. Lord Normanby had said that, in his opinion, when the Emancipation Act passed there ought to have been no Legislative Assemblies, and this Bill was brought forward to enable him to adopt that principle. He believed that every one who knew the colony agreed with him in opinion that if this form of Goverment should be established the fate of that colony would be scaled. Several gentle inen, with whom he had conversed, and who had been long resident in Jamaica, entirely corroborated his view of the effect's likely to be produced by the measure. It would be equally fatal to all classes of the commu nity. 'When the petition was first brought forward, the Government told those connected with Jamaica that the Bill was necessary to protect them from the prepon derance of the Negro population in consequence of the Emancipation, and on this ground the Central Emanci pation Society, with Mr. Sturge at their head, had actu ally determined to oppose the Bill. But when he (Mr. Burge) at the bar of the House of Commons had, in the name of the Assembly, disclaimed all fears on that head the Government changed their course and Old the measure was necessary to protect the negro population from the bad legislation of the whites. The Bill had been begun in fraud, and had been continued in deceit up to the present moment. In the former Bill, and in the debate upon it, the absolute necessity of the Prisons Bill was insisted upon most strongly. Surely if it was so absolutely necessary then, it was as much so now ; yet there was not one word in the new Bill about it —(Hear, hear.) That was not the proper time to go generally into the Orders in Council ; he would only say that , ey might do very well for the Crown Colonies where the ii inciples of the English law had never been introduced, ' , here the trial by jury had never been established. Yet Hwy were to be told that they were protecting the negro ovulation, when they were putting the trial of causes in tee power of a single magistrate, from whose decision there was no appeal—to be told they were protecting the eegro when they took from him the right of trial by jury. It was monstrous. He would only further say of them that in the Orders' n Council there was as much to be found for the welfare and benefit of the negro, as there ees judgment in the manner in which they were brought :aril. He ti ()slid not for a moment allow it to be said the people of Jamaica wished to have bad legislation :ley wanted good legislation—they wished legislation which would be perfectly consistent with the political and civil freedom which all classes enjoyed, and which would test harmonize with all the relations of one to another, and which would maintain and secure the prosperity and secu iit of the island. That, he was sure, was the feeling in • hat room, and lie was certain that it was the feeling of the eeeple of Jamaica. He begged to call their attention to the date of the Orders —suppose the Bill were to receive the Royal Assent at the earliest possible moment—suppose, which he firmly believed would never be the case, the Bill were to pass with all celerity through both Houses of Parliament, it could not bo sent out to Jamaica before the Ist of August, it would not arrive there till the 15th of September. The Assembly was prorogued, and it would he at least fourteen days before it could meet, and then they would have two days in which to re-enact all those laws—only two days, because on the Ist of October the Governor and Council commenced their functions. Sir Lionel Smith had made a most unfair use of the state of the law as he represented it, that the planters were rejoivd that the 35th Charles 11. was unrepealed, because wider it they would have power to flog freemen from parish to parish.—( Oh, oh.) Now he had been fourteen years the Attorney-General of Jamaica, and he would say that not one prosecution or punishment ever took place under that law, and he fully believed that it was not now in force.---( Hear, hear.) Yet this was the law it was re presented the planters were glad was unrepealed. It was impossible for the Assembly of Jamaica, consistently with their duty to their constituents, to pass those laws under the coercion of this Bill, It was neither more nor less than a Bill for transferring the whole of the legisla tion for Jamaica into the hands of the Home Government through the Governor and Council.—( Cheers.) He had felt it his duty to call upon them to discuss the merits of the Bi,ll--it was, in his opinion, as bad as the other one, and he hoped, nay, he was sure, they would petition against it. Earl ST. VINCENT said his eyes were first opened to the traitorous policy of the Colonial Office by the conduct of the Government upon the Prisons Bills. He then thought it was intended as a trap for catching the House of Assem bly, to induce them to take a course which would form a semblance of a justification for harsh and stringent conduct upon the part of the Government—(Cheers)—and no thing that had occurred since had induced him to forego that opinion. He would, in his place in Parliament, give the 11111 all the opposition in his power.---( Cheers.) Ile moved the adoption of the petition. Sir ALEXANVER GRANT seconded the resolu tion. He thought there could be no hesitation among that body who opposed the former Bill in Parliament to giro the present Bill their m o st strenuous oppo s ition. The _ obje c t o f t h e present B i ll was t h e same as t h at of the I former Bill, to do away with the Legislative Assembly. Lord J. Russell had stated that it was necessary to do away with th. Assembly, and in order that justice might be done to the "gr°e 3 ; and in that spirit of calumny which had been so ranch encouraged by certain parties, his Lordship ex ' claimed, " For one, Sir, I deeply lament that that mag nificent boon of compensation was distributed before the r object we had in view, that of doing justice to the negro, was actually carried into effect." Lord Normanby had stated he was of opinion the superseding of the Assembly should have been part of the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery, as, without that, justice could not be done to the negro. Tho Government ought to introduce measures to protect both masters and negroes, but it appeared that the latter were the main objects of their cen,iieration. He ( Sir A. G. )hoped that proper mea sures would be adopted by tke Legislature with reference _ to both.—( Hear, hear.) No man could stand forward and say with truth that the negroes were to be oppressed or could be oppressed ; but laws to protect the' proprietors were as much wanted, if not more, than laws for the pro tection of the negro. He begged to call the attention of the meeting to a declaration made by the Central Negro Emancipation Committee, published in all the News papers of this morning. He should like to know what objects a Committee for negro emancipation could have in view now; but he believed they were recognised and re ceived elsewhere, however ridiculous their proceedings might be. It was conducted by Mr. Stine, and he need not ask the meeting who or what Mr. Sturge was.—( Hear, hear.) The resolutions of that Committee, which had been published in all the daily papers.—( See First Page). —Nothing could be more dangerous, than to allow pro ceedings of that kind to go unnoticed. That meeting did not wish to interfere with the functions of any Govern ment ; and if they abstained from such interference, he thought they ought to deprecate such interference on the part of others. He ( Sir A. Grant) would draw up areso lution, which he would submit to the meeting for their ap. proval, expressive of their opinion on the conduct of that Committee. The total absence of impartiality on the part of Sir Lionel Smith, and the total inaccuracy of his state ments, was shown by his own despatches. If he ( Sir A. Grant had an option, he would prefer the former Bill in. troduced by Government, because by that Bill he would have to look to the Imperial Parliament for the measures to be adopted, whereas, by the present Bill, he was to look to the Colonial-office and its nominee only. He was not prepared to say the latter Bill was an amendment of the former; but of this be was certain, that both were highly objectionable.—( Hear, hear.) After a few observations from Mr. PHILLPOTS and Mr. MILNER, the resolutions were put to the meeting and car ried unanimously. Mr. BURGE moved that their solicitor be instructed to retain Mr. Sergeant Merewether and Mr. Reynolds as Counsel to be heard at the bar of the House of Commons against the Bill.—Agreed to. Sir ALEXANDER GRANT then moved a resolution in ac cordance with the suggestion he had thrown out, deprecat ing and protesting against the course pursued . by the Cen tral Negro Emancipation Committee, but on the sugges tion of the Noble Chairman withdrew it. On the motion of Mr. BURGE, the Earl of Harewood was requested to present the petition to the Lords, and Mr. Godson to the Commons. _ _ It was then agreed that copies of the resolutions should be transmitted to the Marquis of Normanby, and also sent as an advertisement to the different newspapers; and thanks having been voted to the Noble Chairman, the meeting separated. MARKET INTELLIGENCE. (From the London New Price Current of June 4.) SUGAR.--The British Plantation Sugar market has become very quiet; the demand since our last has been principally from the grocers, and they have purchased only sufficient to supply their immediate wants, although the merchants have submitted to a reduction on previous rates of is per cwt. This afternoon 118 hhds Barbadoes Sugar were sub mitted to public competition, all of which were disposed of, but there was no spirit in the biddings, yet former rates were supported, fine sold at 68s a 69s 6d, good 67s a 67s 6d, mid and good mid 64s a 66s 6d. REFINED.—The grocers have purchased sparingly of all descriptions of Refined goods, and rather lower prices have been submitted to ; for Lumps equal to the standard 82s has been accepted. For exportation the demand is now con fined to goods manufactured from Foreign Sugar in bond; sales in Crushed have been made at 365, and 10 lbs Loaves at 465; Bastards have been less in request, and prices are rather lower. Pieces have been taken sparingly, and sales have been made on rather easier terms. Treacle has been in good request, and has brought former rates. For Dutch Crushed Sugar the quotation is 345, at which some small sales have been made. MAURITICS.—The transactions have been confined to three public sales, consisting of 13,400 bags, all of which found buyers, but the merchants were compelled to sub mit to a reduction on previous rates of 6d to Is, and the principal part was taken by the grocers, ord to good grey sold at 62s to 665, good to fine yellow 66s to 685, mid to good mid 64s to 65s 6d, good to fine brown 62s 6d to 63s 6d. This afternoon at a public sale of 2,500 bags former rates were not supported by 6d per cwt, and some lots were bought in, good dry brown sold at 62s 6d to 635, mid to good yellow 64s to 67s per cwt. EAST INDIA' —In the prices of Bengal little change has occurred since this day week, but the purchases have been limited for home consumption b . - , private contract, and only 130 bags have been offered at auction, which sold rather cheaper, viz., good yellow at 65s to 65s 6d. Java has been sought after, and 300 baskets have been sold at stiff prices, viz, low to middling white at 29s to 30s 6d per cwt. This afternoon there were two small public sales of Bengal, viz. 759 bags, which went at previous rates, good and fine white sold at 68s. to 693, mid 67s to 67s 6d, damps 663 6d to 67s 6d, washed 64s to 67s per cwt. FOREIGN.-For yellow Havannah there was not much demand last week, and the purchases amounted to only 200 chests at 28s to 28s 6d for mid to good mid quality, which prices are net lower, but yesterday there was more inquiry, and 26s 6d to 27s were offered for low mid and re fused : white qualities taken more freely at former rates, the private purchases reach 560 boxes at 39s to 40s for mid. The brown descriptions of Brazil are held firmly, and have been in good demand for refining ; a cargo of nearly 400 chests Bahia has been taken by one firm, viz. new Sugars at 245, old 22s to 235, and some whites at 3ls for new, and old at 28s; a cargo has been sold at Liverpool for the same purpose, white at 31s, and brown at 24s t for shipment the opera tions have been limited in strong white and other sorts of Brazil, but importers have refused generally to submit to any reduction in prices Olt auction 203 chests 72 brls Bahia were nearly all taken in, strong grey 29s to 30s, low white at 27s 6d to 28s 6d, mid 30s to 325, ord soft 24s to 265, ord yellow and mid brown 21s to 24s 6d, soft 183 6d; 170 brls and bags Pernambuco were also principally taken in at 2b3 to 32s for low to mid white ; 12 half-chests white Rio sold cheap, viz. good mid strong at 28s 6d per cwt. MOLASSES.--WCSt India at previous rates ; by private contract fine Antigua has been sold at 365, mid St. Kitts and St. Vincents at 34s to 34s 6d, good 355; at public sale 170 puns Barbadoes were taken in, but sold after the sale at 33s for very thin quality ; 137 puns very old dark Berbice were bought is at 31s per cwt. COFFER.-This afternoon the public sales consisted of 4,112 bags Coffee imported from the Cape, (admiesable at a duty of 9d per lb), 103 bales Mocha, and 35 bags Salem, (subject to a duty of 6d ; of the Cape Coffee 1,737 bags consisted of good pale yellow, which sold briskly at 2s advance, and brought 78s to 80s ; the remainder was Brazil, and not being suitable for the home trade, it was all taken in at its former value—viz., good ord coloury at 51s to 523, a few lots cleaner fetched 52s to 56s ; the Salem went at 114 s for good pale yellow, and brown at 112 s per cwt ; the Mocha was taken in at 95s for good yellow mixed with pod. Since the sale, a large part of the Brazil Coffee has been taken for export at 503 per cwt. TEA.-There was only a small attendance of the trade at the Tea sales which commenced yesterday. The prices paid are as follows : —Ning Yong Is to Is Ohd ; Hung Miley, Is lid to is 4d; Hyson, 2s 2d to 2s 4d; Cowslip Hyson, 2s 7d to 2s Sid; Young Hyson, Is 54d to is fild, Orange Pekoe Is to 2s 6d, Imperial 2s 9d, Twankay is 3d to Is 31d, Congou, new coarse and mixed leaf 111 d to Is Old, in Bohea packages 101 d to 11d, rather strong and mixed blackish leaf Is Id to is 10, blackish leaf Is 2d to Is 4d, ditto strong Is 6d, ditto - Pekoe flavour is 10d to 2s 2d. To-day importers have submitted to rather lower prices. The total quantity passed the sale is now 19,850, of which 9,510 have been sold. TALLOW.-The principal holder has reduced his price on the spot to 47s Od to 47s 61 for Petersburg Yellow Candle of first quality. For delivery in the last three months prices have dropped to 45s 9d to 465. Town Tallow at the reduced quotations. Rust, BRANDY, AND HOLLANDS.-- Low Leewards have brought prices Id, and strong Jamaica and Lewards I l i d of 2d above those of this day week; the transactions. in Lecwards leave been 550 puns proofs to 3 per cent over at 3s 6d to 3s 7d, 6 to 9 over 3s 8d to 3s 9d, 10 to 12 over 3s tOd to, 33 I Id, 14 to 16 over 4s to 4s 2d, 31 to 33 over 5s Id to 5s 3d, 36 to 38 over 5s 4d to 5s 6d ; of Jamaica 400 punt: have been sold, 24 to 27 over proof at 5s 3d to 3s 4d, 28 to 32 over 5s 5d to 5s 6d, 33 to 35 over 5s 7d to 5s Bd, 36 to 38 over 53 9d to 5s 10d ; for 30 puns fino of favourite marks 6s 3d was paid. Brandy is held for the late advanced rates. In Geneva there is no change. Corn Spirits cheaper. SPICES.-Pepper is held firmly, low and good Sumatra at 30 to 4d, and other sorts at the quotations ; 430 bags common ussifted Sumatra at 3id to 4d. For Cassia Lignea buyers have been compelled to pay the late high prices. Jamaica Ginger, ord went 21 15s to 31 10s, mid and good at Si to 61 183. ; Bourbon at Is lid to is 4d for ord to very good. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. (LLOYD'S.) VESSELS SPOKEN WITII.—The Duchess of Northumber land, from Cape of Good Hope to London, 12th April ; Ernestine, Malescot, Sumatra, 19th ult.. lat. 46, lon.17; Henrietta, 22d, lat. 48, by the Semillante, arrived in the Loire ; Wm. Stoveld, Davidson, out 11 months, 400 bar rels ; Hope, Riley, of London, out two months, 30 bar rels ; Juno, Banks of Sydney, out four months, 400 bar rels; Nimrod, Butler, of Sydney, out seven weeks, 75 barrels; Lady Rowena, Appleby, out four months, 80 barrels ; Tigress, Williamson, out seven months, 160 barrels ; William the Fourth, out six months, 160 barrels; Lucy Anna, out seven months, 600 barrels; Calypso, Mauritius to Bristol, Bth ult., lat. 37, lon. 40, by the Meg Merrilies, arrived off Penzance ;;Antigua, Planter, in the Straits,by the RoyalTar,steamer,arrived in the river; Fame. Liverpool to Monte Video, 2d March, lat. 26, lon. 39; Caledonia, of Alloa, bound to Sydney, New South Wales, 4th ult., lat. 41, long. 15, by the Newton, Ferguson, arrived in the Clyde ; Crusade, Lord, Bordeaux to Mau ritius, 3d February, lat. 28 S. lon. 51 E. ; Thos. Lawry, Graham, London to Calcutta, 22d February, lat. 28 E., lon. 18 W. ; Mary Alton, Hutton, Liverpool for Pictou, Bth ult., lat. 50, lon. 33; Ocean, of Maryport, from Bathurst, 11th, lat. 56, lon. 27, by the Calcutta, Hinde, arrived at Gloucester. SAINTLY SLANDER.—Anotl►er name may be added to the list of gross and indecent slanderers of Ire land. The Rev. 'Ali% Morgan, of Belfast, has ventured to stake his character on the assertion that the life of a man—" of any man, however estimable"—may be taken away in Ireland for a few pounds. This is the cool and deliberate statement of the teacher of a Christian Congre tion. His other statement is the old lie out of date, `• as a spent sky-rocket," that the Bible is not circulated among the Catholic people of Ireland. Now, we have a circula tion of thirty-five thousand copies of the New Testament, and ten tho:isand copies of the Bible in a single di:trict o in less than half a dozen years.—Belfast Vindicator. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1839 IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 4. At a Quarter before Five o'Clock, the Lord Chan cellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Earl Shaftes bury, took their seats as Commissioners, when the Royal Assent was given to Dean of Exeter, &c. Ap pointments Bill ; Seditious Societies Act Amendment Bill ; Purchasers' Protection Bill ; Designs Copyright Extension Bill ; British Museum Buildings Bill ; Staf fordshire Potteries (Stipendiary Justice of the Peace) Bill ; Great Western Railway Bill ; London and South ampton Railway (Portsmouth Branch) Bill ; London and Greenwich Railway Bill ; London and Croydon Railway Bill ; Perth Harbour and Navigation Bill ; Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal Bill; Chelten ham Waterworks Bill ; Rochdale Waterworks Bill ; Wearmouth and Tyne Bridge Road Bill ; Cullompton Road Bill ; Rugby and Warwick Road Bill ; Berkeley (Gloucester) Inclosure Bill ; Totley, or Dronfield (Derby) Inclosure Bill ; Unstone (Derby) Inclosure Bill ; Ringstead (Northampton) Inclosure Bill ; Na pier's Divorce Bill. The House adjourned during pleasure, and after a short interval resumed. Lord TEYN HAM presented a petition from a place in Ireland, praying for the adoption of a penny post age. The Noble Lord slid he would take this oppor tunity of saying, that he knew the Right Rev. Bishop, in respect to whore some observations were made last night by a Noble Baron opposite, with regard to something that had appeared in a newspaper ; and he could assure the House that her Majesty had not, within her realms, a more loyal subject than that Rev. Prelate, nor one who would more unwillingly attempt to interfere improperly with the laws of the country. Lord WHARNCLIFFE could only say that if that Rev. Prelate, and which was all he had said before, had signed the requisition to which he adverted, it was aleo in his opinion absolutely necessary that that should be taken notice of. The Bishop of EXETER presented several petitions, as we understood, against the Church Discipline Bill. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented peti tions from the Deaneries 3f Bristol, Gloucester, and other places to the same 4,ffect. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Len nox Town, in Stirlingshire, against a farther extension of the Established Church in Scotland ; also a petition from the inhabitants of Glasgow for improvement of prison discipline ; also a number of other petitions, the effect of which we did not catch. MALTESE ORDINANCES. The Nour and LEARNED LORD would take this opportunity of reminding the House that when he brought before its notice the Maltese ordinances, a gentleman, describing himselflas the agent for the Mal tese, appeared before the House upon a petition, and objected to those ordinances being altered or re voked. He (the Noble and Learned Lord) at that time took the liberty of saying he did not believe that that person was the agent of any body but himself. It turned out that he was right in that supposition, because he at that moment held in his hand two newspapers, the organs of that party —entirely repudiating and individual, and dis claiming his being a Maltese agent. The pa pers had published in English and Italian the debate in their Lordships' House—gave all the argu ments in favour of the ordinances, and in the result strongly supported his (the Noble and Learned Lord's) view of the subject. Upon the whole, he never remem bered to have known anything more audacious than the conduct of the person to whom he had alluded was in having put himself forward as he did. The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had never alluded to that individual as the agent of the inhabi tants of Malta, or otherwise. He believed that his Noble Friend had referred to him as a very active person. As to the reception of the ordinances in Malta, be could only say that within the last two days he had received dispatches from the Governor there, which gave a different character of the view that was taken of the ordinances to what their Lordships might suppose from what they had heard the newspapers, which the Noble and Learned Lord had, gave of them. Lord BROUGHAM said there could be no doubt that the Governor would give his own opinion of the ordinances. The Maltese journals would give theirs, and the result would show whether the Governor or the Maltese themselves most truly described their own feelings. Lord LYNDHURST wished to know whether the Noble Lord opposite (Nermanby) would have any ob jection to lay on the table of the House the Report of the Commissioners, presented to the Noble Earl, the late Governor of Canada. The Marquis of NORMANBY thought the proper course would be for the Noble and Learned Lord to give notice. Lord LYNDHURST said that the Council of Upper Canada had published certain resolutions against the union of the two Canadas. He wished to know whether the Noble Marquis would have any objection to lay those resolutions on the table of the House. The Marquis of NORMANBY said the fact was that the Legislative Council had negatived the resolu tion for a union of the two Canadas, but the House of Assembly had agreed to it. He could have no objec tion, however, to lay the resolutions on the table of the House. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a po tion from Frome, in favour of a uniform penny postage. The Bishop of RIPON presented a petition from Leeds against the Church Discipline Bill. The Right Rev. Prelate felt bound to state that he did not feel that objection to the Bill which the petitioners had urged. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, consider ing the station he held in the Church, and from the na ture of the objections made to the Bill, he did not feel that it would be consistent with his duty to allow this opportunity to pass without making a few o bservations. On the importance of this subject there could be no question. For the honour and usefulness of the Church there ought to be some mode of punishing the Clergy who degraded themselves, and who injured the Church by gross immorality in any respect, and if there was to be a coercive power in that respect there must be an effec tive tribunal to exercise it. It was proposed by this Bill to allow the hearing of causes in the Court of Atches, with one single appeal to the Judicial Com mittee, by which there would be a certain expense saved, and which would no doubt be productive of be nefit. He could not forget the grave charges that were made in that House on a former occasion when this subject was discussed. He heard these grave charges brought forward, and he was utterly astounded at the hard words used on the occasion by a Right Rev. Prelate. He never could have supposed before that such language could have been applied to so slight a cause. The Right Rev. Prelate to whom he had alluded had said that he should be a traitor to the Church if he could be a party to the proceeding then before the House. The inference from that was that all the Bishops who were parties to it were traitors to the Church, or at least partakers of the treason, from not knowing what they were about. He must take the liberty of saying . that that cert a i n ly was no t lan guage befitting the occasion. In the fi ve y ears preced ing the Ecclesiastical Comm ission there were in all the dioceses of England only fifteen cases of prosecution. It could not be an essential power which was so rarely exercised ; it was very expensive and very inefficient ; and if the discipline of the Church depended on the exercise of that power, they might say there was no discipline in the Church. Every one called for some remedy for this inefficiency ; and he thought the Bill of 1836 was not the remedy that should have been applied. By that Bill it was enacted that the Bishop should sit in person to try the cause, assisted by asses sors. He looked upon the principle of that Bill as objectionable, although he had supported it, because he could get no better measure ; and the case of Dr. Free had raised such a clamour against the existing state of Church discipline, as made it ne cessary- to do something ; but the Members of the Ec clesiastical Commission would recollect that he had always disclaimed it, and urged the adoption of some better measure. It was, moreover, very offensive to the 1 clergy, who felt that their honour, and all they held clear, depended on the summary decision of a Bishop, who, they might imagine, possibly entertained a preju dice against them. It was also exceedingly distressing to the feelings of an aged Bishop to be called on to decide such a question, amidst all the endeavours which would be made to work upon his fears and his sympa thies, and his natural desire to avoid bringing scandal on the Church. Taking every thing into consideration, he thought nothing could be better than the disci pline of the Church, and the attention paid by the clergy to the wishes of their spiritual superiors, but this arose from kindness on the part of the Bishops, He had never prosecuted any clergyman, but he had persuaded many who had been guilty of derelictions of their duty to resign their livings, and they had taken his advice ; but he could not expect they would advise with him on subjects of this sort if he were called on to sit in judgment on them, or to act as their accuser. It would be an extinguisher upon episcopal authority in its best form if a Bishop were converted into a judge and a prosecutor. He had brought forward that Bill after consulting with his Right Rev. Brethren who were in London, and they all appeared to be unani mous in supporting it, and it was not until very lately that he had lea rne d th a t t h ere wou ld be any opposi tion to it. Then, with respect to the clergy, a great number of petitions had been laid on the table by the two Right Rev. Prelates to whom he had alluded, and he should have wondered if there were not. Letters had been publi s h e d;i n th e papers , i n w hi c h his Right Rev. Friend the Bi s h o p of Exeter had iesited the clergy of his diocese to petition against the Bill. All admitted the eloquence, and talents, and abilities of his Right Rev. Friend, and he had presided over the diocese of Exeter long enough to have sufficient influence with the clergy to induce all of them to follow his advice. His other Right Rev. Friend, the Bishop of Gloucester, whose abilities were acknowledged by every one, had also addressed the clergy of his diocese on the same subject. He held in his hand a document embodying the objections of a seat of learning, emanating from men of the highest respectability and the most unimpeach able character ; on one side the objections were stated, and on the other was the form of a petition, which the clergy were required to sign, and that document had been very extensively circulated. Now if the clergy, by whom these petitions were signed, were no better informed upon the subject than their learned brethren of the University of Oxford, very little weight could be attached to their petitions. The Most Rev. Prelate then read at some length the allegations in the petitions presented against the Bill, which .ended with stating that if the present measure were carried the constitution of the Church would be destroyed, and its episcopal authority infringed, and that the Church had not con sented to the measure. Now he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) hoped that neither would the Church be destroyed nor its episcopal authority infringed, and the best way to secure both from being injured was to vote in favour of the present measure. The Most Rev. Prelate concluded by apologizing for having trespassed so long upon their Lordships' time. The Bishop of EXETER hoped, as he had been so personally alluded to, that their Lordships would in dulge him with a few minutes' attention. He had not had the good fortune on the previous occasion to hear the arguments of the Noble and Learned Lord, or the Most Reverend Prelate, in favour of the measure. He appealed to their Lordships whether it was quite fair to impute motives to him which he had never entertained. When he had, in perfect sincerity of feeling, declared that he should be a traitor to the Church if he had not resisted a measure which he conscientiously believed to be pregnant with great mischief, was it to be said that he had charged others, who as conscientiously differed from him, with being traitors to the Church ?—( Hear, bear.) If he did not know the fairness, the candour, and kindly feeling, and the justice of the Most Reverend Prelate, he would say that a more manifestly unjust charge, a more cruel accusation had never been made. While he acknowledged the obedience and reverence which he owed to the Most Rev. Prelate as his Metro politan, and which no man was more i nc li ne d t o p a y, h e must take leave to point out some particulars in which be respectfully differed from that Most Rev. Prelate. He believed that he had been greatly deceived. One thing surprised him very much in the Most Rev. Pre late's statement of the merits of the case. He con- 1 sidered the present discipline of the Church as being peculiarly excellent, and he instanced the few trials of , clergymen for misconduct in proof of it ; hut he (the Bishop of Exeter should not certainly urge that as a ground for altering the system. He came to a very different conclusion from that premise. if such was the practical result of the present s y stem, o bj ect i ona bl e and anomalous as it was, he was surprised present to me fi a Ll re it . a little. Th e M os t A attemptednnoiAnother t h t i on tong be u s r e p t r i aside sed h i nbly not the Rev. Prelate stated, with respect to Bishops sitting on the trial of clergymen (having done him th e h onour o f quoting some expressions of his) that he (the Bishop of Exeter) had said such a step would extinguish epis copal authority, and be a fatal blow to the Church. Now one of the names attached to the report in which that observation occurred was that of the most Rev. Prelate himself.—(Hear, hear.) The question was, whether the episcopal jurisdiction of the Bishop would be destroyed if the present Bill was passed. He (the Bishop of Exeter) believed it would, and although he feared that he would be in a very small minority in his opposition to the Bill, it was matter of deep and painful regret that he was compelled to say lie thought he was right in the view he had taken of the subject. The Right Rev. Prelate read several questions put to and answers given by Bishops in the service at consecration of Bishops, and contended that if there was to be no exercise of episcopal jurisdiction, the solemn service at the consecration of Bishops was nothing more than a solemn mockery. The same might also be said of the service at the ordination of Priests. If that ju risdiction existed, how ought it to be exercised? There were but two ways in which it could be exercised—either arbitrarily, or by that pro cess which common equity and justice, and the analogy of every judicial proceeding pointed out. The episcopal Chu rc h in America exercised that jurisdiction at this mom en t b y process. Wh at was the meaning of Church and State? What was the meaning of the State prot ec ti ng it--of its acknowledging one particular body of Christians as the Church of Christ ? By ac knowledging it as the Church, they acknowledged their own duty of carrying into effect the essen ti a l p arts of the disciplin e o f t h at Churc h , an d o f giving to the episcopal ju r i s di ct i on such c i v il sanc tion as would ensure the e ff ec ti ve exerc i se o f i t. It might be said that the judicial process was not extineuished, but %vas merely given to the Court of Arches, and that the De an of the Court of Ar c h es was the representative' of the Arch bishop of Canterbury. All he (the Bishop of Exeter) could say was, that the Dean of the Arches bad no app j such commis s i on f rom the Arc hbi s h o p of Canterbury. All he had was the ellate urisdicticm , the original jurisdiction of the Bishops ;i recognisingf, but this Bill passed, the ex erc i se o f the ep i scopa l jurisdiction would be taken to the Court of Arches by Act of Parliament. in whi c h t h e A rc hbi s hop of Canterbury , or There was o ne way, and one wa y only, upon Church principles, any one who h e ld j ur i sd i ct i on un d er him, could have the jurisdiction w hi c h t hi s Bil l propose d to give to him, and that was by d ec l ar i ng that there s h ou ld be only one diocese in England. B ut t h e Bill was no t satisfied with giving to the Archbishop of Canterbury or his officers juris diction over the whole province of Canterbury, because it extended it over the whole province of York. H e i (the Right R ev . P re l ate) a d m itted that t was quit e competent for th e St ate to ma ke one whole diocese, and one whole p rov i nce o f a ll E ng l an d, but then it was to b e recollected th at t h e prov i nce o f Y o rk, when it accepted the canons of E ng l an d, en tered into a condition 1 that it should have all the rights held by the Archbishop of Canterbury ; therefore this pro position would have the effect of excusing the province of York from all the duties which it owed to those canons. Again, by this Bill, there was one diocese—that of the Isle of Man which was to he excepted from its operations. Neither that Court, nor any appeal from it was to be affected by the Bill. Now he did not like to use the word " absurd," which he had ' already heard made use of, but if there was an occasion on which he felt he might use it, it would be when he observed that the Court of York was to be kept up for appellate jurisdiction, when it was to be declared to have no longer any original jurisdiction. There were certainly alterations proposed to be admitted into the Bill, which were undoubtedly necessary, and which would have the effect of entirely destroying the character of the Bill. The Bill proposed to give the power of excommunication, deprivation, degrada tion, and spiritual censure to the Court of Arches, but then it was forgotten that by one of the Canons of the Church, that power could only he exercised by the Bishops. All the Kings, all the Queens, and all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with all the Commons that ever lived, could not give that power to the Court of Arches which this Bill presumptuously proposed to give—namely, to strip the Clergy of their Ministerial character in the Lord Jesus Christ. No lay tribunal whatever could be found capable of the power to de grade the clergy to the state of laymen. He challenged the whole or any of his Right Reverend Friends to say that such a proposition could he sustained. If, then, the State could not give the power of degradation and deposition to any Court, there must be some tribunal left for that purpose—(Hear)—and none but the Bishops could compose that tribunal. The House might as well say it could give to the Court of Arches the power of making a clergyman, as it could give to that Court the power of depriving a clergyman of his clerical character. If the Court of Arches could dream that they could find Bishops to come forward to be their mouth-pieces, he was quite sure that that Court would find none of his Right Rev. and Learned Friends who would make their appearance to be the mere hang man of that Court. If this Bill passed, the main pro vision of it would be impracticable, because it would not be able to carry into effect its own provisions. But it was said that the discipline of the Church must be dif ferent, where that Church was protected by the State. All that was essential for the welfare of the Church, the State was bound to uphold. The governmen t of the Church the State was essentially hound to maintain even by a reference to the Coronation oath. What would be the state of the Church supposing this Bill were to pass ? Its legislative power was already extinct, be cause the Church was never permitted to meet for the purposes of legislation ; all legislation was carried on by the State. Now, whatever evils might result from the meetings of a Convocation, or of a Synod, he must say that the evils resulting from the meetings of the State, when he saw what laws were proposed to be enacted, were unquestionably much greater. The passing of this Bill would be the extinction of as far as it was possible for man to extinguish the true episcopal character of the Church of England ; the Church would be stripped at once of its judicial power, practi cally of itslegislativecharacter, and mainly of its executive. If a measure of this nature were proposed to be applied to the Church of Scotland the whole of Scotland would rise en masse against it, and the Union would be proved to be indeed a parchment one. If a similar interference were to be proposed with the conference of Methodists they would agitate England from one end to the other, and they would be right in so doing. He believed that in such a case even the peaceableness of the Quakers would be found most formidable. Thus the Church of England was the only body of Christians in this country who could be assailed with impunity. He felt it his duty to avow these sentiments, at whatever hazard of having improper motives imputed to him, and he did not think their Lordships would impute such motives to him because he candidly and manfully avowed his opinions. He admitted that evils existed, and he would be willing to state what he would do to meet these evils. He would adopt the principles laid down in the Report of 1832. He would increase the power of the Bishops. That Report had not only the sanction of the Most Reverend Prelate who now disapproved of its recommendation, but he observed the signatures of the Right Reverend Prelates of London and Bangor, and by one whom he deeply regretted they had not now among them, he meant the late Bishop of Durham. He was sure if that good, that excellent man, had been now cheering them by his presence, and giving strength and confidence to those around him, he would so have addressed their Lordships, or rather he would so have ad dressed his Right Reverend Brethren out of this House, that this Bill would never have been proposed. It was intended to destroy the authority of the Bishops, and was in direct contradiction to the Report of 1832. He would say do not shackle the Bishop with asses sors, but leave him to the power 41f choosing his assistants pro re nata. The Deans and Chapters present a body of assistants, always ready at his call. He would also suggest that there should be only one appeal, and that should be to the Court of Arches ; the Judicial Committtee of the Privy Council, who were to have the hearing in the last case, consisted of 12 officers, not one of whom need be a member of the Church of England, and only two of whom need be Protestants. Did not common sense declaim against this ? Such was his opinion of the effects likely to be produced by this Bill, and he should move as an amendment that it be committed that day six months. The Bishop of LONDON said that the reasons which had induced him to give his support to the pre sent measure, had been so ably urged by the Most Rev. Prelate„that he should not feel himself called on to trouble their Lordships at any great length. But he felt it necessary to do away in a few words with the force of the authority which had been so feelingly urged by the Right Rev. Prelate against this Bill, the autho rity of one of the wisest, most benevolent, and best men that ever lived—he meant the late Bishop of Durham. It was true his name was affixed to the Report, but it was not less true that there was one portion of that Report to which he strongly objected ; and although he would not withhold his signature , because he agreed with the general principles of it, yet he stated his reluc tance to do so on account of its containing one por tion of which he could not approve, that which gave the Bishop the power of sitting as a Judge ; from this he said he shrunk with dismay ; and his own experience since he had affixed his signature to that Report had convinced him of the force of this objection. Having, as a young man, devoted considerable atten tion to the study of Ecclesiastical Law, he thought he could easily give an opinion on any simple case that might be brought before him, but he was now convinced of the impossibility of any one performing the functions of a Judge who had not devoted his whole time and at tention to the study of the laws. Even in the Court over which the Right Reverend Prelate sometimes presided, and which possessed a Chancellor who possessed a greater knowledge of the laws and of the de cisions then fell to the lot of many, a decision after great care and attention had been come to, which, when submitted to the opinion of an eminent Counsel, was at once discovered to have a flaw in it, showing that it bad been come to in direct contradiction to the first princi ples of adjudication in Ecclesiastical Courts, What, then, was likely to be the case with Bishops who, from the variety of their occupations, cannot devote that attention to the study of the law unless they take it from those higher and more important duties which are of the deepest concern ?—(Hear, hear,) Besides, if the Bishop sat as judge in his own court, in three cases out of four he would be obliged to sit as accuser and judge both. He thought his Right Rev. Friend had unintentionally confounded the different kinds of juris diction which belonged to the episcopal office. The spiritual jurisdiction, confirmation, ordination could not be transferred, but beyond that he was of opinion that the case was different. The power of enforcing spiri tual censures, although lodged by the Church in the hands of the Bishops, had for ages been delegated to lay judges. Sentence of excommunication might be passed by the civil judge, and could have no effect until it had been pronounced by the Ecclesiastical Courts. The Bishop of EXETER—No, no ! The Bishop of LONDON believed excommunication to be a species of spiritual censure ; but confining himself to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishops, it was well established that they never delegated that authority to others. He regretted to hear one sentiment from the Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) on account of the mischief it would produce in other quarters. The Right Rev. Prelate said that if the present Bill passed, it would prove the fact which was frequently in the mouths of Roman Catholics when they objected to the Established Church as being an Act of Parliament Church. Now he would ask the Right Rev. Prelate whether, in any measure with respect to ecclesiastic ju risdiction or discipline which he had brought forward, he had contemplated bringing it into operation in any other way than by Act of Parliament ? Now he contended that so long as the present connec tion existed between the Church and the State, 1 1 he hoped he should never hear any doctrine advanced for the separation of that union, it would be inferred that the jurisdiction of the Church must be derived from the Sovereign.—(Hear, hear.) Bishop Gibson, who was no great advocate for the in terference of the State in Church affairs, held that all authority and supremacy were derived from the Sove reign, as the head of the Church. There were various matters of discipline which it was at once evident could not be enforced without the interference of the State and the powers conferred by it. The present Bill was merely a measure kr the enforcement of certain duties as regarded laws and morals, by the Church, and that was a point in which it never was held that the State might not interfere. The Bishops and Archbishops, in 1743, held that such was a proper subject for the in terference of temporal power. He apprehended that the Right Rev. Prelate did not mean to insist on the power of the Bishops to pronounce sentence of ex communication without the interference of a com petent tribunal.--(Hear, hear.) He should be sorry to see any clergyman, whether Bishop or Priest, taking upon himself that most dangerous power, too liable to be abused, as they had seen it abused by the clergy of other churches, for the worst purposes. It ' was a proof of the wiom of their Reformers that they did not assert the power of personal, private, and indi vidual judgment, but left It to be decided by competent tribunals, free from all suspicion, and perfectly impartial. He was glad to hear the small number of trials of i cler gymen for misconduct that had taken place, and f the present Bill passed, the number would be much dimi nished. The clergymen of the present day were a much more highly educated class of men, but that was not the sole reason, but because they would have an inex pensive, a speedy, and an impartial tribunal for the trial of criminus Clergymen. A Bishop could send for a criminus Clergyman, and advise him to reform his conduct or retire ; and he believed that practice was carried on under the present system. But nothing could he more improper than that a Bishop should have a private communication with a clergyman upon whose ease he would have to sit as judge, and about which he ought to know nothing until the evidence came be fore him. The difficulty which he felt was that of trans ferring the trial of ecclesiastical causes to the Court of another Bishop. That certainly weighed heavily on his ntind, and he wished there was some other mode of getting over it. But he could not see any measure which, on the whole, was so likely to effect great good, with so little of concomitant evil. Not seeing any serious evil —balancing its evils and advantages, and thinking the balance greatly in favour of the latter, he should give it his support. He quite agreed, however, with the Right Reverend Prelate that the word degra dation should not be in the Bill at ail. He had no ob jection to the word deprivation being introduced, but it appeared to him that holy orders once conferred were indelible. A clergyman might be suspended, and that had been frequently done by the State, but he doubted whether any ecclesiastical tribunal was competent to deprive a man of holy orders, and therefore the word " degradation" might be fairly omitted from the Bill. He admitted all the difficulties of the case, but he thought the objections urged against it much less than the advantages of the mea sure. There might be some modifications of the Bill in Committee, and while regretting any variation from that ecclesiastical polity which had been so providen tially and so wisely established in that country, be thought the present ope n to fewer objections than any other measure that ad been proposed. Lord WYNFORD said that notwithstanding the passing of this Act, the criminal jurisdiction over the clergy would still be retained in the Bishops, and it was utterly impossible to suppose that any laymen could he such good judges of clerical offences as the Bishops, and questions must arise which alone could come under the jurisdiction of the Right Rev. Prelates. He ob jected to this Bill, and his great objection to it was that it had all the: mischiefs connected with it which the present law had. He did not mean to say that some alteration should not be made in the law as it now existed, but the alterations proposed by this Bill were not such as the House ought to enter tain. He was quite sure that the expensiveness of the proceedings, as proposed by the Bill, would be much greater than under the old law—the inconvenience would be greater, and he could see nothing recommen datory in the measure. If the Bill were to pass no one would be found to become a promoter of its provisions —it would fall to the ground a dead letter. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER said, that having been accused even by name by a Right Reverend Prelate, of having been engaged in getting up petitions against this Bill, he could not consent to give a silent rote on the occasion ; and when the Right Rev. Prelate came to look at the matter calmly he would be of opinion that he (the Bishop of Bristol) came forward as a just opponent to the Bill. He was of opinion that the Bill that was proposed before was a better Bill than this. He was not in town last year when this subject was discussed in their Lordships' House, but he admitted that he did address a letter to each of the Archdeacons of his diocese, begging of them to learn what were the sentiments of the clergy of his diocese on the question, and he did think that the petitions which had been sent up from his diocese against the Bill constituted a very strong argument against it. The objections urged by the" Bishop of Exeter had not been answered. All agreed: that the object was to have some judicature which would adequately correct the delinquencies of the clergy, when they occurred, though he was happy to say those delinquencies were of rare occurrence indeed. The' only question there was—what would be the fit test judicature ? Certainly this Bill did not propose to bring forward that fittest judicature. The Bill began by some enactments, which were directly in the teeth of some of their canons. This Bill would not tend to screen the real delinquent, while it would tend very much to injure the innocent. The Right Rev. Pre late teconcluded by saying that he was decidedly opposed to the Bill. After a few observations from the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the Bill went through Committee pro forma, and the House adjourned till Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 4. The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour. On the motion of Mr. FRESHFIELD, Lardner's Divorce Bill was read a third time and passed. Lord SANDON brought up the report of the Com mittee on the Liverpool Churches Bill. CHELTENHAM IMPROVEMENT BILL. General LYGON brought up the Report on the Cheltenham Improvement Bill. On the motion that it be received, Mr. C. BERKELEY moved as an amendment, that the Report be received this day six months. He ad mitted that a new Bill was required for the town of Cheltenham, and therefore agreed to the Bill hav ing been read a first and second time ; but it was entirely on the promise of the Parliamentary agent that the objectionable clauses should be withdrawn, and alterations made so as to render the Bill palatable to the rate-payers. A petition signed by 2,500 persons, however, had been presented against the Bill. On going into Committee the Parliamentary agent refused to fulfil his promise, and he was therefore entitled to ob ject to the Bill on that ground. But he claimed the rejection of the Report on higher grounds, because it introduced the worst feature of Sturges Bourne's Act, giving a plurality of votes, thus tending to swamp the body of rate-payers. On these two grounds he moved that the Report be received this day six months. Capt. PEC HELL seconded the amendment. General LYGON said there had been several divi sions in the Committee, but in every case the Hon. Member had stood alone. Sir E. KNATCHBULL was satisfied the House would never reject the Bill on the flimsy arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for Cheltenham. Sir C. LEMON said a petition had been presented to the House against the Bill, but no parties appeared before the Committee to support the allegations con tained in it. Mr. C. BERKELEY said the reason of that was, that the rate-payers who had signed the petition could not afford to pay ten or twenty guineas a day in de fending the petition. Sir - DE LACY EVANS believed that a large body of the rate-payers, for whose benefit the Bill was said to be intended, were decidedly opposed to it. One clause of the Bill which enthorised plural and proxy voting, was decidedly objectionable. Mr. CODRINGTON supported the Bill. After a few woods from Mr. G. BERKLEY, Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and The House divided, and the numbers were— For the Bill Against it Majority for the Bill The Report was then agreed to. On the motion of Mr. WARD, the Northern and Eastern Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. On the motion of Mr. LASCELLES, the Leeds and Harewood Road Bill was read a third time, as was the West Beckham Alby (Norfolk) Inclosure Bill. STOCKDALE AND HANSARD. Mr. Gurney brought up the Report of the judg ment in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, which, on the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, was ordered to be printed. Mr. Palmer, the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod, summoned the House to the House of Peers, for the purpose of hearing the Royal assent given by Commis sion to several Bills, for which see the Lords' report. Mr. WYNN complained of the interruption of the private business by the Commissions arriving at such an hour ; he hoped care would be taken in future to pre vent it. Mr. HARVEY gave notice that, on this day fort night, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the better administration of public chari ties.—(Cheers.) Mr. SLANEY gave notice that, on the same day, ho would move a resolution, pledging the House to pro vide public walks in the neighbourhood of large towns. Mr. PAKINGTON postponed the further pro ceedings on the Sale of Beer Bill till the 19th of June. Mr. GODSON gave notice that to-morrow he would present a petition from the planters and others connected with Jamaica, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Jamaica Bill. On Friday he would move in ac cordance with the petition. Mr. HUME gave notice that on the consideration of the Report on the Supreme Courts of Scotland Bill, he would move that the number of Judges in the Court of Session be reduced from thirteen to nine. Lord DUNGANNON gave notice, that to-morrow he would move for a copy of all communications received by the Secretary for the Home. Department from Lords Lieutenant of Counties in England and Wales, relative of the assembling together and arming of large bodies of people, calling themselves Chartists. Sir STRATFORD CANNING gave notice that he should tomorrow put a question to the Government respecting the blockade at Buenos Ayres. CANADA. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that as reference was made last night to certain information received from Canada by the Government, he hoped directions would be immediately given f or the presentation of those papers to Parliament. Mr. LABOLTCHERE could assure the Right li on . Baronet that the reformation to which he had alluded would be laid on the table of the House at the very earliest possible period, in a printed form. Sir C. E. GREY wished to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary for• the Colonies to some remarks which had been made by the Hon. Member for Lis keard.—(Cries of " Order.") The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member might put a question, but could not be allowed to argue the matter. Sir C. GREY again rose, but was assailed with cries of " Order," and shouts of laughter from the Tories. What he wished to state he would put in the form of a question.—(Cries of " Order.") The ordinance to which the Hon. Member for Liskeard had referred, was dated the Bth of April, and entitled the li , t of the 2d Victoria. That was not yet laid before the House. The House had before it three ordinances numbered 45, 46, and 47 of the 2d Victoria, dated the 12th and 21st December. The question which be wished t,-) ask was, whether the Hon. Under-Secretary could explain the difference between these numbers. Mr. LADOUCHERE said he could not explain the circumstance.—(Laughter.) The ordinance re ferred to had been just renewed. COURT OF CHAINCERY (IRELAND) BILL. In answer to a question from Colonel Percival, Lord MORPETH said this f7ill was under the consi deration of the Treasury ; but whether he should he able to introduce it this session he could not at pre sent say. CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose for the purpose of moving that the Church Discipine Bill be committed. At the close of the last Session a Bill similar to the present was brought under the con ideration of their Lordships. That Bill was read a se cond time, but upon the motion for the third reading it was withdrawn at the suggestion of a Right Rev. Prelate. The Noble Lord was in hopes that in the interval some course would have been adopted to put an end to the evil the Bia was contemplated to remedy, but such not having been the case he felt bound to state to their Lordships the nature of the remedy proposed, and the present law upon the subject. In making that statement he should confine himself to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commisioners in 1832. That commission was com posed of a considerable number of Bishops and Judges of the greatest eminonco, therefore there was as much of ecclesiastical and legal authority in that Commission as could well be collected. The reference to the Com missioners was genes ally with respect to the Ecclesias tical Courts, and they had to enquire into the power that existed of enforcing Church discipline. Those Commissioners stated, that in early times there was an unlimited power given to the Bishops over the Clergy. They had the power of removing them, and suspending them at their pleasure, and that power was increased by an Act of Heny VII. Such; was the state of the law up to the period of the Reformation, when great changes were made upon a demand, that Ecclesiastical subjects should be administered in Ecclesiastical Courts, in the same manner as other subjects were adminis tered in other courts. The Act of Henry VII. was now, though still the law, practically repealed. One of the objects of this Bill was to repeal that Act. It was impossible that that the law could re main longer as it was. The Archbishop's Courts and the Diocesan Courts were well known. But their Lordships perhaps did not know that there were 300 other Ecclesiastical Courts, of which it was not known which had criminal jurisdiction and which had not—the Judges seldom, if ever, acquainted with the law ; sometimes with deputies at salaries of 101. 10s. Were these the kind of Judges to whose discretion was to be committed the character and property of a class of men so well entitled to protection as the clergy ?—( Hear, hear.) Now what was the remedy to be applied? In 1836, a Bill for abolishing all the minor Ecclesiastical Courts, and concentrating the jurisdiction in the Arch bishop's Court, was introduced and approved of by a Se lect Committee. The plan of giving the Bishops juris diction, with an assessor, he (the Lord Chancellor) con sidered absurd and impracticable. The proposition for a jury of clergymen had excited great opposition among that body, and in the House of Commons. Their Lordships must not forget that at the present moment the jurisdiction of the Bishops was virtually at an end. If a suit were instituted in the country, the papers which the Proctors had in the country had to be sent to the London Proctors for them to ascertain if they were in that state in which it was proper for the suit to be proceeded with upon ; and if they were, or when they were properly settled, they were returned to the Court or the Proctors in the country, where the suit was to be prosecuted. Practically, therefore, all the business was now as much done in London as it would be if the Bill now before the House was passed into a law. It was proposed by the Bill to give to the Court the power of examining witnesses viva vocc upon mat ters of fact. That system had been tried in the Court of Review, and, though that Court had failed in other respects, yet it had not failed in this. They had the power in that Court to act on affidavits, also to examine witnesses viva voce, and to direct issues, which had been found to answer well. There were many matters of fact came before the Arches' Court, and the present Bill proposed giving the power of examining wit nesses viva vocc, and also of directing issues. It was calculated to save expence, and more certainly insure justice. If their Lordships should think that not only something was necessary to be done, but that something should be done speedily, the question, he apprehended, would be, whether the measure recommended by the Commissioners or the pre sent Bill would be the most eligible. If their Lordships should think that the objections to be offered to this Bill were of no we i g ht, h e t rus t e d th e y wou ld give their sanction to it. If they did, and the House of Commons passed it into a law, lie should then feel compelled to call the attention of their Lordships to the former Bill, which was brought in according to the Commissioners' Report. EVENING EDITION. ELECTIVE FRANCHISE Sir HESKETH FLEETWOOD then rose and said, the question he was about to bring befc re the House was one of the most important of those which could possibly affect the elective franchise in this coun try, and he should confine himself as much as possible, to the reasons which led him to move for leave to bring in the Bill which he now was about to describe. He had sought information from all political parties on the subject, and had invariably found that all parties admitted that it was founded on just constitutional prin ciples, and contained within it nothing that could alarm the most timid, as being likely to affecting the existing institutions of the country. He had given notice of his motion on the subject long before the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud had published his address to his constituents, and the sentiments in that pamphlet were in accordance with the views he (Sir H. Fleet wood) was now advocating. Being accustomed to regard that Noble Lord as the leader of the question of Reform in that House, it was gratifying to find that such was the case, and that he could ex tend the franchise to an immense number of persons, without militating against the present constitution of the Reform Bill. He held that the question could be entertained without at all affecting that measure, as it was at present constituted. It merely ment to confer upon parties possessing the same qualification and amount of property the franchise at present en joyed by others under the Reform Bill. He held that the 10/. household franchise which was enjoyed at present by parties residing in cities and corporate towns should be extended to those who possessed equal property and intelli gence in the counties.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) If the individuals he was seeking to: obtain the fran chise for possessed the same property qualifications as those who at present enjoyed it, it could not be said that he was extending the principle of the Reform Bill. There was:another objection brought forward against his proposition, namely, that although the 101. householder might be a fit voter for a town he had not the pro per qualification for a voter for a country constituency. Those to whom he was about to extend it were not persons within the Parliamentary boroughs, but among the remote districts, and in the small towns and villages in which there was no borough represen tation existing. If he referred to the speeches made i ts the course of the Corn-law debate in the House by the agricultural representatives, he found that in their enumeration of individuals as being part and parcel of the land, they invariably included all those resident in the rural districts and small towns and vil lages, who, although they did not live by the cultivation of the soil alone were occupiers, of land and residents thereon, as IA longing to the landed interests. He had , been met by another objection, which was this—that this measure would in large manufacturing districts be attended with this danger that the natural constituency of the country might be swamped by the creation of a large number of voters' dependent upon the mill owners having property in those districts. In answer to this he would direct the attention of the House to the wording of his notice, whicb only gave the franchise to the actual occupiers of 10/., the same as in boroughs ; but if there were any danger of swamping the consti tuency he could not but think that the same thing; would happen in borough towns in which the mill owners possessed large property. Now, he knew that this was not the case, and he would mention as a case . in point the borough of Lancaster, in which a large num ber of opulent mill-owners resided of Liberal principles, and which yet returned two Conservative members ; a nd he was satisfied that it was impossible for any mill-owners to swamp the constituency of a county. There was a curious fact connected with the passing of the Reform Bill and the 101. qualification for borough voters. 1 0 the borough of Preston, which he bad the honour to represent, he found many of the constituency who were possessed of small freehold properties, and who were able to vote both in the borough and in the county ; and he found other individuals who, in consequence of the provisions of that:Act, were debarred from the ex exercise of their franchises for the county. It might be said that it was not desirable to give individuals a vote for a county and a borough, but he found that the .501. tenant-at-will clause votes were given under the same occupancy as would give a town qualification, and thus gave individuals in some instances two votes for two Members. He was aware of one great difficulty which he should have to contend with in urging this question on the attention of Bob. Gentlemen opposite, which was that they would be unwilling to support this measure, because they might suppose that his proposed measure would have a ten dency to alter the tone and feeling of the constituency. But he believed that Hon. Gentlemen opposite were indebted for the support of the county constituency principally to the Corn-law question. He would sup pose that Hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Adminr . stration, and that the Corn-laws were made an open question, he would venture to say that this would most materially affect the return of Representatives in every one of the counties with which he was acquainted. Many Members opposed to him had stated to him that the addition he proposed to make would add to the spectability and intellect of the constituencies. Hi s was a Conservative proposition—it was conservative 0' property and intellect, and would never tend to the de" struction of any one of the institutions of the country. It was a question of very great moment, and he in in troducing it had kept as close to the s ubject ils! passible. He only wished to say that it would not in any way vitiate the principle of the Reform Bill or extend the franchise one step beyond it. It t rural district, and in villages, a 101. value was known to all present to be the residence of men of property ot intelligence—it would add to the constituencies man; clergymen, lawyers, physicians, and tradesmen, w ho bad i their residences out of the Parliamentary borough, and in villages it would add many of the more respectable of the shopocracy.—(Laughter and " Hear, hear. ) He wished that the franchise should be given to those who were omitted, by some oversight, in the Reform Bill. He hoped that his motion would draw from th e Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) some statement rela - • tive to the furtherance of Reform.—(Cheers.) T he enthusiastic Reformers throughout the country were oo the tiptoe of expectation. He would only call the Nob Lord's attention to the present state in which the whole body of Reformers were.—(Cheers.) They remenP bered the benefits they had received from the Govern ment, but at the same time they were most anxious to e feel that there was some hope for further improve ment in the Reform Bill. The franchise ought to be x. tended.—(Cheers.) He would not trespass furtheer to onr the attention of the House, and begged to mov leave to bring in a Bill for extending the qua lificatio n of voters for Members of Parliament, repres enting English and Welch counties, to the occupier of a house of the clear annual value of ten pounds, the same as in boroughs.—(Cheers.) Mr. T. DU NCOM BE seconded the motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said- the Hon. Baronet he who had brought forward this question had stated t st reasons on which he founded his motion 10 the zn He temperate and judicious manner.—(Hear, b ear ) House had stated the ground upon which he thought th consistent me_ ought to accede to his motion, both as being nt in with the Reform Bill, and as being an imp rove There the present state of the franchise in t 0.4 Els; was a part of the Hon. Baronet's argumen t, in which undoubtedly he agreed, and upon which his a g reement was well known to the world. He certa inl y considered the introduction of the 50/. tenant -at-will clause into the Reform Bill—the carrying it to the extent of giving the right of voting to occupants of property in counti l es, and placing at the same tim e a limit to the value of the and thereby destroying the ancient tenure of freeho dt property at 50/., was a most in j urious and dangerous Bill charge in the Reform Bill, and it was one w hich the Government of the day felt themselves bound to . r Th e ground upon which it was argued by Pa°N.oble Lord, now a Member of the other House (the Duke of Buckingham) was that if it was right to give the ten-pound householders the right of voting in towns, it was very unjust to deprive the 101. householders in counties of the same right ot. vo ting ; that it was en o b v i ous part i a lity in favour of the residents in towns, and an injustiCe and an injury to the agricultural population. If that argument was good one, and he (Lord John) did not think it was,.'! undoubtedly would go to the extent of giving to to: voters in counties the same right of voting which wa given to the voters in towns, because, in point ofII., cha racter, of property, and of respectability no one coup deny that the occupier of a house out of the limits of borough was as fit to enjoy the franchise as those d to Therefore he thought time conduct pursued who opposed the Reform Bill, was calcula t i "" lead in point of effect to ultimate change. c easion hear.) However, the Government on that 0 for was defeated. Lord Althorp stated his reason`' byethose