The Sun. — London, England, 1850-07-09 00:00:00

EXHIBITION OF 1851. The following letter from the Commissioners of Woods, &c., to the Lords of the Treasury, on the sub ject of the ground appropriated for the site of the Ex hibition of 1851, was presented to Parliament on Saturday : "Office of Woods, &c., June 15,1850. "My Lords,—We beg to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Hayter's lei ter, dated the Bth inst., in which we are informed that her Majesty hat, tieeu pleased to give her consent that the Commissioners for the Exhibition of the Works of Induitry of all Nations should be allowed to take possession of the site of the ground in Hyde-park required for the building; and we are requested, before giving such possesSion to the Commissioners, to submit to your Lordships any suggestions, with reference to this matter, which may appear to us as advisable to be adopted. "In compliance with this request, we have to state that we are of opinion that the Commissioners should be reqdired to agree to the following conditions in re• gard to the ground in question, viz.:— " 1. .That the only entrance into the perk which shall be used t.,r thecarriage of the m a t er i a ls, &c., for the proposed building, shall be that called ' The Prince of Wales's gate.' "2. That the gateways inside and outside the park, and the roadway in the park, to the extent of 25 yards on either side of the gatcq, shall be paved with granite at the expense of the Commissioners for the Exhibition, and to the satisfaction of this board. "3. That the ride called the Queen's Ride' shall not beinterfered with in any way, einer by the construc tion of the works, or during the progress of the exhi bition. "4. That none of the existing drains in the park shall be interfered with so as to impede their action. " 5. That no trees shall be cut or removed without the previous consent of this board. "6. That the Commissioners will now state the time by which they will engage to remove their buildings from the ground, and in the event of their fooling in the fUltllaient of such enepgernent, that it shall be compe tent for this board to remove the same, to dispose of the materials, and to apply the produce in reimbursement of the exponses incurred in such removal. " 7. That when the building shall have been removed, this board shall reimtate the ground in its present con dition, and that the Commissioners of the Eahibition ishatk4efray the expense of such reinstatement. ' l ' We have to suggest that it would be desirable, with (Piet to the uninterrupted progress of the works, that 4 ch, cirdiag, act Wu Om woe Act WO) should In _ \ ' -4) --... erected round the space proposed to be appropriated for the building; but we forbear from pressing this as a condition, the more especially as we think it will be ob viously for the interest of the Commissioners that such a precaution should be adopted. " We are, &c., " SEYMOUR. A. MILNE. " The Right Hon. the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury." POLICE INTELLIGENCE. WORSHIP-STREET. }~~; LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, July 8. HARRIS V. HEWITT. In this ease, which had not concluded when our report left, the jury gave a verdict fur the plaintiff, with 4001. damages. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 8. (Nisi Prius, before Sir F. POLLOCK, C. 13., and a London Special Jury.) RICUARDS AND ANOTHER. V. OLEDSTANES. This case was resumed at 11 o'clock this morning, but it was not concluded at five o'clock, when the Court was adjourned to this morning at 10 o'clock. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 8. (Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.) IN RE lIIDDULPH, WRIGHT, AND co. To-day was appointed for a dividend meeting in the case of these bankrupts, bankers, of Henrietta-street, Covent-garden. Some new proofs having been admitted, the meting was confined to the declaration of a dividend on them to the same amount, 7s. in the pound, as has already been paid on the original proofs. IN RE THOMPSON. In the case of this bankrupt, a linendraper, of Pic cuddly, his HONOUR to day gave judgment at some length upon a point which had been raised a short time back. The question was as t) the right of priority betwixt two mortga.tees. The ground upon which the second mortg.sgee claimed priority was, that the first mortgage was bad, through usury and through want of notice to the trustees. The mortgage had been executed on the premises in Cockspur-street. The amount secured by the mortgage, dated May, 1849, was 557/. Thompson became bankrupt six months afterwards, and then informed the second mortgagee for the first time that there was a previous mortgage to one Hodgkinson for 2001. The bankrupt's interest in the property under will was a chattel interest; it must be treated as real property, and notwithstanding the want of notice, Hodgkinaon cannot Le entitled to priority. As to the question of usury, the mortgage deed was executed in usury, and was consequently void. The second mort gagee, Mr. Hipwell, was therefore entitled to priority. ATTEMPTED MURDER.— George Frederick Masterman, a young man about seventeen years of age, an appren tice to Mr. William Finer, surgeon, in North-place, Kingsland-road, was placed at the bar before Mr. Ham mill, charged with having attempted to murder his was ter, who had sustained such serious injuries that his life was placed in danger. Mr. Ashley, a solicitor, attended to conduct the pro secution, and briefly stated' the facts of the case, as de tailed in the following evidence: — Catherine Kelly, the prosecutor's housemaid, said— Yesterday evening, between five and six o'clock, while engaged in the kitchen, I suddenly heard loud cries of " Murder," in my master's voice, and which appeared to proceed from the prisoner's bed-room. I instantly has tened up stairs, and, on reaching the second landing, ob served my master coming nu, of the prisoner's room with both his hands up to his throat, and making convulsive efforts to unfasten his neckcloth. He was bleeding pro fusely from the nose, and was quite black in the face, but managed to stagger into his bed-room, into which I followed him, and after another unsuccessful attempt to unloosen his neckerchief he ex claimed, in a faint voice, that he was choked, and dropped down upon the bed. I succeeded, with some difficulty, in removing the kerchief from his neck, which was twisted tightly round and se cured with two knots; but while doing so he rolled off the bed and fell senseless to the floor. I raised his hand which felt perfectly cold, and immediately ran to the door and called my mistress to his assistance. While I was raising the alarm the prisoner passed me into the room, and looked down at my master, but made noobser vation, and went out again without offering him the slightest assistance. My mistress, who was dreadfully agitated, entered the room soon after, and shaking my master, implored him to tell her what was the matter; but he appeared totally unconscious, and was unable to. return any answer. I was then sent in search of a police man, and returned with one in a few minutes, but found that the prisoner had absconded. Mr. William lieges, a timber-merchant, of Kings. land-road, said—At the time in question I was hastily summoned to proceed to the house of Mr. Finer, with whom I am on terms of intimacy, on reaching which I was showed into his bed-room, where I found bim lying upon the floor at the foot of the bed in a state of insensibility. He appeared perfectly lifeless, and observing on raising his head that his bce was black and swollen, I immediately sent for a surgeon, who arrived in a few minutes. I then went down to the surgery, where found- the prisoner, and said to him, " I fear you have done something serious this tiene-I am afraid he is dead." To which he merely answered, "He struck me first." I then directed a ser vant to procure the attendance of a policeman, but on turning round perceived that the prisoner had left the place. Sergeant Dubois, N 14, stated that he apprehended the prisoner at the house of his brolser in Hoxton, shortly after six o'clock on the preceding evening, and on telling him that he was charged with an attempt to strangle his master, he replied that the latter had assaulted him first. Witness was in the act of removing him from the house, when the prisoner ste altbily passed something to his brother, which witness at once secured, and f nind it to be a small phi.' containing prussic acid. He was subsequently searched at the statier, and a letter, ad dressed to his father, was found upon him to the follow ing effect:— " Dear Father.—l swear most solemnly that Mr. Finer struck me first, and that I only returned it in self-de fence. I ask pardon of Gad, and swear that this is the whole truth. " G. F. MASTERMAN." A certificate from Mr. B Aker, a surgeon, of Klngsland, was put in, which stated that the prosecutor had been nearly strangled, and, although he was now progressing towards recovery, that he still remained in such a stwe as wholly to preclude his a'tendance at this court. The prisoner, who maintained throughout the most perfect coolness and sell possession, declined offering any d, fence in the present stage of the proceedings, and was ord.rei to be remanded tor a week. THE QUEEN'S Al.' BIRMINGHAM. An exposition of Birmingham manufactures is about to be held in the new buildings of the Queen's College, during the long vacation, to raise funds to enable the committee of council of the hospital to enlarge their buildings, and to provide a chapel (already endowed by Dr. Warne'ord with 401. per annum) fur the sick and suffering, duly fitted and arranged for Divine service. An application having been made to his Royal High ness the Princo Albert to use his generous influence with her Majesty the Queen -to-obtain the loan of a portrait of her Majesty and of his Royal Highness, to be placed at the head of the Exposition Room, as a testimony of the devoted loyalty and attachment of the institution to the Crown, of the exalted patronage with which it is honoured, and the illustrious auspices under which the Committee of Council are privil,g*Al to proceed in their arduous progress,—The f gracious reply has la; en addrossed to Profess,r Sands Cox, F.R.S., the Dean of the Faculty : " Buckingham Palace, July 4, 1850. "„Sir,—l have submitted your letter, recceived; his morning, to her Majesty the Queen and hi 9 Royal Highness the Prince Albert, and I am happy to have the pleasure to infirm you that her Majesty and his Royal highness have been pleased to acceie to the re quest contained in your letter of the 27th ult., for the loan of a portrait of her Majesty and o: e of his Royal Highness, to be placed in the Exposition Room. If you will he good enough to communicate to me the time at these portraits will be required, and the best mode for their conveyance, I will communicate with the prop-yr officer of the household accordingly.—l have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, " C. B. PHIPPS. " William Sands Cox, E-q." At a special meeting of the committee of council, held on Saturday last, at which the High-Bailiff, S. W. Lucas, Eig. presided, on the motion of the Rev. Pre bendary Gray, seanded by Mr. Alderman Phillips, the loyal and dutiful expression of grateful thanks were re corded by the board to her Majesty the Queen with acclamation for this especial mark of royal favour. THE SUN, GERMAN Y. On the dissolution of the Wurtemburg Diet, on the 3d inst., by Royal message, the Speaker addressed the Assembly, reminding them of the dissolution of the Diet of 1849 (in December of that year), on which occasion he stated that the dissolution of a Diet was legal if the Government were resolved to respect the will of the people. " The people," said the Speaker, "have now recorded their opinion. They elected an Assembly in which Government had scarcely one vote. But the Government has not respected the will of the people. New Minis ters have taken the reins of the State, but the system remains unaltered, and the Diet has again been dissolved. It will soon be shown whether the Government is prepared to submit to the will of the people. But we are justified in protesting that this Diet has done its duty. They had but one alternative —they had either to stand on their right or to yield by degrees, and to forfeit their position. We have chosen the first—we conducted our opposition with firmness and moderation." This speech elicited vociferous cheers. We have received Borsenhalle advices, dated Ham burgh, July 5. The result of the simple peace with Denmark con cluded by Prussia on behalf of the German Federa tion was looked for with much anxiety, as the exact stipulations of the treaty were not yet known. The Russian fleet moored near the Danish island of Moen consisted of eight line-of-battle ships, two frigates, and two steamers. The Copenhagen mail of the 4th had not arrived, probably owing the boisterous weather. THE DANISH QUESTION. The peace with Denmark is a peace pure et simple. It contains the full reservation of the rights of both parties. The Holsteiners are acknowledged to have been right in opposing Danish aggression. Foreign intervention in aid of Denmark is to be permitted in Schleswig, but not in Holstein, which the Danes will be allowed to enter only on certain conditions. The peace is to be ratified by Prussia within a week, by the German Government within three. The latter will not be waited for. _ _ The Duchies are preparing for war. A telegraphic dispatch in the Cologne Gazette, dated Berlin, the evening of the 6th inst., announces the ratification by Prussia and Denmark of the pro tocol which is annexed to the treaty of peace between these two states, according to which the convention of the armistice is at an end. In five days the Prussian troops will leave the Duchies. According to intelligence received, the Schleswig-Holstein troops will then immediately en ter Schleswig. The German Reform contains a letter from Co penhagen which states that on the 30th ult. a Rus sian frigate, the Nordstiernen cast anchor in that port. Several officers landed and some even took apartments. Amongst the persons who left the ves sel was M. DE GALSENAPP, Aide-de-Camp to the EMPEROR. That officer announced that the Russian fleet had sailed direct for Alsen. _ The Cologne Gazette contains a letter from Lu beck, stating that the Russian fleet had left the port of Cronstadt, and passed on the 13th ult. before the island of Fa'stein. The fleet cast anchor near that island, and consisted of eight ships of the line, two frigates, and two steamers. "We shall soon learn," says the letter, " what the appearance of this fleet on the coasts of Germany means." DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES. According to commercial advices from Semlin, the Bulgarian insurrection is at an end. It hardly ad mits of a doubt that the rising has been systemati cally organized ; the agitation is notoriously kept up by foreign emissaries. Since the entrance of the Russians into Moldavia they never had occupied Galatz until on the 14th or 15th of June, when sixty Cossacks, to the astonishment of the inhabitants of the town, took up their quarters there. It is not exactly known what led to the oc currence, but it is reported that it took place at the instigation of the Governor, who had forwarded reports of the nightly occurring burglaries, and of the attempted murder of one of the guardians of the quarantine by an lonian, to Duhamel, at Jassy. The British Consul at Galatz is said to have entered an energetic protest against the occupation of the town by the Russians. HENRI HERZ IN CALIFORNIA. M. Henri Herz, the eminent pianist, who, as has already been mentioned, is giving concerts at San Francisco, has written a very excellent letter to a friend, of which the following is an extract : " On arriving at Sac Francisco I found so many Ame rican, French, English, and German friends, that I was soon quite at home. But most of these friends were entirely metamorphosed. Those whom I had been accustomed to see pass their time at New York in ttse delights of a fashionable far niente, now sell clothes, shoes, hard ware, and other articles of the same kind. Others whom I had lett trying to get on as lawyers or singers, have become jobbers at auctions, and acquit themselves well of their new functions; they generally earn a good deal of money. I have seen young Parisian lions sell the produce of their sport at exorbitant prices, although game is very abundant. I 'have seen painters em ploy their brushes in painting signs, and getting paid an once (80f.) per letter. I have seen perfect gentlemen offer to carry my pianos, and they have received from me in different sums as much as 300 dollars for their service. I have, in short, seen so many extraordinary things that I dare not com municate them to yon for tear of being accused of exag geration; but all is written in my journal, which I think will be interesting. I have only to congratulate myself on having come here. I have seen the most curious country in the world; I have found excellent friends; I have given twelve concerts, the success of which has greatly exceeded all my hopes.- Moreover, I have Lean able to appreciate the incredible activity and spirit of enterprise of the Americans. No other nation in the world could have succeeded in making California what it has become in their hands in fifteen months. What has greatly a<tonished me, was to find a musical pubdc so connoisseur and so enthus astic ; I might have believed myself at New York or New Orleans. re is a characteristic adventure which occurred to me:—On the eve of my departure, I was asked to give a concert in the little town of Bonicia. All was pre pared for the best, and ee arriving I found the sells (the church of the district) full of a compact crowd; there was only one essential wanting, and that was a piano. I asked if there was not one in the town, which would have been a miracle. There is one,' was the reply, but there is nobody to bring it here.' The auditory began to be impatient, and I went forward and explained the coetre-temps which had arrived. 'ls that all,' the people answered, 'Let us go and seek the piano our selves !' And a few minutes after the piano arrived, brought by the dilettanti themselves." PACKAGES FOR HER INIAJESTY.—The Lords of the Treasury having caused Mr. Hayter, one of their Lordship? secretaries, to inform the Commissioners of Customs that Colonel Phipps having stated to their Lordships that a pack age containing biscuits, &c., from the confectionary of the Queen of the Belgians, would be sent weekly from Brussels, via Ostend and Dover, under official seals, being for her Majesty's own consumption, and that he was, therefore, to desire that the respective packages on their arrival may be delivered on the application of Colonel Phipps without any further special directions from their Lordships in each case, the Customs authorities have given directions to their officers to take care that their Lordships' wishes be duly obeyed. RARE FISEL—Two very rare fish, fine specimens of the " Cepola rubescens," were taken by his Grace the Duke of Marlborough, whilst trawling in his yacht, in Ply mouth Sound, on Monday last. his Grace has ordered them to be preserved, and intends, we believe to present them to the Natural History Society. It is said that these are the first nee specimens of these species of the finny tribe that have were found tak dead ne sea. —Devonport Independent. TERRA. COTTA.—It of artificial stone, in Engan o d f , revival of the manufacture is a lady. About sixty years a our . shares alive. Some years since, two in this neighbourhood, having washed in from terracotta, or more properly rather temarkable that the should have been effected by knowledge and Regis, possessing a large share of scientificliss Coode, from Lyme energy, embarked in a small manufact o ry ooan of d artificial stone, no o d i celebrity. The t by an ohdera considerableperseveran de some distin guished greogef The proprietor availed herself of the talents artists, and thus produced works of a cha racter, which may fairly vie with those of theanenrel b a s-relief in the pediment over the western portico at Green wichT he Hospital, representing the Death of Nelson, was designed by West, and exec uted b y Bacon and Panz etta , who also modelled many other distinguished works. The rood-screen or loft at St. George's Chapel, Windsor, was executed in the same material. With respect to modern instances of the use of artificial stone, St. Pancras Church may be considered as one of the most important ; the greater part of the orna mental details being formed of this material, at the large outlay of 5,400/. The statue of Britannia, made of artificial stone, which crowns the Nelson column at Yarmouth, re mains uninjured by the exposure, to which the stone work formed simply of fine clay, or brick earth, carefully prepared seems to be yielding. The ancient examples are evidently and well burnt, and they are, therefore, precisely of the same nature as coarse pottery war e, and are correctly designated " terracotta ;" but the mo dern artificial stone is a very different substance, and greatly superior to them in hardness, texture, and colour. The principal ingredient is the white potter's clay, forming about one-half; pulverised stoneware, from une .third to one-fifth ; ditto glass, from one-fourth to one. ninth • and some add, for finer purp oses, a small portion of white Ryegatei sand, and powdered flint, about one-tenth part of each.—Builder. .SHIP LETTER BAG FOR NEW YORK.-4 ship letter bag for New York will be made up this evening, to be forwarded to-morrow from Liverpool by the United States' mail steam-packet Atlantic. Letters and newspapers in tended to be sent by this vessel must be specially addressed, "By United States' mail p a cket Atlantic." Newspapers must be prepaid ld. each. Letters optional. TOWER OF LONDON.—It appears from a Parlia mentary return, just issued, that the number of persons who visited the Tower of London in the twelve months ending in March last was 45,474, and the total number for the last five years was 249,338, produchag, a the clairse of ;Inoue ela• a ma of 6,3334 4 LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 9, 1850. he thought would be necessary to make the measure more perfect. Lord CAMPBELL said, considering the office he had the honour to hold, he thought it would not be out of the way if he should make some few observations on a Bill which was so important to the administration of justice. Ho had been in favour of the County Courts Bill. He thought it might be very beneficial to extend its powers ; but at the same time he confessed he should have been better satisfied to see how that Bill worked, and where it might be extended.—(Hear, hear.) But as the opinion of the country appeared strong in favour of the present measure, he felt no wish to oppose the mo tion for the second reading. Ele thought it might be extended beneficially so far as the amount of debt re coverable. But so far as actions of tort were concerned, he would warn their Lordships against any rash ex tension of a summary jurisdiction to the County Courts. There were actions of seduction, of slander, of assault and battery, and other cases in which the suit could not be reasonably carried on without a written declaration on the part of the plaintiff. It was common to speak of the un certainty of legal proceedings, and of the dilatori ness of the law. But ho could tell their Lordships that nine-tenths of the time of the judges was spent in trying to put a construction upon ill-made Acts of Par liament.—(Hear and laughter.) With respect to ques tions of common law there was no such time lost. He had no objection to extend the jurisdiction of the Act with respect to debts, but he cautioned their Lordships against extending it in actions of tort. He did not think he should be able to be present at the discussion of any future stages of the Bill, but he felt confident their Lordships would give it all the attention which it demanded at their hands. Lord BEAUMONT, in reply, said that it was parti cularly in actions of tort that the benefit of the exten sion of the Bill would be mainly found. The Bill was then read a second time. BENEFICES IN PLURALITY BILL. Lord LY rTELTON moved that the House should go into Committee on the above Bill. Their Lordships accordingly resolved themselves into Committee, the Earl of SHAMTESEURY presiding. A clause was proposed by the Archbishop of Canter bury, and also by the Bishop of Oxford. Amendments were proposed by Lord Lyttelton, Earl Powis, Lord Redesdale, and other Noble Lords and Right Rev. Pre lates, and after a long and desultory discussion, the Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be re ported, with amendments, to-morrow (this day). UPTON-CUM-CHALVEY MARRIAGES VALI- IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 8. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. - The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions against ,he relay system. The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions to the same effect. The Earl of HARDWICKE presented petitions to the sam• effect. POST-OFFICE SUNDAY DELIVERY. Lord HATHERTON presented several petitions, praying for the restoration of the Post-office delivery on Sundays. The Noble Lord earnestly supported the prayer of the petition, and he trusted that those who were entrusted with legislative duties would have the courage to express their opinions, and would not be ab sent from their post when the matter should again come under consideration. Lord BROUG LIAM concurred in the wish expressed by his Noble Friend. He believed that the stoppage of the Post-office Sunday delivery tended to the desecration of the Sabbath, inasmuch as instead of twenty or thirty Post-office officials being employed for a few hours on Sunday, from 200 to 300 persons were employed the whole of Sunday. It so happened that in a most important trial that was to come on Monday a paper was wanted—it could not be transmitted by post, and, therefore, the parties had to dispatch special messengers, who were employed the whole of Sunday. The Bishop of LONDON said that the petitions against Post-office Sunday labour were signed by the bankers and merchants of London, and by the great majority of the middle classes. Lord KINNAIRD believed that a great majority of those employed in the large towns, particularly mer chants and manufacturers, were in favour of the abolition of the Post-office delivery on Sundays ; he hoped time would be taken to consider whether this measure could not be carried out without inconvenience. Lord LYTTELTON complained that the Govern ment had taken no means to carry out the measure without inconvenience. Why should London have the monopoly of rest on Sunday? The Earl of MALNIESBURY hoped they would be in no hurry to consent to the abolition of the Sunday delivery. The bankers and merchants were the persons least interested in the matter; they had the means of ob taining intelligence, but it was the small trader and the inhabitant of the rural district who was inconvenienced by it. The Bishop of OXFORD protested against discussing this matter by chance. His objection to the Post-office Sunday delivery was the number of persons it set to work on Sundays. A solicitor might receive a letter on Sunday which would make him bound to set his clerks to work on Sunday. They were bound to protect them who wished to spend the Sunday aright. He would not stop the railroad on Sundays, but he would stop the Post-office Sunday delivery. Lord CAMPBELL protested against the law of the the Right Rev. Prelate. The Right Rev. Prelate said that if a solicitor read a letter, he was to set his clerks to work, omnibus aliis negotiis omissis, and prepare a brief under fear of an action. Such was not the law. If he found it related to John Doe and Richard Roe, he would throw it aside until Monday morning. If it related to the illness of a near relation, he would at once set off to see him. He had been brought up in Scotland, and he revered the Sabbath, but ho believed that such measures as those recently adopted tended to its desecration, and he depre cated their adoption. The Duke of GRAFTON was in favour of the aboli tion of the Post-offiee Sunday delivery. Lord BROUGHAM made several observations which were almost inaudible, but we understood him to remark that on the Northern Circuit consultations on Sunday were not unusual, and that during the two Sundays in which the bar was at York, it always received the liberal hospitality of the Archbishop of York at Bishops thorpe. PETITIONS. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mrs. Georgiana Hall, praying for a divorce. She had married a person named Hall clandestinely, but the marriage had never been consummated. Her husband had sub sequently married another person in France. She had obtained a divorce a mena et thorn, and she now prayed for a divorce. Lord MONTE AGLE presented a petition against the Metropolitan Interm*nta Bill. The Earl of LONSDALE presented a petition from Dover in favour of the Public Health Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON believed that the ma jority of the inhabitants of Dover were in favour of the Bill. Earl GREY presented a petition from the Town Council of Newcastle, in favour of the immediate rescinding of the order prohibiting Post-office Sunday deliveries. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Todmorden in favour of a real Ten Hours Act. Lord BROUG HAM bad felt it his duty to oppose the original Bill as a mischievous interference between the employer and the employed, but he would not take any unfair advantage, and he thought it would be most un just not to correct the inadvertent slip which had been made. HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL. On the order of the day for the committal of this Bill, The Earl of LONSDALE moved, as an amendment, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, to inquire and report whether the preliminary forms directed by the Public Health Act, 11 and 12 Viet., c. 63, to be observed on confirming " provisional or ders" by Parliament, have in the case of the Bill been duly observed. The Earl of WARWICK supported the amendment. The Earl of CARLISLE said he felt under the ne cessity of opposing the proposal of the Noble Earl. He believed that the adoption of that proposal would lead to unnecessary delay, and would in that way defeat the purposes of the measure. He had further to observe, that no distinct case of abuse had been stated, which could justify the appointment of the proposed Commit tee. The measure was viewed with approbation by all the places to which it was to be applied, and they bad made application that no further delay should take place in its passing. After a few words from Lord REDEsDILE„and the Marquis of SALISBURY, The House divided, and the numbers were— For going into Committee ... ... 47 Against it............ 18_ Majority... ... -29 The Bill then passed through Committee. THE COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, this Bill was read a second time. THE FACTORIES BILL. Earl GR ANVILLE moved the second readine of this Bill. He thought it better that they should take in the Committee on Monday next the _discussion on the only point connected with the measure on which there could be any difference of opinion among them. After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND and Lord WHARNCLIFFE, Lord FEVERSHAM said he believed that a very strong feeliog prevailed throughout the manufacturing districts that if that Bill were ps.sed in its present shape a breach of faith would be committed against the work ing classes in those districts. He had himself presented several petitions from operatives expressing that view of the subject. In their opinion Parliament would not keep faith with them if, in passing a mere declaratory Act to amend an accidental error in a preceding measure, it were to alter that measure and to extend the hours of labour from 58 to 60 hours in each week. Lord KINNAIRD said he believed that the decision to which the operatives had come upon the subject was, that they would prefer a ten hours' Bill, but that they would sooner see the present measure carried than 'that no legislation should take place upon the question in the course of this session. Hs should have petitions to that effect to present to their Lordships. The Bill was then read a second time, with the under standing that the discussion on it should be taken in Committee on Monday next. THE COUNTY COURTS EXTENSION BILL. Lord BEAUMONT, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that Parliament had already adopted the principle that it ought to make justice cheap and ac cssible t) the people. The Bill establishing County Courts had, since its passing in the month of April, 1847, been eminently successful. It had been success ful in two ways; first, with respect to the number of debts recovered in consequence of the intervention of those courts; and secondly, it had produced the most beneficial results by inducing many persons to pay debts who would never have paid them if they had not been aware that justice could easily be ob tained in those courts. He found that during the year 1847 there had been issued under the Act 429,215 summonses, and that 267,445 cases had been tried. In the year 1848, the number of summonses had been 427,611, and the num ber of cases tried had amountedlo 259,115. He believed 'hat the sum recovered in those courts during the two years might be fairly estimated at 2,700,0001. But under the present Act no sum above 201. could be recovered in those courts; and one consequence of that provision had been that many persons to whom sums of 301., or 40L, or 451. had been due, had actually abandoned a portion of their claims, so that they might be able to bring them before tribunals so cheap and so accessible. Now it was manifest that such a system offered an inducement to fraudulent debtors to cheat their creditors. Another great advantage of those courts was that the parties themselves were allowed to give evidence before them; and it had been ascertained that the arrangement had led to an immediate settlement of a great number of cases. Some complaints had been made as to the amount of the fees in those courts, but he could not think that thatthe respecta clauses, lnagu.lieamountprinciplesbut washe believed prepared it to would l into e a better discussion tter t o d delay t s o es t , he objections ma d e t o the d e tails of some of those discussions until they t went into Committee. When they did he would be ready o meet them. lie concluded by asking their Lordships to agree to the second reading of the ord 11. BROUGHAM considered compijalent t e h d e h p i r s ese L Noble n present Bill was of importance, lul and manner in which h e had Friendp eriothr me on d greatthe clear and his task of moving the second readi ng o f it. With re spect to the number of verdicts which h a d b een returned for small sures, so far as he could ascertain from an ac count he had received with respect to one spring assizes, they had amounted to 188, and were for sums not ex ceeding 151. or 161. On that question, as on all others, he should be open to conviction; for he believed that the Act had worked well. In 1833 he had brought in a measure of a somewhat similar character to that now proposed; but though be had the benefit of the valuable suggestions of his Noble and Learned Friend Lord Lyndhurst, after a reference to a Special Committee to amend its details, the Bill had been lost in their Lordships' House. He would reserve himself for the COainaittlior to more cataia szpegdzeuts is deta, which DITY BILL. The Bishop of OXFORD moved the third reading of the Upton-cnm-Chalvey Marriages Validity Bill, which was agreed to. REGISTRATION OF DEEDS (IRELAND) BILL. Lord LANGDALE moved the second reading of this measure. It was not necessary for him to occupy their Lordships' time by stating the general principles of the Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord entered briefly into an account of the regulations which had been made for registering deeds and assurances in Ireland, in the year 1785. Under the old system the expense was so great as to prevent the Acts of Parliament from being properly carried out. The present measure was intended to remedy the defects of that system. After a few words from Lord MONTE AGLE in favour of the Bill, the second reading was agreed to. Several Bills were advanced a stage, and their Lord ships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 8. MERCANTILE MARINE BILL. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Mr. CLAY thought the House was legislating on a great subject in a very small way. The Bill as it now stood was greatly altered and improved since it first came under the consideration of the House ; but although many of those alterations had had the effect of conciliating much of the opposition with which the Bill was at first assailed, yet it was not wholly unobjectionable to him. He was at a loss to know why the coasting trade was to be left out of the Bill altogether. He cordially agreed in that provision of the Bill which provided for an examination of masters and mates; but there was a second principle in the Bill, namely, that which proposed an interference between shipowners and their sailors, with a view to the protec tion of the latter, i n w hi c h he could not concur, because it was always in the highest degree dangerous and in convenient to intervene between a master and his servant. A clause introduced into the Act obliging a certa'n portion of wages being detained immediately upon arriving in port, would obviate a great many evils which resulted from his reckless character. With regard to the Bill, he should have been much more inclined to refer it to a Select Committee, because he did not feel that hostility to the entire Bill as was professed by some Hon. Members. He thought there was great need of a general consideration of this subject, and he thought that nothing could be done without long and careful inquiry; but as it was, he should certainly vote against the second reading. Lord JOHN MANNERS had originally intended to have moved to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, but his opinion had undergone considerable modification in consequence of the alterations which had been intro duced by the Right Honourable Gentleman. Still there were many matters of detail connected with the measure which would be much better discussed in a Committee than in the walls of the House of Commons. The appointment, and the constitution, and the working of the local boards of examination were matters of this sort. He was not himself disposed to attach much im portance to the statement of the consuls which had been read to the House, because of course their reports would be in accordance with the wishes of their Government; neither was there much force in the fact that during the time of war merchant captains were most frequently under the control and direction of men of war captains convoying them, because he thought that in 303 ears of peace a new generation had arisen who were certainly bet ter qualified. If Hon. Members were still desirous that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he was quite prepared to propose the amendment of which he hid riven notice. Mr. LA.BOUCHERE was not disposed to quarrel with the objections which had been raised by Hon. Members against the principle of the Bill, and he was quite ready to defend it upon the present occasion. It had been said that this Bill was opposed to the wishes of the shipping interest, but he could assert with confidence that such was net the case. The shipowners of Liverpool, Bristol, and Glasgow, were warm supporters of the Bill in its principle, and even in many instances of its details. The shipowners of Lon don were certainly divided in their opinions, but he thought it was a remarkable fact that a Bill contem plating such great alterations should have met with so little opposition. Having named constituencies so powerful, he could name individuals without number, but he would only select two from a mass, and those should be two of the largest ship owners in the world, most excellent men, and celebrated for their efforts on behalf of the sailor—he meant Mr. Gilmour, of Glasgow, and Mr. Green, of London. He complained of the extraneous points which had been in troduced into the discussion, and the Honourable Member for Hull, for instance, had talked of some measure which had been introduced respect ing lighting dues. Why, the measure which bad been introduced by the Government had had the effect of reducing the lighting dues exactly one-half, a boon which was thankfully received by the whole coasting trade. He admitted that the Bill was in some degree a Bill of interference, but he would just point out the objects of the contemplated interference. There were three great objects embra ce d b y t hi s Bill— first, to provide for the examination b e f ore competent authorities of mariners before they were a ll owed to take the command of ships; secondly, to deprive every cap tain of his certificate who should in any way misconduct himself. He denied that he had made a charge against the masters in the merchant service of wholesale in capacity; but he did say that great and gross abuses existed in the service, which this Bill was in tended to check. The next part of the Bill bad given rise to more difference of opinion; it related to the es tablishment of recognised shipping officers, and he urged that principle upon the House because he believed it would not only protect the hard-working sailor from fraud, but also confer large benefits upon the employer. No doubt it would give rise to expense; but was the present system carried on without expense? Certainly not. The merchant and owner had to pay large sums to licensed shipping agents, and all he proposed to do by this part of the Bill was to establish a uniform rate of fees to be paid to properly qualified and public agents, whose appointment should be entrusted to the Crown. The fee to be paid on the shipment of each sailor would be 2s. In America it was a dollar, while in Quebec the fee was 55., and he therefore thought the fee he had fixed upon was nut extravagant. The last object of the Bill was intended to secure strict and proper discipline in the merchant Service. No one could dispute with him that at present the discipline was extremely defective, tending, as it did, to encourage de sertion on the part of the sailors, and jeopardise the property of the owner of the ship. This part of the Bill, then, provided a remedy for that state of things, and when they g e t into Committee he should be pre pared to still furth er justify the details and provisions of the measure. Without, therefore, troubling the House fur ther on the Bill itself, he would pass to the question which bad been raised in the course of this debate of consoli dating all the Acts that composed the merchant law of this country. Now that was at the present moment an im possibility; but pass this Bill, and he would undertake to lay on the table, or extensively promulgate, a Bill for consolidating all the laws. It would be his aim to endeavour to amend and consolidate the law at the same time, but until this measure had been fairly tested by experience, it would be impossible to accomplish either one or the other. In the early part of this discnssion some objection was taken to the Bill, on the ground that it would confer a large additional amount of patronage. Now he had amended that part of the measure, and as it now stood the appointments to be made under the Bill would be vested in local authorities. He therefore hoped, now that all objections had been met, no more time would be lost in passing this Bill, which could not do otherwise than confer large benefits upon the shipping interest of this country. Mr. HERRIES said it was a mistake to suppose that the opposition was averse to the principle of the Bill, for no side of the House, no party could object to a measure which had tor its aim the improvement of the mercantile marine of this country; but the question was, did thi s Bill atta i n t h a t e nd? He, for one, cer tainly did not thi n k i t did, nor did he believe that the majority of th e sh i pp i ng i n terest entertained a favourable opini on towards the measu re. No doubt some ports did approve of i s , but by no means all, or even a fair proportion of them. The great obj ect i on which he enter t a ined to the Bill had reference to what took place last session. When the =don -laws w ere repealed the Government pro t4 rel i eve the shippu3g 'Merest of ell those but= which. pressed upon them, and which prevented them en tering into an unrestricted competition with the foreigner, but by this Bill they imposed still more onerous condi tions on that interest. The measure involved so many conflicting questions, and would give rise to such im portant consequences, that ho would suggest that ample time should be given to those who would be affected by it, to consider the propriety of passing such a measure before it became law. There wss no pressing urgency for legislation on the subject, and though he did not object to the House going into Committee, with the view of considering the provisions of the Bill, he thought it would be much better t) delay proceeding with it further this session. —(Bear, hear.) Let them make the Bill as perfect as they could by deliberations in the House, and then give ample time, as he apprehended they must, to the shipping interests to consider its pro visions, and if they did so, he considered they would have a much better measure than the one now before the House. Mr. CARDWELL said, the question for the House to decide was whether they should or should not pass the Bill in its present state this session. He was one who should give his decided support to the measure, which he said had beet very much altered since it was first introduced last session. - Although he enter tained strong opinions on several subjects which had been excluded from the Bill, yet he would give the motion for going into Committee his sup port, being anxious that all useful and im portant measures should be passed this session, and reserve to himself the right of making such alterations as he thought necessary in Committee. Mr. MACGREGOR supported the Bill, observing that if a Bill of this kind bad been passed 50 years ago half of the shipwrecks and property, and lives, which had been lost during that period by the neglect or in competence of stamen, would have been saved to the country. Mr. MOFFATT withdrew his amendment. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment of Lord John Manners, for referring the Bill to a Select Committee 34 Against it Majority The amendment was consequently lost. Mr. WAWN objected to the restrictions contained in the Bill as vexatious, and expressed his deep regret that the Government by this Bill had held out no expectation to the British shipowner that he would be placed in a condition in which he should be enabled to compete with the foreign shipowner. The House then went into Committee pro forma on the Bill. The House resumed, the Chairman reported progress, and the House obtained leave to sit again to-morrow at twelve. The House then adjourned until Five o'clock. The House resumed at Five o'clock. Mr. THORNELY brought up the Report of the Committee on Public Petitions. PETITIONS. Mr. GLYN presented petitions from various places against the Marriage Bill. Mr WALPOLE presented petitions from Lewes and other places in Sussex in favour of the recent alterations in the Post• office. Mr. GASKELL presented a petition against the Jews Bill. The Hon. Member stated that he did not concur in the prayer of the petition. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions in favour of the recent alterations in the Post-office. Mr. P. WOOD presented petitions from attorneys and solicitors in various parts of Lancashire in favour of the Lancashire County Palatine Act. Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from various places in favour of putting an end to Sunday labour in the Post-office. _ _ _ Mr. BANJiES presented a petition from Sherbourne, in Dorset, to the same effect; also a petition from Corfe Castle against the admission of Jews into Par liament. Mr. T. EGERTON presented petitions against Sun day labour in the Post-office. Sir G. GREY presented similar petitions from places in Northumberland. _ _ Mr. B. DENISON presented similar petitions from various parts of Yorkshire. Mr. LABOUC HERE presented several petitions in favour of the Marriage Bill. Mr. C. HOWARD presented a petition from Car lisle against the Jews Bill. NOTICE OF MOTION. _ Lord NA AS gave notice that on the motion for going into Committee of Supply he should move an address to the Throne, praying her Majesty to take immediate steps for establishing steam communication between this country and the Australian colonies. ECCLESIASTICAL BILL. Mr. DISRAELI wished to ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he intended to bring on the Ecclesiastical Bill to-night? Lord JOHN RUSSELL repliedin the affirmative. THE IRISH MAGISTRACY. In answer to Sir PERCY NUGENT, Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that Mr. John Fleming, late of Longford, Ireland, had been appointed to a local magistracy in Donegal upon the death of the late Mr. Tyas, with a salary of about 400/. EXHIBITION OF 1851. Colonel SIBT/101i2 gave notice that on going into committee of Supply he should call the attention of the Government to the letters from the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests to the Lords of the Treasury, which had been laid upon the tible on the 4th of July. The Gallant Colonel then proceeded to ask the Noble Lord a question relating to the payment of any sums of money by the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851, with reference to any contracts entered into for that Exhibition. _ _ Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that when first the Ex hibition had been projected it had been intended to have carried it out through private contract, but the sense of the country was so decidedly against that mode, that it had been abandoned, and the only sums which had been paid were in consequence of those preliminary steps. Colonel SIBTHORP inquired to what amount, and on what security ? Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the amount was not yet ascertained; the security was that of the Commis sioners. WATERFORD, WEXFORD, WICKLOW, AND DUBLIN, AND THE SOUTH WALES RAIL- WAYS. Sir IL VERNEY postponed his motion for a Commit tee of Inquiry into the petitions and printed papers (297) affecting the dignity of the House until Monday next. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL. The House then went into Committee on this Bill. Mr. BERNAL in the chair. The consideration of the preamble was postponed. On clause 1 being proposed. Mr. HORSMAN proposed an amendment to the effect that the Commission should consist simply of three paid Commissioners, who should discharge all the duties in connexion with the Commission. That proposition he thought was sound in principle and would be found good in practice. The evils in connexion with the existing Commission which they had to remedy were that it was too numerous, inefficient, and irresponsible. Now, to secure an efficient and re sponsible body, he thought the best plan they could adopt was to have three Commissioners, whose close and constant attendance would insure the due performance of all the business of the Commission. Three classes of public men would, by such an arrangement, be relieved from attendance at the board, viz., the judges, the Cabinet Ministers, and the bishops and ministers. the Lord Chancellor, the two Chief Justices, the Lord Chief Baron, the Master of the Rolls, and the Judges of the Admiralty and the Prerogative Courts were at present members of the Board. Now, what in the world had all those to do with the Ecclesiastical Commission? (Hear.) They had important functions to discharge, and they could not give their attendance at the meetings of the Commission without injury resulting to the public ser vice. Therefore public convenience and common sense were alike in favour of the judges being excused from attend ance. Five Cabinet Ministers were members of the board, and he was sure they would be as glad to be excused as the judges. Again, the bishops were paid largely for the performance of other duties, and if they attended to the business of the Commission, those duties must be neglected, and he could not understand on what principle they claimed to have a seat at the Board. Both reason and religion were in favour of the change which he proposed in the Commission, and if the prelates were opposed to him, what construction could they put on their conduct, except that the duties of their office contrasted very unfavourably with other public duties? No right or privilege of theirs was in any way involved by their not being on the Commission. Those estates consisted of every kind of property known to the Church. Let the House take the cases of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London. The management of the estates of Canterbury and Lon don were but a tithe of their labours. They had to take the management of the capitular estates of York, Carlisle, Durham, Exeter, and other dioceses, and in stead of being confined to estates in which they had an especial interest, they had to become general manager of estates of which they had no knowledge whatever, and of which they could have no know ledge except by giving such a close attention to those secular affairs as must place the epis copacy in abeyance.—(Hear.) He Mr. (Horsman) was not now seeking to do an act which imposed any new doctrine; but he was only resisting a modern and, to his mind, an extremely objectionable innovation. —(Hear, hear.) If the House took this proceeding as a question of policy, what did their experience say? Was Parliament so well satisfied with the past working of this Commission that it was ready to make still further sacrifices in order to secure the advantages of the presence of the prelatess? Ho be lieved there were few sincere members of the Church who did not think the Commission had been anything but benefited by the presence of the prelates of the Church. He wanted to ask, therefore, what there was in the nature of the business itself in the past which made it necessary that the House shopld have the benefit of the attendance of the prelates in the Commission in future ? The business of the Commission was entirely secular, and they legislated entirely through orders in Council ; and there was no necessity for the Prelates being members of that board any more than there was of their being at the head of the Home .Department.—(Hear, hear.) The old law of the Church only recognized the bishop as a spiritual pastor, and the further they attempted to remove from that old law the greater labyrinths they got into The feelings of the people of England he believed generally were in favour of more clergymen, and less bishops. And why was that? Why, because the bishops assumed mo re than they were entitled to under th e old law; but the parochial clergy did not.—(Hear.) He opposed it because its object WAS to perpetuate 'the burdening vi their ecelezieetical riders vnth AU OK" • - tension of temporal jurisdiction they ought never to hold. If they wished to make their Commission at all available the Commissioners must be less numerous, and more responsible. The Hon. Member concluded by moving that three Church Commissioners should constitute the Commission. Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the amendment, and said that it appeared to him that the proposition was di rectly against the report of the Committee of the Howe of COMM'JCIS. That Committee said that a change was necessary, but the alteration they recommended was }emus division of the jurisdiction, and not the abolition of the Commission. They recommended the appointment of some small Committee to manage details, but they contemplated the maintenance of the present Commis sion. He approved of that recommendation. Oa the contrary, the Hon. Gentleman proposed the abolition of the Commission altogether. It was impossible but that large questions should arise, and it was proper that they should be decided by the larger bodies of Cemmis sinners. The Hon. Gentleman said that bishops and judees were not proper persons to manage the general affairs of the Commission, but it was for that very pur pose that they proposed the appointment of paid Corn missioners. They wished to absolve the body of the Commissioners from the management of these small de tails, which could be much hover done by the small Committee. He thought it better, therefore, to take the plan of the Commit e 3 of that House, and not to depart from it to so large an extent as proposed by the Hon. Gentleman, Is ho seemed to have lost sight of the original cause of the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Formerly the business of each bishopric was managed by the bishop of the di.:cese. The Bishop of Durham had 21,0001. per annum, and the Archbishop of Canterbury 22,0001. or 23,0001. per annum, and so on. Those who had not sufficient incomes, made up their incomes by holding deaneries and cures in commendam; but Parliament thought proper to make a change in that system, and hence this Commission was appointed to watch the carrying out of the great and important changes introduced by Parliament. There being some objections to the mode of working the Commission, a Committee of that;House recommended the changes em bodied in this Bill, and if it passed it would not take up much of the time of the bishops or withdraw them mate rially from their spiritual functions. The Honourable Gentleman had forgotten this, and that the Commission watched over great and large reforms, and that it should be so constituted as to command the respect and confi dence of Parliament and the public. For these reasons he trusted the Committee would not agree to the change proposed. Sir R. H. INGLIS said that when the Hon. Gentle man (Mr. Horsman) asserted that the bishops had ten times more income than the First Lord of the Treasury, he laboured under a very great hallucination, for the highest annual income of any of the right rev. body did not amount to more than from 21,0001. to 23,0001. Sir B. HALL said that be had at all times the highest reverence for the Church of Neigland, and for all per sons connected with it, and for that reason he wished that they should act in such a manner as to gain the esteem and confidence of the public which he feared their general conduct did not seem likely to produce. He well recollected that three years since they were re quired to send in the returns of their annual incomes, and in those returns it was found that the annual income of three bishops was no less a sum than 115,4181., which they apprehended would be reduced by the income-tax (as they represented it) to 92,1061., but when the average income of seven years was struck, it was found that it amounted not to 92,106/., but to 123,465/. He would ask, what confidence could the public have in a body that made such mis-statements? He was not far from concurring with those who asserted that many of the bishops expended' the moneys of the ecclesiastical fund for their own benefit, notwithstanding the immense revenue they were receiving from their respective sees, and that this expenditure was being carried on without any regard or attention to the wants of the clergymen in their diocese. The Honourable Baronet then alluded to eight palaces, on which there was expended for building and repairing no less a sum than 143,400/.; and he should say, relative to these palaces, that when the Bishop of Exeter was called upon to pay the teas tax he refused to comply, on the grounds that he had removed his furniture from that palace, and that he did not reside there; and he felt it his duty to add that the sum of 3,5001. was taken out of the ecclesias tical funds for the repairs of this palace, in which there was no resident—(Hear, hear)—and when he, some time since, asked how this sum should have been drawn, he was answered that it was the amount of interest due. Now, be would appeal to the House, and ask, was their anything more unfair then that those ecclesiastical funds should be thus intruded upon, or that those bishops should not keep their residences in proper order at their own expense. He should next refer to the Bishop of Oxford, who borrowed two sums from this fund, one to repair his palace, and the other to improve his demesne, though the Commissioners, as a collective body, had passed a resolution that should the cost of repairing his palace amount to more than the sum borrowed, he (the Bishop of Oxford) should pay the remainder from his own purse.—(Bear, hear.) The Honourable Baronet then read the evidence of Mr. Murray in corroboration of his assertions, relative to the moneys taken from the ecclesiastical funds by the Bishops of Oxford, Worcester, Ripon, Gloucester, Rochester, and Lincoln, and said that he could not avoid desig nating the expenditure of that money as anything else than malappropriation, which was most monstrous, par ticularly when in eighty-four parishes, there were many clergymen whose income was only 501. p, r annum, and 417 clergymen who had only from 501. to 1001. per an num. Ho also thought it most absurd that at the time of the canonries being suspended. at Lincoln, the dean of that diocese charged a large sum on the ecclesias tical funds for performing service during one month in the year, though he had at the same time the income of five parishes. On the whole, he looked upon the pre sent system, as carried on, as nothing more than an un just and blame-worthy squandering of money, and hoped that the House would exert themselves to put an end to such monstrous and nefarious proceedings, particularly as the clergy, who were the labourers in the vineyard, better deserved it, both on account of their assiduous attention to their duties, and on account of their dis tressed circumstances.—(Hear, hear.) And as to the canons, he could call them nothing else than a most use less set of drones. He was therefore prepared to sup port any proposition that would put an end to this sort of machinery, and that would requite the poor clergy adequately to their functions. The Honourable Baronet then referred to a circular emanating from the bishops, requiring contributions from the public for the ap pointmeut of another bishop for the diocese of Quebec. lie was prepared to prove that the archbishops and bishops of England and Ireland had only contributed 8101., while six laymen gave 9001. for this purpese. This subject he alluded to, because the Honourable Baronet (Sir R H. Inglis) stated that the income of the bishops was scarcely sufficient in consequence of the enormous charities they gave, and he should say that instead of the diminution referred to by the Honourable Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) that there was rather a very great increase ; for example, he would refer to the as. sessment of Paddington, which in 1837 amounts to 112,0001., and in 1843 to 191,154/., showing an in crease of the income of the bishop of that diocese during seven years to be over 79,0001. He next referred to the increase of the incomes of the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Chester, and several other bishops. He also recollected that the Committee appointed to investigate the system of the management of the eccle siastical funds, and that that Committee, on which were the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the late la mented Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), pronounced it as being ruinous both to the lessor and lessee, and that some plan should be adopted to abolish fines in cases of leases for life, and other similar docudients. He also thought that it was desirable that the Committee should inquire and know to whom the property belonged, whether to the Church or to bishops, because he was aware that the bishops claimed the property generally as their own.—(Hear.) As regarded the answers given by the bishops to the applications which had been made to them for information respecting their livings, pluralities, and incomes, he could make some curious statements to the Committee. Out of twenty-six archbishops and bishops, sixteen only sent answers, desiring to give all the information in their power, end eight of them re fused to give any information at all to the Committee. Those eight were the Bishops of Bangor, Carlisle, Exeter, Gloucester, Oxford, Rochester, Salisbury, and St. David's. Not one of those Right Reverend prelates would give any satisfactory answers to the Committee, and all they said was, that " the House of Commons, or its Committees, had no right to ask them any questions about their livings or pluralities." In order to show the manner in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had managed the affairs of the Church, he would refer the Committee to a table showing the number of clergymen who were now resident, and who were receiving large incomes. By this table he found that there were 4,307 clergymen non-resident at their livings, and of those 937 were non-resident without any knowledge why they were so. The sooner, then, he must say, the bishops were sent down to their diocese, to make those non-resident clergymen give an account why they are not resident at their livings, the better.— (Hear, hear.) Ile would read another table, which would show that out of 4,322 benefices, 1,193 were re turned without any statement of their value. To an other table, showing the condition of the curates. Of 3,078 curates, 1,192 had no glebe, 685 were in receipt of incomes under 60/. a year, 610 under 801., and there were 2,058 curates non-resident. Sir J. PAKINGTON rose to order. He apprehended the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) was departing from the question before the Committee, and that he ought to confine himself to the amendment, which was, that the Ecclesiastical Commission be limited to three Commissioners. yin C c lLA li l n ß g CHAIRMAN N thought there order would in be souse manner - cul er l ; he suggested, it appearing to him that the lion. Baronet was only referring to the matters objected to, for the purpose of founding an argument upon them. Sir 13. HALL said he was arguing that the Ecclesias tical Commissioners as at present constituted, were not worthy the confidence of the people, and he was endea vouring to show that they on all occasions took care of their own interests, while they neglected those of the poor and hardworking clergy; and he was also endea vouring to show that it would be mon:. for the benefit of the public, and to the credit of the bishops, if they would attend to the interests and business of their own dioceses, where they would be far better employed, than in att'nding at the Ecclesiast;cal Commis sion Board. He was endeavouring to show that the poor curates of the Church were sadly neglected, when the Hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakenharn) called him to order. He had shown the Committee something of what the bishops had done, and he would now show what they had not done. Had they attended to the promotion of the usefulness of the institutions of the Church? There was a most useful institution, Queen Anne's Bounty, and had they, with their pluralities, at tended to the proper distribution of the funds of that in ititittieh ter the benefit 91 the Pm; clergy? 119 fouid hi Isd on the contrary, that of that bounty the bishops borrowed 80,000/. for the purpose of building and alter; ing their own palaces. He found, on the other halm with respect t ) the attendances of the bishops at the meetings of the committees for the distribution of this bounty, that the late Ar c hbi s h o p o f C anter b ury a ttended only nine times in a number of years; the Bishop 01 Oxford, eight; the Bishop of Lendcn and Bangor+ four times ; the Bishop of Salisbury, threw ; th e Bishop of Durham, with hi s 26,0001 . a year, on ly once; the Bishop of St. David's and the Bishop of Rochester, once; and the Bishop of St. Asaph, with hi s , 16,0001. a Sear, attend e d on ly once at t h e meet ings ~°1 the committees for the b ene fi t o f t h e poor clergy. 114"; only time several of them ever attended was when they wanted to borrow 80,000/. from the bounty. Now, Oil of the most worthy things the bishops could have done was, to abolish pluraliti es; b u t, so f ar f rom h av i ng trie to abolish them, he would show the contrary. In thi s very diocese he would show that the Bishop of Loud°, was one of the greatest plur a li s t s . Th e H on . Barone' then enumerates several pluralities which had bon created in and since 1842, with their large and various sources of income, and said the bishops ought to be di s : missed at once from the Ecclesiastical Board, and that they ought not to be let down easy. He would show, th e ; while the late Archbishop of Canterbury during 20 pa t !' received 174,0001., that a poor c ura t e , f rom t h e d a r e of t" Christian era, would have rec e i ve d on ly 1 29 500/., which e would I.ave a clear surplus in favour of the Archbislicg of 44,0001.—(Laughter.) The Bishop of Durham he ° ben in the see 19 years, and 19 years Canon of Dui heal' and had received 199,3001. The Hon. Baronet 0 01 directed attention to the numerous livings possessed by the sons, nephews, sons-in-law, and other connexions of the Bishop of Exeter, and said it seemed as though the whole family were nat ura lly p arsons . H e k ne w shi ll, it would be said that this question was one of ember' rassment and difficulty to the Government, but he rani / say that the Committee ought to call on the Governmen t ' without reference to inconvenience, to bring the whol e matter under the consideration of the House, and that Committee should be established on whi c h the HAW should not be allowed to sit. Sir G. GREY must say that the speech of the 09 13 : Baronet who had just sat down, had, i n man y p ar ts "' nothing whatever to do with the subject before the Cooli mitte,s. Some of the Hon. Baronet's statements were e very old date. He had spoken very freely of the Bolt' siastical Commissioners, but he ought to have know that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners bad not th e power to remedy the abus es o f w hi c h t h e H onou rable Baronet complained. With regard to the episcopal r e, sidences, and the large sums of money expended oi l them, every one of the cases alluded to h a d been thoroughly investigated, and it was found that the 5 0113 1 . laid out had not been extrav agan t or b eyon d t h e acti n requirements. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said th a t man y of the statements made by the Hon. Memb er f or M ar yleben e , respecting the expenditure on th e e pi sco p a l res idence' of the Bishop of Rochester w ere a lt oget h er w ithal foundation. - gi;I3EKJAMIN HALL said ho had taken his i ll ' formation from the only documents which the Bole siistical Commissioners would allow him access g 2; They were never contradicted, and he had a ile a ; therefore, to assume that the i n f ormat i on was ‘lll— Mr. GLADSTONE wished to correct an erroue to e; impression which a state men t ma d e b y t h e H ono ur" Baronet the Member for Marylebone was calculated to create. The sum of 51,000/., expended on the palace O f estate of the Bishop of Lincoln, was for the purpose bringing that ecclesiastic nearer to his diocese. Mr. C. DENISON expressed a hope that the 1 1 ° ° ' Member for Cockermouth would not divide the Coto; mittee on the amend men t. Th e const i tut i on of °3 Commission, no doubt, was faulty, but it was in p ro' gress of reconstructio n , an d t h e c h ange wou ld be atten d ed with benefit. Mr. HORSMAN could not consent to withdraw b lc ; amendment, being most d es i rous th at th e bi s h ops shot' not be burthened with se c ula r duties, to an adteitt`:l inability for the proper performance of their opirit tio ' duties. Mr. P. WOOD quite agreed th a t th e s pi r it u al 1. 1 secular duties of the Commission sh o uld b e se para te d ' but he was opposed to any regul a ti on w hi c h s truck " the secular duties at one tell swoop. The C instnittee then divided, when there appeared , For the amendment ... 22 Against it ... 60 Majority against the amendment — 3B The clause was then agreed to. On clause 2, which provides for the payment of tic° out of the five of the Church Estates Comraissione l* being proposed, Mr. EVELYN DENISON moved as an amendment; that three of those Commissioners should receive 881 / ries. The business of those Commissioners would be considerable magnitude, as the gross amount of proper% which came under their supervision would not be le o than seventy millions. This Estate Co m mi ss i o n was • consist of five members, two appoint e d by th e Crotr i . o ; one by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a n d t w o by t," Ecclesiastical Commission, so that it m i g ht b e sa id ihm of those were clerical appointments. He thought, the re ;, fore, that three of those ought t o b e p a id . i n or der P , ri l they might do their duty in that e ffi c i ent manne r wh ich paid officials were expected to do. Mr. GLADSTONE opposed the amendment, 10 — . 6 would be an unnecessary ex p en dit ure to pay more is two of t'.ose Commissioners. Sir GEORGE GREY s aid h e did no t thi n k it nec e „ r e ,ary to tax th e ecc l es i est i ca l f un d w i th more than t''ls payment of two Com m i ss i oners , b ut if i t s h ou ld tur n ° '" f after wards that the cervices of a n o th er p a id C om m i s sion i e d was rtquired, some person who held another office O u be be appointed, and which would s a v e th e expense tot,, ecclesiastical fund. At present h e cou ld not agre e to i" am , ndment. e. Mr. P. WOOD said that it was always b e tter to eg a woo king paid committee than a gratuitous one, hid ever active and responsible such might be, and he Wc° therefore support the amendment. Sir B. HALL objected to the present constitution 0 , 1 the Commission, as there would be two Commission ) " on the part of the Crown, and three on behalf of the ec , clesiastical body. He would have the Commission r e , duced to three—two on behalf of th e C rown , a nd 0° appointed by the Archbishop—all thr ee t o be paid 111' Mr. HORSMAN said he thought this was a Co e : which Government should abide by the r ec o m mendstl, of the Select Committe e , an d wou ld support t h e an3 e° ment. et Lord J. RUSSELL said, as the matter at pre f s g ,a stood, two paid Commissi oners wou ld be su ffi cient. P n i, was found out afterw ar d s t h at num b er was insuf fi elem then another paid Commissioner could be added. ac t Lord HARRY VANE su pp or t e d t h e amen d me nt; 11 ,1, Mr. E. DENISON th en sa id, t h a t a f ter w h at bad 0 0 len from the Noble L or d an d t h e Ri g h t H on . Gentleln i ! f the Secretary for th e - H ome D e p artmen t, h e wo uld the present withdraw the amendment. The clause was then a g ree d t o , as a l so c l au ses 3, 4, and 5. On clause 6 being proposed, which provides for !h o e constitution of the Estates Commission ' which Commislo to consist of two members appointed by the Crown, t „ by tee Ecclesiastical Commission, and one by the Arc bishop of Canterbury, Sir B. HALL moved as an amendment, that the elis t 4l be expunged, a 9, were it carried in its present shape. episcopal interest would have three members in the Cow mission, while the Crown had but two. acs Lord J. RUSSELL said th e claus e was f rame d in cordance with the recommend a ti ons o f t h e S e l e ct Co o , ; mittee, and he denied that th ere was an y gro und ,° 6s saying that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were 1113 , s to be entrusted with the a pp o i n t men t o f two o f thee commissioners. Mr. HUME contended that the present measure Ass a sufficient reason w hy t h e E cc l es i ast i ca l Comusistif should not be entrust e d w ith th es e p owers , f or had tP O clone their duty as t h ey oug h t t h ere wou ld h ave been ,n occasion for the introduction of such a measure. s ot Sir JOHN TROLLOPE supported the clause, as also Mr. GLADSTONE, who contended that as no il ° o could he done by the Commission unless one of 0 0 Crown Commissioners was present, that gave the Cro ll a sufficient power over the other commissioners. 0 Mr. MANGLES held that no such power was gi f . e „ by the clause as it stood, but that the Crown Convoli3 O sioners could be swamped by those Appoi n t e d by t' episcopal interest. Sir G. GREY said the intention of the Act of Pare fitment_ was, that it should be executed by two of I. I Church Commissioners, and that they sho u ld be prese t on all occasions. If the amendment proposed °I; adopted, the effect would b e t o exc l u d e suc h i n divicho as the Right Hon. Member for Ripon, whose habits ° business cud capabilities they all knew. After a few words from Mr. HENLEY, Mr. HORSMAN observed that the majority in t b. Committee were i n f avour o f t h ree pa id C omm i ss ioners and that was thrown over by the House now and 0 " jetted, lie, for one, objected to the Archbishop of CO' terbury and the Estate s Commission having the 14 ,i poititment of three Commissioners, while the Crown b pd but two—thus placing the Crown in a minority, 1 0 5 practically swamping the decision of Committee of t House. The Committee then divided, when there appeared"' Fur the amendment ... 33 Against it ... ... 76 Majority The clause was then agreed to, On clr.use 7 being proposed, ea Mr. E. I)ENISON suggested that the Esta t e , Commission should have the appointment of those 0 1: cers, solicitors, and surveyors accessary to carry into e feet the business entrusted to then. Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the insertion of sno b words would create jealousies, and probably other oyilss and he should therefore oppose it. Mr. GLADSTONE thought the Hon. Gentle would act with a wise di scre ti on if h e w ithdrew b i amendment, at least for the present. M. P. WOOD said, that as the Committee, under , - ,, e Bill, was really to be the wor ki ng b o dy, an d not the Church Commissioners, h e th oug ht th e y oug ht to ha the power of appoiriting their own officers. The proposed amendment was, however, withdr o er and the clause agreed to. Clauses 8. 9, and 10 were agreed to. On clause 11 being proposed, bead Mr. HORS :lAN asked if the Noble Lord at the he of the Government wou ld consen t t o t h e amendment.,,jw, proposed, that th e C omm i ss i oners s h ou ld ma k e an alio" report of their proceedings to Parliament ? Sir G. GREY replied that the matter would be Coil sidered before the report was brought up. The clause was agreed to. • 'On Clause 13 being proposed, which related to a div lsl of the Episcopal and Common Fund, On the motion of Sir G. GREY, an amendment Alf %•j proposed, which restored the c l ause as it h a d been, blo c ! altered in the - Ruse nf.Lords.