The Sun. — London, England, 1850-06-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS, June 7. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. NAVY PRIZE BALANCE BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. PETITIONS. The Duke of RICHMOND presented several petitions praying for increased accommodation to assistant surgeons in the navy, among them one from the Royal College of Surgeons in London; also from several out pensioners of Chelsea Hospital praying for the repeal o f a clause in the Act 9 and 10 Victoria, depriving them of their pensions. He thought that every accommoda tion ought to be afforded to assistant-surgeons in the navy, and he hoped that some alteration would take place in the present arrangements. The Earl of MINTO said that great misapprehension existed as to the nature of the accommodation afforded to assistant-surgeons in the navy. A double cabin had been appropriated to their use some time since, immediately after the report o f th e N ava l an d Mili tary C omm i ss i on , in order to enable them to pursue their studies. They had in many instances converted that cabin into a store room; but be believed arrangements had now been made to remove all causes of complaint on their part that they had no separate place of study. He believed a portion of the sick bay was now appropriated for that purpose. Lord BROUGHAM presented several petitions pray ing for the extension of the County Courts. The traders of L on d on , M anc h ester , an d Leeds did not object to the principles of Mr. Fitzroy's Bill, but to certain of the details. The Earl of HARROWBY presented several peti tions praying for a repeal of the Sale of Beer Act. The Earl of RODEN presented several petitions lgainst Post-office Sunday labour. ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT BILL. On the motion of Lord CAMPBELL, this Bill was read a third time and passed. CHELSEA PENSIONERS. In answer to a question from the Duke of RICHMOND, Earl GREY said, under an Act of George 11., a de duction of 5 per cent. was made from all out-pensioners paid at Chelsea Hospital. In 1847 a Bill waa passed doing away with the poundage, bat it was not retrospec tive in its operation. This was equivalent to giving the pensioners a boon of 50,0001. per annum. Upon that jaw being passed the pensioners imagined they had claims for the arrears of former deductions, than which nothing could be more illusory. PIRATICAL INVASION OF CUBA. Lord BROUGHAM wished to ask his Noble Friend (the Marquis of Lansdowne) if he had any information to give the House relative to reports of an alarming nature, which he hoped would prove groundless. He understood that an expedition bad sailed from the United States, to take possession of Cuba. He had no doubt whatever but that this was without the consent of the Government of the United States.—(Hear, hear.) He confessed he had too much respect for the Ameri can Government to suppose that any assent would be given by them to such a proceeding. He was just in formed by his Noble Friend to his great sorrow that the expedition had escaped the Spanish fleet, and had (we understood) effected a landing at Cardenas. Now, he sincerely hoped these execrable pirates—for pirates they were undoubtedly in the strictest sense of the term, their object being piratically to plunder and make war on harmless, unoffending people—he repeated he sincerely hoped they would meet with that condign punishment they merited. He hoped his Noble Friend would state if ho had received any information from the American Minister on the subject, or whether any communications had passed between our own and the American Govern ment. He could not avoid saying that the American Government, being such a respectable Government, and charged with the maintenance of peace and amity be tween the United States and other nations, would be found, at the same time, endowed with sufficient strength and power to prevent its subjects from sending out large armed expeditions from its shores for the purpose of making war on unoffending states. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who throughout spoke in a more than usually subdued undertone, was undeistood to say he did not know that be could give the Noble Lord more information than he already pos sessed—namely, that a piratical expedition, for piratical it was in the worst senss of the term, had set out from the United States for Cubs; but it was not only without the cognizance, but subject to the disapprobation of the United States Government, who entirely disapproved of these proceedings. Information had recently been received from the Consul at Now Orleans that the pirates had landed at Cardenas. The matter (we un derstood) was under the consideration of her Majesty's Government. Lord BROUGHAM said it was was impossible to en tertain a doubt of the American Government discoun tenancing this expedition. He should, however, have been more satisfied had his Noble Friend been able to give more direct information on that point. His Noble Friend had justly, wisely, and correctly said this expe dition was piracy of the worst description. Common piracy had for its end individual plunder and wrong, whereas this piratical expedition contemplated wholesale plunder and bloodshed, and to carry fire and sword into a pacific country in alliance with us and with the Ame rican states also. Reprobation of such' doings was all very well; but he thought in such a case something more definite should be done ny the American Government. The Marquis of LAN3DOWNE said that the Go vernment of the United States had not only expressed their disapprobation, but had ordered their naval forces to endeavour to intercept the expedition. Ile did not know what the American Government might do next, but certainly as far as the American Government could defeat the object of the expedition they had done what ever they could do. Lord BROUGHAM said that this addition to the answer of his Noble Friend was more satisfactory, but he could not understand how 8,000 men could be armed and z•ent off without the knowledge of the Government. The Earl of ABERDEEN believe 1 that the Govern ment of tho United States had done the utmost to stop the expedition, and he regretted that twenty years ago, when the United States suspected us of unlawful dealings in the island, they had not united with us and France in guaranteeing the island to Spain. The island of Cuba for some time past had been supposed to be an object of desire to various powers. We ourselves were strongly suspected of having some design on that island. He re collected twenty years ago, when he was in office, some thing of this was said, and he very much regretted that the United States did not at that time assent to a propo• sition which he made; fur if they had done so, they would have been enabled to do the only thing they had not done on the present occasion. Twenty years ago, when the American Government thought fit to suspect England of an unlawful desire to posess Cuba, he pro posed that the American States and France should com bine with England in guaranteeing the island of Cuba to Spain. The United States Government did not at , ree with that proposition—though certainly at that tinae it was strongly suspected by the Government of the United States that England had some ulterior object with respect to Cuba. With respect to the present expedition, he hoped, however, the force in the island was sufficiently strong to give a good account of those buccaneers who had undertaken the expeditien. Lord BROUGHAM as a lawyer challenged contra diction to this position that all civilized nations wire bound to give aid against pirates, and that the com mander of any British cruiser would be guilty of a neg lect of duty if he did not aid ti*.e Spaniards against the pirates. Lord STANLEY said the House were discussing the question he was about to put to their Lordships. He begged to ask, fur information, what was the course our Government were taking in this affair? And as it had been for a long time known that intentions wore enter tained of sending out a piratical expedition to Cuba from the United States, he wanted to know whether any orders had been sent to the commander of the Bri tish" fleet in the 'West India station, and if so, what orders? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was not precisely aware of what the American Government had done. Lord STANLEY did noZ ask what the American Government had done, but what the British Government had done; whether, on the announcement of the expe dition, any instructions had been sent out to our naval forces? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, not having had previous nutice of the question, could not state what in strLucotricoinsaTtitbLeenysent out to o ur cru i sers. Cuba was not immate w ri a al to ofßOrpitiinsihoni; it a er s es t t hz t h i s a l t a i n t d w a o s f not unlikely some instructi ons had been sent out to the West Indies. He therefore repeated his question, had any instructions been sent re o s u e t at all ? p n ar t t state of aff a i rs, i t would Earl GREY—In th e jol uble Baro n s h ould havef e any Minister to be a breach of duty on the was surprised th at an swer such a question at a ll. with his official experience, the IN )g any go es right asked it. . Lord STANLEY —I am not to hearu h the Noble Earl opposite.—(Hear, Peer in this House to a s k a I t t i T s y dut y b y and duty of every whereby he can ascertain whether her MajnestT'isesten Ternment has performed its duty on a matter whi c h o ° ' this country, deeply the honour end the interests of We have a right to ask whether any instructions have been sent to our commanders in the West Indies, esp ,_ cially as it appears that this matter has been thought worthy of being made the subject of intercommunica tions between our Government and that of the United States. I have put a question to her Majesty's Ministers, and I wish to know whether they will give me any an awer at all? Lord BEAUMONT rose. Lord STANLEY—I p u t the question to the Noble Marqui s , w h o may or may no t refuse to answer. It is from the Noble Marquis, therefore, I expect the cour tesy o f a reply. Tho Marquis of LANSDOWNE did not deny the Bight of the Noble Lord to put the question, and he repeated w h at he had said, that the matter was under the consideration of the Government. Lord BEAUMONT was surprised at the conduct of the Noble Lord (Stanley). The answer that the subject wai under the consideration of the Government was one which ought to satisfy hi m . Lord BROUGHAM for his own part was satisfied with the answer of the Noble Marquis, which amounted to this.—;vo know absolutely nothing of the subject. He res not aware that there was an -thin like ft duty incumbent either on the House colleetiTro.y, o r on N o bl e Peers individually, to stop an inquiry merely another Peer Minister gave en answer with which another Peer thought that the House should be satisfied. ; he h The la w was c l ear, these men were Pirates therefor e th ere would be no delicacy in treating the subject, and it was the duty of all who used the sea to consider all those men as pirates, and treat them accordingly as the pirates had been treated by Raja Brooke. They had, according to some persons, been treated a little too much so; though he did not agree in that opinion, he 5,47';/ Eli I' ~„ ^".ser.‘ J ~~. ,"P ~ 7 j 1 1 1 N. 3 THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 8, 1850. thought Raja Brooke had treated those persons properly. The Earl of ABERDEEN thought that as we were not on amicable terms with Spain during the time this expedition was preparing-, it would be advisable that we should show that we had not been lukewarm in our interference to put a stop to it. It might be thought that we took advantage of that circumstance to neglect taking the proper steps against this piratical expedition. And, to prevent such a suspicion, her Majesty's Govern ment ought to show that they were not lukewarm in the exorcise of their duty towards an ally. If they did so they would justly be exposed to blame. Earl GREY could not understand how the Noble Lord could attempt to make a grave charge against his policy. They looked on the expedition in the same light as the American Government and the Noble Lord. Undoubtedly the expedition was piratical; but it was a very different thing to say her Majesty's Government had had their attention called to the subject from answering questions as to the precise nature of the instructions given to the British naval Commander-in-Chief. Their Lordships must be aware that to give information as to the instructions given to the naval commanders in the West Indian seas could not but be exceedingly detrimental until we should have received further advict s from the West Indies. No one could deny our right to check piracy; but it was a difficult question as to the length we ought to go in a particular instance. The subject then dropped. Tho Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 7. DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND ADVANCES BILL. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Mr. E WART thought that the tact had not been sufficiently take❑ into consideration, that this was a limited sum, and that they had to decide what was the best use to be made of it. He thought that it ought to be confined entirely to drainage, for if they went to the building of farms, buildings, and such things they would have nothing left for drainage. He thought that it would be decidedly most advantageous for the public interest to spend the whole sum in drainage. Captain PELHAM thought that the objection might be got over by limiting the sum to be applied to build ing purposes entirely to new buildings. Mr. BUCK thought that it would be far better to confine the sum entirely to the purposes of drainage. Mr. SLANEY said that if the Chancellor of the Ex chequer did not give some facility to the small proprie tors in making their applications, the Bill would not be of the slightest use to them. He also thought that these advances should be extended to the purposes of new buildings at least. Mr. MOODY opposed the clause. Mr. DEEDES on the whole would prefer that the clause should stand in its present condition if they could be assured that the money could be lent with safety for the purposes of building. Mr. BRUCE was in favour of the clause as far as Scotland was concerned; he was sure great benefit would arise from it to that country, and especially to the new farms which were formed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his purpose had been answered by the discussion which had taken place; and as the present majority of Members appeared in favour of the omission of the clause, he. would vote for its omission. Colonel RAW DON hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not consent to omit the clause. The t'HANCELL9R of the EXCHEQUER thought that the House wished to omit the clause, and he was perfectly willing to consent. _ - The House then divided, when there appeared—. For the clause ... ... •.. 45 Against it ... ••• ... 107 Majority ... ... ..• --62 The clause was consequently rejected. Clauses 5,6, and 7 were then agreed to, with some slight amendments. ._, On clause 8 being proposed, Mr. ROCHE proposed to insert in line 30, after "farm ' buildings," the words, " including buildings for the steep ing, drying, and cleaning of flax, and also such machi nery and apparatus for the above-mentioned purposes as may come under the denomination of fixtures." To show the advantage of promoting the growth of flax in Ireland, he need only mention that more than six mil lions worth of that commodity was imported into this country in a year, and that if it were brought into greater cultivation employment and support would be given to a vei y large number of families. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER op • posed the amendment, thinking it would be most incosi venient to advance money on the security of machinery, for that was, in fact, the nature of the amendment. He understood that, in many instances, machitery in the preparation of flax had been abandoned, and that the practice of preparing it by hand had been substituted. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause agreed to. The other clauses having been agreed to, the House retained, and the Chairman having reported progress, Tho House adjourned till Five o'Clock. The House resumed in the Old Chamber at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from Pimlico generally against the Interment Bill, and another petition from Brighton specifically against the compensation clause. Mr. riGorT presented two petitions, one from the parish of Enville, in the county of Stafford, and another from the vicar, churchwardens, and other inhabitants of the parish of Worfield, in the county of Salop, against labour on Sundays in the Post-office. Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition from the clergy of Ireland, complaining of certain defects in the national system of education in Ireland; also a monster petition from the laity of Ireland to the same effect, signed by 17.000 persons. Mr. SEYMER presented a petition against the Savings Bank Bill, GENERAL POST-OFFICE. Mr. A NSTEY presented a petition from a number of individuals holding clerkships in the Money Order-office of the General Post-office, complaining of the re cent appointment of a gentleman to the office of chief clerk of that department. The petitioners stated that their claims to the appointment had been passed over, because they had refused to sign a written contradiction of the statements they had promulgated in a memorial which was last year presented to the Treasury on the sub ject of their duties and salaries, and they therefore prayed the House to institute an inquiry into the matter. The Hon. and Learned Member moved that the petition be printed with the votes. Mr. THORNELY said it was very important for the House to consider whether they would pat the country to the expense of printing for parties who might con sider themselves aggrieved by the conduct of their supe riors in any of the Government departments, no matter whether it were the Customs, the Excise, or the Post-office. It was for the House to consider whether or no it was right to make Parlia ment a court of appeal in matters like this. Fur his part he did not think it was, and he there fore put it to the House if it would not be better to leave the petition to be printed in the ordinary course of business, when it had come before the Committee on Public Petitions. Mr. DISRAELI hoped the House would hesitate be fore they accepted th e v i ews o f t h e Hon. Gentleman who had Just sat down.—(Hear, hear.) He had always understood that any party who felt himself aggrieved by the conduct of a public Department could appeal to that House for redress, if there was no other channel open to him, and he thought it would be exceedingly dangerous to interfere with that principle. That right of appeal indeed was part of the liberty of the subject.—(Hear.) Mr. FORSTER agreed with the Hon. Member fur Bnckinghamshire, that the House ought to hesitate in this matter. The House held the head of each public department responsible for all its proceedings, but if the House interfered between them and their emp/oses, how could they insist on maintaining that rule?—(Hear,) Mr. STUART said that was not quite the correct view of the matter. The question was not whether the House would interfere, but whether it would listen to a complaint.—(Hear, hear.) Ile understood that one ground of complaint was that the claims of these parties had been rejected because they had refused to work on a Sunday.—(Hear, hesr.) Mr. W. PATTEN thought it would be better to defer this motion till the petition had been before the Com mittee on Public Petitions. Mr. HAYTER said the great inconvenience which resulted from stating the contents of petitions like this was, that they went forth to the world as if they were founded in truth. Now, so far from that being the case in this instance, he could assure the House that many statements in the petition were founded upon error.—(Hear, hear.) He should not, pro perly discharge his duty, if he did not say that most of those statements were founded in error. Colonel THOMPSON observed that the usage was that tho House was bound to receive petitions but not to print them. - Sir G. GREY said the ]don. Member seemed to imply that there had been an objection to the reception of the Petition; that was not_ so, the petition having been re ceived, and printed only q shortly come before question now was, Committee with the votes. The Chairmanshould whether o f the petitions had stated that it would competent for the them, and they would have to de ject before the 11 . on be printed or not, before it was o A n l se e . mb T er na t t o wa b a r a in p g rt a to he (Sir G. Grey) tought it was m tic o e ti w on hic o h n the sub' House should follow, and ho very desirable the would abide by it on the hoped the lion. Member After a few words from present occasion. Lord DUDLEY STUARTt*. BARNARD, de sirable and important that they thought it was very rule of the House was with regard should know what the petitions. He understood that if a g u aril lo to the printing of to found a motion on any petition, it was Member wished to allow him to move that it b e was the p ractic e the votes.—(flear.) The petition undr printed with peered to refer to a subject of some importancee." and ap as he thought it very proper that clerks in the importance; should be enabled to st a t e their grievances to the house it seemed to him that the best way of allowing them to do su was to print their petition. Lord J. RUSSELL obqlryed that before the H on . Gentleman could britli , his motion bef )ra the }Louie, the petition 7rould have been before the Committee, and if by that tint: he found i' hod not been printed, it would 1,3 quits competent for him to wake a motion on the subject. - Mr. THORNELY said it was a question for the House to consider whether the complaints of the clerks in the Post-office, in the shape of a petition, should be printed or not. Sir R. PEEL said if a Member presented a petition, and thought the statements which it contained so well founded a s t o bring forward a motion with resp e c t to it, he thought the practice of the Nouse was to permit that petition to be printed.—(Efear, hear.) Though he did not think that the House should constitute itself a court of appeal to hear the complaints of Go vernment officers, yet it would be a very unwise practice to refuse a petition to be printed on that ground. The simple question was whether they should depart from that which had been the general usage, of having pe titions printed in respect of which an Hon. Member in tended to bring forward a motion.—(Hear.) Colonel RAWDON said it had always been in the power of the House to prevent the printing of petitions, although it was in the power of any Member, at any time, to move that they be printed. Mr. BROTHERTON complained that many Mem bers gave notice of founding a motion upon a petition merely for the purpose of getting their petition printed, but who never seriously meant to bring that motion before the House.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. ANSTEY disclaimed being actuated by any such motive as that mentioned by the Hon. Member for S Il ford (Mr. Brotherton). In this case he (Mr. Anstey) seriously meant to found a motion on his petition. Mr. GOULBURN did not think it was possible the, there could have been any partiality shown by the Chair man. After a short conversation, in which Mr. T. D'Eyn court, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Hume tuck part, Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not understand what the Hon. Member's object was, whether it was to have this petition printed in order to fuund a motion upon it or not. Mr. ANSTEY said he would repeat what he had said, and that was that he understood that petitions were printed for the purpose of calling the attentio❑ of Hon. Members more closely to them, and his object in moving that this petition be printed was that he might lay the ground for a future motion which ho intended to found upon it.. The SPEAKER then put the question, and the mo tion was agreed to without a division. RETURNS. Sir W. MOLESWORTH moved an address for a return of the annual receipt and expenditure of the colony of Hong Kong, made up to the latest period for which accounts have been received, showing the gross receipts from the various branches of revenue, under their different heads, distinguish ing the amounts levied in the colony from Parlia mentary grants, and stating the expenditure under its various branches (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper. No. 264, of session 1846). Similar return for New Zealand (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 328, of session 1844). And similar return for La buan. Also an address for return, in a tabular form, for the last year in which they can be made up, of the gross revenues, under their different heads, of each of her Majesty's colonies, exhibiting the costs of collection, and any deductions made in their progress to the public treasury. And similar return of the dis bursements of each colony, under their separate heads; showing the authority on which such disbursements are made (in continuation of part of Parliamentary Paper, No. 740, of session 1847).—Agreed to. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION. Sir BENJAMIN HALL moved for a return of all instructions or inquires issued by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the archbishops and bishops, the answers to such instructions, and all data upo❑ which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, before the Ist day of January, 1844, estimated and fixed the annual sums to be paid to the Com missioners out of the revenues of the larger sees, and to be paid by the Commissioners for augmen tation of the smaller bishoprics. Also, all returns of re venues or data upon which the Commissioners, after the Ist day of January, 1844, revised episcopal re venues, and fixed an altered scale of payment, to take effect upon the avoidance of any see atter the period of such revision, as well as any inquiries or in struction for supplying such last mentioned returns or data, addressed to the archbishops or bishops by the Ec clesiastical Commissioners; in all cases where the grossand net iucome have been both given, the grounds of difference between the gross and net income as shown by the arch bishops or bishops to be returned; such return to show the dates of all such inquiries, instructions, answers, and re turns, and to set forth, in a tabular form, the gross and nett incomes of each archbishop and bishop, as well as the charges and deductions which constituted the differ ence between the gross and nett income; also a return of the sums paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Eng land, in each year, since the Act to carry into effect the 4th Report of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Duties a❑d Revenues (3 and 4 Vic. c. 113), in respect of any prebend or other dignity in any cathedral or collegiate church in Wales, and of the amount of such sums as may have been appropriated by the Commissioners, and how appropriated.—Agreed to. ASSISTANT BARRISTERS BILL. Mr. SADLEIR asked the Secretary for Ireland when he intended to introduce the Assistant Barristers Bill? Sir W. SOMERVILLE—On an early day. THE NATIONAL GALLERY. Colonel RAWDON rose to ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Government whether the inquiry which was instituted respecting the state of the pictures in the Na tional Gallery, with a view to their better preservation, had terminated, and, if so, would the information be given to the House. Whether any proposal had been made by the Government to the Royal Academy, with a view of obtaining for the public collection of pictures, the entire of the National Gallery building; and, if so, what answer had been given. Whether any supplemental vote in the present estimates would be called for to carry out the proposition; and whether it is the intention of Government, before tatting final st •ps for permanently locating the pictures on the present site, to institute an inquiry, by a Committee of this House or otherwise, in order to ascertain whether or not it is expsdient to allocate the pictures in Trafalgar-square. Lord J. RUSSELL said, with respect to the first question as to the inquiry instituted into the state of the pictures, with the view t.) their better preservation, he had received a report from the gentlemen composing that cotnraitte, and they had made some suggestions as to their better preservation, but they requested to be allowed to make further inquiry, particularly with respect to the mode of preserving the pictures on the continent. He should be ready, ere long., to lay that report upon the table of the House, although it was not a final report. With respect to the sc.:ond question, in conformity with the opinion of the Com mittee of that House, which sat on the question of the building in Trafalgar-square, he made a proposal to the Royal Academy, with the view of having the entire building of the National Gallery devoted to the exhibition of the pictures. He had received an answer expressing their desire to comply with the wishes of the Government on that subject. With respect to the third and fourth questions he should say, with that additional information which he now had before him in regard to the present state of the pictures, he thought it was de sirable that some further inquiry should made before any vote was proposed to be sanctioned by the House, and therefore heproposed early next week to move for a Select Committee, consisting as far as possible of the members of the present Commission, to consider that further infor mation, and to state their opinion of the most desirable manner of preserving the pictures in the National Gals lery, and whether the present site was the most desir able for the institution.—(Hear, hear,) CASTLEBAR UNION. Mr. P. SCROPE wished to ask the Secretary for Ire land whether any inquiry has been instituted by the Irish Poor-law Commissioners into the facts stated in the report of Dr. Ronajne, relative to the condition of the Castlebar workhouse, in the week ending the 20th April last ; and whether it appeared on the face of the report transmitted weekly to the Commissioners that so large a number were contained in the workhouse beyond that to which it was limited by their sealed order; and if so, what steps were thereupon taken by the Commis sioners? Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE said that Mr. Far rell, the union inspector, was investigating the subject, but he had not yet received his report. THE LORD CHANCELLOR. Mr. STUART, seeing the Noble Lord at the head of the Government in his place, wished to ask a question relative to the administration of justice in the highest court in the kingdom. It would be remembered the other evening the Noble Lord announced that the Lord Chancellor had resigned his office. Now most unexpectedly the public had learned that the Great Seal had been placed in Commission, the Commission consisting of two Learned Judges of the Court of Chancery, and one of the Learned Judges of the Common Law Courts. The Noble Lord was, per haps, aware that there was so much business in all the Chancery Courts that six days in the week were hardly sufficient to get through it. The arrangement which he had just mentioned would have the effect of shutting up two of the courts three or four days in the week, and he should therefore be glad to know how long the Seal was likely to remain in Commission? Lord JOHN RUSSELL was very sensitive of the inconvenience which resulted from placing the Great Seal in Commission, and particularly at the present time. At the same time Government had had to weigh the inconvenience that would have been caused by the Great Seal being entrusted to any individual before they bad decided what course they would pursue with reference to separating th e j u di c i a l from the political duties of the office, and until their course had been determined upon, he felt it to be his duty to advise her Majesty to put the Seal in Commis sion. He could assure the lion. and Learned Gentle man Monday that it was his earnest wish th at the );Sealshould continue in Commission as s h ort a time haoppaesditionthatto announce plan which Government had determined upon, an d to f a o s rtni p g o h s t sih h l e e, should and be he in move for leave to bring in a Bill to carry it out.—(Hear.) CUBA. Mr. DISRAELI wished to ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department if he had received any official information that Cuba had been invaded by a buccaneering expedition from the United States? Lord PALMERSTON said it was well known that such an expedition had been in preparation for a con siderable time. He had been informed that an expedition had sailed from the southern part of the United States for the purpose of making an attack on Cuba. It left on the 6th of last month, and consisted of a force of 3,000 men; and it appeared that a farther dottchmer.•t, supposed to smount to 4,000 or 5 ,000, had f o ll owe d s ome day s afxrwards. IhP president of the United States dis pa'.clr,,d a force in search of that expedition for the purpose of intercepting it, and, in the event of it having landed, of taking such measures under the circumstances as might best show the friendly disposition of the United States to Spain. As her Majesty's Government had only received this information a few days ago, they of course had not yet been enabled to have any communication with the Government at Madrid, but the Spanish Minister who reached this country from Spain yesterday had been clause was compulsory and permissive. It was per Mi ssive for every person to go to a contractor if ho chose; but going to a contractor, thecontractor would be bound by the price he had stated to the board. Mr. BRIGHT complained of the attacks made upon undertakers for high prices. What would be said of architects, and lawyers, and medical men, for charging high prices?—(Laughter.) The undertakers were not to be blamed for these expenses and high charges, .but the folly of the public was to blame. He belonged to a sect on which the undertakers did not practise extortion. —(Laughter.) A great source of expense was the prac tice of the poor going into mourning. Grief being symbolised by black, arose from the practice of bar barous nations.—(Laughter.) He feared the Bill would not put an end to expense arising from funeral.. Mr. MACKINNON said, the whole of the argument of the Hon. Gentleman was, that there was a great deal of vanity in human nature, and that the sect of the Hon. Gentleman was free from it.—(Laughter.) He thought that undertakers induced persons to go to great expense in funerals—expenses that were beyond their means— and which they would not have gone to but for the undertakers. They took advantage of the feeling of re spect for the departed relative. This Bill, he thought, would put an end to this system. The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY saw no rea son why the Hon. Member for Manchester should impute to vanity that respect for the dead which every other sect but that of the Hon.. Member fur Manchester paid.—(Hear.) He had heard the straight dress of that sect imputed to vanity.—(Laughter.) He thought that when reverence for the dead ceased very little respect would be left for the living.—(Hear.) Sir H. VERNEY approved of the opinion expressed by the Hon. Member for Manchester. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to know what was the calculation of the reduction in the expenses of funerals? Ho wished to have the Noble Lord's scale of prices, as the Noble Lord was the undertaker of the Bill.— (Laughter.) Shillibeer undertook to bury a nobleman for 30 guineas, a gentleman for 101., and an artisan for 41. He wanted to know if the Noble Lord could do it cheaper than that?—(Laughter.) The real object of this Bill was to knock up the undertakers of London. He did not know but Shillibeer was going to undertake them all. There were 700 undertakers—recognized undertakers, and with these there were cobblers, tailors, intermediate undertakers, who made the charges so high. If the Government were to bury the dead, let them do it openly. Mr. BRIGHT wished to know whether the number of contractors was to be restricted, or would it be open to all. Lord ASHLEY said there was no intention to restrict the number of contractors. They would select that number which they thought necessary. They might, in fact, form contracts with the whole body of undertakers, and he had no doubt that they would do so with the whole body who had invested their capital in this busi ness. The evidence of Mr. John Bedford showed that instead of there being 760 undertakers, there wero not, he thought, more than 100. There were 20 of the first class houses, or, as it was said by one witness, 30 or 40 at the most. It was quite true that a great deal. of the extortion that was complained of was practised by the intermediate undertakers. It was not possible for him to state in figures what the reduction might be ; but he had no doubt but that it would be 25 or 30: per cent. under what had recently been put forward as low charges. He expressed his hearty concurrence in the observation of the Hon. Member for Manchester, al though he could have wished they had been made in a different spirit. There was much of idle pomp, the result of an idle custom ; but then there were moments when persons could not enter into bargains, they not liking to be charged with irreverence to the departed.— (Hear.) He hoped the evil custom would be abated by means of this Bill—that the prejudice would be removed—that prejudice for the abolition of which so much had been done by that great and illustrious woman who bad now departed from amongst them, and who, in dying, had directed she should be interred with that simplicity and with—which she was sure to excite—that sympathy which became the member of a Christian community. Mr. WAKLEY proposed 'an amendment in the 42d line of the clause. He could any that, during the ten years he had been coroner, he had never heard a com plaint against the undertakers. The Noble Lord (Ash ley) had stated that undertakers were the persons to be employed under this clause, but there was no provision whatever in the clause to secure it. He (Mr. Wakley) would therefore move, with a view to effect that object, the insertion of words giving power to the board from time to time to invite and receive tenders from " fur nishing ironmongers"—(Laughter)—he meant under takers of three years'stending in their business. Sir G. GREY opposed the motion, which, if adopted, he said, would exclude all undertakers who had not been as much as three years in the business.—(Elear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE said that unless great precaution was exercised the system of contract might be grossly perverted and produce the very evils of which complaint was now made. He thought it would be best for the parish to make arrangements and contract for the in terment of its own poor. Then there would be a wide competition, and cheapness would more likely be secured. He disliked the system of classification which was adopted by the Bill. A great deal had been said about the vanity displayed by persons in the conduct of their funerals; but would there not be as much vanity in having a funeral belonging to class 1, class 2, or class 3 ?—(Hear.) For his part it seemed to him that this classification would act as a premium on vanity, and he must say that he felt strong objections to the clause. Mr. COBDEN said it was not often that he rose to endorse un opinion of Mr. Newd , gate; but in the pre sent instance that Hon. Gentleman had anticipated him in the remarks he was about to make. He was of opi nion that the ostentation exhibited at funerals arose from this country being a country of castes, where every caste tried to emulate the caste above it.—(Hear, hear.) And the Honourable Gentleman was right when he said, whilst the aim of the Bill was to discou rage this system, by the classification of funerals they would encourage the very thing they professed to abate. What would be the effect of this classification ? Everyone would be ashamed to have a deceased relative interred in the cheapest class, but would be desirous, if possible, to have him interred in the class above it. Where was the necessity of taking care of the higher classes at all? Surely they could bury their own dead. If the undertaker were interferred with, it could only be on the ground of benefiting the extremely poor. The higher classes could make their own bargain with the undertaker, and if cheated a little, it would not ruin them. The middle class, too, could agree to terms with the undertaker. Why not, therefore, adopt a provision that the board should keep a register of a certain pricy at which funerals might be conducted with decency and solemnity for the lower and working classes. Sir B. HALL asked what fee the friends of an artisan would have to pay under the Bill? Lord ASHLEY-11 ss. That was the maximum. Sir B. HALL said, that amongst the working classes that amount was considered to be excessive. Could the Noble Lord tell him what would be the whole expense from the time the contracting undertaker came into a house to the time the earth was thrown upon the body in the cemetry, in the ease of a mechanic dying, say in the neighbourhood of St. Pancras Church, and removed to any cemetry the Noble Lord might choose to name? Lord ASHLEY replied that at present it was impos sible for him to give the required information; but his m t e h n i a t t t s t e t d i h n e t oyt hashouldr to o e l g a t hr l able to t e r a : : duce esu t the existing cha rges veryt. own opinion, and th at o f the board, founded on the most minute inquiries, was, considerably. Whil st on his made by the Hon. Baronet on a f ormer night, to the e l e ff g e s Ct h e that m g f h o t r John's-wood the charge was only 7s. 10d., including all fees and the cost of ground. He (Lord Ashley) bad felt it to be his duty to make inquiry into the subject, and he found that the Hon. Baronet had omitted alto gether the very heavy fee which was paid for the ground, called the churchwarden's fee, and which amounted to Bs.; thus making the total fees 1/. 15s. 6d. Sir B. HALL, in justification of himself, said that he had procured his information from the parish officers with regard to what would be the charge for burials in the common ground, and that the particulars were as follows:—Rector 4.. 4d.; clerk, is. 4d.; sexton, Is. 2d.; and the use of the bell, Is. He bad since been informed, however, that there was a charge of 4s. paid to the parish, making the total I Is. 10d., instead of 7s. 10d. The amendment of Mr. Wakley was then withdrawn. Mr. Alderman SIDNEY thought the clause would be inoperative, and recommended that it should be struck out. Mr. T. BUNCOMBE feared that there would be some partiality exercised in entering into the contracts. Lord ASHLEY assured the Hon. Gentleman that the feeling of the board was in favour of distributing the business as widely as possible. Their great object would be first to consult public feeling and convenience, and then so to arrange the contracts as that there should be a fair remuneration to the contracting parties. Mr. SADLIER proposed to limit the operation of the clause to funerals the cost of which should not exceed 5/.; but the proposal was negatived without a division. Mr. BRIGHT moved the addition of the following proviso :—" Provided that in making contracts as afore said, the said board shall not be at liberty to withhold contracts from any persons carrying on the trade of un dertaker who shall be willing to contract as aforesaid for the performance of funerals at the same rate as the said board shall arrange for with any other person carrying on the business of undertaker, and contracting with the said board under the provisions of this Act." His object was to prevent a precedence by which the Board of Health was to be allowed to give up to any particular number of undertakers the whole business of the burial of the dead in a population of two millions. The Bill would, i❑ fact, extinguish the business of a large number of undertakers. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the amend ment sought to effect indirectly what had been already rejected by the House, when proposed by the Hon. Member for Finsbury. If any undertaker could come in under the contract, and propose for the burial, there would be no contract at all. The amendment was negatived without a division. On the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill, Lcrd D. STUART objected to the clause altogether, as compelling the poor, who would wish to bury their deceased relatives at their own expense by means of payments by instalments to the undertaker, to avail themselves of a parish or pauper fnnere!. The, Committee divided, when there appesrul— For the clause 104 Against it ... ••• ... 25 Majority —79 The clause was agreed to. On clause 28, enacting that the board may provide for the removal, at the request of relatives, of bodies to houses of reception, Mr. STANFORD proposed a proviso that no power of entrance to a room or a house should be given to the officers under the Act againt the will of the relatives of the deceased. . , Sir G. GREY said it was not intended to give a com r,pulsory power of entrance. The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause was agreed to. On clause 29, referring to the salaries of the additional members of the board and the officers under the Act, in answer to Mr. HUME, Sir G. GREY explained that, according to clause 69, there would be annual reports and abstracts of accounts submitted to Parliament. There was no objection to naming the salaries of the additional members of the board and of the officers in the Bill. In answer to Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, Sir G. GREY said there was no clause in the Bill to authorise members of the board to have a seat in Parliament. The clause was amended by the insertion of the words " hereinafter mentioned" after the word " salaries," so as to accord with the admission of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), and was then agreed to. Sir G. GREY gave notice of au amendment on this and the 38th clause, to meet the case of the burial of paupers who might not be of the Established Church, and at whose burial there might be no person to perform the burial service, unless there was a tee allowed. He should therefore propose to insert in line 15, after " 6s. 2d.," the word " one shilling." He also gave notice of au amendment, to prevent the payment of a fee for the re • moval of a body. On clause 30. referring to compensation to incumbents, Sir B. HALL asked what was the cause of the differ ence between the clause he the original Bill and that in the present? The former gave compensation on an ave rage of three years' income of the incumbent ; the pre sent proposition was, that a fee of 6s. 2d. be paid en every burial. Sir G. GREY said the change was adopted as the best mode of awarding compensation, after he had re ceived various communications on the subject, which was surrounded with many difficulties. A great por tion of the incomes of metropolitan clergymen was de rived from burial fees, and he must say he always found the clergy ready to make a concession of their interests for the public good. The compensation they would receive under the proposed clause would be much less than that under the former one; the principle now, adopted was identical with that adopted in all the ceme tery Acts, though the amount was much less. According to an extensive average that had been taken, the amount of the fee would be Bs., but 6s. 2d., which was the ave rage of a less number, was the amount that had been fixed upon, and with which the great body of the clergy would be satisfied. Besides, the payment of the chap lain for the performance of these duties was to bo de ducted from the fees. Mr. LUSHINGTON moved as an amendment that the compensation should not be perpetual, but limited to such of the incumbents and others as should be in actual possession of their respective tenures at the period of the passing of the Act. He contended that the clergy had no right to fees, except when they actually performed themselves the burial service. The only right they had in the matter depended upon custom only, and not upon law. The compensation clause had been altered in various ways so as to diminish the com pensation, but the principle remained the same. The alterations had been framed on the practices followed with respect to the cemetery companies. In such cases the bishop refused to consecrate until certain fees were guaranteed to the incumbent for the time being and in per petuity. At Kensal-green the payment was fixed at ss. 6d. for a vault, and 2s. 6d. for the open ground. The bishop afterwards found, when other cemeteries were esta blished, that he had made a bad bargain, and the fee at the Western Cemetery was fixed at 10s., and at the South Metropolitan at 205.; and if the Gallant Member near him (Captain Pechell) should die at Brighton, he could not be buried there for less than a fee of 21. 28. (Hear.) The best excuse for compensation to the clergy was that in many instances they were supported almost altogether by burial fees. A great deal of dissatisfaction was felt towards the Established Church, and that dis satisfaction was expressed in no measured manner. It had been stated that after the cholera broke out in India in 1817 numbers of bodies were seen floating down the Ganges with vultures preying upon them; and that the Eastern birds of prey might suggest ideas regarding western voracity.—(Hear, hear.) Judging from the violent language used out of doors ho should not be astonished if her Majesty's Ministers were accused of delivering over for ever the carcases of her Majesty's subjects and the carcases of their posterity to the ra pacious clutches of an insatiate hierarchy.—(Hear, hear.) Language like that, and worse, was daily uttered against the Church Establishment on the subject of the ob noxious clauses.—(Hear.) Ho entreated the Govern ment, if they had any regard for religion, any desire to maintain feelings of regard towards the Establish ment, any wish to conciliate the affections of the com munity at large, and to retrieve the failing attachment of the Dissenters, to agree to the amendment which he had proposed.—(Hear.) Sir B. HALL suggested that the simplest plan would be to insert words making the clause apply only to " the present " incumbents.—(Hear.) The question was whe ther those who came after the present generation should be compelled to pay for the burial of their relatives to persons who did not perform any duty whatever.— (Hear, hear.) It was intended in the first instance to give compensation in perpetuity on an average of five years, and if the incomes should prove too large, the 31st clause empowered the Commissioners to reduce the pay ments. Now he would show the Committee that the in comes to be derived by the clergy would be at least 175 per cent. larger than were ever contemplated under the former Bill. He stated the other day that the Bill was redolent of Mr. Chadwick and the Bishop of London— (Laughter)—and he had no hesitation in declaring that the amendments now proposed for the consideration of the Committee had emanated from the Bishop of Lon don and the clergy themselves, for the maintenance and increase of their incomes; in fact, it had been officially announced in one of the papers that the Bishop of Lon don had headed a deputation to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), and suggested those changes. The change proposed was, that there should be a fixed fee of 6s. 2d. on every death, instead of fixing the average at five years. Sir G. GREY—Not on every death, but on every burial in consecrated ground. Sir B. HALL—Now what would be the effect of this alteration? If the payment had been settled on the aver age of three or five years, the incomes would have been fixed, and no increase would have taken place, but under the new system the amount would increase with the in crease of the population.—(Hear, hear.) He would take the case of the parishes of Marylebone and St. Pancras, comprising one-sixth of the population of the metropolis, and which were assessed on a rental of nearly 2,000,0001. In 1801 the population of Marylebone was 64,000, and in 1841 it was 138,000, showing au increase of 74,000. The population of St. Pancras in 1800 amounted to 31;179, and in 1841 to 149,208, showing an increase of 118,029. The increase in the two parishes was 192,029, being at the rate of 200 per cent. It was quite evident that the amount of fees must increase with the increase of the population. Let the Committee just mark the difs ference in the number of deaths within two years only in Marylebone. In 1845 the number was 3,200; and in 1846 it was 3,472. The fees in the former year, at the rate of 6s. 2d. on each funeral, amounted to 9871.; and in the latter y ear to I,o7a—showing an increase f 831. The burials at St. John's Wood in 1823 amounted to 860. which, at the rate of 6s. 2d., would produce 388/. 10s. In 1846 the number was 2,163, which, at the same rate, would produce 6661. 19s. 4d.; making a difference of 2781. 9s. 4d. The clergy were entirely to blame for the disgraceful state of the churchyards of the metropolis, which they had crowded for the sake of the fees. He knew of no instance of a clergy man taking any steps, by representations to the paro chial authorities, to provide additional places of inter ment, though there were several cases in which they had opposed establishing extra burial places. The Hon. Ba ronet referred to the blue-book, and quoted two or three extracts to show the state of some of the churchyards, and the disgusting scenes that had occurred. It was a mistake to suppose that such.things would secure respect to the clergy, or that the community would consent to be taxed in perpetuity for the sake of men who would not perform their duty.—(Hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE said the Hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone and the Hoe. Member for Westminster had made a severe attack on the clergy, and the former Hon. Member had read some disgusting details of what had taken place in some of the church yards of the metropolis.—(Hear.) When the Hon. Member laid the blame of the crowded state of the churchyards to the clergy, he ought to have recollected that they were not so much in fault as the inhabitaats themselves and those who represented them, whose duty it was to have moved in the matter, and attempted to remedy the abuse.—(Hear.) The Hon. Baronet ought also to have recollected that the fees were only the means of paying the clergy, and when he complained that the fees would increase as the population in creased, he ought not to have forgotten that as the po pulation increased the duties of the clergy would also increase. —(Hear.) It seemed to him that the clause was a proper provision for the future spiritual duties of the Church. The attack of the Hon. Baronet on the clergy was for a state of things which they could not remedy.— (Oh, oh.) Was that the case ? Sir B. HALL said, if they had made representations to the parochial authorities that the burial-grounds were insufficient, the evils might have been remedied. But nothing of that kind had been done, Mr. NEWDEGATE said he was not so conversant with the position of the London clergy in this respect as he was with the clergy in some other towns. • In Bir mingham there were cures of souls where the remunera tion did not exceed 1501., more than half of which small stipend depended on burial fees. It was not correct to say that these payments were for the act of burial; they were a part of the stipend. Objection might be made to the form of payment, but unless other means were pro vided, the depriving the clergy of them would be simply robbing them of a part of their income. —(Hear.) He thought the Hon. Baronet had not scrupled to pervert the circumstances for the sake of making an unfair attack on the clergy.—(Hear.) Mr. HUME supported the amendment. The question was, were these burial fees a vested right or nut? It had, he thought, been demonstrated that the clergy had no legal right to them.—(Hear.) It had been laid down as a rule by Committees of that House that compensa tion was to bo given only as long as all duties ceased, but that sinecures were no longer to be maintained. He would be in favour. of granting compensation to in cumbezts as long as they &Ted, but not to their sncees- :ors. He concluded by saying he vs culd support the amendment. Sir DE LACY EVANS said on a former occasion when a measure like that had been introduced, the chief difficulty had been the compensation of the clergy. The Government had then said it could not be expected that it was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. But it could not be denied that it was the interest of the clergy which always stood in the way of these reforms. Could it be supposed for a moment that if the bishops had taken up that question long ago the evil would have informed of what had come to the knowledge of her Ma jesty's Government. SWITZERLAND. Mr. B. COCHRANE said, on Monday next, he would put a question to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, respecting the affairs of Switzerland. THE CASTLEBAR UNION. Sir L. O'BRIEN said he had received information from the Earl of Lucan relative to the condition of the Castlebar Union, to which the Hon. Member for Stroud had referred a short time since, which showed that the information of the Hon. Gentleman was entirely erro neous. There was a second report which completely contradicted the statements made in Mr. Ronayne's re port. Mr. P. SCROPE explained that he was not aware of the second report, but he felt it his duty to call the at tention of the House to the statements made in the other report, as being discreditable to the union, if true. THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF. Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that he would on Mon day put a question to the Noble Lord opposite relative to the University Commission. He found that a memo rial had been recently presented by the resident mem bers of the Senate of the University of Cambridge with respect to the Royal Commission which the First Lord of the Treasury had advised her Majesty to issue. He found the first signature appended to that memorial, which attracted the more attention from the very ad mirable reply of the illustrious personage who was the Chancellor of that University —the first signature ap pended to that memorial was that of the Bishop of Llandaff; Seeing that the memorial was signed by the reside nt members, he thought there must be some mistake, and that the Right Reverend Prelate was so engaged with the affairs of his diocese that he had not h a d t i me to read the memorial; but the fact was entirely t h e reverse. He found upon inquiry that last year, w h en he was appointed to the see, the Right Rev. Prel ate was not resident; that he never had been resident, and that he was actually a resident of Cambridge University. Further, that the Bishop of Llandaff had never yet been a resident of Wales, and he know not what reason could be given to justify this de parture from ecclesiastical usage, and this neglect of the duties of his diocese. The second question be intended to put was this —at the time the Right Rev. Prelate aas appointed to the diocese, the Noble Lord had got credit for appointing a bishop who was acquainted with the Welsh language. Now he saw by a late paper that on a recent occasion, on the laying the foundation-stone of a church, n the Right R e v. Pr e lat e had b een p resen t e d with address, to w hi c h h e h a d r e pli e d i n E ng li s h, that he w as not a bl e t o answer t h em i n W e l s h. stating ia It appeared that he went through the form of reading a sermon in the "Welsh language, but was unable to ad dress them in that language. He should ask the Noble Lord whether he had selected the Right Rev. Prelate for his acquaintance with the Welsh tongue, as it ap peared that some great deception had been practised upon the country and the Government. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said—Sir, I think the Hon. Gentleman might have taken the usual course of giving notice that he meant to ask a question relative to the Bishop of Llandaff, and have then made his statement— (Hear, hear)—or he might have taken another course, and, having given me notice privately that he meant to ask the nam e question, he might today have made an attack upon the conduct of the Bishcp of Llandaff— (Hear, hear)—but to come forward to give a notice, and Prelate, under th a t Corm to ma k e an attack upon a Right Rev. is, I cannot say, quite in accordance with the fairness the House was accustomed to observe.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") I am certainly unable to answer all the Honourable Gentleman's particulars at present. All I can say is, that I have no objection to explain my motives for having recommended Dr. 011ivant to the Crown for the see of Llandaff. Having heard, in com mon with the rest of the world,. that many complaints were made that the Welsh bishops were unacquainted with the Welsh language, when the see became vacant I made inquiries, not from one or two persons, but from many, whom I thought likely to inform me, whether they were acquainted with a person of eminent learn ing, and those qualifications which we should expect from a person holding the office of a bishop, and who combined with those qualifications a knowledge of the Welsh language. I considered that I was fortunate in the result, because I found that Dr. 011ivant had been at the head of a college in Wales for several years, and, as principal of the college, had given entire satisfaction to the inhabitants; he likewise acted as parish priest in a benefice in that diocese, and in that way also had become acquainted with the Welsh lan guage, and the habits of the people; joining to this special fitness, eminent learning; and on inquiring of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester who had known him, the latter more especially, when he resided in Wales, I received from them the highest tes timonials in favour of Dr. 011ivant.—(Hear, hear.) But I heard from them and from others what, in fairness, they were bound to acquaint me with, that Dr. 011ivant never held the political opinions to which I am attached. —(Hear, hear.) I considered that if he possessed those eminent qualifications it would be becoming in me to waive any question of political opinions, and I, there fore, recommended him.—(Loud cheering.) I had never seen Dr. 011ivant before, and I have not had much com munication with him since; and, indeed, all the commu nications I have had have been on the subject of obtain ing a residence for him in his diocese, so as to fix him permanently in Wales. There may have been some difficulties, with which I am unacquainted, and that perhaps I shall be able to answer more fully on Thurs day than at the present moment. At the same time I have no reason to doubt that it is the Right Reverend Prelate'. intention to reside permanently in his diocese; and I have every hope that all the expectations I enter tamed when I recommended him to the Crown will be fulfilled.— (Cheers ) With respect to the answer the Hon. Gentleman has seen in the newspapers, I have seen it likewise. What I observed was, that after a sermon preached in the Welsh language, and having ro• ceived the address, he had replied in English, not being so well acquainted with the Welsh language as to make an impromptu reply to a formal address of congratula tion.—(Hear.) That is very possible, because the Right Rev. Prelate is certainly not a native of Wales, and may not be able to speak it with that ease and fluency which he considered necessarp on such an occasion. Notwith standing all the Hon. Gentleman has said, I have not the least reason to think that I have been deceived in the information that I have received, and I have no reason to repent of the advice I gave the Crown on be half of Dr. 011ivant, to appoint him to the see of Lien daff, and I have no doubt he will prove an ornament to the bench of bishops, and promote the spiritual advance ment of his diocese.—(Cheers.) Mr. WYNN, as a resident of the diocese of Llandaff, expressed his cordial thanks to the Noble Lord for the appointment he had made, and bore testimony to the eminent attainments and high character of the Bishop of Llandaff. Mr. HORSMAN said he had said nothing about the character of the Bishop ; he had merely called the atten tion of the Noble Lord to the statements he had seen in the public papers, Thursday. and would r e peat his questions on NEWHOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. ASTAFFORD wished to know whether the question upon the new Houses of Parliament would come on that evening at a sufficiently early period to permit of a discussion taking place? Lord J. RUSSELL said there were so many clauses in the Metropolitan Interments Bill that he doubted whether they would be able to dispose of it early enough to bring on the discussion respecting the new Houses of Parliament. He should, therefore, fix it for the first business on Monday next, and afterwards he proposed to take the Lord-Lieutenancy Bill. Mr. HUME hoped the Government• would be on Monday prepared to state what they meant to do with respect to controlling the expenditure of the new House. In reply to Sir R. PEEL, Lord J. RUSSELL said he should definitely fix the discussion for Monday night to prevent disappointment, and he should then be prepared to state the views of the Government. SUNDAY LABOUR IN THE POST-OFFICE.I Mr. FORSTER wished to know what the intentions of the Government were relative to the Post-office ques tion? The vote obtained on the question had been most precipitate and incautiously come to, and he wished to know whether a full opportunity would be afforded the House of re-considering it? Lord J. RUSSELL would give an answer to the Hon. Gentleman's first question on Monday. Ile was not pre pared to fix any time for re-considering the question, and was not prepared t o support any mo tion for the rever sa l of the decision th e H ouse ha d come to.—(Hear, hea r .) Mr. G. A. HAMILTON wished to know if the Noble Lord could fix any day for going into Supply, as he had a motion with regard to education (Ireland), w hi c h many Hon. Gentlemen were anxious to have considered. Lord J. RUSSELL had hoped to have brought on the supply that day, but there was other business so pressing that he could not fix any day for the next fortnight. METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS. The House then went into Committee on the Metro politan Interments Bill, Mr. BERNAL in the chair. vation. Clauses '24, 25, an d 26 were agreed to without obsers On clause 27 being read, Lord D. STUART admitted that it was desirable that everything connected with funerals should be managed as moderately as possible; but he questioned whether it would not be better to leave the matter open to free corn. petition than to have the Government appoint persons to act as undertakers. Th e Bishop of London, in g i v i ng evidence b e f ore the Comm i t t e e on this Bill, said t h at a large portion of the emoluments of the clergymen was derived from the scarves, and fittings belonging to them, with which they were presented at funerals. With that the undertakers had nothing to do, as it was by the re. quest of the friends that these, presents were made. He feared the present clause would ruin the trade, and place it in the hands of large contractors, destroying all com petition, w hi ch was the on ly security for mo d erate char ges . He suggested that the clause should bo omitted altogeth er , and leave par ti e s to make their contracts with the se undertakers as they thought prop e r. H e should take the sense of the Committee on the clause. Mi'. Alderman SIDNEY also recommended the omis sion of the clause, as, in his opinion, it would be quite inoperative. Funerals were now respectably performed for 31. 10 s . Sir G. GR EY said the o bj ec t o f the c l ause was to in vite tend ers. The board wou ld distribute it s contracts as widely as nosaible, and he h a d no d ou bt t h at parties enderta'ae contracts. Tee wish was to dieeinish t h e c A snag o f funerals ;13 much as poo3ibk cerittinly at. much lower rates than there were now charged. N o man would b e com p e lled to accept a con tract to c on d uct a funeral, an d an y p e r s on m i g h t employ any undertaker he chose without consulting the Board of Health. Mr. WYLD objected to the clause as ambiguously worded. The contractor might find it difficult to obtain payment for the expenses incurred in the interment of individuals. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL repeated the state raent Of the Eight Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), The been removed long since?—(Hear.) He did not t hink f there was anything unreasonable in the propos itnio the Hon. Members for Marylebone, Montro se, andest' minster. The present clause he thought would no t be ex" tremely unpopular, and he hoped it would agreed to. Lord ASHLEY trusted he would be allo wed to ggY is few words in vindication of the clergy. Th e result of h experience during the time the cholera ha d been raging enabled him to say that when they had been called upon to deal in a summery way with many cle r gy men and 030 ba d had small burial-grounds in confined planes. asked them to close up their grave - y ards had consented to do so without a murm ur, and they had never received compensation for it then or sin' e ' s The compensation now proposed was roue' than that which had been proposed un der the three years' average. On 52,000 interments the sum Pi;°P °fi e r a was about 16,0001, and that was still further dicoinisb As far by about 3,000/. paid to officiating clergyrne-4 ,no as he understood the sense of the House, thero ws s , strong opposition to givinr , compensatioia to exist in g h l e y cumbents. But it should ° be remembered that ii took away one particular duty they did not take g_Ze'd many that were necessarily performed by those wh° various other parochial clerical offices to discharge. Mr. HUME wished to know how the l aw of the c" stood. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said no claim f° l . fe r e : could be enforced by law for duties performed by et ai e e d but custom gave a right where the duty wee perfo.r d by the parties themselves.—(Cries of .4 Divide, die, The Committee then divided, when there apfesre For the amendment 12 88 6 Against it 39 Majority ... ••• --fee to t of Sir B. HALL objected to allow the burial main at 6s. 2d. as fixed by the Bill. The incuraheed to St. Pancras had only 2s. 6d., and they now Pr n i V „ ' „, give him 6s. 2d., or 175 per cent. more than be p o w and ceised. In Marylebone the present fee was 4s. they proposed to make an addition to that of Pc'E -45s to for doing nothing. They ought in common fainedoe. allow these large parishes to thenejoy their present tageous position, and if in smaller parishes t„''' tha t were too heavy, they ought to be brought od t f, re , sum or even less. He moved that the swo t 17 t he duced from 6s. 2d. to 41. 4d. , the sum received by minister in the largest parish n the metropolis. d of Sir G. GREY said he was informed that 454 4 i fe• the lowest fee received in that parish, rage . fee for the last five years had been 60. 9d. iced Sir B. HALL said that 4s.the sum d 4d. was ,„„e, on about " 0 per cent. of the burials in Maryieo",•,,, io 28 . 6d. the amount received for the same propor'iv St. Pancras. stew , Mr. HUME thought an average ought to be „ i s b e efs and ha had no objection to give the present inen'onisi full compensation; but he did object to PO a perb and that the annuity to those who were to do no duty. OC 43 ' Sir Wa n W. JOLLIFFE would go farther than t - ~ es' Member. He was ready to comp ensa te not only lh— isting, but the future incumbent. n t of° . clause BRIGHT recommended the postponenge-. it , so that Government having heard tho,ohrkiegi,t urged against it, might have an opportunity of tik' d more consistent with the claims of the public , 5 , 13 „. 00 justice between the clergy and the great port's" this metropolis. After some further discussion, ne t in' Sir B. HALL asked if the Right Hon. Ba r bee for tended to act on the suggestion of the Hon. Aleillithdtsif M anchester; because, if so, he was willing t° his amendment. Sir G. GREY said no good result could arise a dopt postponement, and he therefore must decline t° inie n that course. Sir B. HALL was about to withdraw big a men s le es but was informed he could not do so without We of M the Committee. e ai 6 ' r. HUME, with the view of getting rid man „ e potl culty, begged leave to move that the Chei • progress. The Committee divided, when there apPoreds; For the motion .. " Against it ... ••• —. 44 Maj or ity d 0 0 " Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said, as.;he question 1000 in his opinion, been duly considered, be Iv°rl6 that the Chairman do now leave the chair. moti °l3l Lord J. RUSSELL would not object to th e - but proposed that the House should We"' ()clock on Monday, to proceed with the Bill. l ived Mr. HUME protested against their meeting 6;9 o'clock o'clock on Monday.—(Loud cries of " Hear, 106' ti had to attend a Committee of great importsnee,:d had many other Hon. Members; and 1 0 . 13 , ° ., P A Nub's Lord would not perseve in that propositio"'beee' Lord J. RUSSELL complained of the le,°g t ie of? discussions that had taken place on every elfit o ;sib ig unless they had morning sittings, it would be 11113 1; 0 0 , m to carry the Bill through during the present 069",4g3" Sir B. HALL said it the Government Woule,,"t"tbole Bills like the present, they must expect to finel„ t `ti - str eci whose interests were so deeply involved shouleht"--prejlid' their representatives to resist what they theeg" . 06 °' cl!cial. He should feel bound to oppose the in eetl eeti 4 Monday at twelve o'clock, as he had to attend ellodoi of his constituents on that very subject ell g oy morning. Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not insist 0 ,1 0 ioe re day any more than Tuesday, and if it won't' , ete convenient, he should fix twelve o'clock on Te e. ,. Mr. C. LUSHINGTON said his constitueeh""ohico completely dissatisfied with the precipitation wit" thisßill was hurried 0n.—(06, and a laugh.) side r/l i Lion Al ter of t h e some further discussion, the further olot Bill was postponed till Tuesdl twelve o'clock. Ti g r i. The House then resumed, and the CUA I ` .- ported progress. d st On the question that the Bill be further coeilicief it y twelve o'clock on Tuesda i Mr. BOUVEEIE said he objected to t heir 6-tt twelve o'clock. The House then divided, when there apPee re i 3 o -' For the motion 2 5 Against it ... ••• • ••• Majority in favour of the motion to ji • The Judges of Assize Bill went through tf f i v g Mr. NEWDEGATE moved for leave to "", to ride Bill to remedy the state of the law with resPe c ' p r o (ruts on railways. The object of the Bill 1 65 t° medical assistance in case of accident. , O f, Leave was given to bring in the Bill. 0; The other orders of the day w ere then d gr,(3 eloc °. and the Muse adjourned at a Q uarter to On e 49 ==_ _ RAILWAY SHARE„ de; BRISTOL, JUNE 7. •-• je t, STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market was verY s c h l ; f a llr t es with a considerable amount of business doing a t ,l,." 0 Qu g g," of yesterday. The transactions were—Great Wesr,iii,, es 14 . 5-16 ex n.—Ditto, New • 17/. Shares, B ,, — , es ter)' Midlands, 36 1 X,—Ditto (Birmingham and G ll ' 4 per Cents., 120. • LivEßroot. JUNK 7. to - 'ro STOCK EXCIIANGE.—The market was dul l prices lower. The transactions were as foll ow ( 11 131rken,', and Yorkshire, Fifths, 91. 13s. 9d. dis. cashire, and Cheshire (6 per cent. till 1850), I v ' and Bradford, 95 —London and N orth Western , and ' l ' - $36,f New Quarters, 6s. 3d. dis.—Manchester, 1),) , colnshire, 17—Ditto, Preference, 71. 185. Id "," AV 5 , —Ditto, Halves, 9D dis.—Ditto, C0110,91%;;135 16—South-Eastern and Dover 4) Deb- t ('' o Ditto, Thirds, s , 4—York, Newcastle, and Be"' E. Purchase), 6 per cent. till 1850, 7,41 dig. ,„ BIRMINGHAM, JOO% 7. „ r uet Tb STOCK EXCHANGE. —Business t hi s share 11 7;0. 14 0 was very flat, and prices had a tendency doWo7ivoieg" transactions were as follow : —Shrewsbury and (B), 7 dis.—Shropshire Union, 4/. Bs. 9d. dis. {el' LEEDS, JuNE 7 STOCK EXCIIAN Gz. The transactions • to-y ffe 3 jis. - , low: —North-Western ( guaran t ee d registratio, 1 Midland (50/.), dis.—Caledonian. 9L 65. 3 d * # [ ADVERTISEMENT.]—A remarkable u ser . fula cured by Holloway's Ointment and Pil i t tbre e 4 / Mr. Ailiday, 209, High-street, Cheltenham, ^f e t : e di ol o . o old was afflicted with scrofula in the neck, an d U lcer - e clic 4 ; creased so fearfully that in four years he had te ° b e st ° l nf ra; body besides a tumour between 'the l" A; treatment afforded him no relief, the blood be'nedosOe' that it was considered impossible to subdue the rte d 0 ; 0 0 this crisis Holloway's Pills and Ointment were res ° o olll ej tP with great success, for in two months the boy 01. I t thre e 40' by their use, and he has continued well for the li g fs ll —Sold by all Druggists and at Professor Holl° 1 " Y g r ' 0 6 of ment, 244, Strand, London. OP e SERIOUS ACCIDENT.—On Sunday -- ", e ifr ; ri g b ro 4 Charlesworth. of Chapelthorpe Hall, was his fields, he was suddenly attacked by a c ° ”' ha v 'he ' 1 " several of his ribs, and would in all dangerprobabilitl i', Bo ot him on the spot, but a woman who saw the the' per in, with great courage, took a hedge-stake. fr° „ ll3 tlere sll and beat the animal off. The unfortunate ge' lies dangerously ill.— Wakefield Journal. ------- BlliTllB. D. o6 ‘ ‘l' OF A SON. t he Oo rj. • On the 2d inst., at Cranley Rectory , iticlolf" IL Sapte. t . v W. 6 „ f iff ° On the 3d inst., at Leeds, the wife of the I. o •' t tbe ' On the 3d. inst., at llenbury-house, Dori ' of Charles J. Parke, Esq. GIiTILN. _ . ,j, the 6 4. OF A DATI(. -re , •4to1) • On the sth inst., at Clifton-park, nee r vll-- • d , P' the Rev. Benjamin Winthrop. ter ,roA On the sth inst., at Holgate-lodge, Glouces i ife . the g bito l , gent's-p ar sthMk, rs. F. L. Slous. On the inst.,at Edgbaston, near B ireup SO' of William Baulms, Esq. • the I°° On the 4th inst., at Hyde-park -gardens,• ai Arthur Kinnaird. f the Veit On the 3d - inst., at Hereford, the wi ( e ° .....„.,'" G. Hayter. leorge ---- --------- sit • 0'" • MARRIED. t er On the 4th inst., at St. Peter's, E a t o n-spar e ,', Lei il, Howland Beaumont, Bart., of Cole Ortoo-rt'srilliais shire, Belll E t s o q. l: o a t ul t i h n e a HA.frony.ies, C.S. third d a ugh ter of ' „ tV „ a n., I , 4. On the sth inst., at St. George's, Hanover-sq.._ riv, Count Maggiolini, of Mombercelli, and Belvider,e,ilc; $l5 moot, Captain of the Grenadier Guards, to Ade' 3 . 4 cor o , e ll, eldest daughter of K. Harvey, Esq., of Thorpe, 01' ot her o f On the 4th inst., at the church of St. GOO , io n , f,scl:T i , William Henry, second son of Anthony Thoinpsa,'ter of the LyndhLirst-road, to Rose Anne, eldest daug° E. Hide, of Camberwell-grove. at t ' ' DIED. Ai lli of On the 4th inst., at Wallingford, Charles Atherton_.tio Esq., the senior magistrate and lather of the torpor toll) that borough, aged 84. f• Aft' ' of A T t o t R t e a nnidia9mlp-hc-ohuorttis-er,ol'dta..ida-hill, on the 6th ins.,,, On the sth inst. at Channtry-house, BrirY, t 0 3 ' rits Ec ' Williams,' -q., aged 58.c0 Of, 1,,,c1' On the sth inst dro William Charlton ~ r' l e , age J , of Charlton, Blackheath, and Paternoster -row• t he ic i On the sth inst., at El lace, Holborn, Francel, t• of Mr. T. Barker, Ely-place, aged 36. lc° Ber-sy , C" On the sth inst., the wife of T. Conies, Egl , °f villas, Adelaide-road, Hampstead, aged 36. ;Is o London : Printed and Published by 1111JRD,vioclk - - No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Bus ~pati Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, is tbe bilddienonc t Saturday, June S o 1850. In] That Zlll 1183 Ind dete That f tarry an That Inarkud 1 Per cent. Auch Rot or bore on the sa THI CI the 12th T ENI)EI I thletunn S trod.l.4 Also, t itn4 a lial two 11011! • 3 4, 33, 32 street, a, on the 6,6 , and' 4 'louse, tvro How rintbu ry Ifill-str ee 11, 12 , Kruse on Rouse N Pinihury Fttrthe' obtained —_________ pUI P Part, Bre, 4-rovisiou s , A :Meet UftLIC at the litY next , conside to ensxre Inept to t June t, Cr R to other rae ~__ ` vil ltan - % _ _ _ a% a ? Ctrl 1 _ % .-.-. Direct' o rbi7llbu '.very qua RC)'.ll B tho Tr: Ralllva, bale. , t fle s I 12.1:14 :; 35b e t5. : aryl t if o i: BOAT ' spree Mo Dttek e t s May 19 A_ I:xtra '1 /e3'ances dace Cou tickets n 1 Ilstant, • l i k l,l 3''s Of 411 Parti -44 Y be ii Padding • M The Ift A linaited leis than aster the , s Applte.l .uerby: • Derby, • 11111' kateriall Ire, 11. J. imul Man T own to tress bet! No. 11 TOTS, & No. 11l atA.TIC No. 11 Costume. 120 is %sum „ c ken. th l cad adm •eally go IVEIOI ~.1 4,e rear viTY. It i s I PALE' atillusemi tazity of The inlet ‘ ,l lrlcefi) coal , , t UPles, „s ''AY be eivcir, co, when so' The prix tr this a: 'tXTE L. STREE: 0 Iher Ar a i, a , t heY cor. rallee 1,1 Dint hot' • 141 11 - non lieho Sa Aectior t he prin Ma the usu Row 33 4 Y. The lake Say be It( ,kveral p, IhePll ITYdrcq )3 allooi gaily a lu g v iq ,4 , ondoi 1)1 -ving Eno lim a 1 . 1 15 , ies Same tines Zicha Prat V.'. the 81 Thl OPE; Ful Even eveki Th at II Lan( 147, kieE curs Port Trip kQr