The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-14 00:00:00

motion of the Welsh bishopric had been opposed by the
people of the principality ; all the opposition bad bean got
up by parties connected with the church. Of the 367,000
inhabitants of the two diatoms not lees then 300,000
were dimmers ; and if their opinions were col-
lected, the fate of the bishopric would soon be
settled. He wished every person to pay for his own
clergyman, as be did for his own doctor ; and he was there-
fore opposed to any farther increase of the number ofbishop•
As soon es he had the opportunity, he would move that the
bill be read this day six months.
Mr. J. COLLETT opposed the bill because it was unjust
and metalled for. The act of 1837 at once provided for the
consolidation of the small sees, and declared thatno new ones
were nesessary • hence the present bill was a breach of faith
in both these respects. It provided for four new bishops;
end if them were granted, no one knew how many we should
have. He would sooner vote to decrease their number ; so
would the country, if polled from one end to the other : they
would vote spinet any more bishops se well as against the
game law.. (Laughter.) He thought that many of the
bishops had done great harm. The Bishop of London tape-
eially bad done his utmost to promote dimension in the
church ; the service was now conducted in twenty different
ways in his diocese; and recently he had refused to license a
clergyman because se was en Irishman. (Hear.) He was
decidedly opposed to giving the new bishops seats in the
House of Lords; but he thought that four bishops without
seats would be as repugnant to the feelings of the country as
two bishops with mats. (Laughter.) He regretted that this
measure should have been submitted by a liberal govern-
ment ; the late government would have
He
no such
bill. (Loud cries of, " Hear, hear.") He would omit no
opportunity which might offer of defeating this bill.
-Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said it was true that a charge
had been made against the Bishop of London far refusing
to license an Irish clergyman; but, in consequence of a
subsequent commanication from the Archbishop of Armagh,
the rule on the part of the Bishop of London no imager
existed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY rejoiced that the present liberal
government had brought forward this bill; he believed the
rate government would have done the same, had the same
aeoesoty been presented to them. Learning that the
government was willing to relieve some of the overburdened
dioceses of England by the appointment of four new bishops,
, and at the same time to allow the two Welsh bishopric. to
continue, he cordially approved of the course they had taken.
The hen member for Montrose had alluded to the large
number of dissenters in the two Welsh dioceses ' • but he
should recollect that this was mainly attributable to the want
of efficiency in the church, which this bill would be one
means of supplying. (Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. HOESMA.N expressed a wish to withdraw his
amendment, and move the second reading of the bill that
day three months.
Lord J. RUSSELL said there would be no objection to
the hon. member's pursuing this course; but he had better
wait till the close of the debate.
Lord CLIVE said, the real question was not the distribu-
tion of the funds of the exleseastical commission, but whe-
ther there was • necessity for a bishop in Manchester, and
whether that want should be honestly met, or should he
supplied by robbing Wales. This bill met the difficulty
fairly, and ahould therefore have his support. He must
thank the noble lord at the head of the government for
having proposed it. To make the church efficient, there
must be more bishops, and they must be more seen in their
dioceses. (Hear, hear.) In Wales, great injury had arieta
from English bishop; net being acquainted with the Welsh
language ; if they were all like the Bishop of St. David's,
the greeted benefit would be conferred on the people at
Mr. HINDLEY asked how the bill would affect the eccle-
siastical courts in the diocese of Chester ?

----- •
Lord 3. RUSSELL said that until the bmndaries of the
diocese were properly arranged the jurisdiction of the eccle-
siastical courts of Chester would remain unaltered.

Mr. AGLIONBY was anxious that the bill should be
postponed, rather than rejected altogether. Time should
be allowed for the completion of the inquiry into the con-
stitution and proceedings of the ecelemastmal commission,
and until that was done this bill ought not to be proceeded
with. The hon. member for Cockermouth had only alluded '
to the revenues of the commissioners in money; did any
hon. member know what immense revenues they derived
from lands? (Cjies of " Divide.")
Lord SANDON, though he would not support all the
views of the hon. member for Cockermouth, should be glad
to see an inquiry into the proceeding' of the ecclesiastical
commission. He hoped this bill was only a beginning; and
that four would not be the limit of the additional bishops.
The amendment being withdrawn'
Mr. HUME moved that the bill be read a second time
that day three months. W
Mr. AKLEY seconded this amendment. He thought
that the principle of the bill was most objectionable ; and the
facts in reference to the ecclesiastical commission had laid
abundant ground for the postponement of the measure till
another manon. After the contract of 1836, it was wholly
unnecessary and improper to make an addition of four to the
existing number of bishops. It was disgraceful that, while
so many clergymen were underpaid, measures should be
thus taken for augmenting the numbers and revenues of the
hierarchy.
Dr. NICHOLL said the original proposition of the eccle-
dutical commission was the best, and be regretted that the
government had been induced to depart from it. His ob-
jections to the bill as' it stood had been greatly increased by
the statement of the noble lord,—that residences were
not to be provided for the new bishops. If this was not
to be done for the Bishop of Manchester, he feared it would
not ba done for the Bishop of Bangor. He would not op.
pose the bill, not being prepared to deny the necessity for a
Bishop of Manchester ; but he moat enter his protest against
the statements in the preamble. He hoped that the objects
of the ecclesiastical commimion would soon be extended and
defined, and that the funds would soon be applied, not ex-
clusively to episcopal wants, but to relieve the destitution of
the people. (Hear, bear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE referred to what had taken place
in 1836, on what wee called the Bishops' Bill. One principle
then advocated was the application of the surplus church
revenues In lieu of church rates; but a bill had been pro-
mised for the abolition of church rates, and nothing had ever
been beard of it since. (Hear.) The noble lord at the head
of the government, in 1836, had advocated the bill because
it created no more bishops. Who required more bishops now?
Where were the petitions for their increase? (Hear, hear.)
All this legislation was founded on the ecclesiastical commis-
sion and its reports, which were unworthy of public confl.
denim. If this bill was pressed, after all the measuresof any
public good had been withdrawn, the noble lord must'
expect to sit here other six weeks. (Laughter.) .
Lord J. RUSSELL, in reference to his statement in 1836,
said it would be carrying the doctrines of finality to an ex-
traordinary extent to say that what was done in 1836 was
never to be altered. It was erroneous to represent this bill
as a bill to increase the number of bishops by four, as it only
provided for one additional.
Mr. E. DENISON &aid thatafter the allusions which had I
been made to the inquiry, of which he was Chairman, as to
the powers and objects of the ecclesiastical commission, it
might be expected that he should say something on that
subject; but in the present state of the inquiry, he thought
it best to refrain from doing so.
The House divided—For the second reading 124
Against it
The bill was then read a second time, and the Committee
fixed for Thursday.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.

Mr. WARD stated that in consequence of the opposition
which was threatened to this bill in the other House, the
government had thought it better to withdraw it. (Rear).
The Rouse then adjourned till Ave o'clock.

The S resumed the chair at 5 o'clock.
EDINBURGH AND BATHOATE RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. W. HAILLIE moved, "That the instruction (9th
July) to the committee of 'election to appoint the committee
on the Edinburgh and Bathgate Railway (Deviation and
Amendment) (No. 2) Bill to sit and proceed this day, be die-
chsrged. That it be an instruction ti the committee of se-
lection that they have power to treat the said bill as any
other unopposed bill, notwithstanding anything to the con-
trary contained in the resolutions of the house of the 3rd
day of February last relative to Railway Bills, and that they
be further empowered to appoint the committee on the bill
to sit and proceed upon Thursday next That the commit-
tee on the bill have leers to report upon Thursday next."
Agreed to.
EARL OF DEVON'S ESTATE BILL.

Sir J. DUCK WORTH moved, " That the Euminer of
Petitions for Private Bills have leave to sit and proceed and
report upon the Earl of Devon's Estate Bill this day."
Agreed to.
SUNDERLAND IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the second martini of the
Sunderland Improvement Bill.
Mr. BARCLAY seconded the motion,
Mr. LIDDELL moved that it be red a second time that
day three months.
Mr. HUTT thought the bill a very desirable one, sad one
which the house would do well to par.
Lord G. BENTINCK opposed the bill on the ground
that all the respectable inhabitants of Sunderland were ad-
verse to it. He wu not surprised that the hoe. member for
Gateshead did not move the second reading, as it required
some more desperate and dare-devil member like his hon.
friend the member for Finsbury to do so.
After a few words from Mr. AOLIONBT and Mr. BROTHER.
Ton, the bill was withdrawn.
_ _

AUSTRALIA.
Mr. HINDLEY wished to know from the hon. gentleman
the Under-Secretary of the Colonies, whether it was the in-
tention of the erown to sanction an act of the legislative
council of Australia which authorised a vote of money for
the payment of certain sects ?
Mr. HAWES wu understood to my that the money was
voted out of the fund of the colony, and that the subject
would come under review hereafter.

DISEASE IN EMIGRANT VESSELS.
Lord J. MANNERS wished to put a question to the hon.
gentleman respecting mortality on board emigrant ships.
The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the
government was, whether it would not be desirable to pro-
vide medical aid in every emigrant ship. He wished, there-
fore, to ask whether the government would take the subject
into their consideration, so as to prevent any emigrant weird
leaving Ireland or England from being subject to those pesti-
lent diseases, which they had reason to believe carried off so
many of their fellow-subjeets ? (Hear, hear. );
Mr. HAWES said that the noble lord, at the head of the
colonial department, gave the moat anxious consideration to
this subject. The mortality in the preeedt year was occa-
sioned by the very large *migration which hd taken place,
and the state of Ireland. But there was this difficulty in the
way with regard to sending a surgeon in every emigrant vessel
—namely, that about 700 emigrant vessels left the poets of
this country this year, and competent medical authorities
who had been consulted on the matter stated that it would
be almost impossible to find surgeons for such a number
Of ships. It mien be noomoory to tonoolidato tyq Todoni

acts relating to the conveyance of emigrants, and he would
use every exertion to overcome the practical difficulty he
had stated.
Lord O. BENTINCH naked whether the fact was not that
the law exempted vessels going to Canada and the United
States only, to which the great flow of emigration was
directed, from carrying surgeons? Could not a short bill be
even now introduced on the subject
Mr. HAWES said it would not be expedient to do so, now
that the season for emigrating was
ob-
taining W6OOAIE.L7EOOYssai. d there Aoebrin....odedgiffic...lityy
paiind.ob-
CASE OF R. BENNETT.
In answer to a question by Sir F. Kitty,
Mr. HAWES said it was not the intention of his noble
friend (Earl Grey) to refer the case of Mr. R. Bennett, a
magistrate of Ceylon, to the law-officers of the crown, or to
make him any compensation.
CASE OF YR. LANGSLOW.
Mr. ESCOTT said the complaint he bad to make to the
house in the ease of Mr. Langslow was of two kinds. The
first was that a personal wrong had been to Mr. Langslow ;
and the second was that a wrong was done by his dismissal
to the people of the colony, to whom, for some years back,
the fair and impartial administration of the law had been a
manifest blessing. The noble lord at present at the head of
the Colonial-office thought it right to abide by the decision
of Lord Stanley, who dismissed this gentleman. But he
was not to be prejudiced by the acquiesence of the noble lord,
or of his predecessor, Mr. Gladstone, in the decision of Lord
Stanley. He did not mean to impute personal motives or
personal interest to Lord Stanley, in coming to the decision
he had, but that he dismissed Mr. Langnlow without giving
him an opportunity of answering the statement. made against i
him, and behind his hack. The judgment that he pro-
non:iced improvide emanavit, and he called upon the House
of Commons to reverse it. Mr. Langalow was a person of
considerable learning, and had every prospect. of ultimately
succeeding at the bar. In 1832, he was appointed attorney-
general at Malta, but that office being abolished, in 1838, in
consequence of the report of a commission, Mr. Langslow re-
turned home, and had a retiring pension till he rot some
other employment. In 1840, • great change having taken
place in the administration of justice at Ceylon, Mr.
Langslow was appointed to the office of district judge.
Thelon. member then proceeded to state the circumstances
attending Mr. Langslow's suspension by the executive noun-
cil of Ceylon in 1843, on the ground of dilatoriness in the
discharge of his duties u a judge—a ground utterly irrecon-
cilable with the fact stated, and not disproved, that within a
given period he had decided five times as many cases as his
predecesior. There was, indeed, a certaM period Chen the
criminal business of the court almost stood still, owing to •
dispute, upon an abstruse question of practice, between Mr.
ow and the Queen's Advocate ; but he appre-
hended that in every case of that kind the judge
was bound to decide according to his own judg-
ment. After the suspension, Lord Stanley, as colo-
nial secretary, had to sit in judgment on the acts of the
governor of Ceylon. Ultimate!, he revoked the Queen's
commission, and dismissed Mr. Langslow from her Majesty's
service. In his despatch Lord Stanley said it was not big
intention to express an opinion as to any act performed b
Mr. Langslowof
his
ocial capacity, cognisance of which
did not belong to the Queens privy council. Instead of
that, his lordship had recourse to charges made when the
accused was practising at the Maltese bar. One of those
charges had reference to a case in which Mr. Langslow's
son was fined Ss. for smoking a cigar in the streets, an
offence of which many members of that house had
frequently been guilty—(laughter)—and in which the
father was of opinion that the apprehension of the son was
illegal. Mr. Langslow had long been aware that he had had
enemies in Malta; but it was not till lately that he ascer-
tained the name of his principal enemy. It now appeared
that in 1838 Sir Henry Bouverie, Governor of Malta, wrote
to Lord Gleneig certain statements which Lord Stanley had
thought fit to revive, and to make the ground of his decision.
One of these statements • as, that Mr. Langalow had set
himself up as the leader of • factions and discontented party
in the island, an allegation the truth of which was
quite inconsistent with his obtaining a pension on
retiring from his office under the crown after six years' ser-
vice. (Hear, hear.) That Sir Henry Bouverie did not
write merely on account of the public interest might be
inferred from the fact that, at the moment when be wrote he
knew that the office held by Mr. Lanplew had actually
been abolished. The real motive of Sir Henry Bouverie's
conduct, as he himself confessed, was a desire to prevent Mr.
Langslow from obtaining a pension. Lord Glenelg, instead
of acting on Sir Henry Bouverie's representations, ob-
served, in the House of Lords, that he was surprised
that any one should imagine that there was anything
in the mode in which Mr. Lengslew had quitted
Malta which at all detracted from his high character
as a gentleman and a lawyer ; and the noble lord at
the head of the government subsequently selected him
for a judgeship in Ceylon. Equelly strong testimony in
his favour had been boyne by Chief Justice Oliphant, of
Ceylon, and by Chief Justice Stodhart, of Malta. He was
at a loss to account for the opposition which had been raised
in Ceylon to Mr. Langslow ; the only probable cause for it
which be could conjecture was, that Mr. Langslow
had taken • very active part in enforcing a des-
patch requiring persons engaged in the civil service
to pay less attention to their plantations and farms. It was
very difficult to make out the precise charges in consequence
of which the dismissal took place. In an able letter, how-
ever, written by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, by
the direction of Earl Grey, those charges ranged themselves
under three heads: the first was that, as a judge, Mr. Lang-
slow was in the habit of embarrassing the government. A
more vague charge it was not possible to imagine. If a dis-
pute arose between a coffee planter and the civil government,
and the judge pronounced against the latter, that might
be called an embarrassing of the government. The
next charge was that of indecorum in Mr. Langslow's
communications with the civil authorities. There
might have been the use of unguarded phrases, but that alone
could not form a sufficient ground for dismissal. However
incautious the accused might have been, he apprehended that
he never called the executive council thimble-rigger,. (Hear,
hear.) There was no judge, perhaps, who did not sometimes
use expressions which he subsequently desired to real. The
third charge related to Malta, and was based on the assump-
tion that, not having been punished as attorney-general in
Malta, he ought to be punished as judge in Ceylon. The
hon. and learned member then read a memorial signed by
the practitioners of the supreme and district courts of Cey-
lon, remonstrating against the suspension of Mr. Langslow.
The merchants and landed proprietors of Colombo forwarded,
to the number of 1,800, a petition to the council, praying
that Mr. Langslow might not be suspended. The suitors of
his court, to the number of 2,095, also petitioned in his
favour. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Escott) ear-
nestly prayed the government and the house to take such
measures u would afford Mr. Langslow suitable relief, beg-
ging them to remember that if a judge was to be removed
unheard, the administration of justice was not safe.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion, and the question being
put,
Mr. HAWES complimented the mover on the way the
motion was brought forward, and admitted that an appeal
to parliament was the proper and only remaining course for
Mr. Langslow to take. It was not necessary for him, how-
ever, to go into a consideration of Mr. Langslow's case, and
he was thereby spared much pain, for he knew Mr. Langs-
low himself, and had the pleasure to be acquainted with
many of hle friends. The course which he bad to take was
merely to refer to the reasons why the present Colonial
Secretary' considered it unnecessary and improper to re-open
the question. The grounds on which Earl Grey took that
ems° were these. The late Secretary of State had
considered all the circumstances. The present colonial admi-
nistration was in possession of Mr. Langslow's cane, as brought
under the consideration of Lord Stanley, and he (Mr.
Hawn) was bound to say that no new circumstance was
advanced. Earl Grey, therefore, felt himself in that posi-
tion that It would not have been delicate or proper for him
to interfere. But there was another circumstance. Mr.

Laugelow came home in May, 181.5, when he was put in
possession of Lord Stanley's decision, and lie made no
attempt to re-open the question until the end of 1846. That
was an exceedingly strong fact, especially as Mr. Langslow,
on a previous omission, had petitioned Lord Stanley, not to
set asideltia judgment, but merely so to modify it, sato enable
him to obtain his retiring pension. The rule of the present
Colonial-office not to re-open cases unless new facts were be-
fore them, was one that was absolutely necessary. As re-
lated to the merits therefore, he left the sae to his hen friend
opposite, whose acquaintance with it would, very possibly,
enable him to satisfy the house. He should, (jr his own
part, move the previous question.
The amendment was put, when
Mr. G. W. HOPE rose, and said that he should endea-
vour to compress his statement into the shortest possible
compass. He must first of all say that Lord Stanley had
stated to Earl Grey that he should be glad if any one
in the Colonial-office could tote a different view from
himself as to Mr. Langslow's dismissal, and that it was per-
fectly open to him to consider whether Mr. Langslow was
fitted for ether employment. He did not think, therefore,
that the speech of the present under-colonial secretary was
satisfactory sa to the reasons why Earl Grey had not re-opened
the question. The hon. mover had asked for what Mr.
Langslow had been dismissed ? If the hon. member had
consulted the Blue Book, he would have found that he was
dismissed for want of tamper, self-control, and discretion in
the way in which he had fulfilled the duties of his office.
But the hon. member said the only excuse for his dismissal
would be dilatoriness. Well, between the 17th August and
the 24th October in one year, Idle Langslow bad only de-
cided two criminal appeals. The hon. member spoke of the
high character of Mr. Lengelow. It was no wish of his to
press heavily against that gentleman, but he was bound
to look at the evidence before them. The Maltase
inquiry commission had reported that Mr. Langslbw
neither understood the Maltese law nor the Italian
language, and consequently was a very inefficient officer.
He aitogether denied that Mr. Langslow had been dismissed
from his judgeship at Ceylon, on account of hie previous
conduct at Malta. He was dismissed solely by reason of his
acts at Ceylon. The hon. gentleman referred to the pro.
ceeding of Mr. Langslow in inserting an advertisement in
the public papers of Ceylon, announcing the sale of his law-
books, for the reason " that the salary given him by the go-
vernment was not sufficient to enable him to live respec-
tably, and that he could no longer keep up a law library fir
the use of her Majesty's government." This proceeding
the hon. member denounced as wholly indecent on the part
of a judge, or, indeed, of any public officer. Sir Colin Camp-
bell, in more than one despatch, found it necessary to speak
in the most emphatic terms in reprobation of the conduct of
Mr. Langslow, at Ceylon, The hoe. member for Win-
chester had spoken of the reference by the Colonial-0154e to
a breach of the peace committed at Malta by a son
of Mr. Langslow, as most unfelt., but it hadizil
been referred to in connexion with another had_
of the peace committed by the mama party at Co-
lombo. He contended that, upon a review of all
the papers on the subject, the government at home
was perfectly justified in the conclusion that Mr. Lan 'a
Lopractkobla wiper, sad spiessatic fog sack