The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-20 00:00:00

Mabee, were not required for the spiritual government of
the English church. The noble lord had never addressed
himself to that question. Eleven years ago it was proved,
not that the bishops bad over-much to do, but that their
duties were unequally divided. Measures were then taken
to equalise their dioceses, and it was proposed to do that with-
out any increase of the episcopacy. If it were replied that
parliament had affirmed that the bishopric of St. /tomb
should remain, and that it was universally conceded that the
diocese of Chester was too large, then he asked why not
place some of the diocese of Chester under the spiritual
superintendence of the Bishop of St. Asaph / The member
for Cockerenouth (Mr. Horaman), in his unanswered and
nnansweraWe speech of Tuesday last, had shown that not
more bishops ..ut more clergy were required, and that they
had been much more cherished and fostered by governments
than the working Mee of our church. It was intimated
that there was to be a Bishop of Bodmin. He, as a Cornish-
man. protested against any such institution. The Bishop of
Exeter write sufficed for the purpose. The minimum coot of
• Bishop of Bodmin would be 4 or 6,0001. a year, a min
which would be far better employed in improving the condi-
tion of the under-paid clergy of the district. Then, again,
there would be the necessity of building an episcopal Palace
for the new Bishop of Bodmin, an enormous outlay, judging
from the expense of the palace for the new Bishop of Ripon,
which rost nearly 16,0001.
Sir G. GREY thought that the increase of population and
of livings in the district where it was proposed to institute a
Bishop of Manchester fully justified the appointment. The
population of the proposed diocese of Manchester would be
11,230. The population of the diocese of Chester was nt pre-
sent nearly two millions, so that it was evidently essential M
relieve that see.
Dr. N ICHOLL denied that the expense of the episcopal
palace of Ripon had been so great as was stated by the hon.
Unmet opposite.
Mr. ESCOTT contended that the increase of population
was no argument for the inereese of bishops. The augmen-
tation of bi•hops would render the chunk establishment
odious to the country.
Mr. HUME would repeat, as he had repeated over and
over, that the present measure was a violation of the compact
of 1836.
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that there had been city com-
pact in the matter which przeluded the preeeeding with the
present measure.
The committee divided—For the amendment l4
Against it
Mr. V. SMITH said that he had now to bring forward
the amendment of which he had given notice, relative to the
three additional bishops Tercet., d to in the preamble of the
bill. The noble lord at the head of the government bad
said that he was open to conviction, and would be ready to
make any alteration in the measure which could he shown to
him to be proper. The preamble recited, that three addi-
tional bishops were to be created as soon as convenient.
Now these words were quite at variance with the rest of the
preamble, and they contained a pledge which, to say the
least, was extremely inconvenient, and one to which the
House of Commons ought not to stand committed. There
was nothing enacted in the bill upon these words in
the preamble, and therefore he pressed on the noble
lord the propriety of expunging them. The right hon.
gentleman concluded by moving that all the words relating
to the creation of three new bishoprics be omitted from the

preamble.
Viscount CLIVE said that the retention or omission of
• the words was a matter entirely unimportant, at nn enact-
ment Was contained in the bill consequent upon them.
L srd J. RUSSELL said that if the words objected
to by the right honourable gentleman could be made
to hear the construction which he had put upon
them, and to convey a pledge that the House of
Commons would, at some futurc session, proceed to
create three new bishoprics, which construction, however,
he did not thick they could in strictness be made to bear,
then he must admit that the objections which the right how.
gentleman had urged were of some weight, and for that
reason he was disposed to think the words in question might
just as well be omitted, leaving the proposition for creatinz
three new bishoprics entirely open to a future parliament.
He therefore would agree at omit them from the preamble.
After a few words from Sir R. INOLIS,
Mr. AGLIONBY would be glad to get from the noble
lord a pledge that he would not in a future session resuscitate
the proposition for appointing three additional bishops. He
complained of the constitution of the commission on whose
report this bill was founded. It contained twenty-nine eccle-
siastics to twenty laymen, but he frayed that the major por-
tion of the business fell to the lot of the secretary.
Mr. WYNNE Reproved of the concession which had been
made by the noble lord. He trusted, however, that the
altered mode of discussing the preamble would not be drawn
into a precedent.
Sir J. GRAHAM was sincerely rejoiced that the noble
lord had agreed to alter the bill. He quite agreed with the
right hon. the member for Montgomeryshire as to the
inexpediency of discussirg the preamble of a bill, in the
first instance, as a general practice ; but the peculiar cir-
cumstances of the present case must serve as an excuse for
the course which had been adopted.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY was also well pleased at the con-
cession which had been made by the noble I, rd, the more so
as it saved him (Mr. Wortley) and the house the trouble of
discussing the amendments of which he had given notice.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was his intention to retain the
second clause, striking out that portion which referred to
the future appointment of three additional bishop*.
Mr. HORSMAN complained that certain churches which
had recently been built could not be opened, in consequence
of the non-payment by the ecclesiastical commission of the
stuns they had promised towards their construction and
endowment. He thoueht this was a reason why the episco-
pal fund should be employed more generally to parochial
purposes.
After an observation from Mr. HENLEY, approving of the
alteration,
Mr. COLLETT (Athlone) said that having been absent
front the house for a short time, he wished to hear from the
noble lord the exact position in which they stood with respect
to this bill. (Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that in the preamble as it hid
originally stood reference was made to the future appoint-
ment of three additional bishops ; but the bill contained no
enactments on the subject. He now proposed postponing all
reference to that point to a future period.
Mr. HUME regretted that the bishopric of Manchester
had not been struck out along with the rest.
After a conversation,
Mr. ROEBUCK said that in the alterations which the
noble lord had made in the preamble he had completely
thrown over the recommendation of the commissioners, Ile
(Mr. Roebuck) should move, therefore, that as these recom-
mendations had become a dead letter, they should be ex-
punged from the bill.
Sir G. GREY said that the recital of the commission in
the preamble was immaterial to the principle of the bill. If
the preamble had not contained that recital, the bill would
still have been complete in all its enactments.
Mr. HORSMAN could not see what had been the One of
the commission. Commissions were usually appointed to
do work which government had not time to do itself; but
here was a commission composed of members of the cabinet,
who, basing made a report, proceeded themselves to frame a
bill founded on that report.
After a few words from Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Gonlburn,

and Mr Hume,
Mr. BUNCOMBE said he wished to know whether the
words relating to the creation of three new bishops having
been struck out of the preamble, it would be necessary, if
her Majesty thought fit hereafter to found three new reel,
that recourse should he had to parliament for the purpose ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said it would be necessary to come to
parliament —The preamble was then agreed to.
On clause 1 being proposed,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to add the fol-
lowing words to the clause, after the word Bangor," and
before the words " shall be repealed," " and also any order
of her Majesty in council relating to the said union, and to
the new see of Manchester."
Sir J. GRAHAM apprehended that the order in council
proposed to be now repealed was the order under which the
new bishop was entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. If
he did not oppose the words proposed, ho hoped that he
would not be prejudiced with respect to the amendment on
the second clause of which be had given notice (Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. Sroa.ar and Mr. ROEBUCK,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that whether the
order in council did, in fact or law, give the bishops a right
to a neat in the House of Lords he would not then discuss.
On discussing the second clause he would be prepared to
show that this order had no such operation, and that it was
a mistake to suppose that the bishops sat in the House of
Lords by any legal right ; they sat aerely by custom.
In answer to a question from Mr. Harrutzt,
Sir G. GREY said the bill made no alteration whatever in
the application of the revenues of the Collegiate Church of
Manchester.
Mr. M. PHILIPS asked whether any claims for compen-
sation esuld arise from parties at Chester, by reason of
ecclesiastical courts to be constituted at Manchester ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the effect of the bill
would be to leave the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Court
of Chester untouched for the present.
The words proposed to be added were then agreed to.
Mr. AGLION BY objected to the clause, on account of its
ref ning to other acts of parliament in extremely vague
terms, and because it gave extended powers to the eccle•
Masa& commissioners. He moved the omission of that por-

tion of the clause.
The SOLI C ITO R-0 EN E RAL quoted the clauses of former
acts referred to, and contended that the reference to these
provisions wu sufficiently definite.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the clause perspicuous enough,
but objected to the extension of the powers given to the ecclo-
Mastics' commissioners by the act of 1836.
After a few words from Mr. J. Stewart, Mr. Healey, and
Sir J.eGraham (suggesting a verbal amendment, which was
ad opt,
Mr. AGLIONBY withdrew his amendment.
On clause 1 being proposed to stand part of the bill,
Mr. HUME said he must divide the committee on this

question.
The committee divided—For the clause 128
Against it 25-103
On clause 2 being propued,
Mr. J. 8. WORTLEY expressed his satiOiction that the
noble lord at the head of the government had abandoned
that portion of the preamble of the bill which had
teferenee to the creation of three new bishoprice.
While he concurred in the creation of the see of
Mancheuer, he could not 'went to the deprivation of
the individual so appointed from a seat in the House of
Lords. He objected to this clause, Inasmuch u it interfered
@rich the prerogative of the crown in eummoning peers of
parliament to legislate : in reference to the dicta of Belden,
Lord Coke, and dir Matthew Hale, the diocesan was the
representative in the legislature, not only of the clergy of
his dioceee,and thereby atof right entitled to a seat. He was
aware that the use of the see of &odor and Man might be
brabgbt against him, bet in mower to that, he begged to
temlail the committee that the rotate who filled that me,

though deprived of a seat in the senate, was still a member
of the legulative council. It might again be urged, that
the Irish spiritual peers only took their seats in
rotation, but it could net be forgotten, that the
same regulation attached to the temporal peers,‘ whose
election was treated on the same grounds. Now,
what were the peculiar circumstances ? Sufficient had
transpired that night to show that an arrangement pro-
posed by the oommisaioners and solemnly sanctioned by par-
liament in 1836 would be set aside if this clause were re-
tained. On what ground was that arrangement to
departed from > With every respect to the authority of the
crown, he (Mr. S. Wortley) was prepared to united that
the crown had no right to withhold the writ of summons to
a Bishop of Manchester, if duly created. The government,
it was understood, had at one time been prepared to create
the bishopric with full powers and dignities ; and probably
now they repented not having taken such a course. Tim
noble lord had incurred the hostility of • clam of members
on his own side the house by pursuing a middle course ; and
he (Mr. 'Wortley) entreated him now Vs look round,
to review his position, and ask himself whether
he would not do better to take a bold step at
once and invest this bishop with complete privileges.
For his own part, he believed it better for the public, the
legislature, and the bishops themselves, if no bishops were ex-
cluded from parliament. Ile moved that the clause be
expunged.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL commenced by observing
that the foundation of the report of 1836, was the noa-
creation of additional bishops with seats in the House of
Lords. It was proposed to adhere to that view, and there
was no legal objection to that course. How did the bishops
hold their 'cats ? In the times of the Saxons the bishops
where what was called Free Arms. At the lima of the con-
quest the Conqueror created the sees baronies in fee ; and
thus the occupants obtained seats in parliament. But this
only referred to the older sees, the occupants of sees more
recently created obtained their seats by patent. The ques-
tion resolved itself then into a question of convenience. The
government had stated candidly that their object was not to
create one, hut, pouibly, to create even four bishops. To
admit all these fitur, would, he thought, be dangerous ; and ,
to admit one only would be clearly invidious. He trusted,
therefore, that the house would affirm the clause.
Mr. C. E. LAW complimented the noble lord at the head 11
of the government for the liberality and temper with which
he had conducted this bill. He was seeking to confer a great
benefit on the church and the public, ffirShe feared a great
sacrifice would be made if the exelusion of bishops from their
seats was to be the mice of it. The house must remember
not only that the bishop of Manchester would for •
time lose his seat, but that every bishopric would be in turn
divested of the right. For the creation, therefore, of
one individual bishop, not at first to hold a seat
in the house, they were to admit the principle that
every bishopric might be divested of its present privileges.
It was said that the bishops had unanimously assented to the
arrangement. He rather regretted the truth of that fact,
because he thought it is .a not to be mentioned to their corn.
mendation that th-y divested their sees of a prerogative of ,
which they did not individu illy divest themselves. The
right hon. gentleman concluded with expressing his hope
that the noble lord would not mar this measure by refusing
to accede to the proposed amendment.
Viscount CLIVE thought that the extension of the tem-
poral power of the henc:i of bishops was of slight importance
as compared with the rendering them an efficient spiritual
order • he considered the clause u it stood better calculated
to produce this result than if it were accompanied with the
amendment, and be should therefore support the clause.
Mr. NEW DEGATE supported the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL supported the clause. The proposi-
tion, indeed, was not • recommendation of the commis-
sioners; the point had been submitted to the commission,
but no answer had been given. The bill, heweeer, came in
its present shape from the House of Lords, where the right
reverend bench had accorded it their complete sanction.
(Hear, hear.) Hs did not at all see that the prerogative of
the Crown was affected by the measure. If the Crown were
bound, ex &kite juetitia, to summon every bishop to par-
liament, there would be no choice left in the matter, and no
prerogative. The object here was not an extension of the
political power of the bishops, but the advancement of their
spiritual usefulness.
Sir T. I). ACLAND accepted the proposition of the noble
lord, because it was the first attempt made by any govern.
ment towards remedying a great want in regard to the most
reverend body, which was to be increased by the present
bill. . .

Mr. ROEBUCK said the noble lend ought to recollect by
whom his bill was praised sad accepted, and from those
praises to distru.t his own proceeding. The opposing
party only sought to get the wedg.., in at its sharp I
end, and the rest would soon follow. He eulogised the
noble lord for being the first minister who had dealt with
the spiritual power by a legislative enactment, and trusted
that the first step would ultimately lead to an entire reform
of the whole subject. Let the hon. gentleman oppo-
site take this to heart. The whole of the spiri-
tual body of peers were about to take a new
plunks, and to have their turns in representing
their order in the House of Lords. The minister would
henceforward have the power of regulating the manner of
admitting the spiritual peer into the upper house, and every
sort of jobbing would be used in order to get the right sort of
bishop. Would any one believe that all the dissenters would
not be in arms in consequence of the first step ? And those
who were about t support government in the matter
would find their account in so doing. It was a very pretty
quarrel, and he would leave it as it was.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that so a Roman catholic
be had hitherto felt it to be his duty to abstain from ob-
servation on this measure. If it had been proposed to pay
the new bishops out of funds belonging to dissenters or
Roman mambos he might have thought himself celled
upon to interfere, bat as the funds belonged to the
established church he had thought that his mast
proper course was to remain silent. (Hear, hear.) But
now a question of public policy was raised on the point of
giving the new bishop a seat in the House of Lords. He
was quite prepared to support the view of the government.
(ILar, hear.) Ho thought it very important that some
at least of the junior bishops should be allowed
to devote the whole of their time to the care
of their flocks, without the risk of being called away to le-
gislatorial duties, at the very moment when, perhaps, their
attendance was most necessary at their diocese,. Oa the
whole, he believed that the best course would be, seeing
that the established church was the church of the
majority of the people of this portion of Great
Britain, that the efficiency of that church should be
increased, and he did not see how it could be increased
without increasing the means of superintendence. With
this view it was his intention to support the clause.
Mr. AGLIONBY intended to oppose the amendment.
The committee divided—Fur the amendment 67
Against it
Lerd J. RUSSELL said he should propose to omit the
two next clauses, there not being the same necessity for them
so for the rest of the hill.
Clauses 3 and 4 were then pat and negatived, and clause 5
was agreed to.
W Mr. FREEN then moved the insertion of two clauses,
regulating the patronage of the new diocesan.
Sir 0. GREY objected to these being made part of the
present bill, an the question formed part of a larger question
now under consideration with regard to the whole of the
bishoprics.
The clauses were withdrawn.
The house then resumed the report to he received this day.
POOR LAWS ADMINISTRATION BILL.
On the order of the day for considering the lords' amend-
ments to this bill,
Lorl J. RUSSELL proposed, in reference to the clause
which precluded the separation of man and wife above sixty
years of age in the workhouses, that the house should dis-
agree with the lords' amendment omitting that clause, and
that, a conference should be requested with the lords on the

subject.
The amendment was accordingly disagreed to.
On the consideration of the next amendment (omitting
the clause for the admission of the public to the meeting. of
the Boards of Guardians),
Lord J. RUSSELL proposed to agree to the amendment.
Mr. WAKLEY moved the adjournment of the debate;',
but alter a conversation this motion was withdrawn.
Mr. ET WALL argued in favour of the re-introduction of
the clause.
Sir G. GREY opposed it, and said that he had thought
it objectionable when first proposed in that house ; it was •
clause that had occasioned great alarm.
Mr. WAKLEY thought the clause a most important one,
and hoped there would be a division in its favour.
Mr. BROTHERTON said the clause was a cruel one, as
regarded the poor, who would naturally dislike to have
their cases investigated before a crowd of people.
Capt. PECHELL apprehended that the great cruelty
would be in the poor not being allowed to come up to state
their cases, as had been done in the Andover union.
Mr. ET WALL desired to withdraw his opposition, but
Mr.WAKLEY pressed a division, when the numbers were,
For the Lords' amendment 89

For the dame l9-70
The other amendments were then agreed to.
FEVER HOSPITALS BILL.

On the order of the day for the committee on this bill,
Mr. WAHLEY objected to the site intended for the pro-
posed hospitals. One of them was to bo erected in the very
centre of Islington—a course fraught with the greatest
danger to the public health. Saving thin objection, he ap-
proved of the principle of the hill.
Sir G. GREY said he had received a deputation front
Islington on the subject of the proposed hospital, but he did
not think the Secretary of State had any power to interfere.
In his opinion, the only remedy of the inhabitants would be
an appeal to the Court of Chancery.
After a short discussion,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE strongly protested against the ereo-
lion of any hospital in Islington.
Tho bill was then withdrawn.
The house adjourned at 2 o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—LEITH HARBOUR.
Division in Lamer of the third reading at the till for the Improve-
ment of Lei It Harbour.
OONTOMI.
Drat LIU& LOlO.
Norfolk lthaar Falkland Wrottealey
MAY4IO'IIEI6 Devon ussor. Moinstent
Marna:do °martin &. Maph Stafford
Lazadowas Drew ware. Strafford
a.sam. Minto De Manley Damnify
Auckland Remborough Canon Weal
Grey
Flora ifitahardhage Cattenham fledeley
Caamball
NOT oo.vrrxr.
WIER LAIL& WU. LORDS.
Richmond Harewixel Stradbroke Sondes
Montrose Nol
Buodench an
EnninMen Cardkpui CodeWe
visootirnt Walabagttant
mammon. Bow Onebreeme Redeadale
Agasbaryi et. Oscan' Pier/ OraLgour
Huntley

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY

1. wit emprois..
..... • • • MAIM
The owlelel than! *Mk yds Marseilles, to the Medlterniewes,
=Uwe. 0=1411415.. mei Nang. ho., witbe made up ea the
sites
The Mee Vips76parto, Llebea, lidedelra, Cad* and Gibraltar
wM Irby at as athathe et the Ilth July.
Tie mei Mr Sew SS h Wale. Van Diesenh Lead, log Na.
aeai as or the SIAJely.
tertieske;fimaderse, amid
th, µevargi, mil be sob up GM Pis mandag Ur 2ed Agst.
ne thr BMW Meth limadis, mg tits United
Mates, pal be moth ith thi the emir of tth Ira Awed.
71seeserhod mils fat 0114•144 thatt.thrthes. the Irian Islands,
ZMA.restralagad64 eriallak Ileatliampton,
thelis thr lissiNwir, p,.u„ Mouth NM% Potham.
=WIN Nadlith sod yres, will be meth ith ea the
pc OM, 4th Await

RION WATIIR AT LON 00 4.2811701..
7.,. D -76,A1.. pug 6 , Afton.% Il Ala pot 7.
70,31 —MAMA& 04 We. TAP 7 , Aturssaa, ;•7 Ala pre 7.

LONDO.V, TUESDAY,JULY 20.
IN the House of Lords yesterday, on the question of
the third rending of the Leith Harbour and Docks
Bill, the house divided, when the motion was carried
by 26 to 20, and an amendment moved by Lord
REDESDALE was rejected by 21 to 18, when the bill
pane.
Ind the House of Commons, on the question of the
re-committal of the Bishromic of Manchester Bill,
Mr. Escorr moved as an amendment that the house
should proceed to the other orders of the day. After
a speech from Lord JOHN RUSSELL, explanatory of
the coarse he had invariably taken with respect
to ecclesiastical matters, and some discussion,
the motion was withdrawn, and the house went
into committee. Mr. M. PHILIPS moving as a
further amendment to the preamble that the proviso
for the establishment of a bishopric of Manchester
forthwith, be struck out of the bill. After some fur-
ther debate, the amendment was negatived by a
majority of 86 to 14. Mr. V. SMITH then moved
that all the words relating to the creation hereafter of
three new bishoprics be omitted. Lord JOHN RUS-
SELL, considering that the objections taken by the
right hon. gentleman possessed some weight, was
disposed to think the words might just as well be
omitted, leaving the proposition of new creations en-
tirely open to a future parliament. The words were
then struck out, and the preamble at length agreed
to. After some discussion on the first clause, Mr.
Hums: moved its omission, but it was affirmed by a
majority of 128 to 25. On clause two being put,
which proposes to enact that the number of lords
spiritual should not be increased, Mr. J. S. WORTLEY
moved that the Bishop of Manchester should not be
deprived of a seat in parliament. On a division the
amendment was lost by a majority of 111 to 57. The
remaining clauses were then agreed to.—On the con-
sideration of the Lords Amendments to the Poor Laws
Administration Bill, the clause struck out by the
Lords, providing that man and wife should not be
separated in workhouses when above sixty years of
age, was reinserted ; but that of the admission of rate-
payers to the meetings of the Board of Guardians, as
also struck out by the Lords, was not persisted in, on
a division of 89 to 19.

TIIE Prime Minister has run his head into a brake
most unnecessarily in the matter of the new bishop.
rice. There was a plain and simple course before him
—that of uniting the two Welsh sets, and erecting in
Manchester the bishopric absorbed in Wales. This
was a practical measure of justice and reform, and
might have been done without theory, without noise,
without affrighting the anti-episcopalian, or identify-
ing the liberals with ultra church views or revival.
The measure, as for as it related to Manchester, is
merely the formal and practical carrying out of a
resolution formed many years ago, and announced as
one to be accomplished in due time by three or four
successive administrations. The withdrawal of the
scheme for uniting Bangor and St. Asaph is, however,
a change of purpose which considerably alters the ease.
We have on former occasions expressed our belief that
the agitation against the union of the sees was rathc r
of a decorous and respectable than of it deep-seated
arid formidable species. Lord Powis, no doubt, as
the principal champion of the cause, was in earnest in
advocating it; and there were probably some scores
of Welshmen brought to an irritable frame of mind
bythe injustice to Wales, and some hundreds of church-
men, who considered the extinction of an ancient see a
serious injury to religion. The rest of the petitioners
preferred that the dioceses should remain distinct ;
some from antiquarian sentiment, some in the belief
that there was already more reason to complain of the
paucity than of the number of bishops, and a great
number from a general dislike to a violent change for
which no very strong reason had been brought for-
ward. We believe, however, that if the government
had chosen to be obstinate in its resolution, the blow
to the church would have been forgotten almost as
soon as it was inflicted, and that the clergy and
orthodox laity would have contented themselves with
the discharge of their consciences in protesting against
the measure.
On the other band it must be remembered that if
public opinion against the suppression of St. Asaph
assumed a mild form, there was nothing on the
other side to set against it. The clergy whose in-
terests Mr. HUME curiously enough undertakes
to represent, almost unanimously gave in their adhe-
sion to Lord Powis's opposition to the union. The
Bishop of LONDON, one of the original contrivers of
the sacrilege, showed his belief of the state of public
opinion by repudiating his own handiwork; while
his colleagues in the Ecclesiastical Commission were
naturally suspected of an undue bias in their defence
of a scheme for which they were themselves respon-
sible. The opponents of the church, dissenters or
ethers, have scarcely a locus stun& in the contest.
At least they could scarcely fail to strengthen the ride
which they opposed. If they desire the suppression
of the see as an injury to the church, they
must adopt Lord Powis's arguments: if they
urge that the funds of which the application is dis-
puted may be more beneficially applied to parochial
purposes, it is naturally thought strange that they
should wish to increase the efficiency of an establish-
ment which they so cordially abhor. There was,
therefore, no resistance to Lord Powis's gentle pres-
sure. As the slowest horse will beat the horse who
stands still, the " integrity of the British sees "
crawled ahead of the opposing cause: and in accord-
ance with the sensible constitutional practice of de-
ferring to the wishes of any party which has no party
to resist it, Lord lons RUSsELL, who may probably
also havo been aware that there were no very over-
whelming reasons for a measure which had no friends
bat its framers, determined that the bishops who pre-
ceded and opposed AUGUSTINE should still be repre-
sented by distinct lines of successors.
This determination, though not so very important
in itself, became eo by its effect upon the Om for
creating a bishopric in Manchester. It was no longer
the transference of a see, but the extension and mul-
tiplication of sees, in proportion to supposed religious
wants. Consistently, and unfortunately, Lord JOHN
Russets. thought it so, and proceeded to preface the
endowment of the new bishopric by a theory according
to which bishops, like Banquo's progeny, were multi-
plied in prospect. This opened a very serious question,
a very PANDORA'S box of discontent and opposition.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL discovered it to be so after no
lengthened scrutiny, and last night he closed with pre-
cipitation the box which he had imprudently opened.
Without the daring theory of indefinite bishoprics,
Manchester is fairly entitled to a prelate. If a
bishop be wanting anywhere, no field calls
more loudly for his exertions than the cot-
ton district and its metropolis. If the ancient
organisation of the country is in any degree to be
imitated at the present day, it seems but reasonable
that when parishes have grown into cities, the in-
cumbent should now and then ex into a prelate.
There may, indeed, be some pedantic fanatics who
regard.' bishop only as a fetish -man, with a magical
power of transmitting some virus (to borrow a meta-
phor from vaccination) of which he alone can warrant
the genuineness; but there can be no doubt that
sensible episcopalians expect a bishop to exercise
practical functions as well as to possess a certain
sacred character; and leaving, as before, out of the
question the determination of the actual nature of
those functions, it seems that if they are to be per.
formed at all, it is impossible for a single bishop to
supply the spiritual wants of two millions of people.
Lord JOHN Russett. is, we believe, sincerely at-
tached to the English church, and, probably, enter-
tains more definite notions than he has thought it
necessary to produce, of the practical results to be
expected from an increase in the number of bishops ;
but however this may be, we think that as a trustee
for the church, bound to consult the interests at the
church in deeding 1-71Ei ecclesiastical property where
no other party was concerned, he was fully justified

EVENING, JULY 20, 1847.

in anituning that, at least, Manchester required a
bishop. In proposing the measure, he probably anti-
cipated the argunrestip Which would be used against
him, by the en •sr e bishops, and by the ad-
ertS4
voeates of the eta: but he can hardly
have been prepared Sir JAMES GRAHAM 8
singular -speech, which 'combines -combines with strange
ingenuity the fetish view, the parliamentary
" sincere friend of the church" view, and the
official, business-like view, of the duties and
character of a bishop. The fetish theory, which
indeed, on closer examination, turns out to be rather
the red-tape view of bishops than the mere supersti-
tious veneration, consists in Sir J. GRAHAM'S defini-
tion of the duties of bishops, as consisting principally
in ordination, confirmation, and consecration of
churches ; all of which services, as he justly observes,
may be, by a judicious economy of time, performed
for the largest diocese by a single functionary. Those
who attach a quasi-sacramental character to such
ceremonials, and to the bishop who performs them,
will be greatly mistaken if they suppose that
Sir J. GRAHAM shares in their reverence. It
is perfectly clear that he is speaking of conse-
crations, and the rest, merely as forms which
ought to be observed because they are established,
and of bishops as of ushers or serjeants-at-arms, whose
duties are merely ceremonial. The Archbishop of
CANTERBURY, as he complacently observes, performs
these duties to universal satisfaction, though past 80
years of age ; from which, of course, it follows, that a
healthy and active bishop of 50, particularly as Sir
JAMES suggests, in these railway days, could get
through double the number of manipulations in
the time, or, in other words, preside to admiration
over a diocese twice as ige as Canterbury.
In his character of "sincere and attached friend
to the church," Sir JAMES is of course seized with a
vehement desire to benefit the parochial clergy at the
expense of the bishops ;a measure for which much
may be said, but which is scarcely a more valid argu•
meat against the establishment of an additional
bishopric than against the wealth of those that exist.
The oddest part of Sir JAMES'S speech, however, was
his declaration that dioceses ought to be large, to pre-
vent the bishop from being too familiarly known to the
clergy, whom he may in certain cases be called upon
to prosecute and judge. How this declaration of the
" friend of the church," suggested as it is by official
and administrative habits, may please those whom
he professes to regard, we cannot say. A " friend
of the church," in the sense in which Sir J. GRAHAM
uses the words, is generally understood to be at
least not an enemy to the clergy, and we have no I
doubt he wishes to conciliate that body as well as
to serve the interests of the public. We doubt his
success in the present instance in pleasing either
order of the hierarchy. The bishops may not I
relish his account of them as mere masters 1
of the ceremonies, with duties so simple that
a man of eighty can perform them for the
largest district. However this may be, we are quite
certain that the inferior clergy will not adopt his
views as to the danger of a too existent and friendly
intercourse with the bishops. We have heard many
complaints of present evils and apprehended danger
in church matters, but it certainly never occurred to
us to fear, nor did we ever hear of any one but Sir J.
GRAHAM who feared, that bishops would become too
much at home in their dioceses, too careless of their
own position, and too friendly and affable to the
clergy committed to their charge.
But the inconsistency, the insincerity, the clap-
trap electioneering spirit of Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S
homily upon the church, has not prevented him from
uttering some home truths, and from striking a chord
in honester bosoms than his own, which jars
vehemently with Lord JOHN ItUsSELL'S scheme of
church extension—that is, of extending the church at
the apex of the pyramid instead of at its base.

NEVER was one less under the necessity of trum-
peting his own praises than Sir Rour.mr PEEL.
Whatever may be the greatness of his merits, the
public has certainly given him full allowance for
them. To no statesman has the public voice been
more indulgent or more grateful : in favour of none
has it been so ready to overlook the questionable cha-
racter of the means in the nobleness of the euds.

We are ourselves willing to go a great length in
the acknowledgment of the merits of Sir It. PEEL.
He has saved the country from a fierce struggle,
during which all its interests would have suffered,
and the upshot of which, without him, might have
been little short of revolution. NVith the principles
on which the old tory party of this country had been
nurtured, with the ideas and the prejudices in which
it gloried, coupled with the immense power which the
aristocratic organisation of the country gave it, and
still gives it, in despite of the Reform Bill, it would
have been almost impossible to have carried those mea-
sures of economic, religious, and financial reform, had
the liberals not found a helping hand—a useful ally—
ill the camp of the
It was, however, certainly more to his position
than to his political wisdom or talent that Sir
ROBERT PEEL was indebted for the power which
enabled him to carry, or to aid puissantly in carry-
ing, those liberal reforms. The nature of that
position, and of the power resulting from it, it would
be invidious to analyse, but the circumstances are
such as, we think, ought to preclude Sir ROBERT
PEEL from coming forward and claiming for himself
all the merit of these measures. If ever modesty was
imposed upon a statesman, speaking of the past, it is
upon Sir ROBERT, and it is therefore we think that
such manifestoes as that addressed to the people of
England, through the medium of the borough of
Tamworth, ought at least to be no more than self-
vindicative.

Sir ROBERT, however, does more than this. He
draws up a statement of his acts—a portraiture of his
policy. He places it beside those of other parties--of
the liberals for example—and then calls upon the
country to decide, bow mach cleverer a statesman Sir
ROBERT PEEL is than any one else.
The country may come perhaps to this conclusion ;
especially if we have such another abortive parlia-
mentary campaign as that just closed. But even if it
does, Sir ROBERT PEEL has now lost the power and
the confidence of the conservatives which enabled
him to do all those things in which he glories. For
him to go on in that path, he must perforce come to
the liberals for their votes and their support And in
descending to the popular forum for these votes, Sir
ROBERT should doff the arrogant robe of a conqueror,
and make less boast of his superior address and
unrivalled suppleness.
There reigns at this moment a very general dissa-
tisfaction with the incomplete results of a long and
painful session. All mast feel that this is not owing
to want of talent, or of purpose, in Lord JOHN Rus-
sell. and his colleagues, but in the divided state of
parties, and in the necessity of dodging through
a host of influences, in order to carry anything. Let
Sir ROBERT PEEL COMB in to-morrow in any way
and with any friends, and even he may not escape
the weakness of the time.
The desire of the country would no doubt be to see
a strong ministry, based on a broader party than now
exists. We much fear that the present tendencies
of party and of party leaders are not directed towards
any such result. Far from deeming a coalition as one
of the great events in preparation, we perceive ideas
moat repugnant to it prevailing. Instead of whigs
and Pcelites at all approaching each other, we see
Lord JOHN coquetting with PEEL'. old and deserted
mistress, the church, whilst PEEL in turn goes a con-
siderable length of way to pay his addresses is that
popular party, and to those popular ideas and leaders,
which had erected political standard and tent far
beyond the old confines of whiggism. Sir JAMES
GRAHAM takes the wind out of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S
sails, as a church reformer! PEEL'S lieutenant twits
the bishops ! And there is even an anxiety on the
part of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S party to occupy the
ground, left by the present ministry out of pure zeal
for education, in the affections of the dissenters.
All this indicatee, on the part of some of Sir
ROBERT PEEL'S followers, an utter recklessness of
principle, which is highly dangerous, not merely for
any discredit it may bring upon men who have already
displayed old TA LLEY RAN D'B contempt for consistency
r but lest it might damage the popular party itself,
of which such mercenaries look, by tho display of
such mountebank qualities, to take the lead.
, One of the most important eventualities of the time is
• the formation of a popular party in England, an essay
• never fairly made, and never even rationally set about.
; Many isolated men and many scattered minds may
be said to belong to it ; but they are without argent-
; ration, or common conduct, or generally admitted aims.
All the elements exist of a great party, but who shall
discipline, who combine, or who head them? How
immature are popular political ideas may be judged
from the nature, rank, and fate of all the penodicala

or organs, eat up as the representatives of truly
popular opinions.
We do not know bat that such a party might be
vivified into active and useful existence by such a
leader as Sir ROBERT PEEL, if he came frankly to
support its principles, and not impoee his own.
But we must confess we should much dislike
to see complete fraternisation between some of
our honest popular politicians and the official
hack, of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S administrations. If
PEEL even brought his younger men, would keep
them more steady, and make them abstain from ut-
tering political conundrums of the DISRAELI school,
such a coalition might pass. But a cabinet, in which
GRAHAM and COBDEN would sit side by side, for
example, would only create a fear lest a stain should
be cast upon the candid sincerity and simplicity of
the popular politician. Aud the loss of character on
both sides aught have the effect of defeating the hopes
of a permanently strong administration, even by the
very means precipitately employed to found one.

WE have before urged attention to the county
elections on the part of liberal politicians as essential
to the maintenance and development of social and
economical progress. Let not the active and intelli-
gent amongst the electors be satisfied with securing
sound politicians as members for the trading and
populous districts, but let them also do what they
can to rescue the counties from aristocratic do-
mination. With his characteristic sagacity, Mr.
COBDEN has pointed out the hazard to which the
prospective measure of free-trade in corn of 1846 will
be exposed in the next parliament, if the free
trade electors, too confident in their recent victory
over the political landowners, shall omit to return,
at the coming election, members of tried convictions
and competent knowledge on economical questions.
The landocracy has been checked, but is not conquered.
The anti-social monster, Monopoly, is not dead ; it
can scarcely be said to sleep; it is on the watch to
regain its control over the nation's subsistence. Now,
the means by which this is °ought to be effected, is by
strengthening the landed interest This is distinotly
avowed by the chief organ of the tories, the Quar-
terly Reriew, which, in the June number, thus
lays down, in an article on " I'eel policy,"
the course to be pursued by the protection-
ists :—" All government," says the reviewer, "what-
ever temporary interruptions may intervene, must
be based on property, and especially on the most solid
and substantial species of property, the land. . . .
This great fundamental truth, which the conservatives
should never forget, must secure to them the sub-
stantial government of the country, by whaterer indi-
vidtud hands it may seem to to administered." And
after some further illustration of his position, in re-
ference to the measures of the next parliament, the
reviewer adds, " The present corn law will have to he
further suspended, or repealed, or continued."
In these passages there can be no mistake,
and that an attempt will be made in the en-
suing parliament to prevent the extinction of import
duties on grain by the uninterrupted effect of
the present law, is no longer a matter of doubt. The
means of accomplishment will be to endeavour to
strengthen the political power of the owners—practi-
cally little more than the nominal owners—of land.
Now that power has been the source of all the evils,
and they are neither few nor inconsiderable, which
have been inflicted on this nation by legislation.
The Reform Bill has, to a certain extent, broken
down that power in the cities and towns;
but in the counties it is, to say the least,
as dominant as ever. Nor will it be otherwise until
tho rural capitalists, the tenant farmers, shall have
been rendered independent. This must be mainly
effected by such emendations of our real property and
insolvency laws as we have on various occasions sug-
gested, and which the progress of civilisation requires-
To such topics it will hereafter be our duty to recur.
At present, our purpose is to p'ace before the reader
the workings of a portion of that machinery by which
" the land" is to be continued " the substantial
government of the country." The addresses of the
counts- candidates for Gloucestershire, which we find
published in a local paper, furnish materials for a
glimpse of such workings. •
Mr. EDWARD HOLLAND, the liberal candidate for
East Gloucestershire (who we regret to see has since
withdrawn from the contest), is favourable to exten-
sion of " liberal and free-trade principles," which is of
course diametrically opposed to the dominruicy of
"the land" so strongly insisted upon by the Quarterly.
He has done good service to agriculture by preparing
and inculcating the form of a lease for agricultural
land, which, while it protects the landowner, leaves
the tenant in a great measure free to cultivate to the
best advantage.
Yet in Mr. HoLLassn's address there is no specific
mention of that thorough revision of the law and
practice applicable to landed property which is the
great political desideratum of the day. The requisi-
tion to Mr. HOLLAND was, however, founded upon
"the humiliating state of the division, in conse-
quence of its having, at the dictation of one family,
returned two members, both giving their support to
that halting policy now repudiated by every states-
man of eminence." Here it is quite clear that the
requisitionists have got hold of the right notion that
" the land " has had too much power. Sir CHARLES
CODRINGTON repudiates the imputation of being a
nominee of the Duke of BEAI*FORT, because he was
member before he had married the duke's daughter;
while the duke's son, the Marquis of WORCESTER,
says that he "was called upon to come forward under
peculiar circumstances fraught with danger to ' native
industry.'" And then this scion of "the land" goes
on to assure the electors "that upon the last mentioned
subject his feelings are unchanged." Doubtless these
eminent members of the protectionist party are guilt-
less of any docility to the teachings of experience.
Members of this class have no sympathy with the
opinions, or knowledge of the wants, of the industri-
ous community of which they are nominally the
representatives. But what of that ? They are a part
of the machinery by, which " the substantial govern-
ment of the country' is to be secured to " the land,"
and the wealth and power of this industrious nation
rendered subservient to the aggrandisement of the
landowning class. Let these things be clearly under-
stood, and there will be no difficulty in laying the
foundation for a thorough change in the representa-
tion of the English counties.
Let us turn now to West Gloucestershire, and
there we find Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY, with the
most naive unconeciousnc,ant, exposing to the public

gaze the very wires by which the political puppets of
" the land " are pulled. That gentleman appeals to
the electors of %Vest Gloucestershire upon the ground
that in electing him their member they would
assert their own independence by rejecting a
nominee of Earl FITZHARDINGE. That sounds
well, but what are Mr. ORANTLEY BERKELEY'S
claims to the confidence of the Gloucestershire

farmers ? Are they founded upon the part he took
in the game law committee? On his contemptuous
statement, repeated again and again, that farmers
always attribute to game depredations the failure of
crops caused by their own bad farming? Or on his
proved capacity for legislation ? Oh, no, nothing of
that sort ; his claim to the representation of W est
Gloucestershire is based on his personal wrongs. He
originally came forward "at the request of Lord
Fitzkardinge, under a protest," that his private
fortune was insufficient to bear public exigen-
cies ; " and on a promise from him, that he
would assist it with his ample funds." Thus
Mr. G. BERKELEY was not only his brother's
nominee, but his stipendiary member; and he now
appeals to the electors "to reject the nominee and
elect me," because his patron, upon family and per-
sonal considerations, had lowered, or declined to con-
tinue, the stipend. Is that a claim to entitle Mr.
GRANTLEY BERKELEY to the votes of the liberals of
West

sire ?

There is one circumstance, however, worthy of re-
mark in this family-politico-rebellion of nominee
member against his landlord patron—that Mr.
GRANTLEY BERKELEY, who upon the game com-
mittee spoke so slightingly of the farmers, is now
eager to advance their questions. He says:
Recent events have painfully forced upon my attention the
dependent condition of the tenant farmer. It cannot be
denied that very frequently, after many years of toil and
anxiety, the only realised property the tenant possesses, is
the improvement he has effected in the land of another. Of
any benefit accruing from this, the will or caprice of an in-
tolerant
landl wd may at any time deprive him. No reran.
time
may result from the tenant's prolonged industry ;
his only reward, the mere means of existence in put years.
If, therefore, any bill be introduced securing to the agricul-
turalist the fruits of his industry, thus actirg for the good of
the many, by checking the grasping spirit of the few, itshall
receive my earcest support.
The farmers, who have read how Mr. G. BERKELEY
spoke of tenant-farmers in the game committee, will
admit that adversity has not been without its use to

this gentleman. But he does not atop at tenant.
right—he, the game law champion, professes to be
almost, if? not quite, a game law repealer. He says
The game laws are widely condemned, perhaps as a„,m,
from the harsh and wanton manner in which the) have oeft.
'kindly been enforced, as from any internal detects. Since
the select committee sat to inquire into these laws, some
facts have been brought to my notice in regard to the pow,'
of oppression stiven to the few. that have greatly shaken my
opinion of Me expediency of maintaining some of ow,
enactments. Opposed to a more stringent Trespass Aat
am free to consider to amend or to abolish a part or all of
the present game laws.
Now there can be no question, that if the libetei
electors could believe such professions as arc contained
intheabovoextracts from Mr. CRANTLEV IlEssettles
address, much feeling on his behalf would be excited,
The political moral of this is, that if Mr. G. li I RK ELET,
with such disadvantages as he labours wider, can
hope to stir up the industrious liberal electors of die
district against the dominant laudocrocy, what might
not be done by an intelligent and liberal middle-clan
candidate ?

The prosecution before the Court of Peers in the
Cubieres affair was at length brought to a close on Si.
turday evening, when the court gave its decision. The
court had deliberated with closed doors for the yet
four days, not on the guilt of the accused, shout
which, seeing it was virtually confessed, there could
be no discussion, but upon the punishment to be tn.
flicted. The sentence pronounced by the Chancellor
corresponded exactly with that which we gave by
anticipation in our correspondence yesterday. M.
Teste is to undergo three years imprisonment, to lime
aivil right', and to pay a double fine equal to the
amount of the douceur he accepted, that is to my
ninety-four thousand francs to the State, and an equal
sum to the fund for the support of the Ifo.piude
of Paris. The other two accused, General Cabbies
and M. Parmentier are each fined ten thousand
francs, condemned to lose civil rights, and to be
imprisoned until the fines be paid, the term of ix.
prisonment not to exceed five years. The Greta
of the court immediately on the delivery of the set.
tence proceeded to the prison of the Luximbourg,
where the accused were detained, and announced to
them the sentence of the court. MM. Cubieres sad
Pannentier, paid the fines, and were immediately*
at liberty.
The sentence of civil degradation against General
Cubieres excited a sensation of surprise aril regret in
all circles of the French capital. It is stated that
however seriously his i,nprudeeee might be regarded,
all the reasonable exigencies of justice would hare
been satisfied by the exaction of a fine, and that eves
temporary personal restraint would have been mereifal
in his case compared with the privation of civil rights
To appreciate the severity of this sentence in the case of
General Cubieres, it is only necessary 'o consider what
his position has been, and how the sentence will
affect it. M. Cubieres is a peer of France, and a
lieutenant-general in the army, holding besides va-
rious titles and decorations. The thirty-fourth article
of the code defines civil degradation thus:—l. Dia
missal from all public functions, employments, and
offices, and incapacity ever again to hold such. 2.
Privation of the right of suffrage, ineligibility m a
deputy, and in general the privation of all civil and
political rights, and of the right of bearing any deco
ration of honour. 3. Incapacity of acting as a juror
or as a witness in any process. 4. Incapacity of
acting as a guardian except of his own children. S.
Incapacity to bear arms, to enter the National Guard,
or the army, to keep a school, or be an aseistsatia
one. Those who are most desirous to see established
the supremacy of the laws, and who admit most fully
the neces,ity of repressing with a just severity the
offences which have been admitted in this case by the
accused, are strongly revolted nevertheless by tiu
contemplation of such a sentence against Gems!
Cubieres. . .

-----__,
The general, says Lc Slie!e, has committed, it is toe,
an inexcusable fault. Believing, as he affirmed, that the
government was in avaricious and corrupt hands. he beams
the accomplice of the very abuses he stigmeised, and de
corrupter of the minister whom be charged win cupidity.
Such was his crime. But, in fact, he was the dupe otlal
those by whom he was beset, losing his money, erg
promising his honour, descending even to weakness, sad e
one moment, by a strained sentiment of genereeity, es.
posing himself to a charge mere infamous even then ail
degradation itself. Forty years of noble services were as
put in the balance against offences, great, we admit, be
such as might have been otherwise ex:,isted. It eem
he said that the example will only be the more terrible.
Be it so ; may it also be the more efficacious. But, mar
while, we may be allowed to express some commisersfia
for a brave soldier whose blood has flowed through sir
or ten wounds on the field of Waterloo, and who, in the&
cline of his life, allowed himself to be betray-, .1 into theme
paths of speculation and intrigue, without bringing tam
the spirit of boldness, rapine, and trick to which to SW
others in these days owe their impunity.
The Constitutionnel, the organ of another ratty.
and as well as the SiOele differing in its politics frog
General Cubidree, says:
We respect the decisions of consli•vited tribunal!, be
we cannot forbear expressing the painful sentiments win
which we have heard a sentence which puts in the use
rank, and confounds in a common punishment, tle
accused so much opposed in their character, thee
antecedents, and in ail the circumstances of the pm
cese. But we oilt go even further, and obaere
that the punishment of civil degradation is not equa
for General Cubieres and M. Parmentier : for the is
a peer of France, a general, a soldier of Waterloo, ted
degradation is the meat severe punishment which coed
b., inflicted for a fault which was already expiated by Rate,
rible consequences; for the other, a mere man of businim
it will amount to nothing mere than exemption from gm
ing as a juror, and from the duty of the national guard. Ift
do not question the motives that may have dictated Mines
teace. We respect them, although we do not coos
head them; but we must be allowed to suggest all*
effects of this severe judgmeut which are grounds dem
passion fnr the object of it.
La Presse devotes its leading columns to estaiiii
that there are no grounds for acquitting the gee
berg of the present cabinet of practices as id •
those which have consigned M. Teste to a primed
brought indelible dishonour on his old age.
of the same kind exactly as those made
Teste were lately made against them ; these MO
were specific in time, place, and circumstance: 114
like M. Teste, indignantly disavowed them andel►
tested their innocence ; but while M. Tote was foul
into a judicial investigation by which his gate
innocence could be decided by a competent tnbiul,
the present ministers shrunk from all inquiry.
Why (says La Preue) should we rut more fa& k
the protestations of M. Duchfitel than in those of H. TWO
If M. Duchltel has been Minister of Finance, if be is see
Minister of the Interior, was not M. Tines also *Wird
Justice and afterwards Minister of Public Works? Pita
he was keeper of the seals was he not long one of the Ma
eminent men at the bar—one of its glories? ,sr, he hi
one evident advantage over his former coUeogui., 3/. De ,
chetel, that he never allowed atrocious charges to be sii
against him and to remain unanswered.
It was said on Sunday that M. Pellapm had swine
in Paris, and would surrender in a few days N'
interest is now felt regarding this personsge,oo
from the threat which ke is represented as buiel
thrown out, that lie will make revelations oxqw,
milling many other persons high in office seeds
M. Teste.
M. Teste, who was formerly a member of tlibilid
sent cabinet, was, on retiring from the
public works, appointed President of the 4
the C 014? des Comple, raised to the dignity
of France, and received the decoration of
officer of the Legion of Honour.
L' Union Monarehique has the following: ,0
We hear, that yielding to the pressing entrails •
wife and father-in-law, Leopold of Belgium bas •
at least for some mouths, all thoughts of
crown. Louis Philippe end his daughter hope,
the opinion of his medical attendants, that the mild
of autumn, joined to the efforts of the faculty, sae .
ing health to the body,. operate a happy chaise is
state of the royal patient. However, were theca
prove delusive, Louis Philippe would advise, Tiit b
other trial, and pray his son-in-law togs and pall •
Italy, leaving the temporary regency of the hi .. ,
consort, in the name of the youthful heir to the

We have received advices from ladrid. to Men*
inclusive, with letters from our own correspoidealt°
the 11th, which we give below. The mails a/.
13th were due in Paris on Sunday, but did not unr6
The Infante Don Francisco de Paula, accompanied bi
hie daughter, left Madrid for the baths of St. SA.
tian at 3 o'clock on the evening of the 12th.

Our news of yesterday
a protocol had been signed by the Englisb: 'Ter
and Spanish plenipotentiaries at Lisbon, disso
the capitulation made by General Conchs and
Wylde with the junta of Oporto. The liberal's!
of Madrid appeals thereupon in forcible terms tg;
government and the Spanish people. to !make
question of national honour. Ind to insist spol„
convention signed by General Conchs beivg
to the letter. The censure implied by the
however, seems rather to regard the courrPr:
by Oeneral Concha, in having exceeded hie Po,"-
confiNirtnAedDßthlne,reJpetr.Lii,L.

--