The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-30 00:00:00

ROUSE OF LORDS, Jan- 29.
, ,
Thrt Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on toe Woolsack
at tit, usual time.
M-r. BELNAL and others brought up the Loans Societies
Bill, with the Lords' amendments agreed to, and the
Western Australia Bill.
The Gaol Act (Ireland) Bill went through Committee,
without amendment.
The Stained Paper Bill was read a second time.
The Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension Bridge Bill,
and the Ottoman Consuls Bill, were read a third time
and passed.
'he London Cemetery Bill was read a second time.
The other Bills on. the table were advanced a stage.
Earl RIPON presented a petition from Louth,
Ipraying ;hat the Grammar School might be placed under
the controul of the Corporation, so that the children of
the town might receive the benefits of a classical education.
Ile could not support the Prayer of the petition.
The Marquis of WESTMEATII presented r. petition
from Bandon, in favour of fly., Dublin and Drogheda
Railway Bill. •
Earl RIPON sail, there vas some informality in the
petition from Lout:n he had presented, and he would there•
fore withdraw it.
Earl BROW NLO W presented a petition from a place
in Lincoln ;hire, against the Oyster 'Fisheries Bill.
Lord I'ITZGERALD and VESCI presented peti-
tion from the Grand Jury of Donegal, complainis,,g of losses
whie'a they sustained by the advancemer,i of money to
carry into effect the Peace Preservatir,n Bill, and prayintr
that in the new Grand Jury Bill some clause should be in-
troduced to prevent compulsory r,ayment of alleged. arrears
which may be due on dispute:.l accounts for a long period.
He also presented another *petition, praying for a clause to
regulate the county treaaurersbips.
The Duke BUCCLEUGH presented a petition
from the syr.od Of Caithness, against the Scotch Univer-
sities Bill.
The; Earl of DEVON presented a petition from Henry
Loys'..ese; against the Brighton Railway.
STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT.
On the Order of the Day for the third reading of the
Staffe?rd Disfranchisement Bill,
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE in movirg the
thixd:reading of this Bill, felt no doubt that the question
(would be entertained after the evidence adduced. and which
so fully established the case ago:lost tbe b.:eough. The
evidence taken at the bar of their Lordsh:ips' House fully
bore out the evidence taken. in 1834, and also that taken
lefore a Committee oci: the House of Commons. There
could be no doubt ',,hat a clear case had ban made out
against the borour:n. So far did the admitted peofligacy go,
that but for the, clemency of their Lordships thl witnesses
would have been severely dealt with. The brihery which
existed in Pais borough from 1826 to 1835, and which had
been proved against it, was so, great and manifest that it
attracted the attention of all England. In 1530 the sum
of 15.,.500/. had been expended for election purposes in this
borr,ugh. In 1831 bribery was proved t 5 have been carried
to the very utmost extent, and in the plainest and most
open form. In 1830 and 1831 the p'Jrson who successfully
contested the borough was an adept in the system, and his
:agents were practised in it. Sr, well were they acquainted
with the best plan of proceerling in such a case, that they
knew it was cheaper to bribe
than to treat, and by this
knowledge they carried the' election.—(Hear, hear.) It
appeared from the evidence of the witnesses who were
examined with respect to this election, that although the
Bill which was pending for the disfranchisement of the
boronli had some effect, still bribery went on at its usual
rate, and no less a sum than 5,500/. had been expended in
this way. On that occasion 100 persons were proved to
have been bribed. Indeed, the borough was known to be
iucorrigible ; and in proof of it he need only state that one
gentleman who had sonie claim on the constituency, having
the temerity to set -ap on the principle of abstaining from
treating and bribery, was able to poll but twenty votes.
The nt ole amount expended in the last five elections was
36,98,0. Taking the sum at the rate 'of annual expendi-
ture from .826 to 1835, it amounted to 4,0001. a-year. A
petition had been laid before the House, praying that the
borough should be reformed, not disfranchised, and com-
plaining that the petitioners should be punished for the
transgressions of others. They prayed for a reform of the
borough, or for a transfer of the franchise to ten-pound
'householders. Of the 407 who signed this there were
45 not registered, voters, and of the remaining 362 there
were proved to be 250 who had been directly bribed.
These were the men who prayed not to be punished for the
transgressions of others. It might be said that the new
electors would prove more virtuous than the old, but the
evidence showed the contrary. The poor man had some
plea in his necessity, but the new constituency had no each
plea. The committee in summing up this report, stated
they considered them all equally bad. With respect to
this Bill there might be other projects enterte:med ; but, in
his opinion, under all the circumstances oithe case, an ex-
ample should be made of a place whicll had exhibited such
gross corruption.
Lord ASHBURTON waF, of opinion that this was a
case to which it was necessary to apply some remedy on
the part of that House. The first consideration was, what
was the state of the borough of Stafford, and the second,
what was the proper '..emedy to be applied ? The first thing
that appeared to I'.im to have been proved by the evidence
was that a genrJral system of treating had for a long time
prevailed. Without wishing in the slightest degree to justify
such a pradice, he should say that he did not think mere
treating P. sufficient ground to disfranchise a borough. With
respect to bribery some doubts had been entertained as to
whether the inquiry should go back beyond the Reform Bill.
The evidence went back to 1830, and also to 1826. * In
the latter year two elections took place, and at the first, at
which Mr. Benson and Mr. Ironmonger were elected, no
bribery had taken place. In the second election, on the
death of Mr. Ironmonger, a contest took place between two
gentlemen, Mr. Spooner and Mr. Beaumont, the present
Member for Northumberland, and then it was alleged that
.Mr. Beaumont had bribed to a great extent, and that Mr.
Spooner had also, in defence, resorted to the same practice.
In 1830 Mr. Gisborne, now a Mernher of the other House,
bad polled 666 votes without any payment whatever. In
the subsequent election, in 1831, the candidates were--Sir
John Campbell, the Attorney-General, Mr. Gisborne, and
a Mr. Hawkes, In that election there undoubtedly was
bribery on the part of Sir J. Campbell and of Mr. Gisborne
—in fact the latter admitted it ; but none on the part of
Mr. He.wkes. On that occasion head-money had been
paid, tither down at once or after the election ; but the
Attorney-General, who was a little more cunning, stipu-
lated that he should pay down something be °lee-
ton and the rest afterwards. In 1832,
when re
Mr.the Chet-
avynd, Mr. Gronow, and Mr. Blount were the candidates,
there undoubtedly was proof that 13;:ad-money had been
paid ; and perhaps the case of 1852 was one of the most
gross that could be cited agair.st the borough. The last
election took place in 1835, and it was stated that the practice
had excited the disgust of the respectable inhabitants of the
borough, and even of the poorer classes. The only candi-
date who was proved to have bribed upon that occasion
was Mr. Gronow, and he only paid between 170 and 180
-voters out of a constituency of 1,200. The two successful
candidates were Sir F. Holyoake Goodricke and Captain
Chetwynd.. He (Lord Ashburton) would call the case of
1835 one of remarkable purity, when he considered that
the great majority of the voters were poor shoemakers, and
to whom ten pounds pet -.ote, or some such sum, could not
of course be unacceptable. Bribery had therefbre been
proved against the Attorney-General, Mr. Gisborne, Mr.
Gronow, and M-,.. Blount ; and these gentlemen, it should
be remembered, were all Reformers, indignant at the
thought of f
bribery, and most clamorous, as that class
thing en,
alre, or purity of election ; and it was a singular
from al. 'ugh that the only persons who had come out freed
t imputation of bribery were Sir F. H. Goodricke
and M.r. Farren, taro gentlemen entertning opposite opi-
nior.Js. With respect to
the remedy, heai should say that it
was no trifling matter to disfranchise a county town, con.
staining a population of 10,000 inhabitants', and that it
should not be done until every other remedy had failed.
He was very ready to admit that something must be
done in this case ; but the alternative was either to
pass this Bill, sent- up from the other House of
Parliament, to disfranchise the town absolutely, as a case
tcwh...u.;h it was impossible to apply a remedy, or
the.corrupt practices, it would not be possible to fix upon classes
or upon individuals. He certainly should object to the dis-
franchisement of the freemen in a body.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, upon the whole, was
inclined to believe that bribery was now less practised
within the borough than formerly. Considering, therefore,
that the new constituency and the more respectable inha-
bitants were desirous of purifying the borough from corrupt
practices he thought that the evidence was not sufficient to
justify the House in disfranchising the borough entirely ;
hut at the same time he was satised that some measure
was necessary. The only course that he could recommend
would be to stop the progress of the Bill, for the purpose
of introducing another measure, which he should hope
y e
would remed•th grievance complained of, without going
beyond what justice might require.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought it would be
better to agree to the second reading, in order to see what
modifications might be made in the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved, as an amend-
ment, that the Bill be read that day three months.
Viscount MELBOURNE said that it was impossible
for him to vote for the second reading of this Bill, but at
the same time he begged to guard himself against the im-
pression that he was adverse to any measure which would
meet the justice of the case, and remedy the malpractices
proved to have existed in the borough of Stafford.

'he House then divided, 1% nen the numbers ere—
For the Bill
4
Against it
55
Majority against the 8i11..., —sl
ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL,.
Viscount MELBOURNE rose for the 'wryest. of call-
ing their Lordships' attention to this Bill, I'vhich Was
founded upon the report of the Ecclesiastfierd Whmis-
sioners, and the object of the Bill was Vs IkV•ry into effect
the recommendations of the reports iWited in the preamble
to the Bill, There were some 4111srepresentations current
respecting this Bill—rnisrVesentations put forth in other
places, and which had 'prevailed without the walls of Par-
liament-Twhich made it necessary for him to say a few
words in explanation of the objects of the Bill—in defence
of its authors—and in maintenance and support of Or
principles upon which it was founded. In the fast loge
he would be,g distinctly to be understood, that 04. W.
1.
not e,:eate any additional episcopal sees, did it in-
i...aduce into their Lordships' House any additional ecele-
siistical Peer. It having beer_ found, upon consideration,
ty the Commissioners, P,76pedient that the sees of GI-,uees-
ter and Bristol short;,te united into one, and
:,
.
of St. Asah an the sees
p d liangor should be ".:iso Inat
united into one,
and placed under one episcopal authority ; and the inconve-
nient extol-b'
of the dioceses of York and Chester also having
been kr a long time a matter of great complaint, it was re-
sol-ved, as the four other sees were united iota two, to di-
vide these sees into four, and to establ'Alt in the one those
episcopal jurisdictions which 'were; in fact, abolished in the
other. But, then, no new Bishop had been appointed, there
had been no increase in tht: ecclesiastical authority as re-
presented in that Honse, neither had any episcopal juris-
diction been established which had not before existed. It
was, then, a general misrepresentation to state that there
were two new Bishoprics created by this Bill ; and it was
necessary, therefore, for him distinctly to contradict that
statement, :Ind to deny that that was either the effect or the
object of the measure he was then proposing. The next
topic which had been made the subject of attack, of in-
vective, and of misrepresentation, was the amount of the
incomes which, in accordance with the recommendation of
the Commissioners, had been allotted to the Bishops. Now
he found that this matter had been considered as if it were
entirely a fresh—entirely a new—subject ; and matters be-
/ longing to the system, which they found established, were
charged against the new system which they wished to in-
troduce ; and it had been stated that they were giving those
incomes to the Bishops, as if they had found nothing pre-
viously arranged. But their Lordships would recollect that
on this occasion they had had to deal with an ancient And
settled establishment, an establishment with which the
great majority of the people were contented--to which
he might say the great majority of the people were
warmly attached—and which, even by those who in some
degree withdrew from communion with its services, and
established for themselves separate places of worship
and separate ministers, was preferred to any other sect—an
Establishment which, he could safely say, commanded the
respect and approbation of the Dissenters themselves, and
diffused its beneficial influence amongst them. It was with
that state of things they had to deal ; and unless they had
intended totally to alter the nature and character of that
Establishment, which he for one must beg to say he was
by no means prepared to recommend or to support—unless
they were prepared to make so extensive an alteration,
they had nothing to do but to retrench superfluities, and
correct that which appeared to them subject to the
charge of excess. He had seen that the Right Reverend
Prelates who had acted upon the Commission were charged
with avarice, for concurring in the recommendation of those
Commissioners. Now, nothing could be so unfounded as
that ; because, as the regulations were not to affect the
present incomes, no Prelate who was in possession of a
diocese could be accused of any personal or selfish mo-
tives. He might, perhaps, be accused of entertaining too
great an attachment to his order—of being prejudiced
in his views upon the subject—of being anxious to pre-
serve to others those benefits which he had himself en-
joyed ; but, then, though those were charges of a lighter
nature, and contained nothing of a sordid or dishonour-
able character. He (Lord Melbourne) would not then go
through what had so often been detailed before, as to the
present amount of the incomes of the bishops, or that which
was proposed by the present measure. But now let them,
for instance, consider why the sum of 15,0001. a year
should be allotted to the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and
when they considered the state of society in this country,
considering the position which the Archbishop of Canter-
bury was accustomed to fill, and the influence which ge-
neral opinion must have upon the position which he would
hereafter fill—considering also the established mode and
fashion, from which it would be so difficult to depart—he
would ask their Lordships whether, in reference to the
wealth of the country, in reference to the distribution of that
wealth, in reference to the large fortunes which had fre-
quently been amassed, and would continue to be so, whether
the sum of 15,000/. a year was anything extravagant or
excessive ? Theii Lordships knew what 15,0004 a year
was ; he would not say that, if carefully watched and
guarded, it would not be sufficient for the purposes proposed
—sufficient to maintain its possessor with the proper com-
fort and style due to his station, and sufficient even for the
exercise of a becoming charity. But it would not admit
of any superfluities : it would not admit of princely splen-
dour or extravagant luxury ; it would not admit of any-
thing like waste, profusion, or negligence. Then he begged
to put it to their Lordships and the country wheter,
unless they consented to an entire change in the character
of the Established Church, a change which he was not pre-
pared to support—whether, with any justice, it could be
complained that that which was recommended by the Com-
missioners was in any way exorbitant ? And if the charge
was not true as to the higher incomes, his observations
would have double force with respect to the inferior sums.
But when they were told that these incomes were about
three times as much as the salaries of any of his Majesty's
principal Secretaries of State, or of the superior Judges of
the Court of Law, he must beg to say that those compa-
risons were in no degree fair.--(Hear.) There had hitherto
been found, and he believed always would be found, per-
sons not only of competence, but of very ponsiderable for-
tune, who would be tempted, by views of ambition, to un-
dertake the principal offices of State ; but that was not the
case with the Church. Fortunes might descend to per-
sons who were established in the Ecclesiastical profession ;
but it was seldom, he believed, that any man originally of
considerable fortune entered the Church as a profession ;
and, consequently, the Bishop came to his see probably
a poor man, very improbably a rich one, and then
he gained that station with the disadvantages of an
income which terminated with his own life ; and their
Lordships must all be aware how great were the em-
barrassments to which an individual so circumstanced
was subject. Then, again, as to the higher sta-
tions in the law, they were generally bestowed upon Bar-
risters of extensive practice who had had the opportunity
during that practice of making fortunes before they
reached those stations. Taking all things into considera-
tion, be believed their Lordships would be disposed to
concur in the recommendation of the Commissioners upon
that part of the subject. There were two other points,
which had also , been made the subject of attack and in-
vective ; and those points were the constitution of the
Commission and its powers. Now upon the first point be
could conceive nothing more reasonable than that they
should appoint those persons who had been investigating
the subject during the whole time of the inquiry, who
were thoroughly acquainted with the details of the mat-
ter, who had sanctioned by their reports those views
which were proposed to be acted upon, and who might
' therefore be considered as really desirous to carry them
into effect. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York
and the Bishop of London were appointed the only
permanent members of the Commission ; there were be-
sides two other Bishops—the Bishop of Lincoln and
the Bishop of Gloucester ; several of the Ministers
for the time being ; a Noble Earl (Harrowby) whom
he saw opposite ; and two others who were laymen,
and those were made removable. Then, as to the powers
of that commission, they were to carry into effect the re-
commendations contained in the reports of the commis-
sioners ; they were to lee regulated strictly by those recom-
mendations, from which they were not to depart except in
matters of detail and regulation ; and their duty was to
prepare schemes for carrying into effect those recommenda-
tions, to lay those schemes before his Majesty in Council ;
and when any such schemes should be approved of by the
King in Council it was enacted that it should be lawful
for his Majesty to issue orders ratifying those schemes,
which orders were to be registered in the diocese, and
published in the Gazette. Then he (Viscount Melbourne)
felt perfectly convinced that nothing could be less extensive,
nothing could be subject to more controul, than the power
with which those commissioners were entrusted, and the
person who was most jealous of authority could have no
reason to apprehend anything from the extent of power
and authority which, by this Bill, was conferred. He had
now opened to their Lordships the principal provisions of
the Bill. All the recommendations were detailed in the
preamble ; and he should then move the second reading of
this Bill, which was to carry those recommendations into
effect.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE did entertain some
objection to this Bill. He, for one, had felt the objection
which had been raised elsewhere with regard to the amount
of incomes to have considerable weight. It was not his
intention to oppose the second reading of the Bill, because
he did not regard it as a final settlement. Tl:e feeling of
the public had been excited strongly upon this subject, but
he felt that they could not make great changes very rapidly;
and he admitted that by the present Bill they had made a
considerable change. But he must say that more hereafter
remained to be done ; and though the Noble Viscount had
alluded to the income of the future Archbishop of Canter-
bury, he Lad not stated any reason for allotting to the
future Bish)p cl London 10,000/. ; and when they were

told about such incomes leaving no room for waste, or
luxury, or extravagante, they. were bound to chink ,at saint time the indigen'ee of othes:t ;t1 4io tti'tifCtsiOn,
who performed latoribtlis dknf-atheY Wei:e bound to take
into eoriticterati%) the Miserable state of the working
Ctergy, for it was a notorious fact that the immense dispro-
portion in the incomes of the different classes of the Clergy
had excited throughout the people of the country a strong
feeling of disapprobation and dissatisfaction, rd-i. his own part he (the Marquis of Clanricarde) eooid not approve of
maTn:epaßrtisshoofptloiirs
jvh; sslt;4tiltl oftef lid opposition to
it in that stage,
he .IrOtild not trouble
their 11"dshin'
iensqh, Atm least of all so as to deter them r„.71
to the second reading of this Bill
cth ileHTcr unanimity. But he was anxious to mention
I.Vvo or three considerations which pressed upon his mind.
Of the object of the Bill he entirely approved—it was to
put an end to the practice of commendams, and to dis-
charge as far as possible the practice of translation. Now,
he was of opinion, that nothing could be better devised
than the simple mode of making a distribution of the
revenues, and providing that nothing should be taken from
any other rank of the Clergy than the episcopal. Now,
having freely assented to the general policy of the measure,
he must make a few remarks upon one or two points
which had suggested themselves to him ; and, first, he
could not but think that a larger machinery had been set
on foot than was at all necessary for the purposes of this
Bill. All that was necessary was, that a Commission
should be appointed by Parliament to carry the recommen-
dations into effect. That was the object of the Bill ; but
was that all that was done ? By this Bill there was af-
forded, besides, an incitement to perpetual change, and there
was the machinery also for keeping up that perpetual
change. After once the assignment of the revenues had
been made, nothing more could be required ; but here it
was enacted that after every seven years there should be a
revision of the incomes of the Bishops. Now, he did tllise.•
that the only effect of such an enactment would be, as ,a,
intimated by the Noble Marquis (Clanricarde) to produ..f
perpetual change. Again, he (the Bishop of Exeter) could
see no reason why this commission should be a corpo-
ration, when his Majesty might have been empowered to
continue the commission as long as might be necessary
for carrying into effect the recommendations recited in
the preamble, and a single generation would be sufficient
for that. He objected also strongly, very strongly, to the
mode in which the commission was to be formed. There
were to be only three permanent members ; and he would
venture to appeal to their Lordships whether there was a single
instance of a corporation of which the vast majority of the
members were removable at the pleasure of the Crown. He
knew there were instances of persons being removable on
the pleasure of the Crown who were members of corpora-
tions, but he confidently believed that there was not a single
instance of a corporation in which the majority of members
were so removable. A great portion of this commission was
to consist of the peculiarly political part of his Majesty's Go-
vernment ; and he begged to assure the Noble Viscount,
that his observations were intended to refer only to Govern-
ments generally. But the effect of such a provision was
evident, that the Commission must shift with the political
tide of every day, and that if there was any temptation to
use it for political purposes, the Government of the day
would have the power to do so. In the Commission for
Inquiry into Irish Ecclesiastical Revenues there had been
but one member who was removable at the pleasure of the
Crown ; and the persons appointed were those who were
the least likely to pervert their power to political purposes.
The departure of the Noble Lords who framed the Bill
from the precedent was a subject of serious consideration ;
and instead of the adoption of that precedent, the appoint-
ment of the Commission in such a manner as to make the
body wholly dependent on the will and pleasure, or caprice,
of Government, was a matter which naturally gave rise to
considerable doubts and suspicions. He was, however, willing
to hope that nothing more was intended than was expressed
in the preamble, and be trusted that the Noble Lords would
establish the sincerity of their intentions by agreeing in
Committee to some modifications of that part of the mea-
sure. He entertained another objection to the scheme which
was proposed, because he could not but consider that it
would absolutely destroy the independence of the Church,
and render its Ministers mere stipendiary servants. If it
were carried into effect, no longer would the Bishops have
control over the property of their sees ; they would no
longer be in the position of proprietors of the land. There
were powers conferred by this Bill upon the Commissioners
which he was sure could not have been contemplated by
the Rev. Prelates who sat upon the Commission, or by the
Noble Lord who had introduced this Bill in so handsome
a manner towards the Clergy. He hoped in Committee
there would be no difficulty as to imposing some check
upon these powers, which no one could wish to maintain.
He heartily concurred in the principle of the Bill ; and he
also thanked his Majesty's Government, and particularly
the Noble Viscount as its head, for the manner in which
he had brought the subject forward, and for the attach-1
ment which he had expressed to the Established Church ;
and he trusted that that Church would continue to merit
the attachment of every Government, by contributing,
through God's grace, to the maintenance of true religion,
sound morality, and real loyalty.
The Bishop of LINCOLN said a few words, which
were inaudible in the Gallery.
The Bishop of HEREFORD said that he was unwil-
ling to give a silent vote on the present occasion, though,
indeed, it appeared that there was such an unanimous
opinion in favour of the second reading of the Bill that no
vote would be then required upon the question ; but he
felt it to be his duty to state in some degree his apprehen-
sion as to the nature of this Bill. He could not say that
he looked without very considerable apprehension at the
great changes which would be effected by this Bill, and
by which he felt the independence of the Church would be
destroyed. The Right Rev. Commissioner who had last
spoken had said that it was the furthest thing from the idea
of the Commissioners to render the Ministers of the Church
merely stipendiary ; but, for his own part, he must confess
that he looked upon that as the necessary consequence of the
provisions contained in the measure. As for men who were
allowed to hold property, and to administer that property
themselves, but were, at the same time, not permitted to enjoy
beyond a certain proportion—who were to be amenable to a
tribunal appointed to inquire into the amount of their pro-
perty, and which could say—" Beyond this you must not
go—deliver the rest to me"—he could not but think that those
men were little better than stipendiaries. It came to this,
that the Bishop was to administer certain estates, out of
which he was to take the sums of 15,000/., 10,0001., or
8,0001. Now, he would only ask was that the intention
of the Commissioners ? He did not mean to offer any op-
position to the second reading, but he was called upon by a
conscientious feeling to protest against those provisions of
which he had complained. He sincerely felt that it was
striking a blow at the Church ; it might be the first blow,
but it was striking a blow at the Church from which she
could never recover.
' The Archbishop of CANTERBURY thought that the
Right Rev. Prelates could not have complained if they had
looked more accurately into the Bill, because they would
have found that certain payments were charged upon the
larger sees, so as to leave an average of so much a year ;
but the whole management of the property was left in the
hands of the Bishops. For instance, supposing the property
of the see of Canterbury to be 18,0001., it would be charged
with a tax of 3,0001. a year, in order to reduce the income
to an average of 15,0001. a year. But what his successor
would have to do would be merely to pay yearly the sum of
3,0001. out of his income, leaving to himself the sum of
15,0001. At the end of seven years, there was to be a re-
vision, in order to determine whether he had received
more or less than 15,0001. a year ; and though that had
been complained of, he was sure that such a revision was
necessary, because there might in some cases be a great
diminution in the property of the see, which would other-
wise be the source of severe hardship to the Bishop. He
agreed with his Right Rev. Friend as to the propriety of
the provision that nothinc, should be taken away from those
preferments which would' be diminished in number, if the
recommendations of the Commissioners should be carried
into effect. He was very much gratified at the unanimity
which prevailed with respect to the general principle of the
measure. The gross misrepresentations which had been
made in other places, had been ably refuted by the Noble
Viscount ; and the other objections which had been taken
to this Bill, had very properly been reserved for discussion
and consideration in Committee. It was most gratifying
to him, as it must be also to the other Commissioners, that
the Bill should have met with that general approbation
from their Lordships, which he had no doubt it would re-
ceive from the country at large.
After a few words from the Bishop of ROCHESTER,
the Bill was read a second time.
SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
The Report upon this Bill was brought up and received,
with an amendment proposed by the Duke of Buccleuch,
to the effect that any alteration in the curriculum of study
should be reported to the Moderator of the General As-
sembly of the Church of Scotland.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HO USE OF COMMONS, JULY 29.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
TRINITY (NORTH LEITH) HARBOUR.
Sir ANDREW L. HAY brought in the Trinity (North
(Leith) Harbour Bill, which was read a first time. The
Hon. Baronet stated that he had given notice he should
move the Standing Orders be suspended with regard to
this Bill, but perhaps it would be better for him to move
that the Bill be read a second time next Monday, his ob-
ject being to get the Bill through the House this Session.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that no doubt his Hon.
Friend had shown great zeal with regard to this Bill. The
promoters of this Bill had no other claim upon the indul-
gence of the House but that of their blunders. The ques-

30, 1836.

tioti was whether all the rules df the House were to be set
aside on ttiht occasion;Oiher respects
had not ficLi Mai; 1413 hiid ti bins PI 11;, hand
against the former Bill ; but as they would not be addwed
to be presented against the present Bill, he trusted the
House would see the necessity of not suspending the Stand-
ing Orders; so that parties rtiglit dti Oriporttinity of pe-
titiddlng- the Ho* heals dby Counsel agaitist the Bill.
Sir G. CLERKsaid the 4tiestion belbre the House was
of a iidcti iiidre setiotis character thari the rtierits of a pri-
vate Bill. He confessed that he had been taken by sur-
prise by the aturld plirstied by the Hon. Nictribet yester-
day ; and if ever it was necessary for the House to insist
strictly upon the enforcement of the Standing Orders, as
regarded the time between the different stages of a private
Bill, it was at the present time. The only apology that
had been offered for the blunders that had been com-
mitted in the former Bills was, that they bad been
hurried through their_ different stages, and now the
Hon. Baronet came forward with a proposition to sus-
pend the Standing Orders, for the purpose of hurrying the
Bill through its various stages. He contended that the
House had no right to grant such an extraordinary indul-
gence ; and as the Right Hon. Gentleman in the Chair
was connected with that part of the country-, he thought it
would be most desirable that the House should have the
benefit of his opinion and advice upon the question. He
should object to any further indulgence being given ; indeed
he hoped that after a full consideration of the case, the
House would stop all further proceedings on the Bill till
next Session.
Sir G. STRICKLAND was one of the Members of the
Standing Orders Committee, and was placed in a very
awkward situation, for he was much disposed to support
the Bill upon its merits ; but when a new Bill was brought
in at this late period of the Session, when it could not be
passed without a suspension of the Standing Orders of the
House, he could not give it his support, while the next
Session he would be called upon to defer bills of as much
importance for more trifling mistakes. He must oppose
the motion.
Mr. WILKS quite agreed with the Hon. Member if he
understood his reasoning. He agreed with the Hon. Baronet,
that if such was the case, it would be intolerable. But
what were really the facts upon which this subject pro-
ceeded? The truth was, that upon no error on the part of
the promoters of the Bill—errors which did not affect the
substantial merits of the Bill—objections were made
to it. The measure was abandoned. The Bill came
a second time before the House, and in spite of all
the influence that had been exercised against the
Bill, it was read a second time, and the question now was,
whether on account of a small verbal inaccuracy the merits
of the Bill were not to be considered, and it was not to be
allowed to be read a second time. Under such circum-
stances, he hoped the Hon. and Gallant Member (Sir
A. L. Hay) would persevere in the proposition he had
made, and that the House would support it, and make it an
Order of the Day that this Bill be read a second time on
Monday next.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought that the Hon. and Gallant
Member required no encouragement.—(Hear, hear.) His
perseverance was as signal as his boldness ; but the
House seemed determined to support the view he had
taken in carrying this Bill. This Bill seemed to him
(Sir James Graham) to be a signal triumph over
the Standing Orders of the House.—( Hear, hear.) Those
Standing Orders, though technical in character, were of
the utmost importance to the defence of property ; and it
was not on the ground of their technical nicety that they
ought to be adhered to, but as preliminary forms, whereby
the interests of parties and of private property were pro-
tected. This question was not solely as regarded Trinity
Harbour—that was of secondary importance ; but the
Standing Orders by which private property was defended
were at stake. After the debate of yesterday, when the
rules and orders of their proceedings were overthrown by
a bare majority, he (Sir J. Graham) on public grounds
called upon the Speaker to state what, in his (the Speaker's)
opinion was the course that ought to be taken, and whether
this Bill was consistent with the order of the proceedings.
Sir A. L. HAY was also anxious to hear the opinion of
the Speaker upon the question.
The SPEAKER, who spoke in so low a tone of voice
as to be scarcely audible, was understood to say, the diffi-
culty the House had to consider had arisen from the act
of the party who made the application, and that it was of
very great importance to the House that those gentlemen
who practised before the House should use all diligence and
care in the conduct of Bills. The House had a very slender
bold over those who practised before the House, as
had been proved by the Report of a late Committee. He
therefore thought the House would be exceedingly careful
in giving indulgence to those parties who applied for it,
when it was recollected that they had not from first to last
used that due diligence which parties were bound for the
sake of themselves and the public to. use. Applying that
principle to this particular case, he would not express any
opinion as to what was the cause of the original difficulty.
Here was a case in which the Report of the Committee
had interfered after the indulgence had been granted,
stating that the parties had not attended to the skilful
and proper performance of their duty. Under these cir-
cumstances, he thought the parties were not entitled to the
indulgence they now claimed.—(Hear.)
Sir A. L. HAY, after the very clear explanation they
had just heard from the Speaker, would have no hesitation
in withdrawing the Bill.
The Bill was then by leave withdrawn.
Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from Dissenters
in Edinburgh, praying that the materials employed in
building their houses of worship would not be taxed. A
drawback was allowed upon glass, slate, timber, and
stones, employed not only in building, but in repairing the
places of worship of the Established Church, and even the
school houses, and the petitioners prayed that that indul-
gence might be extended to them. kle begged to give notice
that next session he should move for leave to bring in a Bill
to extend generally to all sects the right to receive a draw-
back upon all materials employed in the erection of places
of public worship. The Hon. Member then presented two
petitions in favour of the Bill for sending newspapers
through the penny post, which would be a great relief to
the country. He had also a petition from an individual
named Geary, in Ireland, complainitr, that he sent a letter
containing 301. into a country post-office, directed to his
' correspondent in Dublin, and paid the postage. He
traced the letter to Dublin ; but it had never
been received by his correspondent there ; and
the Secretary of the Post-office there told him that he
could give him no redress, and thus the poor man had lost
his sot. The petitioner prayed that the system of regis-
tration would be again adopted in the Irish Post-office.
The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Inverness,
complaining of the delay of their correspondence in Lon-
don, for from twelve to fourteen hours daily, and forty-eight
hours once a week. They thought they were entitled to
relief, and so did he ; and he trusted that the system of a
double post would soon be established, when he felt certain
the prognostications of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as
to the increased expense, would be found to be false. It was
done now in Ireland by first class coaches, and might, and he
hoped soon would be done in England, at a very small ex-
pense. It was a subject well worthy of mature consideration.
Mr. WILKS said it might save time if he said, with re-
gard to the first petition presented by the Hon. Member,
that it was his intention to introduce a measure upon the
subject, to extend it to Great Britain, early next Session.
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from the
Philosophical Society of Yorkshire, praying for a duplicate
copy of all prints and objects of natural curiosity which
had been collected in the British Museum. Also one
from the workers of a factory in Hedmondswick, praying
for a 10 hours' Bill.
Mr. GROTE presented a petition from a Dissenting
Congregation in Aldersgate, praying for the abolition of
Church-rates. Also one from a Solicitor of London, named
Thomas Locke, complaining of the time and expense in-
curred to plaintiffs by fraudulent debtors denying their
handwriting to bills of exchange, and praying that one of
the Judges might sit once a month in London and West-
minster during the long vacation, for much delay took place
in obtaining justice for some months.
Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from Aberdeen,
Carlow, and other places, against the Scotch University
Bill. Also, a petition against the Marriage and Registra-
tation Act, from West Kent.
Mr. F. BUXTON, seeing the President of the Board
of Control in his place, wished to know what steps had
been taken in respect of that important provision in the
East India Company's Bill relative to slavery in India ?
Sir J. HOBHOUSE said that the whole question
of slavery had been left to the local bodies. The local
authorities would take the matter into consideration, and
would submit to the home authorities certain re-
gulations for the manumission of slaves. Until such a
plan was sent home they could not take the subject
into consideration. The House was aware that the
local authorities had taken means to prevent the introduc-
tion or the exportation of slaves, and they had entered
into several treaties for that purpose ; but he was sorry to
say that at Goa, and other Portuguese settlements, the
slave trade was still carried on to an extent which he re-
gretted very much. He would take an opportunity of
drawing the attention of the Court of Directors to the
fact, that no law, or regulation, or plan had been yet sent
home, but when a plan was sent home it would be laid be-
fore the House.

Mr. F. BUXTON hoped that he misunderstood the
Right Hon. Gentleman, when he said that the Govern-
ment, either here or in India, did not feel themselves pledged
to abolish slavery. It was understood in the House that
means would be taken to abolish slavery in India, and if
that were an erroneous impression, the effect would be to
raise a very strong feeling throughout this country.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE would read the clause of the
Act by which the charter was granted. The effect was,

r ?let the Iral authorities be required to take into consi-
deration tag fiyiprks pf mitigating the state of the slaves, and
of extinguishiriri 41a+ert throoghout the whole of the
Indian territdrie4j.gO sodn as st.l6li atifigtir should be safe
and pra!'...l.l.edhU,, aria that fio'rii tithe fc. billet they should
prepard and transmit to ediirt of Directors the litiu or
regulations for this purpose i mutiti tqAa'arifigsticli plans,
due iegafd should be had to the hives of riiain* and to
the rights and authority at fathers and heads of faa?lllitm
He would, as he stated before, dra* the attention of the
Court of Directors to the f....ct that no phut Nitta been as
yet teht,

SPANISH CLAII4B:
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEWER, in an-
swer to a question from Sir John Beckett, said the case of
-the Spanish claims was befbre the Law Officers of the
Crown for their opinion, to ascertain whether they came
within the same principles as those of the Danish claims,
and that if they did, they would be adjudicated upon in
the same manner.

CASE OF MR. DEVITT-DUBLIN POST.
OFFICE.

Mr. WILKS said that, having put into the hands of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer a list of the papers he
wished to have relative to the case of Mr. Devitt, he
wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had now any objection to produce them ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that unquestionably he could not assent to the pro-
duction of the papers as a matter of course.
He should be prepared to state to the House, when the
Hon. Member for Boston brought forward the motion, the
ground of his resisting the production which he had stated
to the Hon. Member himself. It would then be for the
House to say, after they had heard those statements, whe-
ther there was any case made out for the production. They
were very voluminous, and he could not consent to the
production, unless the House thought there was a case
made out for it.
Mr. WILKS would give notice for a certain day on
which he would move for the production.
COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading of
the County Elections Polls Bill.
Mr. A. TREVOR said it was utterly impossible, under
the provisions of this Bill, that the freeholders could pro-
perly exercise their franchise. In the case of an individual
having a vote in two contiguous counties, it would not be in
his power to attend at the polling places in both counties.
It surely never was intended that persons possessing pro-
perty in two contiguous counties should not have the
power of exercising his franchise in both. It was
stated that the great object of the Reform Bill
was to extend the franchise as much as possible.
It would appear that such was not the object of the pre-
sent Bill, and perhaps as it had been said that the elections
in counties were not so favourable to his Majesty's present
Government as in cities, the Bill now before the House
was intended to remedy that inconvenience. Putting all
this aside, he contended that there were elections in many
cases which had been unfairly carried on—in fact, car-
ried on by clamour. It had been remarked that elections
had been virtually decided the first day.—(A laugh.) Now,
the Noble Lord the Member for Lincoln had. shewn clearly
that, if only one day had been given for elections, the
"House would not have been favoured with the eloquence of
the Hon. Member for Middlesex.—(Cheers.) He should
feel it his duty, under all these circumstances, to divide the
House upon the third reading.
Mr. GROVE PRICE felt satisfied that the effect of
the alteration in the Bill would be to give to unprincipled
men the opportunity of creating tumult and confusion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER de-
fended the principle of the Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the principle of the
Bill, feeling convinced that it was destructive to the rights
of property.
Mr. WILKS said, if this Bill had not been introduced
at all, he doubted whether the Hon. and Gallant Member'
could have exercised his franchise in all the places which
he had named. He knew one Right Hon. Gentleman who
had a vote for not less than twenty-six different places, and
it was of course impossible that he could exercise his fran-
chise at any general election in all these places.
Mr. SHIRLEY would oppose the Bill. He believed
the result of the city elections would have been similar to
the county ones, if the brick-bat and bludgeon system had
not been adopted. If the Hon. Members opposite would give
the counties but half a_ day in addition, he had no
doubt of the result. Even in the cities and towns the people
of England were, he was glad to say, beginning to smell the
cloven foot.--(Opposition cheers.)
Mr. M. PHILLIPS said the Hon. Member opposite
might have reason to congratulate himself upon the result
of one lucky election ; and he would assure the Hon. Mem-
ber that the charge of brick-bats and bludgeons did not lie
at the door of any Hon. Member on that (the Minis-
terial) side of the House.--(Cheers.) He could give
the House some rather extraordinary facts connected with
brick bats and bludgeons, in which a Reverend Gentleman
was concerned.—(Ministerial cheers, followed by cries of
" Name, name.") He would not name the individual, but
Hon. Members on the other side would be able to identify
the person, if he mentioned that he was the curate of a
parish in South Warwickshire.—(Loud cheering.) He
should give his cordial support to the Bill, as he did
not anticipate any of the inconvenience alluded to
by Honourable Members on the other side.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir E. WILMOT was in Warwickshire during the elec-
tion, and heard the whole of the circumstances ; and he
would take upon himself to say, that upon the evidence he
had heard, and from what he had been told on the subject,
there was not a single word of truth in the whole of it.—
(Loud Cheers.)
Mr. M. PHILLIPPS could only assurejthe Hon. Ba-
ronet and the House, that having spent four or five days in
the county, both prior and subsequent to the elec-
tion ; thai during his residence there, he never
heard from a single single individual anything like
the contradiction he had just heard.--(Cheers from the
Ministerial side of the House.) If the Hon. Bart. was able
to satisfy himself that this was the case, no man in that
House was more sincerely desirous of knowing that the
matter was set at rest than he would be. The statement
which he had made had been made in print, and was not con-
tradicted during the election, and he therefore thought the
statement correct. If he hAd been led into error he would
be glad to hear a refutation. If he had stated what was in-
correct he had not done so on his own authority—it had
been stated throughout the whole county, and no one could
rejoice more to hear a contradiction, because he felt that it
was an act that was derogatory to the character of any in-
dividual, and still more a gentleman of the clerical charac-
ter.—(Hear hear.)
Sir E. WILMOT had no personal knowledge of the
facts, but what he had heard from both sides.'He had heard
the charge and the refutation, and the conclusion he had
come to was, that the charge was unfounded.—(Hear,
hear.) He did so on this ground, that if it were true it
would be brought before the proper tribunal, and the party,
if guilty, ought to be punished.
Mr. A. TREVOR, from his own personal knowledge,
could give the fact the most decided contradiction—from
his own personal knowledge.—(A laugh.)
Mr. PALMER thought that this Bill would deprive
a great number of electors of their franchise, if they con-
fined the election to one day, and the expense would be
quite as much if not more to the county Members.
Colonel GORE LANGTON and Mr. PALMER of Berk-
shire would vote against the third reading.
Mr. HUME had no doubt whatever that the saving of
one day would be the saving of a great deal of expense,
and would prevent the various means usually resorted to
of getting votes, being carried into effeet on the second day.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that increased means of con-
veyance would be requisite, and consequently there would
be increased expense. The multiplication of polling places
would involve a necessity for an increased number of clerks
and electioneering agents, and bringing the voters from a
distance would altogether cause a most exorbitant increase
of expense. A more serious objection was, that the selec-
tion of the polling places was placed virtually in the bands
of the Administration, and, without doubting the discretion
with which that power would be exercised, he thought it
most dangerous to entrust it to any Administration. He
never entertained a more complete conviction of the im•
propriety of a Bill than he did of this ; and he should most
cordially vote against it, considering it an interference with
the elective franchise.
After some further conversation, in which Mr. Wilbra-
ham, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Praed, Mr. D. W. Harvey, and
Mr. Goulburn joined, the House divided, when there ap-
peared—

For the third reading ....... 93
Against it
Majority for the third reading

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.
On the question that the Bill pass.
Mr. FORESTER moved a clause, by way of rider, to
the effect that in the elections of knights to serve for any
counties, ridings, parts or divisions of counties, which may
be contiguous, the polls shall not take place on the same
day, and that therefore it shall be lawful at any general
election for the Lord High Chancellor, or Lord Keeper of
the Great Seal for the time being, to ascertain and define
the several days on which elections in contiguous counties,
ridings, parts or divisions of counties, may be conveniently
held, and at the time of making out the writs to direct letters
to be sent to the Sheriffs or returning officers for the re-
spective counties, ridings, parts or divisions of counties, re-
quiring them to fix the days of polling as he shall appoint,
in order that no poll be taken for any riding, county, part
or division of a county, on the same day with any contiguous
county, riding, part or division of a county ; the said sheriffs,
or returning officers, are hereby required to fix the days of

polling accordingly, any law or statute to the contrary not
with.stancling,r.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the clause.
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. WAII.
BURTON,

Sir J. GRAHAM suggested to the Hon. Member 1°
witildraw the clause, and it was withdrawn accordingly.
Lord LOWTHER then proposed an additional clause,
to the effect, as well as we could gather from the low tone
in which the Noble Lord spoke, that distinct polling
phi„,iq should be provided for every four hundred and 01

v etR rs.
.
The clause was. "creed to.
The Bill then passen.
COURT OF SESSIt'N (SCOTLAND).
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE the Court
of Session (Scotland) Bill was read a third time.
On the question that it pass being put from the Chair,
Sir G. CLARK moved the omission of the ]sth clause'
The LORD ADVOCATE opposed the motion.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. r•
BARING,
Sir G. CLERK withdrew his motion, and would, instead
of it, propose to insert a proviso in the 17th clause, giving
a pr6ference in the new appointments to be made under this
Bill to those persons who were discharged from those offices
under the present Act.
The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was passed.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Mr. V. SMITH moved the Order of the Day for the
the third reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP moved, as an amendment, that till
Bill be read a third time that day six months. •
Mr. TREVOR seconded the amendment.
Mr. HARDY protested against the Bill as injurious to
the Established Church.

After a few words from Mr. Leader, and Mr. Scarleap
Sir R. INGLIS expressed his disapprobation to the
measure, as it was calculated to be of decided injurY t°
the Church.
Colonel SIBTHORP replied.
The House then divided—.
For the original motion 54
For the amendment
Majority for the third reading
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
• STANNARIES COURTS.
The Order of the Day for the further consideration
the Report of the Stannaries Courts Bill was then read.
Sir J. Y. BULLER had several objections to the Bill,
which, if not removed in Committee, would oblige him to
vote against it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained the objects
of the Bill for the remedy of the deficiencies of laws that
bore on mining affairs in Cornwall ; and stated that one or
its main features was the conferring on the Vice-Wardel
authority to preside with efficiency in both the Equity and
Common Law Courts. The necessary expenses were but
small, and were all provided for by the Bill in the most
satisfactory manner.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Clause 44, which transfers to the new Stannaries Court
the rights and jurisdictions of the old Court, being put,
Mr. PRAED opposed the clause, hod moved that it be
expunged from the Bill.
The House divided—
For the clause
Against it

79
29

Majority

The clause was agreed to.
Some new clauses were added to the Bill.
The preamble was then agreed to, and the House re
sumed.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.
' Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had intended to move
the further consideration of the Report on this Bill to'
night, in order to introduce some amendments, which be
was about to propose to the House ; but not being so en:
tirely prepared to do so as he could have wished, he though,:
it better at once to postpone the further proceeding wit"
the Bill until Monday. At the same time, however, be
wished to state the conclusion to which be had come on it
proposition which had been !made from the other side of
the House on the subject of the appointment of Revir
ing Barristers. The mode proposed by the Bill—that
of vesting the appointment of these officers in the Crown
—had been much objected to ; and it had been stir
Bested to him (Lord John Russell) to propose some other
method. With that view he had considered the question,
and it seemed to him that it might be possible to concede
to the proposition which had been made, by naming one
chief and a certain number of other Revising Barristers
in the present Bill, and vesting the appointment• of theta
hereafter in the Lord Chancellor. The number 'of Revising
Barristers at first proposed had been eight, btit he now pro.;
pose that there should be eleven, including the chief, inas-
much as it had been considered that eight would not be
sufficient to the performance of the duties, and that the
public business might be therefore impeded, to the Serious,
loss of bodies of constituents. With respect to the Ch_d_'el
Revising Barrister, he would propose the Right Hon. 001):,
Thomas Erskine, the Secretary to the Court of Review'
for that office ; and, notwithstanding the great difficult,'
there was in finding individuals sufficiently qualified who
would be ready to leave their professional practice and
prospects for the situation, he did hope that on Monday
he would be enabled to propose the individuals to fill the
other ten situations. The House would, however, be able
w
to consider whether the general proposition he no null
would be calculated to remove the objections which had
been raised to the plan proposed by the Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET, having before expressed a strong
opinion against the appointment of the revising barrister bf
the Secretary of State, felt bound now to express his con-
currence in the mode of appointment proposed by the
Noble Lord.
Mr. A. TREVOR hoped that if there was any doubt
as to the Bill coming on on Monday, the Noble Lord would
name some other day, in order to accord with the conve-
nience of Members.
Lord J. RUSSELL, although one or two Bills would
stand before this on Monday, yet hoped that the Bill would
come on at an early hour on that day.
Mr. W. PR AED, although he might not entirely agree
in the nomination of the Noble Lord, yet, as the point had
been conceded, did not wish to offer any unnecessary oppa'
sition. He hoped that the appointments to the ten revising"
barristerships would be as satisfactory as that which had
been mentioned for the chief.
Colonel SIBTHORP begged to call the attention of the
Noble Lord and of the House to the great inconvenience
Hon. Members suffered from the uncertainty there was as
to the business of the House coming on according to the
notices. The Hon. and Gallant Member was about to
give a notice on the subject for Tuesday, when he was
called to order by
The SPEAKER, who said that it was not competent to
the Hon. and Gallant Member to give a notice while a
question was before the House.
Colonel SIBTHORP hoped the Noble Lord would
afford the House some means of knowing how he meant to
bring on the business.
Mr. A. TREVOR inquired whether the consideration
of the Lords' amendments to the English Tithe Bill would
be taken on Monday ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if the Bill was printed by
that time, as he supposed it would be, it would be brought
on on Monday.
•

Mr. A. TREVOR—Then, as it is clear what will be
the fate of the Registration Bill, had not the Noble
Lord better name some other day for going on with that
measure 2

Lord J. RUSSELL said that it would be very easy to do
so at an earlier period of the session, but he apprehended
that Honourable Members would not like to have the
session unnecessarily prolonged by the further postponement
of the measure in question on the grounds stated by the
lion. Member.
The Secular Jurisdiction (York and Ely) Abolition Bill
was, on the motion of the Solicitor-General, read a third
f;.„„

On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. TO WNLEY proposed the addition of a clause, the
object of which was not heard in the gallery, owing to the
low tone of voice in which the Hon. Gentleman spoke.
The motion however was, after a brief conversation, ne-
gatived without a division, and the Bill passed.
POST OFFICE COMMISSIONERS BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
that the House do resolve itself into committee on the Pot
Office Commissioners Bill.

Colonel SIB THORP considered the measure as amount".
ing to the worst species of bribery and corruption. Even
though he stood alone, he should oppose the Speaker lean'
ing the chair.

Mr. A. TREVOR seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped
the Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not persevere in the
course which they had taken.
Mr. GOULBURN thought that before they consented
to go into Committee on a measure which went to change
the administration of the affairs of the Post Office, the
House should know something about the principle of the
Bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he would be perfectly ready to make the statement
his Right Hon. Friend called for, when they got into Corn
mittee ; but he did not think he could conveniently do so
before.

Mr. GOULBURN felt himself in some difficulty with
respect to the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Lincoln, and therefore, if persisted in, would not divide
upon it.

Colonel SIBTHORP would, after what had fallen from
his Right Hon. Friend, withdraw his motion.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on the
Bill.