presented a Petition from John Duffy stating that the Reform Bill was defeated by the Bishops, and praying that they might be disfranchised.

said, he deplored the presentation of such a petition. It could not fail to be productive of bad effects. Nothing could injure the cause of Reform, except the indiscreet efforts of pretended friends. He likewise begged to observe, that attempts such as those lately made to dictate to Ministers, by certain parties in the metropolis, relating to a short adjournment were most decidedly mischievous. He doubted whether the petition ought to be received.

said, this petition had a family likeness to several other most extraordinary petitions which the hon. Member was frequently in the habit of introducing to the notice of the House. He also doubted whether the petition ought to be received. It bore no date, and he hoped the hon. Member would be able to show how it came into his hands.

said, that the House ought not to reject the petition merely because it was contrary to the opinion of the House. With respect to the observations made by the hon. and learned member for Stafford, he begged to say, being thus called upon, he believed the opinion expressed in that petition, to be the opinion of a large portion of the people of this country, namely, that the political power of the Bishops ought to cease. He himself was of that opinion. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Member should think that that wish, as expressed in the petition, was a solitary wish, and that no part of the people of the country sympathised with it. He was equally surprised that hon. Members should have said it was false to state that the Bill was lost by the vote of the Bishops, when it was clear that as the majority against the Bill only amounted to forty-one, and as twenty-one Bishops had voted against the Bill, the majority would have been turned the other way, had the Bishops voted in support of that measure. He believed that the time would come for all these changes, but he admitted that this was not exactly the moment for discussing it. Then as to the observation of the hon. and learned member for Stafford, that these expressions of opinion and the call for a short adjournment, were like dictating to the Ministers, he did not agree at all with those statements of the hon. and learned Member, and he believed it would be only playing the game of the Anti-reformers, if the people of this country were to lie on their oars, as if they did not care about the success or the rejection of the Bill. Instead of doing this, he recommended them to use every Constitutional means of showing the deep anxiety they felt upon the subject.

said, that the strong feeling which the people had manifested on this subject was both natural and proper, and he hoped they would continue to show their anxiety upon it in every constitutional way. He sincerely deprecated violence of all kinds, for riots were only injurious to the cause of Reform; but he trusted that all other efforts would be made to sustain the Ministers.

begged to be permitted to say, in explanation, as the hon. member for Middlesex appeared to have misunderstood him, that he too wished he people to come forward in a constitutional manner in support of the Reform Bill, but not to send delegates at midnight to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, nor to address petitions to that House couched in such improper and unconstitutional language as the petition now presented to their notice.

could not let this opportunity pass without protesting against these constant allusions to the Bishops—these attacks upon a portion of the Legislature, the existence of which was so necessary to the support of the Constitution of the country. He could not avoid, too, expressing his strong objection to the sort of language held by the hon. member for Middlesex, who, not content with saying that the Bishops should not have voted against the Bill, actually seemed to suppose that they ought to have violated their consciences by voting in its favour.

said, that as the hon. and learned member for Stafford had alluded to the conduct of the delegates who had waited upon Earl Grey, he begged to say, that they had done nothing which deserved the censure of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or the imputation of having had intimidation for their object. If it had riot been for the tone assumed by the hon. and learned member for Stafford and by the hon. member for Worcester, upon the subject, neither the hon. member for Middlesex nor he (Colonel Evans) would have said anything, and the petition might have quietly gone with others of a similar kind to that receptacle to which they were all consigned; but as the call had been made, and as he had a strong opinion on the subject, he should be wanting in his duty as a man if he did not honestly state his opinion, that both the spiritual and the public welfare of the people would be better consulted if the Bishops had not seats in the House of Lords.

said, as the petition before the House professed to be an Irish one, and its prayer was the disfranchisement of the Bishops, he wished to take the opportunity of saying a few words on the subject of tithes and the abuses of the vestry system. First he would observe, that those parishes in which the Tithe Composition Act was established were more tranquil and better disposed than those which had not compounded, and therefore he was of opinion that system might be extended and improved, and if even a quantity of land could be set apart for the use of the clergy, instead of their being allowed a tithe of the whole, it would be a still greater improvement. Again he proposed to transfer the building and repair of churches to the first fruits repealing the Vestry Acts, and doing away with all compulsory cess for supporting the Protestant Establishments; to further these objects, he had prepared three Bills. The first for the extension of the Tithe Composition in Ireland, the second for the Commutation of Tithes, and the third to repeal the Vestry Laws, and making the first fruits available for the repair and building of Churches and other compulsory charges levied on the land. These Bills, under the altered circumstances of the country, he did not propose to introduce to the consideration of the House; the people of Ireland were extremely discontented, and when he saw English petitions recommending the abolishment of the Irish Church establishment, he put it to hon. Gentlemen what must be the feelings of the Catholics who suffered under its exactions. The conduct of the Right Reverend Bench in voting against the Reform Bill had materially tended to aggravate this discontent and dislike in both countries. They had to suffer from the evils of a bad system which was aggravated by their own conduct. Finally, he must say, that resorting to a Protestant Yeomanry to endeavour to preserve the peace and collect tithes in Ireland, would widen the breach between the clergy and the people, and be attended in other respects with the very worst consequences.

said, in his opinion the petition was a most improper one, as it called upon one branch of the Legislature to interfere with the privileges and rights of another. Besides, it was manifestly absurd. The petitioner prayed for a clause to be introduced into the Reform Bill, to disfranchise the Bishops. The hon. Member who presented it was the only person capable of performing the task; he must however most strongly protest against connecting public opinion with so ridiculous a petition as the one before the House.

thought, that this was a petition which, considering all the circumstances connected with it, ought not to be allowed to be received by the House. No one regretted more than he did the decision of the House of Lords; but a petition from a single individual, declaring that one branch of the legislature had not the right of voting, was a petition which he thought that the House could not properly receive.

entirely concurred with the sentiments of the hon. member for Worcester. Although he deeply regretted the course which the Bishops had pursued with respect to the Reform Bill, yet he could not imagine they had acted from interested motives. Indeed, as they had only a life-interest in their sees, if such unworthy motives had any weight with them, they could have operated only to make them support the Government. As to their seats in the Legislature, they had at all times with the exception of the time of the Commonwealth, enjoyed them, and there was never fewer of them than at present. As the House of Commons was so particular in enforcing regulations to prevent the House of Lords interfering with their privileges, they ought to be equally tender not to interfere with those of the other House.

said, that the question of receiving this petition involved not only a question of the privileges of the other House of Parliament, but of their own. The petitioner might, on any general grounds, have prayed the Legislature for the abolition of the right of voting of the Bishops; but as the petition stated that the petitioner founded his prayer upon what he conceived to be the vote of a portion of the House of Lords; and as he could only know how that portion of the House voted by means of a breach of privilege, it seemed to be doubtful whether the notice of a matter, which was itself a breach of the privileges of the other House, was not a breach of the privileges of their own. In his opinion it was, and that, on that ground, the petition ought not to be received.

said, it was impossible that the question could be put in a better and clearer light than had been done by Mr. Speaker. He fully and entirely coincided with the view that had been taken of the right of the Bishops to sit in Parliament by the hon. member for Carlisle. He would be always ready to maintain they had the same right to sit in the House of Lords as the temporal Peers. The Press had assumed a tone towards the Bishops which was perfectly unjustifiable; indeed it seemed to be lording it over all the institutions of the country.

said, that if a petition to that House were to say that any measure were thrown out by the votes of the Scotch, or the Irish, or the county Members, he should consider it irregular; and, on the same ground, he must concur in thinking that the fixing the rejection of a Bill on any particular members of the other House, was equally objectionable.

said, that the hon. member for Middlesex took exactly the same view of the case which he did.

said, after the opinion delivered by the Speaker, he would withdraw the petition.

said, he had three Petitions to present to the House, praying that no man might be prosecuted on account of Religious Opinions. The first was from the inhabitants of Stockport; the second from Richard Carlile, who also complained of the hardship of his case, in being imprisoned for the expression of his opinions; and the third was from the Westminster branch of the National Union. He most fully concurred in the prayer of the Petitions. No man ought to be punished for the expression of his opinions on religious subjects. It was contrary to those principles of religious toleration which were fully recognized by the country.

was as ready to admit the principle of religious toleration as any hon. Member; but he thought it a mistake to include within that principle the allowing men to publish the most gross and revolting blasphemies with impunity.

asked, why did not the hon. Member carry his principle further, and again kindle the fires of Smithfield? for certainly, the principle which he avowed, of punishing any man who differed from him, and who expressed that difference in words or in writing, might extend so far. The hon. Member could not call that toleration which would induce him to fasten to the stake those who differed from him on religious opinions. The principle which he avowed would go that length.

repeated, that he was not opposed to religious toleration, but he could not extend it to a public denial of all religion accompanied with gross blasphemy. As to the hon. Member's inferences from his (Mr. Trevor's) opinions, he treated them with the contempt they merited.

asked the hon. Member whether Christianity did not rest on evidence, and could that evidence be made stronger by the infliction of punishment on those who denied it, or be weakened by the admission of free discussion?

thought that religion wanted no support but that of its own truth. He had, however, said, and he would repeat it, that the doctrines put forth by Mr. Taylor would be productive of the most injurious consequence to the lower classes.

said, he had some petitions to present on this subject. He was one of those who would not punish a man for his religious opinions; but, as the matter had been represented to him, Mr. Taylor had been guilty of the most indecent conduct, which the State had a right to take notice of. If these representations were true, he could only hope, for Mr. Taylor's own sake, that he had been out of his mind at the time he was guilty of such conduct. He would take that opportunity of observing, that the Society for the Suppression of Vice had not acted with judgment in their prosecutions, but had awakened in every instance the public sympathy in favour of the individuals against whom they directed their attacks.

said, that if Mr. Taylor had been left to himself, he would long ago have ceased to excite any interest in the public mind. He wished that had been the case, and in order to attain that desirable end, he recommended the Government to adopt the course pursued by a late right hon. Secretary of State, who, when he found that the continued imprisonment of Mr. Carlile produced a degree of sympathy on his behalf and procured that individual large subscriptions, released him at once from the imprisonment that had operated so strongly in his favour with the public.

said, the hon. member for Bristol was not very charitable, if he thought because a man might be mad he ought to be locked up in a dungeon. He (Mr. Hunt) had no doubt that the person in question would soon either become really insane, or die under such treatment.

said, he thought Ministers had acted with a sound discretion with regard to this person; certainly it was not prudent to draw such people from obscurity unnecessarily, but there were particular cases, and this was one of them, where, blasphemy could not be overlooked.

said, it would be much more convenient if any hon. Member thought Ministers deserved censure for their conduct towards this man, to bring a specific motion before the House, when it could be properly dealt with, rather than raise continually these incidental discussions.

said, a man ought not to be subjected to punishment for his opinions; but at the same time he thought the effect of these opinions required to be remedied by the law. Undoubtedly it was the duty of Government to protect both the religion and the morality of the country.

said, that the hon. Member and the House must be aware, that the removal of any individual from any appointment in the household of their Majesties was made in the undisputed exercise of the royal prerogative, to remove or retain any individual at pleasure. It would not become him, therefore, standing there as a Minister of the Crown, to enter into any statement, or to give any opinion, as to the grounds of such removal.

wished to put a question to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, on the subject of the Cholera Morbus. It was known that this fatal disorder had appeared at Hamburgh, within thirty-six hours' voyage by steam to this country, and he was desirous of learning whether Government had received any official information of that circumstance? and whether, as the disease had now only to cross the German Ocean, any additional measures of quarantine had been taken against it? It seemed an unfortunate mistake, that the violence of the Cholera Morbus was attenuated by crossing the sea; and it was known, that when it was conveyed from Calcutta to Mauritius and the Isle of France, it was felt in those islands with the greatest severity. There was every reason to fear that it would make its appearance in this country; and if so, he hoped steps would be taken to isolate places infected, so as to prevent the spreading of the disorder. He had adverted to the subject prior to the prorogation, in hopes that the attention of the people would be directed to it. They would themselves be the best guardians and conservators of the public health; and ought, immediately a place was attacked, to insist that a circle should be drawn round it.

said, in reply to the question asked by the hon. Baronet, that in the course of last week, the Government had received information, though not of an official character, that the Cholera Morbus had reached Hamburgh. Immediately on the receipt of this intelligence, the Government issued orders inforcing a more strict quarantine with respect to all vessels coming from Hamburgh, and had directed further precautionary measures to be taken with regard to vessels coming from any part of the coast lying between the north of Denmark and Rotterdam. All vessels arriving either from Hamburgh, or from any port within the district he had just described, would be subjected to new regulations. In addition to this, the Government had thought it adviseable to call public attention to the subject, and had recommended the different authorities in the country, both lay and ecclesiastical, to use all the means in their power to keep the disease out of their respective districts, or, should it appear, to prevent its spreading. He perfectly agreed in the observations which had fallen from the hon. Baronet with respect to the nature of the disease. From all the accounts which he had received, it appeared to him quite ridiculous to suppose that the nature of the Cholera Morbus was much affected by a sea passage. We had hitherto been able to keep this dreadful disease entirely out of the country by the employment of precautionary measures, and he trusted that we should be able to do so for the future; though the disease undoubtedly became more formidable as it approached those shores with which this country was in the habit, of frequent communication. Should, in any instance the disease be introduced, it would depend, in a great measure, on the exertions of the people themselves on its first appearance to check its progress. The recommendations, which he had already stated the Government had issued to the different authorities in the country, contained a statement of those precautionary measures which Government thought it desirable should be taken, and he had no doubt that if they were carried strictly into effect, they would, if the disease should unfortunately appear in this country, check its progress, if not entirely confine it to the place of its first appearance.

said, that there were no precautionary measures, not even the establishment of a coast guard, to which he should object, for the purpose of keeping this dreadful disease out of the country. Its effect was more calamitous than that of war itself, and they were bound to do all which human wisdom prescribed to preserve the country from its ravages. He suggested that a cordon should be drawn round those districts where the disease should break out.

asked whether there was any medical person at Hamburgh, appointed by Government to watch the disease, and make a report on its peculiar nature?

said, that when the Cholera Morbus broke out in Russia, Government despatched two medical men to Petersburgh, for the purpose of inquiring into the nature of that disease. Those gentlemen had left Petersburgh, and had arrived at Hamburgh, and would forward any information they were able to obtain connected with the disease, to the Government at home. He thought it a most fortunate circumstance that those gentlemen were able, by their accidental presence at Hamburgh, to report to Government the progress of the disease in that place. He had as yet received no information of their having reached Hamburgh, but in all probability they had arrived there by this time.

said, he had received communications from Northumberland, expressing considerable alarm on the subject of the Cholera Morbus.

suggested to the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether, as all persons coming from Hamburgh must perform quarantine, it would not be adviseable to put an entire stop to the steam navigation.

thought that that object could be effected of itself, without any official regulations on the subject.

observed, that a vessel after remaining twenty-one days in quarantine, had worked its way up to London and discharged a cargo of rags. He thought that if there had been any infection in the rags, it could not have been got rid of in the course of twenty-one days.

said, that the importation of rags coining from infected places, was now prohibited.

advised the Government to take the duty off soap. The poor classes would then be able to keep themselves clean; and cleanliness would be found the best preventive of Cholera Morbus.

begged to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the three Commissioners of the Sub-division Court must be unanimous? hitherto, the practice had been, that a majority of opinions was regarded as decisive.

said, the practice would be continued, and the opinions of a majority of the Commissioners be considered decisive.

said, he wished to make one or two further remarks. He understood a certain amount was to be paid when a dividend was declared; he, therefore, begged to suggest, whether a certain rate per cent would not be more adviseable? again, he wished to know, whether the official Assignees would be allowed to act as auctioneers?

said, with regard to the first point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, a clause was prepared which he hoped would meet his views; and with respect to the second, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the official Assignees from acting as auctioneers.

said, that arrangement would be an excellent one. It would make the new Court an auction mart, and the Judges and Registrars might be very beneficially employed as puffers.

wished to know whether the noble Lord opposite intended to introduce a clause into the bill to render the case of each of the existing Commissioners, with respect to compensation, subject to inquiry. He also stated his objections to giving the Judges appointed under the bill any superannuation allowance.

said, that the case of each individual Commissioner, with respect, to compensation, would be taken under the consideration of the Treasury, and decided on according to its own merits. That was the principle upon which compensation was now given. With respect to the retiring allowances to the Judges, he had already stated his own opinion—and he was inclined to maintain that opinion—that persons appointed to judicial situations ought to be allowed retiring pensions; or else they might keep their offices when they were too old properly to discharge the duties. But he had since communicated with the Lord Chancellor on the subject; and that noble and learned Lord considered, that the principle upon which the hon member for Middlesex had urged his objection to their retiring pensions, was unanswerable. The noble and learned Lord said, that it was the duty of every person to lay by part of his income for support in his old age, the more particularly when his income was not variable, but fixed. No clause with respect to compensation had been introduced into the Bill, because the general act, relating to compensation, did not apply to judicial offices.

said, he regretted that so many personal remarks were mixed up with this question. Those who felt it their duty to oppose the Bill, were described as factious. Such language was as painful to those to whom it was addressed, as it was unbecoming to those who used it—he admitted the evils of the existing system, and was willing to remedy them; but he did not think that the Bill would effect any improvement. The principle defects of the present system were, the great number of tribunals, the number of Judges in them, and that they were not constantly open. These evils could be reached only by diminishing the number of Judges, and making them sit continually without any adjournment. The Bill, in fact proceeded partly upon that principle, but it did not diminish the number of tribunals, for it established a Court of Review, which he held to be unnecessary. He thought that the Judges of the Division Courts might have occasional meetings in larger numbers, and perform the duties assigned to the Court of Review. Again, he looked with some fear at the new Bankruptcy Court being independent of the Court of Chancery, on account of the intricacy and importance of some of the questions which were occasionally to be decided; and he thought there was some danger in leaving the power of deciding these to a tribunal of inferior importance. Of course that could not be attended by the first advocates, and the suitors must experience disadvantages on that account. Even allowing a Court of Review to be necessary, he had heard no reason for appointing four Judges to preside in it. One he thought would be sufficient, and this had been so evident to the framers of the Bill, that they had provided other duties for these Judges, besides performing the duties of the Court of Review. It was arranged, therefore, that they should act separately as Commissioners, and preside over the trial of issues. With regard to these parts of their duties if they were to preside only as Commissioners, they ought to be paid as such, and not as Judges; and as to their presiding over trials, the three main sources of issues would by the very provisions of the Bill itself, be cut off.

said, upon this last occasion he must protest against that part of the measure which appointed official assignees. The consequence of it would be that no respectable creditor would act as assignee with them, and that frauds which were now discovered would remain undetected, as the official assignee could have no interest in bringing them to light. Another consequence of their appointment would be, that Commissions of Bankruptcy from Bristol, Manchester, and other places, would cease to be worked in London to avoid the additional expense that would accrue to the estate from their percentage being paid out of it in addition to other charges. The little the Judges of the Court of Review would have to do would be still further reduced by the diminution of bankrupt cases worked in London, and the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor be but little relieved; for they would still have to attend to all questions connected with country bankruptcies. He believed, as the Bill now stood, it would be found impracticable in several points. At present he would only allude to one, and that was, that the Bank of England neither could nor would undertake some of the duties and charges which the Bill contemplated. He recommended this point at least to the serious attention of the noble Lord.

said, that since he had practised in Westminster-hall, he never remembered any Bill for the amendment of the law so pregnant with mischief and danger as the present measure. The Tory party had been accused of being hostile to all Reform, and had been described as "factious." "To that he would simply say, they had made many reforms in the jurisprudence of the country, and that they had proceeded upon sound principles, and after due inquiry. He could by no means give the same credit to the author of this measure. He hoped it would be the last attempt at the emendation of the law which would ever proceed from the same quarter from which this had originated. He took leave of the Bill with the prediction that the Bankruptcy Courts would not endure long.