said, he should fix his dropped notice of Motion with respect to the expulsion of Scotch missionaries from the dominions of Austria, for the 29th instant, begging to have the benefit of Mr. Speaker's opinion on a question of order in which that House was much interested. A few days ago an hon. and learned Friend of his, the Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully), was in the middle of his speech, when Mr. Speaker, observing that the clock had struck four, left his chair, and his Friend was of course obliged to discontinue his address. Yesterday evening, however, a very different practice prevailed, for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to address the House within a few minutes of four o'clock, and was allowed to go on speaking until nearly five, with a view, as was intimated at the time to him (Mr. C. Anstey), to facilitate "a count out" at a later period of the evening. He should like to know upon what principle an independent Member should be obliged to resume his seat the instant the clock reached four, while a Minister of the Crown was permitted to prolong the discussions of the House on Government business until five? Some evenings ago, when the House was in Committee of Supply, three hon. Friends of his were obliged, contrary to their wishes and judgments, to record their votes against a Motion which he (Mr. C. Anstey) had submitted, because it was decided, upon the authority of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) that all Members within the House—meaning all having the possibility of access—were bound to vote; and therefore the votes of the hon. Gentlemen were recorded, not according to their convictions, hut according to which corridor they happened to be in. His (Mr. C. Anstey's) hon. Friends claimed to be allowed to vote rather according to their consciences than with regard to their geographical position in the House; but it was decided that being in the corridor, they were "within the House," and they were obliged to vote with those who were on the right, whereas they would have preferred voting with those who were on the left. With respect to the "count out" on yesterday evening, he had no hesitation in attributing it to the Government, who were anxious to get rid of an inconvenient discussion with reference to the conduct of Lord Malmesbury. The only Minister present was the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. When the House was counted, Mr. Speaker stopped at thirty-seven; and although the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) called his attention to several hon. Members, who hid themselves from view behind the chair, he declined to notice them. If hon. Members in the corridor were bound to vote as having access to the House, he should be glad to have the opinion of Mr. Speaker on these points, and also as to the power of the House to compel Members within the walls to come to the table and be counted, when an hon. hon. Member had moved a "count." If it should appear that the House had no such power, he would give notice of a Motion to alter the Standing Orders of the House in such a manner as to render impossible the recurrence of any such proceedings as had taken place on yesterday evening.

said, that the first question of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had reference to the proceedings of the House at twelve o'clock sittings, where, let the state of business be what it might, the Speaker invariably vacated the Chair as soon as the clock struck four. It would be in the recollection of the hon. and learned Member that some time ago the House gave its sanction to a regulation to this effect, that when the House met for the despatch of business at twelve o'clock, the Speaker should leave the Chair at four o'clock, and that the House should resume at six o'clock. This regulation, however, only applied to cases where the House met at twelve o'clock. Yesterday the House met at one o'clock, and the rule consequently did not hold good. With regard to the other question, as to what occurred a few evenings ago in Committee of Supply, the facts of the case had not been explained with such accuracy as to enable him to express an opinion on the subject; but he would state what he believed was the rule of the House with regard to voting. The general practice of the House was that no Member should be permitted to vote unless he was present in the House when the question was put, and had heard it put, and it was the duty of the Serjeant-at-Arms to clear the lobbies previous to a division. He remembered one instance where a Member had been found in the lobby during the time of a division. He (Mr. Speaker) called him to the table, and asked him whether he had heard the question put, and on his replying in the negative, he directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to open the door and let him out, and the Member withdrew- without voting. With respect to the third question, the "count out" of last night, it was scarcely necessary that he should inform the hon. and learned Member, that whenever a Member took notice that there were not forty Members present, it became incompetent for the House to transact business. The doors were not locked—they were kept open— and until the Speaker began to count, the Members were at liberty to move in and out of the House as they pleased. A hundred Members might be in the halls, lobbies, or corridors, but the Speaker had no power to compel them to come into the House to be counted. During the count out last evening he had been somewhat irregularly interrupted by the hon. Member for Montrose, who called his attention to some Members who were standing behind the chair. He (Mr. Speaker), in order to avoid mistakes, began the calculation anew, and counted twice over, and there could be no question that there were only thirty-seven Members present. No Member could be counted unless he were actually within the House, and neither the Speaker nor the Chairman of Committees had any power to compel the attendance of Members in order to be counted.

said, that with reference to what had occurred when he was sitting as Chairman of the Committee of that House, be thought it highly important that a rule should be laid down with respect to the voting of Members who were not actually within those four walls, and who might not have heard the question put. Frmerly the understanding was that hon. Gentlemen in any part of the House who could be locked in were obliged to vote. Upon the occasion to which allusion had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey), as it was a new House, he thought, to avoid confusion, he would take the opinion of the Committee. He suggested himself that the hon. Members should be called to the table and asked if they had heard the question put, with the view, if they had not, to repeat it, that they might exercise their opinions upon it; but that suggestion did not find favour with many hon. Gentleman. It was perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), and the hon. Baronet the Member for Dovor (Sir G. Clerk), and others, expressed their opinion that that ought not to be done. But if he had collected accurately what Mr. Speaker had now said—and he should be excessively sorry to make any misrepresentation—there must be an adjunct to the condition, and the Member must not merely be within the walls of the House, but must hear the question put to him, and if any hon. Gentleman within the walls and precincts had not heard the question, he should be allowed to withdraw. He was glad to hear that opinion, and in future he should guide himself by it.

said, he willingly admitted, from what Mr. Speaker had just stated, that he was a little irregular yesterday; but, finding him stop at thirty-seven, and seeing three Members in the House, he naturally called attention to them: he saw at least twenty more outside the glass doors, and within the House, as he contended. He thought it of importance that the question should be settled. Formerly they used to divide in the House, and they were counted in the benches as best they could. Then it was found convenient to go into separate lobbies, and he understood the rule was that the doors should be locked, and all within them should vote; On an occasion when he was a teller, some thirty years ago, he remembered Mr. Wilberforce retired behind what was called Solomon's Porch, or the Speaker's Chair, and secreted himself. Another hon. Member immediately took notice of the fact, and he was brought to the table, and asked if he had heard the question? He said he had not. Then the clerk was directed to read the Motion, and he was asked which way he voted, "Ay" or "No?" He said, "No;" and the vote was recorded. It was then held that the door could not be opened until the Speaker or Chairman should direct it. At one time he (Mr. Hume) thought the rules of the House most complicated; but he was free to confess, after some years' experience, that without those rules and orders it would be utterly impossible to conduct the business of the House. The rule of the old House of Commons was that every one inside the outer doors should be obliged to vote; but this being a new House, it was not quite certain what really was in and what was out. He therefore submitted that in the next Parliament there ought to be a Committee to draw up a rule which should prevent the possibility of such an occurrence as that of last night. He himself had reason to complain, because he had come down to the House to hear what he anticipated would be a very interesting discussion, on the Motion of the noble Lord (Viscount Jocelyn), on the affairs of Scinde. He hoped nothing of the kind would occur again during the short time they would yet be together, but that in the next Parliament the limits of the House would be clearly defined. He knew that he was sometimes irregular; but when he was told that three and two did not make five, as he was last night, he was naturally led into that irregularity.

said, that the hon. Member must see that it was impossible to apply the rules of the old House to the present House. The rules for dividing were totally different. In the old House, when Members were in Committee, they generally crossed the floor, and when they were not in Committee, the "Ayes," or the "Noes," as the case might be, were sent forth to the lobby. If Members were in the Speaker's chamber they were not allowed to vote; but there was a little room behind the Speaker's Chair, in which, if Members were, they were allowed to vote. There was no such distinction in the present House. As the lobbies in the present House were required for the purpose of dividing, he was sure the House would not suffer if a rule—Standing Order—were adopted, declaring that no Member should be allowed to vote unless he were present in the House, and heard the question put, and that the Serjeant-at-Arms be instructed, before a division, to clear the lobby.

said, he wished to give notice that he should tomorrow move that in future when the House was counted the Serjeant-at-Arms should be directed to lock the doors in the corridors, so that those Members within the precincts of the House might be counted.

said, he wished to ask a question of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty. Considerable attention had been called to a vast quantity of wreck which had been lately driven on shore on the coast of the county of Banff, in Scotland, and much excitement had been raised respecting it, as it had been conjectured to be possible that it formed a portion of the unfortunate steamship President. He wished to ask whether the Admiralty were in possession of any information, or had made an inquiry into the subject.

begged to thank the hon. Gentleman for giving him the opportunity of stating to the House the circumstances which had occurred. It was true there had been a considerable quantity of wreck washed on shore on the coast of the county of Banff, and the Admiralty had taken steps to institute an inquiry by sending to the spot an able naval officer for that purpose. After having carefully examined the scantlings of the timbers which had been cast on shore, he communicated the result to the owners of the many steam vessels that had been lost of late years, and among them the owners of the President, at the same time requesting them to inform him what were the dimensions of the scantlings of their own vessels, in order that a comparison might be made with the dimensions of the timbers forming part of the wreck. From some of these parties answers had been returned; but, as far as the examination had hitherto gone, the impression was, that the scantlings among the wreck were not those of the President. The inquiry was still being prosecuted, and, when it should be complete, he would communicate the result to the House.

I rise, Sir, to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of which I have given him notice, and trust the House will allow me to preface it with a few words of explanation. I see in this morning's papers, as of course every Member of this House has seen, a Royal Proclamation, which is addressed to the clauses in the Roman Catholic Relief Act, which were introduced into that Act from some very old Acts. Those1 clauses wore directed against the habit of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics wearing the dress of their order in public. Those clauses have lain dormant ever since the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. The Government of the Duke of Wellington did not press them. The Government of Earl Grey did not press them. The Government of Lord Melbourne did not press them. The Government of Sir Robert Peel did not press them; and this, I believe, is the first announcement of the intention to put them in force. I observe in a morning journal which is conducted with great ability, and which usually defends the acts of the Government, and is supposed to be the organ of the present Government-—I allude to the Morning Herald—the following remarks in reference to this proclamation:—

"This is an act by which the Government, in the immediate prospect of an election, dares to offend a large class of religionists. We need not say that Sir Robert Peel in his whole life was never once guilty of such a piece of manliness. What earnest Protestants have to do is to take care that those who are prepared to carry out their views do not suffer from their manliness in so doing."

Now, Sir, having reference to the approaching elections—having reference to this announcement on the part of the Government organ, and having reference to the other facts I have stated, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman; first, Is it intended to publish in the Dublin Gazette that proclamation, and thereby give it the same effect in Ireland which it will have in England? [Mr. HUME: A Proclamation does nothing.] The hon. Member for Montrose says the Proclamation does nothing; I am quite aware in this case it has no legal effect. [Lord NAAS: Hear, hear!] I think it clear the noble Lord opposite does not understand the distinction. There arc cases in which Proclamations are necessary, as in the Crime and Outrage Act, which we were discussing yesterday; but this Proclamation is intended simply to prevent the public being taken by surprise in the reviving of a dormant Act of Parliament. Now, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, is it the intention of the Government to give the same publicity to this Proclamation in Ireland as in England, by inserting it in the Dublin Gazette? And that being done, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government, with that manliness and sincerity for which they get credit in the newspaper I have quoted, to direct the Attorney General in Ireland, whom I am glad to see opposite, to prosecute the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics in that country for doing that which they have been permitted, without observation or punishment, to do since the year 1829, by every Government? or is this merely a set-off to the dropping of the Maynooth debate?

Sir, before I answer the two questions which have been put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think it right to state, on the part of the Government, that I am not responsible, nor is the Government responsible, for any particular observations contained in any particular newspaper. I think it also right to state that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not accurately, because not fully, stated the law with reference to this subject. The statute of George IV. was intended to apply to two matters: first, to Roman Catholic ecclesiastics wearing the habit of their order in public; and, next, to Roman Catholic ecclesiastics exercising the rites and ceremonies of their religion in any other place than in their usual places of worship, or in private houses— that is to say, they were not to exercise those rites or ceremonies in any public place. I have thought it right to state this much as to the objects of that law, which Her Majesty's Government think it their duty to enforce. I will now proceed to answer the questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman. First, he asks, are we going to publish a similar proclamation in the Dublin Gazette? My answer to that is, that two months ago the Government heard of a procession of Roman Catholics in Ireland in which a Roman Catholic bishop took part. The moment we heard of that procession—which I believe was an entirely new thing, we sent an intimation, I may call it a friendly intimation, to that bishop, pointing out to him the provisions of the statute of George IV., and expressing a hope that lie had taken part in that procession in his ecclesiastical dress inadvertently, and without any intention of violating the law, and stating that under these circumstances we should take no further notice of the proceeding: but we, at the same time, expressed a hope that the law would not be violated in future, because, if it were, we should feel it our duty to put it in force. Since that time the Government have not heard of any offence having been committed against this law in Ireland; and, not having heard of any such offence, we do not wish to give a more special warning in Ireland than that which has been expressed to all Her Majesty's subjects generally in the Proclamation already published. No notice, therefore, will be given in the Dublin Gazette, unless a similar occurrence to that I have just mentioned should take place, after the private warning which has already been given or suggested to the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics in Ireland. With regard to the second question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, namely, whether we are going to enforce the law, which he says has lain dormant since 1829, I first of all beg leave to state that the law has not lain dormant. But a fact had come to the knowledge of the Government of a very peculiar nature, namely, that the Roman Catholics were going to renew those religious processions along the public highways which had been done away with for three hundred years;— these were the very words as taken down in evidence, and it was further stated, that they were going to do this by marching from village to village with banners and emblems of their faith in honour and celebration of the Feast of the Virgin Mary. The very procession to which this proclamation more particularly relates moved, for four miles along the high road. It consisted of about one hundred and fifty persons, some carrying banners with emblems of the Roman Catholic faith inscribed on them, others bearing crucifixes, while others carried images of the Virgin and the infant Jesus. Now, I have no hesitation in saying that such a procession as that must and did give much annoyance to many of Her Majesty's Protestant subjects; and the Government, therefore, did think it right, and do think it right, to prevent the violation of the law by any such processions in future. Further than this, I must go on to state, that in the instance to which I have alluded, actual danger did exists of a breach of the peace. I am therefore sure that both the House and the country will approve of the course which the Government has taken, and will concur with them in declaring', in the words of the Proclamation—

"That while we are resolved to protect our Roman Catholic subjects in the undisturbed enjoyment of their legal rights and religious freedom, we are determined to prevent and repress the commission of all such offences"

by seeing that the law shall be observed; for, if it he not, it must necessarily draw down punishment upon those who, after this warning, shall wilfully infringe it. It must be obvious that those processions, if they were allowed to continue, instead of allaying religious differences, would very materially increase them, and would, I fear, frequently terminate in very serious breaches of the peace.

said, he should have moved the second reading- of this Bill without any remark, but for the opposition given to the measure by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Austey); and perhaps he should best consult the convenience of the House by stating the nature of the Bill which had been so much misrepresented. The Bill had had the singular ill-fortune of being obstructed in its course both by over-flattery and over-abuse. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) had represented it as one of the most important measures before the House, and one which, if persevered in, would render it impossible to wind up the Session within the reasonable time promised by the Government. On the other hand, it had been obstructed by exaggerated abuse, or perhaps he ought rather to have said misrepresentation. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal might perhaps think it his duty as a Roman Catholic to obstruct and interfere with every Bill connected with the Church of England, whether it might be an important measure, or one of mere technical and routine requirement, which was the characteristic of the present measure. This was not a Bill for creating a bishopric, nor even for dividing a bishopric. Its object was very plain and simple. That most excellent and praiseworthy prelate the Bishop of New Zealand (Bishop Selwyn), having found that his diocese was becoming so populous and extended that it was impossible for him adequately to discharge the duties imposed upon him, had not only offered every facility for the division of his diocese, but had offered to make a sacrifice of his income to carry that object into effect. And here he would take the opportunity of telling the House that the representation made in a certain leading organ of the press yesterday, "that the population of New Zealand was diminishing, and that the colonists were leaving in great numbers for Australia in consequence of the gold discoveries," was a statement wholly without foundation, and entirely contradicted by the recent information received from the settlements, from which it appeared that there was not such a desertion of New Zealand—that, on the contrary, very few persons had left, and from Canterbury five only, for the gold diggings— and that it still remained the most promising young Colony in the new Colonial Empire of Great Britain. Bishop Selwyn, with the view of carrying out the plan which he had suggested, determined to resign part of his see for the purpose of getting a new diocese formed. The arrangement was agreeable to all parties interested; the colonists desired it; emigrants going out to Canterbury waited for it; Her Majesty desired the subdivision, and Her own legal authorities had given their opinion in favour of the division. The only difficulty requiring legislation was that there was a certain technical informality in the mode in which the Bishop had resigned the fragment of his diocese. When the deed of resignation was submitted to the law officers of the Crown, they objected to its validity, because it was impossible to resign half a patent; they gave their opinion that the proper way was to resign the whole patent, and that two new patents should issue, one to install the present Bishop, the other to reinstate the new Bishop. But if the resignation of the patent was to be required, it would be necessary to wait another year. And to please whom? Why, to please no one on earth but the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey). But even supposing the Colony's wishes were postponed for the Bishop to resign his patent, this inconvenience would still arise: there would be a certain interval occasioned by such a resignation during which there would be no bishop whatever over the diocese. He (Mr. Adderley) certainly had entertained the hope that the Bill would have passed without any opposition whatever. It had gone through the House of Lords, and was now stopped in its progress by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who in a long speech on a previous occasion had misrepresented the Bill in every possible way, stating that it was a Bill for the construction of a diocese—then a Bill for the division of a diocese; in short, stating the Bill to be everything but what it really was, namely, a Bill for rendering valid a resignation, and founding his objections on his own misrepresentations. Rather than create delay, he had asked the hon. and learned Member to meet him in private, and he (Mr. Adderley) would endeavour to remove any valid objections which the hon. and learned Gentleman might entertain. On consulting the hon. and learned Gentleman, and some other parties, he found that there were words in the Bill from which, by a forced construction, it might be supposed Parliament had taken upon itself the construction of a Colonial bishopric, whereas, according to the usual form, it ought to be done by Royal Patent. The hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the interference of Parliament; and he (Mr. Adderley) proposed to strike out the words from which such an inference might be drawn, and thus remove the objection. There was therefore now nothing in the Bill but what would simply make Bishop Selwyn's resignation a formal instead of an informal resignation, leaving it to the Crown afterwards by patent to create the new bishopric. Having agreed to strike out those words, he understood that he should have had the assent of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the passing of the Bill. But there was another objection, as to the title by which Bishop Selwyn was described in the preamble of the Bill. [Mr. C. ANSTEY: Hear, hear!] That, then, was the only point at issue. [Mr. C. ANSTEY: NO, no!] The hon. and learned Gentleman wished the diocese of New Zealand to be described, not as "the Bishopric of New Zealand," but as "a See in New Zealand in communion with the Church of Eng- land." [Mr. C. ANSTEY: Hear, hear!] That, then, was the point at issue. Now he (Mr. Adderley) had no objection to the introduction of those words; but the Attorney General, as the guardian of Her Majesty's rights, was not willing to yield that point, and insisted on the bishopric of New Zealand being described as it was in the Bill. He would put it to the House whether they would allow the Bill to be obstructed day after day, simply on the ground that the Bishopric of New Zealand ought to he called "a See in New Zealand in communion with the Church of England," instead of "the Bishopric of New Zealand." Being ready to make the changes which he had intimated, he must appeal to the House not to allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to obstruct the further progress of the Bill.

wished to know whether it was intended to bring any charge upon the public for the maintenance of this new bishopric? [Mr. ADDERLEY: None whatever—not a farthing.] On that distinct understanding, then, he had no objection whatever to the Bill.

said, he wished shortly to explain the part which he had taken with respect to this measure. It was not a Government Bill. It was introduced into the other House by an independent Member, and was now under the charge of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley); and the only reason of his (the Attorney General's) interference was, that a desire had been manifested on the part of an hon. and learned Member to make an alteration in the preamble of the Bill, to which he did not think it his duty to consent. He regretted that any excited feeling should have been manifested with regard to the Bill, and trusted, after a few remarks in explanation of its object, the House would consent to its second reading. By Letters Patent in the year 1841, Her Majesty-made the Colony of New Zealand into a Bishop's see or diocese, by the title of the Bishopric of New Zealand, and nominated Bishop Selwyn to be the bishop for the term of his natural life. Bishop Selwyn took possession of his diocese, and it became necessary in the course of time, in consequence of the immense extent of the island of New Zealand, that a new bishopric should be created. Bishop Selwyn was entirely favourable to the creation of a now bishopric, and he (the Attorney General) believed that there was hardly an hon. Member in that House who desired to prevent it if essentially necessary, and which, according to the opinion of those best acquainted with the subject, was now actually the case. Now, the only proper way in which that creation could take place would be by the resignation of Bishop Selwyn, according to the terms of the Letters Patent, for no other resignation was provided for; and before Her Majesty could create a new bishop, which it was not denied that She had power to do, it was essential that the ground should be cleared, and that no other episcopal rights should have existed previously, and then Her Majesty would be empowered on ground so cleared to erect a new bishopric. But here a difficulty arose. Bishop Selwyn had an objection to resign, according to the terms of the Letters Patent, the whole of his diocese, for the purpose of enabling Her Majesty to create a more limited diocese for him; but he was ready to assist, as far as he could, that desired object, by surrendering a portion of his diocese. In point of fact, he had executed an instrument by which a portion of his diocese had been surrendered, which, if valid, would have enabled Her Majesty to create a new bishopric. But when the instrument came over here, and was submitted to the consideration of the law officers of the Crown, they were of opinion, not that it was a void instrument, but that there were such doubts existing as to the validity of such resignation, as to render it uncertain whether it was competent for Her Majesty to act upon it. They accordingly recommended that an Act of Parliament should be applied for, which should remove all doubts, and at all events legalise the creation of a now bishopric. A Bill was therefore introduced by those who were interested in the Colony, for the purpose merely of accomplishing this object, which all who knew anything of the matter considered to be essential. Then in providing for this Bill, it was necessary to recite the Letters Patent, and the Letters Patent were the substance set forth in the Preamble; it stated that an instrument of resignation had been executed by Bishop Selwyn of a portion of his diocese, and then recited that doubts were entertained as to the validity of such instrument and the power of Her Majesty to erect such surrendered portion into a distinct See. Was that, or was it not, a true Preamble stating the facts of the case? Was there such a Patent appointing Bishop Selwyn to the diocese? Why, there was no doubt at all about it, and it was equally certain that there had been an instrument of resignation of a part of the diocese executed, and that doubts had arisen respecting its validity. This Bill merely proposed to remove those doubts, and to make the said instrument of resignation valid and effectual in law for the purpose of enabling Her Majesty to erect the surrendered portion of the diocese into a distinct diocese, it being not competent for her to do so until the ground was cleared. That was the object of the Bill; but then there were some additional words which the hon. and learned Member for Youghal objected to, and which he (the Attorney General) had some doubts respecting, because the Bill went on to enact that "it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to erect the said portion of the surrendered diocese into a new see or diocese." Now he should say that Her Majesty would clearly have that power without the interference of the Legislature, supposing that there was no other bishop already appointed. That was, he believed, a true statement of the facts; and under these circumstances he did not think there could be any ground for the strong opposition which the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had exhibited. He regretted that a measure of so simple and necessary a character should have given rise, on a former occasion, to so much heat and excitement, to which he was a party, and for which he now begged to apologise to the House. He hoped the Bill would now be read a second time.

said, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate. He considered the appointment of bishops to be a social question, which ought to be left to the Colonists themselves; and he objected strongly that England should be called upon to support bishops in her colonial possessions.

seconded the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member was proceeding to discuss the merits of the Bill, when

said, Sir, I rise to order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going into the whole discussion with respect to New Zealand, he is not going to speak to the question before the House— namely, the adjournment of the debate; and it will be for the House to decide whether they will hear him.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge knew well when to insist on the privileges of the House, and when not; and he (Mr. C. Anstey) invariably found that he insisted upon them whenever it was thought desirable to do damage to an independent Member. At so late a period of the Session, he did not think it was becoming to press forward so important a Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Adderley) who had charge of the Bill had consented to an Amendment which he (Mr. C. Anstey) had suggested, the effect of which would have been that a simple allegation of those matters contained would have appeared in the Bill; whereas, if the Bill were adopted in its present shape, Parliament would thereby give its sanction to, and recognition of, the division of New Zealand into bishopricks. That Amendment, however, was resisted by the hon. and learned Attorney General, who understood the real purport of the Bill. He (Mr. C. Anstey) denied in the most emphatic terms that the Queen had any spiritual supremacy in New Zealand, and he could appeal to authorities to show that She possessed none beyond these realms, except under the letter of an Act of Parliament, or an ordinance of the Colonial Legislature. The hon. and learned Attorney General had no doubt said, that the Bill would not entail a farthing of expenditure on this country; but the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies had used very different language. The salary of the new bishop would have to be provided either by the people of this country or the inhabitants of New Zealand. As soon as the new bishop would arrive in New Zealand, the Governor would send a message to his Legislative Council on the subject of his arrival; he would say—"Here is a bishop—the Queen has appointed him—Parliament has consecrated him—and in the name of humanity and religion it is but right that we should make some provision for him. The other bishop has 1,000l. a year out of the colonial revenue, and it is but fair that we should give a similar salary to this new bishop." That, of course, would be the result if this Bill were carried. That was what happened in the case of the Roman Catholic Bishop of New South Wales. The Legislative Council of New South Wales, composed of Protestants and nominees of the Crown, said, on the arrival there of Dr. Polding the Roman Catholic Bishop—"It is but fitting that we who have already given annual stipends of 200l. to the Ro- man Catholic priests in this colony, should give to a bishop of that creed a higher salary, let us give him 800l a year:" and that, accordingly, was the sum paid to Dr. Polding out of the revenue of New South Wales. He (Mr. C. Anstey) objected to the Bill, because it was only an attempt, on the part of the founders of the Canterbury Settlement, to obtain a Parliamentary sanction to that transplantation of the worst corruptions of the High Tory party in England. Canterbury Settlement, in fact, was intended by its founders to be a new England—such as England was in times past, when High Toryism reigned paramount. It would perpetuate all our own ecclesiastical abuses. If a new bishop were set up in New Zealand, why not a bishop's court? Now, he strongly protested against subjecting the Free Churchmen of Otago, and the Roman Catholics of Auckland, to the jurisdiction of an ecclesiastical judge, set up by only a minority of the people of New Zealand. This Bill was an attempt to get in the small end of the wedge—

rose to order. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he said, had apparently seconded the Motion for adjournment, in order that he might use the opportunity to make a second speech on the subject of the Bill. It appeared to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the proceeding, if not a direct violation of the rules of the House, was, at least, an evasion of them,

There is no doubt this is an evasion of the strict letter of the rules of the House, because, when the hon. Member (Mr. Heyworth) moved the adjournment of the debate, and the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Anstey) rose to second the Amendment, he should have spoken to the adjournment of the debate, whereas he has, in fact, made a second speech upon the principle of the Bill. I have often had occasion to call the attention of the House to these matters before, to show that, unless there is a strict observance of the rules of the House, any Member of this House may, by getting a friend to move the adjournment of the House, or the adjournment of the debate, make a very lengthy speech with respect to some other subject. I trust that the House, if the rules of the House continue to be so evaded, will take Borne steps to remedy the evil.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had misrepresented the facts of the case. His hon. Friend (Mr. Heyworth) had moved the adjournment, to enable him (Mr, C. Anstey) to reply to the personal attack that had been made on him. He had the more right to do so, as his former speech had been delivered in a thin House, and therefore the hon. Member for North Staffordshire had taken the opportunity of misstating his arguments. He thought he was, in justice, entitled to be heard; and the right hon. Gentleman who had called him to order had himself taken greater liberties with the forms of the House than any other hon. Member. If he was not sensible of what was due to the dignity of the House, the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman would have tempted him to pursue a very different course.

said, although the Bill was not a Government one, he was anxious, as it related to a very important Colony of the British Crown, that it should be passed during the present Session.

said, he thought that the Motion for the adjournment of the debate was a very proper one. In the Preamble, the question introduced by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Adderley) was admitted to be one of great doubt: why, then, in the present state of Parliament was a matter of great importance and considerable doubt pressed upon the House? There were only 28,000 British emigrants in New Zealand, only a tenth of whom were in connexion with the Church of England. What urgency could there be with respect to this proposition to place a second bishop over so small a minority of so small a population? This Hill would but sow in New Zealand such seeds of religious discord as had provoked the rebellion in Canada. It was nothing more than an attempt to make one particular creed, and that, too, of the minority, the dominant religion. If a bishop were really needed in New Zealand, the Queen had powers of appointing him without asking for Parliamentary sanction. He submitted to the Government the desirableness of leaving this irritating question to the decision of the next Parliament.

rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the Bill was to enable the four joint parishes of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, St. George, Bloomsbury, and St. Margaret, and St. John's, Westminster, to adopt what was known as Hobhouse's Act. What he asked was that these four great parishes should be placed on the same footing with other parishes throughout the country, and have the privilege of electing those who administered the parochial funds.

said, he must oppose the second reading of this Bill, which, though introduced as a public measure, was confined to four metropolitan parishes. The proper course would have been to introduce Private Bills applicable to the case of each parish, thus making the parties interested responsible for the expense, instead of throwing it upon the public. Having been foiled in a Court of Law, the promoters of this Bill now came before Parliament to carry out their object, greatly to the disadvantage of the dissentient portions of the united parishes. He should therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

said, the Bill before the House had been made a Public Bill because its object was to amend a Public Act. These four parishes had been omitted by a mistake from Hobhouse's Act, which gave the ratepayers the right to vote for vestrymen, and all that was now asked was that they should be enabled to avail themselves of that Act.

thought the only mode of dealing with these parishes was by local Bills applicable to the case of each. It was hardly possible to do justice to all the interests concerned by a common Act.

hoped a remedy of some kind would be applied to this case. Nu- merous complaints had been made to him as to the condition of these parishes; and, whether by a Public Bill, or in some other way, he trusted the grievance complained of would be removed. He considered this Bill unobjectionable, because it only proposed to include four metropolitan parishes within the provisions of a Public Act, from which they had by mistake been excluded. Therefore, the objection that the remedy sought for ought to be obtained by a Private Bill was totally inapplicable.

said, he thought that the best course would be for the united parishes to adjust their differences, and then proceed by Private Bill. He would therefore suggest the propriety of withdrawing this Bill.

said, he must decline to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's recommendation.

thought these metropolitan parishes ought not to be allowed to attain the objects of a Private Bill without paying the expense of such a measure. He could not see why they should receive an advantage which was denied to all other bodies.

would suggest that the hon. Member for East Kent, who had the charge of this Bill, would see the propriety of not proceeding with the measure at present.

said, that he had taken great pains to make this Bill as perfect a measure as possible, and he hoped that, if he consented not to proceed further with it that day, the Government would grant to him a portion of the morning sitting on Monday next, to see what progress he could make in Committee.

considered that it would only be a waste of time to discuss this Bill either at present or on Monday. He could say, for himself, that he had insuperable objections to its provisions, and it was impossible that such a measure could be carried through at this period of the Session.

said, he wished to prevent any misconception on the part of the House in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes). It was quite impossible now for the Government to give a moment of time to any hon. Gentleman. It was absolutely necessary, with the consent of the House, to proceed with the transaction of only public business. He was sure that would be the feeling of the House, and it was only by strictly adhering to that rule that the Government could fulfil the general understanding with with regard to the dissolution.

said, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would withdraw the Bill.

rose, to move as an Amendment, that the House do resolve itself into Committee that day three months. It was purely from inadvertence that the Government had allowed such a measure as this to reach its present stage, he having permitted it at a very late hour of the night to pass a second reading from having mistaken it for a measure of the noble Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell). Its provisions were of the most extraordinary and unreasonable nature. They consisted of only two clauses, the first of which provided that actions for bribery might be brought and decided in the County Courts; and the second, that if a Committee of the House of Commons should determine that there had been extensive bribery prevalent in any county, city, or borough, such county, city, or borough should be taxed for the expenses of the inquiry in the shape of a compulsory rate. Now, questions of bribery were very grave and important, and they were always tried in the Superior Courts. What reason could the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), who was the author of this measure, assign for transferring the hearing of such a case to the County Courts? [Mr. Anstey here pointed to the clock, the hour being within a few minutes to Sice.] The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to have a strong sense of the value of time when anybody else was speaking; but he did not seem to remember the length of the addresses which he himself so frequently inflicted upon the House. Look at the extreme hardship and injustice of the provisions of this Bill. Certain persons in a district offended: all the inhabitants, without distinction, were to be punished. [Mr. Anstey here again pointed to the clock.] The hon. and learned Gentleman was exceedingly impatient; but if he would at once go to a division, he (the Attorney General) was quite ready to give him the benefit of the remaining four minutes of the sitting in order to take the sense of the House upon this Bill.

said, he would divide as soon as he had answered the hon. and learned Gentleman's misrepresentations.

said, the House had already that day had a proof of how long the hon. and learned Gentleman took to correct misrepresentations— which was just an hour by the clock. He would, however, now conclude by moving the Amendment which he had already stated.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had woefully misrepresented him; but he had no wish to retard the eager anxiety of the Government to cover themselves with as much odium as possible. He had explained the objects of the Bill fully when he moved for leave to introduce it; and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, on that occasion, offered no opposition to him, but said he would suspend his judgment until be had further examined the measure. He (Mr. C. Anstey) did not attach any importance to the second clause, which the hon. and learned Gentleman had so strongly de- nounced: it was merely permissive, and he had adopted it from a Bill of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London.