the Motion for adjourning the debate to Monday at twelve o'clock. MR. B. OSBORNE said, he saw the force of the noble Lord's suggestion, and he would consider the terms of the Amendment before he placed it on the books. ment. MR. SCOTT hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would persist in opposing the Motion. The grounds upon which he (Mr. Scott) wished the discussion to be postponed to a later day were precisely those which had been alluded to by the noble Lord at the head of the GovernHe considered that sufficient intimation had not been given of the intention of Baron de Rothschild to claim his seat, and that many Members of the House had not, therefore, the opportunity of being present to record their votes. He (Mr. Scott) considered that the debate should be adjourned till Thursday or Friday next. He thought, that as under the present Post Office arrangements no letters could be delivered on Sunday, such an adjournment was not unreasonable. He begged to move that the House do now adjourn. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.' MR. REYNOLDS said, that he had been sitting during the last three hours listening with Job-like patience to speeches which were meant to show either that the House ought then to adjourn, or, that if they did adjourn, it should be until Monday. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cockermouth stated it was to him a matter of little consequence whether they adjourned to Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday; and one hon. and learned Gentleman opposite proposed an adjournment to Friday. He trusted that the House would do no such thing. He objected to any adjournment, because the House had often considered this question before, and therefore required no adjournment respecting it. [Loud cries of" Adjourn, adjourn!"] He begged to assure hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, who were interrupting him, and who would not find it very convenient for them to interrupt him elsewhere- [" Hear, hear!" and "Order!"] He begged to assure the hon. Member for Reading, that he could well understand this interruption. He would, too, assure the hon. and gallant Member for the Irish metropolitan county, that he understood also his interruption; but he would tell him, at the same time, that he was very much mistaken if he supposed that his unmannerly interruption would succeed. Having said so much, he would now beg to assure hon. Gentlemen that he had but a very few words to address to the House. He would wait there until the latest hour at which the House might sit, or obtain a hearing. He begged also to state that if he had been permitted to make the few observations he intended to address to the House, he should have finished by that time. It was said that the "shortest way to cross a hill was to go round it," and so the longest course for persons to take with him was to interrupt him, when he thought he ought not to be interrupted. All then that he had now to say with respect to the question they were then discussing was this--that it had been before them for three years; that the House had divided upon it eight times, and now he had to state with what results. Upon the first occasion 214 Members had voted in favour of the claim, 140 on the second occasion, 278 on the third, 241 on the fourth, 225 on the fifth, 164 on the sixth, 103 on the seventh, and 272 on the eighth division. These had voted in favour of the principle of civil and religious liberty. was not surprised that he had been interrupted in his observations by Members on the other side of the House; but he was surprised at the interruptions he experienced from Members who were on the same side of the House with himself—with those who were in the same boat" with him; for they had, like him, voted for the support of the principles of civil and religious liberty; but though those Members were "in the same boat," yet he had been told that "they did not row with the same skulls" that he did, and he believed it. He was opposed to any adjournment, and he could not but express his delight that all hypocrisy on this question was now to be got rid of. Baron de Rothschild had been advised to take a manly course in coming there. This question involved more than the rights of Baron de Rothschild. They were now to understand whether that House would for the future sacrifice its rights and its privileges before the footstool of the House of Lords. [Cries of 66 He Order!"] He believed, that in Parliamentary phraseology the House of Lords ought to be designated as "elsewhere," or "another place;" but whether it was "elsewhere," or "another place," he hoped they would not make any sacrifice of principle in that House. An hon. Gentleman over the way had suggested that the debate should be adjourned until Tuesday; but the noble Lord had already fixed Tues- | Baines, rt. hon. M. T. day for taking into consideration the Irish Franchise Bill; and perhaps that consideration induced the hon. Member to suggest Tuesday, because it would enable that hon. Member to aid in carrying out that which had been done elsewhere, where the attempt was made to deprive the people of Ireland of having the choice of their representatives. He concluded by begging to remind the House that this was a question of privilege, and must take precedence of. all others. MR. SCOTT said, he would withdraw his Amendment, but he wished to state his reasons. MR. ANSTEY rose to order. MR. SCOTT: Hon. Gentlemen over the way have begged an opportunity. I have not had an opportunity of concluding the remarks I was about to make. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that this Motion for adjournment be withdrawn? The hon. Member for Berwickshire may explain, but he is not entitled to speak again on this Motion, as he has already spoken. Is it the hon. Gentleman's wish to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the House? MR. SCOTT: It is. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. MR. B. OSBORNE: The hon. and learned Member for Youghal wishes to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the debate be adjourned till Monday at Twelve o'clock. SIR G. GREY suggested that the best mode of settling the intricacy of the question would be to divide. SIR C. BURRELL moved that the debate be adjourned to Tuesday instead of Monday. Monday MR. SPEAKER said, the House must first decide whether the words " next" stand part of the question. If the House decide not, then the next question will be that the debate be adjourned to this day at Five o'clock, and then it will be competent for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreham to move Tuesday next. Question put, "That the words Monday next, at Twelve of the clock,' stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 191; Noes 62: Majority 129. Adair, R. A. S. Aglionby, H. A. Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. Bass, M. T. Bellew, R. M. Berkeley, Adm. Bernal, R. Birch, Sir T. B. Blakemore, R. Blewitt, R. J. Boldero, H. G. Bouverie, hon. E. P. Bowles, Adm. Boyle, hon. Col. Bramston, T. W. Bright, J. Brisco, M. Brockman, E. D. Brotherton, J. Brown, H. Brown, W. Cabbell, B. B. Cardwell, E. Carter, J. B. Childers, J. W. Clay, J. Clifford, H. M. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Cobden, R. Cocks, T. S. Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Collins, W. Duncan, G. Lewis, G. C. Lindsay, hon. Col. Mahon, The O'Gorman Newry & Morne, Viset. Norreys, Sir D. J. Nugent, Sir P. O'Brien, Sir L. O'Connell, M. O'Connell, M. J. Ogle, S. C. H. Osborne, R. Paget, Lord A. Paget, Lord G. Parker, J. Patten, J. W. Pearson, C. Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Greene, J. Grenfell, C. W. Pechell, Sir G. B. Peel, Col. Pelham, hon. D. A. Price, Sir R. Rawdon, Col. Pusey, P. Reynolds, J. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Rich, H. Grey, R. W. Robartes, T. J. A. Alcock, T. Anson, hon. Col. Hall, Sir B. Romilly, Col. List of the AYES. Hallyburton, Lord J. F. Romilly, Sir J. Hyde Park, complaining of the proposed erection of an edifice for the projected exhibition in that park. They stated that they had prepared an information to be filed in Chancery, in order to prevent the building from being proceeded with; that the information set forth that the Sovereign on Her accession surrendered the hereditary revenues and possessions of the Crown in consideration of the civil list; that Hyde Park is part of those possessions, and was by Act of Parliament placed under the management of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests as trustees for the public; that the commissioners had no power to make any alterations except such as the Act of Parliament authorised, and had no authority to allow "waste" to be committed, or to grant a lease of any portion of the Royal parks; that it was the intention of the Exhibition Commissioners to erect a large edifice in the park, for which purpose they had obtained the grant of a lease, licence, or agreement (which amounted in substance to the same thing), for about twenty acres of the most ornamental portion of the park, on which it was their intention to erect a building of considerable size; that, to make room for it, the commissioners had cut down ten trees of forty years' growth, and would have to cut down others; that, in the proposed building, a steam engine of great size was to be erected, with a variety of offices of a substantial character; that though it was said that the building would be removed seven months after the close of the exhibition (in November, 1851), yet an irremediable injury would be inflicted on the park, and for two years the petitioners would be prevented from enjoying it; that, having been advised that the conduct of the commissioners was illegal, the petitioners had prepared an information as already alluded to, to be filed (nominally) at the suit of the Attorney General, and that, having the signatures of two counsel testifying that it was a proper information to receive his sanction for filing, it had been presented to the late Attorney General for that purpose, who, after keeping it a few days, had returned it, stating that he could not take any fresh papers as Attorney General, and that it had been presented to the present Attorney General, who had declined to sign it; that thereupon a memorial had been presented to him, requesting him to reconsider his resolution, which, however, he had refused to do; and the petitioners, being advised and persuaded that the con duct of the commissioners was illegal, prayed the House to take such steps as were requisite to prevent justice from being defcated or denied. MESSAGE FROM THE CROWN-THE PRINCE OF WALES. Message from Her Majesty, brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered) as follows: "VICTORIA R. "Her Majesty being desirous that the House, called Marlborough House, should be secured to His Royal Highness Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, after he shall have attained the age of eighteen years, during the joint lives of Her Majesty and his said Royal Highness, recommends it to Her faithful Commons to enable Her Majesty to grant and settle the same, in such manner, and with such provisions, as may most effectually accomplish the said purpose. "V. R." Committee thereupon on Monday next. PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) LORD J. RUSSELL: I stated that I would give notice to-day of what would be the substance and terms of the Amendments I should propose respecting the Franchise Bill for Ireland. The Lords made two Amendments especially, of very great importance. One of them requires that persons claiming to vote for a county should be rated at 157. annually instead of 81. as proposed by the Commons; and the other requires that a person entitled to register should himself give notice of his wish to be so registered. Without going into details, I may state that I shall propose that instead of 157., 121. be substituted as the rating qualification; and with respect to the second, I intend to propose that this House should disagree to the Lords' Amendment. CEYLON COMMISSION. The Order of the Day having been moved for going into Committee of Supply, the first place remind the House of the object for which that Committee was appointed, namely, to inquire into the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the proceedings which had taken place in Ceylon, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House. The Committee had sat for nearly two years; a vast amount of public money was expended in bringing over witnesses from Ceylon, a vast amount of very important evidence had been collected, and the Committee had come to the extraordinary resolution of not reporting either their opinion to the House, or the evidence which had been taken before them. The only resolution to which they had come was, that the evidence they had taken should be recommended to the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government—that was to say, that the Committee which was appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Government, recommended to that very Government the serious consideration of the evidence taken before them. Now, he need not say that he utterly repudiated having anything whatever to do with that report, which he believed to be discreditable to the Committee, and not very respectful to that House. The first report stated— Your Committee deeply regret that that House did not see fit to acquiesce in the recommendation submitted to them at the close of the last Session, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire on the spot into the circumstances connected with the suppression of the late insurrection in Ceylon." That first resolution, he humbly submitted, contained an implied censure on the decision of a majority of that House; the House decided by a majority last year that there should be no Commission, and therefore, the Committee, he must say, made a reflection on the decision of the House. Again, the Committee declared they found themselves unable to make a complete report on some of the various matters into which they were directed to inquire. Now, this implied that there were some matters MR. BAILLIE said, he wished to take on which they were in a position to report; the earliest opportunity of stating the and if so, was it not the duty of the Comcourse he intended to pursue with respect mittee to obey the instructions they had to the report made by the Ceylon Com- received from that House? The Commitmittee, and the more so, both as the sub-tee went on to say they were of opinion ject itself was one of great importance, and as the report was perhaps the most singular, inconsistent, and extraordinary document which had ever emanated from a Committee of that House. He must in that the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government should be called to the evidence taken in the course of this inquiry. Then, why should not the serious attention of the House be called to that evidence? speak, read, write, and preach in the Welsh language? That was, of course, with the view of the Government agreeing on some measure, or coming to some conclusion; but the DR. NICHOLL begged to ask the noCommittee stated that they were unable ble Lord, before he replied to the hon. to come to any conclusion whatever. They Gentleman's question, whether, considerthen recommended that a Royal Commis- ing that the 1st and 2d of Victoria, cap. sion should be appointed to proceed to 106, sec. 103, gave ample powers to the Ceylon-precisely what the House deter- bishop to provide that clergymen, in all mined should not be done last year-to necessary cases, should be acquainted with ascertain what changes might be neces- the Welsh language considering that sary for the better government of the there was a power, on the part of the Welsh country, unless some step should be forth-laity, to enter a caveat against the appointwith taken by the Government which might ment of any clergyman who did not underobviate the necessity of further intervention. stand the Welsh language-and considNow, was it possible for the House to dis- cring that it was desirable to extend the cover the sense of this expression, or what knowledge of the English language, which the Committee could possibly mean when was spreading rapidly in Wales-he did not they said that “ some step should be think the state of the law at present fully taken?" Their meaning might possibly provided for the state of Wales? be understood by Her Majesty's Government, of which there was a Member on the Committee. The authors of that resolution stated that their intention was, that the Governor of Ceylon should be recalled, and as such it was accepted by the Under Secretary of the Colonies; but if that was the intention, surely it was the duty of the Committee to have stated it in plain terms, and not to have insinuated it in the manner they had done. He had thus stated to the House the objections he entertained against the resolutions of the Committee, and the House must be aware that at this very late period of the Session it was quite impossible for a private Member to obtain a day to bring a subject of this nature under consideration. In these circumstances, all he wished at present to do was to give notice that at the earliest possible period of the next Session he should move that the evidence taken before the Committee be laid on the table, and should call the attention of the House to it. WELSH BISHOPRICS. MR. J. WILLIAMS said: It being well known that the separation of the great body of the people from the Church in Wales is caused by the want of sympathy on the part of their English ecclesiastical rulers with the feelings, habits, and language of the people; and that the solemn ceremonies of consecrating churches and confirming children are still performed in language not understood by the people, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will assure the House that no clergyman shall in future be appointed to any see in the principality of Wales who is not well acquainted with, and able to LORD J. RUSSELL, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, had to state that some years ago it was a question in the House whether or not they should proceed to enact, that no one should be appointed to a see in Wales who was not well acquainted with the Welsh language. That proposal did not meet with the approbation of the House, and was rejected, it having been thought desirable to leave the Crown full discretion with respect to the appointments to sees in Wales, and not to fetter its discretion so much that if there was any person not so well qualified as another, but speaking the Welsh language, he should be appointed to a see, to the exclusion of him who was better qualified. Considering also that in the exercise of the discretion which devolved on him as Minister of the Crown, he had advised the Crown on a recent occasion to nominate a clergyman well acquainted with the Welsh language, who was besides a person of great learning and of unexceptionable qualifications, he thought he would not do right to fetter himself by a pledge which was never demanded before on behalf of the Crown. With respect to the second question, by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, in which he had called attention to an Act of Parliament referring to the appointment of clergymen to Welsh livings, and not to the appointment of bishops, he could only say, without looking to the Act in question, that the existing state of the law, as he considered, made sufficient provision as to the knowledge of the language to be possessed by clergymen in Wales. men in Wales. He would, however, look to the Act, and consider the matter again. His present impression was that legisla |