succeeded, in the course of which Mr. MUNTZ complained
of the course taken by Irish members upon this question,
and vindicated the sincerity of Mr. Spooner.—Mr.
KEOGH charged the government with insincerity on
the subject, and playing fast and loose for electioneering
purposes.—Lord NAAS taxed Mr. Keogh with a
systematic hostility which, if persevered in, would make
every government in this country impossible.—Mr.
OSBOURNE repeated Mr. Keogh's charges against the
government, and accused Lord Naas of an underhand
working with the candidates sent to Ireland in the
interest of the government, whose conduct he designated
as organised hypocrisy, tergiversation, and
duplicity.—The SECRETARY-AT-WAR, with some
warmth replied to Mr. Osborne, charging him in turn
with attacking not only governments, but individuals,
and entitled him the Thersites of Middlesex.—The
discussion went on for a full hour, and at last produced
no result, except that Mr. Spooner intimated that he
did not mean to take any further step in the matter.—
The report was brought up and agreed to.

The select committee on the petition respecting
Mr. F. O'Connor was nominated.

The SECRETARY-AT-WAR obtained leave to bring in
a bill to Suspend Ballot for the Militia.

Mr. NAPIER, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to
continue the act of 1847 for the better Prevention of
Crime and Outrage in Certain Parts of Ireland, gave
an outline of the nature and provisions of that act, with
a description of the circumstances of Ireland when
it was introduced; and then drew an appalling
picture of the agrarian outrages, which had doubled in
number since 1847; the threatening notices, the
murders for which no conviction could be obtained; juries
being, he said, intimidated from performing their
duties.—This motion also gave rise to considerable
discussion, the introduction of the bill being opposed by
Mr. Lawless, Mr. F. Scully, Mr. S. Crawford, Mr.
Anstey, and Mr. Keogh, who called for remedial
measures before coercive ones.—The CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER denied that this was a measure of
coercion; it was a measure of police, which was
expiring, and the condition of Ireland required its
continuance. With respect to remedial measures, such
measures, he said, had been already prepared by the
government; but he asked whether any member,
looking at the position of the ministry, and the temper
of the house generally, in the transaction of public
business, could really say that it had been in their
power to introduce them. The government could not
incur the responsibility of letting this act expire, which
would release great criminals; but the bill was to
continue only until next December, so that the subject
must be reconsidered in the ensuing partiament.—Upon
a division, the motion for leave to bring in the bill was
carried by 140 against 19. The bill was then brought
in and read a first time.

At the evening sitting, Mr. ANSTEY rose to move a
resolution to the effect that the Case of the Rev. Messrs.
Wingate, Smith, and Edward, expelled from the
Austrian Dominions, called for prompt and earnest
measures on the part of her Majesty's government, and
was entering into details of their case when the house
was Counted Out, at a quarter to eight o'clock.

On Wednesday, the 16th, at the morning sitting, the
select committee for the revision of the sessional and
standing orders of the house having been appointed, and
several petitions presented, Mr. ANSTEY complained of
certain alleged irregularities connected with the
proceedings of the house on several occasions, including
that of the Count Out on the previous evening, and
having appealed to the chair, the SPEAKER
explained: and some discussion afterwards following,
Mr. ANSTEY gave notice of a motion on the subject on
Thursday.

Mr. KEOGH alluded to the proclamation which
appeared in Tuesday's "Gazette" against Roman Catholic
Processions and the Use of Priests' Robes in Public,
and inquired if it were intended to give the same
publicity to it in Ireland as in England. He also wished to
ask if the Attorney-General for that country was to be
directed to prosecute priests for doing what they had
been constantly allowed to do since 1829 without
molestation.—Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, after referring to the
provisions of the statute of George  IV. on the subject,
which Mr. Keogh alleged to be dormant, said that the
government, having heard no more of any repetition of
a procession which took place in Ireland two months
ago, regarding which the bishop who had taken a part
in it was remonstrated with in a friendly spirit, while he
was also warned that if the law were again violated, it
would be put in force, it was not the wish of the government
to give a more special warning in Ireland than was
contained in the proclamation. With regard to the
question of putting the law, which he denied was
dormant, into force, facts of a very peculiar nature had
come to the knowledge of the government, namely,
that the Roman Catholics were going to renew the
processions along the public highways, which had been
done away with for three hundred years, by marching
from village to village with banners and emblems of
their religion, in honour of the celebration of the feast
to the Virgin Mary. The procession to which the
proclamation more especially referred moved for more than
four miles along the highway, and consisted of 150 persons,
bearing banners and emblems of their faith,
crucifixes, with our Saviour upon them, and images of
the Virgin and the infant Jesus; and he had no hesitation
in saying that it did give so much annoyance to
others of her Majesty's subjects, and there having been
danger of a breach of the public peace, the government
had determined to see that in future the law was
observed.

The adjourned debate on the subject of the Bishopric
of Christchurch (New Zealand) Bill was resumed. Mr.
ADDERLEY, after some reflections on the obstructive
course which had been pursued by Mr. Anstey, explained
the object of the bill to be this—that, whereas the
Bishop of New Zealand (Dr. Selwyn) having found that
his diocese had become so populous as to render it
impossible for him adequately to discharge the functions of
his office, had sent home, for the purpose of subdividing
it, a partial resignation of his patent; but there being a
technical informality in the deed of resignation, this bill
had been introduced to render the instrument valid. He
(Mr. Adderley) had offered to expunge any word in the
bill to which an exception was taken; but Mr. Anstey
had insisted that, instead of "Bishopric of New Zealand,"
in the preamble, the words, "a See in New
Zealand in communion with the Church of England,"
should be substituted; but the Attorney-General, as
guardian of her Majesty's rights, had objected to this
alteration. This was the only point at issue. The hon.
gentleman concluded by hoping that the house would
not permit the bill to be further obstructed by Mr.
Anstey.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave a similar
explanation of the object and necessity of the bill (which
was not a government measure).—Mr. HEYWORTH
opposed the bill generally, and moved the further adjournment
of the debate.—Mr. ANSTEY said the bill involved the
whole question of the Queen's ecclesiastical supremacy
in the colonies, which she did not possess unless under
some legislative enactment; but this bill would
indirectly legalise the exercise of her prerogative there,
and open the door to the introduction of the tyranny of
the ecclesiastical laws and spiritual courts.—In the
course of Mr. Anstey's speech, the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER rose to order, observing that he
understood that the motion for adjourning the debate
had been made in order to afford Mr. Anstey an
opportunity to make another speech upon the bill, and
inquiring of the chair whether this was not an evasion
of the strict rule of the house?—The SPEAKER was of
opinion that it was, and impressed upon the house the
necessity of a strict observance of its rules.—Sir J.
PAKINGTON shortly supported the bill, and Mr. HUME
strongly urged its postponement until the opinion of the
colony could be taken.—The house then divided, and
the numbers were—For the adjournment of the debate,
31; against it, 110; majority, 79.—A division next took
place on the motion for the second reading of the bill,
which was carried by 111 against 34.

Sir De L. Evans's Parish Vestries Bill was opposed
by the Attorney-General and other members of the
government, and on a division was thrown out, by 86
votes against 26.