establishment, but of property and of spoliation. Mr. Napier
argued that the faith of the crown was pledged to the
entire grant; that if the imperial legislature could not
violate the engagement of 1840, it must not put it in the
power of others to violate it; that to pass the bill would
be to withdraw protection from the protestant, and to
leave it for the Roman catholic church; and further,
that, independent of questions of property, and of public
faith, it was the duty of England to see that she exerts
her power to promulgate and maintain the christian
truth.—Sir John PAKINGTON said it was a sad day for
England when party interests, or party feelings, induced
men of high personal honour, when dealing with matters
of public import, to deviate from engagements which they
would have honourably fulfilled as private individuals.
He condemned the bill as a breach of faith, and a
compromise of the honour of parliament.—Lord John
RUSSELL admitted that in 1840 he had hoped the
arrangement then made would be final, but said that the
course of events had rendered it impossible to maintain
that arrangement. The house then divided—For the
amendment, 208; against it, 288. The bill was then
read a third time and passed.

On Tuesday, April 12, Mr. GASKELL having moved
an address for a commission to inquire into Corrupt
Practices in the Borough of Clitheroe, a discussion arose
as to how far the present case, in which a large amount
of intimidation and treating, but only one case of bribery
had been reported, came under the operation of the law.
—Mr. COBDEN was for tendering such evidence to the
commission, and bringing in a new bill if necessary.—
Mr. WALPOLE was for a consolidation of the statutes on
the subject.—Other members expressed various views.—
Lord J. RUSSELL was opposed to straining the law to
meet a particular case.—Mr. DISRAELI was of a similar
opinion, but thought that there was sufficient evidence
of direct bribery in the case in question to warrant
proceeding in the regular manner. The question was
settled by a division, when the original motion was
carried by 141 to 58.

A debate ensued on Sir DE LACY EVANS moving for
leave to bring in a bill to Alter the Scale of Duties on
Carriages.—Mr. BRIGHT said that the coachmaking
trade was being strangled by a sort of Exchequer
garotte. He compared the advantages enjoyed in
Ireland with the restrictions under which people
laboured in this country. There he had been able to
drive out in a different carriage every day of the week.
—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that
in ascribing reasons for the decline of the coachmaking
trade, hon. gentlemen had forgotten the increase of
railways. With regard to the present intention of the
government he would only refer them to his financial
statement on Monday.—Sir De Lacy EVANS was
satisfied with the answer of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and withdrew his motion.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved that in future the Whole of
the Public Income should be Paid into the Exchequer,
and no portion issued therefrom without the sanction of
Parliament. He referred to documents which showed
that an enormous amount of public money (in 1815
exceeding six millions) was annually intercepted in its
way to the Treasury and not accounted for.—Captain
SCOBELL seconded the motion.—The CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER entirely agreed with Mr. Williams in
principle. The government were considering the
question, and hoped to meet it in a satisfactory manner.
At the same time he could not agree with the resolution
as it stood, because it conveyed an undeserved
censure.—Mr. WILLIAMS said the right hon. gentleman
had met the question in a very fair way, and he
would leave it in his hands, with the utmost confidence
in his good intentions. The motion was then, by leave,
withdrawn.

Mr. BUTT moved an address to the Queen, praying
that the orders issued for the Gradual Abolition of
Kilmainham Hospital may be cancelled. He contended
that the reasons alleged for abolishing the time-honoured
institution, so dear to the worn-out veteran, and so
hallowed in the thoughts of the young Irish soldier,
were altogether insufficient. Was the destruction of
Kilmainham Hospital to be the prelude to the destruction
of Chelsea Hospital?—Lord George PAGET, who
seconded the motion, bore testimony to the strong feeling
of the Irish soldiers on the subject; and Sir J.
FITZGERALD, also considering the question from a military
point of view, supported the motion.—Mr. VANCE
gave his advocacy, observing that the same reason for
destroying Kilmainham, that of economy, might be
given for turning Greenwich or Chelsea Hospital into
model lodging-houses.—The SECRETARY-AT-WAR
objected that the majority of the recipients preferred out-
pensions to the necessarily severe restrictions of an
hospital. He reminded them that Parliament had
three times affirmed the policy of the arrangement,
which he had not considered it policy to disturb.—Mr.
WHITESIDE combated some of the arguments of Mr.
Sidney Herbert, and reinforced those of Mr. Butt.—
Lord SEYMOUR opposed the motion, observing that
military hospitals were generally for the benefit of
civilians instead of soldiers.—Mr. E. ELLICE and
Colonel LINDSAY took a similar view, but the house
calling for a division the motion was carried by 198
to 131.

On Wednesday, April 13, the second reading of the
Judges Exclusion Bill was moved by Lord HOTHAM.
Lord PALMERSTON opposed the measure. He thought
that the doors of that house ought to be thrown open
as widely as possible to the admission of those who
could assist its deliberations. All professions were
admitted, and, although the general principle was
departed from in very special cases, the range of
exclusion should not be extended beyond what was
justifiable by strong necessity or apparent advantage.
Though other offices were included in the schedule,
practically the bill applied only to the Master of the
Rolls. Persons holding that office had not only
been ornaments of that house, but had rendered great
assistance in its debates, and it had never been imputed
to those eminent persons that they had been swayed by
improper feelings. If it were said—and this was the
strongest point,—that a Master of the Rolls, being a
member of that house, might have to decide judicially
questions affecting the interests of his constituents, the
measures should have gone further, and included the
Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer, recorders of corporations,
and chairmen of quarter-sessions. He begged
the house, therefore, to weigh well whether, in working
out the principle of the bill, it would not be carried
much further than it was desirable to go, and detract
from the dignity and character of parliament.—Mr. HUME
supported the bill. This was, he considered, a matter of
principle. The house had acted upon that principle in
excluding the Judge of the Admiralty Court; and the
judicial functions of the Master of the Rolls were
incompatible with the due discharge of the duty of a member of
parliament.—Sir F. KELLY likewise advocated the bill.
There was something inconsistent, he observed, with
the dignity and position of the Master of the Rolls in
the incidents of a member of that house. Everything
falling from so high a judicial functionary ought to be
listened to with respect, yet he might have been one 'of
the lawyers whose clear opinion as to the construction
of an act of parliament had been overruled the preceding
night by a large majority in that house. The
course of action on the part of a candidate in a popular
borough was so incompatible with the dignity of so high
an officer, that this consideration alone would induce
him to support the bill.—Mr. V. SMITH, in opposition to
the bill, remarked that it had not been hitherto found
that the Master of the Rolls, when a member of that
house had neglected either set of duties. He did not
wish to limit the choice of constituencies, but rather to
enlarge it.— Sir J. PAKINGTON observed that the office
of chairman of quarter-sessions was not recognised by
law; he was merely the organ of his fellow-magistrates.
The judges of county courts were excluded from the
house, and he thought the Recorder of London should
be excluded.— Mr. EWART said he had searched in
vain for the principle of excluding judges, as judges.
Our recent statutes for that object were encroachments
upon the ancient constitution. The rule should be
admission, and exclusion the exception.—Lord J.
RUSSELL said it was true that for some years past there
had been a tendency to exclude from that house persons
holding judicial offices,—a course he was sorry to see.