DUKE seconded the address. Sir John TROLLOPE
moved an amendment similar to that moved in the
Lords: it was supported by Colonel CHATTERTON.—Sir
Charles WOOD supported the address, in a speech full
of statistical details.—The amendment was supported
by Mr. H. Herbert, Sir John Walsh, and Mr. Grantley
Berkeley. The debate was adjourned.

It was resumed on the 1st of February. The amendment
was supported by the Marquis of Granby, Mr.
Christopher, Mr. R. Palmer, Mr. Herries, Mr. Disraeli,
and Mr. H. Drummond; and opposed by Mr. E.
Denison, Lord Norreys, Captain Pelham, Mr. M'Cullagh,
Mr. Labouchere, Lord John Russell, Mr. Cobden,
and Colonel Thompson. The most notable speeches
were those of Mr. Disraeli and Lord John Russell.—
Mr. DISRAELI solemnly called upon the prime minister
to say whether ministers intended to emancipate every
branch of industry, while the land alone was to be their
slave and their victim.—Lord John RUSSELL replied
sarcastically (alluding to a proposition that had been
made by Mr. Disraeli) that ministers had no intention
of proposing an increase on the land tax. Lord John
observed that he was at one time in favour of a compromise
on the question of the corn-laws—a fixed duty
might have stayed the proceedings of the Anti-Corn-law
League; but now, when the change had been followed
by a period of unusual prosperity, it was not a time to
go back; and the decision of the house that night
would determine, by continuing that course of peace
and prosperity or abandoning it, not only whether they
should advance the welfare of the people and the
fortunes of the state, but also whether their example
should be beneficial or injurious to mankind.—The
amendment was negatived by 311 to 192; a majority for
ministers of 119.

On Monday, the 4th, Mr. GREENE read a letter
respecting the New House of Commons, from Mr. Barry,
the architect, stating that the house itself might be got
ready for members during the present session, but that
the adjuncts (the committee-rooms, refreshment-rooms,
&c.) would require considerable time, and that if a
sufficient vote were immediately granted (a suggestion
at which the house laughed heartily) Mr. Barry would
undertake that all should be ready by the first day of
next session.—In answer to a question from Mr. Milner
Gibson, as to the rumoured state of affairs in Greece,
Lord PALMERSTON briefly stated that differences had
arisen, and that Admiral Parker had received orders to
assist Mr. Wyse in bringing about a satisfactory
termination to those differences. The government had
received an account of an interview between Mr. Wyse
and the representatives of the Greek government, which
had ended unpleasantly, and "here," added Lord
Palmerston (amid the laughter of the house) "the accounts
break off."—On the report on the adress being
brought up, Mr. Disraeli reverted to the subject of
Greece; and elicited from Lord Palmerston a fuller
account of the alleged grievances for which redress had
been demanded from the Greek government. In the
first place (Lord Palmerston said) there is a Mr. Finlay,
[a British subject,] who has been long established in
Greece, and who some time since had lands there, part
of which was taken forcibly from him for the purpose of
forming a portion of the gardens of the palace which
King Otho was then building. Mr. Finlay has been for
a long course of time, supported by her Majesty's
representatives, endeavouring to obtain proper payment for
the land so taken. That payment, however, has never
been got. The other case is that of a Gibraltar subject
—not a Portuguese jew, as stated by my honourable
friend—of the name of Pacifico. His house in Athens
was violently broken into at mid-day by a mob, of which
part were soldiers, in the service of the King of Greece,
some gendarmes; the son of the minister of war
encourraging them. There were besides, Ionian subjects,
who upon different occasions were the victims either
of plunder or corporal ill-usage, for whom also
compensation and indemnity has been required. With
respect to the other and separate question about
the two islands of Elaphonisi and Sapienza, Lord
PALMERSTON made this statement—"By the treaty
between Russia and the Porte, signed in 1800, the
Ionian State was constituted with the consent of the
Sultan; and that State was to consist of certain islands
therein named, and of all other islands and islets lying
between those islands and the coast of Greece, up to a
certain point. In pursuance of that treaty, the two
islands in question, Elaphonisi and Sapienza—two very
small islands, though from circumstances one of them is
of importance—were by name aggregated to two of the
larger islands named in the treaty; and those islands
have ever since been considered by the Porte, and have
been considered by the sovereign of Greece, as part of
the Ionian States. When the treaty of 1830 was signed,
by which the Greek State was constituted, the
territories of that state were specified as consisting of certain
portions of the continent, and of certain islands; those
islands did not include the islands of Elaphonisi and
Sapienza. There can, therefore, be no doubt whatever
that those islands have been, ever since the treaty of
1800, confirmed by the treaty of 1815, and that they are
portions of the Ionian States."—A number of desultory
comments on portions of the queen's speech were made
by different members; after which the report was
agreed to.

On Tuesday the 5th, Mr. HORSMAN made the motion,
of which he had given notice, respecting the
Ecclesiastical Commission. It was to the effect that three
paid commissioners should bo appointed for the management
of the property under the commission. He
enlarged upon the importance of the commission, and the
necessity for parliamentary watchfulness upon it. He
said that the church was now convinced that the
spiritual duties of her bishops were enough for them;
that they were giving up their time to secular matters
elsewhere; which laymen could attend to quite as well,
and that they were in London instead of their provinces.
That another party (his own) treated the question on
higher grounds, considering that the vast financial
affairs of the church were beneath the office of the
bishop, who ought not to be a "server of tables," but
should be at home, studying the character of his clergy,
and generally regulating the diocese in his charge.
That a third party judged the question upon the fact
that the hierarchy had completely failed in their duties
as commissioners. All confidence in our prelates was
destroyed, and the whole body of the English clergy
wished them to retire from the commission. But the
bishops were unwilling to lose their hold upon the grasp
of the goods of the church, and an appeal to parliament
became necessary. He then traced the history of the
commission, and described its composition and duties.
He dwelt upon the vicious system of administration
adopted by it, and the carelessness, extravagance,
injustice, and blundering arising therefrom. The
commissioners had squandered the "treasury of the poor."
He showed that no member of the board could possibly
become master of the business on which he had to
decide, and that the only person who could understand
it was the secretary (Mr. Murray), who, practically,
had become the commission. From 1836 to 1845, the
commission allowed the secretary to receive all the
money coming to it by virtue of its powers, to pay that
money into his private banker's, to draw upon it by his
cheques, and to administer it without any supervision—
the fund amounting to £1,000,000. Mr. Horsman then
contrasted the aroused religious feeling of the lower
clergy and lay members of the church with the apathy
and neglect manifested by the hierarchy. The
commission had become bankrupt, and the secretary had
"bolted" with whatever money he could lay his hands
on. No successor had been appointed. The honourable
member then sketched the history of the committee
upon the commission, bringing forward the fact that all
the commissioners who were members of this house
were chosen upon the committee, which was to inquire
into their own proceedings. This very committee, thus
constituted, unanimously condemned the constitution
of the commission, the cabinet ministers joining in that
condemnation—Sir George GREY, in opposing the
motion, contradicted certain statements made by Mr.
Horsman as to the terms on which the committee had
been granted. He concurred with Mr. Horsman as to
the substratum of some of his charges, and he thought
the composition of the commission objectionable from
its numbers. It was time that the secretary to the