wondered that the Roman catholic representatives did
not eagerly embrace the opportunity offered by the
proposed committee, to disprove the serious charges
brought against the institutions belonging to their
church.—Colonel Blair and Mr. Packe supported the
motion.—Mr. T. Chambers reminded the house that
the appointment of the committee had been once voted
after a long debate, and by a large majority. The
proposal to rescind that vote he characterised as altogether
unprecedented, and recapitulated some of the arguments
by which he had originally supported his motion.—Mr.
B. Osborne suspected that the motion, though apparently
limited to inquiry, really veiled an attack on
Roman catholicism, of which Mr. Chambers was the
unconscious instrument. The parties by whom his
proposal was supported, both within and without the walls
of parliament, were inspired by deeper motives, which
he called upon the house to frustrate, as the trustee of
religious liberty throughout the country. He supported
the amendment in the name of expediency, as well as
from a sense of justice.—Mr. Whiteside said that the
question of property formed an important element of
tbe inquiry which the committee would have to undertake,
and this point of itself justified its nomination.—
Mr. P. O'Brien resisted the motion, which he believed
to be designed for party purposes.—Mr. J. O'Connell
vindicated the loyalty of the Roman catholics, which
would endure even the affront of the proposed committee,
but submitted that they did not deserve such a gratuitous
insult.—Mr. Bland, as a protestant and an Irishman,
declared that the Irish protestants had not joined
in the agitation for inquiry. They knew the working
of the conventual system too well to wish to interfere
with it.—Mr. Goold added his testimony to the
excellent management and beneficial influences of the
convents in Ireland. A confused discussion took place
on two successive motions for adjournment, which were
negatived. The house afterwards divided on the
amendment discharging the order for the appointment
of the committee. There appeared—for the amendment,
120; against, 177. The original motion then remained
untouched, but the nomination of the committee was
postponed to Thursday.

On Wednesday, March 29, the Marquis of Blandford
moved the second reading of the Capitular
Estates Bill. Property of very extensive value was, he
said, to be dealt with by his proposed measure, the
object of which would be to provide such modes of
managing and administering it as at once to increase its
annual product, and render it more available for the
spiritual wants of the people. As the chief provision
for obtaining this end he proposed to transfer the control
of episcopal and capitular estates of the country to the
Ecclesiastical commissioners, relieving the bishops
altogether from that charge. A surplus revenue amounting
to more than £550,000 would he calculated be realised
by the operation of this bill, and placed at the disposal
of the commissioners for the augmentation of poor
endowments.—Sir W. Clay moved, as an amendment,
that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
His objections to the measure were founded on a
conviction that it did not go far enough. Its machinery
was incomplete, and general scope inadequate enough
for the important purpose it was designed to accomplish.
What was of yet greater consequence it left untouched,
the complicated acts, more than forty in number, which
had been passed from the reign of Henry VIII.
downwards, whose conflicting and perplexing enactments
called loudly for consolidation.—Mr. Hadfield seconded
the amendment.—Mr. Mowbray opposed the bill,
objecting to the principle of centralisation, and apprehending
from it much disturbance of local interests and the
risk of imperilling, if not destroying, the security of
church properties.—Mr. Hume considered that the bill
was likely to do much good. Parliament had already
decided that the estates of the church were public
property, and the present measure carried out that
principle.—Mr. Goulburn pointed out some defects in the
measure, which, when it came to be worked, might
result, he feared, in rendering the stipends of church
dignitaries insecure and uncertain.—Mr. Horsman
contended that the principle of the measure was sound, and
had been left untouched by any of the objections raised
against it. Faults of detail could be rectified in
committee. The bill was calculated to extend the usefulness
of the established church, a purpose which every
party in the house should combine in furthering.—Mr.
Liddell regretted that no member of the government
was present at the discussion of so important a question.
—Sir G. Grey, observing that the ministers were
detained elsewhere by very pressing duties, recommended
the postponement of the debate.—Mr. Henley and Sir
J. Young expressed their concurrence in this suggestion.
After some further discussion the debate was adjourned.

Colonel Harcourt, in moving for returns of the
number of Married Women Belonging to each of the
Regiments Ordered on Foreign Service, enforced the
justice of providing liberally and permanently for
the wives and children of soldiers sent abroad, especially
in the case of those who had been married under leave
of their commanding officers.—The Secretary-at-War
stated the arrangements which the War Office had
made, or were making, for the benefit of the soldiers'
wives and families. They had every wish to make
ample provision for them, but were restrained in some
degree by prudential considerations, being anxious
to avoid encouraging improvident marriages.—The
motion was agreed to.

Mr. Baines requested to be allowed to state some
circumstances relative to his connexion with the Poor
Law Board and the Settlement and Removal Bill.
He had framed this bill, he said, upon the recommendation
of the committee of 1847, and had confined its
provisions to the abolition in England and Wales of
removal on the ground of settlement. When he was
asked whether the bill would extend to Irish paupers in
England, he had replied distinctly in the negative.
Two days before the day fixed for the second reading of
the bill a memorial from Irish members of the house
was presented to Lord Palmerston, praying that the
opportunity might be taken to put the Irish pauper in
England upon the same footing as to removal as the
English pauper. A communication was made to the
memorialists, that, in the opinion of the cabinet, their
wish ought to be complied with—this communication
being made without his (Mr. Baines's) being at all
aware of it. He confessed that he felt somewhat hurt,
but a little reflection served to convince him that
no intentional disrespect was meant; and, if he had not
arrived at that conclusion, he should have known his
duty better than to have thrown up the important
office he held at a time like the present. Yet, he
could not help feeling that he was placed in a situation
of great difficulty, more especially with regard to this
measure. He had deputations inquiring his intentions
as to the removal of Irish paupers, and he had repeated
that it formed no part of this bill; whereas it appeared
that the Irish members had construed the communication
they had received into a pledge that the bill should
include Irish paupers, and others had put the same
construction upon it. He had always been of opinion,
and was so still, that the Irish question was not ripe for
legislation, and, holding this opinion, he could not help
thinking that, if he retained his office, his efficiency
and character as a public servant might be greatly
impaired, and the measure itself endangered. Acting
upon this ground, and this alone, on Tuesday he
resigned his office. Having read a letter from Lord
Aberdeen, requesting him to suspend his decision, Mr.
Baines went on to say, that he had reconsidered the
matter, and determined to refer to two friends the
question whether he could, with honour to himself, and
without weakening his efficiency as a public servant,
and without disadvantage to the public service, retain
his office. They were of opinion that he could, and he
had accordingly qualified his resolution, and consented
to remain in office for the present.—Mr. French, on
behalf of the Irish members, repudiated any intention
of treating the right honourable President with
discourtesy, when applying directly to the Home Secretary.
—Lord Palmerston paid a high tribute to the
character of Mr. Baines, assuring him that his colleagues
would consider it a great misfortune to them and to the
country if they lost the benefit of his exertions. Nothing
could be further from their thoughts, he said, in
the transaction than doing anything that could be