Lord Duncan haying inquired what had been done to
give effect to the recent Intramural Interment Act, Mr.
C. LEWIS stated that as yet the commissioners of the
Board of Health had effected no purchase of cemeteries,
but they were in negotiation for two, namely, the
Brompton and the Nunhead cemeteries.—The house
then went into committee of supply on the civil service
estimates. In the course of the discussion, Lord
PALMERSTON held out very encouraging prospects for the
speedy Extinction of the Slave Trade. On the coast of
Africa, he said, by the great vigilance of our cruisers;
by the treaties with native chiefs, which had been
observed with great fidelity; by the progress made
by the colony of Liberia; by the co-operation of the
authorities in the Portuguese settlements, and by
the active and friendly assistance of the French and
American officers, a great impression had been made on
the slave trade on that coast, and, as far as the line, it
might be said to be at present almost extinguished. On
the coast of Brazil, the British cruisers having been
more concentrated, their operations were becoming
more effectual, whilst the Brazilian government which
had passed a law declaring the slave trade piracy, had
at last exerted a proper degree of vigilance and power
in enforcing its regulations, and the result had been
that in the course of eight months they had almost
extinguished the Brazilian slave trade. The number of
slaves imported into Brazil in 1850 was not above half
that in former years; in the first quarter of the present
year very few slaves had been brought , and the government
of Brazil was now co-operating heartily with that
of England, and fulfilling the obligation of the treaties
between the two countries. In Africa itself, legitimate
commerce was increasing; an anti-slave-trade feeling
was growing up in Brazil, where capital was withdrawn
from the traffic in slaves, and invested in other speculations;
so that both in Africa and Brazil there had been
a most happy change. That this change would be
permanent he also confidently anticipated. At last, therefore,
our perseverance had been rewarded, if not by
the annihilation of this abominable traffic, at least by
having brought it within the narrowest limits.

On Tuesday, the 15th, Lord NAAS moved for a
committee to consider the state of the Milling Interests of
Ireland. After a long debate, which resolved itself
entirely into the question of free trade or protection,
the motion was rejected by 128 to 93.

On Wednesday, the 16th, Lord J. RUSSELL, in
answer to another question from Mr. T. Duncombe,
finally announced that there would be no attempt on
the part of the government to carry any measure on the
subject of Water Supply this session.

The house then went into committee on the Law of
Evidence Amendment Bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
stated that its object was to enable parties to a cause to
give evidence in their own cases.—Some discussion
followed upon the question whether an amendment
should not be introduced for permitting the examination
of married women in cases in which their husbands
are interested, and such an amendment (not extending
to criminal cases) having been inserted, the bill passed
through committee.

The house afterwards went into committee upon the
County Courts further Extension Bill, the discussion of
which occupied the remainder of the sitting.

On Thursday, the 17th, Mr. BANKES moved for a
committee to inquire into the allegations of a petition
relative to the late Election for Harwich. After some
discussion the motion was carried by 82 to 80.

Mr. P. MILES brought before the house the subject of
Horfield Manor, the conduct of the Bishop of Gloucester
and Bristol with reference to the lease of that estate, and
the charges alleged by Mr. Horsman against the bishop in
connexion with that transaction, entering very fully into
details in vindication of the bishop. In conclusion, he
trusted he had entirely exonerated the right rev. prelate,
upon whose character he pronounced a warm panegyric,
and, notwithstanding the rather harsh language in which,
he said, Mr. Horsman had brought forward his charges,
he believed that in the opinion of the house the Bishop
of Gloucester would be able still to hold up his head in
public as an honest man.—Mr. HORSMAN said that he
had founded his charges, which were not confined to a
single individual, upon public evidence, to which
Mr. Miles had not made any allusion; and, repeating
the statements he had made on a former occasion,
Mr. Horsman read the portions of evidence upon which
he had based them. Mr. Horsman then reviewed
the whole conduct of the Bishop of Gloucester with
reference to his episcopal income, alleging that he had
received a large amount of revenue beyond that which
had been fixed by act of parliament for the united sees;
and, in respect to the lease at Horfield, an estate now
producing £3000 a year, which had been granted for
three lives, not (as he had before stated) of the
bishop's own children, but, as it now appeared, of the
royal family, Mr. Horsman assigned the grounds upon
which he impugned if not the legality, the morality of
the transaction; contending that, although the bishop
might have exercised a legal right, he held this property
in a fiduciary character.—Mr. GLADSTONE examined
the principal allegations made by Mr. Horsman, and
insisted that that gentlemen had entirely failed in
proving his accuracy with respect to the imputations he
had cast upon the Bishop of Gloucester, whose case was
that he had made use of rights which he possessed in
common with every ecclesiastical proprietor. It might
be that these were rights which ecclesiastical proprietors
ought not to possess—and he might not quarrel with
this proposition—but the merits of a system were one
thing, and it was another to misrepresent those who
were only acting under that system.—Sir JAMES
GRAHAM maintained that there was nothing in the
transaction to affect the Bishop of Gloucester's spotless
reputation; and, after some further remarks from Sir R. Inglis,
Mr. Aglionby, and others, the discussion terminated.

On Friday, the 18th, Mr. D. SALOMONS, the newly
elected member for Greenwich, appeared to take the
Oaths and his Seat, having requested to be sworn
upon the Old Testament, "because that form was
binding on his conscience." Mr. Salomons took the
first two oaths in the form prescribed; but on coming
to the conclusion of the oath of abjuration, he omitted
the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian," and
saying, "so help me God," kissed the volume. He
then attempted to read something from a paper which
he held; but the shouts of "order" from the opposition
rendered him inaudible. The clerk announced that
Mr. Salomons had not taken the oath in the words
appointed, and the SPEAKER ordered him to withdraw.
Instead of obeying he took his seat upon the front bench
on the Liberal side. There were loud calls of "chair,"
and the SPEAKER informed Mr. Salomons that he had
"not taken the oath in the sense in which the house
understood the act," and that he must withdraw.
Mr. Salomons then rose and retreated until near the
bar, but remained actually within the house, until loud
cries from the opposition induced Sir W. Molesworth
to rise and conduct Mr. Salomons outside the bar.—
Sir B. HALL said that he was requested by Mr. Salomons
to state that he had withdrawn solely in defference to
the Speaker's authority, and to ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer (in the absence of Lord J. Russell) a
question. Mr. Salomons was only anxious to try his
legal right, and wished to do nothing displeasing or
inconvenient. He wished to place himself in such a
position that his rights might be ascertained by the
tribunals of the nation. If he had not already done
enough to authorise a prosecution, he (Sir B. Hall)
wished to know whether, if Mr. Salomons again entered
the house, government would instruct the Attorney-
General to prosecute him?—The Chancellor of the
EXCHEQUER replied that the question involved two
considerations—as to the right of Mr. Salomons to sit,
and as to the institution of a prosecution for penalties.
It required very grave treatment, and he was not then
prepared to answer it. He thought that no
proceedings ought to take place without notice, and that time
should be given to consult the act of parliament. He
proposed that no proceedings should then take place, but
that on Monday, when Lord J. Russell should be present,
the question should be resumed precisely where it then
was, so that no interest might be prejudiced or advantage
taken in consequence of the delay. A confused
discussion followed, and the matter finally stood over
till Monday.