of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, who for some time past had exhibited symptoms of insanity. On the previous Tuesday he had behaved with such rudeness and even personal violence to Sir Benjamin Hall, that Sir Benjamin had to put himself under the protection of the Speaker. The SPEAKER stated to Mr. O'Connor, with sorrow, that he was in the constant habit of violating the rules and orders of the house; and if he persisted, he must receive the parliamentary censure of being "mentioned by name."-Mr. O'CONNOR, in tones and in a manner that must have been distressing to the house, said he had done nothing to hurt Sir Benjamin Hall; who, however, had been his enemy in the committee on the land scheme.-The Speaker then called upon him, by name, to make an apology to the house: he complied, and the matter dropped for that day.-Now, however, he broke out into outrageous violence. After repeatedly wandering out of and into the house, he sat down by Captain Fitzroy, whom he slapped smartly on the back, snatching a letter out of his hand, which so incensed Captain Fitzroy, that he started up in an attitude so menacing, that Mr. O'Connor hastily left the house. He re-appeared in a few minutes, and everybody saw that some painful scene was approaching. Mr. O'Connor, after tendering his hand to several members, who refused it, found his way to the front opposition bench, where he took his seat, amid cries of "order." These cries continuing, Mr. B. Denison touched Mr. O'Connor upon the shoulder, and called "Order!" when Mr. O'Connor turning sharply round, struck Mr. B. Denison a slight blow upon the face. This indignity elicited loud and indignant cries of "Order, order. Order, order."-Mr. B. DENISON appealed to the chair, stating that Mr. O'Connor had put his hand in his face, and observing that other members had experienced inconveniences from the behaviour of that honourable member, which had been hitherto endured with great good feeling; but there was a point, he added, beyond which it would be unworthy of that house for its members to submit.-The CHAIRMAN said, his authority was limited, and that the proper course was for the committee to direct him to report the conduct of the honourable member to the house. This course, on the motion of Sir J. PAKINGTON, was adopted; and the house having resumed, the Chairman reported the matter to the Speaker.-Mr. WALPOLE Moved that Mr. O'Connor (who had run out just before) should be ordered to attend in his place. Mr. Jacob BELL suggested that as Mr. O'Connor was evidently labouring under a misfortune, it would be better to refer the case to two medical gentlemen. Mr. DUNCOMBE and Mr. AGLIONBY also expressed a sorrowful conviction that Mr. O'Connor was aberrant in his intellect; and they deprecated a course that would be justifiable only to a person that knew the full consequences of his acts. But the ATTORNEYGENERAL and Sir David DUNDAS, with others, expressed a strong opinion that Mr. O'Connor was master of his own acts, and knew enough of their consequences to be responsible for them.-Mr. ANSTEY suggested a middle course; that Mr. O'Connor be sequestered from his seat in parliament.-Mr. WALPOLE felt sure that the house would act humanely as well as justly. By allowing Mr. O'Connor to sit and vote, they had hitherto treated him as a person who knew what he was about. He moved that Mr. Feargus O'Connor be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, for disorderly conduct and contempt of the house.-Sir John PAKINGTON felt it his painful duty to second the motion: Mr. O'Connor's conduct left no doubt in his mind that he was not master of his actions, and that, both for his own safety, and the safety and dignity of the house, they must take that course.-The motion for ordering the attendance of Mr. O'Connor in his place was withdrawn, and the motion for committing him into custody was agreed to. While the discussion was going on, Mr. O'Connor went in and out several times, his conduct continuing highly indecorous. While Mr. Walpole was speaking, he entered the last time, and placing himself on the left of the chair, began to talk to the Speaker. But as soon as he learned the nature of the proposition likely to be carried, he decamped altogether; taking a glass of brandy at the

bar in the lobby, and then making his way by the members' private passage into Westminster Hall. On the information of some gentlemen who had followed him, the constables on duty detained him, and told him that as he would presently be required by the Speaker, he must not quit the house. He immediately began to howl so loudly and vehemently, that a crowd gathered round him. The Deputy-Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Clementson, arrived with the Speaker's warrant, and took him into custody, to the rooms of Mr. Gossett, the Assistant-Sergeant. He vented abuse on the members who crowded to see him there; calling them ruffians, villains, murderers, &c.; with an accompaniment of strange noises. After an hour's comparative solitude, he became calmer, and was removed to the prison-rooms in the upper story of the building.-In the meantime, the house returned into committee, and proceeded with the bill. On clause 2, Mr. MILES moved an amendment, to the effect that the bill should not come into operation before the 1st of January, 1853.-Lord GROSVENOR could not consent to adopt the amendment. -The committee then divided: for the amendment, 91; against it, 134; majority against the amendment, 43, The clause was then agreed to, as were also the remain ing clauses, and the bill was ordered to be reported Some notices of motions having been given, the house went into committee on the County Courts further Extension Bill, resuming at clause 25, when, after some conversation, an amendment having been moved and withdrawn by Mr. Stanfield, the remaining clauses were agreed to, as also a clause moved by Mr. Mullings, that after the passing of this act, no judge of the said County Court shall practise at the bar, or as special pleader, or equity draftsman, or be directly or indirectly concerned as a conveyancer, notary public, solicitor, attorney, or proctor.

On Thursday, June 10, the house went into Com mittee of Supply, and a number of miscellaneous votes were agreed to. The consideration of the New Zealand Bill was then resumed in committee, beginning with the 74th clause, which purported to enact that upon all sales or alienations of waste lands 5s. per acre shall be paid to the New Zealand company until their debt is discharged.-Sir W. MOLESWORTH moved to substitute another enactment, to the effect that nothing in the act, or in any future act or local law, shall affect so much of the 10th and 11th Vict., c. 112, as relates to the debt in question, thereby charged upon the proceeds of sales of demesne lands of the crown in the colony-in other words, that there should be no alteration in this matter. In the course of his speech, Sir William entered fully into the conduct of the New Zealand Company, which, he contended, entitled them to nothing beyond their strict legal right under the act of 1847.—Mr. AGLIONBY, at some length, defended the proceedings of the company.-Sir J. PAKINGTON, after hearing both sides, thought that the question did not bear sufficiently upo the bill to call for a decision of the house upon it, or justify the proposal of Sir W. Molesworth, which woul not be fair towards the company.-After considerabl discussion, in which Mr. V. Smith, Mr. F. Peel, M Mangles, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. J. A. Smith to part, the amendment was negatived without a divisic -Sir J. PAKINGTON then proposed to alter the clau so that it should provide that one-fourth part of the su paid by the purchaser in respect of every sale or alier tion of land should be the property of the New Zeala Company, which was ultimately agreed to.GLADSTONE moved to add the words, "but so t the said payment shall in no case exceed 5s. per acre sold or alienated."-Sir J. PAKINGTON objected to t maximum as too low, and after a short conversation ti committee divided, when there appeared-for M Gladstone's amendment, 51; against it, 120; major in favour of granting the New Zealand Company on fourth absolutely, 69. The clause, as amended, y ordered to stand part of the bill. The remaining clau with some modification were afterwards agreed to, the bill was reported to the house.

On Friday, June 11, at the morning sitting, SLANEY moved for a standing committee, or an un commission, to report on Remedial Measures to be the Social Condition of the Working Classes.—Lor

succeeded, in the course of which Mr. MUNTZ complained tation.—Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, after referring to the of the course taken by Irish members upon this question, provisions of the statute of George IV. on the subject, and vindicated the sincerity of Mr. Spooner.-Mr. which Mr. Keogh alleged to be dormant, said that the KEOGH charged the government with insincerity on government, having heard no more of any repetition of the subject, and playing fast and loose for electioneer- a procession which took place in Ireland two months ing purposes.-Lord NAAS taxed Mr. Keogh with a ago, regarding which the bishop who had taken a part systematic hostility which, if persevered in, would make in it was remonstrated with in a friendly spirit, while he every government in this country impossible.-Mr. was also warned that if the law were again violated, it OSBORNE repeated Mr. Keogh's charges against the would be put in force, it was not the wish of the governgovernment, and accused Lord Naas of an underhand ment to give a more special warning in Ireland than was. working with the candidates sent to Ireland in the contained in the proclamation. With regard to the interest of the government, whose conduct he desig-question of putting the law, which he denied was dornated as organised hypocrisy, tergiversation, and mant, into force, facts of a very peculiar nature had duplicity. The SECRETARY-AT-WAR, with some come to the knowledge of the government, namely, warmth replied to Mr. Osborne, charging him in turn that the Roman Catholics were going to renew the prowith attacking not only governments, but individuals, cessions along the public highways, which had been and entitled him the Thersites of Middlesex.-The done away with for three hundred years, by marching discussion went on for a full hour, and at last produced from village to village with banners and emblems of no result, except that Mr. Spooner intimated that he their religion, in honour of the celebration of the feast did not mean to take any further step in the matter. to the Virgin Mary. The procession to which the proThe report was brought up and agreed to. clamation more especially referred moved for more than The select committee on the petition respecting on the petition respecting four miles along the highway, and consisted of 150 perMr. F. O'Connor was nominated. sons, bearing banners and emblems of their faith, The SECRETARY-AT-WAR obtained leave to bring in crucifixes, with our Saviour upon them, and images of a bill to Suspend Ballot for the Militia. 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.

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 The adjourned debate on the subject of the Bishopric picture of the agrarian outrages, which had doubled in of Christchurch (New Zealand) Bill was resumed. Mr. number since 1847; the threatening notices, the mur-ADDERLEY, after some reflections on the obstructive ders for which no conviction could be obtained; juries course which had been pursued by Mr. Anstey, explained being, he said, intimidated from performing their the object of the bill to be this-that, whereas the duties. This motion also gave rise to considerable Bishop of New Zealand (Dr. Selwyn) having found that. discussion, the introduction of the bill being opposed by his diocese had become so populous as to render it im Mr. Lawless, Mr. F. Scully, Mr. S. Crawford, Mr. possible for him adequately to discharge the functions of Anstey, and Mr. Keogh, who called for remedial his office, had sent home, for the purpose of subdividing measures before coercive ones.-The CHANCELLOR of it, a partial resignation of his patent; but there being a the EXCHEQUER denied that this was a measure of technical informality in the deed of resignation, this bill coercion ; it was a measure of police, which was had been introduced to render the instrument valid. He expiring, and the condition of Ireland required its (Mr. Adderley) had offered to expunge any word in the continuance. With respect to remedial measures, such bill to which an exception was taken; but Mr. Anstey measures, he said, had been already prepared by the had insisted that, instead of "Bishopric of New Zeagovernment; but he asked whether any member, land," in the preamble, the words," a See in New looking at the position of the ministry, and the temper Zealand in communion with the Church of England," of the house generally, in the transaction of public should be substituted; but the Attorney-General, as business, could really say that it had been in their guardian of her Majesty's rights, had objected to this power to introduce them. The government could not alteration. This was the only point at issue. The hon. incur the responsibility of letting this act expire, which gentleman concluded by hoping that the house would would release great criminals; but the bill was to not permit the bill to be further obstructed by Mr. continue only until next December, so that the subject Anstey.-The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave a similar exmust be reconsidered in the ensuing partiament.-Upon planation of the object and necessity of the bill (which a division, the motion for leave to bring in the bill was was not a government measure).-Mr. HEYWORTH op-carried by 140 against 19. The bill was then brought posed the bill generally, and moved the further adjournin and read a first time. 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 th course of Mr. Anstey's speech, the CHANCELLOR the EXCHEQUER rose to order, observing that understood that the motion for adjourning the deb had been made in order to afford Mr. Anstey an portunity to make another speech upon the bill, a inquiring of the chair whether this was not an evas of the strict rule of the house?—The SPEAKER was opinion that it was, and impressed upon the house necessity of a strict observance of its rules.-Sir PAKINGTON shortly supported the bill, and Mr. Hu strongly urged its postponement until the opinion of t colony could be taken.-The house then divided, a the numbers were-For the adjournment of the deba 31; against it, 110; majority, 79.—A division next place on the motion for the second reading of the which was carried by 111 against 31.

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 moles