presented the following Message from the king: "G. R. His majesty finds it necessary to state to the house of commons, that in consequence of the disastrous defeat of the Prussian arms in the autumn of 1806, attended with the melancholy death of the reigning duke of Brunswick Wolfenbuttel and the occupation of his territories by the enemy, his majesty's sister, the widow of that illustrious prince, has been compelled to seek an asylum in his majesty's dominions: immediately on her arrival in England an establishment suited to her rank, required by her misfortunes, and such as it became his majesty's affection to afford, was provided out of the Civil List; but. no provision being made in the distribution of that fund for this unforeseen charge, his majesty recommends to this house to consider of the means of enabling him to continue the support of that, establishment; and his majesty relies with perfect confidence on the loyalty and attachment of his faithful commons to make such provision as may appear proper on an occasion so interesting to his majesty's feelings, and so nearly connected with the dignity of his throne."—Ordered to be referred to the Committee of Supply.

in pursuance of his notice, moved for a committee to consider how far the provisions of the act of the 1st of his present majesty, by which it had been directed, that the Demised Revenues of the Crown should be carried into and made a part of the Aggregate Fund, had been complied with. The hon. gent, entered into a long explanation of the subject. He repeated his former assertions with regard to the value of these revenues, which he estimated at 200,000l. a year, again contending that they might be applied to the public service; in the course of his speech he commented with much severity on the mismanagement of the Royal Forests, by which the timber of the country, so materially necessary to its service, was deteriorated and destroyed.

questioned the accuracy of some of the hon. gent.'s statements, and denied that the present amount of the demised crown revenues exceeded 35,000l. out of which 10 or 12,000l. went to various charges. He disapproved of a special committee, and thought the finance committee, of which the hon. gent, was a member, fully adequate to any desirable object the hon. gentleman had in view.—A division then took place, when the numbers were, for the motion 12; against it, 37. Majority 25.

argued against the bill, on the ground that while it violated the rights of the church, it would afford no relief to the great body of the curates themselves. The object of the bill was not to augment the income of those who most wanted it; but to raise the value of a few curacies, while the greater number of those who entered holy orders were left precisely as before. To relieve these he should be perfectly willing, if it could be done; but the causes of the poverty of many of them were, first, the poverty of the benefices themselves; and secondly, the great number who pressed into holy orders without the prospect of any provision at all, except a trifling and precarious curacy. He observed, that this raising the incomes of a few curates would have no other effect, than that of inducing many more than the present average number to enter into holy orders, and by that means the poverty of the whole would be increased rather than diminished. His objection went to the principle of the bill altogether, and he should therefore move as an amendment that it be re-committed this day three months.

had carefully applied himself to the examination of the bill, and the result was that he thought it very injudicious, very pernicious in point of principle, and inefficient as to any good practical purpose. He remarked, that two views were entertained of the nature of church property; the one was, that it was inviolable, like private property; the other, that it was merely to be considered in the nature of a salary for a particular duty, and that the legislature might interfere with it and alter it with as little ceremony as the salaries of any public office. He thought that neither of these two propositions was just in its full extent. He was disposed to concur in the theory of the right hon. gent., that it was inviolable like private property; but that the legislature had a right to interfere, so far as to provide that the duties attached to it were performed. But then he asserted, that the meddling with this property, in the manner proposed by the bill, was dangerous to the church establishment; for the bill seemed to be founded on the principle maintained by those who held that all those clergymen, who were not employed in parish duties, were useless members of that establishment. The law allowed pluralities. Clergymen, therefore, could not always reside on their livings; and attaching penalties to that which the law permitted, he contended, was unjust. It also seemed to proceed on the supposition, that the number of curates was limited. This was not the case; and the augmenting a few curacies would only bring a greater number into holy orders, and by that means increase the distress of the whole. On the whole, the bill went to a dangerous violation of church property, without any chance of improving the general condition of the curates.

argued, that there was danger in almost every view in which the measure in question could be taken.

supported the bill, as a measure that was best adapted to the welfare of the church.

would vote for the bill being committed. The only objection he had to it was that it did not go far enough.—The house then divided upon lord Porchester's amendment. Ayes, 11; Noes, 94; Majority, 83.