said, he had last year introduced a bill, relative to the leasing power of bishops and Ecclesiastical Corporations in Ireland, his object then being that the bill might be printed, and laid before the House. He had circulated it amongst the bishops, from whom he had received various communications on the subject; and he intended to embody many of their suggestions in the bill, which he was about to move for leave to bring in. The hon. member said, he was induced to undertake this subject, in consequence of the many defects attending the present system of granting bishops' leases. It must be obvious to any person, that the present law required revision, when it was considered that, by the law as it now stood, the tenant could not enjoy a possession of the land longer than twenty-one years. This system tended to deteriorate, not only the revenues of the church, but also the lands. It kept the bishops out of half the revenues to which, under an improved system, they would be entitled. On the other hand, the tenant, owing to the precarious and short tenure, felt no inclination to lay out capital on the improvement of the lands. The land, in consequence, became impoverished, when the tenant had no hope of obtaining a renewal of his lease. The tenure was, in fact, too short to induce any occupant to attend to the ultimate improvement of the lands. The sole object of the tenant, under the present system was, to take as much out of the lands as was possible, leaving them, at the end of the term, in a most impoverished state. The remedy he would propose was this—that a valuation should take place of the average sums which had been paid for the last twenty-one years, in the shape of rents, fines, and fees, put together, and that another valuation should be instituted, which was the rack-rent of the lands under lease. This last valuation, however, was only for the purpose of subsequent reference, with respect to the sum the bishop had a right to claim—not in the shape of rent and fines ordinarily paid, under the present system, by the tenant, but as a compulsory rent, on the payment of which the tenant should be entitled to the extension of his lease to the full term of forty-two years. The new rent to bear the same proportion to the rack-rent, which the former rent did to the fines and other fees put together. He had no doubt that the present system materially tended to deteriorate the income of the bishops. It would be much better, that what they now received in the shape of fines precariously should be received annually. He had heard, indeed, of 60,000l. being received in one year by the archbishop of Cashel for renewal fines; but, at the same time, it was well understood, that the see had been losing 2,000l. a year for many years previous. By the system he would propose, there would be an additional security given to the tenant, as well as to the income of the bishop. The principle of the bill was nearly the same as that which he had introduced last year; but, in consequence of the suggestions which he had received, there was a clause introduced into this bill, "that all fines relating to Churchlands should be paid up before the bill should take effect as to these lands." He had also introduced a clause, by which it was stipulated, that nothing contained therein should interfere with any clause by which the tenant forfeited his lease; but if the tenant had so forfeited it, it would be in the power of the bishop to let the lands to another tenant. It was also considered, that the tenant, immediately before the close of his present term, might be inclined to impoverish his lands, in order to render the valuation lower. In such case, power was given to the bishop to appoint a time, within five years previous to the close of the term, for the valuation of the lands under lease. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws respecting the leasing power of Bishops and Ecclesiastical Corporations in Ireland."

said, there existed some objections in his mind to the proposed measure, to which, however, he should give his best consideration, without at present pledging himself either to oppose or support it.

thought the hon. mover had made out a good case for paying the bishops by means of a fixed salary. The property of the church was the worst managed property in Ireland. He had attempted to institute an inquiry into the state of the church lands in the sister kingdom, and was sorry the House did not agree with him as to the necessity of that inquiry. It was his intention, when the measure of the hon. gentleman came before the House, to introduce some amendments into the bill. It seemed to him to be preposterous that the bishops in Ireland should receive from 20,000l. to 40,000l. a year. It would be well if this property were applied to assist the revenue of the state.

said, he felt confident that the hon. mover would not agree to the suggestions of the hon. member for Montrose. Those suggestions instead of regulating the church property, would altogether deprive that church of any property. He did not understand that any great practical evil arose in Ireland from the present state of the laws respecting this property. There might, however, be some inconvenience experienced in bringing their machinery into operation. As far as concerned the north of Ireland, the church lands were in as high a state of cultivation as any other lands in that part of Ireland.

defended the present system of laws, under which church lands were let. The church lands in England were in a high state of cultivation. The case might be different in Ireland; and he hoped the measure about to be intro- duced would have the effect of relieving Ireland; but he doubted whether the regulations proposed would be advantageous to the bishops. He could not consent, under the show of regulations, that a spoliation of the church property should take place.

said, he saw no immediate objections to the motion of the hon. member; but he should receive it with great caution, if he conceived it aimed at the spoliation of the church. He could never consent to make the Church of Ireland stipendiary on the Crown. The property of the church ought to be made as secure to its possessors as the property of the aristocracy of Ireland. Respectability was secured to the proprietors of these lands in the same way as other proprietors of lands enjoyed respectability from their situation. This landed property made the clergy independent of the Crown. He had no objection to the introduction of the bill; but he entirely disclaimed a participation in the designs of the hon. member for Montrose. He was satisfied the proposition of the hon. mover did not involve any such designs as those mentioned by the hon. member for Montrose. He was sure it was the hon. mover's intention, while he endeavoured to confer a general benefit on the country by improving agriculture, not to trench on the rights and privileges of the bishops. He hoped the bill would be discussed on its own merits, without reference to the menace of the hon. member for Montrose.

, in reply, said, he did not concur in the views which the hon. member for Montrose had taken of this subject. No man would resist any attempts on the property of the church, in England, or Ireland, more than he would do. Spoliation of the church was not his object, but security. The hon. and learned member for Plympton had spoken in favour of the present system, and seemed inclined to think that the proposed amendment would be detrimental to the interests of the bishops; whereas it only contemplated the giving means to the bishops of rendering their property more beneficial, by having it in their power to enter into agreements to which the tenant might voluntarily consent, for the mutual advantage of both.

said, that the proposed bill would have the effect of saving the bishops a great deal of trouble, and of putting an end to that species of gambling, which now existed, in obtaining leases under the present system.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

said, he must protest against estimates to the extent of 2,638,000l. being thus voted, as he considered it to be a sum far beyond what the country ought to pay in time of peace. He recommended a reduction of different taxes; and he especially called for a reduction of the assessed taxes.

said, that government were earnestly employed in seeking to give every possible relief to the burthens of the country.

protested against the amount of the estimates, and complained that the Finance Committee had not been reappointed.

pledged himself that a proper responsibility should attach to the future expenditure for public works.

said, that such a proper control would produce a great saving to the country.

complained of the lavish expenditure in the works at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, in which he insisted that the successive pledges of ministers had not been fulfilled.

said, that with every desire to form an accurate estimate of the expense, it was not in the power of any man to say what it would be exactly. When the castle came to be examined, it was in so ruinous a condition, that the expenditure far exceeded the calculation which had been first made. It would not be right to finish one side of the castle, and leave the other incomplete. The present estimate completed the great body of the building, and included part of the expense of raising the round tower, but to complete it and the other restorations a further sum would be necessary. He was not prepared to say exactly how much; the commissioners not having made their report. With respect to Buckingham-house, the excess of the expenditure for public works over the esti- mate was owing to the same causes as in the case of Windsor Castle.

said, that when Mr. Canning proposed this expenditure, he had told that right hon. gentleman that there was no use in bringing an estimate, as the expense would be double. Mr. Canning had replied, that the House might rely on the government, if not on the estimate. Now, he saw that they could not rely on the government any more than on the estimate. He thought it most dangerous for the House to meddle with public buildings, as there was no check put on the expenditure.

On the resolution, that 24,000l. be granted for defraying the expenses of the Penitentiary at Milbank,

begged to ask the right hon. Secretary, whether he was prepared to say that this establishment, which was supported at an enormous expense to the public, succeeded in its object. The right hon. gentleman's predecessor had expressed a doubt on the subject.

replied, that if he were asked his advice as to the propriety of building a Penitentiary at the same expense which this establishment had cost the country, he would possibly answer in the negative; but if, again, he were asked, now that we had incurred the expense, whether we should continue it, he should, considering such an establishment necessary for the due administration of criminal justice, be inclined to answer in the affirmative. There could be no doubt but that there was a class of criminals, who, though guilty of offences which subjected them to the punishment of transportation, were persons not inured to crime; and, in reclaiming such persons, this establishment had been found to be highly beneficial. By far the greater part of those who had been confined in this prison were reclaimed from their former vicious habits, and the committee, in discharging them, had expressed their high satisfaction of their improved conduct. He was much inclined to think that, as a building, it could not be applied to any better purpose. The management of the prison was under a committee appointed by act of parliament, and was not at all under the direction of the Secretary of State; nor was it an establishment from which he derived any patronage.

The resolution was agreed to.