regretted that the Bill had gone through so many stages without being discussed, and hoped that an assurance would be given, that an opportunity would be afforded for discussing it. He particularly objected to several of its clauses.

would certainly, if it lay in his power, allow the hon. Member to discuss the Bill at the next or some subsequent stage.

also wished that the Bill might be discussed, but he was favourable to every clause of the Bill, and he knew that the Bill had the Ecclesiastical authorities of Ireland in its favour.

On the question that the Amendments be agreed to,

thought that must be a mistake, as the communications he had received from Ireland informed him that all the ecclesiastical authorities were against it.

concurred in the Bill. By the present system ecclesiastical property was kept out of cultivation, which would never be the case if the land could be let on a forty-one years' lease.

thought that the Bill would effect a great improvement in Ireland. The land there let on Bishops' leases was only half cultivated, which was Mr. Leslie Foster's opinion—not a mean authority—for he might be called the champion of the Irish Church. He indeed would go further than his hon. friend, and would have the land held in fee-farm. The land leased out under Bishops' leases in Ireland was not less than 600,000 acres, and that was exclusive of land held from Deans and Chapters. He was surprised that a measure which he conceived to be unobjectionable should be opposed, and he was persuaded that those best acquainted with the interest of Ireland were in favour of the measure.

had a strong objection to the principle of the Bill. It was the practice for the Bishops to lease out the lands belonging to their sees for a number of years, and to take fines for the renewal of those leases at a low rent. The parties holding the land were in general sure that their tenure would be renewed. The present Bill would alter that practice. It took from the Bishop the freehold of his land, and gave him only an interest in it for a term of years. It enabled him to lease it for forty-one years, or twenty years more than at present; but at the end of that time he had no power to take the land back, if the tenant chose to retain it for another term. Thus the Bishop could never be in the situation of a proprietor, unless the tenant voluntarily threw the land into his hands. The principle of the Bill was to tie up the holder of the property, and prevent him making a bargain which would injure his successor; but he did not see how the present law enabled him to effect that if he were so disposed, more than the bill of the hon. Member; for if a corrupt bargain were made, this Bill would not enable the successor to set it aside. Moreover, if any bad or corrupt bargains had been made within the last twenty years, this Bill would perpetuate them. At present, Church-lands were let at alow rent, and if the Bill passed, as the rents could not then be altered, it would give a bonus to the man who was dishonest, while the fair-dealing tenant would readily give the proper rent. He thought the principle of the Bill unfair; and though he admitted that the object proposed by it was a good one, he did not think the Bill calculated to obtain it. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not deal with Church property in the way proposed by the hon. Member.

opposed the Bill as injurious to the holders of Church property, and he believed, therefore, that the Bill was more calculated to check than promote improvement. He knew that the Bill had already caused a considerable fall in the value of Bishops' lands. At present Bishops' leases were considered as good nearly as freeholds; and the effect of this Bill would be, to make the Bishops, when they let their lands, exact for them as large a rent as possible. He considered that the measure would be fraught with injury to the holders of Church-lands, and he therefore should oppose it at every stage.

defended the Bill. He had obtained the opinion of a great number of the most enlightened clergymen of Ireland concerning the Bill, and they were all in favour of it. [The hon. Member read a great number of extracts of letters from the superior clergy of Ireland, all giving opinions decidedly in favour of the Bill.] The hon. Member then defended the Bill as calculated to promote the improvement of Bishops' lands, which were at present much neglected, owing to the fact that neither landlord nor tenant had any motives to improve them. He trusted that the Bill might be allowed to pass that stage, and a full discussion be taken on its merits hereafter.

The Amendments agreed to.—Bill to be read a third time to-morrow.

presented a Petition from Richard Carlile in favour of the Jews. The petition was very long, he said; it entered into the history of the Jews from the earliest time, and the petitioner contended that it was plain, from historical records, that they were not the murderers of Jesus Christ, and therefore that they did not deserve the persecution and exclusion to which they were subjected by the Christians. The petitioner offered to prove this at the bar of the House. The hon. Member admitted he had not read the whole of the petition, but he believed it was respectfully worded, and there could, therefore, be no objection to its being received.

thought it was the duty of the House to object to a petition which went to deny the truths of Christianity. The Members all knew who Mr. Carlile was, and he did not think it would be decent in that yet Christian Assembly to receive such a petition.

was not before aware that the character of a man deprived him of the right of petitioning the House. If there were anything improper in the petition, of course it ought not to be presented.

thought, that a petition which denied that the Jews crucified our Saviour, contradicting the records of our religion, ought not to be received.

thought, that above all things the House of Commons was not a fit place for theological discussion. Such a petition might be contrary to the rules of the House, but it was not contrary to the law; for according to it any man might deny Christianity, provided he did it calmly and reasonably, and without ribaldry. The petitioner's sentiments might be erroneous, but the House could not proscribe erroneous sentiments, and certainly had no right to refuse to receive, on that account, the petition of a man who entertained them.

said, that if the House were to reject petitions in consequence of their sentiments, it would have to scrutinize every one, and it would make itself responsible for the sentiments of every one it received.

Petition withdrawn.