presented a petition, signed by the merchants and inhabitants of the city of Edinburgh, in favour of the Trinity Harbour Bill. The hon. Member moved the second reading of the Bill, into the merits of which he had no occasion to enter, as the subject had been before amply discussed.

presented two petitions from the Dock Commissioners of Leith, and individuals in Edinburgh, against the Bill, He (the Lord Advocate) would take that opportunity of stating his reasons for opposing the second reading of the Bill. During the former session of Parliament, when the Bill was before the House, it was opposed on the ground that the parties had no right to make a harbour on the ground of the town of Edinburgh. The objection then was, that no judgment had been passed in the Court of Session of Scotland. During the present session, and while the Bill was before the Lords, the decision of the Court of Session was given, from which it appeared "that Mr. Alexander Scott had been prohibited from unloading goods, or making a dock for their reception within the bounds prescribed; and further, that he was restricted from building or erecting a harbour or dock, or performing any other work that could be construed into an encroachment on vested rights of the corporation of the City of Edinburgh." The question they had to consider was, would the House, under the circumstances, consent to the passing of a Bill for making a harbour within a harbour? He was of opinion that they would not; for it was clearly an encroachment on the rights of property, and no case had been made by the promoters of the Bill, in the present instance, to entitle the House to interfere with the property of the city of Edinburgh and in almost direct opposition to a decision of a court of law. He (the Lord Advocate) should be very sorry to be instrumental in the making of this harbour, after a report made to the House for improving the harbour of Leith, and he therefore thought it would be the grossest injustice to allow the Bill to pass. The promoters of the Bill had no right to make a harbour where it was proposed to do so, and that with the prospect of a better harbour being made. He believed there was no instance on record of any Bill being carried through the House in the manner this had been. It was opposed by the town of Edinburgh, the town of Leith, the Dock Commissioners, and the decision of a court of law, and under those circumstances he would move that it be read a second time that day six months.

would take the liberty of stating, that in the whole course of his parliamentary experience he never witnessed a more extraordinary opposition than this Bill had received, and he hoped that House would not sanction such an inconvenience and injustice as the rejection of this Bill would inflict on the promoters of it. He maintained, that the decision of the Court of Session did not at all bear out the claim of the Corporation of the city of Edinburgh, it merely went the length of saying that they were entitled to harbour dues, which were never refused by Mr. Scott. He was therefore fully satisfied that the House would allow the second reading.

would defy the annals of Parliament to furnish a case similar to that with which it was sought to carry this Bill; and he had no hesitation in saying, that in Edinburgh it would be hailed with satisfaction to learn that this Bill had been thrown out. Various means had been resorted to, to prejudice the minds of hon. Members in reference to this Bill, and he held in his hand a paper which had been circulated, and to a few passages of which he requested to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, in order to ascertain what he meant.

Hay was not to be held answerable for any Bill or paper that might be circulated.

complained of the unjustifiable opposition that was offered to this Bill, and contained statements that were evidently intended to prejudice people's minds out of doors. Among the many objections to this measure was one, that the forms of the House had not been complied with, and he considered that well-founded. He would not, therefore, trouble the House further than by stating, that the Bill was not in a fit state to be carried, and that the decision of the court of law was a strong barrier against it. There was no fear but that the other harbour would be improved so as to afford every accommodation to the commercial and shipping interests, and with this prospect before them he hoped the House would not proceed further with this bungling Bill.

Hay protested against the opposition given to this Bill, which was intended to promote delay, and to prevent it from being sent to the House of Lords, with any reasonable expectation of its passing this session. He should therefore move the suspension of the standing orders, and that the Bill be sent before the Committee this day.

said, that the motion before the House was required to complete the irregularities attendant on this Bill. It would be the greatest possible in- justice if the motion were to be complied with; for he had a petition, from certain individuals whose interests were so affected by it, to present against the Bill, praying to be heard by counsel, and how could that be done if it were to be committed to-day? He challenged the hon. Member to produce any one instance where a contested Bill was allowed to go through the House with the rapidity of this Bill. He therefore thought, before such an infringement was made on the property of individuals, that they should, at least, have the opportunity of defending their rights; and to enable them to do so, the House should postpone the Bill going into Committee until the usual time.

Does the hon. and gallant Member mean to ask for the suspension of the Standing Orders; and further, that a Committee on this (a private Bill) shall sit this day, during the sitting of the House? I apprehend there can be no doubt that that must be the effect of his motion; and if it be the pleasure of the House to accede to it, we shall adopt a practice which is certainly very unusual, to say the least of it.

saw the force of the right hon. the Speaker's remark, and would beg leave to withdraw his motion. He moved that the Bill be committed the next day.

opposed the motion, and deprecated agreement to it without a precedent being produced.

said, as the House had agreed to the second reading, and as the object of the opposing parties evidently was delay, he thought the House would not vitiate their own proceedings by rejecting the motion before them. He hoped the House would make an order for the Committee.

said, this was the first case where the Standing Orders were moved to be suspended in the case of an opposed private Bill. He thought it rather strange, that the promoters of it should be allowed to proceed in so irregular a manner.

requested the patience of hon. Members on a matter relating to his personal character; which, though not of any importance to the House, was of some consequence to the ends of justice. He had been informed by letters from his friends, as well as by reports in the newspapers, that while he was absent attending the assizes, and upon other business, Mr. Nicholas Wilcox Cundy had been brought to the Bar. There he underwent a long examination, and made certain answers to questions put by the Speaker and by other Members. He held those answers in his hand, and he begged the House to allow him briefly to go over them, that he might show how incorrect and void of truth some of them were. If he did not take this course, he knew not how he could do more than repeat what he had strongly stated in his letter to Sir Charles Burrell. Mr. Cundy had been asked, whether he had solicited the attendance of any Member on the third reading of the Brighton Railway Bill, and had replied in the negative; when the fact was, that he had called upon him (Mr. Benett) and solicited his attendance. No such conversation took place, as had been mentioned by Mr. Cundy, on the Southwestern Railroad; but he had canvassed him (Mr. Benett) to be in his place, and informed him of reports of which he (Mr. Benett) was until then ignorant; and the conversation was commenced by Mr. Cundy. He declared most solemnly, that he had never heard any reports respecting the compensation to be given to landowners on the Brighton Railroad; and that he never asked Mr. Cundy any questions regarding them. Mr. Cundy had never spoken of compensation for "navigation;" but had said, that for about six acres of land, Sir Charles Burrell was to receive 15,000l. This sum, he asserted, was to be given as a bribe to induce him to support Stephenson's line; which he had done accordingly with the utmost zeal. In his examination at the Bar, Mr. Cundy had introduced the name of the Duke of Norfolk; but he had not heard Mr. Cundy speak of that nobleman, and did not know that he had the slightest interest in the question: not one word on the subject had passed between him and Mr. Cundy. On the point of tampering with the Committee, Mr. Cundy distinctly stated, that the majority had been obtained by tampering; and added, that the chairman of the Committee was a most partial person, because he was connected with the Duke of Richmond, whose interest it was, that Stephenson's line should be adopted. In consequence of what Mr. Cundy had asserted, he (Mr. Benett) had asked Sir Charles Burrell whether he was to receive any and what compensation; and Sir Charles had informed him, that he was to be paid for a few acres of land, but that he did not know the sum; and that his remuneration would not altogether amount to 3,000l. On the morning after he had seen Sir Charles Burrell in the lobby of the House of Lords, Mr. Cundy called again upon him (Mr. Benett), when he said that, as what he (Mr. Cundy) had told him respecting Sir Charles Burrell was not true, he would have no farther conversation with him. Mr. Cundy entreated him to hear what he had to say. He had answered, that he had heard that he (Mr. Cundy) had denied to Sir C. Burrell in the lobby of the House of Lords, what he had stated to him (Mr. Benett). Mr. Cundy's reply was, "I did not deny it—I avowed my belief in the truth of it;" and from thence he went over the circumstances, the principal of which was, that Sir Charles Burrell was to receive 15,000l., another landowner 20,000l., and two others 8,000l. each. "The whole of this," he said, "is true; but the case will come before the Committee of the House of Peers, where it will be investigated, and there justice will be done." He (Mr. Benett) most positively and solemnly asserted that these were the words used by Mr. Cundy. Other things in the evidence of Mr. Cundy were contrary to the fact, but it was not necessary to advert to them; and he could assure the House, that instead of overstating the case in his letter to Sir Charles Burrell, he had understated it, and nothing on earth should ever induce him to overstate. He did not at any time wish to bring an individual to the Bar of the House, for words spoken of himself; it was a tribunal of which, however powerful, he did not approve; and he wanted nothing upon the present occasion but to show the House and the country that he had not misrepresented Mr. Cundy. He had been exceedingly cautious to understate the case to Sir Charles Burrell, and did not mention any persons but himself. If the report had gone no farther than this House, he should not have thought it necessary to detain hon. Members upon a merely personal matter, for he was sure that not one of those who surrounded him would think him capable of misrepresenting. Neither did he think that where Mr. Cundy was known, his assertions would have much weight. He had considered it his duty to make this statement as early as possible, since it had gone out to the country that he had overstated the case against Mr. Cundy; and where his character was not known, it might possibly suffer, even from the evidence of a man who had imprisonment before his eyes, if he did not contradict that with which he was charged. He might regret, that as Mr. Cundy's evidence was on the Journals, his (Mr. Benett's) refutation would not also be recorded there; but he did not wish again to have Mr. Cundy at the Bar, or subjected to punishment for what he had said of him.

adverted to a petition in the hands of a Member affecting his reputation, and expressed his readiness at the present moment to meet any charge it contained. He was sorry that the subject could not now be regularly brought before the House.

said, that having been personally alluded to by the noble Lord who had just sat down, he hoped to be allowed to offer a few words to the House. He had prepared a series of resolutions to move as an amendment upon the motion of the noble Lord, but as the noble Lord had intimated that it was not his intention this Session to press certain Bills he had mentioned, he (Mr. Hume) thought he should best consult the convenience of the House, as well as act most in accordance with the feelings of those around him, if he did not move those resolutions. The noble Lord, however, ought not to have been surprised at the opposition entertained by him (Mr. Hume) and others who thought with him to this Bill. The noble Lord had spoken of the necessity of providing for the wants of the Church, instead of applying certain revenues as a substitute for Church-rates. By the term "wants of the Church," did the noble Lord mean the providing for the inferior Clergy? If so, how could he reconcile to himself the justice of a measure which gave to twenty-six individuals 148,000l. per annum, while to 2,026 working Clergy only 141,000l. a year was allotted? Again, it appeared that five Bishop's sons, and sons-in-law, being ministers of the Church, would receive as much money annually as, under this Bill, was appropriated to 300 curates doing active duty. With provisions like these, the Bill, he contended, had no regard to the wants of the Church to which the noble Lord was so desirous to afford a supply. He wished to see every clergyman resident in his parish and maintained in it, at all events, with decency; and for this he did not believe any man, in or out of that House would refuse his sanction and support. But the noble Lord was most unreasonable in asking the House to concur in this most unequal, appropriation of the ecclesiastical revenues. He denied, that he had ever assented to the Bill; for, on the contrary, he never opened his mouth upon it until it was in Committee, when he asked the noble Lord to consent to postpone it. The noble Lord had no right to bind him for his silence when the subject was first mentioned, for at that time the reports which the House had a right to expect, and upon which only they ought to act, were not then nor now on the table. He had no wish to oppose his Majesty's Ministers, but this Bill was most inconsistent with the principles he had always advocated. The Bill was not consonant with those principles, inasmuch as it did not provide for the inferior clergy, and was silent on the subject of Church-rates. He did not wish to manifest any vexatious opposition, but still he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House on the motion for the third reading of the Bill, in order to record his opposition to the measure. Even if the noble Lord introduced any modification in respect to the constitution of the Commissioners, or to lessen the amount to be paid the Bishops, still the Bill was one which ought not to receive legislative sanction. He repeated, that though he was determined to take the sense of the House on the third reading, he did not think it prudent or proper in him to move any amendment, for he had to consider the general policy of the Government, particularly with regard to Ireland, and whether that policy might not be endangered by his further opposition to this Bill, throwing that country into other and less friendly protection.

, rose principally for the purpose of expressing the satisfaction he felt at the announcement which had been made of the intention of his Majesty's Government to bring forward some measure of relief in regard to Church-rates. At the same time, the noble Lord having stated his apprehension that Church-property would not be applicable nor sufficient to the reducing, much less to the removal of those rates, he felt bound to say, that if upon inquiry it should turn out that there was not more than sufficient Church property in this country to satisfy the real wants of the Church, he perfectly concurred with the noble Lord, that we must look to some other source from which the Church-rates should be reduced, and thus relief be afforded to the Dissenters. But before arriving at that conviction, there must be a careful inquiry entered into as to the true amount of the property of the Church. At present, the only account we had was rendered by the members of that Church, and we had no means of judging of its correctness. He (Mr. Lennard) would therefore suggest to the House, whether it would not be advisable to follow, in this instance, the plan recommended by Lord Brougham in respect of charities, viz., the issuing of a commission, which should carefully investigate the value of Church property. That being done, the House would be enabled to judge correctly as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of that property to answer all the real wants of the Church. And if, as the noble Lord had stated, the latter should be found to be the case, the House would then look elsewhere for funds out of which to relieve the Dissenters, by reducing or removing the Church-rates. To show that the returns were erroneous, he need only mention, that the late holder of a Welsh see had left his family upwards of 100,000l., though the revenues of the see were remarkably small. It was but justice to add, that those revenues depended on mines which at times were productive, but at other periods the reverse; but still it was essential that a correct average of the value of the see should be ascertained, in order to enable Parliament justly to legislate.

Will the hon. Member for Maldon state to which of the Welsh bishops he referred as having left his family 400,000l.?

I said 100,000l. I decline naming [loud cries of " Name" from the Opposition, answered by cries of "No, no" from the Ministerial benches].

I cannot help saying a few words, Sir, upon some remarks which were thrown out the other night, and upon the present occasion also, by the noble Lord, as to the stage at which the opposition to this Bill commenced. I agree with him, that that opposition should have commenced at an earlier period than it did. I think the attention of the public should have been called to the subject as soon as that Report was laid upon our table. But still, as great advantage has been attempted to be taken of the comparatively late stage at which (as the noble Lord says) our opposition to this Bill commenced, let the House know what opposition has been given to this Bill since it was brought in. On the second reading, an opposition to it had been announced by the motion of the hon. Member for Ashburton. In Committee a division actually took place on the question of the translation of bishops, and on the Report two divisions took place, one of very considerable importance; and I must say, that when the opposition to a Bill has been announced on the second reading, continued in Committee, and carried on to the Report, the noble Lord has no ground for charging us with unfairness in not announcing our opposition. Sir, I have taken a strong part against this Bill ["Hear, hear" from the Chancellor of the Exchequer], which I do not regret, though I should be very sorry if, in doing so, I expressed myself in language too plain and severe. I have heard with great satisfaction the announcement of the noble Lord's intention to withdraw two of the Bills forming part of the proposed Church reform, and I only regret the noble Lord has not included in his withdrawal the remaining two Bills. It does appear to me, that the noble Lord puts himself in a worse position by withdrawing two, than he would be in if he persisted in carrying through all. There might be some reason in going on with this Bill when it was part of a general measure of Church reform; but now, when the two other Bills are withdrawn, by insisting upon the Bill before us, and the Pluralities Bill, the Government will lay themselves open to the imputation of proposing a really inefficient measure of reform, especially when it is seen that all that this Bill does is to chop and change in some degree the incomes of the bishops, but by no means to equalise the stipends of the dignitaries of the Church. Sir, the grounds on which I oppose this Bill are, first, because I believe it to be most inefficient as a measure of Church reform. Nor am I satisfied with the reason which the noble Lord suggests for going on with it, viz., that it involves the concession of a most important principle, that Parliament has a right to deal with, and legislate for, Church property; for I consider it a most monstrous and atrocious presumption, on the part of the Church, to imagine for a moment that Parliament has not that right. But still farther, I believe that this Bill, if carried into a law, will not only be utterly inefficient as a measure of Church reform, but that it will work positive mischief. This Bill establishes a permanent Commission for the purpose of carrying its provisions into effect. I before expressed my opinion, that it is a very bad precedent to establish—the delegating the power of legislation to a Commission. But that is not my only objection. I object to the entrusting such great powers as are conferred by this Bill to a permanent Commission not responsible to Parliament like his Majesty's Ministers; but more especially do I object to that Commission, as being composed of persons who have been the most consistent opponents of all liberal government. If a Commission was necessary and advisable at all, surely Ministers might have placed among its members men who had the confidence of the House of Commons and of the country, as well as of the Church, or at least men whose names and popularity would have been a safeguard against the pursuit of a course of conduct opposed to liberal principles. Sir, I am glad my hon. Friend has announced his intention of dividing against this Bill on the third reading, and that he will not press his opposition further. What I wish to show to the country is, that we have carried our opposition as far as we properly could (though, I admit, that it should have been commenced earlier). I am sorry that his Majesty's Ministers have taken ill the expression of sentiment on this side of the House. I myself certainly have declared those sentiments very plainly, and without, Lacknow ledge, mincing the matter—as perhaps is decorous in such cases; but it seems to me that it does good sometimes, more particularly for that party to which I belong, to express their opinions loudly and explicitly. Having no opportunity of expressing those opinions except in this House, I think it is necessary that when they do come forward they should speak out in terms which cannot be misunderstood. I should be extremely sorry if any opposition which I and those who think with me, may feel called upon to give to this Bill, should prove detrimental to the stability of the Ministry or conduce to the success of their adversaries. I can only assure them, that no act on my part is dictated by hostility to them; and that if they were to bring forward a real and substantial measure of Church reform, based upon the principles upon which they took office, there would not be one of those who on the present occasion view their measure with distrust and dissatisfaction, who would not unite in giving them their most strenuous support.

said, that some intended modifications of the present Bill had been spoken of; and it was desirable, before they gave their consent to the third reading, that they should know what they were? Perhaps, as the noble Lord must have made up his mind on the subject, he would state them.

said, that the only alteration which he should propose was this—that whereas the Commission being composed of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, and certain others, he should propose that the two last-mentioned Bishops, and the three last-mentioned lay Commissioners, should be at all times removable by his Majesty in Council, by warrant under the sign manual. There was no other alteration intended.

said, that before proceeding to the order of the day, he wished to take notice of some observations which had fallen from the noble Lord in reference to some parties who had petitioned the House that evening, through the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire (Lord F. Egerton), and other Members.—The noble Lord had been pleased to animadvert with some severity upon the conduct of those petitioners, as having been actuated by selfish and interested motives. Now the House not being in possession of the subject matter of those petitions: he (Mr. Estcourt) for one, not having seen them, and knowing nothing whatever of the parties,—it was too much for the noble Lord to assume that they had been influenced by unworthy motives in the course they had pursued: and he (Mr. Estcourt) had just as much right, in the absence of all information upon the subject, nay, more right, to assume that these individuals had been actuated by motives as honourable and patriotic as any which could influence the human mind.

regretted being obliged to support any motion emanating from the hon. Member for Middlesex; but as he considered the Bill would have a very prejudicial effect upon the interests of his constituents, he felt he should not discharge his duty if he availed himself of the only alternative. He opposed the measure on the grounds that it was introduced without sufficient inquiry, and that, as well in principle as in details, it was likely to become a most dangerous and fatal precedent. He should, therefore, vote with the hon. Member for Middlesex; but it was not to be supposed that, because he did so, he concurred in any of the propositions that hon. Member or his party were likely to bring forward in respect to the Church.

observed, that if the hon. Member for Durham proposed in future to take up that course of politics which a sense of duty to his constituents was likely to dictate, it was more than possible he would often be found voting with his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex. The hon. Member, who was very indistinctly heard in the gallery, then proceeded to say, that it would be with something like regret he should record his vote in favour of the hon. Member for Middlesex's amendment. He had been hitherto a constant supporter of the Government, and he had hoped that nothing would occur to make him alter his opinion. He regarded the measure as a most clumsy piece of legislation in the first place, and in the second as a very unnecessary abandonment of principle on the part of Ministers. It professed to be a measure of equalization, but it was no such thing. All the gradations of episcopal income from 15,000l. to 5,000l. a year, were preserved, and the only alterations consisted in the arrangement and subdivision of the sees. To the proposed Commission he objected, on the ground that the controlling power over its proceedings was not vested in the people, through the responsible organs of the Government. He wished to see the Ministers take the question of Church reform into their own hands, instead of adopting the reforms suggested by their opponents. It was manifest that in the division about to take place there would be a great split in the hitherto compactly kept Ministerial ranks, but he trusted that it would merely extend to the present question, and that no permanent division of sentiment would from thence follow.

said, that he hoped the House would bear with him while he endeavoured shortly to express his opinions on the measure before it. But he was bound to state that his opinions were not likely to obtain the support and concurrence of those who thought that rich and gorgeous establishments were likely to advance the great interests of truth and Christianity. From his cradle he had been taught to believe that it was not worldly pomp and power—not the possession of inordinate opulence—but the quiet, unostentatious exercise of clerical duty that was most acceptable to the religious principle. From the costly and opulent establishment he turned to the Dissenting principle. The Dissenters asked for nothing from the State—nothing from the public purse. Were their children less carefully educated? Was there less of religious zeal or religious conduct among their professors? Indeed, his objection to the Bill went far beyond most of the objections that had been urged against it. He thought the Church of England did not answer the objects for which it was professed to be established. It was over-encumbered with wealth; its opulence was its bane; its enormous revenues were all barriers to its usefulness. It was in sad contrast to primitive Christianity. Of what was the Com-mission composed who were charged with the great duty of Church reform? Was it not of those most interested in Church abuses? Were not the changes in the episcopal system delivered over to the hierarchy of the archbishops and the bishops? The public eye had not been inattentive to the fact that the primary object of the bishops had been to provide for themselves—to set aside enormous and unnecessary revenues for their own good service. They had acted wisely in their generation. But there was another principle in the Bill which he could not sanction. The Church of England called itself the National Church; but in the nation immense numbers came not within its pale. Was that a reason they should be excluded? He thought not. Yet the Bill had a declaration that shut out every individual not a member of the Establishment from being a commissioner. This was not fair nor just. The Church was paid by all, and all had a right to inquire into its concerns. Opinion would never sanction the enormous appropriations which were made by this Bill. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, called them the necessary support of decent and decorous dignity. He saw in them nothing but the graspings of worldliness and antichristian rapacity. And why, again, were the elements of discord to be introduced into Manchester and Ripon? Did Manchester and Ripon desire to be favoured with bishops? Did the inhabitants believe that their presence would lead to religious peace and harmony? Far from it. On these and other grounds he was compelled, but with grief and pain, to vote against the third reading of the Bill. It was not in hostility to the Government, but in harmony with the principles he cherished and felt bound to maintain, that he was compelled to join in the opposition to its progress.

wished to say a very few words respecting this Bill, before it reached its final stage; and as he entertained the far from gratifying conviction that those words, however few, would prove unacceptable to a set of Gentlemen for whom he entertained the very highest respect, it was almost unnecessary for him to observe that they would be expressed with much pain. Upon one point, however, which had been raised, he was fortunate in not being obliged to apologise. If any blame was attributable to any quarter for having deferred opposition until the Bill had reached its final stage, in that blame he did not participate. It so occurred that he had not been present at any of the previous stages upon which a discussion had arisen; and from all he heard of what had then taken place, he had laboured until very lately under the not unnatural conviction that any opposition he should attempt to give the measure, would only go forth as the record of his individual opinion. He had so little to approve of and so much to object to in the measure, that it was impossible for him to vote for the third reading. His principal objection to it was the one which had been already expressed—he meant the truly exorbitant and improper scale on which the episcopal income were to be measured. He looked upon the proposition of giving an income of 15,000l. a year to the Archbishop of Canterbury as one entirely indefensible on every ground. If he were prepared to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury ought to have an income of 15,000l. a year as remuneration for his services, he could not refuse a proposition for giving to the Premier, or Lord Chief Justice, an income of 30,000l. a year. Why, was it possible to conceive any set of duties which could be more easily or tranquilly performed, or which were more exempt from all those difficulties that required labour, assiduity, and talent to surmount them, than those allotted to the Archbishop of Canterbury? Hon, Gentle- men opposite might think differently; but he had expressed his firm belief, and he repeated the assertion, merely adding, that in making it he had no intention to speak disrespectfully, either of the individual who now filled the see of Canterbury, or of the duties attached to his position. In his humble opinion, the lowest of the scales proposed would suffice for the highest see named in the Bill; and that without incurring the smallest risk of throwing the episcopal department of the Church into the hands of unsuitable persons, the Government might convert the now proposed minimum into a maximum of remuneration, and thereupon preserving the proportions, form an excellent scale of income. Had it been found that, because of the diminished incomes, the poorer sees were occupied by an inferior class of men? He had never heard that such was the fact, and he, therefore, with the more confidence, recommended to the Government to reconsider this portion of the measure. Another ground of objection to the manner in which the episcopal incomes were fixed by the Bill originated in the comparison it was impossible not to draw between those incomes and the miserable stipends allotted to the working clergy. It was said 100l. or 150l. a year was a sufficient income for a curate. On what principle, then, could it be contended that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, whether in regard to education, position in society, ability, or general usefulness, was not the superior of the humbler individual so remunerated, required to have an income of 15,000l.? The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had evinced great anxiety to prove that there was no surplus revenue in the case of the Established Church in England. Could it be expected that any Dissenter would believe that there was no surplus, when he found such a rate of income allotted to the bishops? Certainly he never would. He contended, that it strongly behoved the State to regulate the incomes of the ministers attached to the Established Church upon the principles of the utmost sobriety and moderation. Unless this point were attended to, those who derived no benefit from that Establishment never would, and, he would add, never ought, to be satisfied. But, in considering the income of the bishops, was the amount received in money to be alone considered? Was there not attached to each see a valuable mass of patronage, by which large additions were made to the incomes of the bishops? Com- ing from a Ministry, liberalin other respects, he must say, that it appeared to him to be a most defective measure, possessing no good quality that counterbalanced those which were objectionable. On the whole he should feel it his duty to vote with the hon. Member for Middlesex against the third reading of the Bill.

maintained, that the provisions of the Bill were in many respects wholly inconsistent with its principles. The Commission which it proposed to establish would be worse than a revival of the Houses of Convocation: for its powers would be greater. For his own part he perfectly coincided with the monarch who said, that he thought the bishops and the clergy could in no way so effectually serve a state as by praying for it; and he was by no means desirous that they should be invested with temporal authority, and become legislators. He deprecated the ascendancy of the clergy in secular matters. Under the superintendence of the noble Lord at the head of the present Government the exercise of such power might be pure; but it might not be so under future Ministers. To clause 11 he especially objected; for he was desirous that the measure proposed by the Ecclesiastical Commission, before they assumed the character of laws, should be submitted to the consideration of the King in Council, and should afterwards receive the ratification of Parliament. At present there were three estates of the realm, King, Lords, and Commons. The Bill proposed the establishment of a fourth estate, a measure highly objectionable at present, and which might become very injurious in future. By the Bill the average income of a bishop would be rendered seventy-six times as great as the average income of a beneficed clergyman; and the income of the Archbishop of York would be two hundred and seventeen times as much as that of the greater number of his clergy. The complaints of the Dissenters of England and the Catholics of Ireland had at length been, to a certain degree, listened to in that House. With reference to the former, the Registration Bill had been passed. But how had it been treated in another place? Every one of its details had been objected to by the highest authorities in the Establishment. Ireland had asked 50,000l. from the surplus of Church revenue, to dedicate to the purposes of education and religious instruction. That, however, was grudged; while twenty-eight bishops shared among them no less than 150,000l. It did not appear to him to be at all necessary to press the Bill during the present Session. The beneficed clergy were sufficiently provided for, and could not be hurt by delay. A great error had gone abroad to the effect that the division on this Bill was intended to be injurious to the existing Administration. Nothing could be more groundless. Was it possible to suppose that there could be any wish on his side of the House to change an Administration under which the country was going on so prosperously, under which trade flourished, under which agriculture was in so satisfactory a state that the Committee had not been able to discover a sufficient quantity of evils to give them a decent pretence for making a Report? He should vote against the third reading of the Bill. Having done that, he should leave it in the hands of those by whom it had been introduced, and he hoped it would always be in such good hands.

said, that with respect to the constitution of the Board of Commissioners, and the expectations mentioned by the hon. Member as to the possibility of a Laud arising to wield despotic power as head of the Church, and a Stafford as the head of the Government, he thought if the hon. Member looked at the power actually given to these Commissioners by the Bill, he would find that they had really no power independent of Parliament, no power beyond what might be necessary for arranging the practical details of the measures committed to their care, the limits of which were strictly defined by the Bill before them; so that no possible abuse could result from an opportunity of an arbitrary application of the principles it embodied. With respect to these powers, it might be asked, what was the necessity of leaving any thing to the discretion of the Commissioners? This was easily explained. The existing bishoprics were all held under the old distribution of sees, and it would be impossible to interfere with them in any new distribution of duties, revenues, and boundaries, with a due regard to all the interests concerned, without separate references and legislative proceedings—all which would lead to considerable delay and embarrassment, unless such a discretionary power was lodged in the hands of the Commissioners as the Bill specified. For instance, it was proposed to readjust the dioceses of Lincoln, Ely, and Peterborough. Without this power great delay, and indeed injustice, would accrue from separately dealing with each; but by the provisions of the 11th clause the Commissioners would be enabled to consider the wants and claims of each and all immediately, and provide for their rearrangement simultaneously and efficiently. The hon. Member for Leeds had besides what he termed his positive objections to the measure, some negative ones, which required a few words in reply. He had asserted that in this Bill certain measures which the country expected had not been introduced, and certain steps not taken for the better distribution of the church revenues, in which the interest of the bishops appeared to be primarily considered to the exclusion of the working clergy. The objection might have some force in it if the Government were about to add to the income of the Bishops. The Bill however did not add a farthing to their incomes; on the contrary, it went a great way to remedy the existing inequalities, and would nearly, if not entirely, put an end to the practice of translations, as well as the holding of sees in commendam, by way of additional incomes. In future it would be impossible for the bench of Bishops to share among them anything but their actual incomes. He concurred with the hon. Member for Weymouth that a greater amount of Church reform would be both desirable and useful; but it was also still more desirable to proceed with these reforms in agreement with the heads of the Church, who were at present not disposed to go further, but who, he hoped, when they saw how well the proposed reform worked, would be prepared to go further with them, and accede to any useful step in their labours for the provision of the religion they had all so much at heart. Another objection was taken to the apparent inequality which the Bill allowed to continue in the incomes of various bishoprics. This, however, was more nominal than real. Some sees required greater provision than others. If the bishopric of Durham, for instance, were placed on an equality with the bishopric of Chichester there would be a decided injustice done to the former, which was much larger, required greater exertion and, being at a greater distance from London, was a more extensive bishopric; whereas the Bishop of Chichester resided in a diocese so near the metropolis that he was able to come up and attend his Parliamentary duty and go back again to Chichester. Looking to the provisions of the Bill, and the circumstances under which it was proposed and presented to the House, he was at a loss to account for the acrimony that had been displayed by certain hon. Members, but which he hoped had now gone by. The House had full notice and experience of its provisions, and could not complain of being taken by surprise. They had no less than four divisions on its principles and details—1st, when the hon. Member for Ashburton moved, on its introduction, an address to the Crown to put an end to translation, which proposition was negatived by a majority of 124 to 44. Next, in Committee a division took place which showed a majority of 79 for the Bill over 21. On a third division there appeared in its favour 86 to 8; and on the last, which took place on the motion for the amendment of a clause by the hon. Member for Liskeard, there appeared a similar majority of 80 to 44. He therefore felt that Ministers would only be acting consistently in persevering in the support of a Bill already so fully discussed and so thoroughly understood on previous occasions.

said, that the chief point left unsettled by the Bill, although of greatest importance, was that of Church-rates. The Ministers seemed themselves fully to feel, that this was the case; and one of their arguments for the passing of the Bill was, that so much of Church affairs might be settled, and a way prepared, that Church-rates might be taken off, as a continuation of the measures of Reform, if possible. His objection, however, to the passing of this Bill at present was, that there might, thereby, be time allowed for the preparation of a complete measure, and in order that Church-rates might be abolished at the same time that the incomes of the clergy were regulated. Indeed, if Church-rates were abolished in the first instance, he should confess, that afterwards he should not feel any great anxiety respecting the secondary objects provided for in the present Bill; and, if the noble Lord would give his word to abolish Church-rates next Session, his opposition to the present measure would be very considerably diminished. The noble Lord had spoken of the necessity of paying the Church-rates out of the Consolidated Fund, if their present source were relinquished, but the Dissenter of Yorkshire would never consent to that. It would be entailing the burthen in a new, and, perhaps, a more severe shape. He could not believe, that a people who said, that their religion and their Church was the best in the world, would allow that Church to want if left to itself. It was not so in the olden time in England, when an appeal to the charitable feelings of the people was always sure to bring an abundant supply to the wants of the Church and its ministers. He felt convinced, that so long as true religion existed in the land, the Church would never be suffered to want for proper support. There ought not to be any compulsory assessment in the Church of England. It was a disgrace to a Christian Church. Even the Jews of old did not resort to such a system of oppression towards the Gentile populations they ruled over. At the same time, he did not wish to be understood as advocating a separation between Church and State. That was another question; but he thought the Church of England well able to support itself, and the people need not be taxed for that object. Where one thing connected with the Church was obtained by compulsory assessments, a hundred would be obtained by voluntary contributions. In proof of this statement he would instance the case of the erection of a church in the borough for which he was a Member (Salford), where there was only one church, supported by compulsory enactment, and 100 places of public worship supported by voluntary contributions. In Salford, too, a few years ago, a church which cost 10,000l. was erected by voluntary contributions, and it had now a large congregation and a handsome endowment. That proved abundantly that if people were sincere in their belief of any religious doctrine, they would spontaneously come forward and furnish the means of diffusing it.

found it difficult to reconcile the course which had been pursued by certain hon. Gentlemen that evening, with his recollection of what had occurred the last day the Bill was before the House. Either they were in error then, and acted upon over-heated feelings, or they were now pursuing a suspicious course. The Report made to his Majesty by the Church Commissioners was said to offer as large and comprehensive a system of reform as was practicable; and from the grave and protracted consideration which was given to that Report before the present measure was introduced, such might be supposed to have been the case. But certainly the fact was, that the Bill before the House was, as a measure of Church reform, utterly contemptible; and was so considered throughout the country. It would give great peace to his mind, and no doubt would afford much comfort and satisfaction to the country, to hear from any Member of the Cabinet that this was but an infant measure, or that it was the first and feeblest of a series of measures to be introduced for effecting a reform in the Church; but, unfortunately, it was presented to Parliament, and now urged upon the House, as a complete and perfect measure of Church reform. There were three classes of persons in this country who took widely different views of almost all questions relating to the Established Church; and to one of these classes, probably, the present Bill might be perfectly satisfactory, but the other two would regard it with the contempt it deserved. Little attempt, indeed, appeared to be made to defend the Bill upon its own merits; but they were told, "Oh! if you do not take this measure, trifling and insignificant though it be, contemptible and worthless as you may well think it, the present excellent Government will fall to pieces, and then what will happen to us?" This appeared to be almost the sole argument on which the House was asked to give its consent to the measure. But if on any occasion there happened to be a difference of opinion between the Government and some of its usual supporters, they were to be threatened with the retirement of the former; it was impossible to see where such a mode of argument would cease, or on what trifling and insignificant occasions it might be resorted to. It was not his intention to enter into an examination of the details of the Bill, but why, he would ask, as the principle of appropriation had been so stoutly and strongly contended for in the case of the Church in Ireland, why should not the same principle be insisted upon as respected the Church in England? To call this a measure of Church reform is an insult to the understanding of reasonable men, and, if it be carried it, will prove a grievous disappointment to the expectations of the people.

begged, when inconsistency was attributed to the hon. Gentle-men who expressed a strong dissent on Thursday last, but now intimated an intention of not opposing the Government, to appeal to the House and the public, whether, when a large body of men were united in opinion, that a Government should be supported with energy and effect, it was not often necessary, without abandoning any principle of their own, that they should agree not to press their particular opinions upon a particular subject in opposition to the Government with a feeling of bitter and unyielding opposition. But, of all quarters in the world, a charge of inconsistency came with least grace from the hon. Member for Southwark, since it must be in the recollection of every one whom he was addressing, that at a time when all parties in that House seemed disposed to unite to effect the pacification of Ireland, the hon. Member for Southwark was found to be a deserter from his ranks. He trusted that those who now supported the Government were more faithful to their principles, and that when they saw it necessary to surrender a portion of their sentiments for the sake of preserving the stability of the great principles they advocated, they would have the good sense to make the smaller sacrifice, rather than run the risk of one which must necessarily be much greater. He admitted that this Bill did not go to the full extent that he thought a measure of Church reform ought to go to; but, at the same time, he fully appreciated the difficulties by which any Government must be surrounded who sought to improve the ecclesiastical establishments of the country; and he trusted he should at all times be prepared to sacrifice his own individual opinions when he saw that they stood in the way of any advantage that might be conferred on the country. As regarded the question of Church-rates, he might observe that he had always been an advocate for the remission of them as regarded Dissenters; but because he found no clause for the remission of them in that Bill, it did not, therefore, follow that he should reject it altogether; at the same time, he sincerely trusted that early in the next Session of Parliament his Majesty's Government would see the propriety of introducing a measure to relieve the Dissenters from the payment of this most obnoxious burthen.

thought, that the Dissenters had good reason to complain that in the present Session, no steps were taken to relieve them from the burthens imposed on them by the Established Church, and he could not help taking this Bill as a declaration on the part of the Government that they had no intention to relieve the Dissenters from the payment of Church-rates. As an honest and conscientious man, he must refrain from giving his support to this Bill, unless there was a declaration on the part of the Government, that they were prepared to introduce next Session a measure to relieve Dissenters from Church-rates. If such a declaration were made, he would not oppose the third reading of this Bill.

stated, that it was the intention of Government to bring forward a measure next Session for the abolition of Church-rates.

fully agreed in what had fallen from hon. Members, as to the extent of the evil occasioned by the question of Church-rates remaining unsettled, but he could not deny, that the present measure was an improvement upon the present arrangements of the Church Establishment. At the same time, he protested in the name of himself and many of his constituents, against its being considered a measure at all adequate to the evils which existed; and if he was not more anxious upon that account than he really felt, it was simply from reflecting upon the circumstances under which reform of the Church at all had been obtained. The Prelates, he knew, could always have proposed a reform similar to the one they were now considering: Governments could always have instituted similar inquiries into the abuses of the Church; but, interested as both were in the maintenance of those abuses, they never did, nor never would voluntarily have promoted inquiry or reform. His satisfaction, then, was derived from reflecting that public opinion had rendered reform of the Church irresistible, and he could not believe that, if there was public spirit and good feeling sufficient in the country to call for the correction of these abuses, and under the more equal distribution of political power which now existed, the means to compel inquiry, the people would stop short of demanding complete and effective reform. The evils and abuses connected with the Church were well understood, and the people had now to examine the remedies which were proposed for their cure; and, certainly, if the people did trace all the evil to the Bishops having too little—some too little revenue and some too little patronage—why, the measure before the House was the most complete and searching measure that could be proposed to it; but, on the other hand, if people thought that much of the evil sprang from the capricious and irregular distribution of the property of the Church—from the uncertain allotment of reward to merit, or of punishment for neglect—from the great temptations offered to political subserviency—why then he was afraid that this would not be regarded as a measure of that suitable or satisfactory character, which he hoped his Majesty's Ministers would have proposed if they had thought they could have carried it. He knew, that it was impossible to do every thing at once, and certainly nobody would charge this Bill with not giving that theory a fair trial. But the quarrel with this Bill, he thought, was as much in kind as in extent: he believed that the wishes of his constituents and of the public, were entirely misapprehended in considering that the Bishops had too little—that idea, he believed, never crossed their minds—they believed that the real source of the Bishops' influence ought to spring from the excellence of their lives—from a vigilant attention to their duties—from an active superintendence over their clergy—and a constant residence in their sees; and that their power in the country would be far greater, derived from such causes, than from great wealth, great station, and great political influence, which they now heard of, and were told, were so necessary for the maintenance of their credit in the country. If he understood the wishes of those who would reform the Church, it was to see an efficient parochial clergy distributed throughout the country, and adequately rewarded for the performance of duties properly defined; and if this could be obtained by no other means, why they would be glad to see devoted to such a purpose, some of the emoluments of those deaneries, canonries, and prebendaries, and other dignitaries, of which we read so much in the reports; whose duties he could not well understand, and whose importance appeared to him rather to refer to the adornment of cathedrals, than the promotion of religion. People would judge of institutions in these days by their utility, and if experience offers little in defence of those that were examined, while the circumstances of the country exhibited lamentable deficiencies in the accomplishment of their object, extensive reforms would be called for; and in this case, it would be found that the demands of the country were not unreasonable. People justly ask, if the cathedral towns were more moral or more religious than other places, and if it could not be discovered that they were, and if it were observed that the miserable pittance awarded to many of the working clergy would not enable then to perform their duties efficiently, why it was natural in reason that people should require that the revenues of the Church should be distributed and allotted, in a manner more likely to attain the end for which every Establishment existed. He objected to the Report, that no principle was laid down or asserted, on which (after regarding all existing interests) the revenues of the Church were to be applied. Now, when the Church had once recognised the right of the Legislature to deal with Church property, and they once began to distribute it, some rule ought to have been laid down. He wished that more stress had been laid upon placing the clergy than they had now, under circumstances where they could become more efficient. This it was, then, that made him declare, as he expected further reforms, that public opinion would not be satisfied until the Establishment was rendered suitable to the wants of an intelligent and religious community, such as we might boast in this country. In the full expectation, then, that this Bill would not be final, he should be glad to avoid adopting any course which would be likely to disturb that harmony among the liberal party, which had hitherto existed so much to the advantage of the country.

wished to know if the whole episcopal property were to be thrown into one fund and parcelled out amongst the different Bishops?

said, that the mode in which it was proposed to diminish or increase the emolument of any diocese was this:—Taking the Bishopric of Durham as an instance, under the provisions of this Bill, the income of that see was to be fixed at 8,000l.. a year. Supposing it to be ascertained by the Commissioners, that the present income of the see of Durham was 19,000l., the Commissioners would then be required to pay over 11,000l. from the income of that see, towards the increase of other bishoprics which had not the requisite sum.

was satisfied with the answer; he only hoped, that whatever amount was to be transferred from one see to another, would be conveyed in real pro- perty, as he felt that the security to the Church would be very small, if the incomes of its chief dignitaries were made in any degree dependent upon a vote of that House.

said, that his only feeling with respect to the Bill was one of dissatisfaction.

said, that by the Bill it was proposed, that the Commissioners should make arrangements for carrying into execution the intention of the late Bishop of Durham, to augment the small livings of that diocese. The words of the Bill were, that out of the property of the see of Durham, provision should be made for the completion of the augmentation of the poorer benefices which the late Bishop of Durham had agreed to grant. Now, what he wished was, that the name of the Bishop should be introduced into the clause, in order that posterity might know who was the individual to whom the Act referred. He would, therefore, move, that the name of the right rev. William Van Mildert, be inserted in the clause.

assented to the proposition, and suggested, that after the words "Bishop of Durham," the words, "meaning thereby the right rev. Bishop William Van Mildert" be inserted.

wished to state before the Bill was passed, that although he had voted differently from those with whom he was in the habit of acting, yet the reasons for which he had given that vote, were by no means those which had induced hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to vote in the same manner.

had given a very reluctant vote this evening. He had come down to the House with the intention of voting in favour of the Bill; but after hearing the declaration made by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), that it was his intention to postpone any measure of relief during the present session with regard to Church-rates; and further, that when any measure on that subject should be brought forward, he (Lord John Russell) did not expect it would be satisfactory, he (Mr. Tooke) was at once determined upon the expediency of doing what he could towards postponing any measure of Church relief, in order that, at all events, the two measures of relief might go on, pari passu, and that all prospect of redress with respect to the Church-rates might not be cut off, by hermetically sealing up the revenues of the Church.

had voted against the Bill, but he wished to say, it was not from the same motives as the hon. Member for Middlesex and his supporters.

wished to ask the noble Lord whether it was intended that the incomes of the Bishops should be limited to the sums now set down for them? Doubt had been expressed upon this point, and he wished that a proviso should be introduced, to the end that the incomes of the Bishops should not in any case exceed the sums stated in the Bill. If, for instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury derived 17,000l. a year, he would by this Bill have to pay back 2,000l. But if, in the course of years, the 15,000l. should be increased to 20,000l. or 25,000l. a year, it did not appear that he would not be entitled to retain the whole of it.

said, that perhaps the best answer he could give to his hon. Friend was, by stating the contents of a letter which he had received from the Bishop of London upon the subject. The letter states, that in truth the Bishop of London, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, received only one-third of the ground-rents of the estate to which allusion had been made on a former night; and that the leases now existing would not fall in, in less than fifty or sixty years. But that whatever the addition might be, it would not go to the Bishop, because the Bill provided, that the Commissioners should make new returns, and should from time to time make fresh arrangements, so that the amount fixed by the Bill should not be exceeded. This was the impression on the mind of the Bishop of London, and was also the impression on his own mind.

It might be the noble Lord's impression, but the Bill did not fix the amount permanently.

opposed the Bill, as unprecedented and unprincipled; one of the law-advisers of the Crown (the Solicitor-General) had declared his opposition to the Bill, and he contended that it was most unjust, when affidavits containing important allegations in the matter had not yet been printed, for the House to go on with such a Bill, when information was thus withheld. He should move an amendment, That further proceedings in this Bill be postponed, in order to give time for the printing of affidavits referred to by the Committee as justifying their Report.

denied, that he ever promised to furnish the affidavits. There was no occasion for them. They were taken by the Committee only as prima facie evidence, and to show the manner in which the parties voted. To save the expense of bringing up eighty-eight witnesses the Committee took the affidavits at last, as they did at first, merely as prima facie evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have forgotten what happened since this subject was last before the House, namely—that the question was decided before a court of law, the judge having told the jury, after a short charge, that the case of the defendants had not a leg to stand upon. A verdict was given for the Crown in both cases. The whole question in fact to be determined was, whether eighty-eight was more or less than seventy-two. He was surprised the hon. and learned Gentleman should have put a notice upon the books, or stood upon his legs to defend such a case.

said, a printed paper had been put into his hands which represented what took place in Court in a manner very different to what was stated by the hon. Member for Shaftesbury.

said, the hon. Member for Shaftesbury, had called the attention of the House to the trials which had taken place at the Dorchester Assizes: and though, in reference to his (Mr. Praed's) former amendment, perhaps the hon. Member was not quite in order in so doing, with respect to the motion which he (Mr. Praed) was now about to make, he conceived he was fully justified in adverting to those trials, and in founding his argument upon what there took place. He would shortly draw the attention of the House to the facts of the case. Informations were laid to try the right of two persons to sit and vote in the town-council of Poole; let it be remembered, that of the two wards into which the town of Poole was divided, each of them electing nine councillors, in the north ward, not one of these elections had as yet been disputed, either before the Committee or in Court at Dorchester; and of the nine elections for the south ward only two had been disputed at the late trial. It was true that in those two cases verdicts had been found for the prosecution, but several points of law had been taken by the defendant. Even admitting, however, that these points were finally resolved in favour of the prosecution, what then? The case stood thus:—In the north ward, the whole of the nine elections were admitted to be good—unimpeached before the Committee—undisputed at the trial—not disputed even by the hon. Member for Shaftesbury himself. In the south ward, out of nine elections, seven were admitted to be good—allowed to be so by all parties. And what did this Bill do? It was a Bill to set aside the elections for the sixteen councillors of the Borough of Poole! He (Mr. Praed) could see neither reason nor justice in such a measure, and he should feel it his duty to move, that it be an instruction to the Committee to leave undisturbed the elections of any persons which had not been impugned by legal proceedings. He only asked the House not to commit the gross injustice of ejecting persons from their offices, against whom there had not been made even an allegation of undue election.

said, that the instruction moved by the hon. Member was not consonant with Parliamentary proceeding, or with the orders of that House. He objected to the course which the hon. and learned Member had adopted in his opposition to this Bill, for he conceived, by his own admission, that opposition was not upon a question of principle, but a question of time. The hon. Member wished, for the sake of obtaining time, to obstruct the House going into Committee upon the Bill, and as they had now got so far into the Session as July, the hon. and learned Member speculated upon worrying the House into compliance. Let him go into the Committee, and he would prove to that hon. and learned member, that every provision of the Bill was consistent and just with its object and preamble. He insisted that this course was an unfair mode of opposing a Bill. If generally adopted it would give to every Member an opportunity of moving motions, by way of instruction, upon almost all the points which must necessarily be discussed in the Committee, and thus unnecessarily absorb the time of the House.

could not refrain from making the remark, that the heat and warmth which had been displayed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, justified the old adage, that "always the warmest in argument was most in the wrong." His hon. and learned Friend had been justified in the course he had taken, for a stage had been gained by the promoters of this Bill during the absence of his hon. and learned Friend. This case was one which overset all precedent, and he hoped would never be followed hereafter by any other hon. Member, as a precedent for a similar act of injustice. His hon. and learned Friend need no other apology for his stern opposition to this Bill than the avowal of the Solicitor-General in his place, that the enactment was fraught with gross injustice.

It is my opinion that instructions are not necessary, nor indeed consistent with the practice of the House, unless when they are required to enable the Committee to do something, which without an instruction they would not have the power of doing. And the question here is, whether or not supposing the House to go into Committee, the object of the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth could be attained by an alteration in the Bill in Committee, without this instruction.

said, he had often heard of instructions being moved when the subject matter of those instructions was considered of such importance as to deserve the separate consideration of the House before going into Committee, even though the Committee might be fully competent to make the proposed alteration without the instruction, If it were the opinion of the Chair, that his object could be attained in Committee he would not press the instruction.

Upon that I give no opinion; I only gave a definition of what I considered to be the object of an instruction.

Then, Sir, I must divide the House.

said, that he had been charged by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with consuming the time of the House for the purpose of delay. He should, however, not be deterred by sneer, or taunt, or imputation, or by clamour, from pursuing the course which he thought it right to take. He now wished to move, as a proviso to be added to this clause, words to the effect, that supposing no final proceedings be had in any court of law setting aside the election by the end of twelve calendar months, all bonds and agreements entered into by the Corporation during the time they should have exercised bona fide the powers of a Corporation should be good and valid to all intents and purposes. He would not argue the question—it spoke for itself.

would, in a few words, detail to the House the course which the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth had taken upon this Bill; and he would leave the public to form their own judgment upon it. The hon. and learned Member said he only wished for fair play. That was all that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) desired. But what was the hon. and learned Member's definition of "fair play." First of all, he interposed an obstacle to the progress of the Bill upon the ground that certain affidavits were wanting. Why, if those affidavits were really necessary, had not the hon. and learned Member moved for their production within the last few months. Next, when defeated in his first attempt, the hon. and learned Gentleman moved his instruction obviously for the purpose of delay, and only with that object; for the instruction was quite unnecessary to the attainment of his end. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought he was justified in the observations he had before made upon the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he repeated that the two divisions which had been already taken, and that which was about to be called for, were only for the purposes of delay. He was willing to leave the public to decide between the hon. and learned Gentleman and himself; and he would only put it to the House, and even to the hon. Gentleman himself, whether the kind of opposition which he had offered to the Bill, the getting up of unnecessary debates, the moving unnecessary amendments, the calling for repeated divisions, with continually decreasing minorities, and deserted by all those who would have given character to his proceedings [loud cries of "Hear."] He would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the House, and the public, whether that was a fair and open course of dealing with any legislative measure whatever.

rose only to remark, that it was not fair, nor indeed, in his opinion, orderly, for the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advert to the absence of certain hon. Members on his (Sir Robert Inglis's) side of the House, and draw from that circumstance inferences unfavourable to the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth. Neither was it fair of the right hon. Gentleman, after the disclaimer of his hon. Friend, the Member for Yarmouth, to impute to him unworthy motives in the course which he had thought proper to pursue on this Bill.

said, the second clause depended upon the first, and after having agreed to the first, it was unfair for his hon. and learned Friend to oppose the second. He only wished to observe, that though he did not intend to offer any offence to his hon. and learned Friend, he must say, he did consider the opposition which had been given to this Bill as most unfair.

In answer to what had been objected by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Shaftesbury, begged to say, that the only reason why he had not opposed the first clause was, that having already, before going into Committee, stated his objections to the principle of the Bill, and the first clause involving that principle, he did not wish to trouble the House by again stating objections which had been virtually decided. As to what the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, he begged to ask, whether it was not for the promoters of the Bill to produce the affidavits on which their Bill professed to be founded. They were, in this instance, acting the part of prosecutors, and surely it was for them to prove their own case, not for the defendants. Besides, though the evidence had been printed by order of the House, these affidavits were wanting. As to the imputation of delay, whose fault was it that the House was counted out on Friday? He (Mr. Praed) would also say, that if every amendment which was moved by a minority was to be stigmatised as intended to create delay, there was an end to freedom of discussion, and a rule would be laid down which the right hon. Gentleman, when he was a member of a minority, would have been slow to submit to. He should certainly press his motion, for he considered the Bill as most unconstitutional in its nature, and was so termed by the first law adviser of the Crown.

Without entering into the question before the House (which has already been sufficiently argued), I only wish to say, in reply to one remark which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth, that it was not the fault of the Government that the House was recently counted out; that it was my expectation and my wish that a House should have been made, and that I was as much disappointed as any body could have been, that the House was counted out. And I beg to ask the hon. and learned Member who has this night so loudly complained of unfounded imputations, upon what ground it is that he has presumed to make this charge against the Government.

denied that he had ever thought that the question was one which ought to be decided only by a court of law. He had only concurred in the ap- pointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the facts. But when his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Shaftesbury, moved the second reading of this Bill, two persons being then about to be tried before a court of law, he gave it as his opinion, that the House ought to wait till the result of that trial was known. But since that time, the very circumstance which he regarded as an insuperable obstacle to the progress of the Bill had been removed. The trial had taken place, and the facts disclosed on the trial, were the same in effect as those which were brought out before the Committee. He cared nothing about the motion for a new trial. It was not pretended that the facts were not proved. The only question was, had frauds been committed at the Poole election, and when he found that the trial by the country brought out some facts which were proved before the Committee, he adopted those facts. It was very true that only two persons were prosecuted, but the evidence showed that the greatest frauds had been practised during the election, even in the ward which the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth contended was quite pure.

did not rise to oppose this clause, but he objected to any further progress being made with the Bill to-night. The definitions in the Schedules made this Act, which pretended to liberalise the press, worse than any existing law on the subject. If this Bill passed into a law, no remarks or observations on political events in any publication could be made, without subjecting the parties concerned in such publication to heavy penalties. He entreated, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman to let this Bill stand over till to-morrow; or he should oppose the motion.

could not understand how the hon. Member for Finsbury could support the statement which he had just made, that this Bill would, if it passed, render the newspaper law worse than it was at present. Under the existing Jaw, any remarks or observations made on any matters relating to the Church or State, brought the publication in which they appeared within the definition of a newspaper. Now, he had left out those words, and he could not see that this omission made this Act worse than the existing law. It was for the hon. Member to prove that it did, if he meant to justify the opposition he was offering to the Bill, the passing of which, he would observe, it was very important should take place as soon as possible.

said, that undoubtedly the Bill before the House was a considerable improvement in the existing law; but what he complained of was, that the word "newspaper" was defined to extend to any publication containing any public news, intelligence or occurrences, or any remark or observation thereon. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had excluded the words "relating to Church or State," but he had, in common with other hon. Members, certainly misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion when this question was discussed. He did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman intended to fix such limits.

thought, that if they allowed remarks on passing events, it would be hard to say how they could put remarks into a shape that would not be an account of what had taken place, and therefore, unless these words were retained, it would be impossible to have any definition at all.

had thought it his duty, having some practical knowledge on the subject, to offer his opinion on this measure on its first introduction to the House; but he forbore afterwards to press his opinions, as so many Gentlemen seemed to consider themselves more competent, and better informed on the subject than himself. In this last stage, however, he could not help giving a final glance at the Bill. He thought that the chief motive which had been assigned for so large a reduction of the duty, namely, that there was a class of people who would not pay any duty, a weak and un states man like one. He thought, also, the proposed restriction on the size of so singular a nature, that there must have been some other motive than that which was professed; for the only argument adduced in favour of imposing a double duty on the enlarged sheet was, that there was a kind of double postage; whereas but few, comparatively, of the morning newspapers were sent by the post; and how, consistently with common sense, could a postage be imposed upon those papers which never saw the post? However, considerable concessions had since been made on this head, which did but more clearly prove that there was no necessity for any enactment on that part, of the question. But other gentlemen besides the Government had considered themselves qualified to improve our laws affecting the liberty of the press. One point he supposed might be taken as settled, which was, that every newspaper was to have its separate die. That, of course, would be advantageous to the higher newspapers; it would serve to blazon their superiority: but why did they do this? Let the newspapers do it themselves if they chose; but why should the Government attempt to damp and paralyse the efforts of humbler candidates for public patronage? They might depend upon it, that this disingenuous invention—for it was only such—would disappoint the expectations of those who had planned it. What greater right had they to ascertain and make public the number of customers that a newspaper possessed, than the number of customers that a banker or trader possessed? Another Gentleman wanted to ascertain the number which each paper printed, in order that he might know in which he should advertise. A truly important subject to be sure, to employ the whole force of Government! Would it not be as rational, if he called upon the Government to ascertain the custom of every tailor in London, in order that he might know where he should be best able to procure a coat that would best exhibit the graces of his person? A third Gentleman went further still, for he asserted the journals to be public property, and therefore that the public had a right to know all about them. But though last, not least, came forward a Gentleman who, professing to know a great deal more, really knew a great deal less, than any of the omniscients to whom he had alluded; and this Gentleman proposed to register all the proprietors. He (Mr. Walter) should have thought this the suggestion of some attorney, in order that, if there were forty proprietors, he might be able to bring his forty actions. Now the Tory legislators, as they had been called, Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh, for example, were thought to act with severity enough towards the press, but all their acts and doctrines were liberality itself when compared with those of the liberal Gentlemen of that House. They would have an inquisition. If they wanted to get at every body that could by possibility contribute towards slandering their fair fame, why had they not proposed a registration of the paper-makers, and the type-founders, and the ink-makers? for without the aid of all these, what they might be pleased to call a libel could not be published. If they wished to keep the press respectable, let them not interfere with its internal regulations at all. The liberty of the press had been fancifully called "the air we breathe;" it was the original object of this measure, he had no doubt, to have inflicted on it a terrible asthma. With these clauses, it might perhaps pant and wheeze through another session or two of that liberal Parliament, which had given it its death-blow, but that would be all. And then, what would be obtained by this ridiculous gimcrackery of the dies? Why, he would tell them what: the Gentlemen on the Treasury benches would learn for certain, what some of them would not like to know—that the greatest journals were the greatest journals still; and that the principles which they advocate, must, therefore, be the most prevalent in the country which patronised them. He had looked over the debates of the last period, when the rights of the press came under discussion, and he would conclude with reading a passage from a speech of Sir J. Mackintosh, as confirmatory of his opinion;—"A high sense of honour, a strong feeling of personal independence, and a reliance on an un impeached and unimpeachable character, were the best securities which could be taken from the editor or the proprietor of a newspaper. If these were once broken down by any restriction of the Legislature, the public journals would be thrown into the hands of men, either of desperate poverty, or of des-p rate fanaticism, or of desperate ambition, who would willingly brave all the penal statutes which could be enacted against them."

observed, it had been represented to him, how truly he could not say, that by the alteration in the original arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the most valuable morning news papers published in the metropolis would be excluded from the benefits of the Act, as it would not come within the maximum fixed by the right hon. Gentleman. The paper, to which he alluded, was the Morning Chronicle

said, the learned Doctor was quite mistaken, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had taken the largest size newspaper as his maximum, and the only alteration that had been made in regard to the size of the newspaper was, that he had allowed the admeasurement to be taken from the printing contained in the paper, in place of its being taken from the size of the paper itself, which was subject to great variation.

was apprehensive, that by the words to which his hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) had alluded, many useful publications containing "remarks and observations" upon public occurrences would be rendered liable to duty, and thereby effectually stopped. He meant such publications as the "Companion to the Newspaper" for instance—one of the most valuable and useful that was published; he considered that such publications were calculated to improve and enlighten the people, and that they ought rather to be encouraged than put down.

assured the hon. Member that such publications would not be rendered liable to duty by this Bill.

said, he should not object to the bringing up of this clause, but when the question was put that the Bill do pass, he should either move the adjournment of the House, or take some other means to obtain a postponement of the Bill.

proposed a formal amendment on Clause 10.

said, that instead of the Bill being that which it was professed to be, a strictly financial measure, it was of the most oppressive kind. He particularly alluded to the provisions of Clause 10, to which he begged to call the attention of the House. It had been only proposed by Mr. Pitt, that two proprietors of a newspaper should be registered, but by this clause the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, provided that all the proprietors, even though they amounted in number to 100, should be registered, and not only registered, but that each newspaper should make a return of its proprietors every half year. The clause had been introduced after 12 o'clock at night, and nobody knew any thing about it until last Saturday. It was a most oppressive clause, and though it might pass this House, he sincerely trusted it would never pass the other House of Parliament. He should move the entire omission of the clause from the Bill.

said, that although he had seen the observations with which the hon. Member for Berkshire had just concluded in print this morning, as he had often seen them before, yet he must say, that the hon. Member's address to the Commons of England, that a measure which might pass their House would not be likely to pass elsewhere, was neither Parliamentary nor consonant (whatever might be the practice out-of-doors) with the usage and practice within the walls of Parliament. The supposition that a Money Bill, in relief of the subject and for the repeal of taxation, was not likely to pass elsewhere, was a new doctrine, which with all the experience the hon. Gentleman opposite might have of the particular subject-matter under discussion, or of the law itself, he would find it difficult to reconcile to Parliamentary practice. But with respect to this clause and another, he begged to say that they had not been introduced or brought forward by him. On the contrary, he had stated from the first, that he would not introduce into the Bill any clause that was not a revenue clause, and therefore when this clause, and that which established a distinctive die, was proposed, he had said, that whether they might be right or wrong, he did not want either of them for the protection of his Majesty's revenue. The hon. Gentleman was in error when he stated that the House had been taken by surprise with regard to those clauses. The hon. Gentleman forgot that they were discussed two days in Committee, and the propriety of their introduction into the Bill fully agitated, and on that discussion, so far from any difference of opinion arising upon them, there was not a single Member who took a share in the discussion, that did not express himself as being favourable to the introduction of this clause. And on what ground did they so express themselves? Why, they said they felt that there ought to be a responsibility in the conduct of newspapers, and that those who took on themselves the privilege or duty of giving that species of information which a newspaper usually contained, had no right to abstain from giving their names, or to hide and cloak themselves from responsibility. On this ground the clause had been proposed and introduced into the Bill, and not with a view of either protecting the revenue, or of curbing the liberty of the press. Those Gentlemen who spoke their opinions through the medium of the press, ought not to object to make themselves known to the public, because on the principle of the constitution itself, when power was given, it ought to be accompanied by responsibility, more or less, for the exercise of that power. It was stated, and stated justly, by those who had proposed this clause, that at a time when propositions were made for establishing newspapers by joint-stock companies, it was important that some responsibility should be affixed to the machine, whether put in motion by Whigs, Tories, or Radicals. Such was the object of the clause—a clause which could not detract from the character of a paper by requiring the name of the commentators on the events of the day to be given to the public; and he must add, that if ever there was a clause not of the creation of the Minister, not asked for by him, but which the House had taken upon itself, after discussion, deliberation, and without division, that clause was the present.

observed, that when the clause was introduced last Tuesday night, it was at the late hour he had stated. Nobody had expected that the Bill would have been proceeded with on that night, and the clause having been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he held him responsible for it.

protested against the Bill, and complained that he had not been fairly dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inasmuch as he had promised to repeal all the objectionable provisions of the existing laws, especially the 16th and 55th George 3rd, and yet this Bill was silent in this respect. He should oppose the motion that the Bill do pass, by all the means the practice of Parliament would allow him.

had throughout this matter endeavoured to meet the question fairly, and he owned it was matter of surprise to him, that after the discussions which had taken place, any new objection should be started. It was now too late to move any modification or alteration, and all that the hon. Member could do would either be to adopt or reject the Bill. He was desirous to send the Bill elsewhere, notwithstanding the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Berkshire, and pressed as he had been to proceed with this Bill by persons out of doors, he should on every ground adhere to his motion that the Bill do now pass.

was determined to take the sense of the House upon that motion.

wished to know whether Spanish newspapers coming through France would reach this country post free?

was understood to say, that they would not. We could not expect that France should bear the charge of the transit of the papers of other countries to this.

begged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the practice of sending papers through the post with crosses or lines to mark particular passages. That was a very different thing from marking out particular letters so as to make sentences, and thus carry on a correspondence. It was well known that many persons sent newspapers for the purpose of calling the attention of those to whom they were sent to particular passages in them. That was frequently done when newspapers were sent to Members of Parliament, but the papers thus marked were often charged a very high postage. Now, he would suggest that a proviso should be inserted in the Bill to the effect, that any line or cross to mark particular paragraphs should not be included as writing, and thus rendering the paper liable to postage.

thought it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Post-office, which he was sure would not charge that as writing, which was a mere mark to call the attention of the party to a particular passage. If the making of such mark were legalised, it would open a door to many frauds on the Post-office.

had received many newspapers so marked, and had never been charged postage for them.