presented a Petition from Mr. Johnstone, who had filled the office of engineer at the Holyhead Post-office station, and who had been dismissed from it by the Post-office authorities. The petitioner prayed for a proper inquiry into his case, and complained that he had been dismissed without due investigation. The noble Lord said, that the petitioner had been dismissed on the representation of the agent on the station, Captain Goddard, who was himself convicted by the Sub-commissioners of Post-office Inquiry of irregularity and neglect, and who was himself afterwards dismissed from his situation. He certainly thought, that before the petitioner was convicted of fraud and dismissed from his situation, his case should have been submitted to a more competent tribunal than that of the agent. At this late period of the Session, he (Lord Sandon) could not follow up the prayer of the petitioner by moving for an inquiry.

defended the course pursued towards the petitioner, who had no just grounds of complaint. The Report, which had been laid on the table from the Post-office Commission, disclosed an organised system of plunder, which required the most exemplary punishment of the offending parties. When the Sub-commissioners commenced their investigation at Holyhead, they required the attendance of Mr. Johnstone, who filled the office of resident engineer, and who had a large quantity of public stores in his charge. After his first examination, other individuals were called, whose statements were so completely at variance with his, that they had him recalled, with a view to enable him to explain and to reconcile some discrepancies in his accounts, instead of which Mr. Johnstone thought proper to refuse giving any information on these points, and they, therefore, felt it their duty to report. that circumstance to the Commissioners in London, and Mr. Johnstone was ordered to be suspended. In the meantime the examination proceeded, and the Sub-commissioners found such a ground of malversation against Mr. Johnstone and the Storekeeper-general, that they deemed it advisable to have an Admiralty agent sent down, and he came to the conclusion, that there was fraud in the conduct of Johnstone, and he was again called on to explain and reconcile the differences, which not being able to do, he was dismissed altogether from the public service. Although the Post-office agreed in the proceedings of the Sub-commissioners, yet so anxious were they to do that which was right, that they directed two gentlemen to look into the whole matter, and to ascertain whether these things could be the result of negligence or fraud; and, after the most searching inquiry, they came to the conclusion, that there was both fraud and negligence in the conduct of the petitioner. He did not see, after these several investigations, how that House could entertain the subject. There was no reason whatever to doubt the Report of the Sub-commissioners. If it could be ascertained that there was any doubt of the culpability of the individual, he would have had the benefit of it. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Labouchere) thought, it would be injudicious of the House to interfere with any department in the dismissal and punishment of an officer found offending.

thought, that the case had never been properly investigated.

wished to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, respecting a matter that had excited considerable interest in Switzerland as well as upon the continent generally. He alluded to the attempt which had been made to coerce the Government of Switzerland to violate the Laws of hospitality, and to drive from its territory those who had taken refuge there. The French ambassador had presented a note to the Confederation at Berne, requiring them to dismiss from their territory certain persons who had hitherto received protection there; and it was stated in the public papers, that our ambassador at Berne had joined in that requisition. He confidently trusted, that the name of England had not been employed in this transaction. He could not, for his part, believe that England was concerned in this attempt to expel unfortunate political exiles from Switzerland; and he wished, therefore, to know from the noble Lord, how far the English Government had sanctioned the introduction of the name of England in this matter?

, in answer to the question of his hon. Friend, had no hesitation in saying, that the English Government had not been consulted as to the note or notes which had been referred to the Swiss Confederation, and that, in point of fact, neither the English Government nor the English Minister in Switzerland had been any party to such application. That being a matter of fact, he thought it right to state it. At the same time, he should not perform his duty if he contented himself with simply giving such an answer, because inferences might be drawn from it one way or the other inconsistent with the real opinions of the Government. In the first place he would observe, that it was undoubtedly true, that every independent nation had an indisputable right to afford protection and the rights of hospitality to any foreigners who might take refuge there; but it was also a duty of every country to maintain the relations of good neighbourhood with the bordering states, and it was the interest of every power that exercised the right of hospitality to take care, that the persons enjoying it did not use it for the purpose of forming and executing conspiracies to disturb the tranquillity of neighbouring states. His hon. Friend had said, that he believed some of the refugees in Switzerland had availed themselves of their situation there to form conspiracies against the Duchy of Parma. He knew that the French Government conceived no grounds with which he was not acquainted, but which he gave that Government credit for supposing to be well founded, that there were in Switzerland a number of persons who had connected themselves in a conspiracy for the purpose of overturning the French Government and disturbing the tranquillity of France. It was acting on that conviction that the French Government applied to the Swiss Confederation to have certain persons expelled from its territory. If he should presume to give advice to the Swiss Government in such a case, it would be that the course under such circumstances conformably with the good understanding that ought to prevail betwixt neighbouring States, was, that any persons who were really guilty of such practices should be requested to leave a country the shelter of which they had so abused. It was not to be supposed that the French Government had acted lightly in this instance, or without sufficient grounds, especially when it was considered that, up to the present time, the French Government had pursued a very different line towards the Swiss Confederation, and had endeavoured to dissuade other Governments from pressing the Government of Switzerland for the removal of foreign refugees from its territory He supposed, therefore, that it was upon good grounds that the demand of the French Government had been made. As far as the policy of the English Government was concerned, he felt fully the importance of maintaining the independence of Switzerland. Any advice therefore which should be given to it by the English Government would be given as a friendly power, and always bearing in mind that it was of the greatest importance to the European policy of England to maintain and uphold the independence of the Swiss Confederation.

wished to know whether he understood the noble Lord to intimate that such advice had been given by His Majesty's Ministers. He understood the noble Lord to slate distinctly, that the English Government had not joined with the Government of France in the request made to the Confederation. He hoped that, the policy of the British Government would never be founded upon that of the French government, which was at present outraging all the principles of law and justice, and trampling under foot the rights of its subjects.

begged to state, in reply, that the English Government had taken no official step whatever on the subject, that no similar note had been presented by the English Minister to the Confederation, that he had no instructions to take such a step, and that in point of fact, he could not have taken it. With regard to the private advice that might have been given, he (Lord Palmerston) had indicated the tendency of it.

said, that the Swiss Government had in confidence stated to the refugees, especially the Italian refugees, that it was obliged to expel them from its territory. Now, against them there had been no accusation, and the Act was manifestly unjust.

rose to call the attention of the House to the case of Lieutenant Hill of the navy, who was superseded from his command of the Alban steamer without any inquiry as to the charge on which his removal was grounded. The hon. and gallant Officer here detailed the circumstances of the case, which were substantially to this effect:—Lieutenant Hill, who was in command of the Alban at Malta, was ordered to proceed to England in that vessel with dispatches. While getting his steam up, the flag-lieutenant on the station came alongside, and told lieutenant Hill to make all haste in getting his vessel out, as he was already an hour behind his time. Soon after this, the private secretary to the Admiral on the station (Sir Josias Rowley) came alongside and told Lieutenant Hill that he must wait to take on board a passenger from the Lazaretto. The passenger came alongside, but a further delay was required in order to wait for his baggage from the Lazaretto; but Lieutenant Hill refused to wait, considering, that having previously received an order from the flag-lieutenant to get out of harbour with all speed, he was not bound to obey the order of a civilian. He then made a signal to the flag-ship to know whether he should part company, to which an answer was returned, that he should proceed forthwith. He sailed; but soon after he got out of the harbour he saw a signal at the Port-head ordering his return. That signal he instantly obeyed, and on his return one of the senior captains came on board; stating that he (Lieutenant Hill) was superseded by order of the Admiral. A report was afterwards made to the Admiral, to the effect that Lieutenant Hill was labouring under some delusion. He was then sent to the Lazaretto, but after some days the Admiral sent a letter recalling the order for superseding him, and requesting that that order might be transmitted back to him. Lieutenant Hill was afterwards allowed to proceed to England, and placed upon half-pay. He demanded a court-martial, but was told he might go back to Malta and have a court-martial, but that he declined, as he could not possibly have there the witnesses which were necessary for his defence. A Court of Inquiry was held in February last at Sheerness, and that Court reported to the Admiralty, but Lieutenant Hill had not been allowed to know the charges against him, or the evidence on which they were grounded. Now, he contended, that Lieutenant Hill was perfectly justified in refusing to obey the order of a civilian, after he had received that of the flag-lieutenant, and that he was most unjustly superseded from his command. No man could produce higher certificates of good conduct than he had been able to show. He had produced those certificates from six Admirals, fourteen Post-captains, and several others under whom he had served, who all bore the highest testimony to his conduct as an officer. Notwithstanding these, the Admiralty placed him on half-pay, declaring that they thought his conduct reprehensible. That, however, he (Captain Boldero) contended, was no just ground for dismissing an officer from his command. He ought to have been brought to a court-martial on the spot. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a copy of the charge (if any) and minutes of evidence of a Court of Inquiry held at Sheerness in February last touching the conduct of Lieutenant Hill, R.N. late in the command of his Majesty's steam-vessel Alban, in the Mediterranean, superseded without inquiry.

seconded the motion, and said, that Lieutenant Hill was one of his constituents, and he believed that a more honourable man, or a more excellent officer, did not exist. He considered that he had been treated most unjustly, and the charge of disobedience had been aggravated by the imputation that he was labouring under a derangement of intellect.

said, it was not his intention to go into the whole of the details. Lieutenant Hill had been superseded for disobedience of orders. He had received an order from the Admiral to wait for a passenger, who was in the Lazaretto, and he disobeyed that order. Two Captains, who had been directed to inquire into the circumstances of the case, reported that it was so extraordinary, that they could account for it only by supposing that he was labouring under temporary derangement. On this report the Admiral on the station superseded him. It was admitted afterwards by some of his own friends who saw him at the Admiralty, that he was labouring under a delusion. The Admiralty, after hearing what had been stated by the Admiral on the station, and the evidence taken before the Court of inquiry, were of opinion that Sir Josias Rowley was perfectly justified in the course he adopted.

contended, that Lieutenant Hill had been very hardly used, and that there was no good ground for superseding him.

had been acquainted with Lieutenant Hill for nine years, and adverted to the admission which he considered had been made, that the treatment of Lieutenant Hill was contrary to the usual rules of the service. If he had disregarded any order it was one which he was not bound to obey; and if the Admiral had had any reason to complain of Lieutenant Hill, he ought to have brought him to a Court-martial. It was absurd to contend that he was mad, when he was allowed to take his sword and pistols with him when he was sent to the Lazaretto. Although it was true that he had been allowed his half-pay, like the other officers of the Navy, it could not be disputed for a moment that he stood unjustly disgraced in the eyes of the whole service, by the determination of the Board of Admiralty.

would not enter into the merits of this case, but he must say, that it was not one into which the House of Commons could well enter. Cases like the present belonged more to the jurisdiction of the commanding officer on the station, or to the Admiralty; but it appeared to him that the House of Commons was a very incompetent tribunal to decide upon it, and it was only a waste of the time of the House to bring on such questions on an order of the day.

said, that Lieutenant Hill had been treated with great kindness in the whole of this affair. He had disobeyed an order of the Admiral, for which disobedience he might have been dismissed the service, but he was allowed to go on half-pay.

contended, that the time of the House ought not to be occupied with matters like the present, which came more properly within the jurisdiction of other tribunals.

said, that the worst construction which could be put upon the conduct of Lieutenant Hill was, that he had disobeyed an unlawful order. He was not bound to take an order from a civilia in contravention of the order given to him by the flag-lieutenant, his superior officer. He would not divide the House on the motion. He was willing to leave the matter to the consideration of the proper department.

said, the time had arrived when it became his duty to state to the House the course which it was his intention to recommend, with reference to the amendments under consideration. The Bill for amending the Municipal Corporations Act, had been brought in by his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General. It was a measure of very great importance. After having undergone much discussion in that House, it was sent to the House of Lords, where it received several amendments, to the nature of which he was about to call the attention of the House. There were two or three of those amendments—two especially—the principle of which he could by no means agree to. One was with reference to the manner in which the chairman was to be chosen, to preside at the election of the mayor and council of a Corporation when there was an equality of votes; the other was with reference to the administration of charitable trusts. It was with respect to those two amendments particularly, that he was desirous to call the attention of the House to the situation in which the House of Lords had placed them by the course which that House had thought proper to adopt. With regard to the first of those amendments, although he certainly considered the mode of choosing a chairman to preside at the election of a mayor and alderman, when there was an equality of votes, very unadvisable, being such a one as might lead to a representation of the borough for a time, which would by no means be a fair representation of it, yet, if that had been all the difference which existed between the two Houses, with reference to the measure under consideration, he might not have thought it necessary to press his view of the subject. At the same time he must say, that the provision which, had been introduced into the Bill by the House of Lords, that, in the event of such an equality as that to which he had alluded, recourse was to be had, not to the opinion of the burgesses at large, or any popular body, but to that of an individual to be selected by lot, was a violation of respect to the principle of popular election, on which the Municipal Act itself was founded. Still, he repeated, that if that amendment had stood alone he might perhaps have consented to concede it. But with regard to the second amendment to which he had adverted, the amendment in the manner of appointing charitable trustees, he hoped that he should have the general concurrence of the House in his motion for rejecting it. He entertained this expectation the more confidently, because, although, when the Bill was originally introduced into that House, many of its provisions were severely criticised by hon. Members on the other side, and great fault was found with some of them, it was generally allowed on all sides, that nothing could be more desirable than to put an end to the abuses which resulted from the manner in which the old trustees discharged their functions. When he stated, in the course of those debates, that an amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, would have the effect of replacing those trustees in their offices, the answer by the other side of the House was—"It is not intended to have any such effect; for we are as anxious as you can be to put an end to the existence of a power which has been so much abused in its exercise." He trusted, therefore, that there would be in that House a general concurrence in the opinion, that it was inexpedient that the power so vested, and which had been so abused, should be continued for another year. Was it possible to doubt the expediency of at once terminating such a power? Besides the general knowledge which every man must possess on the subject, were there not various reports on the table of the House, in which it was distinctly stated, that in many places it had been the custom of trustees of charitable funds to pay away those funds to individuals of one political party, to the exclusion of all others. He was sorry to be compelled to adopt the course which he was taking; but he felt that the House would be countenancing the abuses in question, if they agreed to an amendment which continued them for another year. The evil had been so universally admitted, even by those who entirely differed from his Majesty's present Government on general politics, that he was at a Joss to conceive by what argument the expediency of its continuance could be supported. The only cause which he had heard assigned for that continuance was, the expectation that a noble and learned Lord, who had been prevented by indisposition from attending in his place in Parliament during the present Session, might probably in another year be prepared with the general measure on the subject which he had last year given notice it was his intention to produce. No man could regret move than he did the circumstances which had, during the present Session, deprived the country of the exercise of the noble and learned Lord's talents in the other House of Parliament; but really it appeared to him that that absence was by no means a sufficient reason to warrant the continuance for another year of the abuses in question. It certainly was not a ground on which Parliament ought to legislate, that they should wait a year before they corrected certain existing and generally acknowledged abuses, in the hope that, in the next Session, a noble and learned Lord might bring forward a mea- sure in which the correction of those abuses would be comprehended. Had the amendment of the Lords tended to make the funds in question more applicable to the purposes for which they were intended, and to prevent their application to any other purpose, he should not have objected to it; but, so far from that, it went to alter the whole scope and character of the Bill. There might certainly be some temporary inconvenience sustained by the loss of the Bill. But he would much rather incur that inconvenience; he would much rather that the power now enjoyed by the trustees should remain for a time in abeyance; he would much rather that the Lord Chancellor should be called upon to make such orders as the peculiar circumstances of the case might require, than adopt such an amendment as the House of Lords had introduced into the Bill. He would not consent to continue to any set of men the power of distributing large sums of money under pretence of applying them to charitable purposes, while, in fact, they were bestowing them upon persons belonging to their own party. For these reasons he would now move, that that House disagree with the amendments in the Municipal Act Amendment Bill to which he had adverted.

denied, that the House of Lords had thrown out the clause in the Bill to which the noble Lord had been principally referring, on the ground of the illness of a noble and learned Lord, and the expectation that that noble and learned Lord might in another year be prepared with a general measure on the subject. They threw it out because they thought, that, under its operation, the administration of charitable trusts in a borough would be influenced by party considerations. He was himself most anxious to put an end to the abuses which no doubt existed in the administration of the trusts in question; but he believed that the House of Lords were satisfied that such an object would have been obtained by the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Northampton.

believed, that the amendment made in the House of Lords had been so made, not because that House approved of the measure which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Northampton, but because their Lordships had been influenced by the opinions of Members of the old corrupt corporations. The clause which had been introduced by the House of Lords was, as his noble Friend had observed, not within the scope and character of the Bill. He acknowledged that the sacrifice recommended by his noble Friend was great; but he thought it much better to make that sacrifice than to concur in the Lords' amendments.—The old trustees had abused their trust, and there could be no hope of their reformation. If the first amendment adverted to by his noble Friend were adopted, in two boroughs it would be constantly determined by a cast of the dice whether the representatives of those boroughs should be Whig or Tory. Surely it was much better to refer that question to the constituent body—to the electors—to ascertain their opinions on the subject. That point, however, his noble Friend had said, if it were alone, he might give up; but the other amendment, by which the present trustees of charitable trusts were to be continued in power for another year, his noble Friend had very properly declared his determination not to give up.

, although he lamented the course which the House of Lords had taken, was not prepared to agree to the motion of the noble Secretary of State. Why not allow the Bill to pass with the amendments and bring in another next year?

expressed his surprise that the hon Gentleman, who admitted the existence of the abuses in question, nevertheless thought there would be no harm in continuing those abuses for another year. He (Mr. Hume) had been informed only yesterday that at Coventry the trustees of the charitable funds had given 4l. a head to voters of certain political opinions, and that up to the last hour the charitable funds had so been mal-administered. The course taken by the noble Lord appeared to him to be a very proper course. The noble Lord had stated, and he (Mr. Hume) was very sorry to hear that statement, that he should have been prepared to make a great concession to the House of Lords, Surely the time had come when the noble Lord must have learnt, from experience, that no concession to the House of Lords could be beneficial, and that the more he conceded to the House of Lords the more the House of Commons would be trampled upon. The noble Lord would find that his course would not be rendered, in the slightest degree, less rugged or difficult by concession. The course was for that House to take a course of their own— to be influenced by no consideration but a conviction of that which, in their own opinion, was advisable and expedient. The Bill under consideration could only be lost. Let it be so. Let it go forth to the public that it had been thrown out to please a political party. The question between the parties must be settled not within, but outside that House. The people of England were the party interested. Let them confess their opinion at elections. Let them not foolishly elect so large a body of the Members of that House who were opposed to all amelioration and improvement. If the people were so negligent or so ignorant of their duties as to send so many anti-Reformers into that House, they must expect the natural consequence. The process of discussion might go on within those walls, but it was outside of those walls that the question must be decided which party should have the preponderance. If at the next election the electors did their duty, and did not, as they had foolishly done at the last election, return so many Members opposed to the cause of the people—if they were not so shortsighted as, under any pretext, to send men to the House of Commons as their Representatives who were opposed to every amendment in any of our institutions, a different scene would present itself. Was it to be wondered at that the House of Lords seeing so large a body of anti-Reformers in the House of Commons—seeing that there were no fewer than three hundred Members of that character, should be encouraged to treat the people with contempt? for the people were treated with contempt when the Lords rejected every measure of Reform proposed to them. He hoped the noble Lord would soon learn the inexpediency of making any concessions to the other House. Let them be left to themselves, and they would become martyrs of their own conduct. They had now arrived nearly at the close of the Session; and the people of England would naturally ask every hon. Member on his return to his constituency what had been done in the course of it. What was the answer that must be given? "Not a single measure of importance has been carried." If the cause were asked, the reply must be, "The Tories would not let us; we carried several valuable measures in the House of Commons, but they were defeated in the House of Lords." The honest Members of that House would stand acquitted by the country. They would plainly say to them, "We have done our best, but we have been beaten by the other House. If you want Reform, elect Representatives who are favourable to Reform. We shall not then struggle day after day, and night after night, and yet at the close of the Session find that we have accomplished nothing." If the people would not attend to this—if they wanted to see a majority of the anti-Reformers, in God's name let them have it, and let the anti-Reformers take the reins of Government.

remarked, that the whole burthen of the song of the hon. Member for Middlesex had turned on the word "anti-Reformers." The hon. Gentleman had charged that side of the House with being anti-Reformers. He denied the charge; they were as anxious for Reform as the hon. Member could be, but they would not consent, under pretence of reforming the House of Lords, as the hon. Member wished to destroy the Constitution. The hon. Member had referred to what had taken place in Coventry, and had asserted that large sums were distributed by the trustees among persons of a certain political creed. With what propriety could the hon. Member make this charge? The hon. Member said, that he had heard it; but there was not a title of evidence before the House to support him. The hon. Member, when he preferred such a charge, should at least bring forward his evidence, to show that there was some foundation for it. Supposing the continuance in office of the former trustees for one year longer to be an evil, the question was, whether it would not be better to permit this, than in the words of the noble Lord, to permit all the funds of the charitable trusts throughout the kingdom to be in abeyance, or to make use of the still stronger words of the Lord Chancellor, to leave the whole of the charitable property in the country un administered. This would be the necessary consequence of the course which the noble Lord had taken. No power was vested in the Lord Chancellor either to receive or to distribute, and if power was given to appoint trustees, they could only be appointed after litigation on litigation. The present state of the charitable trusts in the borough of Ludlow amply bore him out in asserting this opinion.

congratulated the noble Lord on the course he had determined to adopt with respect to the amendments in- troduced by the Lords into this Bill. It was notorious that the administration of charitable funds had been grossly abused by the old corporators, in whose hands it had hitherto been vested, and the noble Lord was therefore perfectly right in insisting that it should be removed from them.

also supported the proposition of the noble Lord, and pointed out the inconveniences which would arise in the borough of Ipswich in case of the Lords' amendments being agreed to.

defended the conduct of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Middlesex, when he complained of the rejection of several Bills, had omitted to state the most material circumstance. A perfect chaos of ill-digested matter, without order, without arrangement—a kind of omnium-gatherum in short, was submitted to their consideration, and under these circumstances the House of Lords could not be blamed if they rejected part of the crude and ill-considered mass brought before them and moulded the rest into a form better calculated to satisfy the just expectations of the country.

, in answer to a question from Mr. Goulburn as to the course which it was intended to take with this Bill, said that these two amendments that had been disagreed to—namely, that relating to the choice of mayor and aldermen, and that relating to the appointment of charitable trustees—were the only material points of difference between the House of Lords and this House. The former of these amendments was not of such importance as the other, and he was therefore not disposed for the sake of this amendment to risk the loss of the Bill altogether, but the rejection of the other amendment he must adhere to. He should therefore feel it his duty, after disagreeing to these amendments, to ask a free conference with the House of Lords, for the purpose of stating the reasons that had induced them to disagree to those amendments, and to state the reasons why they should rather incur the loss of the Bill than agree to this latter amendment. They would by this means have an opportunity of seeing whether the House of Lords would insist on these amendments. He would therefore move, that a message be sent to the House of Lords on Thursday next to request them to appoint a free conference on the subject of these amendments.

wished, before this motion was carried, to submit to the noble Lord whether, at the close of the session, it was expedient to proceed with this Bill, and whether it was possible that due consideration could be given to it? No man was more anxious for reform in the Church than he was; and, he believed, he was the first to introduce the subject in Parliament, but when he did so, and when he advocated the appointment of a Commission, he had expected a comprehensive reform, and a Report from the Commissioners which would have embraced every branch of the Church Establishment. He submitted to the noble Lord, that as he had agreed to put off other Bills relating to the Church, it would be well if he would not now proceed with the present measure, but allow it to lie over till the next session along with the Dean and Chapter Bill. In the mean time, as the Commissioners had taken upon themselves to new-model the dioceses of the Bishops, they could also take upon themselves to new-model the various livings in the country, and take into their consideration whether there were not more livings than ought to exist, whether some livings were not larger than they ought to be, whether others might not be extended, and whether different duties and incomes might not be affixed to them. By that means the noble Lord would be able to fulfil the wishes of the best friends of the Church, and an end would be put to the eternal trouble which the Church now gave to the Legislature of the country; for what with the Church in Ireland and the Church in England the business of the nation was absolutely stopped, and it almost required a Parliament of itself to deal with those two subjects. And, after all, what was the result of their exertions? No sooner did this House pass any measure than it was thrown out elsewhere, so that much valuable time had been lost. He could not allow this Bill to go on, which would give a sanction to pluralities which were now illegal, and which was a partial and garbled measure as regarded reform, without entering his protest against it. There were seven or eight Bills on the table, all of which were of much more importance than this in its present imperfect state. Why should they be postponed? What had become of the Marriage Bill, the Registration Bill, the Newspaper Bill? Did the noble Lord really mean to take up the whole of the evening in a Committee on this unsatisfactory measure, while these Bills were waiting for consideration, and which ought to be disposed of one way or the other? He had received a communication from the hon. Member for Greenock, stating that he had left London under the impression that this Bill would not be proceeded with this session. Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Rippon, the Member for Gates-head, had also expressed their opinion that this Bill would not be again brought on. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would not persevere with the measure.

said, that it was doubtful whether he should have originated any observations on this matter; but as they had been introduced, he confessed he should be a traitor to himself and to the vast proportion of the community with whose feelings he was acquainted with respect to this subject, if he did not join with his hon. Friend in entreating the noble Lord not to press forward this measure during the present session.

must say, that he had hardly expected to have such a request made to him as had been made by the hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken. At the time the Bill came down from the House of Lords, he over and over again declared that it was his wish to press this measure forward. But it was urged upon him more than once, that there were other Bills of great importance waiting to be sent up to the House of Lords; he had, therefore, repeatedly deferred this Bill, not because he was not willing to bring it forward, but because other Bills required to be advanced in their several stages. Having so deferred it, however, that was now made an argument against his proceeding any further with it this Session. Certainly it was a reason why on future occasions he should not consent to any delay that might be required of him. He could not agree in the view taken of this Bill by the hon. Member for Middlesex, and therefore it was not likely that he should come to the same conclusion as to the course to be pursued respecting it. It had been said that this measure ought to have been as great in its leading enactments, as the Reform Bill, or the Municipal Corporations Bill. He never expected to bring forward any measure of that kind respecting the Church. There was a vast distinction between the two former cases and the present. With regard to the Reform Bill, they could at once exclude a great number of boroughs, and erect a new plan of Parliamentary representation. So with respect to the Municipal Corporation Bill, they could enact that all old corporations should at once cease, and that no new corporations should be erected. But in this case, where the interests and incomes of individuals were concerned, it was quite impossible to proceed in such a manner. They could not say, that a man holding two benefices, within a certain distance, should immediately forfeit one of them, neither could they say, that a Bishop, who was at present living, should be subjected to a great reduction of the income of his benefice. It was quite impossible, therefore, that a Bill upon this subject could at all resemble those two former measures, that of Parliamentary and Municipal Reform. It appeared to him that this Bill would do a great deal to prevent what he considered to be a great abuse, and for which the law at present afforded no remedy. The Ecclesiastical Canons, and Ecclesiastical Courts, would not allow pluralities beyond the distance of thirty-five miles, but he did not believe that the courts of law afforded any remedy against two livings being held together at the distance of 300 or 400 miles apart. If he were to agree to the postponement of the Bill, such pluralities as these would continue. Believing, then, that this Bill would be of very great advantage, and would go a great way in reforming the abuses of the Church, and considering also that it had come down to them from the House of Lords, he was disposed to persevere in it. He could not see any advantage in beginning again with this Bill in another Session, and that for the reason which had been assigned by the hon. Member for Middlesex, for his wishing to postpone the measure, namely, that it would retard the bringing forward other measures which the interests of the country required. For his own part he wished he could bring forward several measures relating to the civil and criminal laws of the country, but all of which were delayed on account of the necessity of considering the Bills relating to the Church. It appeared to him, therefore, very desirable that they should now consider the Bill before them, especially as he believed there were but two or three points on which any great difference of opinion could take place. Every body wished to get rid of pluralities. The hon. Member had said, that the Bills sent up from this House to the House of Lords, were almost uniformly rejected. But with respect to this Bill, they might be quite sure that no such course would be pursued, as it had been already assented to by the Lords.

could not consent to the proposition of the noble Lord. He did not think that the noble Lord was making a discreet use of his unquestionable right of pressing forward this Bill under the circumstances now existing. He did not mean to say, that the Bill would not effect any good, but the most important part of the subject which the Bill ought to embrace, seemed to be passed by entirely. It was true the evil of pluralities would in some degree be remedied, but there was no regulation whatever made with regard to the incomes of the clergy. It would still be possible for the golden prebend of Durham, and the rectory of Stanhope, to be enjoyed by the same person at the same time; and he would ask the Noble Lord whether that was right, or whether it gave him satisfaction?

was of opinion that if it were not disrespectful to the House of Lords, it would be in many respects advantageous, if this measure were postponed till the next Session.

thought it was the duty of the House to carry forward the Bill. That would indeed be of doubtful propriety, if passing this measure would throw an insurmountable obstacle in the way of passing a better measure next year. He should not in that case, be in favour of passing the Bill; but ten miles was some limitation, and he thought, therefore, they ought to go into a Committee

would not oppose going into a Committee, but would bring forward an amendment in that stage.

objected to proceeding with the Bill. It gave the Bishops power to alter the ecclesiastical boundaries of parishes, and might affect the question of Church-Rates; at such a late period of the Session he was for postponing the Bill.

said, if his objections to the Bill were only in detail he should be ready to go into Committee. But after having carefully examined it he must say his objections were to its principle. The Bill sanctioned pluralities and. non-resi- dence, without at the same time laying before us any scheme by which we might hope at any time to see those abuses abolished altogether. He had hoped that before any measure of this kind was brought forward some opportunity would have been afforded for considering, whether a much larger sum might not be subtracted from the revenues of the Church dignitaries, for the augmentation of the small livings. It was impossible, when there were 3,000 or 4,000 clergymen in England, with livings under 300l. a-year, that the House should sanction a measure, giving to Deans of Durham or Westminster 2,000l. or 3,000l. a-year. It was preposterous to legislate upon this subject, without having first ascertained the real amount of the property of the Church, and inquiring whether there might not be found funds sufficient to increase these small livings at least to 200l. a-year each, and then enforce residence upon them. But supposing it were right to overlook this consideration, (which he did not admit it was) still let him ask, was it right that a Dean of Durham or of Westminster should be permitted, in addition to the large incomes attached to their Deaneries, to hold wealthy livings, thus bringing their income in some cases to the amount of 6,000l. per annum? He would also ask, whether it was necessary for some Canons to have 2,000l. a-year, while others were obliged to be content with 500l. Would it not be better to reduce these overgrown incomes, and, out of the surplus, to raise the salaries of the poor hard-working clergy, before the Legislature gave its sanction to pluralities? He (Mr. Lennard) considered that the framers of the Bill had adopted a very vague and erroneous criterion in the present state of Church property, with regard to pluralities. He might be considered as uttering a paradox when he gave it as his opinion, that if you go to such a great distance as ten or fifteen miles you gain in reality little, for unless the two livings were so near to one another as to allow of one clergyman performing the duties of both, he did not think any limitation as to distance at all did away with one great evil of pluralities—the disagreements likely to occur between two persons both holding authority over the same living. He should have been much better satisfied, if the criterion adopted, instead of distance, had been the conjoint value of the two livings; and if it had been enacted, that when their limited value exceeded 600l. or 700l., the surplus should be paid over to the Commissioners of Queen Anne's Bounty, for augmenting the smaller livings. With regard to non-residence, a great deal had been said as to the advantage which would result from the provisions contained in this Bill for its abolition; and in some cases it might be true that such was the case. But what would the House say to that part of the Bill which sanctioned non-residence in favour of a Bishop's chaplain? [An Hon. Member: "It is the law now."] He was aware of that; but if the exception is to be made, let it not be allowed in the case of a beneficed clergyman. If the Bishop must have a chaplain, let the Bishop pay for one, not saddle upon the people in some distant parish the expense of maintaining him, at a cost which would provide that parish with ample resident religious instruction.

thought the hon. Member for Maldon must be friendly to pluralities, as he was so anxious to preserve them.

opposed the Bill. To pass it would only put off the remedy for the abuses in the Church, and there would continue to be, as now, hundreds of starving curates, and sons of clergymen with more livings than they could look after. It was a Bishop's Bill, and he hoped, unless it was to be admitted that the House of Commons was to obey the Bishops, that his hon. Friend would persevere in opposing the Bill.

said, he should have been better satisfied had this measure originated in a convocation of the clergy, instead of commission composed partly of Bishops. He was aware that there were high authorities against the revival of convocations. But he confessed his opinion was in their favour, and he might observe that they were preserved in the Church of Scotland—a Church presenting one of the best models of Ecclesiastical polity ever displayed. However, he should support the Bill, as it was generally beneficial so far as it went. It brought the Church of England under the surveillance of legislation, and got rid, to a great degree, of pluralities and non-residence—two abuses which had crippled her energies and diminished her usefulness.

rose to express his dissent from the doctrine of the hon. Member for Evesham as to a measure of Church Reform, emanating from a convocation of the English Clergy. With regard to the Bill itself, his opinions were well-known upon this subject: but the House having sanctioned the principle of the Bill, he should not object to its going into Committee.

considered, that this measure if passed would not be the beginning but the finale of reform in the Church with respect to pluralities and non-residence; for when a real substantial measure of Reform was brought forward, it would be objected that this Bill having been passed, the Church was reformed enough already upon these points. This was a measure only of demi-reform. The Government were not the parents of it, but they had adopted it. And he (Mr. Ewart) hoped they would not entertain the same affection for it, as if it were their genuine offspring. He should support his hon. Friend in calling- for the postponement of this Bill; for it was his opinion that they must lay anew the foundations of the Church ere they passed any measure for the purpose of gilding its battlements.

was bound to take that opportunity of stating, that as the noble Lord would not agree to any reasonable proposition, he felt bound to express his disapproval of the course his Majesty's Government had taken. It was highly objectionable for the House to lend itself to a Bill like that, which was an abortion of reform. If the noble Lord would alter the second and third clauses, by enacting that no person should hold more than one dignity or one benefice, if he would be revenged on the Lords in this way, he (Mr. Hume) would go into Committee and assist in passing the Bill. Let them resolve that pluralities from henceforth should be at an end, and they had ample means for the maintenance of every existing clergyman. He objected to proceeding with this Bill, because the Church Revenue Bill—an excellent one in itself—had been stopped by some unseen agency They could not hope for one consistent plan unless they had an opportunity of considering all the four Bills relating to the Church at one and the same time. Why did not the Church Discipline Bill go on? Had any Bishop put a spoke in the wheel? He concluded by moving that the Bill be taken into consideration on that day three months, for the purpose of getting rid of it for the Session.

supported the amendment on the ground that the Bill allowed pluralities without providing the means of ultimately getting rid of them. He strongly objected to the measure, as being calculated to postpone all reform.

, in answer to the last observation of his hon. Friend, con tended that by throwing out this Bill it would be delaying reform in the Church, as it would continue for a longer time the present system of pluralities. His hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, complained that they had not proceeded with the Bill for the augmentation of the value of small benefices. He (Lord J. Russell) was anxious to carry that Bill, but had not persisted in moving its progress in consequence of the opposition he met with in the House, and in the face of which he could hardly hope to carry it. Those who originated that opposition now came forward and blamed him for not persisting in carrying that measure. If he had had no other opposition to meet with on that Bill than that of the deans and chapters, he certainly should not have postponed the Bill. He thought it quite right to adopt measures to get rid of pluralities and to enforce residence, and also that some means should be adopted for the augmentation of the value of small livings, and had had hopes that that object would have been effected by the Bill he had introduced during the present Session. If, however, this measure before the House passed, he trusted, that before next year, by the changes that would be effected, they would be the better enabled to carry into operation means for the attainment of the latter object. He, however, begged to repeat that it was not his fault that the measure alluded to by his hon. Friend had not passed into a law, but he had postponed it in consequence of the opposition made to it in that House. He hoped and trusted that the measure that would be brought forward on the subject next. Session would be considered as an excellent Bill.

protested against the Bills respecting the Church being proceeded with during the present Session.

quite concurred in the propriety of postponing this Bill until the next Session.

could not support the amendment.

asked if it were the intention of the Government to give to the country a real, whole some, intelligent system of Church Reform? Here they were in the middle of August, when many were looking forward to the 1st of September, with a measure before them containing provisions for maintaining high livings in the Church so numberless, that it was impossible for anybody in the twenty-four hours, who had anything else to do that was worth doing, to make himself acquainted with the subject; and if individuals ventured to oppose the Bill they heard the vulgar cry that was raised against the Lords, that they were kicking out measures of reform, But the Lords were not opposed to this Bill; they were perfectly satisfied with it; it entirely met their views. This was not only the Government of the Lords, but it was a lordly Government. They lose their places! Not at all; they were floating with perfect safety on the tide of episcopal satisfaction. In no case ought there to be more than one living vested in the same person. The object of the Bill was not to make the Church useful, was not to apply the income to practical purposes, but to keep the existing system as tight as possible; this was the object of the Government in this measure.

said, there had been a great variety of plans proposed to-night, and no two exactly similar. The hon. Member for Southwark had his plan; the hon. Member thought that the only plan which could give satisfaction to this country was one to take away the 3,000,000l., or whatever the amount might be, and divide it in certain proportions or in equal proportions among all the ministers. Thus, if an individual had estimated a living at 600l. a year, and had given a proportional price for it, the hon. Member would proceed to take away from that living 300l. without granting compensation, and would transfer this amount to the smaller livings. He was glad to hear the hon. Member for Finsbury dissent from the motion.

understood that all vested interests were to be held sacred. There was nothing so new in the proposal. Mr. Pitt's plan was, that the income of the Church should be paid into the Exchequer, and that the amounts of the livings should be thence doled out to the clergy.

said, that Ministers ought to abandon the measure for this Session. Instead of effecting reform it would be an effectual barrier to reform; it would retard reform for many years.

then proposed, as an amendment, that after the passing of this Act no individual holding one or more benefices should accept a dignity or office in a cathedral; and that no person holding one or more dignities should accept of any other dignity or benefice.

had another proposition to make; it was, that the Chairman report progress. He was sure the noble Lord must feel the impossibility of passing this Bill during the present Session. They were now discussing this measure for four hours, and they had only passed one clause. If they were to proceed, every other clause would occupy as much time, and they would be sitting until November. There was the Dissenters' Marriage Bill. They ought to recollect that they had done nothing for the Dissenters this Session. Now, before they took up the Dissenters' Bill, they ought to look after their own Bill. There were the Registration and the Marriages Bills, and they ought to proceed with them.

hoped they were making progress with the Bill. He did not propose to proceed with the Bills referred to by the hon. Member for Fins-bury that night. He thought they should be taken up at an early hour in the evening, and he proposed to go into the consideration of them on Thursday.

wished to have some explanation as to the precise object of it.

replied, that the measure was intended to provide for the sum which had remained, without being raised by the former Bill. He had explained, on a former occasion, the nature of this measure; and he would now only observe, that it was not intended to raise anything more than the twenty millions which had been voted.

thought, that the exact sum which it was proposed to raise by this Bill should be stated.

remarked, that if the hon. Member for Middlesex looked into the Bill he would find, that it contained the precise sum which he supposed was omitted. He acknowledged that he had made provision for these claims before it was necessary that they should be met, but he did not feel any regret in having done so, as, if he had not taken that course, the delay might have been attended with hard-ship.

, in moving the third reading of this Bill, observed, that the object of it was to exempt Quakers and Moravians from taking the oath of office under the Municipal Corporations Act. The reason why he did not include the Jews in the provisions of this measure was, because the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had already introduced a Bill for the relief of the Jewish Disabilities.

considered, that this measure, unless it had a general effect with respect to all those entertaining conscientious scruples to the present form of the oath, had better be withdrawn.

was most unwilling to allow the exemption of the Jews from taking the oath in question to depend upon the passing of the measure which was brought forward for the relief of that large and respectable class of the community from the general disabilities under which they laboured.

could state to the House, that it was the intention of the noble Duke, whose name had been introduced in the last debate on the subject of Irish tithes, to hold himself answerable for his share of the loan, no matter what measure was passed upon the subject.