said, he perceived, that the Lords had made one amendment in the Bill, taking the appointment of the registrars from the Registrar-General, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and had vested it in an ever-changing and most unfit body for the purpose—the guardians of the poor. Such an alteration would open the door to great abuse and irregularity; and, he trusted that the noble Lord would not object to restore the original provision on that subject to the Bill.

expressed his great satisfaction with the measure. He might refer with pride to the fact, that it was with him the appointment of the Select Committee on the subject had originated in 1833. The measure would be a great national improvement, and he would not give any factious opposition to the amendments made in it. The Member for Middlesex was quite mistaken in what he had stated. By the Bill as it went to the Lords, the appointment of registrars was given to the guardians of the poor, and the Lords had only introduced what appeared to him an excellent amendment as to the qualification of the persons to be chosen registrars.

felt, that it was useless for him to press his objection, but he did his duty in protesting against taking the power in these cases from the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

said, that some of those amendments would create difficulties which ought not to be thrown in the way of those whom it was the object of the Bill to relieve—for instance, the substitution of the superintendent registrar; for the registrar would oblige parties, in many cases, to go a distance of fifteen miles to give the necessary notices. He also objected to the production of those notices weekly before the Board of Guardians. After every pauper case had been gone through—after the last relief was doled out to the last pauper on the list, then the time of the guardians was to be taken up by the reading of those notices. But if this form was considered necessary, what, let him ask, was to be done where there were no unions and no Board of Guardians? In that case, this part of the Bill would be inoperative in two-thirds of the United Kingdom.

said, that the alterations made by the Lords would be productive of great mischief to the Bill itself, and great inconvenience to the country. However, the House of Commons would not be responsible for those changes. One great object of the Bill was, the prevention of clandestine marriages; but would the Bill have that effect? He thought, that so far from it, it would tend to facilitate them. There were at present two sorts of marriages—by bans and by licence, and now there was by this Bill, the marriage by notice to the registrar. The effect of this would be, that those who before had only one door open to clandestine marriages had now two. Those who made this charge would find in time, that they had inflicted a severe blow on themselves and their children, which they would have occasion to regret. However, though he differed much from the amendments of the Lords, he was disposed to take the Bill even as it was, for the reasons stated by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), because it got the recognition of a most important principle, and they might have opportunities of improving the measure hereafter. When Mr. Canning got a Bill which had been sent up to the Lords, and there greatly altered, he said, that though he considered the amendments most objectionable, he would take them, for, as he had got the House in a humour to agree to the principle, he hoped to be able, on another occasion, to get them to consent to carry that principle out to the extent which he first intended. One part of this Bill, as it now stood, was highly objectionable. It was to the reading weekly before the Board of Guardians the notices given to the registrar. If this were considered a necessary check and safeguard against clandestine marriages, what check would remain where no Board of Guardians existed? There would then be no check whatever. This was the advantage of the great aid which they had derived from the other House, which thus got rid of the very security, the want of which they had complained of. There was another discrepancy in the Bill as amended. In one part, the notice was to be dated from the time it was given, and in another it was to be from the time of its entry by the registrar. How were these to be reconciled? Another important change which had been made in the Bill was the substitution of an oath for a declaration. He had thought, that with the consent of the other House, they had adopted the principle of getting rid of oaths wherever they could be dispensed with. He thought, that the solemnity of an oath ought as much as possible to be confined to our courts of justice. In the present case, if a disposition to break the oath existed, it would not be observed more strictly than a declaration. However, he repeated, let the House take the Bill, imperfect as it was. Let it not be given to the country to say, that they had sat for so many months and done nothing. They had sent up some good and most useful measures to the other House. It was not their fault that they had not become the law of the land. The principal recognised in this Bill was an important one, and they ought not to risk its loss even for the imperfections which the Lords' amendments had introduced in it.

thought the last reason offered by the hon. and learned Gentleman a very bad one for adopting the Bill, if, indeed, it deserved the strong-censure he had bestowed upon it. He (Mr. Goulburn) had opposed the original Bill as sent up from this House, because it divested marriage of its religious character, and encouraged clandestine unions, and he could not say, that the amendments of the Lords had made him more willing to adopt it. In one respect, he thought the other House had improved the measure, for it gave every encouragement to members of the Church of England to continue to be married in the Church.

reported, that the managers had met the Lords at the Free Conference, which was managed on the part of the Lords by the Earl of Ripon; that they acquainted the Lords that the Commons agree to the amendment in press 4, line 28; that they insist upon their disagreement to the amendments in press 5, line 25, and in press 6, line 17, and upon their disagreement to clause (L); and that they agree to the amendment made by the Lords in the amendment made by the Commons to clause (Z). That the Commons greatly regret that they are unable to agree to all the amendments made by the Lords; that they insist on their disagreement to the amendments made by the Lords in press 5, line 25, and press 6, line 17, because it does not seem reasonable, when the means of popular election are at hand, to refer to chance the nomination not only of the mayor, but likewise, as a necessary consequence, of the body of aldermen, who will remain in office for the period of three and six years. That the Commons insist on their disagreement to clause (L); that they consider that amendment of far greater importance than the former; that they fear that by giving any assent to it they might countenance the belief, that they were prepared to continue in the members of the late corporations a trust which, in too many instances, has been misused; that the inconvenience of leaving the direction of these charitable trusts to the Lord Chancellor might be obviated, in the opinion of the Commons, by expressly giving to the Lord Chancellor the nomination of trustees to be appointed under the Great Seal for a single year; that the Commons are unwilling to believe that the Lords attach so much importance to this clause as to consider its insertion in this Bill absolutely essential; that the Commons, therefore, hope that the Lords will recede from the amendments to which the House of Commons have disagreed. That, thereupon, the Earl of Ripon acquainted the managers that, as one who had been deputed by the Lords to meet the House of Commons in conference upon the present occasion, he begged, on their part, to assure the managers, on the part of the Commons, that they felt it to be their duty, and should discharge that duty most conformably to the wishes of the House of Lords, by giving most respectful attention to the suggestions and representations which had been made to them on the part of the House of Commons, feeling most anxious, whatever difference of opinion may exist upon occasions in which the two Houses may be called upon to meet together in free Conference, to do all in their power to promote the public interests and sound legislation by maintaining that harmony, good understanding, and mutual respect, which has always characterised the intercourse of the two Houses of Parliament. That, with these feelings, it would be their duty to represent to the House of Lords the statement which had been made to them, in order that they may receive from that House their final instructions as to the decision to which they will come. That, thereupon, the managers delivered the Bill and amendments to their Lordships.

presumed that it was competent to any hon. Member, although not a manager, to make a few observations on what had taken place. He had always understood that, at a free Conference between the two Houses, the question in dispute was argued, so that, if possible, the differences of opinion between the two Houses might be reconciled. With that expectation he had attended this Conference, but found no difference between the proceedings and those of ordinary Conferences; except that at the latter a written paper was delivered by the managers of the House of Lords, instead of the parole communication which the noble Lord had just reported at the Bar. Of the two modes of proceeding he certainly thought the usual one the better; for in that there was an authentic instrument that might justly be made the subject of discussion. He certainly could not boast of any experience on the subject; but if this Free Conference had been conducted according to precedent, he thought it was very desirable to appoint a Committee, to consider by what means a better arrangement might be substituted. He regretted that what had occurred had not been productive of the beneficial results which he had expected from it; but the fact was that it was a mere farce.

could not consent to the appointment of such a Committee as that proposed by his hon. Friend; because, if his hon. Friend would inspect the journals of the House, he would obtain as much information with respect to the nature of these conferences as could be obtained by the researches of any Committee. It was the practice in former days in free conferences for both the managers for the Commons and the managers for the Lords to express their opinions with reference to the matter in dispute. But at the same time it was always in the power of the managers for both Houses to break off the conference whenever they thought fit. For instance, at a free conference in April, 1740, after the managers for the House of Commons had stated their reasons, the managers for the House of Lords stated, that not having received instructions from the House, they could not take upon themselves to represent what the answer of the House would be. Now what had been done in 1740 was in effect what had been done that day. Aware of the circumstance, he (Lord J. Russell) had thought it better not to enter into the merits of the question in debate; for if he had done so, it would have been in the power of the managers of the House of Lords to avoid making any reply. It was always in their power to say, "We will acquaint the House of Lords with your reasons, and when we are further instructed, we will communicate our answer." He had acted according to precedent, and in such cases he considered it advisable always to conform to precedent.

observed, that the professed object of the House of Lords was to prevent clandestine marriages. Now, not only would those marriages not be prevented by the amendments which their Lordships had introduced into the Bill, but the means of effecting them would be afforded in two ways, instead of one.

, adverting to the recent conference, observed, that it was just as dumb as those conferences which were not termed free. The hon. Member proceeded to state his objections to the amendments made by the House of Lords in the Bill under consideration, and proposed that those amendments should be rejected.

begged to make a few remarks in answer to those hon. Gentlemen who appeared to be disappointed at the course pursued with respect to the free conference. It was impossible to continue any negotiation with the House of Lords, as to the Bill, in question except by asking for a free conference. But the conference which had that evening taken place was not all. The play was not over; only the first act had been performed. There must be a second conference; unless (as he was not without hopes might be the case) the House of Lords should abandon the obnoxious clause, and pass the Bill without it. He repeated, however, that there might be a second conference, and that then the wishes of hon. Gentlemen might be gratified.

defended the amendments which had been made by the House of Lords in the Marriage Registration Bill. He conceived that the Bill, in its original shape, was one of the most deadly blows that had ever been aimed at the Established Church.

, on the contrary, did not think that the Bill was at all calculated to injure the Established Church. In his opinion, it was merely a matter of money. Although the amendments were not such as he entirely approved of, still he would not oppose them.

characterised the Bill as destructive of the peace and harmony of private families. He should think himself lost to all sense of his duty to his constituents, and to the public, if he did not do all he could to prevent it from being passed into a law. It would lead to infidelity; for what greater encouragement could be given to infidelity than to induce young people to show indifference towards religion.

could not approve of the amendments introduced by the Lords; but at the same time, conceiving an important principle would be gained by the Bill, even as it then stood, he, for one, should not risk its loss by opposing the amendments.

entertained the most insuperable objections to the Bill. Even in its amended form, he thought it would tend to promote illegal marriages, and therefore, with the view of defeating it altogether, he should move that the Lord's amendments be read a second time that day three months.

rose to enter his protest against it. If the members of the Established Church were allowed to marry after the publication of bans in their own churches, he did not see why the Dissenters should not also be allowed to marry after the same form had been observed in their own chapels. It was only common justice that the publication of bans should be allowed in Dissenting places of worship, as well as in the Church of England.

confessed he was surprised at the objection now stated by the hon. Member, because in the former Bill which he (Lord J. Russell) introduced upon this subject he proposed to allow the publication of bans in Dissenting chapels; but this proposition no sooner became known than he received a communication from a Dissenting minister, declaring that the Dissenters would never consent to have their places of worship desecrated by the observance of so unholy a form.

withdrew his admendment, and the Lords' amendment was agreed to.

declared, that if he stood alone he would divide against it. The clause, in its amended shape, required the superintendent of the district to send to the clerk of the Union the names of all persons, being Protestant Dissenters, who should notify that they had an intention of being married, that he should enter the same in a book kept for that purpose, and that the entry so made should be read over weekly for three successive meetings of the guardians of the poor. This was a degradation to which the Dissenters would never consent.

stated, that the amendment had been made by the Lords because their Lordships thought the Bill, in its original shape, did not provide a sufficient publicity in the marriage of Dissenters. He certainly did not think the amendment necessary, but, at the same time, he could not regard it as imposing anything like a degradation upon Dissenters.

hoped, that the hon. Member for Boston, seeing the position in which the measure then stood, would not press his objection to a division. There was no doubt but that the clause, as it then stood, would place the Dissenter in a degrading situation; but this was a fault which might afterwards be amended. He should be sorry to follow any course that might hazard the loss of the Bill, and for that reason, although he felt the full force of the objection taken by the hon. Member for Boston, he should not be disposed to divide with him.

declared, that it would be regarded by the Dissenters as intolerable.

said, although he was one of those who entertained the same opinion with regard to this Bill as had been expressed by his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, yet, as it had already undergone considerable discussion, and had passed that House by a great majority, it would ill become him to take up the time of the House, or to trespass upon its attention more than was absolutely necessary upon the present occasion. But, connected as he was with the principality, and feeling a deep interest in everything that affected that part of the empire, he hoped he might be excused offering a few observations upon one of the amendments and stating the reasons why he could not concur in the alteration which had been made. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members that, during the progress of this Bill through the Committee, the Member for Chester introduced a clause, which was carried by a considerable majority—not considerable when viewed numerically, but considerable in importance, inasmuch as the supporters of the humble Church of Wales triumphed, not only when opposed by his Majesty's Ministers, but also in opposition to the leading Members of the party who occupy the opposite benches. The clause, however, to which he alluded, contained two distinct propositions; the first was, that to every vacancy which might occur in any See in the Principality, The clergyman to be appointed, should understand the Welsh language, and the other was, that when any benefice became vacant, the person to be inducted should also be conversant with the language of that country. Now, as regards the latter proposition, he believed it remained just in the same state as when it was sent up from this House; but with regard to the former, he regretted to say it no longer existed. The argument adduced by the most rev. Prelate who moved the omission of the words which required Welsh Bishops to possess a knowledge of the Welsh language, was, that the duty of a Bishop was NOT to act as the shepherd of the flock, but as the superintendent of the Pastors. He (Mr. Hall) begged with all due submission to differ from that right rev. Prelate; and although he might, for the sake of argument, admit that a Bishop was not the pastor populi but the pastor p storum, yet, in point of fact, if the Bishop did his duty, he must be frequently brought in contact with the flock over which he was called upon spiritually to preside. It was the duty of a Bishop to preach to the congregation, to perform the sacred administration of the Sacrament, and the solemn order of Confirmation, and yet the Archbishop of Canterbury says, it is not necessary that Welsh Bishops should understand the Welsh language. If that right rev. Prelate would look again into the Thirty-nine Articles, and read the twenty-fourth, which treats, "of speaking to the congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth," he will find "that to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people, is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God," But the Archbishop of the present day was only to be compared to his predecessors. He would read to the House part of a petition presented to the Pope by the Welsh Princes, in the reign of Henry the 3rd. The Princes set forth a statement of their grievances, and they commence in this way:—"And first, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a matter of course, sends us English Bishops, ignorant of the language and manners of our land, who cannot preach the Word of God to the people, nor receive their confession but through interpreters; and whatever they can lay upon to get from us, whether by right or whether by wrong, they carry into England, and the lands which were bestowed on the Cathedrals in Wales, they sell, give away, and alienate." They were now living in 1836, and pursuing the same course as that pursued by the Archbishop 600 years ago! But what he complained of most was the unbounded spirit of nepotism which seemed to take possession of some of these English Bishops the moment they took up this Episcopal power in the Principality. He was not one of those who would ever for the sake of argument hazard statements or make assertions which were not founded on facts, neither would he, in illustration of any argument, bring forward unnecessarily the names of any individuals; but, as what he was about to state was already published to the world, he would trouble the House by reading a few extracts from a very clever and interesting work, which had thrown great light on this spirit of nepotism. He found that in the Diocese of St. Asaph, a relation of the late Bishop held the following preferments. He was Dean and Chancellor of the Diocese, with the Deanery house, with about 40l. a year; Parish of Henllan, 1,500l.; St. Asaph, 426l.; Llan-Neoydd, 300l.; Llanvair, 220l.; Darowain, 120l.; Chancellorship from fees, 400l., making 3,006l.; besides all this, he was lessee of Llandegle and Llanasaph, worth 680l., and this all exclusive of the Rectory of Cradley, in the Diocese of Hereford, 1,200l.; Vicarage of Bromyard, 500l.; Prebend of Hereford, 50l.; portion of Bromyard, 50l. at present, but expectant at the death of an old life, that this preferment will be worth 1,400l. Thus he had no less than eleven sources of emolument, producing between six and seven thousand a year. It appears, also, that his brother had about 3,000l. a year, and the total enjoyed by relations of the late Bishop of the Diocese alone amounts to between seven and eight thousand. But it appeared by reference to the same work, that the amount enjoyed by the Bishop and the relations of the former Bishops alone amount to 23,679l., and exceeds the whole amount enjoyed by all the other resident and native clergy put together. He would not weary the House by going more into detail, but he would merely state, that in the Diocese of Bangor great abuses appeared also to exist. So much for the acts of the Bishops, and now he would again return to the Archbishop, as head of the Church Commission; and he would advert to what was intended to be done with the revenues of the Welsh Church. Not content with taking one Bishop away, and leaving the Principality with only three, they take about an eighth of the whole income of the Church in North Wales for the purpose of founding a Bishoprick of Manchester, so that the property arising from the industry of the inhabitants of the barren mountains is alienated, in order to maintain a Bishop in one of the most wealthy towns and in the richest county of England, where he is not desired, and where the people present a formidable mass of Dissenters. If the Church Commissioners considered that three Bishops were sufficient for Wales, why did they not take the surplus and apply it to the enlargement of small livings? why did they not give the Welsh curate, who did the work, an honourable and sufficient maintenance? It was no uncommon thing in Wales for the Incumbent to leave his parish to the charge of some curate, who could preach and teach the doctrines of Scripture to the congregation in the language which they understood. The Welsh were a people strongly attached to their country, and some might say, that their attachment was so strong to their language, that they were superstitiously devoted to it,—could it be expected, then, that they would or could pay that respect to their Diocesan which the heads of their church might desire, unless he was able to address them in a tongue they had the power of understanding? In his own parish they had an Incumbent, who was in every respect an excellent man, but he lived at a distance, deriving a large income from the united parishes, whilst a curate performed the Welsh service, and although he did all the duty of two churches, he received only 100l. a year, out of which he had to pay 10l. for his residence, leaving a surplus of 90l. a year to maintain himself, his wife, and as large a flock of children as curates generally are blessed with; and such was frequently the miserable stipend of the Welsh curates, that he has many times seen them working in the fields, eking out a miserable pittance, and endeavouring to add to their means through the force of their own manual exertion. He had had t! honour of presenting two petitions to the House that evening, one from certain natives of the Principality resident in London, who were Dissenters, and the other from members of the Established Church, residing in the metropolis; they expressed themselves grateful to that House for having passed a clause by which their fellow- countrymen might have the spiritual benefit of Welsh Bishops and Welsh clergymen; they stated their regret at learning that this wise provision was overthrown in another place, and they prayed, rather than have a continuation of English Bishops, that they might have no Bishops at all, and that the funds arising from the abolition of the Bishopricks might be given to the poorer clergy. This would shew how strong the feeling was, and it was one that was very general in the Principality. He entertained very strong opinions in opposition to this amendment of the Archbishops, and he considered it not a little invidious, that the Archbishop of Canterbury should allow that persons appointed to the benefices in the Principality ought to understand the Welsh language, whilst he advocated the omission of that part of it which laid the same obligation on the Bishops. He should, therefore, move, that the House do not agree to the Lords' amendment.

asked who nominated the managers on the former conference?

the House.

was present in the House when they were nominated, but believed that the nomination had been made by the Speaker. He, out of deference to the right hon. Gentleman, did not make any objection, although he certainly considered that the names which had been selected were not a fair specimen of the opinions entertained by hon. Members on his side of the House. If it was intended that the Bill should pass, with the amendments, then it might be all very well to appoint hon. Gentlemen entertaining the same opinions; but if the proceedings of the Conference were to be conducted fairly, having due regard to the differences of opinion prevailing among hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, then he must say that the selection had not been properly made.

How many constitute the body of managers?

sixteen.

Then I beg to move that the hon. Member for Middlesex, be substituted for one of those hon. Members who have not answered to their names.

reported, that the managers had met the Lords at the free Conference, which was managed on the part of the Lords, by the Earl of Ripon, who acquainted them that the Lords adhere to their amendment in press 5, line 25; because the Municipal Corporations Act, not having provided that a fresh election should take place in the event of an equality of votes, the Lords consider that it would be in accordance with the principle of that Act, which this Bill is intended to amend, to meet the difficulty arising from an equality of votes, in the manner in which it is met under the provisions of that Act, namely, by the casting vote of the person presiding at the election. That the Lords likewise adhere to the insertion of Clause (L); because they are of opinion that the inconvenience arising from the placing of the Charitable Trusts under the management of the Lord Chancellor would be much greater than that of allowing them to remain until the end of the next Session, or until Parliament shall otherwise provide, in the hands of the persons in whom both Houses of Parliament concurred, in continuing them by the Act of last year. That the Lords observe, that it has not appeared that any practical injury has arisen from the disposition with respect to these trusts, made with the concurrence of both Houses in the course of last Session, but the Lords are, nevertheless, anxiously desirous that the management of these charitable funds should be placed upon a permanent and satisfactory footing, whereby the administration of charities, intended for the benefit of the poor, might, as far as possible, be divested of all party influence. That, thereupon, a discussion arose between the managers, on the part of the Commons, and the managers on the part of the Lords [for the proceedings of which, see Lords' debates—this day]; and that the managers on the part of the Lords, thereupon deliver back the Bill, and amendments to the managers of the Commons. It being quite clear, therefore, the noble Lord continued, that the two Houses can come to no agreement on these clauses, it is obvious that the best course for this House, is to postpone the further consideration of these amendments to this day three months. He moved, that the consideration of the amendments be postponed accordingly.

said, that the question before the House was, that they should disagree with the Lords' amendment, and it should not be necessary for the Welsh Bishops to understand the Welsh language. He believed in the diocese of Llandaff, that language was not spoken to any great extent, and therefore it was unreasonable to make it a necessary qualification there; he thought also, that it would be an improper restriction on the prerogative of the Crown, to make such a rule as to the selection of Bishops, and in some cases, it would be found to operate in a most inconvenient manner.

had not heard any reason to induce him to assent to the Lords' amendment, striking out the provision that the Welsh Bishops should understand the language of that country. As soon as the English became the vernacular language of Wales, then it would not be necessary that either the Bishops or Clergy should be acquainted with Welsh, but until that time, some restriction of the kind was necessary.

believed, that the number of persons who were in other respects qualified to act as Bishops, who were well acquainted with the Welsh language, was very small, so that if this restriction was adopted, the choice would be very limited. He did not conceive that it was necessary that the Bishops should understand that language, although this might be the case with the great body of the Clergy in Wales, and there could be no doubt that all the Clergy understood the English language. If this rule were acted upon, they might get very incompetent persons appointed Bishops, and that merely because they spoke the Welsh language

imputed the great preponderance of Dissenters in Wales, to the ignorance of the vernacular language of that country on the part of the clergy. In reply to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask whether resident Bishops ought not to be required to be acquainted with the language of the country in which they were called upon to act? Was it not the duty of a Bishop to preach to the people of his diocese? He declared that a Welsh Bishop, who could not speak the Welsh language, was very incompetent to perform his public duties, for he should not only be able to preach in a language which could be understood by his auditory, but he should be able to hold communication with the inhabitants of his diocese. The truth was, that it was the Bill of the Bishops, and was not a measure of reform.

observed, if the hon. Member for Middlesex regarded the Archbishop of Canterbury, as an anti-Reformer, because he supported the clause in the Bill as it stood, he should also view the noble Lord in the same light. The hon. Member might also call him an anti-Reformer. He was perfectly ready to be designated by that name by the hon. Member, for no doubt he was an anti-Reformer in the estimation of the hon. Gentleman; but he (Mr. G. F. Young) felt satisfied, that he was not regarded in that light, either by his constituents, or by the enlightened portion of the public.

said, he should support the amendment of his hon. Friend, for, in rejecting the amendment of the Lords, he considered he should be only maintaining the principle of common sense, that the superintendents of the Church should understand the language of the people over whom they were set.

said, he could assure the House that they were little aware of the prevalence of the Welsh language in the principality. He believed, four-fifths of the inhabitants spoke it: he should give his vote for the amendment of the hon. Gentleman, because he considered it of great importance that the dignitaries of the Church should be able to converse with and address those over whom they presided.

said, he should support the amendment of the Lords on two grounds, first because he considered it was of great importance that the widest possible range should be allowed to those who had to select persons to fill the episcopal office. And, secondly, because although unquestionably he admitted it was desirable that the Bishop should know the lan- guage of those over whom he presides, he did not consider it the highest qualification. If you enact that no person shall fill a Welsh see who is not fully conversant with the Welsh language you necessarily greatly narrow the limits within which the choice must be made. Surely the hon. Member would not contend that the language was so difficult to acquire that any learned and rev. person nominated to a Welsh Bishoprick might not easily acquire a knowledge of it in the course of a few months after his appointment. The first qualifications of a Bishop were prudence, a deep knowledge of divinity, thorough acquaintance with theological and general literature, and unlimited knowledge of the constitution of his Church. That he should understand the language of the people over whom he has to preside, is a great and desirable qualification; but it is still of comparatively minor importance and in his (Mr. Borthwick's) opinion, might be safely left to his own conscience and sense of duty, if he really possessed the others. Therefore, though he did not agree with those hon. Members who contended that all the duties of a Bishop might be efficiently discharged without a knowledge of the language of those whose spiritual interest he has the care, and though he hoped and expected that Prelates appointed to Welsh sees would feel it their duty to acquire the Welsh language, he could not vote with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Hall) for making it a necessary preliminary to their selection.

said, that really many of the arguments of those who supported the amendment of the Lords appeared to him to go the length of proving that Bishops were not wanted at all. He would not then maintain that proposition (though it was well known he was a Dissenter) but he did say this, that the duties of a Bishop could not be efficiently discharged without a knowledge of the language of those over whom he presides, so as to be able to converse with and address them. What would be said of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he were to send out as envoys to Continental Courts, men who were altogether ignorant of the language spoken in those countries? Was there no similarity in the cases? Was it not inconsistent with the religious and moral interests of a community that their spiritual superiors should be unable to hold any communication with them? He certainly should vote for the proposition of his hon. Friend, the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Hall).

had supported the motion of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Jervis) for enacting that all clergymen appointed to livings in Wales should be fully conversant with the Welsh language; but he did not consider the same reason which held good in the case of clergymen held good in the case of a Bishop which would justify him in placing the same restriction upon the choice of persons who were to fill Welsh Sees. He did not consider it necessary to urge as a sine qua non for a Welsh Prelate, that he should be fully conversant with the Welsh language and he should, therefore, support the amendment of the Lords.

hoped, that the noble Lord would not persist in continuing in the Bill the clause which had just been adopted by only a majority of six. He objected to the Bill altogether. It was a reflection on the Bishops that they appeared so anxious to get so much for themselves, and proposed to leave so little to the working clergy. The Bill had been brought from the other House, and if it had been a sound measure it would have encountered much more opposition than it did in its passage through that place. He thought that the House would only do justice if they postponed this Bill until they got some really good measures through the Lords. It must be evident, from what had taken place elsewhere, that they had little to expect from the other House in the shape of Reform. He hoped that the noble Lord would consent to postpone the further progress of the Bill until next Session, and he should propose an amendment to that effect. Anything that tended to reform abuses was sure to be rejected elsewhere, and the Commons were almost treated with indignity. He was not prepared to let Peers sit in that House while he and other Members had to stand if they wished to listen to the debates elsewhere. Even at the conference that had just been held they had been treated in a manner which he thought the House should not submit to. It was degrading to the Commons of England that the managers on their part had to stand uncovered, while the managers on the part of the Peers were seated and covered.

rose to order. The observations of the hon. Member had nothing to do with the provisions of the Established Church Bill.

did not know what the hon. Member's opinion of order was, but if he had called the hon. Member to order whenever he (Mr. Hume) thought that hon. Gentleman spoke irrelevant to the subject matter of debate, he should have had a great deal more to do than would have been agreeable to him. He repeated, that the conduct pursued at the conference—

again rose to order, and appealed to the Chair.

observed, that the hon. Member for Durham must be quite aware that it was extremely difficult to define on any occasion the exact limits within which an hon. Member must confine himself not to be out of order. At the same time, he must admit, that it did appear a little strange to urge as a reason for rejecting the Lords' amendments to this Bill that they had rejected the Commons' amendments to another Bill.

reminded his hon. Friend that this Bill had been sent up from this House to the House of Lords, and they had added certain clauses to it which were now under discussion. The question then was as to how they should deal with these clauses?

repeated, that the Members of the House of Commons who attended the conference had been obliged to stand, and had been driven into a corner like a parcel of sheep. He also wished to know why a Peer should sit with his hat on while a Member of that House was obliged to stand with his hat off, so that it was not possible for the Commons to do their duty.

observed, that the question before the House was, whether the amendments made by the Lords in the Bill should be read a second time?

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct, and so was he. His motion was, that the farther consideration of this amendment should be postponed until the next Session.

thought the clause a very proper one. To agree to the proposition made by his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex would be, eventually, to reject the whole Bill.

opposed the motion, and added, that although he had a great respect for the hon. Member for Middlesex, no man wasted more of the time of the House than that hon. Gentleman. Government had a right, instead of being impeded, to all the facilities which could be afforded them in the completion of their measures.

held an opinion different from that of the hon. Member for Worcester. No man had done more good in that House than the hon. Member for Middlesex. There were some men who wasted a great deal of time in a little way. [Hear, hear!] He perceived by that ironical cheer, that the hon. Members opposite took that observation to themselves. He allowed that all due facilities should be afforded to his Majesty's Government; but, at the same time, the House ought to have a sufficient opportunity of deliberately considering every measure submitted to them.

apprehended that, although the immediate effect of the motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex would be only to postpone the clause, yet it would place the House in the difficulty of being unable to pass the Bill until that postponed clause had been considered. He was willing, therefore, to take the division on his hon. Friend's motion as if it were a division on a motion for postponing the Bill altogether.

I wish to make a few observations on the present occasion in justification of the course I have felt it my duty to take with regard to this Bill. My complaint of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, respecting the Greek Loan is, that he must have been, for the last twelve months, aware of the situation of Greece, and the diversity of opinion existing among the three great Powers who had taken that country under their protection; but for some reason or other, which the noble Lord has not explained, the House of Commons was not called upon to express an opinion upon this subject until nearly the close of the Session. I find by the papers which the noble Lord has laid upon the table of the House, that correspondence has taken place between the noble Lord and the Ambassadors of France and Russia, Lord Durham at Petersburgh, and Lord Grenville at Paris, for several months past. And I have a right to ask the noble Lord why, considering the importance of the subject, when the noble Lord thought it necessary to ask the sanction of Parliament for guaranteeing the third instalment of the Greek Loan, why the House of Commons was not called upon to decide upon this question at an earlier period of the Session? When the noble Lord brought the Bill first forward he produced no papers, but took the vote of the House upon his own statement; and it was not until he proposed going into Committee that we were put into possession of that last series of correspondence which is now before us. And only yesterday, certain papers connected with this subject, were put into the hands of Members, though the third reading of the Bill stood for yesterday, and would, undoubtedly, have been proposed had not a Committee of Supply occupied us until an unexpectedly late hour of the night. Without any undue asperity, I am bound to say, this is not treating the House of Commons with proper respect. When we reflect how important are the considerations involved in this question—that disunion between the three great Powers respecting Greece may lead to consequences that would prove fatal to the preservation of the tranquillity of that country, the House of Commons ought to have had full time to deliberate upon the whole subject, and to have considered all the information that could have been laid upon its table, to enable them to arrive at a just decision. When this Loan was first entered into it was consented to by this House, on the ground that Russia, France, and England, concurred in their views of the policy which ought to be pursued with respect to Greece, viz., the establishment of a separate independent kingdom in that country. To effect that object these three Powers agreed to guarantee a loan of 60,000,000 francs. Now it was one thing to concur with those two other Powers for the purpose of effecting that object: it is quite another thing as the noble Lord proposes, to endeavour to effect it without the concurrence of Russia and without (as I have been informed on good authority) any concurrence on the part of France—as to the noble Lord's present proposition, I maintain that this Bill is founded upon false pretensions. The preamble states, "Whereas doubts have arisen," whether Government has power to advance the third instalment of the Greek Loan; the noble Lord comes to Parliament and asks for that power, I maintain there is no doubt upon the subject. The noble Lord knows well that he has no power whatever to guarantee this money, the Act stipulates that the Loan shall be guaranteed by this country if with the consent of France and Russia. If either of these Powers refuse their consent the power of Government ceases; the noble Lord has admitted that in his correspondence, indeed what occasion could there be for applying to Parliament at all if the noble Lord possessed the power of guaranteeing this instalment without its consent? The noble Lord has assured us that he has every reason to believe, that France at least is disposed to enter into the views of the British Government with respect to Greece; undoubtedly it would remove much of the objection, which I entertain to this measure, to know that France was ready to guarantee her portion of this instalment, because it would prove she was ready to co-operate with this country in extricating Greece from her present condition; but I have looked all over the correspondence in vain to discover any signs of a disposition on the part of France to fulfil her engagement in that respect. We have only the noble Lord's assurance. I believe that in the present situation of Greece (which the noble Lord depicted in such favourable—nay, glowing colours—much more favourably I fear than the truth would bear him out in doing) the independence of that country is not likely to be finally established in the absence of that co-operation which Russia, in common with France and England, stipulated to advance. I am persuaded that the sum which he now asks the House to guarantee, will no sooner be raised than expended, and that, within twelve months, Greece will be in as bad (or worse) a situation as she now is. I understand the situation of Greece to be at this moment deplorable in the extreme, an insurrection is prevented only by the presence of the Bavarian troops, the whole country is over-run with banditti, who defy the Government to put them down. And is it in a country like this—Russia having declined to guarantee any further pecuniary assistance—without any co-operation on the part of France, that the British Government is called upon to guarantee a further sum, in addition to the large amounts she has already guaranteed, with no security for the re-payment, either of present or past advances? I deny that, as it was stated on a former occasion, if we do not guarantee this third instalment, Greece will again fall into the state in which she was when the three Powers undertook to guarantee her independence; I deny at least that such will be the necessary consequence of our refusal. But if this coun- try guarantee the third instalment of this Loan (as I contend they ought) with the concurrence of, and in conjunction with Russia and France, these two Powers will have an interest in continuing those exertions for the maintenance of Grecian independence, which have been carried on since 1832. Can the noble Lord believe that the pecuniary assistance, which he now asks Parliament to afford to Greece, looking at her present condition, will be sufficient to meet all her exigencies? Four millions go to the expense of raising the Loan, an annual sum of nearly one million goes to the support of the widows of those who died in the struggles for liberty, so that in fact little will remain after adding the sum paid to Turkey as the price of Acarnania and Natolia. I ask the House to pause before they consent to separate ourselves from our great Allies in regard to Greece. What interest has this country in the establishment of King Otho's Government in Greece, which France and Russia does not share in common with us? I maintain, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to support the Bavarian rule in Greece, without the cooperation of Russia, and with no likelihood that France will lend us any efficient aid. Upon these grounds, I feel it my duty to move, that this Bill be read a third time this day nine months.

said, that having at length stated on former occasions the grounds on which he asked the House to agree to this measure, he should not at this late hour of the night (half past twelve) attempt to follow the hon. Member through the many topics he had dwelt upon in the course of his long speech. He certainly had hoped, that Russia would have concurred in the proposition, and would have paid her proportion; and he had not applied to Parliament for the discretionary power the Government now asked for, till it was ascertained that Russia would not fulfil the engagement. This was only known the other day; which would probably be a sufficient answer to the objection of the hon. Member for Worcester as to Ministers not bringing the question forward at an earlier period. The delay with regard to the papers, was accounted for by the same cause, which would also shew that Ministers had no disposition unnecessarily to pursue a course different from that of France and Russia. To demonstrate that they did not wish to urge the Bill precipi- tately forward; let hon. Members remember that on asking leave to bring it in, they pledged themselves to postpone any ultimate proceedings until the papers were in the possession of Members. The hon. Member for Worcester said, that he was as anxious as the Ministers to carry this honourable object into effect; but yet, with all his generous anxiety for Greece, he refused the means of serving it. How could he make the zeal of his profession agree with the coldness of his practice? The principal charge against the Ministers was, that they separated England from France and Russia. The hon. Member's fear was, that we should act alone. It would undoubtedly be highly desirable to act in conjunction with the two other Powers, but he was not so distrustful of the means of England—of her power and moral influence—as not to hope that even without other assistance she would be able to effect that for which the hon. Gentleman professed so earnest an anxiety. It seemed to be supposed that she ought to proceed by the way of conference, but the time for such a mode of proceeding had passed by. Greece was an independent nation, and henceforward England could only assist and protect her as an ally. The hon. Member asked, would the assistance now proposed be sufficient to rescue Greece from the dangers and difficulties which threatened her? To this he answered that if the present aid were refused, it would be certain ruin, though the grant of that aid might not prevent for her future embarrassments. She required all the instalments due, to enable her to provide for her internal arrangements; and what this Bill proposed to give would be sufficient to cover the expense of those steps which had been taken by the Government to check the inroads of the bandits in the north. Of course the fulfilment of the Treaty entered into by the Crown, must depend on the support of the Parliament; but he had little doubt that if England performed her part of the contract, the French Chambers would not refuse to ratify that part of it for which the French Government had become guarantee. But, suppose that the French Government refused to make good its guarantee, that would not remove our obligation to perform our part. The argument that if we assisted Greece now, she would again fall into similar embarrassments in future was untenable. Was a drowning man not to be helped, lest he might fall into the water again next year? The argument in both cases, would be equally conclusive. He thought the cheapest mode of sending the money would be to pay it in Paris out of the proceeds of the loan, rather than to send it to Athens—to have it sent back again to Paris. With respect to the condition of Greece, he had good authority for stating that at present it was tranquil—and that the prospect of increased improvement was very considerable. He trusted, that the House, under these circumstances, would not join in the opinion of the hon. Member; and would reject his amendment by a considerable majority.

, notwithstanding the statement made by the noble Lord, must concur in the view of the subject taken by the hon. Member for Worcester

, brought up the Report of the Committee appointed to examine the Lords' Journals, to ascertain the course taken by their Lordships with respect to the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill.

then moved, that a new writ for the borough of Stafford be not issued until ten days after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament.

objected to the motion, and moved, as an amendment, that the writ be not issued for one week.

opposed the motion. The report had undergone a very full and patient investigation in the other House of Parliament, and none of the illegal and immoral practices attributed to the borough had been substantiated. But whatever the supposed delinquency of the borough might be, he thought it had already been sufficiently punished by the length of time during which it had been left with only one Representative.

was decidedly opposed to the Bill and to the practice of proceeding with measures of this important description at so late a period of the Session.

entirely coincided with the gallant Member for Lincoln. The principle of the Bill appeared to him to be most objectionable, and rather than suffer it to pass in such a hurried manner, he would continue to divide against it till eight o'clock in the morning.

had strong and insuperable objections to the measure. He moved as an amendment, that the House do adjourn. Two divisions took place on motions for adjournment, and though the minority was only three, it was found necessary to defer the further consideration of the report. After a short discussion the further consideration of the Report was deferred till to-morrow.