would ask a question of the noble Lord opposite, touching the Act passed last year, for the Commutation of Tithes. An opinion had gone abroad, (hat his Majesty's Government had discovered several faults in the working of this Act, which they were disposed to remove, by introducing some remedial measure. Now, he wished to know whether the Government had any such intention?

was well aware that such a report had gone abroad, but from what sources it had issued, he could not conceive. The Commissioners had uniformly expressed their satisfaction with the present measure, and his Majesty's Government had certainly not received any information from other quarters, which would lead them to doubt the correctness of the opinion of those Gentlemen. He would therefore say, that the Government had no such intention as that alluded to by the right hon. Baronet.

was compelled to express his regret at the reply of the noble Lord; there were clauses with respect to rating which required alteration.

brought up the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. Lechmere Charlton, which was read as follows:—

"In reporting upon the question which has been referred to your Committee, they propose to follow the course which usually has been adopted upon such occasions, of first stating the circumstances of the particular case, and afterwards the law and usages of Parliament, as it appears to apply to them.

"The warrant for Mr. Charllon's commitment to the Fleet, and the order of Court on which it was founded, were produced to the Committee, and it appeared that he was committed by the Lord Chancellor for writing a letter, addressed to William Brougham, Esq., one of the Masters of the High Court of Chancery, containing matters scandalous with respect to the said Master, and an attempt improperly to influence his conduct in the matter pending before him, 'which the said Lord Chancellor deemed to be a contempt of the Court of Chancery.' The order not proceeding to set forth the letter in question, or to specify the parts of it on which these charges were grounded, your Committee therefore directed the letter to be produced, inasmuch as they considered, that although the Lord Chancellor had the power to declare what he deemed to be a contempt of the High Court of Chancery, it was necessary that the House of Commons, as the sole and exclusive judge of its own privileges, should be informed of the particulars of the contempt, before they could decide whether the contempt was of such a character as would justify the imprisonment of a Member. They also summoned Mr. Charlton before them, and afforded him an opportunity of fully stating hi? case.

"Upon the whole examination, the letter appears 10 your Committee to be expressed in an intemperate and improper manner. The letter, however, was occasioned by information derived from the solicitor in the cause, the correctness of which Mr. Charlton had no reason to doubt; but they are of opinion that it is offensive to the Master, and thereby to the authority of the Court under which he acted, and was an attempt improperly to influence his conduct in the matter pending before him, with a view to obtain a further hearing, to which, if applied for in a proper manner, Mr. Charlton would have been entitled.

"It was found, in the course of the investigation, that Mr. Joseph Parkes, the solicitor for the parties, who appeared before the Master, in opposition to Mr. Charlton's clients, had, during the interval which occurred between the issue of the warrant and its execution, written a letter, at the request of a third person, containing the following assurance— 'Mr. Charlton may take my honour, and I have never yet violated it, that he is perfectly secure in coming to my house, to see if we can adjust the Ludlow matters,' and that Mr. Charlton did afterwards, in consequence, attend a meeting at the house of Mr. Parkes, without any interruption, or attempt to execute the warrant by the officers who held it. Your Committee, therefore, felt it necessary to ascertain whether the execution of a process issued on the ground of punishing a contempt of the Court of Chancery, had in any manner been allowed to be enforced or suspended, at the discretion of one of the litigant parties, or to be rendered subservient to his objects. This inquiry has tended considerably to lengthen their proceedings, but the result has satisfied them, that no power had ever been given by any person, or exercised by the solicitor, for that purpose.

"Upon the law and usage of Parliament, as affecting this case, your Committee beg leave to refer to the statement contained in the Report of the Committee of Privileges in the case of the Hon. William Long Wellesley. presented to the House on the 26th of July 1831, the precedents cited in which they will not here repeat.

"The Committee are deeply impressed with the difficulty and importance of the question referred to them, in the absence of authorities to which they can refer, as clearly in paint, and directly bearing on this particular case. It will be seen, from the early cases, that the ancient definition of privilege of Parliament is, that it belongs to every Member of the House, except in cases of treason, felony, or refusing to give surety of the peace. These exceptions, by the statement of the Commons in 1641, are i further extended to all indictable offences; by their resolution in 1697 to forcible entries and detainers; and, in 1763, in conformity with the principle of the declaration of 1641, and of a subsequent resolution in 1675, to printing and publishing seditious libels; to which may be added, the resolution of the Lords in 1757, that privilege shall not protect Peers against process to enforce the habeas corpus.

"The ordinary process for contempts against persons having privilege of Parliament, or of Peerage, has not been that of attachment of the person, but that of sequestration of the whole property, which has been found sufficient to vindicate the authority of the courts, even in cases of some aggravation.

"It is stated by Blackstone, that 'contempts committed even by Peers, when enormous, and accompanied with violence, such as forcible rescues, and the like, or when they import disobedience to the Ring's writs of prohibition, habeas corpus, and the rest, are punish-able by attachment;' and the same doctrine has, on different occasions, been expressed by other writers, and by judges of high authority.

"The only cases, however, in which attachments have been found by the Committee to have been actually issued against privileged persons, are that of Earl Ferrers, by the King's Bench, and that of Mr. Long Wellesley, by the Court of Chancery, already referred to. The former was a case of disobedience to a writ of habeas corpus, to which, while the discussion was pending, it bad been declared by the House of Lords privilege of Parliament did not extend; the other was that of the forcible removal of a ward of the Court of Chancery, and placing her out of the jurisdiction of the Court, which obviously could only be checked by the most prompt and efficacious remedy.

"Since the sitting of the last Committee of Privileges, the Act of 2 and 3 William 4th, c. 93, entitled, 'An Act for enforcing the Process upon Contempts in the Courts Ecclesiastical of England and Ireland,' has passed, by which contempts of the Ecclesiastical Courts,' in face of the Court, or any other contempt towards such Court, or the process thereof, are directed to be signified to the Lord Chancellor, who is to issue a writ de contumace capiendo, for taking into custody persons charged with such contempt,' in case such person 'shall not be a Peer, Lord of Parliament, or Member of the House of Commons.'

"Under all the circumstances of the case, your Committee are of opinion, that Mr. Charlton's claim to be discharged from imprisonment, by reason of privilege of Parliament, ought not to be admitted.

"February 16, 1837."

then said, that he had been further directed by the Committee, to call the attention of the House to a paragraph in one of the morning newspapers, reflecting upon the full attendance of Members at the Committee, as being caused solely by party and political feeling. During the time that he had sat in Parliament, he had never seen a Committee more fully attended, and the report which had been just read, would show that the Committee could have been influenced by no other motive, than an anxiety to act with justice and impartiality. The accusation therefore was, in his opinion, a case which called for the interference of the House. In ordinary Committees, such calumnies might be safely passed by, because their proceedings were open to the public; but the investigation of a Committee of Privileges being carried on in private, there was no other opportunity of contradicting the imputations which had been cast upon the motives of hon. Members, than by bringing the paragraph immediately under the notice of the House. The effect of it was, to impeach the character of a Committee silting judicially, and therefore tended directly to obstruct the course of justice. The passage of which he, as the organ of the Committee, was directed to complain, was as follows. The right hon. Gentleman read the following passage from the Morning Chronicle: —"We directed attention, ten days ago, to the indecent conduct of the Tories on the question respecting the claim of privilege by Mr. E. Lechmere Charlton, against the process of the Lord Chancellor, for a gross contempt of Court. This conduct is repeated by the Tories, who are notoriously 'whipping' the Committee of Privileges. That Committee, being substantially open to all Members of the House of Commons, is, it would seem, to take the place of packed special juries of former times; and such is the rage of party spirit, that even a grave and responsible judicial enquiry is to be turned into an arena of political faction. The Tory 'whippers-in,' who are well-known under that denomination, daily display the utmost industry in the exercise of their honourable vocation. It matters not whether the authority of the Great Seal, or a great constitutional question be at issue, everything now is to be sacrificed to party feeling, and party objects. The simple matter of reference to this Committee, is the consideration of all mattes touching privilege, and the consideration of the letters to the Speaker from the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Charlton. On this simple inquiry the Committee has now sate in secret and solemn conclave, a full fortnight. The Lord Chancellor either has or has not the power of committing a Member of the House of Commons for Contempt. No man of common sense doubts that a violation of law, or a contempt of the courts of justice, is aggravated in the case of a Member of the Legislature, and not' privileged.' It requires little knowledge of Parliamentary history, and legal decisions, to be able to pronounce that, as in the case of Mr. Long Wellesley, the Court of Chancery ought not to be overridden by the House of Commons. With respect to the particular 'contempt' assigned by the Lord Chancellor against Mr. Charlton, we apprehend that the Privilege Committee is no appellate jurisdiction. It is for the judge to decide what is a 'contempt' of his court and authority. In the present instance, the perpetrator is, we understand, a petitioner and counsel of the Court. In such relations, he is surely amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court in which he petitions and practises. But the 'whippers-in' now inform us, that this peculiar Committee is not only to decide whether Mr. Charlton is 'privileged,' but is also to determine, whether his offence is or is not, a 'contempt' of the Court of Chancery—that is to say, they are to usurp the functions of the judge! Mr. Charlton's letters to Mr. W Brougham, and to the Lord Chancellor, may be acceptable, as a matter of taste, to the Tories, but the 'whippers-in' will find it hard to persuade the country, or the House of Commons collectively, the his epistles are not vulgar, as well as subversive of the course of justice. In charity to the hon. Member, they may desire to use him for ulterior objects; but, whatever the report of a 'whipped' Committee, they will fail in persuading a reformed House of Commons, that the Lord Chancellor of England, and the highest judicial officers of the realm, are to be insulted with impunity, or that the municipal rights of a populous borough are to be sacrificed to the old nuisance of borough-mongering. If the 'whip' is to decide this constitutional and important reference, we hope it will be applied on both sides of the House. Certainly it is the duty of every liberal to attend this day, in order that Parliament itself, as well as the Lord Chancellor, may not be brought into 'contempt.' "The right hon. Gentleman then moved, after handing in the Morning Chronicle of Thursday, Feb. 16, to the clerk at the table, that John Black, the printer and proprietor of the Morning Chronicle. summoned to attend at the has of the House the next day.

could have wished that the right hon. Gentleman had taken some further time for consideration before he adopted this proceeding. However, if the right hon. Gentleman, as he appeared to be, was only the organ of the Committee of Privileges, then he must say that the Committee, in wishing to press this matter, had not in his judgment, taken a course which was either worthy or expedient. The House had been accustomed now for some years to indulge public writers in a great latitude of observation; and the custom which formerly prevailed of Members taking offence at some paragraph or other, and calling the publisher to the bar, had fallen into disuse. He must say, that for the last two or three years, if any complaint of this kind was to be made, those who had most often cause to complain were the majority of that House. There were no terms of abuse, no terms by which men could be vilified or lowered in the estimation of their fellow country-men, which had not been applied to the majority of that House. But, to pass over minor observations of this description he would refer to a charge delivered by a Lord Bishop, in which after representing the majority of the House and their proceedings to be under the guidance of a faction who wished to destroy all the institutions and establishments of the country, said that certain Members of that House who were sufficiently designated by the reverend Prelate professing the Roman Catholic faith, had been guilty of treachery and perjury. He must say, that if they were to take notice of breaches of privilege of this kind, they ought not to lose a moment in vindicating the honour of those Members of the House, who for giving their votes in Parliament, and for nothing else, had been declared by the right rev. Prelate in his charge to his clergy to have been guilty of treachery and perjury. For his own part, though when he read that pamphlet he thought it as gross a breach of privilege as had ever been committed, yet he was convinced that the Members who were attacked and the House would do better to treat it with utter contempt, and not take any notice of such proceedings, but act according to their own sentiments of what was their duty as Members of the Legislature. Were they, then, now to be told that they ought to take up cases of this kind, in which a journalist had thought proper to state that some Members of the Committee of privileges had been "whipped up,' and that the Committee was in some degree influenced by party, spirit? Even supposing that there was some foundation for that charge, what did it amount to? Why, merely that party feeling prevailed in that House, which could hardly escape its influence, while so much party spirit existed in the country, and that some Members of the Committee had attended more from party spirit than from a desire to give a fair and dispassionate consideration to the question before it. He would not enter into the consideration of the course which the Committee had pursued during the investigation. He thought that their best vindication was in the Report which had been presented. They had given as their opinion—an opinion from which he, on the only occasion on which he attended at the Committee, differed—that they were bound to sift the entire charge against Mr. Charlton, and examine the letters addressed to the Master and the Lord Chancellor. He differed from them in that respect, but these Gentlemen said that they were bound to protect the Members of that House in the enjoyment of their just privileges, and that an inquiry was necessary. He believed that they had come to a correct decision, in declaring that Mr. Charlton's privilege of Parliament ought not to protect him under the circumstances, and he must say that having so acted, to prosecute the writer of a paragraph in a newspaper was really beneath the dignity of the House. He was told that there were paragraphs on the opposite side with regard to the divisions in the Committee, either attacking or ridiculing, he did not know which, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for the part he had taken. If, therefore, the House should resolve to call before it the writer of the paragraph in the Morning Chronicle, they would be obliged to order the attendance of the printers of the Morning Post and the John Bull and see what were the observations which had been made with respect to the conduct of the House of Commons. He really did hope that the Committee would be satisfied with what had been done, and would not think of carrying the proceedings further. If the Committee wanted any defence, it was contained in their own report. It was very inconvenient to take notice of all observations on the character and conduct of the Members of the House when acting in the performance of their duty. He really hoped the matter would not be further proceeded with, and that it would not be necessary to discuss the question, but that the sense of the House would be against it.

was not going to oppose himself to the sense of the House on this motion, but having been regular in his attendance at the Committee he wished to say a few words. The noble Lord had attempted to defend one violation of their privileges, by referring to what the noble Lord called another. He could not however conceive the least analogy between the case cited by the noble Lord and that to which his right hon. Friend had called the attention of the House. At all events, the discussion of a question of very grave importance was not to be approached in the manner in which the noble Lord, as he thought with very mistaken taste, had treated it to-night. He was very sorry that two questions of very serious Parliamentary importance should have been received with levity, but he assured them, whatever reception might be given to the observations he had to offer, that it would not disturb his self-possession. He trusted, at the same time, that he should not himself say anything offensive to the feelings of any individual, or discourteous to the House at large. With submission to the noble Lord, he would submit to him a case a little more analogous to the case then under their consideration. An individual had written a private letter offensive to a person exercising the functions of a judge in a particular case, and calculated improperly to influence his decision in a matter pending before him. For writing that letter the Lord Chancellor had committed that individual to an indefinite imprisonment, and he now stood committed to the Fleet for writing that offensive private letter, calculated to produce an influence upon the decision of the proper judge, until the Lord Chancellor should make a further order. But here was a paragraph in a newspaper published, calculated improperly to influence the Members of the Committee of Privileges in the discharge of a judicial duty, and he must say, that the writer of the paragraph ought to have some kind of regard to the subject which formed the matter for the investigation of the Committee. It did appear to him, that as the Committee was a strictly private one, and carried on its proceedings with closed doors, an inquiry was necessary in this case, because the writer almost assumed that he derived his information from some Member of the Committee, and it occurred to him that there was no other opportunity of pointing out the gross and scandalous nature of the paragraph than by adopting this mode of proceeding. For his own part, having been most assiduous in his attendance on the Committee, he would say, that on his honour as a Gentleman and Member of Parliament, he believed that there was not a shadow of foundation for one single innuendo contained in the paragraph in question.

had no wish to press the motion, but he had brought it forward in the exercise of an indispensable duty, as Chairman of the Committee. He would not enter into any argument on the question, but it appeared to him that the present case was widely different from any which the noble Lord had cited, inasmuch as it represented a Committee of the House of Commons sitting upon a judicial question as a packed special jury. It was infinitely more offensive than any of the publications which had been mentioned. He could only appeal to hon. Members opposite, who had attended the Committee, to declare whether they believed that any Members of it were actuated by an undue political bias. He had sat in the chair, and he certainly could declare, as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Praed) had done, on his honour as a Gentleman and Member of Parliament, that he had seen nothing of the kind.

next rose to move for a Select Committee on a subject certainly of very great importance, but on which, at that stage of the proceedings, he did not think it right to address the House at any length. With regard to their privileges, it appeared to him that they had now come pretty nearly to what was, as he thought, a proper position for them to hold — namely, that they possessed every privilege necessary for carrying on their proceedings freely and undisturbed, while they did not wish to carry them beyond that limit. In former times it might have been necessary to pu- nish a judge for invading their privileges, because then the prerogative of the Crown had been employed for the purpose of interfering with the proceedings of the House. But those times had long since gone by, and at present it was only necessary for them to take such proceedings as would enable them to carry on their discussions or debates, and attend to the business of the country, without disturbance in the exercise of their function. These were powers which all courts ought to possess, and which all courts assumed. The question to which he wished immediately to call the attention of the House was the proceedings which had taken place in the Court of King's Bench with respect to the publication of papers ordered to be printed by the House. Now, he thought it could not be denied that the House must have a certain latitude in that respect, and that they ought to prescribe for themselves what that latitude ought to be. In ordering any papers to be printed and published, it was, he thought, hardly necessary to argue that their distribution ought not to be confined to Members of the House, because, if they took such a limit they would evidently be without the means of proceeding and judging in many cases for which they had to legislate. It was one of the most important privileges of the subject, that all men should have the right to make their complaints known to that House, and if the House received all complaints that were made, some of them which were not capable of proof might, in the eye of the law, be considered libels. But it would be impossible for the House to lay down a limit so as to prevent complaints being made to the House, and by the House transmitted to the public; if its proceedings were not known, it would be impossible for the House to legislate for the country. Then arose the question whether if the House made its proceedings in any way public, it was to do as in former times— publish them under the authority of the Speaker of the House, or in any other way? Both methods were, as he believed, publications in point of law. The issue of 1,200 copies of any report, by order of the Speaker was as much a publication as a sale of any number of copies; and he could not see, for his part, the grounds upon which the issue by order of the Speaker should be considered a fair and permitted proceeding, and the publication of them, by way of sale, and under the authority of the House, should bring the printer into a court of justice, and he be made to suffer damages by action at law. But before they came to any decided opinion on the subject, they would find it more advantageous to have a Select Committee for the purpose of stating to the House what precedents had arisen, and what was the law and practice of Parliament with respect to the publication of their proceedings. The question which had arisen was one which fairly brought the matter in dispute under the consideration of Parliament, It had originated in the publication of a report which he had himself presented to the House, not by command from his Majesty, but in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, which directed that the reports of the inspectors of prisons should be laid before Parliament. The inspectors had stated what cases of abuse they had discovered, and the reasons which had induced them to call attention to such abuses; and if they had not done so, how was that House to apply a remedy to a public grievance? There was no stepping out of their way on the part of the inspectors; no wish on their part or his who laid the report on the table to injure a private individual, and, therefore, he thought, that if in such cases it were not allowable for the House to publish its proceedings, and they were to submit to such a restraint on their power, they would be setting a precedent by which their usefulness as members of the Legislature would be very much curtailed, and in a great degree destroyed, and they would leave persons acting under their orders liable to penalties and forfeitures in the courts of law. He would not detain the House by citing any precedents now; he wished rather to wait till the Committee had made their report, and, therefore, he would conclude by moving—"That a Select Committee be appointed to ascertain the law and practice of Parliament respecting the circulation and publication of papers printed by order of the House both prior to, and since, the order for the sale of such papers."

would be very sorry to enter into any argument founded on the particular circumstances of this case, which were stronger than all others which had occurred with respect to the attempt made to limit the privileges of the House; but he must say, that if there was one case which afforded a fuller justification than others for the exercise of their authority, that was to be found in the present. The House, in consequence of complaints that had been made respecting prison discipline had passed an Act directing inspectors to be appointed, who from time to time should make reports to the House. A report from those inspectors being printed and laid before the House by the Secretary of State, in order that the report should be of service, it was essential that it should be circulated through the country. He might be allowed further to say, that it was essential also by publication to permit those who found themselves censured in any respect to defend themselves and obtain an opportunity of making a counter statement. He really felt bound to say, that this case seemed to him to form one of the best vindications that could be made out of the expediency of ordering publications of this kind to be sold, even if they had not the practice of Parliament for the last 150 years in their favour.

concurred with the noble Lord, that it would be better to discuss the merits of the Bill at a future stage; but he begged to protest against any measure that would have the effect of legalising pluralities. He never could sanction them, but would abolish them altogether; and on the next occasion he was determined to take the sense of the House upon the subject. He rose to make these few observations, lest, as happened last year, his silence might be construed as assenting to this and the other Church Bill.

rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to call the attention of the House to the number of petitions presented from various parts of the country with respect to benefit societies. He was of opinion that it would be of great advantage that the laws by which they were governed were embodied in an Act, and that this Act should be so framed that, while it imposed checks sufficient to prevent abuse, it did not unnecessarily restrain them, or deprive them of the power of managing their property. He had endeavoured in the last Session to obtain a Committee to inquire into the nature of these societies generally, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, requested a postponement of his motion, on the ground of the important business which remained to be done at the end of the Session, but did not oppose the motion on any other grounds. He would now ask what more important business could the House have before it than this, which regarded the interest of 12,000 or 16,000, societies, the number of members of which was about two millions?— and it might be fairly calculated that the interests of at least 3,000,000 of individuals were involved directly in the welfare of those societies. The members of them wished to set aside, in the days of their youth and strength, a portion of their earnings which would assist them in old age and sickness, and thus be enabled to stand aloof from the assistance of poor-laws, charitable institutions, or of alms. He considered, therefore, that they were worthy of encouragement, and instead of being controlled and restrained by one barrister, that they should be allowed to frame their own rules, which should be sufficient for their government when signed by the magistrates at quarter sessions, or by a barrister of four or five years' standing. The extension of those bodies would tend to remove a heavy burthen from the poor-rates; for the Members wished to keep themselves independent of the workhouse, to keep aloof from the relief provided by the Poor-laws, and instead of being restrained or embarrassed in their operation by the laws, they ought to be encouraged by those laws; and, in his opinion, the more they were left to themselves in the management of their property, it would be so much the better. He thought that they ought to be allowed to frame their own laws, and when those laws received the sanction of the magistrates at quarter sessions, such laws, so sanctioned, would, he was certain, be found well adapted to promote the good government of those societies and to secure the objects which the members had in view. The mode at present in operation tended to fetter their operation, and to restrain their increase; and the variety of laws which were now in force, and which distracted and bewildered simple men, by their apparently contradictory character, had in many instances, prevented the formation of benefit societies. If, then, those who had forwarded petitions to that House were right, and if their complaints were well founded, the House ought to alter the law, and to substitute some easy method which would be understood, without difficulty, by all men. Now, the truth of the allegations contained in the petitions could only be ascertained after full and fair inquiry, and he therefore hoped that a Committee would be granted, upon the report of which a comprehensive measure could be framed for the regulation of those important institutions. At present there were twelve or thirteen Acts relating to benefit societies, and in his opinion all those Acts ought to be repealed, and one of a more simple and general character introduced in their place. The rules of those societies ought not to be placed in the power of a barrister, residing at a distance perhaps from the spot where the institution was formed; nor ought they to be strictly assimilated to each other, for local peculiarities would necessarily demand a body of regulations adapted to those peculiarities, and no barrister could, however able he might be, form one general table which would be applicable to every case. He therefore trusted that the noble Lord would allow a Committee; that he would grant those institutions the protection craved in the petitions which had been presented; and that he would, in short, allow them to do what they pleased with their own. It was his wish to aid his industrious countrymen; he had no personal object in view in bringing the subject before the House, and he hoped that the praiseworthy efforts of the humbler classes of their countrymen to assist each other, and to keep themselves independent of the Poor-laws, would meet with every encour- agement from that House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Committee.

said, it was because he felt deeply the importance of benefit societies, that he would entreat the House not to grant the Committee which the hon. Gentleman had moved for. During the last few years several Committees had sat for the purpose of inquiring into the operation of the laws for the regulation of benefit societies: and the result had been, that a Bill was brought in by a noble friend of his, who was now a Member of the upper House, and that Bill having passed both Houses of Parliament was now the Act by which those societies were regulated. The hon. Member had talked much of the petitions and complaints made against that act; but what was the fact? Since 1829 only one petition had been presented from Scotland, one from Ireland, and about twenty from England. Now, what was the number of benefit societies in the United Kingdom? It did not fall much short of 5,000. If, then, there had been only from twenty to twenty five petitions presented to the House since the year 1829, there were, he thought, good grounds for concluding that the members of those societies were satisfied with the laws affecting the regulation of those institutions. He was convinced that to appoint a Committee, or to propose to alter the laws, would be productive, instead of a good, of a very bad, effect. To adopt such measures would create great anxiety in the minds of the members, and give rise to doubts which would retard the increase of those societies, and prevent many from joining those which were already formed, though they might be inclined at present to enroll themselves as members. The hon. Gentleman complained of grievances; but where was the hardship? By the Act, certain privileges were granted to those societies, and all that it required was, that if they chose to avail themselves of those privileges they should conform to certain things which the Act enjoined. Any Gentleman who had attended to the subject, and who had considered the operations of those societies before and since the passing of the Act, could not doubt that it had proved extremely beneficial. As far as he could understand the matter, the effect of that Act had been to give increased confidence to the members of those societies, and ad- ditional security to the poor man that his funds would not be wasted improperly. He would call the attention of the House to one fact, which he thought proved the beneficial tendency of the Act. Within a period of six years the contributors and the amount of contributions had nearly doubled. In 829, the number of contributors was 300,000, and the amount of money lodged 13,000,000l.; while by the last returns it appeared that the number of contributors was 600,000, and the amount contributed upwards of 20,000,000l. He objected to the appointment of a Committee, because the moment the subject was touched upon by one, alarm and insecurity would pervade the minds of the poorer class of society, who were the principal contributors. If the hon. Member thought any alteration of the existing law necessary, let him bring in a Bill for the purpose, and he (Mr. P. Thomson) for one would not oppose its introduction, but would give it his best consideration. The adoption of such a course would not create that alarm which would result from the appointment of a Select Committee. No information had reached him that such a Bill was necessary or would be productive of good, or would be one to which he could give his sanction; but he considered that a more preferable course for the hon. Member to follow than the one which he now called upon the House to adopt.

regretted the determination of the right hon. Gentleman not to grant a Committee. He thought the increase in the number of benefit societies, and their growing importance, formed a new reason for the appointment of a Committee; while the introduction of the recent measure of Poor-laws, which had thrown the poorer classes of society so much upon their own resources, rendered it a matter of the utmost importance to secure for the poor, annuities in their old age. In his opinion, benefit societies supplied those annuities on an extensive scale; and to have those institutions well regulated was an object worthy of the attention of that House. According to Mr. Price's tables the members, on the payment, periodically, of a trifling sum in their youth, were secured in the enjoyment of 6s. a-week when they reached sixty-five years of age, and 12s. a-week after seventy. If, then, the poor were not to look to the workhouse for relief, they ought to be encouraged to lay up a portion of their earnings, in the days of youth and strength, to secure them independence in their old age; and that House ought not to refuse a remedy for the grievances of which they complained, or to consider of a plan for extending the benefits which those societies were calculated to confer upon the industrious poor.

was sorry that a Committee was refused. When the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hoy) brought forward a similar motion last Session, the only objection on the part of Ministers was want of time; and he distinctly understood that a pledge had been given, that no opposition would, in this Session, be offered to the appointment of a Committee. He did think, that what had fallen from hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, regarding the changes which the Poor-laws were operating in society, was deserving of the most serious consideration; and if a Committee were granted, some scheme might be devised which, by means of those benefit societies, would render the lower classes of the people more independent of the relief afforded by the workhouse to the poor. He doubted whether legislation would be of any advantage to the larger societies; but there were smaller ones which did not come within the strict rule, and they could not avail themselves of the advantages enjoyed by others. He was aware that nothing could be more advantageous than to give every possible encouragement to provident societies. He had received from forty to fifty deputations from different societies, whose petitions he had presented, who approved of the Bill as a whole, hut wishing that some amendment of it should take place. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson) that it would be extremely improper to put this subject at sea, but an inquiry ought to be granted. He knew at least 100 societies that required it, and whose affairs could not be provided for by the working of the present Bill. Why, he wished to know, was there an objection to inquiry? Where was the danger? The only objection that could be stated was loss of time. If the Committee was granted, the hon. Member would have an opportunity of bringing forward the alleged grievances; and if they turned out not to be of a character that required redress, the House would not be bound to act upon them. But if any benefit could be conferred, why should it not be done? and sure he was, that the Government could not do better than encourage, to the utmost of their power, these societies. Though good might come from such an inquiry, harm could not; and he therefore hoped that, notwithstanding what had passed, a Committee would yet be granted.

did think that the appointment of a Committee would not be productive of any good. It would not in his opinion encourage the formation of those societies, or promote the objects which they had in view; but, on the contrary, would tend to infuse doubts into the minds of the Members, and restrain those, who might be inclined, from joining them. What the grievance was of which they complained he could not understand. A few petitions had been presented against the present regulations; but to prove that those regulations were beneficial, they had the acquiescence of the whole remaining number of the 5,000 or 6,000 societies then existing. It was said that the fee paid to the barrister for revising the rules was beyond the power of some; but this he thought could hardly be the case; and he had frequently been deputed to convey to the barrister the warmest expressions of gratitude for the interest he had manifested in the societies in his vicinity. He objected to a Committee, on the ground that its inquiries would only tend to defeat the object which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hoy) had in view.

thought a Committee would prove advantageous, as it would, in his opinion, tend to increase the number of benefit societies. Those societies tended to make the humbler classes of society independent in mind, and to elevate their character; while, at the same time, they provided a certain support for sickness and old age. An inquiry would, in his opinion be productive of benefit; and any suggestion from that House would be attended with the best effect. In the town which he had the honour to represent, they had failed to found those societies on a solid foundation, and he, therefore, thought that inquiry would give permanency and stability to such institutions. He could not understand the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had said that a Committee would give insecurity; but in his opinion it would give confidence; and, in combination with the Poor-laws, might render those societies highly beneficial. He would state a circumstance to the House which illustrated the character of the members of those institutions. He had made some inquiries of a gaoler who had informed him that of the 20,000 prisoners he had had in his custody, there was not one man connected with a benefit society. That fact demonstrated that those societies were a guard on public morals, and they further saved the poor-rates, and in every way were conducive to the public good. They tended to make the poor their own benefactors, to teach them provident habits, and to induce them to provide for old age and sickness out of their own industry, instead of trusting to the Poor-laws for support. He therefore trusted that they would receive every encouragement which that House could give them; and a Committee to inquire into the laws affecting their operation, and into the grievances of which they complained, would, in his estimation, be productive of the best results.

considered that the eulogy which had been passed by the hon. Member for Leeds on these societies was not called for, because but one sentiment prevailed on the subject, and that was, that every possible encouragement ought to be afforded them. He was in daily communication with persons belonging to benefit societies, and he had never heard any complaints from them; he therefore inferred from that circumstance, and inasmuch as he had not been called upon to support the motion of the hon. Member for Southampton, that inquiry was not desired.

said, that having been a member of three Committees on benefit societies, he was bound to say that the calculations on which many of their proceedings were based, were frequently very loose. He thought, however, that no specific good would be obtained by the appointment of a Committee. Mr. Port-man's Bill had in view the procuring more certain returns of the extent of the money operations of those societies, and the revision of them by a competent person, in order that new and more correct tables might be made out. This was an opera-lion requiring time for its full development, and that time had not yet been allowed to elapse. Under these circumstances, he really did not see what call there was for any new measure on the subject of these benefit societies; and as the appointment of a Committee would occasion great inconvenience, without a commensurate good, he thought the hon. Gentleman should bring forward some specific proposition of amendment before the question could be properly mooted.

said, that complaints had very generally been made in Ireland of the operation of the present laws. The leading features of the Bill and its principle were approved of, but great inconvenience had been found to attend some of its details. Thus a case was made out, not for a general inquiry, but for a specific proposition to remedy the evils that attended those details. The hon. Member for Southampton, therefore, had better introduce a Bill applicable to that part of the question. That Bill being referred to a Select Committee would afford an opportunity for considering the subject, and for receiving the suggestions of the different societies. Among other things he thought the mode of keeping the accounts might be improved.

said, that since Mr. Portman's Act and the system of revision had come into operation, there had been fewer failures and bankruptcies in these societies than before. He thought the present operation of these laws beneficial, and therefore that the hon. Gentleman ought to make out a strong case before he sought to disturb them.

could say, from the communications which he had received from several benefit societies in the town which he had the honour to represent, that the people did not desire any change in the constitution of these societies, and that if a Committee were granted, many of them would send up deputies to prove the advantage of the present law. He thought that the suggestion which the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had just thrown out was a suggestion which would most effectually assist the hon. Member for Southampton in the accomplishment of his objects.

asserted, that the mechanics of the metropolis made great complaints of the laws regulating the constitution of these societies. Within the last two hours he had received a letter from a large body of them, requesting him to support the motion of the hon. Member for Southampton. He was afraid that great disappointment would be the result of their hearing that his Majesty's Ministers were determined to oppose the appointment of a Committee.

supported the motion, as he thought a Committee would be productive of great advantage. In the country with which he was connected, the new Poor-laws had exercised a great influence upon these societies. It was said that the new Poor-laws had made the poorer classes come forward in societies to provide for themselves in sickness and old age, and had thus, to use the expression of the hon. Member for Leeds, rendered them benefactors to themselves. It was, therefore, a duty incumbent on the House to look closely at the regulations by which such societies were governed. He should be sorry if the motion of the hon. Member for Southampton was not granted.

observed, that hon. Members seemed to be under the impression that the calculations by which these societies were governed were formed upon Dr. Price's tables. Now, the law which fixed those tables as the basis for the calculations of these societies had been repealed. If hon. Members were of opinion that that law ought to be re-enacted, that might form a subject of inquiry. At the same time, he must observe, that he was inclined to think, from the communications he had received from these societies, that there were not sufficient grounds laid for the appointment of a Committee.

insisted that the operatives of England disapproved almost universally of the system of law by which these societies were governed. They complained that it was unjust that they should not be allowed to invest their money as they pleased, but that they should be compelled to invest it in a manner of which they disapproved. Such of them as lived in the district with which he was locally connected, had desired him to express to Parliament their earnest wish that the present law should be changed, and that the benefit societies should be at liberty to adopt any system they might think proper, liable to the approbation of one or more of the neighbouring justices.

said, that he had had several petitions to present with reference to the subject then before the House. He had also intended to speak upon the question; but, seeing the indisposition of the Speaker, he would not, unnecessarily, protract the discussion upon it.

immediately rose and said: —"There is no reason that I should not sit here to any hour that the House may think fit, and nothing would be more painful to me than to think that I had been the cause of unnecessarily postponing or delaying the public business."

briefly replied. He could not see how any alarm, inconvenience, or incertitude, could be created among the labouring classes by acceding to his motion for a Committee. He could not accede to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny for this reason—that the right hon. President of the Board of Trade had that evening informed him, that if he (Mr. Hoy) brought in a Bill upon the subject, he should feel it to be his duty to meet it with the most strenuous opposition.

said, that the hon. Member for Southampton had certainly misunderstood what had fallen from him when he last addressed the House. He had not said that he would oppose the Bill of the hon. Member; but having heard in private something of the nature of that Bill, he had said that he could not give it his support. He would now say, distinctly, that if the hon. Member chose to bring in his Bill, he would give it, as was his duty, every consideration in his power.

did not wish to enter into so wide a field of inquiry as the appointment of this Committee would of necessity open. Though there were many benefit societies in the south which he represented, he had not received from any of them any complaints against the existing state of the law upon that subject.

said, in reference to the observation made by an hon. Gentleman near him respecting the health of the Speaker, that he was perfectly ready to postpone his motion if such were the wish of the House. [Cries of "No, no."] He would then proceed. So much had at different times been said in that House on the subject of Church reform, that it would be unnecessary for him to trouble them with any preliminary remarks; and he felt quite sure, that the House, would be disposed to entertain with patience such statements and reasonings as the nature of the question rendered it necessary to lay before them, and that he hoped the time had now arrived when the question which his motion involved would be thought to merit more serious attention than motions of a similar character had hitherto obtained. He hoped also that in any remarks which he might make, he should manifest that which he really felt—a sincere respect for the motives of every hon. Member, while on the other hand he thought he had a right to expect that his own motives would not be misinterpreted. The question was one of the gravest moment—it was one of such paramount importance, that he hoped the House would feel the indulgence of any prejudice whatever on such an occasion was utterly misplaced. It was, he would maintain, the duty of every man in that House to come to the discussion of that question with an earnest wish to examine it deliberately, and to decide upon its merits after cool reflection. He had long pondered upon the question with much anxiety, but in arriving at the conclusion to which all his deliberations led, he must say, that he paid very little attention to the records contained in the journals of the House of Lords, and as little to the proceedings of the House of Commons. He rather preferred to study the effect which the existence of spiritual Peers had upon the minds of the people than the opinions or feelings which their presence within the walls of Parliament might have produced upon the Members of either House. Besides endeavouring to ascertain the effect which such a practice had upon the minds of the public at large, he had examined several polemical writers, and he had gone the length of consulting upon the subject that highest of all authorities, in which there was no error—that code which could not be disputed. The House need not be apprehensive that he was about to deliver a homily—all he meant then to trouble them with on that point was, that in the sacred volume there could be found no authority, no trace of an authority, for that frequent desertion of their spiritual duties of which Bishops, so long as they remained Peers of Parliament, must necessarily be guilty. The object of his motion was to relieve spiritual Peers from Parliamentary duties—to relieve them from duties incompatible with a discharge of the sacred trusts committed to them, and which they had vowed and sworn in the most solemn manner to fulfil. He was as willing as any man to allow for change of circumstances—he was willing to make ample allowance for an alteration in the spirit of the time, but he could not help referring once more to the fact, that the highest of all authorities, not only did not contain any sanction of an union of temporal dignities with the episcopal office, but expressly prohibited to Bishops an interference with secular affairs. Their interference in secular administration had been by Bishop Watson well described as a pollution. The opinion was not confined to that right rev. Prelate, it was shared by laymen of the most eminent character, and not only by those, but by many pious clergymen of the Established Church, who regarded the union of secular with ecclesiastical duty as highly detrimental to the interests of religion, and as incompatible with the episcopal character. The reputation of Lord Henley as a writer upon Church Reform, was well known to the House, and that noble Lord most distinctly recommended that the Bishops should not retain their seats in the Upper House of Parliament. That eminent person, Mr. Knox, a high Churchman, whose correspondence with Bishop Jebb, must be known to many hon. Members, observed in another work—"The dignities, titles, and emoluments of our establishment obviously constitute as severe a test of virtue as the mind of man could well be tried by; and that these objects minister to the bad passions of thousands, must be admitted." Such were the sentiments of an enlightened clergyman of the Established Church. In those sentiments he was sure many members of the Established Church, both lay and clerical, cordially concurred. But he would read an extract from a pamphlet, published a few months ago, entitled Fundamental Church Reform. This tract, he premised, was written by a clergyman, who had not announced his name, though the finger of fame bad pointed at the author. Young, noble, liberal, erudite, eloquent, and pious, a hundred mitres could not add to his impressiveness in the pulpit, nor increase his Christian influence. The writer remarks, speaking of the Bishops, "Some of our Bishops are still too wealthy. Should it be said that their wealth is needed to maintain their dignity as Spiritual Peers, it may be replied, that their Spiritual Peerage is worse than their wealth. They ought to retire from Parliament, and then their wealth would be no longer requisite. Retire they will before long. Public opinion cannot long permit such a hindrance to their usefulness. Of all the irrational practices defended by some, and allowed by multitudes, just because we are so much creatures of habit, this is one of the most irrational. In every view of the case it is mischievous. It makes the whole bench a moral Maelstroom, sucking even remote circles of the clergy into a gulf of worldly ambition. To the Bishops themselves the temptation to worldliness must be almost insuperable." …. "Sometimes by voting with Ministers against popular opinion" (the rev. Gentleman must refer to other times), however conscientiously, they have dis- gusted many. They have increased that disgust by their professional defence of our establishment; but when, except in one or two illustrious instances of individual fidelity have they defended evangelical religion, or taught the House of Lords to base all legislation on a reverence for God and for his word? It has stamped the Church with an aspect of secularity highly detrimental to its spiritual influence. It has accustomed the more licentious journals to throw unmeasured contempt upon the whole episcopal order. It has made Bishops courtiers, it has estranged them from their clergy; with the dignity of Peers they have assumed, perhaps unavoidably, a forbidding superiority over their brethren; they can never be brotherly—they can scarcely be paternal. On all accounts, therefore, their retirement from the House of Lords is much to be desired; and the Bishop, who, in his place in Parliament, superior to self-interest and prejudice, and the animosity which might be caused in the minds of a few, should move this removal, would deserve to have his name enrolled among those of the most distinguished patriots." Such were the sentiments of an enlightened clergyman, in the substance of which immense numbers of churchmen, clerical as well as lay, cordially participated. Those were the observations he admitted of an anonymous clergyman; but what said the Rev. E. Duneombe, Rector of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in a pamphlet, entitled A Guide to Church Reform? He hoped the House would bear with him whilst he road a little more on the subject. Mr. Duneombe said "Pomp, and form, and absence, have supplanted the authoritative powers of respect, and presence, and affection. Instead of flying to a diocesan with the dependent love and anxiety of children, many of his clergy approach him with fear and trembling, entering palace and await his coming with nervous apprehension and breathless palpitations, and quit it grateful that the interview is over." And again —"Our Bishops hold merely their formal and periodical intercourse with their clergy, are rarely ever seen, still more rarely known, by the laity of their dioceses."—Besides the very good authority he had already referred to, he begged to draw the attention of the House to the evidence afforded on this subject by a dignitary of the Established Church. "A good and honest Bishop," says a canon residentiary of St. Paul's, who has lately written a pamphlet, commenting on the acts of the ecclesiastical commission (I thank God there are many who deserve that character), "ought to suspect himself, and carefully to watch his own heart. He is all of a sudden elevated from being a tutor, dining at an early hour with his pupil (and occasionally, it is believed, on cold meat), to be a spiritual Lord; he is dressed in a magnificent dress, decorated with a title, flattered by chaplains, and surrounded by little people, looking up for the things which he has to give away; and this often happens to a man who has had no opportunity of seeing the world, whose parents were in very humble life, and who has given up all his thoughts to the frogs of Aristophanes and the tar-gum of Onkelos. How is it possible that such a man should not lose his head, that he should not swell, that he should not be guilty of a thousand follies, and worry and tease to death (before he recovers his common sense), a hundred men as good, and as wise, and as able as himself?" Various writers, at various periods, amongst the laity, amongst the subordinate clergy —of episcopal, nay, of archiepiscopal rank —had expressed their objections to the union of ecclesiastical with secular dignity. Archbishop Leighton would not allow his household, or any over whom he had authority, to address him, my Lord Bishop, and when strangers so addressed him, he never failed to express his displeasure. That eminent Prelate, as well as the various other authorities to which he had referred in support of his motion, considered the title of Lord as a distinction, the tendency of which was directly the reverse of favourable to the interests of the Established Church; so far from securing the affections, it did not even command the respect of the people. And this could hardly be matter of surprise, for the influence of such distinctions naturally was, to engender loftiness of demeanour, contemptuousness, and arrogance— habits which they carried with them, even into the sanctuary. He would suppose that any Member of that House happened to go into a provincial cathedral, be would naturally ask, who was that stately personage habited in robes of white and black, with lawn sleeves, walking up the aile, accompanied by his dean and chapter, and his vicars choral, preceded and fol- lowed by the inferior officers of the cathedral; the organ, which should peal in honour of the Creator, sending forth its notes to welcome the creature. If any one inquired for whom all this pomp was produced, in whose honour this splendid and imposing ceremonial was gone through, the reply could hardly be, that it was in honour of one of the representatives and successors of the apostles; such a reply would be hardly consistent with the general character and aspect of the spectacle then presented to view, and yet it would be nevertheless true that that elevated dignitary claimed to be the successor, representative, and imitator, of the humblest of mankind. He repeated, that if the inquiry were made, the answer would be, that the personage in question was no other than the Lord Bishop of the Diocese, who was now welcomed with all this homage, after seven or eight months absence; who had arrived from his London mansion at his country palace, and as a part of the ceremonial, was then mounting his throne in the house of God, to be gazed at, and reverenced as something above humanity, exempt from the frailties and imperfections of our common nature. While seated on that throne, if his thoughts wandered to the last vote he might have given in Parliament, it would probably turn out to have been one tending to disturb the peace of 8,000,000 of his fellow-creatures, and to plunge into desolation and blood a whole people, and yet if he were called on to defend such a vote, he would say, that it had been given in the service of God, and in the faithful discharge of his sacred office. Returning, however, to the grand ceremonial going forward in the cathedral, he would say, there might be scoffers found in that assembly who would think that its gorgeousness ill accorded with the humility and self-denial which were generally thought to be one of the most important duties of a Christian Minister to inculcate by his precepts and enforce by his example. Might not a person, on leaving such an assembly as that, contrast, without occasioning much surprise, the humility of the apostles with the magnificence of their successors? It was a magnificence sufficient to dazzle one of the most virtuous and amiable men that ever sat on the episcopal bench—the late Bishop Jebb, as appears from his correspondence with Sir R. Inglis, in which, within the compass of one short passage, he twice referred to his enthronement as a matter in which he felt a deep interest. With the permission of the House, he would take the liberty of reading to them the passage to which he referred. It was really not beside the question under discussion; and he considered it in many points of view, to be both interesting and important. The hon. Member read the following extract from a letter of the right rev. Prelate:—" This is the first day I was able to set apart for being enthroned in the cathedral of Limerick. On many accounts—political, moral, and religious —I do not like the reducing this, which ought to be a solemnity, into an unimportant form; matters, therefore, were so arranged, that the chapter, headed by the dean, met me at the cathedral door, a short time before the hour of daily service, which immediately followed the act of enthronement, and thus one had something more than a legal and official ceremony." Thus it appears that, in the opinion of this good Bishop—he who so extolled the humility of that "human seraph" Archbishop Leighton—political ends were to be promoted, and religion benefited by his unusual ceremonious enthronement. The following year he left his diocese or pastoral duty in the month of January, and did not return to it till September. The exercise of their baronial duties greatly interfered with the clerical offices of Bishops; it was impossible that a Bishop could attend to the duties of his diocese and to his duties as a member of the Legislature at the same time. But the evil was rendered still greater, as it happened, that it was almost always found, that the bench of Bishops opposed every measure of a liberal tendency, or which enlisted on its side the feelings of the people; that, in fact, they invariably opposed every proposition that had for its object the extension of liberty, civil or religious. It was not the custom of any other Protestant clergy to mix up baronial and ecclesiastical privileges. In the Church of Scotland there was no union of civil and ecclesiastical offices; and as an instance of the rigour with which this principle was enforced, he might mention, that Lord Belhaven was compelled to give up the office of elder when he undertook the office of Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly. Neither was the English form of Church Government permitted in Denmark, Swe- den, or the United States, or amongst the Protestant Bishops of Germany. The Established Church in England was the only church, except the Roman Catholic Church, which suffered the heads of the church to intermeddle in political affairs. But in some Roman Catholic countries, the Bishops were prevented entirely from interfering in political affairs and the consequence was that they enjoyed the reverence and respect of all classes and parties in the country. If the Bishops of the Church of England followed this example, they would meet with the same reverence and respect. Let them remain in their dioceses, let them promote education, let them exalt their clergy, and apply themselves devotedly to those duties to which, by the most solemn pledge, they were bound. They would then, no longer be assailed; they would meet their reward in the affection and reverence of a whole people. When he used the expression of "exalting the clergy," he meant it in a very different sense from that in which it had been lately used in the address of a certain prelate at an ordination. The charge to which he alluded, comprised forty-eight octavo pages, forty-one of which were occupied in a political discussion of certain Acts of Parliament passed last Session, one of which, especially, this political Prelate, described as "degrading and corrupting," as "wholly unnecessary," "as pregnant with the most disastrous consequences to the Church of England," as replete with danger and mischief; and he charges the members of the Ecclesiastical Commission with "a proneness to extend their own powers, a mischievous latitude and laxity in construing the terms in which their trust is confided to them; a violation, in short, of both the letter and the spirit of the commission under which they act." He would ask whether charges of this description were calculated to increase the respect of the people for the Established Church? And let it be remembered, that the Acts thus described, thus commented upon, received the sanction of his Majesty, who was not only the political, but the spiritual head of the Church. He was not surprised, when the heads of the Church thus took the lead, that the inferior clergy should follow the example of their superiors, and become notorious, from the dean down to the lowest curate, for their addiction to politics. There could not be a better proof of this than the fact, that Dr. Hampden, a most eminent, learned, and pious man—was made the victim of clerical vengeance, because he dared to advocate the admission of Dissenters to the University. A political bias extended through the whole of the clergy from the highest to the lowest. In the case of Dr. Hampden, the clergy of the University of Oxford and the Vice-Chancellor, objected to the appointment, although it was sanctioned by his Majesty; and they had seen many instances lately, in which the clergy of the Established Church had shown disrespect to his Majesty's representative. The people saw these things, and saw them with regret, and they attributed them in a great measure, if not entirely, to the political character given to the Church by the admission of Bishops into the House of Lords. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this House, that the sitting of the Bishops in Parliament is unfavourable in its operation to the general interests of the Christian religion in this country, and tends to alienate the affections of the people from the Established Church."

rose to second the motion; he did so most cordially, under the conviction that by so doing, he was giving the best support to the religious character of the Established Church; and, at the same time, acting upon the soundest principles of religious liberty. It was, in his opinion, contrary to the doctrines of religious liberty that any one sect or denomination of Christians should possess political powers which others did not enjoy. Those who had advocated the Test and Corporation Acts, and the measure of Catholic Emancipation, but who now opposed Government, ought to have known that the vantage ground which the friends of religious liberty had thereby obtained would be made the most of on every occasion in their power. They should not be surprised, therefore, at the motion which was now made. Lord Henley had stated in his pamphlet on the subject of Church Reform, that the strength of the Church should rest in the heart and good esteem of the people, and ought not to be polluted by politics. It was mischievous to the Church, therefore, as well as injurious to the State, for the Church to mingle in politics. If any argument were wanted to prove this, he would point to the Church of England, and ask what had it gained by its political supporters? and then to the Church of Scotland, and ask whether that Church was not every way as secure as the Church of England, although she had no Parliamentary privileges? Look at the Dissenters of England also—was there any lack of defenders for their rights? Not at all. He was convinced, that if the Church of England left her defence in the hands of laymen, instead of taking it into her own hands, it would be much better for her.

presumed that the arguments which had been used by the hon. Mover and Seconder on this occasion were such as could not be answered, at least nobody on the other side seemed prepared to answer them. He rose, therefore, chiefly with a view to claim the vote of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department. The same arguments which the noble Lord had used the other night, in giving his candid opinion that clergymen ought not to belong to the commission of the peace—applied to Bishops sitting in Parliament. The noble Lord had impressed upon the House, that the duties of clergymen were inconsistent with the commission of the peace. If that argument were true as respected clergymen in general, he thought it peculiarly applicable to the Bishops, who had plenty of duties to attend to if they chose, and were well paid for it. Now, he would first put this question to the noble Lord: whether, upon the same principle he had formerly laid down, the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords was not inconsistent with their sacred duties? The Bishops had always acted the part of political agents in the House for the Government which had preferred them. This was not precisely true, perhaps, of late years, for latterly the Bishops had been generally opposed to the Government. But let them look back at the history of former years, and they would find that for ages the Bishops had been the constant supporters of Government in everything that it proposed militating against the people, instead of interposing as peace-makers between it and the people over whom it sought to tyrannise. The Bishops had always been the aiders and abettors of tyranny. Did any one deny it? He defied any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to point out a single instance where the Bishops, as a body (he did not deny that there had been some honourable exceptions occasionally), had not always been forward in aiding and abetting against the people, and every reform to which they aspired. They had opposed the abolition of the Slave-trade; they had thrown impediments in the way of the education of the people, while, on the contrary, they ought to have considered their own immediate business; and, as for every improvement in the internal state of the country, he defied any hon. Member to show that the majority of the Bishops had ever always aided and abetted it. By such conduct, the Church had essentially diminished the strength of its hold on the country, and the sooner the practice of Bishops sitting in Parliament was done away with, the sooner the Bishops were sent back to the duties of their dioceses, the better it would be for themselves, for the establishment to which they belonged, and for the community at large.

Sir, as the hon. Member for Middlesex has taken upon himself to state my opinions, I shall take the liberty of denying the accuracy of his report, and at the same time take the opportunity of informing the House what are my opinions in my own way. The hon. Gentleman who brings forward this motion in so doing brings forward a proposal for a change in a very essential principle of the British Constitution, which, as he must be aware, recognises "the Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons, in Parliament assembled.'' The change which the hon. Member proposes to make in this constitution is of a very essential and prominent nature. It is not like the change which we effected when we passed the Reform Bill, which was done upon the ground that the House of Commons, which ought to represent the people, did not sufficiently do so, and that it did not perform the functions which it ought to perform, and in consequence of which it became necessary to make it more in accordance with the ancient Constitution. Now there is no such claim, there are no such pretensions, in support of the present motion. It is a motion to alter one of the most ancient points in the constitution of these realms, and to resort upon new grounds to a new constitution of Parliament. I say, therefore, that to such a change I am averse, unless I have the strongest reasons, not vague and undetermined, but strong and well defined reasons in its support. Now the reasons by which the hon. Gentleman sought to advocate his proposal are altogether vague, desultory, and unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman began by talking of removing the Bishops from the House of Lords; but appeared to be altogether uncertain with what object towards the Church, and where his object would end. The hon. Gentleman quoted Bishop Leighton, and then pointed to the Scotch Church, where there are no Bishops, in contrast with the pomp with which the Bishop is installed in this country, and the state of his enthronement on attending a cathedral, which ceremonies and state I have seen attendant upon the person of as good a man as ever lived in this or any other country. Now, to what do these allusions tend? Do they tend to the question of the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords? Not at all; but to the establishment of the Presbyterian system of the Church of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman then referred to the United States, where there was no Church Establishment at all. When the hon. Gentleman, therefore, proposes to me to have no longer a Parliament of Lords spiritual and temporal and of Commons, but one only of Lords temporal and Commons, the arguments he uses lead at once to two altogether distinct considerations, namely, in the first place, to a Church in which there are no bishops; and in the second, to a State where there is no church establishment. Now I must own it appears to me that if these are the grounds upon which the hon. Member proposes the change he particularises in his motion, these grounds are not sufficient to support that motion, nor will the change he wishes in it be sufficient to answer the hon. Gentleman's purpose. This change, if agreed to, must lead to farther change, and I must own that such a change once commenced, I cannot see any point at which we may consistently stop short of the constitution of the United States, in which there is no established church. The hon. Gentleman who makes this motion, and the hon. Member for Middlesex, argue that there must be a distinction between civil and spiritual functions. The hon. gentleman should recollect, however, that in this country the head of the government and the head of the Church are one. The King is the head of the Church, and the Government of the Church becomes that of the Government of the country; it is impossible, therefore, with such a Constitution to have the complete distinction of civil and spiritual functions which the hon. Gentlemen desire. Such a distinction cannot exist consistently with a church establishment. It is a very different thing for the Duke of Wellington to have said that in the appointments of magistrates it was advisable not to select clergymen where laymen could be found to do the purpose; this is a totally different principle from that proposed by the hon. Gentleman to remove the Bishops from their seats and their duties in the House of Lords. The Established Church is a distinct part of the constitution of this country. The Bishops, by holding seats in Parliament', are the acknowledged representatives of that part of our constitution. If they are to be excluded from their seats, I then do not see by what rule we could exclude the other orders of the clergy from seats in the House of Commons. It appears to me, however, that the Bishops are that portion of the clergy which can best execute the political duties of the Church, and that with the least disturbance or interruption of their spiritual functions, many of these duties being of such a nature that they can be attended to when absent from their dioceses, whilst the inconvenience attendant upon clergymen leaving the flocks of their respective parishes would be very great. However this may be, I must say I know not upon what grounds we should pretend to exclude this great body of men altogether from the privilege of being represented in Parliament, considering the property that belongs to them, and the station they hold in the country. Would it not be exceedingly unfair in Parliament to discuss and pass measures affecting all these interests—as tithes, and advowsons, and ecclesiastical property in general—and to say that on all these great questions they would not allow those who are most deeply interested in them to take any part? With respect to the total distinction and distribution of civil and political functions I own that all experience is against it, for it has been found that persons who have religious functions to perform have not confined themselves to the exercise of those functions, but have frequently taken part in political contests. But if this is a characteristic of Bishops, does not the same description apply to Dissenters? Since I have been connected with the Government, I have heard of applications to the Lord Chancellor for livings of which he had the patronage, and may therefore take the liberty of stating how these applications are made, and also the manner in which the patronage was given. I know that both in the time of the former Lord Chancellor as well as the present Lord Chancellor, such a case as this has frequently occurred. Application has been made in favour of a deserving clergyman or a curate of fifteen or twenty years' standing, and it has been urged that he was a gentleman greatly beloved, that he attended to all the spiritual wants of his flock, and that all parties were anxious that the vacant living should be given to him, and he was appointed. But might not those who contend that civil and religious functions should be separated raise their voice against such a practice, and say that though the curate is not a violent partisan, his brother, or his nephew, or his cousin is, and that the living ought not to be given to an individual connected with a person of such political opinions? With regard to the Dissenters, I know many ministers of the different sects for whom I have the greatest respect and regard; I know how much they attend to the spiritual interests of the Church to which they belong; but if I were to select those who are most respected, and if I am asked whether they separated religious functions from political, I am glad to say they do not. I am glad to say, that so long as I have taken a share in politics, I have found the Dissenting ministers the warmest friends of political liberty, and whenever the rights of their fellow-subjects have been in danger, they have always been eager to promote the cause of political freedom, and I give them credit for it. To the proposition of the hon. Member I must therefore object, because in a country like this, where political and ecclesiastical duties are so intermingled, I cannot see how, by dint of resolutions, we are to reach the millennium, and have a certain number of persons of the Established church ministers of religion —solely and exclusively devoted to religious interests, with their eyes constantly directed to what is above—and another set of persons who shall in like manner confine themselves to political interests. The hon. Member who moved the resolutions said the Bishops had for many years voted against measures in favour of political freedom, and for measures calculated to oppress their fellow citizens. Now, though I seldom concur in the votes given by the Bishops, yet I must say, while their appointment is vested in the Crown, it is natural to suppose that the Minister of the day will raise pious and learned clergymen to the bench who are favourable and not adverse to his political opinions. That, however, has not always been the case, and I can give instances of Bishops, even under Tory Governments, who have advocated the principle of separating political from religious functions. I allude to Bishop Wight, Bishop Kennett, and Bishop Hoadley, who were the warmest advocates of political freedom. The latter Prelate, in his place in the House of Lords, argued in favour of the separation of the functions, because the "kingdom of God was not of this world," and asserted in the strongest manner the Whig principles which he openly professed. And as it happened in these days, when the Government was in the hands of the Tories, so it happened when the Whigs were in office in the reign of Queen Anne and George 1st. The parties in power appointed men of learning and piety, but at the same time men who held the same political opinions. This was the case also in the time of Lord Liverpool; and what wonder, then, was there that these prelates, when raised to the bench of Bishops, retained the same opinions which they held before their appointment? Had they acted in a different manner—had they shifted from day to day —had those prelates, for instance, voted with Lord Grey on all occasions, and then shifted round and voted in a different way when the right hon. Baronet was in difficulty, though the first mode of acting might have been more agreeable to my opinions it would not have made the bench of Bishops more respected. The practice existed one hundred years ago, and continued in the Government of Lord Liverpool, and it could not be considered any argument for the proposed change that a Government which had been in office for twenty or thirty years had appointed Bishops who professed the political opinions of the party. Rather general reasons had been given by the hon. Gentleman. I dissent from these reasons, because they would not effect the object he has in view, and I am not disposed, therefore, on such grounds to agree to the alteration.

said, that was the way in which the question was generally met. It was not met by argument but by clamour, for he had heard no argument, from the other side. The noble Lord had admitted that in former times men were created Bishops for their political opinions, and that under Whig Governments they were Whigs, and under Tory Governments Tories. He had also stated that within a certain time they had assumed a Tory character. Now the statements of the noble Lord were at variance with the Constitution. The mitred abbots were swept away at the Reformation, and that was as good a precedent for the change as any precedents for the Reform Bill. He was astonished at the arguments of the noble Lord. They were the arguments of the learned prelate, the Bishop of Exeter, to whom the noble Lord had referred in the early part of the evening. He was sorry the noble Lord had become the patron of that reverend, celebrated, and most polemical prelate, and had adopted his argument, that the Bishops were the pastores pastorum, and not the pastores populi. He would appeal to the religious feelings of the country on that point, and ask whether they represented the clergy in the House of Lords? They might represent the higher order of the clergy, but they did not represent the curates and the clergy in humble life. His hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, had correctly stated that the votes of the Bishops were not in unison with the feelings of the country. They had repeatedly voted against one great measure for which the people had struggled so much—the abolition of the slave trade; but he could state more, and the instance which he was about to give would show the practical grievance of allowing Bishops to sit in the House of Lords. On one occasion, and he had seen the circular, the Bishops were summoned to attend the House of Lords to vote against the abolition of the punishment of death for forgery. They went down and voted against their inward feelings, in order to fulfil their political duty. Men of the highest character concurred in the necessity of removing the Bishops from the House of Lords. Hallam stated that the Bishops should be swept away as the mitred abbots had been. Lord Falkland though a Tory, voted against them. He might quote also the authority of Spenser and Milton, who were both against them. He hoped the minority on this division would far exceed the minority of last Session, that minority had exceeded that of the preceding Session. The principle was working its way silently; there was a current underneath, the people's minds were changing on the subject, and the public feeling would eventually carry the question through the House.

was disappointed with the speech of the noble Lord, because at an early part of the evening the noble Lord had made a capital speech on their side when he described a right rev. Prelate as a libeller and a calumniator. It was strange, therefore, that he could fix on none but one right rev. Prelate, and he was astonished at his chivalry in running a tilt on behalf of one whom he had so described. The noble Lord had asked the usual question when any reform was proposed—how far would they carry the plan? He would give a plain answer: the answer of the Radicals was— they would carry the Bishops to the door of the House of Lords, and let them go whither they liked. The most decent course they could take would be to go to their dioceses. The noble Lord had spoken of Presbyterianism, and said if the Established Church were Presbyterian there would be no Bishops in the House of Lords; but did not the noble Lord know that in France the Bishops had no seats in the Upper House? And the same was the case in Spain. The Bishops in these countries had no legislative functions to perform, and why should not our Bishops be placed in the same position? Formerly there were three estates in this country. These were Lords, Commons, and Clergy; for the Clergy had a separate chamber, and were as much entitled to legislation as the Commons or Lords. That, however, had been done away with when the Convocation was abolished; and he was glad it had been abolished. The effect of the disposition of the clergy to meddle in political matters had frequently been most injurious to the cause of liberal principles. If the noble Lord were disposed to deny this fact, he (Mr. Buller) would refer him to a late contested election for Devonshire. At that election the noble Lord was defeated by a majority of six hundred; and he had understood that more than six hundred parsons voted on that occasion against the noble Lord. The noble Lord was, therefore, one instance in his own person of the evils resulting from allowing political to mix themselves with ecclesiastical considerations. At the same time, if they took the Bishops away from the House of Lords, he should have no objection to let some of the clergy into the House of Commons. Indeed he should be glad to see them there; for he was sure they would be less noisy there than elsewhere. In his opinion it was most unfitting that the First Lord of the Treasury should have religious patronage to be used for political purposes; and if any hon. Member would move for the abolition of such patronage, that hon. Member should have his support. While that patronage existed, what could be expected but that, as the noble Lord had stated, Bishops elevated to the bench by a Tory Government should support Tory principles, and that Bishops elevated to the bench by a Whig Government should support Whig principles? Let them look through the annals of the House of Lords, and they would find that the Bishops did not possess one legislative claim on the gratitude of the people. On the gratitude of Governments they had many claims; none on the gratitude of the people. On the contrary, whenever any question was brought forward which agitated and interested the people of England, the Bishops were always found banded together as one man to defeat the wishes of the people. They had opposed the abolition of slavery. [No.] He said they had. Let the lists of the divisions on that question in the House of Lords be examined, and that would prove to be the case. On all questions of religious toleration the Bishops had shown their hostility to liberal principles. He was for excluding Bishops from the House of Lords on a principle recognised by the Constitution in other matters. Why were Bishops not dealt with as Judges were? Judges were excluded from the arena of politics. They were all excluded with the exception of the Lord High Chancellor. He really could not understand the cause of this extraordinary denial. His argument was, that there was only one Judge recognised as such in the House of Lords, namely the Lord High Chancellor, and his legal merged in his official functions. Other Judges might be raised to the peerage, but they did not sit in the House of Lords as Judges. Members of the legal profession were told, "If you become Judges you must sepa- rate yourselves from political discussions and contests." This was most fitting; but, surely, if it were necessary to adhere to such a principle with those who only superintended the temporal concerns of the people, it must be necessary to adhere to it with those who superintended the spiritual concerns of the people. If it were necessary to guard the character of the judges from imputation, it must surely be necessary to guard the character of the Bishops from imputation. The tendency of the present system was to make at once bad Bishops and bad Peers. Instead of attending exclusively to the discharge of their important duties, the Bishops were now at the nod and beck of the First Lord of the Treasury. Hopes of promotion were held out to them as the reward of political services. The hon. Gentlemen opposite might not think it worth while, or they might not think it prudent, to argue this question. They might, perhaps, be desirous to leave to the noble Lord the unpopular task of defending the Bishops against the feelings of the people. It was of little importance what they did. Let them go on in the way they were going. The question itself was making a rapid progress in the country; and he had no doubt that ten years hence the majority in its favour would be greater than the majority against it might perhaps be on the present occasion.

said, that if any unpopularity were attached to the most decided opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Ashburton, to his full share of that unpopularity, he begged leave to put in a distinct claim. Feeling as he did upon the subject, he certainly would not be guilty of so base an action, as to leave the whole of the unpopularity with the noble Lord. It might not serve the noble Lord for him (Sir Robert Peel) to say so; but he must declare, that he never heard a speech delivered in a more manly manner than the speech of the noble Lord, or one which reflected greater credit on the noble Lord's abilities and judgment. For if it were true, as had been asserted by the hon. Member for Liskeard, that the noble Lord had lost his election for Devonshire, by the votes of 600 clergymen, and it being undoubtedly true, that a large majority of the bishops were opposed to the present Government, the noble Lord had set a most laudable example of the conduct which, under such circumstances, ought to be pursued by every man, and every Minister; and had not allowed any personal feeling to prevent him from frankly avowing his opinion on a great constitutional question like that under the consideration of the House. There was one objection to the motion of the hon. Member for Ashburton, which struck him (Sir R. Peel) as being at once fatal to it. The hon. Gentleman asked them to proceed, not by a legislative measure, but by a resolution. The hon. Gentleman asked the House of Commons to agree to a resolution, depriving a portion of one branch of the Legislature of its functions and privileges. Now what right had they to take any such step? If the hon. Gentleman were desirous of involving the House of Commons in a dilemma, he could not succeed more completely, than by persuading them to pass a resolution which, if passed, would have no effect whatever, but would be nearly a piece of waste paper. In former questions of a similar nature, it had always been proposed to proceed by Bill. But the hon. Member for Ashburton proposed by a resolution, to effect that which he despaired of effecting by Bill. Why should the House of Commons risk bringing their own resolution—he would not say into contempt—but why should they pass a resolution which must prove invalid and unavailing? The noble Lord had justly observed, that the inferences to be drawn from the reasoning of the hon. Member, led to much more serious and extensive consequences than the hon. Member himself seemed to be aware of. Not only, however, was that the case with the speech of the hon. Mover, every argument which had been used by the hon. Gentleman, who seconded the motion, went the length of showing the expediency, not merely of removing the Bishops from the House of Lords, but of abolishing the establishment. The hon. Gentleman said, that when Parliament repealed the Test and Corporation Acts, they established the principle, that no religious creed should have any advantage over any other. He (Sir R. Peel) had never heard such a principle maintained. The hon. Gentleman also contended, that the same thing took place on passing the Bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics. He (Sir R. Peel) had never heard so before; but he had heard the direct contrary. It would, indeed, be a great discouragement to any attempt to relieve any portion of the people from civil disabilities, if the House were to be told, "You must not stop here; you must carry your measure infinitely further, and stop only with the destruction of the National Church." Because the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed, because relief was granted to the Roman Catholics, was it thence to be inferred, that no one religious creed should have an advantage in this country over any other? It was evident, that if these hon. Gentlemen were to succeed in expelling the Bishops from the House of Lords, their next step would be, to propose that the Protestant clergy should no longer hold the exclusive possession of church temporalities. The hon. Member for Liverpool had mistaken, not only the argument, but the statements of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had never talked of any rapid changes on the part of Bishops, from Whig to Tory, or from Tory to Whig principles. The noble Lord had never talked of Bishops rewarding their patrons by mean political subserviency. What was the fact? That while human nature remained what human nature now was, and always had been, men possessed of patronage would, ceteris paribus, exercise that patronage in favour of those who agreed with them in opinion. And nothing could be more reasonable. Why, if his Majesty's present Government were to depart from that usage, and were ceteris paribus, to select political opponents for Bishops, would not the House hear the loudest reprobation of such a proceeding? Undoubtedly, the noble Lord stated, that during the long continuance of a Tory Government in power, the Bishops generally professed Tory principles. But did the noble Lord add, that that was out of servility to their patrons? Not at all. They were originally selected for advancement to the bench of Bishops, because they were supposed to hold certain political opinions. They did hold those opinions; and they continued to hold them. But it was said by the hon. Member for Middlesex, that after they had become Bishops, the hope of translation to more lucrative sees would tempt them to change their political opinions, and to maintain the principles of any new Government. Had his Majesty's present Government found that to be the case? The political opinions which they held, at the time of their original appointment, they still held and acted upon. The hope of translation had no effect upon them: there was not one of them who had voted that black was white. All, therefore, that their worst enemies could allege against them was, that they were consistent, bigoted politicians, who obstinately adhered to their own opinions. As to the separation of the civil from the religious duties of the clergy, he was convinced that it would be a measure highly injurious to the country. He did not wish to see the Church excluded from its fair share of political influence. If such an object were to be accomplished; if the clergy were compelled to confine themselves to the discharge of their ecclesiastical duties; if they were compelled to eschew all reference to, or interest in, temporal matters; if they were forbidden to participate in the feelings and wishes of their lay countrymen, he doubted, whether instead of the active, intelligent, enlightened, patriotic men, of whom the great body of the clergy of this kingdom was at present composed, we should not have a set of lazy, worthless, cloistered hypocrites. Into that question he would, however, not now enter. As to the plausible arguments which had been urged in favour of the destruction of a monarchical, and the establishment of a democratical, Government, he should be ashamed of himself if he condescended to say a single word in answer to them. He had risen only, because he did not wish it to be believed that he was capable of desiring to leave all the unpopularity of resisting the present motion on the shoulders of the noble Lord. Whether the declaration might be popular or unpopular he cared not; but he was prepared to give his most decided opposition to a proposition, the ultimate tendency of which would be to injure, if not to destroy, the civil and religious constitution of England.

expressed his conviction, that the great majority of the people of England were desirous of relieving the Bishops from their Parliamentary duties.