moved that the Order of the Day for the attendance of Mr. O'Connell should be read.

Is the hon. Member in his place?

I am here, Sir.

The hon. Member will be pleased to stand up.

proceeded to address him in the following words: Mr. O'Connell, you have permitted yourself to be betrayed into the use of expressions, at a public meeting, with respect to which this House has come to the following resolutions:—"That the expressions in the said speech, containing a charge of foul perjury against Members of this House, in the discharge of their judicial duties are a false and scandalous imputation on the honour and conduct of Members of this House. That Mr. O'Connell having avowed that he had used the said expressions, has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House; and, finally, that he be reprimanded in his place." The charge of foul perjury is one of the heaviest that can be preferred; you cannot be surprised that, having cast so grave an imputation on Members of this House, it has roused the indignation of those against whom it was directed, and that you have exposed yourself to the severest censure and displeasure of this House. You have endeavoured to vindicate your conduct by alleging that you were impelled by a strong sense of the defective constitution of the present tribunal for the trial of controverted elections, and that you sought to effect a remedy for that evil, by stimulating public opinion. It is unnecessary for me to remind you that at the time when you used the expressions which have been condemned this House had recognised, with scarcely any difference of opinion, the expediency of attempting to apply a real remedy to the evils of which you complain, and that your energies and talents could not have found a more legitimate or useful employment than in endeavouring to render the measure before this House efficient for its object. You have further alleged, and it is true, that others have used language as strong as that which you have employed with respect to this House and its Members. In general this House has been of opinion that it consulted its real dignity, and obeyed the dictates of true wisdom, in relying for protection and de-defence against misrepresentation and calumny on the consciousness of the zeal and fidelity with which it discharges its duty to the people whom it represents. The case, however, is very different, when one of the Members of this House seeks to disparage and to degrade this House in public estimation, by charging a large portion of its Members with foul perjury. No one knows better than you do that the laws and constitution of this realm have invested this House with power and authority so large that its acts must always have an important influence on the wellbeing of the state, and that no power and authority can be beneficially exercised unless they are administered by those who are respected. It is, therefore, the first duty of Members of this House to contribute by all proper means to sustain that character, which is as essential for the credit of this House itself, as for the interests of the country. If, unhappily, the day should ever arrive, when from any cause this House should be stripped of the moral influence of character, and of the respect of the people, its means of resistance to inexpedient, unreasonable, or unjust demands, would be so weakened, that this great Assembly, now popularly constituted, might be tossed about by every successive current, and the safety of the state might be endangered. I should be unworthy of the station which I hold if I did not feet the deepest interest in whatever can touch or affect the character of this House; and it is, therefore with great pain that I have been compelled, in the discharge of my duty, thus to animadvert upon the conduct of a Member who has sought to disparage this House by impugning the conduct and honour of a large portion of its Members. It now only remains, that, in obedience to the commands of this House, I should reprimand you, as I now, accordingly, do.

proceeded to say:—Sir, it seems to me that in following the precedent which you have laid down on the present occasion, much inconvenience has arisen. I have been deprived of a considerable advantage in my defence, by the mode of proceeding adopted by the House. It is but of small importance to myself, whatever my own inconvenience and suffering may be, but it is of great importance to the House and to the country that in the course of proceeding adopted there should be no disparagement to the character of the House in regard to its moral conduct in the eyes of the country at large. It is not merely by a longwinded resolution, whilst a portion of our body admits the allegation—it is not because we say, that we are pure, that the country will judge us to be so—it is not, Sir, because a majority of nine, or of nine and-twenty, or even of 200, have declared themselves free from taint, that the country will believe our conduct to be pure. As for myself, Sir, the morality or immorality of this House is a subject of trivial importance; but it is of great importance for the true administration of justice, that no party should be deprived of his rights by reason of a little political bias. In my opinion, Sir, and doubtless in the opinion of the country, the House will not be considered to have vindicated itself by this vote, any more than the judges, who authorised the taking of ship-money would have vindicated themselves before the public, if they had met and declared themselves to be pure, and patriotic, and just. I am sorry that I was not in the House after the resolutions were proposed, because the force of the words which I used, seem to me to be exceeded in the resolution, and I think that I could have satisfied the House of this. But taking the meaning of the word as it is assumed in these resolutions, was it such as to enable the House to declare the language which I used to be false and inconsistent with the fact? Might not many facts be brought forward to prove that partiality does exist? Has any Gentleman avowed that the facts are not true? Why hon. Members would laugh to scorn any one who alleged that there is no partiality in the election petitions of this House. What position, then, are we in when no Member will venture to state his firm belief that Election Committees are impartial? Who will get up and say, that the Committees are impartial? This is lax morality; it is not perjury, but it is simply voting from party bias. Upon the votes of this House it is admitted that many Members' decisions have been influenced by party bias and party attachments. In the resolutions moved last night, and printed with the votes this morning, it is expressly stated, that "several Members of this House have avowed their belief that the decisions of Election Committees, sworn well and truly to try the matter before them, are biassed by party interests and attachments;" and I want to know what this is but a charge of perjury, although you may disguise it under the name of party bias? If this be not perjury, then have I not used the word, for this expresses exactly what I meant to convey. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may lay the flattering unction to their souls that they have made a glorious vindication; but I ask, will the country go with them? Have they said anything to vindicate themselves in the eyes of the country by disclaiming at once that the tribunals are actuated by party feelings? Have they disavowed a system of partiality which every sincere Christian must wish to get rid of? No, they have not done so; nor can they. As for the bill before the House, it does nothing as respects the partiality of the Committees; it does not change their character. I wish to say nothing disrespectful of the hon. Gentleman who has introduced this bill, but it does not apply any remedy, and it contains enactments which are directly opposite to one another. The public have long been opposed to the system, though it appears to have been now for the first time known to the House. Why, Sir, I hold in my hand a pamphlet on the abuses of Election Committees, published by a Parliamentary agent above a year ago, in which he says "During my practice as a Parliamentary agent, now a period of nine years, I have not known a case in which the parties interested, as also the gentleman at the bar, did not look more to the character and political opinions of Members of the Committee, as furnishing grounds of success, than to the merit of the case which they had to sustain." He then proceeds to say—"The evil has continued to increase until it has become intolerable." I have, Sir, proclaimed it to be intolerable, and for this, Sir, I have received your reprimand; but I conceive it to be intolerable, and especially to a part of the country which I have the honour to represent. The Parliamentary agent then goes on—"At the present time no Member is secure of his seat"—and this is told to the public, and no steps are taken by the House upon it—"nor can petitioners hope to succeed with the best cause; all depends on the Committee whom chance, or the superior tactics of party, may select for the trial of the petition." But this calumny and this libel the House permit to be unnoticed, although the publication is to be found in all the shop windows a hon. Members go along the streets. I know that I am not very popular with hon. Gentlemen opposite. It may be my faith but if it be a fault, it is one of which cannot repent. But instead of assailing me, why did not the hon. Gentleman attack the person who put forth these sentiments in a publication a year ago? They think to stifle my voice and the opinion of the public, but they will be able to stifle neither the one nor the other. I hay every possible respect for the assembly of gentlemen around me; but no respect for any man or any body of men will ever keep me from speaking the truth. Many gentlemen may recollect the story of Galileo who was imprisoned by the Inquisition for saying that the world moves round; but when the key was turned upon him, an he was left alone, he exclaimed, "The world moves round notwithstanding." Here is the character given of the Election Committees, but not I nor any one of party to which I belong—I know the gentleman who wrote this pamphlet, but he not a Whig, much more a Radical as I am, belongs to a party opposed to me—but here is what he says, "Nothing depends upon the merits, but all on the Committee." Now, I ask hon. Gentlemen to put their hands to their hearts and say whether this be true or false? It is easy enough for parties to get on Committees of the most extraordinary character. I have heard to day of a most extraordinary circumstance with regard to a committee; and it was really suggested to me—only the noble Lord who has conducted this case has done so with so much perfect correctness, that I will not at all think of involving him in any species of even legitimate complaint—that my case was to be brought on early, before any facts connected with that case came before the House. But it appears that some gentlemen have that sweet oblivious antidote which makes them forget that two and two make four, or some other proposition equally clear and palpable. The writer then goes on, "Thus to ensure a favourable Committee every principle of decency and justice is notoriously and openly prostituted." This has been in print for twelve months, and yet I am now assailed for taking up this thing when it is pressing on the interests of those most dear to me. This is what the public say, and yet you come out with your resolutions in vindication of yourselves with a majority of nine, declaring that to be true which the public declares to be utterly false. The pamphlet goes on, "The solemnity of an oath and public opinion have little effect on many when the interest of one of their party is at stake." That is what the public say, and what becomes of your vindication or of your reprimand? I have expressed no regret for what I have said—I have retracted nothing—I will retract nothing. I have risen for the purpose of moving for the appointment of a Committee of investigation, which I have not had an opportunity of doing before. Let me meet your resolution by evidence. Give me a Committee—let it be selected in any way which may best secure the discovery of the real state of the public opinion—let the leading men of each party be upon it. Let it be nominated by the Speaker. Ought the House to submit to this history of it given to the public? I do not refer only to the organs of both parties, but to the deliberate publications of your own House. I will examine before the Committee Members of this House, and I will examine the learned Counsel who practise on committees, and who have said to me, "It is in vain to struggle; you see the Committee will decide every thing against you." They at once say, that when they see a Committee of seven to four struck, "You may send your witnesses home—we can go on with your case—there is not the least difficulty or doubt in the matter." I have heard that said of a recent case; and that being so, I put it to the honour and candour of Gentlemen whether they will proceed and persevere in the present course, and not give us the remedy I ask? You have your public tribunals to try every thing untainted and unstained, and you find in those tribunals gentlemen who, whatever their politics may be, perform their duties with impartiality—I will say this of those gentlemen who come among us connected with the English bar—and you have therefore unstained and untainted benches of justice—you have impartial juries—and you can, by doing what we lawyers call changing the venue, remove the trial of a cause to a place where feelings of attachment to either party do not exist—you can get the judges of the land to preside over and correct the errors of juries, and the findings against evidence, or against the weight of evidence; but now, whom have you to correct the decisions of these election tribunals? No one! They are the most absolute tribunals in the world. Law there is, it is true—but they know not law. Then what can be worse than this? Laws of evidence have been made, by which it is provided that no man shall be deprived of or injured in his property or his life, or his honour, except in a manner justified by them. But what law of evidence is followed on election Committees? Why, as it appears from the book of this gentleman, if any person desires to have any particular fact out, which the counsel cannot properly ask for, it is only to suggest to a friendly member of the Committee to put the necessary questions, and facts are elicited which any counsel in a court of justice would be ashamed to require. I am ready to prove my case. I call on you to let me prove my case. If the Committee should be appointed, and should decide that I have made a false charge, there is no submission too humble to be proudly bowed to by me. If they say that I have misstated facts, there is no reparation which I shall not be ready to make. But I cannot comprehend the notion that any censure is inflicted on me by the votes of a majority of this House which will not come to the evil, and eventually procure its entire eradication. That many will come down to-morrow—let me not say all, for I wish to make the exception as wide as I can—but that many will come down, and will be reproached in their clubs if they happen to be away when their ballot is going on. All they want to have said is—"Oh! if you had been in your place—if you had been there—the majority would have been the other way." A morality of party against the morality of justice! I have heard a great deal against religion here. What scuffles and scrambles have been made for the purpose of throwing out observations against religion in one part of the House and in another, and what sanctimoniousness of demeanour has been observed on other occasions! This, then, is a question of trying a matter fairly, after being sworn on the Holy Word of God. Where, then, are those men of pure sanctity? Why don't they come forward now, and adjourn their Sabbath-day's Bills, if we are to hear any more of those Bills—adjourn them for a week or ten days, and come to a real vindication of their calling on the sanctity of the name of the Eternal God. Sir, I mean to move, that this Committee shall be formed, and I shall submit upon that to anything which the House may think fit. I have repented of nothing—I have retracted nothing. I mean not to use harsh or offensive language. I repeat what I have said, but I wish I could find terms less offensive in themselves and equally significant. I am bound to reassert what I have said, for I am convinced of nothing by a vote. Sir, I now move for the appointment of a Committee.

Mr. O'Connell, it is contrary to the rules of the House to move for a Committee without having given notice.

If that is the rule, Sir, I now give notice that I will move for the committee to-morrow.

moved, that the Speaker's address be inserted in the journals of the House.

, the chairman of the London Election Committee, appeared at the bar, and said, that he had been directed by the Committee to report to the House, that, before the meeting of the Committee, and, therefore, before their proceeding to transact any business that morning, an hon. Member, Mr. Richard Sanderson, who was appointed to sit on the Committee, had communicated to him the fact of his having voted at the last city of London election, which, he said, he had discovered only on that morning. He took the earliest opportunity of apprising the Committee of the fact on that morning, and they had adjourned their proceedings until to-morrow, directing him, in the mean time, to report the circumstances to the House.

rose, and said, that he felt that some explanation and some apology were due from him on this subject. It was now nearly twelve years since he had first sat as a Member of that House, and, during that time, he had always been an elector of the city of London. It so happened that, at the time at which the election for the city took place, he was almost invariably in attendance at his own election at Colchester, and had, therefore, been prevented from voting, and he thought this had been the case at the last election, and he said so in this House. On reference to the poll-books, however, that morning, and which was entirely of his own accord, he found, that the fact was not as he had imagined, but that he had voted at the last election. He immediately communicated the fact to the chairman of the Committee, and he could now only sincerely express his regret for the inconvenience which his neglect had caused to the House. He could assure the House that the error had been quite unintentional, and he did hope, that every hon. Member would acquit him of any desire whatever to act improperly. What course would be taken by the House he was unable to say, but, for his own part, he wished his name to be struck off the list of the Committee.

said, that he thought this House would look with very great regret at the unfortunate error of the hon. Gentleman who sat near him, but, whatever any others might feel, he was quite sure that the hon. Gentleman himself must be sincerely sorry for the occurrence. The mistake, however, having been committed, it was a subject deserving of consideration as to what was the proper course to be pursued. There was an act in existence, to which the late Lord Colchester, about twenty years ago, had introduced a clause in order to meet any instances of this kind. It was provided by the statute, which was for regulating the appointment of election Committees, that eleven Members should be sworn at the Table of the House, well and truly to try the merits of the election, and that they should then be deemed and taken to be a Select Committee, legally appointed to try and determine such merits from and after the time of any such Select Committee having been sworn. This was intended to meet the very great inconveniences which must arise from any informality in the proceedings, or from the occurrence of any case like the present, when any Member was, by mistake, sworn to serve on the Committee. Now, a case somewhat akin to the present happened a few years ago with respect to the Dublin election. The only difference was, that there the mistake was discovered at an earlier period of the proceedings; for, on the instant, the hon. Member whose attendance was objected to, had declared that he had not voted at the election, but, afterwards, when he came to the Table to be sworn, he pointed out, that he was disqualified to serve by his having voted. Now, the only question was, what should be done in this case? The Committee, there was no doubt, was legally constituted, because the Act of Parliament provided that it should be taken to be so after the Members were sworn; and it appeared to him, therefore, that, to take the case as one of strict law, the Committee was entitled to proceed with the inquiry which they were sworn to make. The House could not meddle with the case, and could give no direction to the Committee; but if the hon. Member himself felt, as it was most natural he should feel, the circumstance to be one of a very unpleasant nature, he might, on his own application, be relieved from further attendance. He was disposed to think, that the power given to the House, at their discretion, did not exist, unless the facts should specially appear upon the statement of the hon. Member himself. Now, the House had to guard most especially against the possibility of their employing the discretionary authority thus given them as a favour to any hon. Member; but, nevertheless, under certain circumstances, the exemption which he suggested had been allowed; and as one case he might mention, that hon. Members had been excused from further attendance on the death of any near relation. Then it appeared to him that the present case was one which might fairly be considered to fall within the principle which had been then acted upon. Let the House consider the situation in which the hon. Member might be placed, and he thought that it would at once see the propriety of it interference. The vote of the hon. Member himself, given at the election, might be brought under the notice of the Committee, and he had not the power to absent himself, because it was a rule that every Member should be present, and he must give his vote. He did not think, therefore that, upon reference to the case which he had cited, and on the application of it principle to that which was now before the House, any difficulty would be felt, or that the construction which he proposed to put on the statute would be considered to be strained to an improper extent.

entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to what he had said on the subject before the House. Certainly the law require that the Committee must continue its sitting, without any alteration being made in the Members sworn; and it did not appear, that any hon. Gentleman could, of his own accord, neglect to give his attendance on the Committee; and if any question affecting his own vote, or that of an other person in the same situation with himself came on, he must still vote upon it. He thought this last consideration was sufficient to induce the House to accept the apology of the hon. Gentleman, and to allow him to be exempted from further attendance in his place in the Committee.

then handed in an affidavit to the clerk at the table, and was sworn to the truth of its contents which were as follow:—"I was not aware whet my name was drawn on the London Election Committee that I had voted at that election."

In rising to move that this Bill be committed, I cannot help regretting that the advocacy of the measure has not fallen into abler hands than mine and I assure the House that I should no have put myself forward on this occasion had any other hon. Member been disposed to take up the question. Sir, I took up this subject, and have gone on with it, with only one object—an anxious wish to obtain something more for the poor livings, which, on all hands, are admitted to be a just object of commiseration. This is no party question, and I trust will be discussed without any party feeling. In looking about for some source of aid to the poor livings—some source which could be made available without alarming the nerves of any one, it struck me that three boards for the management of the small sums through the help of which poor livings are augmented must be more than the necessity of the case could really demand, and that by reduction of the expenses of management an additional sum might be obtained for the augmentation of the poor livings. Under this impression I applied last Session for a Committee to inquire into the matter; that Committee went very fully and patiently into the subject, and there is nothing in this Bill which did not receive the unanimous sanction of that Committee. It will now be necessary for me, as shortly as possible, to explain to the House in what way the boards in question operate at present, and in what way it appeared to the Committee that the business which they transact could be best conducted in future. The boards in question—namely, the Board of First Fruits, the Board of Tenths, and the Corporation for the Management of Queen Anne's Bounty, are all three exclusively occupied in receiving the annual produce of First Fruits and Tenths, and in dealing it out, according to certain rules, in the augmentation of poor livings. It is unnecessary for me to remind the House that First Fruits and Tenths were originally demanded by and conceded to the Pope, and that on the Reformation First Fruits and Tenths were transferred to the Sovereign, as the Act says, "for more augmentation and maintenance of his imperial crown and dignity of supreme head of the Church of England." On this latter occasion a court of First Fruits and Tenths was established by Act of Parliament, which court was subsequently dissolved, and by the 1st of Elizabeth its duties were annexed to the Exchequer, of which the two existing Boards of First Fruits and Tenths are branches. These two boards are under the same chief officer, the remembrancer, but each board has its own receiver and its own clerks. As these boards were established to collect first fruits and tenths, it was indispensable to arm them with the power of enforcing the payment of arrears. For this purpose they are directed to apply to the Court of Exchequer for writs, and it is the peculiar duty of the remembrancer to attend to this part of the business. In order that the boards may exactly know what should be paid in to them in the course of every year, writs are annually addressed by the Exchequer to the bishops, requiring them twice a-year to make a return to the Board of First Fruits of all the institutions to benefices which may have taken place within the preceding half-year in their respective dioceses. The clergy are considered to be so fully aware of their abilities, that they are expected to send in what can be demanded of them, on the score of first fruits and tenths, without any notice. First fruits are due within three months after institution, except the first fruits of bishops, who, on account of the largeness of the sum, and in consideration of the great expenses of taking possession, are allowed to liquidate the debt in four equal yearly payments. Tenths become due at Christmas, but are not exacted till the end of April. If the end of April arrives and the tenths are not paid, it becomes the duty of the Board of Tenths to address a notice to such incumbents as may be in default. If this notice does not bring the money before the 1st of June, it becomes the duty of the board to send a second notice; and if the second notice does not bring the money by the last day of June, the name of the defaulter is placed on what is called the non-solvent roll; any time after which the remembrancer may apply to the Court of Exchequer for a writ to compel payment. Each process subjects the defaulter to additional costs and fees. It is proper to add, that on the death of an incumbent, the Exchequer is empowered to recover arrears of tenths, not only from the executors and administrators of the last incumbent, but even from his successor. Arrears of First Fruits are recoverable from the last incumbent's heirs and executors, but not from his successor. Such is the construction, and such are the duties, of the two Boards of First Fruits and Tenths. The third board, that of Queen Anne's Bounty, was brought into existence by the 2d and 3d of Anne, when that princess gave up the proceeds of First Fruits and Tenths, on the part of herself and her successors, and assigned them for ever to the augmentation of small livings. On this occasion Queen Anne, by letters patent, erected a corporation, who were authorised to receive from the Exchequer the whole revenue arising from First Fruits and Tenths, and to apply them to the augmentation of small livings. The corporation was very numerous. It consisted of the Lord High Chancellor, the archbishops, the great officers of the household, the bishops and deans, all privy councillors, the lords-lieutenant of all counties, &c. The Mayor and Aldermen of London, and the mayors of all the cities in England, they and their successors, were to have a perpetual jurisdiction. They were to hold at least four general courts in every year, of each of which notice was directed to be given in the Gazette fourteen days before the holding of the same. In the first instance, it was declared that no board should be legal at which a bishop, a judge, and a privy councillor were not present. Subsequently this stipulation was withdrawn, and it was provided, that any one of the above description, together with every six other governors, should be a quorum. Rules were in the first instance laid down for the government of this board, but it was afterwards provided that, with the authority of the sign manual, the rules might be altered, or new rules introduced, as occasion might require. The superior officers or governors of this board, the Board of Queen Anne's Bounty, were and are purely honorary. They receive no remuneration in any shape for their labours. The executive part of the board was to consist of a salaried secretary and treasurer, with as many clerks as might be necessary. These officers were to be paid out of the funds of the bounty. When this new board was established, two original boards of First Fruits and Tenths were left. The only alteration introduced, was that the expenses of the Board of Tenths should be paid out of the funds of the bounty. The Boards of First Fruits and Tenths continue to receive the dues as before; they transmit them to the Exchequer, which again transmits them, as it receives them, to the bounty, which applies them to the augmentation of the poor livings. I should mention, that for the last century the government of the bounty has been almost exclusively exercised by the bishops. The business appears to have imperceptibly fallen into the hands of those who are more immediately connected with it; of late it has not been the custom to give notice in the Gazette of the days on which the boards are held. But any governor who desires to be summoned receives a notice. Such a wish was recently expressed by the Lord Mayor and aldermen of London, who were summoned accordingly. About fifteen boards were usually held in the course of every year. I have now explained, as succinctly as possible, the actual state and the duties of the three boards in question. The Committee appointed by the House to inquire into the constitution of the three boards in question, went very fully into the matter, and examined several witnesses, and unanimously came to the opinion—an opinion probably already formed by the House—that the machinery is more vast and more complicated than the business transacted requires; and that not only might a further sum be obtained for the poor livings by the reduction of the machinery, but that the business itself would, by the adoption of such a measure, be better conducted. Of the amount of labour which the Boards of First Fruits and Tenths have to perform, the House may form a judgment when I state that at these boards the official hours are only from ten till two, and that all red-letter days are holidays; that the remembrancer, the chief officer who superintend; both these boards, resides in Somerset-shire; that the receiver of the Board of First Fruits and arrears of Tenths hold two other situations under Government and transacts the business of Craven-street at Whitehall; and that the late receive of the Board of Tenths had only been a his office four times in eight years. It is evident, therefore, that these boards have little to do, and that little has not always been done well. It is neither my wish nor my intention to find fault with any one. The defects, which the Committee could not but remark, are defects in the system; wherever there is very little to do principals will not attend with assiduity and wherever principals are not present abuses will creep in: but I am bound to state that in their transactions with the two boards the clergy have not always been kindly or fairly dealt by, that notices which they should have received have been withheld, with no other very obvious object but that of increasing the fees; and when it is recollected that when a defaulter's name is once on the nonsolvent roll, it is optional with the remembrancer when to apply to the Exchequer for the writ, and that for arrears of tenths the successor of an incumbent is liable as well as his heirs and executors, it becomes apparent how much hardship might be caused by a want of regularity in this matter; and that irregularity sometimes has taken place is proved by the circumstance that, in the case of the vicars choral of Salisbury, ten years elapsed before the claim was urged. Independent of these irregularities, evil and inconvenience necessarily arise from the complicated nature of so many boards. Their duties are confused, their transactions useless and multiplied, and not easily traced; business is obstructed by reference from one board to the other, and if a complaint is made, it is easy for one board to represent that the other is in fault. The Committee, therefore, came to the opinion that, as the Boards of First Fruits and Tenths are at present constituted, a large sum is most unprofitably diverted from the augmentation of the poor livings, and they unanimously came to the opinion that the best way would be to abolish the two Boards of First Fruits and Tenths, and place the whole concern in the hands of the Board of Queen Anne's Bounty. The money gets at last where it was meant to arrive, where it must arrive, to accomplish its destination, into the hands of the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and what is the advantage of its being sent, as it is at present, by a very circuitous route for no conceivable object, and losing not a little on the way? The corporation of Queen Anne's Bounty, with the addition of one or two clerks, would alone be fully equal to more than is at present transacted by the three boards, and the zeal and attention with which the governors had hitherto administered the affairs of the Bounty, afford just grounds for the persuasion that the direction of the whole may be safely intrusted to their hands. If before the year 1831 some proofs of insufficient vigilance are to be found in a loss sustained by the Bounty through the defalcation of a former treasurer, yet ample amends have been made by the acting-governors, who since that time have devoted, and still devote, a portion of their incomes to replacing the whole of the deficit. Since that time fresh precautions have been taken, and checks introduced, which appear to be sufficient, and it must not be forgotten, that by the gratuitous services of the present governors, a considerable sum is left for the objects of the Bounty, which the management of the funds would otherwise abstract. The annual amount of the salaries of the officers of the two Boards, which it is proposed to abolish, is 2,022l. 18s. 11d., a large sum when compared with the annual receipts, which average no more than 14,000l.; the whole of this, with the exception of the remuneration of the two clerks, whom it is proposed to transfer to the establishment of the bounty, would eventually be obtained for the poor livings. I say eventually, because whilst I desire to effect the improvement, I desire to effect it without prejudice to existing interests. The Bill, therefore, proposes that the two Boards of First Fruits and Tenths should be abolished, and their duties and powers be transferred to the Board of Queen Anne's Bounty. To effect the improvement without prejudice to existing interests, the Bill proposes, that the Governor of Queen Anne's Bounty should be authorized to make equitable compensation to all such officers of the abolished boards as shall not be transferred to the service of the bounty. The office of Remembrancer is a patent place—it was made a patent place for ever in the reign of Charles 2nd. It is a freehold, and has been repeatedly sold. It is, therefore, proposed by the Bill, that the freehold of the patent of the Remembrancer should be bought up by the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and that the fee on institutions to benefices, which now forms a part of the Remembrancer's profits, should in future become payable to the account of the bounty. There are a few more provisions in the Bill, of which I will only trouble the House with two. In order to obtain for the management of Queen Anne's Bounty the advantage of publicity, it is proposed, 1st, that once, in the early part of every year, on some convenient day, the Corporation of Queen Anne's Bounty should hold a general board, of which fourteen days' previous notice shall be given in the London Gazette; and 2d, that the Governors of Queen Anne's bounty shall annually present a return of their receipts and expenditure to the Queen in Council, to be annually laid before both Houses of Parliament. Five offices, three of which are nearly sinecures, will be abolished; and about, by the proposed alterations, 1,500l. a-year will eventually be obtained for the poor livings, whilst the operations connected with the receipt and expenditure of the First Fruits and Tenths will be carried on in a more regular and satisfactory manner. I am aware that the sum is very inadequate to the exigencies of the case, but 1,500l. a-year for ever is not a benefit entirely to be despised; and, at any rate, it is better that it should be obtained for the poor livings than that it should continue to be expended in an unprofitable manner. I do not seek to give to the measure which I am attempting to introduce a value beyond its due. I am aware that it is of no momentous importance, but still it is an improvement, and, as such, will I trust receive the approbation and support of the House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

did not rise to oppose the motion of his hon. Friend for going into a Committee. On the contrary, he was a decided friend to the Bill, which was intended to economise the profuse expenditure that had hitherto existed in the collection and distribution of the First Fruits and Tenths. Would the House believe it, that out of the miserable pittance of 13,500l. a-year collected from the dignified and beneficed clergy in England and Wales for the benefit of the poor clergy, amounting in number to many thousands, upwards of 5,000l. was expended every year in management before the First Fruits and Tenths reached those who ought to be benefited by the Fund. It was high time that such a system should be reformed; and if he had any complaint to make against his hon. Friend's Bill, it was, not that it went too far, but that it did not go far enough. The Select Committee on First Fruits and Tenths and Queen Anne's Bounty, of which his hon. Friend was the chairman, and of which he (Mr. Baines) was a member, recommended a much more extensive measure than this: their recommendation in their report was, that the Tenths should be paid in future upon a valuation approaching more nearly to their real amount than at present; and he would say, that even the Tenths, if fairly col- lected according to their original institution, would yield for the poor clergy 200,000l. a-year, instead of 13,500l., the sum produced by them at present. The difference was enormous; and he hoped that when he brought in the Bill of which he had given notice, he should have the support, not only of his hon. Friend, but of all the zealous supporters of the Church and of the clergy in the House, especially when it was considered that if the First Fruits and Tenths were collected now in their full value, as they were in the reign of Henry 8th, they would produce 500,000l. a-year. Nothing could be more important in any country than to uphold the station of the labouring clergy of all denominations, by raising them above penury in their circumstances; and as his Bill had this object, he hoped that it would, when brought forward, secure the support of both sides of the House. It might seem singular that he, not being a member of the Establishment, should take up a measure of this nature; but his reason was that, though the evil of which he complained had existed for ages, no person connected with the Church had ventured to grapple with the difficulty, and even his hon. Friend, the Member for Nottinghamshire, had shrunk from following up the recommendation of his own Committee. He was not inclined to censure his hon. Friend for having pursued this course; he was rather disposed to consider it as an act of courtesy to himself, and as proceeding from a wish to allow him to prosecute a measure through Parliament that he had taken up before the First Fruits' Committee was moved by his hon. Friend. He had only further to say, that he had some amendments to propose upon the Bill now before the House when it came into Committee, the principal of which were to facilitate the searches at the Bounty-office, to restore the governorship of Queen Anne's Bounty to its original mixed character of lay and clerical, and to secure the economic settlement of all litigated questions by providing a summary means of securing the due observance of the provisions of the Bill when it had passed into an Act.

moved an additional paragraph, enacting that the Court of Governors of the Corporation of Queen Anne's Bounty should in future be held to be duly constituted and empowered to act only when one-half at least of the governors present were laymen. His object was to restore the court to its original form, and provide against the possibility of abuses.

objected to the addition, as invidious and as imputing improper motives to the ecclesiastical governors, who had always done their duty in a manner that deserved the thanks of the country.

also objected to the amendment. The number of laymen now qualified by law to act on the board was nearer 1,000 than 500.

could not think that the management had been so praiseworthy as was said, because it had not been economical, the cost of managing the income of the corporation being forty per cent. on the whole.

did not object to the board carrying on its business as at present. Any layman who wished to attend the board might easily do so by stating his intention to the secretary, who would send him a summons. He had had occasion to pay much attention to the subject; and he appealed to the learned Solicitor-General to know whether the board had any power under the Act to make a new valuation. He had taken the opinions of many eminent lawyers upon the subject, and they were all uniform in holding that the governors had no such power either in this country or in Ireland. It was, therefore, no imputation upon them not to have done what the law did not empower them to do. His opposition to the amendment was simply that it contained an imputation upon those who had hitherto been intrusted with the management of the fund. He thought it hard to cast an imputation upon the governors, and interfere with the carrying on of the business, because persons entitled to attend did not take the trouble to put themselves in the way of being called upon. Any gentleman sending his address to the secretary would be sure to receive a summons, but it would be a waste of time and trouble to require the secretary to send notices to three or four hundred persons whose residences were not known.

thought, that nothing could be more reasonable than to direct the officer whose duty it was to send summonses to every member of the board.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) that however expedient it might be to have a new valuation, neither the Board of First Fruits nor of Queen Anne's Bounty had the power under the Act to make a valuation.

could state to the House, that the moment the aldermen knew that they were governors of the board they began to attend. It was a long time, however, before the fact became generally known.

had no objection to the clause being taken into consideration on the report.

moved the order of the day for going into Committee on the Hackney Carriages Bill.

opposed the Speaker's leaving the chair. He was sorry to differ in opinion from his hon. Friend as to this Bill. He entertained, however, very great objections to the principle, and he did not think, if it went into Committee, that it could be materially improved. He objected that there should be two distinct boards, one in the city of London and one in Westminster, to govern the same body of men.

was surprised at the objections raised by his hon. Friend, because one of the main objects of the Bill was to give the same power to the magistrates of Westminster as was enjoyed by the magistrates of the city of London. But as regarded any hardship upon the owners of these carriages, so far from their objecting to it, they had waited on him, expressing their wish that the Bill should pass as it now stood.

thought, the House ought to go into Committee on the Bill.

had objections to almost every clause of the Bill which contained a penalty. He suggested that the hon. Baronet should withdraw the Bill.

thought, the hon. Baronet was bound to delay his Bill until the police of the city underwent the proposed regulation, and he would move that the Bill be committed that day six months.