regretted to bring on the motion of which he had given notice in the absence of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department; but having waited twenty minutes beyond the usual time for the commencement of public business, he felt, that he should be wanting in respect to the House if he did not then proceed. Understanding that his motion was to be opposed, he felt considerable difficulty in bringing it forward, as he was unable to anticipate any possible objection which could be urged against the proposal which he intended to submit for the consideration of the House. How the House, consistently with its own honour, and with the uniform and unbroken practice of more than 100 years, could hesitate to vote an address to her Majesty in behalf of three chaplains of the House similar to all former addresses in behalf of former chaplains, he was utterly at a loss to comprehend. Already addresses had been voted by Parliament to his late Majesty praying that the usual preferment might be bestowed on those three gentlemen, to all of which his late Majesty had been pleased to return a most gracious answer, assuring the House that he would confer on those gentlemen the usual preferments in the Church. He rose, therefore, to move that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, setting forth that his late Majesty had been pleased to assure the House that he would confer upon the rev. Mr. Lockwood, the rev. Mr. Repton, and the rev. Mr. Frere, the late chaplains of the House, the us al preferment in the Church granted to chaplains of that House, and praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to bestow on those gentlemen the preferment which his late Majesty had promised, and which it was the uniform practice to grant. Now, it apppeared from a return which had been laid upon the table, that during a period of 120 years Parliament had been in the practice of voting such addresses to the Crown, and it further appeared that in every instance cathedral preferment had been conferred on the chaplains of the House, and the cases of the three rev. gentlemen to whom he had alluded were the only exceptions. Whatever might be supposed out of doors, the fact was, that no remuneration of any kind was given by the House to those who discharged the duties of chaplain, and instead of pecuniary remuneration the uniform practice was to vote such an address as he had moved, and there was no instance when the prayer of those addresses was not complied with by the Crown. When Parliaments were triennial, those addresses were, in general, voted at intervals of two years and a half, and such continued to be the constant practice till the passing of the Septennial Act. Since the passing of that Act, the uniform practice had been to allow two chaplains to the Speaker during the continuance of each Parliament, and no objection had hitherto been made to voting addresses to the Crown on their behalf, on account of the shortness of the period of the service of any one of the chaplains of the House. In the year 1802, an address was voted to the Crown in behalf of a chaplain who had served only one month, and the Crown graciously complied with the prayer of the address, and conferred on the chaplain a prebendal stall. In another instance the chaplain filled the office for only four months, but notwithstanding he obtained a prebendal stall on an address from that House to the Crown. He had alluded to those instances of preferment having been granted, notwithstanding the shortness of the period of service, in anticipation of the only objection which he thought could be urged against the address which he had proposed. But he did think, that an objection on account of the shortness of their period of service could not consistently be urged against the claims of the three late chaplains of the House; or, at all events, such an objection ought to have been urged, if it had any force, at the time when the addresses in their favour to his late Majesty were voted by the House. If the Ministers of the Crown felt that such an objection had any force, they ought to have stated that, they could not advise the Crown to bestow the usual church preferment on these three gentlemen at the time the addresses were voted. But such a course had not been followed, for addresses had been voted by the House in favour of each of those rev, gentlemen, and the Crown had assured the House that the usual reward would be granted. On the faith of receiving that reward, those three gentlemen had given up lucrative employments for the high honour of being chaplains of that House. For five years, however, they had remained without any reward, and surely it was the duty of the House to secure for those individuals the same preferment which had been uniformly bestowed during a long series of years. It might be said, that to grant such rewards was impossible after the measure which had been introduced by the Government in relation to cathedral preferments, but could not a special clause be inserted in that measure in favour of the three rev, gentlemen whose claims he advocated, and he would ask if it was fair that they should be subjected to an operation of an ex post facto law after their services had been acknowledged by the House, and after the usual preferment had been promised by the Crown? He did not quarrel with the noble Lord on the course which he had taken in respect to this subject, because he considered that the House only was competent to judge of the amount of remuneration which ought to be awarded for such services. But, at the same time, the claims of these gentlemen were put in a strong position in consequence of the House of Commons having three times recognised the justice of those claims, as well as the House of Lords, and the answers returned by the Throne to the addresses presented on their behalf. In fact the three branches of the Legislature had recognised those claims, and what further ground for agreeing to the motion could be required, or what objection could be urged against it, he was unable to tell. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that "An Address be presented to her Majesty to confer promotion on the three late chaplains of this House, in compliance with the addresses of the House presented to his late Majesty King William 4th."

said, that this was a question which certainly belonged exclusively to the House of Commons, and it was for the House to decide upon whatever they thought proper to address to the Crown respecting it. But before they came to any decision upon it, he wished to state something which he considered the right hon. Gentleman had not with sufficient distinctness explained; namely, the difference which had taken place both with regard to the ecclesiastical dignities which it was in the power of the Crown to confer, and with regard to the situation of the chaplains of this House. It was the ancient practice of the House, undoubtedly, and a practice which was confirmed by the addresses which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to, and which were passed by the House, perhaps, without any great consideration being given to them, that chaplains appointed by the Speaker should receive a dignity from the hands of the Crown. At that time the patronage of the Crown was very extensive, and the services generally of the chaplain were of considerable duration. [Three years, by Mr. Wynn.] Yes, three years; which, it was considered, justified their appointment to those dignities. But there had been a great alteration in both respects within the last few years; there had been an alteration both as regarded the dignities capable of being conferred by the Crown, and with regard to the rewards that were to be conferred upon the chaplains. In the first place, the dignities in the Church in the gift of the Crown, instead of being in the state they formerly were, had, by the recommendation of the Church commissioners, been for the present suspended, with a view to a very great reduction. The reduction with regard to ecclesiastical patronage which was at present proposed to be carried into effect was no less than 60,000l. a-year. He did not mean 50,000l. accruing every year, but that the income which was now enjoyed by certain dignitaries and other persons belonging to the Church, and which was proposed to be surrendered by the Crown, reached that amount. These dignities and appointments consisted of the prebendaries of Westminster, the livings of St. John and St. Margaret, and the chapelries of Windsor, and which were the rewards usually given to the chaplains of the House of Commons. [Mr. Wynn: Also the living of Christchurch.] Christchurch was the subject of a separate consideration. It was proposed, that there should be such a reduction in these dignities, that there should be only four of these appointments retained. The alteration in the mode of rewarding in future the chaplains of the House was equally great. The House had agreed, that henceforth a sum not exceeding 200l. a-year should be granted to the chaplain for the performance of his duty. The right hon. Gentleman had stated in support of his present proposition, that there were instances in which chaplains had received Church dignities for services for a very limited time—one having served only one month; another only four months; and a third only eighteen months. Now, that might be used as an argument either way; either in favour of adopting a similar practice in future, or in favour of making a change in that practice. It might be used as showing, that instead of these prebends and high dignities in the Church being in the possession of the Crown, for the purpose of rewarding those whom the Crown thought worthy of being so distinguished, it was in the power of the Speaker of the House of Commons to direct the distribution of the Crown patronage to a person who had no other claim than that of having served one month as the chaplain of the House. He therefore thought the facts stated by the right hon. Gentleman might be considered a good argument in favour of the change that had taken place. With regard to the three gentlemen whose cases the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward, it appeared, that the addresses in their favour followed one another at an interval of only one year. There was no long period of service, therefore, during which they were deprived of the advantage of receiving other preferment, or of attending to other duties. But one thing which happened should be noticed. After those three addresses of 1831, 1832, and 1833, promotions took place both under Earl Grey's Government and the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth. Lord Grey recommended to his late Majesty the appointment of persons to be chaplains who had not been chaplains to the House of Commons, thus exercising an undoubted right of appointing other persons than those in whose favour those addresses were made. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) when he came into office adopted a recommendation not only similar to that of Lord Grey's, but one which still more bore on this question, because he not only advised the Crown to confer a prebend of Westminster upon Mr. Millman, but at the same time addressed a letter to the Church commissioners, and pointed out to them the manner in which he had advised the Crown to surrender any immediate patronage of the Crown for the promotion of the general benefit of the Church. That letter of the right hon. Gentleman had been acted upon by Lord Melbourne, and was considered by the present Government—and he (Lord J. Russell) trusted it would be by any future Government until this matter should be finally arranged by the Legislature—as prescribing the rule by which the Crown ought to proceed with respect to conferring any preferment in its own immediate gift. That letter having been acted upon, and the disposal of the dignities having been suspended by the recommendation of the Church commissioners, the question merely came to this, whether the patronage of the Crown having been reduced at the very great rate he had already mentioned, the House would consent so far further to restrict the power of recommendation and appointment by the Crown as to say, that these three gentlemen who had been named by the late Speaker to be chaplains of that House should have a prior right, and that the Crown should be deprived, to the extent of these three nominations, which would probably embrace a period of not less than six or seven years, of all right to appoint any person who might be recommended to it for promotion? Another course was that which had been recommended by an address of the right hon. Gentleman, that dignities in the Church should be conferred on these gentlemen, and that any measure of reform which might be introduced, and in which a diminution of such dignities should be recommended, an exception should be made in favour of the three gentlemen mentioned. The last seemed to him to be the only course which could be adopted; but even that would be giving to them sinecure ecclesiastical revenues, instead of applying them towards sup- plying the deficiency in the stipends of vicars and curates in large and populous parishes, and of affording additional religious instruction according, to the doctrines of the Established Church. The question was one entirely for the decision of the House, and it was not for the Government to oppose any decision to which the House might come.

said, that the noble Lord had stated two subjects for their consideration. One was, that the House of Commons had adopted a different system of remunerating its chaplains; and the other was, that the patronage of the Crown was much diminished in amount. Now, he thought, that the first consideration had no proper bearing upon the question. It was true, that the House had adopted a new mode of remuneration, and this was a conclusive reason for refusing any preferment, if it should be asked by the present chaplain, who had accepted the office since the arrangement; but it ought not to operate to defeat the claim of the chaplains who were appointed previously to the institution of the new mode of reward. It was certainly unfortunate that six or seven years since, the Crown and the House had come to some understanding, for it was not to be expected, that when the service was for such short periods as it had been since 1829 the House should demand so much patronage; and he thought, that the Crown ought not to have been called upon to accede to such requests till after a service of five years. But unfortunately they had adopted this course—they had adhered to the former system—and although the chaplains had only served even for a few months, the House had addressed the Crown in their behalf, and an answer had been received pledging the royal word, that the promotion should be granted. The first consideration, therefore, was out of question; and with respect to the second, he would ask whether the good faith of Parliament and of the Crown was not pledged to bestow this patronage; and he could not say—although the practice of maintaining sinecures was objectionable—he could not say, that the present claim was not founded in good faith. The noble Lord had said, that whilst he (Sir Robert Peel) was in office he had the disposal of much Church patronage, and that he had not appointed any of the late chaplains; but he found, that his predecessors had neglected these claims, and that there were three chaplains unprovided for. He thought, that active duty should be attached to particular prebends. During the time that he was in office he had only one prebend to dispose of—that of Westminster; and considering the wants of the populous parish of St. John and St. Margaret, he had determined upon applying this piece of preferment to supply the wants, and the first offer which he made of it was to one of the chaplains, so strongly did he feel the claim which the Crown had contracted, and the consideration due to the vote of the House of Commons; and he wished to apply the patronage at his disposal to the double object of providing additional religious instruction in populous parishes and of providing for the claims of the chaplains. The first chaplain declined it, for reasons which appeared to him (Sir Robert Peel) to be sufficient. He then offered it to the second, who also for good reasons declined it; and as time was pressing in consequence of the active measures taken by the noble Lord, he thought he could not better bestow it than by giving it to reward an eminent literary and private character. When, therefore, the noble Lord quoted his example as an authority, he hoped that he would not suppress the facts, and he thought, that the authority of his example told all the other way. He was of opinion, that the claim still existed, and that it must be satisfied one way or another. Whether they ought to continue sinecures for this purpose he was not prepared to say; but if the advice given to the Crown should be, that some other preferment should be substituted he would not object, nor did he offer any opposition to the suggestion of the noble Lord, that an exception to the general rule should in this case be permitted. The offer which had been made by him, he was satisfied, was unavailable to the parties, and he thought, that it was a public claim, and that it must be satisfied.

remarked, that the difference between the offer which would have been accepted and that which was rejected was, that the former was accompanied by the performance of public duties, whilst the latter was unaccompanied by any. The question was, how the House could now proceed? Would this House reject the rule which it had laid down, and would it consent to continue the principle of sinecures? He submitted whether a just discharge of the obligation might not be effected by giving an equivalent of a pecuniary nature, not founded on the amount now paid, and which might not be sufficient for a gentleman who only performed the duties for one Session, but an adequate equivalent. He thought, that it was disgraceful to the country to leave the gentlemen who had served the House of Commons without remuneration, and he was sure, that no one would object to a fair equivalent for the duties performed; but he would not believe, unless it were confirmed by a vote of the House, that, having determined to abolish sinecures, they would propose by an address in favour of their own chaplains to suspend the general rule. For these reasons he would rather support a money grant than this address.

having presented the petition from these gentlemen, and believing, that the honour of the House was pledged to the promotion, wished to say one word upon the subject, especially as the noble Lord was under a false impression that he could not consent to this motion without overturning the principle which had been adopted. He (Lord Francis Egerton) did not understand these Gentlemen to ask for any sinecures; their object would be attained by having some preferment with parochial duty. It was perfectly true, that the promotion which had been offered was refused for reasons which were satisfactory to his right hon. Friend. He had a letter from Lord Canterbury, showing, that in the case of Mr. Lockwood that gentleman felt, that his health and strength were unfit for the discharge of the duties of a large parish, and though a stall in Canterbury, with the less onerous duties of a small parish attached, was held out as a probable change, yet Mr. Lockwood might have taken the preferment, but feeling himself really incompetent to discharge its duties, he acted conscientiously and declined it. The circumstances of the other case, Mr. Repton's, were somewhat different; he was involved in the property of a chapel, which he could not dispose of in the time presented by the Bishop of London, and he had, therefore, thought it necessary to forego the appointment. He was glad, that the new regulation had been adopted; but to give it an ex post facto operation would be highly unjust to individuals.

confirmed, from his personal knowledge, the statement made by the noble Lord, and bore testimony to the high character of Mr. Lockwood, who well discharged his parochial duties, and who was the last man who would stoop to undertake any office for which he was not duly qualified,

Motion agreed to.

rose to move for a "return of the promotions and appointments of the various shipwrights and other officers, that have taken place since 1830 in Her Majesty's dock-yards, distinguishing those who were educated at the school of Naval Architecture;" and as the question involved in the motion was of national importance, he hoped, that no apology was necessary for bringing it forward. Unfortuuately naval architecture had been for many years neglected in England, and even since the subject had been attended to, it had been liable to much party feeling not political or professional; an d in making his present statement he disavowed being actuated by any party feeling, whether political or professional. In the third report of the naval commissioners, made in the year 1806, he found most full and valuable statements, and with them he entirely concurred. He could not but express his opinion, without intending to convey any offence, that there appeared to exist a spirit of favouritism which was not proper to be felt in the promotion of such officers, and he would instance a case by which this idea was supported. The master shipwright of Pembroke Dock-yard was, in the year 1828, a draughtsman, employed in the yard at wages of 5s. per day, and he now held his present situation at a yearly salary of 600l., having had the intermediate office of foreman of the Plymouth Dock-yard conferred upon him. He did not doubt, that he had great talent and that he ought to be properly rewarded, but it was the principle to which he objected, by which men of such a calibre were appointed to situations of so much importance, over the heads of persons who had been compelled to procure expensive educations, and who had filled laborious offices, their income being only 250l. a-year. He did not like to mention names of any persons, because it might operate to their prejudice hereafter, and his only object was that means should be taken by which those officers who had been educated in the Naval College should be properly rewarded for their services. The hon. and gallant Member was proceeding to move for some other returns, when the House was counted out.