had a petition to present against this bill, from Samuel Hackvale, of Chipping Norton, in the county of Oxford; which stated, that a proposed provision of the bill would entail great hardships upon the lessees of this property, and upon all persons similarly circumstanced; and praying to be heard by counsel against the proposed provision.

hoped the House would not be induced to go on with this bill until they had given to those persons who were to be affected by the bill, and who had so recently known the intention of the hon. Baronet, to remove the compensation clauses, an opportunity of fairly being heard by the House. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not object to such a postponement as was necessary to give the party time to be heard by counsel against the provision which the hon. Baronet proposed. [Sir R. Inglis: I shall decidedly, and I shall press my amendment.] He thought it was impossible that the House of Commons could go the length of deciding a question of this sort without giving the individuals interested a full opportunity of being heard. He would, therefore, move that the further consideration of this debate be adjourned to Wednesday next.

, as a member of the Committee to which this bill was referred, would state shortly the reasons that induced himself and the Committee to come to the conclusion that compensation ought to be given to the lessees of the property affected by this bill. The hon. and learned Member for Exeter, and the hon. and learned Member for Ripon, both on the occasion of the great question of church-rates which was debated in 1837, gave a decided and distinct opinion that the right which the petitioner claimed, and which was claimed before the Committee, was a good and valid right—a right which had been recognised for 300 years, and which could not be set aside in the very summary manner in which the hon. Baronet seemed prepared to set it aside. This was a question of the greatest importance; it interested thousands, and involved interests of great magnitude, and he certainly expected to find Gentlemen on the other side prepared to state their reasons for striking out a clause of this nature in violation of the settled law of the country—in violation of Acts of Parliament—in violation of the decision of a select committee appointed to inquire into the whole subject—in violation of the decisions of the House of Lords, and in violation of the rules of equity and common sense. The settled maxims and practice of conveyancing recognised a tenant right as a species of property. A man might go into the market with it. If any hon. Gentleman would go into the library, and consult the authorities, particularly Butler's Notes, he would find that a tenant right had been treated as a matter of property, and had been distinctly recognised in all dealings with property. He admitted, that a tenant had no right to go and say to a landlord "you must renew my lease," but courts of equity, in dealing with this species of property, where the tenant was dragged before the court by others, distinctly recognised it. Were they, then, prepared to set aside these solemn decisions of courts of equity, and Acts of Parliament? The Gentlemen on the other side proposed to break down the settled rules of property; to reverse the solemn decisions of courts of equity; and to repeal an Act of Parliament. Moreover, they wished the House to reject the opinion of the committee on this bill, an opinion which was in conformity with the opinions of former committees of that House. Under these circumstances, he sincerely trusted that the House would not expunge the words which the committee had inserted. He should certainly vote for the proposition of the hon. Member for Leicester.

said, that the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, and the hon. Member for Leicester, had complained that he had not spoken on this question. The same complaint had been made at the close of the last discussion. In point of fact, he had not that desire of making the same speech very frequently, which appeared to influence those two hon. Members. After a discussion of three hours and a half, as to what the provisions of this bill were, be certainly thought it more respectful to the House not to occupy their time upon the subject, and more especially after stating his view of the case in the first instance. The hon. and learned Member for Honiton, perhaps, was not present on that occasion, or did not attend to him, but he certainly stated, at some length, and with as much clearness as he could, the grounds on which he recommended that the amendment should be introduced into the bill. The attention of the House had been called that evening to a petition from a Gentleman who prayed to be heard by counsel against the provision which he wished to be introduced into the bill. He naturally supposed, and particularly from the solemn tones with which the petition was brought forward, that he was a Gentleman whose rights would be affected by the bill on the table. Incidentally, his rights might be affected, as the rights of any other church lessee might be affected, but the petitioner had no more to do with the Farnham Rectory Bill than the porter at the door of the House. This person, who signed a pamphlet in the shape of a petition, stated that his interests were involved in this bill, and he prayed that the privilege of a petitioner might be extended to him, and that he might be heard by counsel against the bill. The party was out of court—he had no ground of complaint as regarded the bill on the table. The hon. and learned Member for Honiton had not committed his professional reputation, and he was glad he had not, upon the principle that there was any right which these lessees had, under their existing leases, which could be maintained in any court of law; but that hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to infuse an opinion into that House, and to impress upon that House the conviction that these persons would be injured, and deprived of a right, if this bill were to pass. The hon. and learned Member was not afraid even to state, that this bill would repeal an Act of Parliament. He certainly had not expected that any hon. and learned Member of that hon. profession—the law—would have stated that, in passing a private bill, the House of Commons was repealing the Church Temporalities'(Ireland) Act. If the hon. and learned Member did not mean this, why use the phrase? The hon. and learned Member laboured under a most erroneous impression, with respect to the operation of this bill upon the Church Temporalities' (Ireland) Act. There was no more connection between the two acts than between any two acts placed in juxta position, in the volumes on the table. But the hon. and learned Member said, that this was a precedent now for the first time sought to be established. The hon. and learned Member was not in the House about sixteen years ago, when a bill precisely of the same kind was passed. That bill had reference to certain leases of land held under the Bishop of St. David's. What were the objections to the present bill? The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted the merits of the Archdeacon of Surrey, who was one of the parties interested in this bill. He said, that the in- habitants of Farnham were greatly interested in the passing of this bill. The Church also was greatly interested, but he defied any hon. Member to show that any of the parties interested in the bill derived any pecuniary benefit from it. On the contrary, the Archdeacon of Surrey would lose a considerable sum, or rather he would omit to receive. The hon. and gallant Member (Captain Pechell) said, that the Archdeacon could not lose what he never had. True, but if the House refused to pass this bill, the Archdeacon would come into a position where he might receive it. It, therefore, depended upon the hon. and gallant Officer, and those near him, if they should eventually gain a majority on this bill, contrary to the precedent of Friday, and to the appearance of the House that day—it depended upon them whether the Archdeacon should receive it or not; it depended upon them, or rather upon the rejection or passing of this bill, whether the inhabitants of Farnham, and the adjacent parishes, should or should not receive the spiritual instruction that was to be derived from the grant of four new churches, and five additional clergymen. The means of providing this additional spiritual instruction were now in the hands of the House. Let them refuse their sanction to this bill, and they transferred to the Archdeacon of Surrey 11,200l. They had been told that the lessees were greatly to be pitied. Now what were the facts, and what were the sums which these lessees had expended in obtaining the interests they enjoyed? They had this stated on what would appear to be sufficient authority, and indeed part of it was stated in evidence, to the effect that the original parties paid not more than 16,000l. for the renewal of their leases. [Captain Pechell: Who are the parties?] He was alluding to the principal lessee. He had expended on another renewal 4,000l.; on suits for titles 7,000l.; and upon the kilns and barns about 4,000l. —making an aggregate of 31,000l. What was the amount of the profits? For the first seven years they amounted to 800l. per annum, and for the next forty years the profits amounted to 2,350l. annually; thus putting into the pockets of the lessees 94,000l. Did the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Pechell) mean to deny that the sum of 2,350l. multiplied by forty years would give the amount of 94,000l.? The result then was, that for an expenditure of 31,000l., this lessee had received, up to the present time, near 100,000l.; and the value of the remainder of the unexpired lease had been valued at 3,000l. To say, therefore, that this bill operated hardly upon the lessees, was perfectly ludicrous and absurd. These parties appealed to their rights, but did not the Ecclesiastical Duties' and Revenues' Bill, deprive persons of their rights in a precisely similar manner, with respect to prebendal stalls? If the House did right in the one in-stance, they were not doing wrong in the other, the present instance. Those who supported the wholesale suppression of the rights of existing prebendaries, complained of the present bill, by which, in a minor and detailed way, the same principle was carried out. The principle might be wrong, or it might be right, but it could not be right at one time and wrong at another. He hoped that hon. Members would no longer complain that he had not endeavoured to state to the House, as fully and as fairly as he could, the grounds upon which he rested his proposition.

rose to express an earnest hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester would not persevere in his amendment. When he had voted for the adjournment of the debate to this day, it was with the prospect that they should proceed at once to the question of compensation, and that there should be in the first instance, at least, no further delay.

concurred in the recommendation of the hon. Baronet. There certainly was a distinct understanding when the party on the other side had a majority, and yet entered into a compromise with the minority, that no other motion should be interposed.

the representative of a constituency containing a large body of Church lessees, could not allow this bill to pass without making a few observations upon it. He thought this bill, if it came into law, would establish a very dangerous precedent. The principle of compensation had been admitted by that House every time that the subject of Church leases had come before it for the last eight or ten years. The principle also was clearly established when the Church-rate question was debated in 1837, and by none more ably than by some distinguished Members of the other side. Not only the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke (Sir J. Graham) expressed his opinion on that occasion, but two of the most distinguished lawyers of this country spoke most ably on the subject. The hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Sir W. Follett), amidst the approbation and loud cheers of Gentlemen opposite, clearly laid it down that church lessees had the strongest equitable claim, and that the House could not interfere with their property without giving them fair compensation. The hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Mr. Pemberton) spoke even still more strongly than the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted these two authorities at some length, for which see Hansard, Vol. 37, Third Series, p. 396, and 434). After referring to the rights of tenants in general the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to say—thus the principle of compensation had been distinctly admitted on the subject of Church lessees. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the sake of consistency, would not sanction the wanton and unjust proposition of the hon. Baronet.

said, that upon every occasion lessees of Church property had always been considered, as having an interest which it would be the greatest injustice to deprive them of. Hon. Gentlemen knew that properly of this description had been to a great extent tied up in family settlements, and he was quite sure that if by a measure of this sort they rendered the title doubtful, no person would be found hereafter ready to advance money upon property of this description. He believed that this bill was extremely excellent in its object; the establishment of new churches and the extension of spiritual instruction, but desirable as that object was, it could not justify an act of injustice. With that feeling he must vote against the motion of the hon. Baronet.

had no doubt whatever that the object of the promoters of this bill was pure and laudable, but the interests of the parties who held leases under the existing incumbent would be affected by the provisions of this bill, and in this way, that whereas they now held leases renewable upon certain conditions, namely, upon the payment of fines regulated by the interest of the individual who happened to be the incumbent at the time, they were about to be transferred, by the forcible interposition of Parliament, to becoming the lessees of others, the risk of whose lives, and whose interest in the renewal of the leases was of a very different description: for a permanent corporation had one interest and one only—namely, that of making the most of time. He was not prepared to say, that under such circumstances, the lessee was not entitled to some consideration. He did not hesitate to say, that when they interfered forcibly by Act of Parliament to require persons who held leases from individuals, the risk of whose lives gave them an interest in renewing upon easy terms, to a permanent body who had no such interest, but whose interests were rather to make the most of their money, the House must take one of two courses — they must either protect men against the change, or they must compensate them for injury. In cases where they were dealing with a body at large, it was very difficult to estimate the amount of compensation; and hence, in the Irish Church Temporalities Act, he preferred not compensation, but protection. He provided that the lessees should have two alternatives, either that of paying an amount of rent equivalent to the rent and fine, or the right of claiming from the lessor to grant to him a renewal of the lease; not making it optional with the lessor whether he would run his life or not. He thought, however, when they came to deal with individual cases, the principle of compensation was fairer, because in the case of individuals they might know all the circumstances of the case. In the case before the House, the compensation, he believed, would be exceedingly trifling, because the life of the party in possession was a better life than either of those in the lease. If he was rightly informed, the lessor was a young man, thirty-five years of age, whilst the two lives in the lease were sixty and fifty, considerably older lives than the life of the lessor. It might be very well worth while for the lessor to say, "These are elderly men, I will run my life against theirs; I will sacrifice present for great future advantages." If he succeeded, no injustice would be done to the lessees; their lives would be forfeited, and the lessor, for his own individual advantage, would be perfectly right in making the most of his land. In the present case, therefore, he supposed the amount of compensation would be very small; but be it greater, or be it less, he felt compelled to vote in its favour.

said, that he did not concur with his noble Friend in the arrangement that was made with respect to the Irish Church; but even if he had, he did not think the arguments used by his noble Friend upon the present question would have induced him to act otherwise than vote for the rejection of this clause. He did not consider the lessees under the Archdeacon of Surrey were in any degree in a similar position to the lessees under the bishops of Ireland. In the first place, the leases under the bishops of Ireland were held not for lives, but for twenty-one years; and the common practice was, to renew the lease every year on the payment of a certain sum, and the whole income of the bishop depended upon his receiving annually the sums given for the addition of one year to the existing leases. It was, therefore, next to impossible that any bishop so depending for his income could contest the point with the lessees holding under him. Parliament had, therefore, to make some arrangement which, while it enabled the bishop to receive his income, should be just to the lessees; for they had in the case of the Irish Church a much greater interest than could by possibility be possessed by the lessees in the present case; therefore, if he had been inclined to give compensation in the former case, he should not consider the argument applied to this case. Here was a great public benefit to be obtained, the extent of which no one could know, by which religious and spiritual instruction was to be provided for the people. The case of these lessees was simply this—here was a young man appointed to the archdeaconry of Surrey who had the right of a renewal of the leases held under him by persons who were much older than himself, and who, by withholding the renewal during their lives, and running his life against the lives in the existing leases, would forego a present advantage for the sake of a greater benefit that would ultimately arise to him by outliving them. He could not see that the present lessees had any claim whatever for compensation. He should vote against the clause.

trusted the House would allow him to state what sums of money were at issue in this case. In the case of Mr. Halstead, it appeared that his father gave 16,000l. for the lease; that he had himself given 4,200l. for the renewal of that lease; and that he had ex- pended 4,000l. in buildings and 7,000l. in establishing the right to the tithes; by which he raised the tithes from 800l. to 2,350l.; and it was now proposed to take this away from him, without making him any compensation, although the Church had been so much benefitted by his exertions. The next case was that of Mr. Bury. That gentleman gave 11,250l. for his lease; and had paid two fines—one of 800l., and the other of 1,100l., amounting together to 13,150l., the tithes being about 600l. a-year. The lessees were the only parties who would suffer by this measure. The Bishop of Winchester would gain the presentation of the rectory of Farnham, with three chapelries annexed; the bill converting a vicarage into a rectory. The Archdeacon of Surrey, who certainly was not over paid, still would gain a permanency, by having annexed to the archdeaconry a prebend in the cathedral of Winchester. The committee called before them three respectable valuers, who gave an unanimous opinion, that by the course meant to be adopted by this bill, it would cause a loss to the lessees equal to three years' purchase; in other words, that if the right of renewal were taken from them, their interests would be depreciated to the amount of three years' purchase. This, he contended, was very unfair towards those gentlemen, and compensation should be made to them for the injury they were about to sustain.

differed from the opinion which had been expressed by his hon. Friend who had just spoken. Undoubtedly the division on this occasion would be one of rather a singular kind; yet he thought it would redound very much to the honour of the House, because it would be a division upon a private bill, in which individuals of all parties would be found to vote according to their own opinions and judgments, and not according to the opinions of any political party. Now, he conceived, that the estimate mentioned by his hon. Friend, had been made upon grounds the most fallacious. He would not enter into a discussion of the general principle, but in his judgment, in point of fact, there was a most material difference between the case of leases held under a chapter, and the case of leases held under a corporation sole. Where a life fell in, in the case of a lease held under an aggregate corporation, it might be difficult to get all the parties forming that corporation, to agree to run out the lease, though it might be a course that would be to their own advantage; but in the case of property of this description, held on lease under a sole corporation, such as a bishop, a dean, or an archdeacon, the only interest the lessor had to look to was his own interest; and he had the absolute right, which no man had ever yet attempted to control, of dealing with that interest for his own benefit and advantage, without regard to the interest of the lessee beyond what was secured to him by the lease. Suppose the Archdeacon of Surrey, or any other person possessed of such a right as this, should say, "I am only thirty-five years of age; in my opinion it will be to my advantage not to renew these leases;" in such a case would any person, he would ask, say that, either in justice or equity, there would be the slightest claim on the part of the lessee to compensation? He maintained, that in the instance of the present lessees, there was no loss to compensate, and upon that ground he opposed the clause.

said, he had so often trespassed upon the attention of the House upon the subject of this bill, that he should now only say, that greatly as this bill had been improved since its first introduction to the House, four or five years ago, he thought it still open to the fundamental objection of being a measure for the confiscation of Church property, and tending to the ruin of cathedral establishments. He could not therefore suffer it to pass without raising his voice against it.

would express his regret that the bill did not go much farther. So far from its being a measure of confiscation of church property, not one farthing would be taken from the church. The bill would only make a better distribution of the property, and apply a surplus revenue to better purposes. It appeared it was, as far as it went, an excellent measure.

had opposed this bill, not because it reformed too much, or too little, but because it was a kind of reform which would be less effective, and less in conformity with the principle of the institutions with which it dealt, than other reforms which might be applied with greater benefit to the Church. It had been suggested by very high authorities, that the chapters ought to discharge the functions of councils to the bishops, and the cathedrals be rendered useful as places for the theological education of the clergy belonging to the Church. The noble Lord had met this suggestion in a serious, calm, and considerate manner. But the noble Lord's proposition, in the shape of an objection, was this, that there were such differences of opinion in the Church, as would render it impracticable for successive bishops to make use of the advice of the same chapters as their councils, and that if the cathedrals were employed as places for theological education, it would only tend to create so many different sects and schools of opinion, that would produce a great and injurious diversity of doctrine throughout the country. That objection might have held good at a time when the Church of England was torn in pieces by the war of party, and when it might have been justly apprehended that the most injurious results would have followed such a course. The name and idea of party were now from day to day, and from year to year, becoming more odious and offensive to every good member of the Church of England, and were more and more repudiated, both in theory and practice, by her ministers and her divines. So far from entertaining the apprehensions expressed by the noble Lord, he (Mr. Gladstone), on the contrary, believed that the further theological studies were carried in this country, the more the education of the clergy was attended to, the best opinions would be found to prevail among them, and more efficiency would be given to their ministrations. The main objection urged by the opponents of this bill had been, that it would place the ecclesiastical establishment of the country upon an insecure and precarious foundation, and that the present measure seemed only intended to prepare them for further measures of reduction of the property of the Church, and to invite them by degrees to plans of entire spoliation. That was the danger they had to apprehend; and particularly, he was bound to say, with respect to the cathedrals of this country, that he did not believe any cathedral institution could be secure, whether it had twenty canonries, twelve canonries, four, or two canonries, unless the patronage of those institutions should be exercised with fidelity. During the period in which this bill had been under discussion in that House, events had taken place which appeared to show that the Government had not been sufficiently convinced of the necessity of giving to the cathedral establishment that security—which was the only efficient security they could have—namely, the security which arose from the right distribution of their patronage. He should be the last person in the House to complain of her Majesty's Government for employing the power and influence which were to be derived from lucrative and important appointments, by conferring them upon those who concurred in their own political opinions. He made no complaint upon that score. But he did complain of an appointment which had been made during the last few weeks to the warden-ship of Manchester. That appointment seemed to bear out what had been supposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, for the bill would not go far enough if they cut away one-half of the abuses, but continued the same system as had been pursued with respect to those that remained. In reference to the gentleman who had received the appointment, it was not his intention to utter one word of personal disrespect. He was a poet and a scholar; but poetry and scholarship were not precisely the gifts which for such an appointment seemed to be requisite. This was the parish church of Manchester. To that church a very large population looked for the rites of baptism, marriage, and burial; there were sought the offices of the Church — there the populalation sought the instruction derived from a parochial Church—and there the ministers ought to have been too glad to have appointed to the office of warden a person who would have entered upon his duties aware of the great spiritual wants to be supplied by that Church. The gentleman who had received the appointment, whatever his distinction might be, was not the best calculated for the service of the Church, or for the parochial administration. He was already the rector of Stafford, in the archdiocese of York, with a population of 2,000 souls, and an income of l,500l. a-year. If they were to leave offices richly endowed, to which no duties attached, he did hope, that the Government would see what were the necessities of the times, and use the patronage of their office in such manner as to make it the most effective. He must say, however, from the interest taken by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) in this subject, and from the care he had taken to render the cathedral establishments efficient, that he could not ascribe the late appointment to that noble Lord. He did not wish to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown—he did not complain of the appointment of a person of one politics rather than another; good clergymen there might be, and efficient clergymen, from one political party as well as another, but he objected to the appointment because it had not been made with a view to render the collegiate Church of Manchester conducive to the interests of the Church, such an appointment must meet with his condemnation, and his reprobation.

hoped, that there was still strength left among those connected with the Church to reject this measure. Until her Majesty's Government, which was a disgrace to the country, was changed, there would be no hope for the preservation of the Church.

observed, that the House by the vote to which it had just come, had decided, that mere possibility was the subject of valuation. Now, under this very bill, he knew a canon residentiary, who wished to renew a life; he would therefore ask the noble Lord whether these matters were to be the subject of compensation, and what was to be the extent to which the House was to allow the compensation in the changes to be made by this bill?

in regard to the question of the hon. Member, did not propose to make any compensation to the lessees of the Church under this bill. The commissioners, in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, would have power to renew the lease, and it would be for them to judge whether it was proper to renew it or not. At the same time he thought, with reference to certain matters, it would be fit that they should have a certain regard to the interests of the lessees. He owned, that it was a subject of difficulty. He could not vote for a clause giving general compensation, still there were cases which would not be fairly treated by abrogating the right of the lessees without giving indemnification or a power of renewal. He did not propose to give anything by this bill, because it was intended to leave a power in the hands of the commissioners to renew or not, and if they made it compulsory on the commissioners to renew, it was obvious, that they would be giving to the lessees a greater interest than they had at present; for supposing a person in the situation of lessor should not choose to renew, and should say, that he would take the chance of the lease falling in, he might now do so, and consequently they could not compel the commissioners to renew without increasing the lessee's interest. It was not therefore intended to give any power of indemnification under the present bill, but the whole subject must come under the consideration of Parliament in the next Session. He must say also one word as to the appointment of a person of learning and ability to a situation which he (Lord John Russell) considered similar to that of dean in one of the cathedral churches in the country; he was not acquainted with that reverend gentleman, he had never seen him, but he could hot disavow all the responsibility of the appointment, because the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government had communicated to him the intention of recommending that gentleman to the Crown, and he could not offer any objection to the appointment.

could not but think, that if the noble Lord entertained any doubt whether the lessees should have compensation, the point ought to be settled at once, because he could conceive nothing more calculated to produce injury than to leave such a question unsettled. He would not consent to be a party to holding out any expectation of compensation, because he was confident, that if the property remained in the hands in which it now was, their regard for the general interests of the Church would prevent a renewal of the leases. If he understood the noble Lord, that in future they were to have claims for compensation to be decided by that House, or entertained by the commissioners, he said distinctly, that they ought not to pass this bill without laying the foundation for the compensation which the House might determine ought to be given. But at a time when they were making great sacrifices on the part of the Church to afford spiritual instruction to the people, they ought not, as he thought, to deprive the people of that instruction to make any such compensation. His object, in consenting to this bill, was to promote what he believed the bill would promote—the spiritual instruction of the people—and whatever should tend to prevent that, should have his determined opposition.

claimed to have the University of Cambridge upon a perfect equality with the University of Oxford. He did not see why there should be seven professorships of Oxford— why they should have annexed to them canonries in the collegiate Church of Christchurch, and that only two professorships in Cambridge should have the chance of having canonries. What he asked the noble Lord was, to endow the three professorships and the mastership of Jesus, in the University of Cambridge, by annexing to them four canonries in the cathedral church of Ely. All, however, that the noble Lord proposed to do by his clause was, that the first two canonries that should be vacant in Ely might be held by these professors, who might resign the professorship in a few days and still retain the canonry. The clause which he intended to introduce, if the noble Lord's should be rejected, was to declare, that in the cathedral church of Ely, the first, second, third, and fourth canonries that should be vacant should be permanently annexed to the Norresian professorship of Divinity, the Regius professorship of Hebrew, the Regius professorship of Greek, and the mastership of Jesus College. Jesus College was especially entitled, for it was founded by a Bishop of Ely, the appointment of the master was vested in the Bishop of Ely, the master received only a small amount, and it was considered almost a matter of course now if the master's income was not increased from some other source, that he should have annexed to his offices a prebendaryship of Ely.

said, that if the House did not like the clause he had proposed, it might adopt that of the right hon. Gentleman, yet he had hardly given any valid objection to the clause as it had been proposed. The question with respect to the universities of Oxford and Christchurch turned upon the fact, that it was a collegiate establishment, but the cathedral of Ely was never considered part of the University of Cambridge. The clause would serve the purpose for which it was intended. As it stood, it had been altered to meet the wishes of the dean of Ely.

hoped, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) was in error, and that a person resigning the professorship would not retain the canonry. The words were, "no one shall be eligible or qualified to hold" the canonry who was not one of these professors. If that were the meaning of the clause it would not require alteration.

said, that as the words were, "no one shall be eligible or qualified to hold," it appeared, that if the party resigned the professorship, he would be disqualified from longer holding the canonry.

would then move to insert the word "four" instead of the word "two."

said, he regarded the bill as the destruction of the cathedral system; he would therefore propose a clause which would continue the framework of that system as now existing, in number, title, and dignity, leaving the property at the mercy of the noble Lord opposite. He moved the following clause:—

"And whereas it is expedient, that the several establishments of the cathedral and collegiate churches of England and Wales should be maintained in their integrity, so far as relates to the number of members composing the said several establishments, and also so far as relates to the maintenance of the several colleges or corporations of minor canons and vicars choral of the said cathedral or collegiate churches; be it enacted, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any patron or patrons from collating any person duly qualified to any office, prebend, or dignity in any cathedral or collegiate church; provided always, that the estate, hereditaments, income, and emoluments, now by law invested in every such office, prebend, or dignity, shall go and be applied in manner according to the provisions of the present bill, any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding."

He hoped, that his motion would not be opposed. The object which was had in view was to enable patrons to collate persons to dignities with a view to their enjoying a rank to which their exertions entitled them. In many instances the amount of emolument was merely nominal; and as the real object was the conferring of rank, to which it was natural that persons in all professions should look, he conceived that no well-founded objection could be made to the clause.

thought that the clause was inconsistent with the general provisions of the bill. He could not think that it was at all desirable that the number of church dignitaries should be kept up, and he could not but imagine that the conferring of rank, without being accompanied by some emoluments, would not be so desirable as the hon. Baronet seemed to suppose. He should, therefore, oppose the motion.

expressed his intention to vote against the motion. The effect of the clause would be to strike out three-fourths of the bill; and however much he might concur in its principle, he could not consent to its adoption at this late stage of the measure.

said, he should support the clause moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, notwithstanding the inconsistency pointed out by his right hon. Friend. He would vote for it, not for the sake of offering pecuniary rewards to able young men, but to maintain these spiritual offices in the Church.

proposed a proviso to the 63d clause, reserving the existing rights as regarded deans.

replied, that ample reasons had been stated in the 4th report of the commissioners, presented in the year 1836, why the amendment of the hon. Gentleman should not be adopted.

had no intention of doing anything which would delay the progress of the bill: on the contrary, he thought that much credit was due to the noble Lord for the course he had pursued in adopting the suggestions which had been made elsewhere. He was still of opinion, however, that the provision to be made for the churches of England and Scotland was not such as they had a right to expect, but still it was much better than the first which had been proposed, or in- deed than any other provision which had been proposed either here or in the province. Besides this, seeing the feeling with which the noble Lord came forward to meet the proposition which had been made, and being anxious to bring this question to a speedy conclusion, and not surfer it to remain as a source of discord, he would not treat the bill with any hostile spirit. He approved of the alteration in the first clause, which limited the sale to a particular number of acres in one year, which would have the effect of securing a firm price, He objected to the second clause, which decided that the proceeds of the land sales should be placed in colonial securities. There was also another point of some importance—namely, it did not appear whether or not the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, who were to be intrusted with the management (and there could be no better trustees), were vested with the power of re-purchasing the lands. He at first entertained doubts as to the propriety of selling the property without making some reserve for the sites of future churches. He now, however, was ready to agree that the whole should be sold, and that the value of the land would increase in proportion to the increasing prosperity of the country. He was, however, desirous that some provision should be made with respect to the power of re-purchasing for the sites of churches. As to the portion granted to the churches of England and Scotland, it should be remembered that there were now in Canada a vast number of people who were at present of no church, but who would probably hereafter come into these communions. There was another clause, the seventh, to which he entertained a strong opinion, but in which he was glad to find that the noble Lord had made material alterations. In the original bill endowments were given to a great variety of sects, and particularly to Roman Catholics, and if it had remained so worded as it at first was, it would have have been highly objectionable. If the House referred to the proceedings upon this subject in the reign of George 3rd, and the language used by Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville, it would be found, that whatever difference of opinion existed upon other points, there could not be the slightest doubt that these reserves were made for Protestant uses. He hoped that the noble Lord might still be induced to insert the word "Protestant," so as to limit the fund to those uses contemplated in the original intent. He had no objection to the general provisions of the measure, but he was desirous that a sound foundation should be laid for that religious instruction in Canada upon which alone must depend the prosperity of the colony.

differed altogether from the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House as to the merits of the amendments which had been made in the bill by the noble Lord. He had understood, that the object of the Government by the present bill was to settle this question which had been a source of discord in the colony for the last twenty-five years. He understood from the letter of the noble Lord to the Governor of Canada, that the Government desired to satisfy the wishes of the majority of the people of Upper Canada on this subject, but he feared that some of the provisions that had been recently introduced into it would have anything but this result. He had on three several occasions presented petitions from the House of Assembly of Upper Canada on the subject of clergy reserves, and they protested on each occasion against the lands belonging to the people of that colony being appropriated in any thing like the way proposed in this bill. They however agreed, to prevent jealousies, that the lands in question should be sold, and that the results should be appropriated to the religious and general education of the people of the colony. It was therefore preposterous to expect that they would be satisfied with the mode now provided. Upper Canada, according to the Report on Clergy Reserves which he held in his hand, had repeatedly come to the following resolution:—

"That it is desirable that the lands commonly called the Clergy Reserves, and the proceeds arising from the sales thereof, be appropriated for the promotion of the religious and moral instruction of the people throughout the province."

An address to the same effect had been agreed to by the House of Assembly in the year 1831, and he found that year after year there were resolutions agreed to, all to the same purport, and all declaring against any interference on the part of the British Government. How, then, he asked, could the noble Lord suppose that a settlement like this could tend to the peace or contentment of that country? He objected to the House proceeding with the bill, and when the House went into committee, he meant to propose the omission of this proviso in the fifth clause, and also that the seventh clause be left out.

was content to risk his view and opinion of the bill upon one single sentence that had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny,—namely, that the clergy reserves had been granted by Parliament for the support of the Protestant clergy. He would leave the House to judge of the hon. Member's consistency after such an admission as that. The hon. Member had spoken of petitions that had been sent him to present to that House from speakers of the Colonial Assembly in three successive Parliaments. Now, one of these gentlemen was Mr. Bidwell, and he would ask the House whether they were prepared to place much confidence in any thing that proceeded from that gentleman. [Mr. Hume believed him to be as good a man as any in that House.] Let her Majesty's subjects in Canada, and in that House, and in the United States of America know what was the opinion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny on that point. He looked upon this bill with nearly the same feelings as those he entertained when the first discussion took place upon it. He admitted, that the bill had been improved since it was first introduced, but it still contained a great and predominating evil. In the words of the hon. Member for Kilkenny he asserted that the clergy reserves were avowedly granted for the Protestant Church, and he therefore considered it the bounden duty of the British Legislature considering the vested interests at stake not to alienate those vested interests, but to protect and preserve them for the purposes originally intended. He now objected to this bill as strongly as before because he was of opinion that it divested a great corporation of her Majesty's subjects, whom he regarded as the Church of a portion of that property, which had been solemnly awarded them by the Legislature of this country. Unless others set the example, however, he should not fee himself justified in dividing the House again upon the principle of the measure.

said, that he wished to know from the noble Lord whether he had any objection to include in this measure the sales of the clergy reserves in the Lower Province?

observed, that one reason for the non-insertion of the clergy reserves in Lower Canada was, that there had not been that source of disputes and of very great dissension that there had been in the Upper Province. A bill, too, had been passed for this purpose in the Upper province: and it had not been a matter of dissension in the Lower Province. He did not state this as a reason for not including the clergy reserves of the Lower Province; he only stated it as a reason why it was not originally introduced. Unless the thing could be done by the general concurrence, he should be sorry to embarrass the bill with any such clause.

stated, that unless the Lower Province was included in this bill, there would be a repetition of the scenes that had taken place in the Upper Province on this subject.

hoped that the noble Lord would include Lower Canada in this bill.

desired to see the clergy reserves sold in the shortest possible time, provided that no sacrifice was made of them. As to the Catholic church in Lower Canada, it was already very amply endowed.

said, it was essential that the produce of the sales should be vested in good securities, and he was not aware that there were any means of so doing in Upper Canada. He should propose, therefore, an amendment, based on the precedent of the act of the 7th and 8th of the late King, that the money should be paid over to officers appointed by her Majesty for that purpose, and by them be invested in the public funds of Great Britain.

thought it was exceedingly desirable to ensure the safe keeping of their funds, but disapproved of the proposal to invest them in this country, as so doing would deprive the provinces of all the advantages which that amount of capital lying within its limits must necessarily confer upon a new country. He thought there were plenty of securities in the province in which the funds could be safely invested.

opposed the amendment, which would involve a most unpalateable reflection upon the public securities of Canada. In the bill of 1839, a provision had been included, giving the Governor-general the power to invest these funds either in the securities of the colony, or of this country; and this was one of the few provisions which was objected to by the Colonial Assembly. This showed the feelings which existed in the province on this subject, and he should therefore oppose the re-insertion of such a provision on the present occasion.

said, that the fact of investing these funds in the British funds could not deprive the province of any of the advantages derivable from such an amount of capital, as it was specially provided that all the interest should return to the province. He should be glad to be informed by hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, what securities they would propose to invest these funds in in Upper Canada?

said, that, as this clause related to the office of treasurer to be appointed under this act, he was desirous of making a few observations to the House, in consequence of the papers which had been laid upon the table of the House. The committee would see by the succeeding clause, that the consolidated fund of Great Britain and Ireland was made liable for any deficiency when the sum in the hands of the treasurer, derived from the sale of the clergy reserves, was below 7,500l. This country was called upon to guarantee this amount, as a fund for the payment of the Canadian clergy. This rendered it important that trustworthy officers should be appointed for the reception and distribution of the funds to be so derived. Now it appeared to him that nothing was more probable than that the Bishop of Toronto might be one of the officers to be appointed under this act to receive and pay the sum in question. This he protested against—for who was the Bishop of Toronto? Let the papers before the House answer this question. From these papers it appeared that he was the president of King's College; In the course of the year 1839, Sir George Arthur instituted an inquiry into the management of the college, and it came out that the bishop had been drawing for many years his salary (250l. per annum) for doing nothing. Sir George Arthur, considering that this college was not likely to come into operation, stopped the salary. Some further enquiries, it appears, were made by the Assembly, when it appeared that the bishop, the president of the college, had borrowed from the funds of the college, for his private purposes, about 5,500l. on the security of various notes-of-hand, more than half of which— six out of eleven—were overdue and unpaid. The Governor-general most properly demanded an explanation from the bishop, who, in answer to the chief-secretary's letter, dated February 3rd, 1840, admitted the fact, and described the transaction, in his letter of the 10th of February, as a common money transaction of the most simple kind. After the receipt of this letter, the Governor-general (through his chief-secretary) replied, on the 15th of February, that he did not deem it a simple money transaction, but that—and these were his words—the employment of the funds of a public trust, by one of the trustees, for his own advantage, was a proceeding which, in his opinion, was highly objectionable. Now, had he (Mr. Hawes) designated this transaction, he should have rather termed it one of a disgraceful nature—as something very closely approaching peculation. But passing that by, discreditable as it was to all parties concerned, it was stated, in the letter of Dr. Boys, the bursar (February 11, 1840), that the council had sanctioned this proceeding. Upon further investigation, however, Dr. Boys writes another letter to the Governor-general, who, it appears, had pretty good information, and as vigorous a determination to inquire into the transaction, that there was no minute of council or authority for the transaction. Now he, (Mr. Hawes) contended, that he was fully justified in demanding a clear explanation from the noble Lord, as to who were to be appointed officers under this clause. To the bishop he objected. To the president of a college, who could thus misapply trust funds for education, he felt called upon emphatically to object. There was no doubt of the transaction. Sir George Arthur begins — the Governor-general and the Assembly continue the inquiry—the bishop denies nothing, and only palliates it as a simple money transaction of an ordinary kind. Unless he was fully assured that this right rev. Prelate was relieved from the duty of watching over the pecuniary interests of the Church, he should move a proviso at the end of the clause to exclude him specifically, and take the sense of the House. For a Prelate, in his position too as president and trustee of the college, so to act, was highly reprehensible, and demanded exposure.

said that, under no clause of the bill could any such appoint- ment take place, as an examination of the clauses to come would show. The receiver-general of the province would alone receive the proceeds of the sales of land. He thought therefore that the proviso was unnecessary. He did not mean to enter into the question which had been brought forward; he only rose to assure his hon. Friend that his proviso was not called for, even admitting all the facts of the case against the bishop as stated.

concurred with the hon. Member for Lambeth. No money had ever been expended in the province of Upper Canada, connected with church affairs, but what had passed through the hands of the Bishop of Toronto.

defended the conduct of the bishop. He had always borne the character of a man of the most stubborn integrity.

regretted the transaction, and said that he had read the documents in question with the greatest surprise. He thought it premature to form an opinion; he should suspend his judgment. He thought the Governor-general ought not to have transmitted the statement without the knowledge of the bishop.

said, that the hon. Member for Lambeth had indulged in taunts and sarcasms against the bishop. He was not justified in the attack he had made. He was himself susceptible enough when attacked, as he could testify; he should be cautious, therefore, before he assailed others, to know the whole case. He had rarely heard a more severe speech than that of the hon. Member for Lambeth delivered in that House. He would not go so far as to call on the House for a sentence of acquittal for that rev. gentleman, but he must say that he thought it premature to come to any judgment on his conduct, more especially on the ex parte statements which had been read by the hon. Member for Lambeth. The conduct of Governor Thomson in sending home such statements was most reprehensible and unjust. It was his duty to have instituted an inquiry in a case like the present, and he ought to have called on the bishop for his defence. As this had not been done, the conduct of the Governor was highly reprehensible.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had blamed the hon. Member for Lambeth for his having accused the Bishop of Toronto, but the hon. Member himself had not been slow in preferring accusations against the conduct of Governor Thomson.

said, the hon. Member for Newark had designated the question raised by the hon. Member for Lambeth as premature. Now, he (Mr. Smith) did not think it premature, but he certainly considered it a little inopportune. The imagination of the hon. Member had been singularly fertile in supposing, that the conduct of the Bishop of Toronto had any connexion whatever with the sixth clause of this bill. It was a perfectly gratuitous supposition. But he (Mr. Smith) should not have troubled the committee with one word if the hon. Member for Newcastle had not thought proper to blame the Governor-general of Canada for sending home the despatch containing the result of his inquiry into the case of the Bishop of Toronto to the Colonial-office. For what could the hon. Gentleman blame the Governor-general? It was his duty to inquire into the transaction, and to disclose it to the Government at home. If his despatch had never been produced, there would have been a very loud and clamorous complaint made. He thought his hon. Friend had acted most properly in this transaction.

denied most distinctly that he had made any charge against the Governor-general of Canada for having instituted an inquiry into the transaction On the contrary, he had declared that it was the Governor-general's duty to make the most rigorous investigation into the whole matter; but the blame which he threw upon the Governor-general was for not having given notice to the Bishop of Toronto that he intended to make the transaction a subject of inquiry.

admitted that the hon. Gentleman did say that it was the duty of the Governor-general to inquire into the transaction; but he understood the hon. Gentleman also to say, that the Governor-general ought not to have sent the result of the inquiry home to the Colonial-office.

said, that the alleged severity of the speech of his hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth, consisted in a remarkably clear statement of facts, and in quotations from the letters of the Bishop of Toronto himself, whose explanations had the misfortune of aggravating the charge which they were meant to repel. As to the inquiry instituted by the Governor-general, he was bound to make it. It would have been a gross dereliction of his duty if he had not done so—and it appeared to have been conducted with perfect fairness to the parties concerned. Every opportunity for explanation was afforded them, and if they did not make good use of it, it must be ascribed to the stubborn character of the facts.

said, that notwithstanding the somewhat angry reply of the hon. Member for Newark, he considered himself perfectly justified in bringing the question before the House. Every word he uttered was founded upon the papers laid on the Table of the House by the Secretary for the Colonies, which contained statements of facts upon the authority of the Governor-general of Canada. It appeared by these papers, that the Bishop of Toronto had borrowed trust funds for private purposes, and that the bursar of the college was a defaulter, in the first instance, of no less than 13,000l., 6,000l. of which still remained unpaid. No wonder the bursar should be a defaulter, with such an example before him. The uncalled-for display of displeasure on the part of the hon. Member for Newark he could manage to bear, inasmuch as no one single item of the statement he had made had been impugned. He had exaggerated nothing—mis-stated nothing— and if he had failed, in stating the case, to censure severely the conduct of the right rev. Prelate, he should have failed in his duty. The speech of the hon. Gentleman in defence of the bishop, and in censure of the Governor-general, would, in all probability lead to further investigation, [Hear, hear, from Mr. Gladstone,] and, perhaps, the result would elicit anything but the cheers of the hon. Gentleman.

stated his objections to the clause. He had heard no reason assigned for rendering the consolidated fund of this country liable to the payment of a sum which there were ample means in the colony to meet. He should take the sense of the Committee against the clause.