, seeing the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, wished to ask him whether be was then prepared to state to the House what alterations he intended to make in the educational clauses of the Factory Bill? and also what portion of the resolutions read last night by the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, the right hon. Gentleman approved of, and which of them he disapproved of?

replied, that he was altogether at a loss to answer the question of the hon. Gentleman. Last night, he said, in reply to the noble Lord, that there were certain modifications of the educational clauses of the Factory Bill under the serious consideration of the Government; but he distinctly stated that nothing had yet been matured or determined on by the Government.

asked whether it were the intention of the Government to extend the operation of the Factory Bill and education clauses to other trades and manufactures in which children and young persons are employed, besides those mentioned in the preamble of the bill? Whether the Government could name the particular employments to which factory regulations were to be extended? It was thought by some, that since there are now commissioners inquiring into the employment of children and young persons in the agricultural districts, it might be the intention of the Government to propose some kind of regulations respecting the employment of children in those districts, perhaps with a view of promoting education, making employment conditional on school attendance, and obliging a farmer, previous to employing a child, to see that such child had obtained a school certificate. He wished to ask had the Government any plan of this sort in contemplation? and when would the report of the commissioners for inquiring into the employment of young persons in the agricultural districts be on the Table of the House?

said, that on former occasion, he had intimated that it was the intention of Government, after the Factory Bill should have received the sanction of the House, to extend its operations by a supplemental measure to manufacturers of lace and cotton prints, the Factory Bill before the House only applying to manufacturers in cottons, woollen goods, silks, and flax. The report of the commission referred to was not yet ready

said, that there had been laid on the Table of the House reports from the commissioners appointed to inquire into the criminal law of this country, one of which reports recommended a code of criminal law. He wished to ask whether Government was prepared to bring forward in the present Session any measure embodying the recommendations of the commissioners?

said, that this was a most important question, and he was therefore much obliged by the notice the hon. and learned Gentleman had given him of his intention to ask it. The House was aware that the result of the protracted labours of the commission referred to was seven reports. In the last of these reports the commissioners recommended the consolidation of the criminal law, appending specimens of the mode in which they would suggest this to be done in the laws as to treason and murder. He was persuaded, however, that such important changes in the criminal law could not be effected in this way. There must necessarily be not merely a compilation of the statutes, but also a thorough examination of the decisions of the judges, and of the interpretations of the law by the courts. To render such a compilation safe and eligible, would require the exercise of the utmost caution, the most matured experience, and the most extensive knowledge. He did not think the Government, as a Government, should undertake this compilation. If done at all, it should be the work of a commission; and he was not prepared to say, that for the purpose of attempting this great work, he could advise her Majesty to issue such a com. mission. It would be one of the greatest changes ever attempted in the laws of this country, having a most important bearing upon the future administration of those laws. He could not conceive a step requiring more cautious deliberation on the part of Parliament than an attempt of this kind. He thought, that a commission for the purpose should not issue on the authority of the Crown, but should be a Parliamentary commission, appointed by statute, and, as at present advised, he could not say, that he was now prepared to recommend such a Parliamentary commission to the House.

said, that he had been ready and anxious to bring forward his motion, "For a yearly report by a Minister of the Crown on the subject of education." The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had represented to him that such a course might embarrass the general question of education. Though he (Mr. Ewart) had opposed, and should continue strongly to oppose (if they remained unaltered), the principles of the educational clauses of the right hon. Baronet's Factory Bill, he would not take any unfair advantage of the right hon. Baronet; and he felt certain that, whenever he brought forward his own motion again, the right hon. Baronet would meet him fairly, and rather facilitate than embarrass its discussion. Further representations had been made to him by Gentlemen disposed to support his measure, that it would come on with more advantage at a later period of the Session. He thought it neither prudent nor proper, in general, to oppose the prevailing feeling of the House, still less the feeling of those who were favourable to a measure. He considered that this measure would gain, rather than lose, by time and consideration. He should, therefore, postpone it till a later period of the Session; but he should certainly bring it forward before the Session closed.

said, that in order to render the objects of his proposed amendment intelligible to the House, it would be necessary for him briefly to retrace the principal provisions of Hob-house's Vestries Act, and the circumstances which had led to its adoption. Many hon. Members would no doubt remember the great excitement which had prevailed about twelve or fourteen years ago in the metropolitan parishes on the subject of the close, or self-elected vestries. These vestries had not in the first instance been established by legislative enactments,—they had grown out of a sort of usage, tolerated in the first instance by the body of the rate-payers in populous parishes for the sake of convenience, until they had been suffered to acquire a legal prescription. The system of conducting parochial business by means of close and self-elected, in preference to open vestries, which had thus crept into some parishes, was imitated in others, and incorporated into local acts, and thus became very general throughout the metropolis. But as the expenditure and patronage connected with parochial government augmented in these great and wealthy districts, and the temptations to profusion and jobbing became consequently greater, the parishioners at large grew dissatisfied with a mode which provided no efficient control over the application of the funds. Great irritation and excitement arose, violent struggles took place in many parishes between the close vestries and the rate-payers at large, which terminated in several instances, particularly in Paddington, St. Giles and St. George's, Bloomsbury, St. Luke's, Chelsea, in the introduction of local acts, in which the elective principle, modified so as to give a certain influence to property, was adopted. The subject was brought before the House by the right hon. Baronet now Member for Nottingham, who obtained a committee in 1829, which sat during two Sessions, collected much important evidence, and made a report, the substance of which he (Sir J. Walsh) would take leave to read to the House. It stated that great dissatisfaction had been felt in many parishes by the absence of an efficient control over the application of parochial expenditure, and that the adoption of the Act 59th Geo. 3d., c. 12 (Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act), had been attended with great benefit, and comparatively few disadvantages in many parishes, and it recommended the introduction of a measure founded upon similar principles. He (Sir J. Walsh) therefore observed to the House, that the very committee presided over and appointed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) had reported not in favour of a measure at all similar to that he subsequently introduced, but of one resembling in principle Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, which gave great protection to the interests of property. Late in the following Session of 1831, the right hon. Baronet brought in the bill, which passed through its different stages with great rapidity, receiving far less attention than its importance demanded, and it speedily became a law. Its provisions were briefly these:—The first nine or ten clauses prescribed the mode of its adoption in parishes desirous of being placed under it. On a requsition signed by fifty parishioners, the churchwardens gave notice of a meeting, at which the question of its adoption might be put to the vote. It was necessary that two-thirds of the number actually voting should be in favour of it, which two-thirds should constitute a clear majority of the whole number of rate-payers in the parish before the adoption of the act could be carried in the affirmative. When thus adopted, it provided that the parochial affairs should be administered by an elective vestry, chosen by all rate-payers rated for one year or more previous to the time of election, and who should have paid up all rates owing by them except such as might be due for the six months immediately previous to the election. The whole number of ratepayers in each parish voted in common for the whole number of vestrymen. There was no subdivision into wards or districts. The number of the vestry was twelve for every 1,000 up to 120, which number was not to be exceeded. Five auditors of accounts were appointed for the whole parish, who were to be quite independent of the vestry, and to have full powers to examine, and make a public annual statement of the accounts. The qualification of vestrymen and auditors of accounts was in the metropolitan parishes 40l. The mode of election was as follows:—The annual elections to take place in the month of May, and notice of meeting for the purposes of election to be given by the churchwardens. The first step at such meetings to be the election of a chairman by the rate-payers present; the second to be the appointment of eight inspectors of votes, four to be appointed by the meeting, and four by the churchwardens. The meeting then proceeded to elect vestrymen and auditors of accounts. Should a poll be demanded, it was to last for three days, and the mode of taking the votes was by the rate-payers delivering unsigned lists to the inspectors of votes folded, up, and which the inspectors were to deposit in boxes, without opening them. Having recapitulated the leading provisions of Hobhouse's Act, he would now proceed to explain to the House those defects for which he considered it was necessary to provide a remedy; but he would first allude to one part of the Act which had, he thought, introduced a valuable improvement, and which was entitled to his warm. and cordial approval. He meant the appointment of a small body of auditors of accounts, distinct from and independent of the vestry or parish officers, and the publicity given to their statements. He thought that this provision introduced a principle of salutary and efficient controul over the parochial expenditure, and he believed that where economy and reduction of rates had followed the adoption of this Act in certain parishes, it was mainly assignable to this cause. The defects of the law as it at present stood, might be chiefly comprised under two heads:—1st. The absence of all provision for the subdivision of parishes of great extent and population into wards or districts; 2dly. The faults in the mode of election, and the abuses it gave rise to; With respect to the first, he reminded the House that the Act was intended to apply to those great and populous metropolitan parishes, and urban populations, which were, in fact, great cities in themselves. Some of these parishes contained from 130,000 to 150,000 souls. Now under a system which without any subdivision elected the vestrymen indiscriminately from the whole mass of the parish, the first principle of good local government was lost. Local self-government was one distinguishing characteristic of this country, and many of the excellencies of our social system were to be traced to its influence. It was fortunate that it did not require in its administration the possession of great and shining talent. It was not requisite that vestrymen and overseers should be endowed with extraordinary abilities, but it was necessary that they should possess local knowledge; that they should be acquainted with the circumstances and wants of their immediate neighbourhood; that they should know, and be known, to the poor of their district; that they should be selected by those immediate neighbours, who, from personal acquaintance, could place a reliance upon their fitness for their duties, and who could answer for their respectability. Now how were these requisites attained under the operation of Hobhouse's Act? In parishes, which, in point of fact, were extensive, or populous cities, some forty vestrymen are chosen indiscriminately from the whole mass. They were not the choice of particular localities, guided by the knowledge of individuals; from the very extent of the area this was impossible. He was anxious to trace the practical result of this system. As all exercise of individual discrimination by the body of the rate-payers became impossible, the affair fell into a few hands, who made a party business of it. Lists were prepared by them, and blindly adopted by the body of the rate-payers, and thus, as extremes always meet, the evils of a self-elected vestry were reproduced by the very vastness and unmanageable nature of the elective body. Again, he would observe, that the most wealthy and important districts of these great metropolitan parishes were precisely those which had the smallest numerical amount of rate-payers. The very extent of the area covered by a large mansion in Portman or Cavendish-squares, represented by one vote, might furnish ground for twenty houses, and, consequently twenty votes in some small street in the suburbs, or some narrow crowded court. Nor was this less true of those splendid shops in Oxford-street and Waterloo-place, the ornament of the metropolis, and whose proprietors rendered the whole kingdom tributary to their taste and industry, and drew streams of wealth to this great centre from the remotest quarters. The streets occupied by their extensive establishments, covering large spaces, were quite out-numbered in the rate-book by the dwellers in the obscure, but more densely thronged quarters inhabited by the poorer classes. Thus, whole districts, and those the wealthiest and most important, were completely excluded from all share in the parish affairs under this system. He knew that it was a favourite argument with some that as the amount of his rates, however small, was in proportion as great an object to the small rate-payer as to the wealthiest, a right of voting which placed the controul in the hands of the poorer, gave every security for the economical expenditure of the parish funds. But this argument was most unsound if pushed to the extent of depriving the property in the parish of all share in the government of it. He could cite two instances in which there might be the temptation to inflict great injustice upon the richer rate-payers, where they were not adequately represented in the vestry. The first was the assessment of their property to the rates, which the vestry might assess far more heavily than their just proportion, leaving the owners to the vexatious and troublesome remedy of an appeal to the sessions; the second was the power enjoyed by the vestry of excusing rate-payers from payment of rates on the ground of poverty. Thus, under Hobhouse's Act, a rate-payer might vote for a vestryman, owing six months' arrears of rate, and might immediately afterwards present himself to the vestry, and claim exemption from the payment of this arrear: surely the vestryman might feel that to refuse his plea might not only be harsh, but ungrateful. With regard to the second class of defects, those arising from the mode of election, he would just describe an election, which might take place under the Act as it stood, and when he had made this statement he would appeal to the House whether a more monstrous abuse—a more complete mockery of free election could be conceived. Suppose a parish to be divided into parties, and the existing vestry to have the popular voice with them,—suppose that, as is generally the case, they appointed the churchwardens, who in their turn appointed four of the eight inspectors of votes,—the meeting appointed the other four by show of hands, and it might thus easily arise that all the eight inspectors of votes might be of the same party. Again, there was nothing in the act to prevent a candidate for the vestry from being an inspector, and thus it might well happen that the election might be conducted by eight inspectors, all of one side, and all candidates for the office for which they were to return themselves. They were to receive votes for and against themselves; votes given by folded lists, in a manner liable to every species of fraud and trick; could their opponents in such cases feel any security for fair play, or could they avoid feeling that they were subjected to an intolerable grievance and injustice? Having now described the defects which he thought required legislative remedy, he would briefly detail the provisions of his intended bill. One great deficiency in Hobhouse's Act was, that it afforded no means by which any influence was given to property. In this respect it was neither founded upon the Report of the Committee he had quoted, nor upon the evidence taken before that committee, nor upon Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, nor upon the Poor-law Amendment Act, nor upon the Municipal Corporations. In all these a certain measure of influence necessary for its own protection was given to property. In his proposed bill he intended to effect this, but rather by imitating the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, than those of Mr. Sturges Bourne's, and other acts, which created a plurality of votes, in proportion to the amount of property rated. He had no objection to the principle of a plurality of votes, but he wished to disturb as little as possible what he found, and therefore he should not introduce the system of a plurality of votes into his bill, but leave to each rate-payer, as he found it, his single vote. He did propose to divide parishes into districts—each district to return a number of vestrymen proportioned to the amount of property in that district. He proposed that in parishes already under Hobhouse's Act, the districts for the purposes of separate elections should be these in which the poll had hitherto been separately taken, as there was a fair presumption that such divisions had been dictated by motives of convenience. He proposed that in parishes adopting the act in future, the divisions should be made according to the number of rate-payers:—

Parished containing rate-payers.
2000 to 3000	into	2	districts.
3000 to 5000	into	3	districts.
5000 to 7000	into	4	districts.
Above 7000	into	5	districts.

And that these divisions should be made by two persons, one to be appointed by the rector, and the other by the vestry; one auditor to each district; and where the districts are less than five, the surplus auditors to these districts rated to the highest amount. The separate elections to be each within the respective districts, voters only to vote in one district. He proposed that the rate-payers should appoint one inspector of votes, and the rector the other. As all his inquiries had convinced him of the solidity of the objections to the manner of voting by ballot, he proposed that the voting should be by lists signed with the voter's name and address, and that the Poll should be taken in one day. There was one great anomaly in the actual law, by which church wardens and overseers were liable to great injustice, for which he was desirous to provide a remedy. By the general law of the land, poor's-rates were made, not by the vestry, but by the churchwardens and overseers. Under specific Acts of Parliament, the County Rate, and the Metropolitan Police Rate, were charged upon the Poor's-rate; and as the churchwardens and overseers were the parties to levy these rates, they were in the first instance made liable under those statutes for the amount, because they had the power of indemnifying themselves by raising the sums in the parish; but in several metropolitan parishes the power of making rates was taken away by local acts, from the churchwardens and overseers and placed in the vestry. No corresponding provision relieved parish officers in these parishes from the liability for County and Police rate, although they were thus deprived of their power of indemnifying themselves. The case had actually arisen in Marylebone, where a noble Lord, who from motives of a public nature had accepted the office of churchwarden, was exposed to the annoyance of an execution in his house for the county rate. He proposed, therefore, that where the churchwardens and overseers were called upon to pay county or police rates, they should be enabled to call upon the parish treasurer to pay over any balance in his hands for those purposes, and should there not be assets to satisfy these demands, that they might require the vestry to make a rate for that object. He had now gone through the main provisions of his bill, and in conclusion, he would observe to any Member of the late Government, or to any one who had supported the Municipal Corporations Act, that his was almost identical with it. The Municipal Corporations Act established divisions into wards, or districts, so did his bill: it provided that in the appointment of councilmen to the different wards regard should be had to properly as well as numbers, so did he; the Municipal Corporations Act established open voting, so did he. You might call one a measure for parochial, and the other for municipal purposes but, in fact, they were merely verbal differences, for the parochial government of these large metropolitan parishes was to all intents and purposes a government for municipal objects. He could not conceive how any one could approve of the one,—and condemn the other,—or upon what grounds the framers of the Municipal Corporations Act could refuse him their support. He concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Vestries Act."

said, that it was with regret that he felt compelled to oppose the motion of his hon. Friend; but having been for several years a vestrymen of one of the metropolitan parishes which the measure proposed to be introduced by his hon. Friend would affect, knowing how contrary to the wishes of the rate-payers in that parish any such alteration would be, and not having found that any such evils resulted from the present state of things as had been represented by the hon. Baronet, he should not be doing his duty by his fellow parishioners if he did not resist the introduction of the measure which was now brought forward. The vestry of the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, of which he had the honour of being a member, had been opened by Sir John Hobhouse's Act, several evenings, and, during all that time, the proceedings of the vestry had been conducted in the most unobjectionable manner—the gentry and the tradesmen, of which the vestry was equally composed, acted harmoniously together—nothing like party spirit was suffered to interfere—they never forgot that they were a parochial, and not a political body—in consequence, their undivided attention was directed to promote the good of the community over which they presided. In the first two years, they had effected a saving, in the parochial expenditure, of nearly 50,000l., and, whilst the expenditure was diminished, there had been a great improvement in the treatment of the Poor. The right hon. Baronet had complained of the mode of election; but he could not complain of a mode of election by which he had been elected and reelected over and over again; and he could testify that, in the parish of St. George, at least, a due proportion of the gentry never failed to be returned. It might be different in the parish of Marylebone, because that parish was a borough—and, from that circumstance, political feelings were likely to be mixed up with parochial transactions; but he would leave the defence of Marylebone to its own representatives. So far as St. George, Hanover-square was concerned, he would say, that the present system had worked well, and that he desired no change, much less such a change as was proposed by the hon. Baronet.

opposed the motion. The measure would interfere very much with the metropolitan parishes, and it was made by a gentleman who had not the slightest parliamentary connection with the metropolitan districts. His hon. Friend had not stated that there was any single grievance under the present system. He had not shown that there had been any jobbing, any increase of rates or expenditure. In fact, in every parish where this Act had been adopted the contrary was the case, and in the parish which he represented the select vestry had, during the seven years preceding the adoption of the Hobhouse Act, expended 1,015,824l., whilst the vestry, in seven years under the new system, had only spent 847,000l. being a saving of 167,000l. under the new system. In the parish of St. James, the comparison of ten years of the present system with ten years of the old system, showed a diminution of the expenditure of 13,000l. His hon. Friend had not been able to show any instance of abuse, and without any communication from the ratepayers, without any complaint from them, without even notice being given to them, his hon. Friend brought forward the bill. He hoped the present Government would not give their sanction to an attempt to repeal one of the most valuable measures of the late Government.

thought, as far as he was acquainted with its operation, nothing could have acted better than Hobhouse's Bill, and he should object to going back to all the evils of the select vestry system.

said, that the bill proposed by the right hon. Baronet was not approved of by any persons having local influence or information in the metropolis. He hoped the House would not consent to its introduction.

had had sufficient experience of vestries to dread a return to the old system. The present bill seemed to be levelled at the parish of Marylebone, from which, and, indeed, from nowhere else had a single petition come in its favour; but he was sure that nine-tenths of the parishioners of Marylebone would petition against it.

could not admit that the hon. Member for Lambeth had made a fair statement of the feelings of the public upon this subject, because, though in a majority of parishes the people were very well contented with the present act, in Marylebone and St. Pancras there was the strongest party feeling existing that it was possible to imagine. As an instance of it he would mention that the other day a bill was introduced as the suggestion of the trustees of St. Pancras, which every member of the committee approved of as being most laudable; but the committee having introduced the elective principle, making half of them to be nominated by the parishioners and the other half by the vestry, a hostile feeling was kindled immediately and the bill was dropped. As to the measure before the House, he thought his hon. Friend attempted too much. Certainly he had not grounded his propositions on facts, but upon gene- ral suppositions. His hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone had stated a strong fact, namely, that under the provisions of Sir J. Hobhouse's Act, those parishes being divided into ecclesiastical districts, each district, previous to the election, met and agreed as to the number of vestrymen to be elected for each; and the way they solved the difficulty was, to elect an equal number for the rich as well as for the poor districts. The votes were taken in five districts, but there was only one rate-book, which was kept at a central spot, so that there was no means of investigating the validity of the votes proffered. If the bill were modified in committee he would support his hon. Friend in carrying it through the House.

would not deny that his hon. Friend had gone too far; but why not let the bill be brought in and go into committee, and then there would be a proper opportunity to strike out what was objectionable? The majority of the borough of Marylebone wished the evils of the present system to be remedied, and there was no other way of meeting their wishes than by the course taken by his hon. Friend, who was met, not in the ordinary way, but in a manner which looked very much like an indication of party spirit.

said, that he had been asked, on the part of the Government, to undertake to introduce this bill, and he declined; but he said he was perfectly willing to hear the statements which might be made by the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the measure, and to give it his most deliberate consideration. Most certainly he had been led to believe, that, in the various parishes of the metropolis, there was an earnest desire for a change of the law as now established, and he had come down to the House prepared to be the strenuous supporter of his hon. Friend; but when he heard the hon. Member for North Notts, the hon. Member for Middlesex, and the hon. Member for Lymington, though they supported the hon. Member to some extent, declare that he had gone too far, and when he found that the bill did not receive that support from the metropolitan members which was naturally expected for a measure desired by the inhabitants of the metropolis, he must say that he could not join in the advice given by the friends of the hon. Gentleman to let the bill be introduced; he did not think it advisable to support the measure; on the contrary, he should advise the hon. Gentleman not to press his bill upon the House.

, in reply, said that he could not but feel that the House had met his proposition in a spirit somewhat different from that which was usual. He had attended to the loose and desultory conversation which had followed his statement, and had heard hon. Gentlemen near him and others opposite say he had gone too far; but he had heard no attempt to deal with the bill on its merits, and there seemed to be a determination not to allow the subject to be discussed. He thought he had made out a sufficient case to entitle him to the ordinary courtesy, and he had been disappointed of support where he expected it. Therefore, standing alone almost, he should not be guilty of betraying the interests of those who were anxious for an alteration of the law if he submitted to circumstances and withdrew his bill.

rose to move for the production of the correspondence of the British Government with the Porte on the subject of the Bishop of Jerusalem. The hon. Member proceeded to state the circumstances relative to the mission of a Protestant bishop to Jerusalem. It having been determined that it would be desirable to establish a Protestant bishop at Jerusalem, application was made to the Porte to obtain its sanction to the establishment of a Protestant bishop at Jerusalem, and a large sum of money had been obtained on the understanding that a firman had been granted by the Porte for the establishment of a Protestant bishop in Syria. But no such firman had been granted. The Porte neither could nor would recognise the new Bishopric of Jerusalem. It could not, for the superior tribunals to which such questions were necessarily referred, had again and again decided that it was not competent for the Porte to establish new churches in the countries which had been submitted to the Mussulman sway. And thus the large amount of money which had been raised in England had been raised on a statement which was without foundation. Another object, however, had been connected with this proposal. It was known that there was one monarch in Europe, the King of Prussia, who was desirous of co-operating for the purpose of putting into practice a favourite theory of his, that in Palestine it was probable that an union might, be effected between the Lutheran and Anglican churches, and that an experiment might be made to establish a new Protestant authority in Syria. He (Dr. Bowring) believed that that experiment had failed. The proper authority had not been obtained from the Porte, but promises of a vague and unsatisfactory character. But before anything was decided on—without a church—without a congregation to welcome him—unless, indeed, his numerous suite and family might be deemed to constitute his congregation, the bishop appointed to this mission set out for Syria, with a wife and six children, and the Parliament of this country had been called upon to pay the expense of his conveyance to the Holy Land. But how was the bishop suited to his high mission. Of Oriental languages he was wholly ignorant. He was sent among a people with whom he could hold no converse—and though he (Dr. Bowring) had been given to understand he was an Hebrew scholar—he had received no classical education—and, with the exception of German and English, had little or no knowledge of any modern tongue, He believed that he was of Jewish origin, having been born in Poland, and he (Dr. Bowring) would ask any one who had ever visited the Levant, whether there was any circumstance more likely to prejudice an individual than that he was of Jewish origin. It was a common taunt against a person, and the strongest term of invective that could be used against an individual was the Ebn Tavudi, meaning, "you son of a Jew.'" On the arrival of the bishop, the Mussulmans received him with considerable respect—nay, it is said, the Christian bishop entered the city attended by the parade and pomp which the Mussulmans had provided for his reception, and the banner of the cross was borne in procession, accompanied by the crescent of the Mussulman. On this occasion these was great curiosity to, see the English bishop, and he excited great admiration; and there were many shouts of "Il Vescovo" (the bishop): still greater was the wonder when the bishop's lady appeared; and the cries of "La Vescova" (the she-bishop) were heard; but wonder reached its highest point, when the bishop's children made their appearance, and the people, exclaiming in an extacy of astonishment, "Santissima Maria! e sei vescovini!" ("Holy Virgin, and six little bishops too!) Now, he (Dr. Bowring) thought that the circumstance of the bishop being married was not calculated to serve him in the estimation of the people amongst whom he went. Throughout the whole east it was impossible to connect the idea of sanctity with the episcopal character, unless the individual had also the reputation of celibacy. He (Dr. Bowring) had already stated that there were great difficulties in the way of obtaining the proper authority for the erection of a new Christian Church. The power of granting that authority did not reside in the Divan, nor even in the Sultan himself. There was at Constantinople a convocation called "The Court of the Mekemchi," to whose decision all questions that involved religious considerations were referred. Several divisions had been come to by this Court of Mekemchi, that no new Christian Church should be allowed to be erected unless in places where a Christian Church existed before. To show the power which the Mekemchi exercised, he might mention that a few years ago the Coptic Christians of Middle Egypt obtained from the Pacha power to build a Christian church at Keneh, and they selected a place for the erection of this church, which was exactly in the line of the route which was annually taken by the pilgrims to the holy cities, and the church was destroyed by the fanatical Mahomedans. Another firman was obtained at Cairo, and the building was again commenced, and again destroyed. It was his (Dr. Bowring's) fortune to come into contact with some of those individuals by whom the church had been erected, and they described to him the disrespect shown to the orders of the Pacha, and asked him (Dr. Bowring) to speak to Mehemet Ali on the subject. He did so, and the Pacha told him (Dr. Bowring), that a deputation of Ulemas had come to Cairo, and referred him to the decision that had been come to by the court of the Mekemchi, and which they said had been, settled since the period of the Mahomedan conquest, that no new Christian church should be erected; and he (Mehemet Ali) finding that he had no power to grant such a permission, had no other course to pursue than to reimburse to those parties the money which they had expended in the erection of this church, for that he found he had not the power to grant his authority. There could be no doubt that the same resistance had been found at Constantinople, for in the present state of Islam feeling, the Sultan could no more attempt to set up a Christian Bishop under his authority, than the Archbishop of Canterbury could attempt to sanction by his countenance and support a deputation of Mahomedan Ulemas, come to this country for the purpose of endeavouring to convert the people. He believed, that the Sultan could no more attempt to give authority to build a church, than the Government could attempt the introduction of a law in that House for building a mosque, or allowing persons to preach the Koran in the public streets for the purpose of converting the people of this country. [Hon. Mèmbers: "How could you prevent them?"] He did not see how they could prevent them from preaching; but would Parliament attempt to pass a law to authorise them to build a mosque, and to allow Ulemas, under the sanction of the law, to preach the Koran and endeavour to make converts in this country? He believed, that the steps that had been taken, would early cause additional exasperation and irritation, and make the people less willing to listen to the teachings of Christianity or calculated to make more converts. Now, with respect to the connection of the Anglican and Lutheran church, he did not think that a connection with the Lutherans would make our church more popular with the Christians of the Levant, amongst whom the name of Luther was exceedingly unpopular. He believed that this country had been injured by what had been done. He did not think that the establishment of a bishop was calculated to diminish the exasperation that had already existed towards us. When the bill was asked from Parliament for the establishment of a bishop at Jerusalem, it was stated, that no expense would be incurred by the English people. What was the purpose for which the bishop was sent?—what was he to do? Was he to convert the Jews? With respect to the Jews who inhabit the Holy Land, he believed that there was no class of men whose love of their country was greater. He might say that the affection of the Jews to the soil was most touching. They arrived in hundreds from all parts of the world, satisfied to die in the land that had been formerly ruled over by their fathers. He believed, that if the bishops made converts, it would be amongst a class of men, whose conversions could be considered no great honour to any church. As to the Mussulmans the Bishop could not dream of making converts amongst them, and he did not think that amongst the various sects of Christians, he was likely to gain a great number of converts. Nothing could be stronger than the attachment of the Christians of the Levant to their various modes of faith, and he did not believe that any converts would be made amongst them. In the present state of the House, he would not occupy their attention at greater length, and he hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would consent to the production of the papers for which he now begged to move.

rose together; but Sir Robert Peel gave way.

said, that if his right hon. Friend were prepared to state the intentions of the Government, he would at once withdraw, without interposing any delay to the House receiving that gratification. It would be a compliment to the hon. and learned Gentleman who bad just sat down to say, that he was surprised at his speech. Much as be objected to its tone, spirit, and manner, it was only what he might have expected. The hon. and learned Member thought fit to speak with taunt and levity of the appointment and the person of the Bishop of the Church of England in Jerusalem. That scorn and derision were misapplied. The appointment did equal honour to the princes who concurred in it, and to the individual who was the object of their favour. For what was the fact? up to the date of that appointment, ours was the only Christian community in the old world, which had not sent one of its highest order of ecclesiastics as its representative to the Holy Land. Why should the Protestant Reformed Church of England be prevented, more than the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, the Armenian Church, the Church of the Nestorians—from having a bishop in Jerusalem? We did not presume to send any one to he the "representative of Christianity" in the East, as the hon. and learned member called the bishop. "The whole front of the offending" in the matter was neither more nor less than this—that Dr. Alexander had been sent forth as one of the highest ministers of our own Church, to reside where the bishops of other communications had long been permitted to reside. So much for the appointment itself—then, as to the person appointed. The hon. and learned Gentleman specially objected to the individual chosen: first, he was stated to be a Jew—as if this were a conclusive disparagement. He (Sir R. H. Inglis,) would not trust himself to 'advert to the higher considerations which this allusion suggested; but, looking merely to the profession of liberal opinions usually entertained by the hon. Member, and those who sat near him, he might say, that from such a quarter, he hardly expected such a sneer. The fact was admitted; but that the fact was an objection, he for one did not admit; on the contrary, he regarded it as an additional recommendation of the appointment. Was Dr. Alexander the first bishop who had been a Jew? Who was the prelate of the first Christian church? Who was the first bishop in Jerusalem?—was it not a Jew, was it not St. James? We were Gentiles; and could we, as Gentiles, recollecting these foundations of the church, object to any man now a Christian, that he had formerly been a Jew? So much for the first objection to Dr. Alexander. The second was that he was born in Poland. As, however, the hon. and learned Member did not himself lay much stress upon the charge, it was not necessary for him (Sir R. H. Inglis) to dwell upon it. It was enough for him to say, that whatever was the country of Dr. Alexander's birth, he was now a subject of the Queen of England. The third objection was, that the bishop was no scholar; that he was "wholly ignorant of classical literature." Whatever other objections might have been urged to the appointment, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not expect to have to meet that charge. In the first place, Bishop Alexander had been Professor of Hebrew and Rabbinical Literature in King's College, London. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not presume to give an opinion on his fitness for that office; but he held in his hand the bishop's inaugural lecture as Professor; which he was informed by those entitled to give an opinion, sufficiently justified the choice of those who had appointed him to fill that chair. [Here an hon. Gentleman noticed that there were not forty Members present. Sir R. H. Inglis sat down, and the House was counted; but forty being present, he resumed his speech.] He said, that when in compliance with the rule of the House he had sat down, he had been stating the literary qualifications of Bishop Alexander, as exhibited at King's College, London. In the lectures which he there delivered, in the course of his connection with that institution, the bishop had also come under the cognizance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the President of the College; and of the Bishop of London, the Chairman of the Council; and he had reason to believe, that those eminent persons had a different estimate of the scholarship of Bishop Alexander from that entertained by the hon. and learned Member opposite. In fact, though the bishop might not possess all the Pangloss acquirements which were in favour with the learned Gentleman, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) believed, that he might state without hazard of contradiction from any other person, that Bishop Alexander, looking merely to his qualifications as a scholar, possessed them to an extent equal at least to those of others sent out on Missionary labours by any other communion. He had already specified his knowledge of Hebrew and rabbinical literature. The hon. Member himself admitted, that the Bishop understood German. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) would add, that the bishop underwent his examination for deacon's orders, before an archbishop most eminent himself as a scholar, and no careless judge of the scholarship of others. He referred to the late Archbishop Magee. Dr. Alexander was admitted to the order of Priest, by the late Dr. Lindsay, Bishop of Kildare; but it was almost needless to pursue this branch of the subject, because, even if the Bishop possessed all the acquirements of the Admirable Crichton, he would not satisfy the learned Member, whose fundamental objection was that any bishop at all was sent. The hon. Gentleman, indeed, had even a more serious objection to the individual than any which had yet been noticed. The bishop was, it seems, a married man !—as if this were an unanswerable objection. Now he (Sir R. H. Inglis) felt, that, if there were one point above others on which the Protestant Reformed Church of England, so far as related to what might be called her civil polity, stood superior to the Church of Rome; it was in not requiring—in not even encouraging—the celibacy of the clergy. Certainly, from a Protestant, as was the hon. and learned Member, it was not the objection which was the most consistent. So far from the fact being an objection, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) believed, that the presence of the wife and family of the bishop would be favourable, as examples of the social duties which the bishop should himself discharge and should encourage in others. But, says the hon. Gentleman, you have, after all, not secured your bishopric—and you never can: the Porte has not granted its permission; and, for the best of all reasons, because the Porte cannot grant such permission. The Sultan cannot admit your bishop into Jerusalem. This is a strange allegation. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) had already stated that there were Greek and Nestorian, and Armenian and Roman Catholic Bishops in Jerusalem; and that this was some reason at least why the Church of England, also, should desire to have one of its own highest order of ecclesiastics there. It followed, also, therefore, that, if the Mussulmans did not object to the residence of the other bishops in Jerusalem, there was no reason to expect a special objection to the residence of the English bishop there. He might add, that desirable as he thought such residence was on every account, there would be a distinct and great recommendation to it, if, as he had full reason to believe would be the case, Dr. Alexander acted up to the instructions which he carried out. He was directed to endeavour to manifest a spirit of love and forbearance to all other Christian communities among whom he dwelt: not to mix, indeed, in their worship, or to fraternise in any of those peculiarities which we must regard as their errors; but to set an example of charity to all; and, instead of those disgraceful and disgusting squabbles, with which, in the sight of Mussulmans, the different Christian bodies had too often surrounded even the sepulchre of our Saviour, to keep the bond of peace with all, however much he might differ from some in Christian theology. But to revert to the hon. Member's fact, had the Porte refused to admit the bishop into Jerusalem? In the first place, he had thought that it was one of the learned Gentleman's charges against the bishop, that he had entered the Holy City,

"The banner of the Cross waving below the crescent of Mahomet."

And with more of the pomp of a Mussulman governor than of a Christian bishop. So far, indeed, was it from being the case, that the bishop had been treated with disrespect; the hon. Member himself appeared to admit that the bishop's entry into Jerusalem was marked with special honour; and without calculating how much of that honour was attached to the person of the Queen's Consul-general, her Majesty's chief civil functionary in Palestine, who, at the same time entered Jerusalem, it was at least clear that no disrespect attended the bishop's arrival. Then, as to his residence in Jerusalem: it had been circulated, both on the Continent and here, that the bishop had been subjected to great personal insults and hazards; that he had been attacked with stones while preaching in the open air. There were many to whom the appointment of a bishop of a Protestant Reformed Church to reside in Jerusalem was specially objectionable: and they multiplied reports of this kind to depreciate such appointment. He held in his hand a letter from the bishop to himself, referring to such a report soon after his arrival. The bishop says—

"There is not a word of truth in the story; in the first place I have never preached in the open air; and, in the next, I have never been stoned."

But he (Sir R. H. Inglis) might ask, even if it were true that stones had been thrown at Bishop Alexander as a mark of insult and hatred to his office, might not the same be said, in respect to one of our own bishops, the Bishop of Norwich, a similar outrage against whom, as he was performing an episcopal function, formed the subject of a trial a year and a half ago, in one of our own quarter sessions or assizes? As a further proof of the kind of reception which the bishop had really received, he might add that he had seen another letter from him, in which he quoted one of the exaggerated oriental expressions—a style recently made familiar to the House—in which, addressed as it was to himself, the bishop was told that "his arrival in Jerusalem was half paradise." Whether, therefore, the Porte had or had not granted, or promised to grant a firman, to allow the bishop to reside as bishop in Jerusalem, or to build a church there; this at least he could assert, that the bishop enjoyed as a British subject the protection of the Porte; and, even admitting that he could not build a church as such, which yet he (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not admit, he was at any rate at full liberty to convert two houses into a church, or to erect a building which he might use as a church; and in all this he received from the Turkish authorities the protection due to a subject of the Queen. The House would learn with pleasure that the religious duties of the bishop were not without encouragement: he did not know how lately the hon. and learned Gentleman might have been in Jerusalem, perhaps it was some years since; but he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had seen a letter stating that when the bishop had last administered the Holy Communion there were twenty-four communicants; and under God's blessing, there was every hope that the congregation of our church would increase.

said, perhaps acceding to a motion for the production of papers may depend, in a great measure, on the tone and spirit in which the application is made, and I think the hon. Member who brought forward this motion, appears to have been actuated not only by a hostile spirit with respect to the Bishop of Jerusalem, but that he has commented upon his reception in a tone of levity not at all suited to the importance of the subject. Certainly it could not be expected, that a person undertaking the discharge of episcopal functions under such circumstances should not labour under some prejudices, and not have to contend against difficulties; but I am bound to say, that the production of the correspondence moved for would not be calculated to lessen those difficulties, or relieve him from those embarrassments connected with the discharge of his duties. On these grounds, I feel bound to state that it would not be consistent with my sense of public duty to produce the correspondence. But even were I able, consistently with my sense of public duty, to produce the correspondence, 1 should have great unwillingness to risk the production of that impression on the public mind which might be created if the hon. Member's motion was agreed to. I do not see the public grounds for his motion. The hon. Member says that we assured the public at the time, that this appointment would cause no public expence. Well, it has not, beyond the Bishop's conveyance to the coast of Syria. All the assurances given at the time of his appointment will be fulfilled. No demand has ever been made on the public purse for any allowance, nor am I aware that there is any probability that any such demand will be made; therefore the hon. Member had no right to charge those by whom the nomination of this Bishop was originally promoted with any departure from the arrangements then proposed. The hon. Member says, that the greatest prejudices exist amongst the inhabitants of the coast of Syria with respect to his appointment. I apprehend that there is great exaggeration on this subject. I hold in my hand an account of the Bishop's reception on his arrival, which was. as favourable as could have been expected by the most sanguine friends to his appointment. I have here the report of Colonel Rhodes who accompanied the Bishop in his passage from Jaffa to Jeru- salem, and on his arrival in the Holy City. Now, with respect to the prejudices stated to exist on the part of the Roman Catholics in Syria, he believed that there was no foundation for that statement. He knew that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Smyrna expressed satisfaction at his arrival, and that he was actuated by those feelings which would induce all Christians to rejoice at the spread of Christianity. The hon. Member said, that during his experience he saw more Christians become Mahometans than Mahometans become converts to Christianity. [Dr. Bowring: I said, I did not think conversions to Christianity likely to be sincere.] The hon. Member did not believe those conversions to be sincere; but is not that a reason why the means of attending to the pratice of their religion, according to the forms of Christian worship, should be afforded to Christians. Was not this a reason in favour of the appointment of a Protestant Bishop, in order that the great reflection might no longer rest on Christians of having acted in this way. Was it not probable that by these means you will prevent those exhibitions so disgraceful to the Christian's character. The hon. Member has asked, if Mahometans were to come here and ask leave to build a mosque, would leave be granted to them? We certainly might refuse to grant them any such privilege under legislative sanction, but we have not asked for any such provision with respect to this appointment. But, if the hon. Member, who professes such a zeal for Mahometanism, chose to erect a mosque, and preach so as to endeavour to gain converts, I am not aware of any law to prohibit him. We did not seek for any power for the Bishop, and he has no jurisdiction or authority to compel submission to any mandate he may issue or to enforce any obedience to him. I should be very sorry to offend the prejudices of the population to which the hon. Member alluded, or to run counter to that fanaticism unnecessarily, but I think it would show a disregard of our own feeling, if we allowed that prejudice or fanaticism to prevail against our religious convictions and. impressions. It might have been said, to Mr. Borrow with respect to Spain, that it would be impossible to distribute the Bible in that country in consequence of the danger of offending the prejudices which prevail there; yet he, a private individual, by showing some zeal in what he believed to be right, succeeded in triumphing over many obstacles. Believing that if, on the part of the Government, 1 acquiesced in the motion, prefaced as it was by the speech of the hon. Member, I should appear to indicate an indifference with respect to the object of Bishop Alexander's labours, and believing also that there are great misapprehensions in the minds of some individuals, as to the hostility of other countries to the appointment of the Bishop, I cannot agree to the motion. It was represented amongst other things that the French court was opposed to this appointment of the Bishop, but on a communication with Monsieur Do Bourqueney at Constantinople, we received a perfect denial of the slightest intimation of any such feeling. Believing, therefore, that an erroneous impression might arise, were I to accede to the motion of the hon. Member, and being inclined to give every aid towards the success of that mission, I cannot agree to the motion.

war glad to hear the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) say, that there was nothing in the fact of an individual being bore of Jewish parents to prevent him from obtaining a high religious office. He hoped, therefore, that when the opportunity was next afforded to him, which would perhaps be soon, the right has. Baronet would give his vote in favour of a removal of all civil disabilities from the Jews. His hon. Friend (Dr. Bowring) deserved the thanks of the House for obtaining that acknowledgement from the right hon. Baronet. With respect to the object for which the Bishop had been appointed to Jerusalem, he was of opinion that where a man was anxious to promote those religious feelings and that belief which he held to be right, he aught to be allowed to do so, when, in thus acting, he did not interfere with the law. He was of opinion, that it would have been better, if before sending out the Bishop, they had ascertained how he would be received, and secured for him that respect to which he was entitled as a British subject. It was in reference to that considerations, as to the reception and treatment of the Bishop, that he thought any inconvenience could be attached. He was sure that no man was mere in favour of the extension of religious enlightenment than his hon. Friend who brought forward the motion.

concurred in the view taken by the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, with respect to the motion before the House. It did not appear to him that there were any Parliamentary grounds for the production of the papers moved for, and he could easily understand that the presentation of these papers would tend to impede, rather than advance, the objects and labours of the bishop of Jerusalem. He regretted that his hon. Friend had introduced his motion in a speech so characterised by tone and manner as that which his hon. Friend had addressed to the House. He could not compliment his hon. Friend on the good taste of that speech, or the judgment he had shown in supposing it to be well adapted to induce the House to accede to his motion, His hon. Friend had lavished some witticisms on the fact of Bishop Alexander being a married man, and being accompanied by his wife and children. Now it seemed to him rather extraordinary that a Protestant should deem that fact a subject for either surprise or merriment, or should consider that a circumstance connected with the doctrine and discipline of the faith of which he was a member, could be a matter for reproach or ridicule in any quarter of the world. He should think that any Protestant would rather deem such a fact a matter of praiseworthy distinction between Protestant churches and other churches, and a subject for pride and self-congratulation. But his hon. Friend was mistaken in the facts on which he had founded the impression he sought to excite, because, although marriage was forbidden to the clergymen of the Catholic Church, it was not so in the Greek church with which the Protestant Church would naturally come into comparison in that part of the world. It was true he believed, that the bishops of the Greek church were not married men; that was to say, that no married man was a bishop in that church. But his hon. Friend knew that in the same church no man could be a priest unless be was married, so that in the lower degrees of officers of the church marriage was an essential requisite. With respect to the assertion that demands had been made inconsistent with the Turkish law, he would observe that the British had asked no favour of the Turkish government. A British subject had merely gone to Turkey, and no Task had any right to molest him, provided his employment or object was not contrary to the Turkish law—as he apprehended that of bishop Alexander was not—and, therefore, if he were molested it would be at the peril of the aggressing party, for the British Government might demand the punishment of any person so violating the treaties between the two countries. His hon. Friend bad stated that it was contrary to the Turkish law to erect a Christian place of worship, but he knew that a Greek church had lately been built in Constantinople; and if such a favour was shown to the Greek church he thought they might safely presume that it would be also extended to the English Protestant church. He believed, however, that several Christian places of worship by the tacit permission of the Turkish government, had been, from time to time, erected within the Turkish dominions. This appointment had entailed no expense on the country. He thought the measure an expedient one, He differed altogether from the opinion that the appointment of this bishop tended to increase fanaticism, and to add to the bitterness of religious hostility to the Protestants in Palestine. On the contrary, he thought it would tend to allay that bitterness, and it must inevitably in its consequences tend to good. He was persuaded that, however his hon. Friend might indulge his fancy in what he thought ridicule, he could not seriously view with dissatisfaction the spread of the Christian religion in Syria. He thought his hon. Friend's objections were founded very much on that misinformation which it was shown he had received as to the reception of the bishop, and the conduct pursued towards him, not only by the Turkish authorities, but by the dignitaries of the Christian communities. The arrangements out of which this appointment took place was not long before he left office. The representations of the Prussian government were received with alacrity by our Government; and he took on himself the full responsibility of having determined on sending out a bishop. In spite of the attempts which had been made in this country and elsewhere to throw ridicule on this arrangement, he looked back with great pleasure and with some pride, on having been the person to whom those communications were first made. Every one knew with regard to the East, that they who stood on their right, and insisted on its being respected, were sure to succeed; but if language was held which tended to cry it down, others would be found soon to take the hint.

said, that the grant of money having been made in this case, he thought it a fair subject for discussion. He took in very good part everything that was said as to the impropriety of his observations; but he really had intended to treat it without exaggeration. He should withdraw his motion for the present.

rose to move for a select committee to inquire into the propriety of setting apart a portion of all waste lands which shall be inclosed by act of Parliament, to be let out in small allotments to the labouring poor of the district, and also into the best mode of effecting the same. There had been considerable experience as to the effects of the allotment system, and it was shown to be highly beneficial. The cultivation by spade husbandry increased to an extraordinary extent the produce of the land. It had been shown that land of scarcely any value had by this means been brought into profitable cultivation, and that land somewhat fertile had increased in value seven fold. The scheme which he wished to see adopted, was that of setting apart a very small part for each man, to be cultivated in his leisure hours, but not to interfere with his usual daily employment. This would add materially to the comforts of the poor man, without making him independent altogether of work. It struck him, when vast quantities of land were about to be enclosed, that a proper opening was afforded for the introduction of this system; and while parts were apportioned according to the rights of each, the public interest should not be lost sight of when the residue came to be dealt with. It had been found that this system was a sure method of keeping down the rates; and in a district near Bath a reduction had been thereby effected from 700l. to 200l. The general comforts and well-being of the working man formed a subject well worthy of the attention of the House. They should do their best to make him contented and happy. It was very important that these allotments should be judiciously made; for if this precaution was not taken, the poor man might be induced to embark too much of his capital, and though favourable seasons might yield a return, yet he soon found himself overtaken by want. He was sure, that under proper regulations, they would prevent the labourer from having recourse to the ordinary excitements of dissipation, and that a change of character must be effected by teaching him to rely on his own exertions for the improvement of his condition. In West Kent, 3,000 allotments had been made, and in 1841 and 1842 none of those holding them committed offences against the laws, though many of them previously lived by poaching, and in other disreputable ways. The eagerness with which the labouring people caught at a favourite day-dream of the Chartists, that every man should have a bit of land of his own, showed how great a desire existed to become proprietors of land. He desired to see this scheme reduced within legitimate bounds, and every labourer renting a small allotment. He was not desirous to wait for the Enclosure Act about to be introduced, because he understood it included no provision for allotments. He hoped the House would think an effort to change the character of many labourers from being idle and vicious, to being industrious and well conducted, worthy of being made.

agreed, that such allotments would be conducive to the comfort of the labourer if kept within very narrow limits. The land allotted must not be considered by the labourer as a provision for his family. The plan had been tried already by kind and considerate landlords with the best effects. He thought the present a more safe course than that proposed the other night by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. He should gladly assent to the committee, if fairly selected, for he should be sorry to interfere with so benevolent an object.

There was nothing at this moment to prevent landlords letting out allotments. He considered this motion would only tend to raise delusive hopes, and take the minds of the people off the real object—a free-trade in corn. Why adopt a doubtful expedient when a remedy was before them whose efficacy nobody questioned? He had no objection that the hon. Gentleman should amuse himself with collecting evidence on this question, but he should rather see him assist- ing to repeal the Corn-laws. The way to relieve the working man was to remove the taxes which he bore; they now paid 70 per cent. of the whole amount. Let the landed proprietors bear 20 or 30 per cent. of the national burdens, as they did in other countries.

It was no reason, because it might be determined to open our ports hereafter to the corn of other countries, that the poor man should be prevented from raising some for himself. As in former enclosure acts certain quantities of the enclosed lands were set apart for the use of the parish in which they were situate, and these were let by the overseers of the poor to one farmer, the rent being applied to reduce the poor-rates, he thought the committee should have power to inquire whether these lands might not be more usefully allotted in small parcels to labourers, and he should, therefore, suggest the addition after the words "act of Parliament" of the following words, "or of any lands which under any enclosure acts, shall have been appropriated to the benefit of the poor."