said: In moving that this Bill be read a second time, I wish to say a few words in explanation of its object. The Ecclesiastical Commission appointed many years ago to inquire into the ecclesiastical state of England and Wales advised in its report that two bishoprics should be united to other dioceses, and that two new bishoprics should be created. The bishoprics to be united were Bristol and Bangor—Bristol was to be united to Gloucester, and Bangor to St. Asaph. The two new bishoprics to be created were Ripon and Manchester. The first arrange- ment was carried into effect, there being no well-founded objection to it, and the see of Bristol was united to that of Gloucester. The bishopric of Ripon was also created, to the great relief of the archdiocese of York, which had so increased in population, that it had become a very laborious diocese to the archbishop. The arrangement with respect to the bishopric of Manchester was not carried into effect; it was not till last year that a vacancy occurred in the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor; a vacancy was then created by the death of the Bishop of St. Asaph. Considerable objections had been made to the union of the two sees, and in the course of last Session a Bill was brought into the other House of Parliament, against the influence of the present Government and the opinion of its predecessors, repealing the Act which united the two dioceses. It was carried in the House of Lords, and sent down to this House; the Government then stated it was not prepared to accede to it, but it undertook to consider the subject generally, and to take into consideration other arrangements which, it seemed to them, if any change was made in the proposition of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, might be beneficial both to the Church and the country. The Bill for uniting the two sees was founded on the principle that the whole number of the bishops ought not to be increased; that if two bishops were created, two other dioceses ought to be united; it was thought, if any increase in the number were made, not merely one but several new bishops should be created. I wrote a letter to that effect to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who called together a meeting of the bishops on the subject; and they agreed that there was primâ facie ground for proposing the creation of four now bishops. That, however, is not the proposition of the present Bill; it only goes to the creation of a single bishopric, that of Manchester; and what the House has to consider with regard to the second reading of this Bill is—first, whether it thinks the objections made to the union of the two sees of St. Asaph and Bangor are sufficiently strong to induce it to repeal the Act passed some years ago for uniting them; and secondly, if it is of that opinion, whether it will assent to the creation of a bishopric of Manchester as a separate sec, without the bishop having a seat in the House of Lords. I confess I am of opinion that the strong feeling manifested in the principality of Wales, and the Church generally, against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, is a sufficient ground for reconsidering that measure; and it is most desirable that it should be reconsidered in the present Session of Parliament, for this Bill having been delayed, if an Act is not passed on the subject this Session, and if it unfortunately happen that the Bishop of Bangor died before an Act was passed, then the existing Act must be carried into effect, and there will be a suppression of the see of Bangor. If the House, is of opinion that it is desirable the two dioceses should be maintained separate, then it will be necessary to agree to the proposition in the course of the present Session. With regard to the second point, the diocese of Chester is of such a size that it may well occupy the attention of two bishops. I will read from the report of the Commissioners a statement of the extent of the two dioceses of Chester and Manchester, should the object of the present Bill be carried into effect. The population of the see of Chester will be 912,449, its area 1,408 square miles, the number of parishes 202. The population of the bishopric of Manchester will be 1,123,548; it will extend over an area of 1,220 square miles, and include 313 parishes. If the House approves of the establishment of these two bishoprics, it will agree to the second reading of this Bill. With regard to the question of the seat of the now bishop in the House of Lords, Her Majesty has been advised, instead of issuing a writ to the new Bishop of Manchester to take his seat, that the number of bishops sitting in the House of Lords should remain the same as at present, and that the now bishop should not take his seat there. The regulation is founded on the principle that the number of bishops sitting in the House of Lords is sufficient, and that there is no reason for increasing them. But combined with that proposition is an arrangement which will be, I think, very much for the convenience of the country and the bishops newly nominated. When a vacancy occurs on the episcopal bench, instead of the Bishop of Gloucester or Exeter taking his seat at once in the House of Peers, the Bishop of Manchester will be summoned, and the junior bishop will remain without a seat till the next vacancy. I shall not enter into details which may be discussed in Committee; I have only stated what is the principle of the Bill, and I now ask the House to agree to its second reading.

said, the creation of other new bishoprics was not an immediate part of the plan of the Government. The new Bishopric Commissioners would presently make their report to Her Majesty's Government; all the essential parts of that report were agreed to. Among the recommendations it was proposed there should be a Bishop of St. Albans, to relieve the diocese of London, another bishop to relieve the dioceses of York and Lincoln; and a Bishop of Southwark. It was also proposed to create a Bishop of Bodmin, to take the county of Cornwall. But these proposals must form the basis of another Act of Parliament; it was certainly quite competent for the House to agree to this Bill for establishing a bishopric of Manchester, and to refuse its assent to any other proposition.

could hardly trust himself to express the feelings he entertained towards his noble Friend, for what he had now brought forward, the spirit in which he had brought it forward, and for the ulterior measure which he had in view. [Mr. WAKLEY: Hear, hear.] He hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) cheered that expression of feeling with cordiality. He almost feared to praise his noble Friend, lest his praise should imply too severe a censure upon those who, entrusted with the same power, and professing higher principles with regard to the Church, had failed to do so much. It would better suit the convenience of the House, however, if he abstained from entering into the general question, and limited himself to the particular measure now on the Table. He had no doubt that other opportunities would be afforded for going into the general question during the discussion of the measure in its other stages; at all events, when the ulterior measure came to be considered, the opportunity would then be afforded of considering the Church in relation to the population, and to its claims on the State. He most cordially concurred in the double proposition contained in the Bill, namely, that of preserving the two independent bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor, the preservation of which, humanly speaking, was to be attributed to the untiring energies and zeal of his noble Friend, in the other House, the Earl of Powis. But these energies might have been frittered away in a vain and useless effort to accomplish the object, if his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had not lent his powerful and, he believed, his conscientious support to the retention of the two sees, and to the maintenance of the existing ecclesiastical system, the efficiency of which was threatened by the Act passed a few years ago. Although he owed so much to his noble Friend for preserving these two bishoprics, and his proposition for the creation of a third, he (Sir R. Inglis) could not express the same approval of the mode in which it was intended to effect the change. He did not expect that such a mode of effecting a great good would be adopted, since it was hardly consistent with the moral courage which his noble Friend possessed. He seemed to have shrunk from placing the proposed new bishop in that position in the hierarchy which bishops had enjoyed in Britain from time immemorial, to the great advantage of the community. Whatever reasons there might have been for continuing for a thousand years, long before the date of Parliamentary history, the civil influence of the hierarchy of England, those reasons existed in their full integrity in favour of giving to another bishopric the same social position, the same representative character on behalf of the Church, which the existing bishops at this moment exercised. He thought the number might be safely increased, not by one bishop merely, but by many, in order to bring the relation of the Church to the people more nearly to the proportions at which it stood three centuries ago. Was any one present not fully aware, that before the time of the Reformation, the number of prelates, including mitred abbots, in the House of Lords, was much greater than that of the laity? Nay, even 300 years ago, the spiritual Peers of England bore a large proportion to the temporal Peers; and although four or five new spiritual Peers were created by Henry VIII., still the proportion in 1547, as compared with that in 1847, was much greater. There were many persons, however, who, doubting the wisdom of maintaining this ancient proportion merely on that ground, were desirous of seeing an increased number of bishops, with a view to the ecclesiastical functions of the hierarchy being more efficiently discharged. In the time of the Reformation, when the population was only 5,000,000, Henry VIII. provided for the appointment of twenty-six suffragan bishops; and certainly, if the noble Lord were not prepared to accord the same social and civil position to the bishops now about to be created as had been given to their brethren of other dioceses, it might have been wished that the old law, passed in the reign of Henry VIII., had been revived, and acted upon; and that this mode of supplying the spiritual wants of the population had been preferred. This might have been done without the intervention of that House. Nothing more would have been necessary than for the bishop or archbishop desiring a suffragan, to name two persons to the King or Queen; and one of these could be selected by the Crown; the powers of the suffragan being defined and limited according to the commission, and the power of the different suffragans varying therefore in different dioceses. An ignorance almost astonishing prevailed with respect to the existence of this Act of Parliament, and the power of the Crown to call it into immediate exercise. By the 26th Henry VIII., c. 14, the Crown was authorized to call into existence suffragan bishops of twenty-six places, namely, Colchester, Dover, Guilford, Southampton, Dartford, Bedford, Gloucester, Shrewsbury, Nottingham, Grantham, Hull, Berwick, the Isle of Wight, &c. Nothing more was requisite than an application "to the Queen's Majesty, and the Queen shall select one." He was surprised that this power should be so little known and regarded, and that the Crown had not been advised to call this power into existence. At this moment, with a population of 15,000,000 instead of 5,000,000—with an increased desire for the spiritual instruction of the Church—with an increased desire for supervision by the episcopal body, he could not but regret that his noble Friend did not deem it consistent with his duty to recommend, in the first instance, the bishops to invoke the aid of the Crown for the creation of suffragan sees. He knew that some persons held that great difficulty would be felt in providing for these suffragans; but he believed that that difficulty was greatly overstated. By the Act of Parliament to which he had referred, each suffragan might hold one living, or even two. That was no doubt an objectionable mode of providing for the spiritual superintendence of the great body of the people, and particularly that there should be a mixing up of different duties; but everything in life was for the most part founded on a compromise, and with the view of avoiding a greater evil, a lesser one was to be adopted. But even if it had so happened that no provision had been made for the suffragan bishops by law, he thought that zeal would not be wanting in the way of supplying funds sufficient for the maintenance of clergymen, who, according to the law of the Church during many centuries, could not be subjected to the expense of attendance on Parliament. The noble Lord wished to create a different order of bishops who would occupy an unprecedented and anomalous position; the inconveniences would prove to be manifold, and he would have preferred taking the powers granted by the law as it at present stood, in favour of suffragan bishops, rather than have called forth more, bishops of the present ecclesiastical class, but with inferior civil rank. He wished also to impress his noble Friend with the error which he was committing in depriving the bishop who might last be created, of a seat in the House of Lords. The effect would be to introduce into Parliament a person older than Parliamentary life generally required. His great constitutional objection, however, was, that the Crown would now be deprived of the prerogative which it had possessed even before there was a House of Lords, of investing the hierarchical body with a legislative character in the constitution of England; and, indeed, of calling up to the House of Lords, according to the practice of many centuries, every bishop who was appointed to any see; and, taking that view, he looked upon this part of the measure as a gratuitous evil. The noble Lord would have had no more difficulty in retaining the old form, and making each bishop a Peer, than he had experienced in bringing in this Bill. Opposition would have arisen in both cases; but in the one position he would have had a principle on which to defend himself, and in the alternative which he had chosen, he had cut the ground from under his feet. He could have wished also, that his noble Friend, in introducing this measure, had considered more generally the alarming spiritual destitution of the great body of the people. To this subject, he had desired especially to call the attention of the Government; but as the morning sitting was limited, and as he believed another opportunity would occur of expressing his sentiments, he should not detain the House. He concurred cordially in the general proposition of his noble Friend; and it was only from a sense of duty, that at this stage of the Bill he had mentioned his objections, not so much to what the noble Lord had done, but to what he had left undone.

spoke to the following effect:^*—Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the Amendment of which I have given notice, I feel that I must bespeak, to an unusual degree, the indulgence of the House. I am about to enter at some length into a subject to which I am impelled only by the long and serious attention I have given it; and in approaching it I feel almost overwhelmed, as much with the importance of the question itself, as with the consciousness of my own inability to deal with it as it deserves. I shall have not only to deal with arguments and facts, but with some facts which may seem to convey a censure on the public conduct of eminent individuals. I must ask, therefore, more than the usual indulgence of the House—I must bespeak its kind and generous construction of the spirit and the motives by which alone I am impelled to undertake a difficult, and, in some respects, an unpleasant task. Concurring with the hon. Baronet who has just sat down (the Member for the University of Oxford), in doing full justice to the motives by which Her Majesty's Government are actuated in proposing this measure, I come to a very different conclusion from him as to its merits. I object strongly to this Bill. I object to it, because it touches the most important of all questions that can be brought before us, and touches it feebly, and mischievously. It provides an effectual remedy for no evil—it asserts no principle—it points to no end. But it changes without reason—it innovates without justification—it removes old landmarks without setting up new ones in their place. Above all, it evades that most momentous question now forcing itself upon us, of a confessedly insufficient Establishment, with a lamentably neglected people; and if, in its principles, it be the most important Bill introduced this Session, its introduction at this particular moment, when it cannot be considered or discussed, renders it the most objectionable. The Bill touches three main questions; and on every one of them deviates as far as possible from the truth. First, it repeals a most important section of the 6th and 7th William IV., cap. 77,

^* From a corrected report, published by Ridgway.

on which, according to the best authorities, both ecclesiastical and lay, all the subsequent proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are founded; secondly, it excludes from Parliament, without reason alleged, on their next appointment to their sees, the bishops who have hitherto sat there either in right of their baronies, or by a writ of summons the same as other Peers; and, thirdly, it provides for the application of the surplus funds now under our control to purposes not hitherto contemplated by Parliament. It is not necessary for me to show, that in all these points the Bill is wrong: it is enough for me to prove their importance to be such, that pressing them on, without time for deliberation, cannot be right. These are all great changes—the greatest that have been submitted to us this year; and at this late period of the Session, when, day after day, the Government have been abandoning measures of minor importance on the plea that the time was too short, and the attendance of Members too thin, to get proper attention given to them, I want to know, why we are called upon, within ten days of the rising of Parliament, to pass, without deliberation or discussion, one of the most important measures with which this Parliament has had to deal? Now, as to the first point. If there was any one provision of the Act of 1836, on which all parties were agreed, it was the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor—the surplus accruing from which was to be employed in the augmentation of their poor livings. That arrangement remained undisturbed till 1843: but in that year, a noble Earl in the other House of Parliament, proposed for the first time to set it aside. Of the abilities and character, and well-deserved influence of that noble Earl, we have the best proofs in his success on this very question; his untiring energies have been well eulogised by the hon. Baronet, who preceded me; and all who have witnessed his exertions must speak of him with admiration and respect. But who was it that resisted most stoutly his proposition? Who, but the heads of the Church—the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London? And on what ground? Because, said the right rev. Prelates, the two sees united would be almost the smallest in existence, containing in all only 253 benefices; whereas, those of Gloucester and Bristol united under the same Act, and, as experience had proved, with advantageous results, had each of them separately more benefices than the two Welsh sees together, Gloucester containing 281, and Bristol 254, benefices. In all the dioceses of England and Wales, the average number of benefices is 418—St. Asaph and Bangor united, had not much more than half that number. Again, the average population of dioceses being 550,000, St. Asaph and Bangor united had but 339,000; and of these, the great majority are Dissenters. The Archbishop added, that he had taken the advice of those most competent to assist his opinion on the subject; and they agreed with him, not only that the duties might be performed by one bishop, but also that they would be extremely light. Such being the opinion of the highest ecclesiastics, what was that of the then Ministers of the Crown? The Duke of Wellington did not content himself with the reasons of the Prelates. He took higher ground. "The Bill of the noble Earl," he said, "if passed into a law, will have the effect of repealing part of that Act of Parliament, which is the very foundation of the powers given to Her Majesty by Her Orders in Council. Indeed, my Lords," he added, "it will suspend immediately the operation of that Act." Such also was the opinion and the language of the Marquess of Lansdowne, acting as the mouthpiece of the present Government since their accession to office. Well then, I say, that as to the proposed separation of those sees now, the Government may be right, or they may be wrong; but they are disturbing an arrangement very advisedly adopted: it was proposed by the Bishops—ratified by Parliament—defended and upheld, as of vital importance, by succeeding Administrations; and it ought not any rate to be set aside, suddenly and hastily, without Parliament being even permitted to reconsider it. And see how one false step leads on to another. You perpetuate the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, but dare not give up the bishopric of Manchester, which was made contingent on the union of those sees: you, therefore, create an additional bishopric—and do so in violation of the principles which yourselves laid down. In the very first paragraph of the Church Commissioners' Report, they say that they cannot recommend an increase of the number of bishops; and the noble Lord—the present head of the Government—who introduced the Act of 1836, declared that he should abide faithfully by the recommendation of the Commissioners. Being further interrogated, he replied, that the Bishop of Manchester would certainly have a seat in Parliament, as other bishops then had. Both those assurances are set at nought by this Bill. The number of bishops is increased—and the new bishop has not a seat in Parliament. A new and anomalous element of ecclesiastical representation is introduced; one that is objected to by the Member for the University of Oxford, and on which grave doubts and difficulties have been felt by very high authorities both in and out of the Church. The Bishop of London, whom I will cite as an example, thus expressed himself in the House of Lords, only last year upon it:—

"I apprehend that to create certain bishops without seats in this House would lead to injurious comparisons between them and others who had seats, and eventually to a generally inclination to dispense with the attendance of bishops in the House of Lords. There are some advantages," (he added) "in the proposal, but there is also this difficulty, that by the constitution of Parliament, the bishops sit by virtue of their baronies; and if the precedent should be introduced of a bishop who might ultimately succeed to a seat, but who did not actually hold one by virtue of his barony, how is the constitutional principle upon which bishops hold their seats to be maintained?"

Now to this question the right rev. Prelate may since have found an answer: the doubts which distracted him last year, may, as regards him, have been dispelled. But they are still entertained by others; and that they should have been for a long time formidable to him, proves that they have some foundation. Why is Parliament, which was told of the difficulty, not also favoured with the solution? But our opinion is not asked—our functions are superseded; and this Bill, involving serious principles and changes, is hurried through with as little ceremony as if were merely a Bill for granting new powers to a commissionership of sewers. But now I come to the more tangible and practical—what may be called—the more business part of the subject. You ask us to create four new bishoprics. There is a sum of 17,000l. a year, present and prospective, to be expended; and you ask us to say that the best mode of expending it is by creating four additional bishops, providing them also, as we must do, with four residences, costing, if we take the last palace built for the Bishop of Ripon as an estimate, 60,000l. The question for us to decide is this: Is this the best mode of applying the money? I say, it is not; and that, with the amount of spiritual destitution now existing in the country—the parishes without residences for clergy—the clergy without incomes—and the perishing poor without clergy to attend to them, it ought to be our aim to improve upon the pious wish of George III., who hoped for the day when every poor cottage in his dominions would have its Bible. Our aim should he to let every poor cottager have his religious teacher to assist and encourage him to read it. Before, however, we proceed to entrust to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners fresh powers and resources, I think it would be as well to ascertain how they have employed those which we have given them hitherto. The inquiry is appropriate and interesting; and I can assure the House it will prove instructive. I wish to speak of those Commissioners with perfect respect. I think Parliament has been much to blame in the constitution of such a Commission—composed of about fifty individuals, constantly changing, and the ecclesiastics all of one order in the Church. I think the Commissioners have committed great errors. As a public man, it is my duty to comment on those errors; but in doing so, I trust I shall avoid anything personally disrespectful to the eminent individuals, to whom only in their public character I am entitled to refer. I address myself solely to official acts, and will confine myself to such remarks as form a legitimate Parliamentary commentary upon those acts. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were appointed in 1836—appointed by Parliament for certain purposes specified in the Act. They were to be recipients of certain funds to be laid out for certain purposes. The funds were from two sources: one was the surplus revenues of certain rich episcopal sees; and the other the proceeds of the suppressed canonries and sinecures, &c. The first fund was to go to the augmentation of poor sees; the last to the augmentation of poor livings. From these two sources the Commissioners have received, to the date of their last report, presented a few days ago, about 351,000l.; namely, from the richer sees (which they carry to what is called the Episcopal fund) 157,000l. and from the other source (which they carry to the Common fund) 194,000l. This is taken from the reports of the Commissioners themselves, which, however, are not very clear and intelligible; and the task of unravelling them is one of difficulty. But in any statement I make of their receipts or outlay, I shall carefully restrict myself to such as I can substantially verify by a reference to their own reports presented to this House. The sum received I have stated as 351,000l. This was over and above the sum of 600,000l. which they were permitted to borrow under Sir Robert Peel's excellent Act of 1843, and of which no account whatever has been rendered—a statement having been given of the new districts created, but not of the money spent upon them. The mode of applying the funds entrusted to them was, as I have already said, distinctly laid down by Act of Parliament; the one fund was to go to the augmentation of poor sees, the other to the augmentation of poor benefices. And there was this limitation interposed, by the recommendation of the Commissioners themselves, that the endowment of new sees was a question not recommended and not to be entertained. It was calculated that the proceeds of the richer sees would barely suffice for the augmentation of the poorer ones: no surplus was anticipated; consequently, the application of any surplus was not provided for. But it turns out that the calculation was erroneous, and that the funds of the richer sees were more than were required for the original purpose. A large surplus has accrued, which has been added to from other sources; and the Commissioners, after exhausting their powers of augmenting the poor sees, and providing fit residences for bishops, have had over and above to spare. Lot us see how they have employed it. When the Commission was established there were in England and Wales altogether—

Benefices		10,553
Of these without any residence upon them	2,878
Without fit residence	1,728
Total without fit residence 4,606; or two-fifths of all the parishes in England.

The income of these 10,553 benefices was 3,055,441l.; averaging 285l. per annum. Of these there were—

Under 50l. per annum	297
From 50l. to 100l. per annum	1,629
From 100l. to 150l.per annum	1,602
From 100l. to 200l.per annum	1,355
From 100l. to 300l.per annum	1,978
	6,861

So that there were—

Under 300l. per annum	6,861 benefices,
And under 150l. per annum	3,528 benefices,

Now, let us turn to what the Commissioners have done towards supplying these wants:—

Of 4,606 parsonages required, they have built	69
Of 3,508 livings, under 50l., augmented	636
The cost to the Commissioners of building these houses, half having been defrayed by local and private contributions, has been	40,637l.
Average cost of a house 1,200l.
The cost of augmenting benefices has been (averaging 54l. to each cure)	126,684l.
Total on poor livings	167,321l.

Now, let us see what has been done for episcopal requirements, according to their own return:—

In augmenting poor sees from 1837 to 1843	40,664l.
Ditto from 1843 to 1847	65,724l.
On episcopal residences	143,014l.
Total	249,482l.
On poor livings	167,321l.
Leaving a balance in favour of episcopacy	82,081l.

But if we analyse this expenditure, the results are yet more extraordinary. By the law, as lately remodelled by the Commissioners, a poor rector, without a house, must build one for himself; and for that purpose he may borrow, on the mortgage of his living, a sum equal to three years' income, to be paid in thirty years by thirty annual instalments. Similar was the law regarding bishops; and the present Archbishop of Canterbury did borrow 60,000l. on mortgage for the improvement of his palaces at Lambeth and Addington, for which he is now paying interest. But the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, overflowing with episcopal wealth, have taken upon themselves to reverse all that; and while the law remains unchanged as regards the obligations of the poor parson, they have repealed it as regards the rich prelate, and thrown him on what they please to term—and of that I shall speak by and by—the Episcopal Fund. The law, as they have themselves framed it, allows them to build fit residences for the bishops—fit residences, that is the term. Let us see what is an Ecclesiastical Commissioner's idea of a fit residence for a bishop. They had built, or purchased, or improved the residence of eight bishops, and at the following sums:—

Ripon	16,111l.
Bath and Wells	3,000l.
Exeter	3,500l.
Oxford	6,500l.
Worcester	7,000l.
Gloucester	23,627l.
Rochester	28,832l.
Lincoln	54,444l.
Total	143,014l.
averaging 18,000l.
six of them averaging 23,000.

So that the account stands thus:—

Comparing the outlay on episcopacy with that on poor livings—balance in fa- of the former, of	82,081l.
But comparing with poor livings the cost merely of episcopal palaces—balance for the palaces of	16,330l.

Now, it must be admitted that in this particular department of their labours—in advancing the interests of the Church by a due regard to the temporal comfort of the hierarchy—the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have evinced a zeal and devotedness worthy of the noblest cause. And when we turn from their pathetic, heartrending lamentations over the spiritual destitution of their flocks, to this contemplation of their own flourishing finances, we are reminded of that very pious and benevolent individual, who was so powerfully affected by a charity sermon, that he plunged both hands into the pockets of his neighbour, and cast all he found there into the plate. I know it may be said, that of this money only a portion was from the Episcopal Fund;^* the rest being derived from sales and exchanges of property pertaining to those sees. The very figures I have quoted, showing an outlay of 249,402l. when the Episcopal Fund only received 157,000l., are enough to prove that fact. But it does not affect my argument. The money—from whatever source it came—was so much hard cash paid into the Commissioners' account, under the authority of an Act

^* It is said that the greater part of the outlay in the see of Lincoln was not in building the palace, but in buying the estate on which it stands. This does not much mend the matter. The Commissioners were empowered to build residences, but not to buy estates; and on referring to the Order in Council under which the purchase of the estate of Risehome was made, the house is set forth as the object of the purchase; the extent and value of the estate are not hinted at, and Her Majesty's sanction is asked and obtained only to "provide a fit residence for the Bishop of Lincoln." The Commissioners' defence now is, that having obtained money for one purpose, they applied it to another. But even then, why do they give us no account of the rents, &c, of the estates purchased?

of Parliament, and spent. They were the trustees of those funds; and whether we say they were trustees for the bishops, or the Church, or the nation, they are as responsible for a judicious, and not wasteful, expenditure of them as any other trustees to any client. The question is not, whether the purposes to which the money was applied were legitimate; my charge is, that the outlay was so extravagant as to be a very serious breach of trust and abuse of power. And I wish to persuade the House that when we have now additional funds at our disposal, it would be well to direct them into the poorest and hitherto most neglected channel. Up to this time, in the division of church funds, episcopacy has had the lion's share; and this becomes still more apparent, if we examine in detail the condition of the eight sees in which this wonderful outlay has occurred. In these eight dioceses, there were no less than 502 benefices under 100l. a year. Of these there were—

Under 10l. a year	1
10l. to 20l. a year	8
20l. to 30l.a year	10
30l. to 40l. a year	18
40l. to 50l.a year	49
Total under 50l.	85

That is to say, there were in those eight dioceses, where the enormous sum of 143,000l. has been expended on episcopal residences, no less than eighty-five clergy-men of the Church of England—gentlemen and scholars—receiving as their pay less than 3s. a day, which is below the wages of the masons employed on those buildings. Eight out of the number were receiving as little as 13d. a day, and one actually receiving 6½d. And, strange to say, by a still more unhappy coincidence, the greater the parochial necessities of the diocese, the larger the episcopal outlay. In Gloucester, where 23,000l. have been laid out, there were 97 benefices under 100l. a year. In Lincoln, where 54,000l. have been expended, there were 218 benefices under 100l. a year. Now, a sum of 65,000l. would, by the Commissioners' tables, have raised every poor living (and there were no less than 1,442) to 200l. a year, leaving an average of 9,000l. to be expended on each palace. What has actually been expended in augmentations in those sees? On residences, as we have seen, 143,000l.; on augmenting poor benefices, 5,259l.—or one-twenty-eighth of the whole. And when we consider that these pauper clergymen, as we may term them, are men as well born as the bishops—as well taught—having gone through the most expensive process of education—and that their influence depends on their maintaining the position of gentlemen—(on 6d. a day! less than the earnings of their poorest parishioners!—it would be ludicrous if it were not horrible!)—I am compelled to ask the question once before put by an eminent divine—

"Why is the Church of England to be nothing but a collection of beggars and bishops?—the right reverend Dives in the palace, and Lazarus in orders at the gate, doctored by dogs, and comforted by crumbs?"^*

The same writer furnishes an answer in a subsequent page:—

"The truth is, there are but few men in either House of Parliament (Ministers or any one else), who ever think of the happiness or comfort of the working clergy, or bestow one thought upon guarding them from the increased and increasing power of their encroaching masters. What is called taking care of the Church, is taking care of the bishops; and all Bills for the management of the clergy are left to the concoction of men who very naturally believe that they are taking care of the Church when they are increasing their own power."

Such being the facts, and a further large sum, present and prospective, being at our disposal, I revert to the question—are we to affirm the (to me at least) startling dogma of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that all the surplus proceeds of the bishoprics, whatever they may rise to, are sacred to episcopal, and would be desecrated if applied to parochial, purposes? I want to hear some justification of that doctrine—I want to hear if Her Majesty's Ministers—the Ecclesiastical Commissioners now present—adopt it; I hope they will tell us clearly and distinctly whether they adopt or vindicate, or whether they repudiate or disown it—on this point we must have their answer. I can well understand a resident in Durham insisting that the proceeds of that bishopric shall be laid out in that diocese, and that Durham episcopal revenues should constitute a Durham episcopal fund. But if you take 10,000l. a year from Durham and lay it out in Glo'ster, what cares the dispossessed Durhamite whether in Glo'ster it is applied to episcopal or parochial purposes? You seize it on the plea, that you want it for the Church—that it is needed, not for the service of the bishops, but for the service of religion, and you must apply it to that

^* The Rev. Sidney Smith.

service wherever it is most needed, and will do most good. Else observe what happens; the case was so well put in the House of Peers by Lord Stanley, that I will use his words instead of my own:—

"Suppose that instead of the sum of 5,000l. a year, which you now have, and which you can apply to the endowment of the newly-created see, it increased in a few years, not to 10,000l., but to 15,000l.—not to 15,000l. but to 20,000l.—would you wish now to lay down the rule, that all future surplus was to be applied to the purpose of increasing the number of bishoprics? Well, but that is a very grave question—and we should understand it before we give our votes."

And so say I—let us understand this before we give our votes. I hope the explanation of the Secretary of State, who is going to follow me, will be frank and explicit on this point; and the more so, because there is an impression abroad, that this measure has been introduced, not so much to meet the necessities of the Church, as to relieve the necessities of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and by perpetuating the distinction between Episcopal and Common fund, defeat all attempt to apply the former to parochial purposes? This scheme was deemed vitally essential to the Commission, otherwise their rapidly accruing wealth might escape out of their control. The augmentation of poor sees does not exhaust it—a surplns accrues. Baronial edifices are raised; and domains, with political influence in view, appended to them. All in vain—still the tide of wealth flows in and threatens to overwhelm them. What is to be done? The mine may be hidden for a while; but the prying eyes of Parliament will ere long suspect it, and the profane hands of Parliament will dig it out. In a lucky moment they bethink themselves of the New Bishops' expedient, and they fly for succor to the noble Lord. He assented, as might be expected, to the very laudable object of new bishops, but excused himself only on the difficulty of endowment. This was exactly what the Commissioners desired; the noble Lord having assented to the bishops, they charged themselves at once with their hoard and lodging; the sum is only 17,000l. a year for one, and 60,000l. for the other—a mere trifle—easily forthcoming. They are disencumbered forthwith of their embarrassing burden; and at the next meeting of the Board the overjoyed Commissioners congratulate each other on the country having at last a Premier who is such a real friend of the Church, Now I am one of those who think that Church does not mean clergy. I think the congregation is one of its component parts—aye, and the most important; and I stand up for the right of the congregation to be consulted in this matter. I now take leave of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' account, and the measure of Her Majesty's Government, and I come to another branch of this most interesting subject. I have shown you how inadequate is the provision for your working clergy; that 4,537 are without houses, and 2,971 with incomes under 150l. a year. I have shown you, in this respect, how little you fulfil the ends of an establishment, as wisely laid down by Lord Bacon:—

"It is a constitution of the divine law," says Lord Bacon, "from which human laws cannot derogate, that those which feed the flock should live of the flock—that those that serve at the altar should live of the altar—that those which dispense spiritual things should reap temporal things—of which it is also an appendix, that the proportion of the maintenance be not small or necessitous, but plentiful and liberal."

I have shown you that such is not the provision you have made hitherto, or that you are making by this Bill. But I have spoken to you only of poor livings, and houseless incumbents; I will now take up a still more important and disheartening theme; I will give you the number of your population, and, comparing them with your working clergy, show how many millions of your people are not only inadequately ministered to, but not ministered to at all. The picture is an appalling one, and deep and solemn is the responsibility of those who would legislate hastily and imperfectly on the subject. The population of England and Wales, in round numbers, is sixteen millions—

There are churches and chapels		13,154
There are Clergymen altogether		16,010
Of which having no duties to attend to	1,568
There are Dignitaries, Heads of Colleges, &c.	1,147
Chaplains in Men-of-War, and on Foreign Stations	372
		3,087
Leaving total of working clergy		12,923

From this number considerable deductions might still be made; but I would rather overstate than understate the number. This would give one clergyman to every 1,230 of population: but there are parishes with a population of—

Under 100	1,907 parishes,
Under 300	4,774 parishes,
Total. There are therefore in 6,681 parishes
1,623,900 of population.

That is, in three-fifths of the parishes, there are only one-tenth of the population, leaving nine-tenths of the population in two-fifths of the parishes in England and Wales. Thus, therefore, there are 6,681 of the clergy occupied with only one-tenth of the people, leaving to the rest of the parishes only an average of one clergyman to 4,000 of population. But even this average, if we relied on it, would mislead us: for the parishes again are so unequally divided, that you have often one clergyman, and one church to 10, 20, and even sometimes to 30,000 of population. I have in my hand a table of seventeen metropolitan districts, as they were last autumn; of its acccuracy there can be, I believe, no doubt.

Parish	Population	No. of Clergy with cure of souls,	Proportion.
St. George's Southwark	50,000	5	1 in	10,000
St. George's East	42,000	4	1—	10,500
Poplar	21,000	2	1—	10,500
Limehouse	22,000	2	1—	11,000
Shadwell	10,000	1	1—	10,000
Spitalfields	21,000	2	1—	10,500
Shoreditch, St. Leonard	35,000	3	1—	11,666
Shoreditch, Hoxton	24,000	2	1—	12,000
Shoreditch, Haggerstone	19,000	2	1—	9,500
Clerkenwell, St. James	30,000	2	1—	15,000
Clerkenwell, St. John	8,500	1	1—	8,500
St. Luke, Old Street	15,000	2	1—	7,500
St. Luke, St. Barnabas	14,000	1	1—	14,000
Newington, Surrey	60,000	7	1—	8,570
Christ Church	15,000	2	1—	7,500
St. Anne, Soho	17,000	2	1—	8,500
Stepheny, St. Dunstan's	25,000	3	1—	8,300

But the character of these neglected districts is even worse than the numerical tables would show. A Scripture Reader was sent into the district of Westminster, in which we are now sitting. This is his report. He says—

"On the first day I visited families containing 150 individuals, and of these 100 had no home in the Christian church—no preference for any mode of Christian worship. On the second day, the proportion of these persons was yet larger, 70 being their complement to 19 who owned a relation to one body of Christiana or another. On the third day, by far the best, it is just half and half. On the fourth, for 16 church-people and 14 dissenters, we have 62 with black letter N annexed. And the numbers on the fifth day are almost exactly the same. So in the metropolis of Christian England, out of 550 persons visited and talked with in succession, 360, or nearly two-thirds, had no such connexion with the Church as to be assignable to any one religious body."

Now this seems to me precisely the case for which Dr. Chalmers suggests the remedy; but it is not the remedy in this Bill. He says—

"'The great object of legislation,' we are told by Lord Henley, 'should be to secure to each parish the daily, constant, and personal attention of a man who shall have no other public duty, but that of watching over the souls of his flock as one that is to give account. His quiet weekday ministrations may be made a thousand times more profitable to their souls and bodies than the most spiritual of his sabbath duties.'"

Dr. Chalmers adds—

"A house-going minister wins for himself a church-going people. And his week-day attentions and their Sabbath attentions go hand in hand."

With such a state of things as this, Sir, I say he is a bold Minister who will take any additional funds at our disposal and cast them to the prelates. This Bill bears the plausible title of a Bishopric of Manchester Bill, but it would be more fitly termed a Spiritual Destitution Bill—a Bill for perpetuating the poverty of the clergy, and confirming the destitution of the people; and it shows an ignorance of what is going on in the community, and especially in the religious portion of the community, to propose such a Bill. The Bishop of London has lately said, speaking of the increased strength and efficiency of the Church, that it is all the doing of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Was there ever a more empty boast? The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have expended about 70,000l. a year of trust money. But I hold in my hand a list of societies, mainly supported by the laity, who have been up and doing in this great work, whereby a sum approaching to half a million a year has been annually subscribed and expended by them under the most judicious and economical regulations—every sixpence being carefully laid out. I speak only of Church of England societies, and those mainly indebted to the laity for their funds. In these details I have omitted all reference to the Dissenters—not that I under-estimate their numbers or their services—but because, in discussing the Government scheme, I accept the Government principle of providing for the religious instruction of all the people. That a great portion of the want is supplied by other labourers in the vineyard—by men, who, rejecting Establishment discipline, are not at variance with the Establishment on the great fundamental truths of Christianity—I am but too happy to acknowledge. I have met those men in the cottages of the poor, and I have sat with them at the tables of the rich; and having witnessed their earnest piety, and ofttimes the fruits of their active and benevolent labours, I can only say, that wherever their object be to dispel ignorance and save souls, my heart is with them, and I pray God to prosper their exertions, and bless them in their righteous work. It has been beautifully said—

"What is a Church?—let truth and reason speak,

And they will say, The faithful, pure, and meek

From every fold—the one selected race

Of all communions, and in every place."

If I had time, I should have liked to have gone into some statistics regarding the Dissenters, and the extent to which they supply the deficiency we complain of; but though at another time they might not have proved altogether uninteresting or unacceptable to the House, I will not now abuse its indulgence, on which I have already trespassed at such length. I have now one part of the subject on which to say a few words. The proposal of the Government lies in a narrow compass. They ask us to expend on four bishops what would provide 133 additional clergymen—to lay out on four palaces what would build seventy-five churches, containing each a congregation of 600. Our choice lies, therefore, in the present state of the country, between four bishops, or 133 clergy—four palaces, or seventy-five churches. Her Majesty's Ministers have not explained to us wherein lies the necessity for these bishops, or the number which they consider eventually desirable. It is evident they do not stop at four; but we hear in other quarters, and some of them of high authority, that there is a need for 4,000 more clergymen and of sixty additional bishops to make the work of superintendence efficient and complete. How can they ever expect to get anything approaching that number? And is it desirable they should, whatever be the necessity, if the new bishops were to be of the same order as those we have already? I think the distance in this country between rich and poor is too great everywhere; but nowhere is the gulf so wide and so deplorable as between the prelates and their clergy. If you must have more bishops, they must be of that order which the Member for the University has suggested—an order more in accordance with the feelings and necessities of the time, and through whom the benefits you desire might be safely and effectually attained. In the Church's earlier days suffragan bishops were an useful and efficient body; and their appointment, the necessity once proved, would not be so unpopular as increasing the number of your baronial prelates. The hon. Baronet apprehended there might be some difficulty about the payment. I think I can show how to overcome that. Take at once the whole number of bishops you desire—take sixty suffragans; place them in the great towns and populous districts, with ample, not extravagant salaries, say 1,500l. a year—requiring in all 90,000l. a year. Dividing then our population of 16,000,000 into eighty-six districts, there would thus be about 186,000 in each, and the means of superintendence would be complete. But then comes the pay; and on this point the Member for the University of Oxford anticipated difficulty. I am prepared to show how it may be got over, and in this way. No one can have cast his eye over our cathedral towns without observing how little their great establishments contribute to the sacred purposes for which they were intended. Not only have the Church services degenerated into cold and unimpressive forms, so as to lead virtually to a discontinuance of congregational attendance; but the system of non-residences and pluralities, abolished everywhere else, has an effect decidedly injurious to religion. It is notorious that in our cathedral towns there is the least education and the most dissent. Now I propose to attempt some remedy for this. And I do so upon the plan suggested by one who must be held a very high authority, since it was to him that the Government were indebted for their measure in 1836. Every leading provision of their Act was taken from Lord Henley; on one practical point only did they materially depart from his suggestions, and that was on the constitution of the Commission in which experience has proved that he was right. In Lord Henley's plan of Church Reform, accompanied by a letter to the King in 1832, he makes this proposal, with regard to the cathedrals:—

"In the administration of the cathedral property, the first consideration which naturally arises, is that due consideration be made for the celebration of cathedral service. For this purpose (as one great object will be the abolition of every thing approaching to a sinecure that can be dispensed with) it will be most convenient to entrust the performance of divine service exclusively to the dean, assisted by such a number of chaplains as shall be deemed necessary. As his residence will be for nine months in the year, he should perform the same quantity of public duty as the incumbents of our great London livings. But as there will be no occasional duty—no registries to be kept—no vestries to attend—no visiting of the poor and sick, his labours will be extremely slight."

In each cathedral now there is a dean whose average income is 1,680l.—four canons with average incomes of 800l.—and six minor canons, each with 150l. Reckoning the cathedrals at twenty-six (there are more, but one or two may be poorer than I have said) the return stands thus:—

	Average Income.	Total.
26 Deans	£1,680	£43,680
108 Canons	800	83,200
156 Minor Canons	150	23,400

Now, if in accordance with Lord Henley's proposal, we reduce this establishment to a dean with 1,000l. a year, and the minor canons, we shall leave 1,900l. a year for the cathedral services, and have the following surplus:—

	Incomes.	Surplus.
Deans 26	£26,000	£17,680
Canons 0	0	83,200
Minor Canons 106	234,000
		£100,880

Here, therefore, is a sum of 100,000l.; more than sufficient for the most extravagant number of suffragans that would be wanted. The advantages of this plan would be threefold:—first, you get the whole amount now paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Episcopal and Common fund, for the augmentation of poor livings; secondly, you bring in your cathedrals to aid the general wants of the country, establishing a resident clergy, between whom and their congregation ties and sympathies are formed, and you elevate the tone of your cathedral service; thirdly, you get, if you need them, more bishops, and without any difficulty either as to number or payment. Prove the necessity before Parliament, and it will thus supply your deficiency by an addition to the Episcopacy of an efficient and popular body, who will form a link between the prelates and the clergy—aiding the one, controlling and encouraging the other. While, however, I express this preference for suffragan bishops, supposing more bishops to be needful, I think I have given a picture of parochial destitution sufficient to prove that the evil is of a very different character, and needs a very different remedy. Our first thought must be for our parochial poor: our first duty is to bring home religious instruction to them. Of this too I am quite sure, that an enlargement of the Episcopacy would not alone make it more efficient. Other improvements are required—into those I will not go now, but two changes are especially required. You must raise the qualifications of your candidates for orders, and you must give superannuation allowances to your aged prelates. On this last point, who does not inwardly acknowledge the truth of this painful but not merely imaginative picture?—

"The worst of all cases is that of a superannuated bishop. Here the preferment is given away by wives and daughters, or by sons, or by butlers, perhaps, and valets, and the poor dying patron's paralytic hand is guided to the signature of papers, the contents of which he is unable to comprehend."^*

Sir, I have not exhausted the subject; there are other most important considerations on which I will not now enter; but in a large and comprehensive scheme, such as I should wish a Government to introduce, they cannot be overlooked. I have said enough, however, to show that the present Bill is inappropriate and mistaken. It is so wide of the mark as to be almost a mockery; as much so as if, when there was a famine in Ireland, you had done nothing but send over four Lords Lieutenants. But there you set to work more wisely—you sent over an efficient working staff; practical men, acquainted with the habits and necessities of those whom they went to succour. And now in England, where you have a spiritual famine, will four new bishops feed the people? Why don't you act here as you did in Ireland—send a hardworking, and efficient staff, composed of men who will inquire personally into the wants of the sufferers, and minister to them; who will visit them in their sickness, soothe them in their sorrows, support them in their trials, and comfort them in the hour of death. I will now conclude, Sir, by reading to the House a portion of that earnest, and feeling, and manly and generous appeal, which one of our most active laymen,† addressed lately in his character of a Christian and a layman, to the Archbishop of Canterbury:—

^* The Rev. Sidney Smith.

† Letter of Henry Kingscote, Esq.

"Many of the laity, I rejoice to say, feel that they must act like men who are accountable to God for their wealth and social standing. The gross darkness which broods over many districts near our homes and churches, they will try to penetrate with the light of the everlasting Gospel. Idly they dare not wait while time moves on, and souls are gathered so fast to their account; but they desire above all feelings to follow where you shall lead—they feel that every measure they propose will be doubly efficacious if it shall have, from the heads of the Church, something better than a cold approval. We tender to you in this cause our active services, our worldly substance, the time of our busy citizens, the name and far reaching influence of our higher gentry. Let me entreat you to accept our offer, or give us in return what we will most thankfully accept at your hands—some more comprehensive scheme which shall make the Church's teaching co-extensive with the people's wants."

He adds again—

"The responsibility of the state of things I have described rests somewhere—it rests in a measure on all who can do something—it presses heavily on those who can de most. My Lord, I do but give utterance to the thoughts of ten thousand bosoms when I tell you, looking at the place you fill, the resources within your reach, and the present temper of our public men, that immensely more might be done in this direction by the heads of the Church if they had the heart to do it."

That heartfelt appeal to the head of the Church I address to the head of the Government; and I tell you, my Lord, that this choice is now before you. You may, if you are ill-advised enough, proceed on some miserable motive of shortsighted, political expediency, which I cannot pretend to unravel, with this temporising and shallow makeshift, which I will not dignify with the title of a measure; or, by taking a more comprehensive course, worthy of the subject and of yourself, you may aim, as I conjure you to aim, at fulfilling a more exalted destiny, by bequeathing to after generations the example of a Christian statesman whose first care was for the condition of the poor; and who left his name, already illustrious, engraved in deep characters of spiritual life, on the hearts of a reanimate and religious people. The hon. Member, in conclusion, moved, as an Amendment, the following resolution:—

"That, at this late period of the Session, it is not expedient to proceed with a measure which, involving new and important principles deserving of the utmost consideration, would be more fitly discussed in another Session of Parliament on the introduction of a general and comprehensive scheme for increasing the efficiency of the Church, and lessening the spiritual destitution of the people."

said, that as his hon. Friend, in proposing the resolution which had just been seconded by the hon. Member for Athlone, had expressed his most unqualified opposition to this scheme, he (Sir G. Grey) regretted that his hon. Friend did not at once move that the Bill be a read a third time this day three months, instead of proposing a resolution which expressed no hostility to the Bill, but only declared that at this late period of the Session it was not expedient to proceed with it. He hoped the House would excuse him from going into that extensive range of subject which had been embraced by the speech of his hon. Friend. The principal objection of his hon. Friend to the Bill appeared to be that it was not comprehensive enough; and this his hon. Friend explained by giving the House a sketch of his own scheme, which involved the creation of no less than sixty suffragan bishops, to be supported at the expense of 90,000l. a year to be paid out of the existing revenues of the the deans and chapters of the cathedrals of this country. Without entering into the question whether there ought to be any suffragan bishops appointed or not, he was afraid that if his hon. Friend waited until his own comprehensive scheme of appointing sixty should be adopted, before attempting to afford any assistance to the Church, the conclusion all parties would arrive at would be that they must remain in statu quo, and that nothing could be done to remedy the defect in spiritual superintendence and in the care of souls among the people. His hon. Friend had adverted to the great increase of the population of this country and to the crowded state of the towns and cities of the empire within comparatively the last few years. He pointed out that there was an inadequate corresponding increase in the pastoral advisors of the people, and a great deficiency in the means of religious and moral superintendence, and concluded by declaring his readiness to join in remedying these evils. But the hon. Gentleman altogether overlooked the great increase of the clergy in this country, the great increase of churches; and while he dwelt upon the acknowledged zeal and efficiency with which the clergy discharged their laborious duties, he altogether omitted to notice the importance of the superintendence which the Episcopal Body exercised over the whole. His hon. Friend had treated the bishops as being merely the recipients of the public money. He believed that the duties of the bishops, when faithfully performed, were of the most important character. He believed that in some of the more populous dioceses the efficiency of their labours could be traced, not only in the increased number and vigilance of their clergy, but in the increased zeal of the laity in the works of charity, and in the raising of funds and voluntary contributions for the spiritual benefit of the people. But the real question which the House had to meet was, whether twenty-four should be the limited number of bishops for this country? If not, then the question which his hon. Friend had raised was, should that number be increased to sixty, and to no less? If this were really the view of his hon. Friend, then he ought at once to move the rejection of the Bill. Let him propose that until the House were willing to adopt his own scheme, nothing should be done to increase the number of the bishops. His hon. Friend had adverted to the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and stated that they did not recommend an increase of the number of the bishops. Whatever opinion the Commissioners might have expressed upon the subject, with their measure of information and experience at the time they made their report, it could not be contended that the Government and the Legislature were under any obligation to adhere to an opinion expressed some ten or twelve years ago by men who at that time were not disposed to recommend an increase of bishops. But since then there had been a great increase of churches and clergymen; and he did not believe that any one of those Commissioners would now adhere to the opinion which they had formerly expressed. His hon. Friend appeared to hold that the course marked out by the Ecclesiastical Commission was one by which the Government and Parliament were to be bound for all after time. He confessed he could not assent to any such opinion. Then, with regard to the distinction between the special and general fund applicable to spiritual purposes, he was aware that Parliament had drawn a distinction between the two funds; and if this Bill should be rejected, that distinction would still exist. At the same time he thought it most desirable that both these funds should be made available for the general purposes of rendering more efficient the spiritual instruction of the people through the instrumentality of the Established Church. He thought his hon. Friend misunderstood the purpose of the Bill, in supposing that it recognised the separation of the two funds. He did not, however, think that these topics had any relation to the Bill before the House. The real question was, whether this new bishopric was required or not? Had his hon. Friend looked at the statistics of Lancashire? Had he considered the state of the population, the increase of the clergy, and the increased labour thrown on the bishops in that part of the country? Take the bishopric of Chester for example. Did his hon. Friend mean to say, that that diocese ought to remain in its present state? His hon. Friend did not; but then he said that this Bill would be no remedy for the evil. He did not understand whether his hon. Friend meant that no remedy for the evil could be applied short of his own scheme. If so, then he (Sir G. Grey) was afraid that all remedy whatever must be indefinitely postponed. But he differed from his hon. Friend, and thought that the measure which the Government now proposed was at least taking one step in the right direction. His hon. Friend adverted at great length to the conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That subject was not now under the consideration of the House. The whole matter had been referred to a Select Committee of the other House of Parliament; and it would be inexpedient for the House now to enter into a discussion of the proceedings of that Commission. He did not, at the same time, mean to say that the Commissioners were in all things entirely free from blame; but when his hon. Friend spoke of the amount of money which had been laid out by the Commissioners on episcopal residences, and contrasted it with the money expended for the augmentation of small livings, he thought his hon. Friend had committed a mistake. The sum which the Commissioners were now paying towards the augmentation of small livings was 64,000l. a year. They had increased the revenues of 620 livings, in districts containing a population of 1,718,000, for whom spiritual accommodation had been provided, and where the clergyman's income in all cases was at least 150l. a year, irrespective of pew rents and other payments. With regard to the episcopal residences, there had been a great misrepresentation of the facts of the case. In many instances the revenues which his hon. Friend supposed were derived from the surplus funds of deaneries, canonries, &c., merely resulted from the sale and ex-change of property. His hon. Friend had said that 23,000l. had been laid out upon an episcopal house for the united bishopric of Gloucester and Bristol, whereas the sum actually paid was only 1,072l. The two residences having been consolidated, one of them was sold, and the proceeds applied to the repairs of the other; and the only sum actually paid by the Commissioners was 1,072l. There was, at the same time, property belonging to the same bishopric sold, amounting to 6,425l. which was carried to the credit of the Commissioners. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford had called the attention of the House to the general arrangement framed by this Bill with respect to the new bishop not taking a seat in Parliament. It was, he believed, the general opinion, even of the bishops themselves, that the arrangement upon the whole was a fair one. He thought it would be a great advantage that the junior bishop who was recently appointed, should not be obliged to spend the whole of his time during two-thirds of the year in London, but should have the opportunity of attending to the wants of his diocese and of the clergy and people over whom he had to preside. His hon. Friend (Sir R. H. Inglis) had said, that the effect of this arrangement might be that the bishop would take his seat in the House of Lords at too late a period of his life for him to be able to discharge his duties as a spiritual Peer. He did not think from the ordinary duration of life that it was likely the Bishop of Manchester would have to wait for so remote a period as to render him incapable of discharging not only his spiritual but his legislatorial functions. With regard to the union of the diocese of St. Asaph and Bangor, the Government had concurred in the view that these bishoprics should be united. But it was necessary to look at this question, not as an abstract but as a practical question; and it was to be considered in reference to the circumstances that had taken place. It was impossible to deny that there existed a very strong and general feeling on the subject. It was impossible to deny that the two Houses of Parliament partook of that feeling. The Government, therefore, did not think it desirable to continue their opposition to a measure with regard to which such a decided opinion had been expressed by the Church at large and by the other House of Parliament; but consented to the repeal of the recent Act of Parliament by which those two bishoprics were united, at the same time reducing the amount of the income of the two bishops. He hoped, therefore, that the House would read the Bill a second time, reserving the discussion on the clauses with respect to which there was any difference of opinion until they got into Committee.

said, that this Bill was exceptionable to many of his constituents, a great portion of them being Dissenters, and they felt that this Bill ought not to pass. He confessed that his suspicions wore a little excited when he heard the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford; but his objection to the Bill was that to any extension of the powers of the hierarchy by the appointment of additional bishops. All classes in Manchester and its neighbourhood appeared to be against the Bill. They fancied that it would increase the ecclesiastical power; and they felt that with that increase their civil privileges were often infringed. They were of opinion that it would be more to the advantage and promotion of civil and religious liberty that the Church should be content with its present position, because, although it appeared by the Bill that the new bishops were not to have seats in the other House, yet he saw nothing in the Bill to prevent their being called up to the House of Lords at a future time. He thought the Motion should have been, that the Bill should be read a second time that day three months; and, if any hon. Member moved that, he would support it.

wished to express what he believed was a very general feeling in that part of the country from which he came. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would recollect that this was a question that did not immediately affect the Dissenters, it was a proposition, out of the funds of the Church, by a fresh distribution and application of them, to increase, as the hon. Gentleman properly said, the powers of the Church, by rendering that more efficient the inefficiency of which had been long the subject of complaint and reproach to the Church. He believed that this measure, when carried out, would have the effect of very materially relieving the excessive labours which wore now imposed upon the spiritual superintendents of his part of the country. No one acquainted with the great numbers gathered together under the spiritual care of the Bishop of Chester could doubt the necessity of such a measure. It was impossible that such spiritual superintendence could take place as should effectually control and regulate the whole of the ecclesiastical affairs, of that diocese. But there was one thing he must observe, and that was the absence from the Bill of all provision that the new bishops should have seats in the House of Lords. He thought that the reason, or indication of a reason, given by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman, pointed to an arrangement as more convenient to the new bishops on entering upon their spiritual functions, giving them time to become acquainted with the affairs of their dioceses, and of introducing themselves, as it were, to those who were under their spiritual care; but that was no reason why there should be any infraction of the principle that had been hitherto observed—that bishops should be called to the other House when they were appointed to a diocese. He thought that it was an essential part of the principle of the Bill, that in appointing new bishops they should be positively excluded from the House of Lords. But the Bill would have another effect; it was, to a certain extent, a Bill of deprivation, because each bishop of the old sees would be called upon to take his turn of being excluded from sitting in the House of Lords. He thought that upon that ground it was objectionable; and he would far rather, as a matter of principle, see the Bishop of Manchester excluded from the House of Lords permanently (and if the expediency of his more closely attending to the duties of his diocese was the reason why he should be excluded, there was hardly any diocese in the country where the same reason would apply with the same force), than that the bishops of the ancient sees should ever be excluded. He believed, however, that to the Church generally this measure was satisfactory; and he would rather support the Bill as it was, than run the risk of its not passing by entering upon the discussion of the parts which he thought objectionable.

objected to the principle of the Bill; and it was his intention to take the sense of the House on it. He differed from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford about the origin of the property which was the subject of this dispute; but it was a dispute about the loaves and fishes, and who should get the lion's share. He objected to the Bill be- cruse it was a violation of the compact entered into in the year 1835–6 with the Church. After mature deliberation, the Commission had recommended that there should be no addition to the number of bishops, and said that the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor would be of advantage, as the revenues of the abolished see might be appropriated to the augmentation of small livings; but this Bill would lead to a misappropriation of the funds that ought to be applied to other purposes. By increasing the number of bishops, he cared not whether they had seats in Parliament or not, the amount of their salaries was taken away from useful purposes. In that opinion he was borne out by an article in the Quarterly Review. He thought that the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman had yielded, not to the clamour of the Church, but to the clamours of a few of the clergy. He wished that the Commission had been instructed to ascertain the number of Churchmen and of Dissenters there were in Wales, and then it would be seen that the two sees to which he had referred would have been properly united. He could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman near him, because that would be countenancing to a certain degree the principle of the Bill; but when that Motion was disposed of, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

observed, that the present measure was marked by two principles: one of those was, that two sees should be united, or, in Parliamentary language, should be consolidated; and the second was, that there should be an increase in the number of bishops. Now, he objected to the Bill before them, as a breach of faith. If that Bill were carried, no one could tell how many more bishops might be added to the episcopal bench. The Bill provided for four additional bishops; but for his part he did not desire to see the number of bishops at all increased, for he conceived the bench of bishops and the game laws to be the two great evils of the country. The addition made to the Episcopal Bench, or to be made by the present Bill, was one which proceeded from the bishops themselves, and they naturally desired to increase their own order—there "was nothing like leather." When anything went wrong, the right rev. Bench immediately exclaimed, "Give us more bishops." Any great horse- breeder would tell them that the country wanted more horses; and, after all, the most favourable specimens of episcopal government were not of a character to excite much admiration. There was, for example, the see of London. The Bishop of London was an able and well-intentioned man, yet in his diocese alone there were at least twenty different modes of performing divine service, and it appeared also that the right rev. Prelate would not license clergymen belonging to the Irish branch of the Established Church. Surely there was no reason why Irish clergymen should not officiate within the diocese of London. In conclusion, he greatly regretted that a proposition of this kind should have proceeded from a Liberal Ministry: it would have come with much more propriety and consistency from the late Government, The noble Lord at the head of the Government professed liberal sentiments—he was essentially a Liberal. There were Russell, Pattison, Larpent, and Rothschild, they were the four Liberal candidates for London; why, did the noble Lord separate himself from that list by making such a Bill as the present a Government measure?

said, his object in rising was not to enter upon any discussion upon the merits of the Bill before the House, to which, however, he should give his cordial support; but he felt it his duty, and he was happy to have it in his power, to remove one cause of complaint which the hon. Member, who had just sat down, had urged against the learned prelate the Bishop of London. It was true, as was stated by the hon. Member, that a petition had been presented to the House of Lords by a clergyman in the diocese of London, complaining that the Bishop of London had refused to license a clergyman educated in the University of Dublin, on the grounds of his being an Irish clergyman. The most rev. Prelate who presides over the Irish branch of the Established Church had not felt it right to move in the matter, so long as it was under discussion in the House of Lords; but he was happy to state that since that case had been brought before the House of Lords, the Archbishop of Armagh had had a communication with the Bishop of London on the subject of the exclusion of Irish clergymen. He had directed the attention of that Prelate to the real state of the case, and the course of education pursued by divinity students in Dublin University. The Bishop of London had met the representations of the Primate of Ireland in the kindest and best spirit; and he was enabled to state that the rule of exclusion complained of by the hon. Member for Athlone no longer existed.

observed with great satisfaction the view of the subject which the Government had taken. As to the late Government, there could be no doubt that if they were now in office they would be obliged to yield in the same way. To Lord Powis they all owed a great debt of gratitude; and he contended that the conduct of the present Government in the matter before them was in all respects perfectly consistent. By the addition of four bishops to the episcopate, the labours of the English hierarchy would be most materially lightened. On the part of Wales, also, he felt bound to offer his thanks to the Government for the measure that they had introduced. It was true that of a population of 300,000 there were not above 40,000 who belonged to the Established Church; but the only mode of bringing back that population within the pale of the Church was to render the great officers of the Church sufficient in number for the service of the people. To have taken away a portion of the bishops from the Church, would have been to inflict on it a serious and dangerous injury.

said, he now felt disposed to withdraw his Amendment, because he thought it would be more satisfactory to the House to come to a vote on the Bill itself.

rose to thank the Government on behalf of the Principality. In proposing to get rid of two sees, the Church Commission had, he feared, been too much influenced by temporary clamour. It amounted to nothing less than robbing Wales of two bishops—North Wales of one, and South Wales of the other. There was also a proposition for uniting the see of Llandaff to that of Bristol; but that scheme was not entertained out of deference to Llandaff, but for the benefit of Bristol. The real question was, how the want which Manchester experienced was to be met; was it to be met honestly, or was it to be met by robbing Wales? It was very generally thought that the reason why the last Government did not proceed fairly to meet the question was, that they did not like to meet the difficulty about a seat in the House of Lords. They were driven by necessity, not impelled by choice. The great difficulty had been met by the noble Lord, because he felt that the growing revenue of the Church would enable him so to do. Nothing could be more evident than that if they wished to make the Church efficient, they must have more bishops; and what the Church wanted was, that the character of their bishops should in some respects be changed—that they should go more about the dioceses and make themselves more visible. Hitherto English bishops had gone into Wales who were wholly ignorant of the Welsh language, and the clergy under them were equally ignorant of the vernacular tongue of the people of Wales. If, like the Bishop of St. David's they did their duty, the state of religion in Wales would very soon change its character.

was sorry that his hon. Colleague proposed to withdraw his Amendment for the purpose of negativing the Bill. He should rather vote for the Amendment, because there were not sufficient facts before the House to enable them to pronounce an opinion on the Bill. Upon that ground he thought it expedient that they should postpone the Bill until next Session. A Committee on the subject was still sitting, and no evidence had yet been laid before the House. This circumstance, he conceived, formed a strong reason for postponement; and he hoped that until the House had evidence before them they would not pronounce any opinion on the merits of the Bill.

wished to delay the division only for two minutes; and he did so merely for the purpose of expressing his gratitude to the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth on account of the full and complete manner in which he had brought the whole subject under their notice. The proposed change would at least have this good effect, that it would break down the mystical number of 24—that seemed a magic limit beyond which episcopacy could not go, let the spiritual necessities of the country be what they might. He was gratified now to see that that Parliamentary barrier had been broken down; but in the interval between this and another Session of Parliament he should not be at all satisfied unless preparation were made for doing much more. It was necessary that the ideas which the people had respecting bishops should be changed. They were supposed to fill certain offices and to discharge certain limited duties; but the supposed limits of those duties must be extended, and the present Bill was the first towards the accomplishment of that object.

moved, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He said it was a breach of the contract of 1835–6. In his opinion the surplus funds of the Church ought to be given to the working clergy.

contended that the Bill was a most objectionable measure, and ought to be postponed till another Session. The Committee now sitting had not laid any evidence before the House. When they once had the evidence in their hands they would be much better judges of the question. Under the Statute of Henry VIII. more bishops might have been created, therefore the Bill before them ought to have been constructed for the purpose of distributing the surplus revenues of the Church amongst the working clergy. It was a scandal to the Church that that class of men should be so insufficiently paid as they now were; they were obliged to maintain the position of gentlemen without funds sufficient for that purpose. He thought, therefore, that the House would consult its own dignity by not proceeding with the Bill. He could not help observing that very recently two most humane clauses of the poor law were rejected in another place, and that none of the bishops resisted the rejection.

still considered the original proposition of the Ecclesiastical Commission would have been the best adapted to the interests of the Church, and he regretted that the noble Lord had been induced to abandon it. But, if his objections were great to the Bill as it originally stood, the statement which the noble Lord had made had much increased them. The noble Lord had told them that no additional expenses would be entailed by the Bill. He must call on the noble Lord to say, whether he did or did not mean to give residences to these new bishops? It had been a great misfortune where bishops had no residences. For twenty years in Llandaff there was no resident bishop, during Bishop Watson's time, and the greatest possible evil occurred. He was the more anxious to know the noble Lord's answer, because as yet no residence had been provided for the Bishop of Bangor. He should not, however, vote against the Bill; because, a bishop having refused to take the united diocese, and the necessity for a bishop at Manchester being admitted, the Bill was necessary; but he did enter his protest against that recital of the Bill by which three new bishops were to be appointed, and he hoped the time would come when the episcopal funds would not be applied exclusively to ecclesiastical wants, but to the spiritual wants of the people.

thought the measure was a direct violation of the compact j entered into between the Government and the Liberal party, in that House, in 1836. The Government had then introduced a Bill which they called a Church Reform Bill, but which the people called the Bishops' Bill. That Bill was much objected to, and the Government complained of some of their followers that they had not stated their objections on the earlier stages. But the discussions became so warm and hot that the noble Lord became alarmed for this Bill, and even for his Government. Among others, he remembered that his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate (Mr. C. Buller) made a most violent and convincing speech against the Bill, in which he ridiculed it, with that power of which he was master, proving that it was no Church Reform Bill, but only the commencement of a new series of bishops. Objections were also taken to the Bill by other hon. Members who were now Members of the Government, and especially by one hon. Member who had just resolved to drop a job called the Thames Conservancy Bill. Another objection to the Bill was, that any surplus ecclesiastical revenue should be appropriated to the reduction of Church rates. But now, in the year 1847, what had been done towards the abolition of Church rates? Now, because they were supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite, Her Majesty's Government determined to pass this Bill, although every Bill for the benefit of the people had been dropped. Look at the Health of Towns Bill and the Parliamentary Electors Bill. But, in 1836, when the Bishops' Bill was in danger, the supporters of Government were summoned to Downing-street; and the Government said they would resign if the opposition was not put a stop to. The noble Lord during the debate on that Bill said—

"As I have said, I will not now enter into a debate on this question, but merely take occasion to repeat what I have often said before, and what, I regret to say, has not made such an impression as so notorious a fact was calculated to do—namely, that this Bill does not increase the number of bishops, but retains the same number as there was exactly before its introduction."

Now, who wanted more bishops? Let the noble Lord say who those persons were, and where their petitions were. He had not seen any petitions for more bishops. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell them who it was that demanded more bishops; and also what was the surplus fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission? A Committee had been appointed to inquire into the proceedings of that Commission. Indeed, he was surprised that they had not heard on this occasion the voice of his hon. Friend who had moved for the Committee, and who had made such extraordinary statements to the House. He contended, that a Commission so situated was not a body entitled to the public confidence, and that Parliament ought not to legislate on any recommendation of theirs. He could only tell the noble Lord, that if he persevered with the Bill, he would meet with the same opposition as in 1836; for this Bill was a violation of the compact entered into with the Liberal party in that year. The question of Church rates must inevitably be mooted in connexion with it; and not all the force the noble Lord could bring down would enable him to pass the Bill, unless he was prepared to prolong the Session a month or six weeks.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down, and the hon. Member for Montrose, had both offered opposition to the Bill, because he (Lord J. Russell), in describing the Established Church Bill of 1836, had said that it did not increase the number of bishops. Surely this was carrying what some hon. Members were pleased to call "the doctrine of finality" to a wonderful extent. The argument of those hon. Members assumed, that because a particular Act of Parliament once passed, the number of bishops should at no time be altered. He (Lord J. Russell) also remembered to have said, with respect to the incomes of the bishoprics, that if hereafter they should be considered too large, that was a subject to be considered by Parliament. He had never considered that the Bill of 1836 was an absolute settlement of the question—as one that was never to be disturbed. As to charging a breach of faith against the Government, he apprehended the House would think that there was no foundation for such a charge.

observed, that the observation of the noble Lord which he had quoted had reference to a charge made by hon. Members at the time, that the Church Reform Bill, as it was called, was only a prelude to an increased number of bishops.

said, his not having taken part in the debate, would, he apprehended, be sufficiently accounted for by the fact of the Committee of Inquiry referred to by the hon. Member for Finsbury having been granted at his instance, and that the inquiry was now pending. He thought the discussion of to-day sufficiently showed that the House had not taken an improper course in granting that Committee; and he hoped that there could be no doubt on the mind of the hon. Member for Finsbury that the inquiry would be conducted with fairness.

said, that as a formal opposition to this Bill had been announced in the House of Lords, he was reluctantly compelled to give it up.

wished to ask whether it were the intention of the Colonial Department to take any steps towards checking the prevalence of fever and other contagious diseases in emigrant ships? If it were so, he begged to submit to the hon. Gentleman the great desirableness of providing medical men for every emigrant ship that left our shores. He had recently an opportunity of having a communication on this subject from a lady whose name could not be mentioned without respect—he meant Mrs. Morley, in which she made various suggestions how the important object of preventing the spread of disease in emigrant ships might be gained; and that communication he had brought under the notice of the hon. Gentleman. What he wished now to ask was, if Government had taken this subject into consideration, and whether the hon. Gentleman could hold out any hope of effectual measures being taken for the future, so that emigrants leaving this country should not be subjected to those pestilential diseases that had carried away so many of our unfortunate fellow-subjects.

could assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government attached great importance to the subject that he had just brought under the notice of the House, and he could add that it had not been left unconsidered. With reference to the circumstances to which the noble Lord referred, of people going on voyages in a state of disease—a matter to which the respected lady he had mentioned had directed her attention—he must say that this year a very large amount of emigration had taken place, and that the prevalence of disease had very materially added to the mortality on board the emigrant ships. Additional means had been taken by the local Government of Canada to meet the evils arising from this state of matters, and they had exerted themselves in the most excellent and praiseworthy manner to mitigate the sufferings of those who had arrived in that colony. So far, indeed, as he knew, the Government of Canada had taken every means in their power to meet the calamity; but with regard to the Government at home sending surgeons, he was afraid it would be found impracticable. He might fairly assume that 700 emigrant ships had left the ports of this country and of Ireland; and where were surgeons to be found for all these ships? Her Majesty's Government had believed this to be the real state of the case; but in order to be sure that they had raised up no visionary difficulty, inquiries were made of the highest medical authorities, to ascertain if a sufficient number of competent medical persons could be got, and he could state on that authority that it would be almost impossible to find medical men for each of those ships—a number to the extent of nearly 700. Perhaps it might be necessary to consolidate the various Acts relating to the conveyance of passengers; and he had intended to bring a comprehensive measure for this subject under the consideration of the House, but had no prospect of doing so with success during the present Session. He might say, however, that betwixt this period and the next Session of Parliament he would make anxious inquiries into the subject, to ascertain whether the practical difficulties experienced at the present moment could not be got over, and some efficient system established to prevent the evil complained of.

would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he did not think it was possible that, instead of 600 surgeons, 6,000 could be got for this purpose? He would also ask whether the law, as it now stood, with regard to surgeons, did not exclude those countries to which the great mass of emigrants went, namely, the Canadas and the United States? Whether, by some oversight, the general Act was made to bear, that, unless a voyage was for more than twelve weeks, no medical officer was required to go with the ship; and that the Act required that if there were more than a hundred persons on board a ship, it should be supplied with a medical man? He would also ask the hon. Gentleman if, even at this period of the Session, he could not introduce a short measure to remedy this defect?

thought it would be hardly expedient to introduce any measure during the present Session. He might state, that the ordinary mortality in emigrant ships from Liverpool to the North American provinces was one-half per cent. The mortality generally took place on board the ships after they had sailed. If it took place before they loft, then steps would be taken to detain those who were ill, and the vessel would not be allowed to go to sea.

was glad the attention of the Government had been called to this subject: but he was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that there was difficulty in obtaining 600 or 700 surgeons. If they were adequately paid for in the service, there would be no difficulty in getting the number that was required.

rose to move—

"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, that Her Majesty will be pleased to take into Her gracious consideration the matter of the Petition of Robert Langslow, Esq., late one of Her Majesty's District Judges in the Colony of Ceylon, of the 19th Day of December, 1840, and grant to the said Robert Langslow such relief in the premises as to Her Majesty shall seem fit."

He earnestly entreated the attention of the House to the case it would be his duty to lay before it. The papers issued about three months ago disclosed all the evidence upon which he rested his defence of this dismissed Judge, and in some degree his inculpation of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) by whom he had been dismissed. The case divided itself into two heads; the complaint was of two kinds. He complained of a personal wrong done to a learned Judge, who had been ruined in his profession and in his prospects by his dismissal from office. If, however, the case had been one of personal hardship only, he might have hesitated in bringing it before the House; but the professional hardship was so grave as to warrant him in asking the House, by its decision, to support the Motion with which he should conclude. If Mr. Langslow had been wrongfully dismissed from his office, then not only had a grievous personal wrong been done to him, but a grievous wrong had also been inflicted upon the colony to which the impartial administration of English law had been a manifest blessing. This case had been under the view of three successive Colonial Administrations—Lord Stanley's, Mr. Gladstone's, and Earl Grey's. The noble Lord who now presided over that department had not thought it his duty to interfere with the merits of the question; in accordance with the established practice, he abided by the decision of his predecessor; and, concluding that his predecessor had taken due pains to investigate the merits of the case, he had not deemed it consistent with his duty to re-open the question. He was, therefore, entitled to say that Earl Grey's decision was no decision upon the merits of Mr. Langslow's case. The same might be said as to Mr. Gladstone's decision: he never investigated the merits of the case; and, feeling bound by Lord Stanley's acts, he refused to enter upon its consideration. He (Mr. Escott) imputed no blame to Lord Stanley beyond that which the facts necessarily implied; nor did he accuse the noble Lord of any personal feeling towards Mr. Langslow. The ground of his complaint was, that, without any personal feeling or interest in the matter, Lord Stanley had taken upon himself to decide the case without having the evidence before him—without having heard the accused, or giving him an opportunity to answer statements made in secret without his knowledge, and behind his back. Lord Stanley had in effect confirmed the decision of the local Government of Ceylon, whilst in the same paper in which he confirmed the decision, he said it was not in his department to enter into the only legitimate grounds upon which the decision was founded. He therefore complained of Lord Stanley's judgment. He would now state in a few words the principal facts. Mr. Langslow was a gentleman of considerable learning, born and bred in the same station of life in which those who sat on both sides the House were accustomed to move. He was practising with every prospect of ultimate success at the bar; and he went the Western Circuit, on which circuit he (Mr. Escott) had the honour to be well known to Mr. Langslow, who at that time was one of its most popular members. In the year 1832, he was appointed Attorney General of Malta, under the Government of Sir Frederick Ponsonby, who very much approved of the appointment; and whilst he remained Governor, nothing could proceed more harmoniously, or more advantageously to the business of the court in which Mr. Langslow was the chief officer of the Crown. In 1838, in consequence of the report of a Commission sent out to inquire into the judicial establishment of Malta, it seemed fit to the Home Government to abolish the office of Attorney General altogether. Mr. Langslow, consequently, had no longer sufficient interest to detain him at the bar in Malta, and he returned to England. On his return, so high was he held in the estimation of the Government, that he received a retiring pension; and he was given to understand that the pension would be continued till some other public employment could be found for him. In 1840, when the noble Lord now the First Minister of the Crown was Colonial Secretary, a great change took place in the administration of justice in Ceylon. The district judges of the colony had, up to that period, always been at the disposal of the civil officers on the colonial establishment in the colony; but in consequence of representations from the people of Ceylon, the mode of appointment was changed. Instead of being appointed by the Colonial Secretary, on the advice of his coadjutors in the civil government of Ceylon, they were appointed by the Home Government, and chosen from members of the English bar. The Home Government, in the exercise of its discretion, selected Mr. Langslow to fill the office of district judge of Colombo. In1840, he proceeded to Colombo; and in 1841, before he had been there a full year, an address was sent to this country, signed by suitors in the court, by merchants, and inhabitants of all classes, expressing to Her Majesty's Government their deep sense of the service which the Colonial Office at home had rendered to the colony by the appointment of so just and able a judge. In 1842, disagreements broke out between Mr. Langslow and the Ceylon Government. These differences were stated in the papers presented to the House. Nothing, however, was done in consequence of them. Neither the Governor at Ceylon, nor the Colonial Secretary at home, thought fit to act upon them; but in 1842, a strong representation was made to Lord Stanley respecting Mr. Langslow's conduct. Up to this time, he was bound to admit, Lord Stanley's proceedings were unexceptionable; but it was extraordinary that Lord Stanley, who, in consequence of these representations, sent to the Governor requesting inquiry to be made into the truth of the allegations against Mr. Langslow, and to be informed of the evidence on which they rested, should in 1844 have dismissed Mr. Langslow from his office without any evidence whatever to support the allegations against him. He believed the fact to be, that the noble Lord had forgotten he had ever made a request for the evidence. He believed that seeing Mr. Langslow, amongst other charges, was alleged to have written party articles in a newspaper—no doubt a discreditable offence—and his memory must have failed him that he requested the evidence to be furnished—he had proceeded to pass sentence. In 1843 the Executive Council of Ceylon suspended Mr. Langslow; and they very distinctly stated the ground of that suspension to be because he had been dilatory in the discharge of his duties. The best reply to that allegation was the unanswered fact, stated by Mr. Lanslow himself, and never contradicted, that the number of cases which he, as judge, decided in a given time, amounted to three or four times as many as had ever been decided in the same time by the ablest of his predecessors. There was, however, a certain period of time during Mr. Langslow's occupation of the bench, when the criminal business of the court stood completely still. This arose from an abstruse question of practice between Mr. Langslow and the Queen's Advocate. It would not surely be contended that a judge was to be removed because he differed with an advocate at the bar upon a point of practice. The judge was bound to decide according to his conscientious belief what was law; but owing to difference of opinion in this respect there was delay. He now came to the most important part of the case. Lord Stanley, as Colonial Secretary, had to sit in judgment upon the acts of the Colonial Government at Ceylon; and the first paper in the book contained the noble Lord's reasons for the sentence he subsequently passed, not in confirmation of the order of suspension, but of revoking the Queen's commission, and final dismissal from Her Majesty's service. The hon. Member read extracts from this despatch, and contended that the reasons were weak, inconclusive, and inconsistent. Were the grounds assigned by the noble Lord to be taken as proofs, without the evidence of the witnesses? Before withholding the Queen's commission from Mr. Langslow, the noble Lord was bound to enter not only with minuteness into all the proofs, but to sift and examine them in every possible way. Was he not also bound to lay the statements upon which he proceeded before Mr. Langslow? He thought the noble Lord was. Mr. Langslow's son had been fined 5s., at Malta, for doing that which half the Gentlemen in that House did every night on retiring from it—for smoking a cigar in the streets. Subsequently to that circumstance, that gentleman was apprehended by a policeman, as Mr. Langslow thought, illegally; and whilst that case was under consideration, before it had been determined upon, the Governor of Malta wrote to Lord Stanley a statement, which formed the foundation of Lord Stanley's final determination to recall Mr. Langslow. It appeared that Sir H. Bouverie, who succeeded Sir F. Ponsonby, at Malta, wrote in 1836 a certain statement to Lord Glenelg, upon which Lord Stanley grounded his charge. Surely, that of itself—the fact that Lord Stanley should dismiss that judge, not upon evidence from Ceylon, but upon an old staple charge made six years before, and which up to that time had lain unnoticed upon the shelves of the Colonial Office—showed that there was no real substantial ground for the removal of Mr. Langslow; certainly it did appear to him to be a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of a Minister of the Crown towards a new judge. Sir H. Bouverie said to Lord Glenelg—

"The conduct of Mr. Langslow since I have been in the island, and in the time of my predecessor, has been one continued attempt to set himself up as a leader of a discontented, factious party, holding forth on all occasions upon subjects most likely to pervert the minds of the people, and to embarrass the Government."

If he, the Attorney General of Malta, had been allowed for six years to behave as the ''leader of a discontented and factious party," it was most extraordinary that he should have been presented with a pension when he retired, and should have been raised on the first opportunity to the office of district judge of Ceylon, Mr. Langslow, however, denied that he had ever attended any public meeting, or had ever held forth to the people. Sir H. Bouverie went on to say—

"Previous to his departure for England last year, Mr. Langslow's eldest son was constantly at issue with the police, whom he annoyed and insulted in every way. In most instances, the magistrates did their duty and fined the son."

The "most instances" was that one to which he had referred, for smoking in the streets. It would really puzzle one to think what motives could have prompted the making of such charges. Was Sir H. Bouverie, when he wrote those confidential letters to Lord Glenelg which ended in the temporary degradation of Mr. Langslow, actuated only by an earnest desire to benefit the public service? Why, at the moment Sir H. Bouverie wrote those secret despatches he knew that Mr. Langslow was, in point of fact, removed from the office he held—that the Commission had already decided that the office should be abolished. The only motive he could conceive which could have induced Sir H. Bouverie to take the course he had taken, he would not have attributed to that gentleman had he not himself stated it—it was to deprive Mr. Langslow of his pension at Malta. Sir H. Bouverie concluded his despatch with these words:—

"I mention this in order to show how desirable it is that Mr. Langslow's connexion with this Government should cease at as early a period as possible."

That was in May, 1838, and in April the Commission had decided to dispense with his office. Sir Henry continued—

"I know not what pension his length of service may entitle him to; but I am very sure that for any service rendered by him to this Government, or for any use that he has ever been of to the island, he has been already far more than amply repaid. A more improper person never was employed by any Government; in English law I believe he is extremely ill versed—of the Maltese he is totally ignorant; and during his absence of nine months, not only no difficulty has arisen in carrying on the law business of the Government, but the greatest benefit and quiet has resulted from it; and I sincerely hope that this island will not be called upon to pay a pension to such a man so totally undeserving of it."

When that despatch reached Lord Glenelg, that nobleman not only disregarded its recommendations, but he did more, he rose in his place in the House of Lords, and stated his surprise that any individual should say there was anything in Mr. Langslow's conduct at Malta at all calculated to detract from his character as a gentleman and an able lawyer. Lord Melbourne spoke in similar terms, and expressed his wish that the first opportunity for again enlisting his services should not be lost by the Government of the country. But not only that, the Chief Justices of Malta and of Ceylon—Chief Justice Oliphant and Chief Justice Stodhart—bore the highest testimony to his character and ability; and when a man was condemned by a military Governor, it was something to have the praise of such men as those. He would not throw out any insinuations; but in the absence of some ground for removing a person from office, he was bound to look around for reasons. About that period, complaints had been made that many of the officers in the civil government of Ceylon spent much more of their time in attending to their own interests in their coffee plantations and their farms, than in the discharge of their public functions. Judge Langslow set his face against that conduct. Lord Stanley had sent out a very proper despatch, commanding all civil officers to give up these proceedings; and Judge Langslow earnestly set himself to carry out that despatch. That might have given offence; but from the beginning to the end they had made out no specific accusation against the Judge, who had been discharged upon no intelligible grounds, and with the Colonial Secretary himself refusing to examine into his conduct as a judge. It was very difficult from Lord Stanley's despatch to make out the precise charges upon which Judge Langslow had been dismissed; but he observed that they ranged under three heads, none of them referring to his conduct as a judge, all being extra-judicial. The first was, that he was in the habit of embarrassing the Government. Now of all the vague charges to make against a lawyer, that was perhaps the most vague. Suppose a case arose between a coffee planter and a native, and the judge found that in order to do justice according to the principles of English law, he must give judgment against perhaps a civil servant of the Crown. He should not be surprised if those who took such trivial objections to a man's conduct, should proclaim that that was a considerable embarrassment to the Government. Whatever that might be considered, there was not one single instance in the despatch, from first to last, which showed of what that embarrassment consisted. The next charge was of a still more extraordinary kind even than the last. It was one of a want of propriety and decorum in his communication with the authorities of Ceylon. Why could not the noble Lord, when he dismissed a man for impropriety of language and indecorum of speech, mark out one phrase in which he had offended? It would not, indeed, have been unnatural if Mr. Langlow had been betrayed into a momentary warmth of speech; but surely Lord Stanley was not the man who should have dismissed a judge for an inadvertent intemperate expression. He had, however, read the whole of the despatches through, and he defied anyone to point out one hasty or indecorous expression. Lord Stanley had himself admitted it was plain the charges at Ceylon were futile and weak; therefore he had recourse to those charges which had been made in confidence to his predecessor six years before, when Mr. Langslow was practising at the bar at Malta as Attorney General. It was because he was not punished for his conduct as Attorney General at Malta that he must be removed from a judgeship at Ceylon. But now what was the popular feeling with regard to this dismissal? The moment it was known in Ceylon that he was suspended, the bar, with one accord, came forward and adopted a petition, praying, the Governor to reconsider his decision, and not to inflict such a fatal blow upon the administration of justice by removing so just and able a man. That memorial was couched in language so plain and strong that he might be excused for reading a few sentences from it. They said—

"As members of the community we lament with inexpressible grief the intended suspension of Robert Langslow, Esq., District Judge of the District Court of Colombo, No. 1, South; for, in common with the public, in that suspension we fear the infliction of a general calamity not easily to be borne, and still less to be remedied. It is not, however, as members of the community that we present ourselves before your Excellency; to the public we leave the task—a task which it will be their duty and their pleasure to fulfil—of vindicating the virtues of a man who, considered in his judicial capacity, presents a rare instance in this country of great legal erudition, high moral courage and impartiality, and determined and uncompromising independence and probity. Those public virtues claim the admiration of all men, and they hare gained, we are happy to say, for the district judge the respect and esteem of all classes. The true and unerring criterion of his having given satisfaction in the discharge of his duties is, we humbly submit, to be discovered in the opinion of the majority of suitor's before the District Court of Colombo, No. 1, South, who, comprising the successful parties as well as the unsuccessful, have evinced, and do even now tes- tify to the justice, impartiality, and independence of the learned judge, to an extent not hitherto felt in this country, and little known at this period in the island. But, in common with other deserving and meritorious men, he has been unable to give satisfaction to every individual; and, indeed, it was to be expected, that independence and uprightness, equal justice and impartiality, without favour and without fear, should have created against the learned judge individual dislike and dissatisfaction. To these causes, we hesitate not to affirm, are owing the complaints that have induced the intended suspension of Mr. Langslow."

And again—

"Regular, zealous, and unremitting in the discharge of his duties, the learned judge has been most indefatigable in the performance of his high functions; learned, he has instructed; independent, he has created confidence; just, he has given satisfaction; and impartial, he has won golden opinions from all classes of the community. We entreat your Excellency, therefore, as your Excellency values the administration of justice in this country, and as your Excellency fears the appalling consequences of visiting with such unmerited obloquy the really deserving, and the evil effects from such causes on the public service of this island, we entreat your Excellency, for the country, and for ourselves, the bar of that country, that your Excellency will recall your intention of suspending from his office the Judge of the District Court of Colombo, No. 1, South."

Should not those gentlemen have been examined by the Colonial Secretary previous to the dismissal of Mr. Langslow; for who was more competent to pass an opinion upon his conduct than the Chief Justice of the island and the members of the bar? But that was not the only petition which had been adopted. The merchants, the landed proprietors, and the householders of Ceylon also came forward in a mass, and in the strongest language implored the Governor to reconsider his determination. That petition was signed by 1,821 individuals, and it spoke of Judge Langslow as "an able, upright, and talented judge." But, more than that, the suitors of his court also came forward, with other individuals, to the number of 2,095, bearing, if possible, still stronger testimony to the able and upright conduct of Judge Langslow. And it must be borne in mind, that those addresses were not instigated by any friends of Mr. Langslow's, but that they were the voluntary productions of men who had had causes in his court, and who were grateful to the Judge for his able and impartial conduct. Under these circumstances he implored the Government not to interpose, either through any chivalrous desire to defend Lord Stanley, or from any reluctance to re-open a question which by some might have been considered set- tled, to prevent some species of relief being given to the Gentleman in question. If a judge were to be removed without any opportunity of knowing who his accusers were, much less an opportunity of answering them—if he were to be removed upon such unfair, such partial testimony as he had referred to, in opposition to a testimony which he should have thought a sufficient answer to the slanders that had been propagated against him, then, he said, the administration of justice was not safe; and the people, who were more attached to our rule by this one thing than by any other, namely, that they could look to the judicial bench for a fair consideration of all their grievances, and for that impartial administration of the laws which had so long characterized the bench at home—then, he said, the people would be disappointed, and the Government would have thrown away one of the best opportunities of knitting their hearts to the mother country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the resolution already given.

said, his hon. Friend had brought forward his Motion in a manner which entitled it to every respect and attention, and in a manner to which he was sure the noble Lord whose conduct was more immediately assailed would not object. Moreover, he thought his hon. Friend was quite justified in bringing this case under the consideration of the House, since it was the only appeal open to him. Mr. Langslow had attempted to bring his case under the consideration of the Privy Council; but from circumstances which were fully explained—namely, from the fact that he had been dismissed on account of general misconduct, and not for his character as a judge—it was thought that an appeal to the Privy Council was impossible. He (Mr. Hawes) did not feel called upon now to go into the merits of the case. He knew Mr. Langslow himself, and he knew many friends of his; and he really believed him to be a perfectly upright and respectable man, and a very able lawyer. He made these admissions fully to his hon. Friend; and he merely confined himself now to the grounds assigned by his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department for refusing to re-open the question. His hon. Friend stated that the charges which had been brought against Mr. Langslow in Ceylon were unknown to him, and that he had had no opportunity of answering them. Now, in point of fact, no one could open the book which had been presented to the House, without seeing that the charges which had been made against him as a judge were most fully and distinctly stated in the Minutes of the Executive Council, and that they were met by a full and complete reply on the part of Mr. Langslow. With reference to the Maltese case, he thought it unnecessary to make any remarks. No doubt both Lord Glenelg and Lord Melbourne did distinctly state, some years ago, in the House of Lords, that nothing had occurred at Malta which disentitled Mr. Langslow to be considered worthy of the future patronage of the Crown; and that future patronage was subsequently bestowed upon him. With regard to the merits of the Ceylon case, he adhered to the statement which he had made by the direction of his noble Friend, and which appeared in the correspondence and bore his (Mr. Hawes's) name, that he did not pronounce any opinion whatever upon the merits of Mr. Langslow as a judge at Ceylon. He was satisfied the House would concede that the Secretary of State must be often called upon to decide upon cases of this nature; and then the question arose, whether the decision of the Secretary of State was again and again to be brought before succeeding Secretaries for revision? In looking at this case, they ought to ask themselves, were all the circumstances brought before the Secretary of State before he made his decision? The case was brought fully, in all its bearings, before Lord Stanley; and when his successor was called upon to pronounce an opinion upon the circumstances, it was found that no new circumstance was brought forward in addition to those which were laid before Lord Stanley, and, consequently, no reason was assigned sufficient to warrant any alteration of that decision. The present Colonial Secretary saw nothing in the circumstances to justify him in altering the decision of Lord Stanley; and he, therefore, did not interfere in that way. The fact was, that some rule should be laid down in such cases; as, if they were perpetually re-opening cases decided by former Secretaries, and re-investigating the circumstances, it would cause the greatest possible inconvenience. The despatch announcing the removal of Mr. Langslow having arrived in Ceylon, that gentleman left the colony, and arrived in England in 1845, when he applied personally for an answer which he gave to the despatch of Lord Stanley directing his re- moval. At that time he was, of course, aware of Lord Stanley's decision; but he never asked Lord Stanley to reverse it; on the contrary, he left the question untouched till the early part of 1846. On one occasion, in writing to Lord Stanley, he said, in reference to the decision, that his object in writing was not to procure a reversal of his Lordship's decision, which he thought was in some degree harsh and unfair; but he wrote with a view to a modification of the sentence, in order that he might be enabled to secure a pension or retiring allowance, such as it was usual to give to those who had been for such a length of time in the public service. In that application, therefore, it was clear that he only sought to have the sentence modified, in order that he might be secured his retiring allowance. That securing of a pension was not, however, in the province of the Colonial Department; it was a subject which properly could only be regulated by the Treasury. When Mr. Gladstone came into the Colonial Office, he interfered in this matter; but he did so only because he had heard, in a letter from a friend of his (Mr. Hawes), that the Governor of Ceylon (Sir Colin Campbell) had altered his opinion of the case of Mr. Langslow; and in consequence of that report, Mr. Gladstone forwarded the letter to Sir Colin Campbell, and received an answer to the effect that Sir Colin Campbell had not changed his opinion upon the subject. Upon those general grounds, his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office declined to go into the case again, unless some additional cause was shown. If they were to re-open that case now, without any additional reason, he did not see they could refuse to re-open any of the cases which had been decided upon for the last twenty-five or thirty years, and thus greatly interfere with the transaction of public business. He had stated the general grounds which had precluded his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department from going into the case anew; and he should leave the merits of the case to be spoken to by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hope), who was well acquainted with them; but before he sat down, he was anxious to express his conviction that the Colonial Department, at the period when Lord Stanley was at its head, had given the most attentive consideration to all the facts of the case. The hon. Member concluded by moving the previous question.

said, the case was one which occupied a very small compass; and he could assure the House, that during his experience he had not seen any case which had received a more careful and conscientious consideration. The House would scarcely be aware of the great difficulty which was felt by those who had to deal with such a question; and, so far from there being any danger of an unnecessary degree of severity being used, he thought the probability lay the other way. It would be great injustice to the colonial interest if a person, who was deemed insufficient for the proper discharge of the duties which devolved on him, were allowed to continue to hold office; and that applied particularly to those engaged in the administration of justice; and he thought the worst service which that House could do to the colonies would be to keep any person in employment who had been held to be ineligible by the Secretary for the Colonies. The hon. Member for Winchester had most correctly admitted that it was impossible to attribute in this matter any personal ill-will to Lord Stanley; and as a proof of that he (Mr. Hope) could state, that when Lord Stanley heard that the matter was to be referred to Earl Grey for decision, he said he should not look upon it as any reflection upon his (Lord Stanley's) decision, if Lord Grey should employ Mr. Langslow again, and that in fact he should be glad to find others had come to a conclusion contrary to that which he (Lord Stanley) had felt it his painful duty to express. The question, in fact, then was, whether Mr. Langslow was eligible for employment elsewhere; and if Earl Grey considered that he was fit for that employment, it would not be any reversal of Lord Stanley's decision. Having said so much, he (Mr. Hope) would add, that the subsequent non-employment, under the colonial administration of Earl Grey, was so far a proof of the validity of Lord Stanley's decision; but he knew that if it was otherwise decided by the present Colonial Government, Lord Stanley would not make the slightest objection to his re-employment. He thought, that the observations of the hon. Member for Winchester, as to the cause of Mr. Langslow's dismissal, were calculated rather to mislead the House as to the real cause of that dismissal. The hon. Member seemed to think that nothing further than being indolent had been shown to be capable of proof against Mr. Langslow. [Mr. ESCOTT: Of being dilatory.] He thought that the decision of Lord Stanley had been placed upon very different grounds from that of being dilatory, for the noble Lord had distinctly stated that he had been dismissed in consequence of failure in temper, self-control, and discretion; and Mr. Langslow had been allowed the clearest opportunity of understanding the cause of his dismissal. It appeared from the correspondence of Mr. Anstruther, that for a long period Mr. Langslow had disposed of no more than six cases, and he had assigned no reason for that; and it was stated that from what had appeared, and the correspondence with Mr. Langslow, that the course which he had adopted had been the result of an improper and insubordinate contempt of the Government under which he was employed, the result of which was to render comparatively unsuccessful the exertions of the police in a large district; and that was a state of things which the Colonial Government could not longer permit to continue. It was quite clear that the cause for which Mr. Langslow had been dismissed was not merely dilatoriness. The hon. Member for Winchester had stated that nothing could be more satisfactory than the conduct of Mr. Langslow while in Malta; but the report on the subject of the administration of justice in Malta at the period, stated that they (the Commissioners) thought the office of Attorney General was useless in Malta, as, from the ignorance of the law of the island on the part of the gentleman who filled the office, and of his ignorance of the Italian language, he was unfit either for the business of the court, or for an adviser of the Government. It was rather an unusual circumstance for a Judge to get up—he would not say get up—but to receive popular addresses praising his conduct on the bench, and regretting that he was leaving that position which he had occupied; and that, in his (Mr. Hope's) opinion, gave a peculiar appearance to this case. Having shown that Mr. Langslow had not been dismissed because he was dilatory, but superseded for the general tenor of his conduct, he would not go into the question of whether Mr. Langslow had been dilatory or not, as there was evidence through out the whole correspondence of his unfitness for the office which he held, such as justified his noble Friend Lord Stanley in no longer continuing Mr. Langslow in that office. He altogether denied the statement that Mr. Langslow had been dismissed from the office which he held in Ceylon in consequence of his conduct in Malta; but other facts were laid before Lord Stanley, and the previous conduct of Mr. Langslow only bore out the decision which the noble Lord had felt it his painful duty to pronounce. The hon. Member for Winchester had referred to the order of Lord Stanley, that the civil servants of the Government in Ceylon should not engage in the management of coffee plantations, and stated that the part which Mr. Langslow took in carrying out that order had caused a great deal of prejudice against him; but he could assure the House and the honourable Gentleman that Mr. Langslow had no concern at all in carrying out that order; and he could add that the civil servants in Ceylon were gentlemen of high character and standing; and for his part he should feel inclined to think more highly of Mr. Langslow's merits if he had not, in order to bolster up his case, endeavoured to detract from the character of those gentlemen. The hon. Member for Winchester had said, that he had read through all the papers, and he could find no proof of con-duet on the part of Mr. Langslow to justify the charge of indiscretion; but had he seen the advertisement which Mr. Langslow had published in Ceylon? He was sent out by Lord Stanley, and upon arriving in Ceylon he considered that his salary was not sufficient, and he, therefore, desired an increase of salary; but during the discussions on the subject of his salary, he published an advertisement in Ceylon, offering for sale several valuable law books, and stating that he could not keep a valuable law library with such an insufficient salary. Now he believed that all the Members of that House would agree that nothing could express a greater desire to bring the Government into contempt than that advertisement, and particularly amongst an excitable population. Lord Stanley, in writing to the Secretary in Ceylon, stated that he had no desire to interfere with the disposal of Mr. Langslow's private property; but that parting with his law library would not form, in the opinion of the Government, any ground for not discharging his duty properly. Mr. Langslow had complained of having been insufficiently paid, and said that he would not have gone out if he had not been placed by the Government in a position in which he ought not to have been in common honesty placed; but it was not his noble Friend who was to blame, if any blame attached. It should be recollected, that it was the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) who appointed Mr. Langslow, and not his noble Friend; and yet Mr. Langslow thought it decent and proper to complain, that in common honesty he ought never to have been placed in such a position by the Government. Again, Mr. Langslow complained to the Government of Ceylon of the onerous nature of his duties, and said that his health was failing, that he was worn out, and that the people were complaining of delay in the administration of justice in the south court; but also stating, "I must, however, add, that they do not complain of the Judge of that court"—namely, himself. The Government of Ceylon then offered to remove him to another district, the duties of which were less onerous; but Mr. Langslow, although he complained of the work of the district being too severe for him, said, in reply to this offer, that if it was intended by the Government to remove him from that district, he should question the power of the Government to do so. Now he asked whether such language as that could be tolerated in any officer? The proposal, however, to remove him being declined, it was found necessary to leave Mr. Langslow where he was, though he himself said, that he was unable to discharge the duties of his office. His conduct on this occasion showed, as he was sure the House would feel, a great want of temper and discretion. If the House, however, would look to page 18 of the correspondence, they would see that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) contented himself with directing that Mr. Langslow should be admonished; and he thought that his noble Friend did not, if any thing, go far enough in saying that a public officer who would not, or could not, discharge his duties, should be merely admonished, and told that if he persevered in such a course of conduct, he should be obliged to remove him. But there was a third point to which he wished to call the attention of the House. At page 19 of the correspondence would be found a despatch of Sir C. Campbell, stating that Mr. Langslow's conduct was most mischievous, and that he should ultimately be obliged to remove him. The hon. Member for Winchester said that Sir C. Campbell was a soldier; but he thought him every whit as competent to judge of the conduct of an officer of the Government as the gentleman to whom the hon. Member had referred. Besides, it must not be forgotten that Sir C. Campbell was not sitting alone, but was assisted by his Council; and the Council stated that they had considered Mr. Langslow's conduct with attention, and thought that two serious cases of misconduct had been established against him. In proof of that statement they referred to two documents, one of which was a letter, and the other a speech of Mr. Langslow himself. They expressed their opinion that his conduct was a source of very serious and intolerable embarrassment to the colony; and that was the opinion of the whole Council, and not of Sir Colin Campbell alone. As to the charge against Mr. Langslow, with reference to his proceedings at Malta, they were only referred to because of similar proceedings which had taken place at Ceylon. It appeared that Mr. Langslow's son had become involved in some dispute which took place at a public ball at Colombo, and that the public prosecutor did not think proper to take up the affair. Mr. Langslow, it would seem, sought to magnify the matter into a great outrage upon his son, and wrote to the public prosecutor to say, that if the case for the prosecution failed except on its own merits, he should feel it necessary to bring the matter under the notice of the Government, and that he was induced to take that step because he had noticed several other failures. It appeared, therefore, from Mr. Langslow's own letter to the public prosecutor, that in this case also, as at Malta, he had interfered with the administration of justice. But the Council referred not only to this letter, but to a speech delivered by Mr. Langslow from the bench. This was upon the occasion of a decision of Mr. Langslow having been appealed from to the superior court, It appeared that an officer, while waiting outside the police court, in which Mr. Langslow presided, in whisking his whip about, struck a native. The place where this occurred was supposed to be within the precincts of the court, and Mr. Langslow accordingly fined the officer 5l., and sentenced him to imprisonment for ten days. An appeal was made to the superior court, and they remitted the imprisonment. When Mr. Langslow heard of this, he stated in. open court that he was happy to find that those learned persons could find it consistent with their oaths to remit the imprisonment, and that he could only say that he did not find it consistent with his own to inflict a lighter punishment. He added, that he would in future inflict the punishment of imprisonment before there was any opportunity of appealing against his decision. And yet he was told that there was no want of temper or discretion exhibited on the part of Mr. Langslow. He must trouble the House a little further. The last letter in the correspondence was dated January, 1843; and in December in the same year, after time enough had elapsed for Mr. Langslow to have seen the propriety of making some change in the course of his proceedings, his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) received a letter from Sir Colin Campbell, stating that he had been compelled, with the unanimous advice of his Executive Council, to suspend Mr. Langslow from his office. The grounds on which he was dismissed were stated at page 61 of the correspondence; but his noble Friend did not proceed upon the charge of dilatoriness against Mr. Langslow, because when there was a question relating to the conduct of a judge in his judicial capacity, it was referred to the Committee of Privy Council. Even, therefore, if that question had been decided in Mr. Langslow's favour after a long litigation, the question would still have to be determined whether his conduct altogether was such as would have justified Lord Stanley in retaining him in his situation, in defiance of the Government of Ceylon, with whom Mr. Langslow was at open war. He thought the House would agree with him in thinking that his noble Friend was perfectly justified in not keeping that question back, and in determining the matter in issue at once. But he must call the attention of the House to another point, relating to a question which had arisen between Mr. Langslow and the Queen's Advocate at Ceylon. Mr. Langslow having permitted 338 criminal cases to accumulate in his court, packed up all the records, and sent them in a lump to the Queen's Advocate, simply because there was a dispute between them whether the proper mode of proceeding was, by an information on the part of the Queen's Advocate or not. In one case there was an appeal from his decision to the supreme court; and the judges having decided against him, he took a technical objection, and refused to give any information to the bar as to what his course of practice would be. Under these circumstances, his noble Friend had advised Her Majesty to revoke the appointment; and he thought that he was justified in giving that advice. Mr. Langslow left office in 1845, and he did not ask for an investigation into his case, nor deny the charges which had been preferred against him. He (Mr. Hope) did not wish to press the fact of ac- quiescence against him; but at the same time he must remark that it disabled his noble Friend from making further inquiry into Mr. Langslow's case. Mr. Gladstone afterwards came into office, and a complaint was made to him, upon which Mr. Gladstone wrote to Sir Colin Campbell. In his despatch of the 12th of August, 1846, Sir Colin Campbell said—

"Whatever respect I may feel for the better traits in Mr. Langslow's character, I must adhere to my unshaken opinion, that his continuance as district judge of Colombo would have been most prejudicial to the prompt administration of justice, and inconsistent with the public interests."

This was the opinion of Sir Colin Campbell, after a careful review of all the circumstances of the case. He believed that his noble Friend could have come to no other conclusion in the matter than he had done, however painful it might have been to himself, or however injurious to the prospects of Mr. Langslow. It was imperative upon his noble Friend to put an end to what would have been a permanent and increasing evil to the colony.

concurred in the opinion that it was extremely inconvenient, as a general rule, to discuss cases of this sort in the House of Commons; and it had never been his habit to interfere with the discretion of a Government in dealing with its executive officers. At the same time he could not consider the situation of a judge to be similar to that of any other executive officer; and he believed that there were circumstances in the present case to make it one for the serious consideration of the House. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies stated very fairly that this was a case which must be decided here, for there was no other appeal than to the House from the decision of Lord Stanley. That decision once pronounced, Mr. Gladstone had refused to open the case; and Earl Grey now stood by the decision of his predecessor. If, therefore, there had been injustice done, it was only in that House that it could be remedied. He was anxious, before entering upon any explanation, to state at once his belief that there was no man less likely willingly to commit an act of injustice than Lord Stanley. But he could submit, he thought, such a case to the House as would induce them at least to doubt whether that noble Lord had acted properly in the transaction. The situation of judge was one of some importance; and he had always considered that a judicial appointment should stand on different grounds from that of any other. He believed, also, that a judge ought not to be removed at the will of any officer of the Crown, however high might be his opinion. Rightly or wrongly, however, it happened that that power of dismissal was still exercised by the Secretary for the Colonies at his good will and pleasure. He thought that he expressed the opinion of every person who had any respect for the administration of justice when he said that that power ought to be exercised with the greatest discretion and care; and when the hon. Gentleman opposite placed so much reliance on the opinion of Councils and Governors of colonies, it should be remembered that it was frequently the province of a colonial judge to stand between the power of the European and the rights of the native; and that the functionary who may be an uncomfortable and embarrassing judge for the one party, is frequently the one who deals out justice with the most rigid even-handedness. The case against Mr. Langslow separated itself into two parts. He was first suspended by the Council for misconduct as a judge. Now, as to that part of the case, he quite admitted that, according to the practice of the Colonial Office, the grounds of his suspension were submitted to him, and that he had the power, of which he availed himself, of putting in a defence to the charges brought against him. But it was quite an error to suppose that Mr. Langslow had seen all the facts sent home against him. After the grounds of complaint had been submitted to him, after the defence which he had offered, a long and laboured answer was drawn up by the Council, alleging fresh instances of misconduct, and stating facts in corroboration of those charges—a document which Mr. Langslow had neither the opportunity of reading nor answering. And what were those charges? He was accused of being dilatory in the administration of justice, and of having manifested an insubordinate spirit, and shown a degree of improper contempt for the Governor. Now, as to dilatory justice: the charge depended upon what was understood by justice. Mr. Langslow certainly conducted his proceedings more slowly than they had been managed before, and for a very good reason. He took the opinion of a gentleman high in office in Ceylon as to the state of the law and the practice there; and what was his view of matters? Why, that in the course of one month he could fling the whole colony into a state of disturbance and discomfort. Such was the existing system in Ceylon. Now, what did Mr. Langslow say as to his dilatory conduct? He stated that it had formerly been the habit, when a case was brought forward, to proceed with it, without taking any means to summon or apprise the party accused or proceeded against, and then to come to a decision on the very loosest evidence. Mr. Langslow did not go on with his cases until the notice had been given to all the parties concerned. Here was one cause of delay. Another was the introduction of the practice of taking down the evidence in writing by means of an interpreter; and Mr. Langslow added that he was particular before causing a witness to sign his depositions, in taking care that the man was perfectly aware of the nature of the evidence he was about to vouch for. Now all this would of necessity cause some delay. On this portion of the case Lord Stanley had pronounced no decision. As far as administration of justice went, his Lordship found no fault. The other charges referred to acts of insubordination, and entertaining an improper contempt for the Governor. Now what was the degree of contempt which could he properly entertained, he would wish the law officers of the Crown to explain. He called upon the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) to do so. What were the notions of Mr. Langslow's accusers of insubordinate conduct to the Governor? What notion had hon. Gentlemen learned in the law of such indefinite charges? He turned to the grounds upon which Lord Stanley had dismissed Mr. Langslow; and the reason of his dissatisfaction with these grounds was this, that Mr. Langslow had no opportunity before his dismissal of saying one word in his own defence, or offering a single sentence of explanation. Certainly, so far as his experience in connexion with the Treasury had gone, he would say that the notion of dismissing an official without giving him an opportunity of being heard in self-defence, would never have been for a moment entertained. Let them, at all events, do justice—let them not strike until they had heard. But Mr. Lanslow was dismissed for insubordination and contempt towards the Governor. To his conduct in the judgment-seat there was the highest testimonials; and to the public in Ceylon he had endeared himself by the firm manner in which he had administered justice. His temper, at all events, never showed it- self on the bench. The hon. Gentleman opposite had taken advantage of every point in the correspondence which could be construed as evincing intemperance of expression or impropriety of conduct in Mr. Langslow. He had but a very slight acquaintance with the gentleman in question; but he certainly should have thought him the very last man to have indulged in anything dishonourable or disreputable. He did not say but that there were some expressions in his letters which he should have wished to have seen avoided; but he put it to the House whether there were not in the circumstances of the case grounds for warmth, and palliations for the use of somewhat exciting and excited language. It was hard to arraign a man upon expressions in letters without giving him some opportunity of explaining under what circumstances he wrote them. But take one of the instances in question. Take the case of the speech delivered by Mr. Langslow relative to the alteration of one of his sentences by a court of appeal. The House would have thought from the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the authenticity of that address had been admitted. Why, it was a mere newspaper report, and even the newspaper did not pretend to state that it was a correct report, for it stated that Mr. Langslow expressed himself to the "following effect." Change, therefore, a few words, and let the address be delivered as he (Mr. F. Baring) believed that it had been delivered, and nothing improper would be found in it. It was, in fact, merely the announcement of the fact of the superior court having seen fit to take a more lenient view of a case than Mr. Langslow had felt it to be consistent with his duty to adopt. He had, however, communicated with Mr. Langslow on the subject; and he had his authority for denying, distinctly and solemnly, that he ever entertained the slightest intention of casting any imputation on the judges of the superior court, or that he had the slightest idea that his words would be construed in any such sense. He stated that he had pronounced a severe judgment, which he was glad to see that the superior court had thought it consistent with its duty to mitigate. Surely, at all events, the report of the speech ought to have been submitted to him, and the question put as to whether it were or were not correct? The accusation against Mr. Langslow was, that he was a quarrelsome man—ready to fight every man; but now, when dismissed it was said he acquiesced in his sentence. The charges were inconsistent. The fact was, a judge was dismissed without being fairly tried. He hoped that now at least he might have an opportunity of defending himself. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not permit this blot on colonial administration. He should give his vote cordially for the Motion.

Sir, when I came into the House I had no intention of taking a part in this discussion; but after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring), I think it would ill become me if I remained silent and made no attempt to defend the conduct of my noble Friend Lord Stanley. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the district judge of the southern division of Ceylon was guilty of great indiscretion in the publication of the first advertisement he issued in that colony; and I, Sir, cannot help thinking that the judge who could advertise for sale the law books, without the assistance of which he might not be able to pronounce an efficient judgment, would be very much in the position of an officer or a soldier in the Army who might be tried for selling his arms and accoutrements. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken of this gentleman as an admirable judge; but I think it is impossible for any one to read these papers, even in a cursory manner, without seeing that such praise is undeserved by him. My hon. Friend who sits by me quoted a judgment given by Mr. Langslow; and what could be more intemperate and unbecoming a judge than that judgment, passed as it was upon a gentleman for the offence of accidentally striking a native whilst he was amusing himself with his whip. For this offence Mr. Langslow, in the capacity of judge, passed the sentence of which you have heard. But what will be said when the House hears there is great reason to suppose that the true offence of the gentleman was, that he had, at a former period, carried a hostile message to one of the sons of this Judge? Was this, however, the only occasion on which there appeared to be reason to believe that Mr. Langslow, in the discharge of his judicial duties, was influenced by personal motives and private feelings with respect to his sons? His conduct whilst at Malta was of a similar character; and at that place his sons were constantly getting into hot water from misunderstandings with the police and the local authorities. But let us examine for a little what claims Mr. Langslow had to be considered an efficient administrator of the law. Sir Colin Campbell submitted a statement of the manner in which he discharged his duties, and contrasted it with the manner in which his brother Judge in the northern district did his duty; and what was the result? Why, the Judge of the northern district decided in civil cases, after hearing the evidence, 276 out of 1,842; while Mr. Langslow, out of 2,508, decided but 92. With regard to tribunal eases, his brother Judge decided 228 out of 652 cases, whilst Mr. Langslow, out of 969, decided but 109. So that when a comparison is drawn between two Judges, the Judge of the north district appears to have got through more business than Mr. Langslow did; so that I think there is no evidence which the right hon. Gentleman has afforded us can satisfy us of the expedition and indefatigable conduct of Mr. Langslow in the discharge of his duty. But when we hear of him as an admirable judge, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that a man may be insubordinate, or an incompetent judge, and still an excellent and impartial officer of justice, let me ask what was thought of him in that colony? And to what better authority can we appeal than the Council of Ceylon? The Council were unanimous, and they did not decide behind his back, as had been insinuated; they did not come to their judgment without hearing any defence, or knowing what Mr. Langslow had to say. But after the matter had been seventeen days before them, the Council came, amongst other things, to this unanimous judgment. I will not trouble the House by again reading the paragraphs read by my hon. Friend; but the Council say this:—

"The Council perfectly coincide with the Queen's Advocate in his views of the tendency of the general line of conduct pursued by Mr. Langslow; but though they are of opinion that it is dictated by no creditable motives, and is likely to load to most inconvenient consequences, they can fix upon no one specific charge which of itself would justify his suspension from office. In his most mischievous acts, it is easy for him to defend himself upon plausible legal grounds; and, under the full authority of the Charter and Statute-book, he may plunge the whole island into inextricable confusion. Under these circumstances, it appears safer to the Council to submit their views of Mr. Langslow's conduct to the Secretary of State, than to act upon them themselves. They would impress upon his Lordship the fact, that customs have grown up in this colony on every side, so frequently at variance with law, that a person so disposed may easily establish anarchy under the pretence of administering justice; and they take this opportunity of recording their opinion, that Mr. Langslow has evinced so unequivocal a disposition to take advantage of this unfortunate state of things, that they regard with great apprehension his holding any office which will enable him to give effect to such feelings. In support of this opinion, the Council would particularly call his Lordship's attention to the fact of Mr. Langslow having instigated his son (as proved by the declaration of the Judge of the North Court, and by further evidence which it is not necessary now to bring forward), to bring an action against Mr. Whiting, on the ground of that Judge's court not being situated within his proper district."

They again go on to state—

"It is impossible for the Council to form any estimate of the dangerous consequences which are likely to follow from this step; its effect, if successful, will be to invalidate a long succession of judgments, and give rise to an endless number of actions against every officer of the North Court. Similar irregularities exist in other courts; and no doubt similar mischievous attempts will be made in respect of them, while there exists no power within the colony of providing a remedy. The Council would also call the attention of the Secretary of State to the letter of the superintendent of police, as furnishing facts equally illustrative of the motives and consequences of Mr. Langslow's conduct. The Council have strong reasons for believing that his motive in this instance was a desire of implicating a gentleman against whom he had a previous grudge; and the effect has been, as far as he is able to bring it about, to impair greatly the efficiency of the superintendent of police."

Now, I would ask whether that is the sort of man it was fitting for any Secretary of State to maintain in office as the judge of a distant colony? And though it may be perfectly true that in this country the office of judge is one irremoveable by the Crown, still I think the office of judge in this country is removeable on the joint address of both Houses of Parliament, and with the consent of the Crown. Well, did Lord Stanley remove Mr. Langslow on this representation, or upon any judgment of his own, or upon the unanimous advice of the Council after hearing evidence? No; he was not dismissed on this report of the Council, which was made in 1842. The Government at homo and the Government at Ceylon were alike willing to give Mr. Langslow every chance of amending his conduct; and it was not till the 23rd of September, 1843, that Sir C. Campbell wrote home to Lord Stanley in these terms:—

"It is with much regret that I have at length been compelled, with the unanimous advice of the Executive Council, to suspend Mr. Langslow, Judge of the District Court of Colombo, No. 1, South, with a view to his removal by your Lordship from the public service. So long as any grounds of complaint against Mr. Langslow consisted principally of disrespect and insubordination towards the Government, I felt myself exonerated from the absolute necessity for resorting to this extreme measure. I am aware that his insubordination has been so very publicly evinced on all occasions as to have had an injurious effect upon the public mind; and I am open to the imputation of having carried the forbearance too far."

The Governor then goes on to say—

"It will be seen, from a letter to Mr. Langslow, dated the 5th of April last, copy of which accompanied that despatch, that I expressed a hope that he would for the future devote himself peaceably to his duties, in which case no further proceedings would be adopted against him; but so far from doing so, he soon after proceeded in a course which involved almost an absolute suspension of criminal proceedings in his court for many months, and had the effect of completely paralysing the police. I think it must be admitted to be a most extraordinary proof of the peaceable disposition of the people that no violent outbreak has taken place under such circumstances."

Imagine a Secretary of State maintaining a judge whose conduct was such that but for the extraordinary peaceful disposition of the people an outbreak would have ensued from his conduct. Mr. Langslaw—this superior judge, as the right hon. Gentleman who once filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks him—was removed, and Mr. Temple was appointed in his place. And notwithstanding the great arrear of business, instead of feeling himself perfectly incompetent to the full discharge of his business, and applying at an early period of his judgeship for an additional officer to assist him, no sooner was he appointed than Sir Colin Campbell makes this report to Lord Stanley:—

"I beg to call your Lordship's attention to the fact, that, between the 24th June and the 14th October, Mr. Langslow tried only four criminal cases, acted twice as coroner, and took preliminary examination in four cases for the Supreme Court; and that in the seven months ending the 31st October, he only decided forty-three civil cases on argument, and seventy-eight on evidence; and to the reports of the superintendent of police, as to the effect Mr. Langslow's conduct has had as regards his department. Immediately upon Mr. Langslow's suspension, I appointed Mr. Temple, the Deputy Queen's Advocate, to act as District Judge; and I enclose a letter from Mr. Temple, dated the 21st instant, forwarding a memorandum of the business done by him in eight days. Your Lordship will perceive from it that in that short period he has decided more civil cases on evidence than Mr. Langslow did in all November, and heard as many criminal cases as Mr. Langslow disposed of between June and November."

It is quite new that we are to be told that a judge is to be suffered to remain on the bench, the description of whose insubordination is this, that he refuses to perform the duties of his office—that a judge, who, in four months, disposes only of as many cases as his successor disposes of in eight days, is a man that deserves to receive the approbation either of the Secretary of State, or of the Colonies, or of this House. Sir Colin Campbell represents this work of Mr. Temple as by no means severe. Mr. Temple, it appears, was so perfectly competent to discharge those duties efficiently, that he assembled his court at the fashionable hour of eleven or twelve o'clock, and concluded at an early hour, there being no more business to be done. Sir Colin Campbell says—

"I trust that these explanations I have given will satisfy your Lordships that the retention of Mr. Langslow any longer was impossible, and that I had no alternative but to suspend him from office."

Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman who just sat down was pleased to say that Lord Stanley dismissed this officer on grounds which were not sufficient to justify the dismissal of an exciseman. I appeal to the House, and to every man of common sense and understanding, whether Lord Stanley and Sir Colin Campbell did not bear with this judge till the period when it was impossible any longer to sustain him in his office, without throwing the whole colony into confusion; whilst the due course of justice had been impeded, interrupted, and interfered with to an extent which, I am sure, in no period of the history of this country would be endured. Why, Sir, I thought that in this country there was no subject to which the people were more alive than that justice should be expeditiously disposed of, and that the judgment-seat should be filled by a man, I will not say of mild, but at least of temperate conduct. But here we have a Judge who, originally when he was Attorney General at Malta, appears to have been influenced entirely by the personal quarrels of his son, and brought those family matters before the public; but afterwards when he was on a seat of justice in Ceylon, he actively interferes on an occasion where his son had got into some conflict with one of the officers of that island; and, when his son declined to prosecute, himself, the Judge of one court, in his own name, prosecutes in the other court. Sir, I think, so far as I can judge from the papers that I have looked over since I have been in the House to-night, that it does not require any great names to convince persons of common understanding that it was not possible that a more unfit man than this Mr. Langslow could hold the office of Judge; and that my Lord Stanley and Sir Colin Campbell were only consulting the best interests of the people of Ceylon, and only performing their duty in suspending him. And if I want confirmation of this opinion, it will be found that to the memorial to Her Majesty to revoke the sentence passed on Mr. Langslow, there was but one European signature attached, and that signature was the signature of the editor of the newspaper. Sir, I shall say "no" to this Address to the Crown.

stated in reply that he had not alluded to the advertisement of the sale of the law books (which was an indefensible act), because Mr. Langslow had been previously censured for publishing that advertisement, and because the Colonial Secretary had told him he should hear no more of it. That act, therefore, could not have anything to do with his dismissal, and should not have been brought up in justification of Lord Stanley. After the statement of the Colonial Under Secretary, he did not think he had any occasion to divide the House; but he trusted the party now in power would do what they could to atone for the gross injustice done to Mr. Langslow.

opposed the Bill, and contended that it would be productive of great hardship and inconvenience.

wished to state shortly to the House the position in which the Bill stood. The House was aware that the Bill of last Session contained a proviso, of which an interpretation was given by the law officers of the Crown. That interpretation was generally acted upon throughout the country; but the question had been referred to the Court of Queen's Bench, and was now awaiting the decision of the Judges. The Bill before the House was based upon quite a different interpretation of the law, and would, if passed, throw the whole subject into confusion.

supported the Bill, and complained that the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had first forced the Government business through the House, and then left the fag end of the night and a thin House to discuss a most important measure. It was absolutely necessary to have the law upon this subject settled, otherwise troops of paupers would be driven out of those parishes in which they had been long settled, to roam about the country in a state of starvation.