asked the following questions of the Secretary of the Admiralty, respecting the conveyance of the Indian mails:—"Whether, in accordance with the decided opinion expressed by the Committee of the House of Lords, any inquiry has been instituted into the cost of the execution of the former contracts for conveying the mails from England and Alexandria—into the manner in which the service has been performed—and into the profits resulting to the contractors? By whom such inquiry has been made? Whether the Government proposes, on the part of the public, to continue to pay the present heavy charge for such communication? Whether, in any future contracts, the Government propose to adopt the suggestion of the Committee of the House of Lords, that the public shall be secured, by adequate provisions in the contracts, a participation in the profits, when they shall exceed a certain percentage on the capital; access to the accounts; and a full knowledge of all the transactions of the several companies with which agreements may be entered into? Whether any department of the Government, and, if any, which, will be responsible to Parliament that the contracts about to be entered into shall be just and proper?"

replied, that with respect to the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Lords, he could not say that he concurred in all the proposals. With respect to the first question, he must observe that under these contracts the Ad- miralty had no power to institute such inquiries, except with the concurrence of the contractors themselves; but, by the present arrangement with one of the companies, an agent of the Admiralty would be admitted to inspect their books, and to ascertain whether the terms were fair. It was the intention of the Admiralty, to select, as the person to conduct such inquiry, the present Controller of the Steam Navy, Captain Ellice. With respect to the third question, the Admiralty conceived that by opening the contracts and giving notice that fresh tenders would be periodically required, they took the best precaution for reducing the charge of communication. With respect to the fourth question, he was instructed to state, that after full consideration the Government did not consider that it would be advisable to have a Government order. He believed that a more effectual check on any undue profit would be the opening of these contracts periodically and taking advantage of the lowest tender; and for the propriety of the contracts the Admiralty would be responsible.

asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whether he had any objection to lay on the table the official letter of the Mauritius Association addressed to him on Saturday last, giving a very different picture of the state of the colony from that with which the hon. Gentleman had favoured the House?

had not the least objection to lay a copy of that memorial on the table of the House; but he would now repeat, without the least qualification or alteration, the very answer he gave to the noble Lord on a former occasion. He wished to state that, considering the deep commercial pressure which was prevailing in that colony, the accounts last received, up to the 14th of February, were more favourable than could have been reasonably anticipated. He adhered to his former answer; and he was glad that the noble Lord gave him an opportunity of referring to the memorial in question, which, while attempting to contradict what he had stated to the House, only furnished additional reasons for crediting the correctness of his statement. The memorial stated that in February last the price of sugar was higher in the Mauritius than in the home market; and, admitting that to be an advantage to the planter, as no one could deny, it attempted to show that it only proved the distress of the colony; but of the mode in which that was done he would leave the House to judge when the document was produced. It also alluded to the financial state of the colony; but even after the great commercial pressure which had prevailed there, the financial state for the ensuing year was as favourable as it had been for the last.

inquired whether any advice had yet been received from Jamaica, giving an account of the state and prospects of that island?

was sorry to say that the Government had not yet received what was called the blue book, and had only general accounts from the island.

* rose to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be made into the state of our Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches, with a view of ascertaining whether they may not be rendered more conducive to the services of the Church and the spiritual instruction of the people."

His proposition was, that these establishments had been endowed for great national and religious objects; that they had been invested with large property and extensive patronage and preferment, for the purposes of education, charity, and religion; that for many ages they had answered those ends, but that now they did not. His proposition was, that wherever these venerable cathedral establishments were seen to raise their heads, there the Church was always found to be weakest, and there dissent would be found to be most active and most rife. This, though a strong statement, he was prepared to prove, not by any general averments, but by a detail of the different cathedral establishments of the country as they now existed. He was prepared to take the House from diocese to diocese, and to show from one end of the country to the other, that they in every instance, as now administered, tended to the weakening rather than the promotion of Christianity. In going, as he was prepared to do, into the circumstances of each cathedral, it was undoubtedly natural that he should begin with the most prominent among them—the cathedral of the arch-see of Canterbury. He wished to premise that

* From a corrected Report.

when he spoke of the state of things, he meant the state of things as remodelled by the law of 1840. It was true there were many abuses which must continue to exist for years to come, but which the lapse of lives in possession would gradually diminish; he therefore took his stand upon the manner in which the law had left the system in the places he was about to describe. In the see of Canterbury the Act of 1840 had reduced the number of stalls in the cathedral to six; its revenues were about 20,000l. per annum, of which 8,000l. was divided among the chapter—the dean taking two shares, and each of the canons one share. Now, besides the estates from which this revenue was derived, the dean and chapter were patrons by themselves or their nominees of about forty livings, and by law they might present themselves to these livings, each canon being permitted to hold one benefice in conjunction with his cathedral stall. At present most of the canons held several livings; but passing by those held in plurality, and selecting only the richest one held by each, he found that seven members of the chapter held among them seven benefices (to several of which they had been presented by other patrons) of the annual value of 9,200l.; so that under the law as remodelled, there being nothing to prevent their holding seven such livings, the dean and chapter of Canterbury may divide amongst them 17,000l. per annum, thus giving to each canon about 2,000l. per annum. In addition to the dean and chapter, there was a very large establishment kept up, consisting of a subdean, precentor, chancellor, sacrist, minor canons, treasurer, choristers, wood-ranger, and others. Now, such being the revenue and such the establishment, the question that would naturally be asked was, "What is all this establishment for? To what good does it tend? What advantage does the Church or the country derive from it? What are the duties performed, and what the services rendered to the cause of religion?" In answer, it was a melancholy acknowledgment to make, that these establishments, in their present condition, as now administered, as daily seen and felt, existed not to the strengthening, but to the extinction of religion. They brought discredit upon the service of the Church, created disrespect for her ministers—they weakened her congregations, and strengthened her enemies. The first error of the Act of 1840 was the assumption that the reduction of the number of stalls was the fulfilment of the duty of the Legislature; but other abuses and anomalies were permitted to continue, and, above all, the Act perpetuated swarms of pluralists and sinecurists. And having such establishments, he now came to inquire how the Church itself was served. In Canterbury, like other cathedral cities, there were two kinds of service—the cathedral service, of which the members of the chapter took charge, and the services in the city churches, most of which were under the patronage of either the dean and chapter or the archbishop, and served by clergymen nominated by them. Of the character of the services generally in cathedrals he should have occasion to speak presently, but he would first show the actual manner in which the people availed themselves of those services. One of the reasons which had been put forth in favour of maintaining so large a staff was the advantage which it would give of a daily service being performed with all solemnity. Now he had taken a return of the attendances on the service by the people on two out of five days in the last week, and he found that in Canterbury Cathedral, as in other places, the attendance at service of the officials was very nearly equal to that of the persons attending as members of the congregation. The average on these two days last week was as follows: in the morning there were twenty-one officials present, with a congregation of twenty-five, and in the afternoon twenty-two officials to a congregation of fifty-three. But Canterbury Cathedral in this respect was a very favourable instance, for very few of the other cathedrals in the country had these weekly services so well attended as was the case at Canterbury. He had endeavoured to get returns of the average attendance at the weekly services in all the other cathedrals, and he had obtained them in some nine or ten instances. At York last week he found the average attendance of officials was twenty-three, and of a congregation fifty. From Durham the return first received was so extraordinary that he had the numbers taken again for three consecutive days, instead of one day, and the following were the results:—On the first day, at morning service, officials thirty-two, congregation four; in the afternoon, officials thirty-three, congregation thirty-seven. On the second day, at morning service, officials thirty-three, congregation eleven; afternoon service, officials thirty-two, congregation twenty-five; and on the third day, at morning service, officials thirty-three, congregation six; and in the afternoon, officials thirty-two, congregation twenty-eight. So that in each of these three days the number of official persons present at the services was one-third more than the congregation. From Peterborough similar returns had been received by him. He found, in a succession of days, the attendance there of officials was twelve, congregation seven; at Wells, officials nineteen, congregation twenty-two; at Carlisle, officials seventeen, congregation nine; at Rochester, officials twenty-two, congregation fourteen. From Oxford he had received a return which was remarkable, because there it would be expected that many connected with the University would attend the service, independently of the inhabitants of that city. He, however, found that the average attendance was, of officials, fifteen; congregation, eighteen; while at Lincoln the average attendance was shown to be, of officials, twenty-four, congregation, eight. It must, therefore, be admitted that, so far from giving the public great advantage from week-day services, there was not in that respect much return made by these richly-endowed establishments, and it was evident that the inhabitants, instead of availing themselves of these services, actually shunned them, because it could not be doubted that a great part of these congregations consisted of visitors, attracted to the cathedral by the beauty and antiquity of the edifice, or of the families of the dignitaries residing. In Canterbury, and other places mentioned, comparing population and attendance, he found the following table as the result:—

PROPORTION OF CATHEDRAL WEEK-DAY ATTENDANCE TO POPULATION AND OFFICIALS.
Cities.	Population.	Average Attendance.	Proportion to Officials.
Canterbury	15,000	39	Not double of Officials.
York	30,000	50	2½of Officials.
Durham	13,000	18	One-half.
Peterborough	7,000	6	One-half.
Carlisle	20,000	8	One-half.
Wells	4,000	22	About the same.
Rochester	12,009	14	Two-thirds.
Oxford (exclusive of University)	23,000	18	About equal.
Lincoln	13,000	8	One-third.

So much, then, for the attendance upon the week-day services; and now he had to inquire how far this state of things was compensated for by the attendance upon the services on Sundays. It might very naturally be supposed that if there were any towns or districts in which the service on Sunday was more fully and adequately performed than in any other, it would be in those cities which had a numerous resident clergy who were not occupied by parochial duties, and who had no other clerical occupation to engage their attention. But experienced proved that cathedral cities showed directly the reverse to be the case; and it was a fact that in proportion as the chapter was rich, the churches were poor. To that invariable rule Canterbury did not form an exception. In the city of Canterbury there were fifteen parish churches, and would the House believe that the clergyman of only one of these was secured any provision by law? This was the parish of St. Martin's, in which 300l. per annum was secured to the incumbent out of the tithes on crops; but all the rest might be said to be supported by, and to exist upon, the voluntary system. He did not make this statement without having evidence to support it. He had with him a memorial addressed by the clergy of Canterbury to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, setting forth the facts, giving a statement of their incomes, and praying that, in order to enable them properly to perform their duties, the proceeds of one of the suppressed stalls might be divided among them. That memorial, reasonable as it seemed to him to be, was refused. The highest income of any of these clergymen was 140l. One of them, who had a parish with a population of 1,900, received 90l. a year; another, with a population of 2,500, received 112l. a year; and another, with a population of 1,600l. received the miserable pittance of 75l. a year. In all these fifteen parishes there were only four residences for the clergymen, and the income of the whole of the city clergy was only 1,100l. per annum, being less than the revenue received by one single member of the chapter. Such, then, being the provision for the clergy, let the House now look to the provision made for the congregations. He had procured a return of all the services performed in the churches of the city of Canterbury, as well as of those performed in the Dissenting chapels there on last Sunday. The number of persons attend- ing the Church services in the churches, including the cathedral, was, in the morning, 2,085; in the afternoon, 2,240; and in the evening, 1,440: making a total of 5,765. In the Dissenting chapels, on the same day, the attendances were as follows:—In the morning, 1,825; in the afternoon, 402; and in the evening, 2,670; so that the attendance on the Church services had been 5,762, while that in the Dissenting chapels was 4,899, being seven-eighths of the whole. In Canterbury there was church accommodation for about 8,000, while the accommodation in the Dissenting chapels was about 3,700. The largest attendance at any one service in the churches was 2,240, and in the Dissenting chapels 2,670. But there was another point which it was not unimportant to bear in mind in considering the question. It had been observed by Dr. Chalmers, "Educate the child if you wish to christianise the man." He (Mr. Horsman) found, that in Canterbury the attendance of Sunday scholars at the Church service was 647, while the attendance of Sunday scholars at the Dissenting chapels was 820, so that while the gross attendance on public worship was only one-seventh in favour of the Church, the attendance of Sunday scholars was one-fourth in favour of dissent. Strange as this might appear, it was quite intelligible when the melancholy evidence of the cause was examined into a little further. It would be thought, that in a city like Canterbury the services in the churches would be well and fully performed. He found, however, that out of the fifteen churches there was morning service on Sundays only in ten; in the afternoon there was service only in seven; and in the evening there was service only in five; so that there were one-third of all the churches shut up in the morning; more than one-half in the afternoon; and two-thirds were shut in the evening. On the other hand, in the nine Dissenting chapels there were twenty-two services—the same number as in the fifteen parish churches. Was there not in this fact some proof of the lethargy of the Established Church, and of the spur it gave to the activity of dissent? These were unpleasant facts for him to acknowledge, and some might think it dangerous to promulgate them, as use might be made of them by the enemies of the Establishment. He, however, thought the concealment of the truth was more pregnant with danger; and he felt it his duty to detail the truth. If such, then, was the state of things with respect to the parishes within the city, it could not be expected that the chapter would take much more care of the parishes under their control in the rural districts; and accordingly he found that in ten of these parishes nearest to the city there was scarcely one in which two services were performed on Sundays. In several there were services only on each alternate Sunday, and in several there were no schools but those belonging to the Dissenters. One of these, the poorest parish in the gift of the dean and chapter, had been visited from curiosity. It was situate in the immediate neighbourhood of Dover, and was held by the incumbent of Trinity Church in that town, who either came himself or sent his curate once a fortnight during the summer months to do duty. The service in those months was irregular—sometimes performed in the morning, sometimes in the afternoon; but in the winter months there was no service whatever. He had now done with the dean and chapter of Canterbury, except as to another matter connected with its charities, which he should not do his duty if he did not bring under the notice of the House. In the city of Canterbury there were certain hospitals, of which the members of the chapter were ex-officio patrons and managers. Two of these hospitals had been endowed by charitable individuals for decayed old men and women, who must be, as the foundation provided, poor, sick, impotent, and needy. One of the poor brethren was to be the prior of the establishment, and as such the manager of the property with which the hospital was endowed, and to which was attached an estate of about 200 acres. The House would presently see how the poor of Canterbury had been deprived of the benefits intended for them by the benevolent founders, by those whom he (Mr. Horsman) would not scruple to name, because in this House he ought not to shrink from stating all the circumstances. It appeared that the nomination of the poor brethren rested with one of the chapter—Archdeacon Croft—who, instead of nominating poor people who were residents of Canterbury, had named several of his own parishioners of Saltwood, and servants or dependants of his own. Another Gentleman, said to be one of the most wealthy in Canterbury—a gentleman who held the office of surveyor to the dean and chapter, with a salary of 500l., and who was also woodranger and seneschal, and as such managed the whole estates of the dean and chapter—had been appointed by Archdeacon Croft one of the poor brethren. This gentleman's name was Austin; and he not only had been nominated a poor brother, but also prior of the hospital. This was not all, for there were several other members of the Austin family quartered on the charity. Let the House remember that the hospital had been founded for decayed and poor old men and women, and yet they found upon it a family of some of the wealthiest people in the city. But this was not all. The prior had the management of the estate of the hospital, and how did Mr. Austin manage it? He (Mr. Horsman) was informed that he let it privately to his own son, whether at a real or nominal rent no one in Canterbury could discover; but the whole place felt scandalised by the transaction. One word more in reference to the gentleman, Archdeacon Croft. The Archdeacon was the son-in-law of a late Archbishop, and in respect of his emoluments, he was not a bad sample of the old system. His stall in the cathedral was worth 1,000l. per annum, his archdeaconry 500l., as Rector of Cliffe he received 1,300l., and as Rector of Saltwood, 784l., so that he was receiving altogether about 3,584l. per annum, and yet he had not hesitated thus to interfere with the due course of charity and benevolence. He (Mr. Horsman) had dwelt at some length on the case of Canterbury, which was a cathedral on the new foundation; and he would now ask the House to go with him to the cathedral of Lincoln, which was one of the old foundation. In 1831, when the Commissioners of Inquiry went down to Lincoln, the chapter consisted of a dean, sub-dean, chancellor, and precentor; they were, in fact, four in number. They divided 6,986l. a year between them, besides having the produce of separate estates and other preferments. The course taken by the Commissioners with respect to Lincoln cathedral was remarkable. In all other instances the Commissioners, without reference to income, made a reduction in the number of the stalls, and the proceeds of the reduced stalls were paid into a general fund for the general purposes of the Church. In Lincoln, however, they made no reduction; but they proposed, as the income was large, and the chapter small, for the sake of uniformity, to create another stall. By this arrangement, the chapter at Lincoln remained in the uncontrolled receipt and management of their estates. In 1831, however, they were called upon to make a return of their income; and they made a return, stating it was likely to be diminished in consequence of the decrease in the amount of fines paid on the renewal of leases, and also the declining value of the estates. Now, so far from any decrease in value in any respect, he (Mr. Horsman) believed if this inquiry was granted, it would be found there had been a great increase. The chapter, however, by their own account, receive about 1,200l. per annum each for the stalls, and, as a matter of course, they present themselves to the best livings in their patronage; so that, altogether, the income of each member of the chapter, under the new arrangements, would probably not be under 2,000l. per annum. This being the case, he must ask what were the benefits which Lincoln derived from this establishment, and what were the duties and services performed? The Commissioners in 1831 put several questions to the members of the chapter. They first asked the dean, "What are the duties attached to your office of dean?" The answer was very short. It was, "The duties attached to my office of dean are the usual duties of a cathedral dean." From that reply the House was not much the wiser. The next question was addressed to the sub-dean. "What are the duties attached to your office?" The sub-dean replied, "My duties are to act for the dean in his absence." So that the inquiry was not advanced much further in that quarter. The Commissioners then turned to the next member of the chapter, anxious to get something more satisfactory from him. They asked, "What are your duties as chancellor?" The response was, "The usual duties of a cathedral chancellor," From the fourth member of the chapter they got something more specific in the shape of a reply. The precentor, when asked the nature of his duties, stated, "My duties are to superintend the choir, and to preach once a year." Now, the superintendence of the choir by him was purely nominal—the choir was left to the management of the singing-master, and he believed that the precentor knew as little of music as of navigation, and no more interfered with the duties of the singing-master than he would with the cooking of the chapter dinner. His duty of preaching once a year was intelligible and specific, though it might be found somewhat an arduous duty. In fact, the whole duty of the dean was to reside eight months in the year in a house provided for him; the canons to reside three months each in every year, and to preach occasionally on Sundays, while in residence, but to take no part in the daily service of the cathedral. He (Mr. Horsman) had already stated that it had been proposed to make an addition to the chapter at Lincoln; and the manner in which this was received by the chapter was a singular contrast to what was done on the proposed diminution of the stalls at Canterbury. This was explained by an interesting volume collected through the instrumentality of the hon. Member below him (Sir R. H. Inglis). That volume contained the memorials which had been presented by the different deans and chapters to the Commissioners; and it appeared that the dean and chapter of Canterbury insisted that the number of twelve was only sufficient for the duties to be performed. In Lincoln, however, the chapter contended that four was too many, and that three would be sufficient, and that any addition to their number would imply a reflection, because it would insinuate they had not properly discharged their duties. They objected also to their dividends of the property being diminished by any addition to their numbers. But having shown the extent of the establishment on Lincoln Cathedral, and the provision made for the chapter, he would now inquire what provision had been made by them for the congregations; that was to say, what was the care which had been taken of the public, for whose spiritual instruction and advantage the establishment had been so richly endowed. First he would take them to the patronage of the chapter and the condition of their parishes. Previous to 1831, they had ninety-six livings now reduced to twenty-seven. Of these—

Eight are above	£250 per annum.
Six between	150 and 250.
Thirteen under	150.

Of the eight richest the first was till lately held by the son of the late dean, another by Mr. Pretyman, the chancellor and son of a former bishop, two others by a relation of Mr. Pretyman's, who holds two other preferments in the diocese, making four in all; another by a son of this pluralist, another by another son, and two by an old incumbent, who has no connexion with the chapter. These are the richer livings. But now let them look how the poorer ones are filled. It was needless to say the chapter do not present themselves to them—and they are indeed in a most melancholy state: of the whole twenty-seven livings only eleven have residences upon them; of the thirteen poorer ones only two have residences; of these thirteen, four are held by minor canons of the Cathedral, one of whom holds no less than three; a fifth by a former master of the Grammar School, a sixth by the present master; of the others, two are held by one individual, and two others in plurality, The result of the whole twenty-seven livings is as follows:—The twenty-seven are held by twenty-one incumbents, of whom twelve are non-resident, and nine have other duties to perform independent of the livings they hold from the chapter. To say that these livings are generally in a bad state, would be but to give a faint idea of their condition—to say that the parishes are ill served would be superfluous, after the facts which he had stated. A letter written to him by a Lincolnshire clergyman gave so faithful a picture of the state of things, that he might be permitted to read it to the House:—

"The churches and parishes where deans and chapters are the appropriators, are almost without exception through this county, in a most forlorn wretched condition, with a starving parson, a falling church, and, for want of schools, a people degraded both morally and intellectually. We have all groaned under the burden a long time, and I rarely meet any brother clergyman without some anxious desire being expressed of an alteration in the management and expenditure of Cathedral property—not that we by any means wish the chapters to be impoverished or done away with—but simply that they should be made to feel how wofully they are for the most part abusing the trust committed to them, and to restore a portion to the purposes for which the properties were first given and are much wanted."

Similar letters from other clergymen had reached him; and from one end of the county to the other, there was scarcely a clergyman who did not deplore the present system. But what was the state of the churches in the city of Lincoln itself? Formerly there were fifty-two churches, now reduced to thirteen, the patronage of which was divided among the members of the chapter. These could scarcely be called churches, for they were miserable, decayed, dilapidated buildings, such as could not be found in any district not under the control of a Cathedral chapter. Here, as in Canterbury, the churches were ill served and the incumbents ill paid. Those thirteen churches in Lincoln were held by ten incumbents, of whom six have other cle- rical duties independent of those of their parishes. The highest stipend was 150l., and there was one as low as 68l. per annum; but the income of the clergy of the whole of them was 1,444l. a year, or less than the income of one member of the chapter. With respect to the provision made for the congregations, he had a return of all the attendances at the Established Churches and all the Dissenting chapels in the city of Lincoln on the same Sunday. He found that of the thirteen churches nine only were opened for morning service, three for afternoon service, and seven for evening service, and in all of them only nineteen services were performed. There were present at the morning services, 1,013; at the afternoon, 175; and at the evening, 1,075—making a total of 2,263, out of a population of 13,000 inhabitants. On the same day the attendances at the Dissenting chapels were as follows:—in the morning, 2,565; and in the evening, 3,102; making a total of 5,667 in ten Dissenting chapels, which had twenty-one services. The greatest number attending the churches at any one service was 1,075; whilst the greatest number attending the chapels was 3,100, being three to one. He, therefore, asked again, could these things be heard without feelings of sorrow and shame, and would it be wise or just to permit such a state of things to continue to exist? He had no return of the attendance at the cathedral, but he had a document to which he must draw the particular attention of the House, because it gave a better insight into the services at the cathedral than could be gained from any statistical return. He held in his Land a document, certainly the most extraordinary ever issued to a religious and Christian public. He wished that the worst which could be said of the services at cathedrals was that they were indifferent or altogether harmless. But he would give the House a description of the attendants at the cathedral service of Lincoln, written by no less an authority than the dean himself, and addressed to the vergers, stall-keepers, and other officers of the cathedral, in these words:—

"TO THE VERGERS, STALL-KEEPERS, AND OTHER OFFICERS.

"Whereas complaints have been made to me from several respectable quarters, and I have likewise myself observed, that persons are placed in the stalls or most distinguished places of the cathedral, who do not come within the rule of our Church discipline, which supposes every one to be seated according to his 'rank, quality, and station;' whence arise the abuses of—1. A total disregard of the Rubrics, such persons often remaining in a sitting posture during the whole service, neither standing nor kneeling at the appointed periods; often, no doubt, from ignorance. 2. A system of talking, laughing, and jesting during the service, to the annoyance of their devouter neighbours; such attitudes, postures, and gestures, as would be unbecoming even in a private house. And whereas, on remonstrance to some of these persons, they have declared their determination to resist all attempts to reduce them to better order—I hereby require and enjoin you: 1. To exercise your best judgment and discretion, aided by whatever knowledge of the parties you may possess, to admit no person whatever to the stalls, who does not bear, or appear to you to bear, the character of a gentleman. No one can have the right to a stall except the dean and canons of the Church, and those whom they may expressly appoint to occupy it. The rest are by sufferance, for use, not abuse. 2. To remove from the stalls all persons who habitually sit during the service, in disregard of our injunction, or who (after having been once spoken to) persist in laughing and talking; calling in, if need be, the civil power of the constable to assist you in such removal, which is, however, to be effected with as little disturbance to the general congregation as each case and the degree of resistance attempted may admit of. 3. The same direction applies to the indecorous attitudes, postures, and gestures, also complained of, and which are sometimes such as actually to obstruct the canons who have need to pass those persons in their way to their official stalls. 4. What is said here applies in a less degree to the occupants of pews and benches. In doing this you will be performing only your duty, and amid whatever threats or actual opposition you will be borne painless. "CHARLES GODDARD, D.D.

"Sub-dean and Canon in residence. "Lincoln Cathedral, Sunday, Oct. 19, 1845"

Under the circumstances it was no doubt very proper on the part of the dean to issue such a document; but what a picture did it present of the services of our cathedrals? In the memorial to which he had already alluded, from the dean and chapter of Lincoln, they stated that their regular attendance upon the choral services of the Church secured to the public the full preservation of the most beautiful and striking solemnities of Christian worship, together with the most substantial comforts of daily prayer and thanksgiving. How did that contrast with the order he had just read? That was an order more fitted for those who infested a public-house or a playhouse than for the attenders of a Christian church. And it was that of which the public had so much right to complain. It was wrong and unjust to say that there was any want of sympathy with these establishments, or that on the part of the public there was any want of acknowledgment of what had been owing to them in times past, or was due to them in times present. Their ancient cathedrals and their purposes were appreciated and prized by them as Englishmen and as Christians. But for the abuses attached to them, there were few persons who would not feel for them all that veneration which could possibly be felt by the most devout attender on these public services—few who would not say, with one of their greatest admirers—

"Yet do these structures of our fathers' age Shame the weak efforts of art's latest stage. Say, whence the skill these darker times possess'd?

In those rude days men gave to God their best."

He had also returns of the Sunday attendance at the different cathedrals through the country, but did not think it necessary to go into them, or to detain the House much longer. But it would be a great mistake to suppose that the influence of the chapter was confined to the cathedral city; from their property in the neighbourhood, the parishes under their patronage, and the preferments to which they appointed, it was obvious the chapters must exercise very great influence, in every sense of the word, in the districts around. He had a return of seventy-five parishes within ten or twelve miles of Lincoln, almost every one of which had been personally visited, and regarding which he was furnished with the most minute details. He would give the House a mere summary of the result of this inquiry. In the whole seventy-five parishes there were only thirty resident incumbents and twelve resident curates; and there were thirty-four of them without a clergyman of any kind resident in their boundaries. In eight cases the officiating clergyman lived at Lincoln, either in consequence of connexion with the cathedral or some other cause. In twenty-two cases the minister who officiated on the Sundays lived in some more or less distant parish. Of the seventy-five livings forty-four were held in plurality, forty-five were held by non-resident ministers, forty-two were without any parsonage-house, and sixty had only one service in the day. Let it not be said that these cases of plurality and non-residence were provided for by Act of Parliament; for he had details to show that many of them were in violation of the Act; that in some cases appointments in plurality had taken place since the passing of the Act; that in others, licenses for non-residence had been granted; and that in other cases the diocesan might have compelled the building of parsonage-houses and residence, but had not done so. So much had this evil struck the Bishop of Lincoln himself that some time ago he had published a very admirable Charge on that subject, in which he said—

"I am determined to enforce the provisions of the Act. I am satisfied that no single cause has contributed more to the prevalence of dissent in this diocese, than the too frequent practice of having only one service on the Sunday. When the parishioners see that a resident clergyman, having the care of a single church, opens it only once on the Lord's-day, the impression naturally made on their minds is, that he is more desirous of consulting his own ease than of promoting their spiritual welfare, and that they should be disposed to turn to any teacher who professes to supply them with the spiritual food for which they hunger."

He was very sorry to find that experience did not show that direction to have been acted on; for it was impossible to conceive any district in a state of greater neglect than that immediately around the parishes he had referred to. He would not go minutely into the state of the clergy themselves. He could show their poverty, their privations, their sufferings; he could show cases that had occurred where it would not be too much to say that the clergy had died in a state of destitution bordering on starvation; he could show from the letters of gentlemen of the highest character resident in those districts, that there could not be a more harrowing tale than the sufferings of those clergy. Instead of that he preferred placing the matter in another point of view; he would show the labours they undertook, the exertions they made—the manner in which one portion of the clergy neglected their duty, while another performed more than their share. One of the latter class made recently the following statement:—

"The rector of a rich living in my neighbourhood (it was sixteen miles off) had taken his family to the water side. He sent his groom to me to know if I could take his duty at half-past ten next Sunday morning. I said no; I was engaged at that hour, but that I would take it at twelve."

There being no one else at hand twelve o'clock was fixed accordingly, and the distant parishioners of this rich rector, who came to church at the usual hour, found to their surprise that they would have to wait an hour and three-quarters before the service commenced. At half-past seven in the morning the clergyman who had been applied to left home on his pony to do duty at his own church, which was sixteen miles away. The service began at ten; he got through it as quickly as possible, gave a short sermon, and then galloped off to the church of the rich rector, where, by dint of hard riding, he arrived just in time to do duty there, at twenty minutes after twelve. Here he got through the service again as rapidly as possible, and then galloped away other fifteen miles across the country to do duty for another incumbent who was ill. The service there was at three; he went through the duty, and then galloped ten miles back, arriving late at his own parish church, where a small congregation was waiting anxious to know whether the parson was coming to give them a service or not. It was easy to suppose the state of fatigue in which this clergyman must have returned home late at night. This he did on eight successive Sundays in the dog-days. But he stated that he had even done harder work than that. He said—

"One day when Mr. M., who is very fond of shooting, had gone to the moors, in the month of August, and his neighbour, Mr. C., had gone to the lakes, in consequence of the death of his brother, one of these gentlemen sent to me to ask me to take his duty. I replied that it was impossible, 'Master, Sir (said his groom), who brought the message, will be very sorry to hear that, for he be sadly confused what to do.' I said, 'Well, then, tell him if he will send me one of his hunters to meet me at Lincoln, I will try to take the service for him at six in the evening.'"

It was agreed upon that the matter should be so arranged. On the Sunday the clergyman started on his pony and rode to his first parish, fifteen miles off, where the service was at half-past ten. He had two parishes of his own; the second was two miles from the first; but he managed to take the service there at one. The parish of Mr. C., for whom he had also to do duty, was not far off, and he managed to arrive there in time for the service at half-past three.

"Then," he continued, "I rode as hard as I could gallop to Lincoln, where I found a splendid mare waiting. I shut up my own pony in the stable, and galloped ten miles to Mr. M—'s parish, which I reached at six. This I continued to do for three Sundays in the month of August; and, to make matters worse, on one of those I was overtaken and drenched by an autumnal thunderstorm."

That was one case out of many, proving the hard labours to which these poor clergy were exposed. In the memorial to which he had already referred, the chapter expressed great alarm at any innovation, and referred to their past exertions in the cause of education and religious improvement, their superintendence of religious establishments, and their general influence on the state of the city; and they added—

"We fear there is moving abroad a mischievous disposition to magnify, at our expense, the pastoral office and ministerial duties of those who are invidiously called the working clergy."

This was indeed an invidious phrase, but can any one now doubt that it originated in the vicinity of cathedrals, and in such distinctions as he had just shown between those poor clergymen who did the work, and the rich who received large salaries and emoluments, paying pittances to those by whom the work was done. To show how little had been done in these districts, in the way boasted of, he might state, that, out of 4,500l. a year received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, from this diocese, only 490l. had been laid out in it, and that out of 386 poor livings, they had down to the close of last year only augmented seventeen. There were innumerable cases of destitution which had been very grievously neglected. Into these it was unnecessary to enter, or to go into the cases of other cathedrals; the two he had adduced were sufficient to establish the position with which he had set out. He could show in others the evils arising from the system of letting church property, whereby everything like improvement was put an end to. He could show cases of chapter libraries, containing rare and magnificent books, which anywhere else it would be a privilege to look into, but of which the last catalogue had been made in the last century. There were instances of persons wanting to visit these storehouses of knowledge, when none of the chapter knew who had the key, and where the lock was so rusty that the key would not turn and the door could not be opened; and in one case, the party who had charge of the library key had complained of the great annoyance that would be caused by clergymen constantly coming to consult books. These memorialists claimed to be the promoters of education; but he could show that they abused their trust as trustees of grammar schools, as much as they did in the chapter; he could show lands and estates made away with; he could show, by letters to clergymen from the chapter themselves, who had become careless by long impunity, proposals as to managing the affairs of their churches which were perfectly scandalous. But nothing that he could say could more reflect on this system than the regulation proposed by the Commissioners themselves, to restrict them in the bestowal of the chapter livings, compelling them to present some of their own body, and precluding them from bestowing any portion of their preferments on deserving clergymen in their neighbourhood. If there was one thing more than another which should have been encouraged, it was the seeking out of deserving clergymen for the bestowal of preferments; but instead of that, the Commissioners would have compelled the chapters to divide those preferments amongst themselves, and forbade their being bestowed on others. They were to be given in the first instance to the members of the chapter, then to the minor canons, then they might be given to the master of the grammar school; and if within six months they were not given to any of the three the patronage lapsed to the bishop. Such was the recommendation of the Commissioners of Inquiry in 1836. He had heard a reason assigned for this proposed regulation, which he would not now state; but if it were true, nothing could pronounce a stronger sentence of condemnation on the characters and proceedings of these parties. The hon. Gentleman then referred to two petitions which he had presented from Wokingham and Carlisle, and read part of their contents. In the Wokingham case the parishioners had proposed to raise a sum of 3,800l. to rebuild the church; but the plan was given up in consequence of the lessee of the Dean of Salisbury refusing to allow the chancel to be interfered with, for the repairs of which he was responsible. Here was a defect in the law which required amendment. The other petition, that of Carlisle, after citing the poverty in which parishes were left of which the chapters were patrons and appropriators, gave two instances of poor clergymen, one of whom died lately in a public hospital, and the daughters of the other were seen daily working in the fields. He had now stated all he thought necessary to bring before the House. The two chapters he had referred to were a fair sample of the rest. He would now ask the House whether it was possible or right to allow these things to continue? There were many exemplary individuals amongst the members of these chapters; he did not blame them, but the system and the law; and he wished to enforce a change in the law by appealing to the good sense and conscientious feelings of the Legislature. If these things were allowed to continue, in a very short period the evil must get ahead of us. There was not one of the cathedral cities in England in which the Dissenters did not show a greater proportion to the Establishment than in almost any other part of the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by submitting his Motion to the House.

said, that, in the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, he rose to state, in a few words, why he seconded the Motion. He hoped he had given sufficient proofs that he was attached to the Established Church of this country. He had always regarded that Church as the best means of disseminating the doctrines of pure religion; and he believed, notwithstanding the occasional abuses and deformities in that Church, that a great majority of the inhabitants of this country were sincerely attached to it, and most anxious that it should be, if possible, quite free from the defects to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred. He was most anxious for the extension of that Church; but he appealed to the House whether they could, in public or private, ask for additional funds to effect that enlargement so long as pluralities and sinecures were permitted to exist in it, and so long as the revenues of the Church were not made available to the utmost possible extent? Without committing himself to everything contained in the statement of his hon. and learned Friend, he, nevertheless. tendered his thanks to him for having brought the subject forward. His hon. and learned Friend, he knew, had undertaken a very invidious office in bringing for ward this Motion. It was one which would create him many enemies; but he believed that he had been actuated by the purest motives in introducing the subject to their notice. If one tithe of what the hon. and learned Member had stated was true, it would form in his opinion a complete case of inquiry. He knew enough of cathedral establishments to feel convinced that the inquiry proposed would be productive of the greatest possible benefit; and, therefore, though he could not adduce anything in addition to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had very great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

said, that on behalf of a great majority of that House, he, perhaps, ought to acknowledge the flattering views which the hon. and learned Gentleman had, in the outset of his speech, expressed of their attainments when he as- sumed that the history, origin, and progress of cathedral institutions must be known to every hon. Member. He (Sir R. Inglis) apprehended that there was hardly any subject with which Members of the House—and he would, if they pleased, include himself—would be found so imperfectly acquainted as the history of the institutions which formed the subject-matter of this Motion. All, however, that he at present asked of the House was, that they would enter upon this discussion, not so much with reference to the origin and progress of cathedral institutions—not so much with the view as to what, in their judgment, those institutions ought to be, but with the consideration of what their duties, under their present constitution, actually were; keeping in view that they were not to require of cathedral institutions that which they were not intended to render; but that they should merely consider whether the duties imposed on them were or were not properly discharged. The hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, though he had proposed a large inquiry, had limited the proofs in respect to the necessity of it to two or three cases. First, with respect to Canterbury, the metropolitican see, the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, as one proof of the defective state of the cathedral, the number of the official congregation who attended divine worship, and the number that formed the general congregation. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he believed, had stated that those who formed the official congregation amounted to twenty-three. Now he should have supposed that the gravamen of such a charge would have been, that whereas the cathedral body consisted of so many official members, probably not more than three or four were to be found attending divine service. If he had not had a return on this point in his hand, he should have been prepared, à priori, to expect that the number of official members attending the cathedral would have been much less than it really was, as stated even in the return quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, as well as in his own. In fact, the proportion was considerable. With respect to those who were not officially bound to attend, namely, those who formed the general congregation of a cathedral city, it must be borne in mind that the cathedral, with only one exception in England, was not a parish church. It must also be kept in view that the object of cathedral worship was not perhaps to gather together as large a proportion of the inhabitants of the city as the area of the building could contain, but to exhibit a model of that higher kind of worship which was the distinguishing characteristic of our own Protestant Reformed Episcopal Church—a service to which, he believed, the whole of Europe furnished not aparallel. From one extremity of Europe to the other, there was nothing, he apprehended, which presented what might be so perfect a model of pure Christian worship as the cathedral service of the Church of England, equally removed from superstition on the one hand, and from the want of decorum and the want of reverence on the other. He could not admit that the statistics quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman with reference to Canterbury represented fairly the average number of the congregation. If the object of this Motion had been merely to ascertain the statistics of the question, it would not, perhaps, have been worth his while to trouble the House. But, as it was right to desire accuracy in any matter when once introduced to the House, he felt jastified in observing that he had himself received a return on this point for the months of October and November, which he regarded as of equal value with the return referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. According to this return the number was—

On the 19th October	62
22nd	139
23rd	56
28th	150
1st November	165

As an individual, he could no more answer for the accuracy of this return than the hon. and learned Gentleman could for his; but at all events he believed that it was made bonâ fide. It showed, therefore—though relating to a different period—that implicit credence ought not to be given to the return brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman as a correct general description. However, there were more serious considerations involved in this Motion then the number of persons attending the cathedral service. Notwithstanding the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he could not help fearing that the tendency of the Motion was to disparage altogether the cathedral system; for what were the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the commencement of his speech? That cathedrals "tended to the decay of religion." He denied that allegation. He had also heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say, with reference to the cathedral of Canterbury, that it tended to the "extinction" of religion—a still stranger phrase, and one which reminded him of what had been said of the Church of England by an eminent preacher among the Dissenters, "that she had damned more souls than she had saved." How any man claiming to be possessed of Christian charity could utter such a phrase of a Church purified by the martyrs of the Reformation, and distinguished as the great barrier of Protestantism, he was at a loss to understand. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given utterance to a congenial sentiment; and when he talked of cathedrals tending to the decay of religion, and the cathedral of Canterbury tending to the extinction of religion, he (Sir R. Inglis) could not help reminding the House what had been said of the Church by one who did not belong to it; and protesting against both allegations as without any foundation in fact. The incomes of the individuals forming the chapter of Canterbury had been dwelt upon, and, though a minor point, he felt that he ought not to pass it over without some notice. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the aggregate incomes of the chapter amounted to 17,200l., and that the number had been reduced from twelve to six. He believed that on this point the hon. and learned Gentleman was more in error than he was on the other. At all events he was not accurate; since, whatever the the income might have been, or however divided before the late Church Reform Acts, he had not shown that this sum of 17,200l. was divided among the existing holders of stalls. He was happy, however, to notice, with respect to Canterbury, that the hon. and learned Gentleman—whatever inaccuracy might be in his statement with respect to the income of the chapter—had not charged the chapter with any violation of their statutes, or remissness in the performance of their duties. If, then, the law had not been violated, he asked the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown—reminding him of his own memorable words with respect to a reform in civil matters, "that the country could not afford a revolution every year"—whether he thought the Church of England a subject, year after year, for perpetual mutations? In 1833, the work of reform in the Church was commenced. Had there since then been any violation of duty with respect to any of those cathedral institu- tions to which their attention was now called? If it were said that ministers of our holy Church were to be found in the neighbourhood of these cathedrals much less richly endowed than the canons of Lincoln or Canterbury, he would remind them that it was not a fair mode of arguing to take the lay inhabitants of a particular district, and to say that here were 10,000 labourers, whose aggregate earnings did not amount to the income of the great lord of the district. So long as there were differences of rank and station in civil life, so long was there no necessary imperfection in differences of rank and gradation in the Church. He believed the two necessarily corresponded with each other, and that it was an advantage, and not a disadvantage, that there should be gradation and rank in both cases. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He had no wish that a pittance, such as that which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, should be thought sufficient for any minister of the Church. He had heard a high authority in that House express a wish that there should be no minister of the Church whose income should be less than 250l. a year. His own wish was that they should not pull down the great, but elevate the low. He no more grudged the higher incomes to the Church than he grudged the larger incomes to the aristocracy; but he should no more think of distributing the incomes of the aristocracy among the democracy, than he should think of taking the incomes of the hierarchy of England for the purpose of distributing them among the incumbents of the Church. He had never maintained that ecclesistical property rested on the same foundation, and was subjected to the same principles, as the private property of his fellow-subjects, but had uniformly maintained that the laws and principles which affected ecclesiastical property were the same as those which regulated any other corporation property whatever. If they had a right to take the property of the Bishop of London because it was too great, they had equally a right to take the property of the corporation of London, for the same reason. But he denied they had the right either in the one case or the other. When it was said that in the immediate neighbourhood of the great cathedral of Canterbury there were fifteen parishes, in every one of which, with the exception of that of St. Martin's, in the church of which St. Au- gustine first preached Christianity to this country, the income of the incumbents was very small, he would ask, how did that affect the conduct of the dean and chapter of Canterbury? Surely they were not bound to raise the incomes of those incumbents, because they were in the same locality. Still less could it be an argument in favour of the hon. and learned Member's proposition that the number of members of the Church of England in Canterbury was no more than 5,700, while that of the Dissenting congregations amounted to 4,500. For his own part he would wish to see every individual in the country a member of the Established Church; but the means of effecting that desirable object were not taking the property of the cathedral of Canterbury, or even of the Church of England itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth had directed the attention of the House to the situation of several other cathedral establishments—to Peterborough, Wells, Carlisle, Rochester, and Oxford. In the latter cathedral he had observed that the number of official persons daily attending divine service was fifteen, while the number of the congregation he had set down at a very small amount. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget altogether one important and extensive ingredient in the composition of the congregation of that Church. His account of the number daily attending there must have been taken during the vacation. In this respect it seemed to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been grossly misinformed. The congregation of Christ Church Cathedral, as he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had himself personally witnessed, was very numerous, having seen it often when not a space where a single human being could worship was unoccupied; and the congregation there was as attentive as in any parish church in England. With respect to numbers, therefore, so far as that particular case was concerned, he should say there had been great misapprehension, to say the least of it, on the part of those who furnished the details and information contained in the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. Before he quitted the case of Oxford, he could not resist that opportunity of contradicting allegations, which, though not brought forward on the present occasion, had been introduced in former discussions, accusing the dean and chapter of that cathedral of not discharging their duty with respect to the administration of their funds, in augmenting the incomes of small and poor benefices. Now, the fact was, that for a considerable number of years past the dean and chapter of Christ Church were paying no less than 3,000l. a year, and had contributed to the income and value of smaller benefices to the extent of 8,000l. The hon. and learned. Member had next gone to the case of Lincoln, and had stated that in the year 1831 the income of that cathedral amounted to 6,980l., which was divided amongst four individuals. Now he did not see why the income of that, or any other place or party, should be taken for the purposes of such an argument as the present, as at what it had been in 1831, and not what it was in 1848. He conceived that no man had a right to ask another to what his income amounted, unless he came forward with some claim for aid: but as the case had been alluded to, he might state, without any want of delicacy on that occasion, what the present real amount of the income of the dean of Lincoln was. When the present dean had been recommended to that office by his right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister of England, he believed—and every one would admit such a dignitary of the Church was fully entitled to such a sum—the annual income was 1,500l. Was that too high for such a position? Well, the dean received that sum the first year, but the next year he had only received 1,100l.; and now in the third year, it was not likely he would get more than 800l. So far he had endeavoured to dispel the illusion under which the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to labour with respect to the inordinate wealth of the dean and chapter of Lincoln. With respect to the comparison made between the income of cathedrals and of parishes in the same district, it might as well be said that the same was not equal to that of a wealthy Lord in the north of the county. He could not therefore understand the meaning of instituting comparisons between the value of the property of those localities in the neighbourhood of cathedrals, and that possessed by those institutions themselves (even supposing the value of both were accurately and properly represented), except for the purpose of raising a groundless clamour against the latter. At the close of his speech the hon. and learned Member had referred to the case of Carlisle. When he heard that particular place mentioned, he naturally looked round him to see whether the other hon. Member for Cocker- mouth (Mr. Aglionby) was in his place. He regretted that that hon. Member was not there, as he had an observation or two to make with reference to him, during the utterance of which he should wish that hon. and learned Gentleman to be present. That hon. and learned Gentleman took repeated opportunities of inciting the Secretary of State (Sir G. Grey) to bring in a Bill for the regulation of copyholds and copyhold rights. Now, such a measure would materially affect the interests of the property of Carlisle Cathedral. Whenever the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth pressed his favourite measure on that subject on the consideration of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the House, he was in the habit of referring to a petition from persons holding church leases, and who told their own story. Amongst some of the statements of that petition was one to the effect that the dean and chapter of Carlisle possessed property in one county to the amount of 20,000l. Now, what was the real state of the facts of this case? The property possessed by the cathedral in question in three of the neighbouring counties—namely, that of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland, amounted to the nominal annual value of 17,000l. But how much, he would ask, did the dean and chapter receive out of that? Only about 3,300l. And who got the difference? The hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) and other Gentlemen who held church leases; and they wished now to convert their beneficial leases into freehold estates. The lawyers of the north of England were very anxious indeed to denude the dean and chapter of Carlisle. There was another allegation in the petition to which he had already referred, with respect to the conduct of the dean and chapter of Carlisle. The two parishes, Wetheral and Warwick, were said to be worth 2,000l. a year; no doubt they were worth that amount to the lessees, but not to the dean and chapter. The income was but 2,400l. for seven years, which was only 350l. per annum. All these allegations, brought forward from, time to time without an answer, produced an influence which it was desirable to counteract. It was said that in that parish it would be very proper to have another curate appointed, and the dean and chapter were expected to appoint another. Now he considered it was not just, it was not fair, to ask the dean and chapter, in their character, as lay impropriators, exclusively to contribute to the foundation of another curacy. No doubt the statements of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the present Motion were founded upon information which he had received from sources on which he placed reliance, and which he believed; and in like manner he could assure the House and the hon. and learned Member, that the statements which he made in reply were also derived from sources which he believed to be authentic, and upon which he could implicitly rely. There was one fact which he had to add to the case of Lincoln, and that was, that the dean had to pay 200l. for the expenses of a house, and that would reduce his nominal yearly income from 800l. to 600l. With respect to the dean and chapter of the cathedral of Carlisle, the case stood thus: instead of having, as it had been alleged, 20,000l. a year in one county, they had nominally 17,000l. a year in three counties; but out of that they only received about 3,300l. He could not feel indifferent to the spiritual destitution prevailing to such a large extent amongst his fellow-subjects, nor to the means of extending religious and beneficial instruction. He naturally felt as great an anxiety now for promoting the moral instruction of the people, as he had felt some years ago when he first called the attention of that House to the general question of the expediency of church extension. All his inquiries and investigations into that subject proved to him that the amount of remedy required for the evil of the existing spiritual wants of the people of this country, could not be supplied by individual means. Neither could it be supplied by the plan of his right hon. Friend, who, when First Minister of the Crown, had introduced a measure empowering each locality or corporation to promote its church extension according to its own means. The amount which that plan was calculated to raise had been exhausted, and yet the extent of spiritual destitution was not lessened. He felt assured that the hon. and learned Member who brought forward the present Motion felt as deeply as any one could feel the amount of the spiritual destitution now prevailing, and would not be the last to concur in any plan for the more general diffusion of moral and spiritual instruction to those who were so destitute. His noble Friend at the head of the Government (Lord John Russell) had very properly described that question as one of a civil and political necessity as well as of a religious one; and that the safety and permanency of the civil institutions of a State mainly depended upon the religious education of the people. But with regard to the efforts for the extension of such an education, all the efforts which had been made under the recent plan had failed; all those which had been made by the Dissenters had likewise fallen short in overtaking the lamentable amount of spiritual and moral destitution which at present existed. A plan had been suggested years ago for meeting this destitution, by an altered distribution of ecclesiastical funds; and that means had been pursued as far as it could, but had still been found insufficient; so that he could not help hoping that this country, which promoted so many national objects at the public expense, irrespective of the intrinsic considerations of cost, would not neglect a matter like that to which he alluded, which was of an interest far more important than any other, even to the temporal and national well-being of the people, while it was unutterably more important to their higher concerns.

said, that the question which the hon. Baronet had told them he had—and which he himself admitted he had—often asked the Government, had nothing to do with the subject which his hon. and learned Friend had now brought before the House. The hon. Baronet had charged him with being the lord of the manor. That was true. He was lord of more than one manor, and yet he was the first to cry out against the tyrannical powers he held by virtue of those rights. The hon. Baronet had also charged him with being a holder of church leases, and with wishing to convert those leases into freehold property. That, also, was true; but it had nothing whatever to do with the question. The original payment was not traceable; and why should the dean and chapter of Carlisle levy a tax upon the labour and enterprise of the cultivator, and reap that which they had not sowed? He, however, thought that the dean and chapter might well say, "Heaven save us from our friends!" for the hon. Baronet had most unnecessarily introduced them into the debate, when, but for him, their conduct would never have been discussed. As it was, he thought it necessary to draw the attention of the House to a most important petition with reference to the property of the dean and chapter of Carlisle, present- ed on the 19th of April, 1848, by Mr. Horsman, from Penrith. Some of the facts stated in that petition he knew to be true; and he believed the whole of its statements were substantially correct. After describing the tenure of this property, the petitioners proceeded as follows:—

"That great as are the disadvantages of this species of tenure in a temporal point of view, there are other considerations of still higher importance as affecting the interests of religion, which render it most expedient that a general system of enfranchisement of church leaseholds should be immediately adopted. Your petitioners need only to submit to the consideration of your Honourable House the inadequate provision which is made for the spiritual wants of the parishes from which the revenues of the dean and chapter of Carlisle are derived, and the manner in which churches are served, to prove the absolute necessity for a thorough reform in the administration of the property of ecclesiastical corporations. That nearly the whole of these parishes are served by perpetual curates appointed by the dean and chapter, from whom the said curates receive small annual stipends, or other trifling endowments, seldom exceeding 20l., and in many instances of much smaller amount. That the said perpetual curacies could not have been served had they not from time to time been augmented by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, from which augmentations the income of perpetual curates principally arises; but that the annual incomes of very few, if any, of them amount to 150l., and in various instances do not amount to 100l."

This statement reminded him that the country owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Montrose for having effected a reform in the misapplication of Queen's Anne's Bounty. At the time the hon. Member's Bill was introduced for that purpose, 100,000l. a year had been paid for twelve years for the augmentation of livings, many of them perpetual curacies, such as those of the dean and chapter of Carlisle, out of Queen Anne's Bounty. [Mr. HUME: Out of the public funds.] Yes; Queen Anne's Bounty falling short, an annual vote was taken of 100,000l. for twelve years, and a portion of it was applied to the very parishes of Wetheral and Warwick, mentioned in this debate, and in the petition from which he was quoting. The petitioners continued:—

"That in some of these parishes there is no residence for the incumbent, and in others the parsonage houses are ruinous and insufficient, so as to deter clergymen from undertaking the cure, on account of the state of the building, and the risk of becoming chargable with heavy dilapidations."

He begged particular attention to the following facts:—

"That two of the largest and most populous parishes in the diocese of Carlisle, compris- ing the city and suburbs of Carlisle, and a great extent of country around, are held as perpetual curacies under the dean and chapter, to one of which the stipend paid by the dean and chapter is only five pounds or thereabouts, and of the other, the endowment from that body is only about twenty pounds."

The petitioners then detailed several distressing cases of the poverty of the clergymen in those perpetual curacies, one of whom died in a free hospital, and another was compelled to allow his two adult daughters to labour in the field for their subsistence. They then say—

"That the parishes of which the dean and chapter of Carlisle are impropriators, extend over a large portion of the county of Cumberland, and the estates and tithes belonging to these parishes are of great value, amounting to the sum of 20,000l. per annum or thereabouts, the whole of which property is granted out by the dean and chapter upon leases, which are periodically renewed upon payment of fines by the lessees. That the endowments paid by the dean and chapter, or their lessees, to their perpetual curates, do not, as your petitioners believe, amount in the whole to 300l. per annum; and, though the income of the dean and chapter has been considerably increased during the last fifty years by the inclosure of commons, commutation of tithes, exacting larger fines of renewals, and other causes, your petitioners are not aware that they have made any material augmentations to the numerous perpetual curacies held under them, although they are none of them adequate to the maintenance of a clergyman and his family. That the two parishes of Wetheral and Warwick, each possessing an ancient parish church, and the tithes and estates of which are worth about 2,000l. per annum, have been for a long time, beyond living memory (though, as your petitioners believe, illegally united on account of the churches being above a mile distant from each other), and are held by one perpetual curate, who until a few years ago performed divine service at the parish church of Warwick only once and at Wetheral only twice in three Sundays. That the stipend paid by the dean and chapter or their lessee to the curate does not exceed 50l. per annum, the remainder of his income being until lately derived from augmentations by the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, but recently increased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to 150l. per annum."

Now, he (Mr. Aglionby) wished it to be understood that he considered it a shame and a scandal to the possessors of ecclesiastical property, whether deans and chapters or laymen, that such things should be. These petitioners also state—

"That the dean and chapter of Carlisle consists of a dean and four canons; and during the last thirty years the four canonries have been filled by nine individuals, of whom seven have been the sons of archbishops or bishops."

No doubt, very proper persons; but it did create suspicion in the public mind when there was such a great degree of what he might call nepotism. The allegations of this petition ought to be inquired into; and the best friends of the Church, in his opinion, would offer no objection to such an inquiry. He would only quote another passage from the petition:—

"That your petitioners have no reason to suppose that the system of other ecclesiastical corporations in the kingdom, as regards the management of their property and the endowment of their perpetual curacies, differs materially from that of the dean and chapter of Carlisle."

He entirely concurred in this belief. Disclaiming any other motive than that of the general good, he prayed the House, most earnestly, to consent to a full and fair inquiry.

said, that there were certain persons in that House who made a practice of roaming about themselves, or of seeking for some impertinent commission, to ferret out grounds of complaint, and little they cared whether there were just grounds of complaint, so that they could get up a good primâ facie grievance. It seemed to him almost impossible—almost beneath a respectable Member of that House—to condescend even to notice, much less to reply to, the unfounded allegations made by such individuals respecting the acts of ecclesiastical bodies, and the conduct and character of the dignitaries of whom evil was spoken. He happened to be informed, as he was approaching the House, that the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) had indulged in remarks upon the cathedral clergy of Lincoln; but he defied that hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, to substantiate anything against the character or conduct of those clergymen. He had had the honour of long being connected with the city of Lincoln; he had long resided near that city; his personal knowledge of the clergy was considerable; and from that excellent man, the Bishop, down to the humblest and simplest curate, not one would be found who would object to any investigation of their conduct; and he felt perfectly satisfied that whenever such an investigation might take place, the charges of the hon. Member for Cockermouth would be found to be frivolous, vexatious, and unfounded. The hon. Member had spoken of the destitution of the Church, and he had even gone so far as to say that one clergyman had died of starvation; but what grounds had the hon. Member for insinuating that such occurrences took place in the county of Lincoln? He demanded from the hon. Member, who had been working like a mole under ground, from what quarter he obtained such a charge, or rather fabrication? He knew many most zealous and indefatigable clergymen connected with Lincoln Cathedral; and did the hon. Member mean to charge them with a dereliction of duty? He knew not of what religion the hon. Member was, if any. ["Order!"] He had a strong opinion on that point, and thought he was justified in maintaining it; but if he had said a word which was contrary to the rules of the House he withdrew it. But what right had the hon. Member to bring charges against the clergy of the city of Lincoln? Why should he select the cities of Lincoln, Carlisle, and Canterbury for his attacks? There could be no reason, unless it was that the hon. Member had found it difficult to obtain persons to go round the country upon this groping commission of his. He did not object to inquiry; but he would ask, was it likely to tend much to the promotion of religion to hold forth to the public such unfounded statements respecting the clergy? It would have been more Christianlike, more charitable, and more becoming a member of the Established Church, to stand forward in defence of the character and conduct of clergy of the Church, than to endeavour to degrade them in the eyes of the world. He regretted he had not heard the whole of the speech of the hon. Member; but he believed that the whole of the statements made by that Gentleman were entirely unfounded.

denied having made any charges against individuals, least of all any individual connected with the gallant Officer. He certainly found in the clergy list the name of the gallant Officer's brother as the incumbent of Washing-borough, in Lincolnshire; but he was evidently not one of the starving clergy, for the living was stated to be worth 1,500l. a year. He (Mr. Horsman) had made no charges against individuals; it was the system only that he had attacked.

agreed with the hon. Member who had introduced this Motion in what he had just said by way of explanation. He entertained the opinion that this was the question which would not be found to affect personal character, but one which bore mainly upon the state of the law. He was persuaded that that was the view taken by the hon, and learned Member who made this Motion; and he understood that it referred to impropriators who, holding large amounts of church property, left those who performed the spiritual duty without adequate means of subsistence. But the hon. Member must admit that the present position of the chapters was one of increased difficulty, and that they were not in the same position as when they had the entire possession and undisturbed administration of their estate. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners now came in for a part of the property; and while he was far from saying that the duty of providing for the performance of the services and administrations of the Church was thereby annulled, he did say that it had become a matter less clear than in former times, and that, therefore, they had much less a right to make personal charges, though it was doubtless incumbent upon the House to look into the state of the law, and to improve it, by making the responsibility clear, and thus secure the due fulfilment of an essential duty. The real question was, whether the state of the law was that in which it ought permanently to be? He did not think that this was a question which called for a formal inquiry? He did not know whether the hon. and learned Member intended to do more than to raise this discussion, and thus to elicit the opinions of the House; but while this was a subject which required the attention of the Government and the Legislature, the facts of the case were not of such a complicated and profound nature as to require a separate and specific inquiry. He thought, on the face of it, the law of 1840 was not a law which ought to remain without amendment. It broke up the old chapter system, and, by reducing the numbers of those connected with the cathedrals, detracted from that moral weight which, if they had not, they ought to possess; and which they would have if the appointments to canonries were properly made. But, besides breaking up the old system in this respect, it left a considerable number of canons, and bound them to a residence of three months out of the twelve. It was difficult to know precisely what was the meaning of the Bill. There was, first, the important purpose of not only the maintenance of those noble fabrics, but the maintenance of daily and perpetual worship of God in the beauty of decency. But he thought, that cathedral establishments had had even more important functions in the history of the Church. He wished to see our cathedral establishments placed in a condition to discharge those functions; he wished to see the clergy possess the influence they ought to have by virtue rather of their character than their wealth—by the discharge of their duty rather than by the possession of sounding titles, while their duties in many cases remained almost in abeyance. Much that related to the state of learning in the Church, and among the laity also, depended upon our cathedral establishments. Indeed, he regarded the promotion of learning as one of the highest functions of these institutions; and, though it could not be denied they had been ill-administered, they had done something for the maintenance of sound theological erudition amongst the clergy. But the Act of 1840, in that respect, was detrimental. It was difficult to see how a three months' residence of the canons could give any distinct direction towards the promotion of theological learning. If parochial purposes were held to be of more importance, then a three months' residence involved a serious interruption of parochial duties. He confessed he had a desire to see the canons of our cathedrals exercise a more specific and definite influence upon the learning and education both of the clergy and the laity. For that purpose certain of the canons should be permanent residents, and they ought to have no parochial duties imposed upon them, except, perhaps, some charge in the neighbourhood of their cathedrals, which could not involve any other motives than those of pure Christian charity. For other purposes, without the law of three months' residence, he thought the office of canon might be held by the clergymen of large parishes with great advantage—that increasing their weight in the chapter, and adding to their influence with their flock by their connection with the cathedral. In this respect, he thought the principle of dividing canonries, which had already been acted upon, might be beneficial, as large incomes ought not to be derived by parochial clergymen from this source; though small ones might be a desirable addition to the incomes of poor but large parishes. If parochial purposes were contemplated as an end, this plan would do more for parochial purposes than the Act of 1840; while, at the same time, they might do more for the promotion of theological learning and erudition by giving a distinct character of that nature to a section of the canons. He could not entertain any doubt that, when the pressure of public business would admit, Her Majesty's Government would direct their attention to this question. He trusted that no word he had spoken would convey the impression that he wished to divest our cathedrals of anything. So far from that was his desire, that if he had ventured to object to the law as it now stood, it was because he believed that more might be done to develop their usefulness. He did not wish to pare away their resources, or reduce their efficiency. On the contrary, he thought, by the attention of Parliament being drawn to the subject in due time, and by further inquiry, the machinery might be rendered far more useful, whether for the purposes of education, or the cure of souls, and would be far more conducive to the prosperity of the Church than their present condition.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and I think it will be the opinion of the House, that it would be right to make further inquiry, and to adopt further measures, with respect to the cathedral establishments of this country; and I should hardly have thought it necessary to do more than express my willingness to see further inquiry, and to consent to the adoption of further measures, were it not that I think, considering the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman stated his case, my opinion, might be misapprehended if I were merely to express my acquiescence in his proposal. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated several cases of alleged abuses; and though I cannot say whether he were right or wrong in his details, yet I have no doubt that some amendment might be made. But I own it appeared to me that he stated his case in such a manner as to show that he had come to the conclusion—the idea of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) deprecated in reference to himself—namely, that cathedral establishments were useless; indeed, worse than useless—that they tended to prevent the growth of religion, and to injure the community. In any course which I might pursue with regard to this question, my object would be to preserve and improve cathedral establishments, and to take care that they were devoted to legitimate purposes. Now, much as the hon. and learned Gentleman has studied this question, I do not think he has taken a right view of the changes which were made in 1840, and at other periods. He said, for example, that the chapters were obliged by law to give benefices in their patronage to themselves, and that he had heard a very discreditable motive assigned for the enactment of that provision. In point of fact there is no such provision. The provision on that subject is, that the chapter may nominate either a member of the chapter, the archdeacon of the diocese, a non-residentiary canon, any person who shall have filled the office of minor canon for five years, or any incumbent or curate in the diocese. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman can have studied with so much acccuracy as he might have done the reforms and alterations which are required. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had objected to the arrangement made in 1840; and in connection with this point I beg to call the attention of the House to the view which he has taken, and also to that which the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed. The patronage of the Crown was at that time very much diminished by the suppression of canonries. Those of Canterbury were reduced to six, and others to four; and a large sum, then supposed to be 130,000l. a year, but which has since proved to exceed that amount, was expected to be obtained by the suppression of canonries and dignities, and of sinecure rectories, and some other useless offices in the Church. I remember that the late Archbishop of Canterbury and the late Earl of Harrowby—persons whose opinions on a subject of this nature could not but be entitled to respect—took an earnest interest in that measure, in which I also bore a part; and important words were framed in which both the Archbishop and the Earl of Harrowby concurred. The words to which I refer were to the effect that the proceeds of lands and hereditaments available should be applied to the cure of souls in parishes where it was most required, and in such manner as should be deemed most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church, provided always that in making any appropriation due consideration should be paid to the wants and circumstances of the parishes out of which the tithes might arise, or had theretofore arisen. It appears to me that the Ecclesiastical Commission took the right view with regard to these funds. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to take a view which I cannot consider accurate, namely, that the first duty of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when they had obtained any funds, was to provide for the spi- ritual wants of those parishes which were nearest in geographical position to the deaneries and chapters which had been suppressed. Now, I own it does appear to me that, after paying due regard to the wants of the parishes from which the tithes arose, the large towns in the manufacturing districts had the first claim to consideration, and that it was by no means desirable that the Commissioners should consider merely the contiguity of parishes to the situation of the different cathedrals. Differing thus much from the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am quite ready to pay my tribute of acknowledgment to him for the great attention which he has paid to the subject, and the application which he has bestowed upon details; and I may further say, that I concur generally with him in the opinion that further inquiry may properly be made, and further measures adopted, in reference to the cathedral churches. I do not well understand how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) could carry into effect his plan of specially devoting certain canonries to the encouragement of learning. I do not know how anything could be done in that respect beyond choosing persons who have a character for learning; and even when such persons have been appointed to canonries, it does not at all follow that they will devote the remainder of their lives to theological studies. With regard to the revenues of deans and chapters, and to the mode in which they are collected, I think there is still a great deal to be done, both for the benefit of the Church, and for the security of those who hold under it. If the House concurs in the view which I have stated, it only remains that I should say that, although I think there is some inconvenience in agreeing to a Motion which proposes to pledge the Crown to a special inquiry on this subject, and on this subject only, yet I am quite ready to admit that the whole question requires further attention on the part of the Government. That special question which the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced on a former occasion—the question of the episcopal fund and the common fund—had engaged the attention of the Government, and they will continue to pay attention to that subject: and although I cannot hope that in the present Session any measure will be introduced by us either on this particular question, or upon the general one, yet I do think it most desirable that further mea- sures for the reform of abuses in the Church, and with a view of rendering cathedral churches more conducive to the service of the Church and the spiritual instruction of the people, ought to be adopted.

rejoiced at the conclusion of the noble Lord's Address. The property of the Church of England was, in fact, public property, having been given by the Parliament of a former day for the purpose of supporting religious institutions, which the country, at that time, approved. The Parliament having given property, had clearly the power also to take it away; and if the ample means appropriated to religious instruction were found to be improperly applied, it would become the duty of Parliament to correct the abuse. When Church property was seen to be running in particular families to the extent of thousands a year, while nothing was being done in return, some alteration must be made. The Dissenters were far outnumbering the Church, both in places of worship and in schools, and excelling it in everything which tended to raise the mass of the community; and it therefore behoved those who desired the improvement of the religious condition of the country, to see whether the Church funds were well applied. In his opinion they were not. Nowhere else, scarcely, was so much ignorance to be found as in the cathedral towns of this country, where ten or fifteen persons attended to perform divine service, while there were numbers of places without a church. In nine or ten of the cathedrals there was not even double service. A great deal had been said about the beneficial influence of these establishments as regarded learning; but he denied that such was the fact. He hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would persevere in his object.

said, that some hon. Gentlemen who had complained of the system of pluralities seemed to have forgotten that a statute had been passed, under the authority of the noble Lord opposite, which had placed the most important restrictions upon that system. The hon. Member for Montrose had referred to some Parliament which had given ecclesiastical property to cathedrals; and the hon. Gentleman had argued, that as Parliament had given this property, Parliament had a right to take it away. Now, he (Mr. Goulburn) should be very glad to be informed by the hon. Member to what Parliament he referred as having given this property to the Church. After what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and from the general feeling which seemed to exist on this subject in the House, he did not think it necessary to enter at any length into the question. If those abuses which were alleged to exist by the hon. Member for Cockermouth did exist, no one would concur more cordially than he should in their suppression and reformation. His desire was, not to support abuses in the Established Church, but to retain that Establishment with such amendments as might be necessary to increase its efficiency and stability. An hon. Gentleman opposite, who appeared to have forgotten some of the records of history, had said that no eminent man had ever risen from amongst the clergymen who held cathedral preferments; but every man who knew anything of the history of the Church must be aware that many of the most important works upon theology which had tended to the instruction of the community had been written by persons connected with those establishments. He thought the tendency of the argument of the hon. Member for Cockermouth was to induce the House to adopt the opinion that canonries and other preferments in connexion with cathedrals might be altogether abolished. The hon. Gentleman had dwelt very strongly upon the deficient income of the parochial clergy in cathedral cities, and he had attributed that deficiency to the existence of the cathedral establishments; but if the hon. Member looked to other large towns, where there were no cathedrals, he would find the same state of things, and he would find that the abolition of rural tithes had deprived many incumbents of a considerable portion of their incomes. If the clergymen in cathedral towns had been left unprovided with a proper remuneration for the duties they had to discharge, he considered that the fault was that of Parliament or of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and not of those to whom the blame was imputed by the hon. Member for Cockermouth. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had justly stated that, although the Ecclesiastical Commissioners did derive, and would in future derive, a very large income from cathedral property, it appeared to him most important that the funds should in the first instance be applied to relieve spiritual destitution in parishes where instruction was most imperatively required, rather than to parishes adjacent to the cathedral towns, merely on the ground that such parishes had a claim on the funds from their contiguity to those towns. Suppose, for instance, that a large canonry of Canterbury was abolished, and a question arose whether a superior endowment should be given to a parish containing 1,500 inhabitants, or whether the funds should be applied to affording religious instruction to a parish in Oldham, or Manchester, or Rochdale, with a population of 10,000 or 15,000 persons destitute of such instruction, he considered that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would act in accordance with the spirit of the law in giving aid to the more destitute district rather than to the other. He knew, however, that by pursuing such a course the Commissioners had incurred considerable obloquy, especially in the cathedral towns. He must also be allowed to say, that the hon. Member for Cockermouth had not stated correctly the provisions of the Act of Parliament which applied to these cases. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the dignitaries of Lincoln Cathedral derived very large incomes from the chapter property; that, instead of the number of canons being reduced, there had been an augmentation; and that their incomes were largely increasing, because they had stated their incomes at less than they really were, and the amount might be materially enhanced by the sum they would receive from future fines. Now, what were the provisions of the law? Lincoln was one of the cathedrals of the old foundation, and the dean and canons derived a large income from separate estates. The object of the Act was at once to deprive the dean and chapter of those separate estates, which were to be placed under the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the funds derived from them were to be applied to relieve the urgent wants of other districts. The corporate property, however, remained divisible among the different members of the chapter; and in order to make the canons of Lincoln equal in number to those of other cathedral cities, a fourth canon was added, who would receive a share of the corporate property; and two shares of that property, instead of one, were appropriated to the dean. But the hon. Gentleman had said, that the incomes of these canons might be raised to a much larger amount than was contemplated by the Legislature. If the hon. Gentleman referred to the 5th and 6th of Victoria, c. 108, he would find that if the incomes of the canons exceeded the specified amount, the surplus income went to the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners, and was to be distributed by them as part of the common fund to relieve the spiritual wants of the poorer classes of the population, There was one other point in the hon. Gentleman's speech to which he would refer, and of which he thought there was some reason to complain—he alluded to the hon. Member's statement with respect to Archdeacon Croft. He had not the least personal knowledge of that gentleman; but, he thought that, before the hon. Member for Cockermouth made his statement, it would have been only fair to have apprised some hon. Gentleman acquainted with Archdeacon Croft, of the nature of the grave charges he intended to bring against him, and thus to have afforded him an opportunity of making such a defence as he might think right. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had not pursued this course. If they were called upon to deal with abuses, let those abuses be stated, and they could then apply themselves to provide a remedy; but he never knew an instance where an attack made upon an individual, who had no power of making a defence in that House, had any other effect than that of damaging the cause it was intended to serve.

wished to explain that he had not asserted that there was no difference between the property of an individual and the property of a corporation, but that, in his opinion, there was no distinction between the property of a lay corporation and the property of the Church. He contended that they had no more right to take Church property from the Bishop of London, than to deprive the corporation of any of their property.

considered that there was this practical evil attending the present system of deans and chapters, that they checked the Government in the appointment to bishoprics of eminent and learned theologians, who might do good service to the Church. The most eminent men in this country might be prevented from being placed in prominent situations in the Church of England, in consequence of deans and chapters refusing to consent to their appointment. He might observe that, when the British Association for the Advancement of Science met at Oxford last year, so indifferent was the Dean of Christchurch to the progress of science, that he absented himself altogether; be provided no accommodation for the visitors; and the illustrious foreigners who attended the meeting were entertained at breakfast by the members of the Association, who subscribed 5s. each, the tutors having lent their room for the entertainment. He believed there were very few indeed among the deans who cared much about science. He considered that a thorough inquiry ought to be made into the subject to which the hon. Member for Cockermouth had called the attention of the House.

seeing the teeming population of those cathedral towns and the vast amount of uninstructed population in other parts of the country, thought it their duty to apply the funds of the Church in such a manner as would most promote the spiritual wants of that ignorant population. In one respect he differed from the hon. Member for the University of Oxford. He was not acquainted with the way in which the property belonging to these corporations was held, but he had no objection so to unite with him as to treat the property of these corporations as trust property for special purposes; and the trustees, he thought, had a right to see that the property was applied to the purposes for which it was originally intended. On the principle held by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, they were to consider whether the property was not to be held for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church; and if they had no right to apply it to other purposes, they were bound to return it to the Catholic Church, from which they had originally received it. He was of opinion that they had a right to appropriate it for the benefit of the Church; and he should have no hesitation in applying it for the promotion of the religious instruction of the people, in such a way as would be most likely to conduce to that object. He feared the House was sometimes apt to forget the miserable state of destitution in which vast numbers of their fellow-countrymen were placed. He thought they forgot the absolute necessity that existed in the present time of making the greatest exertions to remove this spiritual destitution. He was willing to go much further than his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, because he believed that the highest duty of the State was to see that the people were taught that religion which it was their glory to profess. He had heard with great regret that large sums were received by gentlemen who did nothing, in a spiritual point of view, in return; and he trusted that, ere long, the whole subject would undergo a strict investigation and revision.

thought that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had carried his notion of trusteeship much too far. The hon. Gentleman had gone not only the length of saying that the incomes of the Church were trust property, but he seemed to be of opinion that the State had the right to see the trust properly performed, and actually to say what that trust was. He thought that there was a great distinction between the two propositions. If he assented to the latter, he should be almost inclined to support the principle that they could do what they liked with such property. Now he had always found great difficulty in assenting to the first proposition; and that difficulty was in no wise removed by what the hon. Gentleman had said. Another extraordinary proposition was made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who found fault with the Dean of Christchurch for being deficient in what he considers his feeding qualities. The hon. Gentleman blamed him because he did not come up to his view of a scientific dean. Well, but he had gone further—he favoured the House with his definition of science; and what was it? Why, the giving a good breakfast to a great many hungry savans. If the dean happened to give a good breakfast, he was, in the hon. Gentleman's estimation, a scientific man. By the same course of reasoning he supposed that, if he had employed a French cook, and had given them a good dinner, he would be pious into the bargain. That was the hon. Member's notion of science and piety. After giving due consideration to the case made out by the hon. Member for Cockermouth, he must say that he was not convinced of the necessity or the justice of the Motion with which the hon. Member concluded. He did not see any great practical good that could result from this matter. He was sure that if the members of the Church did not perform their duty, the hon. Member would keep a sharp eye upon them, and would no doubt bring their delinquencies before the House.

The noble Lord had said, he might be led to suppose, from what he (Mr. Horsman) had said, that cathedral establishments were useless and even injurious to religion. What he had said, however, was, that these establishments, which had been endowed in former times with great possessions, and had it in their power to render great services, were, as now administered, hurtful to religion. Those words, "as now administered," the noble Lord had altogether omitted. Not a syllable had fallen from him about curtailing the incomes of these establishments, or in the slightest degree reflecting upon them as useless institutions. On the contrary, the more he admired and valued them for past times, the greater his regret at their present decay, and the greater his desire to restore them to high and holy uses. He had felt, and still continued to feel, that the more valuable those institutions might be made, the greater was the shame of allowing them to be abused and diverted from the good objects for which they were founded. He had not said a word about the salaries being too large, but he had said that duties ought to be allotted to them. The hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln had spoken of the authority on which he (Mr. Horsman) had made his statements. He could assure that hon. Member that he had not made any statement for which he was not prepared to state his authority. He had had communications from clergymen in the neighbourhood of Lincoln, and he had tested their representations, and, in short, he had never made any statement but upon the best authority. The noble Lord had not dealt quite fairly by him in saying that he misstated the law as to the restriction of the patronage of the bishops; and the noble Lord had read part of the Act of Parliament to prove that they might bestow their livings on any clergyman of a certain standing in the diocese. But he (Mr. Horsman) spoke of the recommendation of the Commissioners; and that recommendation which he (Mr. Horsman) read to the House did not contain the additional words which the noble Lord had read to the House, and which was inserted in the Bill while it was passing through Parliament. After replying to some other objections made by Mr. Goulburn and Lord John Russell, the hon. Member said, that after what had fallen from the noble Lord, namely, that without going the full length of issuing a Commission of Inquiry, he admitted the necessity for inquiry, and was ready to institute it, though not in the precise shape he proposed, if he correctly understood the noble Lord to give this pledge—believing that it was given in good faith and would be fully acted up to—he should not be justified in pressing for the inquiry in the shape he had proposed, and he would not trouble the House to divide on his Motion—Motion withdrawn.

Sir, I feel how difficult it is to transfer attention from subjects of that character which we have just been discussing, to those remote, distant, and abstract ones, which I venture to submit. I regret, Sir, that no one powerful by talents, authority, and experience, is found to appear before you on so great an occasion. It is not in presumption that I venture to approach this subject, but because there is no one else, and I shall therefore present my case in the simplest form and in the shortest space. Since my notice was placed upon the books, events have happened to render my task somewhat less difficult. An incident in the west of Europe has brought before the mind of every reflecting being in this country the insecurity connected with the conduct of our foreign relations; and so recently as yesterday, a manifestation of public feeling in Paris, in respect to Poland points to the real source of Europe's danger, and proves the impossibility even of internal repose throughout the States of Europe, so long as that great secular crime, the extinction of Poland, is not avenged and redressed. Two propositions are involved in the statement I shall have to make. The first, that we have neglected that portion of our public affairs which alone is left to the Government, and therefore to this House, to manage. The second, that in consequence of that neglect, another Power more astute than ourselves has acquired an ascendancy, which, if unchecked, will ultimately bring on Europe the fate which has befallen that chivalrous State, so long and idly designated Europe's bulwark. The resolution of which I had given notice was an abstract one; but I propose to give to it a more substantive form, and I shall therefore conclude with a Motion for Papers, which I suppose there will be no difficulty in granting. My reason for doing so is, that I shall be following the example, and reviving the attempt or rather resuming the Motion which was made in the year 1834 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil), then Member for Tipperary, who at that time sought to obtain the papers connected with the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, by which the power of Russia was so enormously advanced in the east of Europe, and her domination in the Euxine secured. I shall further ask for the papers connected with recent transactions between Denmark and Prussia, by which her ascendancy is about to be established over the Baltic. When the Motion of 1834, which I propose to renew, was made, this House contained Members alive to the danger which it seems I am now left alone to warn you against. There were such men as the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, who may perhaps by some process which I do not comprehend, be able to reconcile himself with the right hon. Member for Dungarvon, and whose genius, then embracing the world, had not confined itself to the exclusive culture of a vineyard at Chelsea—[Mr. SHEIL: Greenwich]—of a vineyard at Greenwich, or a farm on Tower Hill. There was Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Patrick Stewart, and Mr. Gally Knight, now no more; there were others no longer Members of this House, Mr. Attwood, Sir S. Canning, and I may add even Mr. Bulwer: there were other hon. Gentlemen then, as now, Members of this House, whose voices are no longer heard—the gallant Member for Westminster, the noble Member for Marylebone, who in this Parliament, by what fascination I know not, has not as yet opened his mouth on the subject of Poland. These and many more then weighed upon the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) whether in private by entreaty, or in public by argument and denunciation, striving to arrest him in his course, and to recover the country from the delusions which associated it with its own enemy and the enemy of Europe. These hon. Members have all disappeared, or have been charmed into silence in this House, or into co-operation with the noble Lord. And in bringing forward such a cause, my first feeling is that of humiliation for my country at its falling into such hands as mine. Yet ant I strengthened rather than dismayed by the apostacy of this day, compared with fourteen years ago. Their words are of record, not refuted but confirmed by the results, and the misfortunes which their efforts and warnings have failed to avert. Now, when I look around this assembly, I see but indifference, or contempt, or hostility; and I confess that it is an arduous task to meet at once the authority of open foes and the prejudice of misdirected opinion. I cannot hope for favour, and dare not ask, however I may require, indulgence; but I must claim at least justice—the justice of a moment of your attention. This matter is not an abstract one, it is most practical. A just conclusion of this House expressed upon any one foreign question, turns the current of our public policy; a single vote may recover this country from being the ally of Russia, and thereby the enemy of every other State, and of itself; and if I fail in obtaining such a result, at all events it is something that there should be one protesting voice raised from time to time against evil in its pride, and some words of warning dropped in its progress. Sir, little is required. If this House would be content to give to these subjects the attention which it gives to a railway enterprise; if it would be content to give the same attention to the affairs of the whole State, that it refuses not to the minutest private enterprise, no possible injury could accrue from any of those causes which we are at present considering. My judgment deliberately formed on a branch of the public interests, to which I have devoted my time and my undivided attention, is, that if a small amount of attention were given to foreign matters, there could thence accrue neither danger nor embarrassment, and that the world would present to England only fields from which to reap glory, prosperity, and security. I must beg first to call the attention of the House to a most important and alarming change recently made in the public affairs of nations, and therefore in their judgments. The habit I refer to, is that of governing foreign States. What, Sir, can be more monstrous—what ought to be more incomprehensible—than that a Minister sitting upon the bench opposite, is to be enabled to exercise in Spain or in Greece, Portugal, or Sicily, or Turkey, powers which he could not pretend to here in England where he is Minister—that he should in those countries decide upon who is—and who is not to be Minister—nay, who is and who is not to be Sovereign? Are you aware that when you have made a Minister in England, you have given a dictator to Spain or some other country? Are you aware that one of your Ministers here, under constitutional control, is, abroad, relieved from all such control, and can do with foreign States what he likes?—that he is protected by the perfect ignorance, not merely of this country, but of his very Colleagues; and that this despotism in foreign countries is exercised with no rule but his own will, and no measure but his own caprice? This is the extraordinary position into which you have brought Europe. Over it you have established an extra-national Government deciding by conclaves, or rather conspiracies, adjudicating by despatches, arbitrating by protocols, and deciding upon the fate of nations without their will, and without power upon our part granted to exercise such authority over ourselves or others. Here I signalise to you, and to this House—I signalise to this great country an extraordinary change, and a fatal habit. I warn you of its consequences—inextricable confusion in all affairs: that result is now before you on a gigantic scale—universal hatred against this country as the prop of this system, the most opposite to its wishes, feelings, laws, and interests. I further warn you that this extra-national mode of governing is dangerous to internal liberty, by rendering us indifferent to what is right and wrong—to what is just and unjust. It was remarked by Akenside, that "no people ever suffered in its liberties at home until it had lent itself to violate the liberties of others abroad." For such acts retribution must come. Nor are they less heinous because England of all countries is that which is the most indifferent to foreign matters, and knows, in fact, nothing about what she herself does. The noble Lord, in Opposition, denounced the heedlessness by which he at present profits: his reproach to England was, that she "learnt the acts which she had performed only by vague rumours which reached her from distant lands." Now, Sir, the origin of all this is no other than that association of the most unparalleled usurpation over the rights of nations, and blasphemous perversion of the language of Scripture, called the Holy Alliance. In order that the character of this conspiracy of despots which England once denounced, and now imitates may be appreciated, I will read you an article in this compact:—

"Austria, Russia, and Prussia confess that the Christian nation (nation!) of which they and their people form part, has, in truth, no other Sovereign than Him to whom alone belongs power, because in Him alone are found the treasures of love, knowledge, and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God our Divine Saviour, Jesus Christ, the Word of the Most High, the Word of Life."

These were the terms of the treaty under which the Three Sovereigns were to manage Europe—such the pretext put forward—at least equal to those now advanced by the noble Lord for interfering in the affairs of Spain. What was then the conduct of England? I beg to call the attention of the House to this point, because it is by contrasting it with what we now see that you will be able to discern whether I am right in asserting that England has been the foremost in doing those things which she herself was formerly the first to condemn and to repudiate. In a circular to the representatives of Great Britain abroad, Lord Castlereagh thus informed them of the views of the English Government in reference to the pretensions of its Allies:—

"The Government of Her Majesty does not believe that, according to existing treaties, the Allies have the right to assume any general powers of this kind; still less does it believe that they can assume such extraordinary powers in virtue of any new diplomatic transaction between the Allied Courts, assuming a supremacy incompatible with the rights of other States."

The English nation, in 1815, was under no reforming mania; its sympathies were the other way—the Administration was high Tory; the Foreign Minister supposed to be somewhat too prone to listen to the whispers of foreign Cabinets, and more disposed than befitted an English statesman to pay his court to foreign potentates. The Prince Regent was so strongly biassed in the same sense, that he attempted to induce his Ministry to make England a party to the Holy Alliance. But these dispositions in these times failed before the law and the constitution. England, while the Powers were holding their conferences at Aix-la-Chapelle, Carltsbad, Troppan, Layback, and Verona, kept (excepting at the last) aloof, and protested against the measures suggested at this last, as she did against the measures taken, or the pretensions declared, at the former ones. France, though similarly situated in a constitutional point of view, followed not her example. She surrendered her constitutional existence into the hands of the conclave, and hence the present difference of the two countries at this hour. We, preserving then our laws, have now preserved our Crown: France, giving up her liberties, has known, and can know, henceforth, no repose. The historian of French diplomacy, Mr. Bignon calls that act—the accession of France to the Alliance—" the destruction of the basis of representative government, Ministerial responsibility." He, versed in affairs, knew that when a Minister could arrange matters with a foreign State, he escaped from all responsibility at home, and he knew the consequences which must ensue from such a state of things in a constitutional country: that result is before us. Of England he thus speaks, contrasting her with France:—

"The regret expressed by the Prince Regent that he could not become a party to the Alliance, in consequence of the principles of the British Constitution, which are opposed to it, together with the discussions in Parliament, are honourable monuments both of the vigilance of Parliament, and of the Prince's respect for the law. The existence of a representative Government in France appeared to render the position of the French monarch the same as that of the Prince Regent of England."

And again, in reprobation of the declaration of Troppau, Bignon says:—

"It was necessary for the honour of the English Ministry to make their nation and Europe aware, that they had never recognised, as basis of the treaties in which they had taken part, maxims diametrically opposed to the fundamental laws of Great Britain."

Now, what was it in the Holy Alliance which was so repugnant to the feelings of this nation, and so incompatible with its constitution? Simply the taking maxims of Government as the occasion of interference in Foreign States. England and its Administration were not opposed to legitimacy in itself; the Tory maxims prevailed. Reform was repudiated in Parliament; a Reformer among the people was an object of aversion. England was anti-liberal, anti-revolutionary; her feelings were in favour of the principles professed by the Holy Alliance; but her sense of justice and honour were against the use of unhallowed and unlawful means to attain such an end. She was then Christian enough to observe the first rule of Christian morals; and, not being prepared to endure interference in her own affairs, she would not inflict it on others. Now, then, let us come to our recent practice. I will content myself with the declaration recently made in another place by the President of the Council. We are informed that "the object of the Quadruple Treaty was to promote constitutional principles." What, then, is the difference between you and the Holy Alliance? Where do you stand as compared with the England of 1815? You have gone right round, and you are unconscious of it. Has the law of England been changed? Either then you are violating the law in 1848, or you entirely mistook it in 1815. If you were then misinformed of the law, repudiate that error. If not, repudiate your acts. Let the Minister of the Crown come down and tell us, we were all wrong about the Holy Alliance. It is our right and duty to interfere in the Governments of the other States of Europe; the principle of intervention is sound and sacred, and therefore is it that England is foremost to set the example of enforcing it. If not, is it not our part to enforce against him those maxims which he once so vigorously proclaimed? But who prompted the Holy Alliance? Russia. Has she principles to advance? No; she has ends to attain—the principles were then the cloak; they were a pretext only—gain, at the expense of her dupes, was her object, and their principles afforded her the means of securing it. We are the soul of the counter-Alliance, or rather of the counterpart of the Alliance. Have we ends? No; we have principles: therefore our principles serve just as much as the opposing principles to secure her ends. Do you doubt that the Holy Alliance was her work? It is matter of history that that Treaty came from St. Petersburg, just as much as the Treaty signed at Unkiar Skelessi in 1833, and the Treaties signed in London, July 15th, 1840, and July 13th, 1841. Her two Allies, Prussia and Austria, first adhered to the Holy Alliance, then France two months later, the Duke de Richelieu, her creature, being Minister. Afterwards, in June, 1816, Holland, and in December of the same year, Switzerland—the historian I have already quoted says of the first that it acceded "at the instigation of the Russian Minister;" and of the second, "in consequence of repeated notes from the Russian Minister." All these States have had their reward. Russia, therefore, was the source of this first extra-national Government. Then comes an association in which you and she combined for the affairs of the East. You appeared to be the soul of it; but the Treaty of the 6th of July, 1826, came like the rest from St. Petersburgh. Then came the Quadruple Treaty for Spain in 1834; apparently directed against her. Thus was every field drawn within the vortex of these extra-national systems; and each spot of Europe furnished the occasion of action, and thereby a source of crime and disunion. These conclaves being thus formed by your aid, what was the character of the Government which you have admitted in common with yourselves to dictate in Europe? It is one wholly unlike you in opinions, character, and purposes. I shall endeavour to show you how little you can comprehend that Government. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) were a Frenchman; his neighbour (Mr. Sheil) a Greek; the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) a German; and the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) a Russian; would not England be truly alarming to France, Russia, and every other Power? If the leader of the people and the nobles of the land resigned the high distinction of power to confer them on strangers, renegades, traitors drawn from the four corners of the earth, with the sole condition of talent, and with the common character of unscrupulousness, banded to advance the objects of their adopted country at the expense of their own countries which they had betrayed—would not England justly excite the alarms of her neighbours, and the abhorrence of the human race? But also having assembled such an array of intellectual power, might she not, after a time, if not put down, overreach the penetration, and set to sleep the watchfulness of her compeers? How unlike to England is the picture I draw!—it is that of Russia. Such is the Power which at this present moment, alone with England, remains unshaken by the convulsions which have overthrown all the dynasties and the systems of Europe; and this then is the moment when, if ever such inquiry were requisite, it behoves us to consider the Government with which we have to deal, knowing that Europe now must be absolutely in her hands or in ours—in hers to secure it for herself, or in ours to rescue it from her. Before we can exaamine the acts of an antagonist, we must understand his character. Russia is pourtrayed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) opposite as a

—"Power which has gathered all the profligate nobility of Europe together, in order to compound a cabinet of Machiavelian mercenaries to maintain the cause of slavery throughout the world."

The whole passage is as follows:—

"There must be a strange inconsistency in publishing all the enormous answers to protocols respecting Belgium, where the transaction is as yet incomplete, and in refusing to furnish anything but materials for surmise on this treaty (Unkiar Skelessi). Ponderous folios of fruitless negotiations on the affairs of Belgium have been given to the world. Let the Government act upon the principle adopted in that case, and give the English people the means of forming a judgment of the policy which His Majesty's Ministers have adopted in a question where the national honour and interest are so deeply involved. It may be said, 'Trust in the Minister. Be sure that he will not desert his duty, or acquiesce in any measure incompatible with the honour of England.' I should be disposed to do so when I take into account that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was a political follower of Mr. Canning, who considered the interests and the honour of England as so closely blended; and although the noble Lord may have abandoned the opinions on domestic policy which were entertained by Mr. Canning, where he was in the wrong, it is to be presumed that he adheres with a closer tenacity to those opinions in foreign policy where Mr. Canning was in the right. But this ground of confidence in the noble Lord is modified, if not countervailed by the recollection, that in many recent transactions he has been baffled by that Power which has gathered all the profligate nobility of Europe together, in order to compound a cabinet of Machiavelian mercenaries to maintain the cause of slavery throughout the world. Look at Belgium—look at the Russian-Dutch loan. The noble Lord, although guided by the Prince of Benevento, has lost his way in the labyrinth which Russia has prepared for him and Poland. 'We shall,' he exclaimed, 'remonstrate.' He did remonstrate, and despatched Lord Durham to St. Petersburgh (why was not Sir Stratford Canning there?) and what has been the result?"

On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman was seconded by the present Ambassador at Madrid, Mr. Bulwer, who, following in the same strain, did not conceal his apprehensions, that the noble Lord was no match for the "diplomacy of the Russian Court." It is clear then, Sir, that the question of the component parts of the Cabinet of Russia is one of the deepest interest, and there is a host of high authorities for the supposition—in which I do not concur—that the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) is no match for that Cabinet. I may be permitted to quote in confirmation of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the words of one who struggled most to resist the advance of this barbarian into Europe, I mean Gustavius III. of Sweden. I hold in my hand a little work, entitled Danger to the Political Balance of Europe, which he thus illustrates:—

"A kingdom almost unknown in Europe during the last century, and gradually aggrandised at the expense of all her neighbours, whose civilisation contributed only to make conquests, has menaced for forty years the political balance of power; Sweden, Poland, Turkey, Prussia, and Germany, have experienced the effects of her enterprising spirit. All the Courts of Europe had experienced her insolence before that tragedy to which Catherine II. owed her elevation to the throne.

"Since that period, from the Caspian Sea to the Straits of Gibraltar, there is no country of which Russia has not disturbed the tranquillity, or alarmed the precaution: every year has produced new designs, which arose evidently from one general plan; and their execution has found no other obstacle than than that which has arisen from the revenues of that empire, which were often stretched so far as to need a temporary repose from the abuse of power, and the prodigality of Government; but her exhausted revenues have not created the security of other States, for the hand of power, tired with the exertions of open violence, prepared for them a war not less dangerous—a war of negotiations. Ceasing to be come the prey of the sword, they had still to encounter her artifices, her intrigues, and negotiations. Europe presented a theatre of divisions, of troubles, and disorders, of which the springs and machines were fabricated at St. Petersburg; at length, after having excited Power against Power, and interest against interest, in the neighbouring States, the Empress of Russia predominated alone in that vast anarchy, dictated laws through her ambassadors, and prevented all combinations of resistance.

"This portrait is engraved from a faithful representation of the last twenty years' history of the North and of the Levant—Europe has seen at one time, the Ottoman Porte menaced with an invasion, of which, Asia herself might apprehend the consequences: her tributaries corrupted, her allies bribed or intimidated, the Crimea enslaved. Sweden under the yoke of a faction, subservient to Russia, a faction discomfited without being altogether subdued, and reviving by the same protection which has plunged that kingdom into a universal decline. Poland equally punished from the defects of her constitution, devoured by Russian troops, enslaved, dismembered—treated in every light as a Russian province—Courland reduced to the lowest state. The councils of Denmark governed by the same influence. Prussia insulted in the midst of two vast empires, whose masked batteries could play on the first alarm upon the great protector of the Germanic liberties—the rest of Europe tranquil and indifferent, acting the part of a spectator, but not that of an arbiter."

Observe, that this is written for the purpose of awakening Poland, and Sweden, and Turkey, to a sense of their danger; and since then, what has happened? See if this danger, then visionary, has not now become real—see if events have falsified his words? He was a prophet, because he was treated as a visionary, and those who now announce to you similar consequences will find their words to be prophetic if you continue to deal with them as dreamers. He ends thus:—

"Such are the historical features of the present time of which all Europe is a witness. Her kings have viewed, perhaps, with too much indifference, the progress of this enterprising policy by which the laws of nations have been annulled, the faith of treaties has disappeared, and the abuse of power has countenanced usurpation. This vast empire, which for twenty years has spread terror, corruption, despotism, and war, embraces all varieties of climate, and comprehends every species of resource. Seas inaccessible to European fleets; deserts or enslaved countries are her frontiers; hitherto impressions upon her territory have been hastily deemed impracticable. While her adversaries remain upon the defensive, swarms of undisciplined savages emigrate from their habitations, and destroy extensive countries in a campaign. Prussia and Poland still bleed from those ravages, when troops which are mowed down without being subdued are animated by pillage, by fanaticism, or by the ambition of their sovereign, who in losing soldiers only loses slaves. Wo to those States which border upon this destructive Power!

"Peace must be purchased by sacrifices, or secured by preparations commensurate to the danger. Russia menaces at the same time Turkey, the North, and Germany: the reduction of the one, would accelerate the conquest of the others. Solitary resistance is vain against an empire which can produce soldiers like grains of sand, whose policy has no other principles than those of interest, and whose bold maxims correspond with that fortune which has so long favoured her projects."

Sir, the projects of Russia have been successful through the means which are here described; they are not less so now. But there is the difference between that time and this—that then monarchs strove, and statesmen denounced—that nations cared, and public opinion, now absorbed in the minutest matters, and distracted by the plainest, did then exercise itself upon the gravest and most important: on the other hand, the evil which was not arrested, is now accelerated by an accumulating load of triumphs, and by the diminution of the means of resistance that Europe can command. I cannot allow the testimony of Gustavus III. to pass without adding to it one not less weighty, and nearer to our time. Napoleon thus speaks:—

"When Paul was so violent against you (meaning England) he sent to me for a plan to invade India. I sent him one, with instructions in detail. (Here Napoleon showed me on a map the routes, and the different points whence the army was to have proceeded.) From a port in the Caspian Sea, he was to have marched on India. 'Russia,' continued he, 'must either fall, or aggrandize herself; and it is natural to suppose that the latter will take place. The Cossacks, Calmucks, and other barbarians who have accompanied the Russians into France, and other parts of Europe, having once acquired a taste for the luxuries of the south, will carry back to their deserts the remembrance of places where they had such fine women, fine living, and not only will not themselves be able to endure their own barbarous and sterile regions, but will communicate to their neighbours a desire to conquer these delicious countries. What I say to you, is confirmed by the history of all ages, during which it has been invariably observed, that whenever those barbarians had once got a taste of the south of Europe, they always returned to attempt new conquests and ravages, and have finally succeeded in making themselves masters of the country. It is natural to man to desire to better his condition; and those canaille when they contrast their own deserts with the fine provinces they have left, will always have an itching after the latter, well knowing also that no nation will retaliate or attempt to take their deserts from them. Those canaille' (continued he) 'possess all the requisites for conquest. They are brave, active, patient of bad living and fatigue, poor,and desirous of enriching themselves. I think, however, that all depends upon Poland. If Alexander succeeds in incorporating Poland with Russia, that is to say, in perfectly reconciling the Poles to the Russian Government, and not merely subduing the country, he has gained the greatest step towards subduing India.'"

Sir, I think it will not be questioned that I am stating no proposition in the air, but a simple fact, when I say that Russia is a Power dangerous to England, and dangerous to Europe. Then comes the question—"Have you been, as best you could, striving to prevent her interfering in the affairs of Europe?" You have not. You have been leading her on by the hand, and you have been committing yourselves such acts as deprive you of all power of remonstrance against her, and in such a manner as to throw other States for protection into her arms. This Sir, is my case. It is that of misconduct in face of an enemy —proved at the critical moment of a campaign. It is, that your leaders have mistaken that enemy's strength, position, and manœuvres, and have been betrayed into aiding his designs. This has happened, because you did not know that you had an enemy. You did not know that a struggle was going on, or that you had forces engaged, or a stake in the engagement. What I have advanced you may disregard, but you cannot gainsay: considering these points as established, I now proceed to the application. Sir, a convulsion in Europe has brought us back at once to the two great epochs of cotemporaneous history, that is to say, to 1815 and 1830. The Treaty of Vienna is swept away, together with the dynasty of France. Poland then recurs, at one and the same time, under the aspect she presented at the close of the war, and that which she presented after the Revolution of July. Here then is the occasion for us to secure what we attempted to secure by her constitution in 1815, and to reverse the catastrophe we deplored in 1830—or it will be the occasion for Russia to complete the triumphs of 1815 and 1830; and to make Poland the sword with which to smite Europe, as she must be, if not the buckler for her defence. If the Treaty of Vienna was requisite—if it was our duty by that treaty to obtain a barrier against Russia—if in 1830 we suffered in the sacrifice of that barrier, yet professed that it would revive—in what position are we to-day, when on the one hand the Treaty of Vienna and all its consequences are swept away, and on the other hand, on the occasion of a revolution in France, and in Europe, Poland remains black and alone uninflammable amid the conflagration? If England remains passive—I will not say if she gives as usual her hand to Russia; but if she merely remains inert—this great convulsion, the product of Russia's past secret labours, will be the commencement of the era of her visible intervention and direct control over the dissolved and disordered States of Christendom. But, Sir, we will not remain inert: we will be busy—not to thwart, but to aid her. I appeal to the past: what did we do on the last revolution in Poland? We aided Russia: we alone destroyed Poland. If the Government of England had to the best of its ability supported Poland, and thereby endeavoured to rescue this Government from blame, and Europe from danger, we might confide, or at least remain as heretofore indifferent. Had we remained ignorant of our Government's acts, there might even then be some excuse for heedlessness; but we have learnt the fearful truth which I have just declared, by discussions which have occurred in this House, and by the quotation of documents, the authenticity of which was not before established. I must beg the indulgence of the House, whilst I quote documentary evidence of what I assert, when the fortunes of Poland and Russia were poising—when one word on the part of England or France would have brought the fall not of Poland, but of Russia—the Austrian Government was ready to concert with England and France to save Poland. France was not disinclined. The answer of the English Cabinet was widely different. This statement is from Louis Blanc: he says in the Histoire de Dix Ans:—

"The Consul of Austria had not quitted Warsaw. He gave the Polish Government to understand that Austria was not disinclined to assist in the re-establishment of Polish nationality, and even to contribute thereto by the abandonment of Galicia, but upon two conditions: the first, that Poland would accept for King an Austrian Prince; the second, 'that this proposition should be made conjointly by France and England.' M. Walewski was despatched to sound the disposition of the Cabinet of the Tuileries and that of St. James's. He arrived at Paris in the beginning of March, that is to say, at the moment when the ministry of M. Lafitte gave place to that of M. Casimir Perier. The Palais Royal did not reject the overtures of Austria, but simply declared that 'it was ready to join England, if England would consent to the project.' M. Walewski then proceeded to London; but the answer of the British Cabinet was 'widely different from that of the French.' Lord Palmerston avowed 'without reserve,' that France and 'no other Power' was the object of the 'distrust and fears of England'—that 'His Britannic Majesty entertained most friendly relations, which he was in nowise inclined to disturb, with St. Petersburgh'—that he 'would not consent' to unite his efforts with those of the King of France 'in an object hostile or disagreeable to Russia.'"

I give this passage for what it is worth: it is there with the names of the parties, these being official persons, one of them the Minister of the French Government; the others, men sufficiently well known. Shortly afterwards, upon expectations being held out of some concert on the part of this country with France to support Poland, overtures appear to have been made by the French Government to the noble Lord opposite; and the following is an extract from his reply:—

"That an amicable intermediation on the Polish question would be declined by Russia—that the Powers had just declined a similar offer on the part of France—that the intervention of the two Courts, France and England, could only be by force in case of a refusal on the part of Russia—and that the amicable and satisfactory relations between the Cabinet of St. James and the Cabinet of St. Petersburgh, would not allow His Britannic Majesty to undertake such an interference. The time was not yet come to undertake such a plan with success against the will of a Sovereign whose rights were indisputable. But in the meantime His Britannic Majesty has instructed his Minister at St. Petersburgh to insist upon the national existence of Poland according to the Treaty of Vienna, and the maintenance of her national institutions."

Had it at that time been known in this House that the English Government was not desirous to maintain Poland—had it not been supposed that every effort would be made by the Government and the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department—had they not trusted in this belief, Poland would not have fallen? Would the noble Lord have dared to avow in this place in 1831, that the rights of the Emperor were just and indubitable? Many who hear me will recollect that "the noble Lord's morbid irritability was excited against Russia," and that his Colleagues could not keep him decently civil with the Russian Ambassador. If, in 1831, the English Government, professing the most direct hostility to Russia—professing the most ardent and zealous co-operation with France—did afford to Russia, for the purpose of completing and effectuating the subjugation of Poland, its secret support—if I say, that is the fact—and that it is the fact there can be no manner of question—is it not certain that whatever occasion is now presented for the British Minister either to crush Poland or any other State, and to aid Russia, will not be used as in 1830, and that he will prevent every chance of the recovery of that life in 1848, which he ex- tinguished in 1830? In Germany the first impulse was the restoration of Poland—the promise of the King of Prussia upon the barricades was the reconstruction of a Polish nationality: was it not in England's power to have directed this impulse to the accomplishment of the object? But, soon diverted from this object, the Germans have been set afloat upon a scheme of emancipation of their language and race, to lose thereby in the end their present institutions whatever these might be worth. How has this been effected? England bad guaranteed the duchies to Denmark: a word from England, either as pointing to the real danger and the mode of averting it, or as signifying the determination of England to prevent the piratical and absurd attempts on the duchies, must have stopped at once this sore. Here not a word is uttered, or only such words as to encourage Prussia, and to call forth the commendations of her Minister. Here our diplomacy in defiance of the most solemn treaties—in face of the most important interests compromised by the most violent act—is mute and motionless. It reserves its activity for Madrid: there, without occasion, and with everything in our hands, we can contrive an insult to throw that country into the arms of France. [Mr. COCKBURN: Question, question!] Are we not considering the conduct of the affairs of England abroad? and is a reference to a recent occurrence, in which England had offered an unmerited and ungenerous insult, and has been constrained to sit down under a bitter indignity—an indignity such as she or no nation ever endured before—not relevant to the question? Is a transaction which explains another not to the question, although the one happens in Poland, and the other in the Peninsula? The quarrel in Denmark is that which has carried the mind of Germany away from the restoration of Poland, which was the only safeguard for its own future independence; and it has in this House been admitted that the treaty of guarantee binds us to support Denmark in the possession of those duchies against any invasion; and we have upon one occasion exercised that power for the purpose of preventing an attack upon the part of Russia. On the present occasion we do nothing of the kind; and while in the same breath the noble Lord opposite, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, states in this House that it is desirable that England should know, and that the world should know, what England's engagements are, he says that no cases fœderis has arisen; he expresses himself in a way to encourage both the parties; he will first lead them on, and then open the way, as usual, to the intervention of Russia, as mediatrix—that is, as patron: supreme in the Baltic, she will have a handle for reaction in, or invasion, of Prussia. This diversion of the mind of Germany from that object to which it was directed—the restoration of Poland—has been chiefly owing to the Danish quarrel, which never could have arisen had that treaty been fulfilled by England. The inaction of the noble Lord is directed to the same end as his activity. We have received intelligence this day of a demonstration at Paris, in favour of Poland, which many may consider merely an extravagance of popular feeling, or a pretext of ambitious men, but which I, having long watched and duly appreciated the amount of attachment which exists throughout the whole of France to the Polish cause, am perfectly satisfied is real and sincere. The Governments of France have all fallen from the effects of foreign policy: they have fallen successively by the neglect of that which alone can give peace to Europe, namely, the salvation and restoration of Poland. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) has laboured, and with success, to overthrow the late dynasty in France. I had predicted what he has accomplished. Spain was the gulf which he had prepared for Louis Philippe, and into which he dragged him. The instant the deed was done, in exultation the words burst from his lips—"Pyreneos transiit." The words were not uttered by the noble Lord in this House, but they appeared in his organ. Having upset one system in France, will he spare the next? No. Already is his purpose laid bare in the correspondence with Spain which has recently been published. He will divert the French Government in like manner, from Poland, and tempt it into Spain by the irritation which he will have aroused in Spain against England. I repeat it from this spot. I warn the French Government, that if it does not labour for, and ensure the restoration of Poland, it will fall like its predecessors from the foreign embarrassments with which it is unwilling to cope, and the internal dissatisfaction which it wll be unable to subdue. England now stands in Europe alone, with Russia; supposing we had taken the course which our natural instinct would have suggested—which at all events the security of ourselves and of Europe required, namely, the restoration of Poland—what would have been the effect upon the new Government of France—what would have been the effect upon Germany? Would not France have been immediately bound to England to support in Poland, and elsewhere, her policy? Would not Germany have had its longings turned into a definite, and just, and useful purpose; and must not such a movement have impelled the Powers—sharers in the spoils of Poland—to disgorge those fragments? By the secret action of England in 1830, Poland was lost; she is so lost as to be unable now to seize a spark from the conflagration around her; but by the open action of England in 1848 she might have been restored. Poland is the link between England and France. If we suffer her to be destroyed, the possibility of any concert or friendship must utterly vanish. In this consists the difference in our policy in the East and in the West. Whatever dangers we may be menaced with in the East, the presence and the profits of Russia must always rally England and France, and make them conscious of their common interests by their common danger. Not so in the West. It is in Spain that the arena for the deadly feud will be opened; for there Russia, who has pushed them on, will not herself appear; and their jealousies, their rivalries, their ambition, and their hates will fasten on each other. When you have allowed Poland to be utterly trampled on and incorporated with Russia; when you have obtained that result from Poland's fall which Napoleon foresaw—danger to India, or its loss—you will also be prepared for that fatal and bootless struggle for which Spain presents the field. Poland is doubly the link and the safety of both; and the enemy of Europe has therefore the double purpose and the double means of diverting from the North your action, which would then be useful and conjoint, to the West, where it must inevitably become contest, collision, and destruction between yourselves. It is not in Poland alone, but in every other country, that the Foreign Minister declares England and Russia to be united. It was declared in 1836, by the British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, that the union of England and Russia, was to maintain the peace of the world. We have been united with Russia in respect to Greece. In respect to Turkey, the head of the Foreign De- partment had declared that there was no possibility of any suspicion attaching to the motives of the Czar. We were united in respect to Persia, and by that union we have brought Persia into dependance upon Russia. The Foreign Department of this country is conducted upon the basis that the interests of Russia and England are alike; that they are one; that their conduct is one; and that the peace of the world depends upon their union. Now, Sir, if this be true, what is the value of those authorities which I have quoted? I imagine that the authorities I have quoted are not to be contradicted or controverted. I imagine that the fact is before us, that the ends of Russia are undoubted. The Minister of this country, after ten years of apparently continuous efforts to oppose her, now turns round and declares that he is united with her, and that England and she are one. I say that if this is so, let it be publicly proclaimed; if this is to be the rule of our conduct, let it be adopted openly and formally. If England and Russia are one, of course, then, I have nothing to say: the Motion of which I have given notice is perfectly absurd; but if the interests of England and Russia are not one, then is that Motion of the last importance. Let not this House take its own heedlessness as the measure of danger. Danger can accrue only from neglect. We have no territorial frontier—we have triumphed in the last war; therefore are we without the distinct sense of nationality and the alarms of other nations; but I do beg hon. Members to consider whether or not the occupying a great station in the world does not impose corresponding duties? Can you hold dominions, east, west, north, and south, and yet be occupied constantly and exclusively in home concerns? I ask whether you can safely exclude every consideration, in whatever form it be introduced, which bears on matters beyond the limits of our own domestic concerns? I ask whether you can pass from one class of doctrine to another—from one course of conduct to another—without the sense of insecurity remaining attached to all your judgments? If you find that while the country is indifferent and heedless of anything that is done abroad, those who manage for you are excessively busy, surely the time has come for you, if a free people, or a wise one, to exercise your judgment and your rights. The object which I have had at present is to draw the attention of the House to the vast increase which recent events have given to the facilities for the destruction or for the salvation of Europe: that England the preserver, and Russia the destroyer, alone of the old Governments stand erect, and that these facilities Russia will employ for her ends if England does not use them for her own: that the one or the other result wholly consists in the reversing or the maintaining of that great European crime, the suppression of the existence of Poland, which has inoculated on the parties and the assenters the necessity of a continuous perpetration of fresh crimes for its defence or its excuse; and I afford to the House the opportunity of determining whether under these altered circumstances it is content to see the Cabinet and the Ministers of England—to use the words of the late British Envoy in Persia—continuing to be the instruments for accomplishing the prophecy of Napoleon, and for rendering Europe, after it has become republican, Cossack.

Sir, I, of course, am quite aware that it is, strictly speaking, in the power, as it is the right, of any Member to make, without any notice, any Motion he may think fit to submit to the House; but at the same time, for the convenience of discussion, certain rules have been established, and it is customary for Gentlemen who wish to bring forward a discussion, to attend to those rules and observe them—a departure from them being in fact alike inconvenient to the interests of the public, and to the transaction of the business of the House. Now, the hon. Member opposite is very fond of departing from that rule of the House which requires Members to announce, by previous notice, what is the Motion which they intend to submit to the House; and I may almost say, that whereas there is a saying attributed to a certain celebrated diplomatist, that language was given to man to conceal his thoughts—that in like manner notices are used by the hon. Member for Stafford for the purpose of concealing the Motions which he intends to found on them. The hon. Member places with great formality on the Notice Paper of the House, that he intends to call the attention of the House to the relations of this country with Russia, in reference to the events now occurring in the north of Europe; but instead of confining himself to the execution of that announcement, he springs on me with two addresses, of which he had given no notice; and at the conclusion of his speech, he states the reasons why he thinks the House should agree to his demand. The hon. Gentleman moves for the production of correspondence connected with the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, and for the correspondence now going on with regard to the efforts of this country to mediate between Denmark and the Germanic Confederation in the Schleswig-Holstein affair. And he says that it is essential that Parliament should be in possession of this correspondence, in order to see how it is that Russia is to combine with Austria and Prussia to prevent the re-establishment of the nationality of Poland. Now, I assure the House that the correspondence in question will throw no light upon that subject. The Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was a treaty between Russia and Turkey relative to the internal affairs of Turkey, and it lasted for eight years. Having been, however, thought objectionable by the Government of this country, as giving to Russia the power of interference in the internal concerns of Turkey, the treaty ceased to exist in 1841, and it was not renewed, as certain negotiations and treaties destined to replace it were then in progress. It is, in fact, a defunct transaction, and neither has nor can have anything to do with what may now take place with regard to Polish nationality. As regards the correspondence now going on with respect to the mediation in the Holstein and Schleswig affair, that can have no possible leaning upon the question alluded to by the hon. Baronet; and, beside, I should object to the production of any correspondence connected with a negotiation still pending, because it would be extremely prejudicial to the attainment of the object in view. The hon. Gentleman went into a great many topics, into which it is hardly necessary for me to follow him. The hon. Gentleman, for instance, expatiated at some length against the Treaty of the Holy Alliance; now I am the last man to stand up to contradict anything that may be said in disparagement of the Treaty of the Holy Alliance. All I presume to say is, that there is nothing in our policy which has any connexion with the principles of the Treaty of the Holy Alliance—which has any resemblance to those principles, or can be shown to be likely to produce any consequences similar to those which the Holy Alliance was intended to bring about. The hon. Gentleman is pleased to say that the Foreign Minister of this country exercises a power which the hon. Gentleman describes in very mysterious terms, but by which the Foreign Minister governs the destinies of every foreign country. Now, really, the hon. Gentleman does more credit to the influence of this country than I am afraid events would bear him out in ascribing to it. Sir, we have on occasions done our best to direct the course of events in the way which we thought most consistent with the honour and interest of this country and the general good of mankind. In some cases our efforts were attended with some success; in others we did not altogether accomplish all we wished. But I do not know what the cases of interference may be which the hon. Gentleman places upon a footing with the Treaty of the Holy Alliance. Perhaps he means the instance of Belgium—or the conferences held on the affairs of Belgium and Holland, as having most resemblance to what he deems to have been the purposes of the Treaty of the Holy Alliance? The Holy Alliance was a union of separate powers, intending to interfere authoritatively in the internal affairs of other countries, in order to prevent any progress being made in the adoption of the principles of the constitutional institutions of Europe. But what happened in the case of Belgium? The five Powers who united in the conferences were invited to take the parts they did by the Sovereign to whom Belgium by treaty belonged. Besides, that conference began under the Administration of the Duke of Wellington, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and the Earl of Aberdeen; and the first two protocols were signed, not by me, but by Lord Aberdeen. The invective of the hon. Gentleman, therefore, against the Treaty of the Holy Alliance, passes entirely over us. But the hon. Gentleman proceeded to say, that the whole policy of England had been directed for the purpose of promoting the objects of Russian policy. Now, I know that the hon. Gentleman has got a series of standing Motions upon that subject, which it would be in vain and useless for me to attempt to combat, with the view of attempting to alter the hon. Member's feelings and opinions. But all I say is, that our guiding rule is to promote and advance, as far as we can, the interests of the country to which we have the good fortune to belong, and which we have the honour to serve. We have no everlasting union with this or that country—no identification of policy with another. We have no natural enemies—no perpetual friends. When we find a Power pursuing that course of policy which we wish also to promote, that Power, for the time, becomes our ally; and when we find a country whose interests are at variance with our own, we are involved for a time with the Government of that country. We find no fault with other nations for pursuing their interests; and they ought not to find fault with us if, in pursuing our interests, our course may be different from theirs. The hon. Gentleman, however, attributes to me that, in 1830 or 1831, I stated that France was the great object of the jealousy and of the apprehension of England; and the hon. Gentleman quotes M. Ledru Rollin as the authority for my having said so. Now, I do not know what M. Ledru Rollin may have imagined I said; but if the hon. Gentleman will recollect the mutual confidence and co-operation in which England and France existed at that time, he will acknowledge that it is palpable that no Minister of England could have said that France was the great object of our jealousy. France and England were then co-operating for several great European purposes. The co-operation of France and England was successful in settling many questions then pending; and, so far from there then being a mutual jealousy between the countries, there never was a period at which the interests of the two countries were more identified, and their relations more calculated to inspire confidence in each other. The hon. Gentleman further said, that it was this alleged feeling of jealousy which England entertained towards France, although he also admitted that the feeling entertained by England towards Russia was a feeling rather of distrust than of confidence; that it was the then existing distrust of France which prevented England from taking steps for the restoration of the nationality of Poland. And the same Gentleman then complains of the English Government for having admitted that Russia had certain rights over the kingdom of Poland. Now we do not conceal—and we never have concealed—that the Treaty of Vienna did give certain rights to Russia over the kingdom of Poland. We thought that these rights and powers ought to be limited by the Treaty of Vienna; but we never imagined that we ought to pursue such a course as to attempt, by our single authority, to break down the arrangements of that treaty. Sir, as I said, there are many other topics in the speech of the hon. Gentleman; but, without going into these topics further, I can only say that I think it a bad precedent to give notice of one thing, and when the time comes to do another. On that ground alone, I shall object to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; at the same time, however, assuring the House that the production of the first-mentioned papers could throw no light upon the particular point on which the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring the action of the House to bear; while, with respect to the after-mentioned papers, I shall object to their production, because they refer to a subject upon which negotiations are now pending.

said, that he had seconded the Motion because he considered that the hon. Member had on a former occasion been unfairly treated by the counting out of the House; but after the speech which had been made by the noble Lord, he would advise the hon. Member not to press his Motion for these papers.

was surprised 'that the hon. Member for Montrose, after seconding the Motion, should advise the hon. Member for Stafford to withdraw it. He hoped the House would not negative the application of the hon. Member.

*I quite agree with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that it is better in general to observe closely the rules of the House; but I cannot help feeling surprised that my noble Friend should, on this occasion, have devoted so large a portion of the very short speech with which he has favoured the House, in opposition to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, to the discussion of an objection founded on a point of form. My noble Friend must know perfectly well that the object of the Motion is, in point of fact, merely to bring the subject under the attention of the House, and that whether the terms of the Motion were to call the attention of the House to the policy of Russia, or to require the production of certain papers having reference to that policy, must be a matter of indifference to the Mover and to every one else. And I think that my hon. Friend has done good service by bringing forward this Motion, for it appears to me highly advisable that the attention of the House should occasionally be called to matters of foreign policy; and

* From a pamphlet published by G. Detkens.

no one has ever done so more frequently, or more efficiently, than my noble Friend, when not seated on the Treasury benches.

said, that having been in Poland very recently, and having travelled all through it, he felt bound to say that the talk about the nationality of the Poles was utter trash. The great bulk of the population of Warsaw, Cracow, and the other large towns of Poland, were all Jews.

said, there were hon. Members who had been in Poland, as well as the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He must say, that he did not think it becoming to speak of Poland and the Poles as that hon. Member had just done. He believed that Poland, so long forgotten, was destined to reappear, and that the wrongs and long sufferings of the people of that unfortunate country would ere long be redressed by the public opinion of Europe, in which England would take the lead.

I adopt the suggestion made to me, but I regret the reasons on which it is founded. I withdraw the Motion, but I do not conceive that I have any reason to be satisfied with this debate. I am, Sir, anything but satisfied; I am deeply humiliated; I, at all events, have endeavoured to do my duty.