rose to move as an Amendment, that the House go into Committee upon that day three months. It was due, he said, both to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, to the shipping interest, and to the country, that an opportunity should be had for discussing this measure in all its bearings, for, though it affected one of the most important interests in the kingdom, there had been up to this moment no discussion upon it. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the measure gave general satisfaction to the mercantile and commercial body. His (Mr. Moffatt's) opinion was directly the reverse, for he believed that the measure was exceedingly prejudicial and exceedingly unpopular. The shipping interest complained that they had not been fairly dealt with by the Government, inasmuch as that when the navigation laws were passed there was a distinct understanding that all the diffi- culties which pressed upon the mercantile marine should be removed. The difficulties complained of were four in number, and nothing had been done to remove them. They were, 1st, the light-dues; 2nd, the pilotage; 3rd, manning the Navy; and, 4th, the registry of seamen. The first two of these formed a very heavy tax upon the shipping of the country; but, though measures had been promised calculated to relieve them of those burdens, nothing had in reality been done. The third ground of injustice of which the shipping interest complained was in regard to manning the Navy. They were compelled, whilst they had to compete with the whole world, to hire only a certain class of labourers, under the bitter knowledge that but for unjust legislation they might hire another class at a much cheaper rate. As an instance of the mode in which the Act worked in this respect, he would cite a case. Not long ago, a vessel sailed from London to Brazil, and then took freight from Brazil to Amsterdam. At Amsterdam the captain hired all the English sailors that were to be obtained, in order to navigate the vessel home. He was unable, however, to obtain a sufficient crew of English seamen, and was compelled to hire three foreigners. At the same time, he took the precaution to obtain the Consul's certificate that there were no more English sailors to be had. When he arrived at the port of London, the cargo was stopped, and, notwithstanding the Consul's certificate, the captain was fined 30 l. With regard to the registry, he believed that the system provided for by the Bill, would be found to be a greater annoyance and vexation than the present. Upon these four grounds the shipping interest complained that they had not been fairly and liberally, or even justly, dealt with by the Government. They admitted the desirableness of improving the theoretical knowledge of the masters and mates of vessels, but they doubted the efficacy of the machinery by which that was proposed to be accomplished, and they were of opinion that, before passing a compulsory measure, public schools of instruction in nautical science should be established, as in Prussia, Holland, France, and other countries, where a compulsory examination existed. He feared that this measure had been founded on very one-sided information. The Consuls spoke generally of the captains and mates of vessels, except in the case of a low class of coasters, in terms of high praise; and certainly their reports did not warrant such a bill of in- dictment as he looked upon the present measure to be. If the Bill were not founded upon the Consuls' reports, it must have been upon the reports of the Committees which sat in 1836 and 1843. The former of these was upon shipwrecks, which it attributed to ten distinct causes; and the latter, whilst it recognised the broad general objection which the mercantile interest of the country had to any provision for compulsory examination, nevertheless went on to report in favour of such examination; but at the same time recommended the public school system to which he had before referred. He greatly doubted whether the House would adopt a wise course in throwing all this additional business on the Board of Trade, which was already overwhelmed with work. The object of the Bill, next in importance to providing for the examination of masters and mates, appeared to be the destruction of the crimping system; but he confessed he could not discover any one clause in it that would be more effective in suppressing the crimping system than the provisions of the Act which was passed some years ago, called "the Seamen's Protection Act." The Bill, however, whilst it did not protect the sailor, threw out continually the greatest allegations of fraud against the shipowners. The practice of crimpage did not exist in more than four or five ports, yet the provisions of the Bill respecting it were inconveniently made applicable to the whole kingdom. The Government had omitted to give the House an estimate of the expense which would be incurred in carrying out the measure. Local boards, I with a staff of clerks, were to be appointed in every port, and the expense of the establishments was to be defrayed out of the profits of shipowners. As to the opinion of the shipowners themselves, it could not be doubted that it was hostile to the measure. The great body of the shipping interests of London, Belfast, Bristol, Hull, Dublin, Dundee, Montrose, Plymouth, North Shields, Scarborough, and other ports, had declared against the Bill. Looking, then, at all the circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration the fact that the Government intended to introduce next Session a new commercial code, into which the present measure was to be absorbed, he felt himself justified in moving the postponement of the measure.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

, as the representative of the borough which contained the greater portion of the largest port of the kingdom, could not give a silent vote. He admitted that a large portion of the shipowners of the port of London was opposed to the Bill, but he nevertheless doubted whether the measure was as universally unpopular as it was represented to be; and, whatever view the shipping interest might take of the provisions of the Bill, he, on his part, believed it would prove beneficial, not only to shipowners, but the country generally. The great port of Liverpool had declared in favour of the Bill. He (Sir W. Clay) had been many years connected with the first shipping interest in the world, and if he thought the Bill adverse to that interest, no inducement whatever could have persuaded him to vote in its favour; but, on the contrary, he believed that the measure was greatly calculated to benefit the shipping interest. The main question before the House was, whether the conduct of the officers of the British mercantile marine was such as befitted the character of the first commercial country in the world, and whether it was such that millions of property and hundreds of thousands of lives might be annually trusted with it. He would say at once, that it was a matter notorious that it was not, and that verdict his now somewhat great experience fully justified. He felt bound to defend the consular returns, against which such calumnies and ridicule were directed last Session, and the fitness and capability of those consuls to form a correct judgment. He admitted that the excellence of the common sailors, and that the characteristics of Englishmen, their intelligence, their perseverance, and their bravery, ought to have led to a contrary conception respecting the officers; but the low character of the officers of the commercial marine, arose from their having been for many years accustomed only to sail in convoy, under a man-of-war, the officers of which in reality directed the movements of the merchantmen, and thus very commonplace capabilities were sufficient to manage a vessel under such able direction. Indeed, when the war was hot, the vessels often lay in harbour so long that it was necessary, according to the standing joke of that period, occasionally to remove the vessels to prevent them grounding on the beef-bones they had thrown overboard. He defended the Bill strongly, not only as calculated to improve the efficiency of the masters and mates, but as being well calculated to protect the sailors from crimps.

said, the Government, by this Bill, legislated on a great subject in a very small way. This mode of legislating by patches made more confused a code which already required simplification. The alterations made in the measure had, he was aware, softened down the opposition to it, but he doubted whether it had improved the Bill. Why, for instance, was the coasting trade exempted from its operation? No one could say that its captains required less improvement, or that its sailors less needed protection than those of other trades. While he admitted that a compulsory examination would be of great service, and that the additional powers given to captains at sea for the purpose of preserving discipline would be a great advantage, he objected to the details of the Bill as vexatious and injurious to the shipowners. He was aware of a case in which a vessel at Hull was enabled on a recent occasion to fill up the places, in a quarter of an hour, of two sailors who were absent at the moment the vessel should have sailed, and thus a delay of twenty-four hours was avoided; whereas, if the Bill had been in operation, it would have been impossible to have complied with its requirements as to the mode of engaging sailors, and have saved that tide. The gentleman who had given him that information was Mr. Alderman Thompson, of Hull, a large shipowner of great experience, who was strongly opposed to all these unnecessary requirements. He (Mr. Clay) thought these might very well be dispensed with. In improving the captains, they would improve the men. No axiom was truer than that "a good captain made a good crew." His greatest objection, however, was that it was an interference between the employer and the employed. He would much rather support the Motion of which the noble Lord the Member for Colchester had given notice, than that of the hon. Member for Dartmouth, because the latter implied an entire disapproval of the principle of the measure; whereas, if it were referred to a Select Committee, all his (Mr. Clay's) objections would be removed. A Select Committee could also consider all those burdens which the Government and the House had en- gaged to consider, and towards the removal of which all that had been done was the introduction of a paltry Bill respecting light-dues.

said, that his opinion in respect to this Bill had undergone considerable modification, in consequence of the alterations which had been made in it; but it was yet in a state which induced him to believe it would be wise to refer it to a Select Committee, and accordingly he had given a notice to that effect. When the House repealed the navigation laws, it was generally admitted that the shipowners had claims to the consideration of Parliament. Those who sat on that side of the House said, the shipping interest had acted very unwisely in permitting the repeal of that code, without first insisting on the removal of the burdens under which they laboured. The House was, therefore, especially called upon, in any further legislation on the subject, to respect the feelings and wishes of the shipping interest. It was perfectly true that a great improvement had taken place in this Bill; but its details were so many and so various, and its connexion with other points and other burdens so intimate, that he still thought it would be better to refer it to a Select Committee. The Bill proposed to constitute in certain places local boards—was the House prepared to say what places should be so privileged? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade proposed that every port which had 30,000 tons of shipping should have that privilege. But why that precise amount of tonnage was fixed upon, and what ports would come under that limit, were questions upon which they were utterly ignorant, and would be much better discussed upstairs. Then, again, the system of examination was to be referred to these local boards; and why should the smaller ports, which were excluded from local management, have a severer examination than that which was to be instituted in the larger ports? It was proposed that every shipowner who possessed 500 tons of shipping should have a vote in the constitution of the local boards; but why 500 tons? With 30,000 tonnage for the ports, and 500 tonnage for the voters, the number of electors would, he believed, range in most ports from 50 to 70, and that seemed to him a very small constituency; and he very much doubted whether it would not be wiser to make the qualification lower. Could the House take upon itself to name the exact limit which would be best? He thought not; and these were all reasons why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He was sorry the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets took upon himself the defence of the consular returns. He (Lord J. Manners) frankly confessed that he could not put much reliance upon their authority; and the House must recollect that many of them stated that they were not the best qualified persons to give an opinion. Suppose the case were reversed—suppose the merchants of Liverpool sent out directions to all their captains to make returns as to their opinion of the character and conduct of the consuls. Could great questions of national importance be decided upon such returns? He thought not; and he, therefore, did not attach much importance to those consular returns. He ridiculed the beef-bone theory of the hon. Baronet. It was preposterous to think that, after a thirty years' peace, the character of our British merchantmen must be referred to what had occurred at such a distance of time, when, according to the hon. Member's statement, the masters of merchantmen all sailed under the directions of the captains of the Royal Navy. He (Lord J. Manners) did not think that the masters of merchantmen, forty years ago, deserved the character given them by the hon. Baronet; but if they did, they had been long enough out of those leading strings to acquire sufficient knowledge and skill for themselves. He admitted that the Shipowners' Association of Liverpool had declared in favour of the Bill since it had been altered; but, at the same time, it declared that recent legislation had rendered great changes necessary in the maritime code of this country. It was therefore another reason for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, that those changes could be discussed in conjunction with this Bill, and the best mode considered of removing the numerous burdens which now pressed upon the merchant service. He also reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Liverpool Shipowners' Association had expressed a very strong opinion against the law as it now stood, which related to the supply of seamen to the Royal Navy out of our merchant vessels to the extent of two-thirds of their men. If the Bill were referred, as he wished it should be, to a Select Committee, it would be well to refer to them also the consideration of the burdens which now pressed on the shipping interest.

was far from complaining of the hon. Member for Dartmouth for raising a discussion on the principle of the Bill. But, having on two occasions stated the reasons why he had brought forward the measure, he hoped the House would excuse him from entering at any great length into the subject, especially as he was anxious that the House should go into Committee to-day. This measure was said to be unpopular with the shipping interest. That he directly and explicitly denied, after having held the most ample communication with that interest. All the great ports—Liver-pool, Glasgow, and Bristol—had expressly stated their almost unanimous concurrence in the Bill, and he might name others. Public opinion in London was more divided; but, as one who had had to deal with the shipping interest, and knew how they disliked change, he would admit that a Bill must have considerable merit of which it could be said that it had the very general concurrence of that interest in regard not only to its principle but its details. He had named communities. Individuals he might name without number; but he should name only two: the first, the greatest shipowner in the world, who possessed above 36,000 tons of shipping, managed in the most admirable manner, whose ships were a credit to this country in every part of the world; he meant Mr. Gilmour, of Glasgow, a gentleman of great intelligence. He had received the assistance of that gentleman, who at first had objections to the Bill; and Mr. Gilmour, after making various suggestions, became a supporter of it. The other name he should mention was that of a London shipowner of great benevolence; he meant Mr. Green. Those who knew the "Sailors' Home," the excellent schools that gentleman had instituted—the Christian care he took of the sailors, would be of opinion that a high authority was quoted when Mr. Green was stated to be a supporter of the Bill, not ouly in its general principle, but in many of its details. If there were any shipowners who had a right to say, "Don't interfere with us—we manage admirably," these two gentlemen had it; but it was their own experience which had led them to support a measure calculated to benefit sailors generally. So much for the alleged popularity of the measure; if the House waited for a Bill that should obtain universal assent, they might wait till doomsday. He entreated the House not to raise a discussion on light-dues, manning the Navy, and other irrelevant points; but he might remark, that the measure relating to light-dues, which had been called a paltry measure, consisted in a reduction by the Board of Trade, in conjunction with the Trinity House, of one-half of the light-dues—a reduction for which persons connected with the coasting trade were extremely grateful. Admitting that the principle of this Bill was, in a certain sense, one of interference, he begged the House to consider what was the object of that interference, and whether it was not likely to benefit the shipping interest. The Bill had three great objects. The first, which had met the general concurrence of the House, was to require that every man who undertook the responsibility of superintending a ship should prove before a competent tribunal that he was not grossly and palpably deficient in the necessary qualifications; and, what was of still greater consequence, to give power to deprive him of the certificate he might have obtained on proved delinquency in having lost a ship, or misconducted himself in command. That was an important check and control, though it was to be hoped it would not often be necessary to call it into play. He had never brought any general charge against merchant captains and mates. He knew many excellent and accomplished men engaged in that capacity. But it was notorious, without reference to consular returns, or evidence in blue books, that in many trades men were put into the command of vessels who were grossly unfit. He held in his hand a letter from a captain in the Royal Navy, serving on the coast of Africa, who thus described a mutiny which occurred in a merchant vessel on that coast:—

"When commanding Her Majesty's ship Fair Rosamond, among the numerous instances of dispute and mutiny I was called on to settle in that ill-conducted African trade, was one in which the master and chief mate having quarrelled, the former suspended the latter from duty, and there in all probability it would have ended, but that the crew most naturally took part with the mate, he being a seaman, while the master scarcely knew the stem from the stern. On mustering the crew and investigating the case, I became possessed of facts that surprised me. The ship was—I do not mention the name of the ship—of 600 tons burden. The master had not been bred to the sea, but, having served behind some chymist's counter, had sailed one voyage in a ship belonging to the same owners in the double capacity of surgeon and supercargo, and was this trip sent in command of the 600 ton ship, a good seaman being selected as his nurse, and appointed first-mate. Who could be surprised at a mutiny? Seamen will submit to treatment amounting to tyranny from a seaman, because they look with respect on such when in authority over them, as they equally and very properly despise all who, not being such, usurp the position."

It was to cheek abuses, of which this was not a solitary instance, that the Bill had been brought in for a compulsory examination of masters and mates. In the East India marine, a compulsory examination was insisted on, and had exercised a great influence on the character and condition of that service. The worthy Alderman opposite, the Member for Westmoreland, a high authority on the subject, had some years ago brought in a Bill for the same purpose; and to this extent there was no great difference of opinion on the present measure. Another point, on which there was more diversity of sentiment, related to the expediency of recognising shipping officers who should exercise certain powers in regard to the shipping of sailors. On careful consideration he was led to recommend that arrangement, as saving the sailor from crimps and those who preyed on him, and also as benefiting the shipowner, because it tended to the despatch of his business. It was a mistake to suppose there was no intermediary party at present between the sailor and his employer. The rate of payment now made to the shipping agent was much higher than that proposed by the Bill. The maximum rate for a licensed agent was, under the Bill, to be 2 s. In the United States the legal regular sum paid to an agent for shipping a sailor was one dollar. An arrangement, similar to that of the Bill, was made in Quebec, for the purpose of putting down the frightful system of crimpage which existed there; the rate there was 5 s. Parties had petitioned the Canadian Legislature against the measure sanctioning that arrangement, and stated that the town would in consequence sustain a loss of 30,000 l. a year, being the sum which was got from the sailors by the harpies who preyed on them; but, last year, more than 100 captains of vessels had given their opinion in favour of the measure. With respect to the third object of the Bill, no discussion had arisen as to the necessity of taking measures to prevent desertion and improve the discipline of merchant ships. The sailor had as great an interest in having the discipline of a ship maintained as the shipowner, and he was not afraid to introduce the most stringent provisions for the preservation of discipline, making the captain responsible afterwards. It was better that the power of the captain should be somewhat despotic, than that it should fall short of what was necessary to enable him to maintain discipline. An American writer, named Dana, the author of Two Years before the Mast, said on this subject—

"If I expected to pass the rest of my life before the mast, I would not wish the power of the captain diminished an iota."

The powers of captains in American ships were large, and exercised without much scruple:—

"It is absolutely necessary that there should be one head and one voice, to control everything and be responsible for everything. There are emergencies which require the instant exercise of extreme power. These emergencies do not allow of consultation. It will not answer to say that the captain shall never do this or that thing, because it does not seem necessary and advisable that it should be done. He has great cares and responsibilities, is answerable for everything, and is subject to emergencies which perhaps no other man exercising authority among civilised people is subject to. Let him, then, have powers commensurate with his utmost possible need; only let him be held strictly responsible for the exercise of them. Any other course would be injustice as well as bad policy."

It was in accordance with these principles that he had framed the provisions relating to discipline and desertion. He hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dartmouth. That of the noble Lord the Member for Colchestar would be equally fatal to the Bill; and, if it were jumbled together with questions of pilotage, &c., it might go into a Select Committee, but would never come out. With respect to the consolidation of the Acts relating to the merchant navy, he had been blamed for not proposing a measure to effect that object. But he could not have hoped to introduce a measure with which the House could have grappled successfully, and he had taken the course which promised to lead to the most satisfactory conclusion. It was his intention at the close of the Session to prepare a Bill of consolidation, incorporating the provisions of the present measure with the existing Acts. Either of two courses might then be taken; the House might consent to pass that as a Bill of consolidation simply, or consolidation and amendment might be combined. That proposal, which he had stated to various gentlemen connected with the mercantile marine, appeared to meet with general assent. With respect to the patronage with which the Board of Trade was to have been invested, he had got rid of that part of the scheme to which he had looked with considerable alarm, namely, the appointment of the shipping masters, who would not be appointed, as the noble Lord supposed, only in ports where the shipping amounted to 30,000 tons, and in every port where a shipping master was required, there would be a local board which would appoint him. There were smaller ports where such an officer was unnecessary, and the business could be done for some 15 l. a year. The British Consuls in Norway stated that the system there was similar to that proposed in the Bill. In conclusion, he must urge on the House the propriety of passing the Bill in the present Session of Parliament; and, so far from thinking it premature, he felt ashamed that he had not dealt with the subject sooner, as he should have done if he had been aware of the real state of the case.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that those with whom he acted were averse to the principle of the Bill, for no side of the House, no party, could object to a measure which had for its aim the improvement of the mercantile marine of this country; but the question was, did this Bill attain that end? He, for one, certainly did not think it did; nor did he believe that the majority of the shipping interest entertained a favourable opinion towards the measure. No doubt some ports did approve of it, but by no means all, or even a fair proportion of them. At the time when the repeal of the navigation laws took place, the Government and the House undertook to remove all restrictions which would press unfairly upon the mercantile marine, and prevent it from entering fairly upon its competition with the whole world. Not one of these restrictions had, however, been dealt with, and the shipowners were consequently much dissatisfied. The question before the House was one of the most intricate character, and, not desiring to throw obstructions in its way, but with the desire of rendering it as perfect as possible, he should earnestly recommend the right hon. Gentleman to go into Committee upon it with that view, and, after that, to give time to all parties concerned—ample time—to consider the effect of such vast alterations as it pro-prosed. The Bill was not to remedy any pressing grievance, but to regulate prospectively our marine. That was a case which more than all others required caution and consideration. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would again next Session come before the House in his consolidated Bill. The Bill then might be altered, and to pass a Bill which should so soon require amendment was bad legislation. At first, the Bill proposed to put the whole marine of the country under central management; but now that was abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of Glasgow and Liverpool, but he was opposed by the city of London; and surely, on such a question, the opinion of the greatest shipping interest in the country was most important. He did not wish to impede the progress of the Bill, but he certainly thought nothing would be lost by referring it to a Select Committee.

believed the question at issue was, whether the measure should be defeated or not for the present Session by delay. He supported the Bill, which was now free from the objection that it left the shipping interest in the hands of the Board of Trade. The powers of that board, which were arbitrary, had now been defined. How did the parties interested regard the Bill? The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets spoke for London; there was an influential Gentleman opposite who could speak for Glasgow; the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce had undertaken the office of mediating in favour of the Bill, and the Shipowners' Association of Liverpool had done their utmost to bring it into shape. Reserving the right to bring before Parliament in the present Session any of the subjects excluded from the Bill, he thought it the duty of those who had constituencies interested in the measure to resist the defeating of it by loss of time, to support the Motion for going into Committee, and promote the adoption of it in the present Session. With a view to the proposed consolidation of the law relating to the mercantile marine, it was desirable to carry into effect as many beneficial provisions as possible.

would observe, on one point on which the Bill had been attacked, that there was no arbitrary power given to any board to reject candidates, but all that was directed was, that the candidate should have testimonials of some kind. Now everybody knew that the obtaining testimonials was too easy rather than too difficult; and therefore the presumption was that a candidate who could get no testimonials from anybody by whom he had been previously employed, was one it would be well to turn back.

said, that if this Bill had been law fifty years ago, half the wrecks which had occurred in that time would have been prevented. If the captain of the Orion had known that proved neglect would have the effect of preventing his ever sailing as a captain again, he (Mr. Macgregor) was convinced that fine steamer would not have been run too near the shore at Portpatrick, and many valuable lives would have been spared. The effect of the Bill would generally be to improve the character, not only of the captains, but of the seamen; and he regretted that it did not declare that "advance notes" were illegal. He should vote for going into Committee at once.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

then moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee," instead thereof.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 34: Majority 86.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

objected to enacting the new restrictions of this Bill before the Ministry had brought in measures to remove all the burdens the shipowners laboured under. Nineteen-twentieths of those who had just voted in the majority had supported the navigation laws, and where, then, was their consistency? He protested strongly against the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

House resumed.

Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Twelve o'clock.

said, he rose to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice. His object was, that the three paid and responsible Commissioners should constitute the whole of the Commission, and discharge all the duties appertaining to it. He believed he should have no difficulty in showing that this course would be most sound in principle, and the best that could be adopted in practice. What was the object of the Bill? It was to remedy the defects of the present Ecclesiastical Commission, the members of which were too numerous, and their proceedings manifested both inefficiency and irresponsibility. The object of the Bill was to substitute an effective and responsible Commission in the place of the present one. How could they best secure this effective and responsible board? By securing, on the part of the Commissioners, such a close attention to the business of the board as to ensure a full knowledge on their part of the business before it; for no one could be fairly held responsible for that of which he had no knowledge. Then, how were they to ensure effective men for the discharge of the business of the board? This was the conclusion arrived at by the Parliamentary Committee appointed to inquire into the subject. It recommended that three paid Commissioners should be appointed to conduct the business of the board; and the Government concurring in that opinion, the present Bill was brought in to give effect to the recommendation. In order that the plan should be complete and effective, he then proposed that the entire of the present ex officio members of the board, fifty-two in number, should be got rid of. That body was now constituted of Judges, Cabinet Ministers, and Bishops. He proposed that the whole business of the board should be executed by the three responsible members of it, who would know every thing that was transacted by the Commission. This would be following the example of every other responsible board, and would relieve the Judges, the Cabinet Ministers, and the Bishops from their attendance on it. With regard to the Judges, the Lord Chancellor, the two Chief Justices, the Lord Chief Baron, the Master of the Rolls, and the Judges of the Admiralty and the Prerogative Courts, were at present members of the board. Now, what in the world had all these to do with the Ecclesiastical Commission? They had other important functions to discharge, and they could not give their attendance at the meetings of the Commission without injury resulting to the public service. They must be taken from their other duties to attend the Ecclesiastical Commission, or they must neglect this Commission to attend to their other duties. Therefore public convenience and common sense were alike in favour of the Judges being excused from attendance. Five Cabinet Ministers were members of the board; and he was sure they would be as glad to be excused as the Judges. Their official duties were of such an onerous character, that the attendance at this board must interfere with them. The other ex officio members of the Com- mission were the Bishops. They had been consecrated to a particular office, whose claims upon their time and attention were even still more serious and solemn; and if it should happen that they were the only ex officio members who were unwilling to retire from the Commission, what was the inference which the public would draw from that circumstance? Why, that they considered their spiritual functions of less importance than the judicial functions of the Judges, or the political functions of the Cabinet Ministers. Now, did the House really think so? Were the episcopal duties, for which, in some instances, a sum four or five times larger, and in one instance he believed a sum ten times larger, than the salary of the Prime Minister was paid—were those duties, in the eyes of the nation, or of the Church, of small amount? If the House did not think so—if both reason and religion were in favour of a change in the Commission, and if the Prelates were the only parties who opposed and obstructed that change, what other construction could the nation put upon it, than that their conception of their duties, contrasted unfavourably with those entertained by the heads of other departments of the public service? They would conclude that, while the judicial functions were first in the estimation of the Judges, and the political functions all-important in the eyes of the Cabinet Ministers, the spiritual functions did not seem to be uppermost in the hearts of the Prelates; and that, while Judges and Cabinet Ministers felt a delicacy in intruding into the concerns of a board which were specially intrusted to paid functionaries, the Bishops had no such scruples, and would insist upon intermeddling irregularly, capriciously—many would say, selfishly—and, there could be little doubt, injuriously to the public service. Both reason and religion were in favour of the change which he proposed in the Commission; and if the Prelates were opposed to him, what construction could they put on their conduct, except that the duties of their office contrasted very unfavourably with other public duties? No right or privilege of theirs was in any way involved by their not being on the Commission; and if they persisted in being placed on it, the country would look on their conduct with suspicion. What was the nature of the duties which came before the Commissioners? The duties of the board referred entirely to the administration of the temporalities of the church. It had the administration of funds which arose from different kinds of Church property scattered over the various dioceses of England and Wales. It was not the question, as to whether a Bishop should have the management of the property appertaining to his diocese. Every Bishop had the control over the diocesan property for the term of his life, and the Bill did not propose to interfere with this arrangement; but the question was, whether they should have the general management of all ecclesiastical property in all parts of the kingdom. The property under the control of the board was not merely episcopal, but general; for all property connected with the Church and the estates, consisted of any kind of property known to the Church. Take the case of the prelates whose dioceses were nearest to them—he meant the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London. The management of the estates of Canterbury and London was but a tithe of their labours. They had now to take the management of the ecclesiastical estates of York, Carlisle, Durham, Exeter, and other dioceses; and instead of being confined to estates in which they had an especial interest, they had to become general managers of estates of which they had no knowledge whatever, and of which they could have no knowledge except by giving such a close attention to those secular affairs as to place their episcopal duties in abeyance. He was not now seeking to do an act which imposed any new duties; but he was only resisting a modern, and to his mind an extremely objectionable, innovation. The question then was, whether the present was an effective Commission. He believed he should have no difficulty in showing that the duties now performed by it could be better done by dispensing with the attendance of the present ex officio Commissioners. Why, he repeated, should they make an exception in this board, to the practice in all other cases? If the House dealt with the matter as a question of policy, what did all their experience teach them? Was Parliament so well satisfied with the past working of the Commission, that it was ready to make further sacrifices in order to secure the attendance of the Bishops at the board? There were few members of the Church who had attended to the subject who did not feel that the Commission was injured by the attendance of the Bishops. If the experience of the past showed them that no advantage was to be derived from the presence of the Bishops, how could they expect any benefit from their being continued members of the board? The Commissioners acted by means of Orders in Council, and they had printed upwards of 300 of them to carry out the business of the board. Not a single syllable appeared in any one of them to show that there was any necessity for any prelate being a member of the board. He appealed to the Members of the Committee to which he had already alluded, and to the noble Lord who was its chairman, whether, throughout the whole of that inquiry, from commencement to close, anything had transpired to show that the business of the board would be better done by having Bishops members of the Commission, or that their presence was in any way advantageous. In his opinion the majority of that Committee should carry out their own views. The enlargement of this Commission, as proposed, was justified by neither policy nor expediency, and he could not discern the principle upon which some of the members of it should be withdrawn from their spiritual and others from their temporal duties. He appealed to the constitution of the Church itself against the mode in which the Commission was composed, on the ground that the offices of teacher and of trader were incompatible with each other. Some yean ago an Act of Parliament had been brought in by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, providing that no clergyman of the Church of England, under the dignity of bishop, should be engaged in farming land to a greater extent than eighty acres, it being thought not expedient that they should be encumbered too much in their spiritual duties with worldly avocations. Such had always been the law and principle of the Church; and if the Ecclesiastical Commission would pass an Act preventing the parochial clergy from cultivating more than a small quantity of the soil, he should like to know why the same law was not applicable to the higher orders in the Church? Could it be established that the spirituality of the office was not degraded by worldly avocations, on account of the holder of it being of a higher rank? It reminded him of a passage in the Acts of the Apostles:—

"Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word."

Would the Commissioners explain away that passage, and reconcile it with the Bishops serving at the "tables" of the Ecclesiastical Commission? He assured the House that among a large portion of the members of the Church of England, there was a disposition to undervalue the services of the Commission. He thought that it was as valuable now as ever it was, but at this moment there was more sympathy abroad with the parochial clergy than with the episcopacy, and they said that the Bishops had gradually abrogated the main functions of the episcopate, and that the parochial clergy had taken it up. Of what, in the primitive days, did the episcopal office consist? It was the office of pastor-teacher—the centre of spiritual life. Whatever were the powers—whatever the excellence with which the office was invested—they were derived and had their origin entirely from this function. Of old the bishop lived as the head and the father of his flock, well known by all, not only of his clergy, but of his laity—their counsellor, their comforter, and friend; the centre of the focus of their spiritual life, wielding a power purely spiritual. Such a system of things had existed in the days of Cyprian, Ambrose and Augustine, and it had been seen realised in this country, even in times not more distant than those of Andrews, Jewell, and Bedell. But alas! at present the ancient character of the had been lost sight of, and the Bishop had become an official—his functions had been degraded and secularised, and he had ceased to be the father of his flock, or to have close relations even with his clergy, as their counsellor and friend. For the episcopal office he had a high veneration, but he could not say that he had much respect for the persons who now filled that office. He did not know any other body of men who were more blind than they to the true interests both of the Church and of the people, nor was he acquainted with any who were more perversely hostile to the ecclesiastical reform which he believed to be essential, not only to the safety of the Church, but to its very existence. He did not blame the Bishops, however, so much as the Government, who, by secularising the episcopal office, had corrupted it, weakened it, and, he might almost add, degraded it. It was by imposing worldly avocations on the Bishops, to the exclusion of spiritual affairs, that the influence of the episcopal body had been impaired, and that they had fallen in the estimation of the people. If the Committee saw with, him the impropriety and folly of persisting in a course so infatuated, they would support him in the present Motion.

Amendment proposed, page 2, line 21—

"To leave out from the word 'England' to the end of the clause, and to add the words 'and the three Church Estates Commissioners so appointed shall together and exclusively constitute the body corporate of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, and be entitled to exercise all their powers and privileges,"

instead thereof.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

said, that the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman was directly against the report of the Committee of that House. The change recommended by the Committee was that some further reduction of the duties should take place, and they proposed that while the larger body of the present Commission should be properly retained for the purpose of entertaining the most important questions, a smaller Committee should be appointed who should manage the property of the Church. It was quite clear that large and important questions would come before this Commission; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed the abolition of the Commission, and the substitution of the small Committee for the management of the property in the place of the larger Commission. He (Lord J. Russell) did not think that that change would be an improvement. There were some large and important questions, as he had already said, that would come under the attention of the Commission; and he did not see how two Commissioners named by the Crown, and one by the Archbishop, could undertake those questions, both for the State and the Church. The hon. and learned Member said that Cabinet Ministers would not have time to attend the meetings of the Commission; but it was for that very reason and cause that they had proposed to manage the property by means of these three Commissioners; and by the Amendment which he (Lord J. Russell) had made, he proposed that they should be enabled to transact such business, and to fix the official seal to documents, without reference to the body of the Commission. He recommended that the plan of the Committee should be taken intact, and not departed from so completely as the hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested. The hon. and learned Member had also raised in his speech great questions, which he (Lord J. Russell) did not see that the Committee on this Bill could properly consider. The hon. and learned Gentleman had entered upon the question of the revenues of the Church, and other matters relating really to endowments, and quite inapplicable to the question before the Committee at present, and he seemed to have lost sight of the original cause for the appointment of this Commission. Not many years ago, when the Bishops took their own revenues, the incomes in some of the dioceses were very large. The Bishop of Durham was said to receive an income of 23,000 l. a year, the see of Canterbury to bring 21,000 l. or 22,000 l. a year, and the incomes were very large of some of the bishops, while at the same time the incomes of others amounted to 500 l. or 1,000 l. a year only, and they held deaneries and other offices in the Church in order to make up their income. It was hardly to be contended that such a state of things was better than the present arrangement, or that the reductions that had been made in some of the sees was not a fitting measure. The Bishop of Durham had now an income of only 8,000 l. a year. This and the other Commission had been called upon to transact business of this kind. If this Bill passed, he did not think they would have business to do that would occupy any very great portion of their time. The Commission had been appointed to consider large reforms, and he hoped the Committee would now agree to the report of their own Committee.

had not had the good fortune to hear the whole of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, but he advised the House to pause before giving their confidence to that hon. and learned Member, not only in a matter of opinion, but upon a matter of fact; because the hon. and learned Member was not new to his subject, and he had committed himself to the statement of a fact which he would appeal to his noble Friend at the head of the Government to say, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had a right to say was not a fact, namely, that some of the Bishops were paid three or four times as much as the noble Lord himself, and that in one case ten times as much was paid; by which the hon. and learned Member would infer, that while a Bishop enjoyed an income of 50,000 l. a year, the Prime Minister of the country received but 2,500 l. or 3,300 l. a year.

, in explanation, said, there were certainly Bishops who had received 50,000 l. a year; and there was one of the bishops who at this moment was generally believed to have 50,000 l. a year. What he had said had been spoken upon authority. The fact was notorious that the returns on the table, of episcopal incomes, were utterly false and incorrect. He did not, of course, mean to say that they had been made so by the Bishops themselves; but he had on some occasions heard something of a certain cooking of the accounts. But if the Committee which he moved for had been appointed, he could have shown that the accounts of the episcopal incomes were not correct.

the working clergy, or at least a great portion of the working clergy, are at present excluded from the benefits of the Church, so designated; and I shall be able to show, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have, as I have before stated, endeavoured to enjoy as much as they could of the income of the Church, without providing for the working clergy. I did expect that a much larger measure of clerical reform would have been proposed than the Bill now under our consideration, because I well remember that when my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth brought forward the question of the fusion of the episcopal and common fund, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in April 1848, although he did not actually assent to that proposition, inasmuch as he moved the previous question, stated at the same time, that there were many things connected with this subject which required further consideration, before he submitted them to the House. The noble Lord, on the 4th of April, 1848, said— whatever to remedy abuses. And it is in consequence of the exposure of the abominable abuses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that this Bill is brought in, and therefore I think that my hon. Friend most truly deserves the thanks of the Church and of the country for the course which he has pursued.

Allusion has been made to the statement of my hon. Friend to the effect, that there was a Bishop who, it was supposed, had an income ten times greater than that of the First Lord of the Treasury. Now, I have no hesitation whatever in declaring, that I believe the Bishop of London has, or ought to have, that amount of income. At all events, I will say this, that, representing Paddington, which is a part of Marylebone, and knowing pretty well that locality, and knowing also that it is one of the most valuable properties in the united kingdom, and that if it was well managed it ought to produce 100,000 l. a year; knowing this, I ask, what is the return which was made by the Bishop of London, from the 1st day of January, 1837, for the seven years subsequent to that time? I think this is one of the most extraordinary documents that ever issued from the Parliamentary press of this country; and so great, I may add, was the desire to obtain this document, that within a very short period of time there was not a single copy to be obtained at the Parliamentary Paper Office, and it is only now, in consequence of the late order of the House for a second edition, that we have been able to procure copies of this most extraordinary document. It appears that, in the year 1837, the net income of the Bishop of London was 14,510 l., and that, in the year 1843, the net income was 12,481 l., thus showing a loss of no less than 2,039 l.

Now, what was the state of the parish at that time, and what was the state of the population of the parish? Why, a great part of the large houses which now cover the Bishop of London's property were erected in that period of time; and, in order to prove the truth of this statement, I will show the House what the assessment of that parish was in the year 1837, and how it has increased largely in consequence of these buildings upon this estate. I find that, in the year 1837, the assessment of Paddington parish was 112,868 l., and, in 1843, it was 191,154 l., being an increase in these seven years of 78,366 l., derived from buildings upon the estate of the Bishop of London, although he (poor man!) during that time lost no less a sum than 2,029 l. of his income. How is it possible to suppose that this statement is correct? How can this document be correct? Is it a true—is it an authentic document? This is a very curious case, and I may mention that, at the moment I am speaking, instead of the assessment being 112,868 l., as it was in 1837, or 191,154 l., as it was in 1843, it now amounts to the enormous sum of 343,066 l.; and I shall be anxious to see whether, when the Bishop makes his next septennial return in January next, he will still show a decreasing income.

I will now take the case of the Bishop of Exeter. In the year 1837, the income of the Bishop of Exeter was returned at 2,136 l. (I am speaking of the income of the sees); but although the income from that see in 1837 was stated to be 2,136 l., in the year 1843, seven years afterwards, it is returned at 341 l. How is it possible that such diminution could be correct, unless it is from the litigious proceedings of the right rev. Prelate, who must have put down all his expenditure against his income? Which reminds me of a clergyman resident in the diocese of London, who having a living of 1,700 l. a year, made his return 100 l. a year; and when he was called to account by his diocesan, he said— l. to 341 l. Let us now look at the incomes of the Bishops. The incomes of the Bishops in the year 1843, amounted to no less a sum than 197,559 l. 1 s. 6 d., being an average of about 8,000 l. a year for each Bishop. That is the gross income. But, in order to show how remarkably ill they manage their affairs, it appears, according to their own return, that their net income is 153,724 l. 14 s. 8 d., being a difference of 43,765 l. between gross and net income, of which no account whatever is rendered to this House. There is another remark- able feature regarding the Ecclesiastical Commission, namely, that from the very time that my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth opened his lips in this House, and ventured to make observations upon the proceedings of that Commission, from that time down to the present no report whatever has been made of their proceedings. They have been perfectly silent as regards any of their proceedings at that board. We have asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government when he thought he would be able to let us have some report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? The noble Lord very naturally shook his head, and said, he could not say when it would be, but he would undertake to "say" that "when this Bill was passed some report should be made annually of the proceedings of this board." However, since my hon. Friend began by exposing the impropriety of their proceedings, no report whatever has been made, and we know no more what has become of the property of the Church than does any person beyond the seas.

There is one great difficulty in touching upon this question, and in dealing with it, as I think it ought to be dealt with, and that is to make a distinction between the man holding an office, and the office itself. I confess that, as a member of the Established Church, I have great veneration for the Episcopal office, but I have very little veneration or respect for some of the gentlemen who hold that office—and that is the difference which I draw. I look upon many of the Bishops of the Church, to which most of us belong, as persons who hold a high office in the Church, for the good of the great community of which we are members, and that they ought to conduct themselves in such a manner both as regards the management of the Church property, and as regards the proceedings under this Commission, of which they are members, as to entitle them to our respect and veneration; but this I must say, in numberless instances, they have not done.

Let us look at the return which was made some few years ago. The Bishops determined amongst themselves to send in an account of their gross income, their net income, and their expected income, and we find that twelve bishops sent in a return of their gross income, amounting to 115,418 l.; their net income they represented to be 101,061 l.; and as to their expected income, they all concurred in stating that they believed it would be considerably diminished, and that instead of 115,418 l., it might be taken at 92,106 l. This was the expected income, which in many instances being far short of their fixed income, the right rev. Prelates mads up the full amount of the anticipated deficiency, by drawing upon the Ecclesiastical fund. Some time after this arrangement they made another return of their income, by which it appeared that instead of 92,106 l. they returned an income of 123,269 l. So that instead of there being a deficiency on the net income of 8,955 l. there was an increase of 22,202 l.; and as they set down their expected incomes at 92,106 l., whilst, according to a subsequent return, their actual income was 123,269 l., it therefore stands to reason, if their own figures are correct, these twelve bishops must have divided amongst themselves 31,163 l. more than they were authorised to receive. Supposing this had taken place amongst any party of gentlemen connected together, and who formed a sort of public board to administer property to an immense amount, which they had under control, what would be thought of them?

A statement was made to the House by my hon. Friend, three or four years ago, to the effect that on the Bishops' palaces and lands they spent no less a sum than 143,014 l. Of this amount, 3,500 l. was expended on the Bishop's palace at Exeter. Upon which matter I think I may comment as I go on. With regard to Exeter, there was a very curious case, which occurred not long ago: in the year 1842, the present Bishop was called upon to pay assessed taxes for the palace; he demurred to the payment on the ground that he was, and had been for some time, nonresident; he said that he had no intention whatever to reside there, and that he had removed all his furniture, and therefore he objected to pay any assessed taxes for his palace at Exeter, where he ought to have resided. The case was brought before the Judges, who determined the Bishop was liable to the assessed taxes. And what took place during the time when he made it known to all the world by bringing the case before the Judges of the land that his palace was an uninhabited house? What did he do? The palace was kept in this state of dilapidation when he applied to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for a sum of 3,500 l. in order to repair the building. He said, "I require 3,500 l. to repair my palace, you must give it me;" and they did give it to him! Now, I con- tend that the Ecclesiastical Commission had no right whatever to make such a grant, and to give that money. I asked the noble Lord upon a former occasion from what fund this money was advaneed, and the answer given to me was, that it was a sum of money of which the Bishop was entitled to the interest. The present Bishop has therefore been allowed to expend the whole of this capital sum of 3,500 l. when he ought himself to have kept his own palace in repair. He has thus robbed every one of his successors, or the episcopal fund, of the interest of this sum, which I contend he ought not to have received. Up to a very recent time all the Bishops were obliged to pay interest on all monies borrowed for improvement of their palaces, as is the case with the minor clergy. But by an Act which they very adroitly got through Parliament, the Bishops absolved themselves from all payments of the kind, and they have taken money from the episcopal fund, for which they do not pay any interest whatever, and have expended it on their palaces. That money is taken out of a fund, which, I repeat, ought to go to remunerate the minor clergy; and thus upon the enormous sum of 143,014 l. to which I have already referred, not one shilling of interest is paid; whereas if a poor Welsh rector had borrowed 100 l. he would be obliged not only to pay interest, but an annual sum also, in liquidation of the sum advanced to him.

Let us now go to the case of the Bishop of Oxford, who, as it will be proved, can manage his own affairs remarkably well, and his case is one of the most singular of all. He asked the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for two sums of money. I have got the case here, and if the House will allow me to refer to it, I will do so very shortly. The case comes out in the evidence of Mr. Murray, the late secretary to the Commission. It appears from this gentleman's evidence that there were two grants made to the Bishop of Oxford, one towards improving the residence, and the other towards improving the demesne of Cuddesden. The first of these grants was 3,500 l., and it was advanced upon the express stipulation, that the whole grant should not exceed that sum; and in order to show to the Committee how very clearly this was defined, I will read from the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Ecclesiastical Commission, page 49, an extract of the agree- ment entered into between the Bishop of Oxford and the Commissioners. It runs as follows:— l., and he was to defray all extra expenses out of his own private means. But how stands the case? No sooner had he got this sum of 3,500 l. than he demanded a further sum of 1,300 l. at a meeting at which he himself was present, when a resolution was carried, "That a scheme for authorising the payment out of the Episcopal Fund, of a sum not exceeding 1,300 l. be prepared." This scheme was prepared, and notwithstanding the previous agreement, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners granted a further sum of 1,300 l., making a total sum of 4,800 l. All this took place in the year 1846. The right rev. Prelate was not however satisfied, and on the 16th of March, 1847, he wrote a long letter demanding a further sum of 1,836 l. 3 s. 10 d. On the 18th of March, that letter was considered; the Bishop was not present, and it was resolved, that in the opinion of the Board the strict terms of the Orders in Council, and agreement, precluded the Commissioners from acceding to his Lordship's proposal, and that the secretary express to the Bishop of Oxford the regret of the Commissioners at being obliged to come to this conclusion. Such a reply would have silenced most persons, but not so the Bishop of Oxford; as he attended a meeting, the following week, on the 25th of March, 1847, at which were present nine bishops and two laymen; and it appears that on the Motion of the Bishop of Oxford himself, it was ordered that the opinion of the law officers be obtained, whether a mortgage of the estates of his see can now legally be sanctioned, to meet the extra expenses incurred in restoring the palace of Cuddesden. This question was put to the law officers, and their answer was, "We think it is competent to the Commissioners now to pass a scheme." Another meeting was held on 6th May, 1847, consisting of two laymen and fifteen bishops, amongst whom was, of course, the Bishop of Oxford! And in complete violation of their former agreement, which was sanctioned by an Order in Council, they passed a resolution, moving, "that the Bishop be authorised to borrow from the Bounty Board, on security of the property of the See, a sum not exceeding 1,669 l., being the sum expended for the alteration and improvement of the palace beyond the Commissioners' grant." Thus it will be seen that the Bishop obtained a positive extra grant of 1,300 l., and a loan of 1,669 l. from the funds of Queen Anne's Bounty, which ought to be applied to the improvement or augmentation of small livings.

It is true that the Bishop of Oxford is to pay 3½ per cent as interest, and one thirtieth part annually, in liquidation of the principal. But the Commissioners of Queen Anne's Bounty cannot again be in full receipt of the sum for the use of the poor clergy for a period of thirty years! and in the next septennial return of the Bishop's income, the interest and the thirtieth part of the principal, to which I have referred, may appear as items constituting the difference between gross and net income, and the Bishop and his successors may demand to have that deficiency made good out of the episcopal fund. But this is not all. Let me here explain to the Committee the gross delusion practised upon the public by the whole of these transactions. It appears in page fifty, of the minutes of evidence already quoted, that there is a passage in the Order in Conncil, to this effect— l. and no more. Now, it appears by the same evidence that by the septennial return of episcopal incomes, the average net income of the Bishop of Oxford was 2,374 l., to which 2,626 l. ought only to have been added for the purpose of making up the income of 5,000 l., but instead of this the Bishop receives from the episcopal fund 3,500 l. annually, making a net income of 5,874 l., or 874 l. a year more than the income contemplated by the Act of Parliament, But to return to the outlay upon palaces and lands.

The Bishop of Worcester receives7,000 l., the Bishop of Ripon 16,111 l., the Bishop of Gloucester 23,627 l. The Bishop of Rochester must needs have a new palace, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners buy him one for 28,832 l., and the Bishop of Lincoln receives 54,440 l. for his palace and the estate, which it was deemed desirable he should have.

Are not these monstrosities? And can any one have faith in these Ecclesiastical Commissioners where such facts have been made known to the public? I will undertake to say, that if we look to the period of the Papacy, from the time of Pamphilj Doria down to Braschi, (Pius VI.) who was the last Pope who built a palace at Rome, that there never was a more extravagant appropriation of ecclesiastical property.

In order to show the poverty of the clergy in these eight Sees, and how little the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have cared for them—for that is what I particularly blame them for—there are eighty-five parishes where the incomes are less than 50 l. a year. There are 417 parishes where the incomes are between 50 l. and 100 l. a year: and yet upon these 502 livings, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have spent only 5,295 l., whereas they themselves have spent nearly 144,000 l. upon residences and domains for the Bishops.

Now, with regard to the manner in which the money has been squandered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The manner in which this has been done, has been rendered still more evident by the very extraordinary paper which has been placed upon the table of the House this morning. It was moved for on the 3rd of May, and it is a document which might have been placed upon the table of the House the following week, but every possible delay has been placed in the way of this document being presented, and it was not presented until after repeated applications had been made. Although it was ordered on the 3rd of May, it is not laid upon our table till the 4th of July; but it is natural to suppose on reading this document that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not desire to be very active in complying with the order of the House; this paper is a return for copies of all applications of the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester, Rochester, Canterbury, Norwich, Winchester, Worcester, Exeter, Southwell, Peterborough and other cathedrals, for aid in the performance of the additional duties cast upon them by the suspension of canonries.

It will be in the recollection of the House, that some years since an Act of Parliament was passed, which enabled the Government to suspend certain canonries. These canonries are sinecures to a certain extent, and other parties residing there could have done the duty; this document is valuable, inasmuch as it shows what are the duties of a canon in our Church. If any hon. Member will be so good as to turn to page 11, he will find under the head of Peterborough, that the duties of a canon of our Church are exactly defined by the performance of a portion of the cathedral church service during one month in the year. Now, it must be admitted that this is not a very heavy duty, and I think it would have been well when one vacancy occurred, if the other eleven canons or prebends, who have immense incomes for doing this one month's service in the year, had said, "We will undertake to do this service, it will be no great amount of duty, and we will not call upon the ecclesiastical fund for any further income for the performance of this duty." In reference to these applications for additional aid, let us see what occurred in the diocese of Winchester. There were twelve canons, one of them died; and supposing the eleven surviving canons had each performed service for only three days each in the year, more than they were compelled to do, that would have been all that would have been required of them; but they declined any such reasonable proposition, and demanded payment before they would do a stroke of work beyond their single month's duty.

I hold in my hand a statement of the income which is derived from the Church by one of these canons—a Mr. George Pretyman. I find that Mr. George Pretyman is prebendary of Winchester; that he is a canon residentiary and chancellor of Lincoln; that he is rector of Chalfont; that he also is rector of Wheathampstead; to all which pieces of preferment he was presented by his late father, when Bishop of Lincoln. I find that he is perpetual curate of Nettleham, which is his own gift as chancellor. From these six pieces of preferment, Mr. Pretyman derives an income of nearly 5,000 l. a year; but, unless the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would give him or one of his brethren 50 l. for doing the duty of another canon for one month, not one additional service would they perform.

I consider that the fact of granting additional aid to these well-paid canons is nothing less than a reckless waste of money, which ought not to have been allowed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and I cannot help thinking that they should have said to these gentlemen, "You, Mr. Pretyman, who have 5,000 l. or 6,000 l. a year, and you, other reverend canons, who revel in ecclesiastical abundance, we, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, call upon you not to take this 50 l. a year out of the ecclesiastical fund, but to allow us to give it to the poorer clergy." In the case of Rochester, the demand was not only made, but an intimation was given, that, unless remuneration was allowed, no duty would be done. On the 30th of November, 1840, the Chapter Clerk of Rochester wrote to the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as follows:— l. for the two months' duty.

With regard to these canons, I was very glad to hear what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire on a former occasion, when this Bill was discussed, on its second reading. I think that the right hon. Member said, that he wished to make the canons of the Church useful members of the Church; and I believe that, under the present system, they are the most useless drones of the Establishment. In fact, such offices merely afford a pretext to men to leave the duties of incumbencies, in order that they may live in comfortable houses in the cathedral closes. To any proposition that the hon. Gentleman may make, having for its purpose the rendering of these persons useful, I shall be most happy to give my support.

There was a letter sent round not very long ago, by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church, which most of us have received, and no doubt many of us have read. It was a circular sent with reference to the Colonial Bishops. One argument which has been used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge on a former occasion, in reference to the large incomes at present received by the Bishops was, that they ought to have large incomes, because they spent so much in public charity. And, in answer to that, an article immediately appeared in the Daily News, with an account of the sums of money which were given by the Archbishops and Bishops of our Church to six of the largest and the most useful charities, which are under their own especial protection; and we find, by looking into it, that one of the Bishops, namely, the Bishop of Oxford, gives to these public charities exactly 2 s. 8 d. for every hundred pounds of his episcopal income. But, to return to the circular, which was sent round a short time ago by the Archbishop of Canterbury and several other Bishops, in which they set forth the destitution of the colonies, and in which they say, that it was extremely desirable that another bishop should be appointed for the diocese of Quebec. They called upon the laity to subscribe for this purpose; and the letter so circulated was signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Chester, the Bishop of Lichfield, the Bishop of St. Asaph, and the Bishop of Norwich. Upon looking over the whole donations and annual subscriptions which have been raised for this object, it appears that out of the large incomes which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge said they ought to have for purposes of public charity, only 810 l. have been subscribed by all the Archbishops and Bishops of England, Ireland, and Wales, while six laymen have subscribed 900 l. I think that it would be much better to give the Archbishops and Bishops incomes merely for the duties which they perform, and leave it to the laity, or the public funds, to contribute towards public charities and public institutions.

The Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord will certainly, to a considerable extent, take the management of the property out of the hands of the Episcopal body; and, according to my judgment, it is most desirable that that Amendment should be carried, because the management of the ecclesiastical property hitherto by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners has been most blameable.

It appears, by the report of the Commission ( Liber Ecclesiasticus, page 4), that the gross income of the Bishop of Chester is stated to be 3,951 l. That is according to this return; but, in the Committee's report, page 71 of the Summary, the Bishop is stated to have returned the value of the estates at 16,236 l.; so that there is a loss, in that diocese alone, to the Church annually of no less than 12,285 l.

As regards the Archbishop of York, as stated in the summary of the Committee, the value of his estates is 41,030 l., and in the Liber Ecclesiasticus, the gross income is only stated at 13,798 l.; so that there is an annual loss there of 27,232 l., by the mismanagement of that property. Next, I come to the Dean and Chapter of Wells. The value of their estates is 23,000 l. a year, and the average receipts only 6,700 l.; so that there is an annual loss there of 16,300 l. Then we come to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor; the annual value of the estates amount to 53,315 l., while the gross income is returned at 22,475 l., making an annual loss of 30,840 l. In these four instances alone, there is a loss of no less than 86,657 l. annually.

In the year 1838 there was a Committee appointed, which was called the Church Leases Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton was chairman. That Committee pointed out the only remedy for these abuses, and for this mismanagement of property. The Committee made their report on the 6th May, 1839, and they say that— deans, and to the chapter clerks. Some of their answers are very amusing documents, and they are very well worth reading. Here is one from the Bishop of Exeter:—

As regards these answers to which I have alluded, I cannot let the matter pass entirely without placing before the House the names of the bishops who were so good as to answer the request of the Committee in the affirmative, and those who absolutely refused; and I shall be able to show the House that out of twenty-six Archbishops and Bishops, sixteen sent answers, namely:—Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Bishops of London, Bath and Wells, Chester, Chichester, Durham, Ely, Hereford, Llandaff, St. Asaph, Lincoln, Norwich, Ripon, Peterborough, and Lichfield, more or less, expressing their willingness to give all the information which lay in their power, in order that we might know what was the value of the Church property. (I am speaking of the year 1838.) The Bishop of Worcester (of that day) took no notice whatever of the communication, and nine prelates refused to give any account at all. The Bishop of Winchester, one of the richest prelates of the realm, was one of them; and it is a curious fact that the other eight bishops held large preferments independent of their sees. For instance, the Bishop of Bangor was archdeacon of Bangor and Anglesey, rector of Llangristiolus, rector of Llandyrnog, and was also rector of Llanddyfnan. Here is the Bishop of Carlisle, he was prebend of St. Paul's, with a salary of 1,489 l., and also chancellor of Salisbury. Then we come to the Bishop of Exeter, he was rector of Shobrook, treasurer and prebend of Exeter Cathedral, and also prebend of Durham Cathedral. Next comes the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, he was prebend of St. Peter's, Westminster, and rector of Peakirk. Next the Bishop of Oxford, he was vicar of Cuddesden, at 440 l. a year, dean of Canterbury, at 2,110 l. 13 s. 4 d., rector of Blithfield, at 388 l., and rector of Leigh, at 748 l., making a sum of 3,686 l. 13 s. 4 d., independent of his bishoprick. Then the Bishop of Rochester, he was dean of Worcester, with an income of 1,648 l., and rector of Bishopsbourne, with an income of 700 l. a year. Also the Bishop of Salisbury, who was prebend in Salisbury, And then, lastly, the Bishop of St. David's, who was clean of the Collegiate Church at Brecon, and dean of Durham, which last deanery alone gave him an income of nearly 4,000 l. a year.

Not one of these Bishops would give any satisfactory answer to the Committee, whose special business it was to report to the House, in the fullest manner, on the subject they were appointed to consider. These Bishops said, "You have no right to make any inquiry of this description, and we will refuse to give you any account whatever of the property which we have under our control."

I will now proceed to another part of the case, and will show the manner in which the Episcopal body have enforced the duties of the clergy within their several dioceses. I will only refer for a single moment to a return which was laid upon the table of the House, a few days ago, at the instance of the right hon. Member for South Wiltshire. The House will perceive from this return, that there are 4,307 clergymen non-resident, and that of these 937 are non-resident without either exemption or licence. Nobody on earth knows why they are non-resident, not even the bishops themselves; and I consider that the sooner their Lordships are sent down to their dioceses the better, when I trust they will compel their clergy to reside on their livings, or give up their benefices, if they do not think it worth their while to reside upon them.

Although this return was ordered to be made by the Act of the 1st and 2nd Victoria, chapter 106, it appears that out of 4,322 benefices, 1,963 are returned without any statement of the value; and this imperfect document the Episcopal body lay upon the table of the House, knowing that they have not complied with the provision of the Act, and knowing that they have not given full information, because the House will be so good as to bear in mind, that according to the Act of 1840, the bishops ought to have a return of the value of every benefice. Here no less than 1,963 benefices are returned, without any statement being made of the value, out of 4,322, being nearly 40 per cent of the whole; and we are kept in the dark as to the value of those benefices, because the bishops chose to withhold the information.

Another table shows the stipends of curates, who do the duty for non-resident incumbents, and out of 3,078 curates, there are 1,192 who have no glebe-house to live in, and of the total number there are 103 having stipends under 40 l. a year, there are 685 having stipends under 60 l. a year, 610 having stipends under 80 l. a year, and 999 having stipends under 110 l. a year. It appears by this return that there are also 2,958 curates to non-resident incumbents who have no house, and of these 370 receive less than 60 l. a year, and 990 less than 110 l. a year; and this all at the same period of time.

, rose to order. Sir, I put it you whether it is not the practice of this House, that hon. Members when addressing the House should speak upon the subject before us. I apprehend that the subject before the House at the present moment, is the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, that the Ecclesiastical Commission should be limited to three Members, and therefore that the Bishops of the Church of England should no longer continue to be members of that Commission. Now it appears to me that the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, in the speech which he has made, has been wandering in the greatest possible degree from the real question before the House, namely, whether or not the Bishops of the Church of England ought to be members of the Commission. It therefore appears to me, and I think hon. members will agree with me, that the rule of the House is that all speeches should be addressed to the subject before it. Under these circumstances I appeal to you, whether the hon. Baronet is not out of order.

In answer to the appeal to me, made by the hon. Baronet who has last spoken, I beg to say that I consider the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone is laying a groundwork for an argument against the continuance of a certain portion of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Therefore I cannot say that the hon. Baronet is out of order.

I have only to say, in reply to the observation of the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, that the question before the House is whether the Episcopal body shall continue to sit as Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or whether the Ecclesiastical Commission should be confined to three persons—two to be appointed by the Crown, and one to be appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. That, I apprehend, to be the question before the House. I am endeavouring to argue in this respect, that the Ecclesiastical Commission, as it is at present constituted, is not worthy of the confidence of the people, and I am going mainly to show, and perhaps the hon. Baronet will be so good as to listen to me, (because he cannot have done so up to the present period,) I am endeavouring to show, that the Episcopal body have taken manifest care of their own interest—that as regards the poorer clergy, and those who do the hard work of our Church, they have not been sufficiently considered—and it would be much more expedient and beneficial for the Church at large, if the Episcopal body had less occasion to remove themselves from their dioceses and were to attend to the interest of the working clergy, and their flocks rather than their own interest at the board of the Ecclesiastical Commission in London. I am excessively surprised to find that the hon. Baronet should interrupt me at the time I was entering upon the case of the poor curates, who do all the hard work, who are worthy of commiseration, but who do not receive adequate compensation for their valuable services; and I contend that if the Episcopal Commissioners, instead of expending these vast amounts of money in building their own palaces, had given more to the working clergy, they would have been much more worthy of the confidence of this House. I shall now go on with my statement.

Here are 2,958 curates to non-resident incumbents: they have no house, and of these 370 receive less than 60 l. a year, and 990 less than 110 l. a year income.

The argument is this—Would it not be better that these poor men should be paid rather more, and the bishops rather less? And who has the control of this money, but the bishops themselves? And therefore I say that, acting as they have done, they are unworthy to remain on the Ecclesiastical Board. I never was in that board room, and I do not know what may be the rules which regulate their conduct, but I think that it would be very desirable that the right rev. Prelates should have before them in large and manifest letters the 34th chapter of Ezekiel.

Now let me ask, whether they have attended as Commissioners to one of the most useful institutions as regards the interests of the working clergy, I mean Queen Ann's Bounty? Have they attended to the abolition of pluralities? Have they attended to the interests of the poorer clergy? Have they suggested any remedy whatever while sitting at their board, in Whitehall, for the abuses which exist in their own courts? Have they done anything towards removing the abominations in those ecclesiastical courts? Have they ever attempted to set upon a right and proper footing the cathedral establishments? And have they ever attempted to make the prebendaries do their duty?

Let us go into some of these cases seriatim: first of all I will refer to what their conduct has been with reference to that most useful institution to which I have already alluded, namely, Queen Anne's Bounty. Their attendence has been most constant as Commissioners at the Ecclesiastical Board; their punctuality as regards their own interests has been extraordinary. But let us see how they have attended at Queen Anne's Bounty Board. The revenue of that fund is about 180,000 l. a year, the expenses of the office about 4,000 l. a year, and other expenses about 7,000 l. a year, making a total therefore of about 11,000 l. a year. In 1848 there were seven meetings of the governors, three committees, ten in the whole. There are twenty governors. At these ten meetings, the Archbishop of Canterbury attended nine times (I mean the late Archbishop, who was certainly most exemplary in his attendance), the Bishop of Oxford eight times, the Bishops of Chichester and Winchester six times, the Bishops of London, Worcester, and Bangor five times, the Archbishop of York and Bishop of Norwich four times, the Bishops of Carlisle, Lichfield, Gloucester, Bristol, and Salis- bury three times, the Bishop of Durham with his 26,000 l. a year attended only once; and the Bishops of St. David's, Lincoln, Llandaff, Ripon, Rochester, and St. Asaph attended only once during the whole year.

With regard to these Prelates whose names I have mentioned: the Bishop of Salisbury, in the year 1845, received for his income, 17,000 l. instead of 5,000 l. which was contemplated, and he now recommends 1,500 l. a year for a dean, and says that that is the smallest sum that a dean ought to have. We all know that a dean does nothing, and therefore probably the bishop considers that he does a great deal himself when he attends Queen Anne's Bounty Board three times, although he receives 17,000 l. in one year. There is the Bishop of St. Asaph, who stated in the other House of Parliament, that he as a bishop is the hardest-worked man in the kingdom, and that there was nothing equal to the work which a bishop had to go through; and he certainly in the year 1848 only condescended to attend once at Queen Anne's Bounty Board, where the interests of poor clergymen are considered.

I go on, with regard to the meetings of the Building Committee for these poor clergymen. There are thirteen Commissioners, or there were thirteen Commissioners in the year 1849. The buildings were to be paid out of this fund. There were eighteen meetings. Will it be believed that at only three of these meetings more than two members were present? And very frequently these were not members of the Episcopal body. The Bishop of London never attended once. The Bishop of Lichfield never attended once. The Dean of Westminster never attended once! Archdeacons Coleridge and Harrison never attended once during that year; and at the meetings of the board since the appointment of Commissioners, by letters patent, dated August the 25th, 1845, there were twenty-one Commissioners, and there were sixteen meetings, and in 1847 the Bishop of Winchester attended four times, the Bishop of Lichfield five times, the Bishop of Llandaff once, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Chester, and the Bishop of Hereford not at all. And it seems probable that the only time the Bishops attended was, when they wanted to borrow money from this institution, because it is well known "from the year 1829 to 1847, the bishops borrowed, at low rates of interest, the sum of 80,000 l. of Queen Anne's Bounty, to build and repair their own palaces, repayable by easy instalments in from twenty to forty years." And this it would seem has been the chief purpose for which they attended at the board of Queen Anne's Bounty.

I contend that one of the most desirable objects for these Ecclesiastical Commissioners to have attended to, would have been the abolition of pluralities. Every Thursday the Episcopal body meet round that board to talk over their affairs, and if they desired to carry out that which this House desired they should do, and which every member of the community desires they should do, and which they are bound to do, they would have suggested some scheme by which the abolition of pluralities might be effected. So far from having endeavoured to abolish pluralities, I will presently show the House an instance in this very diocese, in which we now sit, where the most monstrous case of pluralism has arisen within the last few years, under the immediate sanction of the Bishop of the diocese—I mean that of Archdeacon Hale, who ought to attend to his duties and overlook the clergy generally, and who as Archdeacon is called Oculus Episcopi. But I will first take some other cases of pluralities—pluralities that exist, which are numerous, and are a disgrace to a Christian Church, and we have a right to complain of the conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for having not only allowed them to continue, but to have sanctioned an increase to the number within the last few years. There are four canons at Canterbury, with eleven pieces of preferment, aud they divide 11,722 l. a year between them. There are four canons at Ely, with eighteen pieces of preferment, aed they divide 11,859 l. There is one rev. gentleman, holding office in the diocese of St. Asaph, (which will illustrate one of the benefits conferred upon Wales by English bishops.) This is the case of the Rev. C. S. Luxmore, who is dean and chancellor of St. Asaph, annual value 1,185. l, prebendary of Hereford 500 l., rector of Bromyard 70 l., ditto of Darowen 79 l., ditto of Cradley 957 l., being a total of 2,722 l., though I believe this to be a very low estimate. There is another gentleman of the same name, and of the same family, the Rev. J. H. M. Luxmore, who is canon of St. Asaph, with 550 l. a year—sinecure rector of Llanarmon, 345 l., ditto Whitford, 39 l., rector of Marshwell, 708 l., perpetual cu- rate of Morton, 669 l., making a total of 2,261 l. All these pieces of preferment held by the rev. gentleman are in addition to church leases of great value. They are the relatives of a former Bishop of St. Asaph, and know no more of the language of their Welsh flocks than that of the Chinese; and by appointments such as these, the Church in Wales has been deeply injured, and brought into ridicule and contempt. If the House will allow me, I will tell a very short story, which will show the effect of sending us people who do not understand the language of the country—though with regard to an observation which was made the other night by my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth, I will do the noble Lord at the head of the Government the justice to say, that from various communications which reached me at the time, the noble Lord appeared to be himself actuated by a desire to appoint a person to the see of Llandaff, who was not only well fitted to undertake the duties of a bishop generally, but from his perfect knowledge of the Welsh language, to be entirely qualified as a Welsh bishop, and consequently acceptable to the natives; but whether the noble Lord has succeeded in this or not, still remains to be proved. Now, to show the House the ludicrous and ridiculous effect of a bishop's deficiency in not being master of the language of his native flock, I may mention, that not very long ago there was an examination, made before a bishop who was desired himself to examine some adults, and therefore of course it was conducted in English. It took place in the library of the palace. The bishop desired a youth to "repeat the Parable of the Sower," which a lad did by rote like a parrot; and the bishop then desired him to explain the meaning of such a passage. The bishop said to him, "Tell me what you mean by 'birds of the air.'" To this there was an inability to comply, and the bishop gave him the interpretation in English, ordering him afterwards to tell him what he had explained, and saying, "What are birds of the air—you have got plenty in your parish?" The man seemed to understand these words, and said, energetically, "No, there is not one in our parish—not one." It appears by an explanation which he afterwards gave to his friends in his own language, that he had understood the bishop to have explained to him that birds of the air meant, "gay girls, that went flaunting to church, and cocked their caps at the congregation, but shook their heads at the parson!" I could mention a hundred instances of the same kind, which are, and ever must be, the result of allowing persons to hold ecclesiastical offices in Wales, who are totally ignorant of the language, or have an imperfect acquaintance with it; and the Church is necessarily brought into contempt. Not long ago an unqualified clergyman intended to say in Welsh (on occasion of the famine in Ireland), that there would be a collection for the Irish in that church next Sunday; but what he really did announce to his astonished congregation was, that "there would be a hunting of the Irish on the next Sunday in that church."

Now I come back to the case to which I before alluded of the enormous pluralist, in the diocese of London, because it may be said, that all pluralities are old, but I will show one within the last few years; it is the case of Hale, Archdeacon of London, 666 l., in addition to which, in 1840, he was appointed Canon of St. Paul's, 1,200 l., Master of the Charter House, 1,400 l., Vicar of St. Giles's, Cripplegate, 2,018 l.; making a total of 5,284 l., and all these appointments were made between 1840 and 1847, during the whole of which time the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were sitting. How, in the name of Heaven, is it possible that any man can attend to all these duties at the same time? Here is another — Archdeacon Crofts. This gentleman has ten sources of clerical income, and has only visited one of his livings once in twelve years. This income amounts in all to 5,548 l. 14 s. 10½ d. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have connived at all this, and it is now proposed that they should remain where they may continue to do so. I say they ought to be dismissed at once; and I further say, that if we had employed persons to attend to our interests, and the property that belongs to us, and that they had neglected and mismanaged every thing, as these Ecclesiastical Commissioners have done, we should have dismissed them with indignation. I would therefore not let them down by degrees, but dismiss them at once.

Still there is one case of plurality which they have done away with, and its details are so curious, that I cannot help noticing it. It is the case of the Bishop of Rochester. In June, 1845, the Commissioners fixed the income of every future Bishop of Rochester at 4,500 l.; and the present Bishop having returned his average net income of seven years, ending 1844, at 950 l., the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have given 3,550 l. to make up the deficiency, but instead of that they determine that 3,640 l. shall be given. The year after, the Bishop of Rochester made an application to the Commissioners, and said, if they gave him the 4,500 l., at which the income of future Bishops of Rochester was fixed, he would relinquish his pluralities. Let us now see what he did give up, and what he received. The deanery of Worcester, and the rectory of Bishops Bourne, realised 2,300 l., and he gained 1,300 l. a year by the transaction. Who would not give up pluralities for such an exchange as this? The Bishop of London's diocese is undoubtedly too large for any one man to do the duty properly, and the present Bishop gave up the county of Essex to the Bishop of Rochester, telling the Bishop of Rochester, if he would take the county of Essex, it would relieve him (the Bishop of London). This arrangement was entered into, and the estate of Danbury was bought, at a cost of 28,832 l. for the Bishop of Rochester; but although the Bishop of Rochester took upon himself the performance of the duties, the Bishop of London retained, and still holds, all the valuable patronage of the county of Essex.

But the duties performed by the Bishop of Rochester do not seem to be of a very onerous character in the county of Essex, according to a letter from a clergyman in his diocese, who says— funds 174,000 l. Now, supposing that a Canterbury curate had been born at the commencemant of the Christian era, and had received the sum which he is now paid, from the year of our Lord 1, to the year 1851, he would have received exactly 129,500 l., which would leave a balance in favour of the Archbishop of 44,500 l. But this is not all. Here is John Bird Sumner, Archbishop of Canterbury, 15,000 l. a year, two palaces, namely, Lambeth and Addington Park; and Charles Richard Sumner, Bishop of Winchester, 20,000 l. a year, two palaces, Farnham Castle and Winchester House; George H. Sumner, chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and also chaplain to the Bishop of Winchester, curate of Crawley, Hampshire; J. H. R. Sumner, chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, rector of South Church, Essex (in the gift of the Archbishop); John M. Sumner, rural dean, rector of Buriton, Hampshire; Robert Sumner, rector of Calbourne, Isle of Wight (gift of the Bishop of Winchester); John Thomas, son-in-law, domestic chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, rector of Wyke Regis, 1847 (gift of the Bishop of Winchester).

I remember some time ago, before the Police Act was introduced, the case of an Irishman who applied for the appointment of watchman, and being asked what he was, he said, "Please your honour, I am a natural born watchman." Certainly the Sumners appear to be all "natural born clergymen." It would not be fair to look at only one side of the Church; for unhappily our Church is divided into two parties — the Archbishop of Canterbury being at the head of one party, and the Bishop of Exeter at the head of the other. The Bishop of Exeter has distinguished himself very much lately by his love for legal proceedings; and I have no doubt that the diminution of his income is, as shown in the septennial return, very much owing to the enormous legal expenses which he has been put to, and which probably he charges to the Episcopal fund.

The Bishop of Exeter has been nineteen years bishop of the diocese at 2,700 l. a year, making a sum of 24,300 l. He has been canon of Durham twenty-nine years, at 3,000 l. a year, making a sum of 57,000 l. He has been rector of Shobrooke twenty years, at 400 l. a year, making a sum of 8,000 l.; and he has also been rector of Stanhope eight years, at 5,000 l. a year, making a sum of 40,000 l. He has, there- fore, received a sum of 129,300 l.; and if we take a poor curate in my country, at an income of 40 l. a year, and at that rate, reckoning from the commencement of the Christian era, a Welsh curate would have received 74,000 l., thus leaving a balance in favour of the Bishop during the last few years of 55,300 l.

We go on to others of the same family. Here is W. J. Philpotts, precentor of Exeter, in 1840, and archdeacon of Cornwall, in 1845, prebendary of Exeter in 1840, chaplain to the Bishop, vicar of St. Gluvias in 1845, (I believe he does not reside there). All these are in the gift of the Bishop of Exeter. So much with regard to one son. Now to another, E. C. Philpotts, chaplain to the Bishop of Exeter, rector of Lezant, 1847, in the gift of the Bishop. Then there is another son, Thomas Philpotts, vicar of St. Feock, 1844, in the gift of the Bishop. Then there is his son-in-law, Francis Du Bouley, rector of Law-hitton, 1839, in the gift of the bishop. There is another son-in-law, R. Stephens, sub-dean of Exeter, 1840, in the gift of the Bishop, and vicar of Donsford, 1844. Then there is H. R. Surtees, nephew of the Bishop, vicar of Stockland, 1846, which lapsed to the Bishop. All these pluralities have been created within ten years, during the time that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have sat, whose duty it was to endeavour to abolish pluralities, and I wonder whether all these gentlemen have been lately examined, as to the doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration?

I remember that in an old book, entitled Corpus Juris Canonici, there is a chapter headed, De Significatione Verborum, and in it is this remarkable definition, Clericorum filii vocantur nepotes; but here in the family of Philpotts, we have sons, and sons-in-law, and nephews; in fact there is no end to the same family; and if my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich will listen, I think he will find these remarks very applicable and apposite to the present case. I was looking the other day, at the life of one of the most admirable bishops that ever adorned any country. I allude to Dr. Wilson, Bishop of Sodor and Man. He was bishop fifty-eight years. He died at the advanced age of 93; he began his career by refusing a valuable distant living, which he was offered on condition of non-residence, at a time when he had only a stipend of 50 l. a year. Bishop Wilson refused three rich English bishoprics, from three different Sovereigns, rather than leave his comparatively poor and humble bishopric in the Isle of Man, because he believed that he was better qualified to be useful in the sphere in which he was placed. Bishop Wilson addressed a letter to his children, which is preserved, and from which, with the permission of the House, I will read this extract:— tee of this House to have any inquiry into, should be brought under the consideration of the House; and I do most sincerely hope and trust that the Committee will not now be content, merely with the valuable, though limited, Amendment of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that there should be a Committee of the Estates, at which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should not sit, but that the Committee will now determine—that the Bishops ought to be altogether excluded from the board, the business of which they have certainly shown themselves unfit to transact; while we, the members of the great community of the Church, if we desire to see it prosper, ought to insist that the whole property of the Church should be put upon a better and more secure basis.

said, that a large portion of the hon. Baronet's observations had nothing whatever to do with the question before the Committee, perhaps arising from the fact of his being unacquainted with the statutable duties of the Commissioners. The hon. Baronet had cited many instances of pluralities, which were no doubt much to be regretted; but the fact was, that the Commissioners had no power of dealing with the question. He knew nothing of the case of Archdeacon Hale; but it did not appear that the hon. Baronet's remedy of sending the Bishops to live on their dioceses would have done much in that case. It would be impossible for him to follow the hon. Gentleman into the particular acts of every Bishop, nor would it at all conduce to the object in view, which was to place the management of the property in the hands of a smaller body, an object which the hon. Gentleman himself admitted was desirable. With regard to the sums expended on the episcopal residences, all the cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been investigated by a Committee of that House, and every Member had the opportunity of seeing the explanations which had been given. He must, however, remind them that in speaking of the aggregate of the amount expended in this way, only a small portion had come out of the episcopal fund, properly so called, the rest having accrued from the sale of other episcopal property, in carrying out arrangements for changing the place of residence of the Bishop, which change had been for the benefit of the Church. In adopting the proposal of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, to place the whole management of the property in the hands of an Estate Committee, they would be carrying out the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Malton; and he hoped the Committee would adhere to the recommendation of the Select Committee by sanctioning the larger body for general purposes, but placing the property under the management of a limited body.

wished to say a few words to relieve the character of a connexion of his, the Bishop of Rochester, from the injurious imputations which the statements of the hon. Member for Marylebone were calculated, if allowed to go unanswered and unexplained, to cast upon it. The hon. Gentleman said, that that Bishop was one of those who had spent large sums in building and improving the episcopal palaces, and that not being content with the palace attached to the see, he had expended upwards of 20,000 l. on a palace in Essex. Nothing could be further from the fact. The expenditure referred to arose from the alteration in the limits of the diocese, by which the old palace at Bromley was no longer within the limits of the see; and had the Bishop remained there he would have been non-resident. But that palace had been sold, and the amount obtained for it had far more than paid the expense of the new palace in Essex. The hon. Gentleman had made another statement equally unfounded and still more invidious. He had said that the Bishop of Rochester had made a merit of giving up his pluralities, but had increased his income by 1,500 l. a year by the change; but the truth was that the pluralities the Bishop surrendered were of more value than the bishopric.

explained that his statement had been founded on the only documents which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had made public as to the value of the bishopric; and the value of the pluralities he had obtained from the Clergy List.

complained that the hon. Baronet should have stated that 54,000 l. was laid out on a palace for the Bishop of Lincoln; but nothing could give a more unjust impression than to leave it to be supposed that this sum was taken out of a fund which would have been available for the support of the working clergy. The object of the hon. Baronet, in drawing a distinction between the Bishop of London and the working clergy was simply absurd; he might as well draw a dis- tinction between the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the clerks in the Treasury Office. There could be no doubt the noble Lord worked three times as hard as any clerk; and there could be as little doubt that the Bishop of London worked three times as hard as any clergyman. With regard to the individual cases brought forward by the hon. Baronet, he thought they had been sufficiently answered; but whether that were so or not, he protested against the faults that might occur in the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission being put upon the shoulders of the Bishops. No doubt the Bishops had great influence in the Commission; but unless it could be shown, which he believed it could not, that the laymen on the Commission divided in a minority against the Bishops, it was plain that the Bishops ought not to be selected for special blame. He believed that in all the proceedings that took place in the Commission, the Bishops and the laymen were, to use a common phrase, tarred with the same stick. He confessed that he anticipated the most salutary effects from the operation of the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as he believed it would lead to an economical use of the funds of the Church, and to a far more effectual dealing with them.

, as chairman of the Committee which had sat upon this subject, said, that though they had thought the present constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission to be very faulty, they had deemed it their duty rather to amend than to remodel it; and the recommendation of the Committee was that matters connected with the administration of property should be separated from matters peculiarly ecclesiastical. If the Bill stood as it had been originally introduced, he should have been exceedingly dissatisfied; but he joined with others in thinking that in consequence of the valuable amendments made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the Bill would be a great improvement on the present system.

replied: He admitted that the Bill, as amended by the noble Lord, had been considerably improved; but it still appeared to be very objectionable, because the Estates Committee was to consist of five members, of whom three were to be named by the Episcopal bench. He believed that many of the difficulties of the Church arose from the Bishops not being confined sufficiently to their spiritual duties, but having this enormous amount of secular business forced upon them. He should divide the Committee.

said, no doubt it was extremely desirable that the Bishops of the Church should have as little secular occupation as possible; but it seemed to him that the proposition of an Estates Committee, coupled with the Amendment of the noble Lord at the head of the Government would, in fact, withdraw all secular occupation from the general body of the Commissioners, and leave to them matters of a purely spiritual nature. At the same time he should like to have seen some difference in the constitution of the Estates Committee. He did not like the Archbishop naming one who was to hold during his pleasure, and the Commissioners naming two to be appointed annually. It would have been far better that they should be perfectly independent, and that these three at least should hold their offices for life.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 22: Majority 38.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 2,

proposed an Amendment to the effect that each of the three Church Estates Commissioners should receive a salary—that of the third to be 1,000 l. a year. He strongly urged the House to support this recommendation of the Select Committee. The property under the jurisdiction of this Commission amounted, including tithe rent-charges, leases, and other matters, to not less than 70,000,000 l. This was a more important question than it might seem at first sight, as ultimately all the Church property of lessors would fall into the hands of this Estates Committee, and some central authority was necessary to administer such a vast amount of property. The House had a right to expect that all the attention which could be given by paid Commissioners should be bestowed by the gentlemen to be appointed. He understood Mr. Lefevre was to be appointed, and it would be impossible to make a better appointment. But the evidence of Mr. Lefevre himself, before the Parliamentary Committee, was in favour of the business being delegated to a small Committee of five or six, of whom at least two should be paid; and, he added, that though an active member of the Commission, he could not attend to it sufficiently, and he did not think the business would be properly conducted until gentlemen were appointed whose sole duty it should be to attend to it. It was now proposed that the Chief Commissioner should receive 1,200 l., and the Second Commissioner, 1,000 l., obviously an inadequate amount for the management of property which would reach 70 millions. It was most desirable that the recommendation of the Committee should be carried out, for the appointment of three paid Commissioners.

opposed the Amendment. It was principally grounded on the immense amount of property which would come under the management of the Commissioners; but at present that property was not one-third of the amount. It would be a great error to appoint officers with large salaries before the duties arose; it was a much more natural course to make the additional appointments when the increasing duties called for them. The Parliamentary Committee had recommended three paid Commissioners, not on account of the duties, but to create a counterbalance to the two appointed by Government. Though he did not think the salaries proposed by Government at all too high, he would recommend the Committee not to divert those funds which ought to be applied in relief of spiritual destitution to the payment of unnecessary salaries. There was no evidence whatever of the necessity of a third Commissioner. Regarding Mr. Lefevre's services as extremely valuable, he should rejoice in his appointment, and was confident that his services would be as efficient without a salary as with one.

did not think the present duties of the Estates Commissioners would require that more than two of them should be paid; but if other duties should be thrown upon them hereafter, either by the increase of the property to be dealt with, or by any measures adopted by Parliament in consequence of the report of the Commission presided over by the Earl of Harrowby, or from any other cause, it would be quite competent for Parliament then to increase the number of paid Commissioners. No doubt the Committee recommended three paid Commissioners; but it appeared to the Government that there might be secured the services of a third Commissioner, who, receiving a salary (it might be) from some other office, but being able to devote a large portion of his time to the business of this commission, might be as efficient as a paid Commissioner; and it had therefore been thought desirable that in the first instance this plan should be proposed—corresponding in spirit and substance, though not precisely in the letter, with the recommendation of the Committee. The hon. Member for Malton had referred to the evidence of Mr. Lefevre; what Mr. Lefevre proposed was a small Committee of five or six, "two or three of them to be paid."

felt assured there would be quite an adequate amount of duty for the members of this board to perform. He believed in practice it would be found better to have the work done by paid Commissioners, for they would carry into effect the objects in view in a more effectual manner than a board like the present. It was proposed that two of the Commissioners should be appointed by the Crown, and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and two should be elected by the Commissioners themselves. The result, he feared, would be, that by not paying one of the Crown Commissioners, there would be a want of inducement to ensure his attendance. The business to be transacted was purely the monagement of property; if it had been at all of a spiritual character, he should have taken a different view of the question from what he had. He believed if the ecclesiastical property had been in the hands of State Commissioners, they never would have incurred that loss which had recently fallen on them.

advocated the intrusting the property to three paid Commissioners. Indeed, as for the Bill as now proposed, we might almost as well have the old commission, for we should have, in effect, three Commissioners on the part of the Episcopal bench, and but two nominated by the Crown. As one of the Commissioners named by the Crown might sit in Parliament, and thus have his time much taken up, it was the more desirable that the other should devote his whole time to the business.

was quite certain that the Commissioners would find they had much and very important work to occupy them.

thought that if in consequence of the report of the Earl of Harrowby's Commission, or otherwise, other business should be added to what was at present to devolve upon these Commissioners, or if the business should increase, it might be very proper that there shonld be a third Commissioner receiving a salary; but as the case stood at present, he was of opinion that it would be sufficient that there should be two paid Commissioners.

believed it would be economical to consolidate certain other ecclesiastical boards with this commission.

would not press his Motion after what had fallen from the Government.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 3, 4, and 5.

Clause 6.

said the country was disgusted from one end to the other at the conduct of the present Ecclesiascal Commissioners. It appeared that this board was in effect to be continued by the present clauses, for the constitution of the board would be such as to give the nomination of only two Commissioners to the Crown, while three would be named by the Church. He thought the proper course of proceeding would be to strike out this clause, and he should make a Motion to that effect. It should be remembered that what was called church property belonged to the public, and not to the bishops and clergy. The public ought to be fairly represented in the commission, which would not be the case if this clause was suffered to remain in the Bill.

said, that the Committee of that House recommended that there should be three paid Commissioners; but the Committee evidently at the time contemplated that some of the present Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be members of the board. What the hon. Member for Marylebone proposed, was going beyond the recommendations of the Commissioners. The Government proposed at present that there should be only two paid Commissioners, as they believed the object of the Committee would be carried out by the plan they proposed. He could not agree in all the censure which had been passed on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The number of Commissioners had been increased from thirteen to fifty, and it certainly appeared that the board was less effective than it formerly was. It had happened that business had been transacted in such a way as to lead to mischief; and this to some extent might have arisen at a time when Members of the House could not attend the meetings of the board, By this means a great deal of irregularity and want of efficiency had arisen in the transaction of business; it therefore was very proper that they should consider the construction of the board with a view to a change. He did not think there was any ground for the assertion that it was the opinion of the Committee that some of the present Commissioners should belong to the proposed board. He did not admit the truth of the charge, so often repeated, that the Bishops endeavoured to exercise an undue influence and power through the medium of this board. It should also be remembered that some lay members were to be appointed by the Crown, on this board, who would be most efficient men of business.

could not help feeling that no answer had been given to his hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone; he trusted, therefore, that he would press his Motion to a division. The noble Lord said that there was no ground for suspicion at present. If that were the case, why was the present Bill introduced?

wished to make a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Marylebone in the early part of the evening. He could state that the hon. Member was altogether wrong as to the statement he had made respecting the diocese in which he (Sir J. Trollope) resided. The hon. Member for Marylebone said the case of the Bishop of Lincoln was the most flagitious that had come under his notice. The hon. Gentleman said the Bishop of Lincoln had obtained 54,000 l. from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Now the sum total which the right rev. Prelate had received was 6,200 l.; in fact, only one-ninth of the amount stated by the hon. Member. The other portion of the 54,000 l., which had been laid out in the purchase of the estate, had been derived from the sale of property belonging to the diocese situated in other places. This property had been sold at its full value. There was another case also in which the hon. Member had greatly overstated the amount received by a bishop. The hon. Gentleman said the Bishop of Rochester had sold the episcopal residence at Bromley, and had purchased another in Essex at "the cost of 24,000 l. Did the hon. Gentleman know that the episcopal residence at Bromley was sold for 30,000 l., so that by this arrangement the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were gainers to the extent of 6.000 l.? The residence at Bromley was sold because by the new arrangements which were made in the several dio- ceses, that place had ceased to be in the diocese of Rochester.

said, that it was clear by this and subsequent clauses that two of the Church Estates Commissioners must be a party to every transaction at the board. It distinctly stated that the Crown Commissioner must be present and concur in every proceeding. As two of the Church Estates Commissioners were to be nominated by the Crown, and only one by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it was clear that the former must have a preponderating influence at the board.

said, if the whole five were present, the two might be out-voted.

said, that two members of the corporation, of whom one at least should be a layman, to be appointed by Ecclesiastical Commission, were to be members of the Estates Committee in addition to the Church Estates Commissioners; from which it would appear that they should ex necessitate be Church Commissioners.

said, that if three out of the five Commissioners were to be Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it would be giving a direct majority to the Church.

said, that if the clause was struck out, Members of the Commission, of high business qualifications, like the right hon. Member for Ripon, would be excluded from sitting on the Estates Committee, which would be very undesirable. It was certainly intended that two of the Church Estates Commissioners should be included in executing the Act. If the suggestions now made were adopted, they would have the effect of excluding the Estates Committee from taking any part in the management of the Commission, which was very undesirable.

thought the clause was not very clearly drawn. For example, there was nothing in it, so far as he could see, to prevent the rest of the Commissioners dealing with the estates, the management of which they were told was to be exclusively confined to the Estates Committee. Were there to be two authorities in this matter—the Estates Committee and the body of the Commissioners at large?

would not pretend to say the words of the clause might not be liable to such a misconstruction; but he would take care before the Bill left the House that the clause should be altered. He would, however, call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the terms of the 6th and 7th clauses, which appeared to him to be very clear.

thought, with all deference for the noble Lord's opinion, that the difficulty to which he had referred had not been at all cleared up. The 7th clause empowered the Estates Committee to manage the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but there was no provision whatever to restrain the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from doing anything they pleased. A report in writing was to be made to them under the hands of three, at least, of the Committee, of whom two should be Church Estates Commissioners. It seemed to him to be a very inconvenient course that the power of the Estates Committee, and the power of the Commission at large, should be concurrent. He thought it ought to be made quite clear.

said, that although great respect appeared now to have been paid to the recommendation of the Committee, it had already been dissented from. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and another Member of the Cabinet had voted in the majority against the recommendation. The proposition was for three paid Commissioners, but it was rejected. The Crown was to have had a preponderance of two to one; instead of which the Bill gave the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Archbishop of Canterbury the appointment of three, and the Crown the appointment of two only. Such a provision would obviously defeat the recommendation of the Committee. It was undoubtedly expected that those Gentlemen, the Estates Committee, should have the management of the property of the Church, at least that the three paid Commissioners should practically have it, instead of which the provisions in the Bill completely swamped the recommendation of the Committee. The clause did not at all carry out their intentions.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 33: Majority 43.

Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 7 to 12.

Clause 13.

moved, that all the words in the clause after the word "that" be omitted, for the purpose of substituting others, the object of which was to unite the episcopal fund and the common fund, and to make the joint fund available for all purposes for which the common fund had heretofore been available.

said, he had expected the noble Lord would have prefaced his proposition by some explanation.

said, the object of the noble Lord's Amendment was to get rid of an Amendment introduced into the Bill during its progress through the other House, and to restore the clause to its original form.

thought that, as the Amendment had been determined on in the Lords, after considerable discussion and deliberation, it ought not to be disposed of in the cavalier manner proposed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord's Amendment, if adopted, would amalgamate the episcopal and the common funds; and this clause gave the Ecclesiastical Commissioners power to transfer any surplus arising from the episcopal fund to the common fund. Nothing could be more outrageous than to deprive the poor of the blessings of spiritual education. The parochial funds had lost a great deal which ought to have been made available for those purposes. The division of the funds as proposed was taken to be an indication of the intention of the Government to increase from time to time the number of bishops; and he believed, indeed, a formal pledge had been on some former occasion given by the Government upon that subject. But was that now certain, how were the new bishops to be paid? There was no formal renunciation of the intention supposed to have been entertained by the Government to appoint additional bishops, but it might have been much better if such an intimation had been made at once. Now, he considered that the Motion of the noble Lord raised the question whether there would ever be any new bishops endowed out of the property of the Church. He (Mr. Gladstone) objected to the Motion, not as regarded its letter but as regarded its spirit. He objected to it as practically cutting off all prospect of there ever being any new bishops. Still he had no wish to see a wholesale formation of new bishoprics on the scale and standard of those which now existed, nor was he anxious that there should be creation of new bishoprics without some imperative feeling being evinced in the localities where they would be called on to act; and in this respect he thought the formation of the diocese of Manchester a mistake. He thought it was unfortunate that Manchester should be dealt with without any regard being had to the feelings of the locality. They had looked over the map of England, and, selecting a populous district, had cut off a part of the diocese of Chester, and out of it created the see of Manchester. If there were to be new bishoprics, they should be created in localities where the public mind was prepared to receive them, and where practical evidence had been given of that preparation. It was his intention to propose a clause to enable the Queen in Council to appoint new bishops, at fixed salaries, not exceeding 1,500 l. a year, in any district where the sum of 30,000 l. for the endowment of the bishopric should be raised by voluntary subscriptions in the locality. He confessed that his object in providing for the raising of so large a local contribution was not merely to lighten the tax on the central fund, though it was important that they should not have any claim on a fund which ought to be applied to parochial purposes, and therefore he had fixed the income at 1,500 l. a year (of course the bishop not having a seat in the House of Lords, that intention being palpable from the amount of income fixed), yet it was likewise with the view, and the more immediate view (the subscription being conclusive evidence of it), that in the place itself and among members of the Church, there should be a desire to found a bishopric and a desire to receive a bishop, thus making an opening for all the excellent effects which were likely to follow from the establishment of the see, and that the bishop should be received not with murmurs, but with eagerness and satisfaction; the plan having originated not from headquarters, but from local feeling and desire. A bishop appointed under such circumstances, would become really the spiritual and ecclesiastical head of the community over which he was placed; and although he might not know personally every one in his diocese (for he, Mr. Gladstone, doubted if St. Ambrose had a personal acquaintance with every one in his diocese of Milan), yet he could discharge duties similar to those which in Leeds and other large towns were performed by men of great energy who were only in the position of parochial clergy. He hoped, whether the noble Lord thought it necessary or not to restore the Bill to the state in which it came down from the House of Lords, he would do something to show that the question of the foundation of new bishoprics was not to be submitted to the operation of what was called "shelving." They ought to know what was the feeling of the country on this subject, and not adopt this Motion without some explanation which would show whether they were to act on definite ideas and principles with regard to the creation of new bishoprics. He did not mean to say that the bishops were overlooked, indeed some of them were not, and their labour depended more on the activity of their character than in the fact of their having a large diocese; and when their duties had fallen into mere routine, it was a mistake to suppose that their work would necessarily be increased by the enlarging of a diocese, or that it would be diminished by the formation of a small one. If there were to be new dioceses created, the bishops should be the pastors of their dioceses, and not the mere monarchs of them.

said, that the reason for adopting this clause was, that after the discussions in the House, and the report of the Committee, it was thought that the spiritual wants of large parishes (and this was confirmed by the first report of the Commission of Inquiry) were so great, that it was considered advisable that all the sums which could be applied to that purpose, should be devoted to the increase of parochial cures. In compliance with that view, an alteration was proposed in the original constitution of the funds made by the first Commission of Inquiry, namely, the separation of the episcopal fund. It was question much considered by the Commission, and he did not think that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had been a member of it, he could have had the appropriation of certain funds for the purposes of bishoprics overlooked. It was a subject of frequent discussion in the Commission, more especially as the late Archbishop of Canterbury, and the late Earl of Harrowby, entertained a different opinion on the matter. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, that if the House decided that there should be no separate funds, and that the common episcopal fund be made one, it would at once "shelve" the question, of the creation of new bishoprics, and would, in fact, be a decision that there were to be no new bishoprics. He (Lord J. Russell) could not consider that question so absolutely decided. It was true it was not proposed to proceed with the Royal Commission which was in existence three years ago, for the creation of new bishops. The Commissioners and the Archbishop of Canterbury had considered this question, and they were of opinion that it was desirable to give as much of the funds as possible for the creation of parochial districts, and that no Bill should be introduced for the formation of any new bishoprics until there was a more general assent to such a proposition than was likely to be obtained now. The right hon. Gentleman also said, that it was a mistake to create the see of Manchester. He (Lord J. Russell), however, thought that if a diocese was so enormous as that of Chester, and if it was impossible for a bishop to visit the most populous parts of his diocese, there would be more likely to be dissent from the Church, than the feeling in favour of the formation of a bishopric, which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think necessary. He differed with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the creation of bishoprics. Supposing that it was considered right to add to those which were now in existence, he thought that they should be added on the same plan as the diocese of Manchester, with an income of about 4,000 l. a year: that would be acting more in conformity with the arrangements of the Church, and the regulations of the Church, as at present constituted. He did not think that such bishops could not be the spiritual heads of their dioceses, or that, taking into account the secular duties they had to perform, they could fail in that respect. But if they were to be made elective by the Church for the purposes stated, and not named by the Crown, it would be introducing a new mode of creating bishoprics, which must jar with the constitution of the Church, or overthrow it. It might happen that the system would not work well, or it might be said that it was a better one—that it was an error that bishops should be in Parliament—that their temporal power should be taken away, and they should be excluded from the House of Lords, and thus a different set of bishops altogether would be created. He looked on the prospect of such a result with alarm. He could not now enter into so large a question, but if a separation of the Bishops altogether from the State was to take place—if they were to be made elective—to be removed from the House of Lords, and their temporal power taken away—it would endanger the Established Church as it was now constituted. For those reasons he thought that the episcopal fund should be joined to the parochial fund, and that it was not advisable to begin a new scheme which he con- ceived would be fraught with danger to the Church.

said, he differed with his right hon. Colleague with regard to the establishment of the see of Manchester; and he thanked his noble Friend at the head of the Government for having selected that great town as the seat of a bishopric. It being so large a town, and the fact of a Dean and Chapter having been already formed, justified the selection, and in that his noble Friend did good service to the Church; but he must remind his noble Friend, that when he formed that see, he also undertook to create other new bishops, and that nothing had since occurred to prevent that being done. He felt that great inconvenience would arise from the separation of the Episcopate from the State on the plan of his right hon. Friend, which in other hands and other mouths might lead to the separation of Church and State. There was another plan which might be carried by means of a statute still in force, namely, the summoning of suffragan bishops, whose sees were created by the statute of Henry VIII. They were not intended to sit in the House of Lords; and though he did not admit the phrase of "the working clergy," in contradistinction to such a bishop as the Bishop of London, and though he would not admit that suffragan bishops only were entitled to be called "working bishops," still their junctions would be more purely episcopal in a ministerial sense. When he remembered that 200 years ago there were two bishops for this metropolis, and that the Bishop of Westminister sat by the side of the Bishop of London, he thought it might be advisable to summon a Bishop of Westminster, and precedents existed for doing so. His objection, however, to merging the episcopal into the common fund, was, that what would be lost there would never be recovered. It was true his noble Friend had not thrown aside his plan for the creation of three new bishoprics; but how much greater difficulty in the way of their formation would there be when the present available fund was thrown aside. If the present time was not favourable for such endowment, when would it be likely to be more favourable to transferring a sum from the Consolidated Fund, or any other means for such a purpose? He thought that now, while they had the means of such endowments, they ought not to be cast away. His noble Friend would be acting more consistently with the pledge he gave three years ago, if he took the Bill as it came from the House of Lords, which prevented his pledging the funds irrevocably to other purposes.

thought the noble Lord was right and wise in the course he now proposed to take. When the reform of the Church was made in that House, it was proposed that 139,000 l. should be applied to the payment of the whole of the Bishops, and that every shilling that arose beyond that sum should go to the common fund, and it was a fact, that at that time 2,000 persons who were doing the work of working clergy at 80 l. a year, were willing to give the Bishops increased income without augmenting the efficiency of the working clergy. He wished that the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, while he wished to maintain the Church in connexion with the State, would not go on increasing the number of bishops while the working clergy were so ill provided for. On the contrary, if one proceeding were more likely than any other to promote separation, it was such conduct; and he must say that the noble Lord, in attempting three years ago to create three new bishoprics, had created greater hostility in this country towards the Church, than had been called forth by any other act within his recolleetion. He hoped he should never see the time when a proposition should be made in that House to create three new bishops, and pay them out of funds granted by Parliament to increase the efficiency of the working clergy. Many parishes were in a state of destitution, and he did not think that any man who was a friend to the Church could advise the endowment of 7.000 l., or 8,000 l., or 10,000 l. a year more for bishops.

denied that his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford now proposed any new endowment from the Consolidated Fund. On the contrary, his argument was, that the noble Lord should retain the funds already in hand for that purpose, in order to avoid the necessity for coming upon any other fund. The only argument which the noble Lord had used in support of the Motion for reversing the decision of the House of Lords, was the spiritual destitution existing in many districts; but the noble Lord should bear in mind, that as the clause now stood, there was a distinct provision for meeting that destitution by allotting the surplus of the episcopal fund from year to year to that purpose, after providing for the wants of the episcopate.

thought that the noble Lord did not deserve the reproach that had been directed against him. He thought that what the noble Lord had now said was a perfectly satisfactory answer, that there had not been that general concurrence with his proposal which would have justified him in pressing it. The complaint was, that the Government had taken the initiative. It was just the contrary, for they were acting against those who were assuming and oppressive. The distinction had been hitherto known in the Church of establishing one fund for the parochial clergy and another for the Bishops. When the Bill for the Manchester bishopric was brought in, there were opponents who thought that the provision made for the Bishops would injure the provision for the parochial clergy, and that increase in the number of Bishops was not the measure which the times required. If the parochial destitution were met, and if the creation were then proposed of such Bishops as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had pointed out, who should be the centres of religious society, he believed that public support and confidence would be with the Bishops of the present day, as much as with the Bishops of the old times. If they attended to parochial wants, no friend of the Church would object to the after creation of Bishops—if men were appointed who would go among the people, and become their friends and advisers and the central portions of religious society; but let them not postpone the parochial claims of the bishoprics. He had a strong feeling that the parochial destitution at present demanded great attention; and he could not wonder at the strong feeling that existed on that subject, that that parochial destitution required more attention at the present moment than the episcopate. Let them attend to that point, and let them trust to the people of this country, and there would be in the end no want of the most ample provision that might be required.

had heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth with great pleasure, because it would appear that although he was not about to support the clause as it stood, there was sufficient ground for those who sat near him (Mr. S. Herbert) to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained of a system which isolated the Bishops from the clergy and the people, and imposed upon them so great an amount of secular duty that they were unable, although their motives were pure and intentions good, to perform the more important spiritual functions which they had to discharge to the people of England; that if they were overworked in temporal matters, their minds would be unfitted for those more exalted offices which they had to perform; for there being so few men for so vast an amount of secular labour, had the effect of incapacitating them for their higher and more spiritual duties. But, before those districts were divided, there must be created in the minds of the laity an ardent desire for such a change; and if one superior and larger mind were introduced, who, by his precepts and example, would rouse the religious feeling, and the conviction of the spiritual destitution being brought home to him, more would have been done towards creating a remedy for the evil if 3,000 l. or 4,000 l. a year were spent in this cause, than by sending out a number of curates at 100 l. a year. He would read to the House the opinion of the Bishop of Ripon of the duties imposed upon him. [The right hon. Gentleman here read an extract from a charge by the Bishop of Ripon, to the general purport, that if Bishops were not merely known by name, but identified themselves with their clergy, and with the people, and were known to their flock as their friend and father—their advisers in doubt, and assistants in difficulty, the promoters in every good work—encouraging and supporting the weak, and rousing the lukewarm—he conscientiously believed that their exertions of body and mind to the full respond to all those demands, would be far beyond the average physical power and mental ability.] He thought those sentiments were in accordance with the opinions of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was said that the commanding officer should not be approached by the common men; that his office was that of direction; that actual contact with the people was reserved for the lesser clergy. He could not conceive anything more contrary to the Scriptural doctrines, or more contrary to the feeling of the English people, to whom, if one thing was more grateful than another, it was, that a man of high place and dignity should come among them in the performance of his office. In the time of Henry VIII. there were the same number of Bishops in Parliament as at present, whilst the population was then only 4,000,000, being on the average one bishop to every 150,000 of the population; whilst the average now was one to every 700,000 of the population. But that a bishop should be less respected by his mingling with the poorer classes of the people in the exercise of his vocation, was contrary to Scripture and to all experience. Talking about principles would not, he believed, move the people. What they wanted was to see the form of the episcopacy in the person of the bishop himself among them, and that effect would be prevented if the minds of the bishops were secularised by attention to temporal affairs. The right hon. Member for Oxford University had said that he could get over the whole difficulty by reanimating a dormant Act of Parliament; but he (Mr. S. Herbert) confessed he did not perceive how such an effect could be so produced. If these two funds were fused, the tithes would be abolished, and could not be enforced. Episcopal property had been left for episcopal purposes, and parochial property for parochial purpose. They had always been separate, and now it was proposed to fuse them. He regretted to hear that the noble Lord at the head of the Government did not intend to adhere to the Bill as it originally stood, and bring forward that increase of bishoprics which he had proposed in 1846. He regretted it greatly; and it would be a source of great regret also to many good members of the Established Church. But the noble Lord had thought that there had not been sufficient concurrence in the country. As to the objection of the noble Lord to the proposal of his right hon. Friend, with respect to the appointment of bishops, it should be recollected that his right hon. Friend proposed that they should be elected in the same manner as the bishops were now elected, and therefore there would be no innovation in that respect. But with respect to their non-admission to the House of Lords, that was a very grave and difficult question. He confessed that if the Church were to be created for the first time, and if for the first time it was proposed that there should be a connection between Church and State, he would doubt if it would be for the advantage of the Church that members of that Church by their ecclesiastical office should have seats in the House of Lords; but the whole ecclesiastical system had grown up in this practice, and he saw great advantage in its retention. He did not think that the fact of bishops having seats in the House of Lords was to be an argument against the increase of the episcopacy; and rather than forego the increase of authority that was necessary in the Church, with the increase of population, he would prefer to see bishoprics set up on a less splendid scale, and even without the privilege that was set up by the noble Lord as an obstacle to their appointment.

said, the real question before the House was whether it was desirable to have more bishops, or a greater number of working clergy. Now, he found by the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on the 30th of May, 1848, the Bishop of Lincoln was asked the question, "We are told by one of your Lordship's brethren on the bench that an additional number of bishops is desirable;" and the right rev. Prelate answered, "I think that an increase of bishops is very desirable in some instances; but if I were asked whether I think it were more desirable than an increase of the working clergymen I do not think it more desirable." He (Sir B. Hall) certainly was excessively surprised to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the fact of the bishops sitting in the House of Lords was a democratic element of that assembly. He had always understood that they were the very antipodes to the democratic element. They were always opposed to liberal measures, and did all they could to keep things as they are, without any improvement. He thought it would be better for the interests of the Established Church if the Bishops had not a seat in the House of Lords. Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought otherwise; but what an argument they were raising against themselves by wanting to have bishops without seats in Parliament. They might make up their minds to this, that if there were more bishops the people would think it would be much better for them to give up their seats, to live in their dioceses, to mingle with their clergy, and to superintend and guide them. Now, he took the liberty, in the early part of the evening, of stating the condition of the working clergy in his neighbourhood. They were now wanting more bishops when there were poor clergymen living in farm houses, having no glebe houses, and in a worse condition than farm labourers. If they wanted to have more bishops let them do this: They had bishops with incomes varying from 4,500 l. to 1,500 l. a year; let these bishops sacrifice a portion of their enormous incomes to support the new bishops. Look at the condition of the working clergy. He had taken the cases of eight alphabetically, living in his neighbourhood. The livings of all of them were under 70 l. a year; they varied from 45 l. to 68 l. the highest. In the diocese of St. David's there were 23 curates, whose income exceeded 100 l. a year, 14 not exceeding 100 l., 11 not exceeding 80 l., 14 under 60 l., 39 under 50 l., and 53 whose incomes varied from 10 l. to 40 l. And yet those men were obliged to appear as gentlemen. He knew a case, happening nearly at his own door, of a poor clergyman who was anxious, in consequence of the miserable stipend he had as a curate, to have clothes and food given to him which were about being given to the poor; and who was thankful that they were bestowed upon him; and when a proud dignitary of the Church saw him working in a garden in a coloured coat, he blamed him for not wearing a coat which he could not afford to purchase. He (Sir B. Hall) considered that the case of the poor clergymen ought to be regarded before they appointed more bishops.

, said, of all the fallacies brought forward, that of insinuating that the bishops were not working men was the most shallow. The accusation was that the wealthy bishops neglected their flocks, and looked after their temporal concerns. Now what was the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford? Why, that a set of bishops should be created with more limited incomes, who must be working clergy, and take an active part in their flocks. This was the practical answer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Marylebone at the beginning of the evening. The Committee were now called upon to divide on a matter which the House affirmed four years ago, and which was reaffirmed by the House of Lords; and the Government, without any reason whatever, now asked the House to break the pledge that was made relative to the appointment of four new bishops, when in reality only one had been appointed. With reference to the curates of Wales, there were various modes which might be thought of to better their position. It had occurred to him that a subscription from the landowners would not be amiss, even if it only went to the extent of a new black coat, in- stead of a coloured one. A more fallacious and claptrap argument than that the bishops were not working clergy he never heard.

suggested that the Welsh gentlemen ought to give back their tithes to the Church, in order that they might be devoted to ecclesiastical purposes.

said, it seemed to him that the State having laid violent hands upon the property of the Bishops and of the Church, and having now a large sum of money in its hands, the question was how they could apply it to the most useful purpose. The plan proposed by the Government left it free to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners either to provide for the inferior clergy or to create new bishops. This seemed to him to be the most sensible plan. He was quite willing to leave it to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to decide for themselves from time to time in what channel this fund should go. These reasons induced him to vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord.

preferred the clause as it had been sent clown to the House of Lords. If the clause should not be adopted, they would put off in perpetuity any extension of the inferior body of the clergy.

did not think the ecclesiastical fund could have been separated in the first instance on any principle. The right course from the first would have been to consider it as a Church fund for all purposes—the establishment of bishoprics, and the relief of spiritual destitution. Hs protested against the distinction drawn between the bishops and the working clergy. The bishops worked as much as the working clergy—they worked in producing the working clergy. Wherever an active and diligent bishop was placed, there was certain to be an increase of the working clergy. Thirteen bishops had been appointed for the colonies by the voluntary exertions of the members of the Church of England, and the result had been that, in some instances, the number of the clergy had been doubled, and in some instances it had increased threefold. So far from thinking that the clause which had come from the House of Lords would effect the object in view, it did not provide that the surplus from year to year was to be handed over to the common fund, but that the Commissioners should from time to time, as they should think fit, hand over such portions as they might think right. Now, he thought it would be better to have one common fund for every church purpose, the disposition of which should be placed in the hands of the Commissioners, who ought to have the power to determine whether to establish an additional bishop, or increase the remuneration of the working clergy.

said, it was because he firmly believed the clause as it had come down from the House of Lords was best calculated to promote the interests of the Church and the people, that he supported it in opposition to the Amendment of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The hon. and learned Member who spoke last had stated that, as the Amendment proposed by the Government would leave in the hands of the Commissioners the power to appropriate grants of money, either for the creation of new bishoprics or the endowment of poor livings, he thought that the Amendment was most likely to be beneficial. He (Lord J. Manners) wished to ask the Government whether they were prepared to point out any other means than those submitted to them by the House of Lords in this Bill for creating additional bishoprics; or whether they intended the country to go on from year to year, satisfied with the pledge they gave in 1846, without evincing any intention to carry that pledge practically into effect. In the Royal Commission under which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners acted, the Queen expressed a desire that a measure should be submitted to Parliament for establishing a bishopric of Manchester, and, as soon as conveniently might be, three additional bishoprics. Now, he asked Her Majesty's Government what measures they were prepared to propose to carry out that object; aud whether, if the Committee adopted the Amendment of the noble Lord, he would give them any reasonable hope that, before the end of this or the next Session of Parliament, these three additional bishoprics would be created? He considered that a bishop ought to be able to confer with every one of his clergy on every point connected with the spiritual superintendence of the people; but while the present dioceses were continued in their enormous magnitude, it was impossible that such relations could be established; and it was because he was convinced the true interests of the Church of England required at this moment a great extension of the episcopate, which the Amendment would tend to prevent, that he asked the Committee to withhold from it their assent.

doubted whether the effect of the clause would not prevent, at any future time, the endowment of new bishoprics. The early part of the clause was so constructed that it carried the surplus of the ecclesiastical fund to the common fund, which was devoted to other than ecclesiastical purposes. Although some words of the clause would admit a double interpretation, there was great reason to doubt whether the first part of the clause would not carry over the surplus of the increased fund into the common fund.

said, the present state of the law, as he understood it, was this—that there were certain purposes which could be provided for out of the common fund; there were other purposes which could be provided for out of the episcopal fund, and to those purposes only could that fund be applied; but he did not think either the one fund or the other was at present applicable to the formation and endowment of new bishoprics. The clause as adopted by the House of Lords only provided that, the episcopal fund remaining as it now was, any surplus that might accrue should be applicable to the purposes of the common fund. The clause, as proposed to be amended by the Government, would provide that there should in future be only one fund, but that provision should be made out of that common fund, not only for the augmentation of small livings, and other objects at present provided for out of the common fund, but that such fund should also be applicable to an increase of the poorer sees, and to the other objects now provided for out of the episcopal fund. Therefore, by the Amendment he proposed, there was clearly a power given to apply what would hereafter be the common fund—to consist of the present common fund and the episcopal fund—to purposes to which the episcopal fund was now applicable, such as the increase of the smaller bishoprics; but he did not think that either in the clause as it at present stood, or as the Government proposed to alter it, there was any power of founding or endowing new bishoprics. That, he apprehended, must be done by Act of Parliament. Now there being at present a separate episcopal fund, and there existing a surplus of that episcopal fund, it might be argued that it would be a proper application of that surplus to found and endow new bishoprics. But he thought it could be more naturally argued that the first application of the common fund, after providing for those things required by Act of Parliament, should be to increase the small livings. He was of opinion that it might, from time to time, be necessary to increase the number of bishoprics; but he did not think that for that purpose the intentions of Parliament were at all prevented by the Amendment which he proposed. All that was intended was, that the increase of the small livings rather than the increase of bishoprics should first be provided for.

said, the noble Lord had told them that all the applications for the augmentation of small livings that had been hitherto or might hereafter be made to the Ecclesiastial Commissioners under his proposed arrangement, must be satisfied before any additional bishoprics were founded. Now, they had it on record that there had been already 1,100 applications of that nature; and how many more might be made in time to come, it would surpass the imagination of man to discover. He asked any Gentleman, therefore, who thought that an increase of the episcopacy was necessary in the present condition of the English Church, whether the proposition of the Government afforded an equal chance for the erection of those bishoprics with the clause proposed by the House of Lords?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 163: Majority 52.

Proposed words added.

House resumed.

Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday.