objected to the system of registering tickets. He said, that it had proved perfectly useless for the object for which it was established, namely, to facilitate the manning of the Navy. It was a source of great trouble and annoyance, both to seamen and shipmasters. Tickets might soon be had of any crimp for half-a-crown. He gave a detailed illustration of the usual mode of evading the law, by purchasing tickets of crimps, and entering on board vessels under feigned names; that the ticket could not even discriminate a foreign from a British seaman, and that, leading as it did to falsehood and deception, was a cause of much demoralisation among seamen. He said, there was only one practical mode of manning the Navy promptly and efficiently, and that was by giving wages equal, or nearly so, to what seamen could earn in the merchant service. Let them do that, and a line-of-battle ship would be well manned in as many days as it now required months to do it. He should move that the latter portion of this clause, as well as the following, be struck out of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, page 10, line 35, to leave out the words from the word "be" to the end of the clause, in order to add the word "repealed," instead thereof.

opposed the Amendment, observing that, although there were many defects in the present system of registration, the general principle of registration was a sound one, and he could not consent to abandon it. The Bill, as at present worded, proposed to transfer the duties of superintending the registration from the custom-house officers to the shipping officers at the various ports, who were to be amenable to the Board of Trade.

thought that the registration system was greatly to be objected to both in principle and practice. It occasioned the country an annual expenditure of from 10,000 l. to 12,000 l., and it was not productive of the smallest advantage. He thought it was highly objectionable, for there was no denying that the real purpose of registration was to facilitate impressment. There would be no possibility of impressing seamen if there were no registration of their names; and as he considered impressment a grievance to the owners of merchant ships, he should vote in favour of the Amendment.

said, with reference to that particular objection to the Bill which related to impressment, that in periods of emergency all loyal citizens, whether on sea or shore, ought to be prepared to defend their country, and seamen were not liable to be balloted for the militia.

admitted the faults of the present system, but he hoped that they would be corrected when the system was placed, as it was now proposed to be, under the superintendence of the Board of Trade. He should vote against the Amendment.

was willing to leave the management of the registration system in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade.

Question put, "That the words 'vested in the Board of Trade' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 25: Majority 21.

Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 25 and 26.

Clause 27.

wished for some information relative to the appointment of the shipping officer.

said, that in all ports where there was sufficient trade to require a shipping officer, local boards would be established, and these would have the power to appoint the shipping officer.

moved the omission of this and the five following clauses, on the ground that they imposed on the shipping interest a new burden and new obstructions. They interposed the interference of this new shipping officer in regard to the engagement of men, the payment of the crew, and the clearance of vessels. It imposed a delay in the case of the British shipowner in breaking hulk, to which the foreign shipowner would not be liable, and he believed would multiply crimps in every port.

thought the establishment of shipping officers was one of the main advantages which this Bill gave to the merchant. At present the law interfered in the engagement of seamen; no man could hire sailors for any ship except he were an agent licensed by the Board of Trade. Instead of these licensed agents, whom it had been found impossible to separate altogether from the practice of crimping, in future there would be a per- son, not under the influence of the Board of Trade, but appointed by a local board, a man of respectability, in whom confidence could be placed, and who should have the superintendence of all contracts. The same system which he now proposed to establish existed in the Hanse Towns, Sweden, and other maritime States with the greatest benefit. The same system had been established in Canada, and with the greatest success. These shipping officers would be valuable, not only in securing the seamen from the abuses which they were now liable to from the interference of crimps, but would confer a great advantage in point of economy on the shipowner. Mr. Green, of Blackwall, though he had himself established a sailors' home for the seamen engaged in his own vessels, was one of the persons who most strongly urged upon him the adoption of this part of the Bill.

was not prepared to admit that a system which might be very applicable to Canada was equally fitted for every port in this kingdom. Had there been any demand for any such regulation from the port he represented, or from any other? What the shipping interest desired, now that all their privileges had been taken away, was to be left alone to compete with the foreign shipowner as best they might.

thought the practical working of these clauses was not understood, or they would not have been opposed. He said the Sailors' Home at Liverpool had been productive of the greatest advantages, inasmuch as it facilitated the masters in obtaining crews, and enabled the crews to lay by their savings.

thought the right hon. Proposer of the measure was bound to make out a case against the shipowners before he introduced such clauses as the present.

said, he had received the strongest representations from all parts of the country against the operation of the present system, and that the order and regularity which would be established by the shipping offices, though crimpage might not be altogether abolished, would be attended with the best results.

asked what good the clauses would effect if they did not put down crimpage? He denied that the Bill had the support of the shipping interest generally. It contained, indeed, a couple of good clauses, but it also contained very many bad ones.

said, he had received a very strong remonstrance against the whole Bill from the Limerick Chamber of Commerce.

said, that although Limerick might oppose the Bill, the citizens of that place had expressed themselves strongly against the crimpage which had been going on at the St. Lawrence until a shipping office was established there.

said, the great difference between this Bill and former Bills regulating maritime affairs was this, that the measure now before the House placed a most important duty in the hands of more respectable persons than those who exercised it heretofore.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, after having destroyed protection, was now coming forward and asking for fresh protective powers in favour of the employed.

called upon the House to proceed to a division, as the minds of hon. Members were thoroughly made up as to how they should vote.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 9: Majority 58.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

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

appeared at the bar, and said: I have had the honour of waiting on Her Majesty with the Address of this honourable House; to which Her Majesty has been pleased to return the following gracious Answer:—

"I have received your Address, praying that I will cause an inquiry to be made whether the amount of Sunday labour in the Post Office might not be reduced without completely putting an end to the collection and delivery of letters, &c., on Sundays; and I have given directions that such an inquiry shall be instituted."

begged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has received from the resident British Ministers at the several Courts of Austria, Prussia, and the other German States, any documents and despatches on the subject of the contemplated reconstruction of the "Zollverein," or German Customs Union: whether such despatches convey any opinion how far such reconstruction of the Zollverein would affect the commercial relations at present existing between Great Britain and the several German States: and whether there is any objection to lay such despaches and documents (if any) on the table of the House?

I have had a great deal of correspondence with Her Majesty's Ministers in different parts of Germany upon the subject to which the hon. Gentleman's question relates. The question refers to a reconstruction of the Zollverein, by a contemplated revision of the tariff of the Zollverein. But the matter is still in that state that it would be impossible for me to lay before this House any papers that would give any result. The whole thing is, I may say, in the beginning of a discussion in Germany. The only way in which I apprehend that that which is about to be done would affect the commercial interests of this country would be the cases in which the duties now levied on articles coming from England would be materially increased. I can hardly say how far that is likely to be the case. Probably with regard to some articles the duties will be diminished; whilst with regard to others, there is an expectation that they may in some degree be increased. Of course, I need not say that Her Majesty's Ministers abroad are instructed, or will be instructed, to endeavour to dissaude the Governments in question from any increase of duties. There is a question pending as to whether the whole of the Austrian empire, that is, all the Austrian possessions, should be included in and combined with the German Zollverein; but that question as yet has not arrived at a point which renders it likely that any incorporation of the Austrian empire will take place.

begged to ask the noble Lord the Member for Plymouth why the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers, when, on the 23rd of November, 1849, they made a by-law creating the office of engineer, and charged the ratepayers with the sum of 1,500 l. a year for the salary and travelling expenses of such officer, publicly announced to the ratepayers that the name of the individual whom they had selected was Mr. Frank Foster, and so continued this designation until January 11, 1850, when, having confirmed the by-law and completed the appointment, the power of the ratepayers to object to such appointment, under the Act 11th and 12th Vict., c, 112, had expired?

replied that Mr. Frank Foster had been spoken of in the highest terms by both Mr. Stephenson and Sir H. De la Beche, and that he believed that gentleman to be perfectly competent to take the office of engineer to the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers. There could be no mistake as to his identity. And when it was discovered that his name ought to be spelt Forster instead of Foster, that mistake was at once rectified.

would then put the second question of which he had given notice: namely, upon what authority, verbal or written, the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers changed the name of the individual originally announced as Mr. Frank Foster into Mr. Frank Forster.

Because when the commissioners found out their mistake, they felt bound to rectify it.

wished to know whether the name appended to the return (Sessional Paper No. 481, of Session 1850) as Francis Forster, engineer, was that of the person originally announced as Mr. Frank Foster, and subsequently designated by the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers as Mr. Frank Forster.

had just seen the return, and there was a mistake in copying the name.

Was the engineer to the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers the same person as the Mr. Francis Forster who valued the Congreave property at the request of James Henry Shears, and whose depositions, as a witness, appeared at page 77 of the appeal case of "Small v. Attwood" in the House of Lords.

His noble Friend had fallen into a mistake similar to that with which he charged the Commissioners of Sewers. Instead of the Congreave property, the noble Lord should have said the Congreaves property. As the question implied some imputation upon the character of Mr. Forster, he thought it right to state that he was the same person who gave evidence in the case alluded to, and that he was desirous that the matter should be thoroughly investigated in the proper quarter.

Subject dropped.

rose to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government at the request of the Select Committee on Fees in Law and Equity, of which he (Mr. Wood) had been acting as chairman. The House was aware that a new Lord Chancellor had just been appointed. This Committee recommended, in 1848, that all the officers of the Court of Chancery should in future he paid by salary instead of by fees. That recommendation had not, however, been acted upon in any legislative manner. But the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, had, even before that report, so far recognised the justice of the principle, that by a mere private arrangement between himself and several of his officers, he had directed such payments to be made. For instance, he had directed that his own chief secretary, whose income from fees would have been nearly 3,000 l. a year, should receive only 1,200 l., and pay the remainder over to the fee fund; that the Secretary of Bankrupts, whose fees would have been 1,800 l. a year, should receive only 1,200 l., and account for the remaining 600 l., which that gentleman had paid his private banker to abide the Lord Chancellor's order; and that two Gentlemen of the Bedchamber, who would have received 1,200 l. each from fees, should each receive 700 l., pay a train-bearer 200 l. a year, and account for the surplus to the fee fund. The House would perceive that all this was a private arrangement, which determined upon Lord Cottenham ceasing to hold the office of Lord Chancellor; and therefore it was extremely important, with reference to that circumstance, and also to the circumstance that there were no less than six secretaries to the Lord Chancellor, that at the request of the Committee, and not at all doubting the inclination of the noble and learned Lord who now held the office of Lord Chancellor to effect every useful reform, he (Mr. Wood) should put this question, whether Her Majesty's Government would assure the House that every appointment made or to be made by the present Lord Chancellor would be subject to the revision of Parliament, with reference to the continuance of the office, and to its emoluments, if continued; and, secondly, if Government intended to introduce any Bill in the present Session of Parliament for the abolition of useles offices in the High Court of Chancery, and the payment of its effective officers by salary instead of by fees?

In answer to the first question I have to state that every appointment made by the present Lord Chancellor will be subject to any alteration or any abolition of office to which Parliament may assent. With regard to the second question I have to say that some communications have passed between Lord Cottenham and the present Attorney General with regard to the abolition of offices; but I am not sure, the Attorney General not being in London at present, what was the ultimate effect of those communications. I cannot, therefore, at present say whether it will be possible to introduce a Bill into Parliament with regard to any of the offices to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred.

Is the House to understand that the same arrangement has been made with regard to the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, as with regard to the fees and patronage of the Lord Chancellor.

I did not think it necessary to make any arrangement with regard to the office of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. I consider they are all subject, whilst there is an inquiry going on, to the revision of Parliament.

About six weeks ago I put a question to Her Majesty's Government with regard to the pension of the late Lord Chancellor. I wish now to inquire whether, upon the retirement of the present Lord Chancellor, he is to receive the same rate of pension as the other three Chancellors who are now retired, namely, 5,000 l. a year; or whether any arrangement has been made by which he holds the office subject to any alteration Parliament may make with regard to future pensions?

He has taken office subject to any alteration which may be made in that respect. But that there may be no misunderstanding, I beg to say that, though the office is subject to any alteration in the retiring pension which may be made by Parliament, I am not prepared to recommend such a course.

Subject dropped.

said, in rising to move the Second Reading of the Bill to repeal the Attorneys' and Solicitors' Annual Certificate Duty, he was happy to say it would not be necessary for him to trespass at any length upon the patience of the House. He would not inflict upon them the speech which he made in submitting this measure to their consideration, nor would he weaken by repetition the convincing arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon; but he did trust that the House would grant him its indulgence for a few minutes whilst he called its attention to the altered circumstances in which this question now appeared from those in which it was placed when first introduced to their notice.

On the 26th of February he moved for leave to bring in this Bill, and, after his statement, instead of replying to his arguments, the Secretary of the Treasury proposed that the debate should be adjourned until after the financial statement; the plea being, that the House should not be incautiously led to repeal a tax before it had inspected the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and taken a general view of the resources of the empire. To this proposal he gave his consent. On the 16th of March the financiel statement was made, on the 2nd of May the debate was resumed, and though the Motion was resisted by the whole strength of the Government, the House declared by a majority of 19, in a full House, that the Bill should be read a first time. Was there ever a more deliberate act heard of than that? Introduced February 26th—postponed till after the financial statement—that statement made on the 16th of March, and six weeks afterwards, with complete knowledge of every part of the case, the House decided by a considerable majority, that this unprincipled tax should no longer disgrace the Statutebook. It was always an unfortunate thing when the House was induced to rescind its own resolution, because it was invariably accompanied with a certain degree of loss of character; that evil was aggravated when the same Session witnessed both the resolution and its recision; but of all the cases that had happened in his recollection, the House would evince the most deplorable vacillation, should it unfortunately be persuaded, which he could not believe till he saw it, then to reject the second reading of the Bill. He perhaps had already stated sufficient grounds why the House, if it had any sense of its own dignity, should consent at once to the Motion he was about to make. But he should be glad to be indulged with the attention of the House for a few minutes to demolish one or two of the cavils—he could not call them arguments—which had been made use of against the Bill. It had been said that the tax was in fact only part of a great system of taxation, whereby the Government, through the Stamp Duty, granted licences to carry on certain callings; and if they repealed one, there was no reason why they should not repeal them all. There never was a more complete misrepresentation than this, of the facts in reference to the Annual Certificate Duty; and in order to demonstrate this, he need only recur to the very instance which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer unfortunately stumbled upon to illustrate the truth of his own position. What! said his right hon. Friend, you would repeal the duty upon Attorneys' Certificates of 8 l. or 12 l., and leave the horsedealers to pay their annual duty of 15 l. The comparison was not much relished by the profession; of course he acquitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any intention to disparage his clients, but if any one were to propose to relieve the horsedealers from the licence they paid, they would give him very little thanks for his pains, for the moment they were free from the tax, they would become, and most justly, liable to the horse duty from which they, in consideration of the annual licence, were exempted. But so far from granting the attorney any exemption from other taxes on account of this duty, Parliament levied upon him a sum producing yearly the same amount, or very near it, in the shape of articles and admission stamps, which the Bill, should it be carried, left still untouched. He would not weary the House by going through other items of the licence duties in comparison with this duty; but he would content himself with asserting that, either in principle or in degree, they all entirely differed from it: some conferred privileges, some immunities; some were for the protection of the revenue, and should any one quote an instance to the contrary, he would, if allowed a reply, undertake to disprove it before the House should go to division. A word as to an ad captandum assertion which was made by his right hon. Friend, when told that several hundred attorneys were lately unable to continue their profession, on account of their inability to pay the duty within the prescribed time. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said, why there was no want of recruits who yearly enrolled themselves. That was accounted for in two words; although there were many blanks, there were considerable prizes in the profession, and so long as the spirit of enterprise which characterizes this nation remained, there would never be wanting those who would encounter the risks with the hopes of rising to a successful and honourable position. In regard to the revenue, the last returns showed that unless some unforeseen misfortune occurred, Parliament need entertain no apprehension of being unable to meet the just demands of their creditors; the whole sum in question for the three kingdoms did not exceed 120,000 l. Nor need any one fear lest he should make the profession too tempting on the score of economy, for when this tax was removed, as he had already shown, the profession would still be burdened with enormous stamp duties, and it was the only liberal profession so treated. It had also been asserted that the attorneys had improperly attempted to use the influence which they possessed in order to get rid of this tax. Doubtless they had petitioned, and requested Members' attention to the subject, but he had never heard that these requests were couched otherwise than in the most respectful language; and what would have been said, supposing they had remained silent? Why, it would have been inferred that they were indifferent upon the subject; and he thought it much to the credit of the wealthier portion of the profession, to whom the payment of the duty was a matter of comparative indifference, that they had exerted themselves so much to free that other portion less fortunately situated than themselves from so onerous an impost. These gentlemen had for the last twenty years never ceased to petition to be relieved from this most unprincipled, and, in the great majority of cases, namely, the smaller incomes, most unjust and oppressive tax. They say, that this House in its conduct towards them, sets an example of that rapacity which they are not slow to stigmatize in others. He trusted that by the votes that night, the House would confirm to them that act, the tardy act he would call it, of justice, which they so well commenced on the 2nd of May; above all, that they would not lower the dignity and credit of the House, by reversing a very recent decision arrived at under circumstances of almost unprecedented deliberation.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a Second Time this day Three Months; and commenced by observing that, in all probability, every Gentleman in the House had, like himself, received a circular letter signed by every attorney and solicitor in England, urging him to vote for the repeal of this duty. But he would never believe that Members of the House of Commons were prepared to give their votes under pressure of this description. He would never believe that the House of Commons would not, whilst considering the facts and circumstances upon which this case rested, also consider the claims of every other portion of the community; and believing that, he confidently called upon the House not to consent to the repeal of a duty for which no sufficient reason had been given. If the House were prepared to insist upon the repeal of taxes to the amount of 100,000 l. a year, he begged to remind them that there were many others which might be repealed with greater advantage to the public. If he were about to propose a new tax, the House would call upon him for, and he should be bound to show, good reasons why it was the best tax that could be imposed for the purpose: in like manner, when the question was the remission of a particular tax, those who called for its repeal were bound to show the House not only that the tax was objectionable, but that its remission was the measure which would afford the greatest relief to the country. It seemed to him, upon a due consideration of the whole case, that no adequate reasons had been shown why this particular tax, of all others, should be selected for repeal. This tax had existed for fifty years; up to the present year it had been paid without much objection or murmuring, and no adequate reason had been given why it should be now especially selected for repeal. This was only one of a considerable number of licences for persons to carry on different professions from which revenue was derived. There were about five-and-thirty classes of persons subject to licence duty; and he could not see that attorneys and solicitors had superior claims to exemption over bankers and others. There were auctioneers, for example, who paid an annual duty. If the House repealed an annual duty because it pressed upon an influential body of men, were they prepared to refuse a similar advantage to another class because they were weak, and whose claim was just as strongly founded on justice? He, therefore, called upon the House to put aside all pressure, and take a larger view of the subject than that put forward by his noble Friend. No doubt it was disagreeable to say "no" to personal frinds who might address hon. Members; but that was a duty which, in the situation he had the honour to hold, he was compelled to perform every day. Let hon. Gentlemen remember that they had been sent into that House, not to be actuated by personal considerations, and that it was no less their duty than it was his own to act upon public grounds with reference to this tax, if, as he contended, no case had been made out for its repeal. There were many other taxes which, as he had already said, might be repealed with more advantage to the people than the attorneys' certificate duty, if the House were going to repeal any at all; and he could not forbear remarking that its existence did not seem to be any peculiar burden, for he found that the number of persons applying for admission into the profession was yearly increasing. Hon. Gentlemen had this Session pressed upon him the necessity of reducing the duties on timber, coffee, stamps, and other articles. All these were very desirable; but if 100,000 l. were taken away now by the remission of these licenceduties, those hon. Gentlemen who were anxious for the remissions he had spoken of, must remember that they were to this extent creating an obstacle to the attainment of their own wishes. Another thing they should recollect was, that this Bill applied only to England, but that Ireland and Scotland had an equal claim to relief. Indeed he had received letters from members of the various licensed classes, one among the rest from a notary, and all asserting an equal claim for exemption with the attorneys. He believed the truth to be, with regard to the latter, that whatever might be the charges to which they were subject, the cost ultimately fell on the public; and he had heard that, when their bills of costs came to be taxed, they constantly put in their expenses as a justification of their costs. They charged invariably 3 s. 4 d. and 6 s. 8 d. for every letter they wrote; and he did not know that, if his noble Friend succeeded in getting the Bill read a second time, he was prepared to propose a clause in Committee providing for an immediate reduction of the charges for these letters. If so, the measure might be of some benefit to the public, but not otherwise. He did not believe, therefore, that the public at large would derive any benefit from the remission of a tax upon a profession which, he must with all respect say, he had never yet known in a state of distress—a profession, too, which was not unmindful of its own interest in this matter, because he found that, though they were to derive this boon from the public, the Bill proposed to increase certain fees materially. For example, for a certain certificate they proposed to exact a fee of 10 s., for which at present only 1 s. 6 d. was charged. For these reasons he called upon the House not to agree to the second reading of the Bill. If they were prepared to sacrifice so much revenue, there were many other items of taxation, by the remission of which greater relief would be given to the public; and, therefore, he called upon all who were anxious to obtain remissions which would confer the greatest benefit upon the people, to join him in resisting the proposition.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day Three Months."

said, the right hon. Gentleman had compared the annual certificates of solicitors with the licences of bankers, auctioneers, and other persons; but it should be remembered that when a young man was articled to an attorney he had to pay 120 l. for the stamp, and sometimes a premium of 500 guineas; when admitted he had another stamp duty to pay amounting to 25 l. The case of an attorney was not parallel, therefore, to the case of a banker or an auctioneer. It should also be recollected that the busiuess and profits of attorneys had been materially lessened by legislative enactments since the present annual certificate duties were imposed. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Acts; the abolition of fines and recoveries; of arrest for debt upon mesne process, and of assignments of attendant terms of years; the passing of the County Courts Act; and, last year only, the taking away from the discount upon the purchase of stamps, amounting to 46,000 l. a year, now wholly saved to the Exchequer, have greatly injured the attorneys, and given them a fair claim to relief from an annual certificate duty not paid by any other class under similar circumstances.

said, the case had not been fully stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as there were many other industrious classes which were taxed to a much greater extent than attorneys. He had himself to pay 100 l. a year in licence duties; and he saw no reason why such a special mark of favour should be conferred upon the attorneys. It would not be to the credit of the House if it were to declare that the tax upon attorneys was that which was most burdensome upon the people.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to infer that hon. Members would vote for the Bill only because they had been asked. Now, he had certainly been asked to vote in favour of the Bill; but he should vote for it, not because he had been asked to do so, but because he objected to this kind of tax altogether. He objected to a certificate duty being placed upon any trade or profession; and if any other Motion of a similar nature to the present were brought before the House, it should equally have his vote.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given the strongest possible reason why the House should be cautious in the step they were now asked to take. That hon. Gentleman had told them frankly that he was prepared to vote not only for the repeal of the present tax, but for the repeal of every other tax of the same description; in other words, that he was prepared to jeopardise the revenue to the amount to above 1,000,000 l. in support of the principle involved in the present Motion. The hon. Gentleman, he admitted, acted consistently with his theory, but very detrimentally to the revenue of the country; for there was nothing more fatal to the revenue than that individuals should bring forward small taxes for remission which appeared of themselves of small amount, but which involved a principle which others were ready to apply, and which, if adopted, would render it impossible to maintain the revenue of the country in a satisfactory condition. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there were many other taxes which ought to be repealed in preference to this.

said, that on the last occasion when this question was before the House, he had voted with the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, believing that he was relieving a certain class from an unjust and oppressive impost. Since then, he had had some correspondence with solicitors, as he believed had every Member of that House, and he found that there was a great difference of opinion among them on the subject. One of them—a man eminent in his profession—had told him that he believed the attorneys had exemptions equivalent to what they had to pay. He was bound to say that the majority were of a different opinion. Agreeing with the hon. Member for Birmingham that all these taxes upon trade were of a very obnoxious character, he was sorry not to have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on some former occasion such a statement respecting a general measure of repeal as would justify him (Mr. Bright) in supporting the Government; but, feeling certain that next year there must be a general revision of taxation, and knowing that many callings had an equal right to exemption; and moreover, as it would be inconvenient, indeed impossible, to proceed to the necessary revision on the measure they were then discussing, he thought it would hardly be expedient to give a particular remission during the present Session. If he now voted against the Bill, it should be with the hope that the whole question would be brought under revision in the ensuing Session.

The Ministerial fit is on the hon. Member. He is angling for a place.

, in reply, said, he intended to include in the Bill attorneys and solicitors in Ireland and Scotland.

Question put, "That those words 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 122: Majority 17.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday.

begged to ask some Gentleman who was an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, in what manner the incomes of the Archbishops and Bishops were fixed? On looking over the report of the Committee which sat on the Ecclesiastical Commission, he found the Secretary of the Commission stating that the returns which had been furnished by the Episcopal body respecting their incomes were of so fallacious a character that no just inference could be drawn from them. He wished to know, in particular, upon what principle the Commissioners had calculated the average income of the Bishop of Oxford? He found it stated, at page 50 of the Committee's Report, that the average income of that Prelate from the ordinary sources was 2,374 l., to which the Commissioners had added 3,500 l., making in all 5,874 l. —being 874 l. beyond the income contemplated by the Act of Parliament.

replied, that the Commissioners had instituted inquiries upon the subject, and their returns were based upon the information so obtained. It was upon those returns of the average value of the property in each case that the Commissioners had fixed the amount of income which should be paid.

wished to know why, in the case of the Bishop of Oxford, 874 l. had been paid in addition to the 5,000 l. fixed by order of the Commissioners?

The principle on which the Ecclesiastical Commission fixed the sum to be paid to each bishop was according to the average income of the see for a certain number of years previous. In the case of the Bishop of Oxford, it was found that the average exceeded the 5,000 l. by the amount stated, the receipts of the year subsequent to the Order in Council having been greater than those of the previous years. The object of the present clause was, to make a new arrangement for the future, by which the sum paid would, under no circumstances, be more or less than the amount fixed.

considered that the clause would effect a great improvement upon the present system. He would take this occasion to fulfil a request of his right rev. Friend the Bishop of Oxford, that he would give an explanation as to a matter which, on a former evening, had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Marylebone. When his right rev. Friend was presented with the see of Oxford, he was reminded that, by the Act of Parliament, he could hold no preferment in commendam, but reside within his diocese, the five bishops who preceded him in the see having, on the contrary, held extensive Church preferments in commendam, and but rarely resided in the diocese. When the bishop came to examine the episcopal residence, he found that, nearly destroyed at the time of the Commonwealth, it had seldom been occupied since that period, and that to render it habitable required a considerable outlay. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners advanced for this purpose, in the first instance, a sum of 3,500 l., and subsequently a further sum of 1,300 l., the latter amount being applied to the removal of a public-house which had stood close to the palace. The bishop having found it necessary to expend an additional amount of 1,600 l. upon the building, made an application to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be reimbursed; the Commissioners rejected the application, but suggested to the bishop to borrow the amount from the Queen Anne's Bounty Board; which was done, the bishop paying interest upon the loan, and a proportion of 1–30th of the amount annually, in the way of a sinking fund. This was the simple statement of the matter. It was not for him, as the bishop's personal friend, to enter upon a eulogy of the right rev. Prelate; but he believed that all who were really acquainted with the manner in which his right rev. Friend fulfilled his episcopal duty would bear testimony that his conduct was most examplary; assiduous in his care for the people intrusted to him, affably accessible at all times to his clergy, and that, in all respects, his demeanour would bear the strictest scrutiny.

had received a letter from the Bishop of London in reference to a statement made by the hon. Member for Marylebone, disputing the accuracy of the returns of the income of his see made to the Commissioners by that right rev. Prelate, which, with the permission of the House, he would read:—

"My dear Mr. Goulburn—In the Times' report of the debate on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Bill on Monday night, Sir B. Hall is stated to have said that the present income of one of the bishops, the Bishop of London, was 50,000 l. a year, and that it was quite absurd to adopt the bishop's own returns on the point. The absurd exaggeration contained in this statement it is perhaps hardly worth while to notice; but these imputations cast upon my honesty I think it right to repel, although I trust that my character is not such as to render such an imputation credible. I should be much obliged to you if you would take an opportunity of assuring the House of Commons, in my name, that the returns to which Sir B. Hall referred were strictly correct, and contain an exact statement of the income of my bishopric in the year to which they relate."

Of course, no one would for a moment believe that the right rev. Prelate had wil- fully made an incorrect return; but he had thought it right to read this letter, in order that, if there should be any misunderstanding arising out of the hon. Baronet's statement, the House should be put in possession of the facts. Though he was inclined to think that there must have been some misapprehension as to what really fell from the hon. Baronet, for he could not suppose for a moment that he really intended to reflect on the character of the right rev. Prelate.

said, that what he had stated was this—that in 1837, the Bishop of London returned his income at 14,510 l.; that in 1843 he returned it at 12,481 l., exhibiting a decrease of income of 2,029 l. He had previously weighed the statement of the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commission, that the returns made by the bishops were fallacious; therefore, when he found that whereas the assessment of Paddington from 112,868 l. in 1837, had risen in 1843 to 191,154 l., or an increase of 78,286 l., which increase was owing merely to the additional buildings upon the bishop's estate in that parish, he considered that he had come upon one of the fallacies suggested by the Secretary of the Commission. Some such fallacy would appear still more manifest from the subsequent assessment of the parish, which from 191,154 l. in 1843, had risen in 1850 to 343,066 l. It seemed quite inscrutable how, under such circumstances, the income of the bishop should not have very materially improved.

said, that as the hon. Baronet had now stated the grounds on which he had made the charge, it was easy to explain how he had fallen into the error. It was quite true that a portion of the improved rental of the Paddington estate went to the Bishop of London, but only to the extent of one-third, the remaining two-thirds going to the representatives of the original leaseholders under the terms of the Act of Parliament. The hon. Baronet seemed, however, to suppose that the whole of the bishop's income was derived from this estate, but that was not the fact. It arose partly from the rental of that estate and partly from fines; and if from any accident the fines fell off (and the hon. Baronet must be aware that there was nothing more fluctuating than the receipts from those flues), the augmentation of one-third in the ground rents of the Paddington estates might be wholly inadequate to cover the deficiency arising from that cause. The hon. Gentleman was not justified, therefore, on such premises, to impugn the character of the bishop.

wished to know exactly the items which constituted the difference between the gross and the net income. The Bishop of Exeter returned in one year 2,800 l., and in another only 241 l. —how did that difference arise? With regard to the Bishop of Oxford, it appeared that, after receiving 4,800 l. towards repairing the episcopal residence, he applied for 1,600 l. more, and the Commissioners, in refusing him, found it necessary to remind him of the distinct agreement entered into by them, that the amount he was to receive for the purpose was the first sum paid—namely, the 3,500 l. But it appeared that by the arrangement finally come to, the deficiency was to be supplied, not out of his own private means, but out of the episcopal funds.

would remind the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that in 1837 the House passed a resolution to the effect that the bishops should receive a fixed income, and it was determined, at the same time, that the surplus should be paid over to the general fund; but this had not been done. Now he would suggest that in any new arrangement this should be made imperative. He also wished to know what limit there was to be to the money laid out in enlarging and improving the episcopal palaces?

said, that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in saying that such an arrangement had been come to by the House, or that that was the understanding of the Act of Parliament. [Mr. HUME: There is a resolution to that effect on the journals.] He did not deny that; but the Act of Parliament said nothing of the kind, and the Ecclesiastical Commission having great objections to fixing the incomes at one unvarying standard, agreed that there should be a certain supposed income taken for the future, and if the receipts exceeded that, the bishop should have the benefit of it, and if it fell short he should suffer the variation. He now proposed to alter that arrangement, and that for the future the income should be fixed, and neither increased nor diminished whatever might be the receipts from the property of the see. With regard to the sums awarded for repairing and improving the palaces of the bishops—the ordinary repairs would in all cases be paid by the bishop out of his income, but if it should be necessary in any case to provide a resi- dence for the bishop, as in the case of the see of Manchester, the Ecclesiastical Commission would make an allowance for that purpose. It was somewhat unfortunate for the bishops that their houses should be dignified by the title of palaces. Many of them were no better than the houses usually inhabited by country gentlemen of equal income; but they were called palaces, and people supposed, therefore, that they were like the royal palaces, and required large sums to keep them up. This was an anomaly, but it was one which it was not necessary to discuss at that time.

agreed with the noble Lord that it was unfortunate that these residences should be called palaces; but he thought when they saw such sums as 15,000 l. required to build one of them, it was time to guard against a repetition of such extravagance. He would suggest that a clause be inserted in the Bill, providing that whatever might be the decision of the Commissioners, it should be always subject to the revision of the Treasury.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16.

proposed an Amendment, making the maximum income of the deans 1,000 l. instead of 1,500 l., as fixed by the Lords.

wished to call attention to a communication he had received from Hereford relative to the livings held by the dean of that cathedral. It had been stated that the recently-appointed deans had given up all the livings they held. Now he was informed in the communication to which he alluded that the Dean of Hereford had not resigned his living of Kings Sombourne, and that he had recently presented himself, with the concurrence of the chapter, to the living of Madley. The value of these two livings was 608 l., besides the income of the deanery. In the case of Bristol, also, the dean (as he was informed by a clergyman who had written to him from that place) had presented himself to the living of Alveston by consent of the chapter; and the rumour was that he had taken this living with the view of exchanging it for another. The value of this living was stated to be 799 l. a year with a house within ten miles of Bristol. If this was true it was at direct variance with the arrangement suggested by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He should like to know why English deans should be paid higher than Welsh deans. The latter received 700 l. per annum. Part of their duty was to preach in the church from which they derived their incomes; but there was only one dean in Wales who could preach in the Welsh language. One of them had lately made an attempt to read publicly in that language, but he pronounced it in such a way as to cause the most awkward mistakes. For instance, when he wanted to say "You shall go into everlasting life," he rendered the passage, "You shall go for pieces of meat." For a confirmation of this state of things, he would refer to his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. But, with reference to the Principal of St. David's College, the Dean of Peterborough, the Dean of Canterbury, and other deans—how was it possible for these gentlemen to pay proper spiritual attention to their other livings, and to reside at the same time for a certain number of months in the year at their deaneries? He thought great blame attached to those who appointed persons to deaneries, whom they knew could not comply with the terms of the Act of Parliament. He contended that deans and canons were useless officers, and that unless some scheme could be devised for rendering them somewhat serviceable to the Church, the money was literally wasted when they were given these rich appointments and large incomes.

said, the hon. Baronet seemed to have misunderstood the object of the clause, inasmuch as it did not propose to give the deans any more money than they already possessed. It was quite another matter whether the House should or should not alter their incomes. The question whether or not deans were of any use in the Church was a very large one. They certainly were part of the regular order of the Church. They were heads of the chapters, and he thought they were of great use in a cathedral town, for the general purpose of carrying on the business of the cathedral, and assisting in the spiritual business of the diocese. He intended to propose a clause, by which deans to be hereafter appointed would be prevented from holding any benefice or cure of souls which was situated further than three miles from their cathedral town. He had made inquiry as to what the Dean of Hereford was likely to receive from his former living, and he found that he would not receive anything until October, and that in the meantime he would be subject to considerable expense in repairing the deanery house. He (Lord J. Russell) had, therefore, thought it wrong at once to deprive the Dean of Hereford of his former living; but he had stipulated with him, and a clause to that effect would be inserted in the Bill, that six months after he had accepted the deanery he should give up the living. With respect to the Dean of Bristol, he had received no information whatever; but if this clause passed he would be unable to hold any living which was situated at a greater distance than three miles from his cathedral.

quite agreed with the noble Lord as to the clause which restricted deans from holding livings beyond three miles from cathedral towns; but it appeared to him that it would be better to make an arrangement by which the deans might be compensated out of some particular, rather than the parochial fund.

contended that the understanding between the noble Lord and the House, when this subject was last before it, had been, that no larger salary should be received under the circumstances that had been now stated to the House in the Bishop of Oxford's case.

Due provision being made for the cathedral duties of the deans.

That might be, but such a proviso, if established, did not meet the present question; which was, should these deans receive 1,000 l. a year each? What was the necessity, after all, for deans, as a mere additional staff of the Church Establishment, if they performed no real or essential portion of the Church duty? Surely it were far better to take the large incomes they annually drew, and apportion them out in an equable division among the poorer but harder-working clergy. The best means of increasing the value and efficiency of the Church itself in this country would be to do away with deans altogether. He should be prepared to move or to support such a proposition at a future stage.

begged to remind the Committee that he had not yet received any answer to the question he had addressed to Her Majesty's Government, namely, whether or not it was true that the Dean of Bristol had inducted himself in the first instance into a benefice, of which the living was ten miles distant from his cathedral, in order afterwards to effect an exchange with the incumbent of another living being within three miles only of the seat of his deanery. He at present understood that the Dean of Bristol, after having, with the consent of the chapter, taken the living of Alveston, and holding the same together with his deanery, had endeavoured to make such an exchange as he spoke of with another clergyman, whose living was within the distance required by the Act of Parliament. Had this exchange been made on the falling in of this latter benefice in a regular manner, there might not have been so strong a case of objection to the dean's resigning the more distant benefice, and procuring himself to be inducted into the nearer one. But the mode in which the thing had been managed was a mere evasion, a palpable evasion, of the spirit of the Act.

would only observe, with regard to the Dean of Hereford's case, that the words of the clause he had prepared would make the holding of any benefice conjointly with the deanery, under the circumstances assumed by the hon. Baronet, void within six months after such clause becoming law. As to the case of the Dean of Bristol, he was not sufficiently aware of the facts to be enabled to speak to them. The same liability, however, would apply in that instance also, as he should infer from the statement now made.

repeated his statement, and contended that the terms of the clause referred to would not compensate the injustice of the Dean of Bristol having been allowed, for his own purposes, to make such an arrangement.

must refer the hon. Baronet to what the operation of the clause, as it stood, would be in all cases coming within its operation.

felt bound to state, with regard to the deanery house, the money expended on which had been made the subject of much remark, that he had himself seen and examined the building. It had been for some years past in so dilapidated a state that no person could dwell in it with any reasonable degree of comfort. It was, in fact, almost beyond that stage at which repairs, however extensive, could be of any permanent service. With regard to the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, for sweeping away at once all the deans, he (Mr. P. Wood) could by no means go with him to that extent. He was not sanguine enough to sup- pose, when his hon. Friend talked so lightly of that body having no duties, no labours to perform, that he could convince him they had. His hon. Friend, he knew, would not allow, but he thought the Committee would, that two, and frequently three services a day on Sundays, with perhaps two sermons and services on other days of the week, and perhaps the super-added supervision of endowed schools, were labours or duties of an onerous kind. But, at any rate, he must always protest against the removal of our deans and our canons, whose exertions had done so much to improve and elevate the most beautiful portions of the fine service of our Church. The hon. Member for South Wiltshire had already borne a well-merited testimony to their deserts in this particular. He (Mr. P. Wood) felt great doubts whether the clause under consideration, as at present worded, would not seriously prejudice the interests of the deans generally, and whether it might not have been more expedient to limit the disqualifying portions of the clause to deaneries of 1,500 l. a year each, or upwards.

would remind the Committee that his only anxiety was, that the clause should not be so worded as to work a degree of possible injustice to parties of the most serious character, and such as the House itself, in its former legislation on this subject, could never have contemplated.

, in reply to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford, was ready to admit that if any deans performed church service two or three times on a Sunday, and read one or two sermons, they did work hard; but how many such were there? He remained of opinion that it would be far the better way to get rid of the whole body.

was in the habit of frequently attending among cathedral congregations, and he noted a growing decrease in their numbers.

understood that some allusion had been made to the Dean of Ripon—["No, no!"]—as having an income as dean of 1,000 l. a year, and the revenues of a benefice besides. This was a mistake. The income of his deanery had not yet been made up to, or realised by, him. Whenever it might reach 1,000 l. a year, the dean would be ready to renounce salary to that extent, which he meanwhile derived from his benefice.

said, that whether that individual received 1,000 l. a year only, or not, he should persist in contending that the Dean of Hereford, under the Act of 1840, ought to have given up his living. On the bringing up of the report he would move that the salary of each dean in England should be reduced to that of the deans of Wales, who laboured most efficiently in their duties; namely, from 1,000 l. to 700 l. per annum. To show the effect of appointing deans for Wales who were ignorant of the language, he would mention a case that had lately come to his knowledge. The hon. Baronet read a letter from a correspondent of his, who stated that a case had lately come before the magistrates of a Welsh county, in which a minister of the Independent denomination had been brought up for neglecting to maintain his own family. The name of this individual—that is, his bardic name (for he was much fonder of running about the country after national gatherings of his Welsh countrymen than of attending to his pastoral duties) was Robin Dhua, or Robert the Black Bard of Snowdon. When asked by an Englishman clergyman, who holds already four good preferments in the Principality, and who sat on the bench, what he had to say to the charge of deserting his family, he answered—"I say, that when you pay me better than you now do—2 s. 6 d. for writing you seventeen Welsh sermons—I will take better care of my children."

said, it was not his intention to have taken any part in the debate now before the Committee, had it not been for the allusion made to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for Maryle-bone, in reference to his knowledge of the Welsh language, and the way in which some of the English clergy appointed to high ecclesiastical offices in Wales pronounced the Welsh language, and the great blunders they sometimes committed: it had been rumoured that a learned English dean now in Wales, and who had learnt how to read Welsh, had, at one period, in reading (parrot-like) our language, said, when he ought to have pronounced the following passage of Scripture, "Mi gaif y rhai Cyfiawn bwyd trag-wydde," "The righteous shall inherit eternal life," instead of which he is reported to have said, "Mi gaif y Cywion bwyd y gwydde," which means, "The goslings shall devour the food of the geese." In fact, the Church in Wales abounds in anomalies and abuses so monstrous, that common sense must be shocked at the idea of contemplating them. We find in connexion with that Church, Englishmen, deans and bishops, grasping the most munificent incomes, as our religious guides and teachers, who are utterly unable to give religious commands and promises in the language which the people understand. Now, Sir, fancy a Welshman from Bala—he said Bala, because the Chairman knew something of that district—and unable to speak one word of English, fancy that man appointed rector of Marylebone, or, if you like, Bishop of London, and you will see in its true light the glaring abuse which defaces the Church in our country, involving the interest of the moral, social, and spiritual condition of the people on the altar of the selfish ambition of English statesmen and political cliques. He would beg to call the attention of the Committee to this fact, that we have in Wales at this moment two brothers, sons of a late Bishop of St. Asaph, who have had the good fortune to be appointed to Welsh livings, and whose income from the Church (and neither of them understand one word of the Welsh language) is more than the income of eighty-seven curates, who are doing duty from one end of the year to another. What was this but the creation of sinecures, absorbing the pay whilst incompetent for the work—pocketing the money of the people, as the law directs, but whose souls they fail to inspire with the faith and hopes of the gospel? There are now doing duty daily at St. Asaph, two gentlemen of superior attainments, whose income for that daily duty at the cathedral is thirty pounds per annum. He begged to tell the noble Lord at the head of the Government that there were also at St. Asaph and at Bangor, he meant in the diocese, clergymen, Welshmen by birth and in feeling, who would do credit to the bench of bishops whenever they had the good fortune to gain that high position.

wished to know what arrangement had been made in reference to the enactments of this Bill with regard to those of a Bill with similar objects, which had been already brought in, but was not being proceeded with?

said, that the gravamen of the complaints of hon. Gentlemen opposite about Welsh preferments seemed to be, that they had been given to ministers not well acquainted with the Welsh lan- guage. Now, as he knew a great deal of the course which had been taken with respect to most of the recent appointments, he begged to assure the Committee that it had been found most inexpedient, and indeed impracticable, to proceed on such a principle as those Gentlemen considered indispensable. So many and such grave objections had been made to parties, natives of the Principality, who had been recommended for them, that had they been appointed, the most serious and most general dissatisfaction throughout the whole of that part of the kingdom would have been infallibly excited.

thought it seemed a sine quâ non that the clergy and bishop of a diocese should speak the language of the people. It was the conduct of ecclesiastics which had brought matters to their present pass; and because deans and chapters had for years neglected their duties, hon. Gentlemen said they were of no use at all. Persons who neglected their duties were indeed of no use; but an argument from the neglect of an individual who held an office, was no argument against the office itself. Clergymen connected with cathedrals had lumped together four services, which took place at such a time that the poor man, if he attended, could not dine with his family in the middle of the day. It was the clergy of the Church who had destroyed the Church; and what little Christianity now prevailed was owing to Dissenters.

was much obliged for the good case which the objections of some hon. Gentlemen had made out for his Bill.

allowed that one good effect of its enactments might be, that the Welsh and their children, if the clergy of the Establishment could not speak Welsh, must be taught English. It ought to be a primary object that the language in which the people are taught should be equally intelligible to them as to their teachers; and, for his part, he considered that money would be much more usefully expended in teaching the Welsh to read English, than in keeping up a knowledge of the language of Wales.

begged the Committee to remember, that the condition of previous knowledge of the Welsh had been amply fulfilled in the late appointment of the Bishop of Llandaff. He had been assured by competent authority that that Prelate's inaugural address to his flock was delivered in excellent Welsh.

thought that that one case, however thankful the Welsh were for so admirable an appointment, went little way to meet the ohjections he had taken.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, as were Clauses 17 to 21 successively.

then rose to bring forward the resolutions of which he had given notice. He said that the number of the bishops of the Church relatively to the population of the country was so different from what it was in former days, that the attention of the public was drawn to the subject. The smallness of the number of the bishops at the present day had a great effect in aggravating the evils which were complained of in relation to the Church. These were, that the bishops were too lordly and too remote in their position, and too much estranged from their clergy and people. All those evils were augmented by the number of bishops being allowed to remain the same, while that of the people had so largely increased. Another complaint was, that the bishops were secularised by the business they had to do. It was impossible to deny that this objection became stronger and stronger every year, because the secular business of the bishops increased every year, and the result was, as the hon. Member for Cockermouth had shown, that an English bishop was now become rather of the nature of a public functionary than a pastor of the Church. There were three modes substantially different of dealing with this evil. One was, the appointment of suffragan or assistant bishops. There were strong reasons why that course would not be beneficial. It would be a partial measure, and would not touch the main object of increasing the amount of episcopal superintendence, because the suffragan bishop would receive his power to perform his duties from his diocesan bishop, and would thus intervene between the diocesan and the clergy, thus increasing the evils of which they complained. The second mode of getting rid of the objections at present made to the constitution of the episcopal body was by creating an increased number of diocesan bishops, and two methods presented themselves for effecting this object. The first was that pursued at the time of creating a Bishop of Manchester. He confessed that he thought that there was much that was objectionable in that scheme, though he did not mean to charge the noble Lord at the head of the Government with the responsibility of those faults in the plan which he had brought forward. Rightly or wrongly, however, Parliament was not likely to pass any more Acts for creating new bishops, with incomes of 4,000 l. or 5,000 l. a year; and if that were so, he would pass over without further remark that mode of increasing the number of bishops. Having a practical plan of his own to propose, he did not wish that there should be any other plan brought forward which had not a reasonable chance of being approved of by that House. The question came to this: would they have any new bishops at all, or would they consent to have bishops on an humbler and more restricted basis? The plan he had to propose completely set aside all thought of having new bishops who should be Peers of Parliament, or holding large incomes, and contemplated the appointment of bishops with dioceses of more manageable size and more limited income, and a nearer relation and proximity between them and the clergy than could be the case under the present system. He assumed that some such plan was the only one that could be carried out; and the substantial question was this, would they open the door to the creation of new bishoprics, or would they close the door? Such an appointment of new bishops as was proposed by him would not be hostile to the connexion between Church and State. It was not the business of a national church to make every man a good Christian, but it was the duty of a church to supply every man with the ordinances of religion and the means of instruction. That was the state of the Church in Scotland; but it was not so, he regretted to say, in the manufacturing districts of England. If they wanted to make the Church effective for pastoral purposes in this country, the plan, not indeed a certain plan, but the best that could be proposed under given circumstances, would be to increase the number of episcopal sees in those towns which were at present deficient in the means of spiritual instruction. He was anxious to combat the economical view which was taken of the question in that House, and for that purpose he would ask what they had done in the colonies? Formerly it was the practice to send out men with 300 l. or 400 l. a year to the colonies; and the consequence of giving them such small salaries was, that it was extremely difficult to get men with talent and learning to go there. Now the economical view to which he was opposed, would have been, not to send out a bishop with 2,000 l. a year, but a number of clergy with small incomes, and in point of fact that bad policy had been far too long pursued. An illustration would be found in the effect of founding a bishopric in Jamaica. A return which he held in his hand gave the increase in the colonies of the number of clergy with the increase in the number of bishoprics. Eleven bishoprics had been founded from 1825 to 1847; and the number of clergy, which at the former date amounted to 290, had increased to 652 in the latter year. Take Van Diemen's Land as an instance. In five years 19 clergymen had increased to 53 by 1847. When the bishopric of Melbourne was founded, there were only three clergymen in the diocese; but by 1849 the number had increased to 15. In 1847 the bishopric of Adelaide was created, and the increase in the number of clergymen in that diocese was, in two years, from 11 to 22. In Cape Town there were at the time the bishopric was erected 13 clergymen, and afterwards the number had increased to 38. Upon the whole, the general effect in the colonies of the erection of bishoprics had been, that, within three, four, and five years, the number of the clergy had been doubled and trebled. Why was this so? Not because pecuniary resources had increased in the same proportion, but because when a clergyman was placed there in an episcopal character, as head of the Church in the diocese, the clergy and the people both rallied around him, and the central spiritual brotherhood was attained. The object was not to send out bishops to discharge a great amount of secular, political, and routine duty, which would prevent them coming in contact with the masses of the people; but to take security that he shall be among that part of the population that was awakened to their spiritual interests, and who desired the foundation of a bishopric. These were the reasons for his proposing that a large sum should be found from private resources, without which no bishopric should be founded. That having been done, then it would be advisable to take care that the bishop who was sent was a person who, from his position, would be able to do the practical work of the Church, and let him, therefore, have an income sufficient for all purposes of charity and hospitality, and yet not such an income as would be a great object in a worldly point of view. For that purpose, make a rule and standard that should give such a bishop. If he had made them too high, then lower them. His belief was that the foundation of an order of bishops of this kind would not be without its direct influence upon bishops of the present rank and order. He saw no danger to Church and State in sending bishops among those classes who were now without the ordinances of religion. On the contrary, he saw in it the only method in the least degree hopeful of really bringing those ordinances to the homes and hearts of the people. The influence of the appointment of this new rank of bishops upon the higher order now existing, would, in his belief, be beneficial. It would tend, as he thought, to raise and elevate their character, already so exalted, still higher; and, in his view, would greatly contribute to the security of the present order of bishops. When he spoke of the foundation of an order of bishops—for he granted that in some cases it would be a new kind of bishopric in England—he did not anticipate that there would be any considerable number of this order appointed. The foundation of new sees under the provisions he proposed would be slow; and probably no man now living would see, in his time, more than three or four of them erected. It would be observed that against any unnecessary increase he had made provision, because, in the first place, his proposition required that a large sum should be raised from private resources, and that a large sum should be at the disposal of the Minister of the day, as far as the choice of the person to be nominated was concerned. It could not be supposed to be a popular proposal, when it involved the necessity for such large funds to be advanced. Then the consents of all parties interested must be obtained. There must be the desire, on the part of the inhabitants, indicated by a large subscription; and there must be the consent of the bishop of the diocese out of which the new one was to be constructed, and the consent of the archbishop of the province and of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and, lastly, the consent of the Administration of the day, without whose approval no such proposal could, of course, be laid before the Queen in Council, or receive the assent of Her Majesty. Therefore, it would be seen that he had endeavoured to secure this proposition from anything of the nature of an abuse. He commended it, therefore, to the consideration of the noble Lord, trusting that the noble Lord would get rid of any apprehensions that he (Mr. Gladstone) intended to propose a scheme that would be impracticable to carry out. He put this proposal under the consideration of the House, because he thought it had been proved that attention to the condition of the episcopate was the best mode of modifying and correcting the evils attending the present position of the bishops, and because he thought that to any persons who took a practical view of the episcopate, if it was not to be extended in its functions at all, that some such mode as that he had suggested was the only way to effect the object of such extension; for to speak of reviving such plans as had been proposed some two or three years ago was entirely unnecessary. He thought that the House must make up their minds to have no more bishops at all, if they waited for a scheme which seemed to vanish further and further from them every year, and to postpone any settlement indefinitely. He hoped, however, that the House would fairly consider what he firmly believed to be a practical scheme for the attainment of a practical object. He begged, therefore, to move the following clause:—

"And be it enacted, that whenever it shall have been shown, to the satisfaction of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that the sum of thirty thousand pounds has been provided by private contributions towards the endowment of an episcopal see, in any place or district having a population of not less than one hundred thousand souls, or towards the erection of an episcopal residence, and that one-half at least of the said thirty thousand pounds has been contributed by persons residing or holding property therein, it shall then be lawful for the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if they shall think fit, with the consent of the bishop or bishops at the time having jurisdiction over such place or district, and of the archbishop of the province, to frame and to submit to Her Majesty in Council for Her approval, a scheme for the erection of a bishopric of such place or district, and of any parts contiguous thereto, accordingly; and to propose the appropriation towards the endowment thereof of any sum not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds per annum, from any moneys now standing to the credit of the episcopal fund, or hereafter to accrue to the Commissioners from any episcopal estate or property, or from the regulated annual payment of any bishop, or to propose the annexation to such see of any estate or estates vested in the Commission, and estimated to produce an average net income not exceeding the said amount, and in such case to make provision for the redemption of any portion of the said estate or estates, if it shall appear that at any future time its permanent net income is raised beyond the said amount, and likewise, subject to such consent as aforesaid, to define the limits of the diocese to be constituted; and when Her Majesty in Council shall be pleased to give Her assent to such scheme, it shall hold good in law to all intents and purposes, and the diocese so described shall be separated from all other epis- copal jurisdictions, and snail become subject to the sole episcopal jurisdiction of the bishop to be appointed thereto."

Clause was brought up and read a first time.

On the Question that it be read a second time,

said, he wished rather to state the doubts he had of the adoption of any such clause as this, than to argue that it would be well to give all prospect of creating such bishoprics as the bishoprics of Ripon and of Manchester. It appeared to him that that was the plan which was in harmony with the constitution of this country; and that, where there were very large dioceses which had increased in population, that was the course to pursue, and that great advantages had arisen from the creation of those dioceses. The bishopric of Manchester was of later creation, but the bishopric of Ripon had existed for a greater number of years, and he believed that a division of the diocese of York had acted well. But then these bishops were created in perfect conformity with the present law. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed was to have a totally separate order of bishops. Now, he quite admitted that when he read the clause at first, he mistook the meaning of it, and he thought that the election of bishops was to be conducted in a different manner from that which now obtained. But he still retained the objection, and that strongly, to the constitution of a new kind of bishoprics not having a seat in Parliament, and existing totally independent of the present order of bishops. He thought the argument would soon be that they should pay these bishops out of the funds of the existing bishoprics, and as the existing bishops would have much less labour than they now had, that their incomes might to a great degree be diminished. And if there were two orders of bishops, one which had seats in Parliament, and the other not, if they deprived the bishops having seats of a sufficient income to enable them to come to the metropolis and attend to their Parliamentary duties, he thought the next step would be that they had better put them all on the same footing, and take away their power of attending Parliament. He thought the argument would be such, and that it would be very likely to be a successful one. Certainly the apprehension haunted him. The right hon. Gentleman said he had no good grounds for such an opinion; but he be- lieved that by separating the bishops from their attendance in Parliament, they would do a great deal towards severing the connexion between Church and State. The only other way of paying the bishops was by taking away the funds which had already been voted for increased parochial instruction. Now, it appeared to him that it was better to apply the funds in that way than in creating new bishops. There might be a time not far distant when there might be an increase of bishops, but at present he thought that applying the funds to the increase of the parochial clergy was a better way of appropriating those funds. In the next place he thought there would be great difficulty in carrying on the business of the Church with bishops holding such different powers. For instance, nothing was more likely than that they should obtain subscriptions for a bishopric of Westminster. They would then have two bishops in the metropolis: one, the Bishop of London, having a seat in Parliament, and the other the Bishop of Westminster, not holding a seat in Parliament, and yet the Bishop of Westminster would have episcopal authority, and, of course, would be independent of the Bishop of London. The right hon. Gentleman said that he (Lord J. Russell) had himself introduced an innovation, and that there was now a bishop without a seat in the House of Lords. But that was on a totally different principle. They had twenty-six bishops sitting in the House of Lords, but they said in all cases the junior bishop should be without a seat in Parliament. Now, that made no separation. It enabled the bishop to get acquainted with his diocese during the early part of his holding the office, but it did not deprive any one bishop of having a seat in Parliament. He owned, therefore, that for these reasons he should not be inclined to adopt the plan which the right hon. Gentleman proposed. It appeared to him to lead to changes which would not be consistent with the constitution of the Church. At the same time he did not say that in future years it might not be desirable to have bishops of a kind somewhat similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed. But he thought that suffragan bishops were preferable, because they would then have the superior bishop holding control, and have him in his place in Parliament, representing the diocese. The right hon. Gentleman had thrown out matter for the consideration of Parliament, and he did not say that something of that kind might not hereafter be adopted.

could not gather from the concluding observations of the noble Lord that there was any scheme on the part of the Government for the purpose of rendering the episcopacy of the Church of England sufficient for the due discharge of its great and important duties. It was the opinion of all persons who took an interest in the spiritual welfare of the Church that an increase of bishops was absolutely necessary. All who had written on the subject were agreed that the bishops of the Church of England ought to be the spiritual rulers of a spiritual commonwealth. Parties who had written on this subject had shown that we ought at least to have 107 bishops if we wished the spiritual welfare of the people to be properly provided for. Spain, with a population of 12,000,000, had 64 bishops; Greece, with a population of only 1,000,000, had 36 bishops; and Italy, which, together with the islands adjacent, had only a population of 24,000,000, had no less than 263 bishops. He thought, therefore, that he should be justified in pressing the clause to a division.

said, if he had reason to suppose that this question would be taken up by the Government within a definite time, he should not object to the withdrawal of the clause. Of course it was plain that so important a question ought not to be in the hands of a private individual, but in those of the Government.

thought that it would be rather premature to press this Amendment on the House, seeing that it had only been submitted to them for the first time that evening. If the right hon. Gentleman consented to withdraw his proposition for the present, until the House and the country had an opportunity of discussing its merits, it would of course be quite open to him to repropose it at any future time.

would under those circumstances consent to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

then moved the following Clause:—

"And be it declared and enacted, that the provisions of the hereinbefore recited Acts relating to the sale, transfer, or exchange of any lands, tithes, or other hereditaments, shall not extend to authorise the sale of any tithes or rent-charge in lieu of tithes belonging to the see of any bishop, or to any chapter, or in the possession or enjoyment of any dean, canon, prebendary, or other dignitary or officer of any cathedral, collegiate church, or in the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England."

His object was to prevent the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from selling any tithes that might come into their possession. As an instance of the injustice of the present system, he might mention that, in one of the parishes within the see of London, there were recently erected two new churches, which had to be endowed by private benevolence, notwithstanding that not less than 1,400 l. per annum out of that parish were raised as tithes, which, in justice, should be devoted to the spiritual wants thereof, but which were appropriated for the purposes of another district. Now, it did seem monstrous that the tithes arising in a particular locality should be diverted to other objects than the improvement of that locality. Of course it would be perfectly open to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners if they felt satisfied that the spiritual wants of any particular parish were properly met to devote the surplus to the general fund from time to time; but this clause would prevent them from alienating the funds which were originally devoted to the maintenance and service of the Church and the spiritual interests of the poor.

was afraid he could not consent to this clause. If ample consideration were given for what the noble Lord called alienation of tithes, he (Sir G. Grey) did not see any injustice in the transaction. He was told that the Commissioners in some cases gave more than the market value for what they "alienated."

suggested that the clause should be so framed as to prevent the Commissioners from taking the tithes or rent-charge of any church without making ample provision for the local wants of the church.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

then rose to move the adoption of a series of clauses. The legislation of the last few years, with respect to capitular bodies, was founded, he said, on erroneous principles, and on an entire ignorance of the duties attaching to them. If hon. Members would look back to the statutes by which these bodies were bound, especially as they were modified by Archbishop Cranmer, they would find that their duties were in strict accordance with the wants of the present times. Those duties were, to give their counsel and assistance to the bishop of the diocese in cases of discipline; to superintend the education of poor scholars and the training of the clergy; to teach theology, and to take the superintendence of general education. Now, he did not know that he could draw up a list of objects of which we felt the want more at the present moment. Those duties had fallen into desuetude as far as cathedral bodies were concerned; and the consequence was, that we were attempting to do by voluntary societies, and by other means, what was originally intended should have been done by those cathedral bodies. One of the greatest evils had been the non-residence of the capitular bodies. The dean was made to reside eight months in a year, though he did not know why, as his duties were not greater than those of the canons. [An Hon. MEMBER: There is only one dean.] That was true, but the duties attached to the canonries were greater than those of the dean. Non-residence led to a sort of enforced idleness, for in consequence of it there could be no continuous labour. The first thing, then, was to secure residence, and he therefore proposed that canons and minor canons should be obliged to reside for the same period as was required of the deans. He proposed also that they should be allowed to hold no benefice except within the boundaries of the cathedral city. He would except those canonries which were attached to professorships at the universities, and he would except also from the period of residence the time during which an archdeacon holding a canonry was employed in his visitations; but as to the rest of the deans and canons, he proposed to work on the principle of the Act of 1840. He proposed, also, that the visitors, with the consent of the chapter, should have the power of drawing up schemes for their management, to be sanctioned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Council, the main point in those schemes to be attaching specified duties to particular offices. He proposed that one of the canons should superintend the general education of the diocese, and that wherever a pastoral college might be instituted, some canon in new foundations, or precentor in old foundations, should be the theological lecturer. He did not propose that in those colleges the clergy and laity should be educated separately; but he thought, that after they had been educated together for a certain period, there should be greater facilities given for that kind of training for which at present there was no provision except by voluntary bodies. That was an evil that had been felt in the Church for some time, and he believed would be felt more and more every day as the number of small cures increased, and it became impossible for the parties holding them to educate their sons at the expense of the public schools or universities. There would, under such circumstances, be a danger of inferior men, who had not had the advantages of men of station, getting into the Church; and if that were so they would have men who would greatly overvalue the power of their office, and would be of the same description as they saw in other countries, where mere peasants got into the Church without their minds being elevated by education, and who greatly misused the power they possessed, and did mischief to the cause of religion. He proposed, further, to divide, when necessary, a canonry for the purpose of bestowing the emoluments on the most distinguished men in populous places poorly endowed. It might be asked, why did he not rely on the old statutes for this reform? His answer was, that he been informed that the statutes, having long fallen into desuetude, no man was bound by their strictly literal effect, and that the duties of the chapters could not be recalled by the power of the visitors alone. He had found great anxiety amongst the capitular bodies to put them on some better footing, and he had therefore proposed these clauses with the view that the Government should take into consideration some such proposal. He knew the noble Lord at the head of the Government might object, and say that these clauses formed a subject for a new Bill; but the noble Lord knew how difficult it was for any individual Member to bring forward a Bill on such a subject with any hope of success. He believed, however, that unless some speedy enactment was made for the more strict performance of the duties of the capitular bodies, there would be great danger of losing establishments which contained the germ of great good.

Clause—

"And be it enacted, that, except as hereinafter mentioned, no dean, canon-residentiary, or minor canon, hereafter to be appointed in any cathedral or collegiate church, shall be allowed to hold with his canonry, or minor canonry, any benefice with cure of souls, except the same be within the city or place in which the cathedral or collegiate church is situated."

Brought up, and read 1°.

Motion made, and Question put "That the Clause be now read a second time."

said, the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated the objection he was about to make to the adoption of these clauses in connexion with the present Bill. They related, no doubt, to a very useful and important subject; but the right hon. Gentleman wished to engraft them on a Bill which had been sent down from the House of Lords, and with which they had no immediate connexion. He had listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and, looking to the clauses themselves, he thought they involved so great and extensive a change that they ought to be carefully considered before they were adopted, and ought also to form the subject of a separate Bill. It was quite clear, too, that they could not be adopted in their present shape. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that canons should be called upon to reside the same period as deans; but the necessary consequence must be a further reduction in the number of canons. Their case was distinct from that of the deans, and he was not prepared to consent to the same restrictions being applied to them. He therefore could not assent to the adoption of these clauses as connected with the present Bill.

wished he had heard a more distinct intimation of the sense of the Government on a matter that required to be carefully examined. The change made by the Bill of 1840 was in reality no reform; it mutilated the cathedral establishments indeed, and reduced the numbers of the canonries, but it attached no duties to the receipt of emoluments. The present proposal was a bonâ fide attempt to remedy the defects of the plan of 1840, and to recognise the principle that distinct and well-defined duties should be performed in return for all preferments in the Church. But, somehow or other, subjects like the present could never be entertained until the Session was so far advanced that it was difficult to draw the attention of the House to them. Even Gentlemen who were interested when the question was to attack the Ecclesiastical Commission, were absent; and, in fact, there was the utmost difficulty in inducing the House to lend its ear to the practical details of this part of the subject. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary said truly there was no reasonable chance of having the details considered now; but was a practical plan, prepared by his right hon. Friend with great pains and labour, to be disposed of in such a manner as so much waste paper? It was a plan intended to work out a principle of great importance, not only in ecclesiastical but in political appointments, namely, that where you had an office without duties, if there were duties to be fulfilled, you would have those duties discharged efficiently. No objections had been urged against the plan by the right hon. Baronet except one; but with respect to that he was in error, for the rights of patrons were not touched at all by any other clauses, as he alleged. It was impossible, however, not to admit that considerable energy would be required on the part of Government to carry out the plan; but they were bound to manifest it. They had confessed that, by the Act of 1840, the capitular establishments were placed upon untenable ground; but they had not attempted to place them upon a defensible ground at all. By requiring a canon to reside three months in the year, allowing him to remain a parochial clergyman, but giving him no capitular duties, they had made the arrangement more absurd than it was before; because he resided not long enough to do any good in the cathedral town, but long enough to weaken his usefulness as the minister of a parish. Until they made a serious effort to remedy these defects, they would never do justice either to the interests of the Church or to the noble principles involved in our cathedral statutes.

said, there were cases in which ecclesiastical corporations took into their hands the whole of the tithes received by the ecclesiastical body, and no provision whatever was made for services within the parish. He did not believe that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire would meet the particular case. He hoped the Government would not lose sight of the Episcopal Commission.

said, it was perfectly plain, from the statement of the right hon. Member for South Wiltshire, that the neglect, he did not say of the present Government, but of successive Governments, had prevented these rich endowments from being applied to those purposes to which they were properly dedicated. After the able statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it was a disappointment to hear the extremely slight and unsatisfactory manner in which the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department met the views he had expressed to the House. What was it to say, that this was a new Act of Parliament on a separate subject? It was a subject eminently demanding the attention of Government, and too long neglected by the Government; by paying attention to the working of these clauses, Government would find that they could not bestow a greater boon than by bringing in a separate Act, the provisions of which tended to the same purpose as those which had been proposed by his right hon. Friend.

regretted that the Government had not accepted the clauses, because the proposition as a whole was a reasonable one, although he was not prepared to agree to the whole of it; it was one which would be for the advantage of the Church and the community to have carried out. It was perfectly useless, however, for any individual Member to attempt to bring forward any such proposition; but the right hon. Gentleman had very properly afforded an opportunity for the consideration of the subject. He entirely approved of the clause with regard to the residence of canons. Looking at the state of feeling and to the desire so generally expressed, that the ministers of the Church who received high stipends should render adequate service, the House ought to do all in its power towards making the Church useful to the community; and he supported the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, because it would materially aid that object. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would take the sense of the House upon them. As to the lateness of the Session, it was entirely the fault of the Government that the Bill had not been long since before the House of Commons. It was read a second time in the House of Lords so far back as April. Whilst upon this subject, he wished to ask a question from the Government in relation to the report made by the Commissioners for the Division of Populous Parishes. He could not himself agree in the scheme that the Crown livings should be sold; but it was one which required the consideration of Government, and some information ought to be given to the House as to their intentions with regard to such parishes. He wished to know whether the Government intended, early in the ensuing Session, to propose any scheme for the division of populous parishes—whether a Bill had not been prepared at the commencement of the Session virtually for that object; and, if so, why it had not been laid on the table?

entirely concurred in the general nature of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire, and he wished the House to consider the position in which deans and chapters would be placed if some measure of the kind were not adopted. The hon. Member for Montrose had already thrown out an intimation upon the subject. The hon. Member thought that if they were reduced to having nothing to do, they might then be easily abolished. In other words, his object was to extinguish all deans and chapters. He (Mr. P. Wood) did not impute to Her Majesty's Government any such wish; and therefore he should be glad to hear some encouragement from them of the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire, which was to give them something to do. Originally they were collegiate bodies with high offices attached to them, but by abuse they had dwindled down to individual emolument with no office. But this was being remedied in many places, among which he might mention Westminster. The Government had there assisted a little, for they had attached a stall each to the livings of St. Margaret's and St. John's. The right hon. Gentleman only proposed to carry out the same principle by the clauses he proposed. That was a feeble and isolated attempt; he proposed to make it strong and general. He (Mr. P. Wood) hoped that next year the Government would be prepared with a measure on the subject of church leases—and that, he ventured to think, would be a suitable opportunity for making some provisions for an increase in the episcopate.

begged the supporters of the clauses to consider the risk they ran of throwing blame on the Church by this scheme. One of the greatest improvements had been the curtailing of useless sinecures; but, as the hon. Member for West Surrey said, it was the clergy themselves who had destroyed the Church. He hoped that those who wished for the re-establishment of collegiate bodies, would consider the grave circumstances of the times. When those establishments were originally formed, there was only one religion in the land; and all being of one opinion, there was no other course open than that which had been adopted. But now only half the people belonged to the Church; and if it was attempted to re-establish the cathedrals in their former grandeur, the fabric altogether would be endangered. The country would not bear it. Let the clergy have duties to perform; but an end must be put to pluralities and sinecures, whilst incomes must be equalised before the people would be satisfied.

said, there was some inconsistency between the clauses and the tenor of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire, and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. In their speeches they wished to restore the collegiate institutions, but the clauses split the canonries. One canonry was divided into two to assist in the cure of souls among the people of the town; another was joined to the chancellorship, which did not require the emoluments of the canonry, being in many cases a sinecure; a third was joined to the inspectorship of schools; and a fourth to the training school. So that there was nothing of the collegiate body left; the right hon. Gentleman would be doing under another name that which he did not intend to do. It was utterly inconsistent with the first of his clauses to say that the canons should reside eight months in the year, and then split them up in this manner. The fact was the clauses should have been introduced as a separate Bill.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had found great fault with the Bill of 1840, but he did not consider the main objects of the Ecclesiastical Commission when originally appointed. The object of it was to provide spiritual instruction in certain parts of the country, and to find the means by which that spiritual destitution might be remedied. It was resolved to take those means out of the funds of the collegiate establishments, and by a considerable diminution of the canonries to provide the necessary funds. He doubted whether the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire—if they were to go into all its details—would answer the purpose of effecting any improvements in the present system. He thought that his propositions were open to the objections which had been made to them by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the principle to which he had pledged himself. According to the system that had been adopted, a clergyman might hold a living, on which he would reside seven months, and for three months reside in the cathedral town, and for the remaining two months he was allowed to be absent. In that way the spiritual cure of the parish was attended to, while, at the same time, the clergyman could perform his duty for three months in the cathedral city. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, by one of the clauses, to do this—that where any clergyman had a living at a considerable distance, and had besides a canonry in a cathedral, all his income, but that of the canonry, should be divided amongst clergymen holding benefices within the cathedral city. He (Lord J. Russell) really did not see how that was likely to meet the necessities of the case. He owned, he thought, they must have one plan or another. They must either retain the plan they have now of giving a clergyman a cure of souls with a canonry, or they must make the chapters collegiate bodies that would not have the cure of souls, but other duties attached to them. It was proposed that the canon should only hold a benefice within the cathedral city, and that might answer very well in the city of Westminster; but when they came to make that general provision through the country, it would not be equally applicable.

replied. The noble Lord appeared to consider the present system to be near perfection; but what was the fact? The law now required the clergyman who held a canonry with his benefice to reside only seven months in his cure, so that five months in the year the duty was performed by a curate. The Amendment he proposed would remedy this. The hon. Member for Montrose said that he (Mr. S. Herbert) was going to restore all the great cathedrals; but his object was quite the reverse. Here were men enjoying certain salaries; and what he insisted upon was that they should do work for their pay. It was to restore the collegiate and capitular character to these bodies that he had in view in submitting these clauses to the Committee. He proposed these clauses with the view of calling the attention of Parliament to the subject. He had communicated with members of almost every chapter in England, and with many clergymen, and from the sentiments they had expressed, he believed that Parliament must sooner or later adopt such a scheme as he now recommended.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 104: Majority 20.

would withdraw the other clauses of which he had given notice.

House resumed.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

brought up the report on the Resolution agreed to on Friday last for erecting a monument in Westminster Abbey to the memory of Sir Robert Peel.

The resolution was read by the clerk at the table, and agreed to Nemine Contradicente.

moved that this Bill be read a Third Time.

protested against proceeding with this Bill at a quarter past 12 o'clock at night. There were upwards of thirty Bills forced upon the House at this time of night. Such a course on the part of the Government was like the Exposition of 1851, a piece of low dirty cunning, full of trickery and humbug.

said, it was admitted that the last occupation abstracts of the census of 1841 were very defective; but the House were as yet in the dark as to the mode by which the Government proposed to correct these admitted defects. The House were, therefore, by this Bill, conferring powers without the slightest knowledge how they were to be exercised.

said, that the hon. Member's objections were to the form of the Bill, which merely provided the raw material for the census; but as the census itself would not be made till the end of next March, there would be time, if not at the end of the present, early in the beginning of the next Session, to lay on the table a document with such information as the hon. Gentleman desired.

Bill read 3°, and passed.

The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.