was anxious to put a question to the hon. and learned Attorney General in reference to the prosecution instituted by the Board of Inland Revenue against the Household Narrative, and the steps which it had been intimated would be taken to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in this case. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, in reply to a question put by him (Mr. Scholefield) on a former evening, to say that in consequence of the case having been argued before the Court as a special case, he could not go for a writ of error upon it, and that it would be necessary to have the case argued again. Subsequently to that it was understood, erroneously as he presumed, from a statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), that his intention was changed in that respect; and inasmuch as uncertainty as to the intention of the Government was most prejudicial in this matter, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would now state what course he intended to take?

was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving him the opportunity of correcting a misunderstanding which appeared to prevail ha reference to his answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, What he meant to say was what he had before stated, namely, that the case of the Household Narrative having been decided on a special ease, agreed to between the parties, no writ of error could be brought Upon it; but that, as the Court of Exchequer had delivered its judgment, mot unanimously, there being three to one in favour of the defendant; and his predecessors in office having been of opinion that the judgment of Mr. Justice Crompton was more in consonance with the law than those of the majority of the Judges; and he (the Attorney General) having taken the matter into his consideration, it appeared to him that the law was in an unsatisfactory and unsettled state, and that it would be necessary to obtain the opinion of another tribunal. For that purpose it would be necessary to institute other proceedings in the Court of Exchequer, where, very probably, the previous judgment would be confirmed, and then the matter could be carried to a Court of Error, where it would be finally decided.

wished to know if instructions had been given to the authorities at Somerset House to take the necessary steps for proceeding with the writ of error immediately; and, if not, whether other publications, similar to the Household Narrative, would be allowed to circulate unstamped without being interfered with?

thought the latter part of the question called for the expression of a legal opinion whether such publications were liable to the stamp duty or not; which he must, at all events at present, decline answering. But in reply to the first part of the question, he bad recommended to the authorities that proceedings should be instituted in the way he had stated, for the purpose of obtaining the decision of a Court of Error; and he had no doubt that in a very short time they would be taken.

would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that a decision had already been given in favour of the publication—and what he wanted to know was, whether until the point of law was settled on appeal in error from that decision, publications of the same nature as the Household Narrative would be allowed to circulate unstamped without interference?

thought that was rather a question for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer but he should think until the law was finally settled, no interference would take place.

had put the question to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. The law had decided that the publication in question was legal, and it was a quibble worthy of the Government—["Order, order!"] Yes, he said it was a quibble worthy of them to interfere to prevent the circulation of publications declared by the Court of Law to be legal until that decision was set aside. He wished to know from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would allow such publications to continue until the final decision was obtained?

As a general rule, I am sorry to say that I cannot sanction any indulgence that might endanger Her Majesty's Revenue.

rose and said: Sir, I rise in accordance with the notice on the paper of this House, which has for some time been standing in my name, for the purpose of moving for leave to introduce a Bill to enable Her Majesty further to regulate the duties of ecclesiastical personages, and to make better provision for the management and distribution of episcopal and capitular revenues. And, Sir, if ever there was an occasion when it was necessary for the House to extend its accustomed patience and indulgence, it is not only while I detail the provisions of the measure which I am about to ask for permission to introduce, but also while I state the motives and the reasons which induce me now to undertake a task which might well be committed to older, abler, and more experienced hands. My path is laid in the region of possible mistake on my part; but, Sir, in spite of the many difficulties which may well be supposed to wait upon the steps of a private Member of this House in bringing forward a measure which ought to have emanated from a Government, rather than from an individual, there are some circumstances which contribute to make me feel that, although it cannot be the lot of any one, however disinterested his motives, or however earnest his desire for his country's good, to submit a measure in every respect unobjectionable, yet I am sure, Sir, the high subject to which I am about to address myself will gain for me an attention which the House has already kindly accorded to me on a previous occasion; and I may even cherish a hope that such a response will be elicited to my appeal, both in this House and out of doors, as will induce Her Majesty's Government to give some promise that they will seriously consider how they can best promote the better administration of that Established Church which I rejoice to think is still one of the best bulwarks of our free institutions, and is yet associated in the hearts and homes of Englishmen with all that is time-honoured, sacred, and revered. Sir, it is impossible that I can forget the more than looked-for response which I obtained from the House last Session in the endeavour that I then made to urge as earnest an appeal as I could on its sense of the propriety of recognising the vast amount of spiritual destitution existing throughout England and Wales. I need not remind the House that, without a division, they adopted an Address to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to take into Her gracious consideration the spiritual destitution of the country. I then endeavoured, Sir, to show how wide and how general was the destitution of which I complained, and how impossible it was for the Church in her then position to meet it; and I made some propositions, which were drawn from reports that were then before Parliament. And although what I then stated—as I must freely admit—did not meet with a universal concurrence; nor, indeed, did I then wish to pledge the House to such a concurrence; yet what I said had this effect, that it proved our system was not inert—that the resources of the Church were not entirely exhausted, but that they only needed a wise and judicious treatment to enable her to expand with a power commensurate, in some degree, with those necessities which we are bound, as far as it is possible, to consider and to alleviate. Well, Sir, the answer which Her Majesty returned to that Address was in every respect most satisfactory. Her Majesty commanded the Minister through whom Her gracious Answer was made, to inform this House that the attention of Her Government had been previously directed to the best means of rendering the resources of the Established Church more available and more efficient to afford a provision for the spiritual wants of the people in England and Wales; and that the House might be assured of Her cordial concurrence in the adoption of all well-considered measures for promoting this important object. Well, Sir, I admit that, under such favourable auspices, I am more than ever encouraged to invite the attention of the House again to this subject. For myself, I have nothing more to offer as my excuse but much anxious thought, and an earnest love for the Church of England; but I carry with me the recollection of what has already taken place; and, therefore, I feel that, in the avowal I am about to make of very important principles, I need not shrink from the trial to which they will be subjected; because, Sir, I am convinced that the House, alive with me to the cry of thousands of my perishing fellow-countrymen, will acquit me of any rash or reckless desire unnecessarily to disturb our existing laws or established institutions. The motives which have induced me to bring forward this measure are twofold. The first is, the necessity acknowledged by all of enabling the Established Church to extend its ramifications through the whole mass of our rapidly increasing population; and the second is, the desire to remedy the abuses which are known to exist in the Establishment, and which, though less than might be anticipated, considering the varied state and the complicated nature of our social relations, are yet sufficient to elicit sorrowful and humiliating confessions from many a true friend of the Church, and to afford a fair mark for the sneers and sarcasms of her enemies. If we ask whence these abuses originate, we may say that they proceed from a want of sufficient legislation on matters of this nature; I feel that we should not be rendering justice to those to whom the administration of Church affairs is intrusted, if we were to ignore the exertions they have made to remedy this evil, and to extend the Establishment in some proportion with the rapidly increasing population. But the legislation has been always tardy, or rather it has been extorted by the pressure of existing circumstances, rather than framed with a view to meet the exigencies of the future. Where are the Acts of Parliament—with the single exception of that of 1843—which can be said to have had consistent regard to our increasing population? That Act of 1843 the late Sir Robert Peel said was intended to lay the foundation of extended usefulness to the Church. If so, where is the structure that ought to have been raised upon it? I think that by this time we ought to be enabled to see its proportions, and be enabled to augur of the future fitness of the structure. It is not alone, therefore, that the wants of the people, but even regard to the memory of those who are gone, that should induce us to engage in this inquiry. If we turn to another point of view we see that by our present arrangement the duties imposed upon the prelates of our Church, place them in a position where those duties are either impossible to be discharged, or on the other hand we see the facilities that are afforded for those who ought to be exercised on the highest and noblest duties of the Church, to be weaned from those duties by the secular cares which are imposed upon them. I shall now state, to the House the course which I propose to pursue. First, I shall recall to the recollection of Members the interest which has been shown by Monarchs and Parliaments through a long period with regard to all matters connected with the Established Church of the country. I shall then trace the course which the Legislature has adopted to remedy recognised evils. I shall turn to a few leading points that we may see how far those evils still remain unalleviated; and then I shall state the measure I propose, which I trust will be found to be in accordance with the acknowledged principles that were adopted in the face of similar circumstances. True, I might have adopted a different course. It would have required but a small amount of labour and perseverance to have laid before the House an array of figures that would have aroused the spirit of the public at no distant day to secure the success of some such measure. But I prefer a different method—I would rather recall the attention of the House to the bygone interest that was taken in the Church, than by any distressing statement arouse less tolerant or constitutional feelings. With regard to the first point, it would be an easy matter to accumulate ample proofs from the records of our Statute-book, showing the deep interest that was felt by successive Sovereigns and Parliaments in the well-being of the Established Church. There was an Act in the 21st of Henry VII. which was enacted, as the preamble states, for the quiet and virtuous increase and maintenance of divine service, and for the teaching and preaching of the word of God. Another Act was passed in the reign of the same monarch for the creation of eighteen suffragan sees—an Act which has never since been repealed. In succeeding enactments there are traces of the same spirit: thus, for instance, one of the Acts of Charles I. declares that the office of the ministry is of so great importance, as to occupy the whole man. In the reign of Queen Anne we had the foundation of the Bounty Board, and a vote of the House of Commons of 100,000l. a year; and in the year 1711 the Commons of England declared their opinion that the want of churches greatly contributed to the increase of schism and irreligion, and that they would not fail to do their part to supply that defect, notwithstanding the expensive war in which they were engaged; and they placed their opinion upon the Statute-book, that the Commons of Great Britain were zealous to provide a supply of churches for the instruction of all the inhabitants in the true Christian religion as professed in the Church of England, and established in this realm. In 1724 his Majesty sent a message to the House of Commons, that he was sensible that nothing could more engage Almighty God to send down a blessing upon his Crown and people than a due zeal for the honour and service of religion. In 1818, at the close of a long and protracted struggle, we find a new enlargement of the same principle; for the evil arising from the spiritual destitution of the country is one of the calamities for which Parliament engages to provide a remedy. In the same year was afforded a memorable example, both in the Speech from the Throne, and in the response of Parliament, by voting one million of money, that there was a determination on the part both of the nation and of the Sovereign to recognise the claims of the Establishment. In the provisions of that Act we trace the commencement of an important principle which has come down to our own day, a spur to private benevolence, and of the most vital consequence to our national prosperity. In 1835 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the condition of the Established Church. The effects of that Commission on the vital interests of the Church cannot be overestimated, for by it an important principle has been laid down, to the beneficial tendency of which I shall afterwards draw the attention of the House, though, perhaps, it was not at the time carried out to a sufficiently comprehensive extent. The principle which at that time received the sanction of Parliament was this—that we might amend the distribution of the revenues of the Church, always having regard to the sanctity of the property belonging to the Established Church. In 1838 a Commission was appointed to inquire into leases of Church property, which issued in. most important consequences. In 1840, the Act passed which removed all obstacles to Parliament interfering in the distribution and arrangement of the revenues of the Church. In 1841 an attempt was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford to revive the ancient spirit which animated Parliament in 1818. But a new principle had been laid down; the probable value of Church property had been by this time discovered, and in 1843 was introduced the principle that it was to her own resources that the Church must look for the means of her further enlargement. In 1847 the claims of the increasing population, and the increase in the numbers of the clergy, were recognised as causes for the increase of the Episcopate; and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who was then at the head of the Government, declared what were the new sees which the Commissioners had agreed to recommend—one to relieve York and Lincoln, one for St. Albans, Southwark, and Bodmin. Thus the increase of the Episcopate was declared to be one principle of the extension of the Church. Other attempts were made to induce Parliament to consider the evils of our cathedral establishments, to ascertain the amount of Church property, to rearrange the number of parishes, and to build new churches. I think I have said enough to show that a feeling of interest in the Established Church has at all times entered deeply into the public mind, and I am sure that there never was a time when the reasons were more urgent than at present to recommend the Established Church to the reason and conscience of the nation. Now, in marking the principles that have been adopted on the subject of Church reform, let me first of all direct the attention of the House to the steps that have been taken with regard to the commutation of tithes. Nothing could exceed the evils which that Act was introduced to abrogate. The greatest benefits that might otherwise have been derived from a resident ministry, were neutralised by them, till by the introduction of this Act an effectual bar was placed to all complaints, and the property of the parochial clergy was placed on a basis where they might enjoy it unalloyed by odium and misrepresentation. That Act provided that the clergy should receive their income in money payments, and there was introduced a third party, by whom the revenues were collected and paid over to the clergy. This, I think, was an important principle, and one which I believe the circumstances of the times render necessary to carry further in its application. I shall pass on to other principles which were dictated by emergencies as they arose: those emergencies consisted of wants, and of abuses. The abuses consisted of the enormous incomes enjoyed by corporations, sole and aggregate; of sinecures or salaries attached to the performance of ridiculous and unreal duties, while many thousands of human beings were totally unprovided with the means of religious instruction on the part of the Church, and a population has grown up around us un-eared for and uninstructed. Squalid might be their lives, and dark might be their end, still we must not conceal the truth that the Established Church was there. But she had not learnt to sacrifice her ease, and, therefore, she did not know her power to reclaim. The Commission proceeded in the first place to show the disproportion of the dioceses, and how immense some of them were—six dioceses containing on an average 840 benefices—and theft they proceeded to repartition almost the entire kingdom, the amount of the population as well as the number of the clergy being taken into account at the distribution. The state of the episcopal and capitular revenues at that time is too well known for me to detain the House with them. There were 26 deans and 211 canons enjoying revenues which were returned at 230,000l. a year, and there were 70 sinecure rectories, returned at 30,000l. a year; revenues amounting in all to 260,000l. a year, to which there attached either no duties, or such as were Utterly frivolous or imaginary. Now, for the wants of the Church. It appeared from this Commission that there were 3,200 livings under 150l. a year, and the sum that was required to raise these incomes to a scale fixed by the Commissioners was estimated by them at 279,000l. a year. There were four districts in London, with an aggregate population of 166,000, in which there was only church accommodation for 1–20th of the population and eleven clergymen; and it was calculated that there was a destitute population of 1,000,000 souls, for whom would be required 279 churches. Other dioceses were proportionately in want of church accommodation, to the extent of from 1–6th to 1–13th of the population. Another and a most important question was, how to provide a portion at least of the 279,000l. which was required for the wants of the working clergy. Then it was that the decanal and prebendal revenues could not be overlooked, and accordingly we find an act of the Commission suspending 60 canons, 4 deans, and 360 prebends, whose united revenues amounted to 130,000l. a year. Some of the canonries were made useful by being attached to professorships; others to the beneficial cure of souls; but this was the essential fact, that the hand of the law was not withheld from the Constitution of the chapters, but it gathered their property, and Parliament declared that the intentions of the founders of these institutions were no longer being carried out, unless they could at the same time be rendered conducive to the extension of the parochial establishment. Before I proceed to the reasons which fender it necessary that a still further appeal should be made to Parliament in the same direction, it is right that I should glance at what has been already done. I find by the last report of the Commissioners that they have constructed 233 ecclesiastical districts out Of the funds Which have been placed at their disposal, at an annual charge of 18,000l., and that they have augmented the livings of 820 benefices, at an annual Charge of 45,000l. But by the report for 1835 it appeared that the total amount of augmentations for benefices that was then required was 279,000l. per annum; and the Commissioners there make this remarkable statement—they say it must at once appear obvious to every one how desirable it is that there should be a resident incumbent on every benefice; and that if these livings were not Augmented, the accomplishment of that object would be impossible. The increase of the population that has occurred since that estimate was taken, would probably vary the estimates if the inquiry were again gone into; and I have little doubt that the estimate would not now fall much short of 300,000l. Taking into account, then, all that the Commissioners have done, and the sum that has been expended in increasing this endowments of small livings, there will still remain 200,000l. a year to be provided for. With regard to another point, let me repeat what I said last year with regard to the extent of the dioceses:—

Dioceses.	Benefices.	Clergy.	Acres.
Norwich	909	1,237	2,211,060
Lincoln	794	1,103	2,182,650
Exeter	658	916	2,491,220
Winton	516	807	1,493,030

In districts so vast as these it is impossible that there should be any effectual superintendence, and accordingly in most of them scarcely any superintendence is even affected. In fifteen of the principal dioceses of England and Wales, I shall not be far Within the mark when I say that if the bishops of sixteen principal dioceses in England and Wales were personally to inspect all the benefices under their charge, it could only be done in a period of time varying from four to eight years. With reference to the church accommodation required, I have here, Sir, a return on which great reliance may be placed:—

	Existing parishes.	Existing churches.	Churches required.	Church Accommodation.
Lichfield	55	163	75	1–3 to 1–16
Llandaff	28	44	33	1–3–1–50
Oxford	23	40	24	1–3–1–6
Ripon	34	223	62	1–5–1–14
Worcester	32	75	22	1–4–1–15
Winchester.	49	149	34	1–3–1–12
Gloucester and Bristol	28	69	23	1–3–1–7
Chester	43	254	23	1–4–1–10
Exeter	46	86	19	1–4–1–14
York	31	101	20	1–3–1–17
St. David's	11	34	19	1–4–1–18
Durham	41	104	26	1–4–1–20
London	67	280	53	1–4–1–15
Manchester.	21	249	80	1–4–1–11

Sir, it is scarcely necessary to enter further into these subjects; yet I will say as to the want of church accommodation and of clergy, let any Member take up the Clergy List, and allow 2,000 for the number of persons who might be efficiently superintended by a clergyman, and if he will compare the number of the clergy with the population of any of our great towns, he will find how extreme is the disproportion and the deficiency. Let me also point out to the House, one act of the Legislature necessarily leads to another. I have already alluded to the districts that were created in 1843. In each of these a resident clergyman has been placed, a new life has been diffused, and consequently new wants have been felt. I have in my hand a letter from an incumbent of one of these districts, of which I should like to read an extract to the House:—

"The population are chiefly colliers, quarrymen, and small factory operatives, in number 2,711, only one gentleman resident, who is a member of the Church of Scotland. It was not without the most persevering effort during the last seven years that a church and school had been provided for this people, and benevolent persona in different parts of England, Wales, and America have contributed towards the objects, without which the case was hopeless; yet the sum of 350l. remains a debt upon these buildings, for which the minister alone is responsible. I have no house, except a very small cottage, unit indeed, for any clergyman, nor does the neighbourhood afford any better."

Mow this proves how inadequate is the provision that has been made for these districts. The clergyman is a man of superior education, but his income is scarcely superior to the wages of a mechanic. He is not able to accomplish the objects which he sees to be necessary; and, dispirited in mind and wearied in body, he looks to the only source that can give him an increased endowment, or give him a curate which his own means are not able to provide. I might here mention to the House one or two points with regard to those parishes whose tithes are held by chapters, and the inadequate provision that has been made for the incumbents of those parishes. Let the House give their attention to this state of matters:—

		Great Tithes.	For the Incmbnt.
Bristol	Chautdown	1,022	88
Norwich	Aldeby	735	64
	Sporuston	735	64
St. Paul's	Lingsbury	500	46
Westminster	Malton	528	93
Worcester	Bedwanline	422	90
York	Hornby	640	98
Southwell	Kneesall-with-Boughton	974	100
	Kirklington	500	49
Windsor	South Courtney	1,475	148
	St. Germans	1,615	150
	Froxfield	742	122

These then are the wants, and these the abuses, of the Established Church; and in tones of the most thrilling eloquence, they appeal to this House for a remedy. Believing, as I do, that this is a state of things which lays the Church by law established open to just reproach, I propose as a remedy, a still further extension of those great and important principles to which I have already alluded. My proposition will relate to the constitution of chapters, to the formation of new sees, and to the modification and management of church property, for which, though I do not say that I can assert a precedent, yet I believe that the acts of this House have already paved the way, and pointed in that direction. But first let me point to the ancient constitution of the chapters. They were originally the bishops' councils, as is proved by the following extract from Burn:—

"The surrender of the lands and possessions of the dean and chapter doth not dissolve the corporation. This was declared in the case of the dean and chapter of Norwich, who, having conveyed their lands to King Edward VI., and being incorporated anew, had their lands re-granted, and made a lease by their own name, and it was adjudged to be a good lease, because, notwithstanding the said conveyance of lands, the old corporation of King Henry VIII. remained, the reason of which was that the two principal ends for which the deans and chapters were instituted (the first to advise the bishop in spiritualities, and the second to restrain him in temporalities), might be well answered by them, though they had no temporal possessions." "By degrees the dependence of the dean and chapter on the bishop, and their relation to him, grew less and less, till at last the bishop hath little more left to him than the power of visiting them, and that very much limited. And he is now scarcely allowed to nominate half of them to their prebends who were all originally of his family."

With respect to the duties of deans, I find that the dean, by the 43rd canon, was expected to preach not only in that church where he had long been bound by law and custom to officiate, but also in other churches, and especially in those from which the chapter received their rents and profits. I leave the House to consider how far that provision is now carried out with respect to deans. I propose by this Bill that we should return as near as possible to the ancient form, and that the bishop should occupy the chief position in the chapter by becoming both bishop and dean; and that at the next voidance of a deanery the bishop should become both bishop and clean; and that the successor of the bishop should occupy the decanal residence and reside in the cathedral city. I believe that this re-regulation would be attended with great benefit. It would place the bishop in a recognised position in the chapter, with which he now occupies a most invidious position; in the second place, it would bring him within easy distance of his parochial clergy; and, in the third place, the sum of 36,000l. a year would be provided for the other wants of the Church. I propose that either at the voidance of a deanery or before it, if necessary, steps should be taken for a revision of the ca- thedral statutes, and that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should direct inquiries to be made as to the value of all sums that have been left for educational purposes to the cathedral, with the view of having them distributed in an efficient manner. One of the leading features of the proposition is, that the chapters should be made useful as educational establishments; but the House will see that it is impossible without an extended knowledge of these matters to enter minutely into the question, and therefore I propose that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should enter into a careful inquiry of the whole subject, and where it shall appear to them necessary, to extend the form of the statutes. With especial reference to these objects, then, I propose to provide a remedy for the sinecure nature of cathedral appointments. That the offices of dean and canon are sinecures, is proved by their being exempted from the operation of the law against pluralities, which was enacted in the reign of Henry VIII. But at this day, when every endowment in the Church is of special value, and nothing can be thrown away, these sinecures cannot be permitted to exist. By the Act of 1840 it was enacted that the average income of a canon should be from 500l. to 600l. a year. This may be supposed to be a reasonable income for a clergyman; but the total value of all the benefices held by the canons exceeds the amount of the canonries themselves; and, therefore, the question presents itself, are both these sources of endowment required for the same person? If the canonry is to be united to a benefice, then let the income of the benefice form the endowment of the canonry, and let the endowment of the canonry go to the common fund. I propose, therefore, to suppress the canonries which are not now united to professorships or benefices; leaving two canons residentiary in each cathedral and the minor canons to do the working duties. I do not propose that the canonries should be entirely extinguished, but that the statute of 1840 should be re-enacted, which provided for the suspension of canonries being removed from them, by endowing them with a benefice. I propose that a certain number of benefices should be selected by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which should on the next vacancy be united with canonries, and that the canonries and benefices so united should be placed in the patronage of the bishop of the diocese, these being benefices now in the gift of any ecclesiastical corporation, sole or aggregate; and in the event of any benefice being so chosen which is now in the patronage of the Lord Chancellor, I propose that the patronage of canonry to which it shall be united shall be vested in Her Majesty. I propose that by means of canonries endowed with benefices in this manner, the number of the canons in the chapter should be increased to twelve. With regard to the duties of the chapter, I must ask the House again to recur to an ancient precedent. Burn, speaking of the ancient constitution and duties of chapters, says—

"They were likewise called Decani Christiantatis, because their chapters were courts of Christianity or ecclesiastical judicature, wherein they censured their offending brethren, and maintained the discipline of the Church within their own precincts."

I propose to return in a manner to these precedents, and for these purposes, that the chapter shall take the place of the Commission now appointed by the Church Discipline Act, to be issued by the bishop for the purpose of instituting a preliminary inquiry in cases of ecclesiastical offences; and that if in any case the chapter consist of less than five members, the bishop shall have the power of appointing substitutes for the occasion. These are the modifications which I propose for the chapter: the further effect of which will be that about 26,000l. will be provided for the other wants of the Church, making, with what I have before alluded to, the annual sum of very nearly 60,000l. per annum. With respect to the important point of sees, I am not now about to defend the order of episcopacy, for I am not now going to propose its institution for the first time. It is that on which the Church is founded; and it is my opinion, and one from which I will never shrink, that in every attempt to extend that Church, we must be equally careful to extend the episcopate. To act otherwise, would not be to act constitutionally. We must endeavour to impress the public mind with a sense of its utility and efficiency, for to leave it in its present state would only be to connive at that which at no distant day may be aroused against it—an intolerant, perhaps a revolutionary, feeling. I therefore propose as a first step towards the increase of the episcopate, the erection of two new sees, one at Westminster, and the other at Bristol. I propose that the see of Westminster should be erected on the voidance of the deanery, and that the bishop should become dean and bishop. I propose that the see of Bristol should be again severed from that of Gloucester on the voidance of the see of Gloucester, and that on the voidance of the deanery of Bristol the bishop should become both dean and bishop. This principle I should hope to see extensively carried out; but with respect to other deaneries, the Bill which I have the honour to present to the House will be merely permissive. It enacts that henceforth the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should lay before the Queen in Council all the recommendations and memorials they may have received touching the division of any diocese, and that upon the voidance of that see, they may either themselves proceed to divide the diocese, or the Queen in Council may direct the diocese to be divided. I have thus endeavoured to invite the expression, on the part of the Church generally, of an opinion upon the matter, and to provide that by this means relief may be placed within her reach. Well, Sir, I propose that upon the division of any diocese a place should be selected in it by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the place so selected should become the cathedral of the diocese, and that the incumbent of that place, provided that an arrangement can be made with the patron so that the patronage should be placed in the hands of the bishop, should become one of the canons of the chapter; that the bishop should have the power of nominating the incumbent of one of the benefices in the diocese to a canonry in the chapter, provided that a similar arrangement can be made; and that, under similar circumstances, a certain number of livings should be selected by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which upon the next voidance should be permanently united to canonries, and placed in the patronage of the bishop, and thus a chapter should be gradually formed around the bishop. This is the proposition that I have to make with regard to the erection of new sees. I must now make a very brief statement with regard to endowments. By the Act of 1840 it was provided that the average income of every dean should be 1,000l. a year, with some exceptions; and that the average income of no bishop should he under 4,200l. The principle on which I have proceeded is, that the income of any dean, together with a portion deducted from the income now assigned to the bishop of any see, will go to form the income of the new see. Proceeding on this prin- ciple, an income of about 2,500l. a year will be provided for every new bishop; and an income of not less than 4,000l. a year will fee left for every bishop of an old see. The calculation proceeds upon the assumption that sixteen or eighteen new sees will be the utmost that it will be required to erect, and the sum required will then be about 40,000l. a year; and the sum provided in the manner before described, taking the income of the deanery and a portion of the income now assigned to the bishop of any see, in the sees affected by this provision, will be 41,000l. a year, so that an adequate endowment would be provided. But I propose farther to limit the income of certain existing sees. I propose that the income of the future Archbishops of Canterbury should he 10,000l. a year, that the income of the future Archbishops of York should be 8,000l. a year, that the income of the future Bishops of London should be 6,000l. and that the income of the future Bishops of Winchester and Durham should he 5,000l. The results will then stand thus: From the suspension of thirty deaneries we should have 35,500l., and from the suspension of forty-six canonries 26,500l., making a total of 62,000l. Now the sum required for the income of sixteen new bishops is 40,000l. per annum, and the incomes of the existing prelates, without any deduction being made in them, are 152,000l.; but the income proposed after the deduction to which I have adverted, will be 122,000l., leaving a surplus of 50,000l., so that, as the sum required to erect new sees will be 40,000l., 10,000l. will be required from some source or other. That is provided from the suspension of canonries and from other portions which are taken from sums accruing from the suspension of deaneries. Without wearying the House with these calculations, the result is that it leaves a surplus of 27,000l. a year to be applied to the general purposes and wants of the Church;—very indequate, I confess, to what is wanted, but still I feel it is something. I now come to the last part of the measure that I have to propose to the House, and that is, as I have no doubt hon. Members will anticipate, the transfer of the management of Church property to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If I needed arguments for this step, they might be found, I believe, in the utter unsuitableness of such an employment as the management of property to the feelings of clergymen; in the melancholy state of many cathedral towns, where the light of Christian truth is too often veiled, and the character of the Christian ministry is exposed to contumely and reproach; in the debates which have taken place in this House on matters connected with abuses of this nature, which have spread wide their influence out of doors, and have agitated the public mind with suspicion and distrust. As far as the purposes for which the Act for the Commutation of Tithes was introduced, and as far as the manner in which those objects were attained, we have, I think, abundant precedent for what I have to propose. But a careful consideration of the case will show that the very interests of the property themselves require that a step of this nature should be taken. I need scarcely remind the House that it has ever been the desire of the Legislature of this country to preserve the property that has been held by the dignitaries of the Church as life tenants from being used to the prejudice of their successors; but a few instances (for which I shall ask the indulgence of the House while I recite them) will suffice to show how far these attempts have met with success. There are a certain number of Acts which have at various times passed the Legislature unperceived, and by which large portions of property have been for ever alienated from the Church, Now I will read to the House one instance:—

"The prebend of Tettenhall, in the cathedral of St. Paul's, had leased the estate under his trust for three lives, at the nominal rent of 46l. per annum. The fine received for this lease does not appear, but it is stated to be 'large.' The lease was the property of the Hon. Charles Fitzroy, a brother of the Duke of Grafton, the then Minister, that Duke whom the Letters of Junius will prevent being forgotten. The prebend had by the lease done his worst for dilapidating the estate and impoverishing his successor, and, knowing that there was little chance of more than the 46l. per annum during his life, soon after, in conjunction with the lessee, presented a petition to Parliament, stating that 'it was for the advantage of the Church, and the successors in the prebend, and that a full equivalent was to be given;' and it was upon these grounds the above Act was obtained, which entirely divests the Church of the whole of this estate for ever, and bestows the fee-simple upon the Hon. Charles Fitzroy, The estate commences at the end of Oxford-street, London, and continues with intermission up to Highgate, a distance of between three and four miles, and includes woods and lands about Highgate, and would, at a fair computution, at the expiration of the existing lease, have been worth to the Church full 30,000l. per annum. The full equivalent given to the Church is 300l. a year secured upon the estate; it is now known as the Southampton estate—the name of Tettenhall is dropped."

I have quoted this case from the work of Mr. William Beeston on the temporalities of the Church. I will state another instance. In the year 1800, when it was determined by the Government to redeem the land tax, an Act was passed to enfranchise Church property. But what was the course which was pursued by the prelates of that day? In all cases they filled up the existing leases for their own especial benefit, and the reversionary value of the property, thus diminished, was brought into the market, and a far greater amount of property was thus required to be sold to realise the amount required. Now the following is an extract from the evidence taken before the Committee which sat in the year 1838, and relates to a transaction which took place at the period to which I hare referred with respect to the property of the Bishop of Chester. The witness was Mr. Elsley, and the question was put to him by an hon. Member of this House, whom I now see in his place. Mr. Goulburn asked—

"'Why do you go through the process of granting a new lease upon three fresh lives in the first instance? Mr. Elsley replied, 'I am supposing that to be done which I know was done in the case of Patrick Brompton by the Bishop of Chester. The Bishop of Chester, before he would allow that to be sold to redeem the land-tax, made my uncle surrender the old lease, and pay a very large price for the new lease; and I cannot conceive that there was any motive for that, except that the Bishop might put a certain sum into his own pocket, because if that had not been done, the difference would have been much greater, and a much larger sum would have come to the Commissioners for redeeming the land tax; but he took care to provide against that by having granted, before the Commissioners were dealt with, one of the best leases possible, and thereby taking care that the difference between the existing lease and the freehold should be as little as possible, he having received the benefit of the exchange of the old lease with the new lease.'"

Now I could quote other and similar cases. I believe it was the general practice at that time—I have got evidence which was given before the same Committee as to transactions of the same nature in the sees of Durham and Gloucester. One of the witnesses before that Committee was Mr. Philpotts, a Member of this House, who gave it as his opinion that the effect of these transactions was decidedly to the injury of the successors of these dignitaries. I really scarcely like to go further into the subject; but I can assure you I could give most painful evidence as to the unhappy disposition of the prelates of that day to force a far greater proportion of the Church property to be sold than was required. They chose, for the purpose of filling up leases which had nearly expired, and of which, therefore, the reversionary value was the greatest, and would have realised the greatest sum, in order that they might obtain the greatest fines, which would become part of their own property. It may be said that these are occurrences which took place at a period now gone by. It is true that if they had not been occurrences at a period which is now gone by, I should have had very great hesitation in bringing them before the consideration of this House; but I think that it is the duty of this House not only to look for occurrences of a similar nature at this day, but to guard against these occurrences by taking warning from what has taken place with regard to things of this nature; and I may state one circumstance with regard to what is taking place now, because it involves precisely the same result, that immense portions of Church property are annually being lost to the Church for ever. Within thirty years the sum of 191,000l. has been paid to the Dean and Chapter of Durham for renewals of fines on colliery leases. Now I have no reason to believe that any portion of this property is funded for the benefit of the Church; and therefore, when we remember that this is the return from one proprietary only, we shall be able to form some estimate of what enormous sums are being annually lost to the Church. I have stated, however, that Parliament seems to have paved the way to the arrangements which I shall recommend, as well as to have pointed out the direction. I believe, by limiting the income of these dignitaries, it has destroyed their interest in the surplus. I do not wish to say anything invidious, but I put it to the House whether, taking human nature as we find it, if these incomes are secured to these dignitaries, it is not more than probable that that surplus may be impaired. I might go on to state other circumstances, but with regard to the bishops this is most highly objectionable. If they pay over the surplus to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they are virtually farming for that body property in which they had no interest whatever, and the natural order of things is thus absolutely reversed, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are the stipendiaries of the spiritual governors of the Church. Whatever may have been the evils attending the old system of leasing, it had this advantage, that the lessor was not the person who was brought into im- mediate contact with the tenant at rack-rent. But by the Act of 1850 Parliament has condemned that system of leases. That Act was one for the enfranchisement of Church property, and there is reason to expect that, sooner or later, Church property will in general be enfranchised and let at rackrent; and, therefore, when we see what are the large incomes of some of the dignitaries of the Church, we may conceive what an enormous trouble will be added to their duties if they are called upon to manage property at rackrent. The inequality of incomes is a point, and a very serious one, affecting the interests of Church dignitaries themselves. By a return which I moved for last year, it appears that the income of some canonries was 50l. one year, and 500l. another. Now, nothing can be more inconvenient to a gentleman than this, and therefore I propose that with regard to capitular property it should be at once vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that the members of ecclesiastical corporations, except bishops or archbishops, should receive fixed incomes; those who have succeeded to office since 1840, incomes amounting to the average sum now apportioned by Parliament; those who succeeded before 1840, incomes amounting to the average receipts of the last seven years. With regard to episcopal property, I propose that its management should be vested in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but I do not propose that the fee of the property should be abstracted from the bishops who might be then incumbents of the sees. But with regard to the bishops who have succeeded to sees since 1848, and who have been mentioned in the Order of Council on the subject, I propose that as to their property—as they are now receiving fixed incomes—this arrangement should take immediate effect; and with regard to other prelates, that the arrangement should take place as their respective sees become vacant. These are the remarks which I have to make with respect to the measure that I have submitted to the House. It remains for me now in a few words to endeavour to set myself right with all classes of my countrymen, in order that I may, if possible, leave the impression that I have not needlessly proposed a departure from ancient rule, or been striving after merely imaginary benefits. Sir, I have approached a question which, surrounded though it may be with difficulties, yet when calmly viewed at a distance from selfish interests and preconceived opinions, offers much to solve those difficulties, and to render legislation practicable and safe. But it must be in great measure by the application of remedies which are not only suited to the emergencies which have arisen, but which bear upon themselves characteristics by which they can always be recognised as belonging to the Constitution, which is the glory and safeguard of this country. Admitting that we have arrived at a period when it is no longer safe to refuse to extend the Church, and to increase its capabilities for good, what I propose is, that we should endeavour as far as possible to retain the proportions in which we received it from our ancestors, and that we should at the same time free it from those incumbrances which generally follow a long reign of prosperity and peace. There is the cry of a multitude of uninstructed beings, whose immortal interests are at stake, whose destinies, so to speak, are hanging on the decision of this House; and, again, there is the voice of a public opinion which—a stranger to the softer emotions aroused by memory and association—is daily inquiring the nature and utility of our institutions, and every year we abstain from moving, the former will become more piercing, and the latter more unanswerable. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the changes which have marked our national progress are thus well described by one who is well calculated to form an opinion respecting them. Mr. Allison says—

"The privileges of the people were sought, not in the violation of present, but in the restitution of ancient rights; not in the work of destruction, but in that of preservation. The progress of the Constitution was marked not by successive change, but by repeated confirmations of existing rights."

Because I desire to be true to principles such as these, it is that I have proposed a considerable increase of the episcopate, together with the measures required for providing funds for that increase; and I would remark to those hon. Gentlemen who view this part of my proposition as less satisfactory, that we have no other security for the very existence of the Established Church, than by retaining unimpaired the efficiency of that order on which its peculiar and distinctive character is based. I do not wish to draw an invidious contrast between two classes of individuals; but this I feel myself compelled to say, that the class of men whom I desire to see introduced into the Church by these mea- sures must be men foreign altogether to those habits and pursuits which have brought the present episcopate into any measure of disrepute. The purely spiritual nature of their duties, the simplicity of their manners, and the smallness of their incomes, must be a guarantee of their efficiency; and if Parliament will come forward, and grant such a body of men to the Church, I am quite certain it will impose on generations yet unborn a heavy debt of gratitude. Nor do I admit that, in proposing what I have done in regard to the management of Church property, I am departing in any way from those constitutional principles by which I have sought to be guided. I do not propose that the fee of the property should be abstracted from the bishops, but that the management of the property should be made a joint concern, instead of being, as it is now, separated amongst several dignitaries of the Church; that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have the business of attending to the management of the property, and should assume a character in law so far analogous to that of those corporations aggregate which have for centuries enjoyed the ownership and management of property in this country. And as the bishops will be component members of such a corporation, I cannot see that there need be any jealousy on their part excited by arrangements of this kind. In now detailing to the House the spiritual wants of the country, and in putting myself forward as the exponent of measures such as these, I cannot but feel and remember that there are two classes of persons to whom I must not omit to render justice. I allude in the first place to the Dissenters, who have been found with the Church labouring in the same sphere of beneficent labour. I believe that for many reasons the country is indebted to these religious bodies. They have existed for centuries—a standing proof of the mild leniency of our laws, while I believe they have given us back a reward, in proving a refuge for many an important precept when the Church, perhaps, had well nigh forgotten them in practice, if it had not abjured them in profession. I would ever pay a tribute of respect to conscientious scruples, and I am willing, ready, and thankful to acknowledge an amount of good wherever I find it, though it be attained by processes in which I am not able to concur; but by asking the House to adopt such measures, I am asking it to remove from the Church abuses against which their forefathers revolted, and to reanimate in it the life for which they sighed. And with regard to the second class of persons to whom I have referred, I must not forget that in proposing what I have done, I am really only putting into a form and shape (perhaps peculiar to myself) feelings which are widely spread, and wishes which are deeply seated, amongst a great body of the working clergy. I know it is the opinion of some that the Church should be enabled to exercise a deliberative function with regard to interests with which her ordained ministers are intimately concerned, and I believe these demands might be made with justice and those functions might be exercised with safety. But I believe, also, that if they have hitherto been received with suspicion and distrust, it is because the Church has not been yet in the position to make them; and if ever they are to be conceded, it will be when, truly irreproachable, and truly fulfilling the spiritual nature of her mission, she is able to speak in a voice that will command the attention and engage the reverence of the people. In bringing forward these measures, I am actuated by no party considerations. One object is and will be my only aim on a subject of this nature (what care I by whom it may be effected?)—that the Church shall be made equal to the accumulated labour to which she must now address herself, and shall occupy in the affections, the estimation, and the consideration of the nation, the place for which she was clearly destined by the laws and the Constitution. And if there be a subject worthy of the consideration of this House, one which has not yet been made the prey of political dissensions, to that let us turn, standing as we do upon the very threshold of a period so darkly pregnant with events that no reflecting mind can contemplate it without feeling some of the weight of its uncertainty; to that let us turn, and there—not as opponents, but as Englishmen, the inheritors of the blessings of a thousand years—there let us strive in one common effort for our country's good, and join in an acknowledgment to our country's God. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to enable Her Majesty further to regulate the duties of ecclesiastical personages, and to make better provision for the management and distribution of episcopal and capitular revenues.

, in seconding the Motion, said that his noble Friend merited the thanks of every true friend of the Established Church and of religion, not only on account of the trouble which he had taken to inform himself on every point with regard to this question, but also on account of the additional labour which he had undertaken in the framing of a comprehensive measure for the consideration of that House. And when he informed the House that sooner than abandon this measure his noble Friend had refused to join the present Government, he was sure that all would appreciate the motives by which he was actuated. Most of the comprehensive provisions contained in the Bill which his noble Friend proposed to introduce, had been recommended by Committees of that House which had sat on this subject; and he believed that their effect would be to render the funds of the Established Church more available for the purposes of further education and spiritual instruction at a time when the attainment of these objects was so loudly demanded on all sides. He trusted that neither the Government nor the House would offer the smallest obstruction to the introduction of the Bill, and that by that means an expression of public opinion with respect to it might be obtained. When it was publicly stated that there were 1,500,000 persons in the metropolis who did not attend any place of public worship, he thought it high time that they should entertain some measure of this nature.

Sir, the noble Lord who has asked for leave to bring in this Bill has taken such pains with the subject—he entertains, I know, so friendly a disposition towards the Church—and he has shown himself so desirous of promoting the improvement and spiritual instruction of the people of this country, that I should feel I was indeed ungrateful towards him if I were, on the part of the Government, to decline to allow this Bill to be introduced. But, independently of these considerations, which have induced me to give my assent to the introduction of the Bill, I think there is so much in the arguments and observations which the noble Lord has advanced, so much of truth in what he has said, and so much of justice in some of the propositions which he has submitted to us, that I think the House and the country ought to have an opportunity of considering this large and comprehensive subject. At the same time, with regard to a measure so large and comprehensive, I cannot say that I am prepared to adopt it; and I think it would be better for the House to see it in detail before expressing any decided opinion on it. Indeed there are some parts which I cannot concur in. But as far as I can understand the principles on which my noble Friend desires to proceed, they are, firstly, to increase the: episcopacy of the country by the erection of new sees; and, secondly, to provide for the better management of the ecclesiastical revenues. In both of these objects I am willing to concur, provided they can be carried out in a manner Satisfactory to the members of the Church, and, generally speaking, for the benefit of the country. I own, however, that I entertain considerable doubt as to portions of the measure the noble Lord has shadowed out. I entertain considerable doubts, for instance, with respect to the abolition of deaneries, and I do not believe that canonries can be done away with to the extent to which the noble Lord has adverted. That, I am sure, is a question which can only be determined after more information and discussion than has yet been given to the subject. To increase the episcopacy you must have some funds, and those funds ought chiefly to come out of the revenues of the Church, though they may be materially aided by voluntary contributions. At the same time I think it would be advisable, supposing the funds to be sufficient—and here I think the plan defective—to provide more effectually for the working parochial clergy, concurrently with the increase that is made in the sees. With regard to the proposed management of the ecclesiastical funds, there is great force undoubtedly in many of the observations of the noble Lord. It is, however, an exceedingly difficult subject to deal with, and requires very great consideration before the House and Parliament can come to any definite conclusion as to what is the best mode of providing for the management of ecclesiastical property. I say the management: for the property itself should be vested in those to whom it belongs. It appears that the noble Lord proposes to put this property in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to withdraw the management of it from those who have other duties requiring their attention. Now I believe I may say that there are some bishops who are most desirous that an arrangement of that sort should be made. But I am of opinion that this is one of those complicated questions which turns more upon the mode in which it ought to be done, than as to the fact whether it is to be done at all. The subject, moreover, is of so extensive a character, and necessarily contains so many details, that I certainly think it would not be advisable to promote a discussion upon all those topics until we see the particular manner in which the noble Lord proposes to deal with them. I shall not, therefore, offer any more observations upon the subject at present, except to say that I shall support the Motion now before us, in order that the Bill may be printed and circulated, which will enable us to judge how far it may be adopted.

said, he had not been prepared for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), and as little had he been prepared for the speech of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Bland-ford). He confessed that if the speech of the noble Lord had been delivered upon the highest mountain of the House, he could better have understood it. It was true that the noble Lord had received one or two faint cheers from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and at the close of his speech several generous cheers from those beside whom he (Sir R. Inglis) was sitting; but the largest proportion of the cheers had come from hon. Gentlemen who could not claim to be called the friends of the Church. No person, for instance, could deny the consistency of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) on this question. Five and twenty years ago the hon. Gentleman brought forward the measure of which the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) was now the eulogist. He (Sir R. Inglis) did not deny the consistency of the hon. Member for Montrose; but he deprecated with all his heart the principles which the noble Lord had enunciated; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department talked of the great knowledge which the noble Lord had accumulated, he (Sir R. Inglis) could pay him no such compliment, since he must equally deny the conclusions at which the noble Lord had arrived, and the premises from which they were taken. The noble Lord said that deaneries and canonries were sinecures. It was true, that they had not, distinctly as such, the cure of souls; but they had their useful and important part in the ecclesiastical system of England; and that they were sinecures was a statement which any one who knew the working of that system ought to be prepared to deny. As he understood that the Government supported, not indeed the speech of the noble Lord, but the Motion which the noble Lord had placed upon the paper, or did not intend to take a division upon it, he (Sir R. Inglis) would content himself—and he would not do justice to his feelings if he did not say this much at least—with expressing, as strongly as he could, his non-conviction with respect to the alleged facts of the noble Lord, and his perfect aversion to the mode in which he proposed to carry out his principles; and his regret that the Government, after the speech of the noble Lord, should have given its consent—which it had done by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—even to one stage of a measure so objectionable as that of his noble Friend.

said, he merely rose to express the anxiety he felt that the abuses of the Church should be reformed, and that ecclesiastical property should be placed under better management. He was of opinion that sinecures of all descriptions connected with the establishment of the Church should be abolished; while, at the same time, he was desirous that those who performed duty in the Church should be adequately remunerated for it. He should postpone the expression of his opinions in detail, until the period when the Bill came before the House for a second reading.

begged to say, with respect to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), that if be gave him (Mr. Hume) credit for his consistency in his desire to reform the abuses of the Church, he (Mr. Hume) could give the hon. Baronet credit for being as consistent tit his wish to support them. He was sure that the noble Lord (the Marquess el Blandford) was acting as the best friend the Church of England had in attempting thus boldly to reform her; and it was to him (Mr. flume) a most consolatory reflection that the work he had begun twenty-five years ago was now being taken up in earnest by the members of the Church of England, who could not be accused, as he had been, of ill-will towards her. His (Mr. Hume's) object was to place the Church of England on a footing which would enable it to afford religious instruction in the best form, for the advantage of the people and of the country. He should think himself unworthy of the good opinion of any person if he did not say that since the period when he had first called attention to the subject, the Church of England had greatly improved. He entirely concurred in the opinion that the abolition of sinecures was one of the first steps that every sincere friend of the Establishment should take. His (Mr. Hume's) object twenty-five years ago was to put an end to sinecures and to prevent pluralities. It was satisfactory to see that things were coming round, and that they were now going to adopt his suggestions. If they had adopted them at the period they were offered, it would have been much the better for the Church. When it was known to the people of England that sinecures had ceased in the Civil departments, in the Army and Navy, and every department of the State, except in the Church, they must look upon it with dissatisfaction. He must express his thanks to the noble Lord for bringing forward the very proposition on which he (Mr. Hume), in the year 1837, had taken the sense of the House. If the revenues of deans and chapters were placed in lay hands, as he (Mr. Hume) had then proposed, much of the scandal that had been occasioned by the conduct of the bishops would be avoided, and the Church would now stand in a much better position.

said: I must dissent from the observations that have been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), for I believe the speech of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) has met with the general concurrence of the House, and will have a wider and larger concurrence in the country. There is a large party in the country who feel the necessity for some further reform in the arrangements of the Church. There has been a marvellous awakening of energy and zeal in the Church of England of late years; and many, both of laity and clergy, are striving, in their respective spheres, to relieve the sad spiritual condition of masses of its poorer members; but to the Legislature only can they look for improvement in the external machinery of the Church, and a better adaptation of its resources. This House has entertained the subject, but has hitherto done little. Commissions have reported, and Committees have inquired. Returns have been framed, and we have an accumulation of facts and opinions; but little action has resulted from those preparations. The time has now come for the attention of the House to be given to the subject in real earnest, and for something effectual to be done. The noble Lord deserves thanks for the carefully prepared Bill he now offers to our consideration, and for thus forcing the subject on the attention of the House, and compelling the Government to take it into consideration. The principles of the measure, I contend, are right. If the responsibility of the management of Episcopal property, had been transferred from the Bishops to a body of Commissioners, they would have been relieved from much odium, and we should have escaped those statements of the hon. Members for Marylebone and Cockermouth, which have at different times so distressed the friends of the Church. We have expected from the prelates who are set in high places to preach against worldliness, covetousness, and self-seeking,—a bright example of devotedness to the good of the Church, and of self-denial; but we have seen in many instances that in the management of their property bishops have acted just as ordinary men do,—have considered it their own, and have treated the claim of their family to be supported out of the estates given them by law, as better than any claim of poor livings which may have been entertained by the Government. All property is a trust; but the property of bishops and chapters is more peculiarly a trust allotted to them as ecclesiastical corporations, forming part of that great corporation, the Established Church of the Realm; and this fact would be more palpably recognised, and better attended to, if the management of the property were committed to a General Commission. The transformation of deaneries into new bishoprics would be a great advantage. It would be changing a function comparatively useless into one that is essential. The office of a dean enables him to do little for the Church beyond the exhibition of good taste in the superintendence of the building committed to his care, and providing for the due performance of public worship within its walls; but a bishop ought to be the pivot of all ecclesiastical operations, and the life and soul of all good endeavours in his diocese. I hope the Government will look into the subject; I am sure if they do, they may find means of greatly promoting the good of the Church, and the welfare of the people.

said, he wished to thank the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) for the manner in which he had brought forward this subject. He regarded it as one of those indications which were extremely satisfactory to those who had laboured to do away with the abuses in the Established Church, that a Member of the noble Lord's opinions, and belonging to the party with which he was associated, should have brought forward such a proposition, not only with the general approbation of the House, but with something like a prospect that it would meet with very general assent. It was evident that the questions relating to our ecclesiastical system must not only be forced more and more every day upon the attention of Parliament and the country, but that no Ministry could, without great danger to the ecclesiastical establishments, refuse to take them into consideration. He thought it was an encouraging circumstance that there never was a time in the history of this country when the religious feeling of the people was of so healthy a character—a character removed from anything like carelessness on the one side, or fanaticism or intolerance on the other, and when there was so general a disposition to acknowledge and appreciate the blessings of religious teaching. It was also an encouraging fact that during the last few years very considerable reforms in our ecclesiastical system had been effected, and the experience of those reforms was such as to induce them to proceed in the same course. He thought that scarcely any one would object to the proposal of the noble Lord with regard to the deans. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) had, indeed, contended that no person who understood our ecclesiastical system could pretend to say that the present office of a dean was a sinecure. He (Mr. Horsman) could only say that year after year, he had inquired in that House what were the duties of a dean, and, although the hon. Baronet had heard those questions, he (Mr. Horsman) was still in perfect ignorance of what really were the ecclesiastical or spiritual duties of such a dignitary. The noble Lord further proposed that all episcopal and capitular estates should be placed in the hands of a Board, by whom the prelates and dignitaries of cathedral churches should be paid. That recommendation had already been made by a Commission appointed to inquire into this subject; and he thought, from the statement of the Home Secretary to-night, that the Government entertained no objection to the principle involved in such a change. He could not express the same approbation of other parts of the Bill, and especially of those relating to the increase of the episcopate, which he thought the noble Lord would find difficult to carry out; but he would not now go into those points. He would only add, that, approving generally of the principles of the noble Lord's measure, he would gladly give any assistance in his power to one who came forward in a spirit at once so bold and so conservative as the noble Lord.

said, he concurred with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) in thinking that his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) treated the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) unfairly in asserting that it required a general and thorough agreement on all points with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) before one could give a hearty assent to the proposal and to the spirit in which it was made by the noble Lord. For his (Mr. S. Herbert's) part, he had long felt that the abolition of ecclesiastical abuses and the reform of ecclesiastical duties were becoming every day more necessary, not only for the safety of the Church, but for the support of real Christianity in this country. He had on one or two occasions taken an opportunity of discussing those points, and was not then going to enter into them. He understood, the restoration to the episcopal office of the duties long attached to it, and which by the lapse of time had been separated from it, was one of the main objects of the Bill. It also proposed an addition to the episcopate proportionate to the increase of parochial subdivisions, which every day was more necessary. He was glad to hear, from the statement of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that in 1837 he proposed a similar measure to that which was now proposed by the noble Lord, for it would consequently appear that the hon. Member had proposed the addition of seventeen bishops to the episcopate. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that it it was more necessary to increase the parochial clergy—[Mr. WALPOLE: Not more necessary—equally necessary.] The right hon. Gentleman had said it was equally necessary to increase the parochial clergy, and he would find that it was assumed that the existing system of applying the accruing surplus to the increase of the parochial cures should be continued. A redistribu- tion of funds was proposed, which would create fresh sources of revenue, and that proved that the noble Lord did not contemplate either the diminution of the parochial cures, or an entire cessation of their increase. He gave his cordial thanks to the noble Lord for the care he had bestowed on the measure but until it was before the House it was impossible to judge of its details; In consequence of the spirit by which the noble Lord was evidently animated, and the opinions he had expressed, he (Mr. S. Herbert) was willing to promise him any support and assistance he could give him. He was glad the matter had fallen into friendly and at the same time efficient hands, and he trusted that it Would be brought to a favourable conclusion.

said, he held that the Church of England should be the great bulwark of Christianity and Protestantism throughout the world. If it ceased to be so, it would cease to perform that high mission for which he conceived it was established, and would be swept away from the face of the earth by the united feelings of all classes of Protestants in this country. He united in the testimony of gratitude that had been offered to the noble Lord for the spirit and feeling with which he had brought forward this measure. He wished to ask whether the right hon. Home Secretary, when he said that he desired to obtain the opinion of "the Church" on this subject, meant that term to apply to the clergy exclusively, or to the clergy combined with the laity?

explained that he had never used the word "Church" without meaning the clergy and laity united together; and he thought the House would not satisfactorily legislate upon this subject without the joint co-operation of the clergy and laity of the Established Church.

said, he did not object to the increase of the episcopal body, but wished to call the attention of the House to an Act of Parliament by which the rights of lessees of the Church were distinctly recognised, and he trusted there was no provision in the Bill that would destroy those rights. If there was anything in the Bill that would set aside the intention of Parliament with respect to the rights of those lessees, he (Mr. Aglionby) would, of course, object to that particular part of it.

re- plied: With regard to the remarks that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he could only say that the right hon. Gentleman did him no more than justice when he stated that he was actuated by a sincere desire to render the Established Church efficient, and to enable it to meet the wants or their increasing population. Such alone was his object, and he should be deeply pained if he thought there was anything in the Bill at all calculated to cast discredit upon the Church, or upon the officers or it. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) had assumed that the principal part of the support he had obtained was received from a quarter of the House that was composed of Gentlemen who were supposed to entertain rather peculiar opinions with respect to the Church; and he must observe in reply, that he looked upon this matter in the light of truth, and not as a party question. In speaking of the deans and canons, tie had intended to, express his opinion that very small duties were associated with them, and that according to the usual acceptation of the word the term "sinecure" might to a great extent be applied to them. He was not singular in that opinion. Persons entertaining the strongest affection for the Established Church, had entertained similar opinions. He begged to quote to the House an extract from Burn's Justice, wherein it was stated that "Deaneries are sinecures, that is, they have not the cure of souls," and as such are exempted from the statute of Henry VIII. against pluralities. He felt deep gratification that the Government had consented to consider the subject. Their conduct, he was sure, would raise them in the opinion of the country, and strengthen them in any difficult position in which they might be placed. He hoped what had taken place that night would form a point from which would date the commencement of a measure which would prove of the greatest benefit to the Church, and tend to raise her to the true and proper position which she ought to occupy in the country.

said, he regretted that he had not been able to bring forward this subject at an earlier period of the Session. At the commencement of the Session he had waited on the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour), then First Commissioner of Woods and Works, to inform him of his intention to move for a Select Committee. That noble Lord expressed a wish that the Committee might be delayed. Subsequent to that the Whig Government left office, and another delay arose in consequence. He had also seen the noble Lord at present at the head of the Woods and Works, and learnt that at that time the Board of Commissioners were considering the Report of the Commission. He had also delayed his Motion on account of the important public meeting which took place a day or two ago at Exeter-hall. That meeting—a very large assemblage of the inhabitants of the metropolis—had decided in favour of the retention of the Crystal Palace. That opinion was shared, to a great extent, by the people in the country, and he appealed to it as a fair reflection of the views of the middle classes. The middle classes were unanimous in favour of its retention. ["No, no!"] The total want of opposition at the meeting in Exeter-hall was a complete proof of the truth of his statement. At the time when the subject was formerly discussed, it was understood that an inquiry should follow the Address to the Crown, and he thought indeed that that was partly the object of the Address. They were under considerable obligations to the Government for the appointments of Lord Seymour, Sir William Cubitt, and Dr. Lindley, to the Commission of Inquiry which had investigated this subject; and he must say, although he differed from certain parts of their Report, there was one point in which he cordially concurred, and that was, the most economical plan would be for the Government to purchase the Crystal Palace as it stands. The price was only 45,000l., which was very much below the value of the materials of that immense pile of glass and iron. The Commission had examined Sir Joseph Paxton, Sir Charles Fox, and others, with regard to the present state of the building. He (Mr. Heywood) could assure the House that the foundations were firm, the building excellent, and that any repair which might be necessary could be effected at a very trifling cost. Since the Report of the Commission, a number of gentlemen had given attention to the subject, and a new plan had been drawn up by them, by which the building might be supported. It was to place the Crystal Palace in the form of a trust; the trustees being certain independent noblemen and gentlemen possessing the confidence of the public, and some of the Members of the Government for the time being, and holding high offices. The Royal Commissioners felt themselves under the pledge given at an early period that the building should come down; and by many Members of that House great importance was attached to that pledge. It was stipulated that the building should come down by the 1st of June, 1852, and the surface of the park be restored to its previous state, and grass seeds sown there; and that if that was not done, the Commissioners of Woods and Works might come in and remove and dispose of the materials, and apply the produce in reimbursement of the expenses of the removal and of restoring the surface of the park. In fact, the deed of covenant was drawn up with great stringency. But the building was a new invention in architecture; it was one of the greatest inventions ever made in this country for the advancement of science. One great object of the friends of education was to promote the knowledge of science, by the exhibition of scientific specimens. Since the building was erected, public opinion had undergone a great change; and he should wish, if the House would allow the Committee to be appointed, that it should have the fullest power to investigate every branch of the subject. He did not wish to limit the Committee to the question whether the building should remain in Hyde-park, or whether its size should be altered. It was said by many that the building was too long, and that if reduced in size its beauty would be increased, without its efficiency for any purpose being impaired, Were the building reduced, the objection taken to it by Lord Campbell, Mr. Justice Cresswell, and other residents in the neighbourhood, would in all probability be removed. There was a class of Members in the House who objected to the retention of the Crystal Palace, because it interfered with the ride in Rotten-row; but the Committee might arrange for some further accommodation for those who wished to ride in the Park. The building had admirably answered its original purpose; during the Exhibition it was the great attraction of the metropolis, and it now remained a monument of architectural skill and great power of design. There were those who objected to it as a monument of the Great Exhibition. That was the very reason why it ought to be retained. The Exhibition was one of the most interesting events in British history—it was an era in the history of the world, and the beginning of those intimate commercial relations with different countries which he hoped to see greatly extended. With regard to the objects to which the building might be adapted, there was the plan of Sir Joseph Paxton for a winter garden. London was the only great metropolis of Europe without a winter garden. The climate of this country was so uncertain, so damp, so foggy, that the luxury of a winter garden would not fail to be highly acceptable. He hoped that the building would be preserved, and that it would be placed under Government control and careful management. Many advantages would result from it. He had no wish to limit the objects to which the building, if preserved, might be applied. He did not wish to limit it to a winter garden; there were other more beneficial purposes for which it might be used. He thought our means of giving instruction in science were extremely limited. The collections of geology and natural history in the British Museum were little known at the west end, because so far off. The inhabitants of the west end had no opportunity of deriving instruction from them. He did not know any place so well adapted to the exhibition of scientific specimens as the Crystal Palace. Objections were taken that the building was too large; but that was a point on which great improvement might be made. If the building were kept up, he did not expect there would be a very large concourse of people except at particular times. There was one kind of exhibition for which it was peculiarly adopted—that was botanical exhibitions. Hon. Members who had frequently visited Chiswick and the Regent's-park during the floral exhibitions, must remember how often their pleasure had been interfered with by the rain. There was, in fact, no plan which could be better carried out under the roof of the Crystal Palace than a botanical exhibition. He should wish the Committee to be appointed in order to have a thorough investigation of it the subject. They ought also to examine into the point of honour which had been raised. He believed it was usual formerly to refer points of ho- nour in that House to Viscount Hardinge, then Sir Henry Hardinge, and his decision was final; but there was no Member now in the House, who possessed similar influence, and the subject now in dispute might be referred to a Committee. An important principle was involved in this question: it was that of class divisions. The middle classes were in favour of, and the aristocratic classes were against, the retention of the Crystal Palace; and he considered it one of the most dangerous and serious divisions that could agitate this country. He should be very much surprised if the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) opposed the Motion. When he (Mr. Heywood) was on a visit at Haddon Hall, one of the seats of his Grace the Duke of Rutland, he had met a French nobleman, with whom he engaged in conversation on the subject of the English aristocracy. That French nobleman stated as a reason why the English aristocracy retained their privileges and position, and the French lost theirs, that the English aristocracy knew when to make just concessions. Now, this was a time for the aristocracy of England to make a small concession to the opinions and wishes of the middle classes. It might be said that the poorer classes would not be benefited, if they were deprived of so much grass which they might have ranged over, and if an admission fee, though small, should be exacted. But the poorer and the poorest classes have signed numerous petitions praying earnestly for the retention of the Crystal Palace. The change that had taken place in public opinion since its erection was manifested at the meeting at Exeter Hall. At that meeting a deputation was appointed to wait on the noble Earl the First Minister of the Crown; but unfortunately that nobleman had been unable from press of other business to receive the deputation, and the subject was therefore brought before the House without having been submitted to the head of the Government. But the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) had paid a great deal of attention to it, and he (Mr. Heywood) hoped that the noble Lord would allow the Committee he asked for to be appointed.

, in seconding the Motion; said, he differed in many respects from the opinions expressed on this important question by parties who had interested themselves in discussion as to the permanence of the building in question. For his part he considered that the mass of the people of England until late years had not been treated in a manner which would have tended to their better education, or with that kind of sympathy and fellow feeling which ought to exist among all classes of the community. He wished to see a state of things in this country in which the rich should enjoy their riches without envy or jealousy on the part of the poor, and in which the poor should be fully remunerated for their labour and for the important services they rendered to the other members of the community. But he considered there was a duty owing by the higher classes towards the lower which had scarcely ever been fairly or properly recognised. It was on that ground that he entreated the Government to consider what the object was which was now sought to be attained. That object was to afford instruction and recreation to the people, The population of this large metropolis now exceeded 2,000,000, the greater part of whom were caged up every week of their lives from Monday morning till Saturday night in the pursuit of their various avocations, and scarcely enjoyed more leisure than the time which they devoted to their necessary and ordinary refreshment. Here, if in any part of the world, recreation and instruction and means of health should be provided. He held, that a healthy, moral, and well-instructed community was more valuable to every individual having property than that property itself, because property could not protect itself, nor could it alone give that happiness which ought to be the object of all government. He considered it to be the duty of every Government to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and he would say, let no opportunity be lost of furthering that excellent and important object. In 1841 he submitted to that House a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the then state of the national monuments in Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's Cathedral, and other places; and why did he do so? It was not for any gratification of his own, nor to promote the pecuniary interest of any man breathing; but to afford facilities to the public for inspecting works of art located in those various edifices, with a view to their moral and intellectual improvement. The interests of bishops and trustees of various kinds had, however, stood much in the way of the end at which he aimed in moving for that Committee. It was true that up to that period this was an exclusive country. Often had they heard the remark made, that the people of England were excluded from participating in those enjoyments and recreations which tended so much to refine and elevate the minds of the people of Continental countries; and it was said we could not trust the people of England as the people on the Continent were trusted in reference to the exhibition of works of art. His answer was, "Try them." Until the persons who raised that objection trusted and tried the people in matters of that kind, they were not in a position to offer an opinion on such a subject. The Committee to which he had adverted recommended that the British Museum, the National Gallery, and some other places, should be opened as speedily as possible for the gratuitous admission of the public. It was honourable to the character of the people that the aristocracy now appeared to be desirous of forwarding the happiness and welfare of the less fortunate classes under them. In the arrangements made for improved dwellings, and in education even to the class of ragged children, it was found that efforts were now made to give the people habits of application and industry. It was not reading and writing alone that constituted true education, but the moral training with which intellectual instruction ought always to be accompanied. He appealed to the benefits which had resulted from those improvements; and, without entering into statistical details, he had no hesitation in saying, that the British Museum, which once was comparatively a sealed place, and to which not more than seventy or seventy-five parties were admitted in a week, afforded a favourable illustration of the advantages that attended the opening of such institutions to the public. The officers expressed their fears lest injury should ensue; every precaution was taken, a person was placed in every room. Prom the first hour when the Museum was thrown open up to the present, not an article of that immense and valuable collection had been touched. During the last year he understood that upwards of 2,000,000 of people had passed through the Museum. He would call attention to the fact that the numbers who visited the Tower of London in a year had risen from 10,000 to 100,000 since the charge for admission had been reduced from 3s. to 6d. In his opinion justice would not be done to the public until they were admitted free of all charge to a place like the Tower. No accident whatever had happened to the valuable collection of paintings in the National Gallery (with one exception) since the public had been admitted there gratuitously, nor at Hampton Court; and the conduct of the people, while visiting those interesting places, had been most exemplary. What was the result of opening those public institutions to the public? The working classes, instead of forming parties among themselves to go to public-houses as before, to spend a leisure day in drinking, now formed little parties to go in waggons on pleasure trips to Hampton Court, and places of that kind. In that way thousands of them participated in the advantages which had been so liberally afforded to them, and which tended to improve and humanise the whole fabric of society. He therefore held that the House was bound, if it could, to avail itself of the opportunity of retaining the Crystal Palace as a means towards the important ends to which he had adverted. He asked the House to bear in mind what occurred last year, when men high in rank, who had not learned to trust the people, would have had the metropolis surrounded by troops, and yet 80,000 people were sometimes collected in the Crystal Palace, and as many assembled out of doors, without any necessity arising for calling in the police to maintain order. Colonel Rowan attributed the facility of maintaining order to the good conduct of the people. He was examined by a Committee upstairs, when he said, that since he had come to be connected with the police force, he had found that one policeman could now maintain peace in any portion of the metropolis, where five, six, or seven would have been required only a short time before. He would remind the House that they were not asked to make an advance of public money. The parks were public property, to be maintained by Her Majesty for the benefit of the community. The House was asked to allow inquiry. That inquiry would show that the wants of the nation were increasing, that the population of the metropolis was increasing. The Exhibition showed that foreigners in the fine arts had a superiority over our own workmen; and it was desirable to give the community here an opportunity of benefiting from the collections which would be exhibited in the Crystal Palace. For that purpose there were noblemen and gentlemen associated together who asked permission, to do for the public, but on a more liberal scale, what other parties had been allowed to do in regard to the Zoological Gardens and the Botanical Gardens. Great objection was made to making those gardens in the Regent's Park; and very properly the Woods and Forests retained the power of removal. The rent of the inner circle of the Regent's Park was 248l., a moderate rent, he confessed. What the body to which he referred asked was for a lease of the eighteen acres of land on which the Crystal Palace stood. They asked for leave to apply the building to purposes favourable to the education of the people, including among them the exhibition of collections of art and machinery. Instead of making a charge for admission every day, they proposed to give, admission two days a week on payment of 3d., and they proposed to give admission one day a week free. He was told a pledge was given that the Crystal Palace should be removed; but fears were at first entertained which had proved chimerical. In justice he would call the attention of the House to what a sub-committee of those gentlemen who desired the retention of the Crystal Palace proposed to do. A more liberal and important proposition had not been put before the House for many a day. They said—

"Three modes of appropriating the Crystal Palace may be at present specified with sufficient distinctness to show how it is intended to combine the instruction and recreation of the people with the advancement of the arts, sciences, and manufactures. In the first place, a portion of the space may be allotted to a winter garden, avoiding extremes of temperature, embellished with fountains, statuary, geological specimens, and a great variety of other interesting objects."

Hon. Gentlemen might say that was a fairyland, but the project was one which he understood could be realised.

"Another portion might be appropriated for the reception of new inventions, and of a collection in illustration of the commerce of the world. Lastly, the building might contain a gallery of design, for the promotion of taste among manufacturers and the public, and lecture-rooms and museums, which would relieve the already over-crowded state of many of our greatest scientific institutions."

If collections existed where the progress of improvement could be seen, how much labour might be saved by persons desirous of carrying out such improvements in machinery! He hoped that those who opposed the Motion were not to be put down as enemies of the objects to which he had referred, as adverse to the recreation of the public and to the progress of improve- ment. The time might come when this country might find itself falling back as a commercial and manufacturing country. The sub-committee said—

"No more is asked for, in carrying out this plan for the preservation of the Crystal Palace, than has already been conceded to the Zoological and Botanical Societies in the Regent's Park. The self-supporting principle upon which it is proposed to effect the preservation of the palace, is the same as that upon which the Great Exhibition was so successfully carried out. No better proof can be given of the confidence felt in the soundness of that principle than by mentioning the fact, that some of the first capitalists in the country are prepared to guarantee the funds required upon the basis of this statement, and to submit their guarantee to Her Majesty's Government."

When the receipts had been applied to the preservation of the building, the residue would not be devoted to other purposes, but would be appropriated to such purposes as should promote the efficiency of the institution. The offer was made by gentlemen of property and science, who were willing to enter on the undertaking; and he submitted that in every point of view the House was entitled to resolve on placing them in the same situation as the supporters of the Zoological Gardens. On that subject he referred to the evidence of Mr. Briton, Mr. Allan Cunningham, and Others. It was for the Government when they made the lease to impose what restrictions they pleased. In the meantime he hoped the House would allow a Committee to be appointed. They would not be thereby precluded from permitting the removal of the building afterwards. He trusted, however, that by the evidence which might be adduced, and by the startling facts which would be laid before such a Committee, the House would be induced to arrive at a different conclusion.

said, he had formerly on several occasions expressed his opinion upon this so-called Crystal Palace, and he believed his conduct had been in strict conformity with those declarations. He had never entered it. If anybody offered him a thousand guineas—and even in those times of Californian gold a thousand guineas was no small sum—he would not enter the place. No; upon principle, he would not, he dared not enter it; he considered it a duty to his fellow-creatures not to go into the place. The very sight of it almost sickened him. He had not desired to see any act of violence resorted to, or the law transgressed, in order to demolish it; but he owned that nothing could have given him greater pleasure than if, by some superior power to that of man, it was annihilated at one fell swoop, and no trace left of the gross delusion. He believed that its institution was most prejudicial to the working classes, and to our nations} industry. They pretended to cherish the principle of encouragement to native industry, and yet, by this Crystal Palace and the introduction of foreigners, they did all they could to subvert it. Who benefited by it? Not one. Our poor people? Not a bit of it. Foreigners and contractors were the gainers. The poor people were drawn from their distant homes, and from their honest occupations, to see this big bauble. They were trepanned, seduced, ensnared, and humbugged out of their hard earnings. Oh, but they said, the place would afford recreation. Recreation for whom, and for what purpose? Was the labourer to leave his work to go to the Crystal Palace to take recreation and be duped out of his money? By their tricks, manœuvres, and gullibility, he would add by their fraudulent insinuations and promises, they had wrung the shillings out of the hands of the poor, who could ill afford it, and sent them back to their families penniless. But what a farce was the pretence upon which the Crystal Palace was erected! A noble Lord in another place had spoken of an harmonious and amicable confederation which it would produce between the people of this country and those of foreign nations, and especially between this country and France. But where was now that harmonious and amicable confederation? What was the present state of feeling between the two countries? By all sorts of unworthy modes they had asked their friends and neighbours to their table, and then turned round upon them and told them that they were not worthy to sit there. What was the result of this much-talked of meeting? Why, that two Governments had declared it was necessary to organise our militia, and to get up our national defences against these same friendly foreigners whom they invited with open arms. They had their Exhibition, he believed—for of course he never saw it—stuffed with foreign fancy rubbish. Show and tinsel were now-a-days preferred—cheap and nasty—whilst our solid durable English manufacture was neglected. He had been told by provincial tradesmen that two years of the Crystal Palace would ruin them. The Crystal Palace was a transparent humbug. As to the maintenance of that building, he could not suppose for a single instant the House would listen to such a proposal. They had had enough of the humbug. He agreed with Lord Campbell and Lord Brougham that they had no right to keep it there. They had no more right to rob so much ground from the Park than any Member of that House had to carry away the mace from the table. As for the appointment of a Committee, he scouted the idea. He knew what Committees generally ended in, and this Committee would be only a side-wind to maintain the building. The sooner the thing was swept away the better; and as for the public, he believed those who did not view it with indifference, regarded it in the same light he did—as a common nuisance. He was in favour of affording recreation to his fellow-creatures of all classes, but he would never subscribe to perpetuate such an unmitigated humbug as this. He would not be any party to a gross and wilful breach of faith; and, as he valued the cause of native industry, and preferred the interests of his own countrymen to those of foreigners, he would give his decided opposition to the Motion.

said, that, although the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down had passed some severe strictures as to the utility of what had taken place in the Crystal Palace, the fate of which was then under consideration, yet he must decline upon the present occasion to enter upon the question of the merits of that great Exhibition. Neither did he think that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) ought to be offended by his (Lord J. Manners) declining to refer to the earlier acts of the life of that hon. Member, in which he endeavoured to call the attention of the House to measures calculated to promote the education as well as the innocent recreations of the people. The House well knew the services which the hon. Member had rendered in that respect, and those services he (Lord J. Manners) was quite convinced were duly appreciated by every one. But his present object was to state, as shortly as he could, the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to think that those engagements under which the Exhibition was established, and the building was erected, namely, that when it had served its purpose, the building should be removed, ought now to be adhered to. As the first and foremost of these reasons, he placed the notorious fact, that, had it not been for the strong and solemn nature of those engagements, there was at any rate a great probability that the building never would have been erected at all. Hon. Gentlemen naturally enough had been carried away by the great and almost unexampled, and, he believed he was not wrong in saying, unexpected success of the enterprise, and they were apt to forget the obstacles and difficulties which, in the first place, interposed themselves in the way of those who wished to originate the palace. He was now speaking in the presence of many of the Royal Commissioners, and he believed they would admit that he did not exaggerate when he said that, had it not been for the solemn and positive engagement which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hey-wood) now called upon the House to disregard for the sake of a pecuniary compensation to be guaranteed to a body of respectable individuals, those difficulties and those obstructions would have been especially, he believed he might say, perhaps, fatally, increased. Now, let him ask what were the terms of those engagements? By the Royal Warrant, dated the 11th July, authorising the Royal Commissioners to enter upon a piece of ground in Hyde Park, for erecting a building for the Exhibition, the following engagement was imposed:—

"That the said buildings and erections which may be erected on the said site or piece of ground hereinbefore described as aforesaid, and all the materials and contents thereof, shall be completely removed and carried away by and at the sole expense of the said Commissioners on or before the 1st day of June, 1852; and that on or before the said 1st day of June, 1852, the said Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 shall, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners for the tune being of our Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings, restore the soil and surface of the park to its form before any part thereof was enclosed by the said Commissioners, ready for sowing with grass seeds, and to sow the same."

In the deed of covenant for carrying out that undertaking, the parties engaged to observe and perform—

"All and every the directions in respect of the premises which shall from time to time be given to them by the said Commissioners for the time being of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings; and especially will, on or before the 1st day of June, 1852, take down and remove, or cause to be taken down and removed, all and every the buildings and erections, building and erection, which shall be built or erected upon, or within the said site or piece of ground mentioned and described in the said Royal Warrant of even date herewith, and delineated in the plan drawn in the margin thereof, and the materials thereof, and the implements employed in erecting the same, and all and every the articles or article, of whatever nature or kind, which shall or may be brought to or upon the said site or piece of ground for the purposes of the said Exhibition; and will, at their own expense, in all respects restore the soil and surface of the said park to the form in which it was previously to the said Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 enclosing any part thereof, ready for sowing the tame with grass seeds, and to sow the same."

Nor was this all. In the preliminary discussions and arrangements which took place between the Royal Commissioners on the one hand, and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests on the other, he found this condition:—

"That the Exhibition shall be closed on or before the 1st day of November, 1851, immediately after which all possible despatch will be used in clearing out the contents of the buildings, taking them down, and removing the materials and reinstating the ground, &c., within seven months from the time of closing the Exhibition; and, in the event of failure in the fulfilment of this engagement, that it shall be competent for the Commissioners of Woods, &c., to remove the same, to dispose of the materials, and to apply the produce in reimbursement of the expenses incurred in such removal."

But so strong was the understanding at the time that the building was to be removed after the temporary purposes for which it was intended should have been accomplished, that he found the Secretary of the Royal Commissioners writing in their name on the 27th of June, 1850, the strong objection which the Commissioners entertained to the insertion of such a condition, on the very ground that the intention of the parties to act in the spirit of the condition was so notorious that it was surplusage and absurd to put it in any more stringent manner than it had already been agreed upon. The words of the Secretary were—

"With regard to the condition that the Exhibition shall be closed on or before the 1st of November, 1851, and that the whole building shall be removed and the ground reinstated within seven months afterwards, the commissioners cannot but express their regret that it should have been thought necessary to require a stipulation of so minute a character after the public assurances which they have already given, that the building should be of a strictly temporary character, and should be removed immediately after the close of the Exhibition. They have now only to add, that they hope to close the Exhibition and to remove the building long before the period assigned in the condition, and that their reason for naming so comparatively distant a day has simply been to prevent the possibility of a misunderstanding, should any unforeseen circumstances prevent their closing at the time now contemplated."

Having now called the attention of the House to these admitted and notorious facts, he did not know whether it was worth while for him to refer to the language used in the various debates which had occurred in that House on the subject by the noble Lord the late Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and by certain hon. Members who were more particularly interested in this great and important undertaking. Both the noble Lord, then at the head of the Government, and the late hon. and learned Attorney General, most emphatically and distinctly declared that the public faith and pledge given to the House and the country with respect to the removal of the building, would indisputably be maintained. Even admitting that the retention of the Crystal Palace on its present site might be as advantageous as the hon. Mover of the present proposition stated it would be for the objects he had in view, still he (Lord J. Manners) contended that that would be greatly outweighed and overbalanced by the evil which would result from so manifest and flagrant a violation of public faith and public engagements. Occasions might again arise when, for some great temporary purpose, it might be advisable to alienate for a certain time some other portion of the Royal or public domains, or some great public building or institution; but would the objection to such temporary alienation be strengthened or diminished if the House should now take the course which the hon. Member opposite invited it to pursue? He was not prepared to admit that by retaining the Crystal Palace in its present position, we should secure to their full extent the advantages described by the hon. Gentleman. He was not prepared to do so for two reasons, the first of which was based on the nature and character of the building, and the second on the site which it now occupied. It was admitted on all hands, and by no one more freely and cordially than by himself, that the building was admirably adapted for the purpose it was intended to serve. The hon. Gentleman who made the present Motion had laid some little stress on that fact; but he (Lord J. Manners) should say, that the circumstance of the building having been so veil adapted for purposes of a purely temporary nature, constituted a strong a priori argument against its retention for a permanent purpose. If a lady of fashion gave a great entertainment and erected a tent leading from her drawing-room window for the purpose of a ball, she did not, after it had answered its purpose, propose to convert that tent into a nursery, cowhouse, or stable; but, if she wished for any of those, she had a suitable building erected. The most shortsighted and most extravagant course of proceeding in the long run was to endeavour, if they had a building for a temporary purpose, by tinkering and altering it to pucker it up, and make it serve some permanent object, different from that for which it was originally destined. He believed that it had been admitted by all the witnesses examined favourable to the retention of the Crystal Palace on its present site, that great and essential alterations would be necessary before it could be adapted to any permanent purpose. Sir Charles Fox caused it clearly to be understood that, in his opinion, a new roof and a new floor would be requisite if the building were converted into a permanent building. And he proceeded to say—

"Then, supposing the building could be purchased at an expense of 45,000l., I believe if it were intended to make it a permanent structure it would require some alterations, would it not?—I should advise some alterations in the roof of it, certainly. The glazing was done under such extreme pressure for time, that I should be disposed to reglaze it; and if it were determined to reglaze it, I think in all probability the main gutters of the building ought to be lined with lead or galvanized iron, whichever was considered the best mode; but I have not very carefully considered it.

"Then, if it were converted into a winter garden, there would be large alterations in the floors and galleries, and the timber that would come out of those floorings might be sold for a considerable sum, for a credit against other expenses."

Mr. Dilke, who also was favourable to the retention of the Crystal Palace, thought that there must be a new roof; and said—

"A further sum of 20,000l. or 30,000l. would, I believe, defray the expense of a new roof, substituting iron for the present main wooden gutter, and make it wind and water tight."

He now came to the intelligent and most successful designer of the fairy fabric, Sir Joseph Paxton. That gentleman did not disguise his opinion, that if he were asked to erect a building suitable to the purpose which the Mover of the present proposition bad in view, he should prefer to erect a new and, in some respects, a different building. Sir Joseph Paxton said—

"If I understand your Lordship to ask whether I could make a better building, if I had to make another for the purpose, I tell you distinctly I could—very much."

Sir Joseph Paxton was also for a new roof, as appeared from the following evidence:—

"Suppose you were asked by the Government to give them a plan for a covered garden for the parks on a large scale, you would make it with a wooden roof?—Oh, most undoubtedly; not exactly like the Great Exhibition building, because my notion of the stability of one of these great buildings is this, and what I intended for the Great Exhibition building is this, namely, that all the sinews and everything connected with strength, should be iron or metal; that, in fact, the outline of the building should be like this table, and the covering of glass and wood like the table cloth spread upon it, so that you could renew it at any time and in any manner you liked, and go that when anything happened to it, you could repeat and constantly keep it up; that is my notion of it. Now, in the Great Exhibition building they did not carry that out to the extent of my wishes; there is wood in some places where there should be iron.

"There is a great deal in the building that might have been better done otherwise, but there is nothing there but what was done to get it completed in the time?—In my plan I made metal gutters underneath to parry the wafer a way from the other gutters. That is essentially carrying out the principle of making the whole stability of the building and the connexion of it of metal; and then the other wooden gutters were to carry the water into these; and that is the way I should execute a building of this extent if I had to do it to-morrow morning.

"You would have the skeleton of iron?—Yes.

"The skeleton of the roof should be of metal?

—Yes, that part that carries off the water."

Sir Joseph Paxton also said—

"I think for 25,000l. in addition to that 126,000l. I could put you up a much finer, a more magnificent, and more appropriate thing than the Exhibition building."

Mr. Hawkins was examined as to the probability of the building becoming a depository for certain articles which had been mentioned in the course of the present debate as being likely to be placed in the building, and he gave his decided opinion that the building was not suited to such a purpose. Mr. Hawkins' evidence was as follows:—

"Upon the whole, you think the Exhibition building could not be adapted, without a total alteration of its character, for the purpose of receiving antiquities?—I cannot myself believe it would save one single sixpence in expense in the adaptation; in fact, it would be as costly as an entirely new building."

Mr. Cole was of opinion that, for a temporary purpose, the building might be made great use of for the stowing away various objects of art, for which there was not sufficient space elsewhere; but he stated, in answer to the question—

"Assuming it were advisable to have a depository in which there should be collections of machinery, collections of mineral products, and collections of articles which are matters of trade and commerce between one country and another, do you not suppose that wherever these are collected there must be rooms for attendants to stay with them, and give information to persons who came there for the purpose?—Unquestionably; and I would not have it supposed that I think the present building is by any means the most suitable place; but you have got the present building, and the sympathy of the people with the subject; you have got the covered space; and temporarily I would take all the advantage I could of those circumstances."

Mr. Cole further gave an opinion which seemed to imply this meaning, that the very unfitness of the building was a reason why he thought it might be used for the purpose advocated, in order that the feeling of the people might be raised against the bad accommodation afforded to the valuable articles stowed in the building, and that a great and permanent structure might be raised elsewhere. This appeared from the following evidence of Mr. Cole:—

"Then, if I understand, you would establish it in the present Exhibition building, with such a consciousness that it is unfitted for it, and that the outcry of the public would lead to a better?—That is a little stronger than I put the case; but I am prepared to say that the present building is a great deal better than none; and the more its imperfections were seen, and the public interested in the subject, the more eager they would be to support the preparation of a better building."

Well, then, he might fairly assume that the character of the building itself was such as to render most essential alterations necessary before it could be converted into a building suitable to the purposes which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heywood) had in view. When he (Lord J. Manners) came to consider what those multifarious proposals were, and what were the purposes which had been put forth at public meetings, in order to stimulate this popular agitation on the subject, he was overwhelmed by their extravagant and contradictory nature. It had been proposed to convert the Exhibition building into a ball room. ["No, no!"] Having taken considerable interest in this subject, and read the speeches of hon. Gentlemen out of doors, and the evidence before the Commission, he must be allowed to make that assertion; and Sir Joseph Paxton himself was more delighted in contemplating the balls to be given in the building, than perhaps almost any other person. Sir Joseph Paxton gave way to a rapturous exclamation of delight on the subject of the balls that might be given in the building, and stated—

"If well lit up, it would be an enchanting place at night; all the statuary and plants would show off extremely well; it would be most perfect; it would become an illusion almost. I only wish you would let me have the building to give a ball or two in it for the charities of London; you would see how I would light it up."

Consequently the lighting would have to be provided for as well as the new roof. Among the various purposes to which it had been proposed to apply the Exhibition building, it had been recommended to convert it into a ball-room, into a covered ride, into a lecture-room, into a statue gallery, a garden, a forest, a casino, and last, not least, it was, on the only day on which the working classes of the metropolis really could have access to it, to be turned into a congeries of preaching houses, for the different religious communities into which the country was divided. This brought him to the second reason why he thought the retention of the building on its present site would not be advantageous to the working classes. At one of these late public meetings an able speech in favour of the retention of the building was delivered a few days ago; but the speaker evidently felt that if the building were retained on its present site, and free access allowed to the working classes, it must necessarily be open on the Sunday, and, therefore, to meet the objection against its being open on that day, he proposed that the liturgy of the Church of England should be repeated in one corner, and that every class of dissent in the metropolis should have appointed preaching rooms in other corners of the building. Now, this was an important view of the question, and he begged hon. Gentlemen to make up their minds whether they would consent to open the building on Sundays or not, for if it were intended to close the building on Sunday, then he maintained, that as that was the only day when Hyde Park was accessible to the working classes, they would virtually close some twenty acres of that park which had been from time immemorial in the enjoyment of the working classes against those classes. If, on the other hand, they proposed to throw open the building on Sunday, then they took the first step, and it might be described as a stride, to introduce into this country the Continental method of observing the Sabbath. Let the House not overlook the magnitude of this portion of the question—Sunday was the only day on which the masses of the people flocked to Hyde Park. The hon. Gentleman had truly said they were toiling all the week from Monday to Saturday, but he would ask the hon. Gentleman was it his opinion that those hard-worked people would toil through the many streets leading to the building on any day but Sunday? Ladies living in Belgravia or Mayfair might think the present site a very good one; but he would say that far above the wishes of the upper or the middling classes, he ranked the feelings and the wants of the lower classes—of the masses of the toiling population. The hon. Mover of the present proposition said that the feeling of the middle classes was unanimous on this question; but he (Lord J. Manners) believed that assertion to be most unfounded. Just before he came down to the House, two petitions were placed in his hand, both from tradesmen in Oxford-street, one in favour, and the other against the retention of the Crystal Palace; and, as far as he could judge, the numbers were within five of each other. With the exception of the Exeter-hall meeting, there had hardly been a meeting called in which respectable inhabitants and tradesmen of the district had not risen and opposed the retention of the Crystal Palace. Though remarkable efforts had been made to induce the people of the metropolis to believe that between the retention of the Crystal Palace on its present objectionable site, and its positive and permanent demolition, there was no middle course, he asserted that to be a most material variation and departure from the truth. In considering this question, he was most anxious to find out what site would afford to the great mass of the working people the freest access on a half holiday or summer evening. The first element which came into the consideration was that old highway which in former days was the favourite resort and chief means of communication for the nobility, and which now afforded the cheapest and readiest and most popular method of transit to the working people—namely, the River Thames. What facility, in respect to conveyance, did the site in Hyde Park afford to the mass of working people toiling in the remote nighbourhoods which constituted the hives of industry? None of any consequence. On reading a paper prepared for a different purpose, and which, therefore, could not be suspected of being made out to subserve the purpose for which he was now using it, he was struck at finding that the distance from Lambeth-stairs to Battersea Park was traversed by steamboats in sixteen minutes, from Blackfriars Bridge in thirty-four minutes, from South-wark Bridge, in thirty-eight minutes, from London Bridge in forty minutes, and from the Thames Tunnel in fifty minutes. Now the districts he had named were points surrounded by a large population of working people; and, if the Docks, Limehouse, Deptford, Greenwich, and Woolwich were also considered, he asked if a site immediately contiguous to the river was not more available to the working classes of this metropolis than Hyde Park? The paper to which he referred most truly said, with respect to the site at Battersea—

"As an indication of the number which the park would benefit, it may be stated that the passengers carried by one steamboat company only, between London Bridge and Kew, amounted last year to 6,000,000, of which about 500,000 were passengers to and from Kew, and the rest were passengers to and from the several piers between London Bridge and Battersea Bridge."

Under these cirumstances, he believed, if arrangements could be made to place the Exhibition building with a river front in Battersea Park, such an arrangement would be more advantageous to the working classes, than to retain it where it then stood. It must be borne in mind, that unless they afforded to the new parks they were creating, some attractions to induce the people to frequent them, they would be merely throwing money away. He rejoiced to say that in Victoria Park the cricket-ground and bathing-place had attracted large numbers of persons; and he hoped to be able to provide for the bathing-place by the next bathing season, a still ampler and purer supply of water than they had hitherto enjoyed. He was also happy to hear that some benevolent individuals in the same locality were getting up a building for the reception of works of art, and curiosities, which would prove highly attractive and instructive. And he thought that they would do well if they would place in Battersea-park a great and attractive building. He had not heard any dissatisfaction expressed at the removal of the building; but all he could say was, that should it be deemed unreasonable to compel its instant removal, any facilities which could be afforded to the contractors or the purchasers should not be withheld by the Government. He had already indicated that he did not meet this Motion in a hostile spirit, and he would state that any facility for erecting the building on a site such as was more suitable, would be cheerfully accorded by Her Majesty's Ministers. He had been informed by a first-rate authority that the building had been already purchased—that the purchase-money had been lodged in the Bank—and that the purchasers were anxious to communicate with Her Majesty's Government on the subject of a site, and the purposes to which the building should be applied. He could only say he would give his co-operation and sanction to any mode that could be suggested in accordance with the views he had expressed; and he trusted the building would be erected on a happier site, where, untarnished by the recollection of broken public faith and violated public honour, it would conduce to the recreation of the working and toiling classes of this great metropolis. As to the charges which had been so unscrupulously levelled against the Commissioners, he could only express his regret that such charges had been made against Gentlemen who had acted with every desire to come to a just resolution. In conclusion, he must ask the House to reject the Motion as unnecessary, inasmuch as the subject sought to be referred to a Committee had been fully and fairly investigated by a Commission—inasmuch as the object sought to be attained could only be granted by a flagrant violation of public faith—and inasmuch as every good object to be gained would meet with the cordial sympathy of the new possessors of the building and of Her Majesty's Government.

said, he could not avoid saying that he felt considerable surprise in listening to the speech of the noble Lord in reply to the stringent arguments advanced by the lion. Gentleman who had brought forward this Motion. The noble Lord having stated that he did not meet the Motion in a hostile spirit, expressed every objection, not only of his own, but of others, against the continuance of the building on its present site, alleging, amongst other things, that it would be injurious to public morals. Yet, nevertheless, the noble Lord was in favour of placing this building in another part of the metropolis, where the poor would herd by themselves, and not have the advantage of meeting the upper classes, in order to be benefited and refined by intercourse with them. Now he looked upon it as one very great advantage of an establishment of this kind that it did produce a sympathy and communication between all classes of the people. During the continuance of the Great Exhibition, when there was more than 1,000,000 congregated every month within the walls of the building, there was not a single instance of anything like a breach of good manners; and the instances of crime were so slight as to be scarcely noticed. Of disorders there were none. There was no complaint of personal indignity—none had been offered; and he put it to the House whether they did not think there was great advantage, upon every ground, from bringing the masses of the people into communication with the higher orders. But what did the noble Lord propose? Why, to carry the building to Battersea. Now the noble Lord might think when he made the proposition, that it would be very acceptable to his (Mr. D'Eyncourt's) constituents, as it would much favour their interests if this plan were adopted. But he begged to tell the noble Lord that his constituents had too much public spirit to desire this monopoly. They would much rather the building was continued in its present position, in order that it might be of advantage to the whole of the community. The noble Lord said he thought that the late Government were pledged that the building should be removed, and of course if that were so, the present Government were also bound by that pledge. He waited with great curiosity to hear what documents the noble Lord could produce to prove his assertion. What were they? Why, the documents referred to were papers and agreements between the Royal Commissioners and the Government contractors. But there was no pledge to the public and the House; and the public would expect from the noble Lord a statement as to when and where the pledge was given. The right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Labouchere) seemed to intimate that some such pledge was given. No other pledge was given than some statement in that and the other House of Parliament; but what was the opinion now of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carlisle) who was referred to as having so given such a pledge? That statement was made when it was contemplated to make the building of bricks and mortar, and of an unsightly character; but in the Times of yesterday the noble Earl, in a recent letter, was stated to have said—

"The destruction of the Crystal Palace would be as perverse and senseless an act of Vandalism as could be perpetrated; when it was capable of affording enjoyment to such large masses of the people it would be a very wise and ungracious act on the part of the Government and the aristocracy to insist upon it."

That was the statement of the noble Earl who was at the head of the department of the Woods and Forests when the arrangements were made between the Government and the contractors. Could they have a higher authority as to what were the views of the late Government, and as to the propriety of retaining this beautiful building? The noble Lord then proceeded to tell them that the building would require great alterations s that it would require a new roof; that the glass would require continual repair. Now, with all that they had nothing whatever to do: that would be the duty of the new contractors. If the noble Lord had to mend the glass out of Government funds, he could understand and see some force in the objection; but as it was to be placed in private hands he did not see that it was applicable in the least degree. It was proposed to take the building out of the hands of the Government altogether. Then the noble Earl said he was supported in his views by the evidence of Sir Joseph Paxton. But Sir Joseph Paxton stated in the paper which he held in his hand that his evidence had been misunderstood, and that if it were not, the supposed inferences could not be fairly drawn from it. Sir Joseph Paxton also brought the very grave charge against the Commissioners of withholding from him alone, of all the witnesses, an Opportunity of revising his evidence, although he applied for it personally upon two occasions, and once sent for it. With respect to the uses to which the building would be applied, he thought the names of the proposed trustees a sufficient guarantee. He would read them. There was the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Argyll, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Carlisle, Lord de Mauley, Viscount Palmerston, Lord Londesborough, Baron Meyer de Rothschild, and Mr. Peto. There had been evinced on the part of the public out of doors an anxious desire to continue this building. The noble Lord said that there were propositions made at the meetings to which he had alluded for adapting the building to objectionable purposes. It was, however, his (Mr. D'Eyncourt's) impression that no such propositions were made. The noble Lord also said that at all these meetings there were many persons found to dissent from the policy of maintaining the building. But at these meetings the number of dissentients had been counted. They were altogether only fifteen in number: eight in Westminster, and seven in some other place. The people of this country, and of this metropolis, required some means for moral recreation. The working man required some place where, after the toil of the day, he could take his wife and children, where they might be amused as well as instructed. Deprive him of this opportunity, and they drove him to licentiousness; to accomplish, then, an object so desirable, he thought the present building was well adapted, and he would therefore vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Heywood).

said, that he did not wish to detain the House from coming to that division which they seemed so anxiously to desire; but he felt, from the position which he formerly held, he ought not to give a completely silent vote upon this subject. It was said that the Government were incurring a certain degree of unpopularity by the course they were pursuing upon this subject. Now, he wished to gay that he was willing to take his share in that unpopularity. The question presented itself to his mind as one of good faith. His right hon. Friend (Mr. D'Eyncourt) had asked when and where the pledge had been given to remove the building. His (Mr. Labouchere's) reply was, that the pledge was given to the public when permission to erect the building was sought, that it was only for a temporary object, and that when that temporary object was accomplished it should be pulled down and the Park restored to its original condition. That pledge was given at a time when there was much unwillingness upon the part of the House to allow the appropriation of the Park to the purpose. It was upon the strength of that most solemn pledge that leave was ultimately granted. He was one of the Members of the Government who gave at that time the assurance to the House, and he felt that he was only redeeming that pledge by resisting the present Motion. Now he did not mean to say that the pledge thus given to the public might, should the public so desire it, be held as never given. Nor did he pretend to the absurdity that any Government or any Parliament would be bound to abide by such a pledge should the feeling of the country be opposed to it; but he must confess that having watched with great interest the expression of public opinion upon this subject, although he was not prepared to deny that many respectable persons were in favour of the retention of the building, yet he did not consider the sentiment was so general and so universal as to release them from the engagement which they had made. He well remembered that at the time the building was proposed, many persons who thought their property jeopardised by the scheme said to him, "Depend upon it, that the building once up, some pretext or other will be found for keeping it." And he well remembered, too, that his answer was, "You have the pledged faith of the Government and of Parliament that the building, when the precise purpose is accomplished, shall be removed;" and he felt bound to these persons, among others, to take care, so far as in him lay, that the compact so made should be fulfilled. He protested against the question being twisted into a question of public relaxation. It was, therefore, incumbent on him to remind the House that it was upon the strength of the compact that was entered into that the building had been erected, and that the means of instruction and recreation had been placed within their reach. And if, when occasion requires, something of the same kind was desired, there might be danger that the breach of faith of which they would now be guilty would be remembered against them. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) adverted to his efforts for the promotion of the intellectual improvements and the rational enjoyments of the people. He, like the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) paid a willing tribute to those exertions. The hon. Gentleman was the advocate of such institutions when it was not so fashionable to be so as it was now; and some of the most honourable parts of the career of the hon. Gentleman were associated with these exertions. If there was a unanimity in favour of the retention of the building, he did not believe there was a Member in that House who would not be prepared to record his vote in its behalf. As to the good conduct of the people, no one who witnessed the Great Exhibition could doubt that the British public were beyond the public of any country in the world in the manner of knowing how to conduct them- selves. He thought it the most gratifying scene in his whole life, even beyond that wonderful display which was the admiration of all nations; and as an Englishman, he felt proud to see the orderly demeanour of his countrymen upon that memorable occasion, when they were collected by thousands. He thought their bearing and behaviour was a much finer sight to foreign nations than those marvels of art which were contained within the walls of that wonderful palace. He did not think any further inquiry was requisite. The late Government had done all in its power on the subject; it had issued a Commission to inquire into the whole matter, and he was prepared to express his conviction that the Commission was in every respect a most competent and fitting Commission. Various attempts had been made to throw discredit on that Commission; but he was perfectly satisfied that its inquiries had been conducted in the fullest and fairest, and most impartial manner. His noble Friend the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour), the official guardian of the people's parks, might have his prejudices, but there were other members on the Commission—Sir William Cubitt and Professor Lindley, who assuredly were not men very likely to be partial against the continuance of the building. He should, for these reasons, vote against the Motion; and he trusted the House would, for the sake of all parties, effectually decide the question without further delay. There was no sort of occasion for further inquiry. The question had been thoroughly investigated already. The removal of the structure from its present site was imperatively demanded for the sake of the public faith; but its removal need in no degree render it barren of future results. There were no doubt ready the capital, ingenuity, and skill to re-erect this marvellous edifice on some eligible site, where its retention would involve no imputation on the good faith of the Government and Parliament of this country.

said, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) had very much misrepresented Sir Joseph Paxton. It was never the intention of that gentleman that the Crystal Palace should be applied to one-half the purposes which he had so glibly enumerated. Sir Joseph Paxton's view was, that it should be converted into a winter garden; and if he had the opportunity granted to him he would lay it out in such a manner that it should be a satisfaction to even those who were opposed to him. Any pledge which had been given, the public were ready to absolve. The opposition to the Crystal Palace arose from a learned Judge, and a few builders who had erected houses in the neighbourhood, and who thought that their property would be deteriorated; but he believed that they had no more claim to the consideration of the House than any gentleman who opposed a railway running near his house.

said, that the unanimous feeling of the public was that the Crystal Palace should not be pulled down. The pledge to dostroy the building was given under circumstances which were quite different from the present, and the feeling of the country absolved them from any necessity in adhering to it. To construct the building in the Park without the consent of the people was a trespass upon their rights; to pull it down without their consent was also a trespass. He implored the House not to act in open hostility to the wishes of the people, who would consider it an act of social exclusion were they to destroy this beautiful building. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] They might cry "Oh!" but the people out of doors would not sympathise with their ohs. Let them pull down the Crystal Palace, and they would commit an act of barbaric Vandalism which the country would not soon forget. The public feeling upon this subject was strong out of doors, and the Government could not do anything more unpopular, more dangerous, and more prejudicial to the aristocracy of the country than to persevere.

said, he wished in a few words to state the reason why he should vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend. He thought that no man who went to see the Great Exhibition of last year could have failed to be struck with the reflection that, however wonderful and worthy of admiration were the multitude of productions in industry and art which were contained in that Exhibition, there was nothing within the building to compare with the building itself as an object of admiration to all who saw it, or help regretting that a building so extraordinary in itself, of which it might be truly said that there was nothing like it in the whole world, or to compare with it, should be pulled down when the temporary purpose for which it had been erected should be accomplished. He thought this same sentiment must also have inspired every man who, since the closing of the Exhibition, had from time to time passed by that wonderful fabric; every such man must have felt a wish that some purpose could be devised to which its permanent enduring could be safely applied. In thinking over the purposes to which it might be so applied, many of those purposes which had been stated by hon. Gentlemen in that evening's debate had occurred to him as reasons why the building might be continued for the use and benefit of the people of this metropolis, and of the country at large. Hundreds and thousands of his countrymen had enjoyed during the period of the Exhibition amusement and instruction from an inspection of the things which were exhibited in that crystal building; and he could not see that it would not be possible so to arrange the interior as to make it the scene of a future exhibition, not perhaps so extensive in its range, but still materially contributing to the amusement, enjoyment, and instruction of the various classes of society, not confining his contemplation to the humbler classes, but to all classes, high and low. There might be difficulties in the matter, no doubt. There was one, which had been alluded to in the course of the debate—a difficulty arising from a pledge, or understanding, that it should be pulled down; but his right hon. Friend (Mr. D'Eyncourt) seemed to admit that were there a demand on the part of the public sufficiently strong—were the utility of retaining the building sufficiently demonstrated, that, in this case, the pledge, such as it was, need not be a bar to the retention of the structure. There seemed, also, to be some objection to the present site, and an opinion that some other locality about this city would he better adapted to the purpose. He might differ from these views, but there was matter for inquiry. It certainly appeared to him that not only the speeches which had been made in favour of the Motion, but those made against it, tended to the conclusion that it was a subject of sufficient interest and sufficient difficulty to justify inquiry. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not reject the Motion, but consent to inquiry, in order that the House might, on some future occasion, have fuller and more ample grounds on which to come to a decision as to the advice to be tendered to the Government, with a view either to the demolition or to the retention of this most extraordinary and most admirable structure.

said, that he was reluctant to trespass on the House, but having been repeatedly alluded to in the course of the debate, he felt bound to say a few words on the subject. He could assure the House that he had had no other feeling upon this matter than a desire fairly and honourably to fulfil that engagement into which, as a Member of the late Government, he had entered. He need not refer to the speeches that were made in the year 1850; but he could assure the House that if he were to do so they would clearly perceive that unless the promise had been distinctly given that the building would be honestly and fairly removed, it would never have been allowed to be erected at all. The position that he had had the honour to occupy at that time, necessarily implicated his good faith on this subject more than that of any other man; for he received an application from gentlemen who had invested a large amount of money in the houses opposite this part of the Park, and when they told him that their great fear was that if the building was erected an excitement would be got up, and petitions would be easily manufactured, and that the very means that were used to make the Exhibition known to the country might be used again to retain the building: what was his answer to them? He told them that they had the highest pledge—they had the honour of the Prince, and the character of the first nobility of the country—that he (Lord Seymour) considered the honour of the Commission was pledged to the removal, and could not for a moment doubt but that it would be removed. What was the case of these parties when they came to him, for it had not been fairly stated to the House? Some years ago, it might be remembered, there was a low range of dirty old buildings, with a public-house near, where the Prince of Wales's gate now stood. The Government of the day were anxious to remove these buildings, and communicated with the parties owning the land opposite for the purpose of inducing them to join them in purchasing them. These parties entertained the proposition, and subscribed a large sum of money in order to have a full view of the Park from their property. That being so, he asked whether, having accepted their contributions towards a public improvement, and allowed these persons to invest their money, and to spend nearly 200,000l. in building houses there, it would now do to turn round and block up the view of the Park from their pro- perty by a permanent obstruction like this huge building? That he thought would be a dishonest transaction, and one to which no individual Member of that House would consent in regard to his own property: why, then, should they sanction a proceeding on behalf of the public which every Member would reject in the case of his own land? He confessed it was with surprise that he had heard a letter from the Earl of Carlisle referred to in that debate; for the noble Earl was a party to the engagement to have the building removed, as he himself fairly and honestly acknowledged in the opening of his letter—that opening which the right hon. Member for Lambeth, although he read the latter part, had omitted to quote to the House. But, although the noble Lord might say for himself that he could not appear to take a part in the proceedings for retaining the building, he yet did not mind writing in their favour. For his (Lord Seymour's) part he did not understand the casuistry which could allow the noble Earl to take an indirect mode of doing that which he could not openly do. If he was under the engagement, he ought not to have written the letter; if he was not so bound, he might have attended the meeting, and taken a part in the proceedings. Although he (Lord Seymour) thought the Commissioners who were bound to remove the building, had acted with perfect good faith in this matter, yet their conduct and character were somewhat compromised by the proceedings of their architect; for Sir Joseph Paxton, having been the architect and agent of the Commission, had sent round the whole of the country to try and defeat the obligation of the Commissioners. A Commission of Inquiry was appointed last December, on which were the names of Sir William Cubitt and Dr. Lindley, and no one was better qualified to speak on the capacities of the building than Sir William Cubitt; and certainly no one could better judge of the botanical question than Dr. Lindley. Sir Joseph Paxton had complained, it appeared, that he had not been allowed to correct his evidence. As soon as he knew of that complaint, he (Lord Seymour) asked of the secretary at the office what was the real fact of the case, and the secretary told him that a copy of Sir Joseph Paxtou's evidence had been sent to him at Chats-worth for correction, in the same manner as the evidence of all other witnesses had been sent to them, and not only so, but as soon as it was known that the copy of the evidence had not been received, or had been mislaid, the secretary offered to send him another copy, and after that nothing more was heard about the matter. But, as regarded Sir Joseph Paxton's evidence, the material facts of his evidence did not turn upon figures. The figures he would sooner take from the contractor, who was better able to tell what the value of the building was, and what would be the cost of keeping it in repair, than Sir Joseph Paxton, because he had superintended all the work of its construction. And what had Sir Joseph Paxton stated, not in evidence, but in writing? Why, that the permanent maintenance of the Exhibition building, instead of costing 12,000l. a year, would cost 20,000l. But that would not perhaps be of much consequence, because the building was to be rendered self-supporting. On that point he had made some inquiry of the best witness upon this part of the subject, namely, Mr. Cole, and he said that if it was to be self-supporting, it was indispensable that it should be opened at night as a place of recreation. Then, again, the building was to be under the management of certain trustees. The former Commission was appointed under a Royal Charter with the Royal Sign Manual; but this Commission was appointed at Exeter-hall by Sir Joseph Paxton, who declared that they were to be trustees for the people—interfering with the Royal Parks, and taking permanent possession of some twenty acres. It was impossible that the Royal Parks could be dealt with in that way; they could not be touched but by an Act of Parliament; all the resolutions of that House would be powerless; and unless an Act of Parliament was passed to the contrary, the ground must be given back to the public. But they were told it was most desirable to maintain the building for the education of the people. Now, last year he obtained, with the unanimous consent of all parties, a Vote of that House for the purposes of establishing lectures on practical geology at the Geological Museum in Jermyn-street, and that project had succeeded admirably; lectures were also given, at a mere nominal charge, for working men, and these lectures were well attended; therefore it could not be said that he was opposed to the education of the people. But then they were told the building was admirably adapted for a "trade collection." Now, these trade collections were very apt to degenerate into bazaars; and al- though the goods sent there would not be sold, yet the owners would tell those who wished to purchase that they would send other specimens just like them to their order. But he would ask them to contribute to that trade collection one article, a sample of which, he would answer for it, would compare with anything they could obtain from any firm to adorn it—he meant a sample of the good faith of this country—which had always been the basis of our national greatness and our commercial prosperity. The building would not answer for lectures without extensive alterations: lectures had been tried and found to fail even at the Exhibition. But then it was proposed to convert it into a general warehouse until some fitter repository for a trade collection should have been provided. They were asked to apply twenty acres of a public park to the purposes of a warehouse. For his part, he trusted the House would now at once reject this Motion, and so settle the question for ever.

said, the noble Lord who had just spoken appeared to be influenced by a very strong feeling. He (Mr. Wakley) had also a very strong feeling, but he had made no pledges; and if the noble Lord had made a pledge which he could not maintain, in consequence of the power of Parliament, morally he would commit no sin. ["Oh, oh!"] This was a pledge for destruction; but suppose it had been a pledge for protection, would the article "good faith" then be so worthy of admiration? The noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works stated that the edifice would be the scene of much immorality if it were retained in Hyde Park, but that it might be removed to Battersea. Was morality a matter of geography? What kind of animal did the noble Lord suppose existed at Battersea? Some extraordinary monstrosity, he supposed, because the noble Lord said Government would give them their countenance. If it were a zoological collection, he admitted that the Government might supply them with some countenances curious enough. But, if it were to be an immoral thing in Hyde Park, and a moral thing at Battersea, that was a circumstance for the noble Lord to explain. What harm could such a structure as the Crystal Palace do anywhere? He assured the aristocracy that they had risen wonderfully in the estimation of the people since they had mingled with them at the Crystal Palace, and they deemed the place to be sacred almost in consequence of the associations with which it had been connected. Persons of all nations, all habits, all religions had assembled in that temple of universal peace, and had there forgotten all their national prejudices. They had witnessed such scenes as they had never seen before, and as the noble Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) had well said, of all that they had seen there was no feature that had been so deeply—so indelibly impressed upon their minds, as the structure itself. Much as the aristocracy had gained by what had transpired, he warned them that they would lose more in public estimation if they now demolished that building.

said, he should support the Motion, and repudiated, on the part of the promoters of the movement for retaining the building, any desire to usurp powers not legally and fairly conferred upon them.

could assure the House that the unmitigated nonsense which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had been obliging enough to put into his mouth, with regard to "geographical immorality" had never entered into his mind. [The noble Lord, in explanation, then quoted a document, stating that the Exhibition building was about to be sold, and that an offer had been made for its purchase.]

said, that was perfectly correct, but the bargain was made contingent on that House not sanctioning its continuance in Hyde Park.

said, that he must maintain that it would be no violation of good faith to vote for the present Motion. The contract was made by the Royal Commissioners on behalf of the public, and if the public declared that the contract should not be carried out, it would be no breach of faith to follow its wishes. He must say he was surprised to hear the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) speak of this Motion being tantamount to a breach of faith, seeing the noble Lord was at the head of a Commission the very object of which was to see whether the building should be retained or not.

said, when he undertook that inquiry the question of good faith was not at all included. It was entirely at the wish of the House that he undertook that inquiry.

, seeing that the present and the late Government were both opposed to the retention of the Crystal Palace in its present site, but were not adverse to its removal to another site, such as Battersea Park, thought an adjournment of the debate was desirable.

said, that the impressions which he originally entertained as, the advisability of retaining the Crystal Palace had been entirely changed. A short time ago he desired to see the Crystal Palace abolished, on the ground that the perishable material of which it was constructed might not be adequate to its preservation in this changeable climate, and that it might not ensure the permanency and durability of a public edifice. He should also dislike to see a building which had answered, and successfully answered, the magnificent purposes to which it was originally dedicated, desecrated to the ordinary purposes of gain, or given over to the hazardous intentions of speculators. He thought that, having fulfilled its mission, it might be abolished, and that it would be no act of Vandalism so to do; that, on the contrary, the fame and the reputation of the men who were engaged in it would not be affected by its removal. True, it would not exist in Hyde-park, recalling by association the splendours of the past, but it would exist in all their recollections as an imperishable monument, and these distinguished men might say—

"Exegi monumentum ære perennius

Regalique situ pyramidum altiun."

He now admitted, however, that he had overcome all these objections, and he was now as strenuously determined to support its maintenance as he was before an advocate for its destruction. As much had been said about the good faith of Parliament, he would only say that that ought not to be a serious obstacle. Let hon. Members recall the history of Parliamentary pledges, and they would find that they were as ductile clay formed and fashioned by their own caprices. Only a few nights ago they had an instance of this. They had seen the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) show an extraordinary facility and a perfect grace in changing his opinion, by opposing a Militia Bill, in Opposition, which in office he had proposed. He would merely say further, that he would support the Motion now before the House, as he thought that by maintaining the building they would be promoting the interest and the welfare of the people, by affording them opportunities of moral, social, and physical improvement.

said, he believed no one could deny that it was desirable that there should exist hi this metropolis a large edifice devoted to the reception of objects of art and of models of our mechanical skill. He hoped that, if even that Motion were rejected, the erection of such an edifice would not be lost sight of.

, in reply, said, he would adopt the words of the Earl of Carlisle as expressive of the true state of the case, and say that nothing could be more unwise than for the aristocracy to insist upon the removal of the Crystal Palace. With respect to any injury that might be inflicted on private property by the retention of the Crystal Palace, he had no doubt that ample compensation would be given for it, if necessary; for there was nothing which Members of that House were more jealous of than injury to private property. The noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) had spoken of Sir Joseph Paxton as having nominated trustees to take charge of the building. The fact was, that all that he had done was to call upon certain eminent individuals who, at his request, had consented to act as trustees, if Parliament should choose to appoint them. Under all the circumstances, he (Mr. Heywood) must persist in dividing the House upon his Motion.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely mistaken, if he believed that the Board of Directors and the President of the Board of Control were in possession of all the documents relating to this question. Not only had he (Mr. Herries) not had an opportunity of forming a judgment of those documents, but they had never yet come into his possession; and he doubted very much whether the Board of Directors, before whom they would have to be laid in the first instance, had yet had time to consider the case, and judge of its importance. Under these circumstances he thought that the hon. and learned Member was premature in moving for those papers; but he might rest assured that, whenever they should be in a fit state to be presented to the House, there would not be the slightest indisposition on the part of the Government to produce them. The charge of corruption against public officers could not be passed over.

trusted, that after What had follon from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey) would not press his Motion. He thought that the mode in which this Motion had been brought before the House, was hardly fair to Colonel Outram. The question was one which deserved the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government when the papers were before them, for it was one on which the honour of our Indian Government was deeply implicated, and in which the natives were deeply interested. A charge of corruption had been made against a subordinate of the Bombay Government, and an inquiry having been instituted, he thought it was due to Parliament and the country, that as soon as the papers had been considered, they should be laid before the House.

said, he must complain of the course which had been pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, in reiterating his accusations against the officers of the Bombay Government, and in again pressing this Motion upon the House, although he was informed by the Secretary of the Board of Control, when he brought it forward a few nights ago, that some of the papers which had arrived a short time ago were under consideration, but that the most material, including the memorial of Colonel Outram, had only reached England two or three days previously. He (Sir J. Hogg) could give the most positive and absolute denial to the statements which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made on a former evening, and repeated that evening. He (Sir J. Hogg) denied that any officers high in the service of the Bombay Government, if by that was meant civil and military servants of the East India Company, had ever been convicted of corruption, or had ever had it imputed to them. And the hon. and learned Member should know this, because he (Sir J. Hogg) had on a former evening read an extract from a letter of Colonel Outram's, stating distinctly not only that no such imputation had ever escaped him, but that he did not believe in its justice. Colonel Outram said—

"I was made aware, during my official career at Baroda, that a belief existed that high officers of the Government were open to corruption, and that such belief was promoted by the native subordinates for their own interested purposes. Fully convinced there were no grounds for such dishonouring imputations, I laboured earnestly to trace out and bring to punishment the delinquents through whose corruption the good name of the British Government was tarnished."

It was an honourable avocation, and the gallant officer laboured in it zealously and successfully. He did bring the greater part of these miscreants to punishment. The case of the unfortunate widow, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had formerly referred, was one of as great oppression and iniquity as ever occurred, even in the East; but the delinquents in that case were discovered by Colonel Outram and were signally punished. The whole proceedings of Colonel Outram were comprised in seven or eight folio volumes, irrespective of his memorial and his report on the allegations of corruption, which only came by the last mail. He had not yet, by any diligence which it was in his power to bestow, been able even to read Colonel Outram's memorial; but as soon as possible the Court of Directors would take it, and the documents appended to it, into careful consideration. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman bring forward distinct and specific charges against the officers of the Bombay Government byname, and he (Sir J. Hogg) would meet them; but he was not prepared to meet the dark and vague surmises and insinuations in which the hon. and learned Member had indulged. He would, however, tell him, that when public servants were discharging their duty honourably to their country, it mattered not at what distance, they would always receive a generous support from that House when they were unjustly assailed, and that, too, more particularly, without there being a document before the House to support the imputation.

said, that, in justice to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal, he should state that he had himself on a previous evening understood the Secretary to the Board of Control to say, not only that the documents in question had arrived, but that they were before the Board.

said, that he had then most assuredly been misunderstood, for he certainly stated that the papers had not reached the Board of Control, and that they had only reached the Court of Directors upon the day on which he spoke.

said, he must express a hope that, as soon as the public business would allow, these papers would be laid before the House, in order that they might be able to form a judgment for themselves upon the transactions to which they related.

said, that after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would not press the Motion, relying on the promise that the papers would be produced.