said: With reference to this Bill, I think the state of the Session will not allow us to go on with a discussion so large, even if there were not parts of the measure to which I have serious objections. But, independent of this circumstance, I have had, since the Bill was introduced, an opportunity of consulting the heads of the Government, and conferring with the highest authorities in the Church, and those who take an interest in these subjects; and I am now prepared to state that Her Majesty's Government are willing to undertake the consideration of the subject with reference to capitular revenues and capitular bodies, and to deal with them so as to make them more extensively and more practically useful than they are at present; and also with the view of extending spiritual instruction and education which might be advantageously carried on by these bodies, and of putting them generally on a more satisfactory footing than they now are. That being the cause, I do not know whether the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) will wish to go on with the Bill; but what I would suggest is, that he should move to discharge the order of the day, leaving to the Government the consideration of this question, which they are willing to undertake. If the noble Lord will assent to this suggestion, without my being required to state my objections to parts of the Bill, I should certainly prefer it.

had expected Her Majesty's Government would have some declaration to make on the subject; and his object being to obtain a declaration of opinion from them as to the necessity of some such measure, he was quite prepared to adopt his right hon. Friend's suggestion.

How about the 37th Clause—that relating to the management of the property?

I do not think the House should call on the Government to pledge themselves to any details, till they have had an opportunity of fully considering the subject; and I hope the House will not, seeing that I have given a distinct undertaking that we are willing and anxious to take up the subject, and give it our fullest consideration, press further discussion.

said, the House would have heard with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that Government were willing, in a spirit of fairness, to undertake the consideration of the measure, and to carry out, as far as practicable, those views which were entertained by the noble Lord to whom the House and the country were so ranch indebted for his attention to a subject which he had dealt with with so much temper and so much moderation. He hoped the House would accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman, and trusted that, from the consideration they had promised to give to this subject, a measure which would be satisfactory to all parties would result, and that the funds of the Established Church would be made more useful for the purposes for which they were intended in carrying out the sacred objects of that Church, and providing for the spiritual welfare of the great body of the poorer classes of this country.

thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not go so far as the hon. Gentleman seemed to infer; at all events, it was desirable that the House should know how far Government intended to carry out the views of the noble Lord.

I know not whether I am strictly in order; but perhaps, after the remark of the hon. Gentleman, I may be permitted to say a few words. Now, the view I take of this Bill is this: I consider it involves four essential points of detail. First, the abolition of deaneries and the consolidation of the office of dean with the office of bishop; second, by a further reduction of the number of canonries; third, by the means to be acquired by those alterations, to add to the episcopate of the country; and, fourth, to make provision for the better management of the capitular and episcopal revenues. Now, with regard to the first—the abolition of deaueries—I see no reason, and on looking at the Bill of the noble Lord as it is, the hon. Gentleman will, I think, see that it would be impossible, to consolidate those two offices with advantage. We ought to keep the dean at the head of the chapter; and as to the suppression or reduction in the number of canonries, I think you would find it extremely doubtful whether, with a view of keeping up your cathedral institutions in efficient force, you can further reduce the present number. But we ought not to forget that through the instrumentality of recent Acts you have suppressed all sinecures—you have suspended 300 prebendaries and canonries, and applied some 78,000l. a year, acquired from these sources, to the augmentation of poor livings.—and if by these means, or by other means, you can obtain a further fund for the purposes the noble Lord has in view —if you can thus acquire the means of increasing the strength of the episcopate of the country, I admit it would be very desirable, seeing that that episcopate now is, in point of numbers, exactly where it was at the Reformation—notwithstanding that the number of the clergy has increased —notwithstanding that the population has quadrupled, and the duties to be discharged by the bishops in Parliament and in their dioceses have doubled and trebled in amount since that period. With regard to the management of the capitular and episcopal property, I think there are two principles which we should keep in view in considering that part of the question. The one to relieve those high officers of the Church as much as possible from the cares and troubles of all worldly and temporal affairs—but at the same time to preserve that property in such connexion with them as not to leave them in the position of mere dependents and stipendiaries of the State. He had briefly touched on these which he considered the four essential points of the Bill. The spirit in which the Government propose to look at the question is, to see whether these great cathedral institutions might not be restored more fully to the high and lofty purposes for which they were endowed as temples for the worship of that Almighty Being for whose honour and whose service they were raised—as seats of learning for learned persons in the Church to resort to, and as councils to assist the bishops on various spiritual matters relating to their dioceses, and as connecting links between the higher and the lower orders of the Church, to keep the whole body of the Church in harmony together. This is the spirit in which the Government are desirous of undertaking the consideration of this question. I purposely avoid going into details —first, because I do not consider we have before us that information which would enable us fairly to discuss the question; and, secondly, because I am anxious to avoid prejudging the case by giving utterance to rash or premature opinions, which may be considered as binding upon us, but which hereafter we may find it extremely difficult to carry out.

was desirous of expressing his thanks to his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Bland- ford), for the pains he bad bestowed upon this subject, and his satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to deal with it. Without concurring in all that the right hon. Gentleman had said, he might corroborate what he had stated with regard to the labours imposed upon the bishops, and the desirableness of relieving them as much as possible from temporal cares. They had the testimony of Bishop Stanley that an enormous portion of the time of every bishop was absorbed in attending to technical and legal business, which was most unsatisfactory. He suggested that there should be some mode of superannuating or granting retiring allowances to bishops whom old age or sickness had incapacitated from work. He believed that there were insane bishops, as well as bishops who were no longer able from ill health or old age to discharge their duties. The consequence was, that the whole of these duties were performed by some other bishops, encroaching greatly upon their time and the wants of their own dioceses. This was an inconvenience to which the Roman Catholic Church was not subject. Wise in their generation, that Church had various arrangements with regard to her hierarchy and subordinate clergy in this respect, from which they might well take a lesson. There was nothing more important than to provide successors for those dignitaries who, from any circumstances, were unable to attend to their duties.

concurred in what appeared to be the general feeling, that it was not expedient, after the declaration of his noble Friend that he intended to comply with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, to continue the discussion upon the Bill before the House. While expressing his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the general view he had stated on the subject, there were two or three expressions which fell from his right hon. Friend, by which, by the cheers with which they were received by some hon. Gentlemen, he thought more was understood than was intended to be conveyed. He referred to those passages of his right hon. Friend's speech in which he talked of relieving the bishops from worldly or temporal cares. He was sure his right hon. Friend did not moan to apply those observations-—though he believed they had in some quarters been so understood—so as to convey an intention of separating in any way the Church from the State, by removing the bishops from the House of Lords; and he rose to express his conviction that such was not his right hon. Friend's intention, though it might have been so interpreted—whether for good or evil he would not say— by those who were the advocates of such separation. When his noble Friend (the Marquess of Blandford) first brought forward his Bill, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) felt it his duty to oppose in the strongest manner the principles of such a measure as he then advocated, while at the same time he did honour to the purity of his noble Friend's motives; but he could not forget that just in proportion as a man stood high in social position and character, so in proportion measures injurious in their tendency emanating from such men derived force. Had it been the desire of the House to enter upon the discussion of the Bill, he should have felt it his duty to enter further into the subject; but as it was not, he would not say how far he disagreed with many portions of the Bill, nor even how far he was compelled to differ on some points with his right hon. Friend.

trusted, as his name was on the back of this Bill, that he might be allowed to express the gratification which he experienced when he heard the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman that it was the intention of the Government to deal with this question. He was quite aware how utterly impossible it was for an independent Member to have carried it to a successful termination. The country was deeply indebted to the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) for having brought forward this Bill. The fact that the Government had taken up the measure, proved that it was very difficult to make any serious objection to it.

said, that the Welsh clergy were also deeply indebted to the noble Lord for his exertions upon this subject. They trusted that no clergyman would be elevated to the episcopal bench who was unacquainted with the language of the people; and they attributed the separation of a large body of the population from the Church of England to the fact that a contrary policy had hitherto been adopted.

joined in thanking his noble Friend for bringing forward this question, and he hoped that next Session such a Bill would be brought in under the auspices of the Government as should place the whole temporalities of the Church on such a satisfactory footing, that, at all events, as far as he was concerned, it would be unnecessary to make further complaint. He was anxious to sec the management of ecclesiastical estates taken out of the hands of the capitular and collegiate bodies, and unless Parliament provided for the management of all ecclesiastical property by means of a Commission, paying those who performed episcopal and ecclesiastical functions by fixed salaries, instead of allowing the present system to continue, the same abuses would go on with regard to the management of ecclesiastical property as existed at the present day. He wished to call attention to some facts in connexion with this point, and he did so with the view that a remedy might be devised and applied. In 1836, an Act was passed settling the incomes of the bishops, and assigning to each see a certain amount. The spirit of the Act, and the intentions of the Legislature, had been evaded by the bishops. He brought a case before the House last year, in order to show how this Act had been evaded. He mentioned a case where one bishop alone received no less than 79,000l. over the income assigned to his see up to the end of 1850; and he had no doubt that he had up to the present time received 100,000l. And this was a bishop of the new foundation; one who had been appointed in 1836, and was subject to the provisions of the Act. There was at this moment an order on the books of this House for a return of these incomes, which he was anxious to have before they were called to enter upon this discussion, in order that they might judge whether the statement he had made was justified; and this was one of the points to which he was anxious to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, to prevent the possibility of abuses of this nature. There was also another point to which he wished to direct attention, and that was with regard to the management and control of cathedral establishments. They were all governed by certain statutes, which were passed for their management at the time of their foundation; and in almost every one of them it was provided that the bishop should take an oath that he would preserve those foundation statutes inviolable. One of these statutes was that the bishop should hold at least a triennial visitation of his cathedral. It would be very difficult to show an instance where that statute had been carried out, although the bishop was bound by a solemn oath to perform it. Take the case of a cathedral which had lately been brought before the notice of the public— he alluded to the Cathedral of Rochester. Now the bishop was bound by the statute to make a visitation of that cathedra] once every three years. He had been informed that the bishop had never performed that visitation. If the bishops were compelled to make these visitations, he was sure that many of the abuses now existing would be rectified. The reason assigned for not making these visitations was, that no abuse existed. But how could that be ascertained if no examination took place? Another point to which he would direct attention was the duties of the officers of cathedral establishments. He would again take the case of the Cathedral of Rochester. The staff of this cathedral consisted of a bishop, a dean, five live canons and one dead canon, four archdeacons, and four or five minor canons, who received very little, but who did almost all the work of the cathedral. This was an evil which must be remedied sooner or later, and therefore a clause ought to be introduced in any Bill brought in by the Government, providing that the duties of officers of cathedrals should not be mere sinecures. The case he was stating to the House was not singular, and it must be taken as an illustration of many others. There were 108 sermons preached in Rochester in the year 1851. The bishop preached three times, twice upon one Sunday, and once upon another; he enjoyed an income of 5,000l. per annum. The dean and canons—five live canons, and one dead—preached 50 times, and received 4,826l., or very nearly 100l. each time, besides a house of residence. The minor canons preached 55 times, and received 460l., or about 8l. each time; they also performed almost all the service. This was an inequality which he hoped to see remedied. If the higher officers were to receive such large compensations, they should be compelled to reside upon the spot, and afford spiritual consolation and instruction to the inhabitants of those large cathedral towns. A very extraordinary circumstance had appeared in a Parliamentary paper laid upon the table. It would be there seen that those five live canons at Rochester considered that they had such hard duty to perform in consequence of the suppression of a stall at the death of one of their party, that they declared they ought not to perform the duties of the dead canon unless they received extra pay. A correspondence took place, which was upon the table of the House, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were actually obliged to make an allowance, under the sanction and seal of the bishop, of 501. per month, to the five remaining canons, in order that the laity might have divine worship regularly performed. Surely this was an abomination which ought to be rectified. He would suggest to his right hon. Friend that these cathedral bodies should be called to render annually an account of their income and expenditure. Last year a very important Bill was passed in this House, notwithstanding the opposition of persons who possessed great influence in the Church, with reference to the rectory of Manchester. Under that Bill the accounts were handed in and published annually. In consequence of the operation of that Act, compelling the publication of accounts, a surplus had been obtained of 403l. 6s. 9d, which was applicable to the wants of the working clergy, which they never would have enjoyed unless the Act had been passed. He wished that this were the last time he should have to address the House upon the subject of ecclesiastical abuses. He hoped that the Government would now see that there was a disposition upon the part of the House, and a determination upon the part of the laity of the Established Church, to insist upon reform, not only in the manner in which the ecclesiastical body performed their duties, but also that there should be a full and searching inquiry into the temporalities of the Church, not with a view to take the property from the Establishment, not with a view of depriving them of their revenues, but with a view of affording the really useful clergy full and sufficient incomes, and to make the Church effective for its purpose. If the Government did not bring forward measures calculated to carry out these great objects, and make the Established Church a blessing to the country, matters would assume a more serious aspect than they did at present, and a result would follow which the true friends of the Established Church would bitterly lament.

fully concurred that, after what had been stated, it would be inexpedient to enter upon any lengthened discussion on this question, or to force the Government into explanations or details when they were not prepared to legislate immediately. He was quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had not express- ed himself so fully on the subject as some might desire, it was because he was anxious not to raise expectations which he might find it difficult, if not impossible, to realise. At the same time while they had the question of the second reading of so important a Bill before them—and he fully admitted that the noble Lord might have acted judiciously in not pressing it—he could not see why the House should not enter into so much discussion as would enable the Government to know what the views of hon. Members were, and the nature of the reforms expected. It was impossible to evade the consideration of the question. The ecclesiastical system of this country was approaching a crisis to which it would be dangerous to shut their eyes; and if they endeavoured to pass over the subject without discussion and without the legislation which ought to follow, they were only increasing their difficulty; they were only shirking a danger, and postponing a duty. Unless they took upon themselves fully and fairly to reform all those abuses which were now permitted to embarrass and impair the Establishment, they would find the time for that reform might soon pass away altogether. There were three points upon which the public were pretty well informed, and upon which public opinion had been pronounced. The first was cathedral establishments; the second, the management of capitular estates; and the third was the present condition of the episcopate. How were they to deal with the first? They ought, whatever the condition of these establishments, or the difficulty of making them more efficient—they ought of course to set out upon the principle of renovating and repairing as much as possible, and of destroying as little as possible. But for his own part, he had seen no scheme of capitular reform likely to give satisfaction and to work well. As that was a point on which the Government had not intimated their views, he would make no further observation upon it, but would wait and see what their proposal was. The second point was of more importance, namely, the management of ecclesiastical property. This was a question upon which they could not shut their eyes, and for which there was no excuse for evading a decision. Last year there was a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into that subject—a Commission certainly not so constituted as to excite distrust on the part of episcopal bodies. One recommendation of that Commission was, that the estates of all ecclesiastical bodies should be administered by the Ecclesiastical Commission. There was one observation which had dropped from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) from which he dissented. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he thought it essentially necessary that the bishops of the Established Church should not have paid incomes like other public functionaries, but that they should have territorial powers and emoluments. That was a principle which he altogether disputed. He did not know upon what ground it could be said that when there was not another public functionary in the country who might not be paid by salary, and when Parliament had given a fixed income to the bishops, he did not know why the latter as to their mode of payment should be made an exception from other public functionaries. It was not derogatory to the Judges of the land to be paid their regular salaries. It was not derogatory to the Crown, which had given up the Crown estates, to become a pensioner on the public revenue; and he could not see upon what principle they could be justified in refusing to extend that practice to the bishops. No stronger reason for giving the bishops fixed incomes could be stated than that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman— that the less they were encumbered with worldly affairs the better. If the bishops were to have a particular income, fixed by Act of Parliament, it was a more sensible and practical plan that they should be paid as the Judges and other public functionaries, with a public salary. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in considering the question of the management of the Church property, he had had his attention drawn to the fact that there were now three Boards sitting in London which were principally, and two of them almost entirely, composed of Bishops. The first of these was the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the second, the Church Building Commissioners, and the third, the Commissioners for Queen Anne's Bounty. He (Mr. Horsman) had brought this subject before the attention of the House two years ago, and had shown the duties discharged by these bodies, the properties managed by them, and the expenses they entailed. He had shown that these three Boards were maintained at an expense of 13.000l. or 14,000l. a year. It was obvious that the whole of the duties could be discharged by one Board. A plan for consolidating them had been more than once mentioned, and objections were made only in one quarter — very strong objections were raised and adhered to on the part of the episcopal members of those Boards, but by no other parties whatever. Not a single disinterested person who had investigated the subject, doubted that these Boards could be consolidated with the advantage of saving many thousands a year, and of having the property better administered; yet these bishops had invariably resisted every attempt to consolidate them. It was true that the members of the three Boards were the same, that they met sometimes on the same day, and their whole duties could be discharged in one room. He did not know whether it was the intention of the Government to include this in their proposed scheme of Church reform; but he thought one of the first measures in the next Session should be to consolidate these three Boards. The only other point on which he thought it necessary to say a word with regard to the Bill, was the proposed increase in the episcopacy. The noble Lord said that an increase was necessary to the episcopacy, and asked the House to create new bishops of an entirely new grade without seats in the House of Lords, and with much smaller salaries than those possessed by the present members of the episcopal bench. An increase to the present class of bishops, with seats in the Legislature, was not thought advisable by the Government. If reform was necessary in the Church, it was wanted in the episcopate more than anywhere else, and certainly ought to be carried out before its members were added to. It was by many not thought wise or judicious to increase the number of bishops by adding another class, who should be called working bishops, not having seats in the House of Lords, and whose duties and efficiency might create invidious comparisons. The Government had undertaken the matter, and they would find that this was a rock ahead. The difficulty to be dealt with, was the position of the episcopal bench. That was the real difficulty, and they must not shut their eyes to it. They must either leave the bench in its present position, or they must undertake an ecclesiastical reform, in spite of those in whose hands all ecclesiastical reform had hitherto been left. All other public establishments had been reformed and reorganised in deference to public opinion and the spirit of the age. A full ecclesiastical reform had alone been impossible. Ecclesiastical law was at this moment in a state of the greatest confusion and inefficiency, because the legislation of the Church was left in the hands of the bishops, who were unwilling themselves to undertake any efficient or practical reform, and resisted, obstructed, and opposed those proposed by others. The consequence was, there was now an arrear of ecclesiastical reform which it would be difficult to overtake, and the overtaking of which would be matter of danger as well as of difficulty. He gave his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) credit for applying himself seriously to this subject. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman felt the state of the Church to be most unsatisfactory, but at the same time, without unduly distrusting Government, he could not shut his eyes to the fact, that every Government found itself opposed by the episcopate, which, by its influence and political power, had compelled Government after Government to give way to it, by postponing or dropping every measure for inquiry or reform. They had done this so long that the whole ecclesiastical system was in such a state that many of the best friends of the Church now believed that no Ministry would be able to effect an ecclesiastical reform. It was no use attempting to avoid discussion on this subject, and he was certain they were only discharging a duty, when abuses were admitted, in suggesting remedies, and seeking to apply them with effect. He believed there was a very general concurrence in that House and in the country, amongst both laymen and ecclesiastics, that very large reforms were necessary. Among the Peers in the Upper House, there was hardly a difference of opinion; but there was one body in the country, and only one—the Bishops of the Established Church—who opposed legislation, and who were opposed to all reforms, to the great embarrassment of every successive Administration. Once for all, the House must make up its mind, the public must make up its mind, and the Cabinet must make up its mind, that if they were to have reform in our ecclesiastical system, they must have it in spite of the opposition of the episcopal body, because it was not likely they would have it with its concurrence.

said, as a member of the Church of England, he agreed in much which had fallen from the hon. Member for Cockermouth; but there was one subject which he, in common with other Members who had addressed the House, seemed to overlook. They seemed to propose that this House should resolve itself into a lay synod for the purpose of reforming the Church of England, whilst they overlooked the fact, that by the constitution of the country there were Houses of Convocation whose functions were now in abeyance, and no reform in the Church would ever prove beneficial or satisfactory to the country, which was not promoted principally by the Church itself. The Legislature had attempted over and over again to make reforms in the Church, especially of the deans and chapters, to which allusion had been made; but although the Dean and Chapter Revenues Bill had resulted in 78,000l. being applied, very properly, no doubt, to the enlargement of small livings, so far as the capitular bodies themselves were concerned, he was not aware that the Act had had any effect in improving in any degree the nature of these bodies. If that House was totally to overlook the fact that by the constitution of the country the Church of England was a corporate body, which had provided for itself a legislature, which ought to order and regulate its internal affairs, and that that House ought to act more as the guardian of the property of that Church, and to see that the temporalities were applied in such a way as the State thought proper—if that House was to intrude itself upon the spiritual functions of the Church, and if Committees were to be sitting upon the institution of every clerk to a benefice, and enter upon every detail of conduct of the clergy, putting the House in the position of universal bishop of England—he (Mr. Oswald) did not think any good object would be obtained. He did not say that Convocation could meet; but he did say, if these reforms were to be attained they must look abroad a little—they must not entirely forget that the Church of England was only one part of that great Anglican Church which now numbered in the world 106 bishops. They would find that in every other portion of that Church, except in that of England and Ireland, assemblies were fully and duly constituted for seeing that ecclesiastical order was properly observed; and in one large section, numbering a larger episcopate than our own—that of America, where there were thirty-six bishops—the lay element was introduced into that Church, giving the whole of the laity strong control over its proceedings; and in that portion of the Church to which he belonged something of the same kind was earnestly recommended by the episcopate in Scotland to the con- sideration of the Protestant Episcopal Church in that country. But he (Mr. Oswald) rose simply for the purpose of entering his protest against the supposition that this House of Commons, or any House of Commons, would be able alone, or would have any right alone, to regulate the internal affairs of the Church of England. It would be to convert her into that which they heard the hon. Member for Cockermouth style the creature of Parliament, standing upon nothing more stable than the breath of popular opinion, instead of being, as he (Mr. Oswald) believed, a divine institution that had a divine mission, and rested upon principles which were the foundation of society in England, and which that House could never, as he was sure that House would never wish, to subvert.

did not rise to prolong the discussion, but he wished to say a few words on the nature of the proposals with which the Government had to deal. In the first place, he thought the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) would do well to accept the proposal of the Government; and he would add, that from the conciliatory and moderate tone always expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, there was no man in whose hands he would more readily trust the question with a view to adjudication. But it was obvious that great difficulties beset this question of Church reform. His own opinions went a great length, greater perhaps than many Gentlemen who sat around him; but he was convinced that the Government and the House must exercise great forbearance, because having such immense difficulties to cope with, they could only settle those points on which they could obtain almost universal assent, and which no opposition could affect. No extreme views could be successful. This question of Church reform included the extension of the episcopate, the diminution of the numbers of the chapters, the abolition of the deans, and likewise the restoration to the chapters of the duties which they were originally intended to perform, which he rather thought the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to mention. With regard to the first of these points, the number to be added to the episcopate, he thought too high an estimate had been taken. He not only saw, however, that a very large addition was necessary, but he saw the difficulties in the way—be- cause as the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth had said, there was a great difficulty in the way of creating two classes of bishops, and there was a determination in that House that there should be no augmentation of the number of Bishops in the House of Lords. The rotatory principle was objectionable, because, with a largo number of bishops, it would often happen the least efficient bishops would be representing the Church in the House of Lords. The other mode of augmenting the episcopate was by returning to the statute of Henry VIII., with regard to suffragan bishops. That would get rid, to a great extent, of the difficulty of having two classes of bishops, though he was aware there were many difficulties in the way of that proceeding. Then came the proposal of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), that when they created new bishops the voluntary principle should be called in aid of that creation. In the debate in the Session of 1848, when the right hon. Gentleman moved a resolution on the subject, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Northumberland (Sir George Grey), received the suggestion with great favour, though he expressed himself with that caution becoming a Secretary of State. He (Mr. Herbert) thought one reason for the augmentation of the episcopacy was the present system of management of Church property, from which the stipends of the present Bishops were derived, and which placed them in a position in which as Prelates of the Church they ought not to be—they were in fact land-agents for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, over large estates from which they did not derive the proceeds. On the other hand, if all the lands were severed from the sees, except so much as would produce the amount of stipend which it was thought right for the bishop to possess, and those lands were held at rackrent, then this difficult}' would have to be met—-the management of lands at rack-rent gave rise to much more secular business than the mere possession of estates leased out on fines, which required little or no management at all. At any rate, he thought the system as it now stood most objectionable. From the quantity of secular business imposed upon the Bishops, they were even now isolated from the ranks of the clergy. If irreproachable character, courteousness of demeanour, punctuality of correspondence, clearness in transacting business, were the first and only qualifications for a bishop, he was quite sure there were many Gentlemen on the Opposition benches who would make far better bishops than were on the bench, if the spiritual functions were not superadded. The secular functions took so much time, that the more important, the more sacred, duties seemed to be lost sight of by the public in a great measure; and it was that to which attention ought to be directed. He was bound to say the hon. Member for Cockermouth was not always quite fair in his remarks on the episcopate. Whatever might be their collective reputation, many of them were as great Church reformers as any Gentleman in this House. Many most efficient measures of Church reform had been suggested and undertaken at there quest of Bishops; and certainly there were on the bench many active men, who fulfilled their sacred duties, and were quite unworthy the censure imposed on them by the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the chapters, and the abolition of deans, he wished to hear both sides before he committed himself to any opinion; but of this he was perfectly certain, that it was not wise to diminish the numbers of the chapter. That had been done on a previous occasion, both in respect to their number and salaries. The chapters, by a long course of neglect and desuetude, had been, and were when reform was proposed, remiss in performing the duties for which they were originally constituted; and the error was, that when reform was instituted, instead of saying to these gentlemen, "You must in future perform such and such duties you are bound by oath to perform," no notice was taken of the neglect of duty, but merely a reduction made in the numbers and the amount of salary. Now, if twelve men did not perform the duties, four men not performing them was only an improvement in degree. A sinecure was as bad at 500l. as at 800l. or 1,000l. a year. The change had not come into full operation yet, and its result was not fully known. Many hon. Gentlemen said, that the chapters were altogether unsuitable to the present day, and that they ought to be swept away; but in parts of England voluntary efforts were making by combination to perform those duties which the chapters should perform. At Birkenhead, an Irish clergyman named Baily, who was well known to the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford), had established an institution, with rules and ob- jects very like those which were drawn up by Cranmer in the time of Henry VIII. when he drew up the statute for the new foundation of cathedrals. It was instituted for the education of the clergy who wanted pastoral training places before they went out into the world to act as deacons; before they took orders and entered on the responsible duties of their sacred offices. The same thing was wanted in connexion with the chapters. They wanted schools, training places for the young clergy. Those who went out as deacons at the present time had to be taught; and instead of being paid ought to pay for learning the pastoral duties. He would therefore recommend the noble Lord, instead of reducing the number of canons, to declare by his Bill that no canonry, on a voidance, should be filled until a proper scheme was prepared and effected, touching the proper duties of teaching and training which those canons had to perform. He also hoped that a provision in the noble Lord's Bill would not escape the attention of the Government, by which it was made necessary for the bishops to reside in their cathedral cities. He believed there were fifteen or sixteen Bishops who lived like country gentlemen at great distances from their cathedral cities; and the clergyman who required to see one of them was put to great expense and inconvenience. It was, besides, setting an example to the clergy of non-residence. It was a sort of absenteeism, enabling the Bishop to remove from the influence of the chapter, which was intended for his counsel, to check any hasty decisions, and at any rate to strengthen the Bishop's decisions by its advice. He heartily concurred in the observations of the hon. Gentleman, that in the case of Welsh bishoprics it should be a sine quèl; non that the clergyman should be master of the language, which was the only language spoken by his flock. He remembered such a claim was made in the House of Lords, and the Lord Chancellor complained that it was an unjustifiable interference with his patronage. The time for such opposition was now past, and he hoped the provision suggested would be one which would meet with universal concurrence. In these matters he felt they discussed them in too legal a spirit, and laid more weight on the vested interests of individuals, than on the spiritual interests of the mass of the people. With a large population and insufficient cures, one clergyman had the cure perhaps of 30,000 or 40,000 souls. They wanted to divide the living, but they could not, because the patron would not give his consent—the patron's right would be damnified by having three or four small livings instead of one large fat benefice to give to a relation or friend. Careful as they ought to be of vested interests, such impediment put a stop to all hope of improvement in the Church, and led to the institution being regarded as not working for the spiritual benefit of the people, but for the convenience and rights of property of individuals. He was extremely glad the Government had given the answer they had; he thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the spirit in which it was given, and he hoped the noble Lord would at once accede to the suggestion to withdraw the Bill.

said, it was the opinion of those hon. Gentleman who had assisted him in bringing this Bill forward, that he should give way to the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, and he was quite willing to do so, because it was also his own wish, formed after communicating with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), and because it was the general wish of the House, that that course should be adopted. He would not now go into the question further than to refer to one or two circumstances which had been touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) with regard to the abolition of deans. The right hon. Gentleman said the abolition of deans, or rather the absorption of their offices into the duties of bishops, could not be carried out, because the two offices of dean and bishop could not be combined. He, however, would remind the House that his measure was consistent with itself, for the principal duty of dean was the management of the estates of the Church, and this duty he proposed to transfer to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—thus making the dean's office virtually a sinecure. In ancient times the duty of the chapter was that of council to the bishop; and the bishop, dean, and chapter had property in common. The bishop was the principal person in the chapter, and, as Burns expressed it, the chapter had to advise him in spiritualities, and restrain him in temporalities. In the progress of time the property and duties of the bishop became separated from that of the chapter, and a double interest was created; the consequence was, that the deans assumed a position in the chapter which was perfectly irreconcilable with their subordinate capacity to the bishop. What he proposed was to place them in a proper position, and to provide those endowments which would be requisite for the increase in the episcopacy, which every one had admitted was desirable and necessary. With regard to the suspension of canonries, it might be thought from that proposal that he was desirous of abolishing chapters. This was not correct. He did not propose their abolition; he only proposed the separation of their functional from their endowed character. He proposed that chapters should be constituted of some members who should be paid, not by other endowments but by settled incomes, and that the surplus property be distributed among the hardworking clergy, and especial reference should be had to those who had been created by Sir Robert Peel's District Clergy Act of 1843. With regard to the increase of the episcopate, and the difficulties in the way of the question, adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire, he thought the rotationary principle suggested by that right hon. Gentleman as to the Bishops sitting in Parliament would overcome one of the objections to the increase of the episcopal bench. He considered that the system adopted in the election of Irish Peers if followed with regard to the Bishops would not trench on their spiritual dignity and necessary influence, while it would get rid of a great deal of that jealousy which was felt on the subject. He would read some words, which he had no doubt would be received with much respect by that House. He referred to a speech made by the Earl of Derby when the measure for creating an additional Bishop of Manchester was under debate. Lord Derby said—

"If they laid down a good plan for the improvement of the Church, they might confidently reckon on the friends of the Church, and that funds would not be wanting. One of the principles of Church extension was to increase the property of the Church by putting forward the property it possessed as an inducement for others to come forward with voluntary subscriptions.

He would earnestly beg Government to consider what were the actual requisitions of the Church, and not to consider that the four new bishops would meet all the existing wants."—[See 3 Hansard, xciii. 288.]

Those were Lord Derby's sentiments then, and they wore perfectly applicable now to the question before the House. With regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire, he admitted his suggestions differed to a certain extent from the provisions of his Bill; but then the matter was so large, and required such continual consideration, that if the Bill had gone into Committee he should have felt it to be his duty to make alterations in order to meet the views of hon. Members. With regard to the educational functions of the chapters, he considered they were of the utmost importance. With regard to the institution founded at Birkenhead by Dr. Bailey, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, he might state that the greatest benefits had resulted from it. A number of theological students were thereby brought into contact with the masses of Liverpool, under the superintendence of the clergy, as scripture readers, and thus obtained invaluable theological training. From those schools ten bishops made appointments, and thus clergymen were obtained perfectly well suited to enter at once upon the duties of their calling when appointed to a parish. Those training institutions ought to be multiplied. The course he should pursue on the present occasion was to ask leave to withdraw his Motion—not, however, pledging himself to accept the measure Government were to introduce, but reserving his right to bring forward the question in any manner he might hereafter think advisable. It was impossible not to see that a great work was before Government, and that through its agency the Christian faith might be extended to tens of thousands, and be made to strike its roots deeper into the affections of the people. He could not conclude without solemnly warning Government of the consequences which would befall the Church, should there be any incapacity within, or any just cause of reproach from without. It was impossible Government could divest itself of the great responsibility of the results which would follow from failure. He begged to move that the order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged.

said, he would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question, of which he had given notice—whether the Committee of Privy Council on Education had prepared a Minute by which a relaxation of the management clauses would obtain their sanction; and if so, whether his right hon. Friend had any objection to lay it on the table of the House?

said, in answer to the right hon. Baronet, the Committee of Privy Council on Education had prepared a Minute, admitting the relaxation of the management clauses in one respect, which he thought very important, and a copy of that Minute should be laid on the table as soon as it was finally settled.

It is finally settled.

The wording is not finally settled.

But the principle is settled.

Yes.

said, that he had been under the impression that all objections to the principle of the Bill had been completely disposed of by the almost unanimous assent of the House to the second reading. He found now a notice on the paper, given by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Packe), who intended to reopen the question of the principle. He should, therefore, simply move that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair without then entering into any explanation of the alterations he proposed to make in the Bill.

said, he had had no opportunity in the previous stages of the Bill of stating the strong reasons he entertained against it, and he had hoped that the noble Lord would have given some reason for proceeding so rapidly with the measure. He thought it was a measure fraught with mischief, and would be the cause not only of inconvenience, but of great injustice to county electors. Only two reasons had been stated for limiting the poll in counties to one day. In the first place it was said that there was more bribery on the second than on the first-day. Although there might be a greater pressure of voters on the second day, he did not believe it was the result of bribery. The other ground was the decrease of expense. If he had merely his own interests to consider, he might assent to the measure on this ground, for no doubt expense would be lessened; but they were to consider whether they would not be depriving some county electors of the franchise by placing it beyond their power to exercise it in more than one place. He himself had votes in seven counties, and at the election of 1841, if he had not had the advantage of two days' polling, he could not have exercised his right of voting in those several counties. The time occupied by all the county elections in the Kingdom was only six days. According to the Act the sheriff of a county was required to fix the day of election not sooner than ten days after receiving the writ, and not later than sixteen days. The number of county ejections in England and Wales was seventy-nine; and he wished to know how it would be possible for electors who had votes in different counties to give their votes if the polling were in all cases limited to one day. If they were all to be determined in such a short time, was it not a mockery to pass such a measure? and it would be better at once to disfranchise so many voters, than do it, as it was rumoured was intended, by a sidewind in the shape of this Bill. The noble Lord must see that his own Bill would not produce the benefit he desired. The only remedy he proposed was the extension of the hours of polling from 4 to 6 o'clock. Now the result of that would be that frequently there must be two hours' polling in the dark—which would give great facilities for election riots, in which the destruction of the poll books might easily take place. He was able to refer to a speech delivered by a distinguished Member of that House, which embodied his own sentiments so fully that he would beg to read a portion of it. It stated—

"He thought it politic to, reduce the expenses of contested elections within a certain limit; and that limit was the consideration due to the full and free exercise of the franchise. The paramount consideration was not whether the expenses of candidates could be reduced, but whether such reduction was consistent with the full and free exercise of the franchise. He was bound to say he did not think it was, trying the present measure by that test. He perfectly agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. B. Denison), that the analogy between counties and boroughs could not be sustained. No Bill had ever met with greater approbation than that for abridging the time for elections in boroughs. But it must be observed that residence within seven miles was an indispensable condition of voting in boroughs. In reference to counties, there was no such limitation; and in some counties it appeared that so many as one-fourth of the electors were non-resident. This discussion was in some respects rather a game at cross purposes; the facts adduced by the noble Lord (Lord Worsley) for the purpose of showing that the number of voters on the second day at various contested elections was so small as not to affect the result, might bear a different construction. He had no idea that the number of voters who voted on the second day was so great. He knew two constituencies—the one the largest in England, Middlesex; and the other the smallest, Rutlandshire—in which the decision of the first day was reversed by that of the second. Speaking generally, no rapidity of communication could compensate for the difficulty stated by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. B. Denison), that several gentlemen had a right to vote in two, three, or four counties; and that they might be precluded from the exercise of their right by means of the proposed restriction. When there was a rule established by which parties were permitted to exercise their rights in more than one county, he did not see why the House should depart from that principle.' The period of two days for polling was in favour of the franchise. He saw no advantage to be gained from the adoption of the present measure, except in reducing the expense of contested elections; but he did not think that advantage would be wisely purchased in the present instance. On the whole he was for adhering to the present practice. He was surprised that those who were seeking to enlarge the county constituencies, which could only be done by multiplying the number of out-voters—to which he had no objection, provided they were bonâ fide votes—should wish to abridge the time of polling. He wished to maintain the practice most conducive to a full and free exercise of the franchise. On these grounds he should vote against the second reading."— [3 Hansard, lxxxv. 862–3.]

That was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), when a measure similar to this was before the House, and which was negatived by a large majority. He (Mr. Packe) was much surprised to see the name of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. B. Denison) on the back of this Bill, who, on a. late occasion, had stated his belief that county elections could be completed in one day, if there was an increase of polling places, and that it would only operate to prevent a few persons voting in several counties; yet that hon. Member, the year before last general election, in a speech of his following the hon. Member for Manchester, then Member for Durham (Mr. Bright), who stated that the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. B. Denison) had admitted that the county of Durham could be polled in one day, used these words:—

"He had made that admission; but that was not the question. The question was, whether they ought to apply the same rule to counties as to boroughs. If they did, they would undoubtedly deprive a number of out-voters of the opportunity of voting. He, for instance, had a vote in Lin-colnshire and in Yorkshire, but could not avail himself of it if the election for each took place on the same day. He had heard no complaint whatever from county constituencies on the score of expense; and haying been requested by a great number of persons to oppose this Bill, he, for these reasons, had resolved to do so."—[3 Hansard, lxxxv. 861–2.]

He would only consent to the Bill, if it gave those whom it prevented from voting in all the places they had the franchise, the power of voting by proxy.

seconded the Motion.

said, that the county he represented was placed in peculiar circum-stances, and the electors, would he prejudiced by the operation of this Bill. He trusted he might be allowed to state those circumstances. [Lord R. GROSVENOR: The Bill does not apply to Scotland.] If the Bill did not apply to Scotland, he had nothing to say on the subject.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Packe) that it would be indiscreet to sanction the extension of the hours of polling from Four to Six o'clock; but that was a matter for consideration in Committee. He agreed with his noble Friend (Lord R. Grosvenor) in wishing the polling at county elections to be confined to one day. It appeared by a return for which he (Mr. Alcock) had moved, that there had been contested elections in only twenty-two counties since 1840, and which required two days' polling. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire had laid great stress on the argument, that if there was only one day to poll, many persons who had votes in different counties would be unable to give them. But the facilities of locomotion were very different now to what they were at the time of passing the Reform Bill. It was only after the opening of the Great Northern Railway that he (Mr. Alcock) was enabled to give his vote in the county of Lincoln. If this Bill was passed, it would enable a county election, when the nomination was on a Wednesday, to be concluded on a Saturday; whereas now it could not be concluded till the Tuesday, making the time the election was pending nearly a week.

said, he wished to state on the part of the Government, that they thought this a question which rather concerned the county Members than the Government, and he was now about to express only his individual opinion with regard to it. After the second reading of the Bill had been assented to by the House, he was not prepared individually to oppose its going into Committee; but he wished to warn the noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor), as he had done on a former occasion, of the difficulties he would have to encounter in Committee, in taking care that the Bill should be workable for the purposes of the ensuing election. By the first Act which regulated elections after the passing of the Reform Bill, the 2 & 3 Will. TV., c. 64, the polling places in counties were fixed. This was found inconvenient, because it was often desirable to alter, increase, or diminish the number of polling places; and by a subsequent Act, 3 & 4 Will. TV., c. 102, power was given to the magistrates at quarter-sessions to make alterations. But the power was carefully guarded. In the first place, a requisition was to -be made to the magistrates by at least ten voters, and a month's notice was to be given of the intention to apply to the magistrates, which was to be lodged with the clerk of the peace; and, besides, notice was to be given in a newspaper circulating in the county ten days before the time at which the decision of the magistrates was to be given; and after that a memorial was to be sent to the Queen in Council, who would give permission for the alteration to be made. The first application must he made to the Court of Quarter Sessions. It was now the month of June, and no quarter-session would be held in time to go through the required formalities before the dissolution of Parliament. The. noble Lord, by a notice of Amendment he had given, seemed to have considered that point, for he wished to "enable the sheriff to make such provisions in the polling booths that not more than 300 electors should poll at the same compartment, instead of 450, as is the rule at present." The noble Lord contemplated the difficulty, for by that Amendment he proposed to put the whole matter in the power of the sheriffs, as regards either the alteration or diminishing the number of polling booths; or, if it was not doing that, at least there was no other provision for the placing the polling districts in the most convenient places for the voters. [Lord R. GROSVENOR: Not the polling districts.] He meant the "polling places." At any rate the effect would be to put the voters to inconvenience, and bring them up in crowds to places to which they would not otherwise have come. He should withhold his opinion as to what should be done with the Bill in Committee until he was satisfied that the proposed arrangement would be advantageous to counties.

said, he would not retract the expressions which he had used on a former occasion, though he admitted experience had taught him wisdom. He had received letters from the under sheriff of Yorkshire, for the West Biding, and from the deputy clerk of the peace, stating that there would not be the least difficulty in taking the polling under the Bill in that district in one day, and he felt confident that every objection made to the measure could be fully answered in Committee.

said, that the expediency of taking the votes in a county in one day's poll must depend much on the divisions of each county, and the number of voters. Numbers alone formed no difficulty in getting people up to the poll, but there was a difficulty in getting carriages. Where the arrangements of a division of a county were framed with reference to the facility of getting carriages for two days' polling, there would be great inconvenience in polling those places in one day, without giving an opportunity to such counties to consider the difficulty, and endeavour to remedy it at quarter-sessions. Time should be given to look to the arrangement of the county, and to see the numbers of voters assigned to a district who came up in one day. He did not understand that the noble Lord's machinery dealt with that question so as to operate on the next election. It would be impossible for that to be the case unless it was provided for in the Bill. The next quarter-sessions would be on 1st July, and the notice required by the present law could not be given, for let this Bill have what facility it might in passing, it could not become law many days before the end of the Session, and, therefore, could not operate on the next election unless it provided some machinery for the purpose. That being so, he was disposed not to proceed further with the Bill. If, however, it contained the required machinery for obtaining one day's polling at county elections, with the present facilities of locomotion he thought it would be a good thing. As to the diminution of expense, that was not so clear, for if polling places were multiplied agencies must be increased, and it was probable the expense of carriages would be much greater.

said, the only alteration would be, that instead of having a certain number of booths—say two for 900 voters, or one for each 450—they would have three booths, or one for every 300. It would not be necessary to alter the polling divisions of the counties at all.

said, he was at a loss to understand how the noble Lord, who professed himself in favour of an extension of the franchise, could bring forward a Bill which would assuredly have the effect of restricting it. He proposed, indeed, to add two hours to the time for polling; but if the elections took place, as they often would, in winter, it was evident that those persons who were inclined to not and disturbance would avail themselves of the darkness; and that the Bill would lead to confusion and tend to disturb the elections, instead of producing peace and good order. He should vote for the Amendment.

hoped the hon. Member for South Leicestershire would take the sense of the House against proceeding with the Bill The fact referred to by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Alcock), that since 1840 advantage had been taken of the second day to poll in not more than twenty-two contested county elections, was a proof, not that this Bill was necessary, but that it was not required.

said, he could not but express his surprise that this Bill, of which the operation would undoubtedly be to restrict the exercise of the most valuable of all political privileges, the franchise, should have emanated from the Opposition side of the House, where professions of "liberalism" were of such frequent recurrence. He had the good, or it might be the bad, fortune to be entitled to seven county votes, in Northumberland, in Yorkshire, in Lincolnshire, in Middlesex, in Hertfordshire, in Nottinghamshire, ad Bedfordshire, and how would it be possible for him, with all the assistance he might derive from railways (for he grieved to think that he would be under the miserable necessity of riding by rail at the next election) to exercise the franchise in respect of all these seven votes, if the polling time were to be limited to a single day. How was a farmer who bad come to London to sell his cattle at Smithfield to get back to Northumberland to vote at the election? He could only do so at the expense of great personal inconvenience, and with detriment to his interests. As to the plea of economy, on which it was sought to vindicate this Bill, such a plea was utterly contemptible. He liked to see money spent at an election, and would be glad if a little Californian gold flowed freely at the ensuing one. If Gentlemen valued the representative system, they should not button up their pockets as though their hands were never to be admitted into them.

said, that as the representative of one of the largest constituencies in England, he begged to state that he was sure the proposition to confine the polling at elections to one day would meet with the concurrence of his county, inasmuch' as it would tend to diminish the opportunity of exhibiting many of the bad feelings which were too often excited on such occasions.

said, that the Bill was supported by the representatives of very large constituencies—-by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor), by the hon. Members for Lancashire and for the West Riding. That alone seemed a sufficient reason why the House should go into Committee.

said, that he had mot the honour of representing a county, and probably never should, there-fore perhaps he ought to apologise for addressing the House on a subject which, as had been said by his. right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, belonged more especially to county Members. It appeared to him that the-noble Lord the Member for Middlesex had not satisfied the House as to the pressing necessity of this measure at then present moment. He (the Attorney General) did not say that it might not be convenient to have one. day's polling for county elections; and if there was time to arrange the machinery, he should not oppose their going into Committee on the Bill, because he thought it desirable that there should be. one day's polling in elections, for counties as well as in boroughs. He was not much moved by the argument that it might tend to deprive some persons who had votes in different counties of their right of voting. But what principally influenced him was the difficulty he had in persuading himself that inconvenience might not be caused at the next election by accepting the interposition of the noble Lord now. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. B. Denison) said there was no difficulty in. This county. But he represented a populous district, where the conveniences for polling, were probably better arranged than in those where population was thinner. The noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor) must be, aware of those difficulties, for he had endeavoured to provide for them by extending the hours for polling, which had been so strongly objected to; and, besides, he apparently thought there would be such a throng. of voters at the polling places, that he had provided for the enlargement of the. booths. His (the Attorney General's) objection to going on with this measure was, that they did not know whether it would not be almost impossible in some counties to take the poll in one day. Although he agreed in the principle of having only one day's polling, and that arrangements might be made to that effect, yet he thought such arrangements could not be made at the present moment, and therefore it would be better to defer the measure till they had further information on the subject.

said, he thought the remarks of the Members of Her Majesty's Government were quite enough to induce the House,. without a moment's delay, to go into Committee, for they had all admitted the principle of the Bill. Only two hon. Members had spoken against the measure; and the House must remember they were not asked to read the. Bill a third time, but. merely to go, in to Committee upon it. It had been stated by two hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the, House, that they had each seven votes, and their apprehension was that they would not be able to exercise their franchise in seven different places unless the poll were kept open for two days. Now, seeing how many people, in this country had no vote at all, and remembering that the hon. Gentlemen to whom he alluded were generally found voting against the extension of. the franchise to their fellow-countrymen, he did not think any great weight would be attached to their arguments. It was well known that even in the most sharply-contested elections the result might be considered to be practically decided before two o'clock on the first day. He found that in, the West Riding of Yorkshire upwards of 4,000 electors had voted between eleven o'clock and twelve o'clock, and that only 500 electors had voted between three o'clock and four o'clock. With regard to the difficulty of voters coming up to record their votes, it had been stated that some Leicestershire grazier might, perhaps, if the county election were restricted to one day, have to go upon that same day to some great annual fair at a distance from the county, and that was a reason why we were to have two days' polling! As to the difficulty which it was stated would exist in thinly-populated districts to find carriages in which to convey the voters to the poll, he hoped to live to see the day when voters in counties would be ashamed to be brought up to the poll at the expense of candidates. He would never degrade a fellow-countryman of his by paying him the money to perform such a duty. But polling districts were not so very extensive as to prevent county voters from walking to the poll. An average distance of seven miles was an extreme case; and was it too much to expect on the part of representatives who sat in that House until one or two o'clock in the morning gratuitously doing their duty to the electors of this country, that those electors; when the sacred duty devolved on them once in the course of throe, four, or five years, of making their choice of a Member, would not freely and willingly and gladly walk a distance of seven miles in order to give their votes? Again, farmers generally had horses; we had been told some time ago that they owned nearly all the horses in the Kingdom, and they were therefore the last persons to be considered in this case. When the Reform Bill was passed, two days were the time allowed for voting in boroughs, and every argument now used against limiting the county elections to one day was used then. But many boroughs extended for seven miles, which was about the average size of the polling districts in the counties, and yet, notwithstanding the time of voting had been restricted to one day, all the predictions uttered as to the probable disfranchisement of voters were falsified, and the alteration had met with the most complete and unanimous approval of the country. The experience which that change had afforded gave a sanction to the proposed adoption of the same rule for counties; and he did hope that, after the almost universal admission that the principle of this Bill was a good one, the House would not surely stultify itself by refusing to go into Committee.

said, he thought that that House ought to consider the convenience of electors rather than the convenience of Members. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) had cast reflections on those county voters who allowed themselves to be taken in carriages to the polling booths; but it should be remembered that whether they were taken at their own expense or at the expense of others, carriages for their conveyance should still be found. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that in some of the boroughs there were electors who were placed at as great an average distance from the polling booths as the county electors. But he could inform the hon. Member that in the county which he (Sir B. Bridges) represented, Kent, there was a town of 20,000 inhabitants, in which all those who had votes for the county were fifteen miles from the polling place. He believed that the House ought not to be asked to pass such a measure as that at the present advanced period of the Session; but he would not further discuss the question whether or not it might be desirable to adopt it on some future occasion.

said, that if the county electors had excessive distances to travel for the purpose of recording their votes, it rested with the justices of the quarter-sessions to remedy that evil by increasing the number of polling places. But as the justices could not immediately proceed to cause additional polling places to be constructed, he would suggest that the House should pass the Bill with the addition of a Proviso to the effect that it should not come into operation until after the lapse of twelve months. There could then, he thought, be no reason for opposing the Motion that they should go into Committee on the measure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might ask for delay before the House gave its sanction to the Bill; but he believed that they only wished to see it, permanently defeated. They had always opposed it, and he feared: that they would always continue to do so.

said who listened with. much pleasure to the suggestion of his hon. Friend who had just addressed the House. The magistrates assembled. in quarter-sessions could not at present make provisions for securing the necessary number of polling places the next election; but that objection would be ob obviated by Suspending the operation of the measure for a period of twelve months. He was trongly in favour of the principle of the Bill; and he only wished to see it carried into effect under the circumstances which would he most likely to ensure its successful operation.

said, he could not sympathise in the complaint of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Packe), and of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln (Col. Sibthorp), who wanted to be seven gentlemen at once. It so happened that he (Mr. Oswald) had himself three county votes; but he would be happy to give up two of them for the attainment of a public advantage. He wished the Bill might be made to extend to Scotland, with the addition of a Proviso to the effect that in the case of the more remote islands of that country, the additional number of polling days should be allowed. He sincerely sympathised with the constituents of the hon. Member opposite (Sir B. Bridges) on account of the difficulty of travelling in the districts to which he had alluded, the state of which must be very bad indeed, when they could not go sixteen miles without having forty-eight hours to do it in. He cautioned large landed proprietors against resisting such a measure as the present. By Opposing it they were seeking to give property not only its fair and legitimate force, but a force which it ought not to have. The effect of keeping up two days' polling was to increase the expense and diminish the number of candidates who could stand for counties.

said, that as that was the repealing clause of the Bill, he wished, before they adopted it, to ask the noble Lord who had charge of the measure when he proposed that it should come into operation? He wished to know whether the noble Lord would postpone that period until the justices in quarter-sessions should have had time to provide additional polling places? He could tell the hon. Member for the West Riding, that, with the present number of polling places, many county voters would either abstain from exercising their franchise, or would have to walk or to get themselves conveyed a distance of fourteen or fifteen miles; such, at all events, would be the effect in the county he had the honour to represent.

said, that, although the polling districts might extend over an area of fourteen miles, the average distance which the voters would have to travel could not amount to more than seven miles. Many of the electors would be in the immediate vicinity of the polling places.

said, he did not see what advantage it could be to a voter fourteen miles from the polling place to know that some other more fortunate person lived immediately near it. In the boroughs, seven miles formed the maximum distance from the polling places.

said, that in the borough of Aylesbury the distance was considerably more than seven miles.

said, that the borough of Shoreham embraced a district of twenty miles long, and ten miles wide; and yet he had never heard that there had been any difficulty in getting any of the voters there to poll in a single day.

said, it was his intention that the Bill should come into operation immediately. He regretted that this should be viewed in some degree as a party question; he did not say that one party would gain more than another by the proposed change. It was said he had shown no strong grounds for the measure proposed; he had not thought it necessary to make a long speech in its favour, after several Members of the Government had admitted its necessity, and the principle of the measure had been acted on by the Legislature ever since 1832. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said they were legislating in the dark. He differed from this; he had seen much of contested elections, and was convinced that a great' deal of the disorder and intoxication prevailing at elections was owing to the continuance of the poll for two days. If the measure was brought. forward late in the Session, that was not his fault, for two measures embracing the same principle as this had been before the House, and had been withdrawn. It was fallacious to contend that the polling could not be taken on one day. In fact, it was done so now; for no voter set out on the Monday, in order to vote en the Tuesday. Therefore, it could not be urged that it was impracticable for the voters to get to the poll. Allusion had been made to the difficulty of obtaining conveyances. At present, the first day, in nine cases out of ten, decided the election; and that, although the first polling day was only seven hours, from nine to four, while on the second day it was eight. From this he inferred that there would be no difficulty whatever in polling all the voters on one day. He did not apprehend that any further arrangements would be necessary; but to obviate any difficulty that might arise, he proposed to extend the time of polling till six o'clock. At present, on the first day, the average number polling was one voter in a minute; under the proposed arrangement it would not be more than one in two minutes. The possibility of a not had been referred to; but he thought this much less likely in a county than in a borough. He had never heard of a not in a county polling booth. He had always understood the boroughs were much more dangerous places; now, it seemed, it was the counties that were to be dreaded.

would be no party to this Bill if he thought that its effect would be to deprive any elector of the right of going to the poll and giving his vote in the manner he did at present. The fact was, that every election was disposed of on the first day of voting, and therefore it was quite clear that all electors who came to vote on the second day had their trouble for nothing. He believed that there had been only a single instance since the Reform Bill, in which the voting of the second day had reversed the decision of the first day. If space were wanted, the sheriff had power to make as many additional booths as might be required, and the difficulty of bringing up voters would not be increased by the voting being limited to a single day. The under-sheriff of the West Riding of Yorkshire had informed him that at the last election, which took place at the time when the days we're shortest, the largest number of voters had been polled during the early hours of the first day, and that on the second day the polling booths had been nearly empty for several hours. The under-sheriff had also stated to him that he would engage to poll the whole of the electors in three hours. It was, therefore, quite unnecessary that the public should be kept in Suspense during the whole of a second day, and that working men should be kept away from their labour for that time. All the objections urged against this Bill had been urged against the Bill for cutting down the elections in boroughs to a single day; but he believed that there was no man in that House who did not admit that that measure had produced a salutary effect.

wished to ask whether the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. B. Denison) would propose to disfranchise the electors who voted on the second day of the election? Was the hon. Member aware that in the counties of Middlesex and Rutland two elections had taken place since the Reform Bill, both of which had been decided by the second day's polling. The hon. Member stated that he would be no party to this Bill if he was sure that it would have the effect of preventing parties from voting. Now what was to be done in case a not should take place? When riots occurred in towns, they necessarily happened under the eye of the returning officer, who could suspend the polling. But if there were twenty or thirty places of polling in a county, he (Mr. Henley) should like to know whether the presiding officers in these separate districts would have power to suspend the poll in case of persons being prevented by a not from exercising their franchise? If not, it was very probable that parties would mob the hustings in order to prevent voters from registering their votes.

said, he had no intention of disfranchising any person; and the whole effect of this Bill would be to oblige the greater proportion of voters to take means for registering their votes on the first day. He would have the poll taken in all cases in the shortest possible time, so that voters in one part of a district could have no knowledge of what was going on in another part, and that object would be effected by the present Bill. He believed that the deputy-sheriff possessed the same power as the sheriff of suspending the poll in case of a riot. With respect to the extension of the hours, he (Mr. B. Denison) must say that he felt so thoroughly convinced that there was no necessity for it, that he must vote against his noble Friend on that point.

said, he was of opinion that this Bill would promote the convenience of candidates, and would operate very much to the inconvenience of the great body of electors. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. B. Denison) had stated that he had been informed by the under-sheriff of that district that he could poll the whole of the electors in three hours. But could he do so if the bribery oath was administered to all the voters?

was of opinion that the bribery oath could not be administered' to all the voters.

said, he believed that the bribery oath might be administered to as' many voters as either of the' candidates pleased—

rose and said: Mr. Bernal, really, Sir, when the hon. and learned Attorney General, the first Law Officer of the Crown, rises to speak in this House, and when an hon. Member is called to order, and replies by thrusting his hand into the face of the hon. Member who so calls him to order—when that is the case, Sir, I think it demands the interference of the House. I take this opportunity to state that I have experienced great inconvenience, and have also observed other hon. Gentlemen suffer as much inconvenience from this behaviour; and I must say that, in my opinion, we have endured this annoyance With great goodwill for a very long time. But, Sir, there is a point beyond which it would he unworthy of us and of this House to submit. I regret being the individual who is obliged to make these observations; but in doing so I believe I Speak the feeling and opinions of hon. Gentlemen in general.

As I have been appealed to as Chairman, I beg to state what I conceive to he the extent of the duty of the Chairman of this House. On representation being made to me, I hold it to be my duty to report the nature of such representation to the highest authority in this House—namely, the right 'hon. Gentleman the Speaker. If any hon. Gentleman considers I should report the conduct of any hon. Member, I shall he prepared to do so accordingly.

Mr. Bernal, after what had taken place last night I think the House had reason to expect that the interruption which then occurred would not take place again. I understand that an hon. Member has stated to you that he has been treated in a manner disrespectful to himself and unworthy of this House, and I do not think it right, under the circumstances, unless an apology is made by the hon. Member I think' that either an apology ought to be made, or that you should be instructed to report what has taken place to Mr. Speaker.

I rise, in confirmation of what has been said by my right hon. Colleague, to state that accidentally I observed what was the exact conduct of the hon. Member; and, after observing that conduct, I have no hesitation in saying; however painful it may be, that it is indispensably necessary, not only to the dignity of our proceedings, but to the conduct of public business, that this painful matter should not be passed over. I have, therefore, no hesitation in recommonding that we should suspend for a short time our proceedings, in order to report to the highest authority in this House what has been the conduct of the hon. Member in question. Mr. Feargus O'Connor, Member for Nottingham, having interrupted the proceeedings of the Committee by disorderly and offensive conduct towards the Member for the West Riding of the County of York;

I move that the hon. Member (Mr. F. O'Connor) be ordered to attend in his place.

would ask whether it was of any use to proceed in this way against a Gentleman who, it sufficiently appeared, was labouring under an affliction of a very severe nature? The House had better refer the case to two medical men.

We all witnessed the conduct of the hon. Member for Nottingham last night, and I think we cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that the hon. Member is master of his own actions, sufficiently so at least to warrant the House in interfering to restrain him. One of the grossest indignities that I ever witnessed was committed last night upon an hon. Member for whom we all entertain the highest respect, and it behaves the House to prevent a repetition of such conduct. If I thought that the hon. Member was not a free agent, and that he had not command of himself, as I have no doubt from what passed last night that he has, I should not consent to the hon. Gentleman being required to attend in his place, the consequence of which we are all aware of; but inasmuch as I am perfectly satisfied that the hon. Member is able to understand what gentlemanly and forbearing conduct in this House is, as on being called to account last night he instantly made an apology for his misconduct, I think it would not be consistent with the dignity of this House if it passes over what has occurred, and allows the hon. Member to retire without that observation being taken of his conduct as may prevent a repetition of such proceedings, and may enable the business of the House to be proceeded with in a proper manner.

I think, Sir, I was partly responsible for the proceedings of the hon. Member. I was sitting here (on the front Opposition bench), and after conversing with the hon. Member, who talked an extraordinary quantity of nonsense, he gave me a blow in my side. I said to him, "If you repeat this you will get yourself into a scrape, and will get yourself shut up;" upon which he laughed and turned round to the hon. Member on his right (Mr. B. Denison), and struck him in the face. It is a painful and difficult question—whether, if a man would do such an act after the warning he had just received, he can be a free agent. I should say that he is not. To call upon the hon. Member to make another apology after what took place last night, really appears to me to be a waste of time. 'Then again, supposing the hon. Member should say that he will not appear in his place in obedience to our summons, what are we to do in that case? I am of opinion that it is necessary for the House to take decisive measures at once, not only for our own sakes, but also for that of the hon. Member himself.

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the hon. Member who has just addressed the House in thinking that it would be a perfect farce to request the presence of the hon. Member for Nottingham, and inform him that he must make an appology. The apology would be made, and before quitting the spot where it was made, the hon. Member would be certain to commit another outrage. This being the case, it would be mere trifling to order him to appear in his place. Then comes the question, what course ought we, under these circumstances, to pursue? I will venture humbly to suggest it. We all of us, or, at least, many of us, witnessed the insult which the hon. Member for Nothingham offered to another hon. Member of this House, by putting his fist in his face. To commit such an act in this assembly is a grave contempt, and it is competent to us to commit the perpetrator of it to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. Whether the power of commitment will cease to have effect at the end of the Session, is a matter with which, perhaps, we need not embarrass ourselves at the present moment. It appears to me that by adopting this course we should vindicate the dignity of the House, and for the remainder of the Session remove the hon. Member from these walls, within which he is so constantly obstructing business. If, therefore, I should be in order in doing so, I would move that Mr. Feargus O'Connor be committed for contempt to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms.

It is perfectly competent to the House to take the course suggested by the hon. Member for Whitehaven. It is usual, when a charge of misconduct is made against an hon. Member, to hear any explanation which that Member may offer. On that account I suggested that the hon. Member for Nottingham should be ordered to attend in his place; but if the House should be of opinion that the offence which the hon. Member has committed is flagrant and culpable, and admitting of no apology, it will be competent first, without directing him to attend in his place, to order him to be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms.

I rise Sir, to suggest a middle course, which, I understand, has been adopted in some cases, namely, to sequester the hon. Member from his seat in Parliament. By adopting this course we should enable the hon. Member's friends to take charge of him, and prevent his doing mischief, while, at the same time, it would be a less severe measure than that suggested by the hon. Member for Whitehaven.

Sir, I have closely observed the Conduct of the unfortunate Gentleman who is the subject of discussion, and I entirely disagree from the hon. and learned Attorney General in the conclusion at which he has arrived respecting him. I Can be no party to any proceeding which would treat the hon. Member for Nottingham as a free agent, in the ordinary sense of the words. I am free to admit, that when you, Sir, last night called on the hon. Member to Make an apology for his conduct, he immediately did so; but we see that the apology has been followed by a repetition of the offencce. If art order for the hon. Member's commitment would have the effect of placing him under the care of medical attendants and the protection of his friends, I would not hesitate to assent to it; but; if otherwise, it would be abhorrent from my feelings, believing as I do that the hon. Member labours Under an aberration of intellect, to consent to his being committed for Contempt. I think that while providing for Our own protection and the maintenance of the dignity of the House, we should Use Our power with due regard to humanity.

Sir, it is impossible to determine accurately what is the state of the hon. Member's mind; but, having noticed him for some time, I am clearly of Opinion that he knows enough of the Consequences of his actions to be answerable for what he does. But, be the hon. Member's mind in the state in which the hon. Member who Spoke last supposes it to be; will any one tell me that if a man in that state of mind Were to act in a Court of Justice as the hon. Member for Nottingham acts here; the Judge presiding over the Court would hot immediately take measures for preventing the Court from being outraged? He would do so to maintain the dignity of the Court, for the protection of suitors; and for the protection of the individual Himself. This is the way in which I feel We ought to act. It is consistent with justice to put by a man who, in the opinion of some, is unable to take care of himself; and, at all events, we are bound to take care of ourselves. It is my opinion that the hon. Member for Nottingham is in a state of mind in which he might do much mischief. From what I have seen of the hon. Mem- ber's conduct towards the Chair, I feel that we are bound to protect you, Sir, against his eccentricity, whimsicality, and outrage.

I think, Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last Observation is an answer to his first. If he thinks that you; Sir, or any other Member of this House, is in danger from the hon. Member for Nottingham, he Surely cannot believe the hon. Member to be in a state which would render him responsible for his acts. If a person in a state of mind resembling that of the hon. Member for Nottingham should be unfortunate enough to commit a crime, not a jury in the metropolis would hesitate to acquit him on the ground of insanity. The hon. Member has acted in a Court of Justice as he has acted in this House; but the result which the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks inevitable did not follow. It was stated in the newspapers recently that the hon. Member visited the Law Courts one after another, exhibiting in each marks of eccentricity. No one wishes to prevent proper charge being taken of the hon. Member; but I would have this done in a way which would not reflect on the common Sense and humanity of the House.

I am sure Sir, the House will in this Case, as in every other, act humanely as well as justly I have throughout this Session witnessed the hon. Member for Nottingham conduct himself so disrespectfully towards the Chair, and so disorderly towards the House; that in my opinion the time has come when we are bound to take notice of the matter. It must be observed that, from the circumstance of the hon. Member's having been allowed during the Session to sit and Vote in this House, we have hitherto been justified in treating him as a person who knows what he is about. Under these circumstances I think it my duty, without further debate, to move that Mr. Feargus O'Connor be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, for disorderly conduct and contempt of this House.

I have no hesitation in saying that I feel it my painful duty to second the Motion, I this day witnessed the conduct of the hon. Member for Nottingham towards my hon. Friend the hen. Member for the West Riding (Mr. B. Denison), and previously I witnessed his conduct In the lobby to a right hon. Friend of mine, hot how present; and his conduct on both those occasions, added to what we have all observed during the Session, has left no doubt on my own mind that the hon. Member ought not to be deemed master of his own actions. For the safety of the hon. Member himself, as well as for our own, and from regard to the propriety of our proceedings, I feel that we have no other course open to us than that of adopting the Motion, which I now second.

said, as the principal difficulty would be the paucity of polling booths at the ensuing election, he would give notice of a clause that the sheriff shall on the requisition of the Court of Quarter Sessions increase the number of polling booths.

then moved a clause to enable the high sheriff to make such provisions in the polling booths that not more than 300 electors shall be polled at the same compartment, instead of 450, as is the rule at present.

thought there should be an increase of polling districts rather than of polling booths, so that the voters would have to travel shorter distances to give their vote's.

said, no one disputed the desirability of increasing the polling districts, but that did not touch the question. He objected to the clause proposed, because it would increase the polling booths unnecessarily.

said he had no objection to make it an enabling instead of a compulsory Clause; but if the opinion of the Committee was against the clause, he would not press it.

said, before the Committee took any step to increase pensions, they should have some good reason. He would beg to move to add the following words:—

"Provided that such Judge, at the time of such resignation, shall have served the office of Judge for a period of not less than fifteen years."

They were by this clause about to empower the Lord Chancellor to grant pensions, not exceeding two-thirds of the salary, to any of the Judges, without any restriction. The Act giving power to grant pensions to the Judges of the Superior Courts provided that no such pensions should be allowed unless such Judges had served fifteen years, or are afflicted with some infirmity rendering them incapable of fulfilling their office. He did not see why this principle should be departed from in the case of County Court Judges.

said, the object of the retiring pension was to induce the retirement of Judges who, from age and other causes, should be incompetent. If the hon. Gentleman had moved that the pension should be given only in cases of infirmity, or having served fifteen years, he should not have objected to it.

said, they had already provided for bodily infirmity, and what be wanted to do was to prevent pensions being granted to Judges who have not served for fifteen years.

said, this Amendment would prevent pensions being granted even in cases of permanent infirmity rendering the Judge unfit to fulfil his office.