asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the mails for Tipperary, Clonmel, and Water-ford, which leave Dublin at 9 a.m., and which include the English mails, are delayed at Limerick Junction for the space of half an hour; whether he will inquire if there is any sufficient reason for such delay; and, whether some such acceleration might not be adopted in favour of these towns, as was recently adopted in the case of Limerick?

Sir, the Post-master General has placed himself in communication with the railway company with the view of ascertaining whether the delay at Limerick Junction to which the hon. Member refers can be got rid of without inconvenience to the passenger traffic. The Post Office has, I am told, no power to alter the hours without the consent of the Company.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the Petition addressed to Her Majesty and referred to him, as also affidavits and other documents and correspondence relating to the Tichborne Trial which he has considered it expedient should not be printed, Whether he will afford facilities for the inspection of the same by Members of this House who may be desirous of becoming further informed as to such Petition, documents, and correspondence?

Sir, in answer I have only to say that, putting out of the question, of course, the hon. Member himself, who knows all about it, and probably a great deal more, I have not heard even a rumour that there are any Members of this House who are desirous of becoming further informed as to the "Petition, documents, and correspondence" relating to the Tichborne Case, and therefore it is not my intention to swerve from the rule which I have hitherto observed, not to make the smallest difference in this case from any other which comes before me.

asked for an explanation of the words that he "knew all about it and a great deal more." ["Order, order!"]

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will consent to put down amongst the Orders of the Day, that of Ways and Means, so as to enable him (Mr. New-degate) to proceed with his Bill?

, in reply, said, that he saw no present necessity for taking that course; and he was not then prepared to say when it was likely he should do so.

said, with regard to Orders on the Paper for that evening, that he proposed to postpone the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, which had to be considered, as amended, till Monday, when it would be proceeded with, together with the Friendly Societies Bill if possible; and to take the Committees on the Savings Banks Bill, National Debt (Sinking Fund) Bill, and Local Authorities Loans Bill on Thursday next, although at present he could not be quite sure whether it would be possible to proceed with them on that day.

, in rising to move—

"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the circumstances of the distribution and application of the property of the late Church of Ireland, particularly as regarded commutations and compositions, whether under proceedings of the Church Temporalities Commissioners, or of the representative body of the Irish Church."

"Curates Wanted.—Wanted immediately two or three curates in full, or deacon's orders. Annuities almost certain. Apply, by letter, Wednesday, 28th December, 1870, or Thursday, 29th December, 1870, to R. H., Box 259, Post Office, Belfast; or by telegraph to George Hughes, Donegall Place, Belfast;"

"To this sum may be added £28,278 9s. 2d. duo to eases in which certain clergymen devoted their compositions to parochial endowments."

"Fair and liberal terms of compounding with a view to a reduction in the number of the clergy!"

"Peccat et hæe peccat: vitio tamen utitur: at vos

Dicite pontifices in sancto quid facit aurum!"

, in seconding the Motion, said, he did not belong to the Irish Church. He thought nine-tenths of the discrepancy which existed between the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich and the figures which had just been laid before the House were attributable to the Act of Parliament itself, which placed £16,000,000 to be administered by the hands of three Commissioners; and that, when one of them died, the remaining two were left to deal with that immense interest without any appeal from their decisions, and without any direct responsibility. Indeed, he only wondered that, under the circumstances of the case, there was so little to complain of, knowing what they did of human nature, especially Church human nature, and seeing that the proceedings in question had been carried on for years all in the dark. It was but to be expected that many of the clergy who were poor should try to get as much of the money as they could, and he was surprised that even so much of it was left to be applied to national purposes in Ireland. He thought, however, it would be hardly fair that the House should suppose that the clergy had put the entire amount mentioned by his hon. Friend into their pockets, although he was afraid the interests of the Church had not been taken into account by them as they ought to have been, for it appeared that over 700 of them, having received their composition, left the country and came over to England. It would be for the interest of the Church itself that some light should be thrown upon what had been done, for a considerable sum of money must, of course, have been kept by the Church Body, and when the subject came to be investigated, he believed the case would be found not to be near so bad as the speech of his hon. Friend would lead the House to imagine. He did not think that the Commissioners—one an eminent Judge, and the other a noble Lord of good business habits—had acted outside the law. He hoped that the Government would grant a Commission, for he looked with great interest at the surplus from this property; but he now feared it would be very small, and that there would not be enough to lighten taxation. If, however, there should be a surplus, he would suggest, by way of addition to the Motion, that the Commission, if appointed, should be directed to inquire into the possibility of providing glebes with the money for the Roman Catholic parish priests and Presbyterian ministers in Ireland, who had great difficulty, especially in the poorer districts, in obtaining suitable residences. That was an object to which the surplus funds might, in his opinion, be most legitimately devoted. Some of it might also be usefully applied in providing a University for Ireland; for they were both, in his opinion, great and important questions which required settling. In a country like Ireland, where there was so much poverty, no application of the money would be more suitable or acceptable. He hoped the suggestion would be acted upon.

said, he felt the responsibility of taking so early a part in this debate, but as a member of the Representative Body of the Irish Church who had taken part in all their financial operations, he hoped the House would extend to him their indulgence while he made some answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins). At the same time, he must say he would not so willingly have undertaken the task had he been aware of the line he was about to take; for the greater part of his speech should certainly have been answered by hon. or right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the front Opposition Bench. The first part of the speech consisted chiefly of an attack on the Irish Church Act; but it was followed up by an attack on the Commissioners who were appointed to carry it out, and on the Representative Body. He was not in a position to speak for the Commissioners. He would only say this, that the characters of Lord Monck and Mr. Justice Lawson stood too high to allow anyone to suppose that they had erred designedly, and their abilities were too well known to permit anyone to believe that they erred through incapacity. As a member of the Representative Body, he might say he had on certain occasions taken part in deputations to the Commissioners, when he might have found them rather difficult to persuade; but certainly, in all cases, very strict and vigilant guardians of the interests they were appointed to protect. With respect to the charges against the Representative Body, he should have no difficulty in showing that they had no foundation whatever. He was, however, of opinion that the Church of Ireland had great reasons to be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing these charges before the House in a definite shape, inasmuch as the present discussion would have the effect of removing an impression which doubtless prevailed in England to some extent that the clergy of the Disestablished Church had not in all cases acted as they ought to have done, and that they had done things, aided and abetted by the Representative Body of the Church, which would not stand the test of inquiry. To a great extent that state of feeling was owing to letters which had appeared in leading newspapers, some of them written by a gentleman who had been already mentioned by name in this debate, and to which unusual prominence had been given; but the replies were either not inserted or did not receive the same prominence, and thus many saw the charges who did not see the replies. He was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman had committed himself to charges which would be clearly shown to be unfounded, and which had been made in total ignorance of the nature of the transactions. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion (Mr. W. Shaw) had anticipated a good deal of what he (Mr. Mulholland) had intended to say with reference to the nature of commutation, and had, in fact, answered a great part of the speech of the hon. Mover. Commutation had been much misunderstood. There were even clergymen of the English Church who, to that hour, imagined that there was something discreditable in the act of commutation; whereas commutation was a direct advantage to the Church. In what position did the Representative Body find themselves when they entered on the duties of their office? They found themselves confronted by the heavy task to reorganize the Irish Church—to re-construct it as an organized body. They found the only way in which the Church could be preserved from falling into a sort of chaos was to take the average value of the lives of annuitant clergymen, and that an average contribution should be paid by all the parishes in the country. They would have preferred one central fund to which all contributions would be given, and from which all stipends would be paid, but it became clear that it would be impossible to provide a fund in that way which would be sufficient to meet the requirements. The consequence was, that the country was divided into its different dioceses, and each diocese was allowed to form a financial plan of its own, based on the principle of life insurance, taking into account the wants and necessities of the diocese. In the accomplishment of this object commutation was a great assistance. The consent of the clergy was, of course, required for commutation, and they were asked to exchange, as it were, Government annuities for annuities of what might be called a financial association dealing with £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 of capital. They knew if errors were made, total ruin to themselves would be the result. One inducement offered to the annuitants was, that they should have the right to receive a portion of the capital sum in lieu of the annuity. The clergy laid considerable stress on that. It gave them a large amount of freedom, and enabled them, if they preferred it, to leave the Church. On the other hand, the Representative Body believed the result of composition would not be injurious to the Church. Was it not right in dealing with a subject of so much magnitude to proceed upon a general rule? Retirement, pensions in the Army and the Civil Service, all proceeded on general rules. The amount received as commutation up to the present time was £7,557,000, which was charged with life annuities amounting to £590,000. The hon. Member had spoken of that as a re-endowment of the Church; but the members of the Church of Ireland could not too early and too earnestly protest against any such phrase being applied to it. The fact was that Parliament did not give one single 6d. to the re-endowment of the Church. It gave precisely the life interest of the clergy, except that as the value of clerical life was supposed to be greater than had been calculated in those life tables, for that and expenses of management 12 per cent was added to the original amount, and if it had not been added the Representative Body would most decidedly not have undertaken their task. The amount of composition paid up to the present time was £1,169,000, which had extinguished annuities to the extent of £172,000. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of this money as if it had been squandered—a most absurd word when it was considered that annuities had been bought up to a more than equivalent extent. The hon. Gentleman had also spoken of the dissatisfaction which existed in Ireland with the Representative Body. But that body was elected by the Church every two or three years; several vacancies had already occurred, and in almost every instance the retiring members had been re-elected. And at the last general Synod last month, a resolution was passed unanimously expressing complete satisfaction with the proceedings of the Representative Body, and entire confidence in the general affairs of the Church. And that Synod was composed of members freely chosen from every part of Ireland. The figures which the hon. Member had quoted with respect to the newly-appointed clergymen were singularly inaccurate. The interregnum between the passing of the Church Act and the 1st of January, 1871, was understood to be a probationary period, during which the clergy and curates might acquire annuities. The number appointed was 201, which was, no doubt, above the average; but it was understood during the passing of the Act that some consideration would be shown to young men who were preparing to enter the Church. He wished to point out a fallacy in the speech of the hon. Member, when he spoke of the life service of the clergy being a gain to the Church. The composition of annuities during the lives of the clergy was not necessarily a gain to the Church as an organized body, though it might be a gain if, in the meantime, individuals came forward with contributions and accumulated them for endowment. The Representative Body found, for many reasons, that it was desirable that a general system of contributions should be established throughout Ireland, and the arrangement with respect to compositions had materially assisted them. Diocesan contributions had come in to a greater amount than could have been expected, and there was now £1,400,000 in the hands of the Representative Body, the accumulated contributions of the last four years. That was a large capital sum, but it represented only £56,000 a-year. A more important point was that under the system of diocesan contributions for the purpose of providing stipends for the clergy, the Representative Body got last year £137,000, notwithstanding the fact that the acquisition of glebes put an unusual strain upon the Church. That £137,000, being allowed to accumulate during the lives of the existing clergy, would produce the very substantial nucleus of a fund which would probably amount to £3,000,000. Now, how would those £3,000,000 be acquired? Not by a re-endowment of the Church by Parliament; but the contributions of which he had spoken, being allowed to accumulate at compound interest, would at a certain period reach that amount. As to the charges made against the clergy, if the rules framed by the Representative Body were for the benefit of the Church, the clergy were not to be blamed for accepting them. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the special terms which had been granted in certain cases. The reason was this—A legal doubt arose whether curates whose rectors had died, or who had been dismissed by their rectors, could be compelled to take other duty, and additional terms were offered to those in the tables with a view to overcome this difficulty. He hoped he had now succeeded in vindicating the conduct of the clergy and the Commissioners from the imputations cast upon them by the hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, he felt sure that every fair and generous mind would sympathize with them in the crushing blow that had fallen upon the Church, and would rejoice if he had been able to show that the clergy and laity had not given way to despair, had not neglected their duty, but were heartily combining in an honest and single-minded endeavour to rebuild her walls.

said, that after the full and able defence which had just been made, little need be added in rebutting the charges of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jenkins). It had been stated that the annuities granted were much greater than they were expected to be, but that arose from the fact, that the Irish clergy derived a large portion of their incomes from glebe lands; for these lands had probably been valued originally upon the Ordnance valuation, and in calculating the annuities, however, they were valued at much above the Ordnance valuation, and the Church had to buy them back at 21 years' purchase. This was the explanation of the great difference between the annuities as calculated and the annuities as given. It was reckoned a manly English trait not to kick a man when he was down, but the hon. Member had certainly not acted upon that maxim.

said, that although the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jenkins) in making the Motion before the House was pleased to say that he was simply fulfilling the duty of a Christian man, and was regarding this as involving a pure question of finance, yet the hon. Gentleman had used, in the course of his speech, a bouquet of epithets such as the following:—that the Commissioners had been guilty of prodigality, if not corruption, and had squandered £2,000,000 in ecclesiastical conspiracy and immoral greed. These were words used by a Christian man in the British House of Commons. For his own part he could not think language like that was dictated by Christian charity. No case had been made out by the hon. Gentleman for a Commission of Inquiry. The hon. Gentleman had brought forward many charges, but had proved none; and even if he had succeeded in making out his case, and a Commission were to report, no action could be taken upon their Report. The hon. Gentleman had not suggested any action that he would take in such an event. No charges graver than those preferred by the hon. Gentleman against Gentlemen filling responsible positions had been brought forward in that House within his experience—charges, too, of which no Notice had been given, for the terms of the Motion simply were that the hon. Gentleman would call attention to commutation and compounding, and not even a vivid Irish imagination could discover between the lines such charges as corruption, ecclesiastical conspiracy, and immoral greed. If the hon. Gentleman pressed his Motion, he thought the division would give a substantial answer to those charges. Who were the Church Temporality Commissioners? The ablest and best men that could have been found to discharge the delicate and important duties connected with the winding-up of the great Church of Ireland. They were Viscount Monck, a Nobleman who had administered the affairs of England with great honour to the country in Canada. Mr. Justice Lawson, formerly an Attorney General and now a trusted, able, and impartial Judge, and the late Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, than whom a more honoured Member had never sat in that House. Against these Gentlemen a charge was now brought of corruption.

said, he had not brought a charge of corruption, but said there had been mismanagement, if not corruption. ["Oh!"]

said, he failed to see the difference. What was the meaning of importing the word "corruption" into the debate, if the hon. Gentleman meant nothing by it? The hon. Gentleman must either have meant something or nothing. Surely, he would not desire the House to have such a poor opinion of his intellect as to wish them to believe he meant nothing. Let the House remember that every single circumstance which the hon. Gentleman had called into question had occurred while the late Mr. Hamilton was living and taking an active part in the work of the Commission. Although the Commissioners were empowered to deal absolutely with all questions of law and fact that might be brought before them, the hon. Gentleman now sought to constitute the House of Commons a Court of Appeal on such points as did not meet with his approval. The Commissioners awarded 6,251 annuities after the most careful and minute inquiry, heard 417 appeals—a fact which proved that they did not err on the side of extravagance—and refused no less than 1,127 claims, many of which at first sight seemed to be founded on the most grievous hardship, and which were represented before them by counsel; and yet they were to be brought before the House of Commons and accused of something which the hon. Gentleman would not call corruption. It was also to be remembered that, in calculating the amounts to be paid in cases of commutation, they adopted the tables of the National Debt Commissioners, the work of the eminent actuary, Mr. Finlaison, and had made their calculations from them, and so unsatisfactory did the Irish clergy consider them at first that it was at one time thought that very few would commute at all and that the scheme would in consequence be a complete failure. Notwithstanding, the Commissioners were now charged with neglecting their duty, and with prodigality. They had proceeded, not according to some fancy standard of their own, set up by sentiment, but upon the tables most in repute in England, and arranged by a gentleman supposed to have more experience than anybody else. So much for the extravagance of the Commissioners in that respect. But the hon. Gentleman went beyond the terms of his Motion, and, without giving the House the slightest Notice of his intention, charged the Commissioners with having given too large a sum for Church requisites and repairs. No opportunity had been afforded to hon. Members for replying to his charges under that head, but as regarded Church requisites there were plain facts which could be stated at once. The Irish Church Act was passed in July, 1869. In the October following, one entire year fell due, and thus by the 1st of January, 1870, when the Church became disestablished, two years and three months charges had to be paid in a lump. Was the hon. Gentleman's accusation, then, a reasonable one? To the second head of this miserable and unworthy charge an answer was to be found in the Act of Parliament itself. The hon. Gentleman said sums had been voted by the Church Temporalities Commissioners in excess of those usually spent by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But the Act imposed upon the former the duty of ascertaining and finding out what were the accumulated promises of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and instead of spreading the performance of those promises over a great length of time, they fulfilled them within a period of two years. The undertaking cast upon the Commissioners was a great and arduous one, requiring broad intelligence, great acute-ness, and rigid conscientiousness, and he ventured to think that they were fairly entitled to expect a little more generosity of treatment and a little more Christian consideration than they had received. The duty of the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners being in the first place, to ascertain the compensation and then to assess the commutation, all the Representative Body had to do was to receive the amount which the Commissioners fixed, and to dispose of it as they could for the advantage of the Church whose Representatives they were. It was suggested by the hon. Gentleman that this Body had done something with the Church property that was not right and proper; but Parliament was not in the habit of inquiring into what people did with their private property. If there was any injustice in the matter, the Courts of Law and Equity were open to any complaint, and the very fact of the hon. Gentleman opposite bringing this subject before the House was in itself an admission that nothing illegal had been done, and that there was no complaint which any Court of Equity would listen to. What was the hon. Gentleman's justification for bringing this question before the House? There had not been presented a single Petition from any member of the Irish Church, nor any suggestion of any grievance or injustice whatsoever. An hon. Member representing a Scotch constituency, and not even representing the Church himself, came forward with no other justification than that his duty as a Christian man compelled him to do so, in order to show that a whole lot of his brother Christians had behaved in a most improper way—that they had been guilty, not of corruption, but of an ecclesiastical conspiracy, and—noble Christian words to add!—immoral greed. The Irish Church Representative Body was composed of persons of the highest character and consideration in the country, who had without fee or reward given their time, experience, and money to the performance of the duties they had taken upon themselves, but it was these gentlemen whom the hon. Member for Dundee charged with having acted in the manner referred to. The Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Bodies received compensation under the provisions of the Irish Church Act; but what would be said, if Parliament was called upon to inquire as to the mode in which they had dealt with the funds awarded to them? To have such inquiries proposed Session after Session would not say much for the freedom secured to the Church by disestablishment. With regard to commutation, that was justifiable on several grounds. Without it there would have been in Ireland a series of congregations and no central power for the distribution of the fund; and it was a desirable thing for other reasons, as would be seen from the pamphlets which had been written upon the subject. Then it was suggested that, commutation having taken place, there was something wrong in compounding. But commutation merely made the Representative Church Body into a kind of great annuity society, and to diminish the risks with which it was attended compounding was introduced. Moreover, everything that had been done in relation to compounding was done in express pursuance of the 23rd section of the Irish Church Act. Surely, then it was unreasonable to say that the Irish clergy in following the express terms of that permission had done something which exposed them to the greatest possible censure. Compounding enabled a reduction of the clergy to be made from 2,000 to 1,460; it rendered possible a re-arrangement and re-distribution of parishes and an adjustment of boundaries. Anyone would imagine from the speech of the hon. Member that the clergy were better off than before, but the fact was, that the average income of incumbents was between £200 and £300. The best paid rectors had an income of about £300. Commutation and compounding had worked admirably. For 26 per cent of capital the Representative Church Body had got rid of 41 per cent of annuities. That fact spoke volumes for the admirable results of those processes for the Church taken as a whole. The greatest care was taken with reference to every application to commute or compound. Special terms were demanded in a not considerable number of cases by the exigency of the case, and for the welfare of the Church. The hon. Gentleman made some allusion to the poor fishermen who commenced the ministration of Christianity. Did he mean that the clergy should beg from door to door because they were entrusted with a sacred mission? It would be very poor charity to ask men to preach a mission about our everlasting salvation without making any provision by which these men should be properly housed, and properly clothed, and for the decent sustenance of themselves and their families. It was said that there had been a "wholesale migration of Irish clergy to England." That was not true. 736 Irish clergymen compounded; 405 of them were still working in the Irish Church; 154 were dead or had retired, and 136 only had gone to England or the Colonies. Had a single case come under the notice of anyone in London of misconduct in the slightest degree on the part of any of the Irish clergymen who officiated in London? It was admitted that they were men of piety and learning, and were devoted to their sacred calling. It was said that between the announcement of Disestablishment and the carrying out of the Disestablishment Act, the Irish Bishops ordained 700 curates, and the hon. Member talked about the Bishops not having used sufficient care in laying their hands upon the heads of those whom they were ordaining to the sacred office. [Mr. EDWARD JENKINS: I said "hurriedly."] It did not matter what was said, for it came to exactly the same thing, if the hon. Gentleman meant that the Bishops did not take sufficient care that they laid their hands on the right head. He denied that there was any ground for saying that ordinations had been conducted without due consideration. It appeared that the actual number ordained was 201, and in no case was a man improperly passed. If any persons had been hurriedly or unbecomingly ordained during the last four years, there must remain some trace of the circumstance; but he ventured to assert that such a case had never been even suggested in any diocese in Ireland. All the gentlemen, he believed, who were admitted into the ranks of the clergy during that period had shown by their subsequent lives that they were properly ordained. The hon. Member for Dundee made a suggestion that some incomes which were £500 before disestablishment suddenly jumped up to £900. On this he would remark that it was the duty of the Church Temporalities Commissioners, if they found a man was entitled to, say, £150 for a benefice and £50 for a curacy, to make two awards to him. This would account for the increase in some cases. As the diocese of Down and Connor had: been specially referred to, he might mention that included the large city of Belfast where there were numerous chapels of ease, the clergy of which were compensated by the Commissioners, who determined that they possessed the status of permanent curates; and surely this was most reasonable, inasmuch as each chapel of ease fulfilled the functions of a church in the parish wherein it was situated. It would be preposterous to suppose the decision of the Commissioners could be overruled on account of what Lord Carlingford said when he sat in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman had referred to a sum of £28,000, which was mentioned at the end of one report. Well, it only meant that certain clergyman gave up to that extent to the Church everything which had been awarded to them. The hon. Gentleman asked for a Commission, but what would he do with it? He had not shadowed out a single thing that was to be done. If it were to inquire into the conduct of public servants who were clothed with judicial functions, that would be tantamount to a censure. On the other hand, was a Royal Commission ever appointed to inquire into the doings of a private company in respect to private property? He thought that the more the question was looked at, the more it would be found that the hon. Gentleman was asking something which ought not to be granted. The hon. Gentleman had no clients within the ranks of the Irish Church, and only last week the General Synod assembled at Dublin, in which the laity outnumbered the clergy two to one, passed a unanimous vote of confidence in the Body which managed their affairs. That was the opinion of the accredited organ of thought within the ranks of the Church, both clerical and lay, and could it be fairly said that the hon. Gentleman knew what was good for the Church and what should be done for it, better than those whose business it was to look after the Church and its affairs? He was glad that the Motion had at last been brought forward, and he trusted that the House, after fairly considering the question, would arrive at the conclusion that no case had been made out for the appointment of a Royal Commission, but that they would say that those to whom the responsibility of discharging those duties had been entrusted had done so with wisdom, integrity, and forethought, and that the clergy of the Irish Church had conducted themselves in this most trying and important crisis in a manner not unworthy of their sacred calling and not unbecoming their solemn duties.

said, that, with regard to the question of commutation on the part of the curates, it was only fair to remember that a number of young men were qualifying themselves to serve as curates at the time when the Irish Church Act suddenly passed, and a short period was allowed to enable them to become ordained and so be entitled to compensation. Under such circumstances, 201 could not by any means be considered a large number for the year and a half that intervened before the 1st January, 1871. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) asked for a Royal Commission to inquire into the commutations that had occurred. The number had been considerable, because commutations had been designedly encouraged by Parliament giving a bonus for the purpose, the object being to wind up the business within a limited time. The hon. Member impeached the management of the funds by the Commissioners, and accused them of prodigality and carelessness, if not of corruption. It had been said that their proceedings were of a hole-and-corner description, and that nobody knew what had been done. If anybody was in the dark it was, however, his own fault. By the 37th section of the Act, the Commissioners were bound either annually or at shorter intervals to forward to the Auditor General accounts of every penny of their receipt and expenditure, with the vouchers, and these accounts had been annually laid before Parliament, and printed for the use of hon. Members. Had any one heard before of a case in which, when a Commission had been constituted by Parliament, another Commission had been afterwards appointed to see whether the first Commissioners were doing their duty? If that were done, why should there not be a third Commission to look after the second, and so on indefinitely? He had some curiosity to know in whose interest the hon. Member had moved in this matter. It was certainly not in the interest of the Irish Church or its members. Was it in the interest of the general public? Was it for the purpose of impeaching the propriety or integrity of the Commissioners? The hon. Member disavowed that, but he distinctly asserted that they had been guilty of carelessness. He (Mr. Law), however, thought that when the nature of the work which the Commissioners had had to do was taken into account they could not be accused of inattention to the interests of the public. They had to ascertain the exact equivalent of every clergyman's rent-charges and other interests; and this it would be found they had accomplished with great success and in a very short time. It must be recollected that there was a long contest in that House on the compensation of curates under the 15th section, the result of which was that they secured much better terms than it was originally intended to give them. It was the same with the glebes and glebe houses, with the Capitular Bodies, and also with reference to the sum appropriated in lieu of private endowments. Was it fair to base a charge of culpable negligence against the Commissioners upon the fact that the Prime Minister, in March, 1869, when introducing the Irish Church Bill, gave an estimate of liabilities that was eventually found to fall short of the amount needed by between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000? Did the hon. Gentleman forget the various concessions that had been made in order to ensure the passing of the Bill through Parliament? In a question involving so large a sum as £16,000,000 or £17,000,000, it was impossible that a very exact estimate could be made beforehand, and it could not be denied that an excess of expenditure over estimate had been caused by the changes made in the Bill as the price of its passing through this and the other House. As to the charge that had been made against Mr. Ball, the hon. Member, who had read through these Reports and the accounts of the Commissioners, must have known, and it was desirable the House should know, that Mr. Ball was for many years solicitor to the late Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the new Church Commissioners thought it desirable to let him continue to be employed as solicitor for the tenants also; cutting down his scale of fees, however, so as to tempt people to buy without the necessity of employing a solicitor of their own. That was done, and done, too, with the sanction of the Treasury as well as of the Commissioners; and, in fact, when Mr. Ball was employed by a tenant the only charge made was for the actual expense and labour of the transaction; the solicitor's work was done for next to nothing. So far, indeed, from there being anything wrong in the action of the Commissioners in this respect, their object had been to render the property more easily disposable. With regard to the individual case mentioned, it appeared there was some prohibition of sub-letting, but was it for the House to inquire into a matter of that kind? What was the object of the proposed Commission? Did the hon. Member think that upon the accounts of the Commissioners he could found any charge against those Gentlemen? If so, there were the accounts on the Table of the House, and let him proceed to specify his charges. The accounts of the Commissioners had already been scrutinized with considerable sharpness by the Auditor General, between whom and them there had been some unpleasantness. His scrutiny had shown that nothing had been passed over that could possibly be objected to. There was, for example, an error of 7d. in some Order, and they were called upon to recover the capitalized value of this sum, which would probably have caused an expense of £20. Not that the Auditor General had exceeded his duty; but his duty had certainly been most effectually done, and with no possible leaning towards the Commissioners. No doubt, as he had said, the ultimate liability of the Commissioners exceeded by £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 the estimate made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich when he first introduced his Bill, before opposition was bought off by concessions, everyone of which meant the addition of a large sum to the estimate of liabilities. Besides, in comparing the compensation paid to the clergy with the tables set forth in the Report of 1869, it should be borne in mind that it was the interest of the clergy in 1867–8 to make their incomes as low as possible, and thus when the claims came to be paid off, it was found that there were more than had been calculated. There was he (Mr. Law) submitted no ground for issuing another Commission, with the object of founding some charge against the Commissioners, who had performed their very onerous and trouble-some duties with most entire uprightness and integrity, and with very great ability.

, in supporting the Motion, said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had discharged his task with great ability; but he could not help thinking it rather extraordinary that none of the right hon. Gentlemen who spoke last night so strongly from the front Opposition bench against the fractional deficit in Savings Bank interest which then occupied the attention of the House, had come forward to-night, when the deficit was even larger than the £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 admitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There appeared to be an actual deficiency of £4,300,000, as compared with the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. He (Captain Nolan), however, would rather deal with the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). He asked what right had the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) to deal with this question; and he (Captain Nolan) had been asked the same question. His answer was, that he had to pay tithes towards this fund. He believed that if the Commission were granted, this matter would turn out to be a great financial scandal. The Irish Church had been disestablished, but it had been only nominally disendowed. £400,000 had been given to Maynooth; but £12,000,000 had been given to the Irish Church for the life interests, and so on, so that for every shilling given to Maynooth there were 30s. given to the Irish Church; whilst of Catholics was a population of 3,500,000, and of Protestants only some 800,000. In reality, it amounted to this—that a Royal Commission would discover to what extent it was still endowed; and whatever it still retained of endowment was not private property, but was State property, about which it was perfectly right that inquiry should be made. If there had been but partial disendowment, the Roman Catholic Church might fairly come forward and ask for endowment. His stand-point was, that there was a large public fund, of the help of which Ireland stood very much in need. She wanted endowment for education—for her Universities and for intermediate education—and, then, if there were anything to spare, for the relief of the local rates. The people thought they were being defrauded if their funds were being given away to a disendowed Church, or in over-compensation to private individuals. It was said that a large number of curates were ordained in order to increase the claims for compensation, and a great many stories were told about clergymen being encouraged to set up claims they had previously no idea of, and about land being sold at an unfair price to Protestant landlords, for the sake of putting additional Protestants in the parish. The impression produced was, that the Commission had realized as little as possible, and dealt as liberally as possible with what they had realized. By refusing the inquiry they would be practically filching £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 from the people of Ireland. It had been asked why should the acts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners be dragged into the light of day by a Royal Commission, when they were really dealing only with the property of the Church, and not of the public. That was the very point at issue, and believing that the appointment of a Royal Commission would have 'a most beneficial effect, he would vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Dundee.

said, that the hon. Member who introduced the Motion might congratulate himself on having elicited a very full discussion, but could not congratulate himself on much more, seeing that his speech, in spite of its undoubted ability, was received with indifference if not dissatisfaction throughout the House. He could not understand why the hon. Gentleman should make himself the champion of this attack on the Disestablished Church of Ireland. He was aware that in this country a strong feeling existed in the minds of some against Established Churches; but he did not think until tonight that such a feeling would be found to follow an Established Church to the grave. He rejoiced, however, that with the exception of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, and the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last (Captain Nolan), not a single Member who had taken part in the debate had spoken in any spirit of antagonism to the Disestablished Church of Ireland. It was not his duty to defend the Act of Parliament which disestablished the Church, or the machinery by which that Disestablishment was effected. But as an official of the present Government, it was his duty to defend, in the execution of their office, those who were entrusted by Government with difficult and responsible duties, and it was because he believed there was not any foundation whatever for the wild language used by the Proposer of the Resolution in attacking the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland, that he asked the House not to consent to the issuing of a Royal Commission to inquire into their conduct. It was not his intention to follow the speech of the hon. Member in detail. The House had already heard the answer given by his hon. Friend the Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) in his clear, calm, and luminous statement, and also the reply of his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Gibson), as well as that of the Law Officer of the Crown of the last Irish Government (Mr. Law), who was thoroughly acquainted with the policy and intention of the Act and the manner in which it was to be carried into effect, and who had assured the House that there was no ground for the charges made by the hon. Member for Dundee, who must be admitted to have distinguished himself as an officious volunteer. It was not for him. (Mr. Plunket) to add anything to the praise bestowed upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. One of them, now no more, had been his friend, and there was no man in Ireland whose character for probity and for business capacity stood higher. Another was a noble Lord who had held high office at home and abroad, and the third was a learned Judge who occupied an eminent position on the Irish Bench and was respected by all parties. This learned Judge and this noble Lord were accused of lavishing the funds of the Irish Church on objects to which they ought not to be applied; and the object of a Royal Commission, if granted, would be to inquire into some mismanagement or misapplication of the funds. He did not gather from the hon. Member whether the charge was legal misinterpretation, or merely financial carelessness, or excessive liberality in the distribution of the money. But if the accusation was that the law had been wrongly administered, he could only say that the greatest care had been taken by those who had drawn the Act that no such thing might happen. Not only did they name a most able lawyer as one of the Commissioners, but they gave an appeal from their decision. No doubt the decisions of the Commissioners had been sometimes reversed on appeal; but, more frequently, in the way of increasing their award than in the opposite direction. As his hon. and learned Friend had said, they could not go on appointing one Royal Commission after another to inquire into those questions, and it would be perfectly antagonistic to the whole spirit of the Act to subject the legal decision of the Commissioners to review by a Royal Commission. Besides, it was the duty of the Auditor General to inquire into these accounts; and the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with the criticizms of the Auditor General, was year by year laid before this House and subjected to the scrutiny of the Committee on Public Accounts. In fact, their periodical Report was now under the scrutiny of that Committee, and the House was therefore asked to appoint a Commission to deal with a matter which was already under the consideration of the House. Another part of the attack of the hon. Member was directed against what he might call the domestic administration of the funds which had come into the hands of the Disestablished Church. But what the Church was doing at present was paying out of her own funds and out of the subscriptions of her members life incomes to the clergy to whom compensation was given under the Irish Church Act. He was sorry that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) should have spoken as if the Church was thus appropriating what did not belong to her but to the public.

explained that what he said was, that any sum given to the clergy above the value of their life interest was public property, but that the value of the life interest was private property.

said, it had been arranged by the greatest financiers of the day and upon the most accurate calculations, that the value of the life interest only should be given to the clergy, together with that 12 per cent which had been added by the unanimous consent of all parties to save the country from the expense of carrying out the arrangements. Nothing could be further from the truth than to suggest that money now being gathered from private resources by the Disestablished Church partook in any degree of the character of a public endowment. There was abroad in England a wide-spread notion that the Irish laity were dissatisfied with the conduct of the Irish clergy. Now, Mr. Bence Jones stood absolutely alone as an Irish Churchman in the opinion that there was any feeling of resentment or distrust between the laity and clergy of the Disestablished Church in Ireland. He (Mr. Plunket) had had ample opportunities of testing opinion among both clergy and laity, and though differences of opinion existed upon religious subjects, as must always happen in every healthy, vigorous Church, it was a mere delusion to suppose that any difference of interest was felt to exist or that there was any discontent whatever on the part of the laity towards the clergy. Speaking as a member of the Disestablished Church, there was nothing in the transactions referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee of which they need be in the least degree ashamed. All their affairs were discussed in open Synod, and were reported in the public papers. They concealed nothing, and had no desire to conceal anything; but he should resist the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into their domestic affairs. Many of the points mentioned by the hon. Member had been embraced in the Reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and would be thoroughly investigated and sifted by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. But no foundation had been laid by any of these charges for issuing of a Royal Commission, and no ground whatever existed for such an inquiry.

rose to call attention to the Correspondence which passed in 1873 and 1874 between a Special Committee of the Benchers of the Honourable Society of Kings Inns in Dublin and the late Lord Lieutenant and Lords Justices of Ireland on the subject of the removal from Henrietta Street, Dublin, of two Militia Depôts quartered there for recruiting purposes, and also to a Return ordered by this House to be printed on the 23rd day of March 1875, exhibiting the amount of Stamp Duty paid during each of the past seven years by Law Students in Ireland, and the amount of Stamp Duty for the same period paid on foot of the Indentures of Attorneys' Apprentices in Ireland; and to move—

"That the maintenance of the Militia Barracks as used and occupied in Henrietta Street, Dublin, in immediate contiguity with the Law Library, King's Inns, and other buildings in possession of the Honourable Society of King's Inns, the Law Chambers provided for the accommodation of members of the legal profession and law students, is injurious and prejudicial to the interests of private property, the peaceful enjoyment by the members of the legal profession of their law library and chambers, to the property of the Honourable Society of King's Inns, used for public purposes of the utmost consequence, the study of the law and the administration of justice, and should be discontinued."

supported the proposition. It was a very serious matter to the Benchers of King's Inns, whose property had become depreciated year by year, and who were put to great inconvenience in consequence of the existence of these depôts. He hoped, therefore, the Government would re-consider the matter, and take steps to have the depôts transferred.

said, that he found that his Predecessor in office had considered this question on the invitation of Lord O'Hagan, and yet, in spite of the pressure put upon him, Lord Cardwell did not think he was in a position to, and, indeed, distinctly declined to, interfere because he found these houses convenient for the Militia, and because he could not find sufficient space available elsewhere. The Benchers of King's Inns should, when they purchased the adjacent property, have secured themselves against any nuisance by buying these houses. That they did not do, and yet it was worthy of remark that this so-called nuisance had existed for 12 years before any complaint was made about it. The question was one which could hardly be advantageously discussed in Parliament. However, some documents had been sent over by the Lord Lieutenant to the War Office, and he would take care that the matter should be carefully inquired into.

expressed his satisfaction at receiving this assurance. From personal knowledge he assured the House that the barracks in Henrietta Street were complained of as great nuisances to the neighbourhood.

also hoped that the Government would consider the propriety of removing the barracks from Henrietta Street at an early date.

rose to call attention to recent speeches of the Lord Chief Justice at public banquets and elsewhere, imputing to those who take part in efforts for inquiry as to the Tichborne Trial that they are seeking for their own purposes to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether in refusing to comply with the Petitions for such inquiry, and especially as to Contempt of Court, he is acting with the approval or assent of the Lord Chief Justice? [An hon. MEMBER: Speak up!] It has often been my misfortune to offend against that unwritten law of Parliament. ["Oh, oh!"] For many years I have submitted to such unseemly interruptions. I am accustomed to the difficulty. I would suggest, however, that there is something in the position of a Member of this House—one of 25 years' standing—which should suggest to hon. Members that he ought not to be snubbed or treated with indignity by persons clothed "with a little brief authority." I think every Member of this House is entitled to respect, and those who do not concede that to others tacitly admit that they themselves are not entitled to it—not to say deserving of it. I assure the House that I shall not detain them by any elaborate argument to convert them to my opinion with respect to the Tichborne Case, nor of the conduct of the Lord Chief Justice in his conduct of that case. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer to my Question consistent with the courtesy due to Members of this House and his high authority. ["Question!"] [The hon. Member accordingly read the Notice, amid great confusion.] Well, to proceed, I am not about to dwell upon the speeches of the Lord Chief Justice in various parts of the country. As to whether they were good or bad, the House will form its own judgment and take its own course. In my opinion, the Lord Chief Justice has violated all precedent in the administration of the law, and done much to bring the law into contempt. ["No, no!"] The hon. Gentleman who has interrupted me will remember what the Secretary of State for the Home Department said when questioned upon the matter. He said he did not wish to be informed. Innumerable Petitions on the matter had been forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not wish to be informed. There was not a single Member of the House but myself who desired information on the subject. [Laughter, and "No!"] Then, why did not the hon. Member who says "No" vote for the inquiry? I do hope the hon. Member will take notice of the conduct of the Lord Chief Justice with respect to what is called "Contempt of Court." I challenge any hon. Member of the legal profession to say that the law in that respect, as administered by the Lord Chief Justice, was not a direct violation of the law, of precedent, and the Constitution. It was unprecedented in the legal history of this country. ["No, no!"] Let any hon. Gentleman of any weight in this House rise and say that the Lord Chief Justice should inflict fines and imprisonment under the circumstances which he did at the Tichborne Trial. The Chief Justice was not satisfied with inflicting fine and imprisonment on myself and others; no, he thought fit to go about the country to denounce us in language which almost equalled in virulence and intensity that which has been used by the hon. Member for Stoke. He said that all who were opposed to him were uneducated, infatuated vipers, and the scum of society. At the Needlemakers' dinner, because I and those who act with me, supported, as we are, by 500,000 of the people of this country, from an absolute and certain knowledge, believe in this Claimant's innocence, we are to be attacked in this manner. The right hon. Gentleman himself knows that he is innocent. ["Order, order!"]

I put it to you, Sir, and the House, if that is a proper expression to be used.

The hon. Gentleman is clearly out of Order, and I hope he will be more careful in his language.

I most unqualifiedly withdraw it; but let the right hon. Gentleman explain the real circumstances to the House why he refuses the information. The right hon. Gentleman had affidavits and correspondence in his possession to convince him that the man now in Dartmoor Prison is not guilty. I trust the House in its impatience will not sacrifice the rights and privileges of private Members. The Lord Chief Justice said at the dinner to which I have alluded that we have been exciting and getting up this agitation of the question in order to undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. But he goes further than that, for he says that we have been doing it for our own purposes. Now, I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the inquiry asked for by 200,000 or 300,000 people would not disprove that statement. When the Lord Chief Justice makes this statement imputing to me and others the greatest offence that can be committed, I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he communicated to him that he had documents in his possession which would prove his statement to be groundless, or whether he had consulted the other Judges by whom the case was tried? We have had correspondence from Australia and all parts of the world to show this man's innocence, and is the right hon. Gentleman justified in refusing an inquiry and insulting an hon. Member? ["Order, order, order!"]

again rose to Order.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of Order. I must call upon him to be more guarded in his language.

I will withdraw the words. The right hon. Gentleman said, on a former occasion, that I and those who acted with me in this matter knew all about the papers and correspondence sent to him, and more than that. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that I have been seeking to undermine the foundation of the administration of public justice? I do feel that he is called on to justify his statements. When the trial of this unfortunate man first commenced, I said I would go through the country and beg from door to door to enable him to defend himself. Well, I have done so; and my conduct has met with the approval of my constituents. The result of the course I have pursued is that I have been imprisoned, and that this unhappy man has not had a fair trial, inasmuch as from want of funds he has been unable to bring up 200 witnesses who would have given evidence on his behalf. ["Question!"] It is the Question, because you can only get the information from me, and how can you get it, unless you listen to what I have to say? I acted with the best of my ability, and as I may again have to defend myself before my constituents, and possibly throughout the country wherever my unhappy name is known, it is right I should give an explanation. I will go among them again, and indignantly deny that I have endeavoured to undermine the administration of justice for my own purposes. I wish to know whether the Lord Chief Justice had any personal claims on the confidence and respect of the House and the country to justify him in assailing me or any honest and honourable man who has signed those Petitions to the number of 500,000? I have no desire whatever to do an injustice to the Lord Chief Justice, whose talents and ability I fully acknowledge; but I want to know whether or not he is a consenting or approving party to the refusal to inquire into the exercise of the power to arrest and imprison for contempt of Court. That is the object of my Notice. It has been my object to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, and to vindicate it from the errors, or whatever they may call it, that have crept into it. ["Divide, divide!"] I am not disposed to sit down under that imputation. And in the event—["Divide, divide!"]—in the event—["Divide, divide!"]—in the event—["Divide, divide!"] Well, I do not know that it matters much, and, perhaps, I have said enough; but I was going to say that in the event of my having to address my constituents or some other body—and since the trial I have not attended any public meeting—I shall have to consider that charge of the Lord Chief Justice; and I wish to know whether I can excuse him publicly from what I shall consider a serious aggravation of his exercise of power, he having been an assenting or approving party to refuse inquiry into it.

said, he was not going to enter into any discussion upon this question. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had thought it his duty to bring this matter before the House again. He had, he believed, in the course of the present Session and the last answered more Questions of the hon. Gentleman than those of any other Member of the House whatever, and he put it to the House whether from the first day he held the office he had the honour to hold he had ever treated any hon. Member with discourtesy. That afternoon he did state what he believed to be true—namely, that, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman himself, there was no Member of the House who desired to obtain further information about this case. He gave the hon. Gentleman credit for knowing a great deal more about this case, because he had attended to it for so long a time, than was contained in any documents at the Home Office. As far as he (Mr. Cross) was personally concerned, he had acted on his own responsibility, and from beginning to end he had treated this case precisely as he had treated every other criminal case that had been submitted to him as Secretary for the Home Department. He had paid particular attention to it, as he had to other cases. He had read every document that had been presented to him on the subject, and without giving the names of those whom he might have consulted in this or any other case, he could say distinctly that it was solely on his own responsibility that he advised Her Majesty how to deal with it. He did not think he should be justified in occupying the time of the House any further.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I may save the House a good deal of trouble by assuring it that this Bill is, in fact, supplementary to one which it passed a short time ago by a majority of more than 200. It carries out the principle which was so emphatically affirmed not only in the votes, but also in the speeches made upon the St. Albans Bishopric Bill; and among the hon. Members on whom I shall call to support the principle of the Bill—if he has any consistency in him—is my hon. and learned Friend opposite the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). Now, the principle which the House has affirmed in the St. Albans Bishopric Bill is that, where the increase of the population manifestly shows that the governing power of the Church is weak, and that there is not sufficient Episcopal superintendence consistently with area and numbers, and where proper means are forthcoming from any dependable quarter, then the State, acting in concert with the Church, may divide an existing diocese and found a new Bishopric; and, further, although a complete organization of the diocese, with a Dean and Chapter, and other arrangements are very desirable, yet that the first step which should be taken is the appointment, pure and simple, of a Bishop. That is the principle which is laid down in the St. Albans Bishopric Bill, and that is the principle carried out in this Bill, which—as all know—was passed by the House of Lords without a single division, with the support of both parties, of persons of highest position in the State, and of the heads of the Church, This Bill of mine, which I now hold in my hand, carries out that principle; but it is only an enabling measure, and it only contemplates Sees being founded where everything is ready, and, in particular, where the Government and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are satisfied that they are wanted, and that the means are forthcoming to set them up on a proper footing. Let me repeat—the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are the operative body in the introductory stage; and who are those Commissioners? The leading personages in Church and State; men of the highest rank and position in both; members of the Peerage, members of the Episcopate and other exalted Churchmen. This body was the creation of Parliament; it was deliberately accepted by the people and the Church; and during the lifetime of many in this House they have been the body to whom we have had to look for administrative functions in regard to the great constitution over which they watch. I cannot, therefore, conceive a stronger or better safeguard than the approbation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. By the 3rd clause of this Bill, it is provided that the Commissioners may—

"Prepare schemes for the erection of new bishoprics in England and Wales, by the division of any diocese then existing, such division or union to take effect upon the consent of the Bishop or Bishops of the diocese or dioceses affected by the scheme being given, or otherwise upon the avoidance of the diocese or dioceses affected by all such Bishops as do not consent to such scheme."

"That nothing in this Act shall authorize the Commissioners to apply any portion of their common fund towards the endowment or maintenance of any Bishop, dean and chapter, chapter, or other office erected or created under the provisions of this Act."

"No scheme to be submitted for confirmation until sufficient moneys transferred to the Commissioners for securing Bishop's income, nor take effect till laid before Parliament."

said, he could assure his hon. Friend that he had no desire to enter into any personal controversy with him. Although they arrived at it by different paths, they had a common object—to maintain and enlarge the efficiency of the Church of England; and, though the word Erastian grated on the ears of his hon. Friend, still in seeking to attain their object his hon. Friend ought not to refuse the support even of an humble Erastain. His hon. Friend had referred to the Tudors, but did he remember that it was the House of Tudor that established the Reformed Church of England, that the Stuarts almost destroyed it, and that the House of Hanover had happily succeeded in re-establishing that Church upon principles which were rooted in the affections of the nation? His hon. Friend would, therefore, allow him to prefer the principles of the Tudors and Hanoverians to those of the Caroline divines, of which he was so great an admirer. He would proceed to give some reasons why he did not think that this was a wise and prudent Bill in the interests of the Church. The Bill was founded upon the supposed spiritual destitution of the country in regard to Bishops; but his hon. Friend had not shown that the supply of Bishops was smaller than the demand. In London this deficiency of Bishops was not so observable, because if you went by the Athenæum Club, every other Gentleman you met were a shovel hat and an apron. If hon. Members, however, resided in their dioceses they might be more struck by the absence of Bishops. Assuming, however, that more Bishops were wanted, they should provide a certain and effectual remedy for that spiritual deficiency. But the Bill provided no definite scheme for increasing the Bishops. The Church had large funds, and why could not the new Bishoprics be supplied by the agency of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as in 1847? If the Bill passed, those who wanted more Bishops would be as far as ever from having them, because, although they would have got a Bill, they would have got no funds. It was as if Parliament were asked to pass a Railway Bill which proposed to sanction a line from anywhere to anywhere, and where there was no capital, no subscribers, and no directors. It was, in fact, a kind of Episcopal Provisional Order Bill, by which an unlimited number of Bishops were to be created, no one knew where, and supported no one knew how. That was a sort of ecclesiastical kiteflying which ought not to be encouraged by the House. His hon. Friend had referred to various splendid instances of munificence displayed by members of the Church, but there was one other name he might have mentioned, and that was his own, for the Church had no more munificent benefactor than the hon. Member for Cambridge University, and others like him might be found to give their money for this object. But when they had done so, and could come before the House with a measure to create a definite Bishop for definite objects there would be no difficulty in passing the necessary measure. But to issue a Bill in order to raise money upon it was a sort of "accommodation Bill" which Churchmen ought not to attempt to negotiate. Moreover, he was one of those who thought that the creation of a Bishop was an act of State which ought to originate with the Crown and be exercised on the initiative of the Prime Minister of the Crown. He ought to be produced by the direct action of Parliament like the St. Albans Bishop, and not be a private-adventure Bishop such as was proposed to be created by this Bill. The new Bishopric to be created by this Bill, on the other hand, was not to come before Parliament at all. His hon. Friend proposed, he might add, to give the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the power of dealing with the whole of the transactions under the Bill, which was practically to hand them over to a solicitor residing in Whitehall Place. The Commissioners were to be at liberty to cut up the whole of the dioceses in England at their pleasure. Now, a diocese was rather an important division of the country, and he thought that to delegate to them so extraordinary an authority would be a very injudicious course to pursue. But when they had cut up a diocese, what were they to do? They were to declare the amount of the endowments of the new Bishops, and to recommend the apportionment of patronage among them. Such a recommendation was, in his opinion, a very delicate affair. Did his hon. Friend mean that the new Bishops were to have the same endowments as the old? If he did, whoever made them, even supposing it to be his hon. Friend himself, must be prepared to invest £150,000 in Consols. It was, however, perhaps intended that they should be what Sydney Smith called "gig" Bishops; and if so, it was, in his opinion, very unwise of his hon. Friend to introduce a Bill which would set up a class of poor, living side by side with a class of rich, Bishops. If that course were adopted, it must lead to a considerable re-distribution of the incomes of Bishops, and he thought his hon. Friend would find that some of his ecclesiastical supporters in the other House would be rather cool in their approval of a measure upon which they were already reproached with having thrown cold water. His hon. Friend laid stress on the Petitions which had been presented from Deans in favour of the Bill; but he was not at all surprised that they should desire to multiply Bishops, seeing that the relations between them were so close. In the 5th clause the Bill proposed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should also manufacture Deans and Chapters at their discretion. He spoke of Deans and Chapters with all respect; they belonged to the superfluities and luxuries of the Church, and were justifiable because they existed. The next proceeding under the Bill was to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by a Provisional Order, to erect an unlimited number of Ecclesiastical Courts, of which he should have thought there was already a superabundant supply. How was the money to be found for the purposes of this Bill? The 10th clause declared that if the Church of England wanted new Bishops, the funds of the Church were not to contribute. Why? That was directly contrary to the principle of the St. Albans Bill. The 12th clause declared that the new Bishops which the Church required should be founded by voluntary effort. That was an attempt to graft the principle of a free Church on the Church of England, and a more dangerous and mischievous principle on the part of those who wished to support the Establishment it was impossible to conceive. The money was to be subscribed; the hat was to go round; the Provisional Order was to be made by the gentleman in Whitehall Place; but—and he must congratulate his hon. Friend on the prudence of his Bill in this respect—the 13th was a kind of winding-up clause for an insolvent speculation; if the money subscribed was not sufficient and the bubble burst, the subscribers were to get back their money with interest thereon. Then, as to the question of seats in the House of Lords, was Parliament going to refer to gentlemen in Whitehall the manufacture of an unlimited number of Bishops, with a paulo post futurum right to sit in the House of Lords? It was a matter which deserved consideration whether Parliament was to put the creation of Peers in commission in that way. He opposed this Bill because it was both unwise and unnecessary. It was unnecessary, because if his hon. Friend who desired to create these new Bishops would only provide the necessary funds, he would have no more difficulty about the matter than there was about the Bishopric of St. Albans. But, if people went begging about the country, many would ask why it was necessary for Bishops to have large country and town houses, kept up at an enormous expense. He believed that the policy adopted in 1836 gave the Church a new lease. Under that Act, power was given to constitute new Bishoprics under certain conditions, and the incomes of the Archbishops and Bishops were reduced to effect that object. If a Bill for the creation of new Bishops was needed, it must be a Bill for the reform of the Bishoprics of the Church of England. Let the Government, then, say that there was not a sufficient number of Bishops, and that the Church must not be dependent on voluntary subscriptions when the resources of the Church were sufficient to meet the pressing want. He believed the Church was firmly established; but he did not know how long it would remain so, if they began to tamper and tinker with her constitution. The Bill was neither more nor less than an attempt to combine the privileges of a Free Church with the privileges of an Established Church. These two things were incompatible, and the attempt to realize such an idea would simply end in failure. He thought such a Bill should have been introduced on the direct responsibility of the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.

said, the question raised by the measure was not one involving the connection between Church and State. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) had said that the Bill was one which tampered with the constitution of the Church of England, because it proposed that instead of the funds required for the new Bishoprics being provided out of those of the Church of England, they were to be obtained by means of voluntary contributions. The hon. and learned Member further maintained that such an attempt to unite a Free with a State Church must necessarily be a failure, inasmuch as they were incompatible with each other. But the Church of England had obtained her funds originally not from the State, but by means of voluntary endowments, and therefore he saw nothing incompatible with her present position in the new Bishoprics being endowed by voluntary contributions. It had been found necessary of late years to divide the old ecclesiastical parishes, and the result was that instead of our having 10,000 parishes, as was the case 40 years ago, we had now somewhere about 20,000 with their separate endowments, and all this had been done by voluntary efforts. The proposition, therefore, that voluntary efforts were incompatible with the existence of a State Church could not be maintained. Any one who had listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman would have supposed that the whole working of this Bill was intended to rest upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who would have power under it to create new dioceses and to appoint new Bishops. Such, however, was not the case, inasmuch as all schemes, after being prepared by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, must receive the sanction, first, of the Bishop whose diocese was to be divided, then that of the Government, then they must lie six weeks before both Houses of Parliament, and, finally, they must receive the Royal Assent before they could be carried into effect. All that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have power to do would be to negotiate with the benefactors who wished to endow the new diocese, and to draw up a scheme. If, for example, the town of Liverpool wished to endow a Bishopric, this would be done through the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, subject to the approval of the First Minister of the Crown. He did not think the number of Bishops would be largely increased under the operation of the Bill, neither did he think any wholesale increase in their number was desirable; but it was much better that Bishops should be specially appointed for the government of a diocese rather than Suffragan Bishops should be appointed, as was the case at present. The fact was established that there was great need of Bishops in some parts of the country; while, on the other hand, there were many persons who if they saw a prospect of a new diocese being created would willingly contribute towards its endowment. Under these circumstances, he should support the Bill of his hon. Friend.

said, the great blot of the Bill was the 10th clause, which prohibited the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from using any part of their revenues for the endowment of new Bishops.

opposed the Bill, expressing the opinion that what the Church needed was not an increase in the number of its higher officers, but rather in the number of the curates.

moved the Adjournment of the Debate on account of the lateness of the hour.

said, he rose to move the Adjournment of the House.

ruled that, having addressed the House on the question before the House the hon. Member was not at liberty to make such a Motion.

then moved the Adjournment of the House.

thought such a Bill as this ought not to be in the hands of a private Member, and hoped that hon. Members on his own side of the House would consent to an Adjournment, in order that they might have a fair discussion of the measure.

deprecated these constant Motions for Adjournment, after the House had so unequivocally pronounced its opinion upon the principle of the measure, and trusted that they would not be persevered in.

would have preferred to see such a measure in the hands of the Government, and hoped that a fair opportunity of debating it would be afforded the House. He trusted that the debate would be adjourned, but would not recommend another division.

was unable to hold out any prospect of an early opportunity being found for such a discussion as the noble Lord wished for, and complained of the unreasonableness of hon. Gentlemen opposite in requiring the cream of the evening for everything. In old times this would not have been considered too late to consider a Bill of this kind, and he feared they were becoming effeminate in regard to dealing with Bills at, an advanced hour of the evening. It would be only gracious if Members were to allow the Bill to proceed.

hoped the discussion on the Bill would be allowed to be continued.

said, he had voted in the majority, because he believed the adjournment of the debate simply meant that the Bill should not be read a second time that year.

moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

trusted the hon. Baronet would not persevere in the Motion, seeing that ample opportunity of discussing the Bill would be afforded at future stages.

reminded the hon. Baronet that they would have an opportunity of raising a discussion on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and he must therefore insist on the Bill being then read a second time.

said, the Bill was a most important one, and should not have been brought on for a second reading at 2 o'clock in the morning. He should therefore move that the House do now adjourn.

assented to the adjournment of the debate, trusting that he might not meet with any obstructive opposition on a future occasion.