The Sun. — London, England, 1851-05-23 00:00:00

amittee, and no t 9 Roman Catbd remained on 11 ! st despair of doe Catholics. It iclude Leeds ini o f such a schen' ent to affirm ate' s instruction fro© he system he re; successfully, a`', int; the means 0 . , nt classes of tit at laudable object aronet seemed; ',city of a gene country. As the a the clear con• ?, it behoved the The Right H° °. with the question! with the great° his Hon. Friend. hicate the pooreF in life; and • In Ireland the 'chow religion" tht Hon. Baro net nation that if7 t . th e teaching f twenty sect ent faith. In the mat obliged to Main. )s e of 100 wer e . as done without excludefrom Ine in knout, _1•43 the Citaell Intelligent Oa!! Americans, than! A me ricans , ;o , TheY Lion of cia o° in Engla nd th e should hove gOn• )1°- Ills ide; 3truction es tthtel mind foar iy w ortby Id it wa s a t lou s , tba pope . ta t ne co -ea is rice the ignov_s t. su pports e f es most ri° le commu i l on the 1; 01 % 3 the Cbildret 9 of the Stab. ituted int o ed tbst a tion in 01 . 0 % ;led in //P I e called _ c i d er it wo4 , ,d. e Hon. PI; cun t of nr• - t on with g r og, his out g i be ould baje „s se s chools , bbobse e. wag a t Toble Lori. d fatniV% )n , Would ~1 3. , ° 1 ',rences, u!„ Englisb no ; ter by 1,0 man had .tabliA• as there general Why :ions iti e forced private r Italian e art of Fraid of old take 10 Son• was A D t 88 a by the The tall at ed the =pre' , g an ed oat worth end to )e Go , good ild not of the wny) s not eation should be given, but how it should be given? Tne question they wet-, now considering was, as to the batty of the plan proposed by the lion. Member for Old ham. He had three objections to that Hon. Member's scheme—first, he had doubts about the expediency of making education free. Practical men were of opinion that such a system was not adapted to the wants of the country, or was likely to tend to produce feelings of in dependence among the lower orders. They thought the Government system was better adapted for the purpose, especially if the parents of the poorer, hut not the poorst boys were invited to make small contributions towards the expenses of education. For his own part he would gladly see such aid extended to the ragged schools as would make the education there free of expense; but he was of opinion that neither the necessities nor the wants of the lower orders were sufficient to warrant the adoption of a general system of free education. The next objection to the next feature of the Hon. Member's plan was, that he doubted the propriety of calling for further aid towards educating the people by means of further rates. He considered if aid were to be given, it ought to be given in a more equitable form, and the ex pense ought to be diffused over all those who were able to hear it. The objecionable form was by grant from the Consolidated Fund, according to the system at present adopted. With reference to the third feature of the scheme, that secular education only should be given, he was altogether opposed to the prin• ciple of such a propositien. He did not see that such a scheme would give satisfacion in any quarter. He did not think it would give the Church of England, or any particular sect, general satisfaction. The Roman Ca tholics, they all knew, would receive no satisfaction from a system of that kind. The mass of the people belonging to the Church of England or the body of Dissenters would not be generally satisfied with such a system. Many Dissenters continued to send their children to the Church of England schools, for they knew that the great mass of these schools were not teachers of doc trines of a theological character likely to create preju dices, but only gave instruction in the Scriptures. He could not possibly think how such a system of education as that proposed by the Hon. Member was adapted to secure the end it professed to have in view. It was, however, said the system was proposed for the purpose of doing justice to the poor, and discharging a debt due to them. But if it was the aim of all who sought to elevate the poor to implant in their minds the great first principles of humanity and religion, as the surest preventive of crime, how could that aim be attained by the proposed system? If education were confined to secular subjects—it carried out without religious instruc tion—he very much doubted whether the tendency of such a system was to diminish vice and crime. He doubted whether the system would be either bene ficial to the individual or the community. But it was said by Honourable Gentlemen opposite, " What we propose is that children shall be educated in the school, and receive religious instruction elsewhere." But let that system be carried out, and let all be done that its advocates wanted, what would be the result? How long were the children to remain at school? If inquiry were made, it would be found that parents would not leave their children at school beyond the ago of 13. All the education these children received, which was to go vern the whole course of their future life was given be fore they were 13 years of age. How then could the proposed resolution be carried out ?—where could these children get their religious education from? Were these children to be without instruction in the great moral principles, and in the duty of worshipping God ? If the principles in the resolution were c arried out, the chil dren would receive no instruction in the schools in their first duty, that of worshipping the Creator. To such a system he was decidedly opposed. The only argument of any weight urged in its favour was, that th ere was a necessity for it. He did not believe th e necess it y existed. He believed the Government plan could be carried ,out so as to produce general education, provided two things were furnished, a great deal more money, and more time. What was wanted in the first instance were good teachers. Much had been done by Go vernment to remedy this want. Several institutions had been opened for the purpose of providing good teachers. The institution at Highgate, which furnished eighty teachers, had worked well, as also had the system of pupil teachers. He believed, therefore, that the present system, with some addition to it for pro viding free education for the very poor, was well cal culated, in time, to affird a prospect of carrying out the aim of a general system of education for the people. He must oppose, on principle, the present proposition; at the same time he, and the House, were obliged to the Hon. Member for Oldham for bringing forward the subject, as even its discussion must be productive of good. Mr. ADDEHLEY must vote with reluctance OR the question against those with whom he usually voted— for he felt he could not conscientiously vote against the propositions of the Hon. Member for Oldham.—(Hear, ear.) There was an old proverb—Take care of the pence, and the pounds would take care of themselves — the moral of which was susceptible of a wide applica tion. If the House took care of the elementary questions, they would find that the great complicated questions would take care of themselves. He regretted to differ from the opinions expressed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, Mr. Walpole, who, in expressing his dislike to free education, dealt with only a part of the case as if it were the whole.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Lancashire said he felt anxiety on the question, but would only consent to support the prop isitions before the House in the event of no better scheme being put forward. The question then was, what chance was there of a better system being carried out, and what would happen to the country in the meantime?—(Hear.) All were agreed that religions and secular instruction ought to be com bined, and that one should be based on the other. They were also agreed that the two could not be carried out without the help of a national rate. But it also appeared that while secular education could not be carried out ex- cept by a national rate, religious education could not be carried out by a national rate. So, therefore, as one half was impossible, the Hon. and Learned Member set his face against the whole. He would, however, show the House that while one part could be carried out by a national rate, the other part could be carried out by a voluntary aid. The proposition of the Hon. Member for Oldham could not be controverted, that the present sys tem of education was deficient in this material respect— that it failed to point out to the poor how they were to find their own subsistence. Now, as crime proceeded frequently from want of employment, education would fail to prevent crime. If, tor instance, the poor knew geography, that would enable them to understand the advantages of colonial emigration, and, as in America, our colonies would soon have their back settlements. The Hon. Member referred to the standard of educa tion as beiag of an improving character. He thought the standard of education was ♦astly too high; it was vastly higher than was required. And he considered that the prima of the Privy Council went to a higher class than was expedient or proper. The money, therefore, that was spent by the Privy Council was lavished on a class for which it was never intended, and who ought not to receive a farthing of it. The gigantic plan of the Privy Council could not be carried out, and debts had been incurred which could not be liquidated. There was, therefore, no hope to be derived from that quarter. But while they were discussing the question, an efficient national education was going on which was only accessible to two classes—the prisoner and the pauper.—(Hear.) The education given to prisoners was elaborate and perfect—in Parkhurst Bridewell, and other prisons for the reformation of juvenile offenders the education was good. In the workhouses also, th e education there was vastly superior to that given by the poorer classes to their children. Here was a national system of religious and secular education at the expense of the country, and the only question was, whether that system should be extended to the poor outside the work houses and prisons. It might be said that this system mixed up religious instruction with education; but would they consent to open the doors of such places to the honest poor outside. He confessed he was dissatisfied at seeing the poor debarred from the advantages in those places. He approved of a national rate for general education, and he thought it was highly creditable to the county of Lancaster that it should have been the first to come forward with a petition to Parliament to tax them for purposes of national education. He had the authority of a distinguished traveller for stating, that no one could visit America without seeing the great superiority of the Americans over this country in point of education. Ho had heard only two serious objections to the propositions; first, that, if adopted, they would supersede the present schools. But that objection was of no force, for if the present schools were inefficient, it would be an advantage to supersede them. The second objection was, that it was impossible to separate secular and religious instruction, That was a mere play upon words. We acted upon the principle every day of lives in the education of our children. We sh the two could be separated without mischief. The ad vantages of the Honourable Gentleman's propositi on would be plain and obvious. The necessities of th e case were also obvious; and be therefore approvedof Subject which would compel the people to take an interesta planin their own schools. Th e SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought no could be more important t han that of how th ey could best educate that young and numerous class now in want of education. Still he must say that he had never heard in the same debate so many errors and fallacies as there were to be found in the speeches of the Hon. Member who proposed this motion, and in the speeches of those effect of the who followed him.—(Hear.) The real e mea sure proposed would be to shut up the religious schools in the country, and compel those who now supported them to contribute to schools that they abhorred.—(Hear.) It was assumed by those who supported the proposition of the Honourable Member, that nothing had been done hitherto on the subject of education. This was not the fact. For 27 years before the Government grant for education the Church of England had 550,000 children in its schools; and in the nine years that had succeeded the Government grant they had added to the 550,000 children no less than 400 000. Previous to the Govern ment grant the annual subscriptions were 3,0001, and since the Government grant their annual subscriptions had increased to 20,0001. As a proof that the people of England were not unanimous in favour of what was called mere " secular" education, he referred to what had occurred in Manchester, where, after a long discussion the word " secular" was omitted from the name of a society established for promot ing education. In Manchester, also. a committee bad been formed, consisting of all classes of politicians, from the highest Tory to the lowest Radical, and of ministers of every creed, until lately, when it was abandoned by the Roman Catholic priests, although not by the Roman Catholic laity—and that committee pro posed to avail itself of all the schools already in existence to contribute to the maintenance of schools approved of by the Government Insptctor of Education. Now, he asked, if two schools were e stablished , giving secular education in each, and in each, too, the religious educa tion fitted for the children in that school, would not that be a perfect system of education?—(Hear, hear) The whole matter, as put forward by the Ron. Member for Oldham, rested upon false principles. The whole mo tion rasnal on at error in principle, as well as in fact; for the Hon. Metnb r said he would erect the great fabric of national prosperity on the solid basis of ria • tional intellect. Now, he did not consider that as the only solid basis. Man was a moral, an intellectual, and a spiritual being, and they must educate all those powers which it had p!essed Heaven to bestow up in him. All must be educated, and one of them, and that the most important cf all, must not • be neglected, as it would he by a merely secular education.—(Hear, hear.) He said that the exertions of the clergy of England for the last ten years on this subject had been most cre ditable to them; and so far as instruction went, the only question was whether they were not in their schools tit) highly instructing the children for their after occupa tions in life. But then it wzs said that in the Irish uni versities a secular education alone was to be given; but then those who made such an objection ought to recol lect that these universities were intended for those whose minds were already formed, but in the schools the minds of children had to be firmed. As to education in Ame rica, which had been referred to, he believed there was a great diversity of opinion amongst the different states. Religion was riot, he believed, excluded from most of the schools. And then as to cii ne disappearing with educa tion, facts did not prove it to have done so. When edu cation in America was alluded to, he could not but point to Louisiana, where the penalty of death was at one time infl ced fir teaching a black child to read or write. He believed the penalty was not now so severe. As to religion being taught by parents at home, he pointed to the state of the manufacturing dis tricts to show that part nts were nut in a con dition to impart it, end that the clergy were too few, in proportion to the population, to devote them selves to the task of teaching the children of the poor. As to religion not being taught with the multiplica tion table, he admitted that such might be the case, but religion could well be mixed up with lessons in geogra phy and astronomy. And then as to history—let them look to the difference between a Catholic history of the reign of Queen Mary and a Protestant history of the reign of . Queen E iztbeth, A member of the Spanish Cortes told him that he had been some time in Englaud before he found out his mistake in thinking that Queen Mary was the most popular of British Sovereigns. Such was the different manner in which history might be taught.—(Hear.) He wished to see our national pros perity founded not only on intellectual advancement, much as he prized it, but on that which was the only sure basis—that of morality and religion.—(Cneers.) Mr. COBDEN said any one who had listened to the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend would have thought that the motion of the Hon. Member fur Old ham was not a proposition tor 'noting a larger sum of money to supply a defect of education, the existence of which all were ready to admit, but that he had some plan by which he Proposed to withdraw the funds already applied to the instruction of the people in religion. One would suppose that his Honourable Friend actually intended to abolish the National Church, and with draw the 5,000,0001. or 6,000,0001. now considered to be the endowment of that Church, and that the moment he should succeed in carrying his motion all the present voluntary contributions of the Dissenting bodies would instantly be withdrawn. The Secretary of State fur Home Affairs admitted that the present system had proved a failure; but grounded his opposition to the present motion upon the circumstance that some gentle men had come from Manchester, and called on him, and had communicated to him a new local system, which he believed would succeed. If they wished to see whether the present system bad faiLd, they had only to luck to the amount of money voted, which had remained for the last few years at 125,000/, notwithstanding the increase in the population. What, then, did the Government tall back upon? The local system of Manchester, which had already failed, in the same way as the Government plan, from the religious difficulty. The gentlemen who . . came to town and waited upon the Right Hon. Baronet had done him the honour also of a visit. They. told him as they told the Right Hon. Baronet, that they had the concurrence of all the religious sects, both Roman Catholics and Dissenters; but he had received a letter from them, after their return to Man chester, in which they regretted to inform him that 'lB, or, if he recollected aright, virtually the whole body of the Roman Catholic clergy had seceded from that ,plau of education; and why? Simply because the committee which mat in Alanchester made it a fundamental principle of their system that in all schools supported by public rates in Manchester the authorised version of the Bible should be read.—(Hear, hear.) How was it possible for such a plan to succeed in such places as Manchester and Salford, where there wero at least 100,000 Boman Catho lics, the poorest of the population, whom it would be the most dangerous to leave in ignorance? They were in the same dilemma at Manchester as in that House; but he maintained that the little education they did get was got surreptitiously by means of the Committee of the Privy Council, and not by a vote of that House; and a cheat was, in point of fact, practised upon themselves and the country.—(Hear, hear.) There was a fundamental eva sion and fallacy about the whole of the education vote. When they talked so much of religious teaching in this country, he asked them whether they voted the 125,0001. fur educatio❑ or religious teaching? Because he had always understood that it was not a vote fur reli gious instruction. Could they vote it in the House for religious teaching if they openly avowed it? No, it could not be done; it had not been done for many years, and never would be done again. The Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General had talked as if there were some great conspiracy to deprive the country of its religious faith, and in,titute schools for teaching infidelity. What he maintained was, that provision was already made for religious training, on which twice as much was spent as in any other country in the world, and he challenged any one to controvert it. .11. w, then, could it be said that be sought to exclude religion from education? They hail been taunted also with the use of the word secular; but he knew not how otherwise to express the necessity' for supplying instruction in reading and writing, and teaching men to know something of their own nature, and training them in habits of thought. He never was opposed to the Bible or any other religious book being read in schools, provided all were agreed upon the sub ject; but what he did oppose was the levying of rates or pa3ing money out of a public fund, and then putting a veto on a portion of their feliow-citizens, because if their children went to school, they would learn something to which their parents could nut consent. But he had no desire practically to exclude the Bible. He bad no hesitation in avowing that his system was the system of the Massachusets common schools. He would not go with the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General to Louisi ana, or to Georgia, or South Carolina. Massachusets was an old settled county, not a thinly peopled, fertile district, but one from which there was a vast emigra tion to other countries, the popalation being of our own race, and very much of our own habits. Why not adopt the same plan in England ? They had just now placed themselv.s in competition with tne whole world, and if a Manchester man saw some wonderful piece of machinery from the United States in the great receptacle- of the productions of the world, he would say, what has been done at Boston may be done at Manches ter. It was said that the eff ct of this motion would make them an irreligious people. He would meet them on that ground. He had been to Massachusets, and testing the religious feelings of its inhabitants by the nnmber of churches, the attendance of the people on religious worship, their support of religious teachers and Sunday schools, their observance ot the Sabbath, or the respect paid by them to their religious teachers, he challenged them to compare England with Massa chusets.—(lr nical cheers.) Bat was the reading of the Bible prohibited ? He would venture to say that there was probably not one out of a hundred schools there where the Bible was not read.—(Hear.) But his Hon. Friend the Member for Oldham had no objection to a parish using the Bible if it ch ose , as we ll as any ot h er book. Wh, then, could not England imitate Massachu sets, which, in its earlier days, when the pilgrim fathers came from England, practised as much intolerance as they left behind them? In ninety-nine out of a hun dred parishes in England he behaved no one would object to the reading of the Bible without note or com ment. He believed the people of Massachusets to be as superior in intelligence to the people ot Kent as the peo ple of Kent were to the people of Naples.—(lronical cheers.) Why could nut this system be introduced into England ? Was it because of the Established Church ? Surely an Established Church, with a very rich endow ment, which supported clergymen for every pariah, must be supposed to aff ird the means of religious educa tion gratis to the great mass of the people. It was urged that the proposed plan would supersede the existing . - school-rooms, but there was no reason why tkey shuuki not be made available for carrying that plan into execu tion. Education was greatly needed in the agricultural districts, and though he did not for a moment wish to fatten on the clergy of the Established Church the re- sponsibility of the prevailing ignorance, still they were interested in the promotion of secular education, for he could hardly understand how one, could be a Protestant without knowing how to read. lie knew many districts in which the clergymen of the Established Church had un dertaken more tha❑ anybody else in the cause of educa tion, and 13,. knew the difficulties with which they had to contend in obtaining the necessary support in some rural parishes where three-fourths of the land was owned by absentees. lie believed it would be found that the majority of theacres in the rural parishes were, On an see a average, owned by absentee proprietors. He wanted to plan established by which, for the purposes of se cular education, the parish should be able to rate the property.— (Hear, hear.) 80/. or 1001. so laid out would do m ore tosumsavlaid out in any other way. He had no thin;; a parish from poor-rates and crime than tone whit the same ' thing mo re to say than to express his great gratifiemion at the alte re d te the discussion of this question had now as sumed, : and he was thankf u l to all was no subj ect on shir he felt so tolerant as ou this, pared with last year. There who cause of education —to whatever religion or party they attempted to assist in the might belong—because he '"v the difficulties in the way elements g a tap' hitherto hewirntge to those religious thwarted their en deavours; and perhaps the re more was to be feared from that cause wtahsana the Lim present.still hop epbdoewthetirbi:eil as He still hoped, hower, r, that they w 55304410 of religious aatfa r ta s. c i tion the meet on this neutral ground, out of the strife and interests, for by nu other poor of this country ever be eclueated.—(a p s ,." \ uld the Sir R. H. INGLIS acknowledged with moderation of the Hon. Member's tone; an d he unhappily had been in the country, be Member would excuse him for saying that he wished he hal never been more powerful than in the argument he had used that evening. He rose to support the propo s i_ tion of the Hon. Member for Oldham, but instead of supporting him be had in fact proposed that the Bible should be reed.—(hear, bear.) He added that he knew his Hon. Friend the Member for Oldham was not the Member to object to that, and touched him affectionately on the shoulder in expectation of assent. Was that as sent given? Nu; the Hon. Member for Oldham looked as immoveable as at that m oment.—(Laughter.) He knew that the lion. Member for the West , Riding , ~, , I. ,1-;.L.,., V. would not exclude the Bible from any school under his control, but wai it fit that they should adopt a proposi ton which would practically exclude it, together with the catechism, and all religious instruction?—(Hear, hear.) lie would not repeat the arguments used by the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General, for no man could follow him on such a subject without great disadvantage. A speech more philosophicel, or more tilled with religion and pract cit good sense, he had not beard in that House; and he congratulated the Government en having such a cause so defended by one of their chief officers. He did not regard mere knowledge in itself as a benefit, but rather tie an unmixed evil when unsanctffied by the blessing of God. The question was not new either to the House or the country. A few years ago attention was called to the subject, and what had been the success of the two different parties competing for public favour? The Earl of Harrowby, when a Member of that House, took the lead in the agitation, for the purpose of calling public atteetien to tho want of Christian education, and a larger cum was raised by voluntary subscription than had been collected, he believed, for any other purpose. What had the Dissenters done? It was only the other day that he saw it seated that they numbered one-half of the populatien of England. The assertion was ludi crous, met scarcely required comment, but assuming that they amounted to a fifth part, had they supplied a fifth part of the sum raised by general subscription for edu cation? They had not. But the proposition of the Hon. Member for Oldham was that the nation as a nation should repudiate religion as the foundation of educatiois. —(Haar, hear) And if the lion. Member in his reply should tell him that it would not be excluded from the general teaching of the country, he answered, no thanks to him, for he was doing what he could to exclude it.— ( Hear, hear.) So far as his motion was concerned, so far did he exclude it from the national system. He gave the Hon. Member for the West Riding credit, from his own personal knowledge of him, for not wishing to be a party to support such a proposition; but that was not the question. He did, in fact support it by voting in favour of a proposition that a nation ought to edu cate all its subjects without reference to religion. As the Hon. and Learned Solicitor• General said, the people were called on in addition to all their voluntary sub. scriptious, which were greater than those of any other country in the world, to support a rata, the object of which they abhorred. Was that language too strong? Was it too strong to compel a Christian parent to edu cate his own children, or the children of his neighbours, with au utter absence of all those hopes and lessons of wisdom which the Bible could give, and leave them to chance—aye, chance—for instruction in that which alone rendered knowledge precious and life valuable? If they compelled a parish to support a system which the major part of the inhabitance abominated, were they not doing that which, as far as in them lay, would bring up a generation of infidels? He regretted that his Right Hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gladstone) was not then present in the House ; and he was authorised by his Right Hon. Friend the Mem. ber for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) to express his regret that he also was absent; but he (Sir R. Inglis) felt that the sentiments of both his Right Hon. Friends had been so fully and completely ex pressed in this House upon the subject, that it would be well understood that nothing but unavoidable absence had prevented them from making their statements to the House on this occasion. The Hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) had asked them what a stranger was likely to think who had entered that House for a first time, and listened to the debate of that night. But he (Sir R Inglis) would ask, could the stranger have supposed it possible that this question having no longer ago than the 7th of Juno last been discussed and decided by a majority of 287 against 58 for the proposal of the Honourable Member tor Oldham, they would so soon have had it again brought before them? And let the House hear this in mind, that what the Honourable Member then desired to engage the House to recog nize and admit was in the shape of a Bill, on which, even if the second' reading had been agreed to, the House might have had some locus penitentice on the fu ture stages; but - they had now to deal with a re solution which contained the very essence of that Bill, and committed the House to the whole principle, and he did trust that there would be such a majority recorded against it that they would not again hear of the subject another year. The Hon. Member for the West Riding had alluded to the Irish colleges, in which he said the principle of the Member for Oldham's plan was embo died and in practical operation. Upon that subject he (Sir R. Inglis) saw no reason to alter the views he once expressed; but if he believed it to be an evil in the case of Ireland, it was not the fact of its having been adopted in Ireland that wonld iustify him in giving his consent to its adoption in England. On the contrary, in exact proportion as he saw encouragement given to it else where, in that exact proportion was he bound to resist its introduction here.—(Hear.) With the deep convic tion on hie mind that the proposition—plausible to some minds, but little adapted to catch the feelings or the principles of the great body of the people of England— was itself of a most deleterious character, he did trust that the House would reject it now as they did last year; and that if it were again brought forward it would again be rejected by such majorities as to prove that the principle of this House was at least Christian and reli. gious, and that they would not sanction any plan o education which was not founded on the love and fear o God, our Creator end our Redeemer.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. S. HERBERT protested against persons arguing this question, and appealing to the amount of ignorance and vice that we had to repress, as th ,ugh they alone were the persons who objected to ignorance and de tested vice—that there particular system was, on that question, the only system which he ought to.adopt, and that, if we did not adopt it, we were conniving at the continuance of that ignorance and vice. —(Hear, hear.) There was no question that the system of education in this country must be religious as well as secular; and he believed if the Bible were excluded trom schools we should not be able to get children to attend them.— (Hear, hear.) In this country, too, it was his firm be lief that no educational system could be successful which was not founded up ea the full development of the sys tem of each religious denomination. He himselt was a Churchman, but he did not for one moment undervalue the labours of the dissenting bodies. He knew how much we were indebted to them—(Hear) —he rejoiced to witness their activity in this field; and he hoped the differences which had hitherto existed between the Privy Council and some of the educational societies in England would soon be put an end to. Very many of those dif ferences had arisen upon points respecting which agree ment was more easy than might be imagined; and he be lieved that everything the Committee of Privy Council had urged and desiredto be adopted, they might have obtained by "recommendation," though they had failed when they insisted upon stipulations. In fact, it was contrary to our habits of selt-government, and an invasion of our municipal and parochial system, to have particular stipu lations entorced from a central board, though we were willing to take them from experience, and on the high character of the gentlemen composing the Committee, if they came to us as simple "recommendations.—(Hear, hear.) In the present day there were very numerous bodies of Irtetina,n in our large towns, the majority of whom were Roman Catholic 4; and even if it were for no other reason than this, he did hope the Government would apply themselves to the discovery of some method of increasing religious instruction which might be sup ported without doing violence to the religious feelings of the people. The lion. Member for Oldham had stated that religious instruction would be supplied from other sources than the schoolmaster. And that was the case undoubtedly with the rich, but it was not so with the poor, for whatever education was to be had by the child of the poor man must be given him at the schocl, and the school only; and if we forbade religious educatio❑ at school we practically debarred him from all education whatever. In conclusion the Right Hon. Gentleman said that he did not think the plan of the Hon. Member for Oldham was one which the people of this country would accept. A Divine authority had said, " Suffer little children to come unto me;" but by this proposition they said practically, " Suffer them not to come unto We." He should, therefore, vote against the motion. Mr. L. HEY WORTH said he was persuaded that the voluntary principle would ultimately succeed in giving the people all the education that was needed, and in the best shape in which it could be given. And thinking the system proposed by the Hon. Member for Oldham a most vicio us system, he should decidedly vote against the motion. Mr. FOX, in reply, said that when he took into ac count the principle with which Sir H. Inglis had started, that knowledge was an evil, he ceased to be surprised at what would otherwise have been the astounding misap prehension at which the Hon. Baronet had arrived as to the opinions he (Mr. Fox) entertained, and the principles he advocated. Ile trusted the Hon. Baronet was singular, or nearly so, in that opinion, for he believed that we could not engage in the pursuit of any study, nor could any science be unfolded to the mind, without a religious tendency.—(Hear, hear.) He had always understood that it was the business of the ministers of religion to see after the religious education of the children of their flocks. From all the information he had re- ceived on the subject of the National Schoo1; in Ireland, he was led to believe that the children in those schools were remarkable for the clearness and extent of their religious knowledge. And yet the reading of the Scripture extracts even wai not a matter of obligation in them. He thought, therefore, that he was justified in referring to the state of the Irish National Education schools ass convincing argument in favour of the propo sition he had submitted to the House. It was said that was a measure to exclude religion ; but it might as well be said that it was a measure to exclude the sun. The people of this country were essentially a religious peo ple; and he had no apprehension but that religion would be taught t those who might receive any education whatever. He would develope the religious propensities of children; but he would not do that by the same agency by which ho would impart to them other branches of instruction, because that agency was not available for that purpose. The House then divided, and the numbers were— For the motion Against it .•• ..• ... 139 Majority against the motion ... --90 THE HOP DUTY. Mr. HODGES rose to ask for leave to bring in a Bill for a reduction of the Excise duty on hops. The _ . emonnt of the duty at present was 2d. per lb, with en addition 01 5 per cent ; and be proposed to reduce it to Id. per lb. Ile alio proposed that the duty at present owing should be paid to the full amount. Formerly hops had nut been cultivated in this country, but had been imported from Flanders. They had subsequently been Planted here with considerable success. In the year 1711 a duty of Id. per lb. was first laid on English hops, d ifie u and a d uty o f 3d. per lb on foreign hops. I n t h e year 1804 Mr. Pi tt h a d doubled the duty on E ng li s h h ops, and had f a lt t y the same tim e v ery con siderably increased the duty o n f ore i gn hops. From the year 1819, w h en the down to the p e r f a t paying flin t h e e , the Government d h u a t d y c g o o m n e m o e n n c i e n d . creasing, and the profits of the farmer had gono on di milaishiug to suoh an eaten; that i$ Wad il2ll3(Mible lot him any longer to meet the demand. He, therefore, moved for leave to bring in a Bill which would put an end to that system of credit which even the Commis sioners of Excise, in their 16th report, had condemned. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not, consistently with his duty to the public, agree to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, though he admitted it was less objectionable than many proposals on the same subject which had been brought under his notice. It did not propose to put again into the pockets of the hop-growers the duty they had already received; and he admitted also that the system of extended credit given to the hopgrowers at their own request was a most fatal gift. But it was not the way to put an end to that sys tem to bring in this Bill. It had been contended that when the protective duty was reduced, the home duty was not also reduced; but the protective duty was in effect a prohibitory duty, as shown by the result; for last year the consumption of home-grown hops amounted to 42,000,0001bs , while that of foreign hops was only 250 000 lbs. If the proposed measure was to reduce the foreign as well as the home duty in favour of the con sumer, there might be some argument adduced in sup port of it; but the Honourable Gentleman proposed to exclude the foreign competition, and thus throw an additional burden on the consumer. He admitted there were exceptions in which the producer paid the duty; but they had 'Yen created by the producers themselves. They had brought into cultivation for the growth:of hops land that was not fit for it; but yet, since 1830 (with l a B v 4 e 7 r a ) g the p produce eh from m b e e l n B4 r 3 e g t au 1845 a r ly paid s e th a e ch ex y c e e a p r. tion T o h t e 30,000,0001b5., and the price was very high-120s. per cwt.; in 1845 it was 150 s. per cwt.; but in 1846, 1847, and 1848 they increased the growth to 47,000,0001b5., and the overage price fell to 755. per cwt. That was before foreign hops were imported, and it arose from the excessive production of inferior hops. In the next year the price rose again, but then the produce in that year (1849) was but 1 6, 0 00,0001135., while last year the produce was increased to 48,000,0001b5., and the price again fell. They were thus the cause of the evil them selves. In 1848 he had received such representations of the distress of the growers that he put off the payment of the duty, and in 1849 a deputation of influential peo sons waited on him, and represented that the country would be ruined if the payment of the duty was en forced; but he was hard-hearted enough to refuse ac quiescence in their demand, and the duty, amounting to 200,0001., was paid, with the exception of 8,0001., within a month or two of the collection being made. After such instances as that, the Hon. Gentleman must not be sur prised if he did not place very strong reliance on those statements of distress. The surplus in the revenue which he counted on for next year would only amount to 250,0001., which would be swallowed up by the re duction of the hop duty; and for that reason, as well as the others he had adduced, he hoped the House would support him in rejecting the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. A. B. HOPE said it appeared that the fact of a certain number of men having paid their hop duty was treated as a good joke by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer. They were taunted with having made a great many propositions on that subject, but why did not something of the sort emanate from the Chancellor's bench? It was also said that the hop-growers uttered more complaints than any other class; but it should be remembered that no crop was more subject to vicissitudes and the unfavourable influences of wind and weather than that delicate plant. Mr. BASS said he had stated on a former occasion, irffied ah a n t d e subject hw theas u h n o d p e g d r i e s w c u e s r s i a o t n , t i t m h a e t s the b o d a c w n h l t e i n e s t were neither caused by the duties nor foreign importa tion, but the fluctuations in the amount of produce. I n 1837, the number of acres under hops had been 56,000, while in 1843 they had diminished to 43,000. I n 1847 they were 52,000, and in 1850 had again fallen to 43,000 acres. With respect to the duty, there was no article on which the consumer paid so little, in pro portion to the amount paid by the producer, as in the case of hops. Sir E. FILMER felt it to be his duty, as Member for West Kent, to support the motion of his Hon. Friend. He would defy the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find one tenant in the weald of Kent who had not for the last two years paid his rent out of his capital, and not his profits. Mr. FULLER also supported the motion. Colonel SIBTHORP was always an humble but per• severing supporter of any proposition for the relief of the agricultural interests; but when he saw Hon. Mem bers giving their votes in favour of a Government which opposed every suggestion for that purpose, he could not reconcile himself to vote in favour of a partial measure introduced by such Hon. Members. If his Hon. Friend opposite was to disengage himself from his pre sent company noscitur a sociis—(Laughter) and bring forward a general measure for the relief of all classes, he should have his support, bat not otherwise. Mr. FREWEN expressed his regret that his Hon. Friend the Member for West Kent did not support the motion relating to agricultural distress which had been before the House. He thought there was no part of the kingdom in which so much distress existed as in the hop districts. There was no tax so unjust as that, and it was the only one which remained unrepealed since the war. He had his doubts as to the accuracy of theprices stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of hops du ring former years. He did not know upon what au thority the Right Hon. Gentleman had made his state ment. One house in the borough might tell one thing, and another another thing; but a good deal depended upon the quality of the hops taken. Even in one year the hops grown in one part of the country brought a much higher price than those grown in another. He had heard of so much as 6/. 10s. being paid in Sussex, bat the average price was only 31. 7s. The planters in the weald of Kent must have lost at least 1/. per acre on an average. One great claim which the hop planters had on Government for a reduction of duty was founded upon the precarious nature of the crop. Wheu the hop growers got the lowest price for their hops, they had the highest amount of duty to pay; and he therefore hoped that the Government would take the case into their ear liest consideration. He (Mr. Fre wen) doubted if a single landowner received, in the rape of Hastings, one quarter of his rental for 1850. Mr. COBDEN could not understand the tactics of the hop-growers and their advisers in this [natter. They called for a reduction of taxes, and they opposed a revi sion of taxation. The hop duty brought in only 300.000/. a year, and yet a little army of tax-gatherers were employed to collect it. Such a thing was not know except;in Turkey. The fact was, that some great brewers did not wish to have the tax repealed. If the hop-growers of Kent and; Sussex were res o l ve d t o get rid of it, they should demand its total abolition, and not make two bites of a cherry. Mr. PLUMPTRE said the penny a pound reduction would be a great relief to the growers ; as an East Kent grower he was prepared to a cce p t i t. Mr. HODGES replied. Tho House then divided, when there appeared-- For the motion... 27 ... —6l Against it .. Majority • .•• •.. 83 Mr. HUME postponed hi s no ti ce respecting Raja Brooke to June 5. Mr. HUME then moved for a copy of the Order in o a i l s t s h i o e o r n Council, or letter from the Treasury, sanctioning the alterations lately made in Kensington-garda ns by the C ap om pl m ic l a s t s i i o o n ne m rs ad o e f First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests; and also for horsemen to ride in Kensington-gardens. Lord SEYMOUR said there was no Order in Conn ::(1: to the Woodsr. 4r extract the e: Forests s r any e ts as f u o m r r y e mpoeorrrt permission cil on the subject, therefore the Government could not The pleasure of her produce it. ' Majesty was made known, and the prdens were thrown open. Mr. HUME said it required an order from the Trea sury. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER said the Hon. Gentleman was mistaken. Mr. COBDEN w a s q uite sure if it had been known six months ago that there would be no more enj oyment for equestrians in the Park than now existed, he did not think any inroad would be made upon Kensin g to n -gar dens. The Exhibition had realised the expectations of every one. 1 Colonel SIBTHORP denied that it had. Oa the contrary, the tradesmen of the metropolis had been grossly insulted, and a gross wrong practised on them. In these days everything was sacrificed to new notions. The Honourable Member for the West Riding was the poor man's friend. The Lord deliver tte poor from such friends. Liberty, property, and everything was trampled under foot for the purpose of obtaining popu larity. He (Colonel Sibthorp) had never looked upon that ' building, the Exhibition, and never would do. England had patronised the foreigner, and condemned her own people. The fools stepped in and stepped out of the building to see trumpery and trash, and omitted to pay their tradesmen's bills. It was a desecration of their religion. Nobody bad a higher respect than he had for the most Reverend Prelate at the head of the Church of England; but he must say that he regretted to see the part which that most Reverend Prelate h ad taken in the opening of the Exhibition. H e was not ashamed to say and, that he (Colonel Sibthorp) had d o ne eve rything in his , power to check the Exhibition , which he belie ve d would prove a great curse to this country i . n a moral, social what was of more importanc e, in a religious point of view. Lord C. HAMILTON differed from the Hon. Mem ber for the West Riding when he said that the Exhibi tion had realised all the expectations entertained of it, for he felt that the great object they all had in view was still to be attained—he meant such arrangerients as should facilitate the admission of the multitudes who had hitherto been debarred visiting it by the high prices of admission. Mr. L A BOITCFIERE assured the Neble Lord that the point to which he referred had not escaped the attention of the Commissioners. That very morning thfi Com- missioners, in conjuction with representatives from the differentcon sidering thebeet railway es companies, means of affording had been toh t e engaged in multitudes the opportunity of visiting t h e Exhibition w i t h uti .. convenience and without danger to the public pepe. He would not eater into a contest with the Hon. and Gallant Member for Lincoln as to the merits of the Exhibition. For his own part he believed it would prove not only a source of national pleasure to the people of this count r y, but of great benefit throughout the civilisod world, Mr. LUSIIINGTON said that he had been requested by s.,me of his constituents at Kensington to state their dissatisfaction and disgust at the admission of equestrians into Kensington-gardens. The motion was then withdrawn. .. ,TAE KAFIR WAR. In answer to Mr. HUME, who had a motion for a copy of the dispatch stating the estimate of the expenses of the Kafir war. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER paid, as a matter of course, some uncertainty attended any pre sent estimate. The report of commissariat officers esti mated-the expense at 400,000/ if the war continued for six mouths; but as he hoped it would not last se bog, he proposed taking a vot e f o r 300,0001. If he was dis appointed in that hope, he would have to ask for an ad ditional vote. Mr. HUME said his communications from the Cape led him to believe that the expense would be upwards of 1,000,0001. Mr. ADDERLEY asked from what revenue the two commissioners would be paid who had been sent out? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he proposed they should be paid by this country. The nomination of the Committee on the income-tax was postponed till this day. On the order of the day for considering the Lodging houses Bill, Lord ASHLEY said he proposed referring it to a Select Committee. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and The House adjourned at 20 minutes past One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 22. The LORD CHANCELLOR tOOk his teat upon the Woo: sack at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented a petition from Newark against Papal aggression. The Duke of ARGYLL presented several petitions from places in Scotland to a similar purport. Earl FORTESCUE presented several petitions from places in Devonshire against Papal aggression; also a petition from Barnstaple in favour of the Copyhold En franchisement Bill. Lord STANLEY presented a petition against the Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management Bill from the Dean and Chapter of Wells (as we understood). PROPERTY-TAY BILL. On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE this Bill was read a third time and passed. EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT BILL. The Earl of CARLISLE, in moving the second read ing of this Bill, claimed their Lordships' indulgence. The Bill was one of a most complicated nature, on a subject to whi c h h o h a d not unt il recent l y directed his attention, and one the provisions of which were sure to militate against the interests of powerful parties. He had, however, the encouragement to know that it was one which was unconnected with party politics, and he hoped that after giving it a second reading their Lord ships would consent to refer it to a Select Committee— (Hear, hear, from the y benches)—carefully consti toted, when its provisions might be maturely considered, and he hoped that it would not be thought that by consenting to this second reading any peer would be pledged to any ono of the provi sions of the Bill, or to any principle, except that it would be advisable to introduce a better management of Church property, so as to make it more profitable and more available for ecclesiastical purposes.—(Hear, hear.) It was admitted that the present management of that property was unsatisfactory both to the lessors and the lessees. It was stated, upon high authority, that these estates might be let on terms more advantageous both to the Church and to the lessees. The Committee of the House of Commons had reported that the system of fines was equally unpro fitable to the Church and to the lessee, and militated against the improvement of the property. It had long been expected that some legislation would take place on this subject, and this expectation had materially interfered with the formation of agreements between the Church and the lessees. In 1849 a Commission had been ap pointed to consider the subject. In 1850 the Commis sioners, who were the Earl of Harrowby, the Dean of Canterbury, the present Solicitor-General, Mr. Archbold, and Mr. Jones, presented two reports, and the Bill now on their Lordships' table embodied the recommendations of those two reports. The tenure of the property held on lease from the Church, in which he believed there had been very little variation, at least since the days of Queen Elizabeth, was by lease for three lives, renewable at the termination of one life; or on lease for terms of years, either for 21 years, renewable at the end of every 7 years; for 30 years, renewable at the end of every 10 3 e e'vecarrys ; 14 or y f e o a r r 4 3. 0 y T ea h r e s r , e renewable e s ea t s t e le : i e n x p w ir h a i t e io h n th o e f Church had the power of granting leases for 90 years, but that was under spe c i a l A cts o f P ar li ament. The rent received under these leases had always been very small in amount, and almost nominal, and the fines re ceived in renewal constituted the main portion of the property of the Church. It appeared that on leases for lives the system had always been to assess the fines upon a calculation of 5 per cent. or upwards, that is so as to secure to the lessee 8 per cent , or upwar d s on the money he paid down as his fine. In the case of leases for terms of years, the intention had been to give the lessee, when he paid down his money, interest as high as 7,8, or 9 per cent. In the most ordinary case, which was a lease for 21 years, the custom of most dioceses had been to make the fine equal to a year and a half's purchase of the annual value of the property to be let. That was giving the lessee 7 per cent. for his money. Their Lord ships were aware that the landed property of this coun try generally sold for about 30 years' purchase, which gave a purchaser not much above 3 per cent. Were he to get 5 per cent. he would give only 20 years' pur chase; it 6 per cent. 16i years' purchase; and if 9 per cent., only 11 years' purchase. It would seem, there fore, that there was ample opportunity for making these estates produce a much larger income to the clergy, and at the same time to put the property on a footing more conducive to the well-understood interests of the lessees. Of course, very different views had been entertained as to the principle which ought to regulate the final adjustment of this species of property. Some contended that it should be dealt with as though the Church had the right and power to run all the leases out, and at the end of subsisting terms to come into the full and undivided enjoyment of the whole property. In the contrary view, it was assumed by others that the lessees were entitled, if the aid of Parliament were called in, to a perpetual renewal upon the same terms as those to which :hey had heretofore been accustomed. Let it be remembered in what position the parties respectively stood. The bishops and other ecclesiastical dignitaries could not afford to renew, for they had no other means of subsistence. The lessee often could wait, and it was often his interest to do so, for the church digni tary might be in infirm health and not expected long to remain in the enjoyment of his office, and might be tempted to renew on disadvantageous terms; and their Lordships would agree with him in thinking that no class of men ought to be less exposed to uncertainty and pre cariousness of income than those who filled places of ecclesiastical dignity. Therefore without the aid of Par liament it would be impossible to effect an arrangement which should materially increase the income of the Church by taking away from bishops or other ecclesi astical dignitaries the temptations which they now had to renew. The recommendation of the Commission was a compromise between the extreme views which he had stated, and this was the object of the Bill which he then had the honour of introducing to their Lord ships. The main ground of compromise which the Com mission recommended was to give to the lessees a perpe tual right of renewal. This, he admitted, was a very lerge concession, but he did not see in what other pos sible way they could materially improve the income of toe Church than by making some terms with the lessees, who had many ways of making their wishes and just claims felt in Parliament. It was proposed, therefore, that leases should have a perpetual right of renewal. He would deal first with leases fur lives. This had always, upon good grounds, been thought a most objec tioaablo arrangement. It exposed both parties to the greatest amount of uncertainty, and rendered insurances necessary. It was therefore proposed to convert all leases for lives into leases for an equivalent term of years. There were special cases which might render it undesirable to substitute a term of years in all cases of this description of tenure, and power would therefore be given to the Commissioners, whom it was proposed to appoint, to leave the tenure undisturbed in these cases only substituting a term of years for the last life. Thus, gradually, all leases would be under the same category of leases for years. How were these to be dealt with? I He would take the instance referred to by the Com missioners by way of illustration. A farm or estate, worth 1001. a year, was to be let on lease for 21 years, and, at the expiration of the first seven years, the laisee would be entitled to have a lease for seven years more to be added to the fourteen remaining unexpired. It had been ascertained that the septennial payment of a fine of a year and a halt's purchase, or 1501., was aqui lent as nearly as possible to a rent of 251. a year, to com mence, as it was said, in prasenti. If the lessor should choose to run his lease out he would for fourteen years receive no fine whatever, but at the end of fourteen years would become entitled to the full enjoyment of 1001.; and it had been ascertained that the payment of 1001. a year to commence fourteen years hence, which was the extreme right of the lessor, would be equivalent to 631. a year. The present receipts of the lessor might be computed to be equivalent to 25/. a year, and his extreme rights to abDut 63/. a year, a difference which gave an ample margin for adjustment; and the Commissioners proposed to divide the advantages in the following way —that henceforth the septennial fine should be paid to the Church calculated at the same rate of interest as at present, but only on a part of the annual finable value, and at the end of the now existing term an annual rent should be thenceforth paid to the Church equal to the other . half of the annual finable value. To apply the same instance which he had already given — instead of paying as now a fine of 1501. upon the renewal of his lea se , th e l essee wou ld ha ve to pay 751. as a fine upon half the annual value, and for the other half he would have to pay 501. at t hei end of fourteen years, when his interest would have expired. Other equivalent arrangements were proposed as alternatives, by which either a rent of smaller amount might commence at an earlier period, or the relative proportions o f fi n e and rent might be respectively increased or diminished, or the whole might be resolved into an immediate rent to com mence at once. But the upshot of the whole transaction was, that the lessor, out of the whole annual value of the property, would receive what would be equivalent to 44/. a year, that is, just the precise mean between 251., which wes equivalent to the present receipts of the Church, and 651., which was equivalent to its extreme rights. He knew the difficulty which there must be in making a calculati on u pon so nice a question, but the result of the arrangement might be stated thus—that the Church in stead of running out the whole lease would practically run out the leases only so tar as half of the annual value of the property was concerned; and instead of renewing the fine at its present amount on the whole annual value it would renew, on half the annual value, half of the pre sent fine; and thus the Chu rch would g ai n exactly one half of its extreme righ ts, a n d the less ee would come into possession of one - half of his ex treme claims. It was proposed to employ the agency of the present Church Estate Commissioners, appointed by the Act of last ses sion, for the purpose of ascertaining the precise rights of fine, or the proportion of the fine to the value o f the pro perty in each particular instance. They t would also be invested with a further discretion. i the evidence taken upon the subject thata ppeared from u therethe north were cer tain districts, and more especially i England, where, either from some extreme notion of of an Old right, or trona invariable usage, th e lone had been led to rely so confidently on the continuance of the present terms of renewal that the result, paradoxical us it might sound, had been arrived at, that a twenty-one years' lease was often of the same value in the market 'as the fee simple of the estate. In that case it would be the province of the Commissioners to define the dis tricts where in consequence of an invariable usage the lease would be suffered to run out on one-third instead of one-half of the entire term. Property in houses did not stand on the same footing as property in land; but it was proposed to place it in a nearly equivalent posi tion. From the deteriorating nature of house property it would be hardly feasible to make an addition as a re- I newed rent of half of the present value of the property at the termination of the lease; and, therefore, it was proposed, with respect to house property, to give the right of perpetual renewal on the present amount of the fines, but to impose on the lessee an additional rent, equal to half of the new right he would thug have acquired, and so to divide the advantage as in other cases in equal proportions between the lessor and lessee. But there was one species of property which it was not pro posed to put on the same footing as any of the others to which he had referred, and that was the property in tithe-rent charges. It was proposed, with respect to tithe -rent charges, to let them run out. The Commis sioners were of opinion that that property stood in quite a different position from any other description of pro perty, inasmuch as in the cases of tithe-rent charges there had been no improvement in past times, and there was no future opening for improvement. There was in that case no plea of lands being intermixed with other freeholds ; and in general there was no circumstance of association or attachment which connected a person with a tithe -rent charge, or with property in land. With re spect to manorial rights, he had to observe that they could hardly be looked upon as every fitting ecclesiastical appanage. In that case it was proposed to let the leases run out, or to have them put sip for immediate sale. Pro visions were introduced for facilitating the enfranchise ment of copyholds ; and any money arising from sales, exchanges, or enfranchisements would be vested in the Church Estate Commissioners ; first, for the purpose of satisfying the exigencies of the Act; and next, for the purpose of being applied to the common fund for eccle siastical purposes. He had not yet made any re ference to the case of timber. There was, perhaps, no species of ecclesiastical property which suffered from the existing arrangements more than timber, for it fre quently happened that the lessee bad no right to cut and that the lessor had no right to enter to cut. The con sequence was that the timber on the Church estates was generally found in a very bad and wasteful condition. It was therefore proposed that, on the payment of the proper value, the timber should be entirely reserved to the lessee. There were in the Bill provisions for facili tating arrangements between the lessor and the lessee, with a view to promote any improvement which would require an unusual outlay. But with respect to the ordi nary valuations, they would be taken at the termination, not as at present, of every seven years, but at the termi nation of every twenty-one years. He could not but think that that alteration would be productive of mate rial benefit to the lessee. It would afford scope for the improvement of property, without depriving the Church of any ultimate advantage which might accrue from that improvement. That provision rescued the Bill, in his opinion, from the charge of alienating the property of the Church. He believed, on the contrary, that a greatly increased income would be secured to the Church by the measure, while it would give great scope for the accomplishment of the most desirable Church purposes. Those were the material provisions in the Bill with regard to the relations between the Church and the lessee, and he looked upon them as the most important portions of the measure. It com prised, however, other arrangements not wanting in importance upon the general management of Church estates. These arrangements were proposed chiefly with the view of giving effect to the intention of the Legislature that bishops, and deans, and chapters should have fixed instead of fluctuating incomes. That inten tion had hitherto been very imperfectly realised; for some bishops bad received less than had been intended for them, and others had received more. The estates would be vested in the Church Estate Commissioners, and the bishops would receive the fixed incomes allotted to them by law, until under the operatio n o f th e Bill an endowment of and equivalent to the incomes so fixed could be settled on them. In order to provide for the immediate wants which would arise under the Bill, a power would be given to the Commissioners to borrow money on debentures. He repeated what he had stated at the commencement of his address, that he subadtted the Bill in order that it might receive a full and fair consideration. If the Bill were read a second time he proposed that it should bo referred to a Select Com mittee, by whom its details would be duly considered. It was not for him to presume to give advice to the Right Rev. Prelates as to the course which they might think proper to pursue upon that occasion; but he could not help stating his belief that it would be impossible to carry through Parliament as it was at present constituted, or as it was ever likely to be constituted, any measure for enabling the heads of the Church to run out their leases and to enter into the full enjoyment of the whole of these estates. He should say, too, that he very much doubted , even if such a measure could be carried, whether it would be fitting for bishops and other ecclesiastical dig nitaries to be involved in all the labour and difficulty of letting and managing landed property. Ile believed that the Church would receive a large increase of income from the passing of that measure; he did not like to commit himself to any precise calculation as to what might be the amount of that increase; but he should state that persons peculiarly conversant with the subject had estimated it at double or treble the sum at present received. Linder those circumstances he would respect fully submit to the Right Rev. Prelates whether they could better consult for the promotion of the important interests committed to their care, than by giving to the Bill a careful and courteous, but at the same time a most searching and scrutinising consideration. He felt con fident in the purity of the motives with which the Bill had been brought forward; he felt confident in the nature of the measure itself, and in the advantages it was cal culated to produce; he felt confident, too, in the charac ter of those to whom ho had the honour of submitting it; and he had, therefore, no hesitation in calling upon their Lordships to give it a second reading.—(Hear.) The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said be felt much pained at finding himself compelled to cast any disparagement upon a measure which had been proposed by her Majesty's Government, with a view, ho was sure, to promote the best interests of the Church, and which had been brought under their notice with so much can dour and ability by the Noble Earl. Ho felt convinced that the Commissioners on whose report the Bill was founded had been animated by a sincere desire to ensure the spiritual welfare of the community at large. But he was compelled by a paramount sense of duty to with hold his assent from what appeared to him to be tho leading principle of the measure. He considered, like many of his Right Rev. Brethren around him, that the Bill as it then stood would be tantamount to an alien ation of the remaining property of the Church. They had received that property from their predecessors, and they felt bound to transmit it, if possible, to their suc cessors. The right of perpetual renewal which it was ;proposed to give to the present lessees, appeared to him .to differ but little from the right of unlimited pos session, and the heads of the Church, by giving that right, would, in his opinion, be abandoning the trust committed to their charge. The Noble Earl had, however, to a certain extent, relieved him from the uneasiness ho should otherwise feel at finding that measure read a second time, when he had told them ho considered that those Noble Lords who might support the second reading would not be pledged to any thing more than a fair consideration of the whole of that sub ject. If' he could feel assured that that were the case, he should feel very considerably relieved. But he had been informed that, according to the usage of Parliament, when a measure which had been read a second time was referred to a Select Committee, the Committee could not deal with its principle, and was merely empowered to consider the clauses by which that principle was to be carried into effect. Now, if that were the case, he should feel it his duty to express his opposition to the second reading of the measure. He perfectly agreed vrit he Noble Earl that matters could not and ought n 0 , ,. t o tin re main as they were at pres e nt. He believed the e system was vicious in p r i nc iple and objectionableixnlbpiracg tice, and that it bad no oth e r recommendation of than that it had been in oper a ti on f or a period 300 years. Nothing could give him g rea t e r pleasure than to support a measure which wo u ld con t r ib u te to the improvement of the management of Church property withouta dimi nution of that property ; b u t ho could not consientiously feel that that was the character of the measure then under their consideration. The Bishop of LONDON said he hoped some Noble rules of the House would ex plain to them how far Lord acquainted with h the e e house would pledge its e lf t o the principle of the Bill by supporting its second reading. He entirely objected to the principle of giving to lesse es the right of perpetual renewal. He believed that less ees had no such right equitably, legally, or morally. The lessees had no right to demand more than the value of their interest in the property. That interest might, he believed, be easily estimated, and to it, or to its amount only, had they any legitimate claim. He 'wished it to be understood that if ho assented to the second reading of the Bill he did not pledge himself to the adoption of the principle laid down in it upon that subject. No one was more desirous than he was of seeing the property of the Church made available for the removal of spiritual des titution; but that measure would diminish the resources of the Church, and would rob her of the means of pro viding for that destitution in future times. The heads of the Church held their property for the people of this country, and they had no right to give up that property. He earnestly wished to see the whole of that subject referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships, by whom it would be, he was sure, most carefully and impartially considered. But he hoped their Lordships would pause before they sanctioned the principle of a right to a perpetual renewal of leases of Church property. The Duke of RICHMOND said ho thought that Bill was much more against the lessees than against the les sors. But he was ready to assent to the second reading of the m easure on the distinct understanding tha t . the Select C omm i ttee would not be debarred from t o he wle right bo of instituti ng a f u ll an d f a i r i nqu i ry in subject. Th e l essees o f Ch urc h propertytoint the England Were not by any m ea n s pl ace d in so favourablen. dThe Act po sition as thei r br o th er l es sees in Ire of Parliament in force in Ireland contained a clause , under which the lessees could insist on a renewal of the leases. That was what ought to have been done in this country, and then they would not have had those constant discussions upon that subject. There were many details of the Bill to w hich ho ver y much ob jected; but he thought that t he y ought not to refu se to take the whole question into their consideration. The Duke of BUCCLEUCII said it appeared to him that those ecclesiastical dignitaries who were so deeply interested in that matter ought to be allowed to be heard by counsel against the Bill, lie had himself presented a petition the other day from the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, praying that that privilege might be granted to them. It was a very convenient thing in that as well as the other House of Parlia ment to get through a second reading by referring a Bill to a Select Committee. He could understand the ap pointment of a Select Committee to consider the ma. nagement of episcopal and capitular estates, and then to refer that Bill to such a Committee. That would be the course which he thought might be more satisfacto rily adopted. It appeared to him, without meaning to go into the details of the Bill, that it was the com mencement of an interference with the property of the Church which ought not to take place, and a destroying of that independence which the Church ought to possess in this country. At such a moment as the present, too, when they were stemming the aggressions made upon the Church, he considered the introduction of such a measure was most unwise, as it seemed a measure cal culated to injure the independence of the Church. He fully agreed with the Right Rev. Prelate that the Bill was but a temporary remedy for a temporary evil, when it ought to be of a more comprehensive nature to be really useful. The Earl of HARROWBY (who spoke in a very low tone) was understood to observe that the question they had to consider was, whether they would go into Com mittee upon the general subject of Church property of that description, or refer that part i cu l ar Bill to a led' C , mnaittee? The mode proposed—namely, that of re ferring the Bill to such a Committee, was the usual one adopted for dealing with such matters, and doing so did not commit any party on the general principle of the Bishop i s i h o op someof London , ofthe ° measure. After h av i ng referred to some of the details stehrevatie Nobleus mode Ear Earl upona s of the Bill, and replied i e by the ordahips wh et h er they were prepared to b ked them their reject the only means which just no w p resented them selves for providing for the great and growing wants of the Church? Lord STANLEY said it appeared to him that there was a very general concurrence with regard to that measure upon two points ; first, that the various com munications and correspondence which had taken place relative to the matter had directed public attention to it, and then that the inquiry which both Houses of Parlia ment had made had led to the almost universal consent that some legislation ought to take place on the subject. The public mind had been so excited on the question, and the public attention so much called to it, that it Was bettor for the interests of the Church, and those con. nected with its property, that they should come to some determined course of management with respect to that particular description of property. On the other hand, there was a general feeling that the question should not be approached without giving to all parties concerned full notice of the matter, as if it were a private Bill af fecting property in which they had an intesest. He should have no hesitation as to the course which he should pursue were the question before them one simply to affirm or reject the principle of the Bill. But the question was a much narrower one— that of voting for referring the Bill, or not, to a Select Committee. He did not think they were either affirming or rejecting the principle of the Bill by referring it to a Select Committee; and he conceived that the Right Rev. Prelate had somewhat underrated the power of a Select Committee when he supposed that the principle of the Bill would be affirmed by such a reference, and that the objects to be effected by it were to be carried out. The objects of the Bill, as stated in the preamble, was to the effect that it was " for the im provement of the present system of management of the real property of the Church of England, so as to render it more conducive to the spiritual welfare of those be longing to the Church, and for correcting the fluctuating annual value of the said property," &c. Now, it was not natural to suppose any of their Lordships would ob ject to any proposition for making the property of the Church more conducive to the spiritual welfare of her children. But the investigation of the present Bill in vited to the consideration of two very material subjects, and these were the respective rights of the lessors and the lessees. There was another very important part of the question—namely, in what manner were they to deal with the property and the episcopal revenues so as to carry out that proposed portion of the system, the allot ment of a fixed income to the bishops? It bad been fully felt that there was a great variety in the amount of the incomes of bishops, and also of a body of men whose duties were equally important. And within the last few years efforts had been made to equalise the revenues and the labours of their respective sees; and no doubt it was desirable to do so as far as possible. Ho believed that the correctly expressed object of the Commission was not to obtain a fixed income for the bishops, but a more equal average one. He did not assent to the doc trine that Parliament had laid it down as a principle that a fixed and not an equalized income was desirable. If he understood the proposed Bill properly, the whole of the income was to be taken under the management of the Commissioners, to be by them after reconverted into landed property. Now that appeared to him a very complicated arrangement, and one which required great consideration as to its details. With respect to the condition of the lessors and lessees after that Bill should have passed, he understood the Right Reverend Prelate objected to giving the tenant a right in per petuity. The tenants of the Church had at the pre sent moment no indefeasible right to the renewal of their leases; but their Lordships were bound to consider what was the practical result of the existing tenure of that property. He held it to be the case, that the lessee had the prescriptive right on the lessor, although ho had no legal claim for his lease. The difference between the value of freehold property, and that held under the Church by the existing law, was easily ascertained. Anxious as he was to improve the property of the Church, and sensible as he was of the proposed benefit, he could not, looking to the equitable rights of the lessees. agree to sacrifice them at once, as if tee Church was in full possession of the whole property, and tied nothing to do but to run out the lives and come into its enjoyment. That which could not be obtained without au Act of Parliament ought not to be obtained without giving some equivalent advantage to the other party whose in terests were effected. If he could be shown how the pro perty could be increased to a similar amount without altering the relations in which they at present stood, he would approve of that in preference to any other mode. There was now a portion of the value of the property in abeyance, which was to benefit either the lessor or the lessee. That increased value, however, should be divided between them. The Bill, moreover, proposed to do away with leases of lives renewable for ever. Now, although in agricultural property leases of lives were not found to be an advantageous description of tenure, yet, when the leases were renewable for ever, it was like a freehold. They contemplated, therefore, making a very serious alteration in converting freehold into mere personal property. In such a case they took away civil a nd political rights. He should be unwilling to reject that which was said to be the principle of the Bill, but there were words in the preamble which threw some doubt upon his mind. There was allusion made to cer tain Commissioners, and when they went on to say from the recommendations of those Commissioners such and bouft the lessees, w hpethee this such tLings were to be done, it seemed like binding themselves to the principle of the Bill. He did not think it was desirable to reject that Bill, it was desirable their Lordships should considerhie. that For question as fairly and as deliberately as other r ssu eepesition ho would bat ho believt , d considering not only that Bill, brought forward on the part suggest to the Noble Marquis opposite, to be taken —a course might not be the mosc in a or reject the principle course which would neither u a Select without its having received a second reading. Committee of the Bill. They could not affirm or the Bill to What he would venture to suggest was, whether it might not be advisable to postpone the sec on d reading for the present—t 0 appoint a Select Commi t t ee, to which • ports of the Commis s i oners, and other and ce might be thee r lerr e ed the matters stated in the preamble of thoßill, mat t er s connecterdeinwaiitnh s t t h a e nd s in u g bje o c v t e , r vvnidthmouetan ptrimsjeu Bill itself could until the Committee should have mad e i ts report. Such was the course which he ventured to recommend upon that subject, which it should be admi tted was a difficult and important one, and one which required the fullest and fairest deliberation.—(Hear, hear.) Earl FITZ WILLIAM said there would be very con siderable danger in adoptin g t h e proposition with which his Noble Friend concluded. He thought he might ven ture to affir that if that proposal were agreed to their Lordships would not pass any Bill on that subject during the present session of Parliatnent.—(" Hear, hear," from the Government aide), They all knew how long that question had been hung up for consideration; and he thought their Lordships would agree with him that it would not be desirable to take a course which would have the effect of postponing all legislation on the sub ject for an indefinite space of time.—(Hear, hear.) If the interests of the lessees were to be injured by that Bill then he would say let them t o w those interests into consideration. He b e lieved the lessees h a d very strong claims upon Parliament, whatever m i g h t b e done on the question. those who were They had strong claims, inasmuch troubles s been relieved b the legal trustees of the property of landed 'the system of leases of all the and with reference pro prietors, which, speaking for that he ap p ro ve d inconsiderable. He could for, s ay that there were to the last twelve months, he himself, ha,d found to be not at a ll Bill,e d objections; but he did not the postponement of legisla tion and shou ld therefore vote for the ihooimnn some )haetrbtoasut tgoah : c m twe n 3 1°ho f al i t cya L h het A : a s : every clause in the for view of the Bill being referred r a e d fe a re d n v c i SDOWNE felt it incumbent on second reading with Committee. to a Select Co Th e Marquis remarks with s e e dto theirthe costae him to snake afew Lordopposite h which the Noble _ pursue on this question. lie believed that the ships to d ba d stated most correctly a ll t hat had passed Noble Lord at former periods on this su bj ect. But he thought that the Noble Lord, on reconsideration, would see that the course proposed to be taken by his Noble Friend near h i m was perfectly consist ent w i th the objections w hi c h t h e Noble Lord and other Noble Lords entertained to the provisions of the Bill. The course proposed by his Noble Friend was fo r t h e i r Lordships to rea d t h e Bill a second time without pledging thowsulves to any one provision of it, beyond that stated by the Noble Lord himself, and to which reference was made in the pre anabie—viz , that the present state of Church property wets not smell tv, ought to be continued, and that it was lieeirahle for th e L eg i s l a t ure to interfere, with a view putting it on a better footing wills respect to th e in terests of those who own that property, end with due consideration of' the interests believed nothingthose rho hold would be under them. Beyond that ho the measure. Any details affirmed as the principle ot. which the Noble Lord might wish to amend m i g ht b e Committee; considered in a Select and as the object of the Noble Lord Was the same as his own—to have th e Bill considered—he need not remind the Noble Lord that before a :elect Committee could do so, th e Bill must be read a se cured time by their Lordship s . H e wished the Committee to have the opportunity o f consi dering the report, and on which it was founded, and, and the evidence at the same tame, the hi provisions of the Diu itself. Jae asked_their Lordships who had had ex. TH=E SUN, -t!f% LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 23, 1851.