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

and not- Catholic ed on the air of devi• Is. It was :Reds in its a scheme ,ffirm a re ction from tem he re sfully, and means of saes of the able object. seemed to r a general As the clear con ,hoved the ight Hon. question; greatest )n. Friend tir3 poorer ; and also reland the religion-- 1. Baronet that was aching of ;y sects in ;h. Who le Unite" I to main -100 were e without de d from a know ) citizens .ent than icans, at hey were citizens , gland the d have s its 110 0 - on aside; mind for tby of raa a die ous, that -existent florauce rt of the lon. ettion. should be given, b u t ho it shoull be given? The questionbil they w ere now cons id er i ng was , as to t h o t of the plan proposed by the Hon. Member fur Old -1:1. He had three objsetione to that Hon. Member's t ,`, !9 3 e—first, he had doubts about the expediency of th ° l lng education free. Practical men were of opinion to „1 812 oh a system was not edapted to the wante ot the d ge 7trY, or was likely to tend to produce feelings of in- G rndence among the lower orders. They thought the e3 :_ver . nment Einstein was better adapted for the purpose, V v cially if the parents of the poorer, but not the pcorst l a! Were i nv i te d to ma k e sme ll contr ib ut i ons towar d s ptl ) mses of educati on . F or hi s own part he would 4 cm o ,'Y see makesuch aid extended to the ragged schools as 44 make the education there free of expense; but :,/t3 of opinion that neither the necessities nor the ~1 " 8 of the lower orders were sufficient to warrant the b " . °, • Ption of a general system of free education. lhe p i:‘ objection to the next feature of the Hon. Member's t abor aid toward oubted the propriety of calling for f 4 ;:'or aid educating the people by means of „toaer rates. He considered if aid were to be given, it ;e ""ght to be given in a more equitable form, and the ex ibbite oeght to be diffused over all those who were c to bear it. The objectionable form was by r ii l uat from the Consolidated Fund, according to the t ytul at present adopted. With reference to the 1 4" feature of the scheme, that secular education only culd be given, he was eltogether opposed to the prin. ei 4 l : of such a propositien. He did not sea that such a Ene would g i ve eatisfecion in any quarter. He did Ltthink it would give the Church of England, or any t7,?ectlar sect, genernl satisfaction . The Roman Ca -ones, they all knew, would receive no satisfaction from t to lstem of that kind. The mass of the people belonging the Church of England nr the body of Dissenters il n 'd not be generally satisfied with euch a system. 14 Dissenters continued to send their children to tide‘ Church of England echocis, for they knew that the r: at mass of these schools were not teachers of doc dines, of an theological character likely to create preju eote,s, but oly gave instruction in the Scriptures. He not possibly think how such a system of education ta that • a le at proposed by the Hon. Member was ad speed to iieure the end it professed to hey° in view. It was, o rvever, said the system was proposed for the purpose doing justice to the poor, and discharging a debt to to them. But if it was the aim of all who sought l° elevate the poor to implant in their minds the great hit principles of humanity and religion, as the surest Preventive of crime, how could that aim be attained by e koposed system? If education were confined to i altir subects—if carried out withot religions instruc -1141--he v j ery mach doubted whethe u r the tendency of 4 0 1 ft system was to diminish vice and crime. He ahted whether the system would be either bene esisl to the individual or the community. But tit Was said by Honourable Gentlemen opposite, " What " Propose is that children shall be educated in the L ie hael, and receive religious instruction elsewhere." But t that system be carried out, and let all tea done that 14 advocates wanted, what would be the result? How b og were the children to remain at school? If inquiry 'ere made, it would be found that parents would not l eave their children at school beyond the age of 13. All `ue edtication these children received, which was to go :ern the whole course of their future life was given be fore they were 13 years of age. How then could the !, t ?Potted resolution be carried out ?—where could these Tildrei I get their religious education frem? Were these ouildr en to be without instruction in the great moral Princiiales, and in the duty of worshipping God ? If the Vinoiples is the resolution were carried out , the chil telen erould receive no instruction in the schools in their rat duty, that of worshipping the Creator. To such a s Ystena he was decidedly opposed. The only argument of any weight urged in its favour was, that there was a n ecessity for it. Ha did not believe the necessity 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, 4n d 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 cad been opened for th© purpose of providing good teachers. The institution at Highgate, which furnished eighty teachers, had worked well, as also had the uYstem of pupil teachers. He believed, therefore, that t he present system, with some addition to it for pro viding free education for the very poor. was well cal culated, in time, to afford a prospect of carrying out the aim of a general system of education for the people. zlo must oppose, on principle, the present proposition; at the same time he, and the House, were obliged to the lion. Member for Oldham for bringing forward the subject, as even its discussion must be productive of good. Mr. ADDERLEY must vote with reluctance on the question against those with whom he usually voted— tor 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 treee, and the pounds would take care of themselves — moral of which was susceptible of a wide applica- Tin. 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 f rom the opinions expressed by the Hon. and Learned Gentltanan, Mr. Walpole, who, in expressing his dislike to free education, dealt with only a part of the case as if it were the whole.—(llcar.) The Hon. Member for Lancashire said he felt anxiety on the question, but would only consent to support the prepesitious 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, end what would happen to the country in the meantime?—(Hear.) All were agreed that religious 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 cut to the poor ho w they were to find their own subsistence. Now, as crime proceeded frequently from want of employment, education would fail _to prevent crime. If, for 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 being of an improving character. He thought the standard of education was vastly too high; it was vastly higher than was required. And he considered that the prizes 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, the 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 couutry, 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 deterred from the advantages in those places. He approved of a national rate for general education, and ho 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. He had heard only two serious objections to the propositions; first, that, if adopted, they would s upersede the present schools. But that objecion 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 our mischief.o choked thata ad vantages lives in the educstsioenpaorfatoeudrweihthiloduret IVssh the two could be vantages of the Honourable Gentleman ' s proposition w ould be plain and obvious. The necessities of the case were also obvious; and he therefore approved of a plea which would compel the people to take an interest in their own schools. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought no subject could be more important than that of how they could best educate that young and numerous class now is 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, end in the spe.cboa of those who followed bitn.—(llear.) The real effect of the mea sure proposed would be to s hut u p the religious school s in the country, and compel those who now supported them to contribute to schools that they a bhorred.—(lle ar.) It was assa:ned by those who supp orted 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 bad 530,000 children in its schools; and in the nine years that bad 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 bad increased to 20,000/. As a proof that the people of England were not unanimous in favour of what was called mere " secular" education, he referred to what bad 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 had 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 Inspector of Educatior. Now, he asked, if two schools we re established, 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 Hon. Member for THE Oldham, rested upon false principles. The whole mo tion rested on an error in principle, as well as in fact; for the Hon. Member said he would erect the great fabric of national prosperity on the solid basis of na tional intellect. Now, he did not consider that as the only solid basis.. Man was a moral, an intellectual, and a spirituel being, and they must educate all those powers which it had pleased Heaven to bestow upon him. All must be educsael, and one of them, sod that the most important cf all, must not ,be neglected, as it would be 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 too highly instructing the children for their after occupa tions in life. But then it was said that in the Irish uni versities a secular education alone was to be given; but then these 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 formed. As to education in Ame rica, which had been referred to, ho believed there was a great diversity of opinion amongst the different sta tes. Religion e was not, he believed, excluded from most of the schools. And then as to crime disappearing with educa tion, facts did not prove it to have dune 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 inflicted for 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 parents were not in a con dition to impart it, and that the clergy were too few, in proportion to the population, to devote them selves to the task of teaching the children cf the poor. As to religion not being taught with the multiplica tion table, ho 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 Pro'estant history of the reign of Queen Rival:oath, A member of the Spanish Cortes told him that he had been some time in England 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.—(Cheers.) 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 for Old ham was, not a proposition for voting 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 had failed, they had only to look 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 fall 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 end Dissenters; but he hal received a letter from them, after their return to Man chester, in which they regretted to inform him that 18, or, if he recollected aright, virtually the whole body of the Roman Catholic clergy had seceded from that plan of education; and why ? Simply because the committee which met in Manchester 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 were at least 100,000 Roman Catho lics, the poorest of the population, whom it would be the most dangerous to leave in ignorance? Trey 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.) Ther© 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. for education or religious teaching? Because he had always understood that it was not a vote for 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 institute schools for teaching infidelity. What ho 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. How, then, could it be said that he sought to exclude religion from education? They had 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 paying money cut of a public fund, and then putti©g a veto on a portion of their fellow-citizens, because if their children went to school, they would learn something to which their parents could not consent. But he had no desire practically to exclude the Bible. He had 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 population 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 themselves in competition with the whole world, and it 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 number of churches, she attendance of the people on religious worship, their support of religious teachers and Sunday schools, their observance of the Sabbath, or the respect paid by them to their religious teachers, he, challenged them to compare England with Massa chusets.—(lronical cheers.) Bet was the reading of the Bible prohibited ? Ho 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 chose, as well as any other book. Why, 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 oat of a hun dred parishes in England he believed 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 of Kent as the peo ple of Kent were to the people of Naples.—(lronical cheers.) Why could not 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 parish, must be supposed to afford the means of religious educa tion gratis to the great mass of the people. 1k was urged that the proposed plan would supersede the existing school-rooms, but there was no reason why they should 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 fasten 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. He knew many districts in which the clergymen of the Established Church had un dertaken more than anybody else in the cause of educa tion, and he 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. Ho believed it would be found that the majority of the acres in the rural parishes were, on an property_( Hear owned by absentee proprietors. He wanted to ' BO a plan e s t a bli s h e d by w hich, for the purposes of se cular ed ucat i on, t h e par i s h s h ou ld be able to rate the po Hear, hear.) 804 or 100/. so laid out would do more to sn save sum laid from ahy h poorother r way. rates and crimp had than the sameeno thing more to say than to express his great gratification at the altered to had now nc which the discussion of this question assumed, as compared with last year. There was no subject on which and he was thankful he felt so tolerant as on this, cause of toeducation—tn all who attempted to assist in the might belong—because whatever religion or party they he of taking any combined sts" the difficulties in the way e l em ents which had alway e s powing never to those religious hitherto thwarted their en deavours; and perhaps there was a time when mor e was to be feared from that cause Lie still hoped, however , that they woul s till an the p resent. m eet on this neutral ground , out of the paleof be able to religious s trife and interests , f o r b y no other ans poor of this cou ntr y ever be educ ated ,-- (Cheers.) would the Sir B. H. ING LIS acknowled g ed w i t h .satisfaction the moderation of the Lion. Member's tone; and p ower f ul as ho unhappily had been in the country, he hoped the Hon. Member would excuse him for saying that he wished he had never been more powerful then in the argument he had used that evening. He rose to support the proposi tion of the Hon. Member for Oldham, but instead of supporting him he had in fact proposed that the Bible should be read.—aleer, hear.) Lie 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? /s. o; the Hon. No; Member for Oldham looked as immoveable as at that moment. —(Laughter.) He knew that the Hon. Member for the West Riding SUS`, would not exclude the Bible from any school under his control, but was it fit that they should adopt a proposi tion which would practically exclude it, together with the cat:chism, and all religious instruction?—(Hear, hear.) lie would not repeat the arguments used by the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General, for no men could follow him on such a subject without great disadvantege. A speech more philosophical, or more filled with religion and practical good sense, he had not hoard in that House; and ho 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 as an unmixed evil when unsanctified 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 snocess 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 attention to the want of Christian education, and a larger sum was raised by voluntary subscription than had been collected, lie believed, for any other purpose. What had the Dissenters done? It was only the other day that he saw it stated that they numbered one-half of the population of England. The assertion was ludi crous, and 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 education. —(Hear, hear.) And if the Hon. 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 natioral 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 scriptions, which were greater than those of any other country in the world, to support a rate, 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 an 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 inhabhants 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. Gonlburn) 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 beon so fully and completely ex pressed in this House upon the subject, that it would be well understood that nothing but unavoidable absence bad prevented them from making their statements to the House on this occasion. The Hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) had asked them chat 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 for Oldham, they would so soon have had it again brought before them? And let the House bear 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 penitenticc on the fa taro stages; but they bad 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 ho believed it to be an evil in the case of Ireland, it was not the fact of its having been adopted in Ireland that wonid justify 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 his 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 satiation any plan of edacation which was not founded on the love and fear of 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 though thy 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 from 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 upon the full development of the sys tem of each religious denomination. He himself 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—(llear)—he rejoiced to witness their activity in this field; and ho hoped the differences which had hitherto existed between the Privy Council and some of the educational societies in England would soon bo put an end to. Very many of those dif ferences had arisen upon points respecting which agree ment was more easy than might ho imagined; and he be lieved that everything the Committee of Privy Council had urged and desiredto be adopted, they might haveobtained by "recommendation," though they had failed when they insisted upon stipulations. In fact, it was contrary to our habits of self-government, and an invasion of our municipal and parochial system, to have particular stipu lations enforced 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 Irishmen in our large towns, the majority of whom were Roman Catholics; and even if it wore 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. Tho 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 :claw', and the school only; and if we forbade religious education 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 me." He should, therefore, vote against the motion. Mr. L. lIEYWORTH 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 vicious 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 R. 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. He trusted the Hon. Baronet was singular, or nearly so, in that opinion, for ho 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 ace after the religious education of the children of their flocks. From all the information he had re ceived on the subject of the National Schools 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 was not a matter of obligation in them. He thought, therefore, that he was justified in referring to the state of the Irith National Education schools as a convincing argument in favour of the propo sition be 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 to 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 he 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 ... ... 49 Against it ... ... 139 Majority against the motion ... --90 THE HOP DUTY. Mr. LODGES rose to ask tor leave to bring in a Bill for a reduction of the Excise duty on hops. The amount of the duty at present was 2d. per lb, with an addition of 5 per cent.; and he proposed to reduce it to Id. per lb. He also proposed that the duty at present owing should be paid to the furl amount. Formerly hops had not been cultivated in this country, but had been imported from Flanders. They bad sublequently been planted hero with considerable success. In the year 1711 a duty of Id. per lb. was first laid on English hops, and a duty of 3d. per lb on foreign hope. In the year 1 804 Mr. Pitt h a d d ou bled the duty on English hops, and had at t h e same t i me ver y cons iderably increased the duty - on forei gn hops. From the year 18 19 , when the difficulty of paying the Government duty commenced down to the p resent t i me, t h e di f fi cu l ty h a d g one on in creasing, and the profits of the farmer had gono on di minishing to sueh On extent that it was impossible for LONDON, fr at DA Y him any long ter to meet the demand. He, ti terefore, moved for leave to bring in a Bill which would: put an end to that system of credit which even the Commis sioners of Ex cise, in their 16th report, had con( teamed. The CIia.NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not, consistently with his duty to the public, rhgree 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 Oven to the hopgrsewers at their own request was a most fatal gift. But it was not the way to put an end to thrill sys tem to bring in this Bill. It had been contender! that when the protective duty was reduced, the hones 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 am aunted to 42,000,0001b5., while that of foreign hops was only 250,0001b5. If the proposed measure was to redros , the foreign as well as the home duty in favour of the con sumer, there might be some argument adduced i a sup port of it; but the Honourable Gentleman propcesed 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. been created by the producers themselves. They had brouglit into cultivation for the growth`of hops land that was not fit for it; but yet, since 1830 <with the exceptio a of 1847) the duty had been regularly paid each year. The average produce from 1843 to 1815 was 30,000,0001b5., and the price was very high-1213s . per cwt.; in 18 45 it was 150 s. per cwt.; but in 1846,. 1847, and 1848 they increased the growth to 47,000,0001 b%, and the tiVel`A' , l3 price fell to 755. per cw t. That was before foreirn s hops were imported, and it arose, from the excessive production of inferior hops. In dm next year the vice rose again, but then the produce in that year (1849) was but 16,000,0001b5., while last y sex the produce was increased to 48,000,0001h5., 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 cif the growers that he put off the payment of the duty, and in 1819 a deputation of influential peo sons waited on him, and represented that the country would be smutted if the payment of the duty wris en forced; but he was hard-hearted enough to refuse ac quiescence itt their demand, and the duty, amouuting 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 no: place very strong reliance o ft those statements of distress. The Burp us 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 ale hop duty; and for that reason, as well es the others he had adduced, he hoped the Souse would support bins in rejecting the motion of Vac Hon. Gentleman. Mr. A. 13. HOPE said it appeared that the f set of a certain number of men having paid their hop d qty 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 somothine 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 slat uld 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 be had stated on a former occasion, when that subject was under discussion, that the diffi creties under which the hop-grower at times laboured were neither caused by the duties nor foreign importa tion, but the fluctuations in the amount of prod . ece. In 1837, the number of acres under hops had b e en 56,000 , while in 1843 they had dimini shed to 43,0,)0 . In 1847 they were 52,000, and in 1850 had again fallen to 43,000 coxes. 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, its in the case of hope. 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, send not his profits. Mr. FULLER also supported the motioa. Colonel SERTHORP 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 ns easure 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, but not other-wise. 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 wes no part of the kingdom in which so much distress existed ea in the hop districts. There was no tax so unjust as that, and it was the only one which remained unrepealed F,ince the war. He had his doubts as to the accuracy of theprices stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of hops da 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 61. 103. being paid in Sussex, but 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. When 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. Frewen) 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 matter. They called for a reduction of taxes, and they opposed a revi sion of taxation. The hop duty brought in only 300.0001. a year, and yet a little army of tax-gatherers were employed to collect it. Such a thing was not know exceptin 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 resolved to 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 ; ae an Est Kent grower he was prepared to accept it. Mr. HODGES replied. The Houso then divided, when there appeared__ For the motion... Against it BrookeColnrMajority _ 6l Mr. HUME postponed his notice respecting Raja M Jane then s. moved fora copy of the Order in t 7, sanctioning the 11; o g r ardeas by the , LU' or letter from the C lP om Pl m ie rs t s i i ° o n ne m rs ad o e f alterations lately made in Kensin a g nci) r ; st a ma nd en als to o was no Order in Coun cil First Commissioner of the Woods to the Lords of the Treasury or to the o io r n fo : h t o s the heel copy d o o r) Esr extra ct y an m d ouoForests f a t snad memorial for th e p r e e r La Iv 3 s ride in Kennington-gardens. on the subject, therefore the Government • produce it. The pleasure of her Majesty could not was made known, and the gardens were thrown open. Mr. HUME said it required an order from the Trea sury. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Hon. Gentleman was mistaken. Mr. COBDEN was quite sure if it had been'known six months ago that there would be no more enjoyment for equestrians in the Park than now existed, he did not, think any inroad would be made upon Kensington-gar dens. The Exh ibition had realised the expectations of every one. Colonel SIBTHORP denied that it had. On 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 nodal,. The Honourable Member for the West Riding was the poor man's frieud. The Lord deliver the poor from such friends. Liberty, property, and everything 7148 trampled under foot for the purpose of obtaining pop 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 ou t of the building to soo trumpery and trash, and omitted to pay their tradesmen's bills. It was a desecration of their religion. Nobody had a higher respect than ho had for the most Reverend Prelate as the head of the Church of England; but ho must say that he regretted to see the part which that most Reverend Prelate had taken in the opening of the Exhibition. He was not ashamed t o say that he (Colonel Sibthorp) had done everythin g i n his ' power to check the Exhibition, which he believed would prove a great curse to this country in a moral, soc i a l , and, what was of more importance, in a religious point of view. Lord C. HAMILTON differed from the Hon. e i r em _ ber for the West Riding when he said that the Exhibi tion had realised all the expectations entertained of it, for be felt that the great object they all had in v i e w was still to bo attained—he meant such arrangements as should facilitate the admission of the multitudes who had hitherto been debarred visiting it by the high pries of admission. Mr. LABOUCHERE assured the Noble Lord that the point to which he referred had not escaped. the atte n ti on of the Commissioners. That very morning the Com missioners, in conjuetion with r epresentatives from the different railway companies, had been engaged in con sidering the best means of affording . to the multitad es the opportunity of visiting the Exhibition without in convenience and without danger to the public peace. He would not enter into a contest with the Hon. and Gall ant Member for Lincoln as to the merits of the Exhibition. For hi 4 own part he believed it would prove not only a scurc , 2 of national pleasure to the peopl . e . of this co untry , but of great benefit throughout the civilyz?d world. Mr. LUSIHN GTON said that he had been req ueste d by some of his constituents at Kensington to state th e i r dissatisfaction and disgust at the admission of equestrians into Kensington-gardens. The motion was then withdrawn. THE KAFIR WAR. In answer to Mr. HUME, who had a motio n f or a copy of the (ET itch stating the estimate of the expenses of the Kafir war. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, as a matter of course, some uncertainty . attended any pre sent estimate. The report of commissariat officers esti mated the expense at 400,0001. if the war continued for six months; but as he hoped it would not last so long, T .7 . Zt V Ni 1 N U he proposed taking a vote for 300,0001. If he was dis appointed in that hope, he would have to ask for an ad ditional vcte. 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 propoged referring it to a Selo et 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 seat upon the Wo3l. sack at Fiv© o'clock. PETITIONS. The Duko 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 -1 ranchisement Bill. Lord STANLEY presented a petition against the Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management Bill from the Dean and Chapter of Wells (es we understood). PROPERTY-T Al BILL. On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE this Bill was read a third time and passed. EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MA.NAGEUENT BILL. The Earl of CARLISLE, in moving the second read ine, of this Bill, claimed their Lordships' indulgence. Tne Bill was one of a most complicated nature, on a subject to which he had not until recently directed his attention, and ono 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 re -T-___ l -7 benches)—earefully consti tuted, when its provisiens might be maturely considered, sled he hoped that it would not be thought that by consenting to this second reeding any peer would be pledged to any one 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 purposee.—(Hear, hear.) Is 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 equcily 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 piece on this subject, and this expectation bad 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 Canterb ary, the present Solicitor-General, Mr. Archbold, and Mt... Tones, precented two reports, and the Bill now on their Lordships' table embodied the recommendations of those two reports. The tenure of the property hold 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 fcr 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 years; or for 40 years, renewable at the expiration of every 14 years. There were some elites in which the Church had the power of grantin g leases for 90 years, but that was un d er spec i al Acts of Parliament. 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 assees the fines upon a calculation of 5 per cent. or upwards, that is so as to secure to the lessee 5 par cent. or upwards 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 oniy 20 years' pur chase; if 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 mush 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 foal 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 ail 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 they 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 moans of subsistence. Tho 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 ho 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 large concession, but he did not see in what other pos siale way they could materially improve the income of toe Cnurch 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. Jle would deal first with leases for Eves. This had always, upon good grounds, been thought a most objec tioeable 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 ap,Point to leave the tenure undheturbed 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? 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 lessee 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 half's purchase, or 150/., was equi lent as nearly as possible to a rent of 251. a year, to com mence, as it was said, in prcesenti. 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 100/.; 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 about 631. 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 alread y g iven —instead of paying as now a fine of 150/. upon the renewal of his lease, the lessee would have to pay 751 . as a fine upon half the annual value, and for the other half he would have to pay SU/. at the end of fourteen years, when his interest would have expired. Other equivalent arrangements were proposed as alternat ives, by which either a rent of smaller amount m i g ht commence at an earlier period, or the relative proportions of fine and rent might be respectively increased or diminished, rent to IFulshed, or the whole might be resolved into an immediate com mence at once. But the upshot of the whole transaction I was, that the lessor, out of the whole annualv , a ln l e uo t o t f e 4 th 41. e property, would receive what would beeq uilu `)5/, which a year, that is, just the precise mean between was equivalent to the present receipts ett o re f m th e e C ri h a u h r t C s. h, and e 651., which was equivalent to its - knew the difficulty which there must but be in lu resultmaking t the calculation upon so nice a arrangement might be stated thus—that questiota the Church lin stead of running out the run out the leases only so fawrhause lease would practically half of the annual value of the property was concer ned ; 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 Church would gain exactly one half of its extreme right s, and the lessee would come into possession of one-half of his extreme claims. I t was appointed by the ..re precise tiosfe rightsuf proposed to employ the spy of the present Ch urc h Estate Commissioners, ses sion, for the purpo se of ascertnaning the e fine, or the proportion of the fins to tho value of the pro perty in each particular instance. They would also be invested with a further discretion. It appeared from the evidence taken upon the subject that there wore cer tain districts, and more especially in the north of England, where, either from some extreme notion of an old right, or from invariable usage, the lessee had been Y 23 1651, led to rely so confidently on the continuance of the present terms of renewal that the result, paradoxical as rt 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 tric's 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 newed rent of half of the present value of the property at the termination of the lease; and, th ere f ore , 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 thus 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 persou 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. Ia that case it was proposed to let the leases run out, or to have them put rip 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 midst . ; lug 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 had 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 w as 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 net 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 hal received less than had been intended for them, and others had received more. The estates would be vested in the Church Estate Commissioners, end the bishops would receive the fixed incomes allotted to them by law, until under the operation of the Bill an endowment of land 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 submitted 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 be 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 miget think proper to pursue upon that occasion; but be could not help stating his belief that it would be impossible to carry through Parliament as it was at present chnetitutedame 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. Ho 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. Under 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. lie 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 he 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 raid he felt much pained at finding himself compelled to east any disparagement upon a measure which had been proposed by her Majesty's Government, with it view, he was sure, to promote the best interests of the Church, and which had been brought under their notice with so much can dour end ability by the Noble Berl. He 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 the leading principle of the measure. Ho considered, like many of his Right Rev. Brethren around him, that the Bill as it then stood would be tintc.mount to au alien ation of the remaining property of the Church. They had received that property from their predecessors, and they felt boned to transmit it, if possible, to their suc cessors. Tee 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, he abandoning the trust committed to their charge. The Noble Feud had, however, to ascertain extent, relieved him from the uneasiness he should otherwise feel at finding that measure read a second time, when he had told them ho considered that those Nobie 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 with the Noble Earl that matters could not and ought not to re main as they were at present. He believed the exisiting system was vicious in principle and objectionable in prac tice, and that it had no other recommendation than that it had been in operation for a period of 300 years. Nothinga measure which give wouldhim c g o r n e t a r t i e b r at p e le t s o a t u h r e e ita3hpanrat:e suppo rt o o r . f t_ the management of Church property not consientiously nation of that property; but he could then feel that that was the character of the measure under their consideration. without any dinah- The Bishop of LONDON said he Lord acquainted with the rules of e th h e e go d u s e e m would a Noble ex - the principle of the Bill by supe of giving to lessees plain to them how far the H o us r e ti w ng ou i l t d s a p e l e e n d n g d e r i e ts a e d l i f n t g o . He entirely objected to the pr inciple al.He believed that lessees the right of perpetual henher legally,. or morally.. The ' and more than the value of g t h e t er e quitably, t p a deerm e t . That interest might, he and to it, or to its amount believed, be easily estimated, legitimate claim. He wished it to be l t he h as e da i e r en i so n t h e sa r ud e e s hn t eri right the p . e h y at a i n f y he assented to the second reading of tuohnneldyeßriahlltaehdeedthdt id 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 Come was mittee sur o e f , their L e o a r r d e s fu h l i i p y s, a b e y d whom it would be, he 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. 4 ;The Duke of RICHMOND said he 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 measure on the distinct understanding that the Select Committee would not be debarred from the right of instituting a full and fair inquiry into the whole subject. The lessees of Church property were not by any means placed in so favourahl h Act salon as their brother lessees in Ireland. T a clauce of Parliament in force in Ireland contained of under which the lessees could insist on in . England were tarried. havea rene wal been don© the leases. That was what ought to constant discussions upon that subject. e he very much ob in this country, and then they wou l o t h e . c o n t t. hev l e l h e a r d e those many details of the Bill theytow take the whole question into skat e jectsd; but be thought that o e u o g n h si t de n r o a t ti t e o n r . refuse to LdliLgUnCittfliriessaividhiet appearedt So doeehpilmy tha T t n t e ho p se n e k c e el e e f si ß as ti ti C eo. Cl interested in that matter ought the ugh ill t u. ne h toheallowed to lie heard by counsel a g ainst 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 r e f err i ng a Bill to a Sr-lect Committee. He could understand the ap.. pointment of a Select Committee to consider the ma nagement of episcopal and capitular estate; 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 fbr 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 particular Bill to a Select Committee? 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 measure. After having referred to some of the details of the Bill, and replied to some of the observations made upcn them by th e Bi shop of London, the Noble Earl asked their Lordships whether th e y were prepare d to reject the only means which just now p resen t e d them saws f o r 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 /louses of Paella meat had made had led to the almost universal consent that coma legislation ought to take place on the subject. The public mind had been so excited on the que s ti on , and the public attention so much called to it, that it w as better for the interests of the Church, and those con. fleeted with its property, that they should come to some determined course of management with respect to that particular descripticn of property. On the other hand, there was a general feelin g that the question should not be app roac h e d w i t h out g i v i ng to a l l part i es concerne d 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 anSelect Committee ; and he conceived that the Right reev. Prelate had somewhat underrated the power of a Select Committee when he supposed that the principle of the Bill would be eflirweey such a reference, and that the objects to be effected by it w e re to be carried out. The objects of the Bill, as stated in the preamble, was to the effect that it was " for the im the Church of England, so as to render r p e r a o l v epmr property the oi present system of m anagement of the 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," Sc. 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 had 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 end the labours of their respective sees; and no doubt it was desirable to do so as far as possible. He 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 audersteod the proposed Bill properly, the whole of the income was to b© 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 he 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 the Church was in full possession of the whole property, and had nothing to do but to run out the lives and come into its enjoyment. That which could not be obtained without an Act of Parliament ought not to be obtained without giving some equivalent advantage to the other party whose in terests were effected. If ho 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 and 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 such things were to be done, it seemed like binding themselves to the p r i nc i p l e of the Bill. Ile did not think it was desi ra bl e to re j ect that Bill, but he believed it was desirable th e i r L ordships should consider t h at question as fairly an d as deliberately as possi b le . F o r considering cot o n ly t h at Bill , b ut any ot h er p r eposition brought for war d on t h e part of the l essees , he r wonld suggest to the Noble M arqu i s opposite, course might not be the m ost advisable to be ta course which would neither affirm or reject pilito a Se i le the print plcet of the Bill. They could not refer the whet a h k e en this reeding. was, whether It What he would venture to suggestbe second ' readin g might not be advisable to postpone t t a Select Committee, to which Committee without its having received a second d' for the present—to appoint in the preamble of might f the Commissioners, and other the Bill, the reports o the subject, and meantime the matters connected with could remain standing over without prejudice Bill itself Committee should have made its report. Such be referred the matters stated . which he ventured to recommend u po n was the course which should be admitted was a difficult LLIAM said there would be very con • leant one, and one which required the fullest and important and fairest deliberation.—(Hear, hear.) n thatnEt i a l sr t ul l bl e j ,ei C eTt o , z m i v m faerable danger in adopting the proposition with which hi s Noble Friend concluded. He thought he might ven ture to affirm that if that proposal were agreed to their Lordships would not pass any Bill on that subject during the present session of Parliament. —(n Hear the Government side). They all knew h hear," from ow long that q uestion had been hung up for c ons id erat i on; and he thought their Lordships wo u ld agree with him that it would not be desirable t o ta k e a course which would have the effect of po s tp on i ng all legislation on the sub ject for au indefinite space of time.—(Hear, hear.) If had in to very con st s r i o d n er g atio e n la . the interests of the lessees were to he injured by that Bill then ho would say let them take those lesseesinterests whatever might be done on the question. They had strong claims, inasmuch as those whoyewdeir)e the legal trustees of the property had been landedreepro prietors, system of leases of all the troubles of refere nce which, speaking for himself, and w ith d to be not at all to the last twelve months, he had foundhat ims lie upon bel P e a v r e llanif he approved of inconsiderable. He could not ea sa u do c ubtedly, there were every clause in the Bill, for, fe u ctions; but he did not some parts to which he hado postponement of legisla tionthink be ought to vote for the should therefore vote for the on that account, and of the Bill being referred second reeding with the view to a Select C omm ittee. d . L AN6DOWNE felt it i ncumbent on The Marquis of him to make a few remarks with referenc e to the mini • which the Noble Lord . opposite had advised their Lord ships to pursue on this qu es tion. He beli eve d t h at the ted most correctl Noble Lord boas .a y all that had passed on this subject. But at former pon Noble Lord, on reconsideration, would see that the the course proposed to be taken b y his Noble Friend near bins was perfectly consistent with the objections which the Noble Lord and oth er N oble Lords entertained to • sof the Bill. ' the provision The course proposed by his Noble Friend was for their Lordships to read the Bill a s econd time without pledging themselves to any one provision of it, beyond that stated by the Noble Lord himself, and to which reference was made in the pre amble—viz , that the present state of Church property was not such aP, ought to be continued, and that it was desirable for the Legislature to interfere, with a view of putting it on a better footing with respect to the in terests of those who own that property, and with due consideration of the interests of those who hold under them. Beyond that be believed nothing would be affirmed as the principle of the .mea amend might be sure. Any details which the Noble Lord might w i sh to as the object of considered in a Select Committee; end hisown—to have the the Noble Lord was Ilse same n o remind the Noble Lord that before a Scent t Bill considered—ho need c om mittee could do so, the Bill must be read a second time by their Lordships. Ho wished the Committe e to have the opportunity of cocai daring. the report , t a nd the evidence on which it was founded, and, at the sane time, the provisions of the Bill itself. Lie asked their Lordships kwho had had • in