The Sun. — London, England, 1847-12-15 00:00:00

standing orders be ? They would be a perfect nullity, and if 'Acne statements were to he allowed to pass unnoticed and uninvestigated, the House itself would become a party to these abomin able scenes,, they would encourage them from one cod of the kingdom to the other, and it would be tantatnouut be an invitation to wealthy men to come forward and interfere with the rights of the electors, who were in vited to return Members to discharge the duties of that Rouse. He aaid therefore that the allegations of these pe titionerswere entitles' to:their calmandserious deliberation ; and as the Noble Peer had no objection to an inquiry, he begged leave to move that the petition be referred to a Committee of Inquiry. Some Hon. Members might ask, " Suppose your find the Noble Peer guilty, what will you do with him ? What punishment can you inflict upon him when you have no power to inflict any ?" lie did not know what punishment the House had power to inflict, but this he did know, that public opinion, in these cases, was seldom appealed to in vain, and if they had no power to inflict a punishment, the Noble Peer might be left to be dealt with by public feeling and public - opinion.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. MUNTZ seconded the motion. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, after a short pause, rose and said, he had been anxious to ascertain what was the opinion of the House upon this subject before he related the result of his inquiry into the matter; but as no lion. Member !teemed disposed to address the House on the subject he was anxious to point out the difficulties they . would get into if they adopted this motion. Now, if ho understood the motion, it was founded upon what was alleged to be a breach of the isenitiliges of the Ilouse, which privileges were established by the standing orders passed at lithe commencement of each Parliament. Now the first , case he found on the books of this nature occurred so far back as 1780, when a petition was presented complaining of the interference of the Duke of Chandos with the elec tion of a Member of the county of Northumberland. That petition was very properly referred to the Committee of Privileges, who subsequently reported their opinions to the House on the subject, when a motion was made and carried, to the effect that the consideration of the report be adjourned sine die.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. WAKLEY—That was before the Reform Pars liament.—(Hear, and laughter.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued—The next case took place in the same year, and was reported in page 530. It was a similar application a ga i ns t th e uke of Bolton for interfering in the election for the county of Southampton. The question was re ferred to the Committee of Privileges, but the House, warned by the former ease, took no further steps in the matter. On the same page he found a motion instructing that Committee to report upon the matter ; but it was subsequently withdrawn. 'There was a farther motion respecting the interference of a Bishop in the same election, but the same course was taken. In 1841, an application of a similar na ture was made in consequence of the interference of Lord Cawdor in the Carmarthen election, through the agency of his steward. The then Member for Bridport (Mr. War burton), a great supporter of the privileges of the Rouse, was a member of the Committee, and ho and the Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) and the Noble Lord (John Russell) took a part in the discussion, but it resulted, in aio motion being made. Since that time several cases had occurred. On the 4th of April, 1845, an applica tion was made against the Duke of Marlborough, on the strength of a petition from Woodstock ; no mo tion was made. In September, 1845, a petition was presented, complaining of the conduct of the Marquis of Salisbury; the petition was printed, but it led to no result. In 1833 and iu 1838 similar petitions were pre /tented against the Duke of M a rlborough, praying for inquiry, with the same result; and such was the case with respect to a petition against the Marquis of Hertford in 1820. The House felt that it had no remedy in its hands, and nothing was done in either case. Mr. WAKLEY—You may dismiss Earl Fitzhardinge from the lord-lieutenancy.—(Hear. hear.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was coming to that part. If the facts alleged were true, the Earl could be proceeded with in a court of justice—(Hoar)--and look ing at the precedents he had quoted, it appeared to him that an inquiry by a Committee would be prejudicial to the ends of justice. It was not stated that he was guilty of the conduct complained of in his capacity of -Lord-Lieutenant of the county.—(" Oh, oh 1") If he had persuaded his tenants to withdraw their support from his brother, the captain of the militia, as their land lord, and not as the Lord-Lieutenant, it could not be said that he had departed from the duties of his office, but if he had done so it would be a ground for proposing a recommendation to the Queen to dismiss Ihim. He wished simply to set the House right on the law. Captain BERKELEY sought the indulgence of the House for a few moments. He could not do better to show that the charge was trumped up than to read the words of his noble relative. (The Gallant Gentleman produced a letter.) He stated that the charge was the vilest falsehood that ever disgraced any set of men ; as be had never i n t er f ere d i n an y wa y w ith his tenants, or 'With any other person, with respect to the election in guestion. He (Capt. B.) firmly believed this statement, He hoped the House would deal with his noble relative as it thought fit. As for himself he should withdraw from that discussion.—(The Hon. and Gallant Member hurriedly walked out of the House.) Mr. G. BERKELEY deeply regretted the painful po sition in which he was placed on the present occasion ; but he was anxious t o say ft few words as reg a rd e d th e petition, the respectability of the names attached to it, and the allegations which it contained. With regard to the assertion just made, and which touched him more nearly: because he was the captain of the troop of yeo manry alluded to, he could assure the House that he had in his possessi on ( an d i f the House granted the Committee he would produce them) the letters of the tenantry who had served in his troop, telling him they would not have left if they had not been coerced to do so by their landlord. When he returned the muster roll of his troop, ho had reported in the printed column for remarks the fact that litany of his best men had airatiltancously deserted the troop ; and, lest it should be thought that this had arisen from any errors on his part, he had distinctly reported that they had so left in Consequence of the coercion exercised by the Lord- I.dieutenant. He had, however, not been permitted to send the muster-roll to the War-office with these Words in it, and, therefore, in obedience to his com manding officer, and after consulting with an Hon. and Gallant Friend as to what ho should do, he had erased the words, and made no remark in the muster-roll. Ile should say no more, nor should he attempt to fore stall the decision of the House ; indeed, but for the re marks of his Hon. and Gallant relation, who bad quitted th e House, he should not have said a word upon the subject. Sir R. H. INGLIS proposed to direct the attention of the House to the petition without reference to the party against whom it was directed, and to as k th e H ouse to • consider whether it was necessary to adopt the course the House had proposed. The Hon. and Learned At torney-General had found that there were means in the courts of law by which redress could be sought if any Wrong had been committed, and there were other tri bunals which ought to be exhausted before the House was called upon to enter upon the discussion of the question now before it. It might be a doubtful question how far it was right, session after session, to face the standing order which made the House subject, he would >tiot say to mockery and insult, but, at any rate, to but still it was matter for calm consideration whe ther a resolution of the House was sufficient to disfran chise any of their fellow-subjects whether a Peer :or a commoner. Every Peer had a right to interfere, as a freeholder of 40s. value, and there were many Peers now living who had exercised the privilege of voting at the election of Members to serve in Parliament, and the Duke of Norfolk, within the last forty years, had voted in at least half a dozen boroughs in which he had inte rest, and knowing all this, he thought the House would exercise a wise discretion, in no longer having recourse to that " brutum /Omen" which was hurled every year in the shape of a standing order at the Peers of the realm. On the whole, he thought that the Hon. Mem ber for Finsbury had laid no adequate grounds for the motion, and, under such circumstances, if pressed to a division, he should vote against it. Mr. HUME said that several years ago he had en deavoured to persuade the House not to persist in the Maintenance of the standing order in question. There, however. it remained, and hence the awkward position of the House on the present occasion. He dissented from the Honourable Baronet, the Member for Oxford, and thought that ample grounds had been laid for the House to vindicate its own resolution. He thought the House ought not to stultify itself by refusing the in quiry sought, and on these grounds ho should support the motion. Lord DUDLEY STUART thought that the motion having been made, it was due to the electors of the country at large to grant the inquiry. It was the duty of the House to protect the electoral body from undue influence being exercised by any individual, whatever his rank and station. This measure would have a ten dency towards that end, as marking the reprobation of the House for these improper practices. Supposing the by un a bl e t o reac h th e o ff en d er , h e m i g h t b e reac h e d ,°Y public opini o n ; and how could public opinion be fix e d "t by a proper inquiry? The report of a Committee Would enable this to be done. The inquiry ought to be granted in justice. to the Noble Lord, the petitioners, and the country. The House must be pained by hearing of the differences in the Noble Lord's family, who, during I t long life had been a steady and zealous supporter of 'lberia principles. On that ground, he rejoiced that the 'notion had come from his side of the House; there could be the less suspicion of any party motive. It behoved th e Rouse to show that they were not indifferent to these 'natters; and this could only bo done by the appointment O f la Committee. „Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not agree with the ''''Qn• Member for Montrose, that, because a certain re solution had been passed by that house against the in terference of Peers at eltctions, they were therefore bound, on every occasion of complaint, immediately to institute an inquiry, or else to rescind their resolution. a t . the contrary, he conceived it was completely in the he of the House, having passed such a resolution, h. a PPIy it or not to the cases brought before it.—(llear, ') There might be a case in which the House ca se` unanimously agree to an i nqu i r y ; th ere m i g ht b e ' t Vea in w hi c h i t woul d not th i nk inquiry advisable; and te e lion. Member for Montrose had not held out a very te Pting prospect when he said, that it a Committee was fi a ppoint e d , a n d the charges were found to be proved, le the prudence of the Howe might come in, and no t h r ,her proceedings might be taken. He did not think e _ 46 an advisable course to pursue. The discretion to be pacereised depended very much on the allegations in the i% ll l°n• One allegation, to which an Hon. Member of liouse (Mr. G. Berkeley) had lent the weight of his ,lt.hority, was, that Lord Fitzhardinge had induced cer ;7lll:asinbers of a tr oo p o f yeomanry to withdraw from that 99 , Nevus the Hon. Gentleman was the eapt4iu of , that troop; and it was alleged he had done that in virtue of his power as Lord-Lieutenant. But this was not, on the ono huud, an exercise of his power as Lord-Lieutenant; nor, on the other, was it an interference with the elec tion.—(Hear, hear.) It might be that it was the exer cise of a very wanton and oppressive power as against the Hon. Gentleman the captain of the troop; it might have shown a feeling not at all honourable; but it was not a matter into which the House could inquire, with a view to take any proceedings. The next allegation was that the Noble Lord had endeavoured to induce a candi date, who wished to be a Member of that House, to withdraw his pretensions. Even if it were proved that he had paid money fur that purpose, he (Lord J. Rus sell) did not know whether it would bear the character of a corrupt proceeding, so as to bring it within the pro vince of any law relating to elections. A further alle gation and a grave one was, that Lord Fitzhardinge "had caused to be paid a large sum of money for pur chasing and treating voters, and by an extensively or ganized system of personal violence, Bross immorality, bribery, corruption, and intimidation, had endeavoured to influence the election for West Gloticestea rs hi ac .e B u t that was an allegation which might he; ao b e en inquired into in the mode whi c h th e House he,-. appointed by sta ute, had the petition been presalnted within fourteen days after the meeting of Parlie. ment. Mr. WARLEY was unch' . .stooti to dissent. Lord J. RUSSELL safe', if this allegation was inquired into, it ought to be bd . , ire a Committee appointed under the Act passed two years ago, rather than by a general Committee of the T ainuse. As it was, the matter would come before the. Committe e w hi c h h ad been regularly appointed, by t h e A ct of Parliament, for inquiring into the return. It did not appear, therefore, in this parti cular cesae, that th ere was any reason for appointing a Committee for the purpose. His Right Hon. Friend behind him (Sir G. Grey) had just informed him that the petition against the return was not on the ground of bribery, but on the ground of want of qualification. — (Hear, hear.) If so, that would make a difference as to the means of inquiry before that Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Cert a i n l y, if there were no means for inquiring into this matter before an Election Committee, that might be a ground—whether Lord Eitzhardinge was a Peer of Parliament or not—for appointing a Select Committee. —(hear.) He confessed he was not sufficiently aware whether there were the means for so inquiring or not ; and therefore he should suspend his opinion on the question. Mr. H. DRUMMOND said he believed the liberties of the country were most endangered by the assumption of extraordinary powers on the part of that House. Sir F. THESIGER said he hardly understood what course the Government meant to pursue, the Noble Lord having stated, after receiving the correction of his Right Hon. Friend, that ho should suspend his opinion en the matter.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Attor ney-General had objected to the inquiry on the ground that it would bo utterly fruitless—that the House could not reach the Noble Peer even if ho were pronounced guilty ; and he had industriously collected precedents in proof of this. But even if no result could be arrived at such an inquiry ought not to be stifled.—(Heaqear.) It would be perfectly idle in the House, having passed this standing order only a f ortn i g h t ago, as soon as a petition of this kind was presented, the allegations of which were very strong, to admit that this order was utterly powerless, and a waste of words. This petition concerned riot only a Peer, but a Peer who held the re sponsible office of Lord-Lieutenant of the county.— (Hear, hear.) The Attorney-General said he had not acted as Lord-Lieutenant in coercing the yeomanry, but only being Lord-Lieutenant—(llear)—consequently the standing order could not be: enforced against him. But most certainly, if the standing order had b een vio lated, it ou g ht to be enforced in this case. There was one case decidedly in point. In 1701, the Bishop of Worcester, who was almoner to the Queen, interfered in the election for Worcestershire, not as the Queen's almoner, but being the Queen's almoner.—(Hear, hear.) A petition was presented, on which the House reported, and addressed her Majesty for his dismissal, which was granted, her Majesty decl ar i ng t h at she would put some one else in his office.—(Hear.) Without entering into the merits of the petition, he must contend that it would be trifling with the standing orders not to inquire into this case. It was said it might be left to the ordinary course of law, by which acts of bribery might be pro - - secuted. This showed that the House had a power of punishing the Noble Earl if he were guilty, by directing the Attorney-General to pros:cute, as had been done in many former cases.—(Hear, hear.) Should the peti tioners be able to prove what they alleged, it would be the exalted and important duty of th e H ouse, on account of the high station of the individual, to pursue the course it had taken against humble individuals in other cases. —(Hear, hear.) The House was clearly not so helpless as the Learned Attorney- General had represented. Sir G. GREY said he was not at all prepared to deny that some inquiry ought to take place : but the House should be cautious in adopting the motion that had been presented to it. The petition did not subject the par ties to any recognisances by stating the petitioners to be electors. The allegation as to bribery charged Lord Eitzhardinge with paying and causing to be paid money for purchasing and treating electors. By the Act 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 102, a tribunal was expressly provided for investigating charges of this nature, when they could not be heard before an Election Committee ; and to this tribunal was referred all petitions presented after the period for presenting election petitions—that tribu nal being the General Committee of Elections, who were empowered to report upon such petitions. The case before the House was thus expressly provided for. Let the petitioners allege themselves electors, and enter into recognisances, and then their petition might be entertained.—(Hear.) He had only just looked into the case ;' and if there was any doubt he thought it would be better to adjourn the question for a day or two. The petition, in reciting the order of the House, referred to the Noble Lord acting as Lord- Lieutenant ; but there could be no doubt this order re ferred to acts done by Noble Lords by virtue of their office as Lords-Lieutenant. He would move that the de bate be now adjourned.—(Uear.) Sir R. PEEL said it was the practice of the House, in such cases, to institute immediate inquiry ; but this ought not to be done without consideration. A tribunal for examining thes charges had beets expressly provided, recognisances being required from the complainants ; and if these preliminaries were dispensed with, it would go far to break down the existing provision. Such was the importance of the subject that there would be a great tendency to present similar petitions if it could be done without recognisances. The House would act most wisely to take 24 hours, at all events, to consider what ought to be done. He, therefore, most heartily seconded the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. WA.KLEY expressed his readiness to consent to a short adjournment. The debate was accordingly adjourned till Friday. THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION. Mr. HORSMAN said he need offer no apology for bringing under the notice of th e H o u se th e proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission, at a moment when both clergy and laity were roused to great activity, and when all eyes were directed to the proceedings of the board by whom the ecclesiastical revenues were ad ministered. The board was invested with very high authority, its powers were most extensive, and it would its proceedings. sure to comman d t h e sympat h y o f t h e H ouse in proceedings. Every generous mind must give them credit for discharging their duties with scrupulous fidelity. Nevertheless, he brought forward this motion, not only without reluctance, but without fear. The whole case lay in a very small compass, and, in order to make it clear to the House, he had embodied it in the resolutions. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had to carry into effect the provisions of the Act of 1836; they were to carry certain reductions in the episcopal incomes into effect upon the avoidance of the sees. Last year an important provision of the Act of 1836 was repealed, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners stated, in the other House, that they thought the Act of 1836 went too far. He thought the privoso that the changes enacted in 1836 were only to come into operation on the avoidance of the sees was very objectionable; for how would those suggestions come before the public? The Archbishop of Canterbury said that he thought the revenues of his see much too large, and they ought to be reduced to 15,0001. a year; and the Bishop of London thought 10,0001. a year enough for his see; but they both persisted in retaining their present revenues during their lives—they would not allow their incomes to be diminished, although they admitted that they were too great, and_ought to be curtailed. When the Ecclesiastical Commissioners proceeded to the discharge of their duties they were guided by a return of the episcopal in comes for three years, ending in 1831, and by the pro bable incomes in future years made by the several bishops. Some of these returns were so extraordinary, that it looked like a desire to keep tho public in the dark on the subject. The Archbishop of Canterbury returned his income at 22,216/. gross, and 19,182/. net; but Dr. Lush ington the year before, in 1830, said that the average in come of thearchiepiscopal see was 32,0004 Taking, how ever, the average of three years, 'ending with 1831, it seemed,according to the Archbishops return, to hav e f a ll en to 22,0001. ; but the Most Rev. Prelate said his futur r i ncome would be diminished to 17,0001., and the Commissioners so took it. When he (Mr. Horsman) looked, however, to the next r e t urn o f th e Ecclesiastical Commissioners, showing th e average o f seven years , ending with 1843, the net income of the Archbishop of Canterbury had risen to 21,0001., and the gross income to 28,0001. Next came the return of the Archbishop of York, who made his income to be 13,0001. gross, and 12,000/. net, and added that a decrease of at least 201. per cent. must be expected. Accordingly his future income was set down at 10,600/. ; but the return made by himself in 1843 showed that his income had risen to 14,550/., an increase of 40 per cent. over the calculation which he bad made. Ho now came to the case of the Bishop of London, who returned his income at 13,900/., and stated that there must be a decrease, in accordance with which his future income was estimated at 12,204/. It had risen, however, by the return of 184.3, to 14,5521. The Right Rev.' Prelate said in 1831 that the whole prospect of his see was one of diminution. Now many Hon. Members must be aware of the Bishop of London's Pad dington estate, flanked by the Edgware -road on the one side and the Uxbridge -road on the other, upon which an immense number of buildings had risen up. Was it possible to believe that in the year 1831, when a return waft deliberately made that all the prospects of the see of London wore decrease of income, an idea of all these buildings rising up did not fit across the mind of the Right Rev. Prelate ?—{Hear.) Five years before there had been an Act of Parliament obtained for the express purpose of promoting them.— (Hear, hear.) The report of the Ecclesiastical Com missioners on the 17th of March, 1845, after they had been erected, reiterated the statement that a diminution was to be expected, although a great many of the houses in Hyde-park-terrace and the neighbourhood were in habited at the time, and others were in the course of being built.—(Hear, hear.) Terraces were springing up in every direction, and a mind of wealth was thus secured to the Bishop of London which he was almost afraid to oalculate ; it bad, howayer, been estimated • those whom society and even Christianity bad regarded as outcasts, and of whom it was said:— " llis the hard duty to reclaim The reckless son of sin and shames-. Contermi'd—repulsed—from door to door, His heavenly message pressed the more At last prevailed : in him they see A aympathising p overty . Like th em , b y worldlieess iergof, Neglect an d ;overt) , his lot, Tl_Sstr woes, their ways, to him are known, Alas I for they're his own. He feels their woes—owns their cares And all, except their crimes, he shares." (Cheers.) These were the men whom they ought to multiply and strengthen—who served as links between the poor man and the Church.—(Hear, hear.) They should recollect that every shilling given to the hierarchy was taken away from the poor clergy, and that it was their duty, for the sake of these men, and for the sake of the Church, to see that the revenues of the Church were justly administered. The lion. Gentleman con cluded by moving— " 1. That the Act 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 77, contained, among others, the following enactments: • That in order to provide for the augmentation of the incomes of the smaller bishoprics, such fixed annual sums be paid to the Commissioners out of the revenues of the larger secs respectively as s h all, upon due inquiry and considration, be determined on, so as to leave as an average annual income to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 15,0001. ; to the Archbishop of York, 10,000/. ; to the Bishop of London, 10,0001.; to the Bishop of Durham, 8,000/. ; to the Bishop of Winchester, 7,0001. ; to the Bishop of Ely, 5,5001. ; to the Bishop of St. Asaph and Bangor, 5,200/. ; and to the Bishops of Worcester and Bath am: Went respectively, 5,0004 And that out of the fund thus accruing, fixed annual payments be made by the Commissioners in such instances, and to such amount, as shall be in like manner determined on, so that the average annual incomes of the other bishops respec tively be not less than 4,000/. nor more than 5,0001. And that, at the expiration of every seven years, reckoning from the Ist day of January, 1837, a new return of the revenues of all the bishoprics be made to the Commissioners; and that thereupon the scale of episcopal payments and receipts be revised, so as to preserve, as nearly as may be, to each bishop an amount of income equivalent to that which shall have been determined in the first instance to be suitable to the circumstances of his bishopric; and that such revised scale take effect, as to each see respectively, upon the then next avoidance thereof.' 2. That, on the Ist day of January, 1845, a new return of the revenues of all the bishoprics, as ordered, from the Ist day of January, 1837, to the 31st day of December, 1843, was presented to Parliament; and subsequently, on the 6th day of February, 1846, and the 16th day of June, 1846, re spectively, were presented the first and second general reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, showing how the provisions of the above -named Act had been carried out. 3. That, from these reports, furnished by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, it appears to this House, that the provisions of the Act 6 and 7 William IV., c. 77, so far as relates to episcopal incomes, have not been carried out according to the intentions of Parliament." Mr. PLUMPTRE seconded the motion. He did not believe that the Honourable Gentleman was actuated by any personal hostility to those whom he was obliged to name in the course of his speech, but that ho wished sincerely to promote the advantage of the Church, whose worst enemies were those who would allow a bad system to proceed without any amendment.—(Hear, hear.) After the statement of the Hon. Gentleman the working of the Ecclesiastical Commission could not be considered satisfactory, and therefore he would support his motion. Sir G. GREY agreed with the Hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject as to the spiritual destitution which existed in the populous parts of the country, and that the revenues of the Church ought to be made as available as possible to meet that destitution, but he would ask his Hon. Friend who seconded the motion whether he thought, that if they passed a censure on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the terms of the third resolution, it would advance that object? He came down to meet the case of the Hon. Gentleman, but ho alluded to the returns of the report of 1831, and it was entirely a gratuitous assumption on his part to assume that the Commissioners acted on this report, and that the fixed payments they imposed on the vacancies of the sees to which he referred were founded on the returns of the [ report of 1831. O n t h e contrary, the returns of 1831 riled, in no one instance, formed the basis on which they framed the annual payments of the larger sees, or the payments to be added to the smaller ones. In 1835 the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) appointed an Ecclesiastical Commission, with the view of promot ing the very objects which his Honourable Friend opposite so much desired. They made their report in March, 1836, and that report contained various recom - mendations in the shape of resolutions, having for their object the equalisation of episcopal duties and revenues, or rather a tendency to such an equalisation, for an ab solute and complete equalisation was not possible. They advised that fixed annual sums should be paid to the ; poorer sees out of the revenues of the larger, so as to leave certain sums applicable as income in certain cases , and they further recommended that, once in every seven years, returns of income should be made so that averages might be struck on which there might be fresh appoint ments. Now he (Sir G. Grey) was not contending that that arrangement was not capable of great amendment, nor was he contending that great reduction in bishops' incomes might not be made ; but what he did contend for was, that the evil, if there was any, did not arise from the fault of the Commissioners, but from the fault of the Act of Parliament. Mr. HORSMAN---Not at all. Sir G. GREY—The Hon. Member said not at all; but the question was, had the Ecclesiastical Commissioners carried out the provisions of that Act ? What had they done ? The Hon. Member said the returns made in com pliance with the Act were grossly incorrect. lie (Sir G. Grey) had not looked into those returns; ho had not had time to do so, and, therefore, all he should say was, that the bishops, if the representations of the Hon. Mem ber were correct, must in 1831 have taken a somewhat desponding view of their affairs.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) But the lion. Member had made a great mistake in taking the return of 1831 at all. That was not the return on which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners calculations were founded. They bad calculated on a return made in 1837, a return which showed the incomes of the sees to be very much larger than they were taken to be on the averages of 1831. Look at Canterbury for example. The Hon. Member said that it was returned at 17,3001. in 1831, but in 1837 it was returned at 22,3001., and e.as upon this calculation that the Commissioners orderedsf,3oo/. to be paid as surplus by the Archbishop. At what had the lion. Member put down eL M r, r. he ilar°)rbu-19,0001.) n an el T the 9) Vel l, Commissioners —(A , rr Hon. M em b er —Take Durham.) Well, he would takehc Vtiatmamrh c D o ur r —?(TI r .the calculation c h arged 11,200/. upon the see of Dur ham, being th e f u l l amount of the difference between the thhaadt upon was annual income and the amount fixed by Act of Parlia ment. HORSMAN—But the income of Durham has been nearly 12,0001. a year. Sir G. GREY —That he knew nothing about.—(Loud cries of "Hear, s hear. "i If it was so, it was a fault of the Ecclesiastical Commissio ners ,—(Renewed ironical cheering.) The see of Durham became vacant; the bishop was not permitted to take possession of it until the charge was imposed: this arrangement, as the Hon. Member himself said, was expressly made retrospective in order to meet this case. Well, the average of the seven years previous gave the see of Durham 19,2001. a year, and upon that the calculations of the Commis sioners were made, The Commissioners could do no thing else. Their hands were tied by the Act of Parlia ment, and they had no right to call upon the Bishop of Durham or any one el se to violate that Act.—(Cheers, and ironical laughter.) Now, it was not his (Sir G. Grey's) wish to lessen the force of the appeal the Hon. Member had made be the Bishops concerning spi ritual destitution. The Bishop of Durham, the Arch bishop of Canterbur 3', and the Bishop of London, had all contributed very greatly towards its removal in their respective dioceses, but the non-removal of that desti tution E assnot the fa u l t of those prelates or of the Ecclesiastical therefore, b® wrong to Commission, and it would, blame which attached -visit upon them the to others. The Hon. Member had referred to tho case of Salisbury. Now the re turns in existence when the Ecclesiastical Commission arranged their scheme, in 18 37, gave the Bishop ct Salisbury an income not exceeding 5,5001. a year. T' had been arranged that when a bishop's income was r less than 4,500/., and not more than 6,000/,, no char, should take place, and therefore the Bishop of Salishurs on coming into his see was exempted from making an:. payment. But the Bishop had not been altogether ex empted from the operation of the Act, for he had since been called upon to make a return of the incom hi see, and the Cornmissiotefupon the return, had dirertec: that after the next avoidance o a . earn of 1,8504 should be paid to their fund out Bishopl* the revenues of the see. were The rights of the present . protected by the Act of Parliament—(lronical cries of " Hear, hear ") and therefore the alteration could not take place in his lifetime. This, however , was not the fault of the Eccle siastical Commissioners, but of the'Act of Parliament. The House must recollect that the E cclesiastical Com mission was only formed in 1836, and that Parliament in placing powers in their hands, h a d coupled it with groat restrictions. Changes in tioteir present system were, in certain particulars, nc , doubt, desirable. But the Commissioners bad the law to administer, and if the law was imperfect, the law should be altered, but the Commissioners should not be blamed. With the Honourable Gentlemen's t wo fi rst respect to meet them with th e reso lutions, he should m previous question; if he pressed the third, he must meet it with a direct negative. Mr. HUME said that the Hon. Member for Cocker mouth wanted to show what was the intention of Par liament with regard to episcopal allowances, and the Home Secretary said that it was the fault of the Act of Parliament that those intentions had not been carried out. Well, then, if they had not been carried out the Home Secretary was to blame for not see i ng to it.— (Hear, bear.) Ile (Mr. Hume) well recollected that l 3 Parliament had arranged that 9,0004 a year should be apportione • d for episcopal incomes, and all beyond that e a • received as bishops' revenues was to b applied to the augmentation of small livings. The q uest i on was, if that ha d been done or no t? By a table in the Hon. Member for Cockerrnouth's possession he (Ur. Hume) saw that instead of 139,000/. being the amount received by thebishops n 1843, their actual gross income was 197,0001., and their net income above 150,0 00 / . T hat the intention was not compliance with of Parliament, and the remedy for such misapplication was undoubt e dly a new Bill, lie hoped the Government promise would to introduce such a measure, and thereby prevent the agitation of a question upon which, if they persist e d i n defending the Commission, they were certain to be speedily freaten. His own opinion was that they ought that it must eventually amount to 100,0001. a year.— (Hear, hear.) After all the increase which one would naturally suppose must have taken place in his income, it was singular enough that in the neat return made by the Right Rev. Prelate the sec appeared to be none the sicker. On the contrary, in the year 1843, after all those splendid building s h a d b een erected, the return mathby the Bishop of London, was actually less than it was in 1831. At tha,t period he m a d e hi s net i ncome to b e 13,90 . 01., but in 1843 it w as re d uce d to 12,400/., notwith standseg buildings covering 400 acres of gntlnd had been erected, and although the Right Pev. Palate had signed upwards of 2,000 leases.—(Hear, hear.) Now he should like to have some explanation of this.—(Hear, hear.) They could not possibly doubt the correctness of an episcopal return--(A laugh)—but what must they think of episcopal management?—(l.lear, hear.) The Bishop of Durham returned hie gross income at 21,000/. and the net income at 19,0001. His future income he put down at 17,8901. Instead of this, however, the net income rose to 22,000/. and the gross income to 26.0001. The Bishop of St. Asaph estimated his income at 6,3001., and said a gradual decline was to be expected; it was accordingly written down by the Ecclesiastical Com missioners at 5,2001., but it had risen to 6,5481. The Bishop of Bangor's net income was returned in 1831 at at 4,4641.; and he having also said there must be great reductions, it was put down at 3,2401., but went up to 5,643/. by the year 1843. The Hon. Gentleman gave similar de tails with reference to the following sees, stating in every case that the bishops had calculated on a decrease:— Chester, estimated in 1831 at 4,2291. net, put down at 3,8001., and increased to 5,200/. in 1843; Hereford, put doe n by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1831 at 2,510/., but risen to 3,1941.; Lincoln, estimated at 3,8001, but increased to 5,2231.; Norwich, income returned in 1831 at 5,3001., put down at 4,700/., and risen in 1843 to 5,728/ ; Oxford, returned in 1831, at 2,648/., future in come estimated at 1,628/., income in 1843, 2,659/.; Salis bury in 1831 returned at 4,0001. gross, future income estimated at 5,000/., returned in 1843 at 7,200/.; Wor cester in 1831, 6,5091. net, future income estimated at 6,500/., returned in 1843 at 7,122/. net, and 8,166/. gross. The Bishop of Llandaff returned the income of his see in 1831 as 924/., and he was the only prelate who said there would probably be an increase in the future income; but, like all the rust, he was mistaken, for it turned out that by the year 1843 it had decreased to 915 /.—(Laughter.) Nevertheless, it was upon these statements that the Commissioners proceeded to make their future calculations,—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) How it happened that the returns had been so erroneous, it was not fur him to say—he would leave it to the House to form its own opinion on the matter. The Commissioners had to arrange the payment to be made to the rich sees and to the poor sees, and it was simply a case of figures to show that they had taken too little from the rich and gave too much to the poor ones. The figures were taken from the report of the Commissioners themselves. The gross income of the Archbishop of Canterbury was 28,000/. a year; the payments to be made were 9,0001., which reduced his income to 19,000/. a year. The income which he would receive under the Act of Parliament was 15,0001., so that if a vacancy occurred the next Achbishop would receive 4,0001. more than he ought. The net income of the Arch bishop of York was fixed by Act of Parliament at 10,0002 a year, but, after the payments were deducted, he would have an income of 12,100/. The intended income of the Bishop of Durham was 8,000/. a year, but the future Bishop of Durham, if a vacancy was to occur,would receive 11,792/., consequently the present bishop was receiving 3,792/ more than h e oug h t under the Act of Parliament. Theincome of the Bishop of Bath and Wells was 7,254/., the receipts 6,554/., the intended income 5,000/., conse quently the surplus in this case was 1,5541. In the case of a vacancy in the see of Salisbury the new bishop would receive 693/. more than he would be entitled to under the Act of Parliament. These are prospective payments. Now, with respect to actual payments which had commenced, the Bishop of Chichester had 3671. over and above the sum fixed by Act of Parliament; or, taking the payments of the Commissioners, he had a sur plus income of 1,017/. more than was fixed by the Act. The Bishop of Hereford had a considerable surplus. The Bishop of Oxford received altogether 5,8591.; the intended income was 5,0004 consequently he received 8591. more than he ought under the Act of Parliament. The Bishop of Lincoln was in receipt of a surplus of 223/. With respect to the see of Rochester, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves laid it down as a rule that the income of the bishop of that see should not be increased till the next vacancy ; and accordingly, as late as August, 1845, they fixed the payments at 3,700/. a year, which was to commence at the next vacancy. But, although no vacancy had occurred, he found that he bad received the 3,700/. from the Commissioners. The result of these statements was this—that the payments by the rich sees were less than ought to have been paid according to the provisions of the Act, by 20,0001., and that to the poorer sees more had been paid than ought to have been paid by 6,0001. He confessed that the enormous discrepancy between the gross and net receipts was to him wholly unintelligible. It amounted to no less than 200,0001., or 50,0002 a year. This difference could not proceed from the fixed payments, because they were extremely variable from year to year. For instance, in the see of Durham the difference was no less than 14,0001., in 1E37 ; in 1840, it was 20,000/. ; in 1841, it was 16,0081. With respect to the see of St. Asaph the difference, in 1837, was 1,300/. ; in 1843, it was 2,5001. In the see of Lincoln the difference, in 1837, was 400/. ; in 1838, 700/. With respect to the see of Norwich the difference, in 1837, was 300/. ; in 1843, it was 1,200/. The gross income of the see of Exeter was 1,092/. Last year the net income was returned at 3431., or 300 per cent. below the gross income. The Bishop's net income from his diocese was only 300/. a year. It would be very satisfac tory if the House knew from the Ecclesiastical Com missioners what caused this difference between the gross and net income. What deductions could they imagine would reduce an income more than 300 per cent.? Supposing that a bishop was litigious; that ho was en gaged in constant lawsuits; that he was eminent in lie terature--was a writer of pamphlets or long letters to the Times; were they to consider expenses incurred in this we) as proper and legitimate?—(Hear, hear.) An other subject of importance related to the variations of the Commissioners in their management of eccelsias tical revenus. At present no prelate could know what his income was to be. Now, nothing coda be more in convenient, vexatious, or unsettling to a prelate than not to know whether his income was to be 6,000/. or 2,000/. Let them look to the effect of this system of manage ment on the dioceses themselves. The income of the see of Durham was calculated at 19,000/. a year. The Bishop was allowed a choice by the Commissioners whether he would make over to them 11,0001., and take chance for what the see made over 8,0001., or whether they would make him an annual payment of 8,0001., and keep the remainder. The Bishop, he understood, . preferred the gambling transaction, and athe ap peareditfer t t h h a e t h ih e eem m e ade he received averyg was, according!, c to the returns, 12,000/. a year. The plea which th e thing rdinog of Commissioners alleged was, that, by allowing the bishops to make the payments to them, they would have a greater interest in the improvement of the property. In i the first place, this seemed to be a false pr inc ipl e ; f or , f a man's time was to be . taken up in trying to s q uee z e a few more thousands more out of the property, how much time could he devote to his spiritual duties ? How did it operate in the case of the see of Durham ? The property there was a mineral property, and what they did was to stimulate the Bishop to work it out to the utmost, and, accordingly, he had received 60,000/, over the sum fixed by the Act of Parliament since his conse cration to that see.—(Hear.) That sum was lost en tirely to the Church—that loss was constantly increas ing, for it was generally believed that at the present mo ment the income of the Bishop of Durham was greater which the Ecclesiastical case of a different character, in than that of any former bishop. He would now go to a Commissioners took on themselves to postpone the ope ration of the Act of Parliament—be alluded to the case of the see of Salisbury. The Act was passed on August 13, 1836, but it had a retrospective effect from the 4th of March in the same year, in order that the see of Durham the Bishop of which diocese was gazetted on . that day, might be brought under its operation. The Bishop of Salisbury was gazetted on the 14th of March, 1847, more than one year after the Bishop of Durham, and his future income was expressly fixed at 5,000/. a year. Yet that provision had been disregarded, and the average income was considerably over what was fixed by the Act.—(Hear, hear.) That was a case on which it was not necessary to make any comment. Ho wished that Right Rev. Prolate every enjoy men t o f his large income, and he was sure h e wou ld ma k e a right use of it; but he believed that many of the poor curates of that diocese could not think of it unaccompanied by those reflections to which it must naturally give rise. —(Hear, hear.) Compare this enormous episcopal superabundance with the condition of the poor working clergy. The laity always generously responded to the appeals made to them. The Bishop of Ripon lately declared that f o r the last te n y ears more than 25,000/. a year had been nobly subscribed by them. Churches had been built in every directio n b y t h e i r contributions, which the Eccle siastical announcement ae which hn in it e made many aAd.aes h s o t i a En n eo e e epl see operation, iabatrsiotoiknae,anl C ot Commis s i oners engaged to,endow; but those en gagements.o the Ho heard m ssn a e h r a s y n o itn w h effect that they were unable to give any further assist ance because the commission was bankrupt. Yet at that moment they were dividing no less than 26,0002—he believed it was nearer to 40,0001.—0ut of the ecclesias tical revenues which had been placed under their admi nistration. And these things took place at a time when 2,000 clergymen of the Church of England bad incomes under 100/. a year, and he knew some who had only 50/. and 20/., and some as low as 5/. and 31.—(lIear, hear.) Such iwas the state of a portion of the Church when this enormous extravagance was taking place. He be lieved that a portion of the clergy were suffering priva tions such as had never been heard of in a rich and civilized community. He could give statements of which they had no conception of the poverty and wants of these men. It had been said that it was a reproach to them to know so little as they did of the condition of the working classes. He believed they knew less of the condition of the poorest portion of the working clergy. (Hear, hear.) He knew instances during the last winter in which many of them were without food or clothing fur themselves and their families, and that some of them were obliged to ask charity and to borrow a coat in order to be able to perform their duties.—(Hear.) It was on the part of these men and their flocks that he had come forward to make a statement on this occasion, and not from a wish to assail the Ecclesiastical Com missioners, some of whom he had the honour of having as friends, and whose friendship ho would not risk on slight grounds. B u t hi s warmer sympathies were with the parish congregations and their poor laborious guides end pastors. I t was on behalf of them that their sympa thies ought to be interested. —(Hear, hear.) The poor la bourer was not the less worthy of his hire, though he did not live in palaces or enjoy legislative functions. It was on behalf of those men he pleaded who looked after THE hUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY VE NiNG, DVCEMBE to have a Commission directly responsible to Parliament, and that the bishops ought to have no concern it. After a sentence from an Hors. MEMBER (said to be Mrs Deedes), who paid a tribute to the Bishop of the diococe zn vql ; .sil ho lived, Fisk' R. H. INGLIS said he was not surprised at the Course taken by the Hon. Member for Montrose, who had always been consistent in his opposition to bishops. The principle of that Hon. Member was that the Church was very corrupt, and that her corruption arose from her wealth. If corruption did arise from wealth, the Hon. Member ought to be very corrupt, for report said he was extremely rich.—(" Oh," and laughter.) But though not surprised at the lion. Member, he (Sir R. 11. Inglis) was surprised at the addresses of other speakers. They had proceed e d on t h e assumption that the Church had no right to her property. Now he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had always maintained that the property of the Church was as much her own as the property of any other cor poration. In many instances the property of the Church had been exceedingly well applied, and it ought to have been stated in the course of the debate that the Bishop of London had set the example, which might be advan tageously followed by all, of raising all his vicarages to the value of 2001. per annum. He had heard with great regret and pain some of the allusions of the lion. Mover, , specially his reference to what he was pleased to style a gambling transaction." He warned the lion. Seconder that he must not consider he was a friend to the church if he seconded recommendations so supported. He was thankful that the Church Establishment did not depend on an annual vote of that House, but stood on its foun dation, and there was no period in which the hierarchy (iid not maintain its position as the first body in the -tate. The Church was called on to contribute to the diritual destitution, and they did so by this Bill; they sere donors and willing donors, and not pensioners. Ile slaimed the respect of that House for the Church, as a ,sreat proprietary, dealing with their property as fairly as any lay proprietor in the kingdom. It was said that the bishops in all their calculations had been mistaken in one way. Could any one assign any possible motive for this? They were not to consider them as pauper pensioners, or stipendiaries who asked for an annual •lole; but they held their estates as their own. If an Act of Parliament required them to give up a portion of their revenues they would do so; but he maintained that though by such au Act you might deal with the property of the Bishop of Durham, there was no more right to do so than there was to deal with the property of the corporation of Durham. Neither of them had received their pro perty from the State, and until that was so the State could not deal with it. The question at issue was, whe ther by the operation of the Act, the bishops were to be considered as proprietors or stipendiaries. If they were proprietors, and were to make over a certain sum, and did not do so, a case was made out; but as he believed that was not so, he was glad the previous question had been moved. Mr. W. P. WOOD said that the incomes of the bishops now exceeded the averages which were taken in 1837, but according to the provisions of the Act, the payments were necessarily made under those averages, and so far the Commissioners were not to blame. He thought that the Church property should be available for Church pur poses. There was 26,000/, at the disposal of the Com mission, but whether it was to be applied to the creation of new bishoprics, or to the increase of spiritual instruc tion, he could not say. To both of those uses it might well be applied, for both were needed. There was by no means a redundancy of bishops in this country, and there might be an increase of those prelates, although not in the House of Lords. There was a great want also of working clergy. The House ought to be obliged to the Hon. Member for Cockermouth for bringing forward the question, so as to give them such an insight into it as would lead to a revision of the Act of Parliament. He could not support the resolutions. Lord JOHN RUSSEEL had heard with pleasure the speech of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and he heard it with the more pleasure because it tended to lead the House to a decision. The Hon. Gentleman said, and truly, that the mover of the reso lutions was not well founded in his supposition that the Act of Parliament had not been complied with. Al though the Act was defective, that was no reason for supposing why those who were entrusted with the car rying it into execution had not fairly applied themselves to their task. That supposition was not well founded, and the Hon. Gentleman declined to vote for the reso lutions. Any one who perused the Act could come to no other decision. The other question as to the manner in which the Act was framed, and the mode on which the incomes of the bishops should be settled, was a very difficult one ; and although he (Lord J. Russell) could see defects in the present mode, still the others which had been suggested were open to grave objections. If it was said that the bishops were to buy over the surplus beyond the 8,0004 or 5,0001. a year allotted for their income, they were deprived of any inducement to bestow care on their estates. If, on the other hand, there was to be a common fund and the amount paid to them out of it, it would be liable to the objection that they would become stipendiaries, and a change would be made in the character which the bishops had held as having their estates at their own disposal, which was a iar different tenure to that of salaries. There being uch objections to that mode of distribution, he would leny that there were objections to the mode which had oeen adopted. It was impossible to say that it was the intention of the Act that when the bishops had a certain income allotted to them, they should receive a greater one. On the other hand, there would be great difficulty in saying that a bishop should pay a certain sum, and if his income did not afford such a surplus, that he should be forced to pay it by actions at law, in order that the Act should be complied with. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth stated that the Bishop of Durham had been asked whether ho would receive the income allotted to him from the Commissioners, or whether he would pay to them the surplus required of him. No such proposition was made to the Bishop of Durham. He (Lord J. Russell) was in the Commission, and he remembered that the Bishop of Durham left it entirely to the Commission. They decided what should be paid, and he agreed at once to pay it, and there never was any other arrangement. lie recollected that a pro position was made by the late Bishop of Ely. He was to receive 5,000/. a year, and to pay over 2,500/, and, after two years' experience, he stated that his income would not allow him to pay 2,500 L, and he asked the Commis sioners to take all his property into their hands and to pay him 5,000/. a year, but the Commissioner s were precluded by the Act from accepting this proposition. This was a proof that there were inconveniences on both sides. If, sometimes, a bishop received more than the income allotted to him, he sometimes found it difficult to pay what was required of him. As it would be im possible for the Hon. Member for Cockermouth to in duce the House to agree to a resolution declaring that the Act had not been carried out, ho (Lord J. Russell) could only say that he was not ready to pledge himself to bring in a Bill to change the present mode of distri bution. He might think it defective, but he did not see clearly any other mode by which it could be done. He agreed with the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ox ford (who said that there was a surplus of 26,000/., but the calculations of the Commissioners made it only 16,000/.)—he agreed with him that there were plenty of ways in which sums, whether 26,0004 or 16,000/., could be applied to the benefit of the Church. He (Lord J. Russell) maintained, as he had said last year, that there was not sufficient episcopal superintendence for the in creasing population of the country, as, with regard to the working clergy, in relation to the great mass of the people, there were by no means enough of them. There was quite enough to occupy the surplus Church pro perty, and it would be a matter for Parliament to con sider how the present arrangement could be improved. Lord R. GROSVENOR recommended the withdrawal of the resolutions, and hoped that much of the object of his Hon. Friend would be gained by the discussion which had taken place. Mr. AGLIONBY did not believe that the Commis sioners had carried out the intention of the Act, and he was prepared to support the whole of the resolutions. The House and the country owed a debt to his Hon. Colleague for bringing forward this question. It was an unduo assumption to suppose that this question was brought forward in an unfriendly spirit to the Church. The property now vested in the Church had been con ferred upon it by the State, and he contended that the State had a right to meddle with it for the benefit of the public. In fact this had been already done by the Ap propriation Act in Ireland, and the very statute under which the Ecclesiastical Commission had,been constituted in this portion of the realm. He objected to the consti tution of the Commission. Originally its members had been few, and of them the laymen formed the majority, and the ecclesiastics the minority ; but now the numbers . had been increased to 48—an un w ork a bl e Commission, and of these 26 were ecclesiastics and 22 only laymen. Unless the Government would pledge itself to alter the constitution of the Commission, as well as to amend the statute now in force, he hoped the House would give its full approbation to the motion of his lion. Colleague. Mr. GOULBURN said the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had dealt so fully and so properly with the subject under discussion, that he (Mr. Goulburn) did not mean to intrude himself upon the House at any length. The present motion involved a direct censure on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for not having ful filled what were the supposed intentions of an Act of Parliament. That Act had been construed by as acute lawyers as the Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), who was prepared to vote this censure because the Noble Lord at the head of the Government would not give him satisfaction as to the introduction of a Bill of the Hon. Member's own creation. He (Mr. Goul burn) was prepared to contend that the Commissioners had thoroughly and literally fulfilled the Act of Parlia ment which they had been appointed to carry into effect. This was not a question whether or not the constitution and powers of the Commission ought ought to be altered and amended, but it was a direct attaek on the charac ter of men who had acted assiduously without reward or remuneration. As the Hon. Member who had brought forward the motion had especially impugned the characters of some of the Ecclesiastical Commis sioners, it was necessary for him (Mr. Goulburn), as a lay member of the body, to say something with respect to the Prelates to whom allusions had been made. If ever there had been an unjust and unfounded attack made upon any individual it was the at tack brought against the Archbishop of Canterbury for his conduct in the original Commission of Inquiry. It had been said that the Most Rev. Prelate had proposed that a reduction should be mado in the emoluments of the see of Canterbury, but that such reduction should be prospective, and be made not in his timo but in that of his successor. The Archbishop of Canterbury never made any suggestion that tho measure should be pro • spectivo and not immediate—the decision had been that of the majority of the Commissioners, who held that it would not be just to affect the immediate possessor of the see. With respect to the charge against the Bishop of Rochester, that he, being an Ecclesiastical Commis sioner, had augmented his own emoluments, how stood the case? Why, that Rev. Prelate had held other pre ferment—that of Dean of Worcester and Rector of 15, 1847. Bromsgrove—and when it was resolved to abolish the system of prelates holding livings in commendam he re resigned both those preferments; and, on that resigna tion, Ethe addition to the emoluments of the see of Rochester had been made.—(Hear, hear.) Feeling that it would be unjust to make the Commissioners answer able:for the defects in the Act of Parliament, the pro visions of which they were bound to carry into effect, he had no fear but that, oa a division, the House would decide that the Commissioners were not to be censured for the faithful discharge of the duties imposed upon them.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HEY WOOD suggested a modification in the latter part of the last resolution, which he thought would remove the objectior.s of many Honourable Members. Instead of the words " that the provisions of the Act 6th and 7th William IV., c. 77, so far as relates to episcopal incomes, have not been carried out according to the intentions of Parliament," he would suggest the substitution of these words—" That the provisions of the statute 6th and 7th William IV., c. 77, require the serious consideration and revision of Parliament." Mr. HORSMAN, in reply, complained that the Go vernment h•:d put an erroneous construction on his motion, and that that construction had been adopted by the Right Honourable Gentleman who spoke last. Ile did ❑ot impute to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they had done anything that the Act. of Parliament did not warrant; what he alleged was, that they had not carried out the intention of the Act as regarded those sees which had fallen vacant since 1845. His only object was to secure a better regulation of ecclesiastical reve nues, and if the Government would hold out a prospect of their undertaking to effect that object in the present session he would instantly withdraw his motion, and leave the matter altogether in their hands. Mr.BROTHERTON, while agreeing that some change was necessary, could not support a resolution which implied a censure on the Commissioners without being better acquainted with the facts and figures brought for ward on both sides during the debate.—(Hear.) Mr. GLADSTONE (who rose amid loud cries for a division) positively objected to the modification pro posed by the Hon. Member for North Lancashire—be cause it would pledge the House to an opinion respecting the revision of the Ecclesiastical Commission betbre it had the slightest idea by whom that revision would be carried out.—(Renewed cries of " Divide.") The gallery was then cleared for a division. On our re-admission, we learnt that upon the two first resolutions the previous question had been moved, and agreed to without a division. On the third resolution, Dr. BOWRING moved an amendment substituting for the words " have not been carried out according to the intentions of Parliament," the words " ought to be referred to the further consideration of Parliament." This was adopted, and stood part of the question, on which the division took place. The numbers were— For the motion Against it Majority -65 BOARD OF HEALTH (IRELAND.) Mr. FRENCH moved for a number of returns con nected with the boards of health in Ireland. After a: conversation, in which Sir D. Norreys, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Labouchere, Sir G. Grey, Mr. Wak ley, and Sir W. Somerville took part, the motion was withdrawn. EPIPHANY QUARTER SESSIONS. Mr. PACKE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for deferring the Epiphany quarter session, so as not to in terfere with the Christmas holidays. After a remark from Sir G. GREY leave was given to bring in the Bill. The Bill was afterwards brought in, and read a first time. UNION OF CARRICK-ON-SHANNON. Mr. CLEMENTS moved for copies of correspon dence between the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and the Poor-law Commissioners respecting the condition of the poor of Carrick-on-Shannon. At the suggestion of Sir W. SOMERVILLE, the motion was postponed. PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND). The report on this Bill was brought up. Some ad ditional clauses and provisoes were agreed to. The Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow (this day). The House adjourned at Eleven o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons. ‘ TUESDAT, DEC. 14. EPISCOPAL INCOMES. Motion made, and Question proposed, " That from the Reports furnished by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners them selves, it appears to this House that the provisions of the Act 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 77, so far as relates to episcopal incomes, have not been carried out according to the inten tions of Parliament :"—Amendment proposed, to leave out the words " have not been carried out according to the in tention of Parliament," in order to add the words " deserves the reconsideration of Parliament." Question, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived. Words added. Main Question, as amended, put. The House divided ; MINORITY—AYES, 65. Aglionby, H. A. Ilastie, Alexander Salwey, Colonel Alsock, Thomas Ileywood, James Scholefleld, William Baines, M. T. Hodges, T. Twisden Stele.), Charles Berkeley, 11. Hume, Joseph Sidney, Thomas Berkeley, Grantley Ilumphery, Ald. Smith, .John B. Bright, John Keating, Robert Spearman, 11. J. Brotherton, Joseph King, Peter John Stuart, Lord D. Buxton, Sir E. Langston, J. II Tancred, 11. W. Clay, James M'Gregor, John Tenison, E. K. Clay, Sir W. Marsh 11, J. G. Thicknesse, R. I. Cobden, R. Martin, J. Thompson, Colonel Crawford, W. S. Matheson, Colonel Thornely, T. Duff, George S. Mitchell, T. A. Wakley, Thomas Duff, James Moffatt, George Walmsley, Sir J. Duncan, George Molesworth, Sir W. Wawn, JT. Evans, John Munta, G. F. Williams, John Ewart, William O'Connor, Feargus Wilson, James Fordyce, A. D. Pearson, Charles Wilson, Matthew Forster, Mathew Peto, Samuel M. Wood, W. P. Gardner, J. D. Pilkington, James TELLERS!. Grattan, Henry Pinney, ,W. Grosvenor, Lord R. Plumptre, J. P. Hardcastle, J. A. St. George, Chris. Iforsman, Edward Bowring, Dr. MAJORITY-NOES, 130. Abdy, Thomas N. Gibson, T. M. O'Brien, Sir Lucius Aciand, Sir T. Gladstone, W. E. Ogle, S. C. Alexander, N. Glyn, George Carr Packe, C W. Bailey, Joseph Godson, R. Paget, Lord Clarence ;Mille, 11. J. Goulburn, Henry Palmer, Roundel! Baring, henry Grace, 0. D. J. Palmerston, Vie. Baring, E. T. Greene Thomas Parker, John Barnard, E. G. Grenfel , Charles W. Peel, Colonel Bellew, R. M. Grey, Sir G. Plowden, W. IL Bentinck, Lord G. Ilaggitt, F. R. Prime, Richard Berkeley, Captain Hall, Colonel Raphael, Alexander Blackall, S. W. Hallyburton, Lord Rendlesham, Lord Bolling, William Harris, Hon. Capt. Repton, G. W. J. Bourke, Richard S. Hay, Lord John Ricardo, Osman Bowles, Admiral licatlicotc, Sir W. Robartes, T. J. Boyle, Robert E. Herbert, Idenry A. Russell, Lord T. Bramston, T. W. Ilerries, John C. Russell, F. C. H. Brcmridge, Richard Hildyart, It. C. Sandars, George Broadley, 11. Hogg, Sir,J. W. Scymer, Henry Ker Brockman, E. D. Hood, Sir A. Sibthorp, Colonel Busfeild, W. Hope, Henry T. Smythe, G. Cabbell, B. B. Inglis, Sir It. H. Somerville, Sir W. Campbell, W. F. Jervis, Sir John Stanley, E. J. Cardwell, Edward Jervis, John Stanley, Edward Carter, John B. Keogh, William Strutt, Edward Clements, Charles Heppe], George T. Stuart, Henry Clerk Sir G. Her, Richard Talfourd, Sergeant Clive, Vise. Knox, Colonel Turner, George Cochrane, A. Labouchere, Henry Urquhart, David Codrington, Sir W. Lewis, Sir T. Vane, Lord H. Cowper, W. F. Lewis, George C. Verney Sir 11. Cubittt, William 11PNaghten, Sir E. Waddington, IL:S. Deering, Johu P. M`Tavish, C. C. Ward, H. G. Disraeli, B. Mahon, O'Gorman Watkins, Colonel Drummond, 11. Mahon, Viscount Westhead, J. P. Dundas, Admiral Maitland, T. Willcox, Brodie Dundas, Sir David Matheson, Alex. Willoughby, Sir H. Elliot, John E. Maule, Fox Wood, Sir Charles Ferrer, James Monsen, William Wyld, James Ferguson, Sir 11. Morgan, 0. Wyvili, Marmadttke Fitzroy, Henry Morpeth, Viscount Forbes, William Mulgrave, Earl Fox, Richard M. .Newdegate, C. N. Freestun, Colonel Norreys, Sir D. French, F. O'Brien, J. TELLERS. Hill, Lord 31. Tufnell, Henry THE IRISH OUTRAGES REPRES SION BILL. On Monday a copy of this important measure, as " amended" by the Committee of the Commons, was issued from the Parliamentary Paper-office. Two clauses have been added; the more important is that which pro poses to reach and punish accessaries after the fact, al though the principals to the crime may not have been captured. It runs as follows: " And for the more effectual prosecution of accessaries after the fact to the offences of murder and attempt to murder, be it enacted, that from and after the day named in any such first-mentioned proclamation, every person who shall become an accessary after the fact to any murder or attempt to murder committed in any county, county of a city, county of a town, barony, half barony, or other district named in such first-men tioned proclamation, may be indicted and convicted either together with the principal offender or after the conviction of the principal offender, or may be indicted and convicted of a substantive felony, whether the principal offender shall or shall not have been previously convicted, or shall or shall not be amenable to justice, and may howsoever indicted, be punished in the same manner as any accessary after the fact to the same offence may be punished. Provided always, that no such person who shall be once duly tried, whether as an accessary after the fact or as for a substantive felony, shall be liable to be again indicted or tried for the same offence." The other clause authorises the Lord-Lieutenant to remove prisoners convicted and under sentence from one gaol to another. The Bill, in its present shape , cont ains 23 clauses. DEATH OF MR. CURTBIS, M.P.—We regret to hear that Mr. Curteis, M.P. for the borough of Bye, died on Monday, at Cox's Hotel, Jernayn-street. Ho had been complaining for a few days past of influenza. COPTIIOLDS.—A copy of the 6th report of the Copyhold Commissioners to the Home Secretary, pur suant to the Act 4th and sth Victoria, c. 35, was yester day issued in a document ordered to be printed by the House of Commons. It appears that in the year there were 75 eatanchisements. The Commissioners state that, after six years experience, they have to report that there is a slow and gradual advance in the voluntary enfranchisement of copyholds under ecclesiastical Lord., and that it seems probable that almost the whole of such c opyholds will in time disappear. With respect to copy holds held under lay Lords it is different as far as the Commission is concerned, the causes of which are to be found partly in the less controlled influence of the stewards—an influence very generally opposed to en franchisement, and pa r tl y i n the expectation of both lords and tenants that some further steps will be taken by the Legislature to enforce commutation or enfran chisement. The Commissioners make various sugges tions in the present report on the law relating to copy holds. r ADv ERTISEMENT.] --ASTHMA, SHORTNESS oi r 's , OUGIDS, AND COLDS.—A TRULY SURPRISING CASE. — The Rev. David Williams, the resident Wesleyan minister at Beau- Maris, in the island of Anglesea, states, in a letter dated the 14th of January, 1845, that he " recommended Holloway's Pills to a poor man of the name of Hugh Davies, who at the time Was unable to walk for want of breath, that he had only taken them for a few days he appeared qu it e a nother man; his breath was easy and na tural, and he was increasing daily in strength." The se wonderful Pills cure any cough, cold, or asthma.—Sold by all druggists, and at Frofenor Llelloway'o Eltablishraent, 244, Strand, London. yaw FLANDERS MAIL. FLUSHING, DEC. B.—The French brig Commerce, Captain Jozan, coming from Marseilles with a cargo of coals, destined for Marseilles, was stranded last night close to the town. The crew did their utmost to save the vessel and cargo, but the bottom was quickly filled with water and they were obliged to put out the boat, and the three men suc ceeded in getting safely to land. The boat had been fastened to the vessel by a line, which unhappily broke, and thus five men, who still remained on board had no other means of escape than to put off in a crazy boat ; this was immediately upset by the breakers, and the captain, the steersman, and a boy found a watery grave, while the two were pro videntially enabled to swim back to the wreck. As soon as ever the news arrived here, M. Borghovans, the French Vice-Consul, used the utmost exertion to save the men who had been left on the wreck. A sloop was towed by the Flushing steamer, as it was not possible to approach the wreck with a large vessel. The son of Mr. Smite, the broker, a youth of eighteen, approached the wreck at the risk of his own life, and his noble courage was rewarded by success, in saving b o th the men who had remained on the wreck, and is bringing them stife to land, when they, as well as the three other sailors, met with the most praiseworthy Succour from M. Boghovans:. Everything is lost; in short, soon after the sloop had brought the teen away from the wreck it was daghed to pieces by the breakers ; so that these two French sailors must ins evitably have perished but for the :benevolent exer tions of the Consul. g y landrra BRUSSELS, DEC. 11.—The J o urnal de says that great c o ns t erna ti on h as b een e xcit e .. in , Flanders by reports received from Brussels, that one of the most flourishing branches of trade is menaced with complete ruin, as the Minister of Finance has cotees ceived the project of doubling the duties on the die tilleries. It may be easily conceived that this intel ligence has produced great consternation amongst the numerous distillers of our province. No credit was given to the report in the first instance, but a letter from the capital received yesterday confirms this un welcome intelligence. The corporation of distillers of Ghent immediately called a special meeting, and ap pointed a deputation of three members, who are to go to Brussels on Sunday, where a general meeting of an the distillers will take place. BERLIN, DEc. B.—Our Bourse was much firmer to-day, although not much business was transacted. The report which was in circulation yesterday and the day before of death of King Louis Philippe was officially deni e d by t d: are Mi:n.te +ill l ri o, w of . o ST. PETER SBURGR , N ov . 2 . the Interior. To-day, howe ver , th e f un this month his M a j es t y th e E mperor willthreee 8111 71: - ve the solemn oath of his Imperial Highahnrgeaeshns.adtshDeno(u:kraebnediennl:eunthdaesi. Constantine to Bo pAe DnE .e— Dl u ti p e o it n s sn h a i pi s de c rt o sh m oant i g the he o i f ? case for the last eight years.—Brussels Papers, Dec. 12. BRUSSELS, DEC. 12.—From the sth to the 10th of December five vessels have entered the port of Antwerp, laden either wholly or in part with grain. The importations were— k.il. Wheat ... .. ... 1,113,750 Beans ... ••• .. 6,100 Flour ... ... • • 370 Rice ••• • . g . 544 90 , 0 1,665,120 The week which has just passed has been very brisk in business ; almost the only money done in coffee was a public sale of about 3,000 bales of Brasil coffee on account of Haverage. Little was done in raw sugars, and the demand for refined sugar is small. The same may be said with regard to rice. Corn, however, is improving, and several sales were made for home consumption. The prices were firm. ODESSA, Nov. 22.—The corn trade has been more active during the last four days, and the prices re main firm. Of the best qualities, however, little could be obtained. The sales amounted to 33,550 chetwerts of soft Polish and Bessarabian wheat at 21r., 2,300 chetwerts of rye at 13 to 13}r., 1,500 chetwerts linseed at 22} to 23r., assign. Rye. is now sold for the harbours in the Adriatic for 14r. The price of linseed and maize was kept up by two dealers only. White tallow was offered at 11r. per pud. Nothing done in the wool trade. The freights are rising, and the number of disposable vessels is very small. BERLIN, DEC. 10.—The increased demand for railway shares, and the want of inclination to sell at the Bourse yesterday, caused an unexpected reac tion, and they rose from 1 to 2i per cent. THE CHOLERA—RUSSIA AND POLLND.—ST. PH. TERSBURGII, DEC. 2.—According to the last official report, the sum total of persons attacked by this epidemic since its appearance in Moscow amounted, on the 22d of November, to 2,366, of whom 1,097 died. In the circles of the government of Moscow where it has appeared, it h as proved less fatal ; for in all these collectively only 142 oersons have been attacked, of whom 59 have died. In iCiew, from the 9th to the 18th of November, 179 sickenee: of whom 129 died. These numbers, compared with the to:ne,r returns, show that the epidemic is decreasing. 2 , 2 the 13th of November the total number of person( attacked in the circles of this government (Kiew) was 139, of whom 93 died. The official reports which have been received here during the week respecting the progress of the cholera in the other governments of the empire contain in general little that is new or worthy of observation. With the setting in of cold weather, and the spreading of the sickness over a more extensive sur face from east to west, it has at the same time lost its virulence. Everywhere a decrease of its strength is perceptible, except, perhaps, in the governments of Poltawa and Tsohernigoff, where, in latter times, it spread with rapidity, without, however, assuming a very malignant character. From the latest reports it appears that the cholera has now also broken out :- 1. In the government of Mohilow, viz., on sth Nov. in the town of Rogatshew; on the 12th of November in the town of Mohilew, and on the 13th in B,y choff. 2. In the governments town of Cherson, No vember 8. 3. In Wolgada, travellers coming from St. Petersburgh were seized with cholera, of which they died the next day. In Iwer, a government officer, who arrived here on the 18th from Torschok, was seized the following day, having come into con tact with cholera patients at Torschok. CONSTANTINOPLE, Nov. 24.—The Posts have ad bressed a circular to the local Ambassadors, for the purpose of informing them of the removal of the blockade of the Albanian coast, in consequence of the suppression of the insurrection which had broken out there. Only isolated cases of cholera have appeared here this week, but the disease has assumed so mild a character, that the greater part of our medical men are of opinion that it will soon disappear. POTSDAM, DEC. s.—ln reference to section 33, No. 7, of the law on the condition of the Jews, of 23d July, this year, we hereby make publicly known, that we are empowered by high authority to state, that all non-naturalised Jews of the Grand Duchy of Posen, who, for the purpose of studying the arts and sciences, of learning manufactures or mechanics, or for their general improvement, or as journeymen assistants, or commercial agents, as well as their respective families, may wish to reside in this government circle, shall receive permission to do so for a certain time, by the assent of the Chief Pre sident of the province of Brandenburg. Any re quests to this effect must therefore be directed to us, and must be accompanied bye declaration that the maintenance of the individual in question is secured, and that his return to his home, after the expiration of the stipulated term,js not opposed by any obstacles, and c th o a n t du n c o t tn . hi n g can be esideneeti s h u e b r s e ta f n o t r ia a t n e aga inst his purpose than than those above specified must first receive the sanc tion of the Chief President—on the wholesome de-. non-naturalised 1842, j y, ew1fr 0 mbythwehiGchr t 23 Duchy rcel acreattii7onf of f ) f n os tn e lio n e -n i 3 s st prohibited ut to the inhabitants of this side of the government circle without official authority, under penalty of five dollars, remains in force. The police authorities are responsible that this command is not countenanced, and that the settling of non-naturalised Jews does not take place in an unconstitutional manner. Royal Government Department of the Interior, Berlin, Dec. 10, 1847. THE ABERDEEN RAILRd'AY.—The Government in spection of the sout h a minut ' bY e E ;p g r i e n s e s e e r d s . h After Saturday last an d Monda yen Captain Lean, Royal of the li ne was ma d e on of the line , ualified app ro b ation o f the construc tiono examinat i on the inspector and its satisfactory state in every re spect. It w ill be regul arly opened for traffic on the lath inst., and we understand t h e ails will be forwarded on h m or the 22d. Another advance as thu h s been mad e in our railway comm un i cat i on tothe will be continuous from P er th v i a Dundee nt Now, toit Montrose a nd Brechin, or a di s t ance a pp roac hi ng t o s i x ty m il es . We are assured that every effort is making by the directors to complete the remainder of the line, and open up the communication to the city of Aberdeen. It is not sur prising that the pressure in the money market should have caused a partial suspension on certain portions of the line, but the delay will be comparatively trifling, as the directors aro malting preparations to resume with energy, and bring their great undertaking to a consum mation. Those who know the country traversed, and who keep in view that the traffic from the various south lines must of necessity be concentrated on this single Aberdeen line in its transit to the north, will have no fears as to the ultimate and very decided prosperity that awaits this railway. Independent of the traffic to the north brought by the lines converging on Perth from Glasgow and Edinburgh, the Aberdeen line will, of course, absorb both the local inland and east coast traffic arising betwixt Perth, Forfar, Dundee, Arbroath, Mo n . troie,and Brechin, including all the large tract of coun try lying betwixt the Grampian range and the coast.— Caledonian Mercury.