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

standing orders be ? They would be a perfect nullity, and if these statements were to be allowed to pass unnoticed and uninvestigated, the House itself would become a party to these abomin able scenes, they would encourage them from ono end °f the kingdom to the other, and it would be tantamount to an invitation to wealthy men to come forward and interfere with the rights of the electors, who were in vit( d to return Members to discharge the duties of that house. He said therefore that the allegations of these pe titionerswere entitled 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 Committee of Inquiry. Some Hon. Members might . a s h, " 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 ?" He 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 Rom Member seemed 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 he understood the motion, it was founded Upon what was alleged to be a breach of the priviliges of the Ilouse, which privileges Were established by the standing orders passed at idle commencement of each Parliament. Now the first 'vine he found on the books of this nature occurred so far back as 1780, when a petition was presented complaining td the interference of the Duke of Chandos with the elec tion of a Member of the county of Northumberland. That rptition was very properly referred to the Committee of ivileges, 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 he adjourned sine die.—(liear, hear.) Mr. WAKLEY—That was before the Reform Par- Lament. —(Hear, and laughter.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued—The next ewe took place in the same year, and was reported in Paige 530. It was a similar application against the Duke 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 case, 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 aourse 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 privilege s of the house was a member of the Committee, and he and the Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) and the Noble Lord . (John Russell) . a part in the discussion, but it resulted, in Ito motion being made. Since that time several cases lad 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 in 1838 similar petitions were pre sented against the Duke of Marlborough, praying for inquiry, with the same result; and such was the case with respect to a petition against the Marquis of Hertford in 1 820. The House felt that it had no remedy in its hands, and nothing was done in either case. Mr. WAKLEY—You may dismiss Earl Fitzhardingo 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—(Hear)—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 I") 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 Ise 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 aim. He wished simply to set the House r i g ht on taw law. Captain BERKELEY sought the indulgence of the house for a few moments. He could not do better to 'how that the charge was trumped up than to r ead the 'Nerds 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 interfered in any way with his tenants, or with any other person, with respect to the election in syestion. He (Capt. B.) firmly believed this statement, le hoped the House would deal with his noble relative tis it thought fit. As for himself be should withdraw :from that discussion.—(The Hon. and Gallant Member :hurriedly walked out of the House.) Mr. G. BERKELEY deeply regretted the painful po 21ition in which he was placed on the present occasion ; but he was anxious to say a few words as regarded the 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: btcauso he was the captain of the troop of yeo manry alluded to, he could assure the House that he bad in his possession (and if the House granted the Committee be 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 5 0 by their landlord. When he returned the muster roll of his troop, he had reported in the printed column for remarks the fact that many of his best men had sinsultatit ously deserted the troop ; and, lest it should he 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 -Lieutenant. 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. he should say Lie more, nor should he attempt to fore stall the decision of the House ; indeed, but for the re taarke of his Hon. and Gallant relation, who had quitted ' t he House, he should not have said a word upon the "nkiect. Sir R. H. INGLIS proposed to direct the attention of the House to the petition without reference to the party amt, inst whom it was directed, and to ask the House to ell olider whether it was necessary to adopt the course t he house had proposed. The Hon. and Learned At "aftey-General had found that there were means in the courts of law by which redress could be sought if any I l'ong had been committed, and there were other which ought to be exhausted before the House " Rata called upon to enter upon the discussion of the tltlestiow now before it. It might be a doubtful quest ion bow far it was right, session after session, to face the S tanding order which made the House subject, he would ;lot say to mockery and insult, but, at any rate, to ridi cule, 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 ?vow living who had exercised the privilege of voting at ~.„e election of Members to serve in Parliament, and the irJuZce of Norfolk, within the last forty years, had voted i t a at „least half a dozen boroughs in which he had into teat, an.d knowing all this, he thought the House would * Xtreise a wise discretion, in no longer having recourse C that . 6 brutum fultner which was hurled every year 14 the shape of a standing order at the Peers of the ,'es lin. On the whole, he thought that the Hon. Mem "Jet for Finsbury had laid no adequate grounds for the sane Lion, and, under such circumstances, if pressed to a die ision, be should vote against it. l!elr. HUDIE said that several years ago he had en d es %vouredi to persuade the House not to persist in the to a s ntenance of the standing order in question. There, he, never, it remained, and hence the awkward position of -'the House on the present occasion., He dissented how the . Honourable Baronet, the Member for Oxford, and t hought that ample grounds had been laid for the Ilona to vindicate its own resolution. He thought the House ought not to stultify itself by refusing the in spiry- a - ought, and on these grounds he should support the 'notion. Lord VUDLEY STUART thought that the motion having been made, it was due to the electors of the cometry 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- the • towards that end, as marking the r e p robation of Lae House for these .improper practices. Supposing the house unable to reach the offender, he might be reached by publio opinion; an d ho w could public opinion be fixed but by a proper iuquiry? The report of a Committee Would enable this to be dons'. The inquiry ought to be Wanted in justice to the Noble Lord, the petitioners, and the country. The House must be p ained b y hearin g t 4. the differences in the Noble Lord's family, who, during ▪ long life had been a steady and zealous su pp orter of feral principles. On that gr ound, be re j oiced that the "no tion had come - from his side o f the House; there could the less suspicion of any party motive. It behoved ~,„"a Rouse to show that they w ere not indifferent to these titters ; and this could only be done by the appointment ',a Committee. Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not agree with the Member for Montrose, that, because a certain re solution had been passed by that House against the in• ter ference of Peers at elections , th e y were therefore h ound, on every occasion of complaint, immediately to ;" (. ' ) i stitute an inquiry, or else to rescind their resolution. ll the contrary, he conceived it was complet el y in the dis cretion of the House, having passed such a resolu tion, , aPply it or not to the cases brought before it.—(Hear, s r.) There might be a case in which t he House Mould unanimously agree to an inquiry; there might be tl in which it would not think inquiry advisable; and Hon. Member for Montrose had not held out a very 153 Pting prospect when he said, that if a Committee was a ?Pointed, an d t h e charges were found to be proved, ~ Lien the prudence of the House might come in, and no that an advisable course h to pursue. n The discretion to be "sereised depended very much on the allegations in the Petition. One allegation, to which an Hon. Member of _ l4 _* Hou se (M r. G . B er k e l e y) had lent the weight of his Zhority, was, that Lord Fitahardinge had induced cer ,—aL"tt Members of a troop of yeomanry to withdraw from that tro op because the Hon. Gentleman was the captain of that troop; and it was alleged he had done that in virtue o! his power as Lord-Lieutenant. But this was not, on the one band, an exercise of his power as Lord-Lieutenant; nor, on the other, was it an interference with the elec tion.—(Hear, hear.) It might ho 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 is as 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 for 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 allo cation 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, gross immorality, bribery, corruption, and intimidation, had endeavoured to influence the election for West Gloucestershire." But that was an allegation which might have been inquired into in the mods which the House had appointed by sta tute, had the petition been presented within fourteen days after the meeting of Parliament. Mr. WAKLEY was understood to dissent. Lord J. RUSSELL said if this allegation was inquired into, it ought to be before a Committee appointed under the Act passed two years ago, rather than by a general Committee of the House. As it was, the matter would come before the Committee which had been regularly appointed, by the Act of Parliament, for inquiring into the return. It did not appear, therefore, in this parti cular case, that there 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 ofqu alification. - (Hear, hear.) If so, that would make a difference as to the means of inquiry before that Committee.—(Hear. hear.) Certainly, if there were no means for inquiring into this matter before an Election Committee, that might be a ground—whether Lord Fitzhardinge 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 et the country were most endangered by the assumption of extraordinary powers on the part of that House. Sir F. THESIGER said be 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 on the matter.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Attor ney-General had objected to the inquiry on the ground that it would be utterly fruitless—that the House could not reach the Noble Peer even if he 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.—(Hear, hear.) It would be perfectly idle in the House, having passed this standing order only a fortnight 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 not only a Peer, but a Peer who held the re sponsible office of Lord-Lieutenant of the county. — (Hear, hear.) The Attorney-General said ho had not acted as Lord-Lieutenant in coercing the yeomanry, but only being Lord-Lieutenant—(Hear)—consequently the standing order could not be' enforced against him. But most certainly, if the standing order had been vio lated, it ought 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, hoar.) A petition was presented, on which the House reported, and addressed her Majesty for his dismissal, which was granted, her Majesty declaring that she would put some one else in his off.ce.—(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 loft 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 the House, 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 Fitzhardinge with paying and causing to be paid money for purchasing and treating electors. By the Act 5 and 6 Viet., 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, aid enter into recognisances, and then their petition might be entertained.—(Hoar.) 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.—(Hear.) 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 thus charges bad been expressly provided, recognisance. 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 evenW, to consider what ought to be done. He, therefore, most heartily seconded the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. WAKLEY 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 the House the 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 be sure to command the sympathy of the House in its proceedings. Every generous mind must give them credit for discharging their duties with scrupulous fidelity. Nevertheless, he brought torward 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 oa 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 the public in the dark on the subject. The Archbishop of Canterbury returned his income at 22,2161. gross, and 19,1821. net; but Dr. Lush ington the year before, in 1830, said that the average in come of the archiepiscopal se• was 32,000/. Taking, how ever, the average of three years, ending with 1831, it seemed,according to the Archbishop's return, to have fallen to 22,0001.; but the Most Rev. Prelate said his future income would be diminished to 17,0001., and the Commissioners so took it. When he (Mr. Horsman) looked, however, to the next return of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, showing the average of 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 li at 10,6001. ; but the return made by himself in 1843 showed that his income had risen to 14,5501., an increase of 40 per cent. over the calculation which he had made. He 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 lion. Members must be aware of the Bishop of London's Pad dingtou 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 18.81, when a return was deliberately made that ell the prospects of the see of London were decrease of income, au 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 llytie-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 mine of wealth was thus secured to the Bishop of London which he was almost . afraid to calculate ; it had, however, hem estimated T[l E NUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY 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 next return made by the Right Rev. Prelate the see appeared to be none the richer. On the contrary, in the year 1843, after all those splendid buildings had been erected, the return made by the Bishop of London was actually less than it was in 1831. At that period he made his net income to be 13,9001., but in 1843 it was reduced to 12,4001., notwith standing buildings covering 400 acres of ground had been erected, and although the Right Rev. PrElate 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?—(hear, hear.) The Bishop of Durham returned his gross income at 21,0001. and the net income at 19,000/. 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 26,000!. 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 4,464/.; and he having also said there must be great reductions, it was put down at 3,240 L, but went up to 1,643/. 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 5,2001. in 1843; Hereford, put down by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1831 at 2,5101., but risen to 3,104/. ; Lincoln, estimated at 9,8001., 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 1,6281., income in 1843, 2,659/4 Solis bury in 1831 returned at 4,0001. gross, future income estimated at 5,0001., returned in 1843 at 7,200 L; Wor cester in 1831, 6,8091. net, future income estimated at 6,500/., returned in 1843 at 7,122/. net, and 3,166/. gross. The Bishop of Llandatf 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 rest, he was mistaken, for it turned out that by the year 1843 it had decreased to 9151.—(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 soerroneous, it was not for him to say—he would leave it to the House to Perin 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 way 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 28,0001. a year; the payments to be made were 9,000/., which reduced his income to 19,000/. a year. The income which he would receive under the Act of Parliament was 15,000/., 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 10,000 L 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 8,0001. a year, but the future Bishop of Durham, if a vacancy was to occur,would receive 11.7921., consequently the present bishop was receiving 3,792/ more than he ought under the Act of Parliament. The income of the Bishop of Bath and Wells was 7, 9 54/., the receipts 6,554/., the intended income 5,0001., conse quently the surplus in this case was 1,5541. In the case of a vacancy in the see of Salisbury the sew bishop would receive 6931. more than he would be entitled to under the Act of Parliament. These aro 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 5,000/., consequently he received 859/. more than he ought under the Act of Parliament. The Bishop of Lincoln was in receipt of a surplus of 2231. 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 3,7001. a year, which was to commence at the next vacancy. But, although no vacancy had occurred, he found that he had 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 50,000/. 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 14,000/., in 1337 ; in 1840, it was 20,0001. ; in 1841, it was 16,0001. With respect to the see of St. Asaph the difference, in 1837, was 1,3001. ; in 1543, it was 2,5001. In the see of Lincoln the difference, in 1837, was 4001. ; in 1838, 7001. 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 1,0921. Last year the net income was returned at 343/., 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 al income more than 300 per cent.? Supposing that a bishop was litigious; that he was en gaged in constant lawsuits; that he was eminent in li terature—was a writer of pamphlets or long letters to the Times ; were they to consider expenses incurred in this way as proper and legitimate?—(Hear, hear.) An other subject of importance related to the variations of the Commissioners in their management of eccolaias tical revenus. At present no prelate could know what his income was to be. Now, nothing could 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 8,000/., or whether they would make him an annual payment of 8,0001., and keep the remainder. The Bishop, he understood, a tra v n e s r a y ction g , ood and thi i n t g ap o - f in eg ee a m milid e balien he received was, according g pi te, preferred s refodr t thhae th the to the returns, 12,0001. a year. The plea which the to C make om the paymentsmissionersallege to alleged was, s he , that, they wbyaoluloldwihnagrte a the bishops interest in the improvement of the property. In the b e n u a p f a i n l s e t P r yni principle ; s for,qu e i z f e a a in fi fe r wa s n t ,ms pi to a i e rme e e , Z oe I l e bi 'l d ese t a ke dm to (n•e out of the property, how t wt h ha o iss lls st much time could he devot e tChis s p iritual duties ? Now did it operate in the cas e of the see of Durham ? The did was to stimulate the Bishop to work it out to the property there was a miner al p ro p ert y , and what the y utmost, and, accordingly, he had received 10,000/. 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,rham was greater for it was generally believe d that at the p resent mo ment the income of the Bishop o f Du than that of any former bishop. He would Ho w g o to a case of a different character, in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners took on themselves to postpone the ope ration of the Act of Parliament—he 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 1 4 th of March, 1847, more than one year after the Bishop of Durham , an d his future income was expressly fixed at 5,0001. 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. He wished that Right Rev. Prelate every enjoyment of his large income, and he was sure he would make 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 t t h o e th ls esmt. ten years alway s g enerous ly res p on d e d t o t h e a p pea l s ma d e The e R Bishop rs m o snore ef thanit ipo n 2 5 1, 0 a late , a y declaredear had that beep nobly subscribed by them. Churches had been built in every direction by their contributions, which the Eccle siastical Commissioners engaged to endow; but those en gagements had been in many instances broken. He heard an announcement made by the Ecclesiastical Com missioners in 1844, which was now in operation, to the 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 26,0001—he believed it was nearer to 40,000/. out of the ecclesias tical revenues which had been placed under their admi nistration. And thetas things took place at a time when 2,000 clergymen of the Church of England had incomes under 1001. a year, and he knew some who had only 501. and 20/., and some as low as Sl. and 3/.—(Hear, hear.) Such isms the state of a portion of the (Thumb 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 for 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, is f s r i i o e n n e d r s s , and not from a w i s h to assa il t h e E cc l es i ast i ca l Com m , andsome of whose whom frien h d e sh h i a p d h t e h e would honour nootf risk o having u.i n slight grounds. But his warmer sympathies were with the parish congregations and their poor laborious guides and pastors. It 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 palasos or enjoy legislative functions. It was on behalf of those men he pleaded who looked after those whom society and even Christianity had regarded as outcasts, and of whom it was said:— " His the hard duty to reclaim The reckless son of sin and sham( Contoinn'd—repulsed—from door to door, ills heavenly message pressed the mote At last prevailed : in him they see A sympathising poverty. Like them, by worldliness forgot, Neglect and poverty his lot, Their woes, their ways, to him are known, Alas ! 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 111011, and for the sake of the Church, to 300 that the revenues of the Church were justly administered. The Hon. 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 sees respectively as shall, upon due inquiry and consideration, be determined on, so as to leave as an average annual iuoome to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 15,0001. ; to the Archbishop of York, 10,0001. ; to the Bishop of London, 10,0001.; to the Bishop of Durham, 8,0001. ; to the Bishop of Winchester, 7,0001, ; to the Bishop of Ely, 5,5001. ; to the Bishop of St. Asaph and Bangor, 5,2001. ; and to the Bishops of Worcester and Bath and Welk respectively, 6,000/. 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 4,0001. nor more than 5,000/. And that, at the expiration of' every seven years, reckoning from the Ist day of January, 1837, a now 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. lie 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 he 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 introduct d 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 he alluded to the returns of the report of 1831, and it was entirely u 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. On the contrary, the returns of 11131 had, 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. Feel) appointed an Ecclesiastical Commission, with the ♦iew of pronsot 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 meudations in the shape of resolutions, having for their ' object the equalisation of episcepal 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 ; aad 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. HORSM AN—Not at all. a i d c n o o m t m a t i s a s l i l o ; n b e u r a t had ishe t li hr . Ecclesiastic al Me mbers tbe Si g r o G es . ti G oo ßE w Y asT carried out the provisions of that Act ? What had th ey done P The Hon. Member said th e returns made in com pliance with the Act were grossly incorrect. Ile (Sir G. Grey) had not looked into those ose returns; he had not had time to do so, and, there fore, all he should say was, that the bishops, if the _re presentations of the Hon. Mem ber were correct, must desponding view of tn 1831 have taken a somewhat their affairs.—(bear, hear, and laughter.) But the 11011. Member had made a great mistake in taking the retur n of 1831 at all. That was not the return on whi c h th e Ecclesiastical Commissioners calculations wore founded. They had calculated on a return made in 1837, a return which showed the incomes of the sees to be v • ‘r.) much larger than they were taken to be on the averages of example. Th e Hon. 1831' Look at Canterbury for et 17,300!. in 1831, but • Me mber said that it was returned and it was upon thi s o i 1 837 it was returned at 22,300/., ordered 7,300!. t o be calculation c d ulation that the Commissioners —(An lion. Member ---Take as Surplus by t he A rchbisho p. take Durham. At —Take D ur h a m.) Well, be would Durham ?—(Mr. esii. what had th e Li on . Member put down orsna ae _l9eoeol.) Well, that was correct—(Hear, heer) the calculation nd the Commissioners had upon charged ham, being the full 11,2001. u pon the see of Dur annual income and am ount of the difference between the ment. the amount fixed by Act of Perlin - Mr. HORSMAN—B e been nearly 12,000/. a t the income of Durham has Sir G. GREY—Tha3t'ehar. cries of " Hear, hear." e knew nothing about.—(Loud the Ecclesiastical Com miss ioners.—(Renewed If it was so, it was a fault of cheering.) The se e of Durham ironical became vacant; the bishop was not permitted the charge was imposed: to take possession of it until Member himself said,this arrangement, as the Hon. in order to meet this wase expressly made retrospective seven years previous gen". Well, the average of the year, and upon that ve the seo of Durham 19,200!. a sioners were made. The th e calculations of the Commis thine else. Their Commissioners could do no and they had no hand s. were tied by the Act of Parlia ment,Durham or any one els e to call upon the Bishop of and ironical laughter.) e is t l o violate that Act.—(Cheers, Grey's) wish to lessen ow, it was not his (Sir G. lion. Member had ma de the force of the appeal the ritual destitution. The Bishop the Bishops concerning spi ritual of Canterbury, and the of Durham, the Arch bishopall contributed very greatly the Bishop of London, had respective dioceses, but the towards its removal in their was not th e f ault non-removal of that desti tutionthe Ecclesiastical comt of those prelates or of therefore, be wrong to on an d it wou ld, blame which attached to visit upon them the had referred to the case :piers. The Hon. Member turns in existence when the E S e alisbur y. Islow the re arranged their scheme, in 183 e 7 lesiastical Commission Salisbury an income not exceeding gave the Bishop of had been arranged that when a bi sho p ' 55,500/. a year. It less than 4,500/., and not more tha income was not should take place, and therefore thelles.";o no charge on coming into his see was exempted fromhop of Salisbury payment. But the Bishop had not be making any been altogether ex empted from the operation of the Act been called upon to make a return of Acts for he had since • income of his see, and the Commissionjupon the rot had directed that after the next avoidance a sum ef lull, paid to their fund out of the revenues of the see. The rights of the present Bishop were Act of Parliament — (lr onical cries of .PiTtected by the and therefore the alterat ion Gould not taki:ar, placehear ") in his lifetime. This, however, was not the fa ult of the Eccle siastical Commissioners, but of th e Aet The House must recollect that the E ce i of Parliament. Com mission was only formed in 1836, and tlsiastical at Parliament in placing powers in their hands, had c oupled it with great restrictions. Changes in their Pr were, in certain particulars, no doubt, d es i ra bl e . sent system But the Commissioner s had the l aw to administer, and if the law was imperf ect, the law should be altered, but the Commissioners should not be blamed. W respect to the Honou rable Gentlem an' , two with ns first reso lutio, he should meet them with t he prey if he pressed the third , he must meet it prev ious question; with a direct negative. Mr. HUME said that the Hon. , M ember for Cocker mouth wanted to show wh at was tne intention of Par liament with regard to ep isco pa l allowances , and the of Home Secretary said t hat it was the f aultthe Act of Parliament that tho se intentions ha d not out. Well, then, if they had not been Ca been carried so carried out the Home Secretary was to blame for not (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hume) well recelolnlecgted that to 'L.-- Parliament had arrang ed that 139,000/. a year should be apportioned for episcopa l incomes, an d all beyond received as bishops' re venues was to b e app lied to the that augmen t a tion of small living s . The quest ion was, if that had been done or not? By a t a bl e • in the lion. Member for Ceckermouth'e possession h e (ur, H u me) saw that instead of 139,000/. being the amount— by the bishops in 1843, their actual gross income 197,0001., and their net income above 150,000 1. That was not compliance with the intention of Parliamen t , and the remedy for such misa pp lication was undoubted ly a new Bill, He hoped the Government would promise to introduce such a measure, and thereby prevent the agitation of a question upon which, if they persisted in defending the Commission, they were certain to be speedily beaten. His own opinion was that they ought EVENING, DECEMBER 15, 1817. to have* Commission directly responsible to Parliament, and that the bishops ought to have ne concern it. After a sentence from an Hof. INIF:MBER (said to be Mr. Deedes), who paid a tribute to the Bishop of the diocese in which he lived, Sir 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, ter report said he was extremely rich.—(" Oh," and laughter.) But though not surprised at the lion. Member, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) was surprised at the addresses of other speakers. They bad proceeded on the assumption that the Church had no right to her property. Now ho (Sir R. 11. 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 200 L per annum. He had heard with great regret and pain some of the allusions of the Hon. Mover, especially his reference to what he was pleased to style a " gambling transaction." He warned the Hon. 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 those was no period in which the hierarchy did not maintain its position as the first body in the State. The Church was called on to contribute to the spiritual destitution, and they did so by this Bill; they were donors and willing donors, and not pensioners. He claimed the respect of that House for the Church, as a great 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 ono assign any possible motive for this? They were not to consider them as pauper pensioners, or stipendiaries who asked for an annual dole; 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. lie thought that the Church property should be available for Church pur poses. There was 4a,000/. at the disposal of the Com mission, but whether it was to be applied to the creation of sew 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 lion. Member for Cockermouth for bringing forward the question, so as to give them such an insight into it as would lead to a recision 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 8,0001. 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 far different tenure to that of salaries. There being such objections to that mode of distribution, he would deny that there were objections to the mode which had been 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 lion. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth stated that the Bishop of Durham had been asked whether he 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 ho agreed at once to pay it, and there never was any other arrangement. He recollected that a pro position was made by the late Bishop of Ely. lie 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 2,5001, and he asked the Commis sioners to take all his property into their hands and to pay him 5,0001. a year, but the Commissioners 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 16,0000—he agreed with him that there were pleaty of ways in which sums, whether 26,0001. or 16,0001, could be applied to the benefit of the Clourch. lie (Lord J. Russell) maintained, as he had said) sot 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 sionera 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 undue assumption to suppose that this question was brought forward in an unfriendly spirit to the Church. The property new vested in the Church had been con ferred upon it by the State, and be 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 theca the laymen formed the majority, and the ecclesiastics the minority ; but now the numbers had been increased to 48—an unworkable 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. Goulhurn) 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 bad 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 Hoe. 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 attack on the charac ter of wen who had acted assiduously without reward or remuneration. As the lion. 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 made in the emoluments of the see of Canterbury, but that such reduction should be prospective, and be made not in his time but in that of his sucoessor. Tho Archbishop of Canterbury never made any suggestion that the measure should r be pro• spective and not immediate — the decision had een 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 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 resignu dun, :Ile - , 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;i'or 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, on 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. HEYWOOD suggested a modification in the latter part of the last resolution, which he thought would remove the objections 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. lIORSMAN, in reply, complained that the Go vernment had put an erroneous construction on his motion, and that that construction had been adopted by the Right Hor.ourable Gentleman who spoke last. He did not 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 before 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 " hare 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 wire— For the motion Against it Majority —63 BOARD OF HEALTH (IRELAND.) Mr. FRENCH moved for a number of returns con nected with the boards of health in Ireland. After al conversation, in which Sir D. Norreys, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Labouchgre, 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.) TUESDAY ' DEC. 14. EPISCOPAL INCOMRS. 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, 6i. Aglionby, H. A. Mastic, Alexander Salwey, Colonel Alsock, Thomas Heywood, James Schsleffeld, William Baines, M. T. Hedges, T. TwLsden Seeley, Charles Berkeley, IL Hume, Joseph bidney, Thomas Berkeley, Grantley liumphery, • Ild. Smith, John B. Bright, John Keating, Robert Spearman, 11. J. Brotherton, Joseph King, Peter John Stuart, Lord D. Buxton, Sir E. Langston, J. li Tancred, 11. W. Clay, James M`Gregor, John Tenison, E. K. Clay, Sir W. Marsk.ll, J. G. Thickness/, H. I. Cobden, R. Martin, J. Thompson, Colonel Crawford, W. R. Matheson, Colonel Thornely, T. Duff, George S. Mitchell, T. A. Wakley, Thomas Duff, James Moffatt, George WalmilaY, Sir J. Duncan, George Moleaworth, Sir W. Wawa, J T. Evans, John Munts, G. F. Williams, John Ewart, William O'Connor, Feargus Wilson, James Fordyce, A. D. Pearson, Charles Wilson, Matthew Forster, Mathew Peto, Samuel M. Wooil,.W. P. Gardner, J. D. Pilkington, James TELLER/. Grattan, Henry Pinney, W. Grosvenor, Lord R. Plumptre, J. P. liardcastle, J. A. St. George, Chris. ilorsman, Edward llowring, Dr. MAJORITY--NOES, 130. Abdy, Thomas N. Gibson, T. M. Oltrien, Sir Luclie Acland, Sir T. Gladstone, W. N. Ogle, S. C. Alexander, N. Glyn, George Carr Packs, C W. Bailey, Joseph Godson, R. Paget, Lord Clarence Zaillie, H. J. Goulburn, Henry Palmer, Melindall Baring, Henry Grace, 0. D. J. Palmerston, Vie. Baring, F. T. Greene Themes Parker, Jahn Barnard, E. G. Grenfel , Charles W. Peel, Colonel liellew, IL M. Grey, Sir G. Plowden, W. 11. Bentinck, Lord G. Haggitt, F. R. Prime, Richard Berkeley, Captain Hall, Colonel Raphael, Alexander Blackall, S. W. Hallyburtou, Lord Itendlesham, Lord Bolling, William Harris, Hon. Capt. Repton, G. W. J. Bourke, Richard S. Hay, Lord John Ricardo, Osman Bowles, Admiral Heathcote, Sir W. Robartss, T. J. Boyle, Robert E. Herbert, Benry A. Russell, Lord J. Bramston, T. W. llerries, John C. Russell, F. C. H. Bremridge, Richard Hildyart, R. C. Sanders, George Broadley, H. Hogg, Sir,J. W. Seymer, Henry Kw' Brockman, B. D. Hood, Sir A. Sibthorp, Colonel Busfelld, W. Hope, Henry T. Smyth*, G. Cabbell,'B. B. Inglis, Sir R. H. Somerville, Sir W. Campbell, W. V. Jervis, Sir John Stanley, B. J. Cardwell, Edward Jervis, John Stauley,lEdward Carter, John B. Keogh, William Strutt, Edward Clements, Charles Keppel, George T. Stuart, Henry Clerk Sir G. Ker. Richard Talfeurd, Sergeant Clive, Visc. Knox, Colonel Turner, George Cochrane, A. Labouchere, Henry Urquhart, David Codrington, Sir W. Lewis, Sir T. Vane, Lord 11. Cowper, W. F. Lewis, George C. Terney Sir H. Cubittt, William DPNaglaten, Sir E. Waddington, II ; S. Deering, John P. IPTavish, C. C. Ward, H. G. - Disraeli, B. Diahon, O'Gorman Watkins, Colonel Drummond, H. Mahon, Viscount Westhead, J. P. Dundas, Admiral Maitland, T. Willcox, Brodie Dundee, Sir David Matheson, Alex. Willoughby, hir H. Elliot, John E. Maude, Fox Wood, Sir Charles Ferrer, James Monsell, William Wyld, James Ferguson, Sir It. Morgan, 0. Wyvill, Marmaduke Fitzroy, Henry Morpeth, Viscount Forbes, William Mulgrave, Earl TELLBILS. Fox, Richard M. Newdegate, C. N. Hill, Lord M. Freestun, Colonel Norreys, Sir D. Tufnell, Henry French, F. O'Brien, J. THE IRISH OUTRAGES REPRES- SION BILL. On Monday a copy of this important measure, as " amended" by the Committee of the Commons, i was issued from the Parliamentary Paper-office. Two causes 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 committ e d i n any county, county of a city,. county of a to w n, b arony, half barony, or other district named in such first-men tioned proclamation, may be indicted and convicted either together with the principal off en d er or a f ter t h e 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 b e amena bl e to j us ti ce , and may howsoever indicted, be punished in the same manner as any accessary after the faot 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, concerns 23 clauses. DIUTH OF MR. CMS's, ALP.—We regret to hear that Mr. Curteis, M.P. for the borough of Rye, died on Monday, at Cox's Hotel, Jermyn-street. Ho had been complaining for a few days past of influenza. COPTIIOLDS.—A copy of the Gth 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 eufranchisements. 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 Lords, a nd that it seems probable that almost the wh o l e o f such co pyholds will in time disappea c r ai . susd W esiff i oe t f h re wrneht as se: far t ar t e 0 ac tos pthybee h co holds Commissione l d under is oo lay le r nLeodr.d the e i t found partly in the less controlled influence of the stewards—an influence very generally opposed to en franchisement, and partly in 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. [ ADV ERTISEXENT.]--ASTHMA SHORTNESS OF BREATLI, COU GH " , AND COLDS —A 111.1.71.. ' T SUZPZIPING CASE.— The Rev. David Wil liams, the resident Wesleyan minister at Beau marls, in the island of Anglesea, states, in a letter dated the 14th of January, 1845, that he recommended Holloway's Pills to a poor mall of the nam e of Hugh Davies, who at the time was unable to walk for want of breath, that he had only taken them fora few days when he appeared qu it e ano th er man; breath . These was ir and wonderful na tural, and he was increasing dal:3 , in strong—.' Pills cure any cough, cold, or asthma.—Sold by all druggists, and at L don Professor Holloway's tablishmen t, 244, Strand, on don. FLANDERS MAIL. FEusnisia, DEc. B.—The French brig Commerce, Captain Jozan, coming from Marseilles with a cargo of coals, d es ti ne d f or M arse i l l es, was stran d ed last night close to the town. The crew did their utmost to save the vesse l an d cargo, b ut t h e b ottom was quickly filled with water and they were obliged to put out the b oa t, an d t h e t h ree 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 esc a p e t h an to put off i n a crazy boat ; this was immediately upset b the breakers, and the captain, the st eersman, 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 h ere , 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 both the men who had remained on the wreck, and in bringing them safe 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 men away from the wreck it was dashed to pieces by t he breakers ; so th a t th ese t wo F renc h s ail o rs must in evitably have perished but for the benevolent exer tions of the Consul. BaussaLs, DEC. 11.—The Journal de Flanders says that great consternation has been excited 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 con ceived the project of do u bli ng th e d ut i es on the dis tilleries.lt 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 all the distillers will take place. BERLIN, Dac. 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 the death of King Louis Philippe was officially denied by the Minister of the Interior. To-day, however, the funds are still low. ST. PETERSBURG'', NOT. 2.—On the Bth of this month his Majesty the Emperor will rece i ve th e solemn oath of his Imperial Highness the Grand Duke Constantine upon his corning of age. B ADEN.—It is said that the Grand Duke intends to open the Diet in person, which has not been the case for the last eight years.—Brussels Papers, Dec. 12. BerssaLs, Dsc. 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— kil. Wheat ... 1,113,750 Beans 6,100 Flour ... .. 370 Rice ... . . a • 544,900 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 22i 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, Dnc. 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 t o 24 p e r cen t. 1 : 11E CHOLERA—RUSSIA AND POLAND.—ST. PE. THRSEUEGII, DRC. 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 has proved less fatal; for in all these collectively only 141 persons have been attacked, of whom 59 have died. In Kiew, from the 9th to the 18th of November, 179 sickened, of whom 129 died. These numbers, compared with the former returns, show that the epidemic is decreasing. To the 13th of November the total number of persons 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 tines, 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, via., on sth Nev. in the town of Rogatshew; on the 12th of November in the town of Mohilew, and on the 13th in By choff. 2. In the government / 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. CONSTANTINOPLB, 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 bad 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 *pinion that it will soon disappear. POTSDAM ' Disc. 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 P aonr dibs o re s i e teh n ne , cierwh sciences, general el for eraa h learning n t iimn the gp improvement, purpose manufactures ct o ,t fstudying uorreasso rj t journeymen mechanics, he n ey m art s assistants, or commercial agents, as well as their respective families, may wish to reside in this governm e nt circle, shall receive permission to do so for a certain time, by the assent of the Chief Pre sident of the province of 13randenburv. Any re quests to this effect must therefore be dire cted to us, and must be accompanied by a 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,, is not opposed by any:obstacles, and thatno Residences thingcanbe herefor anyother substantiated agai ur ns p th pse i o smoral conduct. than . than those above specified must first receive the sanc tion of the Chief President—on the wholesome de claration of the 31st of May, 1842, by which the reception of non-naturalised Jews from the Grand Duchy of Posen is prohibited to the inhabitants of this uhc s v ide 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 se ttling of non-naturalised Jews does not take pl ace in an unconstitutional manner. Royal Government Department of the Interior, Berlin, Dec. 10, 1847. TH . it ABBRDIEN RAILWAY The Government in spection of the south end o f b the l in e . WM made on After and d minute examination Sa t Engineers.urd expressedsy last hs aunqualifiednd turn of the line, and its Monday, approbation y C . t 4. l o n f Ls the ffa c il o i n :.:thp;c2L2d.lt wAinliobteherregaudlvarniltstorucyal. nation the inspector y inst., and we understand regularly satisfactory open edl h m s r aa ltso forrwyi state l be forwarded o i in w e a v r e d. r e roen traffic on the 18th railway communication a to t i e a the a has Dundeeo r thus th . continuous from Perth been t N o ! made Montrose t i t o will and n Brechin, Brechin, or a distance approaching to sixty ' miles. ar" We arc assured that every e ff ort is making by the directors to complete the remainder of the line, and open up tke 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 are making 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 concentr ated on this singlet 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, Mon. trose, and Brechin, including all the large tract of e try lying betwixt the Grampian range and the court. — Caledonian Merturt.