The Sun. — London, England, 1840-07-28 00:00:00

J,• !!,,(7 !1'.7 ~1:. ~ ;1' ..>.~ se know of quite )ugh to Irderod, did not tions or ntlemall L;hineso. n an in- vas pos• lirn con ? Thus was un- :esire to ntlenon ng then] he ivas uivalea s merely .e to ask 'stead of lout ant .fusel of )assport, .ers and n degree ing they not per' Itimatell itletnan's IPPen • ly to Or Captain f in the ed then) speech oped ►t property ►ne so Lis Chinese claratioo le things e subject dation of arpose s.) AO was 01 4 nt to the :ose oven ae work! , )o of 1 0 als valid ) a feeli o % ly grow night saY th in this that feel' Dole for ninantyl EVENING ,EDITION. Made for the circumstances in which China was placed. It 'van conseTeently his wish that the peeple of that country should be persuaded that there was no desire on the part of the Government, at least of this country, to press the quarrel further than necessity might require. Sir C. GREY explained. Lord PALMERSTON did not wish to prolong a con versation which, in point of fact, he believed, was hardly conformable to the rules of the House, inasmuch as the lion. Member did not end with any motion ; but he was anxious, however, that it should not entirely cease without "toe observation on his part. He might say that be concurred with the Presidept of the Board of Control in not being able to understand the drift of the H on. Gentleman who first began the conversation; nor could he quite understand his meaning on the main question on which his speech ran—namely, on the ques tion whether those who had lest their property in China Were or were not entitled to compensation; because, in one part of his speech, he ( Lord Palmerston) understood him t ° Bay they were not entitled to compensation, whereas, in another part of his speech, he seemed to say that they were entitled to compensation, and that it should be givers Them from the revenues of the country. Whatever opi nion the Hon. Member maintained, he ( Lord Palmerston) was at a loss to understand the course which the Hon. Member bad pursued with regard to the question. Im portant he had stated it to be, in his opinion, and he must therefore entertain a strong feeling that the proceed ings of the Government against China, for the purpose of obtaining compensation, were unjust, and ought not to be Pursued. The Hon. Member had stated that opinion strongly, and in a manner to which he (Lord Palmers ton ) would advert in a moment. He had stated_ Jule opinion much more strongly than any person in that. douse would do, and put forward opinions which he. (Lord Palmerston) was sorry to find him express. But it' he entertained those opinions, he must have entertained. them at the beginning of the Session, and if he did enter-. fain them at that time, why did he not make some ob aervation when his Noble Friend had stated that it was' bis intention to demand compensation for the losses of the 'Parties in question, and why did he reserve the strong dis approbation he had expressed that evening till the end of :the Session, when the expression of it could not be attended With any practical result whatever ?—( Hear, hear.) He did not, therefore, understand the intentions of the Hon. Gentleman on that subject ; but if the Honourable' Gentleman thought, on the other hand, that the parties; 'Wer e entitled to compensation from the revenues of this; 'country—why, he should like to know, when the Report 'of the Committee was laid on the table, and when they were 'voting the supplies for the year, why did not the M on. Gentlemen move a vote for a sum for the purpose o.f that compensation ? With regard to the question be tar ten this country and China, the Hon. Member had put his objections, as he (Lord Palmerston) understood him, under three heads. The Hon. Member had said, that the Government contended that they were entitled to proceed against China, because the Chinese authorities did not give Vficient notice to the British subjects of their intention. Now, certainly, t h at was not the groun d on w hi c h t h ey seated their case against the Chinese Government. In oo_iryl of f act, t h at Government bad not given due notice, ter rs e ton h ) a d d .ff giv . en such notice that could not have al _Nta theyac of those proceedings, which he (Lord eo h ave b enng from the Hon. Gentleman, considered and r a ne n contrary to the law of nations---( Hear, hear)-- Proe t e:` u gnant to every principle that ought to guide the ei c lings of men. ( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gen hadlaws said that it was not inconsistent with the of Justice or of nature to seise on the innocent, pore rder to get hold of the guilty, and to seize on W h i _nn 3 in order t o get possess i on r f property els did not b e l ong t o t h e part i es w h o were i mprisoned, an d i In order by the sufferings of those i n d iv id ua l s t o ex t or t what could not otherwise be obtained. He (Lord Palmer 2,tnn) had ne ver i n hi s li fe b een more surprised than at the ueetrine of the Hon. Gentleman on that subject, and he would tell him that the law he had laid down was that of eonditti—of the banditti of Spain or of Italy, who seized On travellers and told them they would shoot them unless their friends would send money for their release. The one Practice was very like the other, but he thought the Hon. Gent, would have been the last person to advocate such P r inciples, principles which would tend to the entire cor ruPtio lon public morality, and the subversion of every sen timent of justice which ought to regulate the conduct of man towards man.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the Hon. Gentleman hats chosen a system of advocacy which would e a bad one in that House. If there was anything which 0 1 tglit to be held snore sacred than another by those who lee 're , pleadin g the cause of men or of parti es , h owever t h ey Thig h t try to prove their case, it was that they ought never to ends avour to break down those principles of public morality Which mankind acknowledged, and that they ought never to attempt to corrupt the public mind by doctrines which every ai an ought to repudiate and discourage.—( Hear. ) Th a 1-1 0 0. Member had talked of the sin of poisoning peo ple by the importation of opium ; but he would tell the Gentleman he had committed as great an offence by endeavouring to poison the public mind by the doctrines be h a d ma i n ta-ined. He thought the Hon. Member com znitted quite as ; great an offence as those whom he had re itiresented as poisoning the health of the people of the Chi -1 'ese empire. He would not follow the Hon. Gentleman tl trough all those details which they had discussed at great lei agth on a former occasion—whether, for instance, their fell. ew.countrymen who bad been imprisoned were barba rouse'y to be starved to death, for he had not the slightest doubt that such an attempt bad been made. He had the best au tliority for stating that parties were imprisoned and Were de urived of the means of existence according to a custom an long the Chinese, who endeavoured by that means to comp e i cbedience to their orders. His Right Hon. Prie "d bad al;-eady remarked that the Hon. Gentleman had sbut his a proceeding of the Chinese a u th or iti es , lkanc-cd -or;cig whenneyes to they had sent for Mr. Dent they had d one so to th e . Hon. Member, because they loved him ao much that they w e rated his presence. That really was llta argument which he (Lord Palmerston) thought could tot brought un d er e serious consideration of the B oe. If the Chinese th had ally motive for sending for 11rubs • Dent the most charitable one which could be as. ibllgnel to them was, that they thought they could work on th e mind, and that he was more likely to be acquiescent tha • u t l h any other p erson . H e (L o rd Palmerston) would say, tee proceedings of the Chinese authorities were to- , 0 411 1 r indefensible and repugnant to every principle which ti t t tgh tto regulate the reciprocal conduct of nations, and , d at 'e were perfectly entitled to demand from them re i4ne4B4l.;rotthh: o lo u s t;: i ges they had committed, and titled compenea which- our merchants had sustained. n• Gentleman had said that we were not en- Re so e° G rn e P ti l t a te in of the insult offered to the Agent or thePr4soefintretive of thy , British Government in China, and tcoathtaei I, Gentleman roan bad taken a distinction with respect n Elhot Agent and Representative, and had said that was not the Representative of the British .G oo:v:rnment, but its Agent or Consul. That distinction, L. e ver, was really too futile to deserve a serious answer. Government Governent of England sent out an agent to ! ti‘trt,countries to look after British subjects, and to pro teir interest s or urge t h e i r c l a i ms , w h et h er h e b e an s i l g t e ,t t or a r epresentative, he was equally entitled to re re ' an d if he we re outrage d, the nation which h e pr. sensed was itself outraged, and it was their 11 1 ; l_tY to demand reparation, and satisfaction on account The Hon. Gentleman had said that by liaow of nations Consuls were not entitled , but he (L or d P.) th oug ht th ere were man y ja o anc ee of a cont rary pract i ce , an d h e wou ld rem i n d t h e n . Gent.!eman of that di s pute betwee n th e Fr e nch Go ,erl2lllent and one of the Barbary chiefs, when the French Gr n _wul was se i ze d on ; but that gentleman quoted Vette!, u tine, and Pujendorf, to show that he was entitled to be b'e&teiesecl. He (L or d P.) b e li eve d t h at t h at i n di v id ua l was vi•er acquainted with the law of nations than the Hun. b rnhee toter; By the universal practi ce o f na tions, an officer, he might be called, who was sent to take charge l t r thr i nterests of a nation was entitled to be respected by ,_ ° e r eigi Gove rnments, an d it he were not the nation which _e_. reiresented, was entitled to call for redress. The Hon. ienteman seemed to him (Lord P.) to have turned his 'Pre.sions rather unfortunately, because, if he felt the ofe 4 : 1 1 objections which he had stated to the employment 'we against China, be ought to have pressed his opi m the House a t a time when su c h a course m i g ht that tt )een attended with some effect. He remembered s utt is the debate on the motion of the Hon. Baronet op tsite (Sir J. Graham) the Hon. Member for Wiltshire, 4 ad Said' that it was still time to stop the proceedings gainer if a quick sailing vessel were sent out for th e 1, 0 Purposes. The Hen. Member for Newark had, li„wever, rem ained silent on that occasion, and reserved if. °Pinions ti, l l the present late period of the session. could only ,eay, in conclusion, that nothing that had ,;."en from the Gentleman or the Noble Lord had 41 1 altered the s views which he bad taken and the Go v AliZele,nnent had taken of these matters, and in those views he they were fortified, not only by their own convic eivnne, but by the gemeral oiion of the country. How meet Much he regretted the r m ecessity of taking hostile I,,.eaures against a nation like China, still he thought that IT.nnrsters would have been guilty of an abandonment of Z e l l duty, if they had hesitated for a moment to take nieerl B . tePa as the honour a.ed dignity of the country re theirß. PEEL rel . inlt abatis of this count r y with China were at present froen c iZ s P „ "cated st a t e , an d h e t h oug ht th e resu lt s ar ising beret, co mplications were in the highest degree em -44114, : 1 ; With respect to compensation to the mer settled ~e bad given up their opium, conceiving it to be ir on , "t they were enabled to seek some compensation ulth na u Z'ewbere, he was very much afraid that it would H e Iv _ y s ?cm_ e from British commerce.—( Hear, hearr) a u b.._ . ee ae ished that the principal sufferers would be discussion of the British empire. In the course of the ..._ u nion whlc:. , bad taken place in the House at thatacts period of the Session, he had stated e cts had been committed by the Chinese, which could linootv,stilaetitified, hut .he strongly felt then, and he felt so _ c that eanlPlicati°n b ated to the violence of affairs that bad led to the had been commieted was mainly to be attri- Maj esty , * want of proper prec.••etion on the part of f h h ey 11 ". Frie He had not heeerd that part o Le:is h ed ac t en clea speech which the Noble Lord had charac snuch harsh terms, but of this he was certain, that ject forward i f i 'r a m i:diject in , o rty I rene a stronghis own seose of what was right, and but had broogiit the sub menirnitted would feelingbe attended that the acts which were about to be attended with the worst results. tt• Mr' HA WFS could not forget that the Chinese autho tl'es bad invited the establishment of a British Superin t."(2ent in Chi na to regulate the trade, and accordingly a ecritieh officerEwa.s sent there in the person of Lord Napier, and Ca ptai Elliot being his successor he must be taken hisl3 the il representative of the British Government, and rr ee acts, therefore, ought to have been respected. qa,ntion at issue between this country and Cho was one of the greatest importance to a th w e ar co w m a - s ,: t r u ce of the country. He would not say that e 01i .. 411 Y goin g on, because he was in hopes that this eeituatrrY's exbibitii:g a bold front, would render war unne svard The Hoe% Gentleman who bad brought for- Party motive ; if h ' re he present que e •tion had said he had done so from had not, he could have no motive the GO: 4 t all howhultrl had rrorennnlesse indeed, Le condemned the policy pursued on the subject, and if he did, o f hie own ? ask " why he bad s'eot started a different policy He thought the c‘Nrse pursued by the Go- vernment the proper one, and he trusted they would per severe in it. Mr. HUME had been as anxious on this subject :is nny Honourable Member, and had asked whether the Go vernment sanctioned the acts of their Superintendent. From the moment the Government sanctioned those acts he could not see upon what ground they could order the merchants to give up their opium for the purpose of satis fying the Chinese authorities.—( Hear, hear.) If the country desired to sustain its ascendancy in India, he thought they ought not to put up with the insults which had been inflicted on them by the Chinese authorities. He thought the course pursued by the Government cor rect, and he trusted they would pursue it. Mr. MACLEAN thought that the merchants of the country had the strongest claim for redress.—( Hear.) What was the case? If Captain Elliot had called upon the merchants to give up their opium, giving them a guarantee for their property, was that guarantee bind ing or not ? He did not say that the Government ought to have come down to the House and proposed compensa tion, but he maintained that they ought to have entered into the consideration of the case, to see wbat compensa- tion could be awarded. He submitted this the more con fidently because the opium trade had been over and over again recognized by Committees of the House of Com- MOS& _ Mr. ELLIOT defended Captain Elliot from the charges that had been brought against him. The Hon. Gentleman quoted largely from the evidence given by the witnesses who appeared before the Compensation Committee, in order to snow that all the residents in Canton were most thankful to Captain Elliot for the ser vices rendered them, and the protection he afforded them. Lord SANDON and Mr. ELLIOT severally explained. Mr. MUNTZ wished to put an end to a tiresome sub ject. The Hon. Member for Oxford had put an end to the whole case. It was not morality that actuated the Chinese—it was the exportation of Sycee silver. There was an end of the morality of the case. He theught the Government were perfectly justifiable in declaring war against the Chinese for one single transaction—it was that of cutting off the ears of Mr. Moss, and afterwards thrusting them in his mouth. Any Government that could not protect its subjects, did not deserve to rule. Mr. J. ABEL SMITH was afraid that the conduct of ' the Government in refusing compensation to our werchants, after the guarantee given by their agent, would throw great discredit upon all Government officers abroad, and cover Captain Elliot with disgrace. At the same time, be thought the war was perfectly justified, and was, in fact, one of mercy., Mr. J. H OBH OUSE thought the Government had acted very properly by Capt. Elliot, because he had ex ceeded his powers. His acts in giving up the opium were not recognised by the Government, because he was acting under duresse—he was retained in his situation for the very same reason.—The resolution was then agreed to. Several other resolutions were agreed to. On the vote for the London University being read, Mr. HUME said he felt compelled to approve of the in tention of the University, but he must express his strong disapproval of the manner in which its objects had been carried into effect. He understood that its degrees were to be open to all men, but no one was allowed to apply for its honours unless he had studied at a school or college which had previously obtained the sanction of the Secretary of State. He trusted the University would soon be thrown entirely open to every qualified man. He must also complain of the extravagance of its management. They gave their secre tary 1,0001. a year, and adhered to it notwithstanding the interference of the Government, and at last it was very re luctantly reduced to 7001. Then again in August, 1838, the Council resolved that examiners might be appointed from their own body—that was a most objectionable prin ciple. The salaries paid to the examiners was most exor bitant for a new institution which was spending the public money. By returns he saw that the examiner in chemis try was employed on twe days, three hours each, and his sa:ary was 50/. Now, he certainly thought 251. for three hours' work was too extravagant. Other professors were equally extravagantly paid, and it appeared to him that it arose from the Council having the power to appoint themselves, and then fix their own salaries. However, he thought the first objection was the strongest, and he he trusted it would soon be obviated, and the University thrown open to the students from all schools. He did not intend to oppose the grant, but he trusted that the Government would apply remedies before the next year. _ _ Mr. GORDON said if there were any fault in the Members of the Senate acting as examiners, it was in the original constitution of the body, and such appointments had induced some of the members of the Senate to ac• cept the office. It was scarcely fair to estimate the services of these gentlemen at so much an hour, when it was well known that they had to come from the country to attend the examinations. Sir IL PEEL said there must be some mistake in the statement of the H on . M em b er f or Kilk enny. I t wasim possible that the examiners should not only appoint themselves, but fix their own salaries. He must say that he had never before heard of such a large staff where so little was done, an d suc h high remuneration was given. However, if it was true that they were allowed to fix their own salaries, the country was deeply indebted to them for their moderation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was necessary to appoint gentlemen as examiners whose character and attainments were such as to carry weight with the public, and it was also to be remembered that their labours would increase every year. Mr. GOULBURN said the salaries increased in geo metrical proportion, while the students increased only in arithmetical proportion. He thought if mere time were given to instruction, and less to examination, the result would be more satisfactory. Mr. WA RB URTON said if Hon. Members wished to see the number of students increased, they must throw open the University to students wherever educated. With regard to the number of examiners, those who complained did not consider the number of classes in me dicine and other sciences. He agreed that the salaries were teo large, and thought that non-professional men were the best examiners. He thought the Senate ought not to have had the power of appointing members of their ewn body to be examiners, and Lord Monteagle, who drew tip the charter, had said that he never intended to confer this power permanently on the Senate. He should be glad to see those provisions introduced into a new charter. The item was then agreed to. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. On the vote for a Hall for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Sir R. PEEL said he considered it important that the General Assembly should have the means of meeting in Edinburgh ; but he would take that opportunity of de claring his extreme regret at the dissensions wh i c h pre vailed at present in the Church of Scotland, and he re gretted this exclusively on public grounds ; he respected that Church for its usefulness, and for the services it had rendered to true religion. He believed it to be well suited to the country in which it was placed, and calculated to secure that order and tranquillity which were insecure unless based upon religion. He regretted that any por tion of the Church should be placed in a situation of dis sension on a question of civil right, which had been decided by the Supreme Court of Scotland, and which had after wards been affirmed by the House of Lords. It was a question entirely of interpretation of the statute law, and no authority whatever was entitled to act in defiance of the statute law, when so announced. Let them look calmly and deliberately at the judgment of the Chancellor in the House of Lords. He bad expressed the highest respect for the Church of Scotland, but he said that taking all the circumstances into his consideration, he felt it his duty to affirm the judgment of the Court of Session, that on this question of patronage the Church of Scotland was wrong. and in conclusion he stated that he did not doubt that the Church of Scotland would inculcate the sacred precept of obedience to the laws. In Scotland constant reference had been made to the collision between the House of Commons and the Queen's Bench. But the ques tions were perfectly different. This, was not a question as to a constitutional right of a body like the House of Commons to interpret their own privileges. The ques tion was as to the interpretation of the statute law, and no power resided in any body, secular or ecclesiastical, to place an interpretation on it opposite to the one that had been so announced. He did, therefore, deeply regret that the Church of Scotland should lhave pursued any other course than that pointed out by the Chancellor, that a Church established by law should not have felt the neces sity imposed upon it by its station, and the paramount obligation it was under of setting an example to the people, by paying implicit deference to the law.—( Cheers.) He could not see what safety there would be for persons or for property, if any authority harbeen acknowledged of ability to resist the interpretation of the statute law laid down by the highest tribunal, and affirmed by the House of Lords. He deeply regretted that the Session had been allowed to pass without some attempt of her Ma jesty's Government to reconcile these pretensions. He considered the right of the patrons to be unquestionable, as was the right of the Church of Scotland to judge of the qualification of parties presented to them for judg ment. An attempt had been made by a Noble Friend of his to compose these differences, by the introductioh of a declitratory Bill, and he was sorry that that Bill, which hap received the sanction of an immense majority of the House of Lords, had not become law. It was founded on just principles, and he was sorry the Church of Scotland had not taken an active part in its support. If it had come under consideration in that House, 'however impolitic such a declaration might appear, still he would say that it should have) had his: cordial conurrence. He had been invited to take another course. He had been told that it would be for the Conservative interes to sup port the spiritual authority in Scotland. If that autho rity were just, he would support it ; but if he believed it to be unjust, dangerous, and illegitimate, he would not support it.—(Cheers.) He could not understand how the Church could claim an ecclesiastical jurisdiction inde pendently of the law of the land, when the Church itself was established by law. He earnestly hoped that public opinion in Scotland would become more moderate during the recess, and that the Church would look forward to an early settlement of this unfortunate difference by Legisla tive ~enactment, if there were no other means ; and he thought be saw indications of such a conciliatory course in a most importantt declaration which had been issued in fa vour of his Noble Friend's Bill, which had been signed by 250 ministers and 1,000 office-bearers in the Church of Scotland. It was couched in moderate terms, ani he re ferred to that as affording grounds for anticipating that early next Session, they might, be able to come to Salle settlement of the question.—( The Hon. Baronet here read the declaration.) The question was now left in a most perilous condition. The judgment of the Court was set at defiance, ministers were suspended, and meeaces of ulterior eropeequences were held o i u n t. by H th e es h e op w e h d o th w a e t re th i i n s course would nos persevered opposition to the :say.s',s. was certain that no Bill con taining terms more favoural?lC tG the Church could ever pass. The objections here were tbi t t tLe terms were too favourable.—( Hear, hear.) He could understand the op position of those who wished to curtail the Church of its privileges, but he could not understand what the sup, per,- `..rs of the Church wanted in opposing the Bill, and so he bas those who bed called on him on the sub j ect. is --(Cheers.) He ‘ 7 .. nutta con . 2e , ive , passing that House THE SITWLONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1840. more favourable to popular election, but not any more fa vourable to the spiritual interests of the Church and the people. He did not wish to raise any diieussion ' but he thought it his duty to state publicly what he had done. He could not support the claims urged by the Church to set the laws at defiance, and he trusted that during the recess the members of the Church would take that oppor tunity of inculcating obedience to the laws, and setting example to the people of Scotland by their own deference and obedience to those laws, and by avoiding every act contrary to such obedience. He deprecated the lan guage of resistance made use of in many of the petitions on this subject. This was not a question of con flicting authority, but one of civil right. The Church and the liberties of the country would be in danger if any great public establishment, like the Church of Scotland, were to take any course but that of setting an example to all the Queen's subjects of implicit obedience to the laws. Mr. FOX MA ULE denied that the Church of Scot land had shown any disposition to interfere with any civil rights. The General Assembly had over and over again declared, that, so far as civil rights were concerned, they bowed implicitly to the decision of the laws. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland did not in terfere with the patron's presentation to the benefice ; bet after that they had a sacred duty, imposed upon them by a higher authority, to perform which was to maintain invio late that portion of the constitution of the Church which related to the cure of souls. That right, which was known by the name of Non-intrusion, had been recognised and upheld by the principles of the Presbyterian Church ; and if the Right Hon. Baronet thought that the Bill which he had introduced into the other House would tend to reconcile the existing differences he had been misled and misinformed on the subject. The opponents of that Bill neither sought for fur,her power, neither would they shrink from their duty, and put the rights of the people in jeopardy. What they, contended for :was the tight of the people to approve of the minister who was called on to preside over their spiritual welfare. The Bill of the Noble Lord gave the Church Presbytery the veto; thus over-riding the popular veto, which was what the Church was now contending for, and what he hoped they would contend for..—(Cheers.) With regard to the statement read by the Right Honourable Baronet, he would draw his attention to a counter-declaration, signed by 388 ministers, and 2,254 office bearers, ex pressing t ' cordial concurrence in the minute of the Ge * nerah As ly, and stating that no legislative measure that fell s of that could meet with their approbation. The Members of the Church who favoured this doctrine were represented as rebels. He had always repudiated the use of such language towards the Church of Scot land, which was only maintaining its proper position. The Right Honourable Baronet had expressed a hope that the Church of Scotland would set an example of obedience to the laws. He did not in the least fear but that these men of God would preach peace, but if the Right Hon. Gentleman thought that they would forego what they thought was their duty, he could hold him out no such expectation—(Cheers)--or that the Church of Scotland would ever consent to any measure founded on the principles of the Bill of the Noble Lord. The simi larity of the Bill to the Act of Bolingbroke in 1711 was great. That measure had been hurried through that House, and inthe House of Lords had been read a second time, committed, and read athird time in one day. It had created a greater schism than any Act that was ever passed ; and as surely would such a measure produce another rent so great as to endanger the existence of the esta blishment itself; and if that fell the establishment in England must be affected also. They ought rather to advance than to go back : and if the moderate party, who, during 'the time of their rule, had utterly neglected the interests of the Church, were again to obtain authority, :he knell of the Church of Scotland would be rung. Ii the question came before Parliament next Session, he should be able to show to the House precisely where the question of spiritual jurisdiction commenced. He hoped nothing would occur to disturb the public tranquillity, and he did not believe that such would be the ease. The clergy were willing to obey as far as civil rights were con cerned ; but they had a higher and more sacred duty to perform—a duty imposed upon them by a superiour au. thority, and from the performance of which they would never shrink.—(Cheers.) Mr. HUME said the question was, whether 5,000/. should be granted for a certain service or not? He was surprised that the Right Hon. Baronet, disapproving as he did of their conduct, could consent to granting them this money. It appeared to be on the principle that the worse a person behaved the better you ought to use him. The fact of voting this money would be taken as an act of weak ness, and if ever there was a time when a grant of money to the Church of Scotland ought to be refused, the pre sent was the time. He was surprised that his Hon. Friend should defend those men, who were in open rebel lion against the law. To this day the seven clergymen were refused what the law said was their own. Men of God forsooth I they were men disturbing the country, dis obeying the laws, and had they been of less consequence they would have been under the lock of the Secretary of State. If his Hon. Friend's views were correct, the voluntary system must be established in Scotland. It would never be suffered that men should be receiving the tithes who were acting in opposition to the law. They were only the Church by the law, take from them the support of the law, and where would they be ? The law had given to individuals the power of presenting to livings. The living that was worth one thousand pounds before the Veto Law, was now not worth one hundred pounds. Was : not that an interference with the rights of pro perty ? They were not ignorant men, and there was no excuse for them. What course should be taken ? Were they to be bribed by giving them a hall to carry on their agitation in ? He would not give them any facility for placing the law at defiance. The City of Edinburgh had permitted the Assembly to meet iu the Chinch of St. Giles for two hundred years up to 1830. The 3,000/. was granted for its repair; it was found not to be convenient ; in 1832 they left it, and since they have met in the Tron Church. What reason was their for riving 10,0001. to provide them a place of meeting when they already had one ? The heritors might by law be called upon to give them a title. The Town Council of Edinburgh was the proper body to provide them a place of meeting, and there was no reason for voting a single shilling. Besides, the Church of Scot land were only one-half the people of Scotland, and had no right to have a place of meeting provided for them at the public expense; and if the Right Hon. Baronet were consistent in his objection he should claim his vote. He did not think they would do their duty . if they sanctioned the grant, and he should certainly vote against it. Mr. R. STEUART supported the grant. The Ge neral Assembly had no funds whatever of their own, and as an Ecclesiastical Court they had a claim on the public money. After a few words from Mr. BANNERMAN, Sir R. PEEL said he wished to put a case to the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. F. Maule) who had said that the Civil Law in Scotland would be able to vindicate itself. Suppose certain members of the Church disobeyed the authority of the General Assembly, and suppose they were suspended for that disobedience, what redress could the law afford them? Mr. F. MAULE said that he still maintained that the law had the power of maintaining itself. He would not, however, undertake to answer the question of the Right Hon. Baronet. He admitted that the Ecclesiastical Court of Scotland could visit with its censure those who disobeyed it, but that was a subject which should be left to the Church itself. The LORD ADVOCATE complained that a discussion of the kind had been entered on in so incidental a manner. Ho regretted to sear the majority of members of the Scot tish Church treated as rebels to the law. There was a broad distinction to be made between civil and religious jurisdic tion, and the Church of Scotland never assumed any ju risdiction in civil matters. With regard to the divisions which now distracted that Church, he should say that no measure would terminate those divisions which did not in clude the principle of popular control. The Bill which had lately been introduced in the other House on the sub ject, gave that power to the Church which should be given to the people if there were to be any peace in the country. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— For the grant 72 Against the grant Majority The vote was then agreed to. The Report was then agreed to and was ordered to be received on Wednesday next. THE REGENCY BILL. On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON the Regency Bill was read a first time, and was ordered to be read a se cond time on 'Wednesday next. MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of Lord MORPETH the Municipal Districts (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. CUSTOMS BILL. Sir R. PEEL wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentle-, man, the President of the Board of Trade, whether he in tended to proceed immediately with the Customs Bill. Mr. L ABOUC HERE said it was not his intention to proceed with the Bill that night, as he understood it would meet with some opposition. He should, however, intro duce it to-morrow. He certainly felt the disadvantage of bringing forward measures at so late a period of the session. Sir R. PEEL did not complain of the period at which the Bill was to be brought forward. He should say, how ever, that he wished that the three descriptions of coffee should stand in the same relation in which they now stood, which he believed was not proposed by the Bill. Mr. HOGG gave notice that he should move an amend ment on the Bill that coffee from Mysore should hence forward be subject to a duty of bd. only. The Court Houses (Ireland) Bill was then read a third time and passed. The Pilots Bill was read a third time and passed. The Insolvent Debtors (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Rating Stock in Trade Blil was read a third time and passed. Mr. VERNON SMITH brought up the Report of the New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Bill, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Wed nesday. The Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) Bill was re ported. The Toll on Lime Bi!l was read a third time and passed. The Railways Bill was reported, and ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday next. The East India Shipping Bill went through Committee. JOHN THOROGOOD. Dr. NICHOLL wished to know, in consequence of what had fallen from the Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on Saturday, whether the Attorney- General intended to bring in a Bill with respect to con tempts in the Ecclesiastical Courts. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his Noble Friend had such a Bill under consideration. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his firm belief was, that the churchwardens of the parish might at any time have John Thorogood discharged out of custody.— (Hear, bear.) The other Orders of the Day were then disposed cf, and the House adjourned at Half-past Two o'Clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 27 The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'Clock. Lord PORTMAN presented a petition from Leigh ton Buzzard, against the growth of opium in China. The Bishop of DURHAM presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of Durham, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill. The Prisons (Ireland) Bill, was read a third time and passed. The Caledonian Canal Bill went through Committee. On the motion of Viscount DUNCANNON the Insolvent Debtors' (Ireland) Bill) was read a second time. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Mr. BERNAL and others brought up the Fisheries Bill, the Austrian Treaty Bill, the Bangor Ferry Bill, the Metropolis Improvement Bill, the Marriage Act Amendment Bill, the Soap Duties Bill, and the Affir mations Bill, which were severally read a first time. The Marquis of NORM ANBY laid on the table cer tain papers connected with the state of health in Scotland. The NOBLE MARQUI S then presented a petition from the Minor Canons of St. Christ, Canterbury, in favour of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill. The Canal Police Bill was read a third time, and passed. The Bishop of EXETER, seeing the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, gave no tice that he would on Monday next (as he believed the Noble Marquis would be absent the greater part of the week) present a petition from the Clergy and others of Manchester, praying their Lordships to inquire into the facts relating to the prosecution of Abel Heywood, for publishing a blasphemous libel ; and the circumstances under which the Government thought fit to forego pass ing any sentence. CHIMNEY-SWEEPERS BILL. The EARL of HADDINGTON brought up the Report of the Committee on the Chimney-sweepers Bill, and moved that the Bill, together with the amend ments, be printed. The Noble Earl stated that the Committee had introduced an amendment, that the Bill should not come into operation till July 1842. The Earl of 'WICKLOW observed that the result of the evidence had convinced him the use of boys might be dispensed with, except for the purpose of re pairing chimneys. The Marquis of NORMANBY said he should cer tainly pr,:ceed with the Bill, and therefore gave notice for the Committee on Friday next. ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVE.. looked to, he admitted, with great caution. In the case of the monasteries at that period, there certainly had been a surrender with regard to some of them, but others had forcibly been deprived of their pro perty. By the 27th of Henry VIII., 276 houses had been dissolved, and land producing 30,0001. a year, and personal property amounting to 100,0001., had been confiscated and seized on by the Crown. No doubt, however, some of the larger monasteries afterwards surrendered, but it was from fear of sharing the same fate. He would next pass to the case of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. If they looked to the 32d of Henry VIII. chap. 24, they would find that that Act gave to the Crown the pos sessions of the Order in question. Those knights were living abroad at the time, and being out of the power of Henry, refused to make surrender ; their possessions were accordingly seized on at once, solely on the ground that they adhered to the Citholic religion. He thought that a complete evidence of the transfer of property on religious and political grounds, and of a change of cir cumstances which had been effected in the course of time. The Learned Counsel went on to state various reasons. why this measure was inexpedient, and stated many, duties which he said the Chapters ought to perform and which they might, with great advantage to the country, be called upon to perform. He (Lord M.) thought the Chapters would not like this Bill better than the Learned Counsel.—(Laughter.) The Learned Counsel said one of their great purposes was the main tenance :of divine worship. That unquestionably was one great object ; another, the study of theology. He doubted that.—(Laughter.) That might be a very good thing, and he had a great respect for that science ; but ho must say, that he thought promoting the exercise of public worship, in places where it was wanted,was of more necessity.—(Hear, hear.) Others were education and alms-giving. He (Lord M.) did not see that education was their particular object, or that they were particularly fitted for that purpose.— ( Hear, hear.) Then the Learned Counsel said the Pre lates were overlaboured and obliged to withdraw from studies of which they had long been the ornaments, having no time to prosecute them. He (Lord M.) dared to say, that was very true and greatly to the loss of the world, as well as of their own happiness. But the Learned Counsel said that the Church wanted a general Ecclesiastical Council to manage its affairs, an that the Chapter should sit in that Council, and so as sist the Bishops. That was said to be a duty which they had performed, and they might still perform. He was not for that.—(Loud laughter.) He was not for limiting the power or discretion of the Bishops by any Council who might fetter them when right, and screen them when .wrong.—(Hear, hear.) He was a monogamist, and for the discretion of one man, responsible either in himself or in his advisers. The Bishops now had great power, and it was possible might use that power oppressively ; but there was no reason to think they did use it so.—(Hear, hear.) They were there, in Parliament, at all times respon sible for that power—one great advantage of their having seats in Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) And he must say the few complaints of excess were sufficient proof that in general they exercised their power with prudence, moderation, and justice—(Hear, hear) — therefore he did not think sufficient ground had been shown by the Learned Counsel for keeping up a suffi cient establishment either for those offices which they had filled or might fill hereafter. It had also been much urged that this Bill had to encounter the opposition of the great body of the clergy and of the Deans and Chap ters themselves. It was possible that to a certain extent that might be so. And it was stated in the first place they did not so act from selfish or interested motives. He (Lord M.) felt quite certain that whoever of them ob jected to this Bill or formed an opinion upon it, did not consider what effect it would have upon their own inte rest, situation, and position. He did not think that truckling meanness or improper submission to power was the characteristic of the clergy.—(Hear.) He respected the Church of England, and entirely agreed in its doctrines and form of Church government. He did not agree with its politics—(Laughter)--and though Right Reverend Prelates might condemn him for his opinion, he thought they were indifferent poli ticians, and that ever since the Reformation no small part of our politics had been religion, and of our reli gion, had been polities.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He did not hold with High Church or Low Church doctrines. He did not agree with that desperate oppo sition to a Bill made by the congregations in the time of Queen Elizabeth. He did not agree with the clergy who signed the Millennium petition, or with those who gave up their benefices under the Act of Uniformity, or with those who refused to take the oath to King William and Queen Mary, and who were con sidered as Non-Jurors in the reigns of the family of her present Majesty. He saw in these great violence, pertinacity, obstinacy, and schism, on points which, though of great importance, were not, he thought, so important as to justify the division. He therefore acquitted the Church of England generally from being actuated by motives of self-interest. There were a number of motives acting in opposition to the present Bill of a different nature. There was the feel ings of the body, which were strong in every body, with respect to the Deans and Chapters, who no doubt considered this Bill as a sort of imputation upon them ; and the great body of the clergy had a strong pro fessional feeling on this occasion, which would naturally render them the less safe leaders upon it. He did not think the clergy alone were ever celebrated for legisla tion, and particularly upon Church matters, and the re• fore he h o p e d th a t t h e i r L or d s hi ps would not , be deterred from proceeding with this Bill, even if the disappro bation of the clergy were as great an d extensive as it was represented to be. One great and over-ruling ar gument for the measure was, that the surplus funds of the Church would be divided among those who had the strongest claims upon them, and that it would remove those funds from that quarter where their loss would be least felt, and give them to that where they would be of the greatest benefit and advantage. The Learned Counsel stated that the friends of the Church were divided on this measure, but that its enemies were unanimous in its approbation. If this were the case, it was not the first time a body and institution had suf fered evils from their friends and derived advantage from their enemies. This he really believed would be the case, if those who were enemies of the Church were pressing on this Bill, and that they were conferring on it great be nefit and stability, of which those mistaken friends who opposed it were seeking to deprive it. The Learned Counsel had said be wished to ask the Commissioners to show some suitable authority for his proceedings. His (Lord Melbourne's) authority was the common sense of the case, that spiritual destitution prevailed throughout a large part of the country, and the absolute necessity which existed for the measure.—( Hear, hear.) The Bishop of WINCHESTER said that he par _ _ ticipated in the feelings the Noble Viscounthad expressed as those with which he rose to discuss this question. He felt great difficulty in approaching this subject, from a consideration of its importance, and this difficulty was increased i n no slight degree by the Noble Viscount approaching the subject. He felt the kindness of many of his expressions towards the Church ; and he felt, in common, doubtless, with many Right Reverend Pre lates, gratitude to him for the opinions he had ex pressed towards his order, and for his avowal that no de linquencies on the part of the clergy called for this measure. At the same time, he felt that there would be a great difficulty in arresting their Lordships' attention, and more especially when they considered that the character given to the objects of the Bill by the Noble Viscount was that of increasing the efficiency of the Established Church, and making it take root in the heart and affections of the people. If he (the Bishop of W.) could bring his mind to conceive this to be the effect of the measure now sub mitted to their Lordships, no person would more strenuously support it than himself.—(Hear, hear.) It was because he doubted whether it would increase the spiritual instruction of the people that he ob jected to the present Bill. He admitted that the mea sure came recommended by very high authority. The Commission consisted of eight Laymen and five Eccle siastical Commissioners, and he believed they had ap proached their important duty with a full and earnest desire to carry into effect the recommendations of her Majesty. He never differed from the Most Rev. Pre late who was at the head of that Commission but with the deepest regret ; there was no one who knew that most estimable Prelate, who did not entertain for him feelings of the most profound respect and veneration. He (the Bishop of Winchester) had, however, consi dered the subject with very deep and earnest attention, and the result of his deliberation, in common with that of many of his Right Rev. Brethren was, that he most decidedly objected to the Bill. It wanted the autho rity of the Universities, and it wanted also the autho rity of the Cathedral establishments, twenty-two of whom had petitioned against the measure. Under these circumstances he could not but object to the Bill, and it would be necessary to bear in mind the nature of the institutions with which it was intended to deal. They were divided into two branches, the old and new foundations. The old foundations had canons residentiary and non-residentiary, some as many as twelve, and others only four ; and they amounted in the whole to about 204. The new foundations were established by Henry the Eighth, and they comprised only residentiaries. The duty of residentiaries was regular and stated, and they were required to give con,. stant attendance in their cathedrals. The non-residen tiaries were only obliged to preach one or two sermons in the year, and they comprised a much larger body of clergy. The property of these establishments was very considerable, and consisted of real property and tithes, most of which had been exchanged fc; real property in lands and houses. Now, of All the es , - tablishments which the Bill proposed to abolish, none could be abolished with greater safety, in his mind, than the corpo'ratio - ns of the minor canons, because they had petitioned in favour of the Bill. If its provisions were Carried into effect it would abolish about 72 prebends residentiary, and about 317 non-residentiary. At would reduce some of the Chapters one-third, and all Of them considerably—it would alienate their property, and take away little less than one•half of the revenues now attached to the cathedral establishments 9f the coun. NUES BILL. The Bishop of ROCHESTER presented a charac teristic petition from the Rev. Sidney Smith against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill. The Earl of DEVON presented a similar petition from the Dean and Chapter of Peterborough. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a petition from Devonshire to the same effect. Viscount MELBOURNE then rose to move the second reading of the Bill, and said that notwithstand ing the many great and important questions which it had been his duty to bring before the House, he had never felt so oppressed with a sense of his own weak ness as on the present occasion, when he rose to bring before their Lordships a question without doubt of great magnitude and very great importance, a question which not only involved important general principles of Go vernment, but also many questions of common and ec clesiastical law, with which, of necessity, he was but little acquainted. He felt in these circumstances great satisfaction, support, and consolation, in being supported by those who were well acquainted with the state of the law at present, and with that which they sought to establish, and who would be able to correct any error he might make, or supply any deficiency he might exhibit on the pre sent occasion. Although there were many de tails which were of great importance, and would re quire correct attention, he would confine himself en- , tirely to the general principle of the Bill, and the im mediate subject for their Lordship's consideration, which was whether their Lordships would consent to some reduction of our present Ecclesiastical Establish ments, and the application of the funds accruing from the deduction to that purpose, which was so loudly crying for them, and w hi c h h a d b een b rought before their Lordships in so strong and cogent a manner, and which of itself must form s o s t rong a claim on their Lordships' judgment and feelings—namely to supply that state of unhappy destituti on o f spiritual instruc tion which unquestionably largely prevailed throughout a great part of this country. This was the general principle of the Bill, and to this he asked their assent on the present occasion. And he must beg to remark on an error—undoubtedly unintentional, and resulting from the warmth of feeling in argument which ran through the whole statement of the able and eloquent Counsel who had addressed their Lordships with so much power at the Bar of the House.—(Hear.) They both of them stated that it was the object of the Government to suppress these establishments entirely, whereas their Lordships were only called upon to make such reductions as would leave them amply sufficient for all the purposes for which they were originally in tended, and to apply the funds to that object which formed the most urgent claim on Parliament and on the country, and on both Houses of Parliament. In 1835 the Government, of which Sir R. Peel formed a part, had advised his Majesty to recommend the appointment of a Committee for that purpose, so as to extend more widely the means of religious instruction. That Com mittee was appointed, and on March 10, 1836, the three first Reports of the Commissioners were laid on the table. The recommendations of the Commission ers, with respect to ecclesiastical duties and revenues had been already adopted, their recommendation with respect to pluralities and sinecures had been also carried into effect, and their Lordships were now called upon to carry into effect the recommendations contained in the second and fourth Reports of the Commissioners. It was said by the Learned Counsel that these recom mendations had been made in times of difficulty and alarm, to meet the exigencies of the occasion, and now that the alarm had passed away, it was unwise to make these concessions. The Right Hon. Bart. had distinctly denied that he had been actuated by any such motives. On the part of himself and his colleagues he begged to make the same disclaimer. But even if the Commis sion had been a concession to the alarm and danger of the time, he had always heard that there was no more short-sighted course than to withhold those concessions which had been extorted in times of alarm and danger on the first appearance of returning tranquillity.— , (Hear, bear.) It was now, in his opinion, wise in their Lordships to carry these measures into effect, even if there was less clamour and alarm, than at the time the Commission was appointed. It was unneces sary for him to detail the amount of spiritual destitu tion that prevailed in that country ; that was fully de tailed in the Report of the Commissioners. The amount of that destitution was alarmingly great, and the object of the present measure was to apply a re medy to that evil. The Noble Lord here read an ex tract from the Report of the Commissioners with re ference to the amount of spiritual destitution. It would be quite unnecessary for him, he was sure, to argue that the Church should set an example in the education of the people, and that it was in the highest degree fitting that the Church should take the lead in making such an appropriation of her funds as would show her readiness and zeal on the sub ject. It would not be necessary for him to de lay their Lordships by any further arguments on that part of the question, but they had heard strong objections to the course they were about to pursue urged in that House, and at their Lordships' bar, which he should not be performing his duty if he did not allude to, because the general argument of the,Learned Counsel went to the very basis of the question. They sail that their Lordships had no moral right on the point, and that the case was not justified by precedent. They admitted that funds had formerlybeen transferred from one body to another, and from one institution to another, but that it had always been on grounds dis tinctly stated, and which was not alleged on the pre sent occasion. But the Learned Counsel must have forgotten that when they admitted that similar cases had formerly occurred, they, in fact, cut from their own feet the whole ground of this argument ; and if their Lordships were so bound up by the intentions of the original institutors—if the question were to be settled on that ground, whatever might be the change in circumstances—whatever might be the amount to which their funds may have grown, and how ever un suitable they might be to the objects for which th ey were intended—if they were to say that they should still be bound by the terms of the original institutors, why then he would say that in some of the cases which the Hon. Gentleman had cited there was a sufficient groun d for the course that bad b een taken. The Learned Counsel had said that there must be delinquency to jus tify such proceedings, as in the case of the Knights 1 institutions themsel ves , if . Templars. But delinquency was no grou n d f or proceeding against the ir!sti they were good, but against t abused them. The only case in which d e li nquency for was a reasondisturbing any institution, was when the delinquency duency was an evid ence o f the vice of the institution itself. He acknowledged th at questions connected with religion should be treated with the highest possible respect, and that they should be approached with great caution, and not wantonly or rashly ; but he could not hold, when other objects became more urgent, that Church institutions were to be considered absolutely inviolable, and that they were to be bound down to a c ourse of p rocee ding which, under the circumstances, m ight be consid ere d unwise and absurd. The Learned Counsel had denied the ap plication in the present instance of all those proceedings which had taken place about the time of the Reforma tion, but he (Lord M.) did not think that the Learned Counselhad stated those procee din g s ver y accurately. He should certainly,however, a gree with the Learned C ounse l if he had merely said that the proceeding s of the refermation were to be looked to with a great deal of caution, and were to be silted before they were adop , ted as a model. He thought the 4efortpation the . greatest blessing ever conferred on mankind, but still it unquestionably did not originate in the best of mo , tives, nor was it carried on by the purest means. The precedent of the Reformation should therefore 'be EVENING EDITION. try. Now, no necessity had been shown for making these most important changes, nor had it been shown that the spiritual destitution, which it was intended to supply, could not be supplied by any other means. If no necessity for the measure existed, expediency might be urged ; but although expediency was a bad plea, he would join:issue with the Noble Viscount on that ground, and contend that no plea of expediency could be made out. The measure, in his opinion, would go far to impair —it would well nigh destroy—these institutions, and he could assure their Lordships and the Noble Vis count that the connection between cathedral institu tions and sound theology was very close. It appeared to him that it was impossible, from the materials of that Bill, to procure funds to supply the existing spiritual destitution, and he doubted very much whether the parochial clergy would forego their prospect of advance ment in the Church for the sake of the small additional stipend which that Bill would give them. He had an other objection to urge on the score of principle. He doubted whether their Lordships would be justified in diverting the funds of this or any other institution from the intention of the original founders or donors. He doubted whether they had any right to resume the free gifts which had been made for ever, and when that claim was not put forward by the parties who made the gifts, or their representatives, what right had they to make free with the management of these gifts, or to resume what had been given by a private individual, as was.the case in many instances ?—( Hear, bear.) In 1541, Henry VIII. endowed the cathedrals of Can terbury, Worcester, and others, not as a monarch, but as a private individual, bestowing upon them some of his own. The c h urc h o f Southwold had been endowed by a private individual 1200 years ago, and the Bill pro vided that that cathedral should be abolished.—(Hear.) What right had they to do that ? or what right had they to transfer the property of one church to another without the consent of the donors ?—(Hear, hear.) Why had not the State done its duty before the, appeal had been made to the House ? If the country had been appealed to in a fitting manner, to supply the existing spiritual destitution, they would never have heard of the present .Bill. The eloquent and wise statesman, Burke, had said that if the property of cathedrals and chapels was attacked, it would not end there ; and his words in reference to a similar measure, attempted to be carried in his time, were now likely to be verified. He need not remind their Lordships, that at the time of the revolution in France, six weeks bad not elapsed after the church property had been pronounced national property, until it had been all confiscated, and social order at an end. He trusted they would never witness similar scenes in the annals of their country. The pre sent was not a question between the Deans and Chap ters and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—it was one in which the interest of Church and State were literally and vitally at stake.—(Hear, hear.) He would conclude by applying to their Lordships the words of Archbishop king, who said, he was entrusted with a great power, either to preserve or to waste the property of the Church. Dispose of it for God's sake as the donors intended. Let neither friends nor flatterers induce them to do otherwise, and put a stop to the approaching destruction of the Church, as they hoped for mercy at the last day.—( Hear, hear.) The Archbishop of CANTERBURY sad nothing he had heard from the Right Rev. Prelate who had just sat down had shaken his opinion as to the advan tages of the Bill. It was a measure of the greatest im portance to the country and the church, and if their Lordships rejected it, he feared the consequence would he most mischievous. The Right Rev. Prelate had objected to the transfer of property from one church to another, but he would remind him that the system of translation had been already on many occasions recognised by the House and the country.—(Hear.) According to the Report of the Commons, it appeared that not less than 230,0001. per annum would be re quired to raise the poorer benefices to 2001. per annum, and their Lordships might infer from that how great was the amount of spiritual destitution existing. What was of still greater importance, it would appear that in four parishes of the metropolis, containing 166,000 in habitants (and no parish containing less than 10,000 inhabitants was included) there was only church room fur 8,208, and only eleven clergymen. In twenty one parishes on the banks of the Thames, contain ing 799,000, there was only church room for 6,500. In short, not to go into any unnecessary details, it ap peared that in the metropolitan parishes of 1,147,000 persons only one in eleven had church accommodation, and there were only 76 clergymen for that large num ber. The same destitution prevailed in the diocese of Chester. Of 716,000 persons in the 38 parishes there was only church room for 100,000. In York, in a po pulation of 402,000 there was only church room for 29,000 ; and in the diocese of Exeter, in a population of 235,000 there was only church accommodation for about the samenumber. The accommodation varied in different districts from one in eight to one in thirteen. The Learned Counsel who had addressed their Lordships with so much eloquence a few nights ago, had talked of the destruction of canonries, but that Bill did not contem plate that—it was merely the suppression of those which were comparatively useless, and the rendering the others more efficient, by retaining a sufficient number to perform the duty. With regard to those non-residen tiaries, there could be no doubt that these must be considered sinecures. What was the use of preaching a sermon once or twice a year ?—(Hear, hear.) Why, it was absurd to talk of revenues like these in any other light than sinecures. The right of the State to inter fere with these establishments had been questioned, but it must be taken into consideration the period at which the donations had been made. The State was found to act upon the principles of Justice, but it was not al ways to be limited by the obligations which bound pri vate individuals—(Hear, bear.) It appeared to him that the arguments of the Learned Counsel were better fitted for a Court of Justice than for a Legis lative Assembly. The authority of Lord Eldon had been referred to, and it had been stated that because Lord Eldon saii he was bound to act according to law, whether that law was good or bad, they were equally bound to obey the law. That might be a very good rule for a Judge, but the Legislature was to judge of the laws themselves, and it had the power when it seemed fit to alter or dispense with them altogether.— ( Hear, hear.) On the importance of the object he en tirely agreed. He had set before their Lordships the destitution which prevailed. On the other hand he might be permitted to state the sacrifices that would be required to be made by the Chapters 'to supply it. There were upwards of three millions destitute of the advantage of religious worship, and to give it to them they were about to suppress offices held by about 400 clergymen. Now he would argue the case on the supposition not the most favourable to the Chapters. He would not take the case of their having discharged the functions of their offices, which, making the ordinary allowances for human nature, he believed they had. It could not be supposed gentlemen entered the Church for the sake of obtaining these offices. What was the probability a clergyman entering on a parish would Rbtain a canonry ? He believed a great majority of them never expected such a thing, and if they did, they must necessarily be disappointed. But then it was said the destitution was great. And so it was ; for when it was said the sum was small, he ad mitted that ; but everything must have a beginning. So was Queen Anne's Bounty at first, and that of other similar institutions. Again, it was said by the opo nents of the Bill that the State should help the Church. He agreed with that ; but the Church must first help herself. This was the opinion of the Noble Duke ( Wellington), expressed a few days ago in that House, and the Noble Duke had used the same lan guage to him (the Archbishop of Canterbury) twelve years ago, and had said, " Something must he done, but ;it must not be done in th e fi rs t p l ace , b y t h e Church." Lord Grey had used the same language to him, and said, " We can do nothing for you, if you do nothing for yourselves." Sir Robert Peel was also. of the same opinion. With respect to what had been said of precedents, he believed that if a` party opposed to the Church got the reins of Government, they would pay little respect to precedents, and would not re frain from injuring it, though there were no precedents to guide them in doing so. When it was asked what would be the effect of the Bill, he asked what would be the effect of rejecting it ?L(Hear, hear.) There were many prejudices against the Church, and one of these was that the Church was calling upon the coun try to do everything, and would do nothing for itself. He believed tho benefits resulting from the Bill would be very extensive, and not the least of them would be the removal of this prejudice.—(Hear, hear.) The Most Rev. Prelate then adverted to mea sures of the same principle which had had that effect, and been attended with great advantage to the Church ; and he believed the effect of this measure would be the same, and that if the Bill were rejected these prejtuleee s would revive, and with tenfold force. NotwitLat' an di ng the great eloquence of the Counsel at the bar, there was one thing he had heard with great surprise. It Wa s a lid the storm had blown over, Who but must sp ama .. thise in the feelings expressed on this subject, bN the Noble Visconnt who had first addressek their Lord ships ? How was it possible such an. idea. cou ld b e entertained that they should male,e a capitulation, and then break it as soon as the besieging army marched off? It was not to ho doubted the measures of the Commissioners had been adopted upon a full v i ew o f an the subject , They saw danger, thought it their duty to do what they could for its removal. This dan ger was not founded on tra ns t i r en ted te ea uses s o r on exc i tement, oli a but on causes which h a d and would continue to operate in a certain degree, but in a mor e or l ess d egree , th ,, as concession; were made by Church. They sought to E,,r.4 a remedy for the destitution which preva iled, an d e t ale same time to secure the Established Church, and the institutions connected Lsith it, which undoubtedly would would fall with it. They said that a nominal reform would be unsafe, and unsatisfactory, and therefore con sented to r e d uce Cathedral Establishments: to what they conceived to bu consistent with the object which they had kept constantly in mind—the performance of the duties attached to them and the preservation of their fabrics.— (Hear, heat.) He believed this to be a measure of pru dence, and that the time would shortly come when the wisdom of the Commissioners would ho extolled for re- com Mending it to Parliament. He had heard it said that Deans and Chapters were against the measure ; no one could deny that, but he did not believe the clergy of this country were really adverse to it. He knew there had been many petitions against the mea sure, but it had never been fairly laid before the clergy. The Commissioners had been attacked on every side; their arguments had been misrepresented, their facts mis stated, and they had, in fact, been assailed with every art which ingenious o pposition could devise to resist an un palatable measure. The Most Rev. Prelate then proceeded to argue, that he had been right in stating, on a former occa sion, that his own clergy were not opposed to the measure, and proceeded :—There was one subject which he should have mentioned earlier, namely, that of oaths. Many re spectable clergymen had remonstrated with hint on the violation of his oath, in being ins'rumental in supporting this measure, which would deprive the Cathedral of Can terbury of a part of its rights and revenues. He conceived the oaths taken by individuals, whether civil or ecclesias tical, or the corporations to which they belonged, were always taken in subordination to their higher dutiet, and their obligations to the laws of their country. An oath of this kind left every men at liberty to do his duty and speak his mind as a subject, to deliver his opinion in Parliament, and to advise his Sovereign if he chanced to be Privy Councillor. He conceived it was in the nature of such an oath not to interfere with their duties, nor could he conceive that any oath could have been taken in any other sense by himself as a resident canon or prebendary of Canterbury. If it should appear that the terms of that oath did not meet his view of the case, he thought in ano ther sense they would, because the rights and privileges of the Chapter of Canterbury spoken of in the oath involved everything belonging to the Church, and therefore he was bound by his oath, as he should have been without it, to maintain the rights and privileges of the chapter of Canterbury against all unlawful aggression. But that oath by the terms of it did not prevent the visitor - or Chapter from proposing an alteration of the statutes?. Those statutes were framed by his illustrious predecessor, Archbishop Laud, in the reign of Charles 1., and the was a peculiar sanctity attached to the statutes of Laud; which prevented their being altered. The right was exe pressly reserved to the Crown of altering or changing , the statutes in any respect, or to make entirely new ones. Nor was any one to be accused of perjury for giving advie‘e to that effect, nor when adopted would any prebendary be reduced to the alternative of disobeying the new law, or breaking his oath. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) said that if he did not obey the new statutes he would break his oath, because all the new statutes were made by authority of the Crown, and were as binding as the old statutes, and his obedience to the old was transferred to the new ones. He would trouble their Lordships -lout a short time longer, but he must again state that he tho'bght the Commissioners of the Government deserved great credit for this measure.—( Hear, hear.) Look at the amount of patronage the Government would' sacrifice in carrying this measure.—(Hear.) Look at the seed- Sees made by the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Lincoln and London. Was it because they had no friends to serve, or clergy to reward, they consented to them ? No but because they felt the good of the Church re. quires! it. He was sure they would not regret those sa crifices. While, however, he maintained the expediency of the Bill, he thought there were certain points in it which would require amendment—( Hear, hear)—and that certain additions might be beneficially made to it. Respecting this, he would only state there were a great number of clergymen who regretted the abolition of their spiritual offices more than their emoluments. Whether these could be retained or not was matter for consider ation. If be might propose it, he thought every Bi shop should have the power of appointing a certain number of honorary canons who should hold the offices without sharing the emoluments, and which might be bestowed on those who assisted the Bishop in the manage ment of his diocese, or who had distinguished themselves by learning, piety, or attention to their parochial duties. Another provision might be made, though he was not pre pared to say bow, for the distribution of the funds raised. They must never lose sight of this great object, in assist ing those districts in which great destitution prevailed, and yet at the same time *.o have reference to local wants, and to those great agricultural parishes which were inadee quately provided with the ministrations of the Church.-- ( Hear.) He had nothing further at present to say than that he was sure the Commissioners had acted wit a due sense of their important duties, and had done all in their power to promote the interests of the Church and the sta-. bility of her institutions.—( Hear.) Lord L YTTLE TON would not attempt to discuss the fit constitution of the Commission, or the power of the Legislature to interfere on this subject. He would b e a bold man to do so, after the able speech of Counsel at their Lordship's bar. He would not defend the capitular bodies as to the manner in which, for some time past, they had discharged their functions, nor would he deny that new enactments were necessary to cause tbem to fulfil the purposes of their original constitution. The Noble Lord referred to the writings of Selden and others to establish, his position that the powers of the cathehral bodies coteid not be limited within, nor extended beyond, the bounds of their respective dioceses. It had been through their ; emu , the country had been christianized. But it was not to be said that when the country was christianised their functions should cease.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the powers of the Archdeacons and of the 'Chapters at large ought to be increased, at the same time that he was far from recommending sinecures in the Church. He quoted several authorities to show that the Chapters were the Council of the Bishop in some of his most important ministrations—in ecclesiastical censures. He thought ttet the original constitution of the Church required a greett number of presbyters than had lately been employed. The Bishops had in modern times administered their powers foe much of themselves, and had not sufficiently availed them selves of the assistance of the presbytery.' It had been said by an authority which the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdeen), who had shown so much knowledge of, and bad taken so much interest in the Kirk of Scotland, was ac quainted with, and would he doubted not respect, that Scot-. land had lost her episcopacy, and England her presbytery, and that in both countries the Church bad been a sufferer be f the loss. For his part, he thought that if there were tny chance of a re-union of the two Churches, it could or:ly be effected, by each of them resuming the important fe eact i on , of which they bad been deprived. In many ins*.ances the monasteries and chapters were centres of education ; and they were the means even at present o f keeping up daily worship. There was also some weight the argument, that these institutions afforded an eAcouragement to the c io l o e k rg ilg y i , to to dev th o e te m theiras p time r ovi stiltsh securedacquisitionfo r themof li n e a rn i t n h g e , Church, when they had r.eglected other means of prefer... meet for the pursuit of learning. It was thii that the Bill would supply the wants of the Church. lie denied that. The great want of the Church was unity of action, which, he believed, could not be kept up unless the original functions of those bodies were restored. It had also been said that the very example set by the Bill would be of service to the Chure, a , but for his part he could not see how confiscations could be useful.—( Hear, hear, from the Bishop of ExeA er. ) Several plans respecting better modes of colleetic, n an d, application of the revenues had been laid before the Com missioners; and he could not understand why threy had not been attended to. lie denied the right of Parliament to destroy the offices themselves, whatever right might be claimed for it to ie:cerfere with the temporalities. He would wish to see, the opposition to the Bill take the same' form in this 13" it had taken in the other House—that is, a demand for further inquiry. It was admitted by the most Rev. Primate himself that the clergy knew nothing of this B;11. Farther inquiry was necessary tee enable the clergy and the public to unaerstand it. It was most discouraging to oppose this Bill, considering the venerable auspices under which it had been introduced, and the little chance of defeating it. For his part lee could only say, he trembled for the country in which rho change in the constitution of the Church was to be e: f f eete d —he trembled for the age in which the innovation was made.—( Heal, hear.) The Carl of H A kRO WBY said, tha.`s as his former opinion: had been referred to, he was bud to admit that he had, some Shirty years ago, expressed himself opposed to a diminution of the number of, prebends. But he wag not zeow unwilling to retract t l eat opinion. He had not made up his mind to support tills Bill, which was in its own na ture so i':uportant, and in many of its parts open to so much objection, without having endeavoured to mals,e himself fully acquainted with the subject-4 Hear.) He beard a great deal of the right of the Legislature to in terfere with these ;offices and this property. The Legis lature had always exercised the right of making a new disposition, more suited to the wants of the times, and perhaps to the real views of the donors, of property in vestoi in public and permanent establishments.—( H ess .) He did not allude to what had been done in such cases ass that of the Tempters, but to many approved inszarsees, wkieh might occur to their Lordships' minds, though he could not now trust his memory with attempting a detail of them. But their Lordships were aware that in tinny instances, and in many ages, the Legislature had take* upon itself not to alienate, but to alter the disposition of welt property. In 1831 a Bill passed the House of Commons and ultimately was agreed to in this House, for altering the disposition of the Property of the Church itself, to supprele. aDme bishoprics, awl to remodel others, in another part of the empire. In 183 f,, a similar Bill f or a new disi tion of pr o p erty o f the Church in England, passed the H ouse of Coma:els—one of the effects of which would be to tail from those who had too much duty, or too much wealth, end to transfer some of the burthen, or the emolument, to those. who were less employed, and less endowed. By them Bill the See of Canterbury would have been reduced so augment the See of Exeter.—(Hear, hear.) The propo sition now before them was to transfer wealth from one pert of the Church, in which it was not so efficiently em ployed, to That part in which it was most needed,and which . was the basis, and the most important part of the whole:. fahk;e. The deficiency of parochial ministration in the Church was acknowledged, and it was the interest of the Estaldished Church to remove the destitution—( Hear, hear)—and it was an impression very widely:spread that before Parliament could do anything for the Church, tires Church should show a willingness to go as far as it could t o help itself.—( H e ar, h ear .) H e believed that after ,he'claims which Parliament' or the Government would be disposed to make upon the Cathedrals, enough would re main for their unimpaired usefulness. It had been said that if this Bill were carried into effect there would not remain enough of inducements to . men of the high es t talents to devote themselves to learning. But look at the state of the case as between the Church and the other pro fessions. Now, if the Bill passed, there would still remain 26 bishoprics, worth 5,000/. a-year each, and 26 deaneries of 1,0001. each; besides 1,600 rectories, of an average value cf 5001. a-year each. There were certainly a greet many of no more than 90/. or 70/. a-year, but this (as we understood) was a disproportion it was proposed to re medy. But what was the case in the army ? Why, at the last brevet, there were 133 promotions, but the officers promoted had paid an aggregate of 210,000/. for their commissions. The Noble Earl concluded by saying that he supported the Bill from a thorough conviction that it would promote the interests of the Church, and enable it the better to accomplish the intentions of its Divine Founder. The Earl of DE VON had always felt great doubts upon. the propriety of such a measure being adopted as that be— fore the Ilouse, and those doubts had beers increased joy what he had heard that night. Parliament was ca .e d upon to interfere without having any evidence whew ier