The Express.
London, England, 1848-04-05 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 5, 1848.

to answer to ?dr. 0508110a1111,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the government did not in-
tend to proceed with the Encumbered Estates Bill before
Easter. he Landlord and Tenant Bill was fixed for Friday,
but be could not say that it would be proceeded with before
Easter.
PREVENTION OF EJECTMENTS.
In reply to Mr. STAFFORD,
rnment proosed
the legal
to bring
Sir O.REY ,aid that the gove
in a bill to prevent eiectments, whatever might be
rights ef the landlord cr the nature of the tenure, without
giving noticeto the parties ; and also without giving notice
to the board of guardians that the ejecunenta would be
likely to lead to their extreme destitution. (Hear, hear.)
The bill would also provide 'palest the destruction or pull-
ing down of houses by midnight, whatever might be the lo-
cal rights of the parties. Such would be the general provi-
sions of the measure. (Hear.)
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH ROME.
In answer to Mr. FORRRS,
Lord PALMERSTON said that this bill would not be
brought on before Easter.
EPISCOPAL AND COMMON FUND.
Mr. HORSMAN rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had given notice, for the purpose of doing away
with the distinction which was drawn between the episcopal
and common fund. In 1836, an act passed that house, re-
gulating episcopal revenues and providing that a para. ri of
the income of the richer sees should be applied to increase
the smaller and poorer ones. In 1840, another act was
passed, which provided that certain episcopal funds were to
be applied to the augmentation ot small livings. Two funds
were created by these two acts, and them was nothing to
show that they were to be kept separate. They were, how-
ever, kept separate ; but the commissionin had no doubt
that this was a mere matter of administrative arrangement.
But, by the act of 1841—an act brought in for another pur-
pose—words were introduced which gave a statutable sanc-
tion to the distinction between the two funds. It could not
be doubted that this principle was established without the ap-
proval of the house, for the right hou. baronet (Sir J. Graham)
one not the least astute of the commias:oners, declared at
the close of teat session that he was ignorant ot any such
distinction, except as a matter of administration, till it came
out before the committee over which the noble lord the
member for Totness (Lord Seymour) presided; and he also
declared that he did not concur in the pmpriety of any such
distinction. It established the principle that the property
of the bishops was not the property of the church; that
the episcopacy was to be separately cared for, and not es a
portion of the entire church ; that no matter how poor the
,
church and how wealthy the
prelates—no matter how small
the nssities of the episcopacy and how great the wan*); of
the checuerch—so strong was this principle—so sacred were the
rights of the order, that if those fund.hey could
should be
not be
expended for episcopal purposes here, t
applied for the establishment of bishops in the colonies.
It could not be said that there was not spiritual destitution
in this country to the relief of which this fund could be use-
fully applied. The Bishop of London admitted in his evi-
dence that the spiritual wants of the:metropolis and the ma-
nufacturing districts were outgrowing the charitable efforts
which had been made of late to meet them. But, however,
he gave his opinion that the diwthetion between the two
funds ought to be maintained. It was the language of every
prelate and every clergymen that there were not sufficient
means to meet the spiritual destitution of the growing popu-
lation. In Wales large desertions were taking place from
the church owing to this cause, and yet it was maintained that
whatever was the parochial destitution this principle of the
distinction of the funds was not to be deported from.
That principla was more objectionable when they came to
consider the origin of the fund. The fund was derived from
parochial tithes. The tithe payers had, it was true, the
benefit of the spiritual superintendence of the bishop, but if
there was a surplus, was it fair that the parochial tithe payers
should be taxed for tha purpose of maintaining a bishop in a
distant colony, whom they might never see ? There TOO the
greatest difference between the amount derived from paro-
chial tithes and the expeneiture of it for parochial purposes.
The income attached to the see of Canterbury was limited to
1.1,0001. a year, and to bring it within that limit the arch-
bishop had to pay 6,0001. to the ecclesiastical commissioners.
Would it not be just to apply this 6,0001. in the first instance
for the relief of spiritual destitution within the see of
Canterbury, from which it WAS derived? (Gear, hear.)
It could not be said that it did not require relief.
The honourable gentleman here read a return of
various parishes in the diocese of Canterbury, from which it
appeared that with the exception of two cases there was no
house for the clergymen, and the amount of tithes drawn
from the parishes was more then four times the income of
the incumbents. The case was t..c same with regard to the
dioceses of York, London, Ely, Sali-bury, Balmer, Bath and
Wells, and Rochester. In every one of these cases there
was scarcely an instance in which the incumbent had a
house. lie asked, therefore, again, was it wise to lay down
the principle that the tithes should not he restur‘ d to the
parishes by which the payments were made, and which were
evidently so much in need of them ? (Hear.) Now there
was only one argument raised in favour of the perpetuation
of this distinction, and it was stated in the strongest
terms, in his evidence before Mr. E. Denis n's committee, by
t':e Bishop of London. At question 1,181 the bishop stated
his opinion that the expediency of amalgamating the funds
was doubtful, because, in such case, provision could not be
made for new bishops from episcopal property, "If the
funds were amalgamated there would," said the right
rev. prelate, " be a cry for more clergy in preference to
mere bishops." Surely that argument carried with it its
own condemnation. Was the church—was the ecclesiastical
commission—to put itself in opposition to the wish of the
church? Could any comparison be drawn between the
Prelates and the clergy ? Was there a single bishop with-
out a residence ? Was there a single bishop with too limited
a stipend? He did not know what might be the course
Liken by the government on this occasion. He was not
without hopes that they might feel it dangerous to oppose
the resolution. Certainly if they conceded it, he was bound
to sus that this would e but ne step in a work of frm.
He teci the goverbnmento would undertake that woork.
He saw much in the conduct of the government
in ecclesiastical matters to approve. Their appoint-
ments, both to the bench and to the parishes which
had fallen to their patronage were highly to be applauded.
The question involved the best interests—the social and
moral interests—of the people, and h.• trusted the govern-
ment would prove themselves awake to its importance. In
such a course they would have the certain support of the
most rev. prelate, who, at the head of the church, was likely
to prove such a'blessing to the people. The hon. member
concluded by moving his resolution.
Lord ASHLEY said lie rose to second the motion, and he
did so on the ground that it was csaentiaily necessary to the
peace of the church to deal out equal and impartial measures
to all the branches of the church.
Sir G. GREY said he did not rise to controvert any of the
arguments shich had been used by the mover and seconder
of the resolution. Assuming that the parochial clergy were
not to be tied and fettered too much by forms, but that an-
other agency might be introduced coming to the homes of
the poor, he was certainly inclined to agree that a great in-
crease in church efficiency was required. But, at the same
time, the efficiency and number of bishops ought, he felt, to
be increased ; and, certainly, if this matter were to be coo.
sidered at all, the proper mode would be to introduce a hal
with respect to it, not to attempt to bind the house by an ale-
street resolution. OR a former occasion he had protested
against being bound by the permanent distinction of the two
funds, and certainly he must particularly protest against being
hound by the opinion expressed by the Bishop of London as to
the desirability of preventing that distinction. The various
questions, of which this only was one, which were under
the consideration of the committee of last session, had long
been subjects of discussion in the commission ; and measures
weuld, he had no doubt, be propoeed for the better adminis-
tration of the funds of the commission. Under these cir-
cumstances he asked the house net to consent to this ab-
stract resolution, and he concluded by moving the previous

question.
Isle. PLUME TEE expreseed his regret at the course
adopted by the government. If he wanted any assurance of
the friendly feeling of the hon. member for Cockermouth to
the church and to the clergy, it would be afforded him by
the fact that on this occasion he was seconded by the noble
lord the member for Bath.
Lord SEYMOUR, as chairman of the committee of last
session. must candidly soy that he had beard the resolution
of the government with some degree of disappointment. It
was easy to say " bring ins bill ;" but they all knew the
difficulties of that course. (Cheers.)
Sir R. R. INGLIS was most anxious to say nothing that
could bear the interpretation of opposition in a debate cha-
racterised by so much candour, but he must repeat what be
had uniformly contended for in that house, that the rights of
ecclesiastical corporations were inviolable. With respect to
what had been said about tithes, the bishops were not respon-
•
sible for the circumstance of having parechial tithes as
component part of their revenues. lie thought it would be
injudi ions unadvisedly to amalgamate the two funds, espe-
cially when they considered that the existing distinction af-
forded them the opportunity of creating new bishopric, when
new bishoprics were required.
Sir R. PEEL always felt great difficulty in voting for a
proposal which suggested to the house in the shape of •
resolution a proposition which con:el only be carried out by
legislative enactment. Considering that no resolution could
be effectual which was not acceded to by another
house of parliament, he thought that to pass what were
commonly called abstract resolutions was • somewhat
dangerous and byno means at any time an advisable course.
lie hoped the hen. member would not involve the house in
• division on the present occasion, as be should be sorry to
give a vote adverse to the general principle laid down by the
bon. member. He had the highest respect for the bench of
bishops, and for the functions which they were called upon
to fulfil ; he rqarded the welfare of the church as inti-
mately connected with the due discharge of those func-
tions, and, he believed that there was no clus of her
Majesty's subjects more conscientiously devoted to the per-
formance of those duties, as a body, then 'were the bench of
bishop. Further, he was not prepared to controvert the
proposition that, at some future tune, additional bishops
might usefully be crested, but, no such creation
would be advisable until there was a clear sur-
plus of funds available for that particular purpose—
(hear, hear)—and there must, in the first place, be due eon-
aide:Minn prid to :he spiritual necessities el •be mama of

the population, whose destitution in this respect was most
appalling. (Hear, bear.) In the second report of the com-
missioner& it was stated that in thirty-dioceseeighof t
Cmanuter,factu there
was churah accommodation for only one twenty-third part
of the population—(bear, hear); that in the dicicem of Lich-
field, with a population of 235,000 souls, there was church
room for hat'do,ooo ; and that in the thirty-four parishes of
the metropolis, a population of 1,137,000 bad but 101,000
church sittings. (Hear.) As to the condition of a large
proportional the working clew it was truly deplorable. Toe
same report gave a list a 3,528 benefices under 150/. per an-
num, of which 13 had a population exceeding 10,000, while
51 others had populations varying from 5,000 to 10.000.
(Hear, hear.) The mere facts there dated exhibited the in-
diction of the most galling hartlehipe upon the working clergy
of England—(hear, hear)—and the absolute necessity that
prior to considering the question of more bishops ample atten-
tion should be paid to remedy the grievous evils now sua
twines by the working clergy and by the populations thus
fearfully destitute of spiritual aid. (near, hear.) Ile should
ever, as he had secular, resist any pee(.% for applying
church property to purpost e ; but in matters affecting
not only the interests of the church but the laureate of reli-
gion, ho could not concur with the hon. baronet opposite
that the revenues hitherto cnje)ed by the bishops, from
whatever s
print were to observed, eir sole ri4ht. ttleor,
hear.) If this ple were any given archbishop
or bishop might derive 100,0001. or 200,000 1.,
al to or
him
any
amount from his ace, and rigist all appe
for aid, even though the spiritual condition of his dis-
trict amounted to absolute destitution. (Hear, hear.)
lie quite agreed with his noble friend as to the ex
pediency of making the income of the bishops one clear
and certain payment. Ito would repeat his desiro that the
settlement of this most important question should he the re-
sult of a bill, and in his derided opinion this bill ought to
emanate from the government. (Hear, hear.) An. step
taken for guaranteeing to the respective bishoi s a certain
revenue must be accompanied with a well-considered pro-
vision
for the due management of the citadel, of the church I
(hear, bar)—a provision which should rest upon the
responsible persons who constituted the executive govern-
ment of the country. (Hear, hear.) As to the distino-
don between the episcopal and the general fund, lie was
bound to sly, looking at the state of our parishes, particu-
larly et those in the inanuf,cturing districts, that in his
opinion the distinction ought to be substantially abolished. I
(Hear, hear.) He did not mean to affirm that the whole of,
the combined funds should be applied to the use of benefices,
or thatno new bishops should at any time be crested;
but he
certainly desired to remove the barrier which had, in the
shape of this diqinction, impeded so materially the in-
crease of parochial epi itual superintendence. (lka, hear).
Under the existing pressure of public business he did not
ask. the government to come forward at once with a measure
en the subject, but he hoped that some intim ition
ould be made on their part of a readiness to
der-
take the matter at the earliest possible mo
lie felt deeply impressed with the necessity of
applying all the surplus revenue of the church to the spiri-
tual wants of the country. The measures he had already
taken with this purpose had produced the effect of supply-
ing church accommodation for 81,000 persons; and lie war
moat anxious that, as nearly as possible, the entire wants of
the country in this most essential mpect should' be supplied.
Ile hoped the lion member for Cockermouth would leave
the matter in the hands of government.
Mr. V. SMITH supported tne resolution.
Mr. BRIGHT took occasion to dwell upon the extent
ft 'to ,
which the voluntary principle effected the objects
which the revenues art the state church were confessedly
withheld. In his own parish, that of Rocut
of hdale, with
of
a
population of hetweeo 70,000 aid 80,000, o 51 places
worship 41 had been erected by the voluntary contributinos
of dissenters from the church of England • and again. at
Merthyr Tydvil, which he had visited some few months past,'
he found that out of 22 places of worship 20 owed their 1
construction to a similar Attune. The case was the same
throughout \Val a aud Scotland. He deprecated the crea-
tion of new bishoprics as wholly uncalled for. The nub' •
lord at the head of the government had referred with &droll
air of deprecation to the fact that the preeent Archbishop o
Canterbury and his succeasors were to have on/y 15,000/. a

year.
Lord J. ItUSSELL—Subject to arrangement. (Dear).
Mr. BRIGIIT continued Yes, but under every ar-
rangement, the most rev. prelate was to have 15,000/.
a year. Why, on earth, was the Archbishop of Canterbury
to have V.ree times the salary of the Prime Minister of Eng-
land, an officer burd. ned with such bard work, such rayon-
sibilities, such wear and tear of every description—wear and
tear so severe, that he would venture to say the uoblo lord, if
he continued to undergo it, would not lice half so long as
the most rev. prelate with his quiet comfortable career, and
his 1.5,0001. a year. (Laughter.) In point of fact, there was
no class of men who got such a vast deal for doing such
infinite little, as did the right rev. bench. Mr, ar, hear.)
lie should be highly delighted to see them relieved alto-
gether from their attendance in another place, their
presence is which appeared to him altogether opposed
in its results to the progress of public liberty, the advance-
ment of sound policy in state and even in church, and the
promotion of religion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE admitted, as a matter of course, that
a very large proportion of the masses of our population con-
sisted of dissenters ; but the fact still remained that an ion
menet extent of population, more especially of the manufac-
turing and mining classes, members of the church of Eng-
land, were destitute of that spiritual instruction which the
resources of the church, aided, if need be, by these of the
state, were plcdg dto afford them. He strongly condemned
the manner in which the hon. member for blanchester had
spoken of the right reverend bench. The language of the
hon, member on this subject was alike discreditable to his
understanding and to his feelings. (Hear, hear.) True
there were seine of the bishops who were not eve rworleed—
(hear, hear)—but there were also anionic the body men of
remarkable energies, of energies in no way surpassed by those
of any man in or out of parliament, and who had bear
grievously overworked in the fulfilment of their MICIell func-
tions. One ef them at this moment was, there was reason
to fear, sinking under the discharge of hie labarious
duties; and the mere recollection of that most excellent pre-
late—need he say he referred to the Bishop of Londoo—
(hear, hear)—should have sufficed to close the lips of the
hon. member when he was proceeding to make the unwar-
ranted attack he had just given utterance to. (Hear, hear )
The allusion which the hon. member had made to the de-
ceased Archbishops of York and Canterbury was, in his I
opinion, ungracious and Tarot uncalled-for ; and as to the
amount which the boa. member had state d these most re-•
verend prelates to have received, he believed it to be altogether
an exaggens ion. As to the question immediately before the
house, he was in favour of the fusion of the two funds, by a
well considered legislative enactment; but he had not as yet
heazd any distinct suggestion cs to the principle on which
the subsequent application of these revenues should bo made.
There was an idea entertained by several gentlemen that it
was a waste of funds to appropriate any surplus that arose to
the endowment of new bishoprics, and that all such moneys
ought to be exclusively applied to the extension of parochial
churches. But he considered that if new bishoprics were
only created after a due inquiry and a positive conviction of
the necessity of such appointments, then there was a very
proper economy observed of the church funds ; and that
such was the case was notoriously evident in the case of the
new colonial bishops. For the church of England and in the
colonies, until those bishoprics bad been created, was in an
utterly inefficient state, disgraceful alike to the people and to
the government at home; wh-reas, by endowing each of
those bishoprics with an income ofpartly 1,2001. a year, partly de-
rived front national funds and supplied by private
benevolence, the church had been enabled to make the most
strenuous and successful efforts in the colonies. In answer,
therefore, to those who contended that there had been a
waste committed of the church funds in the appointment and
endowment of new bishops, he would only point to the
colonies as a full refutation of that exertion, and as a proof
that the judicious extension of episcopacy was calculated
highly to advance the interests of the church of England,
and to extend the benefits of that establishment to a vast
number of persons. But even looking at the other side of
the question, and taking into consideration the expediency
of having regard only to church extension, he must observe
that there was danger in proceeding too fast in this direction.lie needed only to advert to a circumstance which had come
to his knowledge in order to afford a striking proof of the
truth of what he asserted. The late Dr. Chalmers,
whose genius no lees than whose zeal no one would question,
had emphatically warned the Bishop of London agatn-t the
danger of too sudden an increase of church accommodation,
advising him rather to concentrate his energies upon par-
Ocular spots, than to waste or weaken them by scattering
them over too wide a district. In like manner the legit-
lature ought to have regard rather to the most beneficial
mode of applying the surplus funds of the church, let them
arise from what source they might, by concentrating the
efforts for strengthening and wideuing the influence of the
church in distinct and selected instances, than by scattering
those funds over so wide an arena as to make their applica•
tion little felt. Under these circumstances, and entertaining
the views he had stated, he should join the government in
1 voting for the previous question.
Mr. W. P. WOOD said that the only difference which
I existed on either side of the house, with the exception of
1 the bon. baronet below him (Sir It. Inglis), who was con-
' sietent in opposing all interference with the episcopal
I funds, appeared to be whether any distinct expression
of opinion on the subject should or should not be postponed 1
until a bill had been brought in to remedy the evils which'
the resolution before tl.em touched upon. For his own pert 1
he must say, that if he had any hope held out to him on the
Part of the government that • bill to remedy these evils
Would be brought in by ministers, then he should be pre-
pared to say, =et the resolution proposed by the bon.
member for Cockermouth was premature. But, in the ab-
sence of any such hop:, he must say that the house was greatly
indebted to the hon. member, ter having brought the subject
under the notice of parliament. Therewas an act forenabling the
ecclesiastical commissioners to dal with the surplus incomes
of deans and chapters, and to apply that surplus to the cure
of souls by augmenting the stipends of the working clergy
and there had existed a clause by which the powers of this
clattere extended to the surplus epiecopal (uncle, but Land
he had been repealed by a subeequent act, and
he did not think that by re-enacting it the purpose which the
resolution expressed would be effected. That residetion, as
he read it, was to the effect that the surplus epistler!
fund
should no longer be exclusively reserved for pur-
poses. lie entir,ly concurred in that Be saw
no reaaon why the two surplus funds elm she dems
and chapters and the episcopal revenues obisbi set be I
blended into one, and applied generally fie the wpm d
alleviating spiritual destitution. There Wilt exist parti-
cular cases in which an extension of the number of bish
the
ops
would be advantageou as, for instance, is the case of 1
bishopric which embraced the islands of Jersey, &c., where
there was too much labour impose.' on one individual.
There were many good working bishops, but the enormous
incomes apportioned to some of them did not tend to their
efficiency. The mode adopted of taking the average incomes
of we bishops was such as to leave them mucn larger than

the act contemplated, and as thew incomes couldl not undthe
er
the eziating act be again touched during
the ife of
bishop who had once returned his average for seven
years, it behoved the parliament to adopt some mode
of enforcing the spirit of the act, and of re-
et
ducing the incomes of the bishops
to the amou
filed as proper by the ecclesiastical commissioners. Oa the
property of the Bishop of London a large town had
was de•
been
built within a very few years, acome
Ulna from the very large population which now inhabited
that district. Would it not be a Contradiction in terms to
say that a portion of the surplus
the to incos m
rituae arisliwang
nts of that
from that
property should not be applied pi
population which had been created by
it ? Whiet dwelling
only
this subject he must not omit to observe that it was
only due to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster to state,
that during the lest few years the sum of 10,0001. had been
contributed 11 them towards supplying the spiritual wants
of the population of Westminster, in anpportiug schools and
other places of instruction and worship. That some resolu-
tion ot the nature of the one before the house would be pro-
ductive of good results he entertained no doubt, and there-
fore he should vote for it.
Lord J. RUSSELL sail that, looking at the resolution as
an abstract propositiou, he could find no faoult
th with it
declare
. The
hon. member for C ickermouth proposed tem to
that, in the minion of this house, the distinction between
the episcoal mid common funds, restrieneg the application
of the surpplus revenue. of the archbishops and bishops to
episcopal purposes, and permitting no part of it, in any cir-
cumstances, to he applied to the relief of parochial destitu-
tien, is inexpedient, and ought not to bo continued. It
seemed to him, speaking generally, that the episcopal sur-
plus funds were already applicable to the same purposes as
the funds arising (coin the deans and chapters surplus re-
venues, and that wherever cathedral funds were applicable
to parochial purpese+ episcopal funds were likewise so ap.
plied. So for as the abstract proposition conveyed by the reso-
lution was concerned, therefore, he was not deposed to con-
tradict it. But he must own that it appeared to him as ii,
practically speaking, the resolution was intended to affirm
the contrary of the Bisnop of London's statement. lle (Lord
J. ltussell) had no doubt that the hon. member fur Cocker.
mouths intended a useful purpose in bringing for-
ward his resolutions, but he regretted that the hon.
member should have mixed tip in his remarks the
Bishop of Durham, as if that prelate bad done
something in contravention of the act of parliament, which
it as unust to ert r even to insinuate had been the case.
Ho was unwilling to asgree to the resolution proposed by the
hon.. me mb r, for ho did not know to what the government
or the house would stand pledge I, if it were carried. As he
(Lord J. Rensell) understood the right hon. member far
Northampton, what was elesired was to divert the whole
amount of heal the surplus funds to the exclusive purpose of
providing fur parochial spiritual destitution, Ravines none
whatever for additional episcopal endowments. The hon.
member for Oxford, on the °thee hand, was of opinion that
it was desirble to unite the surplus episcopal funds with
the surplus cathedral revenues, and to Cam one common
stock applicable alike to parochial spiritual purposes and to
the increase of inadequately endowed bishoprics
lie alwals listened with pleasure to the opinions ex-
pressed by the hon. membo- for Oxford (Mr. W. I'. Wood),
rend in the present c use he seemed to think that there might
be instances in which the endowment of additional bishoprics
would be us. ful to the church. That was his (Lord .1. Rus-
sell's.) own view of the subject. He was bound to say, that,
eensidering the constitution ot the Church of Eastland, and
the value of the episcopacy as reefer& d seperintenclence and
parochial spiritual extension, be would be most unwilling to
agree to a resolution by which a veto was placed on any
luture extension of the number of bishops. (Hear.) That',
was one strong reason fur not voting in favour of the reselu.
tion. The hon. member for Oaford stated tha-. an immediate
advantage would be gained by the house agreeing in the re.
&elution, which advantage was, that a bill to cerry it out I
would be brought in awl passed. But nothing would be
gained, according to the views entertained by the hon-
ourable member, for even cow some of the bishops' in-
comes were below the fixed standard, and if the
sue plus episcopal funds were not applied to make
good those deficiencies, these bishoprics mutt remain
ie. their present state or else the funds to complete them
must be obtained from other sources. lie had already
stated that he saw no reason why soy surplus arising from
episcopal revenues bilouldmt be applied to the purpose of pare-
cnial spiritual destitution. There had existed some reasons
when the changes were fired made in the affairs of the church
why the bishops: incomes should nut be alienated from that
lady, but there were no termer any grounds for separating
the two surplus funds. But he had been asked by the hon.
member for Oxford if the government was prepared to bring
in a bill for the purpese of amalgamating the episcopal and
cathedral funds. When the present Archbishop of Canter-
bury was appointed, he (I. it'd J. Russell) previously re-
quested th t prelate to inform him whether he was willing
to t eke charge of that see upon condition of being bound by
an subsequent act of parliament by which the income of
the see would be a
re: tricted to a certain sum, the surplus to
be applied to such church purposes as parliament should de-
termine upon. The archbishop stated that he was willing to
submit to those conditions. Li stating these facts, he must ob-
serve, that he had thought proper to refer to whatever sum
might be allowed by act of parliament as a proper income for
the archbishop. Ile did not state, as the hon. member for Man
chc'ter had supposed, that he (Lord J. Bevan) was going
to propose the sum of 15,000 f. as a proper income for the
see, but that that sum had been r llutttd to it under the ex-
isting act of parliament. The Lon. member for Coekermouth
had so oederhtood him, and had expressed himself sreisfied
on that paint. The archbishop had only recently taken
possession of his see. There were many things which had
occurred to him (Lord J. Russell) with reference to church
matters, which required consideration. lie bad, therefore,
asked the archbishop to allow him to have an interview with
him, and he was unwilling to express any opinion whatever
on the subject of legislation in the matter, until lie had ..o
opportunity of consulting a prelate, so distinguished for his
piety and his ability, and who, from his experience in go-
verning a very populous see, would be able to afford him
most judicious and beneficial advice. (Rear.) He hoped
that when the hon. member for Manchester next sddressed
the house on the subject now under consideration, he would
do so in a more kindly spirit--(hear)—and that he would
practice towards those who as churchmen followed what
they deemed their duty that toleration which had been so
largely extended to all classes of dissenters. (Hear.)
Mr. HUME denied that his hon. friend, the member for
Manchester had deserved the rebuke of the noble lord. It
appeared to him that the object sought to be attained, by
perpetuating the enormous incomes of the bishops,
was to maintain the church as a political engine.
No question had created greater dissatisfaction among di.-
eenters than the proposition of the noble lord at the head of
the government on this subject. He trusted that that would
be a lesson to guide the noble lord's conduct on the present
motion. lie (Mr. Fiume) also ejected to the recent ap-
pointment to colonial bishoprics. The persons sprinted
had carried out with them the dominant habits of their
church, and hail created much disunion and heart-burning
in their colonial sees. lie should support the hon. member
for Cockermouth, and he trusted that his hon. friend would
not be induced to withdraw his motion.
Lord H. VANE vindicated the conduct of the Bishop of
Durham. That right rev. prelate had applied a great
portion of his inet eased income in auementing the salaries of
poor curates in populous districts within his diocese.
Sir J. JOHNSTONE opposed the motion.
Mr. HORSMAN replied. Ile was glad to hear the noble
lord at the head of the government promise that the atten-
tion of government would be turned to the subject mat-
ter of his motion, and he hoped that among other things
they would ace whether means could not be de-
vised of providing for the retirement of prelates
whose age and infirmities rendered them incom- I
petent to the discharge of their caiscopal duties. On
the immediate question before the house he would ask any
hon. member whether, if he were filling a public situation to
which was allotted a certain income, sect he found that by
some mistake he was receiving three or four times that sum,
he would consider himself justifie el in continuing to receive
the overplus ? The right rev. prelates who were so acting
did more injury to the church than the moat active machina-
tions of her enemies could effect. If they were actuated by
a proper zeal for the interests of religion, they would hand
over the surplus—a surplus, onieeover. which they received
through their own mistake—to the ecclesiastical commission,
ler the augmentation of small benefice... lie was satisfied
with the assurance that the subject would be speedily taken
in hand by her Majesty's government, and begged leave to
withdraw his motion.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
Col. DUNNE moved for
Returns, showing the amount of all monies expended under the
act 9 & 10
worts eachying the rams laid out o Ireland,
number of s barony of each county in under-
takener-
by the authority of the Board of Works; together with copies
of any reports which determined the board in o
tthhee selection
esofti such
seeks in preference to others proposed. Als original mate
for such work, and whether it was sufficient for Its completion, and
if not, whether any and what sums were subsequently applied for and
granted, and by whom was such application made; also the amount
of such *UT or PIMP, and whether they were found sufficient for
the final completion of these works. Also what and how
many deviations from the original lines, or alteratioes
from the original pleased construction, were made in each work, and
any adilnal expense caused hy such deviations and attendees, and
sums claimed by damages caused by them. Also, all rosins claimed
for damages for works, undertaken under this act, the amount given
in the certificates of the valuators of the Board oortf Worof tk he present
s for mob
work, and amount awarded by juiies. for its
Also, a rep
condition of each work, ant estimate of sum necessary
completion, particularising the public routs and extent of 'squats
done to them. Also, returns of the names, pay, and allowances
of Jill persons employed on the general staff under the Board
of
Works, and what other situations they held at the some time.
oi all engineers, pay clerks, overseers, cheek clerks, and other offt-
cers employed on each work, and the
children employed
able-bodied workmen
and dl pay persons, women, and children employed on ouch works,
I their pay per diem, and number of days worked; also, of all horses,
mules, and asses employed on each work, the hire per diem, and
number of days they were employed, and whether tsek.work was
adopted, and, if so, the wages given and work completed on such
works, Ad,
of the cost and description of all tools issued to the
workmen on each work, the date of their issue, and of
Bede,commence-
ment of each work, and, if eold, what sum wan receiv and if any
were sold without being issued ; also the amount and value of stones,
now broken, and where.
The hon. and gallant member complained that out of the
large sum which had been granted for public works in Ire-
land a vaset proportion bad been absorbed in the expenses of
the staff, d a very small fraction on works of any real
public utility. He thought that while the landed pro.
rietors of Ireland were exerting themselves in the cause of
Paw and order, they should at host get an account of the
disposal of money,for the repayment of which they were
held accountable.
Sir P. NUGENT seconded the motion, and trusted that
it would receive the favourable attention of government.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
not in the power of government to accede to the motion, not
because they were unwilling to furnish all the information
required, but because in this instance it would be impoasible
to give it without very great expense, delay, and inconve-
nience ; indeed it was doubtful whether it could be given at
all. With regard to many poste involved in the motion, as