The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-15 00:00:00

CHURCH PATRONAGE OF THY LORD CHANCEL-

----
Kr. C. ANSTBY begged to ask the right hon. gentleman
the Secretary for Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland loosemed any, and what, ecclesiastical patronage by
virtue of that office?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was afraid be was not ins odndi.
non to pronounce an opinion with authority on this subject,
but he believed there was not a single fragment of eccle-
siastical patronage powered by the Lord Chancellor of Ire-
land.
POOR-RATES—{IRELAND).
Major BLACKAI.L begged to ask the Seeretary for Ire-
land what had been the teed eniennt of -rates collected
in helmet dazing the MIN* of N 1847, and whe-
ther it ass the thirthisee of the warm& to devise means
of providing metal implement kr the ebb-bodied poor in
thandithrieth where the ratee math be sellested to a sail
cieut amennit te relieve the whisk. dedihntee.
Sir W. 80WIEVILLE said that ao Adel returns had
been received sift mount of rake 00211014111 in November
I last, but he bed rum to believe that the collection was
large. With regard to the mooed timeline, he weld only
say that it was not the intention of the greethresat to con-
tinue oldie 'reeks.
THE ACTIONS AGAINST CAPTAIN DENMAN.
__ . .

Mr. 17EQIIHART asked whether the goverment dr
feuded the actions in the elms of Biwa e. Denman ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he appeared in those
teatime by the instruction of the government. When he said
that, he thought the hoe. gentleman would see the propriety
of not putting the other pert of the question of which he had
given nodal.
Mr. lIRQIIHART asked, supposing the verdict wee
spinet the defendant, whether the government would be
prepared to meet the demand made on them ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL maid, when the 'mast
was given be should be prepared to advise the government
to thew urse they Mould plume. (Hear, hear.)
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT.
Mr. AOLIONBY old, that after he had put a wades
the ether mein, with regard to the enframidennest it
oopyhoiie, the report of the commies:loners MONS& niesiveL
He= to sok if the government were in pommies de
bill tomb& en that report, end if it would be brought m
before the MOM I
Bin G. OAST ssM the report had been received on the
lea Ayr aelerepetted by a letter of the 28tk, in which the
simmiNassis. NNW Mat a bill was in pmperation to Derry
dodo restnepatedellons into erect, but that it 'Told be

some weeks behove the bill would be Crinentitteeltoiiii(Six
G. Ore 7). He had sot het received it, sad he did not expect
to nerve it before - -

P.AILWAY BILLS.

The CHANCELLOR eitis; EXCHEQUER hoped the
ben would allow the ti rd wailiag of this bill to be taken
ed MOO in order that It be seat up to the Houle of
Lards. He showed rat hes. member for Bodmin had 1
shwa selles ere, al= es • edosel which was under the
esseidendea el re Iry tweridlles, sad
would leave it la Irk kr& he hoped he
Mr. WYLD mmtied Med& arse, art =a the go-
vernment to lad erre sesamele railway
shareholder, fora OM fillaiL
The bill wee dna roL • ddr4 time and per&
WEST OLOUCESTERSEIII2 ELECTION.
Mr. WAILLEY nee to move the esarderatiou of the pe-
tition M the &sten of the worm divide& tithe eounty
of Glertersr
in
1011 Destrber. herd he
dwell Ihid re in ebterre sereithe is inquire
Ml* thh matter. Nal be se riarlertiodiog
Him; there was se her rn sheer the bur. The petition
was April by id las higher rareetalidly. The
Ihr se was theresere dMLLee, el Wooderserpert, who
had palmed the hraaseprepee of Lead Dorm There
were other If well sgal we equally respect-
able, and the =mar la Which they -yaks of the
late erotica is War Gletesestribire was sea, that if
derwired le peeled the peer ale in the
the harebbe they seer is pates
Us hr. =maw ebbed far die Merles of vete by bid-
lot , while edits melestwirrhel ark • ester ae berg
unasplda. hat eirtiyaZed per
to=
reser arid tir led eoraks
erase. soft Olt tenant« he WI use to make

any charges spinet the noble peel *hoes conduct waa ire
parted ley the petitioners. He bad
.no acquabitanor with
him, and be bad only • alight seeustntance with his rela-
tives, who were members of that house. With reference to
the noble peer he had no private fe, ling whatever ; but he
thought that the charges contained in the petition were of a
grave and serious character, and if the house passed over the
allegations lightly, or took no notice of them, or decided that
he should not have this committee of inquiry, freedom of
election would be at en end, and the house would be
guilty of a fraud upon the community, by keeping open its
records the standing order which declared it to be en in-
fringement of the rights and 'units:gee of the Commons
House of Parliament for any peer to interfere in the election
of members to be returned thereto. And what were the
allegations in the petition? It was unnecessary for him to
go through the whole of them, and he would only call the
attention of the h:,use to the more serious of them, j3rneore
he di,! to, however, he must observe that he wee deeply
sorry that family strifes and contentions should have arisen
between the tickle lord and a near relation, who wee a mem-
ber of this house • and he was net one who would seek to
widen the breach which existed between them. He thought,
' however, that the correspondence which had gone forth to
the public; and what had already transpired was not of a
very creditable character to one of the parties concerned.
Still this proved no reason why this house should abandon
its duty when a great constitutional question was raised.
But to the alternations contained in the petition. It is stated
that the noble peer in question had interfered, and by
bribery, intimidation, and corruption endeavoured to prevent
the electors from discharging the duty they were called upon
to exercise in the election of members to serve in that house.
Such being the allegations, how could this house consistently
discharge its duty if it did not originate a most searching,
scrupulous, and rigid inquiry 1 The petitioners statril :
" That, shortly before, end also during the last general elec-
tion, William Fitshantings Berkeley, commonly called Earl
Fitsharilinge, a peer of the realm, and lord-lieutenant of the
1 county, not only personally, but by aixeedited agents and
by large sums of money, and by intimidation and coercion,
did, in o n defiance of the law, in violation of his duty, and
in utter diarsgsrd of the usual sessional order of your honour-
able house in that behalf, directly, repeatedly, and systema.
tinily interfere with the rights and privileges of the electors
of the western division of the county of Gloucester." The
next allegation was " That, a short time previously to the
said election, the said Earl Frithardinge, in anticipation of
the said election, and in order to prejudice and interfere with
the sower of one of the intended candidates, George Charles
Grantley Fitzhardinge Berkeley, commonly called the Hon.
Grumbly Berkeley, did coerce his tenantry to resign
their services in the troop of yeomanry commanded
by their captain, the lion. Grantley Berkeley." The
petitioners further set forth in their petition now
before the house " That about the same time, and
for similar purposes, the said Earl Fitzhardinge caused
to be offered to the hon. Grantley Berkeley a large pecuniary
consideration, as an inducement or bribe to him to retire
from his then representation of the said western division,
and not to become • candidate for such division at a future
time."—ln another allegation it was stated—" That after
the Hon. Grentley Berkeley had become a candidate, and
shortly previous to the polling, a large sum of money, ex-
ceeding in value any previous offer, wee offered, or caused to
be offered to him, by the said Earl Fitabardinge, to induce
his retirement from the approaching contest, and his with-
drawal of certain charges against the said Earl Fitohardinge,
and otherwise in relation to the said election, so as to enable
one Grenville Berkeley to become a representative of the said
electors in the place of the Hon. Grande", Berkeley, but
which renewed offer he again rejected." The petition
further alleged: " That Earl Fitohardinge, having failed in
his endeavours to deprive the electors of the services of the
Hon. Grantley Berkeley, did, by, offers of pecuniary assist-
ance and personal influence, instigate and induce the said
Grenville Berkeley to become a candidate at the last election
in opposition to the Hon. Grantley Berkeley, and did, from
time to tint*, before, and during, and after the election,
promise and guarantee, and also pa and advance,
sums of money to defray the expenses in-
curred on behalf of the said Grenville Berkeley as
ouch candidate, and did also use undue influence with
numerous of the electors to obtain their votes at the election
on behalf of the said Grenville Berkeley." Another allega
tion was That Earl Fitzhardinge, during and about the
time of the election, paid or caused to be paid large sums of
money for the purchase of votes, and for treating voters ;"
and he (Mr. Wakley) had received • communication from
lone of the electors, stating that in one place during the else
tion, by order of the noble peer, wine and brandy and water
had been carried to the voters in bucket,, and such scenes
of debauchery and immorality had been exhibited as never
before had been witnessed at any election in this country. Now,
when allegations such as these were made he (Mr. !Ashley)
asked if the house would consider it discharged its duty if it
allowed them to remain uninvestigeted, and permitted the
standing order to remain a nullity. Should it do so, the
house would show itself to be wholly indifferent to the free-
dom of election, and would encourage the wealthy in all parts
of the country to invade the rights of the poor elector. The
petition was signed by 160 independent electors, who feared
their rights were jeopardised by what bad transpired at the
Last election; it was entitled to the calm and serious conside-
ration of this assembly, and as the noble lord whose conduct
was implicated offs ed no objection to an inquiry, and he
appeared to be anxious to rescue hie character from the 'nig-
: ma cast upon it by these allegations, he bored the house
would not refuse • fall and complete inquiry. He might be
asked this question, namely, if the noble peer was found
frailty,
what would the house do with him ? (" Hear," and
laughter.) He (Mr. Wakley) candidly confessed he could not
answer the question. In former times cases of a similar
nature bad been brought before the house, but he could not
discover that any severe infliction had ever visited those who
had violated the standing order. He did net know what
punishment the house had the power to inflict, but he did
know that the appeal to public opinion would not be made
in vain. He therefore could not believe that if this inquiry
was instituted it would be unavailing. He therefore moved
that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the alle-
gations contained in the petition of certain electors, com-
plaining of the interference of Earl Fitzhardinge, a peer of
the realm, and lord lieutenant of the county of Gloucester,
at the election of members to serve for the west division of

at the last general eleatitm.

Mr. DIIINTZ seconded the motion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose, after a pause' and
said before he stated the result of the inquiries be had made
on the subject of the petition, he had been anxious to have
heard the opinions of hon. members u to what ought to be
done in the cue. Re did not intend to enter into the alle-
gations of the petition, for he did not feel it his duty to do
more than to point out to the house the various proceedings
which had taken place in analogous cases. As he understood
the present motion, it was based upon what was alleged to
be a breach of the privileges of the house as receguised by the
standing order pared at the commencement of every session
of parliament. It was not for him now to inquire into the
expediency or propriety of continuing an order of that de-
seriptien—it would suffice for him to state what he found to
have been the practice, and the difficulties that have occurred
in former instances. The first out he had found occurred in
1780, when a similar application to the present was made
'against the Duke of Chandos, reported in the 37th volume
of the Journals, p. 607. In that cue the petitioners cora-
Seined against him for that he, being a peer and lord-
lieutenant of the county of Southampton, bad signed letter
with his own hand, and thus concerned himself in the
election, and thereby committed a breach of the privileges of
this house. On this a motion was made not to refer the pe-
tition to a select committee, but to refer it to a committee of
privileges. This motion had been carried without diasent,
and the ease was referred to the committee of privileges to
report their opinions thereon to the house. The committee
I took the matter into could/ration, and presented a report to
be found in the same volume of the Journals, p. 667, in
which they stated that the charge had been substantiated
against the noble duke, and that he had been guilty of •
breach of privilege, and of an infringement of the liberties of
' the House of Commons. And what had the house done on
that report. Why, instead of any step being taken upon it,
a notion w male that its further consideration should be
paelpesed Ist four months, and that motion wee carried in
the elliknetative.___

WgillT That was not in a reformed parliament.
The A ILNETAIENBRAL That was so, but he
would thew more substantial reasons why the matter ism
not carded farther. The next cue he found wee that of a
osoaplaint preferred in the following year whet the
Deka et Dellon, for Interfering in the sleet • of missabars to
serve for the county of Hampshire. This sempleint had
been rebind to the meamittee of privileges, bat the com-
mittee, tided by the heater proceeding, took no step at all.
Ia the ems way a melba bed Ism made respecting the
molest et ewe of the biases, beg theasseloa was withdrawn,
and there had not bees sal farther preseedlogi. A more n-
ewt ems wield Wade* reeolleedea ef fray hon. measheee
It was the cam of the mataplaint made la 1841 &Relive leas
Cawdor for intseihrleg with the Carmarthen election. /a
that ease Kr. Werlieseen, they member for Bridport, pre-
sented • pieties, and produced the original letters addresed
by the dewed of the noble earl to his wards to rowel Hem
to vete ke Oa Trevor. Now ne member had ever shown ildm.
sell mom metal of the rights and liberties of darer than
hod Yr. Werberlea. No man was lam behead them be wee
to beak hears he could bite, and he made the
charges emieleed in the petition he ssaeTidsd by
making
no melee whatever, observing that the lbeatasereeda
rows elide deeriptles wee pabtie *ldea. Os that
(Sir cc-
melee the sight e. bereset dr kr Rigs&
Jaime Cleakesa) mle
il the noble led at the'amber heed st the go-
vernment tusk pert be the diroodes t bet se motion was
made, sail the aster theppol. He Oho Alkorney-Gene.
ea] ) had lessd eerie& eleakeir Nom Os the 4th al April,
184.5, • prides bed bees }resealed from Weedeleek, onn-
pleining dam isissibesass al the Doke of Ifesdbweegb at
the deaden don, bet se arks woe modes and there
pas the mew we dorpeL la lispessalers IUI, • Wei-
ler prides bed been petards& mitre the Ihreple of Salle-
, buy, kit kikettike at the Readied eleslisa ; bet se medal
woe aril sod as further proseedimge Odom The some
ki
had been the are with the pales fres Lameakia,
in Aprq 1848. plainkeeem themedesjoilit ef
ka the late Duke
of miliedend • MA-, is Yr @garnet the
Duke dideelbseeegh, in 1888, sad in theepeesseted spirt
the !ineil Herikal, for iseledialeg et the deaden fir
the of Orbit In all them emus as feeefer
in had Odom The mars why suit hod =toe
oar wee this, that even if the amps yew adabliliel,
there we me remedy in the halide of the been.
Mt. WALLEY—It the premed Me the vemely would
be to &Wm the noble earl charged trees bb case if lord-
Usutenamt.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--No beams it was
gay
act
alleged in the petition thahad smanised
by virtue of his ementimion tae
lord-Hissesand. If be bad
been guilty of bribery, he might be prissasisd solo* la Os
scrum of law, if the allegations rentsised its do politico
were capable of proof. It was not pretended that in hi
capeaty of lord-lieutenant he so acted; all that was
alleged in the petition was, that in his ohmmeter ot loadlord
he had prrssaled on his own tenants not to sun I.lb.lnv

of yaomanry assmianded by his brother. For anything else
be was I as any other Individual, to be premeded
against In • tioUrt of law ; for the house had no right to set
against • peer qua peer than against any other iadividual.
If he had abused the office of lord lieutenant, that might
be aground for the hostas to make • representation to her
Majesty to deprive him of the office he had so abused, but
that was not the present charge. With this explanation he
left the mater in the hands of the house.
Captain BIIRKELEY claimed the indulgence of the
house, while, in the emphatic words of Earl Vitzhardiuge,
he showed how this petition had been trumped up. His
hon. relative distinctly said that it was the foulest
falsehood that ever disgraced any set of men, to assert that
he, as lord-lieutenant, had interfered to cause his tanaritry
to retire from the yeomanry. He firmly believed what his
noble relative dated, and hsonly hoped the house would deal
with this as with env other Me. For his own part, it would
'eee the ,
d:-
be too painful for h(m to remit; t• -acumen,
and having said thus much he should quit the home. The
hon. and gallant member then withdrew.
Mr. G. BERKELEY deeply regretted the painful posi-
tion in which he was placed on the present occasion ; but he
was anxious to say • few words as regarded the petition, the
respectability of the names attachedto it, and the allega-
tions which it contained. With regard to the assertion just
made, and which touched him more nearly because he was
the captain of the troop of yeomanry alluded to, he could
entire the house that he had in his possession (and if the house
granted the committee he would produce them) the letters '
of the tenantry who had served in his troop, telling him they
would not have left if they had not been coerced to do so by
their landlords. When he returned the muster-roll of his
troop, he had reported in the printed column for remarks
the fact that many of his best men had simultaneously de-
serted the troop ; and, lest it should be thought that this had
arisen from any errors onhis'part, he had distinctly reported
that they had so left in consequence of the coercion exercised
by the Lord-Lieutenant. He had, however, not been per-
mitted to send the muster-roll to the War-office with these
words in it, and therefore, in obedience to his commanding
officer, and after consulting with an hon. and gallant friend
as to what he should do, he had erased the words, and made
no remark in the muster-roll. He should say no more, nor
should he attempt to forestall the decision of the house ;
indeed, lost for the remarks of his hon. and gallant relation,
who had quitted the house, he should not have said a word
upon the subject.
Sir R. H. INOLIS proposed to direct the attention of the
house to the petition without referenee to the party against
whom it was directed, and to ask the house to consider whe-
ther it was necessary to adopt the course the house had pro-
posed. The hon. and learned Attorney-General had found
that there were means in the courts of law by which redress
could be sought if any wrong had been committed, and
there were other tribunals which ought to be exhausted be-
fore the house was called upon to enter upon the discussion
of the question now before it. It might be a doubtful ques-
tion how fur it was right, session alter session, to face the
standing order which made the house subject, he would not
say to mockery and insult, but, at any rate, to ridicule, but '
still it was matter for calm consideration, whether a men-
tion of the house was sufficient to disfranchise any of their
fellow subjects whether • peer or a commoner. Every peer
had • right to interfere, as a freeholder of 40s. value, and
there were many peers now living who had exercised the
privilege of voting at the election of members to terrain par-
liament, and the Duke of Norfolk,within the last 40 yearshad
voted in at least half a dozen boroughs in which be bad
intesest, and knowing all thin, he thought the house would
exercise a wise discretion, in no longer having recourse to
that " brutom fainters" which was hurled every year in the
shape of a standing order at the peers of the realm. Oe the
whole, he thought that the hon. member for Finsbury had
, laid no adequate grounds fur the motion, and, under such
circumstances, it premed to • division, he should vote
against it.
Mr. HUME said, that several years ago he had endea-
voured to persuade the house not to persist in the maintenance
of the standing order in question. There, however, it re-
mained, and hence the awkward position of the house on the
present occasion. He dissented from the hon. bait., the
member for Oxford, and thought that ample grounds had
bees laid for the house to vindicate its own resolution. He
thought the house ought not to stultify itself by refusing the
inquiry sought, and on these grounds he should support the
motion. . . . .

Lord D. STUART thought that the motion having
been made, it was due to the electors of the country at large
to grant the inquiry. It was the duty of the house to prto-
tect the electoral body from undue influence being exercised
by any individual, whatever his rank and station. This
measure would have a tendency towards that end, as mark-
, in g the reprobation of the house for these improper practices.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not agree with the hon.
member for Montrose, that, because a certain resolution had
been passed by that house against the interference of peers
in elections, they were therefore bound, on every occasion of
complaint, immediately to institute an inquiry, or else to
rescind their resolution. On the contrary, he conceived it
was completely in the discretion of the house, having
such a resolution, to apply it or not to the cases broug ttaljedie-
fore it. (Hear.) There might be a case in which the house
would unanimously agree to an inquiry; there might be
cases in which it would not think inquiry advisable ; and the
hon. member for Montrose had not held out a very tempting
prospect when he said, that if a committee was appointed,
and the charges were found to be proved, then the prudence
sf the house might come in, and no further proceedings might
be taken. He did not think that an advisable course to pursue. I
The discretion to be exercised depended very much on the
allegations in the petition. One allegation, to which an hon.
member of the house (Mr. G. Berkeley) had lent the''
weight of his authority, was, that Lord Fitzturdinge bad in-
duced
certain members of a troop of yeomanry to withdraw
from that troop, because the bon. gentleman was the c.ptaia
of that troop; and it was alleged he had done that in virtue
of his power as lord-lieutenant. But this was not, on the
one hand, an exercise of his power as lord-lieutenant; nor,
on the other, was it an interference with the election. (Hear.)
It might be that it was the exercise of a very wanton and op-
pressive power as against the hon. geatleman the captain of
the troop ; it might have shown a feeling not at all honour-
able ; bat it was not a matter into which the house could
inquire, with a view to take any proceedings, The next
allegation was that the noble lord had endeavoured to in-
duce a candidate, who wished to be a member of that house,
to withdraw hie pretensions. Even if it were proved that
he had paid money for that purpose, he (Lord
J. Russell) did not know whether it would bear the
character of a corrupt proceeding, so as to bring it within
the province of any law relating to elections. A further
allegation and a grave one was, that Lord Fitehardinge "had
caused to be paid a large sum of money for purchasing and
treating voters, and by an extensively organised system of
personal violence, gross immorality, bribery, corruption, and
intimidation, had endeavoured to influence the election for
West Gloucestenhire." But that was an allegation which
might have been inquired into in the mode which the house
had appointed by statute, bad the petition been presented
within fourteen days after the meeting of parliament.
Mr. WAX LEN was understood to dissent.

Lord J. RUSSELL laid if this allegation was inquired
into, it ought to be before a oommittee grated under the
act passed two years ago, rather than by a committee
of the house. As it was, the matter erenY name beam the
committee which had been regularly appealed, by the act
of parliament, for inquiring lute the return. It did not
appear therefore, in this particular case, that there was any
reason for appointing a committee for the purpose. His
right hon. friend behind him (Sir G. Grey) had jut in-
formed him that the petition against the return was not on
the ground of bribery, but on the ground of want of qualifi-
cation. (Rear, hear.) If so, that would make a difference
as to the means of inquiry before that committee. (Hear,
hear.) Certainly, if there were no means for inquiring into
this matter before an election committee, that might be s
ground—whether Lord Fitshardiage was • peer of parlia-
ment or not—for appointing a select committee. (Rear.)
He confessed he was not sufficiently aware whether there
were the means for so inquiring or not ; and therefore he
should raped his opinion on the question.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said he believed the liberties of
the country were most endangered by the assumption of
" powers on the part of that house.
HEY.Binary powers
said he hardly understood what
course the government meant to pursue, the noble lord
having Mated, after receiving the correction of his
right honourable friend, that he should suspend his
opinion on the matter. (Hear, bear.) The hon. and
learned Attorney-General bad objected to the inquiry, on the
ground that it would be utterly fruitless—that the house
could not reach the noble peer, even if be were pronounced
guilty ; and he had industriously collected precedents in
proof of this. Bat even if no result could be arrived at
such an inquiry ought not to be stifled. (Hear.) It would
be perfectly idle in the house, having paned this standing
order only a fortnight ago, as soon as • petition of this kind
was remitted, the allegations of which were very strong, to
admit that this order was utterly powerless, and a waste of
words. This petition coacerned not only a peer, but a peer
who held the responsible office of lord-lieutenant of the
county. (Hear.) The Attorney General said he had not
acted as lord.lientenant in coercing the yeomanry, but
only being lord. lieutenant —ahem, hear); consequently
the standing order could not be enforced against him.
But moat certainly if the standing order had been
violated, it might to be enforced in this MIMI. There
was one ease decidedly in point. In 1701, the Bishop
of Worcester, who was almoner to the Queens in-
terfered in the election for Worocetershire, not as
the Queen's almoner, bet being the Queen's almoner.
(Hear.) A petition was presented, on which the house re-
ported, and addressed her Majesty for his dismimal, which
was granted, her Majesty declaring that she would put tome
one else in his office. (Hear.) Without entering into the
merits of the petition, be must contend that it would be
trifling with the standing orders not to inquire into this
cue. It use ow it might be left to the ordinary course of
law, by wYi lists of bribery might be prosecuted. This
showed that Yet boon bad • power of punishing the noble
If be gun galy. by directing the Attorney-General to
press a, beill dies in many former oases. (Hear,
boo Emig the petitioners be able to prove what they
Mork It yogi be the exalted and important duty of the
home, • unseat of the high station of the individual, to
=the it had taken against humble individuals
WIT,MI
it gam (Hear.) The house wag clearly not so
gsni.mtmttobt.::?:..tk.asT.:izgggiTintup.z2ikerseisaimbdwydainirhsraedmddtkd:erpdAhtrit!e:beYejtirdniotrFttett:ithahuaebeetraib.htabpalelr;tictaiheiob.rirtdore::hpnt:::tojiogd:::tiud'n.yd:
I whiseleelegaladel:Myssemataislateetbedisii:waniu:l"l"l-& Vict..f" nip hlO
ewe
icalms.o2 awtrianthisumaisuebnrirowas;
ispioidy mobbed kr
and to ddi elbooal rolberod all pillar posied
after the pada kr ptoarselai dodos
abliarale4Zl gamst osamitte• Idle WO
"PPM Ira sea petition. The we belbro

the howr was thus expressly provided for. Let the peti-
tioners allege themselves elector*, and enter into recog
nisance', and then their petition might be entertained. He
had only just looked into the came ; end if there was any
doubt he thought it would be better to adjoarn the question
for a day er two. The petition, in reciting the order of the
house, =hared to the noble lord acting as lord-lieutenant ;
but there mold be no doubt this order referred to acts done
by noble lords by virtue of their altos as lords-lieutenant.
He would move that the debate be new adjourned. (Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said it was the practice of the house, in such
eases, to institute immediate inquiry ; but this ought not to
be done without consideration. A tribunal for examining
these charges had been 4:prosily provided, recognisances
being required from the complainants ; end if these pre-
liminaries were dispensed with, it would go far to bresic
down the existing provision, Such was the importance of
the subject Chet 111-re would be a great tendency to present
similar petitions if it could be dons without recognisances.
The hones wotiid act most wisely to take 24 hours, at all
events, to consider what ought to be done. He, therefore,
most heartily seconded the proposition of the right hon.
gentleman.
Mr. WAKLEY expressed his readiness to consent to •
short adjournment.
The debate wee accordingly adjourned till Friday.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
Mr. HOESMAN said he need offer no apology for bringing
under the notice of the house the proceedings of the Racialism.
tical Commission, at a moment when both clergy and laityweri
roused to great activity, and when el eyes were directed to the
proceedings of the board by whom the ecclesiastical revenues
were administered. The board was invested with very high
authority, its powers were most extensive, and it would Ise
sure to command the sympathy of the house in its proceed.
lags. Every generous mind must give them credit for di►
charging their duties with scrupulous fidelity. Neverthe-
less, he brought forward this motion, not only without re-
luctance, but without fear. The whole case lay in a very
small compass, and, in order to make it clear tow=
he had embodied it in the resolutions. Thee
commissioners bad to carry into effect the provisions of the
act of 1836 ; they were to carry certain reductions in the
episcopal incomes into effect upon the avoidance of the sees.
Last year an important provision of the act of 1836 was
repealed, and the ecclesiastical commissioners stated, in
the other house, that they thought the act of
1836 went too far. He thought the proviso that
the changes enacted in 1836 were only to come into opera-
tion on the avoidance of the sees was very objectionable;
for how would those suggestions come before the public?
The Archbishop of Canterbury raid that he thought the
revenues of his see much too large, and they ought to be
reduced to 15,0001. a year; and the Bishop of London
thought 10,0001. a year enough for his see ; but they both
persisted in retaining their present revenues during their
lives—they would not allow their incomes to be diminished,
although they admitted that they were too great, and ought
to be curtailed. When the ecclesiastical commissioners pro.
ceeded to the discharge of their duties they were guided by
a return of the episcopal incomes for three years, ending in
1831, and by the probable incomes in future years made by
the several bishops. Some of these returns were so extra-
ordinary, that It looked like a desire to keep the public
in the dark on the subject. The Archbishop of Canterbury
returned his income at 22,2161. gross, and 19,1821. net;
but Dr. Lushington the year before in 1830, said that the
average income of the arehiepiswinduee was 32,0001. Taking,
however, the average of three years, ending with 1831,1 t
seemed, according to the archbishop's return, to have fallen
to 22,0001. ; but the right rev. prelate said his future income
would be diminished to 17,0601., and the commissioners so
took it. When he (Mr. Horsman) looked, however, to the
next return to the ecclesiastical commissioners, showing the
average of seven years, ending with 1843, the net income of
the Archbishop of Canterbury had risen to 21,0001., and the
gross income to 28,0001. Next came the return of the Arch-
bishop of York, who made his tunes to be 13,0001. gross
and 12,0001. nit, and added that a decrease ofatleest 201. per
cent. must be expected. Accordingly his future income was
set dawn at 10,6001. ; but the return made by himself in
1843 showed that his income had risen to 14,5501.,
an increase of 401. per cent. over the calcula-
tion which he had made. He now came to the
case of the Bishop of London, who returned his income at
13,9001., and stated the there must be • decrease, in accord-
ance with which his future income was estimated at 12,2041.
It had risen, however, by the return of 1843, to 14,5521.
The right rev, prelate said in 1831 that the whole prospect of
his see was one of diminution. Now many hen. members
must be aware of the Bishop of London's Paddington estate,
flanked by the Edgeware.road on the one side and the Ux-
bridge-road on the other, upon which an immense number
of buildings had risen up. Was it possible to believe that in
the year 1831, when a return was deliberately made that all
the prospects of the see of London were decrease of income,
an idea of all these buildings rising up did not flit acres' the
mind of the right rev. prelate ? (Meer, hear.) Five years
before there had been an act Of parliament obtained for
the express purpose of promoting them. (Hear, bear.)
The report of the ecclesiastical oommissioners on
the 17th of March, 1846, after they had been erected
reiterated the statement that a diminution was to be ex-
pected, although a great many of the houses in Hyde-park-
terrace and the neighbourhood were inhabited at the time,
and ethers were in the course of being built. (Hear, hoar.)
Terraces were springing up in every direction, and a mine
of wealth was thus secured to the Bishop of London which
he was almost afraid to calculate ; it had, however, been
estimated that it must eventually amount to 100,0001. • year.
(Hear, hear.) Atter all the increase which one would natu-
rally suppose roue have taken place in his income, it was
singular enough that in the next return made by the right
rev. prelate the see appeared to be none the richer.
(" Hear," and laughter.) On thecontrary, in the year 184,3,
after all those 'splendid buildings had been erected, the return
made by the Bishop of London was setually less than it was
in 1831. At that period he made his net in001:124 to be
13,9001., but in 1843 it was reduced to 12,4001., notwith-
standing buildings covering 400 acres of ground had been
erected, and although the right rev. prelate had signed up.
wards of 2,000 leases. (Hear, hear.) Now, he should like
to have some explanation of this. (Hear, hear.)
They could not possibly doubt the correctness of
as episcopal return (a laugh) but what must
they think of episcopal management . (Hear, hear.) The
Bishop of Durham returned his gross income at 21,0001. and
the net income at 19,0001. His future income he put down
at 17,890!. Instead of this, however, the net income rose to
22,0001. and the gross income to 26,0001. The Bishop of St.
Assph estimated his income at 6,3001., and said a gradual
decline was to be expected; it was accordingly written down
by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at 5,2001., but it had
risen to 6,6481. The Bishop of Bangor's net income was re-
turned in 1831 at 4,4641. ; and he having also said there must
be great reductions, it was put down at 3,2401., but went up
to 6,6431. by the year 1843. The hon. gentleman gave eimi-
lar details with reference to the following sees, stating in
every case that the bishops had calculated on a decrease :
Chester, estimated in 1831 at 4,2291. net, put down at 3,8001.,
and increased to 5,2001. in 1843 ; Hereford, put down by the
ecclesiastical commiaioners in 1831 at 2,5101., but risen to
3,1941.1 Lincoln, estimated at 3,8001., but increased to
5,2231.; Norwich, income returned in 1831 at 5,3001., put
down at 4,7001., and risen in 1843 t 06,7281. ; Oxford, returned
in 1831 at 2,6481. ; future income estimated at 16281. ; in-
come in 1843, 2,4491.; Salisbury in 1831 returned at 4,0081
gross, future income estimated at 5,0001.; returned in 1843
at 7,2001. ' • Worcester, in 1831, 6,6091. net ,• future income
estimated at 6,6001. ; returned is 1843 at 7,1221. net, and
8,1661. gross. The Bishop of Llaadaff returned the income
of his see in 1831 as 9241., and he was the only prelate who
said there would probably be an increase in the future in-
come ; but, like all the red, he was mistaken, for it turned
out that by the year 1843, it had decreased to 9151. (Laugh-
ter.) Nevertheless, it was upon these statements that the
commissioners proceeded to make their future calculations.
(Cheers.) How it happened that the returns had been so
erroneous, it was not for him to may—he would leave it
to the house to form its own opinion on the matter.
The weandwicesen had to arrange the payment to be mad*
tame data sees and to the poor sees, and it was simply l
tin of EIPSIS OS these that they had taken too little from
meth& &adieus has mach to the peer ones. The agar's
=taken Crest he report of the commissioners themselves.
immure of the Archbishop of Canterbury was
28,0001,yew: the payments to be made were 9,0001.,
which reduced his income to 19,0001. a year. The income
which he would receive under the mot ef podium! was
15,0001., so that if • vacancy occurred the sera welihidlsp
' would receive 4,0001 more than he oast& The met Weans
of the Archbishop of York was fixed by net of parliament at
10,0001. • year, but, after the payments were dedneted, he
would have en income of 12,100/. The intended income of
the Blimp of Durham was 8,0001. a year, but the future
orDurham, if a vacancy was to occur, would mein'
I uosequently the present bishop was recension
,V ,
3men then he ought under the act of parliament. Ike
iron lithe Bishop of Bath and Walls was 7,2541., the
meta OW, the intended income 5,0001., consequently
the seeplis in this mown 1,6641 In the case of • vaceacyin
the we ef Salisbury the sus bishop would receive 6931. wee
thus be would be entitled to alasr the act of parliament.
nem we proeyeetinpayesoth Now, with respect to to-
, Ind payments width had oreatened, the Bishotof CI&
' *lsar had MITL m 7
e sad above the rum fixed set of
nt ; or, Whig the payments of the conmemioners,
rhad : surplus hum, of 1,017!. more than was fixed by
the set The Bishop of Hereford had a considerable sur.
renieTdhe Bishop of Orford meshed altogether +5,81191.: the
Income was 6,0001. • eimesquently he received ML
era he ought undo; he eat of parliament The
illesp of Lincoln was la neelpt of a wept= d 2231. With
nape to the see of Etahmilar, he winintioal commie.
talirthemselves laid it Akan Ra ale that the rear of
li:itop of that see should net he brewed till the ant
young ; and accordingly, r Ye soLogret, 1846, they Med.
tholaymeate at 3,7001 azatelhish wore to cannon at
the ant vacancy. But air near., had ouserdt
be hod that he had noshed 3,7001. bra tks anonie.
=The lurk dam elabothiase WU this. that Welty.
aL rmiits flo Ilk NS lele les than ought to haw bosti
tote prerkloss et the sr, by* 20,0001.,
aid. , he poorer sear are hol=ata than ought
When bees per by 8,0001. /Le that the snor-
ingwe dieregany newer the pees sad set roselpte was to
!Moly sablaillthia. II rrividad be we ler than
es 1,. • yew. TM raise egad not pro.
Q iji••• mflag payments, because they were extremely
nallie kis yen te year. For iannee, in the see of Dar-
kwe the dffleness was no lam than 14,0001. in 1837; Is
rlt was 110.4100 L • in 1841 it was 16,0001. With to
oss of 80. Asapii, the difference in 1837 was I,TMI in
1843 it was 2,5001. la the see of Lincoln the diffusers Is
1837 was 4001. ; LlB3B 7001. With meet to the re at
Norwich the difibrenea In 1837 was 8001.; la 1843 it was
1,2001. The grow Wawa if the me of Raster was 1,0921.
Last year the net hums was returned at MI., or WO per
ant. Wow the grew Wins. The Mbar 's net neon trees
Ilia dieresis was eat, Ka • your. It *NM be rimy rein
tory if the hoses haw kith the Millis**ll landekilme
what caused this dithousio bareasa the and cast b-
orn. What dedasthre eadd dry whisk weld

r reduce an income more than 300 per cent. Supposing that
a bishop war ; that he was engaged in combat
law-smite ; that he was eminent in literature, wes
a writer of pamphlets or long letters to the Theo.
were they to consider ezpenaes incurred in this way es
proper and legitimate ? (Hear, hear.) Another subject el
Importance related to the variations of the commissioners f e
theie management of ecclesiastical revenues. At present we
prelate could know what his income was to be. Now, son
thing could be more inconvenient, vexatious, or unsettlin
a prelate than not to know whether his income was to he
6,0001. a year or 2,0001. Let them look to the efi)et of tei„
system of management on the dioceses themse,ves, v=.,
as Income of the see of Durham w cakulated at 19,0001 •
The bishop was allowed a choice by the cornmeal ...e41,72
ther he would make over to them 11,0001., lad ,fie
fe: what the see made over 8,0001., or whether they
make him an annual payment of 8,0001„ and keep the re.
Inlander. The bishop he underet,ood preened mks
gambling transaction, and it appeared that he made a very
good thing of it, for the income he received wak, accord.
to the returns, 12,0001. a year. The plea which the comas.
'Loners alleged was, that, by allowing the bishops to maks
the payments to them, they would have a greater Ink rest a
the improvement of the property. In the first place, MI
seemed to be a false principle ; for, if a man's tiros
was to be taken up in trying to squeeze a few
thousands more out of the proputy, how eau*
time could he devote to his spiritual duties ? How dig
it operate in the case of the see of Durham ? The propene
there was a mineral property, and what they did was to sti.
mutate the bishop to work it out to the utmost, ard, scow.
dingly, he had received 60,0001. over the sum fixed b the
act or parliament, mince his consecration to that so. (Raw.
hear.) That sum was lost entirely to the church—that low
was constantly increasing, ,or it was generally believed that
at the present moment the income of the Bishop of Durham
was greater than that of any former bishop. He would
now go to a case of a different character, in which toe sale
aiastical commissioner' took on themselves to postpone the
operation of the act of parliament—he alluded to the cue el
the see of Saliabury. The act was paned on the 13th of
Augast, 1838, but it had a retrospective effect from the 4th
of Marsh in thwaune year, in order that the see of Durham,
the bishop of which diocese was gasetted on that day,
might be brought under its operation. The Bishop of Salis-
bury was ginned on the 14th of March, 1817, more
than one year after the Bishop of Durham, and hie
future income was expressly fixed at 5,0001. a year.
Yet that provision had been disregarded, and the
average income was considerably over what was fined by the
act. (Hear, hear.) That was a case on which it war net
neoemary to make any comment. He wished that right rev.
prelate every enjoyment of his large income, and he am
cure he would make a right use of it ; but he believed that
many of the poor curates of that diocese could not think d
it unaccompanied by those reflections to which it must natu-
rally give rise. (Hear, hear.) Compare this enorruou
copal superabundance with the condition of the poor work-
ing clergy. The laity always generously responded to the
appeals made to them. The Bishop of Ripon lao ly declared
that for the last ten yearn more than 25,0001. a 'culled been
nobly subscribed by theta. Churches had been built in
every directioa by their contributions, which the minim-
tical commissioners engaged to endow ; but those engage-
ments had been in many instances broken. (Hear, hear.)
He heard an announcement made by the ecclesiastical com-
missioners in 1844, which was now in operation, to the effete
that they were unable to give any further &instance became
the commission was bankrupt. Yet at that moment they were
dividing no less than 26,000/. ; he believed it was nearer to
40,0001., out of the ecclesiastical revenues which had hem
placed under their administration. And these things took
place at a time when 2,000 clergymen of the Church of Eng-
land had incomes under 1001. a year, and he knew some who
had only 501. and 201., and some as low as 61 and Of.
(Hear, hear.) Such was the state of a portion of the Church
when this enormous extravagance was taking place. He be-
lieved that a portion of the clergy were material/ privations
such as had never been heard of in a rich and civilised com-
munity. He could give statements of which they had no
conception of the poverty and wants of these men.
These were the men whom they ought to multi.
pry and strengthen—who mewed as link' between the poor
man and the church. (Hear, hear.) They should recollect
that every shilling given to the hierarchy was taken away
trom the pcior clergy, and that it was their duty, for the
sake of these men, and for the sake of the church, to see
that the revenues of the church were justly administered.
The hon, gentleman concluded by moving :
1. That the act G and 7 Will. IV., c. 77, contained, among other,
the fd easements " That, in order to provide for the aug.
mitigation o the income, of the smaller bishoprics, such tiled annual
eons be paid to the commissioners out of the revenues of the teraw
ems lespestively as shall, upon doe inquiry sad eonsideration, be dr.
tannins il as, so as to leave as an average annual income to the Arc/I-
talia stOnterbury, 13,0001. • to the Archbishop of York, 10,0001. ;
to the Blase of London, 10,0001. •to the Bishop of Durham, 4,0004;
to 'hal/am et Whecheotor, 7,0001 • to the Bishop of Ely, 3,0001. ;
to the Mb* et 1/1. Assets end leneOr, 5,2061. ; and to the Bubo, a 1
Wannalsr rl lath mid Wens megeotively, 0,0004. And that, out of
the Oil eras essedea fired ennisel payer* be made by the cum.
In web Inetenses sad to seli sweent as shall be in like
ware es. se Mei the smogs eneml beam ot the other
Whips impesllvely be wt lee then 4.01e1. nee mere than SAM.
And that. el the espbmilea at ivory semi sun% nebeeleg Oaths
In bet Jwesef, IW, a sew ran el the memo et eli the
bisheerke he math le Se semelmitmee; eel that llerespon the
male at *Nepal pay end metals be reelmd, mos to preserve,
as nearly se may ha, to Ilia Wien en amemt et hexer smdodent
to that wb shall haw bets toe Ant isetsece to be
suitable es the alone nee of hi Mimic ; and that seek revised
male take= as te seek see y, upon the thee neat
avoklarse ^ 714 ea Wiltniavyelot January, 1643, • new
renew of the remits et an Os bliegries, as acderea, from the hit
day et , 1147. b lyd Ilseember, was pro-
emial to • awl , an the oth day of February,
lilikaad the lei d 4 et Sum, respectiz2zzapresented
the bit and Nial god womb et Use oommlr
dames, show*: bra Me prewhiees el the shave-named act had teas
Cist•Mil Ont. 3. TIM, to these reports, tarnished by the roc'esiee-
tear tweaminiamee tliemeedvas, It appears to this home. that the
of the act l & 7 W. 4,e. 77, so fares relates to emery*
have not been carried out according to the iMeldioon of
psellemest.

PLIIMPTRE seconded the motion.
Sit G. GREY 'greed with the hon. gentleman who
introduced this subject as to the spiritual destitution which
existed in the populous parts of the country, and that the
revenues of the church ought to be made as available as pos-
sible to meet that destitution; but he would ask his hon.
friend who seconded the motion whether he thought, that if
they passed a censure on the ecclesiastical commissioners in
the terms of the third resolution, it would advance that ob-
ject. He came down to meet the case of the hon. gentleman,
but he alluded to the returns of the report of 1831, and it
was entirely • gratuitous assumption on Lis part to
assume that the commissioner acted on this report, and that
the fixed payments they imposed on the vacancies of the ems
to which he referred, were founded on the returns of there-
port of 1831. On the contrary, the returns of 1831 had, la
no one instance, formed the basis on which they framed the
annual payments of the larger sees, or the payments to be
added to the smaller ones. In 1835 the right hon. baronet
(Sir R. Peel) appointed an ecclesiastical commission, with
the view of promoting the very objects which his hon. friend
opposite so much desired. They made their report in
March, 1836, and that report contained various recom-
mendations in the shape of resolutions, having for their ob-
ject the equalisation of episcopal duties and revenues,
or rather a tendency to such an equalisation, for an
absolute and complete equalisation was not possible.
They sdriaed that fixed annual sums should be paid to the
'poorer sees cut of the revenues of the larger, so as to leave
certain Bums applicable as income in certain cases ; and they
further recommended that, once in every seven years, returns
of inmate should be made, loam averages mightbestruckon
which there might be fresh appointments. Now he (Sir G.
Grey) was not contending that that arrangement was not
capable of great amendment, nor was he contending that
great reductions in bishop's' incomes might not be made;
but what he did contend for waa, that the evil, if there was
any, did not arise from the fault of the commissioners, but
from the fault of the act of parliament.
Mr. HORSMAIi —Not at all.

Sir G. ORRY.—The lion. member said not at all ; but the
question was, had the ecclesiastical commissioners carried oat
the peovisiocis of that act? (Hear, hear.) What had they
done ? The hon. member said the returns made in
compliance with the act were grossly incorrect He (Sir
G. Grey) had net looked into those returns; he had not had
time to do so, and, therefore, all he should say was, that the
bishops, if the representations of the hon, member went
correct, must in 1831 have taken a somewhat desponding
view of their affairs. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But the
hon. member had made a great mistake in taking the return
of 1831 at all. That was not the return on which the eerie-
etudes' commissioners' calculations were founded. They
had calculated on a return made in 1837, a Mara which
showed the incomes of the sees to be very much larger than
they were taken to be on the averages of 1891. Look at
Canterbury for example. The hoc. member mid that it was
returned at 17,3001. in 1831, but in 1837 it waa returned at
22,3001., and it was upon this calculation that the oommile-
liners ordered 7,3001. to be paid as surplus by the arch-
bishop. [Ace Hon. Member: Take Durham.] Well, he
would take Durham. At what had the hon. member pat
down Durham? [Mr. Hononan : 19,0001.] Well, that was
correct, (hear, beer,) and the conuniadoners had upon the
calculation charged 11,2001. upon the see of Durham, being
the full amount of the difference between the annual in-
came, end the amount fixed by act of parliament
Mr. HORSMAN—But the income of Durham has been
nearly 12,0001. a-year.
Sir G. ORBY—That he knew nothing about. (Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") If it was so, it was a fault of the
ecclesiastical commissioners. (Renewed ironical cheering.)
The see of Durham became vacant; the bishop was not per-
mitted to take poesestion of it until the charge was imposed
this arrangement, as the hon. member himself mid, was ex-
pressly made retrospective in order to meet this case. Well,
the average of the seven years previous gave the see of
Durham 19,2001. a year, and upon that the calculations of
the commissioners were made. The commisioners could do
nothing else. Their hands were tied by the act of parlia-
ment, and they had no right to call upon the Bisbee 01
Durham or any one else to violate that act. (Cheers, sad
ironical laughter.) Now, it was not his (Sir G. Grey's)
wish to lessen the force of the appeal the hon. member had
made to the bishops concerning spiritual destitution. The
Bishop of Durham, the Archbishop of Canterbarh
and the Bishop of London, had all contributed
very greatly towards its removal in their respeotim
dioceses, but the non-removal of that destitutim
we. not the fault of those prelates, or of the mar
dastical commission, and it would, therefore, be wrong ss
visit upon them the blame which attached to others. TM
hon. member had referred to the cam of Salisbury. Now
the returns in existence when the ecclesiastical commission
arranged their scheme, in 1837, gave the Bishop'of fialiabare
ea income not exceeding 5,5001. a year. It had bees
that when a bishop's income was not less then
sr-
ranged4
, and not more than 5,5001., no charge should take
piece, and therefore the Bishop of Salisbury on coming into
he see was exempted from making any payment. But the
biahop had not been altogether exempted from the operation
of the act, for he had since been called upon to mike a re-
turn of the income of his see, and the commission, upon the