The Express.
London, England, 1850-07-08 00:00:00

erpregio.

OUTGOING MAILS
Tbe smile Ma Marseille', to the blvditerranna, Egypt,
Clam, lathe, Hong-Kona, to., will bo gym, p this
eveniag.
TM 'wails fee British North Alliefiell sa the
Seam CI be made up is the mama of July d 1 1. Vaned
The mails for Lisbon, Spain, sad Gibraltar mil be made
en ea the emoriag of Jetty 17.
' TM West lades Waite, eseludine Bermuda, Havennals,
KOWM, 11.10411T111, New OTNIWWII. and Mexico, and iaeleding
Mows be Ma-Mira, St. Juan-de-Nimaraeue, New Orman,
Chill, and Pena. will be awls up on the morning of July 17.
The malls for Gibraltar, 1141t4, Owes, the lowa. Islands,
Egypt, Ceylon, India, ant China, via Bouthamptem, will
be made up ea mornins of July 20.
Tao smile for Maieria, the Brasile, and Buenos Alm, will
N made up oa the evening of August 4.

sum WATIOR AT LONDON =MON
Tim Day -Minim Iry to • Altenom. Oa
T....a5„.. -awng, 1%. Anieramo.

LONDON, MONDAY, JULY 8.

AMONGST the measures which Lord JOHN Rt's3ELL
has not lightened the ministe-ial cargo by throwing
overboard, is the Ecelcsiast!eil Commission Bill ; and
it stands foe committee at tho evening bitting of the
1171110 of Commons to-day : a fact which requires the
attentoo of liberal members, seeing that there is real
work to be clone on the occasion, if they will atteed
to do it.
This bill is professedly founded no the report of
the Commune committe • of 1818 on the Ecelesiestical
COMMiniOD; and the recommend.ations cf that rep,. t
were the result of a compromise. The more liberal
members of the committee were in favour of con-
fiding the property t f thc Commission, which will
seen tech 300,0001. a year, to a lay board
independent of any episcopal control • but, to
secure unanimity, they waived their views
and sgrted to recommend the addition of three paid
commissioners to the F.eclesissfeal Commission, who,
together with a " small committee" thereof, " should
be appointed for the potpies of managing, in all its
branches, the property of the Commiseior."
Now this recimmerdetion the bill dues not fairly
or honestly carry out; fur whilst it provides for the
appointment of three cennmisaioners and of a " small
committee," it redu 'ea the number of paid corn-
tniseionris to two, and as one of them, twu is to bo
nomiented by the Crown and one by the PRIMATE, it
so gives equality of power in this respect to that in
fiuence which has aliesfiy shined the property of the
Cimminion. But even this equality is destroyed :
fur as the small committee has to be appointed by

the Commission, in which there are 21/Churcensen,
constant in their attendance, against 20 irregular lay-
men, the power of the Crown, or rather (tithe public,
in the machinery projected for the better administra-
tion of this large and ieereasing property, will be as
one to three aga.nat the power of the bishops.
Delusive as ouch a irehetne must in operation
prove, its delusions do tot terminate with it. com-
position. For, badly composed as it is, even this body
will not have the real meaagemeut of the property;
all that it will have to do is to devise 11l limes, and to
" report" them to the Commission, which may do
shot it, or rather what the bishops, who temeneilly
and profersionally are all-powerful therein, please.'
Thus, after a great deal of elaboiate and intricce
legislation. involvirg in operation a considerable ex-
pense, the kill leave the power of the episcopate
over the property of the Commission exactly when
the bid found it. A very pleasant device this to de-
lude the pu'elic, and to Pantry the prelat y.!
Thus trifled with, Mr. lioaemex proposes "to
take the bull by the ):erns;" and to transfer the
administration of the pr'perty to thn;g paid commis-
sioners altogether, without the aseitlance of any
"small committee," end without the control Or
superintenderce of the C n.missien. To place it, in
point of fact, in the hands of three competent lay-,
men, resporslble to parliament, and bound to report
ustionally their Free dines to the legislature;
leaving to the Cxamission, which, we repeat, means'
ereoPacTe the eare of spittinialities only. And fur li
this simple ellicaeioesan.endinent we clai a the support
of ali church reformers in the house: on toe grounds,
first, that otaerwise tle • priperty which the legielt-
tine has assigned for the promotion of religion is not,
as experience has prove t, sate; and, secondly, that
the time has came whe it is absolutely neceseary to
reduce %boss metropolitan duties et* the prelacy which
act so injuriously to the real interests of the church
and el A* people of England. But on this all-import-
ant amendment we have at repeatedly enlarged, that
we pass on at present, without further remark, to
other parts of the measure.
One, perhaps the chief, means by which the bishops
have abused the property of the Commission has
been by keeping separate the umpires derived from
episcopal and from oapitular property. The former
they called the episcopal fu..d, and have wasted
it on their palaces, their garden., their private chapels,
is estate buying and selling, and in house builde.g ;
always, however, taking eve to have a balance to
bend for soy epiecapsl emergency. The latter sur-
plus they designated the common fund, and thereout
made their contributioes to church extension; but
with so little care, prudence, or economy, as to have
made it insolvent, and themeelees faithless and un-
punctual in the payments of the grants to poor herd-
welling, ill-remunerated clergy with which they
charged it. Urged and impelled thereto by Sir
JAMES GRAHAM, is a remarkable speech on the Bi-
shoprick of Manchester Bill (not, let us trust, to be for-
gotten by the right hon. baronet this evening), minis-
ters originally prepared this hill with a view
to the fusion of theta two funds, and so it
was introduced :nto the Lords. There, however, the
clause was rejected, and a very ineidirus substitute
inserted. No alteration was made in the funds.
Their separation was perpetuated; but power was
given the Commission to transfer at pleasure the
surplus of the episcopal fund to the common fund.
Now, this option, when taken in connexion with the
avowed object of the continued separation, is a
mere delusion, winch will yield nothing to the com-
mon fond; for that object is to preserve distinct
from the general means of the church a pecuniary
fund wherewith to endow more bishoprics whenever
parliament shall be caught in a humour to legislate in
that direction. _ .

As, however, the clause for the fusion (and it was
the only really good provision in the bill) was of mi-
nisteiial orig;n entirely, 10 Sir 0. GREY has an-
nounced his intention of moving that it be restored to
the measure. And for its restoration we likewise
clam the support of all church reformers ; again, on
two grounds—first, that without it, the bishops will
have the opportunity of ivepiog up their palaces,
beautifying their gardens, adorning their chapels,
and chaffering with their estate', which already they
have abused ; and secondly, that without it, the gate-
' tion of more bishops will be kept open.
But what the Lords bad not the courage to incor-
porate with and assert in their substituted clause,
Mr. GLatierome is bold enough to propose for the
Commons' adoption. He has given notice of an amend-
ment to charge the episcopal fund with the burden of
more bishops. Here, then, we have the question
fairly raised. It is one that ought to take the liberal
party down to the house en masse.
The answer to the application for more bishops is,
on general grounds, obvious and conclusive : they are
not wanted. What is wanted, is a better episcopal
use of the bishops we have. At present one half
their time is spent, not merely agelessly, but frequently
very injuriously, in the metropolis. Here they are
half the year, during the fashionable season of course,
as peers, as ecclesiastical commissioners, as church
building commissioners, as governors of the Bounty
Board, and as rulers of the great church societies to
which Mr. GOVLISURN asserts they give so liberally,
but to which we have proved they contribute so par-
simoniously. Now, in what country in Europe have
we an episcopacy centralised in its metropolis, except
in this ? And with what consistency can more bishops
be asked for for the provinces, when our system
keeps the bishops, we already have, half their time in
London?
But to Mr. GLADSTONE'S specific proposition, that
the episcopal fund shall be charged with the endow-
ment of more bishops, thereto as specific an answer.
When that fund was created, the legislature had
resolved on • reduction, not an increase, of the epie-
copacy; the object of its creation not being, therefore,
le 'slow more bishops, now to divert it to their
emir/lament is to disregard its original design, which
was church extension as against bishop extension.
And that is the point for the Hooss of Commons'
decision on Mr. OtAntrroes's amendment. Shall we
have more hard working clergy, or more highly paid
bishops? In favour of the latter Dr. Ittomnstii
(or, not to offend the sensitive feelthp of the