The Express.
London, England, 1850-04-29 00:00:00

N4WCRISTER, Apra 27.

6T'oaa•BtoteANol.—Then was not much bailees* done,
but the Woes of several deseriptioas of stock shibtly sailnUlCed. West
',bleb, on the minims day, were Ot to ge du.. were sold at
Edttf..: Naaebeeter and Hinntagbass, C. ore., I pr.; hbetliski Ker,
70. it ; South Nastent wad Dover, lit —dluo No. 4. q.

BIRMINGHAM, Apl? 27.

eTOON-BiOnAnon.—Thia ahatebarket wit eat to dity;
tee feeling with respect to retving. sescrelly is naorethogly gloomy.
North etrebrde were done at IW. de. td. db.

L111)8, Aprii 27. M
BToci..lisonmeoi.--there km bees
iltiViMoc\t
done to-do . The onl Wes vere In the roam _,UU I ,
North Fret., y3l die.; North lintloh, Ti •
a ,
; ' 1
, 4
...•
Aftik.

vie erprefo.

OUTGOING ILtILS.

The West ladle Maio, fatl BeMaida, Havensab,
Illems, Hoidens, New Orisons, end Macke, mad embalm
toes for Madeira, Gt. naa-de-Niearegva, New Greseda,
mad Pere, will be made op ea May 2.
The meth for British North Arita and the Halted
DION will be made up as the weals, of May 3.
TM mils for Mader* the Brazils, and Baena Ayres, will
be slide up oaths idt of May.
The mono fir linhom. Beata, tad Gibraltar will be made
sp es the sunk, of May 7.
The uselh vitt Mineilles, to the Mediterrissaa, Egypt.
Crylas, ladle, Hong-Kong, He., will be nude up on
the evenly; of May 7.
The math Ire Gibraltar, Malta, Graeae, the lonia. Wards,
Hopi, Goyim, lad* sad aa, via Boathaapton, will
be node up as the tacesing of May 20.

■ion WATER AT WIIDCU LUDO&
Ewe CRl—Rwasa. Afrawww: Mt. Ss.
fil-wwww—Ewagme, Eh da. a.

LONDON, MONDAY, APRIL 29.

AT lest the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill stands
first on the orders of the day, with some chance of
being discussed, this evening.
Though the result of the report of a committee
of the House of Commons, and notwithstanding
dr bill was last cession before the Commons,
it pleased ministers this session to originate it
fa the Lords. The consequence is that the only
nay useful clause the measure contained—that
which fused the episcopal and common fond—has,
in its passage through the Peers, been so altered
and manipulated as to continue the episcopal fund just
as ;much under the bishops' mercy as ever it was.
Now as the Common.' committee were " compelled t
an expression of regret that such large contributions
towards the building and repairing of palaces should
have been made from this fund, and that more reserve
has not been shown in the disposal of it," to-night's
debate will show whether minieters have coorage
enough to adhere to their own proposition fur the
ansalgamation of the funds, or whether on this, as on
all other points of church policy, they are prepared to
yield to episcopal influence.
The ground on which the continued separation of
the funds is advocated, is to reserve the surplus
of the episcopal fund for the foundation, first, of
mon Roglish, and next, of more colonial
bishoprics. Bat this reason denotes a foregone
conclusion which has no legislative existence. Tee
question of more bishops is not one that has been
decided ; and they who think that it is • question
merely of means to provide for more bishops, and not
• question of principle as to whether more are wanted
will, if it ever come to be discussed, find themselves
greatly . mistaken. Already, in the Manchester
Bishopric Bill, one attempt has been made to carry
this question by pledging. parliament in the preamble
of • statute to the extension of the episcopate ; but it
was signally defeated ; and now, by this continued
separation of the funds administered by the Ec-
clesiastical Commission, another effort is in-
sidiously and surreptiionsly being made to
involve hereafter the leg slatare, by a aide wind and
inferentially, in such an extension. Lord Powts ex-
pressly novel the continuance of the separation, and
the Bishop of LONDON b sldly suppwted it, with the
object of creating more bishops. It is indispensable,
therefore, that the Ilonae of Commons should discuss
the Lords' amendments in the spirit in which they
were made; and tither fuse the funds to prevent or
perpetuate their separation, to hasten an extension of
tits episcopate.
The principle of the bill is, in plain language, to
protect the property of the church, which the le-
gislature has confided to the eclesiastical com-
mission, from the waste of the bishops who
unfortunately, are now the masters of that
commission. The simplest mode of carrying
out that principle would, undoub'edly, have been a
complete recoeaposition of the ecclesiastical commis-
sion, by restoring the supremacy of lay influence
therein, as was, and so usetully, the case from 1838 to
1840. This, in all probability, is what Sir ROBERT
PEEL would have done, had he been called to
restore order and honesty to the administration t f
this property. But a change so valuable and effective
oaths was not to be expected from a ministry veto
have, there is too much reason to apprehend, some
secret understanding, if net an actual compact, with
the biahope; and so thorough a reform as this the re-
commendations of the committee of 1848 give Lord
Joust RUSSELL and Sir GEORGE GRIST a loophole
to escape from.
Those recommendations were, it is notorious, a
compromise of opinions for the sake of unanimity.
They were the least that Church reformers, like Lwd
ABEILET, Sir JAMES Giteassi, and Mr. RORSMAN,
would except ; they were the most that the four ec-
clesiastical commissioners on the committee would

yield. In substance the recommendations amounted
to tail, : that the management of the property of the
commission should be separated from its " more
purely" ecclesiastical business ; that " a small com-
mittee should be appointed for the purpose of mana-
ging in all its branches the property of the commis-
sion ;" and that there should be three paid commision-
ars (to be paid oat of that property) : two to be
Dominated by the crown, and ors by the Archbishop
of CANTERBURY. The design of this scheme, obviously,
wan to place the care of the property in lay hands.
Now this design the bill, whilst professing to carry
out, in reality defeats. Instead of three lay commis-
goners, it proposes to a2point two only ; thus giving
the bishops equal representation with the crown, or
rather, with the public. These two lay commissioners
are, with two of the existing ecclesiastical c3mtnie.
sifters, who are to be chosen by the commission, and
On. to be a layman, to constitute an listates Committee.
Now, the bishops, it will be recollected, substantially
oonstitute the eccleaiutical commission ; and it
is they who, of course, will nominate these
two latter commissioners. The consequence will be

that is this Estates Committee, to bi composed el
four 'ambers ; the Archbishop Of CANTERBURY will
hare the appointmen. of one teseaber, the Wimps
generally of two members, and the crown, on baba,
of the public, of one member only. Thee, in the
Bastes Committee, there will be • majority of seek-
Magical over lay representatives, of three to Gael
Bach an arrangement if! in effect, a merely delusive
mode of carrying out le recommendations of the
committee of 1848.

But this is not aIL The Estates Comnulttee, even
thus badly composed, have not, as the committee of
1848 recommended, to " manage in all its branches
the property of the commumos." Their duties
are to be much more restricted. They have
only "to consi(kr all matters" relative to such
management, and "to report fully thereupon to
the said ecclesiastical oommissumers." The general
body of the ecclesiastical commission—that is, the
bishops—still retain the real power over that
property which the committee of 1848 " was com-
pelled" to " regret" they had abused and saisarmaged
The bishops will not be bound to adopt even the re-
ports of their own Estates Committee ; but, notwith-
standing they will have a majority of three to ace in
that committee, they will hereafter have as much op-
portunity of squandering the episcopal fund, sad of
emberravetng the common fund as ever they had.
To sum up the defects of the bill in a few words,
the episcopal feed which is rich, has to be still kept
distinct from the common fund, which is iosllvent ;
the bishops have to appoint three out of the four
members of the Aides Committee ; and even this
committee oe astaieated is not to have the " =ear-
n. at in all its twaeobse " of the property or the ems-
mission ; that, the bishops are to keep to themselvi s.
No wonder the Dial:olio sad their friends in the Lords
were content to accept in comparative silence, such a
easessie.

So far then from the bill carrying out the principle
on which it in profaned to be foui.ded, it absolutely
!nitrates it; so far from its being a measure for the
batter administration of the property of the com-
mimdoe, it is one for the confirmation of all 'air-
ing obsess. Far from fulfilling, it eludes the
recommendations of the Committee of 11448 : it
creates two well paid officers, without giving them
any real power; and it perpetuates the defects of the
ecclesiastical oomminioo. It is a measure altogether
unworthy the support of say reformer; it has in
almost every clause the impress of its real author—
who was Lobe other then Mr. C. K. Mu KRA Y ! Will
the !Luse of CUIMMU4II sanction and adopt the handy.
work of such t men?

That the bill will, a. it deserves, meet the stoutest
resistance in the 11Juse of Commons, is meet
certain. There is not • clause in it which
is not in one way or other defective or
delusive. 'fake even that which enact• that

the accounts of the etteksiaetical oesamission shall
be annually audited. Of what use is as audit
that shall remain worst P Yet there is no proviiiin
for the publication of the aooounts. The iceletiasti-
cal commissioners of Ireland are bound by glade to
make an annual report of their proosediage and,ot
their accounts to parliament Why
_Amid the' so
elesisaticel commissioners of England be exesipt
from a similar obligation P To this hour, there has
been no audit or verification of their accounts. Up
to the close of 1848, the episcopal fund had received
140,6151., and spent 127,2311.; and up to the same
date, the common fund had received 861,8184 and
spent 530,6431. Bat for the proper and honest cre-
dits to,or deb.ts on these funds, there is no aliment*.
All that is known is, that they have been robbed to
the extent of 9,0001. Now, for the due administra-
tion of these funds publicity is indispensable. But
publicity is the last thing the bishops want ; so not a
word abatt the publication of the accounts, when
audited, is there in this bill.
It may be possible that • mean» so thoroughly
bad can be rectified is the House of Commons. But
it is extremely improbable that it will be. And—
though we hardly expect our views to prevail—we
confess to the opinion that the best treatment such a
bill deserves is—rejection. The cause of church re-
f'rm will gain, rather than lose, by a little longer
delay.

WE could pity Sir CHARLES WOOD, but for the
recollection that he has., by his own act, brought all
the mortilications he is now enduring upon himself.
It is not only on the floor of the HOlllO of Commons—
on such occasions as when his Stamp Duties Bill and
other blunders are being pulled to pieces—that he is
made to look and feel sheepish. He only retires from
public reprimands to undergo certain lectures. A
report, which we publish to-day, of an inter-
view which he had on Friday lest, with a depu-
tation on the window duties, may c3nvey to our
readers saws notion of what this much-suffering
man is subjected to in private. After hearing, with
Job-like patience, the home thrusts of Mr. HICKSON
and Lord HOBERT GROSVENOR, he could only reply,
plaintively, that "it was his duty to listen to their
representations, and it would also be his duty to re-
ceive several other deputations that had written to
request an interview on the same subject"
With all doe deference to the Cif•xcEttort of the
EXCHEQUER, we would remark that it is hie duty
not only to fasten but to act. It is extremely pro-
bable that at the very time the deputation of Freday
were addressing him, the Globe of that evening, with
its special pleading in defence of the window duties,
was lying on his table. The Globe winds up its re-
marks by declarirg that " while the revenue is likely
to suffer by the operation, we shottli regret to see •
tax of which so small a part (probably Lot more than
one-tenth) is really liable to the objections urged
against it—serious as these undoubtedly are—
abolished, in order to remit nine-tenths of the present
proceeds to the pockets of those who can wel! afford
to bear their share of the necessary burdens of the
state." The relish of this paragraph, in his own pet
whig journal, must have been sadly destroyed to Sir
CHARLES by the demolishing statements of Mr.
HICKSON.

The mole argument of the Globe in behalf of the
window duties is that they do not fill principally
apses the poorest or working classes. We would re-
mark, en pas•ant, that even granting this to be true,
still they may be highly objectionable. They may,
and indeed they do, press most heavily upon that por-
tion of the class intermediate between the very poor
and the very rich, which Is next above the former in
circumstances. The very poor may escape the full
pressure of these duties, but the very rich assuredly
do escape it. Only compare the proportion borne by
the window tax of Grosvenor-square to the means of
the inmates, with the proportion they bear to each
other in the streets adjoining Regent-square.
Rut the very poor do not escape the pressure of the
window duties, as Mr. HICKSON demonstrated unan-
swerably on Friday. The Globe's assumption rests on
the Arcadian fancy that except in some large manufac-
taring towns and commercial emporiums, the very poor
are inhabitants of lowly cottages where " the swallow
twitters from the straw-rootel shed." This is not
the case even in the rural districts. More than thirty
years ago, M. SISMONDI directed attention to the
fact teat almost universally the English rural labourer
had been driven to take up his abode in small towns ;
that the poverty in the land was there concealed from
the eye or the traveller. Referring to this fact, Mr.
HICKSON stated " Cottages and farm houss s were
exempt [from the window tax] ; but the great majo-
rity of the working classes did not live either in
cottages or farm houses. They were to be found in
towns, lodging in the back rooms of the upper floors
of what are called under the building act third and
fourth rate houses; houses that should have twelve
or fifteen windows, but the occupiers of which,
by darkening the staircases, passages, closets,
and cellars, reduced the number below the
chargeable number of seven." The window duties
have caught the poor man on the horns of an ugly
dilemma; if they cannot take it out of him in money,
they take it out in health. He must either pay, or be
plunged into a contagious disease bath.
The effects of the window duties on the poor, as
rated by Mr. RICKsON, were forcibly illustrated by
Sir RALPH HOWARD. That gentleman remarked
that " the superiority of the model lodging houses
consisted in the arrangements made for an adequate
supply of air, light, and wirer; but these arrange-
ments had led to such an increase of taxation, that
private landlords could not be expected to imitate
the example. Upon the buildings_ of the Society for
Improving the Dwellings of the Working Classes, in
the Pancras-road, they were actually paying 1621. 16s.
window duty, of which sum not less than 331. was
for duties charged on their sculleries and waver
closets."

But the writer in the Globe at least does not re-
quire statements like these to convince him how much
the poor suffer from the window tax. He avails him-
self of a conlenient ambiguity of lan . He
"doubts whether, except by the mouths oft
philanthropists, they can be said ever to have com-
plained at aIL" He argues that " because the tax is
not distinguishable from other items that go to make
up the sum total of rent," and because the poor are
" Inadajtately instructed as to the conditions of
health, they have not raised their voices against the
window duties. This only proves that the poor are
subjected to an unequal tax, and through it to un-
healthy influences, but that they do not clearly see
how it affects them. It does not bear out the conclu-
sion of the Globe that they are not "so much or so
generally affected as it is now the fashion
to assert." There is here the same shameless use
made of vague and lax expressions, as is made in the
conclusion of the article on which we are commenting,
of the equally deceptive phrase "the pockets of those
who can well afford to bear their share of the neces-
sary burdens of the state." There is injustice in
laying the burden upon those who can "well afford,"
so long as those who can best afford are allowed, com-
paratively speaking, to escape. Even in the words
" burdens of the state," there is a dishonest
begging of the question ; for it has over and over
again been proved that with our present scale of
public expenditure, unnecessary burdens are laid on
the taxpayers.
The tax which can only be palliated by such ambi-
guities, evasions, and equivocations, is doomed. If the
other deputations whom it will be the CHANCELLOR
of the Excuitutria's "duty to receive," only tell
their story in the same manly, straightforward, un-
compromising manner that the deputation of Friday
last did, ministers will discover that they can dispense
with the window duties before another year passes
ever their heads.

The Morning Pori says :—" We believe we are in
a position to affirm that the negotiations between the
courts of London and Madrid, relative to the renewal
of diplomatic relations, are now virtually and ratio-
fsctorily concluded."

ST. STIPHIR'S CHURCH, HAIIIIRROWITH.-At the
personal 'spas' of his lordship, the Bishop of L•adon, a
ebereh bee been bailt at Shepherd'abeab, ander the direst
Use of Mr. Salvia, sad wes consecrated a few dap spiv It
Is to be the church of a new perish, which is to be named St.
Bars, Hauntemnith; the patronage to be with the
of Dindon for the time being. The building coot
prises a chancel, with vestry avouth side, ease with aisles,
tax* porch, an I newer ai.d spire at weet.end of north aisle.
It is is the decorated style, and of my salitfactorr character.
The walla, 2 fest 3 indite thick, us timid with Kentish rag,
sad the dreesings are of Beth stone. The roof timbeni,
slight in eppearsars, are open. The church bas open sit
Hags for 832 persons. The organ is on the NOT level, under
the tower: the font is nest it. The windows were mostly
sifts, as were the organ, loot, tic— The Boilikr,