The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-26 00:00:00

upoy their property arose more from misconception of
their claims than purposed injustice, and stating that
the whole annual income of Hereford Cathedral was
cot above 4,7001. divided among such a number of
persons that there was not on an average 901. a-year to
Nara. When the Ecclesiastical Commission consented
to make these recommendations, they seemed not to
have borne in mind how soon after the dissolution of
smaller monasteries the dissolution of larger mo-
s eeeries followed. Did it neveroccur to them that when
mitred Abbots consented to the dissolution of the
tretler monasteries they were sanctioning a precedent
ahich they soon after owed not their own reduction
ett their total destruction? The first success of the
Hselesiastical Commission in the measures which they
teeposed to adopt with regard to these Cathedral
!igoitasies, would furnish just such a precedent with
orlard to the existing Establishment, and would inflict
a it such a blow as no advantages to be derived from
ss measure could possibly counterbalance ; not that he
els by any means inclined to undervalue any measure
aviog for its object to supply the spiritual wants of large
ei extensive districts, but he would contend that we
were not at liberty to take away the property of other
for that purpose, but those spiritual wants ought to
upnlisel at the expense of the nation at large. Such
as the one on which this measure was
lit suit very well with the feelings of certain
in that House, who held that the State pos-
the absolute power of disposal over the property
ha Church. He (Sir R. Inglis) held no such doc-
a_'s ; he contended that the State was merely the trus-
f the property of the Church.lf the duties consequent
rt the enjoyment of that propertyremained unexectited,
be property enjoyed by the Church be abused, such
et:se would furnish a subjeet for legal inquiry, and by
teans of legal inquiry, and of legal inquiry only, could
a case he adjudicated and such wrongs remedied.
t he would ever deny the right of the Legislature to
e..and alienate this property, not for any wrong—
for any misappropriation—not for any just cause
forfeiture—but merely as a matter of conve-
-am. It had been said that as four canons were
retained, that number was quite sufficient.
Ithl it be said that that number was sufficient as a
ar,l fur learning or for piety ? In every other
,Fession there existed rewards for those who had dis-
piished themselves, and why should the number of
•se rewards he less in the Church than in other pro-
,ions? Parents w-.)uld be guided in the selection of a
'rescion for their sons.by the prosvet of these rewards ;
I when the number of clergymen was considered, he
t gay that he considered that the number of sup-
dignitasirs bore too small a proportion. He would
that this was a low view of the subject, but it was
—.7 not to be wholly overlooked, inasmuch as it
is operate very powerfully on parents in the choice
profession for their sons. Whenever the State, or
r the governing power—fur frequently the govern-
sower had overruled the State and Church—whenever
eiverning power had interfered with the Church such
ference had alwa3s been detrimental. The govern-
power !fad in the tisress of Henry VIII. and Eliza-
, compelled the Church to give up their broad
and to depend upon the tithes ; and it was rather
then the Government had originally created
that it should now turn round ulna those upon
vrong had been inflicted, ani seek to remedy
xpense. It had been said that four Canoes
each Cathedral, and that that number
else suth. ient ; but what said the Chapter of the
dral Church of Carlisle on this subject? Why,
from the natural infirmities of age it would he in)-
We to reckon upon the regular attendance of more
Iwo out of the lour Canons ; and until a new order
gs should be introduced into human nature its

drone
kti nii

I

must necessarily be the case. He was sorry that
d been thought necessary to destroy in
instsnces the names by which these digni-
s had been always distinguished. Where
the necessity of calling the Canons Resi-
iary by any other title ? And where these
(.alts had borne the name of Prebendiazies, why
that appellation to be dropped ? He considered
it was unworthy of the Legislature to waste its
in such puerile alterations as these. It had been
d by his Noble Friend that both the Bishops and
Crown had consented to give up a large portion of
• patronage. He considered that this was a great
I, more particularly as regarded the Crown. He was
to certain that this was neither the time nor the
3.itry in which any diminution of the patronage of the
Levu could be considered as necessary. The time
ould soon arrive, and perchance bad already arrived,
her instead of its being laid down as formerly that the,
atlas/Ice of the Crown had increased, was increasing,
i and ought to be diminished, it would be acknowledged
4 that the influence of the Crown ought rather to be in-
creased, creased, and he considered that any measure by which
1 the patronage of the Crown should be at all lessened,
i e mini be in itself an evil not to the Crown only but
1 also to the Church. As long as the Church and the Crown
Ishould remain in connection with each other the country
would have confidence that each would attend to the
1 1.-elare of the other, that the State would not interfere
I with the privileges of the Church, nor the Church at-
I tempt to meddle with the administration of the State.
Ile had a.iready said so much that he would not enlarge
Further on this subject, but he felt that he should have
been guilty of a dereliction of his duty, had he not re-
-t' the further progress of the measure, which,
, 0 :•'iout being so intendd, would operate most fatally
, •••: -I,- interests of the Establishment. The existence
i .• .. s Canonaries was not perhaps essential to Chris-
; ti-.nity, but at all events it was essential to the Constitu-
• •
,s •:: of the Established Church, and any measure
i ii ving for its object the destruction of these offices,
1 would also tend to the destruction o Ith e Establishment
itself, and be must again protest against the doctrine
that the property of the Churc (considered
as the property of the State.
Mr. STANLEY hoped he shoal nermitted to
Is,r7 at few words respecting certain nardships in the
dioceses of North Wales ; which ho trusted would in-
il lure the Noble Lord to modify his Bill. The dioceses
in North Wales had been formed from benefices in
ivarious times, all of them of comparatively recent date,
!lie earliest being in the year 1681. The tithes belong-
ing to parishes containing fully one-third of the whole
e. illation of Wales, had already been alienated. In
thu diocese of Bangor, the Bishop and Rector drew
their tithes from a district containing 16,000 inhabi-
tants. There was a parish in Anglesea, which before
was attached to an archdeaconry, that was afterwards
ess%gned by the Act to the Bishopric of Bangor. Some
time ago this parish was not populous--now it con-
tained 7,000. It produced 9001. a year, and had been
most ably served for 26 years by a most exemplary
curate, who from the tithes, and Queen Anne's Bounty,
and.6o/. a year from the Bishop, had an income of 2001.,
while 700/. or 800/. a-year were taken away from the
neneral funds to augment the benefices of England.
The length of that parish was seven miles. Those
wive -were not acquainted with the surface of
N'izsles, and judged by the good roads and easy
communications of England, would think this a
very convenient extent. But the fact was, a parish
of seven miles long in Wales would be a whole day's
I Jearney. One of these parishes was 17 miles long, and
was held by the Bishop of Bangor, who did the duty
17, a Curate. There were many other cases of equal
' rdslin•—( Hear, hear.) As regarded Dissenters, there
Iwas no part of Great Britain which required so much at-
tention at the hand of the Government as Wales. Atter)-
, i ion was required not only on behalf of those who belonged
tat the Church, but also on account of those who had
I's., it, but who, if carefully treated, were still inclined to
riw-n to it.—(Hear, hear.) Although he (Mr. S.)
ea, on that side (the Liberal) of the House, he was a
i, iend to the Church, and wished to see it in an effective
,(O. —( Hear, hear.) He did not agree with an Hon.
Member who had averted that the House had no right
to interfere with the Church. He thought the House
had a right to interfere, but it should use that right with
moderation and for the benefit of the Church. He was
certain that the Noble Lord was actuated by a sincere
anxiety for the welfare of the Church, and that he
-...0ut.1 not attempt anything that would militate against
i'3 it. t -rests.
Mr. HUME was anxious to make a few observations
tart -diet had fallen from the Honourable Baronet,
the Member for the University of Oxford, or
he might he accused of inconsistency regarding the evils
of the Church. The fact was, he and the Hon. Ba-
ronet had always maintained a pretty consistent course
on sus.h subjects, the Hon. Baronet to protect the abuses
of the Church, and he (Mr. Hutne) to put them down.—
( Laughter, and Hear). Ever since he had had a seat in
-let House,he had always regarded as amongst the greatest
' uses the abuses of the Church of England, and while he
' a seat in the House he should, please God, never
e to point out those evils, and what lie considered to
the cause of those evils, which rendered that Estab•
}intent, intended for the religious and moral benefit of
;,oei+qy, a means for promoting ignorance, fostering pre-
judice, and misapplying the very means which had
been placed in its hands for the general instruc-
nn out of the property of the pubic. This was
toe course in which the Church had ton long
fcieseded.—(Cheers from the Opposition). If not,
:ea what were their reforms for, and what. were the
!,,i,crts of the Church Connni_sioners for ? Had it
ras ben tried even by Archbishops and Bishops, and
..sdernned ? otherwise would a Noble Lord have ac-
rioaledged before the House the existence of evils if
In"Y were not too bad to be denied ? If they were to
'',,l,•iate. until the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford
.1:
,1:
lt(. d out abuses, they would never begin to reform.
I;,,nugli lie (Mr. H.) had before opposed the Noble
i,.,. ? it was riot because he objected to his principles,
te'n't‘dec4buise he did not then go far enough—he con-
n,.,,aa
wimtbself with reforming by piece-meal. He
189,000/. the Bishops. Those that sanctioned
1:v:._,,, for the Bishops, while there were 3,000
„;"-toutniidoerBBor/. each, were' not friends of the Church,
promotion ~ P e,td of religious instruction, nor to the
, or education.
It:;,:„(gicouatellvat H.) had always every man e whop did his duty should be
es, ,boiitiotlPcaid• Ho had always contended for
. 0.. . • sieecure,,
. s Bill, ai He was, therefore, a friend
itxwo9neld put down. some abuses, but he
- ' 'I7Y the Noble Lord did not go further. Ile
..........,...

hoped it was not necessary to touch upon what the
Hon. Baronet had said, to the effect that Parliament
had no right to interfere here. Why, who gave the
property to the Church but Parliament ?—(Oh, oh.)
If not, then he should be glad to know how the Pro-
testants obtained the property from the Catholics?
He supposed they did not steal it ?—(Laughter.) The
Protestants got the property by the sanction of law,
and if the law gave it it might take it away.—(Hear,
hear.) He regretted the Noble Lord had not courage
to go further with his reforms, and proceed to a
greater extent to provide for that religious destitu-
tion which existed in many parts of the country.
In his opinion every one of the Prebendaries ought
to be put down—the Chapters were entirely useless.
Those ought all to be reduced, and ample funds
ought to be provided for the maintenance of those
Clergymen who were now without the means of decent
subsistence. He approved of this Bill as far as it went,
although it was a Bishop's Bill. He thought there
were few real friends of the Church who would oppose
it., although to him, and those who thought with him, it
must appear only a partial reform. But perhaps that
reflection had induced the Noble Lord to expect far
greater support than he might otherwise look for.
So far as the warts of the Church were concerned the
measure did not go far enough. He would be glad to
see the Hon. Baronet try in that House a motion for a
large grant to the National Church. The Bill gave au-
thority to revalue the property of the Church, and
when the returns were made up it would be found that
a large surplus would be at the disposal of the Howse
for general education, and religious instruction, by re-
ducing the enormous salaries of the Bishops and other
dignitaries. He considered the Church as a Corpora-
tion, and that any portion of its revenues might be
taken by Parliament and applied to different purposes.
He would give his cordial support to the Bill.
Mr. ESTCOURT would not trespass long upon the
time of the House, but he could not omit entering his
protest against a great many of the provisions of the
measure. Although some of its provisions had been ap-
proved of by the Commissioners, yet some parts of the
Bill did trot emanate from that Commission, but were the
production of the Noble Lord, and probably of the
Government to which he belonged. His object in
rising was, after protesting against the second reading
of the Bill, to advert to expressions used by the Noble
Lord, although, perhaps, not so intended by him, in
reference to a petition presented by his Hon. Colleague,
the Member for the University of Oxford. The Noble
Lord had given a tone and colouring to the expres-
sions it: that petition, as if the object of the petitioners
was to prevent any alteration taking place in the
Church Establishment, to prevent any improvement
being effected, or any abuses being retnedied. If Hon.
Members would read the petition, they would find that
so far front that being the case the petitioners did admit
the destitute state of some parts of the Church Esta-
blishment, and with reference to the subject under con-
,ideration, they expressed a readiness to inquire into the
state of the Church Establishment, and stated that they
could raise no objection to any improvement or reform
that might be required. He thought it his duty to set
the Hoene and the Noble Lord eight upon that,
subject. It was unnecessary for him to answer the
observations of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny because
they were precisely of the same attract, r as those he
had repeated on former occasions. The Hon. Member
:Mated then, as he had on former occasions, that he
was a ft iend to tl:e Church, :led that lie never wished
to abstract from its revenues, but he would venture to
say, that there never was any proposition made for ab
stracting from the revenues of the Church, whether
they were to be well cr applied, that the Hon. Member
had not given it his most cordial ,upport He had now
stated that he would neverrest satisfied until the Prebends
were destroyed and the Canons were destroyed, and, in
feet, it was well known that the object of the Hon. Mem-
ber and his friends was to reduce the Church from a Na-
tional Establishment to the state of an ineffieient and
inferior sect. He would conclude by entering his protest
against the second reading of the Bill.
Lord DUNGANNON also felt it to be his duty to
protest against the measure. The Hon. Member for Kil-
kenny had acted with his usual candour, in approving of
e very measure which was calculated todestroy the Church.
In the present case he had travelled another step, and had
thrown out a hint that he would not be sorry to see the
property at present belonging to the Church applied to
other than ecclesistical purposes. He (Lord D.) would
be sorry to see the Church reduced to such a provision
as the Hon. Member for Kilkenny would concede to it ;
not only the interests of the Church but the best inte-
rests of the country at large would be destroyed. The
Hon. Member stated that the Bishops were overpaid,
and that their incomes should be reduced to 3,0001. a
year. He hoped if such was the case the Hon. Mem-
ber would find out some fund for supporting the chari-
table institutions and schools which had been hitherto
done by the Clergy of the Established Church. When-
ever these premeditated wholesale changes took place
they must be for the worse. He (Lord D.) was un-
willing to see those institutions lowered and de-
graded, although he had no objection that, all
real abuses should be remedied.—(Hear, hear.)
He most cordially concurred in every remark which
bad fallen from the Right Honourable Bart. the Mem-
ber for Oxford, and be must enter his solemn protest
against the second reading of the Bill. In such a
cause, if only six went out along with him he would be
proud to form one of such a minority.
Mr. LAW did not intend to offer any opposition
to the second reading of the Bill, but he begged that
in doing so it might be distinctly understood that he
did not concur in all its details. He was anxious for
ouch a reform of the Cathedral establishments as would
render them more efficient for all ecclesiastical pur-
poses. He was anxious that the great and extensive
object of religious instruction might be effected by con-
ditions imposed upon persons holding Cathedral prefer-
ments. He begged it to be understood, that in not dividing
the House against the measure, he reserved to himself
the right of opposing any of its details. He protested,
in the names of those he represented, against the passing
of the Bill, and he hoped that his silence at present
would not be taken as an acquiescence in the measure.
Mr. G. PALMER said, he had not intended to take
any part in the debate on this measure, but there was
one point which he considered of importance, which had
not yet been touched upon. The Bill proposed to do
away with a great many of the appointments held by
persons in th Cathedral, but still it left some places
behind. He wished to know how the property attached
to those livings which were left were to be managed ?
That was a question which might fairly be put to the
Noble Lord.
Mr. WHITE was surprised to find the friends of
the Church coming forward to oppose a Bill of this
nature, brought in by the Secretary of State, and sanc-
tioned by two Archbishops, and set eral of the Rev.
Prelates : he was as great a friend to the Church as any
Hon. Member opposite, but he could not avoid saying
that it was impossible for him to support the pluralisms
and sinecures existing in the Church. He felt bound
for the interests of real religion to come forward and
protest against their existence as useless. He thought
the Bill did not go far enough. He wished to do away
with every sinecure of the Church. The Noble Lord,
the Member for Durham, said that he would vote
against the Bill, but upon what ground be could not
conceive. He (Mr. W.) had the honour to represent
a large seaport in the county, and he could assure
the House that there was not Church accom-
modation in that town for three-fourths of the
population. Had it not been for the exertions of the
Dissenters of that country, the miners, of whom the
population principally consisted, would be in a state
almost approaching barbarism.
Lord CLIVE trusted that the Noble Lord would
postpone the Committee on the Bill until after Easter.
As the sessions in %Vales shortly came on, and many
Members from the Principality would be absent, it
would be very desirable that the Committee should be
postponed.
Lord JOHT' RUSSELL would propose that the
Bill be committed on that day fortnight. He would
propose then to go into Committee on the Bill, so that
if any motion was moved by the Hon. Members oppo-
site, the Bill might be got through the Committee before
Easter ; but if any opposition was intended to be
offered, he would propose that the Bill be reported, and
that the further consideration of the Report be post-
poned until after Easter, for the purpose of hearing any
observations opposed to it. He did not wish to press
the Bill in the absence of the Noble Lord, or any
other Members, but he could not agree to put off the
Committee on the Bill for so lengthened a period.
Sir ROBERT PEEL, however sorry he might be
to differ with many of his friends whom he highly re-
spected, still felt himself obliged to support the Bill.
He would not now enter into the details of the mea-
sure, as it was altogether unnecessary. He would only
consider the principle involved, which was, that in the
present state of the Church it was desirable that some
portion of the Cathedral revenues should be applied for
the purpose of supplying the acknowledged deficiencies
in the moral and religious instruction of the people—
that was the great question involved in the principle of
the Bill. If he understood it rightly the main provi-
sions of the Bill were in conformity with the recom-
mendation of the Commissioners appointed by the
Crown a few sessions ago. When that Com-
mission was appointed there was a prevailing
impression on the minds of many, both lay and eccle-
siastical, that it was the true interest of the Church,
considering the evils that arose from the want of spi-
ritual education were so enormous, that it became the
bounden duty of the Executive Government to consider

materially the state of the Church in that respect, and
to point out a remedy. Under this impression the
appointment of the Commissioners took place. That
Commission consisted exclusively of persons well
affected to the interests of the Church, and its appoint-
ment gave almost universal satisfaction. The ex-
t, ndcd demands for an alteration in the Church
greatly exceeded the views of its supporters,
but there was a general wish on their part that the
reforms recommended by the Commissioners might be
adopted as safe and expedient. It was true that the
I
demands for alterations in the Church were not now so
vehement as they were some time ago ; but he thought

that if the House took advantage of the cessation of
clamour to postpone reforms which might be effected
consistently with the security of the Church, he did not
think they would place themselves in a very envious
position. His Hon. Friend, the Member for Oxford,
in the extract which he read from the Report of the
Commissioners, had left out one very material
part of the duty which they had to perform, because
one of those duties was to suggest measures calculated
to remedy the evils complained of. His Learned Friend
had certainly stated abundant ground to justify his de-
cided opposition to the Bill. He lied stated that it was
net competent for the Legislature to pass a Bill divert-
ing from the Church the property which belonged to it.
Now he (Sir. Robert Peel) could not agree with him
in that, because he considered that any measure making
a disposition of Church property entirely depended
upon the animus with which it was brought forward.—
(Hear, hear.) If any person attempted to divert the
property of the Church to any other objects than those
that were calculated to benefit the spiritual interests of
the community, he should be the first to oppose it ; hut
if measures were proposed that were inteuded to add
to the efficiency of the Church, and to the spiritual in-
terests of the Church, he could not say that he
for one would resist that measure upon simple grounds.
—( Hoar, hear.) If he saw benefit was likely to
arise from any measure to the Church, that mea-
sure should have his support, according to the principles
laid down by his lion. Friend the Member for Oxford.
The deanery of Durham, for instance, Parliament :
could not strip that deanery of a single shilling, how-
ever great the benefits to be derived might be. The
deanery of Durham, he believed, was now worth about
9,000/. a year. Supposing that that 9,0001, should
amount to 140001., and supposing that there were tens
of thousands of persons in that district who had not
the advantage of Church education, could ho (Sir
Robert Peel) as a sincere friend of tile Church, say
that the deanery of Durham should remain as it
was ?—( Hear.) He should feel not only that the
money was wanted in another source, for the purposes
of religious instruction ; hut he should also feel that the
existence of a great sinecure under such circumstances
' was against the interests of the Church itself.—(Hear,
hear.) He might see the contrast drawn between the
splendour on the one hand and the destitution on the
other, and, seeing it, he should come to the discussion
of the appropriation of the property of the Church to the
relief of that destitution ae a sincere friend of the
Church, and with the deepest reverence.—(Hear,
hear.) But, when he consented to interfere
with Church property, it was always accompanied with
this condition, that he must be cans inced that that in-
terference was for the interests of the Church and re-
ligion.—(Hear, hear.) If he was convinced cf that,
then lie could not consent to adhere to the rigid courso
pointed out by his Hon. Friend. It was upon convic-
tions of this kind that he would be induced to allow any
interference with the property of the Church, and
looking at. the state of the Church as it at present ex-
iisted, and looking at the destitution that prevailed
n religious education, he asked himself whether
there was any other means of providing for
that destitution but by an interference with Church
property. If he believed it possible that there could be
a Constitutional Parliament from which he might hope
So obtain a public grant for the purpose, he might rely
upon that and postpone the present measure—(Hear,
hear)—but could he believe—when he considered the
great wealth of the Church and the great demand for
public edUcation he could not bring himself to believe—
that Parliament would make such a grant. Things could
not remain as they were; he looked at the Cathedrals with
the highest respect—he looked at them in connexion with
the monarchy, but he could not forget, at the smite time,
the state of the smaller benefices ; he could not ex-
clude from his view that there were no less than 1,926
benefices in England and Wales under 100/. per annum,
and that there wore 3,528 under 150/. per annum. He
admitted that it was right that the higher situations of
the Church should be filled by persons fitted to main-
tain their dignity ; but was there nothing to be said for
those who were in the possession of benefices, the in-
come of which hardly afforded a sufficiercy for the
common decencies and necessaries of life? He could
not exclude from the consideration of the present ques-
tion the following facts with respect to London :
In London there were 1,170,000 persons ; there was
only Church accommodation for 101,000. There
were 34 parishes, and in those 34 parishes there were
only 69 Churches, and if the proprietary Chapels were
added there would be only 100 places of worship. Sup-
posing that each parish contained a population of 3,000
it would be necessary to have 379 Churches in those
34 parishes, and therefore there was a deficiency of
Churches to the number of 279. Now, if the Esta-
blished religion was in that state, and it was left so,
would not Dissent tell in those new and increasing popu-
lations, where no provision was made for Churches, and
would he leave the Church in a safe condition if he
disregarded altogether what was going on among the
myriads—the thousands that were brought into exist-
ence—at the rate, he believed, of 1,000 a day, and no
provision for introducing the ordinances of the Church
and attaching them to its ministrations. In Lancashire
there were 83 parishes with a population of 10,000 in
each parish, the aggregate being about 816,000. There
was church-room for only 97,000, or about one-eighth,
and as the Commissioners justly remarked, the compari-
son between church-room and the amount of population
gave no accurate idea of the provision made for spi-
ritual attendance on the people, because many of the
chapels included in the Bill had no district assigned
them ; whereas there was no Minister to perform those or
dinary parochial duties which at least were of as much im-
portance as the duties attending divine service. He could
not consent to view one side of the question only—he
must view the other ; and believing as he did that the
great encouragement for the laity to rally round the
Church mainly rested on a disposition in the great 'body,
the Corporate body, of the Church to set an example of
liberality—of re-distribution in some cases, confining
that re-distribution strictly to spiritual purposes—that
on the whole he could not withhold his assent from the
second reading of the Bill of time Noble Lord.—
The Commission had been appointed by himself.
The mere desire to support the authority of persons who
had exposed themselves to considerable obloquy by man-
fully stating what they considered the interests of
the Church required, would induce him to go far to do so,
because he would not abandon those who incurred obloquy
by carrying out the Commission he himself appointed—
but it was not from a desire to support authorities, who
required no support, it was because he professed his ut-
must attachment to the Church of England, believing
that danger was to be apprehended from increase of
Dissent among the lower classes of Society, and despair-
ing of procuring from the public funds any grant
commensurate with the object, particularly unless the
Church showed a disposition to lead the way and to set
the example. Those were the main grounds on which he
gave his support to the second reading of the Bill.
(Cheers from both sides of the House.)
Mr. PLUMPTRE said, that if any thing coul d m e
him dissatisfied with this Bill it was because Members on
the other side of the House said it (lid not go far enough.
He thought they ought to learn how far those Hon.
Members wished to go and where they meant to stop.
Tho Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that his
feeling against this Bill was so strong, that had there
been any intention to divide the House, he should have
voted against,the second reading.
The Bill was then read a second time.
Mr. GOULBURN requested that there might
be ample time for considering the measure and asked if
the Committee could be put off until after Easter ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he could not agree
to that.—( Hear, hear.)
REGISTRY OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS ACT
AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion of the Hon. FOX MAULE the
Bill went through Committee.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved the second read-
ing of the
SUPREME COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. WALLACE opposed the Bill. He said it
carried into effect none of the improvements which had
been recommended by the Committee which had sat
upon the subject. Of that Committee be bad been a
Member ; and Lord Eldon, Lord Brougham, Dr. Lush-
ington, and Mr. O'Connell, who were examined, gave it
as their opinion that the great length of the pleadings
in writing and printing, ought to be much reduced ; but
that was not effected in this Bill. There was another
point very objectionable ; and that was, that the Lords
Ordinary often acted as solicitors and barristers, in pre-
paring the cases they were afterwards as Judges to decide.
It was most improper that Judges should have any other
than judicial duties. He put it to the Learned Doc
tor the Member fcr the Tower Hamlets, whether i

was not most improper.—(Laughter, in which the
Learned Doctor heartily joined.) The Learned Doc-
tor when asked that question before the Committee had
declined giving an opinion—(A laugh)—but had said to
the best of his judgment it was very improper, and the
weight of authority was to that effect. The fifth clause
of the Bill provided two Judges to sit in the " Court
of Exchequer ;" why there was no Exchequer in Scot-
land—there was a nominal Exchequer certainly, but
there was ❑o money in it—(Laughter)--and
what was the use of putting Judges in a
Court where they would have nothing to do ?
Great stress had been laid on the abolition of various
Courts. The Judges of these Courts were sinecurists,
and their abolition would not be looked upon as any
great boon, and although a reduction in the number of
Courts had taken place, there had been no improve-
ment in the manner of conducting tl.e business in those
which remained, nor would there be, as long as thirteen
Judges were retained for the purpose of providing work
for one another to do. If the whole of the Judges did
their duty in that Court, there would be soon no work
for them to do. He could prove that there was no ne-
cessity for more than nine Judges, and their salaries
might be increased by doing away with the remaining
four to the great advantage of the business of the Court.
The next clause shifts the duties from one set of

Judges to ancther,-...and allows the Judges them-
selves to determine the mode in which the people

of Scotland should app), to them for justice. By the
next clause the Tiend Court, the most tedious Court

of any, was allowed to have nine Judges. He would
refer to the Lord Advocate, whether four Judges were
not quite sufficient on the bench at one time for the
due administration of justice. By another clause it
was provided that the sittings of the Courts should re-
main as at present, that is io say, five months in the
year. The Court of the Lords Ordinary sitting for
three weeks longer, leaving in the one seven, and in
the other case six months unoccupied. He would ask
whether the provision of the 10th clause was decent
or decorous, by which the Judges are permitted to de-
termine whether they shall sit or no. This is a new
system entirely. It is true that at the end of the clause
there is a provision by which the Queen and Council
m ty, if they see fit, extend the time a mouth,
but he considered it was not very fit to place the Queen
end Council after the Judges of Scotland. This was
another exhibition of that grasping desire for power, by
which they had always been characterized. He next
came to the proposed regulation and increase of the sa-
laries. It was proposed by the Lord Advocate that the
salary of the Lord President should be increased to
5,000/. a year, with 5001. or 600/. a year for his clerk,
making 5,600/. a year to be taken out of the pockets of
thecle people. Clerk
.vould
Theproposed increase to the Lord Justice
make his salary amount to 4,600/. per
annum, in addition to which there was an allowance of
1(1 1
to
at-
tention of the representatives of Etgland and of be-
-IHe begeed to call the or heixstectl,esirkee:s
of
salary.
He called
r
upon them, because he had no hope whatever
'O.
ae
a thesef
that his own countrymen would assist him in his
endeavours to introduce a better system of adm;nistra-
don into these Courts. He did not understand whe-
ther Lord Gillies and the other Judges who at present
receive 2,300/. a year, are to csntinue to receive their
s dories, as also this addition. He wished to ask the
Lord Advocate this question—as the Lord Advocate
remained silent he supposed they were to do so.—
(The Lord Advocate was understood to answer
the negative, but the noise in the Hons.: was
so great that we could not distinctly hear what fell
from his Lordship.) This measure renewed the objec-
tionable power of making laws with closed doors,
and of the existence of which the people were ignorant
until the penalties were inflicted upon them. No such
power existed either in this country or in Ireland, but
the contrary was the case in Scotland, for these acts of
sederunt were not laid on the table of this House until
they Lad been in existence for three or four months.
Refering to the expenses of the Justiciary of Scotland,
hs found that for last year there were under the 1: sad
of general expellees, connected with the Judges,
74,443/., for general prosecutions, 18,500/. for salaries,
and the Sheriffs about as much more. It was for Par-
Lament to decide, during what length of time, the
Judges should perform their duties, so as to avoid dis.
respect, and satisfy the just expectations of the country.
He should conclude by moving that instead of b,ing
read now, the Bill should be read a second time that
day six months.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
The LORD ADVOCATE was thankful to his
Hon. and Learned Friend, for bringing forward his
measure. He had shown a good disposition, as he
always did, but in this case he had shown the most co7n-
plete ignorance. If lie had spent only a month in per-
sonal attendance at the Courts, he would not have
made half the statements they had just heard. Now
he (the Lord Advocate) had spent rather more than a
month about those Courts—about thirty years—
( Laughter)—and he could say that neither in the Court
of Session, nor in the Court of Ordinary, did the
Judges do the duties of solicitors, If the Learned
Gentleman alluded to the preparation of reports, he
was right, but then that was a most important
pert of their judicial duties, which the EngliSh Judges
had also to perform.—( Hear, hear.) His Learned
Friend said that there was no Court of Exchequer—
that there was no money in Scotland—and that was
perfectly true—(Laughter)—but there was a Court of
Exchequer, although no money was been trusted to the
Judges. But many useful retrenchments and reforms had
already been made in the Courts of Scotland, and since
the death of the late Chief Baron 4,0001. had been
saved. In other departments, such as the reduction of
the sinecure office of Soliciten General and of two
Judges of the Court of Session 54,5671. Os. 83-d.
had been saved to the country. No one could suppose
that any gentleman deriving 6 or '7 or 8,0001. a year
front the Bar, would accept the office if the proposed
reductions were to take place. What was the case
with the late Lord Elgin ? Was it not, admitted on all
hands that he should have been raised to the judicial
seat ten years previously ? The fact was, however, that
neither he nor any other gentleman in extensive prat
flee would give it up for an appointment which
only tended to degrade him. The question therefore came
to this, with a salary only such as persons wishing to
retire from the bar would accept, was it possible to fill
tip with efficiency the vacancies in these judicial situa-
tions ? If, then, none of these five judges were to be
reduced, the question was whether any of the four
Chamber Judges were to be reduced.—(Heir, hear,
from Mr. Wallace.) The Hon. Member said " hear,
hear," as if he assented to that proposition, but he
questioned very much whether it would be athisable to
to place the whole judicial power in civil eases in
Scotland in the hands of three or four individuals.
As Trial by Jury became known in Scotland, it would
become more popular. The Bill was one of much im-
portance to Scotland, and be hoped it would be allowed

to pass.
Mr. GILLON felt bound to oppose the Bill of the
Learned Lord, because, in his opinion, there was not
one clause in it which was not very objectionable. The
Learned Lord had often appealed to the Report of the
Committee of a former Session, but he did not use it
fairly, for he only carried into effect part of its recom-
mendations. He did not equalize either the salaries
or the duties of the Judges. It was proposed
that two of the Judges should attend to
the business of the Exchequer. Now there were only
six causes in that Court last year ; true, there were 108
other causes, but what were they ? Why, the signing
of the name of a party to a deed, which might as well
be done before any clerk in Court. It was now per-
fectly in their power to have the best men at the bar
on the bench ; indeed he would go further, and say that
the bench had exhausted the bar. Considering the Bill
of the Lord Advocate did not carry out the representa-
tions he had made, and that to give the Judges of Scot-
land additional salaries would be a wasteful application
of the public money, he should support the motion of
his Hon. Friend the Member for Greenock.
Mr. HUME thought, notwithstanding the com-
plaints made against him by the Learned Lord,
that he would do him the justice to admit that
he had given him and his predecessor, Sir
William Rae, due credit for the great good
they had affected in the alteration of the law in Scot-
land. The Learned Lord had said, that he (Mr. Hume)
knew nothing of the Report now ; for the purpose of
convincing him that he was wrong, he (Mr. H.) had
brought down that Report, and from it it appeared that
the Judges sat upon an average only one hour and a half
a day ; in such a state of things was it to be said, that
their salaries were to be increased ? He should support
the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. WALLACE said the Lord Advocate had not
replied to one allegation he had made.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided—
For the Second Reading .. 139
For the Amendment 2l
Majority for the Second Reading —llB
FACTORIES BILL.

Mr. FOX MAULE then rose to move the Second
Reading of the Factories Bill. He thought it was
right that the House and the Legislature should endea-
vour to ascertain the working of the present Act so
that the principle of the law might be clearly defined,
and put in such a state that the officer whose duty it
was to administer it might carry it into effect.
He would now proceed to detail as shortly as possible
the alterations which he proposed in the present Bill to
effect. He did not propose any alteration in the prin-
ciple of the Factory Act. By that principle he meant
the age at which children were to work, and the number
of hours during which they were to work. There was
one important alteration, however, he meant to propose
connected with the latter point—viz., that no child
should work in more than one factory in the same day.
Ike proposed that on this ground—it had been found
by the inspectors of factories that children were worked
four or five hours in one factory, and that then the re-
mainder of the day they were worked in another fac-
tory. NOW with respect to the certificates of iige
which were required to be granted, it was almost im-
possible that the existing Act could work effectually.
Mr. Horner and other inspectors had often found that
certificates were granted by persons professing to be
surgeons, but who were in fact only cow-doctors.—(A
laugh•) Certificates granted to one child were often
fraudulently palmed off upon another of a much younger
gage•
Ttohaotbvsivartgeeutuhs shouldeseclefeetbs,ethspeeepiraellsyenatußeiilul
appointed
doutlud
providee.
grant these certificates, and that these certificates, ex-
cept when another surgeon certified, and. a magistrate
measure, ln this,wek
ausuiinv otheruet iparticulars e ofq quite
proposed
an accurate account, for indeed the Honourable
Gentleman spoke so indistinctly, turning his back
to the gallery, that he was often altogether in-
audible.)
Then with respect to the recovery of lost
time, there was no part of the existing Act in which
there was less efficiency. He could enumerate, from
the reports of the inspectors, a great number of instances
in which frauds of all kinds bad been perpetrated under
the pretence of recovering lost time ; for instance,a small
anhdenuir
sourittaendt ptahret ofputlripeoisneacleif e
machinery be stopped,
w
millowner, and
though the rest of the machinery was going on, the
children would be worked to recover the lost time. To
prevent this in future, the power of recovering lost
time, except in cases of mills worked wholly by water,
would be entirely taken away- With regard to educa-
tion, the twelve hours which by the existing Act were
provided every week for education would not by the
present Bill be distributed over the whole week, but
would be divided at two hours each for five days, and
the remaining two hours added either to the portions of

EVENING EDITION,-FEBRUA RV 26, 1839.

each of the five days, or occupied in a Sunday school,
by which means the half-holiday of the children would
be secured. There would be power to the millowners
to erect schools for factory purposes in large towns
under certain regulations. The Bill would also pro-
vide that the hours of labour should ha from half-past
seven in the morning to half-past seven in the evening,
that every six hours there should be at least thirty
minutes for meals, and that they might
take their meals in the mill if they pleased.
He would also propose that they should all to ke their
meals at One and the same time, if possible. Ithad evi-
dently been the intention of the Legislature that Christ-
mas-day and Good Friday should be observed by the
children in the same manner as Sunday. But the
words of the Act were that the children should be in-
titled to a holiday on those days. Thus it was left by,
the wording of the Act to the choice of the children'
which was, in fact, leaving it to the necessities of the
parents. In the present Bail he had endeavoured to
correct this error by introducing an enactment rendering
the observation of Christmas-day and Good Friday as
holidays incumbent on the mill-owners. The next
question to which he would draw the attention of
the House was the increased power which he pro-
posed to give to the sub-inspectors. He under-
stood that this proposition had occasioned consider-
able alarm to many of the nets ; but
he considered that this alarm was altogether poundleog,
because the powers which he proposed to give them by
law had already been conceded to them by many of the
owners of the factories. The only alteration which he
would propose with regard to the inspectors would be
that their powers to act as Justices of the Pe 'ce should
cease and determine ; hut he proposed to give them the
power of summoning witnesses and examining the over-
seers. He proposed to give to sub•inspectors the same
power to enter factories that inspectors, posses,ed at
present, and which power he proposed to continue also
to the inspectors. These were the principal po.vcrs
with which he proposed to invest the inspectorsand sub-
inspectors, and they would be found in the
2,7 th, 333, and 43d sections of the Bill. Tile
next question to which he would direct the
attention of the House was ae to the penalties
to be inflicted on millowners for breaches of the laws ;
and he could not but express his wonder that the state
of the law on this subject at present had not attracted
the attention of the practical lawyers who were Mem-
bers of that House. At present, a person who worked
the children beyond the proper hours and another who
had omitted to hang up in his mill some paltry regula-
tions were subject to the same penalty. Now he pro-
' posed that, for the punishment of all offences which
were punished by fine, a minimum penalty should ha
fixed as well as a maximum, and that this penalty
should be increased for a second and a third offence
in an adequate ratio. He would also propose that mill-
owners employing children and young persons contrary to
the provisions of this Act should not be punished as at pre-
sent, by affixing a penalty to each offence, which might
include ten or twelve persons in one class, but that they
should be liable to a penalty for each individual so itn-
ploycd. He next proposed a penalty for altering the
time books ; and he also proposed that the penalty fir
not white-washing the mills shonld be at least equal in
amount to what it would have cost to have white-washed
them. He would further propose that in all cases
the penalties should be inflicted in the first instance on
the occupiers of the factories, reserving, however, to them
the power of recovering those penalties from their ser-
vants, should they be in a condition to prove that the
offence was occasioned by their negligence. Under the
present law one-half of the penalty recovered from the
offender against it went to the prosecutor ; now, as in
most instances, the prosecutor was either the inspector
or the sub-inspector ; he did not consider it fair or pro-
per that they should have part of the penalties, for the
recovery of which they had instituted the prosecution.
The remainder of the penalties had been applied at the in-
stance of the Justices for the maintenance of schools for
Factory Children. When the Act first came into ope-
ration these portions of the penalties had been given by
the Magistrates to different schools in the neighbourhood
at which Factory Children were educated. These small
amounts could not be considered as of any very essential
service to the schools, in fact, they might be said to
have frittered these portions of the fines away. Mr.
Horlock was the the first who had suggested the
funding these fines for the purpose of accumulation, by
which much good might be accomplished for the schools.
Ho proposed, therefore, that these penalties should be
funded and the proceeds applied by the inspectors to
the promotion of schools for the education of the Fac-
tory Children. The next alteration which he would
propose would he as to the extension of the time for
laying informations for offences against the Act.
Under the present law all informations must be laid
within fourteen days of the time of the commission of
the offence. It was scarcely possible in many instances
that the inspector could lay these informations within
fourteen days. Many offences might take place of
which he himself would not have notice in time to lay
the informations, and many offenders might, in conse-
quence escape unpunished. He proposed to extend the
time for laying informations to three months. Since
tbis Bill had been in the hands of Hon. Members he
had been told by many persons that three months was
too long, that it was unjust, injurious, and oppressive to
the mill-owners. He should be most happy to hear
arguments on this subject in the Committee, and if he
found that the ends of justice could be accom-
plished by fixing on a less period, he should
be happy to make the alteration. He proposed that all
persons occupying new factories should give notice
thereof to the inspectors; He would also propose that
the inspectors should have the power of permitting the
occupiers of factories to compound for their offences,
instead of being brought before a Magistrate. He did
not think that there was any danger in allowing this,
because the inspector already had the power of con-
victing on view ; but he proposed to give him the
power of representing the case to the occupier of the
factory, who might admit that the case was unrepre-
sented, but not wishing to injure his character by going
before a Magistrate, he might consent to pay such
penalty inspector as the might appoint. He thought
that tins was fair to the factory owner. These were
the measures he proposed in the present Bill. He
did not imagine there could be many reasons
on the part of Hon. Members for opposing it, and as
there had been no notice of motion in opposition to it,
he trusted that there existed no intention of moving an
amendment to his motion. He trusted that this Bill
would not be considered altogether unsatisfactory to
those who had taken up the question of the employment
of children in the Factories. This was a subject upon
which much misapprehension had existed, and trivial as
it might appear, it had been made a subject of agitation.
It had been made an instrument of stimulating the
people against the laws, and he did hope that it would
be discussed with a view to ameliorate the fate of the
children, and put the Laws upon a better and more in-
telligent footing. He trusted that by settling this Bill,
they had put an end to the uncertainties which at pes-
sent existed not only as to the law, but also as to the
intentions of the Legislature. He would now move
that the Bill be read a second time.
Lord ASHLEY was glad to perceive that the
statements just made by the Hon. Gentleman opposite
completely justified him in having so repeatedly urged
the case of the factory children on the House. The
Bill introduced by the Hon. Gentleman was a very
great improvement on the existing Act, and even on the
Bill of last year.—(Hear, hear.) He corepletely
agreed with the principles, and though he differed as to
some of the details, he would not now detain the House
by any argument upon them. The only point to which
he had a strong objection was, however, a matter of
detail, involving a very strong and important principle.
It was contained in the 36th clause, which con-
ferred powers upon the inspectors, that if not con-
siderably limited would enable them altogether to set
aside the operations of the Act in parts that were of
the greatest consequence, for the protection of the
children. He also objected to the new plan introduced,
as making Sunday as one day under the Act, on which
schooling might be attended to.

Mr. MAULE explained by stating that under the
present Act, twelve hours a week schooling were neces-
sary, but under this Bill, two hours a week at a Sunday
school, in addition to ten hours during the other days
would be sufficient, and the attendance at the Sunday
school would not be compulsory.
Lord AS HLEYresumed.—He was most anxious that
the existing Act should be improved and carried out
according to its intention. If that were impossible let, it
be repealed. If the existing measure were, however,:really
carried out, it would. be a great benefit to children
employed in the factories. He had other suggestions
to offer, which he would reserve for another stage of
the Bill.