The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-12 00:00:00

18. - 19

20?2,
100
20

id_ .p
5 7p

••• -- dis

.• ".. ...

... ...d
par i p

... ..P.
id i

- 8

33i

8 g.
16a 16gp

45 __
39
302 . 30i
••• pin

21i 2ii
1 d -- ir,
8i -- 9

- - Pm

- 6ti pl

41

OTHER BUSINESS DONE.

3i 4

slhai:ers,,on2dsion;
American,
Valley, guaranteed 6 per cent.,. 291. . .
MINES —Anglo Californian, j ; British Iron, 84 • LINES LEASED.—HIIII and
uli: ,
32
Eng-
lish and Australian Copper, 14 1; Great Nugget Vein, Re-
gistered, 1 ; Pontgibaud Silver Lead, 17; Santiago deCuba,
41 ; United Mexican, 31 g. . .
JOINT STOCK BANKS.—British North American 63i .
.4 ; South Aus-
tralia,tEenregali
Bll4,,t3nSk;e,out2tnoi Scottish, andof LondonAA uussttarrnaaillisac,n
0,740
New, si ;
Union of London. 274.
PREFERENCE SHARES. —_Caledonian., 10/, or-;
, —0 ; East
, • Great NV
Anglian (5/.) 7 per cent., 4,, , estern convertible
and redeemable 44 per cent., 10.) ; Do. irredeemable 4 per
1 ; Do.
cent., 93 ; Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln, 6(., 4i ;
Midland Preference 41 percent., li,-1 ; North British, 105.
do., do., 43i ;
MISCELLANEOUS.—AustraIasian Agricultural, 45 4i •
British and Colonial Smelt.ing and Reduction Company'
70 ; Canada Government
.6 per cent., Jan. and July,
107 1 ; Crystal Palace, 4$ 4 ; Electric Telegraph, 204 ;
PsceontitnissuhlAaruastnrdaliOanrieinitvaelstinSteenat7,4s:ll 5 ;

r
INFERNAL MACHINES OFF CRONSTADT.—In the event
of there being infernal machines in the waters round
Cronstadt, it strikes me that the steamers, when trying
might have drags,
for the recovery of
similar in principle to
Society
persons
from the bottom of rivers, &c. The wires of
the
Poundings,
tiledby the nli
um
the galvanic batteries would to a certainty be booked
as the vessel moves through the water. 13y attaching a
long wire to the drag the boat might haul off to a safe
distance and explode the internals, and so render them
worthless.--. Daily News.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The holm met a five o'clock.
ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

On the report of the amendments,
Lord BROUGHAM presented..a petition from the
Corporation of Gateshead, in favour of opening the uni-
versity to Dissenters. The noble and learned lord ex-
pressed his satisfaction at the manner in which their
lordships had agreed to the reform of the university.
It was more than 20 years since he had last brought the
subject under their lordships' consideration, for as a
warm and consistent friend of education he had
always been in favour of the admission of Dissenters
to the University of Oxford.
Lord DESART inqiiired whether there was anything
to preclude a Dissenter who had taken a Bachelor's
degree from taking the Master's gown under the bill ;
also, whether the colleges had the power of regulating
the instruction and discipline of dissenting members.
Viscount CANNING said it was in the power of the
Vice-Chancellor to put the test of the 39 Articles to any
person who wished to become a master. As to the se-
cond question, the colleges were masters of their own
discipline.
LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT
(IRELAND).
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE wished to asjc the
noble duke opposite (Duke of Newcastle) a question of
which he had riot given him notice, inasmuch as the in-
formation upon which it was based bad only come to
his (Lord Donoughmore's) knowledge within the last
quarter of an hour. (Hear, hear.) It would be in the
recollection of the house that early in the session of Par-
liament certain bills were introduced with a view to
settle the vexed questions which were agitated between
landlords and tenants in Ireland. Some of these bills
were introduced by the noble duke, and some by him-
self. Those bills were referred to a select committee,
which spent a considerable time on the matter, and ulti-
mately settled two bills for the consideration of the
house. The bills passed through all the stages of that
house, the third reading being moved by the Lord Privy
Seal, and went down to the Commons. Ho had been
informed that the Government in the other house de-
clined to consider these bills as Government measures,
and ;not only this, but had intimated an intention not to
proceed with them this session. Under these circum-
stances he wished to ask the noble duke, who was re-
sponsible for these bills, whether it was correct that they
were not to be proceeded with this session.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE would have been glad if
his noble friend had given him notice of this question, as
it happened that it was only five minutes ago that he had
been informed by a noble marquis that an intimation had
been given in the other house that the bills in question
would not be proceeded with. Under these circum-
stances, of course, he was riot in a position to answer the
noble earl with certainty ; but he would make himself
acquainted with the facts, and give his noble friend the
required information. Their lordships would perfectly
understand, even from what they saw in their own house,
that circumstances might arise in connection with an
Irish bill of this kind which would render it absolutely
impossible to get on with it during the present session.
It was not so easy to state who was responsible for these
bills. The noble earl had himself stated the somewhat
peculiar circumstances under which they had been
framed. For his (the Duke of Newcastle's) own part,
he would only say that he considered them not perfect,
but a fair arrangement of very disputed points.
The Earl of MALMESBURY thought it very extra-
ordinary that a noble duke, a member of her Majesty's
Government, should be so unacquainted with what had
been done elsewhere as not to be able to reply to the
question of his noble friend (the Earl of Donoughmore).
The Duke of NEWCASTLE—These bills must have
been withdrawn at the present sitting of the House of
Commons.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said that, admitting
that to be the fact, it seemed strange that a cabinet
minister should be io such total ignorance of the inten-
tion of her Majesty's other advisers as the noble duke
was. This was really a very serious matter, both with
regard to the present and future ministries. Ho did not
expect that the noble duke could give any explanation
at that moment, but inasmuch as he considered that the
subject ought not to rest where it did, he should bring
the matter under the consideration of the house on
Thursday next.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY then rose and said
that he found it necessary to make a statement to their
lordships on account of an attack which had been made
otheruo n a
housepub li c
f body
Parliament. f which
Ab e
nwotsleo al member
eme
(Lord
Sey-
mour) had felt it his duty to speak very strongly upon
r i n thethe subject of the Board of Health, and he (Lord Shaftes-
bury) felt bound to answer the observations which had
been made.

Earl FITZWILLIAM rose to order. The statement
into which the noble earl was entering was not a matter
concerning him personally as a member of that house,
nor was it a question of privilege. It ought not, there.
fore, to precede the orders of the day. (The noble earl
re-wined his seat amidst calls for the orders of the day.)
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY would not intrude
himself upon their lordships against their wish, although
he should have occupied butba short time. (Orders of
the day.)

The- Bishop of OXFORD then attempted to put a
question to theministerial bench, but was met with loud
cries for the orders of the day, and therefore resumed
his seat without completing a sentence.
The CLERK then proceeded to read the orders of the
day.
LEEDS NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
On the motion of Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY this bill
was read a second time.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
On the order of the day for considering the report on
this bill,

The Earl of MALMESBLTRY observed that he wished
to say a few words on that stage of the bill. Their lord.
ships were aware that it had not been the custom in that
house to put on record amendments, moved during the
progress of bills ; and as he was extremely anxious on
his own part, and on the part of his noble friend the
Chancellor of the University of Oxford (the Earl of
Derby) who was absent to place on record the amend-
ments moved on Friday last, he would take that oppor-
tunity of doing so. In reference to the probable effects
of the measure, he must again express his regret that
their lordships should have thought fit to pass it with-
out making any amendments whatever. He trusted
that in another place, where much attention and a great
deal of time had been devoted to the consideration of
the question, the bill, after it had left their lordships'
house in its present form, would be so amended as to
meet some, at least, of the views which were entertained
on that side of the house with respect to its provisions.
He should touch very lightly on the most important
amendments on which a division was taken on Friday
evening. With respect to the first amendment which
was moved and rejected, namely, that with regard to
the relieving by act of parliament, those who had taken
oaths on various subjects connected with the statutes of
the university, he must express his regret that it did not
seem advisable to any of the right rev. prelates to give
the house a decided opinion on a question of conscience.
He confessed he had anxiously expected their opinion
with regard to oaths, and therefore no act of Parliament
could release. Another amendment was, that the elec-
tion of the legislative assembly of the university should
take place by the votes of the convocation instead of
those of the congregation. He hoped that subject would
again be considered ; for he could conceive nothing
more fatal to the scheme of liberalising the university
than the retention of that part of the bill in its pre-
sent firm. It had always been supposed that the
true way to liberalise an institution was to ,extend
the constituency. How, then, could it be contended
that the legislative assembly of the university should
be elected by 250 or 300 persons instead of 2,000 ?
Considering the constant complaints which had
been made of the bigotry of the University, he was at a
loss to understand why such a provision had been car-
ried. The third amendment bad reference to the insti-
tution of private halls for the education of students.
The more he considered that subject, the more be recol-
lected what life at the university was, and the discipline
which in his time, at least, it was necessary to maintain,
the deeper was his conviction that that part of the mea-
sure would be mischievous to the morals and discipline
of the university. He was still of opinion that these
halls would become, in the words of a noble earl then
absent, the Earl of Carlisle, retreats for dissent. He
should be sorry to have his feelings with regard to the
dissenters misunderstood. There was no arrogance so
hateful as arrogance with regard to religious doctrine ;
and as regarded dissenters, he had always maintained
that they ought to be treated as on a perfect footing of
equality with the rest of the community. He had even
been remonstrated with by members and ministers of the
Church of England for the extent to which he had acted
on that sentiment. But this was a peculiar case. His
view of the University of Oxford was that it was origi-
nally intended to be wedded, and closely wedded, to
Church and State. Although for centuries that univer-
sity existed under the foundation of Roman Catholics,
still it was to be recollected that during that period the
Roman Catholic religion was the State religion, and that
it only ceased to be so at the Reformation. He saw no
reason why, after the lapse of eight or nine centuries.
their lordships should alter the relation of the university
to the Church and the State. If dissenters were ad-
mitted, is was not to be expected that the same number
that entered as dissenters would leave it as such.
Many would probably either convert others to
dissent, or be themselves converts d to the
~,t
Esta-
blished Church. Any member of convocation
establish one of these private halls. [A
Peer—lf
it
li-
censed.] He had taken advice on that point and
if
appeared that the Vice-Chancellor had no choice,
the parties agreed to certain conditions which were men-
tioned in two subsequent clauses. He. would
isuppose
Dr. Newman to have established a private a l under
the provisions of the bill. What_m
wouldwthe result have
an was not a
been ? It was well known that Dr. IN
convert all at once, that he gradually descended from the
I number There
position in which he had stood;nndduring the whole of
that period he might havehts;d a a hailadopt t
in
his which
views, of persons were being led
was another argument against this part of the measure.
For the last ten or twelve years Oxford had been less an
arena for religious disputes than it was previously ; and
he could conceive nothing more objectionable than the
establishment of places weich would tend to revive such
discussions. The noble duke opposite (the ,Duke of
Argyll) said the other night that the admission of Dis-
senters in Scotland to Scotch schools connected with the
Established Church had led to no mischievous result.
filer, was no analogy between the two cases. In the
first place the Scotch schools were not bound up, as the
University of Oxford was, with the State religion • land,

in the second place, the students were of a younger age.
He was most anxious that his opinions respecting the
D:ssenters and the Roman Catholics should not be mis-
u iderstood, and he hoped he had clearly explained the
grounds on which he objected to their admission to the
university. In conclusion, he would only express a hope
that some of the amenuments which had been introduced
in their lordships' house would be revised by the other
House of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DELA.WARR was desirous of recording
his most decided opposition to the bill. This legislation on
the subject was uncalled for, and in many respects unjust.
He regretted that their lordships not only resisted any
further purification of the bill as sent up front the House
of Commons, but had reinstated some of the most mis-
chievous provisions, which had been rejected by the other
house. (Hear.) The institution of private halls would
lead to religious controversy, and would injure Oxford
as a seat for the distinctive teaching of the doctrines
of the Church of England. He regretted that a bill
having such a tendency should receive the sanction of
prelates of the church. He believed that it was a great
fallacy to suppose that the expense of education would
be less in the new private halls than it was now in some
of the colleges. Oxford University had been always re-
garded as a bulwark of the Church of England, and it
was with deep regret that he found right rev. prelates of
that church joining in an unjust attack upon its rights
and privileges. (Hear.)
The Earl of CA.RNARVON said that whilst he
would be the first person to resist penal restrictions on
account of religion, he would oppose any proposition
which would tend to place the Dissenters in the govern-
ing body of the university. What the Dissenters wanted
was not a separate existence in private bills but equality
in collegiate life. He did not look upon the amend-
ment with respect to the Dissenters as a question so
much of their admission as one for the exclusion of the
Church of England. This was more than equality and
toleration ; and if it was done as an act of generosity at
the expense of others. Even if the object of the Go-
vernment were crowned with the success they hoped, it
would produce anything but peace and harmony in the
university. He believed it would produce disorder in-
stead of peace, The studies of the university must be
totally changed, and no father would in future send his
son to receive religious instruction from the mouth of
persons who entertained religious opinions different
from his own. If this policy was pursued further, its
tendency must be to drive persons to seek for religious
instruction in places, if possible, more free from Govern-
ment control. (Hear, hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said there was no portion of the
bill to which he attached so much importance as that
which permitted the entrance of the Dissenters, which
he believed would tend to the advantage of the univer-
sity, the advantage of the Church of England, and the
advantage of the dissenting body at the same time.
But he believed, if admitted at all, they must be ad-
mitted on terms of equality. He did not think they
would be doing justice to their own intentions, or make
their legislation operative or good if they were to be ad-
mitted on terms unjust and unbecoming to them. If
there was danger to the church at all from their admis-
sion, that danger would rise to the highest term if they
were to be admitted as a small and distinct confederacy,
and not on an equal footing with all others who were
admitted to the university. He believed it would be
quite possible to adroit the dissenters into Oxford and
yet preserve it as a seat for the distinctive teaching of
the doctrines of the Church of England. The two
things were reconciled in Trinity College, Dublin, and
were the people of this country so much less moderate
and tolerant than the people of Ireland that the same
thing could not be carried into effect in Oxford ? The
clergy of the established church in Ireland were educated
in Trinity College, and no one could say that they were
less orthodox than those who were educated in Oxford.
With regard to the procuring of a license before a mas-
ter could open a hall, as he read the bill, it would be
obligatory on the authorities of the university to grant
the license. (Hear, hear.) He believed that if Dr.
Newman, who was a member of convocation, were to
apply for a license to establish a ball in Oxford, he
should be admitted as a right as a member of convoca-
tion. He believed that the keeping of the dissenters a
separate body in the university, would not lead to good
fellowship or good understanding.
The Earl of CARNARVON said that Trinity Col-
lege, Dublin, differed from Oxford in this respect, that
Trinity College was an examining college, and the go-
verning body there must ipso facto be composed of
members of the Church of England.
Viscount CANNING said that the present discussion
would have been more appropriate on the second read-
ing which had been allowed to pass without a division.
He denied that the bill was an illiberal one as stated by
his noble friend opposite. It was not illiberal because
it took the governing power out of the hands of a
few men who were not intended to be appointed for
that purpose, who had no special fitness for the duty
who were not responsible, or removable, and who
had a- separate, and in many respects, an antagonistic
interest to other parts of the institution which they had
to govern. A body so constituted could not produce
good fruit. The noble earl said that the new constitu-
tion was illiberal because congregation was a smaller
body than convocation--than the forma. But the
rights of convocation remained as large as they had been
heretofore. The noble earl said that it was wrong to
disturb a venerable institution which was 800 or 900
years old. In his opinion, it would not be easy to
find a priori a stronger reason for reconsidering the
constitution of Oxford ; for what institution of the
country— religious, social, or political—had not been
subjected to change during that period ? (Hear, hear.)
With regard to the granting of licenses for the opening
of private halls, the bill took ample security that the
persens so appointed should be members of the church
of England ; because the bill positively imposed on the
university to prescribe the obligations and qualifications
on which the license was to be obtained. That met such
a case as that of Dr. Newman. He could not see that the
admission of dissenters should divorce the university from
its connexion with the church, or import any seeds of
danger into the university. Its connexion with the
church would not be in the slightest degree affected ;
the governing body would have the same power as now
of making whatever regulations they thought neces-
sary for maintaining that connexion. He believed
that the infusion of a certain number of dissenters into
the university would have the effect of softening those
asperities of opinion which had prevailed at Oxford of
late years, by bringing churchmen in contact with those
who differed more widely from their views than they
did from each other. (Hear.) It would have given him
greater pleasure to have seen this change operated by
the university itself; but as he had stated on a former
evening the Government had only dealt with the ques-
tion in pursuance of the decision of the House of Com-
mons by a very large majority. On that ground he hoped
their lordships would not make any attempt to negative
these clauses. Nothing would be more disastrous for
the universities than to be kept hanging on the doubtful
decision of Parliament ; it would create schism and hos-
tility within the university, and transfer the contest
from parliament to within the walls of Oxford itself.
Lord WYNFORD said that the difficulties which
would arise from the discipline of the colleges, the at-
tendance on services, and the intercourse between
churchmen and dissenters, would only be tile beginning
of still greater difficulties. One most important part of
an undergraduate's examination was his divinity, which
included a knowledge of the Old and New Testaments,
a strict knowledge of the Thirty-nine Articles, and
ability to support them by texts from Scripture and rea-
soning. How couid they call on a dissenter to do this
—to profess the Thirty-nine Articles—and to support
their truth by his own reasoning ? This presented a for-
midable difficulty in his mind. At Cambridge it did not
exist, as dissenters there were riot called upon to sup-
port the Thirty-nine Article. (Hear, hear.)
Lord REDESDALE drew attention to some inaccu-
racy in the phraseology of the 6th clause, which was
amended.
Viscount CANNING stated the other amendments
which had been effected in committee. They were put
seriatim, and agreed to.
Lord WROTTESLEY said it now became his duty
to move an amendment on the 16th clause, which regu-
lated the constitution of the congregation. He was of
opinion that the governing body of Oxford had not paid
due attention to one most important branch of learning,
phy-ical science. When he was at Oxford that study
was at a very low ebb, and he did not believe that it had
progressed since. This was well pointed out by Mr.
Lowe, M.P., in his evidence before the commissioners
He stated that he had met many Oxford young men in
Australia, who complained that their Oxford course had
placed them at a disadvantage for making progress in
life. This 16th clause afforded an opportunity for
It
in-
fusing a new element into the teaching of Oxford.
was right that Parliament should recognise the claims
of education. He proposed that those who had ob-
tained high honours should be
u membersi
literature
and of the congre-
gation as well as men distinguished
science, like Mr. Hallam or Sir C. Lyell. The noble
lord concluded by moving certain amendments of which
ho had given notice.
Viscount CANNING concurred in the importance of
the object sought by the noble lord, but was of opinion
that it would be better attained by being left to the uni-
versity itself. The amendment spoke of those who had
attained high honours, without defining what was to be
so considered. It might happen that many distinguished
men, by some accident, might not come within the
definitions of the amendment. Considering that the
great object of the bill was to improve the education et
Oxford, he thought they might safely leave questions of
detail to the governing body themselves.
The Bishop of CHICHESTER said that one or two
things were wanting to give effect to the provisions
of the bill. He did not think Oxford offered sufficient
attractions to induce men eminent in science to take up
their residence there, and become connected with the
university. Some agency was wanted by which they
might operate on the education of the uppee and middle
classes in schools, so as to fit them fur the university ;
and he thought it most desirable that there should be
some kind of preliminary examination prior to admission
to the university. (Hear.)
Lord REDESDALE objected to the power of the
governing body to vote a statute, and so prevent its
being submitted to the congregation.
The Bishop of OXFORD took that opportunity of
explaining that in the observations which he had made
a few nights since he had intended to cast no reflection
on the present management of Abingdon School.
Viscount CANNING said it bad been supposed that
on a former occasion he had stud that the Bishop of
' Exeter, as visitor of Exeter College, had refased to con-
sent to certain changes made by that college in its sta-
tutes. He had not said so, because that was not the
fact ; on the contrary, the bishop had agreed to several
most important alterations in these statutes.
The report was then received.
The report on the Bleaching, &c., Bill was also re-
ceived.
The following bills were read a third time and
t —The Indemnity the Insurance on jAyee (abatement

of income tax) Continuance ; the Poor-law Board Con;
tinuance ; the Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland);
the Union Charges Continuance ; the Holyhead Har-
bour , &c. ; the Dublin Carriage; the Linen, &c., Mann.
factures (Ireland).
The Portland, &c., Chapels Bill was read a'z nd '.•
time.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
This bill was reported with amendments.
The Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges
Bill passed through committee.

THE CENSUS RETURNS OF RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP.
The Bishop of OXFORD moved, in pursuance of
notice, for "the details of the returns from which the
tables of religious worship presented to the Houses of
Parliament in reference to the census of 1851 were pre-
pared." He said, about the period when the last census
was taken he pointed out to their lordships the evils
which he thought would arise from the circulation
throughout the country of questions of an important
nature, for the answers to which they would be entirely
dependant on the good will of a large number of persons,
while when the returns had been made there would la;
great difficulty in checking them. However, the returns
obtained had now been made public in the form of a
very able statement, sent forth from the Registrar.
General's office—a statement which in many respects
did infinite credit to that gentleman, by whom it
was drawn up. This great public document, for such it
had really become—which professed to fix the relative
numbers of members of the Established Church and
Dissenters from that Church throughout the country,
ought most undoubtedly in proportion to its importance
to he strictly accurate. The spreading of inaccurate
statements on such a subject must, he need scarcely tell
their lordships, be a fertile source of evil. The census of
religious worship had been frequently referred to as a
ground of argument, and this showed how important it
was that a do 'ument which went forth with the weight
of public authority should be an accurate, and not a
misleading document. Now he had no complaint to
make against this office of the Registrar-General,
or the gentlemen who were employed in that
office, as to any want of care in the making
of the returns. The fault which he had to point
out was inherent in those to whom they were obliged to
refer for the data on which the returns were founded.
The enumerators were, he believed, instructed to apply
to the clergymen of the different churches, and the mini-
sters of the different meeting-houses throughout the
country. In many cases the clergy, for the same rea-
son that had influenced himself and other members of
that house, objected to make any returns, What, then,
was the enumerator to do ? He sometimes had recourse,
as he (the Bishop of Oxford) could show by means of a
document which he held in his hand, to those who were
hostile to the church, living, perhaps, not in the parish
itself, but in a neighbouring parish, who undertook to
furnish him with the in"nrmation which he wanted. The
number of worshippers in many churches went forth on
no better authority than that, and the result was that
they were stated in an official document much below the
truth. From his own diocese, in which a great many
clergymen refused to make returns, he obtained in 1851
returns of the average number of persons attending
church, and according to these it amounted to 117,421.
In the same year the returns of the Registrar-General
gave 98,410. This was a considerable difference. But
the main difference was to be found, not so much
in the lessening of the number of those who
attended the churches, as in the increasing of
the number of those who attended other places
of worship. On one ground he rejoiced that those
who did not worship God in the Established Church
worshipped Him somewhere ; but he could not see with
anything like satisfaction inaccurate statements of the
relative proportion of worshippers, when he knew that
they were continually made a ground of argument on
important matters connected with the interests of reli-
gion in this countty. (Hear, hear.) He had, therefore,
taken pains to ascertain how far the returns made as to
other parts of the country, besides his own diocese, were
reliable, and he trusted none of their lordships would
think that he entertained any uncharitable feeling when
he declared that there had been gross mistakes. In re-
ference to this matter he would remark that those who
made the returns were in many cases men who did not
move in the same rank of life as the clergy of the Estab-
lished Church. He had no doubt that in the large dis-
senting chapels of large towns the returns were honestly
made. His inquiries, however, applied to very different
places—the small licensed rooms in remote villages,
served by persons who had not the advantage of much
education, and who were not subject to general obser-
vation, and with regard to these he had no hesitation
in saying that there was great misrepresentation with
regard to the relative numbers. In proof of this he
would read to their lordships extracts from letters
which he had received from clergymen of the
Established Church in different parts of the country,
premising that he had ascertained the name, address,
and general character of each of the writers, so
that the statements made were capable of verification.
One writer said, " In this parish and neighbourhood the
dissenters filled their assemblies on purpose." Another
said, " Most, if not all, of the dissenters of the next
parish attended here and vice versa, the services being
held at different hours, so that they were counted twice
over in both parishes." Again, " Special services were
preached at all the meeting houses to attract a congre-
gation and swell the returns." Again, " I sent no re-
turn. The returns for the church here were, I believe,
sent by a young dissenter in a it .igbouring town.."
Another writer, living in a different part of the country,
said, "There were no efforts as respects the church.
The preachers of some of the chapels gave notice the
Sunday before that it was to be a trial of strength be-
tween the church and dissent, and that their congrega-
tions were to muster in strength and bring as many
as they could with them. This has particular refer-
ence in this neighbourhood to the baptist and inde-
pendent chapels." Another writer said, "I beg to add
my conviction that in this matter the census returns are
really worth nothing, In many instances no returns
were made by the clergy, and from a private return
which I obtained, I found that three congregations, in
this parish, at separate chapels consisted of the same
persons." He had other statements of the same kind,
but he would not weary their lordships by reading them.
His object was to show their lordships that the returns
obtained by this process were not to be relied upon as a
true statement of the relative numbers of the members of
the Established Church and the Dissenters. (Hear.)
In the census returns themselves there were serious dis-
crepancies. For instance, it was stated that in the town
of Liverpool the number of sittings provided in Roman
Catholic chapels was 8,806 ; whereas the number of
attendants on the morning of the day on which the cen-
sus was taken was set down at 27,650. In St. Giles's,
London, the number of sittings in Roman Catholic
places of worship was stated at 460, while the attendance
in the morning was set down at 3,000 These were re-
markable instances of .the want of accuracy. Detailed
information would be most useful in checking the returns.
(Hear.) If they could get from the different parishes the
returns, or even a considerable proportion of the returns,
sent up to the Registrar-Generals office, they would be
able to bring the allegations on the subject to some cri-
terion, which was all that he desired. Whatever the
truth was, it ought to be stated—(hear)—and he be-
lieved the resuit of examination would be to show that
it was not a mere episcopal figure of speech to say, as
he did say, thank God the great majerity of the
people of this country still belonged to the Established
Church.
The Bishop of St. DAVID'S said he was opposed
be
the clergy of his diocese making returns, because
thought they would thereby be lending their sanction to
what would in the result be an imposition on the public.
As regarded the light in which the returns
that
eeeree-
garded by his own clergy, he would observe be
clergyman stated that he could not
give any returns at
the last census, after the experience which he had had
of the manner in which the Dissenters had made similar
chapel,easheasaptderwson
belonging to it had stated that it couldas
only contain
returnsreturned
200 0 attendants,
e her
1,200. Another clergyman stated that some individuals
were well known to have been counted two or three
times over as attending the chapels of different deno-
minations. As regarded Sunday schools in his own
neighbourhood, it was mentioned as a matter of noto-
riety that the numbers returned for particular schools
were two or times as large as the number which the
building would contain. It was certain that the returns
generally were made in a manner which afforded no
security against abuse, and that to a very great extent
gross misrepresentation was the result. He hoped he
should not be suspected of having made this statement
in order to disparage Dissenters. They had no right,
he maintained, to assume that any body of men were
above temptation ; and he really would not assert,
that under similar circumstances the clergy of the Church
of England would be superior to the temptation into
which many Dissenters had fallen. With respect to the
future, returns would clearly be of no value unless
they were obtained in a different manner. If such
a method was to be adopted in future it became
evident that there must be provided such a check and
control over the returns as would operate as an effectual
security against the abuses and misrepresentations which
he believed had only been partially and imperfectly dis-
closed to their lordships that night. (Hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE said that this subject had been
most legitimately brought forward by the right rev.
prelate, and he regretted that he had to rise in seeming
opposition to the representatives of the Church, espe-
cially on a question the object of which was to give more
ample and truthful information to the country. mce
u
there were reasons why it would not be desirableteengi.
the returns asked for. In the first place, the ceue
office was shut and the accounts closed.
T
returns amounted to 37,381. But hismainhe number
reason of
ifnr
not consenting to the motion wasthattbeint it
ewcaeircnuelatrinof.
the Secretary of State it was stated
tended that all the particulars conttshienseed
eiinretuhmeertaeteueresn:
should be published. Under _
it would be impossible to accedreetlaotethweb niciotsipoonk.
eHlasetin
the regret that some other legal
par-
ticipated with the right rev. p
exist than that which existed when _was taken.
arrangement acnegns eumse nt did not
t
He regretted that the answers to the queries were not
ehtatanthewe esrescwreetrarye not
made penal. He of
made compulsory, andregr tehttaetdinacloserret
State went beyond the strict legality of the act in en-
closing queries in the first form, but having done so it
was perfectly competent for any peer to call attention.
to the fact. One evil which resulted from the two dis-
cussions which took place on the subject, was to pro-
duce an unwillingness on the part of different clergymen
to fil up the return, and thereby an unfavourable impres-
sion was created as to the number of persons who be-
longed to the Church of England. Neither of the right
rev. prelates imputed any blame to the census office.
(Hear, hear.) It was impossible for him to give an
official opinion as to the comparative numbers who at-
tended divine worship, but it was most probable from
the facts which had been stated that the numbers given
an returns of those who attended the church were below

Lxl

spar _
the number that should have been given. With regard
.$o the Dissenters he shrank from expressing any opi-
nion. He would only observe that the right reverend
.prelates had made out a strong case on the subject, and
he had no doubt the dissenters would take the oppor-
tunity of telling their story, and the public could then
judge between the two. With regard to the Roman
,Catholics, whose attendance seemed so disproportionate
to the number of sittings, that circumstance might per-
haps be accounted for by the fact that they had a number
of short morning services, the attendance at which would
not appear in the returns. Whilst on this subject he
might observe in reply to a noble lord who stated a few
nights ago that no one ever looked at the church school
returns, that 21,000 copies of the abstract of these re-
turns bad been sold. The same noble lord also com-
plained that whilst the expense of the census of 1841 was
but 30,0001., the cost of the last census was 171,0001.
This was a natural mistake for the noble lord to have
fallen into, because he was not perhaps aware that the
expense of the census of 1841 was defrayed out of the
poor rate. The real fact was, that whilst the cost of the
census of 1841 was 51. 93. per thousand of the popula-
tion, the cost of the last census was but 51. 45., being a
saving of 55., whilst everybody admitted that the infor-
mation was more ample. The estimated cost was
150,0001., but 127,0001. was only spent, and 9,0001. was
returned to the treasury. He thought it right to state
this, as an unfounded prejudice had been created on the
subject. He wished also to state, not on information
derived from the Registrar-General, but from the supe-
rior department, that great powers of administration
bad been displayed by that officer. (Hear.)
After a few words from the Bishop of ST. DAVID'S
and the Bishop of OXFORD, who withdrew his motion,
The house adjourned at a quarter to ten.

ROUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)
PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented by several hon. members in
favour of the Ten Hours' Bill ; by Sergeant SHEE, from
certain poor-law guardians in Ireland, complaining of
the conduct of a Poor•law Inspector, in tampering with
the religious convictions of the inmates of the Irish
Workhouses ; and by Mr. COWAN', from Edinburgh,
against the Mortmain Bill ; by Mr. WICKHAM, from the
members of the Bradford Long-pledged Teetotal Asso-
ciation, in favour of closing public-houses on Sundays ;
by the same hon. member, from the inhabitants of Brad-
ford district, Yorkshire, signed by 5,000 persons pray-
ing for a committee of inquiry into the deplorable state
of the woolcombers in that district, consequent on the
introduction of machinery, which has destroyed their
trade ; by Mr. ROLT, two petitions from the work-
people, consisting of men, women, and children in two
bleetching establishments in the county of Lancaster,
complaining of working 18 hours a day in heated rooms
of 90 degrees, and that their Sabbaths are frequently
-violated, and pray that the " Ten Hours' Bill" be passed
into a law.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
The house then. went into committee on this bill.

On clause one,
Mr. Sergeant SHEE moved that the Chairman
do report progress, as at this late period of the session it
was impossible to do justice to the measure. Fortu-
nately, Ireland was now in such a state of prosperity
as to enable her to wait yet a little longer for any use-
ful legislation of this nature.
Mr. KIRK supported the proposition that the bill
should proceed no further this session.
Lord NAAS said it would be very much for the
convenience of the committee if the government would
state now what course they intended to take with re-
gard to this and the other landlord and tenant bill.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL thought that some legislation
on the subject was necessary in order to check the emi-
gration that was going on from Ireland, but the bills
before the house were a delusion to which he hoped the
Government would not commit themselves.
Mr. CONNOLLY vindicated the sincerity of the
Earl of Derby's government in endeavouring to settle
this great question upon a basis of mutual advantage to
all classes, and explained that the present government
had neither acted fairly nor honestly in the matter.
Mr. J. FITZGERALD said it was not the house nor
the Government who were responsible for the delay,
but it was another place that had thrown impediments
in the way of a fair settlement of this question. How-
ever, it was too late to proceed with these bills this ses-
sion, and he hoped they would be withdrawn, with a
view to their introduction early next session in an
amended form, under the immediate auspices of the
Government. _ _ _

Mr. BELLEW considered that these measures were
Government bills by adoption.
Sir J. YOUNG disputed that, but if they had been
Government bills, they would not have been submitted
to the house at this late period of the session.
Nothing could be fairer than the course taken by the
Government with respect to them ; they were anxious
that the question should be 'settled as speedily as possible,
and to the satisfaction of all parties ; but he was afraid
that could not be done this year. He did not think it
would be right to press these measures upon the attention
of the house now, and he suggested that they should be
withdrawn.

Mr. NAPIER said he had all along been led to ex-
pect that Government would support these bills to the
last, and he now learnt for the first time that it was not
their intention to go on with them.
The right hon. gentleman was still speaking, when,
four o'clock having arrived, Mr. Booverie quitted the
chair, and the sittings of the house were suspended.

The sitting was resumed at 6 o'clock.

The further proceeding in committee on the Landlord
and Tenant (lreland) Bill was fixed for to-morrow (this
day).

THE NATIONAL EXHIBITION.

Sir J. IVA L.IISLEY postposed until that day fortnight
Mr. Home's motion in favour of tho wing open the British
Museum, Marlborough House, and the National Gallery, to
the public on Sundays after morning and evening service,
the hon. member for Montrose being still unable to attend
in his place.