The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAYS JULY 27, 183 S

Wght Hon. Friend tire Meenber tolt Tamworth. But the
Hon. Gentlefnan teuntio*ty " Oh you abandon our
osvn end yen.; consent to give up 25 per cent. Of the
l'eorte tehich you consider so sacred fdr the lienefii of the
lenniord. Here is the principle of Appropriation adopted and
enforced in its most ok;ectionable shape." He (Lord Stanley)
denied that t!'.e principle of appropriation was adopted in con-
sent!ng to )ield the 25 per cent. What was it that turned his
kight Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth out of office in
1835 ? Was it the 25 per cent. ? Was that appropriation, or
was it then considered so?—(" Hear, hear,"and cheers.) No;
for his night Honourable Friend had proposed the reduction
of 25 per cent. on condition that the tithes should be fixed
upon the owner of the land in the shape of a rent-charge.
Was this the appropriation which caused the `range in the
Administration ? His Right Honourable Friend proposed
to charge the landlord with what had been theretofore
paid by the tenant. He himself ( Lord Stanley) had
proposed 15 per cent, as what should be allowed in
consideration of the change in a former Bill which he brought
in upon the subject. Was that at the time considered appro-
priation ?—( Hear, hear ) If so, why was he not now a
Member of the present Government?—( Loud cheers) Lord
Hatherton, in 1834, proposed a measure making it compul-
sory on the landlords to compound for the tithes, and offered
the same reduction which he (Lord Stanley) proposed to give
in 1832. Was the appropriation principle to be found there ?
—( Hear, hear.) No, and it was freely admitted the other night
by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the
appropriation was never brought forward by any other than
the present Government. —( !leer, hear, and cheers.) The
proposition now made was to place the payment of the tithe
upon the Protestant landlords and take it of the Catholic
tenantry ; and could this be called asserting the principle of
appropriation ? The question was not one of appropriation.
But what had the landlord a right to receive in consideration
of the change which was about to be made.—(hear, hear.)
Ministers proposed to grant the sum of 25 per cent., which
was a larger amount than he (Lord Staeley) thought they had
a right to receive. But whatever might be his individual
opinion, he felt himself, under all the circumstances of the
case, and with a view to bringing this great question to an ad-
justment, bound to defer to the general opinion expressed by
the great body of the Legislature in favour of the larger de-
duction. The Hon. Member for Southwark argued that the
proposition to forego the million would not finally be produc-
tive of peace in Ireland. He (Lord Stanley) was ready to
admit it. He never intended to argue that it would, in itself,
be productive of peace, but it would be subsidiary to the great
object of the Bill, the intention of which was to transfer the
liability for the payment of tithes from the poor tenant to the
solvent laudlord—from the man, who, perhaps, had scrupulous
objections to the payment of tithes on religious grounds to
the landlord, who, if he were a Protestant, could entertain no
such objection. Now, he would ask, would the Hon. Member
for Southwark enforce the arrears ? In what way would he enforce
them? Would be come down on both the defaulting tenants
and the landlords? Would he assist the Clergy in collecting
their arrears, or would he abolish the arrears altogether, and
make no compensation for the Clergy ? Let the supporters
of abstract principles say what other course they would pursue.
There was one other proposition, namely, that made by his
Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, which em-
braced the voluntary principle.—( Hear, hear.) But that had
been rejected by the House. It could not be denied that there
was a violation of the principle of property in making the com-
pensation compulsory, but he had objected to this, and had,
with his Righ Honourable Friend ( Sir Robert Peel), endea-
voured to introduce the clause which left the matter open to
voluntary adjustment. None of the responsibility attaching to
this violation, therefore, rested either on him or on his Right
Hon. Friend —( Hear.) He was aware that there were many
on his (the Opposition) side of the [louse who thought that
assenting to the Bill would be a dereliction of duty. He also
knew that it might tell better with his constituents to oppose
the measure, and made it a trial of strength to overturn the
Government, or at least to do all in his power to effect it.—
( Hear, hear.) This would have been easy, but he could not
reconcile it to his conscience to adopt a course which would
be calculated to obstruct the progress of a measure that pro-
mised to procure peace for Ireland, and endeavour to perpe-
tuate disturbances in that country—( Hear.)
Mr. HARVEY said the time allowed for explanation
would not allow him to answer all the matters which bad been
entered into by the Noble Lord, but he would take the op-
portunity when his Hon. Friend beside him (Mr. Hume) pro-
posed his amendment.
Mr. O'CONNELL had never heard a speech with greater
pleasure than that just delivered. He was pleased with it,
not so much for the mental power which it exhibited, though
that was of a high order, but because he and the Noble Lord
for once concurred in opinion. They were agreed that the
continuance of the present system with respect to tithes in
Ireland would not be persevered in. Could they suppose that
an Act of Parliament could blot out the ancient recollection
that the property originally belonged to the Catholic Church?
It could not, and the recollection would remain for ever.
This it was which made the Noble Lord admit that he was
compelled to give principle the go-by. He understood the
Right Hon. Member fur Tamworth to say that the Bill would
be altered elsewhere. If so, what would be its value ?
(Loud cheers,) If it were altered in any material point,
he trusted that the Government would at once abandon it.
The Bill was sufficiently damaged already by keeping in the
clause which provided for the continuance of suits already in-
stituted for the recovery of arrears of tithe. These were the
cases which contained the most exciting character. If the
Bill were altered in the Lords, as appeared to have been
threatened, and the voluntary principle introduced, he, for
one, would decidedly vote against it when it came again before
them. Much had been said about appropriation, but it should
be remembered that the appropriation principle had come be-
fore them in two shapes. One was for the purpose of useful
education ; but the Noble Lord who last spoke and the House
confounded them both. sYhen appropriation was spoken of
formerly, they meant the good and useful appropriation, and
that was the appropriation which the Noble Lord and his
friends resisted. What could the Noble Lord with all his
talents make of the 25 per cent. to the landlord but a bad
appropriation ?—( Hear.) The tithes were to be collected by
the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests at 2i per cent.,
and the remainder of the 25 per cent, went to the landlord.
He (Mr. O'Connell) agreed with the Noble Member for
Dovvnshire as to the consequences of this measure. There
never was a greater blow dealt at the temporalities of the
Church than that about to be levelled at it by the present
measure. How was it at present in Ireland? Lord Mount-
cashel, who could not be suspected of any Popish leaning,
who had been described as altogether evangelical, had pre-
sided at a tumultuous anti-tithe meeting—tumultuous, he
meant, as regarded the numbers aeeembied.—( Hear, hear.)
The gentlemen of the western division of Cork, who were
grand officers in the Orange Lodges, when Orange Lodges
were in existence—for he was told they were now no more
_were combined with the Catholic Clergy and the Catholic
people in attending at anti tithe meetings. The battle
would soon commence between the landlord and tenant.
Some of the landlords would pay the tithe without exacting
it again, and others would not. They were about to create a
class of White Boys, not known before in Ireland.—( Hear,
hear ) The cry of the Church, would not in future be found
as available as it was formerly. Electioneering heats and
politics were over for sonic time to come yet. The " heavy
blow and great discouragement to Protcstantiem," would not
be found so useful an instrument as it had hitherto been. It
would nut be made of so much avail against him (Mr. O'Con-
nell) as it had been, for it had been fluil to a sixty-three
head-roll. Common sense would return to the people of
Et:gland. They %%mild see the policy as well as the justice of
doing as they would be done by. They would see that they
themselves would not allow the Church of the minority to be
cseablished amongst them—that Scotland would not allow it,
and that what was fair for England and Scotland. was also fair
for Ireland—that the wealthy Protestants of Ireland ought,
like the poorer Catholics, to supp .rt the Ministers of their
own religion. The Noble Lord the Secretary at War had
been taunted with his speech of the ether night. It was a
speech founded upon pure principle, and gave good hope that
his future career would fulfil its early promise.
Sir R. PEEL did not intend to convey any opinion as to
what would be done in another place with respect to the
optional clause. He merely said that be was sure the friends
of the Churce, who were numerous in the other House, would
we4lll well the question e 'tether it was better to leave that
Church as it now stood, or adopt the present Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that after that explanation it
must he manifest he had mistaken the meaning of the R:ght
Hon. Baronet.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL (who rose amid cries of " Di-
vide") said that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
had found rudt to a c-rtain extent with the Bill, and his
whole speech had a ten lency to convince him (Lord J. Rus-
sell) more perfectly of what he before believed, n-enely, that
a person of any ingenuity would not fed great difficulty in
showing that the Bill was contrary in a great degree to the or-
dinar•y principles upon which Legislation is founded. The
Hon. Member for Drogheda had stated that the inclination to
support the voluntary principle was general in Ireland, or
nearly so, and that at all the public meetings held for the
purpose of petitioning against tithes, resolutions had teen
passed pledging the 1 eople who were present to the sup-
r.ort and advocacy of that principle; and, in reference to
this it might be objected to them (the Government) that
they had not carried out in this Bill their principle of the
aperopriation clause. He wculd say, with respect to those
objections, that however advantageous the carrying out of that
clause might he, or however inclined he might be to support
it, he had another view to regard in this Bill, namely—fram-
ing it in such a manner as would render it probable that it
would pass. Were those Gentlemen who objected to the
omission of the appropriation clause prepared to say that it
would pass the House ?—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord John
Russell) hid an option, and he had judged Ineween doing
nothing and allowing all the evils which Irelind sustained
from the present state of the tithe system to go on in the mean
time unchecked, or passing a Bill which, whatever might be
its defects, was calculated-to do a great deal of good, and not
calculated to produce any evil, and had the great advantage
that it was probable it would receive the assent of that
House. Lie would again say that the course which be
bad adopted was the plain and the right course. The Hon.
Member for Drogheda had said the, although he found fault
with the Bill, be would not take upon himself the responsibi-
lity of giving a vote against it. He ( Lord J. Russell) consi-
dered that such an admission, from a gentleman so well ac-
quainted with the state of that country, was a strong evidence
of the good that it was calculated to effect. The Hon. Mem•
ber for London had, with that moderate and dignified tone
which characterised him, at the same time made a severe and
bitter attack upon them, and bad accused them in this Bill
of postponing principle to party. Ho had accused them of
tergiversation and inconsistency. The Hun. Member had a
right upon this important subject to think for himself ; he had
a perfect right to form his own opinion,- but he was not just'.
fed ig accusing others, who were -actuated Isy a-lesiA) tc ef•

feetuate as much good as was .pr,cticable tier Ireland, of post.
poninp,r principle to partk: With respe6t to one Class whe
tv4re most vitally coned ned, it hal been universally admitted
that their condition would be materially improved. He allu-
ded to the poorer description of tenaws, the small occupiers.
The lion Member for Dublin bad given his opinion Shot in
most cases this class of persons would be entirely tree from tithe
by this Bill, so that by the admission of this lion. and Learned
Gentlemen, and from the evidence of the Bdi i:self, thee
could perceive that in this most important ca c they would
confer valuable service. It was upon such persons that the
tithe at present pressed most heavily, and to relieve them was
no small advantage. But had the Bill no other claim upon
them ? What, he would ask, would its effects be upon the
landowners ? The lion. Member for Southwark had offered
some objections upon this subject, but he had been answered
so effectually- by the Noble Lord the Member for North Lan-
cadrire that he would not more fully advert to them. lie
would, however, say that there were points of the Noble
Lord's observations, in answer to the Hon. Member's objec-
tions, in -atria he (Lord Jord Russell) did not entirely concur.
The case of the landowners was this. Th,..y (the Govern.
ment) had no right to tell them that they would place the
tithe at 100 per cent. upon them by way of rent-charge ;
but what did they propose to do ? They said that, in
order to justify such an interference upon the part of 134r-
liament with the rights of private property, they would give
him a reduction of 25 per cent. as an equivalent. The
landlord by this Bill received a very fair c ,mir•nsation fur
any additional liability which was placed upon them, fur
the Bill was a great benefit to them apart from the reduction
it effected, inasmuch as their properties would be of more value,
and their tenantry better calculated to improve by the peace
and tranquillity which it would secure to the country. Per-
haps the Bill would not have the beneficial effect of re.
storing profound forgetfulness of the subject, and prevent-
ing all further interference with the Church in Ireland ;
but if there should be a revival of opposition to the Church, it
would be raised not by the poorer classes of occupiers, nor
would it partake of the character of physical opposition as at
present ; it would necessarily be amongst a higher class, who,
from their education, their position, and many other evident
circumstances, would oppose the claims of the Church, if they
felt so disposed, in a constitutional and peaceful manner, by
appealing to Parliament, by the exercise of their constitutional
privilege. The Right Hon. Baronet had expressed an opinion
that the Lords might interfere with the Bill. So far as related
to this vote they could reject it, but, having passed the House,
they were not competent to alter it ; their privilege did not
reach to that extent. If the Lords did reject that vote, they
would, he lead no doubt, have the full approbation of the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny ; but he hoped they would consider the
benefits that would necessarily accrue from its adoption. It
would produce a considerable mitigation of the evils which at
present afflict Ireland. It would have the effect of rendering
the position of the Church more secure, and the Irish people
more easy and tranquil.
Major BRYAN should vote for the Bill, not because he
thought it capable of putting an end to all the evils of the
tithe system, but because it would produce a great deal o
good, without going to the full extent.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading l4B
For the amendment

Majority foe the third rearline- --118
Lord MORPETH and Mr. GOULBURN moved the in.
,reduction of several clauses by way of rider, which were
adop'el, and several verbal amendments were introduced into
some of the clauses of the Bill ; after which
Mr. HUME rose to move that the 38th clause be excluded
from the Bill, on the ground of the pu,poscs to which it ap-
propriated various sums of money, amounting to nearly one
million sterling. The Noble Lord opposite (Stanley) had
told them that night that he had adopted the principle of ex-
pediency, because he saw no other principle on which he could
support this measure. He begged to call the attention of the
Noble Lord to the fact that it was not to the amount of the
money that the people of England would object, but to the
purposes for which, according to this clause of the Bill, that
money was to be applied. When the Noble Lord himself, on
a former occasion, brought forward a measure for the reform
of the Irish Church, he (Mr. Hume) and others supported
it, because it provided for the abolition of the sinecures of
that Church. All their hostility was directed against the
system on which that Church was supported, and not against
the Church itself. The Noble Lord had said that the Hon.
Member for Southwark was mistaken as to the amount of the
arrears, and that only one quarter of them remained at present
unpaid. But if all but that one quarter bad been paid, then
he (Mr. Hume) held that the remainder ought also to be paid.
Mr. HARVEY could not hear the statement which had
been made by so high an authority as the Noble Lord (Stan-
ley) with reference to the observations which he had addressed
to the House that evening to pass uncontradicted. The
Noble Lord had imputed to him an ignorance of the subject
before the House, because he had said that the arrears due to
the tithe-owners in Ireland during the four years preceding
the present might amount to 2,400,0001. But he ( Mr. Har-
vey) had not said it was so. He had only said that the ar-
rears might amount to that sum_( Hear, hear)—and surely
if in 1832, 1833, and 1834 tithes did not exceed 1,000,000/.
it was not an unfair inference thst a very much larger amount
of tithe would be due at the present time. But if it was only
300,0001. that remained uncollected, then he would say that
that sum ought to be collected as well as the rest—( Hear).—
and it was a farce, until it was proved that it could not be
collected, to call the tithe debtors the poor people of Ire-
land.---( Hear.) If the state of the law in that country was
such that it could not be enforced but at a ruinous expense,
was that a reason why they should forego the property in
tithe? Why not bring in a Bill to facilitate the collection of
tithe?—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said he supported
the Bill because it would tend to the tranquillity of Ireland, -
first, by reducing the amount of titbe to be paid by 25 per
cent.; and, secondly, by the payment of the arrears. But
the arrears were due from those who borrowed the money of
this country—( Hear)—and why, if the I ish people were so
poor, were the people of England to pay the.debt ?—( Hear.)
The Church of Ireland ought to supply the fund out of its own
overgrown resources—( Hear)—for it was notorious that the
Irish hierarchy possessed upwards of 600,000 of the finest
acres in the country, and some of their product ought to be
made available in cases of emergency like this. The payment
of these arrears ought not to come out of the Treasury of
England, which ought not to be robbed for the purpose of
paying what was due from the so-called poor of Ireland to
the wealthy proprietors of that country. They would next
be called upon, he supposed, to pay the debts of persons con-
tined for debt in Ireland if they sanctioned such a principle as
this. Peace neither could, would, nor ought to be purchased
at such a price—( Hear)—tend when the Noble Lord a,ked him
why he ( fir. Harvey) did not bring in some 8.11 of his own on
this subject, let him ask what chance any 11111 would have,
even of an introduction into that House for the Reform of the
Irish Church, if moved for by a Protestant Dissenter?_
( Hear, hear.) He would most cordially support the motion
of his fic.n. Friend the Member for Kilkenny.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it
Majority -57
The Bill then passed.
MAILS ON RAILWAYS BILL.

On the motion that this Bill he read a third time,
Mr. EA ST HO PE felt hound to I;rotest against this Bill.
The Bill was totally at variance with the evidence that had
been given before the Committee. The tzn.-1, my of the
evidence went one way, and the resolutions of the Govern-
ment on which the Bill was founded went quito in a contrary
direction.

Mr. LAI3O UC HE R.E brought up a clause, the object of
which we understood to be to transf( r all liabilitie3 to lessees of
railways during the continuance of their lewe.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
CUSTOMS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. P. THOMSON this Bill went
through Committee.
Clause 10, which gave a power to the Magistrates to inflict
additional penalties, was struck out of the 13d1.
Clause 11 was struck out.
Clauses to 16 were agreed to.
On clause 17 being proposed,
Lord SANDON asked the Right Hon. Member whether
any steps had been taken on the part of our Government to
t.rocure a reduction of the heavy port charges now levied on
13,itiih ships catering Spanish pens.
Mr. P. THOMSON said that directions had been for
warded to our Ambassador at Madrid to inform the Spanish
Government that if the charges were not reduced the British
Government would be obliged to put in force those powers
they possessed with reference to Spanish vessels entering Bri-
tish ports.
. _ _

Tbe remaining clauses 7.Cre then agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. P. THOMSON severll new dawn
were added to the Bill.
The Chairman reported progress, and the House resumed.

.
GRAND JURY IRELAND BILL.
At the suggestion of several Irish Members Lord MOR-
PETH consented to postpone this Bill until next Session.
THE OATHS VALIDITY BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
The other Orders of the Day were diFposcd of; and the
Ilouse adjourned at Two o'Clock.

-HOUSE OF LORDS, itr.r.r 26.
The LORD CitaNeELLoa took his seat on the Woolsack at
the usual hour.
RECOVERY OF TENEMENTS BILL.
Lord HATII E RTON gave notice that he would, on Mtn-
day next, move the second reading of this Bill.
prai;l:iinsgLof:rnasudtiesetohnetninpuracnsc7toefd
tabpeetsi,ititntiofrilomaffSoitdaffeldt;hitrh%
British Government in India to Ifindoo idolatry.
Several Peers presented petitions to the same effect.
Lard WHARNCLIFFE presonted a petition for ae
amendment of the New Poor-law Act.
The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition froM
Leeds against the Parliamentary Burghs (Sentland) Bill.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL
Lord MELBOURNE moved the Order ei the Day fir the
third r:ading of this Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER rose to oppose the further pro-
gress of this Bill, which he characterised as one of the heaviest
blows ever aimed at the Protestant Church cf this cowitry.
The Bill proposed to prevent any Ecclesiastical Court, except
the Court of Arches in London, from passing any senteree of
excommunication or degradation, against the clergy-
Now he contended there was au inherent jurisdiction in
cry Christian Bishop of which no Legislature could
deprive them. The Right Reverend Prelate proceeded to
quote texts of Scripture in support of his argument,
The Bishops' Courts were rs old as unristiaoity tself. With-
out depriving a Bishop of his see, human laws could not de-
rAive ir.in of the right, or absolve hire from the duty, to excl.-
ito the jurisdiction wbich his ceco enj,ALed, and, for himself)

he declared solemnly' net Ne should trot feel at liberty fee obey
the provisions which this Bill containgd; alanedd it pass into a law.
He should ecintintle,in that event, to call upon !he clergy of
his diocese to atire'eer to him for any criritef of which 0)67
might be accused; and if a shlhrteunan disobeyed he
would pronounce sentence of excommuniCairtht reralnii him.
Their Lordships might pass a Bill of Pains and Pcnaillhi
against him; they might deprive him of his gown and
mitre ; but his " robo and his integrity to heaven,"
n ) human power should, or could take from him. Never till
this hour was it dreamt of that the Metropolitan Archiepiscopal
Court had original jurisdiction in any provincial See, elcapt in
,he case of a diocesan, or in cases of caches, or fear. But this
Bill took a flight of temerity which he should have thought
beyond the presumption of the most daring legislators ;
the Bill actually subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court of the
Archbishop of Canterbury the Archbishopric of York, which
was as independent of Canterbury as Canterbury was of York.
Had the diocesans of York, agreed to this ? If not, why their
Lordships could not surely entertain the Bill for a moment.
Even if they had given their assent, why were they
not present to state why they dared thus to surrender
their rights and abandon their duties? Not one Bishop of the
Archdiocese of York was in his place. Even in the reign of
Henry VIII., that most virtuous man, Sir Thomas More,
though he owned the supremacy of the Pope, had
yet too much of the Briton in him to admit the
monstrous preteniions of the Legate, that clergymen in
d sCnct dioceses were to be called upon to answer
to the Aschbishop of Canterbury's Court. To the 10th
and 11th clauses of this Bill also he entertained great objec-
tion. The 10th clause provided that if the Judge of the Arches'
Court should certify that a case was improper to be proceeded
with, the Bishop of the diocese ill which the case arose should
enter a nolle prosequi ; but the Bishop would have nothing to
do with the prosecution, and was he then, at the command of
the Judge, to enter a nolle prosequi when he never had been
prosecutor? He appealed to Noble and Learned Lords whe-
ther such a thing had ever been heard of? The absurdity of it
was palpable. But, even if this Bill were as much in accord-
ance with the discipline of the Church of Christ and the spirit
of British law as it was, in fact, discordant with both, be should
still oppose it on grounds of public policy, for a more mis-
chievous measure he could hardly conceive. He asked whe-
ther it was possible to devise any measure which could more
effactually tend to dissolve the connection between the Bishop
and his clergy, than to take the clergy out of the jurisdic-
tion of the Bishop residing in their diocese, and place them
in the hands of a Judge in the metropolis ? This was not
a question of merely public interest, for private interests of
the most important nature were involved in it. If he
were differed shortly to characterise the practical tendency
of this Bill, he should say that it would give impunity.
to guilt, and rob innocence of its beat protection. He bail
done now with the merits of the Bill itself; he would only
offer an observation on the object of the measure. For what
purpose had the Bill been introduced ? The preamble stated
that the correction of clerks has been attended with delay, in-
convenience, and uncertainty; and that was the evil the Bill
proposed to remedy. The Noble and Learned Lord was only
to
came That went
the
beforeThatcaseHouseoftLords,Courtattention
casefl
the greatest and b 'st Reformer this country ever saw, the Noble
Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington), who was then Prime
sioonn' to report He
Minister of George IV., and the Noble Duke did that which
might have been expected from such a man on such an occa-
called o
upon the
uponthe the
best
m ecclesiasticalean so
f r e authoritiesmedying
thteo
evilslet him
k
snow what was the state of the law, and he issued a Commis-
ac-
knowledged to exist in the Ecclesiastical Courts. The death
sCnoodvuerrt
g ann dt
the
the b
e mostst
modem ofien remedying
George IV. terminated the labours of that Commission;
but another was issued,' consisting of six Bishops, the Chief
Justices of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, the Chief
enretpe practitioners ion
thee rs
evil.
bothil. oi f
it temporal
Com-
missioners a
Baron, of the Exchequer, all the Judges of the Ecclesiastical
and gave themselves
energy
which
bto entitledt heirim
ecclesiastical law ; and they were called on to tell their
ertanttotaalslk
pwriathisea, zeal,and
industry,
important
they made such a Report as was not often made. And what
was that Report ? He would read a passage
With respect to the tribunal which we recommend, we
may remark that it will restore to the Bishops that personal
jurisdiction which they originally exercised, and which was
altervrards delegated by them to their chancellors and officials.
The doctrine of the canon law is, that although the trial of
causes of certain descriptions may be properly entrusted to a
lay Judge, to the Bishop himself belongs iniquisitio, correc.
tie, punitio, excessurum, sese amotio a beneficio. Agreeably
to this principle, the power of deprivation is reserved by our
canons to the Bishops in person : and the same principle
seems to apply to the case of suspension. and to the infliction
of any other censure which may affect a Clergyman's spiritual
functions "—p. 151.
He only asked their Lordships to compare that declaration
with the present Bill, which violated every principle there laid
down. In 1834 his late Majesty's Ministers concurred in a
measure, which, however, was not brought forward. In 183 G
a new legislator appeared in the field. The Noble and Learned
Lord on the Woolsack brought in a Bill exactly of the same
nature as the preceding Bills.—( Hear, hear.) Was that Bill
opposed ? No ; it reached a third reading, and was passsed
by the unanimous vote of the House. It passed on the 2d Au-
gust, about a week later than this time. It, however, was ton
late for the Bill to be proceeded with in the other House, and
accordingly it was suffered to drop without even a first read-
ing. In ma did the Noble and Learned Lord renew his
Bill ? No ; and not until June, in'the present year, was one
word whispered on the subject by the Noble and Learned
Lord. The measure had not been elaborated or put into any
shape. No, it was a perfect Minerva. It had sprung at once
from the head of the originator, entire and perfect in all its
pests. On seeing the Bill he had written to a Right Rev.
Prelate, saying that it was not consistent with the principles
of the Church of Christ. Three days after he found that the
Bill had been read a second time, and that it was to be com-
mitted the next day. In consequence of this he travelled
nearly all night to be in the House to oppose the committal.
He rather thought that their Lordships woeld unanimously
eteree with him when he moved, as he now should, that the
Bill be read that day six months.—( Hear, hear.)
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY said that if
their Lordships were to be influenced by hard and specious
words, and invidious insinuations, he was certain that the fate
of the Bill would be at once decided. The Right Reverend
Prelate had p iid him (the Archbishop of Canterbury) com-
pliments which he was aware he did not deserve, and for
les Night Reverend Friend he had said every thing that was
just and right, and to the very eminent Judge that presided
Over the Admiralty the Right Reverend Prelate had given
his due in some. respect, though at the same time he had
insinuated, to his (the Archbishop of Canterbury's) great re-
gret—because, from his person II knowledge, he knew it to be
hufounded—that the Reverend Judge's faculties were im-
oeired by his advanced age. The attacks of the Right Rev.
Prelate had not been confined merely to that Judge; be had
attacked the highest authority in the House—the Lord Chan-
c .11or; and upon what ground he (the Archbishop of Can-
terb Ty) could not tell, unless it was that the Noble and
Leareed Lord had permitted the Bill to emanate from other
eersons, and not from himself. He (the Archbishop of Can-
terbury) scorned to shelter himself under the protection of
others, for he was always ready and willing to take upon him-
self the whole responsibility of any measure that he might
think beneficial to the Church. There had been two meet-
ings of Bishops on the question, and these meetings were both
numerously attended. The Right Rev. Pratte honoured one
with his attendance, and he then objected to the mature
proposed, but certainly net in such strong terms of reprobation
as those he had used this evening. Another Right Rev.
Prelate objected to the Bill because he was satiafied with the
working of his own Court. He ( the Archbishop of Canter-
bury) did hope that their Lordships would not give any
.on 3 of the Right Rev. Prelate with
weight to the ahsel
i re-
spect to an withintertereece the inherent rights of the
Church. The Bill applied to a perfectly different state of
the time when the Church was an independent
things . At
and unconnected with the State, the whole of the
suC.ety,
duCted by its own officers, The Bisho
business was can .
•
transacted every thing through 1113 r. By the pre_p
sent Chanctleen, mode of proceeding any pasty might appeal to all the
Courts in every incidental matter. Now, this was an incon-
venieece from which they were desirous of relieving
the Church. The consequence of continuing the pre.
Rent 'stem would be, time total inefficiency of ecele-
sieeticA discipline. The clergy were not apprehensive of
the Bill, and he would answer for it that there was not a re.
soectable clergyman in England who was apprehensive of ever
appearing before any of those Courts. The clergy were very
much oppose] to one provision of the Bill of 1836, which pro-
vided that clergymen should serve as a Jury on their fellow-
clergy. The Commissioners had certainly recommended that
measure ; but when the Bill was drawn out it was considered
not only objecionahle in many respects, but that in practice it
would be really impracticable. As the jurisdiction of the pro.
posed Court would extend over the whole of Englan I and
\Vales. there could he no question with respect to local juries
eneians, which he admitted were highly objectionable. With
reference to expense, all it was necessary for him to say
was, that as there welsh' be a great diminution of appeals,
there would also be a great reduction of the expense of pros
ecedieg,s under this Bill. It was a shame to think that
the present state of things should have so long existed. His
nelv object, he could assure their Lordships, was to remedy
that which he coesidered an abuse, and in the
performance
of this duty he could a- v say that he would not shrink
from any odium or respon -Ally which such miirepresenta-
tit= as he had heard from his Right Rev. Friend that night
!night bring upon him and the authors of this Bill. The Right
Rev. Prelate stated to their Lordships that this Bill would
take away from the Blshopx the authority of the forum domes.
ticum. He said also, that if it were carrid he would not resort
co its`provisions ; but that, an the contrary, he would depend
,hogether on the exercise of that spiritual power which be.
lone, d to the superior heads of the Church ; that ho would
rely for the obedience of the clergy on their canonical oath,
and epocal to a tribunal higher than any that human power
could institute. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury), must,
however, deny that this Bill would in any way interfere with the
thrum domesticum. It would leave that wetter precisely as it
stood ; and, even should it pass, every Bishop would have the
'sa,tt power of calling the clergy of his diocese beforehim that
he now possessed. This Bill would not divest them of a particle
that passer ; but, on the contrary, so tar from weakening,
it would strengthen the power in this particular with which
the Bishops were invested, by giving a shorter appeal than at
re.:i.ett. existed. The Right Rev. Prelate bad misrepresented
the Bill iu inch a way that- hi scarcely knew whttior he had

ens..vered ail the p:nnts to which the Right Rev. l'a-el,te
advert, d or not ; but with respect to hisobkc'ion to the claus..
for suspending the Clergy against whom complaints ca,,,t-
/nab, during the investigation, he (the Archbishop of Canter-
bunt) had pr..pared a clause which he thought would get rid
of all difficulty on this head. He did not agree %Hi hi.,
Right Rev. Friend in what he had said in reference to the re-
rrifeal of causes to the Arches' Court, or as to the necessity of
the Bishop to pronounce sentence of degradation.
,The
Most Reverend t".7later in conclusion, expressed his
that their Lordships wouL.4 five their assent to the third read-
in of this Bill.
Most Reverend
Thl Bishop of EXETER wished to set t".l-te
Prelate righettn riti or two points. The Most I..everend pre-
late said that it was irepotsible to prevent causes froni be:ng,
brought down from the iiiotetait Courts to the Arcnes
Courts, but he (the Bishop of Exeter) said distinctly that it
was. He had made application to the Chancellor of his dio-
cese oil the subject, and from him he learned that Instead of
the removal bring e± debilojustiticr, it was in point of tact,
only ex gratin. Such *as the opinion on which he had always
acted, and in proof of this he mentioned a case in which he had
refused to comply with the wishes of the parties who wished to
remove it. With respect to the necessity of the Bishop going
to pronounce the sentence of degradation, he contended that
such a necessity would exist,
The Archbishop of CA NTE :LOUR Y—Not under this Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER said it would not be in the power
of the Bishop to pronounce sentence withC!lt coming up. At
present, if the decision of degradation were not i;Tettled from,
the Bishop proceeded to pronounce sentence himseif; but if
it were appealed from, and subsequently confirmed, then he
had to go to his own diocesan Court to pronounce sentence.
This he believed to be the state of the law ; but he lit@ no
right to argue further, and he would not do so.
Lord BROUG HAM fully concurred in what the Most
Rev. Prelate had said as to the motives which had actuated
him in his advocacy of this measure. No one on earth who
either knew or heard of the Most Rev. Prelate could doubt
for a single moment his purity, or that he was wholly uninflu-
enced by anything like party motives on this or any other
occasion. It was clear now that the Most Rev. Prelate was
wrong in 1832, 1833, and 1835, and sill more virong in
1836, when this subject was fully discussed in their Lordships'
House. His change of sentiments proved that he ought to
have agreed with them in 1832, 1833, 1835, and 1836, but
with respect to his speech that night, he must be allowed to
say that there was not the shadow of argument in what had
fallen from the Most Reverend Prelate against the report
of the Commissioners, or the measures introduced by the
Noble Duke opposite and the Government of Lord Grcy, for
carrying the recommendations of that report into effect. The
difference between those measures and the present consisted in
this, that they proposed a remedy, but this Bill gave no re-
medy at all. A good deal of ecclesiastical irony had been
introduced into this debate, and when the Right Reverend
Prelate mentioned the case of Mr. Frees, which had cost
r 1,5001., the Most Reverend Prelate turned round and asked
did he mean that such a state of things should not be re-
viewed ? There could be no doubt that such a state of things
was bad, and that it ought to be remedied ; but then the ques-
tion was, would this Bill be a remedy ? He contended
that it would not, and that the proper remedy was that pro-
posed in the Bill of 1836. The Arches' Court was unques-
tionably a learned tribunal ; but in the Bill to which he ad-
verted assessors were to be appointed in the diocesan courts
who would also be learned. This would get rid of the objec-
tion made against the local tribunals, and for his own part he
thought that plan much better than bringing the whole of the
business to Doctors' Commons. Vas it to be endured that
every poor curate residing in Wales, Cumberland, and the
Land's-end, perhaps, should be obliged to come up to the
Arches' Court, when the matter could be so satiifacto,ily dis-
posed of in the way proposed by the Bill of 1816 ? Now, s.,e
the consequences of this. If there were a disposition to abuse,
this Bill would give the power to do so ; but if, on the contrary,
the desire was to do good, this Bill would disable the parties from
carrying out their intentions, because it would saddle them with
enormous expenses. All proceedings must be bad at Doctors'
Commons, and that, too, although it was well known that the
Ecclesiastical Courts were not only the most expensive, but
unsatisfactory and dilatory tribunals in the country. The
Arches' Court was not only the worst possible jurisdiction,
but, what was more, the Judge never saw the face of a witness.
He must be permitted to say if they went on legislating in
this way, they could not expect the confidence of the country,
and he could not help adding, that he thought the Commis-
sioners had been treated in a most extraordinary manner by
the authors of this Bill. The Commissioners, who were fifteen
in number, ranked among them the highest names in the land
for learning and wisdom, and the measure which they recom
mended was that which he had presented, but which, in fact,
had been drawn by themselves. In the Bill which he introduced
all thei. recommendations were embodied. That Bill was
not objected to, neither was a similar measure which had been
brought forward by Sir F. Pollock in the House of Commons.
The Bill of 1836 had passed all its stag-es in their Lordships'
Hotus,', but what had Sir John Nichol' done? He had not
only agreed to but signed the report of the Commissioners,
of whom he was one. He had allowed 1832. 1833, 1835. 1836,
and 1837 to pass without altering his opinion, but in 1838 a
now light broke in upon him, and at the close of the present
Session he wrote a letter, saying, that as objections had been
raised to the provisions of the former Bill, he thought it
would be better to depart from that which he and his
fourteen colleagues had recommended. That was what
Sir John Nicholl did. Before he did this should he not
have consulted his colleagues—should he not have consulted
Lord Chief Justice Tindal—should he not have consulted
the Noble and Learned Lord opposite—but, above all,
should be not have consulted Dr. Luahington, who was not
only au eminent, Judge himself, but the author of a Report
which Lord Tenterden had pronounced to be the atili•st that
ever emanated from any body of Commissioners. He having
read that Report fully concurred in all Lord Tenterdel had
said of it. Those who agreed to this Bill would differ toto ewlo
from all the recommendations of the Commissioners, and for
that reason and the grounds he had stat-16e 3b4ntd.certainly
vote against it. Now with respect to time. His Bill was said
to be too late because it was not brought forward until the 2d
of August, but could their Lordships, at this period of the
Session, be expected to drag this measure through the dirt of
frivolity and fickleness which it presented, merely because Sir
John Nicholl sent a letter " 'Verbose et graudis e pistola
venit ?" But what did it show—why, not a single reason for
what it recommended. But even if their Lordships passed
this Bill, the House of Commons would not. He was open to
conviction, but he could not agree to this Bill, and, certainly,
if ever he found Sir J. Nicholl recommending anything or
urging any measure, he would say to him before he adopted
it, " Sir John, I must pause, for, remember how you treated
me in 1838, and what was your conduct from 1832 to 1836?
In 1838 you altered your opinion without assigning a tittle of
reason for so doing, and, therefore, I cannot join you in the
chase after your own opinions. You must go to somebody
else, Sir John "—( Laughter. )
The Bishop of LINCOLN said his Right Rev. Friend had
asked their Lordships whether they would be parties to a m^a-
sure, the effect of which would be to divest the Bishops of the
power of summoning before them, and pronounciag censure,
on criminous c;erks. He denied that this measure would have
any such effect, and as to the 2,1 clause of this Bill, he was
satisfied it would have no such effect as his Rigl.t Rev. Friend
had attributed to it.

Lord WYNFOR.D recommended the with iriwal of this
Bill for the present Session, as it was impossible its provisions
could now be properly considered. There was one clause its
the Bill to which he entertained the strongest objections. It
established an appropriation of Church property for other
than Church purpases, and he could not therefore understand
how it could have the sanction of the Right Rev. Prelate.
The Duke of WELLING lON said, my Lords, consider-
ing the importance of this subject—considering the late period
of the Session_considering that this is the first occasion this
House has had an opportunity of deliberat;rig on this impor-
tent question, and considering also the difference of opinion
which prevails upon the Right Reverend Bench, I cannot
but feel anxious that your Lordships should postpone the
consideration of this Bill to a future day. My Lords, I
confess that having listened with the greatest attention to
the discuseion which .has just taken place on this 13111, I am
12ound to say that I have not heard a single answer given
wLich I consider satisfactory to some of the important ohjec-
forts to it which have been stated by the Right Reverend Pre-
late who moved the postponement of the thir.l reading for
six months. My Lords, Ino not think it is quite clear that
after this Bill has passed, the filrum rhmestiewn t) which al-
lusion has been made by the Right Reverend Prelate., can
continue to exist. It seems, my Lords, that this Bill has
been framed in consequence of a letter received from one of
the Commissioners under the Royal Commission issued to
inquire into the subject ; but, however high the respect in
which that individual was held, I must exTresi it 1:s my opi-
nion that your Lordships should agree to no measure in which
the forum domesticum is not preserved. My Lords, I object
strongly to the clause to which my Noble and Learned Friend
has adverted. It may, perhaps, be reasonable and proper to
provide out of the benefices for the payment of charges of
prosecutions of delinquent clerks ; but then I think that should
only be adopted in the last instance, after ail other means of
obtaining payment from those by whom that payment ought to
be made had been exhausted.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR said that the ju•iidi.:tion
which they contemplated etehlishing by this Bill would re-
move the difficulties in the way of correcting the abuses of the
Ecclesiastical Courts. From the sanction which the prin-
ciples involved in it had received, lie not only hoped that it
would pass into a law, but that the schema which it proposed
Would make satisfactory provision for the discipline of the
Church. It, however, appeared that there were strong ob-
jections to it, anti that it was unpalaPahle to many of their
Lordships. lie was atixiolis to give the best wsista,-ice in his
power to remedy the acknowledged evil, and he thought the
plan now under their Lordships' consideration would effect
that object without injury to any one, by providing a better
jurisdiction than now existed. While it got rid of the Dio-
cesan Courts it would improve the Ecclesiastical Courts, and,
although bringing it forward had subjectvd him to vitupera-
tion, he was willing to take ell the responsibility which it might
incur upon himself. The Noble Duke had truly stated that
this was a subject of importance as well as of difficulty. With
respect to the recommendations of the Commissioners, he be.
lieved that no one now adhered to them. If they had been
adopted at the time, they might been an improvement; but
now the case was different, and the real case their Lordships
had to decide was, whether th^y would allow the resent state
of things to continue or nut ?
Lord BROUGHAM shortly explained; after which
The Archbishop of C ANTE RBUR Y should not.
press the Bill on the present occasion, as the sense of the
House appeared to be opposed to it.
The amendment was then carried without a division.
On the m >Lon of the Earl. of WICKLOW, the Affirma-
tions Bill was read a second tine, and ordered to be COnir
raitterd tcator:.-ow•

SCOTCH PRISONS BILL.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a eete;ort ;rere
county of Ross against the Scotch Prisons Bill,
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee Ott thin
Bill,
Lord BROUGHAM stated various objections wbich he
entertained to the principle and details of the measure. mei
which, if not corrected before the third reading of the Bill, hee
should certainlyvote against it at that stage.
The Duke of B UCCLE UCH thought it would to eet'es
to have the Bill committed that day three months, and he
should therefore propose an amendment to that effect.
The Duke of RICHMOND hoped the Noble Duke would
withdraw his amendment, and propose instead that the Bill be
referred tort select Committee.
Lord B ROLIG HAM also hoped the Bill would be referred
tee a select Committee, and he would give his attendance day
by day.
Lord WHA RNCL JFFE particularly objected to the clause
respecting asssessateete, and would thereore suAtort the
amendment.
The Earl of MINTO conee;eed the necessity of a better
system was so apparent and urgent, that any incovenience
which might arise therefrom ought to form tee impediment to
an immediate alteration, and pleaded the protenjetY of going
into Committee to do something effective, in co-operation with
the efforts making in the House of Commons.
The Earl of HA D DING TON supported the amendment.
The House then divided, and there appeared--
Contents
Non-contents
Majority
The House went into Committee.
The Duke of RICHMOND was willing to allow sufficient
time to consider and prepare a good Bill in conjunction with
the House of Commons, and therefore would propose, with
this view, that a Select Committee should be now appointed
to take the eubjeci into full consideration, as the House had
affirmed the poiet that the reformation of the Scottish prisons
should be forthwith proceeded in.
Duke of Richmond's motion for a Select Committee WV After a short conversation the House resumed, and the
for-
mally made and agreed to.
THE TURPENTINE. PENALTIES BILL.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR this Bill
was read a third time and passed.
SLAVERY VESSELS BILL.
On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM this Bill vas reed
a third time and passed.
IRISH POOR-LAW BILL.
On the Order of the Day for taking into consideration be
Commons' amendments on this Bill,
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that there was only
one amendment it:which he could not agree. He teliseded
the amendment on the clause regarding the division of town
lands. He, therefore, peoposed to their Lordships not to
concur in that amendment.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed his concurrevce
in his opinion of the Noble Duke.
The other amendments were then agreed to, sod-after some
conversation between Viscount Melbourne, the Marquis of
Lansdowne, Lord Elienborough, and Lord Brougham. a
conference with the Commons was appointed for te-morrow.
THE SLAVE VESSELS BILL,
The Earl of MINTO moved the third reading of this Bilk.
Lord COLCHESTER said that it had been argued that
the system of bounty, or head. money, was impolitic• because
it did not accrue until the vessel hid her cargo of slaves en
board, and, consequently, the greater part of the crime had
been committed ; and that the system, consequently, had ex-
ercised an influence on the conduct of the officers upon the
station, who had been charged with allowing the slave-veseet
to embark her cargo of slaves, for the purpose of securing
the head-money. If these remarks had been made merely
theoretically, he should not have felt it his duty to have
troubled their Lordships ; but the language which the
Noble and Learned Lord opposite had used on a for-
mer occasion appeared to him to convey a very serious
insinuation against the officers of her Majesty's navy on that
coast, because he had distinctly imputed to them that they had
refrained from making any efforts to interrupt the slave ves-
sels in the course of loading. Now, there was no doubt that
for a long period the cruisers did make no attempt eo capture
the slaves until after they were laden; and, thereforo, to a
casual observer, it might appear that they had been ac-
tuated by these motives ; but, then, that depended entirely on
the assumption that they had some authority to take the ves-
sels without their cargo on board. If he proved that for a
long period after the Legislature had granted the bounty, the
cruisers had no authority to take the vessels until their cargoes
were embarked, but, on the contrary, were strictly prohibited
from so doing ; hut that, since they had received that autho-
rity, the captures of vessels without cargoes had been more
frequent than that of vessels with cargoes, their Lordship;
would see that he bad vindicated the officers in this service
from the charge of a breach of duty. and still more from being
actuated by mercenary motives. The Noble Lord then cited
the opinion of Lord Stowell to show that under the general
law of nations their crosiers had no right to interrupt the pro-
ceedings of the slave vessels, but that whatever right they
had was acquired by treaties. Treaties had accordingly been
entered into with Spain, Portugal, and other countries, by
which a limited right of search was granted, and under which
tribunals were erected for the purpose of trying the-legality of
seizures. But there was an article in all these treaties which
prohibited the seizure of any vessel until the slaves were ac-
tually on board ; and so strictly had that been construed that
it had been held not sufficient to justify the capture, though
the crew of the cruiscra might see the cargo of slaves landed.
That view of the subject had been expressed by Lord Pal-
merston in certain instructions issued under Earl Grey's Go-
vernmeht. In conclusion he would express his surprise and
regret that documents having been so long on the table of the
House, the Noble and Learned Lord bad not taken more pains
in looking into them, before he had come forward and brought
such serious charges against gallant men, many of whom had
been twenty years in the service.

Lord iNfITO still conceived that the case against the
navy rester upon spueut.ti., el,. tendency.
not upon the fact. Ni one case of misconduct had been
proved, and he repeated, he had never in the whole course of
his official experience 'und one instance of any blame attaching
to the officers on the African station, who also had a most painful
and disgusting duty to perform, and in a most unbeelthy climate.
As for tendency he must say that this was not decisive. An
arrangement might be such as naturally to seem likei; to lead
to wrong conduct, and yet might not produce it in honourable
minds. Thus the great emoluments and high station of the
Noble and Learned Lord on . the Woolsack had a natural
tendency to induce other members of the profession
of the law not only to aspire at the office of Chancellor, but
to attack the Government, in order to turn him out and take
his place. But it did not by any means follow that men did
attack the Government for this purpose and with this view.
Lord BROUGHAM said he had always maintained that
the tendency was quite decisive against •the head-money sys-
tem, en this plain ground, that it was either inoperative, and
wholly useless, or, if not inoperative, mischievous. It could
only cease to be hurtful by being useless. But he denied
that he rested his case upon tendency. He showed, upon
the evidence of those who had been on the omit,
that cruizers stood out to sea to let the slave ship load.
and to eatice them out—that is, to make them fill
their lnlds with wretched creatures, torn by force or kid-
napped by fraud front their country, and then to snake them
in their escape fling those poor victims overboard by scores to fa-
cilitate their flight from justice. This was his.( Lord B.'s) case.
To say that there was only a tendency, was, therefore, a mere
shallow pretext. The intention of the head-money was executed,
ail the tendency produced in the actual event of its natural and
evil censequenees. Ile might have relied on the evidence of
the travellers whom he had cited, but he disdained to do
so when his own mind went along with their statements.
He was of the same opinion, and the facts on which
that rested were no longer disputed, for the Noble Earl
( Mines) himself admitted them, and so did the Noble
B.iron ( Colches er. ) But there was one part of the
Neble Earl's speech (!!into) which he at first was put•
zled to comprehend. When he found him so far
off from the Al. ieen coast, as to be. tottering about
the Woolsack, and descanting, upon the emoluments
and powers of the Great Seal, he could not fur the
lire of him conceive what the Noble Earl was after.
At first, he only thought this portion of his speech extremely
stepid—(he spoke it with all respect)—very flat and
tedious, and insipid, and at so late an hour, some-
what of the most tiresome—but he soon perceived
that it was all the while sarcasm in disguise. We
had heard of " Wei- in disguise," and this, it seemed,
was a Wit in diseuise"--so thick a disguise, indeed, that he
questioned if all their Lordships for whose behoof it was in-
tended, hail as yt t pierced through to come at it. He (Lord
Brougham) however, had. It seemed as if the Noble Earl
should say to the Noble Baron ( Colchester) " I have no
means of helping eou in the way of fact ; and as for argu-
ing, I am no great. hand at that, but my wit is much at your
service ; at sarcasm I am no bed hand-1 have never
before let this out, but the truth is my talent lied that way,
and you shall see how merry. and cutting, and sarcastic
a creature I can be to serve you." So then his humour was
this—the office of Chancellor is a very tempting prize
to play for.—great gain—vast rank—immense power—all
this has a tendency to make men attack the bolder,
and his colleagues, in order to turn them out--that is
to say (for this meaning was quite plain, and here lay the
whole sting).—•' You ( Lord Brougham) might naturally be
survosrd to attack the Got ernment for the sake of turning
them out and clutching the Great Seal—you never tried what
it w .s like befere—you must naturally be desirous of rising to
the top of your profession, which you have been so long looking
up to, and so you attack us in order to reach it." Now he
(Lord Brougham) at once admitted that the temptation
of that exalted station was great to honourable minds.
The emolu•nents. of his Noble and Learned Friend's place
were, of c torte, nothing—they were like the head-money
to the cruizers_thry cared not a straw about their way
it lay, and they took it because they could noth
611;hdeol las;
S' his Noble and Learned Friend dicl
Which he cared not at all for,
putting it in his pocket. Butonly he could by
not welt avoid,
to have great power—
s the entire confidence 'of
to bring,
his
predecessors,
y
hby igh
hPu'tilt eFtrca honour.nr°dgtabht uier °:neatah emreasasu
!erYp—owt.uersahZtriihnoilouiatt:wochnrei,ch it is tot felt
measures ofu reform, in Church and
as any
minds—to carry all the
deeiredtof bring in important. Bills for amend-
whorhielAtobed above all, or improving the Court he presided
efonreehoisf
bthaevirn.egalbmeentin
iSntriattehe,
end have them carried and
_not rejected by majorities of
of OB to 36—to leave the jurisprudence
his eye* of future ages by the
improved,
illustrateand menon tnhaem be eitnt
theer
measures which he had instituted of wise, enlightened,
sod enlarged
the country had enabled him to carry-tbee
policy, its olFce
measures whkh the confidence of Parlia-
gretoattand
men
uo confessed, were attlib4Ws othig Nadi *d Leartentz- Lend