The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH ill i 836,

which the railways passed.—( Hear.) On these grounds he
would recommend his Hon. Friend to withdraw his proposi-
tion ; for even upon his own showing it would be premature ;
and the necessary result would be that counsel should be
heard at great length, and in that manner serious impedi-
%tents would be thrown in the way of those Railway Bills
which were actually before the House.
Mr. C. ROSS made a few observations, as we understood
against the proposition.
Mr. V. SMITH said he and his Hon. Friend had not at-
tended the Committee as Members for Northampton, but as
Members appointed by the House. After what had passed, he
would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his motion.
The SPEAKER thought that the best opportunity of calling
the attention of the House to a point of practice. He had
read over thirteen petitions that morning, which had been
presented on the subject of the competing lines to Brighton
—he found that all of them prayed that one of the Bills
might not pass—that the other might be passed, and that the
parties who petitioned might be heard by Counsel. That
prayer was against the principle of the Bill, and according to
the practice of the House they ought to lay on the table.
It was for the House to decide whether, as they had imposed
new duties upon the Committee, they would not make a
special case of these Bills, and refer the petitions to them under
some limitations.
Mr. P. THOMSON did not think there could be any ob-
jection to these petitions being referred to the Committee.
The SPEAKER suggested that they should be referred to
the Committee, upon the understanding that no counsel should
be heard by them.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord G. SOMERSET hoped the Committee would look
narrowly, to see whether the petitions were bona fide or not.
Many were presented out of very bad motives.
Col. BRUEN presented a petition from Carlow, complain-
ing that the Standing Orders of the House had not been com-
plied with on the Dublin and Kilkenny Railway Bill.
Mr. LEADER presented two petitions in favour of Mr.
Buckingham's claims.
Mr. POULTER presented a petition from a gentleman
named Merrivale against the Exeter and Bristol Railway Bill.—
Referred to the Committee on the Bill.
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. HODGES presented four petitions in favour of the
South Eastern Railway Bill : after which, the Hon. Member
moved the second reading of the Bill.
Several Members suggested the propriety of receiving peti-
tions for and against the Bill previous to moving the second
reading of the Bill.
Sir JOHN RAE REID presented a petition from Ashbur-
ton in favour of the Bill.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from the
owners and occupiers of land in Gravesend, Rochester, and
Ashford, against the Bill.
Mr. BERNAL presented petitions from Chatham, praying
that time might be given to consider- of the best mode of
forming a Railway from London to Dover.
Sir W. GEARY presented a petition from Tunbridge
Wells against the Bill.
Mr. CURTEIS presented petitions from Rye and Folke-
stone against the Bill.
Mr. HODGES then moved the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. BERNAL said he would not take so strong a step as
to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he said he
should give his decided opposition to every other stage of the
Bill.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL would not oppose the second
reading of the Bill ; but he came to this conclusion on very
different grounds from those stated by the Hon. Member for
Rochester. He ( Sir E. Knatchbull) did not mean to go
into Committee with a pre-determination either to oppose
or support the Bill.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He would give
the matter a full and fair consideration, and would act
accordingly, and this, he thought, was the way in which he
would most satisfactorily discharge his duty. When they were
aware that twenty-eight millions of money were already em-
barked in railroad speculations, and that there were from fifty
' to sixty railroad plans before the House, he could not but
come to the conclusion that a great proportion of these schemes
must be founded on very insufficient grounds.—( Hear, hear.)
He could not at present say whether this measure was one of
them, but he hoped such was not the case.
Mr. HODGE S, as the second reading of the Bill was not
opposed, would only say, that when the Bill was placed in his
hands he stipulated with the parties that he should undertake
the conduct of the Bill upon principles of strict impartiality.
He was no partizan, and he undertook the management of the
Bill merely because it was connected with the county which be
had the honour to represent.
The Bill was then read a second time.
MIDLAND COUNTIES' RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. FRENCH and Mr. HALFORD presented petitions
against this Bill, but from the extraordinary confusion in the
House, we were unable to hear the names of the places from
whence the petitions came.
DUBLIN HARBOUR BILL.

Mr. G. EVANS brought up the Report of the Committee
on this Bill.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY.
Lord G. LENNOX moved that the Committee on this
Bill might have power to send for persons, papers, and records,
to be examined.
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member should state
some reason for his motion.
Lord G. LENNOX said he believed the object was to com-
pel certain persons to give evidence who refused to do so.
Mr. C LTRTE IS did not know that this was a power which
the House ought to give to a Committee on a Railway Bill.
The question was then put, and agreed to.
Mr. HARDY presented two petitions, but the noise in the
body of the House was so great that we could not understand
upon what subject.
Several HON. MEMBERS presented petitions, and brought up
reports on private bills, but from the cause before stated, their
prayer could not be ascertained in the gallery.
An LION. MEMBER having brought up a Report,
Mr. HAWES asked the Right Hon. the President of the
Board of Trade, if the Bill which authorised certain Incorpo-
rations was likely to obtain the support of his Majesty's Go-
vernment?
Mr. P. THOMSON said he understood the Bill had un-
dergone some alterations in the Committee. He had not yet
seen it, and when he ascertained its nature, he would be
able to say what course Government would pursue.
Mr. RICFIARDS thought a fairer case was never laid
before Government for allowing parties to be incorporated
under the Bill.
GREAT WESTERN UNION RAILWAY.
Mr. HALE presented a petition from a Gentleman in the
County of Gloucester, against this Bill, and praying to be
heard by Counsel against it.
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition in favour of the
Manchester and Stockton Railway.
Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition against the Glou-
cester Railway.
Mr. H. HUGHES presented a petition signed by 180 li•
censed victuallers of Oxford against the extra 50 per cent. on
spirit licenses.
Mr. AG LIONBY presented a petition from South Shields
to the same effect.
Captain PE CHE LL presented a petition from Goring and
Preston in Sussex, against an increase of duty on spirits.
Mr. CHARLES WOOD brought up certain papers from
the Treasury, pursuant to order.
SHERIFFS (IRELAND.)
Colonel PERCEVAL wished to ask the Secretary for
Ireland when the returns respecting the appointment of Sheriffs,
for which he had moved about three weeks ago, would be laid
on the table of the House?
Lord MORPETH said the Returns had not yet arrived
from Ireland; when they did, they should be immediately pre-
sented.

from considerable distances. At the conclusion of the exami-
nation, Mr. Warburton, who had taken a very active part
throughout in the examination of witnesses and in the business
of the Committee, claimed himself to be examined. He did
riot blame his activity, for he (Mr. Young) had been very ac-
tive in the Committee himself; but he thought that, after the
Hon. Member had had the opportunity of hearing all the wit-
nesses, it was scarcely fair ; he had therefore opposed the mo-
tion, and divided the Committee on the Hon. Member's claim,
but without success. The report of the Committee was pre-
sented on the 12th of August, and the evidence was ordered to
be printed, and was expected soon after. However, the ses-
sion closed without its appearance. He wrote to the President
of the Board of Trade, stating the delay, and requesting to
know the cause of it. The Right Hon. Gentleman, in reply,
declared his entire ignorance of any adequate cause of delay,
and said he would apply to the printer to ascertain. On the
17th of December he received a further reply from the Right
Hon. President, stating that the printer had informed him
there was a great deal of documents which had required a con-
siderable time to execute, but now the work would very shortly
appear. A still further delay, however, took place, and the
report of the evidence was not received till the beginning- of
February last, only a few days before the meeting of Parlia-
ment. On looking into the evidence he was struck with a re-
markable discrepancy between what he there read in evi-
dence and what he had heard in Committee. In this stage
of the proceedings he applied to the Honourable Gentle-
man himself, and informed him of the discovery he had
made, and intimated the necessity of rectifying the report as a
public document. The Hon. Member had replied " that he
( Mr. Young) might take what course he thought fit," and,
therefore he felt that no way remained but the present, of
bringing it before the House.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared
that the variations in the printed evidence occurred in the
correction, of the short-hand writer's notes, an opportunity
which in the present case had been carried to very great
lengths, and far beyond what was ever permitted to others.
The Chairman of that Committee had particularly cautioned
two witnesses, that though they might correct any verbal in-
accuracies that occurred in the transcript of their testimony,
they should neither add to nor diminish the matter, and he
conceived the rule should be strictly applied to all witnesses
without exception. Wishing to give the House some idea of
the extent in which the printed evidence of the handwriting
differed from the written, he counted through the first 69
pages of the report of it (which consisted altogether of 121)
and found they contained 5,000 words. Of these 3,338 had been
struck out by the Hon. Member, and 1,662 left in.—( Hear.)
The 3,338 erased words had in the course of correction been
replaced by 6,940 new ones introduced by the Hon. Member.
( Hear.) Thus instead of the 5,000 words in the written copy,
the public had 8,602 printed—(Hear)—composed of 1,662 ori-
ginal words and 6,940 introduced. The character of the altera-
tions was of much more importance, and did not arise from the
introduction merely of additional words. Thus there was in-
troduced a great variety of additional matter, which, however
interesting in itself, had nothing whatever to do with the evi-
dence given before the Committee by the Honourable Mem-
ber.—( Hear, hear.) In page ninety of the reported evi-
dence there was a question put to the Hon. Member with re-
ference to the state of the timber trade and its duties at the
leading ports, and instead of giving the answer in the
report as he really had given it according to the shorthand-
writer's notes, he introduces a long preface, and then goes
on to state not simply what the duties were and the state
of the trade, but also what they ought to be—adding a minute
account of the durability, character, texture, and fibres of deals
and other timber. He should not trouble the House with going
through the various instances of a similar kind where the Hon.
Member had given himself an extraordinary license to enlarge
upon the evidence he gave before the Committee. Now, he
did not complain of the bare fact of the Hon. Member having
thus indulged his fancy, and displayed his eloquence ; but he
did complain that all this was given to the public as evidence
taken before the Committee, which it certainly was not. In
answer to a very plain question as to the effect of a rise in the
price of timber on the import trade in that article, the Hon. Gen-
tleman goes into a variety of details as to the measurement of
deals, and enters into a long strain of reasoning and argument
upon the subject, which would have done very well as an
essay on the timber trade, but was neither suited to the pre-
sent Report nor to any part of the evidence which he gave
before the Committee. Then, again, the Hon. Member in.
dulged in a course of argument as to the effects of war upon
the trade, and instanced 1813 and 1814, a point that had not
been touched upon at all in his evidence before the Com-
mittee. To most of the members of the House perhaps these
discrepancies might not appear to be matters of much import-
ance; but to him (Mr. Young), who had paid such close at-
tention to everything that bore upon the subject, they seemed
to be very material alterations in the character of the evidence
given before the Committee. His motion merely was for
printing the evidence precisely as it was actually given before
the Committee by all the witnesses, including the Hon. Mem-
ber, and also the evidence as given in the Report which the
Hon. Member had prepared, and that both be laid before the
House, in order that each member might be able to judge for
himself how far the one was a fair copy of the other. There
was another point of some importance which it was necessary
for him to observe ; namely, that the version of the Hon.
Member's evidence, as given by him in his report, there
was no opportunity of cross-examining him upon, for if
there had been, the character of his reasoning and argu-
ments might have been materially altered. The Hon.
Member had the advantage of giving his own answers, and
drawing his own conclusions, without any one to dispute
the facts of the one, or the justice of the other. If the text
of the Hon. Member had been open to comment by cross-
examination, he might have been refuted out of his own
mouth. The llon. Member had therefore taken a very unfair
advantage by this mode of promulgating his opinions. As he
had said before, he had no personal motive in bringing this
question forward. The Hon. Member concluded by moving,
" That the evidence given by Henry Warburton, Esq., Mem-
ber of this House, before the Select Committee on Timber
Duties, be printed verbatim from the short-hand writer's notes,
with the same cv:dence from the published Report of the Select
Committee, placed in parallel columns opposite each question
and answer."
Mr. WARBURTON said that the Hon. Member ought to
have religiously abstained from exciting any prejudice against
another Member of the House, whom he had chosen to make
an attack upon..--( Cheers.) This was the second attempt
which the Hon. Member had made, according to a common
phrase, to " Burke" his evidence.—( A laugh.) At an early
period of the sitting of the Committee, he expressed his wil-
lingness to give his evidence before them, leaving to them to
appoint the time at which they would call upon him to do so ;
and the Chairman on that occasion proposed that he should be
examined after all the other witnesses had given their evi-
dence. The Hon. Member, however, suggested that the wit-
nesses should be marshalled man against man, as if displayed
on a chessboard, and that the number of witnesses on each
side, and not the weight of evidence, should preponderate.
He ( Mr. - Warburton) said that he was not over anxious to
be examined at all ; but that, having been acquainted for
eighteen years with the timber trade, lie should be ready
to give the Committee the advantage of any information
which his experience during that period might enable him
to convey. Yet the Hon. Gentleman, on that occasion,
made a motion in the Committee, supported by his friends,
that he (Mr. Warburton) should not be heard. The Hon.
Gentleman having failed at that time to procure abortion,
makes an attempt now to strangle the infant. He should come
now to the evidence which he had given before the Committee.
In giving that evidence he had stated facts connected with the
history of the timber trade, as he had been taught them by
experience • and he supposed it was because he had ventured
to deviate from a rule which the Hon. Gentlemen would pre-
scribe, that the Hon. Gentleman was induced by his zeal to
come forward on the present occasion to break a lance with
him. If the House examined the evidence which he gave, it
would be found that it related to matter of history ; and it
was only when he was driven into a corner by the cross-ques-
tions of the Hon. Member and his friends, that he felt him-
self compelled to show battle in his own defence, by giving
explanations. The Hon. Member for Worcester, for instance
(Mr. Robinson) had got a crotchet in his head upon the sub-
ject of the timber trade, which he never failed to introduce
upon every occasion that the subject was under discussion or
consideration, which was this—that the continuance of the
timber trade was no proof that it was not a losing one. If,
upon this point, he had been driven to give any evidence, it
was attributable only to the over-zeal of those who pressed
the subject upon him. His evidence before the Committee,
if perused, would be found to be limited to his opinions,
and from that evidence he had drawn certain conclusions
explanatory of his opinions. He was questioned by the
Committee upon three points ; namely, first, a comparison
between the prices of timber at the present time and eighty
years ago. Second, whether, when the ports were open to us,
the price of timber was likely to be raised ? And, thirdly, as
to the effect of freights in regulating the price. These were
the points upon which he had given some details to the Com-
mittee. Did the Committee check him in giving these details
or opinions ? Quite the reverse. He could assure the House
that it took him three months and a half, occupying three
hours each day, to compare and complete these returns.—
(Cheers.) The Hon. Member had read him a severe lesson
because, over this barren and uninteresting soil, he had scat-
tered a few flowers. In fact, it was after receiving the printed
evidence that the Committee had requested him to make the
additions now complained of. As to the charge itself implied
in the Hon. Member's motion, he should only say that if the
House devolved certain duties on an Hon. Member, and in ful-
filment of those duties that Hon. Member had occupied a great
deal of time and labour, ho did not think it was for the House
he thought,
to turn round upon him after, and visit on him any delay that
might have occurred in giving information to persons on the
other side of the Atlantic, or withholding from them an early
perusal of the evidence. As to any alteration which he had
made in the wording of the evidence, as the questions were
put and answered before the Committee, he had made but
vaserya fineawt,tearndofsomcoemmofonthesmens Aev.erewnheecnesshae was under ex-
y,
amination he stated to the Committee that he could not
then fill up the details he had given. He had, however,
done so since, and the 7,000 new words which the Hon. Mem-
ber had charged him with introducing were all occupied in
filling up those details. He had introduced no new points, al-
though the Hon. Member thought he had done so. On the
whole, he thought he had reason to be obliged to the Hon.
Member, for having unintentionally conferred on him a fa-
vour. No doubt the object of the Hon. Gentleman's motion
was to discredit the evidence he had given ; but notice
would be taken of it now, which never had before. He
would now have twenty readers, where • he only one had
be-
fore.—( Cheers. )
Mr. ROBINSON said that the complaint against the Hon.
Member was not for filling up the tables, or f but publishing
as his evidence a mass of matter which he had not even given
in evidence at all, and which never was printed as such. He
hoped this would not be made a party question, for it deeply
involved the integrity of the House and its reports. If essays

were to be introduced into the reports of the House, the public
had no security as to their faithfulness. The lion. Member
had given to the public, not the evidence which he gave be-
fore the Committee, but that which he said he gave. It was
most important that the Report should be early in the hands
of Members. The Committee reportedlon the 14th of August ;
but, in consequence of the delay occasioned by the Member
for Bridport, it was not laid before the House in sufficient
time to enable Members to make themselves masters of it.
Other witnesses were allowed merely to correct their inadver-
tencies. It was unprecedented that one member of the Com-
mittee should be allowed to keep in his own possession, for
upwards of three months, the evidence taken before that Com-
mittee. He maintained that the alterations made were im-
portant, and that the proceedings were an infringement of the
privileges of the House.
Sir J. GRAHAM was not present when his Hon. Friend
the Member for Bridport closed his evidence before the Com-
mittee. He had known his Hon. Friend for many years, and
known him to be unimpeachable in character; he therefore
concurred in the desire of the Committee -that the Member
for Bridport should be permitted to add to the report docu-
ments of which he was in possession, connected with the de-
tails of the timber trade for many years back. He said it
would be utterly impossible for him to prepare them during
the Session, and applied for the permission of the Committee
to add them to his evidence. His Hon. Friend had been
three months occupied in preparing the documents, and this
sufficiently accounted for the delay in printing the report.
The important part of this question was limited to one fact.
It was important that the evidence taken before committees
should be authenticated. The rule was that, upon application
to the Chairman, any verbal correction was permitted. The
great objection in this case was, that parts of the evidence taken
before it were altered, and he could not acquit his Hon. Friend
for having altered seine of the questions. That certainly was,
to a certain degree, an indiscretion. It would produce more
caution in future.—( Hear.)
Mr. P. THOMSON could confirm all that was stated by
the Hon. Member for Bridport. When his Hon. Friend ap-
peared before the Committee as a witness, he read part of the
papers be had with him relating to the timber trade, and said
he had others which were not in a state of preparation. He
distinctly recollected his Hon. Friend having said that he must
be permitted to fill up his evidence, and that he was authorised
and requested by the Committee to do so. He did not recol-
lect that the course proposed met with any opposition in the
Committee. The Hon. Member for Worcester, he believed,
observed that his Hon. Friend (Mr. Warburton) was not au-
thorised to correct the evidence. There was a great difference
of opinion as to the printing of the report, but as additions
wore to be made, having reference only to facts which were
before stated, the Committee came to the conclusion that it
was unnecessary to call any more witnesses. What was the
amount of the charge ? No impropriety or unfairness was al-
leged against his Hon. Friend, for he was authorised by the
Committee to act as he had done, and no question was raised
upon his Hon. Friend's conduct. What then was the object
of the motion ? Was it to cast a slur upon his Hon. Friend or
upon his evidence? If his evidence was to be disproved, there
would be Isufficient opportunity for doing so when the subject
of the timber duties was brought forward for discussion. There
could be no use in proceeding further now upon his motion.
He was charged with having permitted the alteration of evi-
dence. He was not aware that he had done so.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON certainly understood that his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Warburton) had the permission of the
Committee to alter his evidence, but not to so great an ex-
tent. He was greatly surprised at the length to which his
Hon. Friend went.
'Mr. HUME thought the House and the country indebted
to his Hon. Friend. As the object of the Committee was to
elicit truth, and that his Hon. Friend was required by the
Committee to communicate information, there was no reason
why they should proceed further with this motion.
Sir M. W. RIDLE Y said if a division took place he would
divide with his Hon. Friend ; but it would be better to with-
draw the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was one material difference between this and other cases, which
was, that the Member for Bridport acted under the directions
of the Committee. As to matter of principle, there could be
no doubt that his evidence ought to have come before the
Committee. But as his Hon. Friend had been directed to act
as he did, if animadversion was to fall' anywhere it should be
on the Committee. He agreed in the observation that the
Hon. Member for Bridport had great reason to thank the
Hon. Member for Teignmouth for having brought forward this
motion ; for it had given occasion for its being shown that the
Hon. Member for Bridport had, at an unparalleled sacrifice
of time and labour for the public service, spent four hours a day
during three months in furnishing the information desired by the
Committee. Yet, as this motion was calculated, if agreed to,
to give currency to an opinion adverse to the fair fame of the
Hon. Member for Bridport, he trusted the Hon. Member for
Teignmouth would take advice which had been given him by
Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and not press the
motion to a division. Should, however, the Hon. Member
persist in his motion, there was none against which he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) would give a more hearty vote.
Mr. HARDY thought that no imputation was apparently
conveyed against the Hon. Member for Bridport, because be
might have been carried forward by his feeling on the question
into an irregularity which at another time he would not have
committed.—( Hear. )
Mr. G. F. YOUNG was sure that he had never evinced
any disposition to cast undeserved censure on any Member
of that House, and he did feel himself placed in a very unfair
and embarrassing position; for Hon. Members opposite, and
particularly the Right Hon: President of the Board of Trade,
had attempted to give all the eulogy to the Hon. Member for
Bridport, and to cast upon him (Mr. Young) all the blame.
—( Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches.) If Hon.
Gentlemen meant those cheers as a confirmation of that
course of which lie complained, he should certainly vindicate
his motives and his conduct by pressing the motion to a divi-
sion. He declared again, that, as far as his recollection served
him, he had never been present at any such arrangement in
the Committee with respect to the Hon. Member for Brid-
port's evidence as that which had been referred to ; and how
the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland, who had
left town, according to his own statement, before the Hon.
Member for Bridport was examined, could have been a party
to any such arrangement, he (Mr. Young) was at a loss
to understand. Placed as he was in the position of an in-
dependent Member of that House, and having communi-
cated with no party, in order to gain support to his motion,
he would say that, unless the Right Hon. President of the
Board of Trade would withdraw some portion of the censure
which he had cast upon him, he certainly should carry his mo-
tion to a division.
Sir J. GRAHAM had never intended to impute any blame
to the Hon. Member for Teignmouth in bringing forward
the present motion. On the contrary, he thought it quite
right that it should have been brought before the House. But
as the matter complained of clearly came under the description
of irregularity, and as:every object, therefore, would have been
gained by thus bringing the subject under the attention of the
House, he certainly had thought the Hon. Member would do
better by withdrawing his motion. His object, however, in
rising, had been to state, in answer to what had fallen from
the Hon. Member for Teignmouth, that, although he (Sir J.
Graham) had not been present at the examination of the Hon.
Member for Bridport, yet that he had actually been present
when an understanding to that effect was come to, and when
it was also said that the Hun. Member hard valuable evidence
to offer to the Committee, which was to be found in books to
which he could obtain access, and which could not so well be
given orally as in a tabular form. On that occasion he ( Sir
J. Graham) himself, if he mistook not, suggested whether
tabular information could not be appended to the evidence of
the Hon. Member, and that he might have an opportunity of
correcting it after the close of the session.
Mr. P. THOMSON had meant to cast no imputation on
the Hon. Member for Teignmouth.
Lord SAND ON suggested to the Hon. Member for Teign-
mouth whether, as the motion, if agreed to, would certainly
convey an imputation against the Hon. Member for Bridport,
the Hon. Member had not better withdraw it ?
Mr. G. F. YOUNG—I beg to withdraw the motion.
Lord SANDON was proceeding to address the House when
he was assailed by cries of " Question," and his Lordship im-
mediately sat down.
The motion was then withdrawn.
ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES (REPORT).

Lord J. RUSSELL rose:to move that the second Report
of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the eccle-
siastical revenues and into the state of the Church be printed.
He (Lord J. Russell) thought it right, in conformity with
the course pursued that evening in the other House by the
Noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government, to state
shortly to the House what was the general subject of the
report in question. It would be in the recollection of the
House that this Commission originated when the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth was in office as First
Minister of the Crown, and that there were then united in
the Commission, with several Archbishops and Bishops, three
or four persons holding high official situations in the Go-
vernment. It would also be remembered that when the
Right Hon. Baronet went out of office, the greater part
of those Gentlemen who had held office with him withdrew
from the Commission, and that, with the consent •f the greater
number of Bishops comprised in the first commission, a new
commission was issued, including the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government, and other persons. Although, however,
the persons forming the commission had been changed the
objects of the commission had not ; and he thought that he was
fairly entitled to say that the discussions which had arisen
since the addition of the new members to the commission had
been carried on in a most amicable and friendly spirit between
the members of the board. They had undertaken on their
parts to propose a particular measure for the benefit of the
Church and the advantage of the country, and they had been
enabled to come to an unanimous opinion in reporting upon
the remaining objects of the inquiry. The objects of the in-
quiry had originally been three :—First, a better division and
regulation of the episcopal revenues and duties ; secondly, a
disposition of the revenues of cathedrals and collegiate chap-
ters, in order to render them more conducive to the relief and
benefit of the Established Church; and lastly, to inquire into
the residence of the Clergy on their benefices, with reference
to a due performance of their duties. Now, as regarded the
first branch of the inquiry, the first Report had proposed in
the first place a different territorial distribution of the dio-
ceses, in order to make them more equal, then a sup-
pression of two Sees, and the erection of two others.
Thus far as regarded the duties. As regarded th e
revenues, the Report proposed that the greater of them should
be brought within a scale not exceeding 5,5001., and not less
than 4,500/. ; and that none but the two Archbishoprics of Can-
terbury and York, and the Bishoprics of London, Durham,
and Winchester, should be made exceptions to the rule. The
only material alteration in this plan proposed to be made by
the present Report was, that as regarded the territorial distri-
bution of the sees, that portion of the diocese of Bristol which