The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-26 00:00:00

Mr. C. WOOD was surprised that such a question
should be asked without due notice given.
Mr. MACLEAN said that the Hon. Gentleman could
not be taken by surprise as to the last part of the question,
viz., whether any communication had been received from
Lord John Hay.
Mr. C. WOOD was understood to decline answering
the question.
Mr. MACLEAN said he should take an early oppor-
tunity of giving notice of his intention to ask these questions.
Captain BOLDERO was desirous of hearing from the
Noble Lord when it would be convenient for him to bring
forward the motion of which he had given notice. He was
anxious about it, as it involved the honour of a British of-
ficer and a branch of the service. [The motion of the Gal-
lant Officer is for a " Copy of the charge (if any) and
minutes of evidence of a Court of Inquiry, held at Sheer-
ness in February last, touching the conduct of Lieutenant
Hill, R.N., late in the command of his Majesty's steam-
vessel Alban, in the Mediterranean, superseded without

inquiry:
Lord. J. RUSSELL was inaudible in reply. The Noble
Lord then gave notice of a motion for leave to bring in a
Bill to-morrow ; but such was the noise that prevailed, that
the nature of the motion did not reach the gallery.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL, after giving notice that he should
move to-morrow (this day) for leave to bring in a Bill for
suspending the appointments to certain dignities and offices
in collegiate churches, and sinecure preferments, then moved
the order of the day for the adjourned debate on the Es-
blished Church Bill. The Noble Lord then proceeded :
Although I shall not attempt to take this opportunity of
speaking to the subject of this Bill, unless perhaps in case
certain facts are stated which require explanation, and when
I hope I may be allowed the indulgence of the House in
giving an explanation of them, I do think that it will be for
the convenience of the House, as well as it is the duty of the
Government, to give some intimation of the course which is
intended to be pursued with respect to the Bill on which I
have moved the order of the day for resuming the adjourned
debate ; and with respect to the other Bills relating to Church
matters before the House. It is my intention with respect to
the Bill relating to the Established Church and the division
of sees to move the third reading to-night. As I have said, I
will not now enter into a debate on this question, but merely
take occasion to repeat what I have often said before, and
what, I regret to say, has not made such an impression as so
notorious a fact was calculated to do, namely, that this Bill
does not increase the number of bishops, but retains the same
number exactly as there was before its introduction.—( Hear. )
With respect to the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill,
which relates to the deans and chapters, and the distribution
of a great pert of their revenues to the cure of souls in popu-
lous parishes and districts, there has been, I am sorry to say,
so much opposition raised to this Bill, that, at the pre-
sent advanced period of the session, I do not feel con-
fident that I should successfully carry it through the House ;
and when I say that, I do not mean to imply that if I
pressed it I ahould not have a majority of this House to
support me ; I certainly do mean to say, that there is,
from various quarters, so much opposition made to the Bill,
that undoubtedly, at this advanced period of the session, we
should be compelled to sacrifice a large portion of time in
order to succeed in getting it through Parliament. That
opposition has arisen from different quarters : one of the
quarters whence it has arisen is from those from some of whom
my Noble Friend opposite (Lord F. Egerton) has presented a
petition this evening. This petition follows up a former peti-
tion, in which complaint was made of the provisions of that
Bill in no very measured terms. And the present petition
prayed, without going into any discussion of the present pro-
visions of the Bill, to postpone its consideration for another
session. In treating of that Bill, I must say that I cannot
consent to postpone it without stating that I do not attach
weight to the statements made in the former petition, nor the
principles on which it was founded. The statement there
made is this—that there arc certain rights of patronage which
they consider the same as a vested interest in other pro-
perty, and that Parliament ought not to interfere with them.
This is in many respects a new claim. Ido not remember
when one similar to it was made ; I am sure it has been very
often the practice of Parliament to deal with patronage, to make
a different distribution of offices, and to deprive persons and
bodies of patronage which they otherwise would have en-
joyed, without making any compensation, or having their
right to deal with such matters questioned. But besides the
unsoundness of the principle thus laid down, I do not think
it was altogether gracious on the part of these dignitaries
to lay before the House such a ground of opposition to a
measure of this nature.—( Hear, hear.) It has been the con-
sequence—it will be the consequence—of the measures taken
for the reform of the Church, that a very considerable degree
of patronage must be sacrificed by the Crown, not only with
respect to prebendaries and sinecure preferments, but also
with respect to the patronage,
.which resulted from the ine-
quality of the bishoprics, and which made the patronage of
the Crown more valuable than it will be for the future. There
has not been on the part of the Crown any, the least, reluct-
ance to make whatever sacrifices were considered advan-
tageous to the Church, or likely to render it more efficient
and more grateful and acceptable to the people at large.—
( Hear.) With respect to the patronage enjoyed by the
bishops, I must remind the House of what has been a good
deal overlooked, namely, that they have given up some most
valuable patronage which was in their gift, and relinquished
their right to nominate to certain prebendaries and preferments
for the purpose of placing at the disposal of Government funds
which might be better applied for contributing to the efficiency
of the Church. I may mention one instance on authority
which cannot be doubted. The Bishop of London alone has
preferments in the cathedral of St. Paul's, and sinecure prefer-
ments, to the amount of ten thousand pounds, the whole of
which he has expressed his willingness to relinquish.—( Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") I say, then, that such being the dis-
position on the part of the Crown—such being the disposition
on the part of the Bishops—l do think that those prefer the
accomplishment of their object to the advancement of the ge-
neral good of the Church, who interpose the objection of a
vested right in patronage in the way of a measure of Church
Reform._( Cheers.) Sir, there is another opposition to this
Bill, which comes from a very different quarter, and which is
in the spirit of the petition which has just been presented by
the Hon. Member for Manchester.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
It is an opposition grounded on the opinion, that
these reforms are not of the kind or extent of reform which
ought to take place, and more especially on a decidedly strong
feeling evinced by a great portion of the Dissenters that some
step should be taken for making the funds which may accrue
from the abolition of sinecure preferments supply the place of
church-rates. Sir, as I stated that I do not agree to the
opinions expressed by the deans and chapters, or of those
who signed the petition on their part, so likewise I must say
that I do not agree in the views stated by the latter class, to
whom I have alluded. It is not, in my opinion, possible for
Parliament in the next or any other session of Parliament to
find in those preferments funds sufficient to replace church-
rates. It is my opinion that the wants of the Church are
such that, supposing the House to say it is better that these
wants should be attended to in the first place, and the ser-
vice of the cathedrals altogether neglected—( Hear, hear,
hear)--even in that case the wants of the Church with
regard to the populous districts, are such as to disable
Parliament from making any portion of its revenues a
substitution for church rates. Sir, that being my opinion, the
only ground on which I can consent to the postponement of
this Bill, and that with respect to the discipline of the Church,
is that, instead of now meeting with general concurrence and
approbation with which, I must say, this plan of Reform was
received when proposed by me on a former occasion, and when
it met with such general support—in which the Hon. Member
for Middlesex and my Hon. Friend the Member for the Tower
Hamlets joined—that an Hon. Member on the opposite side of
the House got up and declared he wished to say nothing which
would disturb the unanimity which prevailed in the House—
I say, therefore, that instead of the general approbation and
concurrence which were then expressed, it has appeared, on
farther inquiry, that those who agreed in that opinion have
considered these Bills to be liable to great objection, and to
require much further inquiry. I certainly am of opinion,
much as I regret that I should have occasion to express it,
that it is not desirable, at this very late period of the Session,
to enter into a discussion which would give rise to considerable
delay and opposition, and that we shall be enabled to come to
a more unanimous decision on these questions, by the post-
ponement of them, than we should do by forcing them on the
consideration of Parliament. Sir, allow me to say, likewise,
that although I do not consider the payment of church-rates
any sufficient grounds for the postponement of this measure on
the plea which has been urged—that cathedral property may
enable us to find a substitute for them—yet I must say, that
the object which we have looked forward to from the beginning
of the session—the settlement, at the present time, of the
whole of these questions, will not be perfectly attained until
that question of church-rates is settled.--( Hear.) Sir, it was
my opinion, and I believe I may say it was the opinion of
my colleagues, at the commencement of this session, that
we might, if we had sufficient time, put an end to most
of those questions which have been the cause of dif-
ference and vexation, and hostility, which ought not to
prevail between the Established Church and the Dissenters, as
well as the lay members of the Church itself in this country.
One question, for instance, with respect to which the Dis-
senters felt themselves aggrieved is the imperfection of regis-
try, and being obliged to conform to the rites of the Church
of England with regard to marriage. We have brought in
a measure to meet this evil, the result of which will be, to
leave the Dissenters free and unfettered in the enjoyment
of the same rights as those possessed by the members of the
Church. As to another and a very great question (tithes),
with respect to which the Bill which we brought for-
ward has been returned from the House of Lords, there is
no doubt that there did and does exist, on that subject,
ground for frequent occasions of disgust and quarrel be-
tween the clergyman and his parishioners. With regard to
church-rates, they have been the occasion of the most
vexatious and harassing disputes in different parishes be-
tween the members of the Church and the Dissenters. With
respect to these Bills now under the notice of the House, I
am of opinion that they are calculated to remove many of
those defects and abuses in the Establishment which gave rise
to much imputation against the members of the Church. I
did certainly believe, that by submitting measures for the re-
form of the Church, in which the leading members of the
Church itself were willing to abide by the decision of Par-
liament and the public opinion of the country, we should
place the Church in in a state of security which it has not
hitherto enjoyed. In saying this, Ido not mean to deny that
there may not hereafter be ground for introducing other
changes and reforms—though for myself I do not see any rea-
son for thinking such a proposition may be necessary ; but I

do say that the members of the Church now giving an earnest
of their wish and intention to purify it from all defects, there
will not hereafter occur any of those questions which are the
most dangerous, and with respect to which a peremptory de-
mand is made on the one side, and a peremptory refusal given
on the other.—( Hear, hear.) As soon as you get rid of that
state of things, as soon as you bring the question to one of de-
gree, from that moment you free the institution itself from
danger, and you show it to be such an institution as that it
rests on the good and sound opinion of the community.—
( Hear, hear.) So likewise with respect to the Dissenters, I
do not think that they will be ever contented unless placed
in such a situation that they do not feel themselves harassed or
aggrieved, or interfered with in their spiritual concerns by the
Established Church. Now, our great object has been the re-
form and security of the Church, and the complete freedom
and civil equality of the Dissenters.—(Hear, hear.) There
is one other Bill which I shall mention. It has been brought
from the House of Lords, and relates to residence and plu-
ralities. Ido not think there can be any objections to the
details of the Bill. I hope it will be formed into a law during
the present session. I have now concluded; and I shall only
express a hope that if there be any misunderstanding with re-
spect to a measure of such importance, and on which so much
excitement prevails, I shall be allowed an opportunity of cor-
recting it.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME thought the Noble Lord ought not to have
felt much surprised at the opinions expressed on the part of
the deans and chapters on the subject of Church Reform.
But the Noble Lord had stated that the wants of the Church
were sufficient to engross all its revenues. He wished the
Noble Lord would have stated what those wants were.—
( Hear, hear.) It was because he wished to see the Church
properly provided for that he was unwilling that Parliament
should give its sanction to a measure which provided that
148,4001. should be divided amongst twenty-six individuals ;
that 2,026 persons should only have 141,0001.; and that five
bishops' sons and sons-in law should be allowed as much as
300 curates. Therefore he thought the Noble Lord unrea-
sonable in asking the assent of the House to a measure so un-
equal in its operation. The Noble Lord had said that he ap-
proved of this Bill. He had done no such thing. On the
contrary, he had, when it was submitted, given notice that
he should take the sense of the House on its postponement.
He candidly acknowledged that be thought it desirable to ab-
stain from all vexatious opposition to his Majesty's Ministers
on this question, which might have the effect of transferring
the Government to other hands ; a result which he looked
upon as dangerous to the best interests of the country, and
particularly with respect to the policy to be pursued towards
Ireland. Ile considered it right, however, to record his opi-
nion on this subject, and to leave others to pursue whatever
course they chose.
Mr. L ENNA RD recommended a change in the Commis-
sion, and gave as an instance of the little reliance to be placed
on the representations of those who were interested in sustain-
ing the Church establishment in its present state, that the pre-
decessor of the present diocesan of one of the bishoprics of
Wales, said to be a very poor one, died leaving a sum of
100,000/. to his heir.
Mr. TREVOR asked the name of the bishop. No answer
was given to the question.
Mr. C. BULLER did not think the Noble Lord justified
in complaining of the opposition given to this Bill at a late
stage of it, when considerable opposition had been given to it
in Committee. It was with great satisfaction that he heard
the Noble Lord express his willingness to give up two Bills.
He only wished he had also given up the Bill now under
consideration, which was rendered more inefficient by the
withdrawal of the Bill by which it was accompanied. The
Commission was not to be under the control of Parliament,
and in addition it was to be composed of those persons who
were the constant opponents of the present Government. He
was glad that the Hon. Member for Middlesex intended to
take the sense of the House on the third reading, and then to
withdraw all opposition to the measure.
. _ .

Lord JO LIN .RUS SE L L said that the Commission to be
appointed would assimilate as closely as possible to the Ec-
clesiastical Commission in Ireland. The Commissioners under
that Commission were removable by his Majesty in Council,
and under warrant bearing the sign manual. They would be
similarly removable in that proposed.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the Noble Lord should at
once state what were the modifications he proposed introdu-
cing after the third reading.

Lord J. RUSSELL had but one additional proposition to
make, and that referred to the appointment of the Commission.
He should propose to constitute it of the Archbishop of Can-
terbfry, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, and

certain others to be 'hereafter named : the two last-named
Bishops, and the three last-named laymen, to be removable at

pleasure.

He had no other alteratioci to mention.

Mr. ESTCOURT defended the conduct of the Church
Commissioners from the aspersions sought to be cast upon
them. The adjourned debate was then proceeded with.
Mr. A. TREVOR should vote with the Hon. Member for

Ilildlesex; but it was not to be supposed that, because he
did so, he concurred in any of the propositions that Hon.
Member or his party were likely to bring forward in respect to
the Church.—( A laugh.)
Mr. E WART regarded the measure as a most clumsy piece
of legislation in the first place, and in the second as a very
unnecessary- abandonment of principle on the part of Mini-
sters. It professed to be a measure of equalization, but it was
anything else. All the gradations of Episcopal income from
15,000/. to 5,0001. a year, were preserved, and the only alte-
rations consisted in the arrangement and subdivision of the
sees. To the proposed Commission he objected, on the
ground that the controlling power over its proceedings was not
vested in the people, through the responsible organs of the
Government. He wished to see the Government taking the
question of Church reform into their own hands, instead of
adopting the reforms suggested by their opponents.
Dr. B 0 WR ING said that from his cradle he had been
taught to believe that it was not worldly pomp and power—
not the possession of inordinate opulence—but the quiet, un-
ostentatious exercise of clerical duty, that was most acceptable

to the religious principle. Froni the costly and opulent
Establishment he turned to the Dissenting principle. The
Dissenters asked for nothing from the State—nothing from
the public purse. Were their children less carefully edu-
cated? Was there less of religious zeal or religious conduct
among their professors ? Indeed, his objection to the Bill
went far beyond most of the objections urged against it.
He thought the Church of England did not answer the ob-
jects for which it was professed to be established. It was
over-encumbered with wealth; its opulence was its bane;
its enormous revenues were all barriers to its usefulness. It
was in sad contrast to primitive Christianity. Of what was
the Commission composed who were charged with the great
duty of Church reform ? Was it not of those most interested
in Church abuses ? Were not the changes in the episcopal
system delivered over to the hierarchy of the archbishops and
the bishops ? The public eye had not been inattentive to the
fact that the primary object of the bishops had been to provide
for themselves—to set aside enormous and unnecessary re-
venues for their own good service. They had acted wisely
in their generation. But there was another principle in the
Bill which he could not sanction. The Church of England
called itself the National Church ; but in the nation immense
numbers came not within its pale. Was that a reason they
should be excluded ? He thought not. Opinion would never
sanction those enormous appropriations which this Bill esta-
blished. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth
called them the necessary support of decent and decorous dig-
nity. He saw in them nothing but the graspings of worldli-
ness and antichristian rapacity. Did Manchester and Ripon
desire.to be favoured with bishops ? Did the inhabitants be-
lieve that their presence would lead to religious peace and har-
mony ? Far from it.
Mr. GROTE said he had so liitle to approve of and so
much to object to in the measure, that it was impossible for
him to vote for the third reading. His principal objection to
it was the one already expressed—he meant the truly exorbi-
taut and improper scale on which the episcopal incomes were
to be measured. He looked upon the proposition of giving
an income of 15,0001. a year to the Archbishop of Canterbury
as one entirely indefensible on every ground.—( Hear.) If he
were prepared to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury ought
to have an income of 15,0001. a year as a remuneration for his
services, he could not refuse a proposition for giving to the Pre-
mier, or Lord Chief Justice, an income of 30,0001. a year.
Why, was it possible to conceive any set of duties which could
be more easily or tranquilly performed, or which were more
exempt from all those difficulties that required labour, assi-
duity, and talent to surmount them, than those allotted to the
Archbishop of Canterbury ?—(oh, oh.) In his humble
opinion, the lowest of the scales proposed would suffice for the
highest see named in the Bill. Another ground of objection
to the manner in which the episcopal incomes were fixed by
the Bill originated in the comparison it was impossible not to
draw between those incomes and the miserable stipends allotted
to the working clergy. It was said 1001. or 150/. a year was
a sufficient income for a curate. On what principle, then,
could it be contended that the Archbishop of Canterbury,
who, whether in regard to education, position in society,
ability, or general usefulness, was not the superior of the
humbler individual so remunerated, required to have an income
of 15,000/. ?—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord (J. Russell)
had evinced great anxiety to prove that there was no surplus
revenue in the case of the Established Church in England.
Could it be expected that any Dissenter would believe that
there was no surplus, when he found such a rate of income
allotted to the bishops ? Certainly he never would.—(Hear.)
Mr. BAINE S maintained that the provisions of the Bill
were in many respects wholly inconsistent with its principles.
The Commission which it proposed to establish would be worse
than a revival of the Houses of Convocation, for its powers
would be greater. He deprecated the ascendancy of the
clergy in secular matters. Under the superintendence of the
Noble Lord at the head of the present Government, the exer-
cise of such power might be pure; but it might not be so
under future Ministers. To clause II he especially objected.
By the Bill the average income of a bishop would be rendered
seventy-six times as great as the average income of a bene-
ficed clergyman : and the income of the Archbishop of York
would be two hundred and seventeen times as much as that
of the greater number of his clergy. The complaints of the
Dissenters of England and the Catholics of Ireland, had at
length been, to a certain degree, listened to in that House.
With reference to the former, the Registration Bill had been
passed. But how had it been treated in another place ? Every
one of its details had been objected to by the highest authori-
ties in the Establishment. Ireland had asked 50,000/. from
the surplus of Church revenue, to dedicate to the purposes of
education and religious instruction. That, however, was
grudged; while twenty-eight bishops shared among them no
less than 150,0001. It did not appear to him to be at all ne-
cessary to cress a Bill on the subject in the present session.
He should vote against the third reading of the Bill.
Lord HO WICK, in answer to the first objection of the
Hon. Member for Leeds, against the composition of the Ec-
clesiastical Commission, denied that it would have the powers
which formerly belonged to the Houses of Convocation. The
powers of the Commission to be established by the Bill were

strictly limited and defined ; and they were powers absolutely
necessary to enable them to carry into effect, with reference to
any bishoprics that might become vacant, the recommendations
contained in the Report which had been made to his Majesty
on the subject. Nor would the Bill grant the bench of bishops
one farthing more than they at present possessed. The Bill
would diminish, and almost put an end to, translations ; for,
if carried into effect, a bishop would be rather a loser than a
gainer, in a pecuniary point of view, by being removed to any
diocese except the bishopric of London, or either of the two
archbishoprics. Undoubtedly he (Lord Howick) was of opi-
nion that a greater amount of Church reform was necessary ;
but it was exceedingly desirable in the present instance to
adopt a measure which should have the concurrence of the
highest authorities in the Establishment. He thought, there-
fore, that the wise course was to take the Bill as far as it went
in the hope that when the heads of the Church saw how hap-
pily it operated, they might be prepared to go further, and to
carry into effect a system of improvement calculated to secure
that which he was sure was the object of them all, namely, to
diffuse as widely as possible the religion which they professed.
Although the Bill might not effect all the reform which was
desirable, it certainly would effect a great reform ; and he con-
fessed, therefore, that he was surprised at the acrimony with
which it had recently been treated in some quarters.
Mr. BROT HE RTON was desirous that the further pro-
ceeding with the Bill should be postponed until the Church-
rates were entirely abolished. He did not mean by that a
transfer of those rates to the consolidated fund. The Legis-
lature would never consent to that, for in the event of such a
transfer, five time more would have to be paid than in the pre-
sent circumstances. It could not be that so much injustice
would be perpetrated. It could not be that the wealthy mem-
bers of the Church Establishment would thus press upon the
means of poor Dissenters. Such was not the way in which
in old times the Church was supported. Compulsory assess-
ments were injurious to any Church.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY found it difficult to reconcile the
course pursued by certain Hon. Gentlemen that evening with
his recollection of what had occurred on Friday. Either
they were in error on Friday, and acted upon over-heated
feelings, or they were now pursuing a suspicious course. The
Bill before the House was, as a measure of Church reform,
utterly contemptible ; and was so considered throughout the
country. It would give great peace to his mind, and no
doubt would afford much comfort and satisfaction to the
country, to hear from any Member of the Cabinet that this
was but an infant measure, or that it was the first and feeblest
of a series of measures to be introduced for effecting a reform
in the Church ; but unfortunately it was presented to Parlia-
ment, and now urged upon the House, as a complete and perfect
measure of Church Reform. There were three classes of
persons in this country who took widely different views of
almost all questions relating to the Established Church ; and
to one of these classes, probably the present Bill might be
perfectly satisfactory, but the other two would regard it with
the contempt it deserved. Little attempt, indeed, appeared
to be made to defend the Bill upon its own merits ; but they
were told, " Oh ! if you do not take this measure, trifling and
insignificant though it be, contemptible and worthless as you
may well think it, the present excellent Government will fall
to pieces, and then what will happen to us ?" This appeared
now to be almost the sole argument on which the House was
asked to give its consent to the measure. The Hdn. -Gentle-
man concluded in these terms :—To call this a measure of
Church Reform is an insult to the understanding of reasonable
men, and if it be carried it will prove a grievous disappoint-
ment to the expectations of the people.
Dr. L U SHING TON said, of all quarters in the world, a
charge of inconsistency came with least grace from the Hon.
Member for Southwark, since it must be in the aecollection of
every one whom he was addressing that at a time when all
parties in that House seemed disposed to unite to effect the
pacification of Ireland, the Hon. Member for Southwark was
found to be a deserter from his ranks.—(Hear, hear.) He
admitted that this Bill did not go to the full extent that he
thought a measure of Church reform -ought to go—( Hear,
hear)—but, at the same time, lie fully appreciated the diffi-
culties by which any Government must be surrounded who
sought to improve the ecclesiastical establishments cf the
country ; and he trusted he should at all times be prepared to
sacrifice his own individual opinions when he saw that they
stood in the way of any advantage that might be conferred on
the country.
Mr. HUTT complained that whilst various measures had
been introduced to benefit the members of the Established
Church, no step had been taken in the course of the Session
to relieve the Dissenters of the burdens of which they corm
plained, and especially of that most objectionable one—liabi-
lity to Church-rate. Unless he received an assurance frogs
the Noble Lord (Russell) that a measure of relief upon that
subject would be introduced in the next Session of Parliament,
he should feel bound, as an honest and conscientious man, to
refrain from giving his support to the Bill then under their
consideration.

Mr. C. VILLIERS said the Church demanded other and
greater Reforms ; and the time was rapidly coming when 110
thought it would be impossible to defer them.
In reply to a question from Mr. PALMER (Essex), which
.was not distinctly heard in the Gallery,
Lerd JOHN RUSSELL said that the mode in which it
was proposed to diminish or increase the emolument of any
diocese was this :—Taking the Bishopric of Durham as an in-
stance, under the provisions of this Bill, the income of that see
was to be fixed at eight thousand pounds a-year. Suppo6eg
it to be ascertained by the Commissioners that the prese'At in-
come of the see of Durham was nineteen thousand pounds, the
Commissioners would then be required to pay over elevea
thousand pounds from the income of that see towards the in-
crease of other bishoprics which had not the requisite sum.
Mr. PALMER felt that the security to the Church would
be very small if the incomes of its chief dignitaries were //lade
in any degree dependent upon a vote of that House.
Mr. HINDLE Y rose amidst general cries of question-
His only feeling with respect to the Bill was one of dissat..t'
faction.

The question was then put, and the House divided, when
the numbers were—
Ayes ...
Noes . 44
Majority for the third reading of the Bill —l3l ,
When strangers had withdrawn we understood Lord JOHN
RUSSELL declared, in reply to the appeal made to him 'of
the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Hutt), that it was the in'ten-
tion of Government to introduce, in the course of next srasion,
a measure for the regulation of Church-rates, but P:iter the
opinions of Hon. Gentleman had expressed, he ww,s bound to
say he thought it would not be satisfactory to him,
On our return to the gallery,
Mr. ESTCOURT said, that by the it was proposed
that the Commissioners should make arrangements for carry'
ing into execution the intention of the late Bishop of Durham
to augment the small livings of that diocese. Now, what be
wished was, that the name of the bishop should be introduced
into the clause, in order that posterity might know who was
the individual to whom the Act referred. He would therefore.
move that the name of the Right Rev. William Van Milde,re
be inserted in the clause.

Lord J. RUSSELL assented to the proposition, ar:ci sur
gested that after the words " Bishop of Durham," t}-0 word°
" meaning thereby the Right Rev. Bishop, William Van mil-
dert" be inserted.

The words were inserted accordingly.
Sir IL INGL IS wished to state, before the till was passed,
that although he had voted differently from those with who°
he was in the habit of acting, yet the reasons for which he had
given that vote were by no means those which had induced
Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to vote in 030
same manner.

Mr. TOOKE had come down to the House, with the in-.
tention of voting in favour of the Bill ; but after hearing tb6'
declaration made by the Noble Lord (Lord John Russel:4P
that it was his intention to postpone any measure of relief do"
ing the present session with regard to church-rates ; r,uti
ther, that when any measure on that subject should I.i, hroullit
forward, he (Lord John Russell) did not expect:it would be
satisfactory, he (Mr. Tooke) was at once de',,ermined upo
1.;
the expediency of doing what he could towar
measure of Church relief, in order that, r:c all events, tfle tvi°
measures of relief might go on, pan
i
I'assu, and that all pr°4-
postponin g
pect of redress with respect to the. church-rates
cut off, by hermetically sealing -
the revenues of the notch.Chur
After a few words from Alt.. A. TREVOR, a '
Mr. HUME wished ' migbt. b°
to ask the Noble Lord whether it wag
intended that the ticomes•of the bishops should be. I,imited
the sums now Set down for them ? Doubt had bear, expreEse
upon this. point, and he wished that a proviso should be intro;
duced. to the end that the incomes of the bish ops should 0
in any case exceed the sums stated in the Bill. If, for U.
stance, the Archbishop of Canterbury derived. 17,0001. a Yet;
he would by this Bill have to pay back 2,00 W. But if, in oh
course of years, the 15,0001. should be increased to 20,00°
or 25,0001. a year, it did not appear that he would not be en,
titled to retain the whole of it,
Lord JOHN RUSSE LL said that perhaps the best an;
swer he could give to his Hon. Friend, was by stating t
contents of a letter which he had receir,ed from the Bishop o
London upon the subject. The letter states that in truth t"
Bishop of London, under the provisions of an Act of Palia,
ment, received only one-third of the ground-rents of
nigh;
estate to which allusion had been. made on a former nig"t
and that the leases now existing would not fall in in less elite,
fifty or sixty years. But that whatever the addition might fat
it would not go to the bishop, because the Bill provided t°,
the Commissioners should :flake new returns, and should &oft
time to time make fresh arrangements, so that the amours,
fixed by the Bill should.. not be exceeded. This was the ill;
pression on the mind., of the Bishop of London, and was als
the impression on 'nis (Lord John Russell's) mind.
Mr. HUME—It might be the Noble Lord's impressi'
but the Bill did not fix the amount permanently.
The Bill was then passed.

POOLE CORPORATION BILL.
Mr. POULTER moved the Order of the Day that the
House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill..
After a few words from Messrs. Praed, Poulter and H°r9ce
Twigs, the House divided, when the numbers ware__
Ayes ........... 129
Noes

. . 57
Majoriiy for the original motion
On the queetion that the Speaker do le•ive the Chair--
a,
Mr. PRAED moved " that it be an instruction to the C,°,:e
mittee not to interfere with the clecti^r. of any parties o."--
elections are not impugned by any legal proceeding."
On the question being put,
The CHANCELLOR of Cue EXCHEQUER saidtbee'
Hon. and Learned Member sought in fact to worry the 0°11:e
into an abandonment of the :neasure, but he trusted the 0°11,9
would show that it would not be worried.—(Cheers, and ell
of " Divide.")
Mr. H. TIVIS:; observed that the Right Hon. Gentleman Zjo
warmth remirAlecl him of the old adage, He is warmest it
a
is most in the wrong." He considered that his 1-I°'