The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-21 00:00:00

In the Country.

Bristol—E, Ho
! paper maker, ,
J. Wintle, Shirehampton, Gloucestershire, icnnokgesewpeelrl.
April 10, at eleven, at the Court, B
Hewitt,
at ten, at the Court, Kingstonßristol—H,rrst,h
Lincoln,AW oroi
lt t
lo2n u dlt
miller, April
at the
l o u c
Court,
sot
ue
upon-Hull—W. Parrott, Leicester, stone mason, April
13, at ten, at the Court, Nottingham—W. Bedells, Lei-
cester, paper dealer, April 13, at eleven, at the Court,
Nottingham—T. Core, Stamford, Lincolnshire, inn-
keeper, April 13, at ten, at the Court, Nottingham.
At the Caurt of Review, April 10.
F.Thompkins, Sydney-street, Fulham-road, bili broker
Artus, Pall•mall, Opera-colonnade, cigar im-
porter—G. T. Saltmarsh, Houndschth, City, wine and
spirit merchant—J. H. Howard, Cheltenham, oil mer-
chant—J. Hignell, Colchester, grocer—W. Abbott and
W. Abbott, jun., Bermondsey-street, Southwark, patent
hair felt manufacturers—W. Corns, jun., Wolverhamp-
ton, builder—W. Lindley, Conisbrough, Yorkshire,
scythe and sickle manufacturer--G. F. Widnall, Edge-
ware-road, Paddington, stationer—J. Ransferd, Leam-
ington Priors, Warwickshire, coal merchant—T. F
Beales, William street, Knightsbridge, wine merchant.

farmers
—G.
tGaase. aTannedgeigHT,.s. Leunoam,rdaassnt,acAi
Stamford-
! PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
Nottinghamshire,
aLGnic.nhbeys,ter, corn-dealers—
hill, farriers—W. Cornish and C. L. Cornish, Birming-
ham, booksellers—J. Collins and H. A. Rigley, Crescent
place, Bridge-staeet, Blackfriars, solicitors—J, Hollis, I.
Hollis, W. Tranter, and I. B. Sheath, Birmingham. gun
and pistol-manufacturers (so far as regards J. Hollis and
W. Tranter)—T. Lawrence and T. Casson, Aigburth,
cannibus proprietors—Susannah Brown and Jane Daniel
Queen's-terrace, Queen's-road, St. John's Woed, fancy
stationers—R. Robson and C. Theakston, Claypath,
Durham, grocers—T. Robinson and D. Robinson, Ar-
thuret, Cumberland, grocers—J. Hartley and W. Perks,
Bishop Wearmouth, Durham, glass manufacturers—R.
Bainbridge and R. M. Pearson, Liverpool, export sta-
tioners—F. J. Hall and W. Jenkins, Newport, Mon-
mouthshire, solicitors—F. T. Atkins and J. Atkins,
Deptford, chemists and druggists—J. Holmes and A. L.
Holmes, Liverpool, stockbrukers—E. Benn and A. W.
Lyon, Bahia, merchants—W. Wigiall,: H. Beauvoisin,
and H. G. Hammond, Sheffield, brush manufacturers (so
far as regards 11. G. Hammond)—T. Crook and J.
Swarbrick, Preston, Lancashire, cotton manufacturers--
W. Clegg, J. Clegg, jun., and J. Clegg, Rochdale, Lan.
cashire, machine makers—J. Toplis and T. Crooke,
Derby, cordwainers—R. Edwards and J. B. Loader,
Sudbury, Suffolk, linen and woollen drapers—J. John-
stone and J. Johnstone, Norwich, drapers.

NEW AUSTRIAN CONSTITUTION.
(From the Weekly Dispatch.)
Mr. Editor,—What have the people of England to do
with the Austrian Constitution? I should reply that,
full of an anxious desire for reform here, determined not
to remain the serfs of a few hundred families possessing
landed property, they will look into the manifesto of a
despot Emperor to see what are the essentials of liberty
and justice proclaimed even by such an authority.
Whether the offer be another lie, intended to be coun-
teracted by fraud, as the concessions of the late Emperor
have been by force, or whether they shall be honestly
carried out for the benefit of the Austrian people, is no-
thing to the question. If it is considered necessary by
the worst and meanest of all Governments, excepting
possibly those of Naples and Spain, to put forth certain
principles as the only ones that can be professed with
decency, as the only pretences compatible with a show
of sense and justice, we are fully entitled to the benefit
of the admission, and have a right to work out its full
conclusions against our own Egyptian taskmasters.
The undisputed abolition of the worst oppressions
throughout the Austrian empire is, in itself, a matter of
congratulation to all freemen. It is something that, in
so immense a domain, inhabited in parts by tribes utterly
barbarous and habitually servile, there should be pro-
mulgated such a law as this, " Serfdom, no matter of
what kind or description, is abolished. A slave becomes
free by touching Austrian ground, or going on board of
an Austrian ship." We may felicitate ourselves that the
freedom of the press is acknowledged, and all censorship
abolished, that judges are made irrremovable, except for
proved offences in office, that great crimes and all politi-
cal offences, including libel, must be tried by a jury, that
a Habeas Corpus Act is established, by which a prisoner
must be brought within 48 hours before the judge of his
district, that Ministers are made responsible, and that
the Emperor cannot pardon their crimes against the
State; that property cannot be confiscated; that all Aus-
trians are equal before the tribunals; and that a man's
house is to be invaded only by the authority of recog-
nized law. All these are concessions to the general
spirit of established truth. All these are answers to the
pernicious appeals to our English egotism, when we are
told to be content, for that no nation is so free as our
own. Such liberties as we have are proclaimed, for all
his subjects, by the autocrat of Austria, in one of the
strongholds of the Holy Alliance. We may brag as
much as we please about the adoption of these great
foundations of liberty from our example—that, in shed-
ding their blood to lay them, our ancestors established
the basis of European as well as of British freedom; but
we can no longer boast of a monopoly, and, moreover,
we shall find that our dullest scholars have gone beyond
us, and that, among them, these great charters of popular
rights are not frittered and explained away by other
conditions, such as make us hold them only at the will
of an oligarchy.
The security of all freedom is the right of suffrage.
Give the people—really the people—the power to elect
their own representatives, and give to those representa-
tives the control of the taxes, and nothing short of armed
revolution, a conspiracy between a Sovereign and an army
brought to a successful end, can establish a permanent
slavery. This suffrage is, by the Austrian constitution
now proclaimed, vested in every one who pays a certain
sum in direct taxes. In the country, and in towns of
less than 10,000 souls, nine shillings so paid qualify both
voter and candidate. In towns of greater size the qua-
lifications will vary from eighteen to thirty-six shillings.
This, be it remembered is the proposition of a Govern-
ment fighting against Universal Suffrage, a Government
that claims to have pnt down all resistance or opposition
by force of arms. What sort of comparison will the
franchise here bear with it? Call our poor-rate, as it
would,be in Austria, a Government tax, and would such
a law be anything short, of Household Suffrage here?
But, if we are told to mark the difference of the value ct
money in the two countries, I should reply by demanding
that the difference of the method of taxation should also
be taken into account—that our indirect taxation should
be considered against the simple method of Austrian col-
lection—and then I should say that there is scarcely an
adult peasant in this realm who does not, by his own con-
sumption and that of those who depend upon him, con-
tribute the highest amount, the 365., to the income of the
country; and this is the qualification for the party to be
elected, as well as for the elector.
Besides this, the Austrians are offered equal electoral
districts, one representative for every 100,000 in popu-
lation. There is no parcelling out of serf-voting terri-
tories; there is no Thetford, with 160 voters sending the
same number of Members to Parliament as the Tower
Hamlets, with 18,000. There are none of those precious
" anomalies" which make the very same man, with the
same means, a freeman in one district and a mute, voice-
less serf in another. There are no double, treble, ten
times repeated votes, by which a great landholder: can
be represented in ten places at once, while a respectable
responsible householder may be represented nowhere at
all. At all events, the new Austrian constitution does
not openly profess itself to be a farce, so full of ab-
surdities, that while every tyro in figures can raise a
laugh by contrasting one set of constituencies with an-
other, no man breathing can find a respectable apology
for the tyrannous inequalities by which the populous,
intelligent, incorruptible districts are sold to the paltry
boroughs, scarcely known to exist but by their cor •
ruptions.

So much for the proposed Austrian Commons. Their
House of Lords, too, is to be constituted on a plan
quite as superior in liberality to ours. There is no lack
in Austria of a proud, rich, territorial nobility, out of
which au hereditary aristocracy might be chosen. But
either the Government feels that it cannot shock the
understandings of its subjects with such an institution,
or is so wise as not to desire it. The number of the
Uppor House is to be but half that of the Lower one.
Each crown land, that is, each separate state of the
empire, is to elect two members, and these are again
to fill up their body from persons paying 441. a year
direct taxes, say from the class which, is England,
would receive and expend about 800!. a year. While
we permit a privileged class not only to have a house of
its own, co-equal with that which we call ours, and also
suffer this class to nominate, by intimidation, influence,
or purchase, a majority in that which should represent
us, the Ministry of despotic Austria is willing, by its
own act, that the people, rich and poor, shall fairly
and equally speak for themselves, and shall settle, with
the Crown, the affairs of the Commonwealth. This
seems clear, at least, that the Austrian Government has
no intention that a few hundred people, waft their rela
tives, friends, and dependents, forming a privileged body
of a few thousands, shall suck the marrow of the land—
control the Sovereign, on the one hand, and vitiate, as
well as enslave, the people on the other.
Education, too, is provided for—education, public and
universal--and the clergy, in this bigotted, Catholic
Austria, are only to interfere with it so far as to teach
their own mysteries to the children of their adherents.
The statesmen of the Empire, Catholic par excellence,
do not understand, and will not permit, that dominant
churches should play their freaks, and keep the people
in ignorance, or dole out instruction through their own
media of priestcraft only, to the exclusion of that ge-
neral and needful instruction which enables men to la-
bour successfully, and keeps them from idleness and
crime. If there be M'Hales and Plumptres in Austria,
they must be content to chew the cud of their intole-
rance, and to mind their own business; and, moreover,
as no religion disqualifies for civil or political rights,
Austria has no need of a Lord John Russell, with his
double sophistries, to humbug fanatics into half justice,
and Liberals into the acceptance of the half, as a com-
plete satisfaction of right.
I have scarcely, Sir, touched upon the circumstances
of this edict as they effect the Austrian territories them-
selves. I have not alluded to the absolute tyranny of
dissolving the Diet at Kremsier for doing nothing when,
in fact, it was doing too wisely and too well for those
who feared it. I have not alluded to the gross oppres-
sion which may lurk in the seemingly freest institutions
by blending kingdoms together which have nothing in
commoa but their monarch, and crushing the enlight-
ened races under a body of barbarians. The " Case of
Hungary," by Count L. Teleki, published by Effing-
ham Wilson, is a proof of atrocious violation of long-
guaranteed independence, of perjury and unjustifiable
aggression, which casts the wrongs of Northern Italy
itself into the shade. Hungary is ruled by the Aus-
trian Emperor, only on the very condition of its being
maintained as a separate kingdom, such as it was
when it first elected a Sovereign from that House, and
the Austrian race have no more the right to govern it
than they have to govern England, Nor have I said a
word to those wiseacres who declare that a strong Aus-
tria is a needful ally for us, when it is clear as day that
a strong, free, united Germany would be an infinitely
more congenial friend and au incomparably surer gua-
rantee of peace and p• ogress. The object of this letter
is merely to show what the basest and most tyrannical
of Governments allows as the minimum of freedom.
The more depraved and unjust that Government is, the
stronger is my case, and the more intolerable is the
comparison between the electoral and religious rights of
England as they stand, and those which even the pro-
teges of Windischgratz, Jellachich, and Radetzky, allow
that we ought to possess, by proclaiming a freer char-
ter for debased and brutalized Austria.

CAUSTIC.

I- I'4 P E L 7 ,

;

-

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 20.

DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH REVENUES.
(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had laid down no such
doctrine as that attributed to him by the Hon. GI nt Leman
as regarded episcopal resposibility; on the contrary he
had always mentained, and still maintained, that the
Bishops of the Church having an important public trust
to perform, were bound to exercise it so as to benefit
that church, and promote the best interests of religion,
Of that there could be no doubt; but the re was a doubt
whether the policy sought to be introduced by the Hon.
Gentleman was a sound policy, that policy being that in
each case in which the patron of a living had exercised
his right, and appointed a rector, the House of Commons
might be called upon to interfere, and to pronounce its
opinion whether that patronage had been rightly exer-
cised or nut. Such a course would make that House a
court of appeal, and would result in the greatest incon •
venience, as with respect to the present case of the
Bishop of Durham, or the case of any other Bishop,
which might be brought before the House' there was no
one in that House authorised to speak with respect to the
facts of the case. The Hon. Gentlemon, who had pro-
posed this inquiry, had not hesitated to confirm one por-
tion of the petition he had presented from the inhabitants
of Bishop Wearmouth, which stated that they had no
complaint to make as to the appointment of the rector to
that parish, who they considered in all respects fitting
for his office, and he should have thought that such
being the case, the strongest grounds for an appeal to the
House of Commons would have been altogether done
away with. If he had been a bad clergyman the Bishop
had appointed, there might have been grounds of com-
plaint; but as he was admitted to be good, in his opinion
there were none. In speaking of episcopal patronage,
he must oppose the doctrine laid down by the Hon. Gen-
tleman that whilst the patronage put into the hands of
bishops was a public trust, and they were bound to exer-
cise it for the public benefit, individuals holding private
patronage could exercise it in any manner they chose.
He considered that individuals holding the right of pa-
tronage to church livings had imposed upon them a
solemn duty in the bestowal of that patronage, and what-
ever might be their private rights in regard to it, if they
exercised it for their individual advantage and not for
the interests of the residents of the district compre-
hended in it, they laid themselves open to much and to I
just censure.—(Hear, hear.) If, then, that charge with
respect to the Bishop of Durham had been done away
with, what other charges were brought against the Right
Rev. Prelate? It was said that the spiritual wants of
the district were not sufficiently provided for by the dis-
tribution of those revenues ; but in relation to this there
was a remarkable circumstance of which the Honourable
Gentleman took some notice, but did not give it that
prominence which it was entitled to,, and that
was, that while Bishop Wearmouth was connected
with the town of Sunderland, yet the parish of
Bishop Wearmouth and the parish of Sunderland
were two distinct parishes. The Honourable Gentleman
said that the streets of Sunderland were miserably bad;
that the population was destitute; that there was a
great lack of religious instruction. That he believed to
be the case, for he understood from parties not in any
way connected with the Bishop of Durham, that while
there were parties in Sunderland who give high interest
for money to be laid out in the building of houses, yet
that the occupiers of those houses were kept in the most
abject and miserable condition. But the petition from
the parish of Sunderland prayed that a portion of the
surplus revenue of the parish of Bishop Wearmouth
might be given to it for the endowment of additional
chapels in Sunderland. That he conceived was a matter
the House could not interfere with. Any poor parish
in the metropolis might in the same way demand that
a portion of the revenues of its richer neighbours
might be given to it for a similar purpose.
This, however, was not the law, and if it was so it would
be attended with great injustice. If there was a surplus,
let it be applied for the benefit of the Church at
large, but not for the benefit of any particular parish.
What he understood the Bishop of Durham to have
done was this:--The late rector of Bishop Wearmouth
had an income of about 3,0001. a year. On his dying,
the Bishop of Durham in appointing the new rector only
allowed him 1,2001 a year, aeal applied the surplus for
the benefit of the chapels erected in the diStrict. There
were some other funds arising from land and coals which
were mixed up with it, and appropriated for the same
purpose, the whole being placed in the hands of trus-
tees, for the purpose he had mentioned ; and whether
that was a proper arrangement was not, in his opi-
nion, a case that the House could go into, as all that
could be said was, that the arrangement had been
made with a view to give a large portion of the re-
venue of the former rector for the purpose of supply-
ing the spiritual wants of the district. But then the
Hon. Gentleman said it was illegal to make any such
arrangement with the present rector; but that certainly
was a case for the proper courts to decide, and, upon
the whole case, he thought it would be better that
Parliament should make some general arrangement ra-
ther than fix upon one particular case; and he could
with safety generally assert iu regard to the present
case, that he believed the Bishop of Durham to have acted
in the full consciousness of the responsibility which
rested on him, and that in so acting he had had in view
the best interest of the Church in his district. He had
known that Right Rev. Prelate long, and his belief was,
that since his appointment to the see of Durham, which,
since his elevation to it, had been reduced from 21,000/.
to 8,0001. a year, by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
he had always acted with great propriety and generosity,
and was ever disposed to exercise the patronage com-
mitted to him in such a way as to benefit the Church
and the community. As to the reforms in the Church,
which the lion. Gentleman had alluded to, he had no
doubt that some of these—most necessary—would ema-
nate from the Commission on the subject now sitting,
and to those which from time to time were found neces-
sary, he would be prepared to give his cordial support.
He, therefore, must oppose the motion submitted to the
House.—(Hear.)
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON supported the motion.
It was not many years since the parishes of Bishop
Wearmouth and Sunderland were divided, and, therefore,
he conceived that it was but justice a portion of the sur-
plus funds of the former should be given to the latter,
which was in a very poor condition. The salary of the
rector of Sunderland was very limited—only 2001. a year
—and it was, in his opinion, but fair that a portion of
the funds of the other parish, of which it once formed a
part, should be appropriated for its benefit. The best
plan to do that would be for the Bishop of Durham, or
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, to intro-
duce a Bill for having such appropriation affirmed.
Lord HARRY VANE thought it would have been
better had the Bishop of Durham introduced a Bill on
the subject, but he could not agree to the motion of the
Hon. Member for Cockermouth. He could speak &urn
personal knowledge of the generosity and liberality of
the Bishop of Durham, and of his attention to the inte-
rest of his diocese, and he did not think that the animad-
versions of the Hon. Gentleman were merited.
Mr. DISRAELI said he agreed with the Noble Lord,
that inquiries of the kind proposed were very injurious,
but without entering into any personal details, he wished
to know why the Bishop of Durham should not be the
party to introduce a Bill to settle the question, which it
was agreed on both sides of the House was necessary.—
(Hear.) If the Right Rev. Prelate did not choose to
do so, what was to hinder her Majesty's Government
from doing it ? and if they promised to do so, he should
be most happy to be spared the vote he otherwise should
feel bound to give.—(Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he thought that the Honourable Gentleman (Mr.
Horsman) and other Honourable Members should see
that it was not in the power of the Government justly
and fairly to interfere with that question by the introduc
tion of a Bill, because the incumbent had a right to have
whatever was promised to him at the time of his ap-
pointment; and therefore if a Bill were introduced by
Government, it would be an act of spoliation to take any
from the incumbent of %hat the Bishop of Durham had
previously given him. He should add that he did not
think that justice had been done to the Bishop of
Durham,' because he knew, on good authority, inde-
pendent of that of the Noble Lord (Lord Harry Vane)
that he was most liberal and munificent, even out of his
own private money, to the poor of his diocese,—(Hear,
hear) And that irrespective of any such donations, or
any losses he may sustain, he had agreed to give 2,0001.
per annum to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He
thought that the House should not deal with one parti-
cular portion of those ecclesiastical matters, but that a
Bill applying generally would be far preferable.
Sir R. PEEL said that he did not wish that any mea-
sure that would be disrespectful to the Bishop of Dur-
ham should be supported by the House, because from the
manner in which he discharges his duties as a pious
prelate, and as a most refined and erudite scholar, he
considered that such a resolution of the House would be
dealing very severely with him, as it would betray a
want of confidence in him. In 1844, when the Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners were appointed, he, as First Mi
nister of the Crown, from his confidence in the Bishop
of Durham, left that incumbency to him, to be arranged
as he thought proper; and he felt happy to state that
his subsequent arrangement fully confirmed his (Sir
R. Peel's) opinion of him. Yet he should say that he
could not refrain from expressing his concurrence
in the main object of the motion, for he
thought it would be a good example for the
Church to make a proper distribution, by the
Right Rev. Prelate assenting to such a plan, now that
the opportunity presents itself; and particularly as many
bad already come forward to divest themselves of a pas
tronaee of 5,0001. per annum. He did not agree with
the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) when he stated that
the Crown should not interfere with Bishop Wearmouth;
for, when they considered how the spiritual interests of
the poor population of those districts, both Sunderland
and Bishop Wearmouth, had suffered since they were
disunited, Sunderland had more claim on the distribu-
tion than had any other place; he thought it became the
Government to attend to the spiritual wants of the people.
He thought that it would be very advantageous if the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would give advice to the
Bishop of Durham to set the example by an Act of
Parliament, so as to appropriate the suplus funds to
the spiritual wants of that people who have the best
claim on their notice.
Mr. MANGLES said that he did not think that the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) did justice to the Hon.
Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) when he at-
tacked his (Mr. Horsman's) motives. Instead of being
the enemy of the Church, he believed him to be the
firmest and most staunch supporter it had in that House.
The Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said that his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Horsman) had failed in making out a
charge of simoniacal practices against the Bishop of
Durham. Such were not his motives, but rather to pro
tect the Bishop's character against any such charges, by
laying the groundwork for an Act of Parliament, which
was essentially necessary. He considered that it would
be a great relief to him and other members of the
Church, if the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would give

n assurance that he would bring in such a
4)td a 5 v. ouid obviate the present motion.—(Hear,)
Lord ASHLEY said that he regretted that a differ, nt
course had not been adopted, so as to preclude the ne-
cessity of such a motion. He was fully convinced that
the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Ilorsman) did not ob-
ject to a distribution, for he knew that it was a proper
,iistribution he (Mr. Horsman) sought for. He ad-
mitted also that the purpose for which the Bishop of
Durham deposited this yearly accumulation of money in
the hands of trustees was not known, and that it should
be known, as that revenue was intended by the pious
donors for the spiritual wants of the poor, to which pur-
pose it was not applied, and such a system was highly
ur,satisfactory. He perfectly agree d with the principle
of the motion, and from his private knowledge of the
Honourable entleman (Mr. Horsman) he was ready on
all occasions to bear his testimony to his zeal and in-
tegrity, and was fully assured that ho (Mr. Horsman)
was actuated by no other desire than to promote the
interest of the Church. He, however, hoped that
he would allow him to make a suggestion to him to
withdraw his motion on the present occasion, as all were
agreed that it was right that the matter should be settled
by an Act of Parliament, in which the Noble Lord (Lord
.J. Russell) and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)
coincided; and he hoped that he (Mr. Horsman) would
trust to the good feeling of the Bishop of Durham, that
he would introduce a measure in correspondence with the
conscientious feelings of Parliament.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that he joined with
every Member who had spoken on that subject, that
there was a necessity for some legislative measure for
the arrane-elnent of that question. He did not mean to
charge the Bishop or the incumbent, no more than any
other Hon. Member who had spoken, because he believed
that the money was laid aside for some good purpose;
yet he did not think that the very act of laying it aside
would stand the test of an inquiry. He trusted, that as
the House was unanimous in their opinion, that that
feeling would be communicated to the Bishop, and that
the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) would not press his
motion.—(Hear.)
Mr. J. A. SMITH said that he fully concurred with
the Honourable Gentleman (Mr: foramen), yet he
hoped that he would not press his motion, and that, if
he did, he should move fbr an adjournment of the
debate.
Mr. J. T. WAWN said that as his Hon.-Friend Mr.
foreman would not comply with the suggestion of the
Noble Lord (Lord Ashley), he felt bound to., give the
motion his support.
Mr. HORSMAN said that as the House had agreed
in the justice of his proposition, he was placed in a, very
difficult position, in being obliged to appeal to the kind-
ness of the House, in refusing the withdrawal of his mo-
tion, because the whole responsitility of the matter
rested upon him, while others had only to vote on the
question. His was not an isolated case; it was one of
a series, and in consequence o having withdrawn
four different motions last year, at the request
of the House, and on the yet unredeemed
pledge of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), he re-
gretted that he could not comply with the request
of the Noble Lord (Lord Ashley).—(Here the
Honourable Gentleman referred to his having with-
drawn a motion respecting the fusion of eccle-
siastical and common funds, and another respecting
cathedrals, on the pledge that lull and comprehensive
measures would be introduced by Government, which
was never redeemed.) He said that as. many of his
friends looked upon his motions, in consequence of his
having withdrawn them, as mere sham motions, that he
should persist in the present one. It was for the inte-
rest of the Church and of Christianity that he had
brought them on, and he should to the last support that
cause b) every means in his power, for the interests of
the Established Church could not succeed while four
curates, whose superiors were not in the whole Church,
were to be found in that diocese, each respectively
twenty years, at an annual income of only 901. He felt
that his cause of supporting the working clergy was a
just and holy cause, and should, therefore, press for a
division.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that, having been ac-
cused of what would be deemed a dereliction of goad
faith, and of having broken pledges he had given to the
Hon. Gentleman, he proposed to give a short explana-
tion of the subject to the House.—(Hear, hear.) With
regard to the motion of providing for the union of the
episcopal fund and of the common fund, he had pro-
mised to consult the Archbishop of Canterbury, al-
though his Lordship had only been recently appointed.
He had seen the Archbishop, and had conversed with
him on the subject, and the result of the interview was,'
his being confirmed in the opinion he before held, that
there was no valid objection to the arrangement. From
that time he stated to his colleagues that the Arch-
bishop was of opinion that a measure, having this .;
object in view, might be introduced.—(Hear, hear.)
The Honourable Gentleman further proposed a dif-
ferent
arrangement as to cathedral churches. That
was a matter far more difficult, and admitted of fur-
ther reforms. On inquiring further into it he thought
it necessary that the revenue should be ascertained be-
fore a measure should bo introduced with respect to
another application of it.—(Hear, hear.) He, accord-
ingly, advised the Crown to appoint a Commission of In-
quiry, and several Members of the House were members
of it. With respect to the question why he had not in-
troduced a measure with regard to either of these sub-
jects during the present session, he had stated to the
Hon. Gentleman that he would propose a measure having
reference to the composition of the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission, and the uniting of the episcopal fund with the
common fund. The House was aware that there were
only two days in the week, or eight in the month,
upon which Government business could be proceeded
with, and considering the way in which the time of the
House was taken up on those occasions, he would
put it to the House, whether there was any chance of
making progress with a measure of this kind, if it had
been introduced. They had thought it necessary to
bring in a Bill to continue the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act in Ireland, which would otherwise expire in
the present month. They had, also brought in measures
' which they thought were urgent and indispensable with
respect to the famine in behind; and if the navigation-
laws were to be proceeded :with at all in the present ses-
sion,
it was obvious that they should be considered in an
early part of it. Thi,claims of the western districts of
Ireland was another subject which demanded their
prompt attention. Under these circumstances, would
the House have considered him justified in postponing
any one of those important measures, for the purpose of
introducing one on the union of the episcopal and com-
mon funds? Those were the reasons why the measure
had not yet made its appearance, and he had only stated
them to justify himself, in answer to the charge of having
broken his pledges to the Hon. Member.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON recommended the Hon.
Member not to pursue the question to a division.
Sir F. BARING said he had waited to the last mo-
ment, in the expectation of hearing that the motion was
to be withdrawn, but not finding the slightest chance Of
its being the issue of the debate, he now begged leave to
propose the course which would, probably, be deem::
the most satisfactory to all parties, viz , to move t"
previous question.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—
For the previous question 52
Against it
Majority

The Effect of this division is to postpone idetlnitely the
consideration of Mr. Horsman's motion.

CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
Mr. SL NNEY moved for the appointment of a Stand-
ing Committee or unpaid Commission, to consider and '
report, from time to time, on practical measures to im-
prove the condition of the working classes. The Hon.
Member contended that the richer portion of the popu-
lation had increased very largely the amount not only of
their property, but of their comforts and luxuries, since
the peace; as a proof of which, he stated that between
the years 1812 and 1841, the number of carriages used
by them had doubled, and that in Manckester alone,
between the years 1815 and 1841,property had increased
190 per cent. This increase was attributed mainly to
the labour and incessant applicati( n of the working
classes, and that being so, it was only right that a Com-
mittee should be instituted in order to ascertain whether
the increase of the comforts of the poor had been com-
mensurate with the increase of the comforts of the rich.
Mr. Slaney was proceeding, when he was interrupted by
an lion. Member, who moved that the House be counted.
The gallery was cleared, and 32 Members only being
present, the House was declared adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

TUESDAY, MARCH 20.
BISHOP WEARMOUTH RECTORY.
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That an humble
Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will
be pleased to issue a Commission of Inquiry into the allega-
tions contained in the petitions presented to this House from
the parishioners of Bishop Wearmouth and Sunderland; and
that the said Commissioners be directed to take into consi-
deration the agreement stated in Parliament km the autho-
rity of the Patron of the Living of Bishop Wearmouth) to
have been entered into between himself and the present In-
cumbent, whereby the surplus income of the Living, over
and above the sum of 2,0001. a year, reserved as the income
of the Incumbent, is to be paid over to trustees; and to re-
port on the best mode of appropriating that surplus to
spiritual purposes connected with the two parishes, and of
giving legal effect to such appropriation :', —Whereupon pre-.
vious Question put, " That that Question be now put." The
House divided :

MINORITY-AYES, 39.
Anderson, Arthur Heyworth, L. Smith, J. A.
Ashley, Lord Kershaw, James Smith, J. Benjamin
Brown, H. Langston, J. 11. Spooner, Richard
Clay, James Lockhart, W.
Cobden, R. • Stanstield, W. R. C.
Cowan, Charles APGregor, John Strickland, Sir G. Mangles, It, 1). Thompson, Colonel
Currie, Henry Molesworth, Sir W. Thompson, Alderman
Duncan, George Mullings, J. R.
Duncuft, John O'Connor, Fear
Thompson, George
gus Walmsley,
T. Sir I.
Fordyce, A. 1). Osborne, Ralpk Wawn, J.
Greenall, Gilbert Pattison, James Il W. P.
ardcastle, J. A. Raphael, Alexander Wood,
TELLERS.
Henry, Alexander Sandars, George Horsman, Edward
Hastie, Archibald Sheridan, R. B. /Rune, J.

MAJORITY—NOES, 52.
AbdY, T. N. Grace, 0. D. Richards, Richard
Baines, Al. T. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Romilly, Sir John
Baring, Sir F. Hawes, Benj. Russell, Lord J.
Bellew, K. M. Ilayter, W. G. Seymer, H. K.
Berkeley, Captain Hobhouse, T. B. Shell, R. L.
Blackall, S. W. Hope, Alexander Slaney, R. A.
Boldero, li. G. Howard, Lord E. Somerville, Sir W.
Brotlierton, J. Lascelles, W. S. . Tancred, 11. W.
Campbell, W. F. Lewis, 0. C. Vane, Lord H.
Craig, W. 0. Macnamara, Major Wilson, James
Cubitt, William Maitland, Thomas Wodehouse, E.
D'Eyncourt, T. Maule, Fox Wood, Sir Charles
Dundas, Admiral Milnes, R. Monckton Wyld, James
Dunne, F. P. Palmerston, Vis. Wyvill, Marmaduke
Ebrington, Viscount Parker, John
Edwards, H. Peel, Sir Robert
Elliot, John Reid, Colonel
Estcourt, J. B. B. Rice, E. It. _
French, F. Rich, Henry

TELLERS.
Hill, Lord Marcus
Grey, R. W.

01
I:

Mail
to the
Calcui

Sin
land t
aneotti
at Chi

of Dior
the pi
Ow

Which
fortify
four 111
camp.
Cana,

?ffensi

from z