The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-05 00:00:00

ECCLESIASTICAL FUNDS.

.....,.
Mr. HORSMAN then rose to bring forward the mo-
tion of which ho had given notice, namely, that in the
opinion of this House the distinction between the

episcopal and Common funds, restricting the appli-
cation of the surplus revenues of Archbishops and
Bishops to episcopal purposes, and permitting
no part of it, in any circumstances, to be applied to the
relief of parochial destitution, is inexpedient, and ought
not to be continued. In 1836, an Act passed that House
regulating episcopal revenues, and providing that a por-
tion of the income of the richer sees should be applied
to increase the smaller and poorer ones. In 1840 an-
other Act was passed, which provided that certain epis-
copal funds were to be applied to the augmentation of
small livings. Two funds were created by these two
Acts, and there was nothing to show that they were to
be kept separate. They were, however, kept separate;
but the Commissioners had no doubt that this was a
mere matter of administrative arrangement. But, by
the Act of 1841—an Act brought in for another purpose
—words were introduced which gave a statutable sane
tion to the distinction between the two funds. It could
not be doubted that this principle was established with-
out the approval of the House, for the night Hon.
Baronet (Sir J. Graham) one not the least astute of the
Commissioners, declared at the close of last session
that he was ignorant of any such distinction, ex-
cept as a matter of administration, till it came out
before the Committee over which the Noble Lord the

Member for Totnes (Lord Seymour) presided; and he
also declared that he did not concur in the propriety of
any such distinction. It established the principle that
the property of the Bishops was not the property of the
Church; that the episcopacy was to be•separately cared
for, and not as a portion of the entire Church; that no
matter how poor the Church and how wealthy the pre-
lates—no matter how small the necessities of the episco-
pacy and how great the wants of the Church—so strong
was this principle—so sacred were the rights of the
order, that if those funds could not be expended for
episcopal purposes here, they should be applied for the
establishment of bishops in the colonies.—(Hear, hear.)
It could not be said that there was not spiritual des-
titution in this country to the relief of which this
fund could be usefully applied. The Bishop of Lon-
don admitted in his evidence that the spiritual wants
of the metropolis and the manufacturing districts
were outgrowing the charitable efforts which had
been made of late to meet them. But, however,
he gave his opinion that the distinction between the two
funds ought to be maintained. It was the language of
every prelate and every clergyman, that there were not
sufficient means to meet the spiritual destitution of the
growing population. In Wales large desertions were
taking place from the Church owing to this cause, and
yet it was maintained that whatever was the parochial
destitution this principle of the distinction of the funds
was not to be departed from. That principle was more
objectionable when they came to consider the origin of
the fund. The fund was derived from parochial tithes.
The tithe payers had, it was true, the benefit of the
spiritual superintendence of the bishop, but if there
was a surplus, was it fair that the parochial
tithe payers should be taxed for the purpose of main-
taining a bishop in a distant colony, whom they might
never see ? There was the greatest difference between
the amount derived from parochial tithes and the ex-
penditure of it for parochial purposes. The income at-
tached to the see of Canterbury was limited to 15,0001.
sioners.
?sy.eoar, and to bring it within that limit the Arch-
the first instanocfe
Would
iten,oootob/e. to the etoEcacplpelsyiastbtiicsal6C,ooomoimiisn-
within the see
I—o(irleleraeriiehfe.ar.rhe
for the reliefj of spiritual destitution
ItCanterbury, from which it was derived?
Hcoonuld not be said that it did not re-
of various parishes in thoGediltoloeemseanohf ecreanrteeardnuray,reftruormn
which it appeared that with
of tithes drawn from the paerrisgraan, and the amount
the exception of two cases
there was no house for the clergyman,
s was more than four
times the income of the incumbents.ei The case was the
same with ruengnagrodrt,ottahtne diocesesan Ivel7 York, London, Ely,
,sollitanrdoelllyochester. In
an instance
in
nverwy
boinobe otfbtehesienocuarnsebsetnhterhe
awdasas
isbentorelsatyordoodowuntsoe.the principle
thather therefore, again,
tbes should was
it
notw He asked,
by which the payments were made, and which •
evidently so much in need of them?—(Hear.) were
there was only one argument raised in favour r.f)t Now
per-
petuation of this distinction, and it was stated in strongest terms, in his evidence before Mr. E.I11) the
son's Committee, by the Bishop of London. Atbeni-
son's
1,185 the Bishop stated his opinion that the expediency question
of amalgamating the funds was doubtful, because, in
such case, provision could not be made for new bishopsln
' from episcopal property. " If the funds were amalga
mated there would," said the Right Rev. Prelate, " be m-
' cry for more clergy in preference to more bishops."
, Surely that argument carried with it its own condemna-
lion. Was the Church—was the Ecclesiastical Commission
—to put itself in opposition to the wish of the Church?
Could any comparison be drawn between the prelates and
the clergy? Was there a single bishop without a resi-
dence ? Was there a single bishop with too limited
a stipend 1 lie did not know what might be the course
taken by the Government on this occasion. He was not
feel •
without hopes that they might it dangerous to op-
Oppose the resolution. Certainly if they conceded it,
he was bound to say that this would be but one step in
a work of reform. He trusted the Government would
undertake that work. lie saw much in the conduct of
the Government in ecclesiastical matters to approve.
parishes appointments, both to the bench and to the
nes which had fallen to their patronage, were highly
to
. " aPPlauded The question involved the ,best
inteeststhe :
and het
rus,e,social and moral interests—of the people,
awake to its importance.
the Government would prove themselves
have the certa
?suportance. In such a course they would
at th© )sead of support of the Most Rev. Prelate, who,
1 blessing to the po iele?hurch, was likely to prove such a
movingliis resoluln. The Hon. Member concluded by
Lord. ASHLEY said he rose
and he-did so on the ground
that
to second the motion,
cessary to the:peace of the Churat it was essentially ne-
impart* measures to all the bch to deal out equal and
In supporting the fusion of thesreanfches of
the Church.
to say that he did not consider he unds, he begged leave
the creation of an additional bodyoTtl at all impeding
ho felt was, that whilst additional bislrhp°Ps. But what
sirable, additional clergy were absol 3 might be do-
ilia belief nal that if they permitted teately necessary.
...9 Present ayes

of the country to be perpetuated, it would require
another David to pull down this terrible Goliah.
The question having been put,
Sir GEORGE GREY said he did not rise to contro-
vert any of the arguments which had been used by the
mover and seconder of the resolution. Assuming
that the parochial clergy were not to be tied and
fettered too much by forms, but that another agency
might be introduced coming to the homes of the poor,
he was certainly inclined to agree that a great increase
in Church efficiency was required. But, at the same
time, the efficiency and number of bishops ought, he felt,
to be increased; and, certainly, if this matter were to be
considered at all, the proper mode would be to introduce
a Bill with respect to it, not to attempt to bind the
House by an abstract resolution. On a former occasion
he had protested against being bound by the permanent
distinction of the two funds, and certainly he must par-
ticularly protest against being bound by the opinion ex-
pressed by the Bishop of London as to the desirability
of preventing that distinction. The various questions
of which this only was one, which were under the con-
sideration of the Committee of last session, had long
been subjects of discussion in the Commission; and mea-
sures would, he had no doubt, be proposed for the better
administration of the funds of the Commission. Under
these circumstances, he asked the House not to consent
to thin abstract resolution, and he concluded by moving
the previous question.
Mr. PLUMPTRE expressed his regret at the course
adopted by the Government. If he wanted any assu-
rance of the friendly feeling of the Hon. Member for
Cockermouth to the Church and to the clergy, it would
be afforded him by the fact that on this occasion he was
seconded by the Noble Lord the Member for Bath.
The working clergy, whose cause the Hon. Member
advocated, urgently required the care and sympathy of
the House, and every attempt to render that most in-
♦aluable body more efficient ought to be met by the
Government and this House with the most kindly
feeling.
Lord SEYMOUR, as chairman of the !Committee of
last session, must candidly say that he had heard the

resolution of the Government with some degree of dis-
appointment. It was easy to say "bring in a Bill ;"
but they all knew the difficulties of that course.—
(Cheers.) The fairest and most straightforward course
was that pursued by the Hon. Member, who, in the
shape of a resolution, gays the Government an oppor-
tunity of taking up the question. Every one who
knew {anything of the subject must know that the
present system worked badly, and that it was high time
to take measures for its reformation.
Sir R. H. INGLIS was most anxious to say nothing
that could bear the interpretation of opposition in a
debate characterised by so much candour, but he must
repeat what he bad uniformly contended for in that
House, that the rights of ecclesiastical corporations were
inviolable. With respect to what had been said about
tithes, the bishops were not responsible for the circum-
stance of having parochial tithes as a component part of
their revenues. He thought it would be injudicious un-
advisedly to amalgamate the two funds, especially when
they considered that the existing distinction afforded
them the opportunity of creating new bishoprics when
new bishoprics were required.
Sir R. PEEL always felt great difficulty in voting for
a proposal which suggested to the House in the shape of
a resolution a proposition which could only be carried
out by legislative enactment. Considering that no reso-
lution could be effectual which was not acceded to by
another House of Parliament, he thought that to pass
what were commonly called abstract resolutions was a
somewhat dangerous end by no means, at any time, an
advisable course. He hoped the Hon. Member would
not involve the House in a division on the present occa-
sion, as he should be sorry to give a vote adverse to the
general principle laid down by the Hon. Member. He
had the highest respect for the bench of bishops, and for
the functions which they were called upon to fulfil ;
he regarded the welfare of the Church as intimately
connected with the due discharge of those functions
and, he believed that there was no class of her Majesty's
subjects more conscientiously devoted to the performance
of those duties, as a body, then were the bench of
bishops. Further, he was not prepared to controvert
the proposition that, at some future time, additional
bishops might usefully be created, but, no such creation
would be advisable until there was a clear surplus of
funds available for that particular purpose—(Hear,
hear)—and there must, in the first place be due con
sideration paid to the spiritual necessities of the masses
of the population, whose destitution in this respect was
most appalling.—(Hear, hear.) In the second report of
the Commissioners it was stated that in thirty-eight
manufacturing districts of Lancashire, within the dio-
cese of Chester, there was church accommodation for
only one twenty-third part of the population—(Hear,
hear)—that in the diocese of Lichfield, with a popu-
lation of 235,000 souls, there was church room
for but 29,000 ; and that in the thirty-four parishes of
the metropolis, a population of 1,137,000 had but
101,000 church sittings.—(Hear.) As to the condition
of a large proportion of the working clergy it was truly
deplorable. The same report gave a list of 3,528 bene-
fices under 1501. per annum, of which thirteen had a
population exceeding 10,000, while 51 others had popu-
lations varying from 5,000 to 10,000.—(Elear.) The
mere facts there stated exhibited the infliction of the
most galling hardships upon the working clergy of Eng-
land—(Hear, hear)—and the absolute necessity that
prior to considering the question of more bishops ample
attention should be paid to remedy the grievous evils
now sustained by the working clergy and by the popu-
lations thus fearfully destitute of spiritual aid.—(Hear.)
He should ever, as he had ever done, resist any project
for applying Church:property to secular purposes ; but,
in matters affecting not only the interests of the Church
but the interests of religion, he could not concur with
the Honourable Baronet opposite that the revenues
hitherto enjoyed by the bishops, from whatever source,
were to remain their sole right.---;.Hear, hear.)
If this principle were observed, any given archbishop
or bishop might derive 100,000/. or 200,0001., or spy
amount from his see, and resist all appeal to him fur
aid, even though the spiritual condition of his district
amounted to absolute destitution.—(Hear, hear.) He
quite agreed with his Noble Friend as to the expe-
diency of making the income of the bishops one clear
and certain payment. He would repeat his desire that
the settlement of this most important question should
be the result of a Bill, and in his decided opinion this
Bill ought to emanate from the Government.—(Hear,
hear.) Any step taken for guaranteeing to the respec-
tive bishops a certain revenue must be accompanied with
a well-considered provision for the due management of
the estates of the Church—(Hear, hear)—a provision
which should rest upon the responsible persons who
constituted the Executive Government of the country.
—(Hear, hear.) As to the distinction between the
episcopal and general fund, he was bound to say,
looking at the state of our parishes, particularly
of those in the manufacturing districts, that in his
opinion the distinction ought to be substantially
abolished.—(llear, hear.) He did not mean to affirm
that the whole of the combined funds should be applied
to the use of benefices, or that no new bishops should
at any time be created; but he certainly desired to
remove the barrier which had, in the shape of this dis-
tinction, impeded so materially the increase of parochial
spiritual superintendence.—(Hear, hear.) Under the
existing pressure of public business he did not ask the
Government to come forward at once with a measure on
the subject, but he hoped that some intimation would be
made on their part of a readiness to undertake the matter
at the earliest possible moment. He felt deeply impressed
with the necessity of applying all the surplus revenues
of the Church to the Spiritual wants of the country. The
measures he had already taken with this purpose had
produced the effect of supplying church accommodation
for 81,000 persons; and ho was most anxious that, as
nearly as possible, the entire wants of the country in this
most essential.respect should be supplied. He hoped the
Hon. Member for Cockermouth would leave the matter
in the hands of the Government.
Mr. V. SMITH supported the resolution. This was,
of course, like all other resolutions, an abstract proposi-
tion, but its immediate object was altogether a practical
one. As to leaving the matter in the hands of Govern-
ment, the Government had given no sort of intimation of
taking it in hand.
Mr. BRIGHT took occasion to dwell upon the extent
to which tho voluntary principle effected the objects
from which the revenues of the State Church were con-
fessedly withheld. In his own parish, that of Rochdale,
with a population of between 70,000 and 80,000, out of
54 places of worship, 44 had been erected by voluntary
contributions of dissenters from the Church of England;
and again, at Merthyr Tydvil, which he had visited
some few months past, he found that out of 22 places
of worship, 20 owed their construction to a similar
source. The case was the same throughout Wales
and Scotland. He deprecated the creation of new
bishoprics as wholly uncalled for by the country.
Who, in -danchester, had applied for a Bishop of
Manshester? No Church of England man there, that
ho had ever heard of, and most assuredly no dissenter,
The people of Manchester had already more than they
liked of church dignitaries, in the persons of the dean
and chapter, who, with a surplus revenue of 5,2001., re-
fused to apply one farthing in aid of spiritual instruction
sameJpt
ooe
knunts
moall
eesnmyf
tr,
(Hear, hear)—and took no part whatever in the cure of
souls, an occasional formal sermon delivered by
when
at notuhbs
aai
lhe
jmoaupss,
toa
beforeus l
Thi
hne e
h oa t
appeal,
ppae
peb
enao
aepu
happened
one of the body. There had been a bishop given, in the
t
from
mhat ode
thew everas Jerusalem,
v sit
nthought woh
jf
circumstanceee
therefore, made to the Britighfor funds •
public in aid of
the new creation proceededs
The Bishop of Jerusalem upon a gross imposition.
was almost as unexpected as
he was undesired whenahod:
very appropriately designated there, from his
conveyance, the Devas-
tationsteam-frigate, under a salute
laughter.) As for the pre of cannon.—(Great
to archbishops and bishops, preposterous revenues allowed
means that could be devised of ey wore the surest
overturning the Church,
and of bringing the Establishment
into
contempt and
odium. There could be but one feeling pervading the
general mind when, on the ono hand, they heard that
two archbishops alone, the Pate prelates of York and of
Canterbury, had pocketed between
one and a half and
two millions sterling of the money,
Church or of the State, as itwmight bheetohoernodfe the
while, on the other hand, they heard such deplorable
accounts of the spiritual destitution of the population of
the respective provinces.—(llear.) The Noble Lord at
the head of the Government had referred with a droll
air of deprecation to the fact that the present Archbishop
of Canterbury and his successors were to have only
15,000/. a-year.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Subject to arrangement.
Mr. BRIGHT continued—Yes, but under every ar-
rangement, the Most Rev. Prelate was to have 15,0001.
a year. Why, on earth, was the Archbishop of Canter-
bury to have three times the salary of the Prime Minis-
ter of England, an officer burdened with such hard work,
such responsibilities, such wear and tear of every
description—wear and tear so severe, that he would
venture to say the Noble Lord, if he continuo to undergo
would not live half 50100 g 155 ON LA Rep. Prelate

with his quiet comfortable career, and his 15,0001. 2
year.—(Laughter.) In point of fact, there was no class
of men who got such a vast deal for doing such infinite
little, as did the Right Rev. Bench.—(Hear, hear.) He
should be highly delighted to see them relieved alto-
gether from their attendance in another place, their
presence in which appeared to him altogether opposed
in its results to the progress of public liberty, the
advancement of sound policy in State and even in Church,
and the promotion of religion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE admitted, as a matter of course,
that a very large proportion of the masses of our popu-
lation consisted of Dissenters; but the fact still remained
that an immense extent of population, more especially of
the manufacturing and mining classes, members of the
Church of England, were destitute of that spiritual in-
struction which the resources of the Church, aided, if
need be, by those of the State, were pledged to afford
them. He strongly condemned the manner in which the
Hon. Member for Manchester had spoken of the Right
Reverend Bench. The language of the Hon. Member on
this subject was alike discreditable to his understanding
and to his feelings.—(Hear.) True there were some of
the bishops who were not overworked—(Hear)—but
there were also among that body men of remarkable ener-
gies, of energies in no way surpassed by those of any man
in or out of Parliament, and who had been grievovsly
overworked in the fulfilment of their sacred functions.
One lof them at this moment was, there was reason
to fear, sinking under the discharge of his laborious
duties ; and the mere recollection of that most excellent
prelate—need he say he referred to the Bishop of Lon-
don—([Tear, hear)—should have sufficed to close the
lips of the Hon. Member when he was proceeding to
make the unwarranted attack he had just given utter-
ance to.—(Hear, hear.) The allusion which the Hon.
Member had made to the deceased Archbishops of York
and Canterbury was, in his opinion, ungracious and most
uncalled-for; and as to the amount which the Hon.
Member had stated these most Rev. Prelates to have
received, he believed it to be altogether an exaggeration.
As to the question immediately before the House, he
was in favour of the fusion of the two funds, by a well-
considered legislative enactment ; but he had not as
yet heard any distinct suggestion as to the principle
on which the subsequent application of those revenues
should be made. He concurred in a great measure
with what had fallen from the Honourable Member for
Horsham, though the motion on which he based it
was somewhat vague in its terms.—(Hear.) It was
clearly desirable to remove the barrier which had hitherto
prevented the overflow of episcopal income to the relief
of spiritual destitution.—(Hear, hear.) In any adjust.
ment of this matter he would recommend that in the
parishes whose tithes were impropriated to the bishop,
care should be taken that, where necessary, these im-
propriate tithes should in the first place be applied in
aid o f the spiritual wants of the parish whence they
were received.—(Hear, hear.) There was an idea en-
tertained by several gentlemen that it was a waste of
funds to appropriate any surplus that arose to the en-
dowment of new bishoprics, and that all such moneys
ought to be exclusively applied to the extension of paro-
chial churches. But he considered that if new
bishoprics were only created after a due inquiry and
a positive conviction of the necessity of such appoint.
ments, then there was a very proper economy ob-
served of the Church funds; and that such was the case
was notoriously evident in te case of the new colonial
bishops. For the Church of England and in the colonies,
' until those bishoprics bad been created, was in an utterly
inefficient state, disgraceful alike to the people and to
the Government at home; whereas, by endowing each of
those bishoprics with an income of 1,2001. a year, partly
derived from national funds and partly supplied by private
benevolence, the Church had been enabled to`make the
most strenuous and successful efforts in the colonies. He
was ass-are it might be said that the 1,2001. per annum
paid to each bishop was an extravagance, for that many
clergymen could be endowed out of each bishop's income
whose services would be available in the colonies; but no
one would urge such a plea who was aware of the excel-
lent effects which had been produced by the nemination
of colonial bishops, whose efforts had infused quite a new
spirit into the churches, and who had, by their example
and teaching, multiplied the number of priests and dea-
cons there far beyond what could have been expected if
they had not been appointed to govern the Church in the
distant possessions of England. In answer, therefore, to
those who contended that there had been a waste com-
mitted of the Church funds in the appointment and endow-
ment of new bishops, he would only point to the colonies
as a full refutation of that assertion, and as a proof
that the judicious extension of episcopacy was calculated
highly to advance the interests of the Church of Eng-
land, and to extend the benefits of that establishment to
a vast number of persons. But even looking at the
other side of the question, and taking into consideration
the expediency of having regard only to church exten-
sion, he must observe that there was danger in proceed-
ing too fast in this direction. He needed only to advert
to a circumstance which had come to his knowledge in
order to afford a striking proof of the truth of what he
asserted. The late Dr. Chalmers, whose genius no less
than whose seal no one would question, had emphatic-
ally warned the Bishop of London against the danger
of too sudden an increase of church accommodation,
advising him rather to concentrate his energies upon
particular spots, than to waste or weaken them by scat-
tering them over too wide a district. In like manner the
Legislature ought to have regard rather to the most
beneficial mode of applying the surplus funds of the
Church, let them arise from what source they might, by
concentrating the efforts for strengthening and widening
the influence of the Church in distinct and select in-
stances, than by scattering those funds over so wide an
arena as to make their application little felt. Under
these circumstances, and entertaining the views he had
stated, he should join the Government in voting for the
previous question.
Mr. W. P. WOOD said that the only difference which
existed on either side of the House, with the exception of
the Hon. Baronet below him (Sir R. Inglis), who was
consistent in opposing all interference with the episcopal
funds, appeared to be whether any distinct expression of
opinion on the subject should or should not be postponed
until a Bill had been brought in to remedy the evils
which the resolution before them touched upon. For
his own part he must say, that if ho had any hope held
out to him on the part of the Government that a Bill to
remedy these evils would bo brought in by Ministers,
then he should be prepared to say, that the resolution
proposed by the Hon. Member for Cockermouth was
premature. But, in the absence of any such hope, he
must say that the House was greatly indebted to the
Hon. Member, for having brought the subject under the
notice of Parliament. The Honourable Member him-
self might, perhaps, have entertained a hope that the
Government would take up the subject, with the
intention of legislating upon it, and, therefore,
have made that his reason for not bringing it for-
ward in the shape of a Bill; but there could be little
or no doubt that the country at large was of opinion
that some legislative measure was required. The
details entered into by the Right Honourable Baronet,
feelingsdistriets
with respect to the spiritual destitution of the manufac-
turing, were not of a nature calcu-
latedof the House so much as was
the state of the populations which immediately sur-
rounded them, and the facts which could be observed as
to and
touchm intihneg
daily occurring under their own eyes. Any one who
was in the habit of perambulating the districts imme-
diately surrounding the place in which they now were,
would become aware of the immense numbers who were
entirely destitute of spiritual instruction; and it was
stated in some authentic returns that had come under his
notice, that out of 60,000 persons in one parish, 39,000
had no places of worship to resort to. Therefore it was
that he felt the necessity of urging the Government to
direct their efforts in those quarters before they went
further. The real question which the resolution pro-
pounded was, that no Act of Parliament was in exist-
ence by which the surplus funds arising from the
bishops' incomes could be disposed of for general Church
purposes. There was an Act for enabling the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners to deal with the surplus incomes of deans
and chapters, and to apply that surplus to the cure of
souls by augmenting the stipends of the working clergy;
and there had existed a clause by which the powers of
this Act were extended to the surplus episcopal funds,
but that clause had been repealed by a subsequent Act,
and he did not think that by re-enacting it the purpose
which the resolution expressed would be effected. That
resolution, as he read it, was to the effect that the sur-
plus episcopal fund should no longer be exclusively re-
served for episcopal purposes. He entirely concurred in
that expression. He saw no reason why the two surplus
funds arising from the deans and chapters and the epis-
copal revenues should not be blended into one, and applied
generally for the purposes of alleviating spiritual desti-
tution. There might exist particular cases in which an
extension of the number of bishops would be advan-
tageous, as, for instance, in the case of the bishopric
which embraced the islands of Jersey, &c., where there
was too much labour imposed on one individual. There
were many good working bishops, but the enormous
incomes apportioned to some of them did not
tend to their efficiency. The mode adopted of
taking the average incomes of the bishops was
such as to leave them much larger than the Act
contemplated, and as those incomes could not under
the existing Act be again touched during the life of the
bishop who had once returned his average for seven
years, it behoved the Parliament to adopt some mode of
enforcing the spirit of the Act, and of reducing the in-
comes of the bishops to the amount fixed as proper by
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On the property of
the bishop of London a large town had been built within
a very few years, and a large income was derived from
a very large population which now inhabited that dis-
trict. Would it not be a contradiction in terms to say
that a portion of the surplus income arising from that
property should not be applied to the spiritual wants of
that population which had been created by it? Whilst
dwelling upon this subject he must not omit to observe
that it whs only due to the Dean and Chapter of West.
minster to state, that during the last few years the sum
of 10,0001. had been contributed by them towards sup-
plying the spiritual wants of the population of West-
minster, in supporting schools and other places of in-
struction and worship. That some resolution of the
nature of the ono before the House would be productive
of good results he entertained no doubt, and therefore
he should votefor
Lord J. RUSSELL said that, looking at the resolu-
tion as an abstract proposition, he could find no fault
with it. The Hen Member for Cockermouth proposed
to them to declare of the II
that, in the opinion
distinction between
the • • enisconal and common funds,
restricting the application of the surplus revenues of the
archbishops and
mitting no part ofishops to episcopal purposes, and per-
to the relief of it, in any circumstances, to be applied
ought not to be Parochial destitution, is inexpedient, and
centinued. It seemed to him, speaking
generally, that the episcopal surplus funds were already
applicable to the
the dsame purposes as the fund arising from
wherever chapters'surplus revenues, and that
cathedral funds were applicable to parochial
purposes episcopal f
far as the funds were likewise so applied. So
abstract proposition conveyed by the resolu-
tion concerned; therefore,,,j.ho was not dis-

posed to contradict it. But he 'must own that
it appearo i to him as if, practically speaking, the
resolution was intended to affirm the contrary
of the Bisho pof London's statement. lie (Lord J. Rus-
sell) had nee doubt that the Hon. 'Member for Cocker-
mouth inten.ded a useful purpose in bringing forward
his resolutiono, but he regretted that the lion. Member
should have mixed up in his remarks the Bishop of
Durham, as if that prelate had done something in con-
travention of the Act of Parliament, which it was un-
just to assort or even to insinuate had been the case.
lie was unwilling to agree to the resolution proposed by
the Hon. Member, for he did not know to what the
Government or the House would stand pledged if it
were carried. As he (Lord J. Russell) understood the
Right Hon. Member for Northampton, what was desired
was to divert the whole amount of both the surplus funds
to the exclusive purpose of providing for parochial spi-
ritual destitution, leaving none whatever for additional
episcopal endowments. The lion. Member for Oxford,
on the other hand, was of opinion that it was desirable
to unite the surplus episcopal funds with the surplus
cathedral revenues, and to form one common stock ap-
plicable
,alike to parochial spiritual purposes and to
the increas e of inadequately endowed bishoprics. He
always lists ned with pleasure to the opinions expressed
by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. W. P. Wood),
and in the present case he seemed to think that there
might be instances in which the endowment of additional
bishoprics would be useful to the Church. That was his
(Lord J. Russ ell's) own view of the subject. He was
bound to say, that, considering the constitution of the
Church of Engl and, and the value of the episcopacy as
regarded superintendence and parochial spiritual exten-
sion, he would lie most unwilling to agree to a resolu-
tion by which a veto was placed on any future extension
of the number of bishops.—(Hear.) That was one strong
reason for not voting in favour of the resolution. The
lion Member for Oxford stated that an immediate ad-
aßigrlieetiengeairnrythiet
ry
ea
snetlaugtei
nw,o uwl dh
cite
againeda
gbey
was,t h e H
thatous ea
out would b' brought in and passed. But nothing would
be gained, according to ,the views entertained by the
Hon. Member, for even now some of the bishops' in-
comes were below the fixed standard, and if the surplus
episcopal funds were not applied to make good those
deficiencies, these bishoprics must remain in their pre-
sent state, or else the funds to complete them must be
obtained from other sources. He had already stated
that he saw no reason why any surplus arising from
episcopal revenues should not be applied to the purpose
of parochial, spiritual destitution. There had existed
some reasons when the changes were first made in the
affairs of the Church why the bishops' incomes should
not be alienated from that body, but there was no longer
any grounds for separating the two surplus funds. But
he had been asked by the Hon. Member for Oxford if
the Government was prepared to bring in a Bill for the
purpose of amalgamating the episcopal and cathedral
funds. When the present Archbishop of Canterbury
as appointed he (Lord J. Russell) previously requested
that prelate to inform him whether he was willing to
take charge of that see upon condition of being bound
by any subsequent Act of Parliament by which the in-
come of the see would be restricted to a certain sum, the
surplus to be applied to such church purposes as Parlia-
ment should determine upon. The Archbishop stated
that he was willing to submit to those conditions. In
stating these facts he must observe, that he had thought
proper to refer to whatever sum might be allowed by
Act of Parliament as a proper income for the archbishop.
He did not state, as the Hon. Member for Manchester
had supposed, that he (Lord J. Russell) was going
to propose the sum of 15,0001. as a proper income for
the see, but that that sum had been allotted to it under
the existing Act of Parliament. The lion. Member for
Cockermouth had so understood him, and had expressed
himself satisfied on that point. The Archbishop had
only recently taken possession of his see. There were
many things which had occurred to him (Lord J. Rus-
sell) with reference to church matters, which required
consideration. lie had, therefore, asked the Archbishop
to allow him to have an interview with him, and he was
unwilling to express any opinion whatever on the sub-
ject of legislation in the matter until he had an oppor-
tunity of consulting a prelate so distinguished for his
piety and his ability, and who, from his experience in
governing a very populous see, would be able to afford
him most judicious and beneficial advice.—(Hear, hear.)
lie hoped that when the Hon. Member for Manchester
next addressed the House on the subject now under con-
sideration he would do so in a more kindly spirit—
(Hear, hear)—and that he would practice towards those
who as Churchmen followed what they deemed their duty
that toleration which had been so largely extended to all
classes of Dissenters.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME denied that his Hon. Friend the Member
for Manchester had deserved the rebuke of the Noble
Lord. It appeared to him that the object sought to be
attained, by perpetuating the enormous incomes of the
bishops, was to maintain the Church as a political en-
gine. No question had created greater dissatisfaction
among Dissenters than the proposition of the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government on this subject. lie
trusted that that would be a lesson to guido the Noble
Lord's conduct on the present motion. He (Mr. Hume)
also objected to the recent appointment to colonial
bishoprics. The persons appointed had carried out with
them the dominant habits of their Church, and had
created much disunion and heartburning in their colo-
, nial sees. He should support the Hon. Member for
Coekermouth, and ho trusted that his Hon. Friend
would not be induced to withdraw his motion.

Lord H. VANE vindicated the conduct of the Bishop
of Durham. That Right Rev. Prelate had applied a
great portion of his increased income in augmenting
the salaries of the poor curates in populous districts
within his diocese.

SirJ. JOHNSTONE opposed the motion.
Mr. HORSMAN replied. He was glad to hear the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government promise
that the attention of Government would be turned to the
subject-matter of his motion, and he hoped that among
other things they would see whether means could not be
devised of providing for the retirement of prelates
whose age and infirmities rendered them incosnpetent
to the discharge of their episcopal duties. On the
immediate question before the House he would ask
any Hon. Member whether, if he were filling a public
situation to which was alloted a certain income, and he
found that by some mistake he was receiving three
or four times that sum, he would consider himself
justified in continuing to receive the overplus? The
Right Rev. Prelates who were so acting did more injury
to the Church than the most active machinations of
her enemies could effect. If they were actuated by a
proper zeal for the interests of religion, they would hand
over the surplus—a surplus, moreover, which they re-
ceived through their own mistake—to the Ecclesiastical
Commission, for the augmentation of small benefices.
He was satisfied with the assurance that the subject
would be speedily taken in hand by her Majesty's Go-
vernment, and begged leave to withdraw his motion.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
Colonel DUNNE moved for returns, showing the
amount of all moneys expended under the Act 9 and 10
Victoria, c. 107, specifying the sums laid out on each
work, and number of works in each barony of each
county in Ireland, undertaken by the authority of the
Board of Works; together with copies of any reports
which determined the board in the selection of such
works ia preference to others proposed. Also, the ori-
ginal estimate for such work, and whether it was suffi-
cient for its completion, and if not, whether any and
what sums were subsequently applied for and granted,
and by whom was such application made; also the
amount of such sum or sums, and whether they were
found sufficient for the final completion of these works.
Also, what and how many deviations from the
original lines, or alterations from the original
plans of construction, were made in each work, and
any additional expense caused by such deviations and
alterations, and sums claimed by damages caused by
them. Also, all sums claimed for damages fur works
undertaken under this Act, the amount given in the
certificates of the valuators of the Board of Works for
each work, and amount awarded by juries. Also, a
report of the present condition of each work, and esti-
mate of sum necessary for its completion, particularising
the public roads and extent of injuries done to them.
Also, returns of the names, pay, and allowances of all
persons employed on the general 'staff under the Board
of Works, and what other situations they held at the
same time. Of all engineers, pay clerks, overseers, check
clerks, and other officers employed on each work, and
the number of able-bodied workmen and decrepid per-
sons, women, and children employed on such work, their
pay per diem, and number of days worked; also of all
horses, mules, and asses employed on each work, the
hire per diem, and number of days they were employed,
and whether task work was adopted, and, if so, the
wages given and works completed on such works. And,
of the cost and description of all tools issued to the work-
men on each work, the date of their issue, and of the
commencement of each work, and, if sold, what sum was
received, and if any were sold without being issued;
also the amount and value of stones now broken, and
where. The lion. and Gallant Member complained that
out of the large sum which had been granted for public
works in Ireland a vast proportion had been absorbed in
the expenses of the staff, and a very small fraction on
works of any real public utility. He thought that while
the landed proprietors of Ireland were exerting them-
selves in the cause of law and order, they should at least
get an account of the disposal of money, for the repay-
ment of which they were held accountable.
Sir P. SUGENT seconded the motion, and trusted
t e drainage
that it would receive the favourable attention of Govern-
ment. He could assure the House that in the public
works which had been recently carried on in Ireland,
the number of overseers had exceeded the number of
labourers, and that more money had been expended in
it,
the
paying them
same
system thanin w
orelievingwants
catrhreied
on
in of
h thepeople. He feared that, if some steps were not taken to prevent
works now about to commence.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was not in the power of Government to accede to the
motion, not because they wer. unwilling to furnish all
the information required, but because in this instance
it would be impossible to give it without very great
expense, delay, and inconvenience ; indeed it was
doubtful whether it could be given at all. With regard
to many points involved in the motion, as the number of
clerks, &c., that information had already been given ;
but to furnish returns for the whole of Ireland of all
the details called for by the Hon. and Gallant Member
would cost many thousand pounds—would occupy many
months in preparation, and would be of no practical use
when supplied. With regard to any particular case or
district, the Government would be happy to furnish
whatever information might be required.
Mr. HUME thought it by no means unreasonable that
the people of Ireland, when called on to repay money,
should know how it had been expended. This was the
more necessary when it had been declared in a court of
law that Colonel Jones had been in the habit of signing
blank cheques, contrary to the stipulations of the Act of
Parliament. He, therefore, should like to be informed
as to the undo iu which the accounts had been audited.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that the accounts had not been made up by the Chair-
man of the Board of Works, but by an officer specially
sent over for the purpose. Vith regard to the allusion
which had been made to Colonel Jones, it was perfectly
true that the Act of Parliament required that all cheques
for the payment of money should be signed by two
Commissioners; and he believed it was also true—
though he by no means defended the practice—that
Colonel Jones, having frequently to leave Dublin, had
on some of those occasions signed the cheques in blank,
leaving them to be filled up by one of the other Com-
missioners, who would, of course, add his signature.
Mr. B. OSBORNE, though he considered that the
money could not have been worse laid out, yet, as charity
covered a multitude of sins, they ought not now to be
too critical on the subject. There was much in the ob-
jection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, consi-
dering the suddenness with which the calamity came
upon them, and the circumstances under which they had
been called upon to act, it would be difficult to furnish
those returns in a manner which would be satisfactory
to the House, or to those who would have to repay the
money. The conduct of Colonel Jones in signing the
bank cheques showed that there was something in the
air of Ireland which converted persons appointed to any
office in that country, whether Englishmen, Scotch-
men, or Welshmen, however effficient they might have
been as men of business in their own country, into
bunglers.--(A laugh.)
Mr. F. FRENCH bore testimony to the ability, in-
tegrity, industry, and temper displayed by Colonel
Jones throughout the whole of his arduous duties, and
he believed the Commissioners generally had dis
charged their duties efficiently. He wished the Hon.
and Gallant Member for Portarlington had extended his
motion to a return of the works undertaken under the
1 & 2 Vic., many of which, though but half completed,
were to be paid for under the presentment required to be
made as though they were finished. This was a great
hardship on the proprietors.
Mr. REYNOLDS, on looking over the papers which
were already on the table, found that much of the in-
formation called for by the Hon. and Gallant Member's
motion was in their hands. No one, however, could
think it unreasonable, considering the extent of the money
which had been expended, and which the people of Ire-
land were to be called upon to repay, that some account
of the mode in which it had been disbursed should be
demanded. With regard to the effect of the air of Ireland
in converting men of business into bunglers, he took it
for granted that the Hon. Member far Middlesex was a
great authority.—(Laughter.) But he supposed it was
owing to the presumed superiority of British intellect,
that Englishmen or Scotchmen were at the head of all the
principal departments in the Irish government—(Hear,
hear)—from the Lord-Lieutenant down to the Poor-law
Commission.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that when it was
complained that the money expended in the relief works
bad not been well laid out, it appeared to be for-
gotten that the object with which they had been
undertaken was not to construct great public works,
but to keep the people from starving.—(Hear, hear.)
On coming into office the present Government found
that, from the failure of the harvest, there was great
danger of the people perishing for want of food during
the winter, and it was their business to devise means for
keeping them alive. They accordingly consulted with
Lord Besborough and others who were practically ac-
quainted with Ireland, and the result was that a Bill was
framed and passed which he believed had answered the
object in view. He would go further, and admit that
though that Act was framed with the best intentions,
and though it had been effectual in keeping the people
alive, it was not perhaps the best measure in all respects
that could have been devised. The emergency was,
however, extremely pressing, and admitted not of delay,
and the passing of that measure showed at all events
that Parliament and the Government were ready to
make immediate exertions to meet the want.—(Hear.)
It was easy to criticise after the event, but the object
was one well worthy the Parliament and Government
of this country—(Hear, hear)—and was to a great ex
tent answered by the course which had been taken.
With regard to the employment of Englishmen
and Scotchmen in the public offices in Ireland,
the Honourable Gentleman who made a charge
against the Government in this respect, should re-
member that the first appointment made by the
present Government was that of an Irishman,
who had always resided a great part of every year in
Ireland, to the high office of Lord-Lieutenant; and when
they were deprived of his valuable services by death,
and thought it necessary to recommend an English no-
bleman to succeed him, they appointed an Irishman to
the office of chief secretary—(Hear, hear)—and the re-
ward they got was, that that Right Hon. Gentleman's
election to Parliament met with the strongest opposition.
They had also recommended an Irishman for the Irish
Chancellorship, and an Irishman and a Roman Catholic
for the office of Uader Secretary for Irelrnd. Bnt if it
was to be the rule that in each part of the kingdom the
natives of that place only were to be employed by the
Government, it might be complained here that Irishmen
were employ ed in the police and other branches of the
public service, and that an Irishman was at the head of
the army. He hoped, however, that this complaint
would not be repeated, the object of the Government
being to do justice to all parts of the United Kingdom.
Dr. BOWRING complained that no adequate audit
was instituted of the expenditure of public money in
Ireland. In this case, as in all others, the audit came too
late—after the mischief was done.

Major BLACKALL thought it important that infor-
mation as to the state of the works, the money ex•
pended, and the number of able-bodied and of decrepid
persons employed on them, should be given,
in order to show that it was the fault of the Act
that so little work had been done for the money. A
distinction should be drawn between money expended in
charity and that laid out in useless works against the will
of those who would have to repay it.
Colonel DUNNE urged the necessity of a portion of
the returns for which he had moved. The accounts had
been audited by Act of Parliament in a lump. He
wished to throw no imputation on Colonel Jones, but
every one must admit that the business of the Board of
Works had been conducted in a slovenly manner. It
had been thought possible in Ireland to combine useful
works with the expenditure of this money, but the re-
presentations of himself and others on the subject had
been unheeded. He would withdraw his motion in con-
fidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give
him all the returns that could be obtained.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, the motion was withdrawn.
POLISH INDEPENDENCE.
Mr. ANSTEY said he should not have thought of
pressing the motion of which he had given notice at
this late hour but for the importance of the subject.
In the present crisis it behoved us to look abroad, to
anticipate events, and to prevent that we could not cure.
He had no fear of invasion, or of the hostile spirit of
the French Government; a greater danger was the pos-
sibility of undue intervention by our own Government
in the affairs of independent states. He said this out
of no hostility to the Noble Lord the Secretary for Fo-
reign Affairs; but it was in the power of a single Mi-
nister to involve the country in treaties which might
be fraught with danger to the:interests of the State.
—(Hear, hear.) Under pretext of pacifying the Con-
tinent, and keeping invasion from the shores of Ire-
land, he feared we might be led into an unnatural
alliance with the Great Power of the North, to the
rupture of our friendly relations with France and
other Powers. He anticipated no serious opposition from
any quarter to the address which he should move, pray-
ing her Majesty to agree to no new territorial or other
arrangements consequent on the recent important poli-
tical events in Austria, Poland, and Prussia, which did
not recognise and secure to the Polish people their law-
ful liberties and independence. He could not suppose
that the Government would oppose such an address,
unless they were already committed to the course he de-
precated. He should be ready to concur in any measures
for the repression of rebellion at home, or the prevention
of hostilities abroad. ;If this was simply a question
whether absolutism or constitutionalism was to prevail
in Europe, he would not occupy the time of the House;
but at such a crisis he deemed it opportune to call atten-
tion to a subject of deep importance. The treaty of
Vienna, if not now at an end, was impracticable, perhaps
impossible; it was rent and torn asunder—the territorial
arrangement which it established existed no longer.
The destruction of Polish independence had brought this
about; and it was now perfectly notorious that the treaty
of Vienna could no longer be appealed to in support
of existing territorial arrangements. It would be im-
possible for her Majesty to avoid becoming a party to
some new treaty for preserving the smaller states of
Europe, and for securing the peace of this country.
There was the same danger now as in 1815 to be pro-
vided against—the threatened aggrandisement of the
Northern Powers. If our neglect of Poland in 1830 was
excused from the distance of the scene of action—this
objection no longer existed; for the countries surround.
ing Poland had no longer an interest in oppressing her,
and her shattered fragments would soon become re-
united. The Government were bound to take care that
the great duty, which they abandoned long ago, of vin-
dicating the rights of the weak against the strong, should
not be entirely disregarded in the present aspect of the"
political world.
Mr. OSBORNE seconded the motion; but he thought
it right to remark that he believed there were not suffi-
cient Members itt the House to do justice to the ques-
tion.

Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and 31 Members
only being present, the House adjourned at a quarter to
Twelve o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY B USINESS.

(From the Votes and of the House of Commons.)
TUESDAY, APRIL 4.
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.

The following Resolutions were reported from the above
Committee :-
1. That in tho case of the North British Railway
(Amendment of Acts, &e.—No. 2) petition for leave to
deposit a petition for a Bill, the standing orders ought
not to be dispensed with.

2. That in the case of the Great Northern Railway
(Amendment and Enlargement of Boston and Lincoln
Stations—No. 2) petition for leave to deposit a petition
for a Bill, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed
with.—Report to lie on the table.

A doubt seems to be entertained whether yew trees
are poisonous. We know that in a part of the country
where many are to be found, the opinion entertained—
the result of observation—is, that if eaten off the tree,
the leaves and branches are not poisonous, but if eaten
when a little withered, they are poisonous. Great care
is always taken, in consequence, not to leave any boughs,
when cut off a tree, within the reach of cattle.—Mark-
lane Express.
POST-OFFICE NOTICE.—The following notice has
been posted at the Gin-Alai Post-Ofiit.—Cqistairs, in
Lanarkshire, N. 8., haying been constituted a post town,
the post-office there is now opened for the issue and
payment of Limey order§,

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Coinnons.

MONDAY, APRIL 3.
ELECTION RECOGNIZANCES BILL.

Order for Third Reading read; Motion made, and Ques-
tion proposed, " That the Bill be now read the third time:"
—Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "-now,'",and at
the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six
months."—Question put, " That the word ' now' stand part
of the Question." The House divided :
MAJORITY—AYES, 118.
Adderley, C. B, Fuller, A. E. Plumptre,'J. P.
Alexander, N. • Gardner, Richard Power, Dr.
Anderson, Arthur Gore, W. H. 0. Power, Nicholas
Anstey, Thomas C. Greene, John • Raphael, Alexander
Armstrong, Sir A. Grey, R. W. Renton, J. C.
Bagot, Hon. W. Grogan, E. Reynolds, John
Baillie, H. J. Gwyn, Rowel Rufford, Francis
Bankes, George Hall, Colonel Sandars, George
Bentinck, Lord G. Headlam, T. E. Scholefleid, Williams
Beresford, William Hervey, Lord A. Sheil, R. L.
Berkeley, Grantley Hildyard, R. C. Sibthorp, Colonel
Boldero, li. G. Ilildyard, T. B. T. Simeon, John
Boyle, Robert E. Hope, Sir J. Smith, J. Benjamiru
Brack!ey, Vise unt Iludson, George Smyth, J. G.
Bremridge. Richard Ingestre, Visct. Smollett, A.
Bright, John Jackson, William Somerset, CaptAin
Brooke, Lord . Jolliffe, Sir W. H. Somerville. Sir W.
Bruce, C. L. C. Jones, Sir W. Spooner, Richard
Bunbury, William Keogh, Witham Stafford, Augustus
Callaghan, D. Kershaw, James Sullivan,iMichael
Chichester, Lord J. Knox, Colonel Satton, Henry
Christy, Samue Law, C. E. Thesiger, Sir F.
Clay, James Lindsay, Colonel Thompson, Colonel
Cobbold, John C. Littleton, E. It. Tollemache, John
Cobden, Richard Locke, Joseph Turner, George
Codrington, Sir W. Lockhart, A. E. Urquhart, David
Cotton, W. 11. Lockhart, W. Verner, Sir W.
Crawford, W. S. Lowther, Henry Vyse, Howard
Cripps, W. March, Earl of Waddington, H. /..
Davies, D. A. Maxwell, Hon. J. P. Wakley, Thomas
Devereux, John T. Meux, Sir Henry Walmsley, Sir J.
Disraeli, B. Miles, P. W. S. Westhead, J. P.
Duncornbe, 0. Mundy, E. M. Williams, John
Dundas, George Muntz, ,G F. Willoughby, Sir H.
Dunne, F. P. Newdegate, C. N. Wilson, Matthew
Farrer, James Nugent, Sir Percy Wyld, James
Fellowes, E. Ossulston, Lord
Floyer, John Paget, Lord A. TILLERS.
Foley, John H. Pearson, Charles Wortley, J. S.
Forbes, William Peto, Samuel Mackenzie, W. F,
Fox, Richard H. Pilkington, James

MINORITY-NOES, 74.
Adair, Hugh E. Graham, Sir J. Philips, Sir G. It.
Bailey, Joseph Greene. Thomas Price, Sir Robert
Bellew, R. M. Grey, Sir George Rawdon, Colonel
Bernal, Ralph thistle, Alexander Rice, E. R.
Bouverie, E. P. Ilastie, Archibald Rich, Henry
Bowring, Dr. Hawes, Benj. Rutherfurd, A.
Brotherton, J. Hayter, W. G. Seymer, Henry KW
Buller, Charles Henry, Alexander Seymour, Sir H.
Cabbell, B. B. Hill, Lord M. Smith, M. Tacker
Cardwell, Edward Ilobhouse, T. B. Stanton, W.H.
Carter, J. B. Ilume, Joseph Stuart, Lord D.
Clerk Sir George Jervis, Sir John Talbot, J. H.
Coles, li. It. Lewis, G. C. Thicknesse, R. A.
Craig, W. G. Lincoln, Ear) of Thornely, T.
Davie, Sir Henry M`Gregor, John Townshend, Captain
Dawson, T. V. Marshall, William Trelawny, J. S.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Mitchell, T. A. Tufhell, Henry
Duncan, Viscount Morpeth, Viscount Ward, H. G.
Duncan, George Morris, David Wawn, J T.
Ebrington, Viscount Mostyn, E. Willcox, Brodie
Evans, William Napier, Joseph Wood, W. P.
Ferguson, Slr R. Norreys, Sir D. Wyvill, M.
Fordyce, A. 1). O'Connell, M. J.
Forster, M. Ogle, S. C.
Fox, W. J. Palmerston, Vis.
Gaskell, J. M. Parker, John

Truzu.
Hall, Sir Benjamin
Elliot, John E.

DEATH FROM AIR IN A VEIN.
On Wednesday, March 29, an inquest was held a t the
Red Lion, Barnes, before Mr. W. Carter, corone r for
East Surrey, to investigate the circumstances atten Kling
the death of William Richards, aged 39, a coal port or.
Sarah Richards stated that the deceased was. her
husband, and resided with her at Hammersmith. He
died on Saturday last at the house of Dr. Willis. He
had been for a long time unwell, but for ten weeks, past
suffering under inflammation of the windpipe.. On
Saturday morning he left home about half-past eight
o'clock. He would not allow witness to accompan y him,
but she understood he was to have a seton put ir,to his
throat. Witness waited outside Dr. Willis's ho•ase for
her husband, ,and had been there about an hour and a
half, when she went into the house, and saw her husband
lying on the floor, and insensible. She was informed
that his state was owing to the operation. She had no
charge to make against Dr. Willis.

Willis said-the deceased applied to me for advice
a fortnight before the day of his death. He was labour-
ing under inflammation of the upper part of the wind-
pipe. I first treated him by leeching, then by blisters;
and lastly, proposed another method of counter-irrita-
tion—viz , a seton. This is a method by which I have
cured similar cases. Setons have been introduced hun-
dreds of times in the same part for the disease termed
goitre. Deceased came .to me on Sat urday morning,
about nine o'clock. I set him in a chair. I pinched up
the skin with the finger and thumb of the left hand, and
immediately thereafter thrust in the seton-needle, armed
with a strip of lint. The needle entered two-and-a-half
inches above the breastbone, and not at all near the
jugular vein, or other large blood-vessel. At the moment
of its entrance I heard a slight, momentary hissing sound.
For an instant I fancied that I had opened into a subeu•
taneous abscess communicating with the windpipe; but
almost at the same moment, when I looked in the naan'e
face, I saw that another and far more serious event had
occurred—that the rushing of the air was not out from
the windpipe, but into some small vein which had been
necessarily implicated in the operation. The man be-
came pale, fainted, and then became rigid and convulsed.
I sent for Mr. Coppleson, the rector, my nearest neigh-
bour ; and dispatched a servant to Putney for Dr. Cor-
mack, who was with me in half an hour. He entirely'
concurred with me as to the nature of the accident. We
consulted together, and resolved on blood-letting, as in
the circumstances the best thing which could be done.
We wished to relieve the right side of the heart. Dr.
Cormack bled him. Before the bleeding he was almost
pulseless. After it the pulse became good, and be
seemed, in every symptom, a little better. Dr. Corm:telt
was with deceased when he died, at twenty minutes past
four. My opinion is that death resulted from the con-
vulsions excited by the entrance of air into a vein divided
by me in the trifling operation of the seton. This is gi
very rare kind of death. It has however occurred seve'
ral times, and in the hands of Dupuytren and of Sir
Astley Cooper.
Professor Syme said, I was sent for td` see deceased.
Dr. Willis made to me, the same statement as to the
case, which he has now made. I concurred as to the
nature of the accident, and approved of what had been
done to save the man. Passing a seton in this situation
is quite common; and it was a proper measure in this
disease. In performing the operation it was impossible
to avoid wounding small veins; but no foresight could
have anticipated such a result, or any danger. I °xis'
mined externally the wound of the seton with reference
to the situation of the large vessels, and am satisfied that
it was so remote from them, that they could not by
possibility be implicated. In my judgment, there
no want of skill or care on the part of Dr. Willis. lie
had no control over what took place. I never saw such
a case before, but have read of them, and have seen ex'
periments on animals.
Dr. Cormack corroborated Dr. Willis's testimony.
This witness (who stated that he had written and expo'
rimented on the subject) was of opinion that the deceased
died from convulsions, produced by the admission of air
into the veins. The treatment used to deceased was
that sanctioned by recent scientific research. 11°
thought a post mortem examination ought to take place*
The jury consulted for a few minutes, and then re-
turned the following special verdict:—" Accidental
death from the entrance of air into a vein in the neck
during an operation performed by Dr. Willis; but the
jury cannot separate without expressing their opinion
that such operation was cautiously and skilfully per'
formed; and as it appears by the evidence adduced, Lb::
said operation was fully warranted by present practice..
After the inquest the body was examined anatom'
tally. It was found that the large vessels of the melt
were uninjured; that the right auricle and pulmonary'
artery were distended with frothy blood; and that the
lungs were emphysematous.
It is the intention, we believe, of Dr. Willis to lay
before the profession the whole particulars of this veil
remarkable and most interesting case.

HEAT AND VEGETATION.—The rapid progress
which vegetation has made within these few days has
astonished many; yet, when it is considered that or!
Monday at Chiswick, while the thermometer in the
shade indicated 78 degrees, the heat of the soil one foot
below the surface was 51 degrees, and at two feet the
instrument showed 491 degrees.
rADVERTISEMENT.]—THE EARL OF ALIPIOROI7OII
AND HOLLOWAY'S PILLS.—An astounding care by this miraculoo.o
medicine, after every other means had failed. See extract from hi!
Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 21, 1114 v•
Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint yea that your pills hate
effected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach all the .asst
eminent of the faculty, at home and all over the continent, hail 1140
been able to effect; nay, not ever the waters of Carlsbad or
rienbad. (Signed) " Ammolounn.” These wonderful pills IfT,
cure any disease of the liver or stomach.—Sold (also Hollowai:
Ointment) at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, ila'"
by ell medicine vendors throughout the civilised world.

BIRTHS.
On the 2d inst., at Turvey Cottage, Beds, the lady of 1J•
Thornton, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 2d inst., at Eaton-square, the wife of the Rev. G•
B. Moore, of a daughter.
On the 2d inst., at Hampstead, tke lady of W. E. Cooper'
Esq., of a son.
On the 2d inst., at Taunton, the wife of the Rev. F. J•
Smith, Incumbent of Holy Trinity, of a son.
On the 3d inst., at Everingham-park, the lady of William
Constable Maxwell, EEq., of a son.
On the 3d inst., at Stratton, near Cirencester, Lady Tan-
cred, of a daughter.

MARRIED.
On the 13th of November, at Meerut, W. Heberden, Es4l,
27th Regiment, N. to Henrietta, daughter of the Rev. r•
M. Cumming, Rector of Prior and Dromore, Ireland.
On the 28th ult., at Freshford, near Bath, Edward Halhed
Beauchamp, Commander, R.N., to Anna Maria Loaise, relict
of E. D. Ban\ ell, Eeq., barrister.

DIED.
On the Ist inst., at Rugby, George Blandford, Est.
On the Ist inst., at Longueville, near Dieppe, France,
Henry Fortescue Murton, late of the Royal Marines.
On the 2d inst., at Cheltenham, the Hon. Andrew Rani'
say, fifth son of George, eighth Earl of Dalhousie.
On the 3d inst., in Cannon-street, City, Emma, the only
daughter of John Marchant, Esq., aged 20.
On the 3d inst., at Pimlico, Miss Louisa Ann Brooks.
On the 3d inst., at the Grove, Exeter, Janet Helen, eldest
surviving daughter of Dr. Miller.
On the 3d inst., at Stratford, Essex, Florence, the youngest
daughter of Dr. Elliot.
On the 2d inst., at Spetchley-park, Worcestershire, Maria
Rosa Louisa, daughter of the late Henry Swinburne, Esq.
On the Ist inst., at Green-park-buildings, Bath, the Ladf
Frances Trail, daughter of the fifth Earl of Wemyss, and
relict of the late Rev. William Trail, LL.D.
On the Ist inst., at Weeting Hall, Amelia, the wife ofJolin
Angersteix, Esq.

London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG.
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun office, No. 1121
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county 0
bliddlenz, Wecloulky, April 05, 1848.