The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-12 00:00:00

MCADDING V. LORANT.

This was a writ of error on a judgment of the Court of
Exchequer Chamber, by which it had been declared that a
rate for the relief of the poor of the parish of St. Pancras,
ordered at a meeting of the 12th of August to bl made, but
the details of which were not completed till another vestry
meeting, held by adjournment on the 14th of September,
was a valid rate. There were several objections to the rate;
but the principal objections were, that the meeting for
levying a rate could not be adjourned, or at all events could
not be adjourned without the notice of the purpose for
which the meeting was to be held being again given ; and
no such notice had been given here; and further, tht the
form of the avowry was not sufficient, and was not sup-
ported by proof.
Mr. Needham (who was with Mr. Prendergast) was heard
in continuation of his argument on the former day for the de-
fendant in error.

Mr. Peacock (with whom was Mr. Denman), was heard
in reply.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after stating the nature of the
action, and the questions raised in it, put three questions to
the Judges. If an authority is given by a statute to the ma-
jority of a vestry, there being more than seven vestrymen
present to make a rate, would such rate be unobiectionable in
respect of its validity if the seven persons, or any of them,
were seven vestrymen de facto but not de jure? Secondly,
by the statute of Geo. 111. authority was given to a vestry to
make a rate for the relief of the poor ; notice of the meeting to
be held for that purpose was to be given on the preceding
Sunday ; and by the same statute it was enacted that notice
should be given to each vestryman. At a vestry held on the
12th of August, it was resolved that a rate should be made,
but as all the forms of the rate could not then be completed,
adjournments were made to several different days, the last
being the 14th September, when the details of the rate were
completed. There was a notice of the purpose of the meeting
of the 12th of August, but the notice of the meeting of
the 14th of September contained no mention of the pur-
pose of making a rate. Supposing the rate to be otherwise
valid, was it invalid by:reason of the notice not stating the
purpose for which the meeting assembled ? Thirdly, in
an action of replevin, an avowry alleged that a poor-rate
wat made after the passing of a certain statute, and
before the taking of the plaintiff's goods, and whilst his
goods were liable to be rated—namely, on the 12th of August,
a rate was made. Would such allegation be supported by
proof of the following facts? (The Lord Chancellor here read
a summary of the facts as already given.) These three
questions embraced all the points, and he moved that they
should be the questions put to the Judges.
The motion was agreed to, and the judges requested time
to consider them. _

Vv
The LORD CHIEF BARON, after an absence of about three-
quarters of an hour, returned, and read the opinion of the
Judges.
The LORD CHANOELLOIL and Lord BROUGHAM entirely
concurred in the opinions of the judges.
Judgment for the defendant in error.
IS COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES.
THE DUNRAVEN PEERAGI.

Mr. S. Rice appeared for the claimant.
The claim of Lord Dunraven to vote for representative
peers was heard and allowed.
VIZ BANTRY PEERAGE.
This was another claim to vote for representative peers for
Ireland.
Mr. Parnell appeared for the claimant.
The Earl of BANDON and Earl LISTOWELL, from their places,
proved the death of the father of the claimant, and the fact
that the claimant had borne the title by courtesy given to
the eldest son, and that they believed him to be the son of
the late Peer.—The claim was allowed.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice WicarrmAN.)
THE TRIAL OF JAMES HUGGINS FOR ARSON.
(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.)
Mr. CLARICCOX briefly replied, and contended that the de-
fence set up on the ground of insanity had altogether failed.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN then summed up. He said that
before the jury could acquit the prisoner on the ground of in-
sanity they must be satisfied that at the time he committed
the act he was in such a state of mind as to be incapable of
distinguishing between right and wrong in reference to that
act. It was not sufficient to excuse a person from the conse-
quences of his acts, that he was labouring under sone delu-
Eioll upon other subjects; but the law required that, at the
time of committing it, he was incapable of distinguishing
whether it was right or wrong. The law, in such a case only,
held a person to be irresponsible; and it would be dangerous
thheinpgristooner urge w awshtyh,e inudgm e
indeed to the interests of society if any other rule prevailed.
The jury, without being in deliberation more than five
minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty.
1.:
saydeath
should
oul
d whethernot hebe had
anything
re-
corded against him
• lie made no reply.
The Learned JUDGE, addressing him, said he had been
convicted upon the clearest
calledntu opfonde t
ao
possible evidence of haying wil-

f fully caused the fire, whichin its results might have been
the means of sacrificing tb lives of two innocent persons,
and would have been so o doubt but for its timely dis-
covery_ His Learned Comel had exercised every possible
I ingenuity in urging every opic that could be introduced in
his behalf, but he telt himilf compelled to rest his defence
upon the ground that, fronthe state of his mind, he was not
responsible for his actions. The jury were not satisfied with
the evidence to support tat defence, and he thought they
had come to a right concision, for it would be dangerous
indeed if a man who hafor a great many years exercised
all the ordinary duties of Fe without any suggestion of his
incompetence to perform hose duties, was to be excused
from the consequences of aiesperate crime because he might,
from irritability of tempe or any other cause, have some
delusions upon other subjecs. The offence of which he had
been convicted was stillmpital, but in his case the law
would not be carried out t, that extent. Judgment of death
would, however, be recored against him, and it would rest
with the Crown to decid to what extent that sentence
would be commuted, but he least punishment ho might ex-
pect would be transportatrn for a very long period.

POLICE 1I

HER MAJESTY'S " IAT DESTROYER•"—CHARGE OF
ROBBERY.—Amongst thcpersonages who do good and faith-
ful service to the Sovereign of this famed isle is one James
Black who, in addition tc his being a beer-shop keeper, at
26, Edward-street, Beget's-park, has the high honour of
being (according to printd bills which he hai disseminated)
" rat and mole destroyer to her Majesty Queen Victoria."
The charge preferred by lira was against William Fowler
and Frederick Fowler, fa having stolen ten live rats, his
(complainant's) property.
Mr. LoNo, to complanant—There is no such offence
known to and punishable by the law as the stealing of rats,
which are looked upon and described as vermin.

Complainant—l purchased the rats, sir, and they cost me
20. each. I sometimes five 6d. a piece for them.
Mr. LowG—Sixpence £ piece for rats? what for? Com-
plainant—l procure then for officers in barracks, who get
them for the purpose of taming their little terriers with, and
I can get plenty of custon in that way.
Mr. LONG said he coild not interfere under the circum-
stances, and that the prisoners must be discharged.
Police-constable 239 3 (by whom a cage containing ten
full-grown rats was profficed)—What am I to do with these
" animals," your Worshi)?
Mr. Lows —Give then up to the complainant.
His Worship's order vas complied with, and in about an
hour afterwards "her Aajesty's rat and mole catcher" re-
entered the court, when he set forth that he had ferrets on
his premises to the value of at least 201., and he wished to
know if, in the event of the said ferrets being stolen, he could
look upon them as beng " property" or not. He (com-
plainant) had been threatened by the parties accused, and he
was fearful that attempts would be made to steal his ferrets,
upon which he placed se much value.
Mr. LONG gave him to understand that if his ferrets should
be stolen, he might have his remedy by a civil action at the
county court. He (the Magistrate) did not think that a
criminal prosecution for such an offence could be maintained.

Her Majesty's " rat and mole catcher," after thanking his
Worship for the attention which he d paid to the case,
and making such a salaam as the Grand Sultan would have
looked for and expected to receive from one of his vassals,
then quitted the court, taking with him a large wire cage in
which the ten rats were secured. He then, followed by three
or four moustached persons of military appearance, repaired
to Ashbridge's, the Coach and Horses Hotel, where they in-
dulged themselves with the landlord's" kill grief," and other
beverages, to their hearts' content. At three o'clock" her
Majesty's rat catcher" had a strong presentiment that he had
had quite enough, and in a few minutes he took his seat in his
drag, which was waiting for him in Paradise-street—the
said drag showing the loyalty of its owner, inasmuch as on
each side were painted two rats, with the letters " V. R.,"
and a crown above. As he stepped into the vehicle he was
saluted with cries of Bravo, Black, keep your spirits up,
my boy, in spite of all muffs, and stick to rats and ferrets as
long as you live." The horse was then driven off at the rate
of fourteen miles an hour.

THE LONDON GAZETTE, July 11.

BANKRUPTS.

Thomas Edwin Southee, advertising agent, Fleet-street, to
surrender July 21, at one, and August 28, at eleven, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basing-
hall-street ; Buchanan, Basinghall-street.
William Taylor and James Wylde, flock manufacturers,
Wood-street, London, July 21, at twelve, and Aug. 22, at
one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee,
Basinghall-street ; Lepard, Bannatyne, and Gammon, Cloak-
lane.
William Edward Johnson, coal merchant, New-wharf,
Little Abingdon-street, Westminster, July 18, at twelve, and
August 21, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Cannan,
official assignee, Birchin-lane, Cornhill ; Jer wood, Ely-place,
Holborn.

James Murray, woollen warehouseman, Gresham-street,
London, July 18, at one, and August 15, at eleven, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Stansfeld, official assignee; Link-
later, Charlotte-row, Mansion-house.
William Williams, builder, Ashford, Kent, July 19 and
August 15, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Scans-
feld, official assignee ; Laurance, Plews, and Boyer, Old
Jewry-chambers.
Thomas Barber, bookseller, Cambridge, July 18, at one,
and August 15, at half-past eleven. at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Graham, official assignee ; Pickering, Smith, and
Thompson, Stone-buildings, Lincoln's-inn; Archer, Ely,
Cambridgeshire.
Elizabeth Thompson, brushmaker, Reading, July 22, and
Aug. 23, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom,
official assignee, Abchurch-lane; Finney, Furnival's-inn,
Holborn.

Philip Rufford, Francis Rufford, and Charles John Wragge,
bankers, Stourbridge, July 28, and Aug. 18, at half-past ten,
at the Birmingham District Court. Whitmore, official assig-
nee, Birmingham ; Harward, Stourbridge ; Motteram,
Knight, and Emmet, Birmingham.
_ _

Philip Rufford and Francisßufford, bankers, Bromsgrove,
July 26, and Aug. 16, at half-past ten, at the Birmingham
District Court. Whitmore, official assignee, Birmingham;
Harward, Stourbridge ; blotteram, Knight, and Emmet,
Birmingham.
Samuel Street, shoemaker, Devizes, July 24, and Aug. 21,
at eleven. at the Bristol District Court. Acraman, official
assignee, Bristol ; Abbot and Lucas, Bristol.

SVilliam Ayre,s, grocer, Cardiff, July 24, and Aug. 21, at
eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official as-
signee, Bristol; Stanley and Wasbrough, Bristol.
Fletcher Clarke, wine merchant, Hawes, Yorkshire, July
28 and Aug. 21, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court.
Hope, official assignee, Leeds ; Robinson, Leyburn ; Bond
and Barwick, Leeds.

Richard Brumwell, draper, Halifax, July 28, at twelve,
and Aug. 20, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court.
Putt, official assignee, Manchester; Sale, Worthington, and
Shipman, Manchester.
James Pownall and James Youil, brewers, Manchester,
July 21, and Aug. 12, at twelve, at the Manchester Dis-
trict Court. Fraser, official assignee, Manchester; Lycett,
Manchester.

—James Hoyle and Thomas Hoyle, cotton manufacturers,
Salford, July 24 and Aug. 15, at twelve, at the Manchester
District Court. Lee, official assignee, Manchester; Rowley,
Manchester.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 11.
EPISCOPAL INCOMES.
Sir B. HALL wished to ask Lord John Russell,
whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Govern
ment to propose any Legislative measures for obviating
the inconvenience and occasional hardship resulting
from the present uncertainty of episcopal incomes, in ac-
cordance with the desire of the Committee on Episcopal
Incomes (Parliamentary Paper, No. 400, page 294)?
Also, whether the bishops who have received larger in-
comes than were assigned to their sees have paid the
surplus over to the common fund, or have retained it?
Also, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners intend
taking legal proceedings for the recovery of the sums
which, according to the last report of the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners, appear to be due from certain
bishops, and if not, what course they propose ,to adopt
that the common fund may not be deprived of that
amount so long due, and, as appears by Parliamentary
Paper,tis No.
that
demanded? Also, whether
i
oflisbury has intimated to the
true l st3h,
the Bishop
repeatedly
Commissioners that he will receive from them, as a
fixed income, the sure assigned to his see, and whe-
ther any other bishop has acted in like ',manner?
Such being the case, of courso all the bishops who had
received their sees since that time came under that Act
of Parliament.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had to state, in answer to
the Hon. Baronet's first question, that of which the
House was perfectly aware, namely, that an Act of Par-
liament had been passed many years ago by which the
incomes of bishops were fixed, and those who received
anything over the income assigned to their diocese were
required to pay a certain sum. Other bishops were to
receive a certain sum to make up the incomes of their re-
spective sees to the sum assigned. Lately a Bill had been
passed, which provided that the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners should make arrangements by which the incomes
of the bishops should neither exceed nor fall short of
the sum assigned to them.—(Hear, hear.) That
was to take place from January, 1849, and with
regard to the bishops whose incomes were greater
since then, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were
considering a scheme for carrying into effect the
provisions of that Act, so that they would receive an
exact sum. With regard to the other bishops he was
not called upon to speak, but it was evident
they were entitled to the incomes which were settled on
them, and that Parliament was no more kis tified in in-
terfering with them than they were in interfering with
any other private property whatever. These who had
received more than the sums assigned to them by
law, had retained it according to their rig ht by law.
The Bishop of Durham had paid over a much
larger sum to the Cummissioners than they Were entitled
to receive from him; 11,0001. was the sum settled for
him to pay, besides giving up an estate of 2,0001. per
annum, which it was calculated would reduce his in-
come to 8,0001. It should be stated likewise that the
present Bishop succeeded two prelates whose in-
comes were 23,0001. per annum, said whose
charities and contributious were .of course
commensurate to their incomes. This created a very
considerable demand on the present Bishop, to
which he had responded as far as he was able, to the
amount of no less than 45,000/,—(Hear, hear.) The
next question of the Hon. Baronet refertaset to certain
bishops who were obliged to pay over certain :aims which
were in excess of the sums fixed for their incomes. Some
of these had received much less than had been fixed
for them, and could not have paid over the sums
required from them without great inconvenience. The
Bishop of Ely was indebted in a considerable amount
to the Commisioners, and at no time had his income
exceeded the income assigned to him. The Commis-
sioners had not proceeded by law for the re-
covery of these sums, but had merely written
at intervals to acquaint the Right Rev. Prelates of the
amounts due and request payment. The Archbishop of
York had paid all that was due, and the Bishop of St.
Asaph was now making arrangements for that purpose.
In the case of the Bishop of Ely there was every reason
to believe that it he lived the whole sum due from him
would be paid, though the Commissioners, from the
consideration that his income had never reached
the suns estimated, were naturally desirous not to press.
With regard to the last question, the Bishop of Salis-
bury had put into his hands a letter written by him to
the Conamissieners so late back as February last, by
which ho voluntarily came under the bands of the Com-
missioners.

COURT OF CHANCERY AND JUDICIAL COM-
MITTEE BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Mr. M. MIGNES rose for the purpose of giving a
denial to the statements which had been made with re-
gard to the Biehop of St. David's ; but he was inter-
rupted by
The SPEAKER, who informed the Hon. Gentleman
that the remarks he was making had no reference to the
subject before the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the Hon. Member
should defer the subject until the motion for going into
Committee of Supply.
The question that the Court of Chancery and Judicial
Committee Bill should be read a third time having then
been put,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said he did not object to the
Bill, but he objected to the proposed mode of paying
the new judges. He thought that payment ought not
to be made out of the suitors fund. He repeated that
he did not mean to oppose the passing of the Bill, but he
protested against its being considered a measure of Chan-
cery reform, for it would merely strengthen the judicial
staff in the Court of Chancery, while it would leave the
flagrant abuses of the court wholly untouched. He hoped
that for these abuses some efficient remedy would yet be
devised.
Sir G. STRICKLAND said he agreed with the Hon.
Baronet opposite (Sir H. Willoughby) that that could not
be considered as a measure of Chancery reform such as
the public had at length began loudly to demand. He en-
tirely concurred in the statement of the Right Honourable
Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham) that
the Bill began at the wrong end, for it merely increased
the means of carrying out the present most imperfect Chan-
cery system, instead of effecting a complete reform of that
system. He knew a case in which the Court of Chancery
had spent nine years in deciding upon the preliminary points
of a suit, while the real merits of the suit had afterwards
been settled by a common law court in the course of nine
hours.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that undoubtedly the Bill could
not be considered as a reform of the Court of Chancery ; but
he should observe that, in order to obtain that reform, it
was desirable that the heads of the Court should have at
their disposal some time for considering the best means of
carrying it into effect.
Mr. SLANEY said he did not mean to oppose the Bill.
But as he had been the Chairman of a Committee for in-
quiring into the mode in which the suits of persons engaged
in commercial transactions were conducted, he felt it his
duty to warn the House and the Government of the pressing
necessity of passing some measure for facilitating the settle-
ment of those suits. No judicial arrangements could be
more cumbersome, expensive, and unsatisfactory, than the
present mode of terminating before the Court of Chancery
disputes which arose out of commercial partnerships,
The Bill was then read a third time and passed
SUPPLY.—THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.
The order of the day for the House resolving itself into a
Committee of Supply having been read, and the question
having been nut that the Speaker should leave the char,
Mr. M. MILNES said he had been requested by the Bishop
of St. Oavid's to give his unqualified contradiction to an
assertion which had been made the other evening by the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Marylebone. The Hon. Baronet
had asserted without proof that that distinguished prelate had
forbidd n his archdeacons to visit that diocese. Now he
(Mr. M. Mimes) was authorised by the Bishop of Sc.
David's to say that he had never forbidden any arch-
deacon to visit any portion of that diocese. When he had
been raised to his present prsition in the diocese he had
found that the archdeacon generally had not been in the
habit of visiting it. He had found that one of the arch-
deacons had been the vicar of Carmarthen, with a large cure
Red a small living; he had found that anothet archdeacon
had been the master of an academy at Edinburgh, and had
been residing altogether out of the diocese ; and he had found
that the third archdeacon had been in the continual habit of
visiting his archdeaconry. He (Mr. M. Milnes) was sure
that that distinguished prelate would be the last person to
wish to impose on that House in any way as to the con-
dition of his diocese, and he believed that the Right Rev.
Prelate agreed with the Hon. Baronet in all fundamental
points as to the duties of dignitaries of the Established
Church. It should be remembered that the archdeacons had
not been appointed by the Right Rev. Prelate, and that the
melancholy state of a large portion of his diocese had arisen
from circumstances over which he had no control. In his
(Mr. M. Mines's) belief, the Hon. Baronet had no just
, grounds for bringing forward a charge such as that he had
adduced against a prelate not more distinguished by his Eu-
ropean reputation for learning than by the simplicity and
frugality of his life and his Christian virtues.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Baronet had on a former occasion charged
the Right Rev. Prelate in print with having appointed him-
self to the deanery of Brecon; and as the Hon. Baronet had
afterwards withdrawn the former charge he (Mr. M.
Milnes) trusted that he would also think it his duty to with-
draw the assertion he had recently made.
Sir B. HALL said he had been asked to withdraw the
statement he had made the other evening, but he declined to
do any such thing. The statement he had made was this :
In discussing the condition of the diocese of Sc. David's, and
quoting from the reports laid before the House by the Com-
missioners appointed by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Ripon to inquire into the state of education in Wales,
which report showed a most lamentable condition of the
churches in that diocese, he said, that notwithstanding the
fact that these reports had been laid before Parliament, not-
withstanding the fact that the greatest publicity had been
given to them, notwithstanding the fact that they had been
brought under the notice of the Right Rev. Prelate himself,
he had reason to believe that of the four archdeacons in that
diocese, not one had made a single visitation during the
eleven years Dr. Thirlwall had been bishop of the diocese.
He had further said that he had been informed, in the course
of conversation, by one of the archdeacons, that the Bishop
had prevented him from making a visitation. That was the
statement he had made to the House, and by that statement
he abided. It was for the Right Rev. Prelate himself to settle
the matter with the archdeacon who had given to him (Sir
B. Hall) the information on which he had founded his state-
ments. It so happened that that very morning he had
received a communication from the archdeacon to whom he
referred, enclosing a letter from the Bishop of the diocese,
and he thought his Hon. Friend would have done better if
he had waited till he could see the answer which he (Sir B.
Hall) was prepared to make to that communication, before
he had brought the subject under the notice of the House.
That answer to the archdeacon he had just concluded, and
had brought down with him to the House. In it he recalled
to the archdeacon a conversation he had with him in his
(Sir B. Hall's) own house, in the course of which he ex-
pressed his regret at the lamentable and disgraceful condi-
tion of the diocese of St. David's, as well as his regret that
the archdeacon had not made any visitation in the diocese;
while the rev. gentleman had told him in reply that he bad
been prepared to make a visitation, that he had got his
charge ready in the Welsh language, but that he had been
prevented by the Bishop from making the proposed visita-
tion. That was his statement, and by that statement he was
prepared to abide. He should further say that he bad never
seen any diocese or any place in the United Kingdom in so
disgraceful a state as the diocese of St. David's as regarded
the state of the churches. That declaration was corrobo-
rated by the evidence of the Government Commissioners, to
whom he had always referred. Any gentleman travelling
in that diocese will find the churches there without windows
and with ut roofs; and yet the archdeacons were not allowed
to make any visitation.
Mr. MORRIS had never heard of the Bishop of St.
David's preventing his archdeacons from visiting their arch-
deaconries. He bore testimony to the excellent manner in
which the Bishop discharged his duties.
CATHEDRAL TRUSTS.
Mr. MOWATT called the atte .tion of the House to the
case of the Rochester Grammar School. It was one in which
the oppression of an individual was mixed up' with the great
subject of education. In the year 1848 the Rev. Mr. Whis-
ton, the head master of the Rochester Grammar School, ap-
plied to the dean and chapter, pointing out that the four ex-
hibitions attached to the school were not sufficient for the
original purpose for which they were intended; and though
in the year 1542, when the school was established, with the
cathedral, the sum of 51. was amply sufficient, being equal to
801. at present, it was so no longer. The dean and chapter
desired him to close the correspondence,, and Mr. Whiston
appealed to the public; and then, having published a book,
entitled "Cathedral Trusts and their Fulfilment," for this he
was dismissed. The facts could not be refuted; and to show
how education was connected with cathedral trusts, he would
refer to several documents —to the preamble of the statutes,
and then to the cathedral statutes, which provided that 21
poor boys should be maintained out of the cathedral re-
venues, and four scholars sent to the university, and
maintained there. Amongst the provisions made were—for
the dean, 1001. ; six prebends, 201. each ; and so on with
others, until they came to 20 students, at 1/. 13s. 4d. ; and
four students, at 61. 13s. 4d. each—the value of money then
beins sixteen times as much as at the present day. All
parties in that House—every one in the country—was in-
terested in the progress of education - and they could not
but see the benefit that would be derived from the faithful
execution of the cathedral trusts for education. Canterbury
should have 50 boys with 4/. each—equal to about 54/.
Westminster had 40 boys, which it maintained ; but it
took 1,8001. from the 40 foundation scholars, and 1,7001. from
the Queen's scholars, under the pretence of additional build-
ings. Worcester, 40 boys, had reduced its stipend from
Si. 10s. to 2/. 13s. 4d. Ely, which in the sixteenth century
had NO scholars, two years ago had but 24 ; Peter-
borough, 20 boys; Rochester, 19 or 20 ; Durham, 18 scholars
—in all, 212 free scholars and 50 or 60 exhibitions at the
two universities. Then the following four were bound to
maintain scholars :—Chester, 24; Bristol, 24; Carlisle, 20,
but two years age it had no school ; and Gloucester, 20. He
next referred to the opinions of the counsel ; the Attorney-
General and Mr. Lewis stating that the dean and chapter
were bound out of the cathedral funds to provide for the
maintenance of the different scholars in proportion to the
other stipends, and declaring that desuetude would not re-
lease the dean and chapter from the original obligation as to
making due and proportionate provision for the purpose of
education. He would now state what the actual conduct of
the Dean and Chapter of Rochester was in respect to the na-
ture of the trust confided to them. The sum of 53/. 6s. Bd.
was allotted to the school in 1542, which in the present day
would be worth sixteen times that amount, making, there-
fore, the sum of 853/. 6s. Bd. Bat the increased stipends
amounted to thirty-four times the original amount. During
the years 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836,1837, and 1838, the amounts
paid out of the prodigiously increased revenues of the cathe-
dral institutions of Rochester were but 6/., 51., 51., 61., 31., 11.,
and 11. again, and in 1839 there was no school at all, the
building having been taken down and the site sold. So that
in that year there were no boys to receive any of the advan-
tages. Some time afterwards, in consequence of the comments
of the press upon these facts. there was another school
built. It appeared that daring the present century the
Dean and Chapter of Rochester divided amongst themselves
about 5,0031.. which had been given for educational pur-
poses. The Rev. Mr. Whiston published a pamphlet, entitled
" Cathedral Trusts and their Fulfilment." And in con-
sequence of certain statements made by him in such work he
was declared unworthy to be entrusted with the functions of
head roaster of the Grammar School at Rochester. It was
true that the Rev. Mr. Whiston, in mentioning these facts in
his pamphlet, characterised their conduct as unbecoming
any man, and still more a clergyman ; but he (Mr. Mowatt)
submitted that the language was strictly applicable to the
facts of which he treated. The Bishop of Rochester, when
Dean of Worcester, it appeared, had allowed the rules ap-
pertaining to this grammar school to be set at naught in
the way he had described. It was impossible for the Bishop
to interfere on behalf of Mr. Whiston, without at the same
time passing condemnation upon himself. Mr. Whiston
made an appeal to the Bishop on behalf of the charity, and
after an interval of 15 months he was told that he ought to
go to Chancery. He then appealed to the public by the
publication of the pamphlet referred to, upon which he was
dismissed from his office of head master, Mr. Whiston then
applied to the Court of Queen's Bench, and obtained a
mandamus to restore him to his office. He was in hopes that
they would have met him on the merits of the case, but the
Dean and Chapter abstained from putting in their case,
but met Mr. Whiston upon purely technical grounds—
namely, that on his being dismissed he should have made an
appeal to the Bishop as visitor in the first instance; and it
was only in case of his refusal to reinstate him in his office
he would be justified in going into the Queen's Bench. Now,
Mr. Whiston was, comparatiyely speaking, a poi man,who

they knew was unable to bear the heavy expenses of a law-
suit; and, acting upon that knowledge, they did not find it
difficult to defeat him in his operations against them. The
total amount of the endowments in 1542 was 547/. L',s. 341;
its present endowments amounted to upwards of 4,5001.
The gross receipts as returned by the chapter on an average
for several years, down to 1834, amounted to a very large
sum for Canterbury. In 1542 there was expended on the
school there 4201., being one-sixth of the total revenue,
whereas in 1834 there was only expended about 1-164th
part. The Hon. Gentleman having quoted at some length
from the returns before him, for the purpose of showing hew
these funds had been diverted from their original applica-
tion, and having referred to the oath taken by the dean and
chapter, which was to observe all those ordinances and sta-
tutes passed in the reign of their founder Henry VIII., be
then proceeded to contrast with them tho manner in which
other trusts were observed. A prebendary of Canterbury
asked Mr. Whiston what useful object did he hope to obtain
from the publication of his pamphlet, for the exposure of
such facts as were therein contained was calculated to do
grievous injury to the Church. Upon. inquiry into the facts
connected with this gentleman, it was found that from his
prebendary income of Canterbury he received 1,0001. a
year ; from the tithes of various parishes about
3,0001. a year; from a certain rectory, 6851. a
year ; from the rectory of Cliffe, near Rochester,
1,3911, 10s. 101,d.; making in the whole 6,2171. ss.
received by this prebendary of Canterbury. Tne
statutes allowed these members of the Dean and Chapter
of Rochester to hold one ecclesiastical benefice, provided
such benefice was not more than 24 miles distant from Ro-
chester; but still three of these prebendaries held more than
one benefice, some of which were more than 100 miles from
Rochester, and the value of the livings held by the Dean and
Chapter of that cathedral was 4,8301. ; the value of the
revenue which they enjoyed in connexion with the Lepers'
Hospital, 5,707/. ; and their patronage was 4,940/. one
of these prebends of Rochester, who refused to augment
the original allowance of 51.—and his was not the largest
income—received 2,2511. 4s. sd. directly from the cathedral,
and held a living worth from tithes alone 953/. 7s. ld.
a year, and had received for the renewal of leases
3,0001. in a single year. He would not do any member of
the Government the injustice of supposing that he would offer
any resistance to his motion, but anticipated that his motion
would be opposed by the Right Hon. Member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge. But that Right Hon. Gentleman was
the hired advocate of the abuses which would come within
the cognizance of the Commission which he wished to have
appointed. He received 1,000/. a year as one of the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners, and what were his duties? To
come to that House aed st p the mouth of any inde-
pendent Member who might ask a question reflecting in
the slightest degree on any part of the Church Establish-
rnent. Fur his own part, he had no object in making this
motion but an honest conviction of its necessity. The State
stood in loco parentis towards these schools, and Henry VIII.
in founding cathe .ral bodies never intended to part with all
control over such institutions. It might be urged by some
that 12 or 13 grammar schools, more or less, could not have
any great effect upon the education of the country; but on
the other hand, he agreed with the Right Hon. Member for
the U ;iversity of Oxford in thinking that incalcu:able ad-
vantages would flow from the existence in every cathedral
town of the nucleus of a first-rate grammar school. The Hon.
Member concluded by moving that an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously
pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into and report
upon the a.balinistration of the educational trusts confided to
the cathedral establishments of the kin _dom.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL gave the Hon. Member full
credit for the motives to which he had laid claim, but re-
gretted that the Hon. Member had not exercise t the same
charity towards the Bishop, Dean, and Chapter of Rochester,
mei the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University
of Cambridee. The real questioa was, whether the House
should go into a Committee of Supply ; and there were many
who felt as strong an interest on the subject of education as
the Hon. Member, but who nevertheless thought it more im-
portant, at this late period of the session, to proceed with
supply.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member had rested his
argument, from beginning to end, on the case of the Dean
and Chapter of Rochester. He had undoubtedly mentioned
others, but the whole of his speech, of more than two hours
in length, with the exception of about 10 minutes, was de-
voted to the case of Mr. Whiston. Lie had known Mr.
Whiston at college, and he had read his able work, in which
he had certainly collected a great deal of useful information.
He would not follow his Hon. Friend through all the refe•
rences which he had made to that w rk. The great objec-
tion which he had to the motion was thatit was founded en-
tirely on a matter in the course of adjudication before a com-
petent tribunal; and though he had no doubt that he would
conscientiously discharge his duty, still the Bishop, from a
natural hesitation to decide grave legal questions, had called
to his assistance one of the ablest of our judges, Mr. Baron
Parke. Besides this he would have the official assistance of
Dr. Lushington. Mr. Whiston's case was, therefore, in very
good hands. But the state of the law and the position which
the Legislature had assumed with regard to cathedral funds
rendered this motion peculiarly inappropriate, irrespective
of the period chosen for bringing it forward. Mr. Whis-
ton's book had given the fullest information on the
.subject, so that there was nothing to inquire into. It
might be a question whether it would not have been wise—
he should have thought it very wise— to have taken care,
when the distribution of the cathedral property was made,
to have made some provision for education in connexion
with the Church. But the Legislature had not taken that
course. By the 3 and 4 Vic., c. 113, the incomes of the dean
and every prebendary of every cathedral was fixed, and they
had no longer any interest in the question, for the whole
surplus was handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
to be applied to the relief of spiritual destitution. The
House might undoubtedly revoke its decision, but the ques-
tion was, whether it would be better to apply relief to spi-
ritual destitution or to the maintenance of grammar schools.
This was debateable ground, and the House a few nights
ago, in agreeing to an address to her Majesty, had shown
no disposition to retrace its steps. He (the Solicitor-Ge-
neral) was sorry time did not allow him to enter into the
observations which the Hon. Gentleman had made in refer-
ence to the attacks on private individuals which were con-
tained in the pamphlet. He entertained the most perfect
respect for Mr. Whiston; but they all knew how easy it
was for a person to be led into the use of strong expressions
who took a one-sided view of a case; and, for his part, he,
could only look on the pamphlet as the production of an ad-
vocate.— (Hear.)
Mr. BERNAL said that his Non. Friend (Mr. Mowatt)
had mixed up the case of Mr. Whiston with some very
important matters; but lee would do him the justice of
saying that he had used that case as an illustration of the
more general subject, and only as a part of a whole. He
agreed with the Solicitor-General that Mr. Whiston's case
was now sub judice pendente lite. He (Mr. Bernal) deeply
bewailed the facts which had been placed before the House.
He regretted that these things should become matter of open
scandal, for they prejudiced the 'benefits which ought to be
derived from our old and excellent institutions; they dif-
fused a large degree of malevolent gossip throughout the
land; they did no good to anybody whatever, and they
excite i a universal feeling of disgust and contempt.—(Hear.)
He had observed that Mr. Whiston's case was only a part of
a general question, and that being pendente lite, it was not
for the House of Commons now to pronounce judgment upon
it. There were other equally important questions—that
respecting the poor alumni and other things, which were
touched upon but Blighty by his Right Hon. Friend. One
point to which he wished to call the attention of the House
was the reading which the Solicitor-General bad given them
of The Act 3d and 4th Vic. If, as the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman said, the deans and chapters had no funds with
which to act, at once there was an estoppel put upon
the question. But was he right in his constructio of the
statute? Were the funds so completely removed from the
control or the possibility of application on the part of the
different ecclesiastical bodies? If the lion, and Learned
Gentleman were co-rect, not another year should be per-
mitted to elapse before Parliament altered the provisions of
that statute. —(He4r, hear.) He granted that the motion
of his Hon. Friend had not been brought before the House
in the best form; but certainly the points on which he had
based kis motion were points of the greatest importance, and
it behoved every and aly Government to give their most
devoted attention to them.—(Hear, hear.) The time was
come when it must not be left to the contingent chance of
individual rooting out the real uses of a trust, but the Go-
vernment themselves were called upon imperatively to look
into these matters. This was demanded by the spirit of the
age; and if Government manifested some genial harmony
with that spirit, they might proceed with safety, and effect
great good. But if, on the other hand, they slumbered on
—at one time defending the ecclesiastical bodies, and at
other times carping at them for doing nothing—they would
be laughed at out of doors, and by their apathy find torpor
go far to pull down the bulwarks of the Church, and destroy
that respect for religion which was inherent in the bosom of
every Englishman.—(Hear. )
Mr. MILNES bore his testimony, the result of a long
and intimate acquaintance with Mr. Whiston, to that gen-
tleman's ability and excellent character. If in his pamphlet
Mr. Whiston had used any phrases which appeared to par-
take of unnecessary acerbity, Hon. Gentlemen should not
forget that that pamphlet was published only as a last re-
source, and after every attempt had been made on his part
to bring about what he conscientiously believed to be just by
fair and courteous means ; and, secondly, that when sum-
moned before the chapter, he stated in the most positive
way, that he extremely regretted any violent expressions
which he might have used, and that he entirely disavowed
any intention of injuring or insulting any member of that
body.—(dear.) And he (Mr. Mines) could not but think
that the chapter would have done greater justice to the re-
ligion they professed and the establishment to which they
belonged, if they had treated Mr. Winston in a different
spirit, and met his advances in another manner. If the case
was as it had been stated by the Solicitor-General, then,
indeed they had nothing whatever to do with the matter,
and they would have had merely to refer Mr. Whiston
to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to say that they
would be extremely glad to dispose of a larger portion of the
cathedral funds in favour of this educational establishment,
but they were prevented by law from doing so. The fact
was, however, he could not find that the dean and chapter
had ever used that argument. On the contrary, so far
from that, they had always, in their communication with
Mr. Whiston, stated that the question of increasing the ad-
vantages of his educational establishment was one to which
they were not opposed, and to which they were perfectly
willing to direct their attention. They never seemed to think
for one moment that the case was out of their hands.--4 Hear,
hear) There could be no doubt that the legal question had
gone against Mr. Whiston—that the question whether these
cathedral trustees were trustees in a legal sense or not had
been decided against him; and his removal from the office
of master was a secondary matter to that. Mr. Whiston
had certainly failed; but that was no reason why, upon a
representation of the case before the Hause of Commons,
some remedy should not be applied to the difficulty.—
certainly ( Hear, hear.) In asking for a Commission his Hon. Friend
( Mr. Mowatt) had done no more than circumstances
of the case fairly warranted him in doing;
vote
went to a division he (Mr. Milne° should
Deanthis andHo
us Chapter of
Rochester , that it was the opinion of
with him. If the present debate was followed by no other
consequences, he trusted that, at the
ey rate, it would reach the
ears of that important body.
s
House that Mr.
Whiston' case was deserving of at least very generous con-
sideration, and he didhopleiktehteoyezt o actulds aheethovate
aitllwsuosuplideiobne
becoming in a great body
of petty motives, personal feelings,_ personal pique, or per-
sonal profit.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that they would see
that they could not ao greater justice to themselves than by
even though putting the most lenient, it might not be a
strictly just, interpretation upon the pest, and by retaining
Mr. Whiston in the situation to which he had done so much
honour, really confer honour upon themselves.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER lamented that on occasions
like that, when a gentleman brought forward a question
affecting the Established Church, it should be deemed a
fitting opportunity of introducing personal attacks upon in-
dividuals. The injustice was great, and in the present
instance peculiarly so, for this reason. The offence imputed
to the Dela and Chapter of Rochester was, that there being
certain estates provided for other excellent purposes, as well
as for the maintenance of the dean and chapter, they had
suffered some of these purposes to remain in a state of decay,
whilst others which were beneficial to themselves had been
kept up.— (Hear.) Now what. he asked, could he more un-
just than making a practice which had endured for centuries
the subject of attack upon individuals who might fill these

fthis
Pennparticularu ha d periodheen introduced?
ortffil Lei sbeart
ner and in a different spirit, with reference to the questionl2
Ifthe
involved in it—though he readily admitted there wasm atio„
thing acrimonious in the tone of the Honourable Gentleman
remarks—(Hear)—if personal questions had not b.o4ve
innloatiodniffeefretnht° issEll3;
largely imported into the discussion, then he should
he must or
It was and -,ubtedly a very large subjeet, and
thought the Hon. Gentleman had dove considerable service-
that the coarse, which the Legislature had taken in thematter
y.--
of Church reform had been too much in the isature of a diver
genes from the original destination of ChurCh P.sepert-.
(Hear.) The cathedral bodies many of them derived largo
would
incomes from the tithes of different parishes, and on„°'.‘stide,
have thought that it was a plain obvious principle DlP,,,ese
that when dealing with the surplus revenues ofes
cathedrals these tithes should be restored to the par,73o
which paid them, to provide for the spiritual wants of th
parishes. He regretted to say, however, that that prineiP
had been lost sight of in their Church reform, and had u°"
,
been recognised on the face of the Cathedral Act. It seenur
to him to be one of the most harsh and unjust things in t°6
world, for individuals out of doors, the public press, or Mein'
hers of this House, to introduce a subject of this kind forci
consideration, in language which implied that wrong ,
been done by:individuals, and that their acts had been uncoil__
scientious, when they had merely abstained from taking LIP?n
themselves the work of effecting an extensive reform by the
restoration and revival of institutions decayed centuries D
•
fore they had anything to do with them. lie regretted that
in writing his pamphlet, and throughout all his proceeding
Mr. Whiston had not borne in mind what was due to
duals by those who desired to reform abuses for the benefit
_ la
of the public. Mr. Whiston might have done great good :
the public without suffering injury himself if he bad 3,,e
dressed himself either to the law affecting the case, or ssd
expediency and policy of a reform of cathedral schools, age
he ,Mr. Palmer) thought it was most to be regretted for _t
sake of the Cathedral of Rochester and for the public, tn;
he should have done it by attacking individuals who wen
after all, his superiors, to whom he was subordinate, ar,
who could not but expect some degree of consideration
the position they occupied as his superiors in the Church 0
England.
Mr. HUME said he felt there was no ground for the CO,
plaint of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just!„
dressed the House, that those questions were brought set.%
ward in the absence of the persons most deeply interested !LS
them; for surely the Hor end Learned Gentleman con
not man that such a dis.. •as that should be deferr%
until the bishops and the Ss.* and chapters should ha's
scats in that House. Those souses had, in many instancieey
continued for centuries ; but that circumstance only afforded
an additional reason for their removal. His experience c 0;
wince , him that there was no class of men more ana_l°4
than clergymen to hold fast to every misapproprialieus:
Church property, by which they themselves benefited, nuly
withstanding their appeals to others for liberal cotributt.
to the purposes of the Church. It appeared to him that .11
Whiston had been most unjustly treated in that matter, 113
that the deans and chapters had acted most unreasonably'
It was time for the friends of the Church to attempt to ri
form its abuses, in compliance with the general reeling ‘'d
the public. Let a Commissien, such as his Hon. Frier',
had suggested, be appointed to inquire into those abusla
and let the abuses be removed, and then the Church WCnst
occupy a much safer position than that in which she was
present placed.
Lord J. R SSELL said he would not then enter into t 11.6.
special case which had been brought under their notice
the Hon. Member for Pen rbyn (Mr. alowatt). But he wish.ed
to say a few words on the general question which had ber3t
introduced into the discussion. The great object whichss,
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, since their first appoint/0,
had had in view, was to provide for the spiritual destitutl;
which existed in many parts of the country, in which
population bad increased from ,0 0 or 1,500 persons,st°
40,00 or 50,000 persons. All the measures taken by.1:17.
Commissioners had been directed to that obJ;
although he would not undertake to say whestsas
or not those measures had always been the hest cal rof
lated to attain that end. They had taken large portio.,
of cathedral property, they had abolished sinecure re
tories. and they had made other changes for the Pan
of erecting and endowing new churches. That was,
events, a clear and definite mode of proceeding. But et' ja
persons would adopt a different course, and would retsiut
a reformed shape, cathedral establishments. They won't!,
fact, restore the cathedral system to what they concely-t;
to have been its original purpose and condition. Now tholo
too, was a perfectly intelligible proposal, and it was
which had been supported with great ability in the press a°oo
in that House, But when the House had come to a discus'os
upon the subject there had been but a very small amoinats
votes in favour of that view of the question; and he belieT,
that it had never received any extensive support in
5,6
country. He had only further to add that it that cows.
were pursued they should relinquish that object which U
ste
Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Parliament had hitlit;
steadily kept in view, and they should altogether abann,ld
their present mode of proceeding. He repeated that he f
not mean to enter into the question whether the Deal and
b;
Chapter of Rochester had behaved properly or not in
particular case which had been brought under their 0,°":„
sideration. That case would soon be heard, not only by .
Bishop of the diocese, but also by Baron Parke; and un'
it had been so heard he thought it would be premature .on
the part of the House of Commons to pronounce any decision
in the matter.
cola
Mr. HEYWOOD said he thought that grammar scha
ss
had at least as good a right to be maintained as cathed.2
establishments. Indeed, those latter establishments 00,!1:,
not possibly be conducted, since the Reformation, in corut,
mity with the wishes of their founders, while gramnilt
schools would be productive of the greatest national been
if the principles on which they had been established 107
steadily adhered to.
Mr. MOWATT intimated that he would not press his In°
tion to a division.
The motion was accordingly negatived without a divist •
SUPPLY—THE MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of stir
ply, Mr. Bernal in the chair.
A vote of 46,824/. having been proposed for the Brit
Museum,
Mr. HUME said that that was a large sum, but he
no objection to make to it, as it was to be applied to a at 0
valuable national object. He wished to see the whole of tut+
magnificent collection, and more especially the library,. vi°o
extensively thrown open to the public. The Commissic'ne
who had inquired into the state of the Museum had rec°l4
mended a change in the system of its management, and th,,
instead of a committee of thirty individuals, it should
managed by a small executive committee, whose menabrrs
should be paid, and should be individually responsible ,V
the trust committed to their care. He entirely approvensa
that recommendation, and he hoped it would speedll9 "-
carried into effec-. • Ai'
Sir R. H. INGLIS said he believed there was no one inert,
tution in which the people of this country took so much
terest as in the British Museum, and that there was n;.ss
which offered such striking marks of increasing poi:11118.14
Forty years ago the number of readers had amounted to le
only, and last year the number of readers had amounted„
72,000. In the year 1835 the number of books in the
be'
rary had been 235,000, while they were at present, be
sae
lieved, twice that number, or 470,003. Not less than 1,070,u 7i
. persons had entered the Museum as visitors in the course va
a t year, while the number of visitors five years ago ha
only been 680,000, and had only been 70,0 .0 in the Y°o
1810. And he could further state, that while the number:li
visitors had so greatly increased their conduct had he
beyond all praise.—( Hear, hear.) He believed' the libral
of the Museum was at present open during a geode
number of hours, and was accessible to a greater numb 4
of persons, than any similar establishment in the world.. °'`f
trusted that during the recess the Noble Lord at the bead 0.
the Government would take into his consideration the in
creasing wants of the establishment, and would give his
tention to the necessity of adding to the buildings.
Mr. W. J. FOX suggested the opening of the British Or
seum in the evening, as it would be useful to many yOll
men, who would take advantage of the opportunity afford to
to them as students. This might be done with the duplin
copies, now about 70,000 volumes, which could be distribut°
in rooms adjoining to the Museum.
Mr. E WART supported the proposition of his gory
Friend. In some places the libraries were open in Ost
evening. Even the Pope had such a library opened at nigh
in Rome.
Sir R. H. INGLIS observed that if the proposition wens/,
adopeed it would require an additional staff. As fir a°
experience went, it was seen that the numbers decreased at.
the evening hours approached. He would wish to see tvro •
or three public libraries opened in other parts of Londoa•
As to the duplicate Copies of books, many of them were in
use at the same time ; and books specifically given to the
Museum could not to be transferred elsewhere.
Mr. STANFORD, from ten years' experience, could 1010,
testimony to the excellence of accommodation, the attend'
ance, and attention of thosr engaged in the library of the
Museum. The means at the disposal of the young men
this metropolis of reading in a public library were less tha'"
in other parts of Europe. He did not think there were more
than 1,000 regular readers in the Museum at this tifs°'
though the returns made them appear much larger. 11.°
supported the proposition.
Mr. M. MILNES complained of the state of ventilation in-
the library. A change had been recommended by the Corr,
missioners in the constitution of the governing body. 0°
wished to know from the Noble Lord whether that recorir
mendation was to be carried into effect.
Mr. SLANEY suggested to the Noble Lord to follow out
the proposition of tue Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis), of este'
blishing several public libraries in the city of London.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to know why the Home Office had
the power of interfering in the management of the Museum'
INGLISaII owreedmt orskeeedmthaapts
a tohfethdeotemdwenatsy.
so as to prevent persons having access to maps. He referred
to a letter he bad received from a gentleman complaining be
wouldsir k
tOthe
alluded 14)
were considered as setting forth the titles of the Crest/
certain possessions, and which could not.therefore be shown
ordJ.
without the consent of the Crown. ~
L RUSSELL said that some of the suggestions/ °,II
the Commissioners were adopted by the trustees. He did,
not think it advisable to adopt other parts of the reporrs
The report itself was a most valuable document, and wod'?
from time to time influence the Government. As to an in;
crease of the number of libraries, he had, when the library 12`
George 111. was given up by George IV., suggested, instead
of placing it in the British Museum, it should be transferred,"
to a different part of the town. The subject, however,
establishing other libraries was one that required COnl3l':
deration.
Mr. HUME said it was absolutely necessary to have
small executive management board. The present constitu-
tion of the managing body was most objectionable. The sa'
Lilies of the establishment amounted to 25,000.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he found that there was a constant
attendance of the most able men in the country at the meet'
ings of the trustees. Amongst them were Mr. Hallam, UPI
Macaulay, Mr. Goulburn, Sir D. Dandas, and Sir Robert"
Inglis.
air. HENLEY hoped that the trustees would take Ines'
sures to have such information placed before them as would.
enable them to judge of the number of individuals that.
availed themselves of the advantages afforded them in the
library of the institution. The Noble Lord said he though'y
it desirable that several public libraries should be este'
blished throughout the country, but he had not applied him.
self to the immediate question at issue, having been led away
from it by the observations which had fallen from the boa.
Gentleman behind him. If the Get were, as the Hon'
Member for Reading had stated it, he .hought it very extra'
ordinary that only 1,000 persons should have availed them':
selves of the benefits of this library.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that such a statement was incot'
rect. The number of persons that used the library wee
nearer to 40,e00, and the number of visitors exceeded 78,000
within the last year. The least number of volumes furnished
one day was 100.

Mr. STANFORD said he was in the habit of using the
library, and never found more there than 30 persons on an
average, who were generally the same that he usually met
there. He therefore felt himself justified in saying that be
thought there were not more than 1,000 persons who availed
themselves of the advantage of the reading-room. He be-
lieved that the 70,000 visitors alluded to by the Hon. Baronet
vivre made up of the same persons that attended there del ,
after day.
Air. HENLEY said if these statistics were kept he WO
sure there would be no objection to inform them of the evict
number of persons that frequented the place.
„ 7