The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-07 00:00:00

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

NEWMARKET SECOND SPRING
MEETING.

Monday, after Three o'clock.

ARRIVALS. —The Duke of Portland, the Duke of Rut.
land, the Marquis and Marchioness of Tavistock, the Mar-
quis and Marchioness of Exeter and family, E irl Strad.
broke, The Eail and Countess of Chesterfield, the Hon. C.
S. and Mrs. Wortley, the Hon. Colonel and Mrs. Anson,
Mr. and Mrs. C. Wilson, Sir M. Wood, Mr. and Mrs.
Stonehewer, Captain Grant, Mr. 1101yoake, Mr. Wor-
tall, Mr. A. Hunter, Mr. C. Greville, Mr. Hunter, 840.
Several horses have left the town for Epsom. Lord
J..rsey has sent Lucius and Gleomnre for the D,,rhy, with
Blunderer for the gallops. Mr. S. Wood's Titian has
gone in company with Ambrosia. This morning Lord
Exeter's lot left, viz.:—Sir Robert and Cletus for the
D,rhy, an.; Mantilla anti Anoima for the Oaks; Byzantium
to follow them after his match.
The list for to-day falls short of expectation ; the Han-
dicap of 10 sovs. each did not fill; and the snatch between
Lord Chesterfield's Tourist and Mr. Hunter's Rouncival
will not be run, Lord Chesterfield having paid forfeit.
There are, therefore, only two races, which ctme off thus:
Match.—Mr. M. Stanley's Skinner beat Gen. Grosve-
nor's c. by Stainhorough—Twatty. Betting, 6 to 4on the
winner; won very easy; the winner ridden by Wheatley.
The Wretched Stakes of 100 ROM each, h. ft. ; colts, Sst.
716. ; fillies, Bst. 41b. A.F. not engaged in the Derby
or Oaks.
Lord Tavistock's c. by Sultan
Lord Conyngham's brother to Blythe
Lord Stradbroke's c. by Sultan 3
Won by a head. Betting, sto 4 agst Blythe, 2 to 1
agst c. by Sultan, and 5 to 2 agst Phantom.
BETTING ON THE DERBY.-11 0 2 agot Glaucus, IJ
to 2 aust Forester (taken), S. to 1 atzst Revenge, 8 to 1
agst Llewellyn, and 8 to 1 agst Sir Robert.
OAKS.-5 to 2 agst Tarantella and 10 to 1 agst Chan-
tilly (taken freely).

KINGSTON HOUSE ROOMS, MONDAY NIGHT.
The following important changes have taken place in
:he betting :

DERBY*

6 to I agst Mr. Ridsdale's Glaucus (taken eagerly)
to 1 agst Mr. hunter's Forester (taken)
8 to 1 agst Mr. Rawlinson's Revenge
Si to 1 agst Lora Exeter's Sir Robert (taken)
9 to 1 agst Mr. i hifHey's Prince Llewellyn (taken;
11 to 1 agst Mr. Wo d's Titian (taken)
15 to 1 agst Lord Verulam's Little Cassino
16 to 1 agst Mr. Cooper's l'watty colt
33 to 1 agst Colonel Cosby's Bravo (taken)
23 to
.1 agst Mr. Greville's Br. to Grampus (taken)
50 to 1 agst Lord Egremont's Br. to Waxlight (taken;
1000 to 15 r.gst Duke of Grafton's ]Egyptus (taken)

OAKS.
5 to 2 agst Mr. Cooke's Tarantella
10 to 1 agst Mr. Stonehewer's Chantilly (taken)
10 to 1 agst Mr. Batson's Reveley
14 to I agst Alecto (taken)
20 to 1 agst Mr. Thornhill's Funny (taken)

ST. LEGER.
is to 1 taken freely ~bout the Tutor.

GRAND PIGEON MATCH FOR ONE
RUNDRED GUINEAS

o'clock.

The match at pigeon-shooting, for 100 guineas, between
Mr. Edge, the gunsmith, of Manchester. and Mr. Deigb-
ton, of Sheffield, which was commenced at Sheffield on
the Bth of April, terminated on Tuesday week, at the
White House Hotel, Huline, near Manchester, in favour of
Mr. Edge. The articles of the match were, that each should
shoot at 100 birds, 50 each at Siieffied, and the same
number in Manchester ; the person who kiled most birds
in the two days at Sheffield shouldithe entitled to receive
401. from the stake, and he who killed the
an the'mos
who
the
two days at Manchester al.() to receive 401., d
killed the greater number of birds in the four days' shoot •
ing to receive the remaining 201. In the tu o days' shoot-
ing at Sheffield, Mr. Edge gained nine birds ahead of his
antagonist. Mr. Edge killed in the first day 21 out 01
25. In the two days' shooting at Manchester, Mr. Edge
had a majority of 3 ; Mr. Edge did not shoot so well as
in Sheffield, which was mainly owing to an injury he had
received in the shoulder, by the kicking of the butt-end of
his gun.

The Earl of ROSEBERRY said that be had the honour
of presiding over the board spoken of, and he felt
deeply upon the question. Not only those belonging to
the Universities and the students, but the public were
much indebted to the Noble E trl for the answer which
he had elicited. He hoped Government would now have
time to turn their attention seriously to the subject. He
felt anxious upon the subject, because he was aware that
many of the recommendations, it carried into effect, would
have a most beneficial tendency.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Gentleman
had not only received the report alluded to by the Noble
Lord, but several reports from other places, upon which
which they intended to act as speedily as possible.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM presented several petitions for
the abolition of slavery also a petition from the members
of the Political Union of Glasgow, praying for the repeal
of the Corn Laws.

Mr. BERNAL and others brought up the Personal
Estats' Bill, Cotton Duty Repeal Bill, Tiles' Duty Repeal
Bill, awl several road Bids.
Earl GREY presented petitions from London and other
places for the entire ah"lition of slavery.
The Duke of SUSSEX presented a petition agreed to

at Exeter-hall, for an alteration in the criminal laws of
this country. The petition V/ 43 signed by 5,300 persons,

several of whom stated that they had not come forward
to pros, cute in several cases owing to the severity of the
laws. In looking over certain tables he had found that
when the punishment for any offence was capital, the
number of acquittals increased, whilst when the punish-
ment was slight the acquittals were on the decrease.
LORD LYNDHURST called the attention of the
House to a Bill which passed the House at a late period of
t last session, which changed the punishment of death
for horse-stealing to transportation for lif and in
twenty-nine cues out of thirty the law was enforced.
As the law at present mod, the greater crime might be
panished by nnerisonment fir twelve months, while
t e lesser were punished by transportation for life. The
avowed object of the Bill he complained of was to make
punishment certain ; hut could not that be done by leavin g
a discretion in the count. N.. doubt one offence might
be tried before a juege who was more severe than another.
there the punishment for the same offence a ould be different
but t,e did not consider that a snfficient reason why the
jud e should be deprived of that discretion which he had
always heretofore used. Ic it were right .o take away
that discretion, iu this particular case, it would be
expedient to do it in all. He threw out these hints for
the consideration of the Noble Viscount, and entreated
him to bring in a Bill to amend that one of which he
complained. One other subject he would lay before
tiers, which was the great increase of crime within the last
20 years. 1n1522, the number of criminals did not amount to
much more than 6,000, while in 1132 they amounted to
upwards of 20,000. This was not confined to any parti-
cular district, but was the same in agricultural as in
manufacturing districts. Neither had it been in any
year, but had been gradually progressing.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) He made these statements from returns
on their Lordship's table, and, therefore, entreated the
Noble Viscount and his Majesty's Government, first of all,
to see whether there was any fallacy in the return ; and
if they proved correct, anxiously to inquire into and
ascertain the cause.
Lord MELBOURNE answerel the Noltle Lord at some
length, observing that in no case where a judge had re-
commended a mitigation of the sentence had it yet been

retu•ed.
Lord LYNDHURST explained, that the amendment
referted to by the Noble and Learned Lord had been
made on the suggestion hi the Lord Chief Justice of the
Comm to Pleas, and supported by the late Lord Tenterden.
Lora SUFFIELD prevented petitions for an alteration
in the criminal code from Londonderry and aritY her pl ice,
and also praying that persons under conviction, or for
trial, be better maintained.
The Bills brought up from the Commons were then
read a first time, and the House adjourned at half-past
six o'clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS.
Thl SPEAKER took the Ch.iir at a little before five

QUAKER'S AFFIRMATION.
Some private business having been disposed of, the
Coleraine Election Committee came to the table to be
orn, and was called over in the following order :—Mr.
Irton, Lord Sandon, Sir Stephen Glynne, Mr. Parrott,
Captain Chetwynd, Mr. Pease, Mr. Chaytor, Mr. Hardy,
and three others. The names having been called over-- _
Mr. SPEAKER said I wish to call the attention of the
House to the situation in which it is now placed for the
first time. I feel it to be my duty thus to arrest the
course of its business; but &hen I have stated the calls::
of my having done so, it will he for the House to decide
what course it will pursue. The reduced list of eleven
Members in this Election Committee has ;Amy been re-
turned to this House. The Act states that these eleven
shall be embodied into a Committee, and before it
proceeds to any businesss, shall be sworn at the
table. One of the Members so returned, the House has
decided is competent to discharge his duties as a Member
of the House on making his affirmation. But the qees•
tion for the Howe now to ennui ler is, whether that deci-
sion necessarily comprehends the duty to be performed by
a member of this Select Committee under a special Act
of Parli iment. Can the Hon. Member sit in this Com-
mittee without taking that oat t, or doing something else
which the House shall decide t, be synonimous, and equi-
valent to that oath? In oth ,r words, is the affirmation
upon which the Hon. Member performed the duties of a
Member of this House to be c.•nsidered equivalent to the
oath directed to he taken by this separate Act of Parliament?
Mr. O'CONNELL. I rise to move that the affirmation
of the Hon. Member forDurh im be taken as equivalent to
the oath required by the act t be taken by the members
01 election committess. The principle on which we for-
merly decided that the Hon. Member could take his seat
on making his affirmation clearly governs this case. That
decision of ours r sted upon th a construction of various acts

of parliament enabling the people called Qu iltere to make
an affirmation instead of taking an oath. Those acts do
not expressly contemplate the c isie of a Quaker becoming a
member of parliament; but the House considered rt to be
implied, and the implication seems of necessity to follow
in the present case. The principal act of p irlioment re-
ferred to substitutes an affirmation in all cases, with three
exceptions—any case not excepted cornea of course more
stronaly within the general rule, and this is not an ex-
copted case.—(Cheers.)
Mr. SPEAKER. What ere the excepted cases ?
Mr. O'CONNELL—The excepted cases are, the giving
evidence in criminal cases, the being upon juries, and the
holding of ernolumentary offices under the Crown. Now
certainly this is no office under the Crown. The Corn
mitte, is not a jury; nor is it a criminal case that is to
come before it. I therefore he to move that the affirms
lion of the Hon. Member for Durham be received instead
of his oath.
Mr. SPEAKER--I am persuaded that no Member in
the House, not even the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who has just addressed it, will conceive that I was
improperly actuated in bringing this mater forward
(Cheers.) lam sure he will pardon me, also, for my,
perhaps, rather disorderly call upon him to state the ex.
ceptiens. Of course the third exception, that preventing
the affirmation of Quakers being taken upon entering
into any office of emolument under the Crown never
came across my mind. What did occur to me was,
whether it was possible any analogy might be thought to
exist between this case and that of serving upon juries,
or giving evidence in criminal cases. The Hon. Member
is of opinion, and probably the House will he of opinion,
that the case before us comes within neither exception ;
but, looking to the criminal consequences that might
occur to parties interested, I felt it to be my duty to bring
the fact before the House.—(Cheers )
Mr. O'CONNELL—I trust the Chair did not so mis-
understand me, as to suppose I could say any thing that
did not recognise, I hardly like to say, the propriety,
for it is too weak a ward, of its interference ; for
I felt, in common with every Member of the House,
that what was dome by the Speaker was per-
fectly consistent with the whole course of his con-
duct. It is impossible to doubt the fitness of his
calling the particular attention of the House to this case,
being the first of its arising. I have now the act of Par.
liatnent, containing the exceptions before the House. and
I find them to be what I stated. Having allowed the
Hon. Member to make the affirmation on beconsing
a Member of this House, it would be an anomaly,
indeed, for the House to decide that more than his
affirmation should be required of him to discharge one of
its incidental duties.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the anomaly might
exist, and required to be removed by an Act of Parlia-
ment. He did not think the decision they had come
to in the former case neeessarily governed this, which
rested upon an Act of Parliament passed subsequently to
the Quakers' Relief Act. He considered, however, that
this Committee did not coins within either of the three
exceptions in that Act, and that, therefore, the Hon.
Gentleman might be allowed to make his affirmation.
Mr. GODSON read the clause in the Act of Parlia-
ment, providing for the admission of the affirmation of
Quakers, and stated his opinion to be that the affirmation
of the Hon. Member in the present instance came under
that permissive clause.
Lord MORPETH was understood to say that he had
a notice on the books which he treated would remove all
difficulties like the present.
Mr. J. JEItVIS said, he knew that Quakers were ad-
mitted on Junta to try civil cases; indeed he knew an
instance of a Quaker having been on a Jury, who con-
victed a person of a capital felony, and the man was
executed.
Lord ALTHOQP thought that as the House had al-
ready decided that the Act of Parliament did not prevent
Quakers from taking their seats in the House. the same
rule should apply in tha present instance.—(Hear.)
The SPEAKER said that he had only done what be
conceived to be his duty in calling the attention of the
House to the subject.—(Hear.) As the House seemed
to feel so strongly and to concur so unanimously in the
recepuion of the Hon. Member's affirmation, he would
suggest that the affirmation be received with the consent
of the House, but without the formality ot putting the
motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr.
O'Connell.)
Mr. O'CONNELL, with that understanding, withdrew
his motion.
received enabled him to say that there was a progressive
increase of Irish vagrants, and of consequent expense. In
the county of B--rks the number of persons passed by this
law for the last five years had been 2;272, 2,660, 3,300,
4,300. and 5,359; at an expense of 5681., 666/., 825/.
1,051., and 1,1751. In Wilts and Gloucestershire
three was a corresponding increase, and he might state
that the average cost to the three counties for the last
five years, was—for Berks, 8551. ; for Wilts, 1,000/. ; and
for Gloucestershire, 1,285/. Tons much for toe road
from London to Ireland via Bristol. On the road by waa
ot Liverpool, the increase was of a similar nature.
T. .e Hi.n. Member concluded by moving for the Select
CO 111 tee.
The question having been put,
Lord ALTHORP admitted that great inconveniences
had arisen from the system complained of, and he thought
it deserved inquiry; he would not, however, while he
assented to the motion for a Select Committee, pledge
himself to any particular course at present.
Mr. COBBETT trusted that in any law that should be
proposed by the Committee, due consideration would be
had for the situation of the persons spoken of. Their
country was comparatively destitute of fond, although it
furnished two of the largest counties in England, York-
shire and Lancashire, with large quantities of provisions;
some consideration was therefore due the Irish labourers,
when they came to this country in search of food.—(llear. )
The rich had been taken into consideration, and it had been
said that the burden rolls heaviest on the agricultural inte-
rest. That was not to so for Lancashire, which was not
county paid more in poor rates than seven counties, be-
ginning with Bedfordshire and corning down alphabeti-
cally ; and he believed that Manchester and Salford paid
more than all the county of Bedford.
Dr. LUSHINGTON was gratified that the Noble
Lord (Althorp) had acceded to the motion, and he hoped
some measure would be devised, if not to do away with,
at all events, to equalise, the burdens.
Mr. EWART corroborated the statement made by the
Hon. Member for Oldham, and hoped that in any mea-
sure which might be introduced, care would be taken that
the burden of supporting the I. ish poor should not fal
with disproportionate severity on towns situate near the
coast.

Lord SANDON denied that the poor's rates fell more
heavily on manufacturing towns than ea agricubural
districts.
Col. WOOD bore testimony to the great hardships sus-
tained by the industrious Irish who come over from time
to time to labour in this country, and gave it as his opi•
nion that the only way to alleviate their burdens would
be, to place Irish paupers on the same footing with Eng-
lish and Scoth. The great evil of the present system
was, th►t unfortunate
Irish paupers were treated as va-
grants without having committed any acts of vagrancy.
Lori DUNCANNON corroborated the view given of
the great hardships sustained by the Irish poor, aad hoped
that the measure which might be introduced, would ade-
quately provide for their relief, not only in this country,
but on their being sent home to Ireland.
Mr. H. GRATTAN thought the No►ale Lord opposite
(Sandon) had touched the real point in this case, and he
fully concurred with him on the necessity of the introduc-
tion of poor laws into Ireland. He hoped the committee
would be so managed as not to introduce any feeling
of asperity between the two countries.
Mr. SLANEY felt glad that the Committee bad been
appointed, thoubh he did not think much benefit would
be derived from it.. The time was not far distant
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the more Ireland was op-
pressed the more would she enforce her rights. No Par-
liament more deserved the hatred of Ireland than the
present; it had done nothing for her, but everything
against tier.
The motion was agreed to, and a Select Committee
appointed.

THE CROWN LANDS.
On the motion of Lord A LTHORP, the order of the
day for taking into consideration the King's message rela-
tive to the better arrangement of the Woods and Forests,
and Land Revenues of the Crown, was read.
Mr. HARVEY then rose, and was left ,peaking.

Mr. HALL DARE presented petitions from the Arch-
deacon and clergy of the archdeaconry of Essex, against
the Irish Church Temporalities Bill. The petitioners
distinctly petitioned against the reduction of the Irish
Bishops, and they stated that any tax imposed exclusively
upon tlic, clergy, without first obtaining their consent in
convocation, was a direct violation of the Magna Charta.
MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
Lord ALTHORP brought up the following message
from his Majesty ;--
" WILLIAM R.
" His Majesty being desirous that an Inquiry should be
made into the state and condition of the Woods, Forests, and
Land Revenues belonging to the Crown, in order that the same
may be rendered as beneficial and productive as possible, recom
mends it to the House of Commons to take the subject of these
Revenues into their early consideration, with a view to the
adoption of the most effectual means for the attainment of this
important object. " W. R."
After a few observations from Mr. O'CONNELL and
Mr. J. GrtaTTAst respecting the settlement of peasantry
on commons in Ireland, which Lord Duncannon pro-
mised to inquire into, his Majesty's message was ap-
pointed to be taken into consideration to-morrow.
CHURCH REFORM (IRELAND).
Mr. LEFROY presented eighteen petitions from laymen
of Carlow and aifferent other places, expressing the greatest
objections if not to all, to the greater part of the provisions
of the Irish Church Reform Bill ; also four petitions from
the clergy of Dromore and two other dioceses in Ireland,
and from an Archbishop and the Bishops of the Church of
Ireland. He particularly called the attention of the
House to this petition, but would not dwell upon it at
any length, as he should, he hoped, in the course cf the
debate, have an opportunity of referring to it.
Colonel GREY wished to ask the Hon. Member whe-
ther he knew, from his own personal knowledge, that the
persons who signed those petitions were resident at the
places from whence the petitions purported to come ?
Mr. LEFROY could not, from his own personal know-
ledge, undertake to answer the interrogatory of the Gal-
lant Member, as regarded all the individuals who had
signed the petition, all the names he was acquainted with
that were fixed to the petition be knew to be resident.
Lord STORMONT presented a petition from the Dean
and Chapter of Norwich against the Irish Church Rtform
Bill. _ _

Lord ASHLEY presented a petition from the Dean
and Prebendary of Dorset, against the Irish Church Re•
form Bill.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE presented similar petitions from

the Archdeacon and Diocese of Raghfin.
Mr. SHAW presented several petitions from the Arch-
deacon and clergy, of St. Paul's parish, Cork, from the
Archdeacon and clergy of Clogher and Kildare.
IRISH CHURCH REFORM BILL.

On Lord ALTHORP moving the order of the day for
the second reading of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill,
Mr. GOULBURN considered that it was the duty and
habit of the House to have a clear and distinct message
from the Crown, before it attempted to deal with any re-
venues belonging to it. The Noble Lord, as Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and as sworn to protect the revenues
of the Crown, ought not to press forward a Bill of this
description without a preliminary message from the Crown.
For the House of Commons to invade the revenues of the
Crown without such a message, was a violation of the
principles of the Constitution.
Sir R. INGLIS expressed his concurrence in the senti-
ments of his Right Hon. Friend.
Mr. HUME suggested that some plan should be adopt-
ed of embodying the rules and orders of the House in a
distinct and intelligible shape, so that every Member might
be able, without difficulty, to make himself acquainted
with them, instead of trusting to the research and expe•
rience of one or two particular Members.
Mr. M. ATTWOOD said the 13111 was based upon an
assertion which was totally unfounded. The preamble
stated that his Majesty bad been pleased to signify his
intention to place at the disposal of Parliament his inte-
rest in certain archbishoprics and bishoprics, whereas, his
Majesty bad been graciously pleased to do no such thing.
Mr. STANLEY said, it was true that there had beer.
no specific messa:e from his i\l jesty on this particular
provision of the Bill now referred to, but it was equally
manifest that in the speech from the throne, and in the
subsequent recommendation to that House, a general
authority was given by his Majesty to the principle of the
13111. It might, perhaps, be expedient that, before the
House came to the consideration of the specific clause, a
more distinct message should come down in reference to
it. Upon this he offered no opinion ; but, however that
might be, he did not think there was any thing in the
case to vitiate what had already been done, or to preclude
the House from proceeding with the second reading. He
could not help remarking that this second objection, after
such a lapse of time, upon a mere point of form, conveyer
the idea that there might be considerable reluctance on
the part of the opponents of the Bill to deal with its sub-
stance.—(Loud cheers from both sides of the House.)
Sir It PEEL said that the Noble Lord must know as
well as be did that there ought to have been the same
message with regard to this Bill as there had been thi,
evening with regard to the Woods and Forests.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that there was no more
necessity for a specific message before the second than
before the first reading.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the King had signified in
three different ways his sanction of the Bill—first, in :he
speech from the throne—next, in his recommendatien
to that House—and, thirdly, by the circumstance of the
measure being brought forward by his Chancellor of toe
Exchequer.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON said tliat if this objection were
valid, a great deal of time must be lost, because it would
be necessity to begin again.—(Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. SHAW said that it was wrong that the Bill should
have been read a first time without the neeessa, v message,
but th .t was the fault of those who brought the measure
forward and not of the House.
The order of the day was then read.
Lord ALTHORP moved the second reading of the MI.
Mr. GOULBURN reiterated his objection to the pro-
ceeding, and said that the precedent might he used h. r• -
atter to deprive the King of his remaining rights.
The SPEAKER said, if the House considered that
there had been a sufficient sanction for the first reading,

te.
/79 j/7a,.91r()
n fns opinion there was also a .01. lent sanction for the
nond ; but if there were sufficient for bmh, still it did
ee follow that there was sufficient for the ileuee to deal
ith the Bill in Committee.
Mr. C. W. WYNN expressed a hope that the over-
sight would be remedied Wore the House went into
Committee.
Mr. F. SHAW would acknowledge his approval of the
abolition of the vestry cess, and if he made any complaint
in this respect, it was to the manner in which the change
was to be effected, rather than to the change itself. The
proposed augmentation of small livings, the required re-
sidence of the clergy, and the abolition of pluralities, he
also fully approved. So far be was not only willing, but
he felt anxious to give his support to the Bill. But there
were two principles involved in it which he could not
accede to. The first (as we understood the Hun. Mem-
ber), the abdication of the perpetuity of the purcha-e
money, which would have the effect of lowering the at-
thority of the church, and crippling its energies. The
point related, in his opinion, to property in general, for
if it was once admitted that an interference in church
property was just and desirable, the tenure of all other
property whatsorrer would from that moment be inse-
cure. He highly disapproved of the constitution of the
Board authorized by this Bill. The main object of the Bill
seemed to be to effect a reduction in the number of Bishops,
and against that object he must enter his warmest
protest. lie knew that it was said to be abso-
lutely necessary to reduce the vestry cese, and that
it was asked where a substitute could be ferind for
that? His answer was, that he thought
lie could
provide a substitute without reducing the number of the
Bishops, and he should propose, as an alternative which'
was less objectionable, that the incomes of the Bishops,
not their number, should be reduced. The incomes of the
Bishops amounted at present to about 130,0001. a-year.
Now suppose, instead of paying them their present amount
of income, the payment Was made to twenty Bishops at
the rate of 4,0001. a year each, and to two Archbishops
at the rate of 6,000/. each. If this were done, the diffi-
culty he had referred to would be fully met, at the same
time that the evil of the reduction of the number of
the Bishops would have been avoided. Then again it was
proposed to reduce the number of the beneficed clergy.
There were 2,000 beneficed clergymen in Ireland, among
whom an income of 500,00 W. was divided. That rave
an average_ income to each of the 2,000 persons of 250/.
a-year each. At present the money was spent in Ireland
by individuals residing in every different part of the coun-
try, and the benefit of that expenditure was equally dif-
fused over the whole of the island. Would the country be
benefitted by taking away from any considerable number
of these persons the means of living in Ireland ? He knew
that the object of the lion. Member for Middlesex (turn-
ing to Mr. flume) was to destroy the Bishops. If that
object could be effected, the Hon. Member would be con-
tent. If the lion. Member could only displace tea of the
Bishops, be would he so far satisfied. Perhaps, too, the
Hon. Member would not object to effect another object of a
similar kind ; awl he and the Hart. Member for Oldham
who set near him, would perhaps like to see 20 corone s
joined with these 10 mitres. They would be pleased to put
them all into the mortar of popular opinion, and bray them
there with the pestle, which no doubt the Hon. Member
for Middlesex would use secuntimin artem.—( A laugh.)
lie confessed that he should not like to leave the church
or the Nobility to the tender mercies of the Hon. Member.
He hoped that this Bill was not introduced to satisfy the
vehement desire for economy now prevalent through the
country. Ile thought the Bill in every respect most mis-
chievous, and should therefore move as an amendment
that it be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. ESTCOURT legged leave to second this amend-
ment, and he did so most cordially. If the church cess
were taken off, it would be imposed upon the tenant for
the benefit of the landlord, who now received less rent
than he otherwise would do, on account of the cess. If
that fund were now to be taken from the church, and to
to, as it would, into the pockets of the owners of the soil,
he should much object to the change, for he should con-
sider it as an application of church funds to secular pur-
poses. He opposed the reduction of the number of Irish
Bishops, because he was certain that it could not take
place w.thout serious injury to the church. He believed
the number of Bishops required in Ireland was beyond
that required in England, because of the greater necessity
of the clergy having frequent recourse to the spiritual
direction of their superiors. These were two observe°
tions with regard to this part of the Bill; as to the othi r
part of it—that of the proposed taxation of benefices—he
must say that he thought that taxation began too low, for
it began upon an income of 2001. a year, and every one
must be aware that no man upon such an income as that
could do more than barely maintain a respectableatation in
soriety; indeed I.e could hardly maintain such a station as
the nature of his office required. Besides this, when the tax
was once imposed it was always to be levied, and it was
to be levied regularly every half year, without considering
that in some cases the clergy would nut be paid their
tithes, and that the amount of their receipts, even when
they were paid, would tie subject to considerable variatior.
To enforce the regular payment of the tax under such cit.,.
cumstances, would be most injurious. It would be Into
injurious not only to the individual, but to the church.
lie looked upon this Bill as calculated to inflict a direct
injury upon the church of Ireland, and therefore as like-
wise calculated, through the same means, to injure the in-
terests of the English church.
Mr. PLUMPTLIE spoke in a low tone, and was under-
stood in the outset to object to the removal of Bishops front
one see to another: the only translation to which a
Bishop should be subject, in his opinion, was a translation
from this world to the next.—(Hear.) At the same
time, he disapproved of several parts of the Bill, and could
not vote for the second reading, unless Ministers could
give a satisfactory explanation of the point which related
to the division of church property.
Mr. STANLEY could not hold out any expectation
that Ministers would concede points in the Committee
which would make the approach of the opposite parties
much nearer; but he thought he could give some explana-
tions which would at least have their weight with th 6
lion. Member for Kent. All seemed agreed as to thu
merits of some portion of the plan ; and she Hon. Mem-
ber for the University of Dublin, with creditable candour,
had admitted that he should not have objected to the Bill
so much, had it been brought forward by his friends in-
stead of his enemies. "The measure (said he) is good in
itself; and, if introduced on this side of the House, it
should have had my cordial support ; but because you—
the Ministers—are always wrong, even thaugh in this in-
stance you have blundered upon a benefit, and
stumbled on a virtue unawares,'
I will oppose your plan, and will move that your Bill be
read a second time on this day six months."—(Cheers and
laughter.) There was no answering an argument of this
kind ; but lie (Mr. Stanley) would try if he could not
gain a little on the Hun. Member, by taking upon himself
the main responsibility. The Hon. Member had admitted
that he (Mr. Stanley) was friendly to the Church, and
did not mean in any Ivey to endanger its stability. Now,
in framing the Bill, as Secretary for Ireland, he had taken a
principal share ; so that, upon the confession of the
Member, the measure proceeded from one who was a sin-
cere friend to the church. Let the House observe ~14,
points on which they differed, and those on which they
agreed, arid sufficient discordance could not be found to
justify the opposition tat the second reading, Fitst, he
would ask the warmest and most devoted sticklers for the
property, the privileges, nay, the prejudices of the church,
was it friendly or safe to that church to say, " There
may he, and indeed there are, gross abuses in it—this Bill
goes to correct them—l agree in the evils and in the
cessity for a remedy, yet at this time of day, and in the
present state of public feeling, I will not adopt the re-
medy, but leave the church to stand or fall by its own
abuses ?"—(Hear.) He pre the Hon. Member fur
Dublin credit for sincerity, but certainly not in this in-
stane- for poli,ical sagacity or practical wisdom. All the
real friends of the liish Church would be ready to toek
its abuses boldly and honestly in the face, and to retreat
from a point no longer tenable, in order to talcs up a posi-
tion where a stand against its enemies might be securely
made.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman agreed
that the Li gislature could not stand still—that there
was much to retne tat, and among other things, that
the vestry cess must be abolished ; yet if there were
a part of the Bill which must be treated with deli-
cacy, because it trenched upon church property, it
was that which related to the vestry ass. In the
same way the Honourable Member did not object to the
augmentation of small livings—to enforcing 'he residence
of the clergy—to facilitating the dissolution of unions, or
to the increase of the funds for the buileiag and rep iir of
ecclesiastical edifices; and although it was apparent from
hence how nearly the friends and opponents of the Bill
approximated, the Hon. Member came to the curious
resolve of attempting no improvement of the system, and
of throwing out the Bill altogether. He would most ad-
vert to three points noticed by lion. Gemlernen who Mail
preceded him, and the first of these related to perpetuiti,-e.
He agreed that it was not desirable that the property of
the church should be devoted even by Pa, iianent t other
than vcc:esiastical purpose., but then arose the question,
how Ministers proposed to deal with the preperty of the
church? in what situation did the leases of Bi.hops
e•and with relation to the supreme authority of the seee,
the and rights of the tenants ? A lii-
priwgb":ye_ornofEte lo'ew
yeaec,rheurder:hb.y; Act of Parliament to grant leases
for twenty-out and no longer ; bait the fact was,

th..t the Bishops anticipated the revenues which ought to
belong to their successors. They granted their leases for
twenty-one years at a low rent, and the amount was mach
en td by renewal fin's. Every year the lease for twentt
years was resigned into the hands of the Bishop, and e
new lesse for to enty.one yeare was granted, on payment
of a fine. That fine was calculated at an interest o.
eight per cent., and thus it was found that, by cons.
pound interest, the sum of 1/. would become 51., at
the end of every 21 years ; therefore, if at the end of
every 21 years the Bishop would be entitled to 51. as his
fine on a bona fide renewal, according to the present
practice, lie accepted 11. per annum instead of it. What.
then, did the Bill upon the table propose to effect ? Ti.
girt the Bishops power to grant Wee' in perpetuity.
instead of fur the term of 21 year., renewable upon the
payment of a fine. If afterwards a tenant wished to sell
his is ate, it would he much more va!trahle with a lease
in perpetuity than for 21 years, and of this increased
value the state was to avail itself. In what possible
sense could it be contended that the difference in value
b. tween d 21 years' leae and a perpetuity was part of the
proper ty of the church ? It was exactly analogous to the
case of n conyhold under the I.srd of a manor. The State
was the lord, the Bishop the copyholder ; and any im-
provement made by the lord, for which the immediate
tenant Wila ready to pay, could not he the property of the
Bishop. The Legislature had the right to make the change
for the improvement of the estate, and no injustice wa-
done to any party if the tenant were called upon to pat
for it. The fact was, that, in this case, Parliament
was dealing with the Bishops exactly in the same way
in which it had dealt with the parochial clergy, in
cases of composition for tithes, to which nobody had
objected. The second point urged to-night was, that this
B lowered the authority of the church, and the Hon.
Member for Dublin objected, on this ground, to the con-
sti ution of the Baud. if the objection were that the
Church had no weight in the Board, the answer was, that
four out of the nine members were persons in the church.
Perhaps the lion. Member for the University of Oxford
Is as of opinion that the Ili•hops alone should have the
control of church property ; but that objection had been
answered by the Hon. Member for the University of Dub-
lin, when lie said that the Bishops would not have time to
attend to it. Therefore it was that some of the commis.
sioners would have no other duty to perform, and would
he mainly responsible for the acts of the body. The re-
duction of the number of Bishops was resisted upon prin-
ciple; the objection did not apply to the diminution of
one, two, or more Bishops, but to any diminution. Upon
this branch of the measure, he (Mr. Stanley) had thought
it his duty to consult the highest authorities in the
church—and, first of all, the Primate of Ireland—a man
foremost in ability, and foremost too in a zealous determi-
nation to support the rights of the church. When the ques-
tion arose under this Bill, as to the best mode of making good
the deficiency of the church cess, the Primate himself sug-
gested, as the least objectionable mode, a reduction of the
Lumber of bishoprics. He (Mr.Stsnley) did not mean to say
that the Primate purposed to reduce ten—(Hear)—but
that he was the first to adopt the principle of reduction.
—(flear.) Yet this it *as which the Hon. Member had
denounced as a violation of the Articles of Union, as a
death .blow aimed at the Irish church, and as a perilous
reduction of the number of its pillars.—(Hear, hear.)
Then came the question whether Ministers had gone to
too great an extent, and upon this point he would read to
the House an account of the number of benefices in each
diocese, in order to show that, at present, the Bishops w
Ireland were not overburdened with employment
in the Diocese of Raphoe there were 34 Benefices
Dromore 27
Clogher 45
Kildare 53
Ossory 02
Waterford 06
Cork 93
Clonfert 31
Elphin 37
Rillala :to
Would any man say, that 37 benefices were such a num-
ber that it was dangerous to add more benefices to it? In
the diocese of Chester alone, which was one of the largest
in England, there were about as many benefices as in the
whole of Ireland put toatether.—(Cheers.) The number
was between 1,100 and 1,200, and Exeter was nearly as
large. It was little less than preposterous, therefore, to
argue that 1;9 benefices for Ossory, which would he the
largest, would he too many, and give too much employ-
ment to the Bishop. If there was anything in the clamour
that the staff of the church was too nutnerou', there was
peculiar reason for making the alteration. As a further
proof that they had not proposed unduly to diminish the
number of Bishops in Ireland, he wished to just state to
the House the fact, that in Ireland, as compared with
England, the pariah, s wet e as one to ten, while the Bishops—
even the reduced number proposed to be retained—were as
two to five. In England there were 26 Bishops, and 12,000
livings, while there were 10 Bishops' in Ireland to only
between 1,100 and 1,200 livings. Nothing, therefore, could
he plainer th in that the amount of superintendence re-
quired front the Bishops would be within their power. It
Lad been said by Hon. Members on the other side, " Do not
reduce the number of Bishops—let them remain, whatever
may he done with their revenues." It was said, if the
Bishops have too much, do not let that continue, but
permit the Bishops, the only resident nob!. men of
Ireland, to remain in their present poeitions.—(Hetr,
hear.) He really thought that objection, fairly con-
sidered, was one which ought not to have much weigh
with the House, for it constituted no answer to the argu•
ment against which it was put forward, namely, that the
bluff of the church was diaproportioned to the church it.
self. The chief objections to the present measure were,
first, that it interfered improperly with the property of the
church ; secondly, that it reduced the number of the Bi-
shops ; and, thirdly, that it tended to diminish the autho-
rity of the church, and its va!tie to the community.
Every one of those objections, as it appeared to him, had
been most satisfactorily answered. There was one other
topic to which, before he sat down, he desired to advert,
namely, the auggestion thrown out for Equalizing the in-
comes of the Bishops ; to him, that appeared in a high
degree objectionable. It would he attended with the very
serious inconvenience of introducing a new principle, that
of compelling the Bishops to look to other sources than
the land within their respective dioceses, from which it
had hitherto been derived. He objected to that, as com-
promising the authority and the integrity of the church—
it would be nothing ',se than compromising for the Bi-
shops to come to that House for their revenues, and to
have those revenues alterable from year to year, at the
pleasure of the Parliament. It appeared to him, that it
tvc.tild be a much safer and wiser plan to permit a few
eeifl ng inequalities to remain in the amount of the se-
veral incomes, than have each individual Bishop receiving
from Parliament a definite salary, which might, at any
time, be modified at the pleasure of that House. After
the fullest attention to the discussions in that House, as
well as to what occurred out of doors, he would affirm,
that the atraelts made upon the details of the Bill were of
a nature so trifling, and so unworthy the serious attention
of the House, that he should not further detain them than
to observe that the risk of doing nothing with the Church
of Ireland would he tenfold—nay, a hundredfold greater
than any In zard which attached to the present change—
than any attempt whatsoever which might be made to
rectify or to modify that church, if such attempt were
carried on with a spirit of caution and moderation.
Sir R. H. INGLIS nest rose, and the first of the Hon.
Baronet's observations which we heard was, that in Isis
opinion, the Bill in its press nt form was in one respect
less objectionable than the Bill as fist introduced, for,
according to the measure in its original shape, the Bishop
was at liberty to suspend the performance of divine wor-
ship in any parish when it had been discontinued for any
three years before the passing of the proposed Act, but he
Was glad to perceive that the power had been limited
under the new Bill.
Air. STANLEY said, it was merely a clerical error in
the printing of the Rll.
Sir R. H. INGLIS adverted to that circumstance,
without attaching any very great importance to it, for,
incerporating it with the great body of the Bill, it was
as nothing : he o' jetted to the Bill, from the crown of
its head to the sole of its foot.—(A laugh.) It was a
Bill which professed to deal with the temporalities of the
church, but it went directly to interfere with the spirt.
tualities. It was not confined to the revenues of spiritual
persons, but affected the numbers and privileges of that
order, through which an apostolical succession was pre-
served. Admitting the power, be denied the right of
Parliament to legislate in such a case ; for, as he con-
tended, an interference with the s 1 iiritualities of the
church should net
unless procetded in, when it origi
ng
Hated with the church itself, acting as a body distinct
from the Parliament. The state never conferred property
on the church, and had no right to take it away. There
~inthe reign
were, be acknowledged, two cxceptions-0,
of Queen Anne, when money was granted for the build..
ing of churches in the metropolis ; and another, two or
three Parliaments ago, when a further sum was granted
The question at issue was, not
for a similar purpose.
—Whether four, six, or ten bishoprics were to be gut rid
1:01, but whether one was to be reduced ; and he would
distinctly say, that they had no right whatever to dis-
pose even of one. He maintained that this consolida-
tion of bishoprics was without precedent, arid that the
present measure was directly opposed by the coronation
oath. He could not in any way understand lu w a
Prince, hating sworn to preserve the Bidioj s and

the clergy their rights, could make up his nr:tl to
consent to such a measure es the present, which destroyed
at least ene-half of their spiritual rights. There were
two points in the measure he objected to. The first ob-
jection related to the abolition of the first fruits, an'
the substituticn of an annual tax in lieu thereof : the
second related to the vestry cess. On this latter point the
Hon. and Learned Recorder for Dublin said more than
he was inclined to do. The amount of the cess was
not considered a g' ievance ; it was complained of because
it was considered as a badge of inferiority, and it was
For that reason sol ly that for many years it had been an oh-
j-ct of animadversion. It had been two months since said
at an assembly—a sort of Irish Parliament—with respect
to the two measures—the present one and t he Coercive
Bill—that tl e latter took away their liberties, and the
other would give them in exchange twopence peracre. The
present measure not only affected the rights of the clergy,
but also those of the bar, who might also he treated in
'he same way as the clergy. It tended to take from the
pockets of the clergy, and what it took it would put into
the pockets of the landholders. Now, he would ask, was
that a time to draw from the pockets of the clergy—
was it a time when they were wallowing in wealth ? No one
would say that it was ; for their poverty of late was
pretty apparent. There was one concession for which he
th inked the Noble Lord, namely, that the present measure
differed thus touch from die one originally brought forward,
that it freed vested interests from being taxed. With
respect to first fruits, he begged to say they were not paid,
and he knew of one whole diocese that never paid them
it all. One principal objection he had to the measure
was, that it was more a suppression of bishoprics than a
consolidation of them ; it went to weaken the Protestant
religion, and carried in it a principle favourable to the
Roman Catholic religion. The Hon. and Learned Mem•
ber for Dublin acknowledged that it was a ceding of a
principle, and the Ilon. and Learned Member for Tippe-
rary also said that it was a principle which, once g tined,
would lie afterwards extended according to the discret:on
of Parliament. He contended that Parliament had no
right to take from the increased value of church property,
supposing even that the effect of the present me asure would
be to increase it. He would conclude, therefore, by hop-
ing that the second reading of the Jill would be postponed.
Mr. R. GRANT said the Hon. Baronet had raised
several objections to the measure; and one of the first
was, that he demurred to the jurisdiction of that House,
arid said that without the previous consent of the church,
the House could not institute so great a change of pro-
perty of the church as was contemplated by the proposed
Bill. On the very first demurrer he joined issue with the
Hon. Baronet. Several Hon. Gentlemen now objecting
to the measure had more than once acknowledged that
some reform of the church was necessary; but he had
never heard them talk of previously consulting the church,
nor of the necessity of a convocation of the clergy, and of
addressing the Crown before they could begin to touch
upon that reform. What was really proposed by the pre-
sent measure ? In the first place, what his Hon. Friend
was pleased to call a suppression of bishoprics, was a con-
solidation of them, and he considered, that when his Hon.
Friend made use of the word suppression, he was so dis-
torting the true intenders of the measure, that it might
be truly said he was suppressing half of its meaning. The
consolidation of dioceses was nothing new; every country,
since the time of the Apostle., gave instance of the con-
solidation of bishoprics, which was thought so very
extraordinary by the Honourable Baronet and his
supporters. Italy, in its best and most religious times,
afforded cases of three, four, and sometimes more bishop-
rics being consolidated into one. Spain and Germany
afforded similar instances, and even Ireland itself would
affo, d cases in point. The suppression of the bishoprics
was only a part of the plan, and it was unjust to argue as
it it was a mere question as to the suppression of the
bishop acs. With regard to the abolition of church cess,
he was astonished to hear it argued that, because it was
church property, it ought not to be secularised. He
doubted if church cess could be considered church pro-
perty; but without deciding that question, he would
maintain, that if in any case a public establishment had
in its possession any species of property of the nature of a I
trust which was not put to the use for which the trust
was held by the establishment, or which did not henefis
the establishment, it then became the duty of the House
to take the property from the trustee, and to put it to such
use as might benefit the establishment. If it were found
that the establishment, for whose benefit the property
in trust was given, was injured rather than benefitted
by the possession of it, it became their duty then so
to dispose of the property as to benefit the trust, even
if it were at the expense of the trustee. Thus it was
with church cess. Though that was a small, it was a
most invidious, tax, and did more damage to the cause
of the establishment for which it was instituted, than
it amounted to. Corald there he any thing more galling
for those who matted under it, than to find, as happened
in some instances, that as few as five Protestants met to
assess a tax which had to be paid by 1,200 or 1.300 Ca-
tholics ?—( Hear, hear.) It was so odious that he was
well convinced that the church would gain by getting
free of it —(Hear.) It would, in fact, be an investment
of capital in the affections of the people. He concluded
by saying that it was a strong argument with him for the
reform in the church of Ireland, that by the change pro-
posed it would become a woe king church, not a church
k. pt up on account of the patronage connected with it, as
had hitherto been die case. He thought it a monstrous
thing to keep up an immense establishment, not for the
sake of religion or of the church, but for the sake of its
temporalities.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL—There were some objects con-
templated by the Bill before them of which he approved ;
there were some objections brought to it by those who
opposed it which he thought capable of being removed in
Committee; and there were arguments brought to the
Bill of which he was bound to say he did not see the force.
The Right Hon. Baronet had said that reform was not
necessary in the Irish church. He (Sir R. Peel) was
of a different opinion. He thought some reform was
necessary, in order to secure the stability of the church.
—(Hear, hear.) He approved of that portion of the Bill
which tended to redress abuse.—(Hear.) He approved
of that portion of it which was intended to keep the
clergy to their constant and scrupulous duties, and he ap-
proved of that part of the Bill which abolished church
cess.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He thought that church cess
was a species of property different from tithes, and al-
though there might he some plausible arguments brought
in favour of its continuance, still be was willing to forego
those arguments; because he believed that the church of
Ireland, t.) relinquishing their claim, would make no sacri-
fice. Ile believed that another provision might be found
fur the building of churches ; and, by abandoning the cess,
they removed the cause of more litigation and strife, than
the whole amount of the revenue derived front it was
worth. He thought, too, that the measure for the compo-
sition of tithes would not be complete, as long as church
cess continued to be paid. At the same time, he did not
deny that the exemption from this tax would be a benefit
to die landlords. Yet, if the effect was to have decorous
and proper places of worship, it was the same thing from
what source the funds came. He would not object to the
church taking the whole of that charg,, and that the ex-
penses should he paid out of the revenues of the church;
but he thought it should be left to future consideration how
the charge was to be apportioned. He hoped that Ministers
wou'd n t object to adopt such plans in the details as might
be proposed, where those plans were admitted to he im-
provements, and did not interfere with the principles. of
die measure. In that way he hoped they would consider
the propriety of not ol.siging the minor clergy to pay any
of the expenses of building churches out of their revenues,
which would bear very hard upon them. He would take,
tor instance, the case of a clergyman having a living of
2001. a year. In such a case as that, he could not be-
lieve that the representatives and landholders would con-
sent to allow the clergyman to pay any part of the ex-
pense. lie thought that all clergymen having livings
tinder the value of 3001. a year, ought to be exempt from
rating. That, however, was a matter for discussion ; anti
he hoped the Noble Lord would consent to its discussion.
It did not interfete with die principle of the Bill, and as

. . ,
one of the details it was fair matter of argument, lie
himself (Sir H. Peel) maintained that no man in the situ-

ition of a clergyman—no person of good education, in
the character of a gentleman, and who had the appearance
of a gentleman to keep up, ought to hive less than a clear
income of SOO/. a year—(Hear, hear)—and that was so
clear a proposition, and one to which there was so

itile objection, that he did not despair of seeing it
adopted. He had great doubts of the policy of a graduated
income tax. But that, too, was no principle of the Bill,

,11111 Wll4 not necessary for the objects contemplatid by
it. lie thought, therefore, that it was fair matter for
consideration, whether a vraduated or fixed scale should be
. .

adopted. The Noble Lot d had, on a former evening, stated
some strong ohj,ctions to a graduated property tax, many
of which in his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion, applied with equal
toiee to the question before them. He thought it would
he advisable to determine what the exact income of each
,clergyman should be, instead of giving a larger sum, and
then taxing it. For instance, if a clergyman was to have
SOW a.year, he saw no reason why that should not be
fixed for his income, instead of giving 1,000/., and taking
diff,rence 5:11 in order to establish a fund for the build-
ing of churches. It the clergy had to maintain the
urchts, it would give the people the idea that that
clergy were mainly interested in maintaining the churches,
,thd lie objected to any such measure at would produce the

idea that the clergy were more interested than the great
tidy of the country. With respect to the abolition of
bishoprics, he could not agree with the Hon. Member for
the University of Oxford, that the abolition of them was
beyond the power of Parliament; neither could he agree
with him that it was contrary to the coronation oath, I-It•
(Sir R. Peel) had been asked, and had received commu-
nications, asking him why be had abandoned the argument
which the violation of the coronation oath afforded? and
lie would say plainly, that he did it because he did not see
its force.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time, he considered
the matter under discussion, which involved the destruc-
tion of ten Bishops' seen, to be one of so much consequence,
that it ought not to be attempted without the most serious
consideration. One objection to the Bill, to which suffi-
cient importance did not seem to be attached, was, that
three of the largest cities in the south of Ireland would
be left without a resident Bishop—Cork, Waterford, and
Kilkenny.
Mr. STANLEY observed, that provision had been
made in the Bill against the evil.
Sir. R. PEEL argued that the provision alluded to
was not sufficient. He maintained that the right to the
church property ought to be on the same footing as private
property; and in that he was supported by the opinions
of Lord Plunket and Mr. Canning. It could not be
said that the improved value of private property ought to
be applied to the purposes of the State. The right to
church property was not acquired by the statute of 1658.
It was not acquired, but controlled by that Act; and
controlled for the benefit of the church. The Right
Hon. Baronet protested against applying the property of the
church to any but ecclesiastical purposes. Many tenants
of church lands would be far better pleased to continue
under the church than to become the tenants of laymen.
The Right Hon. Baronet concluded amid considerable
cheering.
Lord ALTHORP admitted that it was very dangerous
to interfere with any established right of property. From
the noise of Members leaving the House, and of strangers
quitting the gallery, as well as we could collect his ob-
servations, the Noble Lord stated, that the case of the
property of the church and of corporate property, could not
be considered by any means as similar ; and still less could it
be considered similar to that of private property,which came
to particular individuals by inheritance, whereas, in the
case of the holders of church property, they obtain
their rights neither by the inheritable, purchaseable, or
otherwise acquirable title to corporation property, but by
the arbitrary choice of the Clown, or of certain indivi-
duals. The Right Hon. Gentleman, he understood, did
not object to converting Bishops' leases into perpetuities,
hut he objected to appropriating the increased value thereby
given to the property of the State. But the Right Hon.
Gentleman objected principally on account of the small-
ness of the amount, and seemed to admit that he would
have no obj, ction to it provided the amount were consi-
derable. After that admission, Ire did not understand
how the Right Hon. Gentleman could object to the prin-
ciple, or say it was inequitable or unjust ; all that he was
entitled to say was, that it was impolitic.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman agreed, too, in the principle
that the Church cess ought to be abolished, but objected
to the mode of providing for that expense. For his part
Ire did not see, if it were to come out of the property of
the Chu:•ch, as the Right Hon. Gentleman admitted, why
it should not conic out of the revenues of the clergy. He
believed that, in principle, he and the Right Hon. Gentle-
man agreed ; and he should be happy to take into consi-
deration in the Committee any objections the Right Hon.
Gentleman might make to the details. The Right Hon. Gen-
Orman had objected to the graduated tax on the incomes of
the clergy, and had quoted the observations he (Lord A.)
had made against a graduated property tax. But, be-
tween a graduated property tax, and a graduated tax upon
the incomes of the clergy, there was a great difference.
The Right Hon. Gentleman objected to the reduction of
the Bishops--that it would not leave enough, when the
Bishops were attending their duties in Parliament, to
attend to their episcopal duties in Ireland. But if that
argument were applied to English Bishops, all of whom
were in attendance in Parliament during its sittings, while
only a part of the Irish Bishops had seats in the other
House, the argument would have much mote force. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had proved too much. Alter the
Bill had passed, the number of Bishops in Ireland in pro-
portion to the revenues of the clergy, and to the number
of benefices, would be much greater in proportion than
the number of Bishops in England. In his opinion,
the number would be large enough. As to the ex-
pansive power of Protestantism to which the Right
Honourable Baronet had alluded, that expansive power
would, lie believed, be increased as they removed
the abuses which he had always understood pre-
vented it from rising and spreading over the land.
The large number of bishoprics was one of the burdens
that confined it, and kept it from spreading. After the
number of Bishops was reduced, it would be found, on
comparing the number left in Ireland with the number in
England, that the former would be in proportion much
larger. Of course he did not admit with the Hon. Member
for Oxford, that they were not to touch the Bishops at
all. Looking at their duties, he thought that the number
left would be sufficient. Looking, too, at the benefices, he
was of the same (pinion. The revenue of the Irish Bishops
was 130.0001 , and the revenue of the parochial clergy
was 600,000/. ; the revenue of the English Bishops was
160,000/., and the revenue of the English parochial clergy
was 3,000,A00/. ; which showed that the Bishops of Ire-
land would be quite enough. The great number of Bishops
was one of the causes of discontent and dissatisfaction.
He could not concur, therefore, with the Right Hon.
Gentleman in his objection to reducing the number of
Bishops. (The Noble Lord made a few further observations,
but the talking and noise in the House prevented them
from bring audible in the gallery. On his resuming his
seat, there were loud calls of " Question.")
Colonel CONOLLY rose, and persisted in standing up
for sonic time and addressing the Howe, but almost every
sentence he uttered was lost amidst calls of " Question,"
and "Divide." We understood him to contend against
the Bill, and to declare that he would oppose it as a mea-
sure of spoliation. (Loud cries of " Withdraw" and
" Divide.")
Lord SANDON was met with similar cries. He said
lie should stand there till he was heard.—_(A laugh.) He
wished to state the reasons for his vote. He agreed in
nearly all which had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tarnworth, and }et he meant to vote
against him—(A laugh)—and he wished to explain why,
There was no one part of the preamble of the Bill in
which he did not agree ; and the only part of the measure,
which could scarcely be called a principle of it, in which
he did not agree, was that for the appropriation of an
imaginary surplus to arise at some future time, as Par-
liament might think fit. The Noble Lord admitted that
this part would lie a blow to the security of property;
and he did not think it worth while, for the sake of ap-
propriating an imaginary surplus, to establish a principle
tt at would weaken the security of property. If he could
not alter that provision of the Bill in the Committee, he
should probably hereafter think it his duty to vote against
it. He agreed with a large part of it, and he was anxious
to see a reform in the church—anxious to see the clergy
bound to perform their duties ; but he wished, by giving
this explanation of his vote, to prevent its being sup-
posed by the public that those who voted for church reform
were pledged to a principle which violated a principle of
property tor the sake of an imaginary surplus.—(Hear;
loud c ills of " Question," and " Divide.")
Lord ALTHORP gave a short explanation, which was
wholly lost amidst the noise.
Mr. DAVID ROCHE attempted to address the House,
but he was met by laughter, and cries of " Question," and
" Sit down."
Mr. LEFROY next rose for the same purpose, and was
root in the same way, but with louder laughter. After a
short time comparative order was restored, and the learned
Gentleman then moved that the debate be adjourned.—
(More laughter, cries of " Oh, oh !" and " Go on.")
Loud ALTHORP hoped the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tlemanent on persist,
t hlair tYv aYt.o_uldolne,,vaer.r)decide any
u'tNlhdeN77toncurred with the Noble Lord in depre-
cria'jtSeinsitgri.otfl'l'l‘s.ei:C)'adjournment—(Cheers)—but he must also de-
precate the proceeding of not hearirg an Hon. Alenaber
who wished to address the House, and who was especially
called upon to speak on this question.—(No, no.) II
there were any Hon. Member who had a greater interest
in this subject than another, it was the Hon. and Learned
Member for the University of Duhlin.—(No, no.)
Lord CASTLEREAGH blamed the Ministers for not
rtoculing a hearing for the Members of that side (the
Opposition) of the House. The consequence of that
would be, that they would all be made Repeal. ta—(A
laugh, Oh, oh, and loud cries of " Question.") He
would not be put down.—(Laughter, and loud cries or.
(4 Question.") Ile represented a large constituency, and
had as peel a right to be heard as any Hon. Gentleman.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was not to be
l'ut down by a sm er or a cough. Ile had a peculiar right
to deliver his sentiments.—(Loud calls of " Question.")
Ile would only repeat that the attempt to put down the
Opposition Members would make every marl of them a
I:epealer.—(Cries of " Withdraw," and Go an.(,)
The SPEAKER put the question on the amendment to
aiJourn the debate, and the Gallery was cleared for a
division

We were informed, however, that Mr. Lefroy withdrew
his amendment, on the understanding that he would state
opinion on the Bill, on the motion for going into a

Committee. The House then divided on Mr. Shaw's
amendmerie.
For the Amendment 7B
Against it
Majority
The Bill wai then read a second time, and ordered to
be t ommitted on Monday.
GLASGOW LOTTERY BILL

On the reading of one of the other orders of the day,
Sir R. PEEL tonk the opportunity of adverting to the
Glasgow Lottery Bill, which had been smuggled through
the House, and recommended, in order to prevent any si-
milar occurrence, the appointment of a Committee to exa-
mine all Bills that were introduced into the House.
Mr. SPRING RICE observed, that no one could sup-
pose front the Bill itself, that it could be made use of fur
such a purpose. Even the law agent on the occasion (Mr.
Richardson), a highly resp,ctable man, was entirely igno-
rant of the real object in view, nothing of the kind being
mentioned in his instructions.

A MEMBER. remarked, that as the projectors of the Lot-
tery frequently gave the purchasers of the fortunate tickets
the value of the houses, instead of the houses themselves,
there would pi obably be another lottery drawn.
Sir R. PEEL said, that in that case it was desirable
that the Bill should be repealed.
Some other Hon. Members made a few observations on
the subject; after which the conversation dropped.
NEWSPAPER ADVERTISENIENTS.
On the motion of Lord ALTHORP, the House resolved
itself into a Committee on ttr. Stamp Duties Act.
A resolution was agreed to for imposing a duty of
eighteen•pence on every newspaper advertisement, instead
of the graduated duty proposed by Lord Althorp on bring-
ing forward the Budget.

The House having resumed, the report was ordered to he
received this day.
Mr. FINCH postponed his motion for the suppression
of political unions till the 27th June.
Mr. ATTWOOD moved that the name of Sir C. Bur-
rell should he added as one of the Committee on the state
of the agricultural districts. It was proper that some fair
and competent persons should be included in this inquiry.
Lord ALTHORP obj,cted, not by any means with re-
ference to the individual named—a person most eminently
entitled to respect, but on account of the principle which
would be involved. Every Hon. Member might get up
and propose an additional Commissioner. The Committee
had been selected upon the maturest and most impartial
deliberation.

Lord DARLINGTON was rather inclined to doubt as
to the impartiality of the persons so elected, when he saw
that one of them was the Hon. Member for Wolverhamp-
ton, who deni.d that there was any agricultural distress.
Lord EBRING TON thought there was not the slightest
necessity for adding to the Committee, whose number was
already 38—a larger number than Committees generally
comprehended.

The question was decided against Mr. Attwood's pro-
position without coming to a division.
A MEMBER'S proposition, that Lord Stormont be a 'ded
to the Committee on manufacturing distress, was also
negatived.

The other business was then disposed of, and the House
adjourned at a quarter to three.

The following is the list of the Committee on Army
and Nvriy Appointment., nominated on Friday fart :
Abercrombie, Right Ferguson, Sr Ron. Oswald, R. A.
lion. J. Graham. SirJ. R. G. Parnell, Sir H.
Byng, Sir J. Hardinge, Sir H. Net, Sir R,
Carew, R. S. Hawes' W. Pendarves, E. W.
Carter, JAL Hope, Sir A. Sobright, Sir John
Davies, 'l'. Hume, Joseph Strickland, G.
Ebrington, Lord Lambton, H, Russell, Lord .1.
Ellice, E. Mauerly, W. L ,Wilbraham, G.
Fazakerly, J. N. O'Connoll, M. I Wrottesley, Sir J. B.
Fleming, Admiral O'Connor Don Wynn, C. W.

In the list of the minority who vote,
motion for reducing our military establ
i❑ our paper of yesterday, the name of
for Berkshire, was omitted by mistake

d for Mr. Hume's
ishinent, published
Mr. Walter, M.P.

ROYAL ASSENT.

The Speaker reported the Royal Assent to the following
Bills:—lndemnity Bill—Customs Wharfs G,nveyance
Bill—Seimen's Hospital Bill—Rother Levels Drainage
Bill—Tredington Church Bill—Exeter Waterworks Bitl
—Exeter Water Company Bill—Camberwell Poor Bill—
Grand Junction Railway Bill—Whitby and Pickering
Railway Bill—London and Birmingham Railway Bill—
Cardiganshire Roads Bill—Egham and Bagshot Road
Bill—Norwich and New Buckenham Road Bill—Chester
and Woodside Ferry Roads Bill—Upton and Kington
Road Bill—Cheshunt Road Bill—Lewes and Brighton
Road Bill—Hodges and Cuckfield Road Bill—Carmarthen
Main Trust Road Bib—Matthieasen's Naturalization Bill.

'IX OF THE MINT.

A meeting of the Lords of Majesty's Privy Council
was held yesterday morning at the Exchequer Chamber.
for the purpose of charging a Jury of Goldsmiths to make
trial of the pix of the Dlint. The Lords present were—
the Lord President, the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of
Richmond, Viscount Althorp, and Lord Auckland. Be-
fore proceedings commenced, an objection was started that
six Privy Councillors were rtqnited, whereas but five were
present, and of that number Lord Auckland held the
office of Master of the Mint. A jury of twelve eminent
goldsmiths were sworn to assay and make a true return
of the weight and fineness of the moneys given to them for
trial. The Lord Chancellor, in charging the jury on the
part of their Lordships, alluded to the antiquity of the '
custom they had to perform, which (mild be traced as far
back as the reign of Edward 1., and was spoken of in the
record of that time as an established custom. The
standards of gold and silver were contained in indentures,
executed in 1817, by Lord Maryborough, as Master of the
Mint. Subsequent Masters of the Mint had also executed
these indentures, and were bound by the covenants they con-
Nined.

His Lordship concluded his charge in the following
words :—" It is a just subject of congratulation that the
standard of our coin has been preserved inviolate through
so many ages, and juries have often, upon occasions like
the present, been appropriately reminded how greatly this
steady conduct, alike betokening the integrity and the wis-
dom of the Government, redounded to the advantage of
the country. Reference has, I find, also b, en made by
my predecessors to the kindred subject of our paper circu-
lation, and to the measures, now so universally deplored,
by which the coin of the realm was banished from the
circulation and the only currency that was left suffered a
depreciation most calamitous in its effects upon all the
transactions of the state. Of those measures I shall only now
say that, like all departures from just and sound policy,
it occasioned two pernicious changes, and was doubly
fruitful of mischief; the evils following from the destruc-
tion of the currency being almost matched by those which
attended its restoration. Under the consequences of both,
the country is still suffering ; but it has learnt a lesson
which, as it is dear bought, will be long remembered,
and will save us from the ruin to which the like course,
if ever again followed, must inevitably lead."
fl e jury were to test the pix of the Mint by the pro-
portions of gold and alloy, and of silver and alloy therein
specified, and return a verdict to their Lordships. The
pix of the mint consisted of one piece of coin out of every
fifteen pounds of gold coined at the Mint, and one piece of
coin for every sixty pounds of silver. These specimen
coins were preserved under the keep of three officers of
the Mint. Three years had elapsed since the last trial
of the pix ; during that period gold coin of the value of
1,580,000/. had been coined, and silver of the value of
upwards of 33,000/. ; the value of the specimens in the
pix amounted to upwards of 6,0001.
The Lords present were invited by the officers of the
Goldsmiths' Gimpany to dine with them at Brewer's.hall,
in the evening, where the verdict would be returned.

We hear that Sir PULTENEY MALCOLM i 5
to replace Admiral floTtlAm in the Mediterranean.
The Duke of CLEVELAND, the Marquis of
CLANRICARDE, M. Van de WEYER, Viscounts PALMER-
STON, AIELBOURNE, and DUNCANNON, Sir JAMES GRA-
HAM, Mr. STANLEY, Lord AUCKLAND, Baron Ron's-
CHILD, and Sir G. QUINTIN, were among Vie distinguished
persons who paid their respects yesterchiy to his Highness
the Duke of BRUNSWICK, at FENTON'S 110,d, St. James's-
street.

Among the distinguished visiters of his Royal
Highness the Duke of ORLEANS, at GniHon% hotel, Al-
bemarle-street, yesterday, were—Princes TA LLE YEA ND
LIEVEN; the Dukes of WELLINGTON, ARGYLL, GOR-
DON, RICHMOND, and VALANAY ; the Marquis of LANS-
DowNE, Earl GREY, the LORD CHANCELLOR, Earl of
ltirox, Lord HOLLAND, Lord ADOLPHUS FITZCLARENCE,
ViSCIIIIII!S MELBOURNE and PALMERSTON ; M. DE RA-
COURT, Secretary to the French Embassy ; Count BJORN.
STJEUNA, most of the F, reign Mtnisttrs, Mr. C. Woon,
sc, Pi ince TALLEyitaNn called early in the afternoon,
"(I had a long inlet view with his Royal Highness, who
ifterwards dined at the French Embassy, where a distin-
,nished party was assembled to meet him. On Saturday,
nois Royal Highness called, with Prince TALLEYRAND, on
Earl GREY and others of the Cabinet Ministers. A con-
.itierahle number of fetes are in preparatim in compliment
to the heir apparent, and their Majesties have invited him
to a grand entertainment, to be given at Windsor in a !ew
:lays. His Royal highness's sojourn amonot U! ie tX),
peettd to extend to a mouth.