The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-02 00:00:00

104 looked at those returns which have been lately laic
ou the table of the House, they would be astound-d to
find how any gentlemen could allow themselves to be
dunned in the way in which, they had been by the secre-
tary of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.—(Elear, hear.)
What with those bishops taking more than they ought
to have taken, and those not paying what they really
owed, there was uo less a sum than 42,5001. due to the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which should have been
Made available for increasing the incomes of small liv-
ings,aleyneianieltrying, for instance, the poor, miserable Welsh
who had scarcely ;efficient to support their
existence. Ho would now pass to three of the great_
lees. He would begin with two that were on the old
foundation—namely, London and Winchester. Oa Ss-
turd
ay, the 30th of May, 1837, it was decided by the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners that those bishops, who
mere consenting partiee should have their incomes fur
the future upon the next avoidance 10,006/. and 7,000/
°Jeer respectively. It was a remarkable fact that
there was se" no
during one single instance of any one of these
their lifetime having given up auything
f
°F the benefit of their Church. They certainly deter-
mined that their successors should have as their incomes
991. and 7,0001. a year respectively. Now, if these
inoom
not es were good for their successors, why were they
bis-boePthaTcl two
Wlll3' good tor themselves?—(Hear, hear.) These
inco p'alaces each, quite irrespective of their
ille'• In fourteen years the Bishop of London should
receieel4o,ooo/ ; but he had received 217,259/.,0r 77,2591.
more than he ryas entitled to receive. The Bishop of
Winchester for the same number of years should have
received
151,1661. 98,000/ , instead of which he had received
, or 53,1.66/. more than he was entitled to re-
ceive, These two prelates had, therefore, taken from the
Church in these fourteen years no less than 130,4251.
more than the themselves had declared was sufficient
birtheta. Oh but it would be said, that these were
not to
of the old foundation, and the new incomes were
--es to apply
until the next avoidance. When they saw
the Bishop of London constantly calling upon the laity
for money for the purpose of advancing the interests of
the Church, they would scarcely suppose that the caste
take the case of a new foundation. In 1836, the Bishop
of Durham was appointed to his see at an income of
°Ma a year, to which he assented. For fourteen years
that prelate should have received 112,0004, instead of
Which he pocketted 191,658/., or 79,658/. more than he
should have done. These three prelates, therefore, de-
prived the Church of 210,083/. within these fourteen
Years. But there was another point connected with
Ely;
motion. He would now take the diocese of
•r4IY; and taking the town of Wisbeach and the
parishes adjoining to that town, he would see
what was required to be done before they could ex-
Peet to see the people come forward with large sub-
scriptions to promote church extension. In Wisbeach
the value of the living was 1,3004 the holder had also
out of anothing living 879/., that was 2,1901. He was
absent six months in the year; besides that, the same
person Was prebend of Ely, with 7001. a year; he held a
vicarage worth 500/. a year, and had in all 3,390/4 he
was the son-in-law of 'Bishop Sparkes, and his duties
were Performed but for 6 months in the year. Then there
Zaoosdather non-resident clergyman in the neighbour-
Th having 3.3354 and was non-resident on the living.
Fe Was another non-resident with 2,1901.; another
had 1,200/. a year, and was a resident in Guernsey; and
another had 2,3274 a year. Here there were five cler-
otti
gYmen (the lion. Baronet mentioned their names and
11,0931. amongst them, and yet not
eir ihg eshes) haying
their duty—non-resident, or only attending
,in
parishes for a brief period in each year. This oc-
curred in the neighbourhood of Wisbeach. Now, he
..4ndalous?—(
e if such a state of things as this was not actually
Hear, hear.) And let him ask—and he
do these things?—(
114 it with grief and shame—would the Roman Catholics
9uetstion, he Hear, hear.) And yet, asking this
must say with grief and with shame, that
he Church of England these things were going on
fromh one end of the kingdom to the other.—( ear, hear.)
that
was, then, the see of Rochester, -shich had, of
th he
rather notorious; and having alluded to
an.; , would next have to refer to the see of London,
and Lastly, he
ai would state that which he knew of
ded:le knowledge of that principality in which he re-
Pointed ,The present Bishop of Rochester had been ap-
of Te,ln the year 1827 This prelate had the deanery
saiclv heorcester and some . other benefices, which it was
and
in 1846, upon receiving 4,5001. It was
a car'
sigaertfeet, that, though it was said he had so re-
tea 11_11 these advantage 3 for the 4,500/., still it ap-
haeinn, he was in the receipt of 5,5701. a year. But
had 00 show what was the income of the 'bishop, he
of thosil
to show how his duties ware performed. One
the star duties was the visitation of the cathedral. By
visitati ti
of the cathedral he was bound to make that
lute thin
' ,Re (Sir B. Hall) had made anxious inquiries
lame o• "inject, and he found that the bishop had never
only oulle, of these visitations to the cathedral; and not
theti,,„• gut he to do this thing, but he had sworn to do
L•
WallOp ,11:0 Meat., hear.) He understood, too, that the
Easter Preached in the cathedral, except upon an
in citine ti,'ltY.--(Hear, hear.) It might be said that
he Would --c," cases, if he were a friend to the Church,
them. d. 11:, lisbons in collecting the facts respecting
When, if ;,111Y answer was, that they lived in an age
there 'w.uses were not put prominently forward,
would
end ther f not be any chance of redress for them;
they e ore it was that he would persist in putting
ave forward, in the hope that some day•
he would be
to effect the correction of such abuses.—(Hear.) But
uavin
T, g now shown what was the conduct of the bishop
hawl next to look to the conduct of the capitular body.
e dean preached twelve times a year, and attended
service four times, and received 1,2001. a year. The
brat canon preached twelve times in two years, and re-
ceived 6001. a year. Another canon received 6801., and
he also took an additional stipend of 100/. a year, which
he obtained from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, be-
cause the duties of the canons were so numerous that it
ha impossible to perform this duty unless there was
another 1004 a year given. Another of the canons had
not been in Rochester for three years.—(Hear.) Such,
then, was the state of the ecclesiastical body in Roches-
'
,ell but in order to bring their conduct up to the pre-
sent time, he had to mention that up to the end of June,
Which closed the day before, no canon had preached in
;he cathedral, not even on 'hit-Sunday, although one
did on Ascension-day. This was the manner in which
'ne canons went through their work, and now the cathe-
dral was to be closed in a few days, so the bishop and
ne chapter would be free to enjoy themselves. They
had amongst them 10,900'. a year for doing little 'or 'lo-
tlling. The case of Rochester was curious in other re-
°Fleets; but that portion of the case to which he would
not now refer was pending in the courts of law. His at-
tehtionhad, however, been directed to one fact in connexion
which he found in a pamphlet published by Mr.
Liston, and in consequence of it he had moved for a re-
,..rn• There were six old men, who were called alms'
Wien and bedesmen, who were to haye 40/. a year. This
grant had been made long since, the payment had been
2nfided to this ecclesiastical body, and by the return
there appeared to be no such persons in existence. He
Was anxious to know when there had been an almsmau
sPpointed, and he found that in August, 1774, there
o,ad been a bedesman, named Featherstone, appointed,
and that there had been no bedesman since 1790; so
Iv that 2,4001., intended for the purposes of the charity,
ere taken and divided by the chapter amongst them-
°Jllves; and yet, would they believe it, that from that
01..,41,e to this the chapter-clerk went through the farce
.°4'n quarter-day of crying out, " J ohn Featherston, come
S
and receive your annuity"—(Laughter)—John
t reith, come forth and receive your annuity ?"—Laugh-
fer.) And this abominable imposture was actually per-
iperined before the eyes of the dean and char, who well
:new that both John Featherstone and John Smith who
were thus coiled upon were in their coffins for fifty
Z the
The consequence of the exposure by
Ile return had done something in the way of good. New
i)pointeaents of bedesmen were made by the chapter of
ochester. Six poor men were so appointed, whose
ages varied from 79 to 86 years. One of these had
served with Lord Howe, and another had been at the
battle of Waterloo—men of excellent character were se-
lected to receive the 401.; and yet, would the House be-
have it, that a few days ao, when 11. 10s. 10d. was paid to
each of these poor men, the chapter-clerk of that body,
Which had 17,7001. a
Year,actually deducted a 103. fee from
the: 11. los.: 10(1. ?—( Rear. hear.) The dean Dui chapter
that had been pocketing fur 50 years that which was
given as charity for the poor, deducted 30 per cent.
from the poor. $e wondered did they who did this give
a per cent, to the income-tax?—(Hear.) The chapter
of Rochester had control (as we understood) over the
122sPital, and instead of using the funds for the purposes
of the poor they pocketed the whole; but in consequence
the appointment of the charity commissioners, this
4"nse had been put an end to. The hospital was in-
;ended oriinally for lepers; but there was something
urn()Ni than that ancient disease—it was a moral leprosy
peciigst the clergy, for they took the money and de-
tilt!" the por ot those funds which were intended for
de-
horelief inssickness.—(Hear, hear.) Again, he asked,
4stow would they get the people to press forward for
lltch extension when they saw such abominable deeds
. these done every day?—(Hear.) It was with shame
and disgust that he exposed this conduct in their bishops
tlid clergy, who ought to be the ministers of God, and
.° Prove that they were so by endeavouring to do good
;0 their fellow-subjects.—(bear.) But now let them
look to this (the London) diocese. There were certain
Prebends of St. Paul's. The duty of these prebendaries
attes to preach in turn twice in each year, That was
f"pat the prebendaries did. There was then the property
St. Paul's, and where was the property of the church
P°lle? How was the property distributed in the parish
had the honour to represent? It—the parish of St.
Palersa—svas rated to the relief of the poor 280,0001.
an Prelate had granted a lease of the parish for 46
ineakts, and then he contrived, in collusion with the lessee,
have an Act of Parliament, the consequence of which
was, "
"as, that all St. Paul's got out of that parish was 3001.
fromr when it was rated at 280,000/ Hear, hear,'
I Mr. Goulburn.) He was glad to hear the Right
Gentleman say hear; and he believed the Right
len. Gentleman would admit that it was about as bad a
ease as could be, and yet the same was going on every
day(l Why, had not the Bishop of Winchester the other
♦aY granted a lease of lives of Church property, and
'ken a heavy fine? That was a robbery of the Church
e (Hear.) That was not necessary. If the Bishop were
21tetit with his income be never would have alienated
Church property.—(hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
moat be aware that the Commission of ecclesiastical ea-
Pfiitular revenues had for their object to do away with
~i 11.7 on leases. A Bill had been brought in to do away
tilt" fines on leases, and the strongest opposition to that
II had been made by those who had received the fines.
he(erieer.) It was only by an exposure of this kind that
"°Ped to be able to shame these individuals into some
not of duty, and to make them believe that they were
j.)t the masters, but the ministers of the Church of which
huleeayr,,tht laymen, were the vast community.—(Hear,
well
ekte next came to the district with which he
en _as
acquainted, and if anybody wished to see
Pcanaple of Church destitution and of Church
go)et that was utterly disgraceful to the Establishment,

then ho said let them go into the diocese of St. David's.
The bishop's income was fixed at 4,5e0/. a year, but the
result of the return in the hand of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman would show that instead of 4,500/. a year, the
bishop received 5,5001. a 3 err; and in order to make the
deduction as gross as possible, if they turn to a certain
page in that, return they would find there was no species
of expenditure that could occur to the mind of man or a
bishop that was not set down, oven to 31. 43. 4d. for pen-
sionres. Now what were the duties of the bi lop? lie
was dean of the College of Brecon, which had 7,213/.
per annum. It was the duty of the bishop to preside
over that, college, and what IC a s the state of the church?
He referred to the description given of it by Mr. Jesse,
who had visited it in 1847; he described it as "all
decay, ruin, and desolation." Such was the description
of the college church of Brecon. He asked again,
would the Roman Catholics suffer these things? And
when such things occurred, could they wonder that
the Pope should have appointed a bishop of Menevia?
—(Hear, hear.) Or, who could wonder to hear that
in front of this neglected edifice there should have
arisen a place of Roman Catholic worship of admirable
design, and well qualified to meet the wishes of
the inhabitants of the district ?—(Hear.) Having shown
the state of the collegiate church, he wished next to
point to the condition of the parish churches over which
the bishop presided. Having read a list of parish
churches, the Hon. Baronet proceeded to say that the
plan of reform he would propose would be to make into
one fund the whole of the ecclesiastical property, and
then, instead of giving the Archbishop of Canterbury
15,0001. a year and two palaces, he would give him the
same income as the Prime Minister. He would turn
the bishops out of the House of Lords and confine them
to their spiritual functions, and give them from 2,0001.
to 3,000/. a year; and instead of having the minor
clergy, as they were in Wales, working in the field—
putting in potatoes, driving carts, wearing clothes not
fit for a gentleman to wear, and starving upon 251. and
30/. a year, he would have no clergyman paid less than
2001. a year, nor more than 500/.; and by so doing there
would be abundant means for church extension from
the funds of the Church. They would, by so acting,
make the Church useful to the community and respected
by the people; and so doing, he said they might ,rely
upon it that dssent would be less popular and Rome less
rampant.—(Cheers.)
Mr. MORRIS was understood to speak in terms of
commendation of the character of the Bishop of St.
David's as a man of unbounded charity, and who did
everything that was within his power for the benefit of
the diocese.
Mr. A. B. HOPE commended the moderate and able
manner in which the subject had been brought forward
by his Noble Friend. He did not wish to be supposed
hostile to the Church extension cause, but he must say
that a greater mistake could not possibly be made than
to suppose that the service of the Church was best ac-
complished by the mere extension of district churches.
Let them further increase the staff of working clergy,
end see that each man was placed in a situation in which
he was sure to be effective. He was strongly opposed
to the sale of Lord Chancellor's livings, which he con-
ceived must necessarily operate most injudiciously under
every point of view. He could not think that this plan
would ever be converted into a law, but as it came re-
commended by a commissioner, it should have its weight
with him, as he hoped also it would have its weight with
the House. If the episcopate was to be respected, it
must be brought back to the condition of a working epis-
copate, in which each bishop should really be the head
and centre of his diocese. Multiply the bishoprics, and
multiply their cathedrals too, but let the organization in
each be as perfect as it was possible to be with reference
to the varied objects of Church government. Under
all the circumstances, he conceived that this was too
timid a remedy for a wound that had penetrated too
deeply, and which was not to be healed by the constitu-
tion of six hundred new churches, to be formed out of
the sale of Lord Chancellor's livings. He believed that
was not the time and place for such a motion, and he
hoped, therefore, as the Noble Lord bad done all that
was necessary in the able speech he had addressed to the
House, he would not press his motion to a division.
Sir G. GREY heard with pleasure, as indeed every
one else had, the able speech of the Noble Lord, and the
great earnestness and talent with which he supported
his views. Before the House, however, agreed to adopt
the address moved for by the Noble Lord, ho thought it
necessary to caution them what the effect of that would
be in the absence of any specific measure. The terms
of the Noble Lord's resolution did not vary much
from measures already adopted by the House, and
unless, therefore, a specific measure was recom-
mended, the House would not act prudently in adopting
it. As to what had been said with respect to spiritual
destitution among their poor, -he would not now enter
into the question, but ho was free to confess that after
making the most liberal allowance, he was ready to ad-
mit a large number of the inhabitants of this city, and
other large and densely crowded towns were not pro-
vided with religious instruction. But there was no spe-
cific proposition to remedy the evil now before the
House, which Parliament could adopt. All must admit
the vast importance of religious instruction, even as re-
garded the maintenance of peace and order throughout
the country, and no exertion could be too great to ac-
complish such a purpose. The Noble Lord first pro-
posed to make some improvement in the management
of the Church property. They must all feel that a large
amount of property was not managed in as desirable a
manner as it ought; but what could Parliament do now
more than it had done? In 1834 and 1835 the Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners were appointed, and their object
was precisely that which the Noble Lord now proposed
to do. That Commission was still in operation, and as
to the manner in which the business was conducted, he
would not discuss it now; but certainly much had been
Ilene. Then following out that plan was Sir Robert
whichthtfoo
measuresnm wer the Commissioners received
ahaedl
loans
been
Anofemt'
of by s
2aodoe,tohiOneo/e.
Queennumber er
of a
vAnn'sclergy,ery andar Bounty.
e alalso
o bl by
consequence increase
private grants. From a return moved for last year, by
the Right HOn. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire,
he found that 1,400,0001. had been granted for ecclesias-
tical purposts, both by the Commissioners and by pri-
vate grants. Then, again, very recently three Commis-
sioners were appointed by the Crown to inquire into the
best mode of subdividing large parishes, and also to as-
certain the condition of episcopal and capitnlar revenues.
Those Commissioners prepared two reports, and also a
draft of a Bill in accordance with those reports, which
was now on the table of the House; so that the Noble
Lord would see that great alterations were already in
course of being made. Another measure was by the
Upper House referred to a Select Committee, which
will, he believed, remedy some undoubted evils connected
with fines and renewals, on which his Hon. Friend the
Member for Marylebone adverted. This was a question
of great difficulty, because in cases were strictly legal
rights did not exist, equitable rights did; and the terms
of the Commission to inquire into the subject were, how
and by what means an amendment could be produced
which would be beneficial to the property of the
Church. With respect to the sale of the Lord Chan-
cellor's livings, if the Noble Lord meant that an
address should be presented to the Crown on the sub-
ject, he should have stated it distinctly to the House.
He was not prepared to say that the sale of some of
those small livings might not be done beneficially, with a
view to their endowment, but he should object to put
any of them up to public auction, to sell to the highest
bidder, more especially in the present state of the Church.
On the whole, he should meet the motion of the Noble
Lord by moving the previous question, because he
thought that though the object was good, the manner in
which it was brought forward might lead them to er-
roneous conclusions. He also objected to the amend-
ment proposed by his Hon. Friend the Member for
Montrose. He should vote against the amendment '
proposed by the Hon. Member for Montrose, and if per-
severed in he should move the previous question.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT would offer a few obser-
vations en what had been said incidentally in the
course of the debate. He was glad to notice tho deve-
lopment of the principle of freedom of opinion in
spreading the Gospel among the people. The Commis-
sion reported in favour of the scheme of selling the
advowsons of the Lord Chancellor, to be appropriated
to the extension of the spiritual instruction in the
Church. It was said, why take away the patronage of
the Lord Chancellor? They did not say so when they
Proposed a project of Chancery reform, when they pro-
posed to transfer the patronage to another member of
Government. For his part he preferred the patronage to
remain with the Lord Chancellor, because in the former
ease it would become the patronage of the Secretary of
the Treasury, and would be open to the imputation that
those preferments were obtained for political services.
the divisions in the Church advowsons
itodt Vibe sat
value,riTclgin and he, therefore, saw on that ground
no objection to have these livings in the hands of lay-
men. When they saw the expedient of the sale of indul-
gences adopted by the head of the Roman Catholic
for the extension of that church in this
would they not take any counter measure
metropolis,Ch urch,
for church extension? He had
proposed a plan for re-
storing thechapters to promote the
education but he was not successful
the
in the motion he had made for that purpose. He did
not blame any one on that account
offu thenct miindsdleof
classes,
account, but he thought they
ought to affirm the motion of the Noble Lord as a means
of promoting the efficiency of the Church.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that when he had brought on
a question 'last year for the church extension, that he
was then supported by the late Government, and
though ho had been defeated, yet that defeat was
carried by a mere majority of 17. He could not now
more than before support the present resolution, be-
cause he believed that it interfered with Church
property, and also tended to reduce the patro-
nage of the Lord Chancellor, and to throw all power
into the hands of the Prime Minister, which he
looked upon to be most unjust, because such a property
was the unalienable right of the Lord Chancellor, as
being ono of the oldest in the records of this country,
and should not therefore be interfered with. Was it not
a well-known fact that a certain agreement was entered
into by that House in 1836, that those who were in pos-
session of the livings alluded to should enjoy them with-
out any interference ? But what was the present motion?
Was it not to deprive the rightful owners of those liv-
ings? Ho altogether dissented from the opinions ex-
pressed by the two Hon. Gentlemen opposite (Sir B.
Hall and Mr. Hume), for the calculations to which they
adverted as to the population of the members of the
Church of England, drawn up by Mr. Mayne, were not
by any moans to be relied on, for he believed that the
Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) would admit
that one-third of the population in the large towns of
England, consisting of 8,000 people, were members of
the Established Church, and that while the Dissenters
consisted of the middle class, the Church of England at-
tended to the spiritual wants of the poorer classes. He
considered that the connexion of the Church and State
was of the greatest possible advantage, and should there-
fore support the amendment of the previous question,
particularly as there was a statute on the books of the
House by which 24 more bishops could be created.

Mr. ALCOCK considered that it would he most um
j u.t to sell the advewsons of 777 livings, now the right
and properly of the Lord Chencellor, for the purpose
of building churches in Northumberland or some other
reaa ate districts where the people of those parishes have
no benefit whatever. He kilt, a of many of those parishes
not to be worth two years' purchase, whilst most of
them were not worth ten years' purchase. Taking, for
example, the living of Ludlow, the advowson of which
could be sold for 1,0001., bat would it bo fair to build
with that 1,000/. a church at a great distance from the
place, and from which the parishioners could derive no
benefit? He did not deny that they needed six hundred
additional churches, and he had no doubt but that they
could get these, and more, if they depended upon volun-
tary contributions to carry out their object.
Mr. GOULBURN admitted that the resolutions had
been introduced with great ability, but considered that
the better course would be not to come to a division
upon them. It was one of those questions which re-
quired much consideration, and in respect of which
much could not be gained by a division in that House.
While he hoped, therefore, that the House would not be
called upon to divide upon them, he would take the
liberty of making a few remarks upon what had fallen
from the Honourable) Baronet the Member for
Marylebone. That Honourable Baronet had made
accusations against certain dignitaries of the Church
which ho considered most unjust and uncalled
for. Throughout the greater part of his speech he had
referred to abuses which existed in certain sees, but
which had been called into existence by a different state
of the law from that which now prevailed, and it was,
therefore, unfair to tax the present occupiers of those
sees with continuing abuses, with the origin of which
they had no concern, and over which they had no con-
trol. To prove his case he had alluded to four bishop-
rics—Ely, Durham, London, and Winchester. As to the
Bishop of Ely, when be came to his diocese he found a
state of things which he could not control, and of which,
as he had said, he was not the originator. As to the
Bishop of London, the Hon. Baronet charged him of con-
tinuing to enjoy means which at the passing of the Com-
mission Act it was declared that he should not enjoy.—
(Hear, hear.) He felt ashamed that in the very centre
of that Right Rev. Prelate's diocese he should be called
upon to vindicate his character. The Hon. Baronet had
well said that the best test of a bishop's efficiency was
the power which he had over his diocese to extract means
for the furtherance of the Church and the promotion of
religion. He asked the House to apply that test to the
Bishop of London. Let them consider the state of the
city of London, and Bethnal-green especially, when that
bishop came to his diocese, the miserable condition
they were in for want of churches. And let them con-
sider the state of it now. He had given a large portion
of his own means for the promotion of that object, and
if he had given those means for objects so useful, what
did it signify though they did not come through the
hands of another party? The same might be said of the
Bishop of Winchester. He was a bishop at the passing
of the Act, and consequently continued to receive the in-
come which had accrued to him had no Aot passed.—
(Hear.) And he could affirm that a large portion of
that income had been appropriated for purposes con-
nected with the Church. The lion. Baronet then said
that the Bishop of Durham received more income than
he was entitled to, but he could state that while the
Bishop of Durham was only entitled to pay 12,0001. a
year to the Commission, he paid more than that sum
out of his own private income, and from that sum, dur-
ing the last seven years, he had contributed for church
building and other purposes connected with the Church,
no less a sum than 30,000/.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman then, after refuting the charges made
against the Bishops of St. David's and Salisbury, con-
cluded by hoping that the House would net be called
upon to divide on the question, but stating that, should
a division take place, he must vote against the motion.
Mr-HORSMAN said bad it not been for one or two
points referred to by the Right Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat down, he would not have troubled the House, as
the case in favour of the motion had already been so well
and clearly stated. The resolution contained two decla-
rations, first, that there was great destitution in the
Church, in respect of Church and religious teaching;
and, second, that there were means within the Church for
relieving such destitution. The first proposition no one
could deny, and as to the second, inquiry was absolutely
necessary.
Mr. LOFTUS WIGRAM said that subjects had been
most unjustly introduced into the discussion, because
they implicated individuals, without notice. If notice
was given of an intention to found charges in the blue
book, they could be duly met, and he was satisfied if the
cases of many had been looked into—that of the Bishop
of Manchester especially—those individuals would be
found deserving of the highest commendation. It was
the same with the Bishop of London and the Bishop of
Ely. He (Mr. Wigram) besought the House not to
be led astray by the collateral issues that bad been
raised in the course of tho discussion. There
was much to deserve support in the motion, but the
amendment he (Mr. Wigram)could not at all agree with,
because before inquiry could be effectual years would
have to elapse. If the Noble Lord pressed the motion
he should support it, but he thought the object of the
Noble Lord was attained by the discussion that had
taken place. If the motion was carried it would give a
practical impulse to its object; if not, they would lose
the advantage they hoped to gain.
Mr. BOOKER regretted the absence of the Hon.
Member for Somersetshire, after the allegations made
against the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol—allega-
tions enough to damn any man, still less a prelate of the
Church. Some years ago there was a revolutionary mob
in Bristol, in which the palace of the bishop was de-
stroyed by the mob. Difficulties were subsequently
raised on the union of the sees; and the present bishop,
than whom a more learned and pious prelate did not
exist, was thrown back on his original rights. He (Mr.
Booker), however, had not the least doubt that the
Right Rev. Prelate would sufficiently vindicate himself.
In conclusion he (Mr. Booker) deprecated the elements
of strife introduced into the debate.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said such a charge as that against
the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol should not be
allowed to pass a moment uncontradicted if it could be
denied. He therefore asked the Right Hon. Member
for the University of Cambridge, as one of the Eccle-
siastical Commission, if such was the fact?
Mr. GOULBURN said all he knew was this—the ar-
rangement which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in-
tended to make with the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol
were to put an end to; but what since became of the

lease he knew not.—(Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN asked what arrangement had been
made with the Copyhold Commissioners?
There was no reply.
The Marquis of BLANDFORD replied. With re-
spect to the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for
Montrose, he believed that he had brought it forward
with a sincere desire to carry into effect the reforms which
were required in the Church; but he hoped that he would
withdraw it for the present. The objection of the Right
Hon. Secretary for the Home Department, that his mo-
tion involved no definite proposition, he thought that
objection had been fully answered by the lion. Member
for Wilts; ho did not wish to tie any Hon. Member to a
concurrence with all the views which he had expressed.
He merely wished to obtain a sanction to the proposition
that the spiritual destitution of the people was a fit sub-
ject for consideration, and as he believed that a great
i por-
tion of the House concurred in that view, he felt t his
duty to take the sense of the House.
Mr. HUME withdrew his amendment, and expressed
a hope that the House would agree to the motion of the
Noble Lord without a division.
Sir G. GREY agreed with the Noble Lord in thinking
that a very general concurrence of opinion prevailed in
the House on the principles embodied in the motion—
namely, that it was desirable, as far as it was possible,
to provide more effectual relief for the spiritual wants of
the people, and to extend the parochial system. On the
distiect understanding, therefore, that the House would
not be pledged to anything beyond this, ho would not
oppose the motion.
The motion was then agreed to without a division.
CARRIAGE DUTY.
Sir DE LACY EVANS moved for leave to introduce
a Bill to reduce the duty of carriages. He would not
occupy the House more than five minutes at so late an
hour; but surely a matter in which the welfare of
100,000 artizans was involved demanded some attention.
The main objection to the present duty was, that it
caused not only a diminution of revenue, but also a
diminution of trade. He did not propose a total repeal
of the tax, but only a modification; and he had no
doubt that the revenue would not suffer by the
change. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was well
aware that the carriage trade and the revenue derived
from it were in a declining state, and the only head
under which an increase appeared was the head of ex-
emptions. Ten years ago their amount was 25,000, and
now: they amounted to 45,000 ; but this was not a fair
statement of the actual number, which was, probably,
not less than 200,000. It was only necessary to look at
the advertisementr of carriages for sale in the
newspapers to see that it was not the poor who bene-
fited by these exemptions. Many Hon. Members whom
he was then addressing enjoyed the exemption if they
kept dog-carts. Without detainilag the House longer,
he would briefly state that the Bill which he sought to
introduce would substitute for the 13 classes of duties
now levied three classes only. He proposed that four-
wheeled carriages with two or more horses, should pay
a duty of 31.; four-wheeled carriages, with one horse,
21. ; and two-wheeled carriages, 1/. ; and he proposed
that all carriages employed in agriculture and trade
should be untaxed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the motion, and reminded the House that already a
number of taxes had been repealed, and the effect of the
present proposition would be to bring in carriages
which were now exempt from duty. He did not think
in the present year that ho ought to be called on to re-
duce more taxation than he had done, the mere particu-
larly when he remembered that the continuance of the
income-tax was perhaps problematical, and the present
state in which the question was, rendered further reduc-
tions unadvisable.
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. P.
Ilowedtp, the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. HUME then brought forward his motion for an
address to her Majesty, that she will be pleased to give
directions that the granite obelisk, given by the late
Mehemet Ali to the British nation (which obelisk is now
lying on the beach at Alexandria), may be brought to
.
England, and that I.l9nee will grant such funds as
may be requisite to bring it to and erect it in awappro-
priate situation in England.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER op-
posed the motion, end quoted the authority of Sir G.
Wilson, to the effect that it was not worth the expense
of removal. He also understood that the obelisk which
had been removed to Paris had suffered materially
from th© change of climate. He could assure his
Hon. Friend that every inquiry should ho made on the
subject.
The motion wan withdrawn.
Mr. Whiteside next moved for returns relating to.the