The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-30 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 3,0,. 1850.

I late. Ateerney-General for one of the
hest of Is -yetis, we, that the Corntniesioners hail
been gutity of it. violation of Ole Act in regerd to the
r7a:/,;;.ffs<ini ef the aceourite. He could not help re-
fairing to the extraordinary conduct of the eentlise
man ►ppeinted by the Government to supervise the pro-
ceedines conurcted wit`► 51vinga banks. In the case of
the Tralee Rank, Mr. Tidd Pratt went to Tralee and
made awards agesinst a certain number of tru.eees, but
with a desrce of haste that rendered it almost imeossi-
hie thet ne sheuld not have committed errors. One of
these awards became the subjsct of trial at the assizes
for 1849, at which l'Ar. Tidd Pratt gave evidence. The
jury found a verdict for the defindant, and the decision
was confirmed by the Chief Justice on appeal. The con•
sequence was, the unfortunate people who had endea-
voured to obtain redress by law, had been thrown over
by the incompetency of a public officer, who had not
served the notices required by the Act. He should not
have troubled the House with these details if he had not
felt that he was advocating the case of those who had
hien reduced to a miserable state of beggary and desti-
tution, not from any fault of their own, but rather from
possessing those good qualities which every wise Govern•• '
ment shoed encourage—honesty and industry. 'There
was little use in telling the people to be honest, indas
trieus, and frugal, if their saviuge were not to be secured
to them as fix as possible. An able writer ha 1 said that
he who spoke from conviction spoke with force. He
knew not whether he had done so; but after having been
an eye-witness of the distress and wretchedness which
had resulted from the failure of the savings bank of
Tralee he felt that he ought not to remain silent when
such a question as the present was before them.
Mr. BANKES thought the Hon. Member :had given
good reasons why he had taken the present opportunity
of offering his remarks to the House, insteal of wait-
ing till the nomination of the Committee, which would
probably take place at a period of the night when he
might not be able to obtain that at'eation which the sub-
ject deserved. He was aware that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer wished that the subject should be considered
prospectively. But as three months of the session had
elapsed he :thought he was entitled to ask the Govern-
ment whether they intended to give any aid to those
who in England and Ireland had suffered so severely
from the failure of savings banks—and in some degre a,
he must say, from the neglect of the Government itself?
During three sessions the attention of the House and
of the Government had been called to this particular
subject, and it was extraordinary, considering that neg-
lect of duty on the part of persons connected with
savings banks was known to some members of the
Government, that last session should have been allowed
to pass without a measure of this kind being introdueed.
The Government were aware of what was not generally
known, that the Bill of 1844 materially affected
the safety and security of the depositors, and
yet they permitted the sesion to slip away
without bringing forward any measure on the
subject. In his opinion Government was justly to blame
for their neglecting this subject from the time they be-
came aware of the circumstances alluded to up to the
present moment.—(Hear.) Only the other day another
case of failure had occurred in a neighbouring county,
and there was no saying where the matter would end.
Not only had they to regret the pecuniary loss of the
sufferers, but also the public loss which would arise from
circumscribing the limits of these beneficial institutions,
in consequence of the neglect of the Government in not
earlier applying a remedy. He would not say that there
was a greater disposition in that House to legislate for
the rich rather than the poor; but he did say, that if the
sufferers in the present case bad been trustees, and not
depositors, more would have been said about the matter.
—(Hear, hear.) The lion. Member for Scarborough,
and the Hon. Member fur Rochdale, had both alluded
to the failures that had taken place in their neigh-
bourhoods. He did not clearly understand whether
the proposed Committee was to embrace those
places as wel as Ireland. The Honourable Member
for Kerry had given a very satisfactory reason why
he did net desire the appointment of a Committee with
reference to the case of Ireland. The Hon. Member
seemed to think that the question of their claims was so
clear that a Committee would only be a waste of time.
In regard to all cases—taking into consideration the
ignorance of depositors with regard to the terms on
which they had entrusted their money, and their belief
that they had the security either of the trustees or the
Government itself; he thought a claim might fairly be
urged on their behalf. There were not wanting pre-
cedents for remunerating parties who had suffered from
no fault of their own, but from that of public officers.
In one case the Bank of England had granted an indem-
nity of 300,0001. or 400,0001. to parties who had suffered
from a forgery. It was their duty to render savings
banks as secure as possible. He was aware that it would
be better to discuss the Bill at a future stage, but thought
that the present was not an unfair time for calling the
attention of the House to the subject, and asking the
Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had made up
his mind to recommend any assistance from the public
purse to those who had suffered?
Colonel TaomPsoN said his argument why the de-
positors had a claim, not only on the Government, but
on the country, was, that the country was mainly to
blame. The country ought to have looked to the busi-
ness, and not to have allowed half-starved Irishmen to
be defrauded of their painful savings. Since the country
had not done so it had no right to grumble if called on
to provide the means for remedying the evil. Why, he
would ask, should the same precaution not have been
taken in savings banks that was taken in the collection
of the taxation of the country, where security was re-
quired of the collector ? He did not see why deposits
should be limited to 1001. A private banker did not ob-
ject, but was rather rejoiced, to receive deposits beyond,
that amount. Why should tl►e limit of 1001. be taken
in savings banks? It was a saying that there were
things cheap but so squalid as not to be worth having.
He was quite certain that depositors would never demand
to have that cheapness which was accompanied with the
certainty of never seeing their money again. They did
not seek to be spared paying for advantages.
The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER sa'd
there was only one question necessary her him to answer
with reference to the B►ll, and that was the question of
the Hon. Member behind him with reference to granting
Exchequer-bills instead of stock. He was disposed to
decrease the floating debt as much as possible, and there-
fore did not think it advisable to increase, by any means
that could be avoided, the issue of Exchequer-bills.
With regard to the general observations of the Hon.
Member for Kerry, he did not think it necessary, nor
was that a proper opportunity upon which to enter int.;
a discussion on the subject to which the Hon. Member
had referred. He should only refer to ono portion of his
speech—namely, that which alluded to the case of Mr.
Tidal Pratt, and wherein it had been stated that due
notice had not been served, according to law, upon the
parties concerned.. Now, what, he would ask, were the
special requirements of the Act of Parliament? It was
rt quired that the notices should be posted on the doors
of the savings bank, or the place where such bank was
kept. In the instance in question, the party con-
cerned had been in Tralee gaol, the house
shut up, and all the papers of the savings
bank deposited in the Town-hall. Yet circular
letters had been sent to all the trustees and parties
concerned, awl all those who had been engaged in the
action had had an opportunity of meeting the gentleman
who had gone there to investigate the matter. Under
the circumstances of the case, all had been done that
could be done to comply as far as possible with the mean-
ing and spirit of the Act of Parliament. The Hon.
Member for Dorset (Mr. Benkes) had wished to know
why the Government had not introduced a measure like
the present one, for England, in the course of last year,
when tkey must have known of the evils which existed
in the system. In answer to that, he could say that a
similar measure had been proposed, but they had been
obliged to withdraw it. In conclusion, hei would only
observe that it was necessary, the Committee which it was
proposed to re-appoint should be nominated, in order to
receive the report of the actuary.
Mr. BANKES wished to know whether the case of
Rochdale would be included?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think it advisable for the present. But all these cases of
defalcation were under consideration.

Aft3r a few words from Mr. HERBERT in exp!ana-
don,

The motion was put and carried, and the Attorney-
General proposed as the Member to bring in the Bill.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

Sir GEORGE GREY then moved the second reading
of the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill. In doing so, he
said he felt it was necessary to render a short statement
to the House, and to detail as briefly as possible the cir-
cumstances which brought about such a measure, and
the. principle it was proposed to introduce. In 1847 a
Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the con-
stitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission for England
and Wales, which took some evidence in that session,
but made no report to the House. It was re-appointed
in the session of 1848, when a great deal of additional
evidence was given, and at the close of it a report was
presented to the House. That report briefly referred to
the origin of the Commission in 1835, and after advert-
ing to the nature of the duties of the Commissioners,
proceeded to recommend that certain alterations should
be male in its composition. They recommended that
the number should be increased from thirty to forty-
nine, consisting of two archbishops, five members
of the Government, all the bishops ; three judges,
either of the courts of equity or prerogative
court ; eight lay commissioners, six to be appointed
by the Crown and two by the Archbishop of Canter-
bury. The Committee stated further, that the constitu-
tion of the present Commission was liable to very great
objections, that it was too large for the transaction of
such business, and that there was a great want of regu-
larity in the system, owing to a want of proper a! ten-
lion, an uncertainty of attendance on the part of the
Commissioners, owing to an absence of any obligation,
and that that absence threw a larger share of power into
the hands of a portion of the Commissioners than was
deemed expedient. They then recommended that the
portion of the business piirely eccleiiastical should bo
separated from the other objects of the Commission, and
confi,led to the management of the bishops; that three
paid Commissioners be appointed for the management of
the property of the Church, two by the Crown and one by
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that the presence of
one of these paid Commissioners should be necessary on
all occasions. In those recommendations generally the
Government concurred. They felt it was most desirable
that there should be a greater security for a proper at-
tendance, and more responsibility thrown on the Commis-
sioners than now attached to them. The Bill which he
now moved to be read a second time came down from
the House of L :rds, and was in accordance with the
principal recommendations of that committee, though in
some of the minor details it differed from some of those
rreolutnendarions. The main recommendation was, not
to soporsede the body of the bishops, and to appoint a
committee, on the members of which would devolve the
principal management (1 the secular concerns of the
C .minission. Some doubts had been entertained as to
the propriety of such a committee, but it must be one of
the body, as new proposed, but nut independent of it,

, -
, though er
entrilruing pad Members.l'
The Bill proposed
that an eetates - committee should- epeoltirerr
consider ail matters esoneteteil with the lands, tithes,
and hereditament,; and it was also piopesee that
these persons sheeld be appointed, called the Church
[;states Commission, two t.) be nominated by the
Crown and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury; the
first Commissioner nominated by the Crown to receive
1.2001. a year, and the Commissioner of the Archbishop
1,0001:, to be paid out of the binds. It was proposed that
this Comalission should be a pereeti ent body, and that
they should ne assisted by three from the body of the
Commissioners themselves, one of whom should be a
layman. These were the only particulers in which the
Bill differnd from the recommendation of the Commis-
sioners. In the first instance, they recommended that
the three Commissioners should be paid; but the Bill
only proposed two, as it was thought desirable to trench
ss liele ad possible on church property. The Committee
also recommended that One of the paid Members should
tae always present at the transaction of business; but
the Bill slid two, who should be members of the corn-
mitt, e of the general holy, and bound to report to it,
though he should say than teeir responsibility would be
so grew, and their recommendation entitled to so ranch
weight, that it was expecte 1 their decision would not be
overruled by the general body. The Bill also provided
that the offises of secretary and treasurer, heretofore
held by one, should be separated, a measure necessary,
be need hardly assure Honourable Members who
read the papers laid on the table with reference to the
defalcations of that office, because if there had been
such separation no such defalcation could take place. L
was proposed t, abolish the office of treasurer, and to
make one of the Church Estates Commissioners fill that
office. An important alteration had Leen made in the
House of Lords, t ) which he should not then advert, but
simply state that it was his intention to give notice of
the introduction of a similar clause during its passage
through the House.—(Hear, hear.) By the law the Ec-
clesiastical Commission hal had the management of the
separate estates transferred to them, with the limitation
that the incomes of the deans were not to exceed 1,0001.
a year. In the coos of the Deans of Wells and Salis-
bury it was found that income was not sufficient, and the
present deans had been appointed at 1,500/. After the
appointment the question arose whether the Ecclesias-
tical Commission possessed the power to augment the
incomes. It appeared that there were at least doubts
upon the subject, and under these circumstances the
Government had introduced a clause by which that
doubt was removed, by expressly restricting
the salaries of all deans in future to 1,0001.,
subject to the exception of the Deans of Wells and
Salisbury, who had accepted the appointment on the un-
derstanding that the salary was Webs, 1,5001. That
clause had been altered in the other House of Parlia-
ment, and power given by the Bill to pay 1,500/. a year
to seven deaneries enumerated in the measure. It was
the intention of the Government to introduce a clause
which would restore the Bill to its original shape in
which it was brought before the House of Lords—(Hear,
hear)—with the exception that the higher salary would
be confined to the Dean of Wells, and to the executors
of the late Dean of Salisbury. the present Dean having
accepted the deanery at I,OOOL a year. It was also the
intention of the Government to enforce the regulation
that deans must be resident in their deaneries eight
mouths in the ear, and therefore they would be pro-
hibited from holding any benefice more than three miles
distant. He had thus briefly stated the leading provi-
sions of the Bill. Tatra were other minor arrangements
with which it was not necessary to trouble them. If the
House assented to the principle of the Bill, he believed
it would effect a very beneficial alteration in the consti-
tution of the Commission to improve the practical ma-
nagemant of the business, increase the responsibility of
the parties to whom it was committed, and secure a
better attendance. He trusted that whatever point of
difference might arise as to the details of the measure,
this would be discussed in Committee, and that the
House would assent to the principle of the Bill.
Mr. HORSIIAN said this was an extremely import-
ant measure, when they considered that the Commission
to which it referred was dealing with large amounts of
Church property. The Right Hon. Gentleman had in-
troduced it in a very clearand candid manner.—(Hear.)
Ho had given a very lucid statement of its principal pro-
visions, and shown no disposition to avoid its weak
points. For his own part he gave the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman and the Government tee credit of believing that
in introducing this measure they had been actuated not
by the desire of carrying what they thought required by
the facts and the justice of the case, but what they were
likely to carry.—(Hear, hear.) The measure had been
carefully drawn up to conciliate its opponents in the
other House of Parliament. The Government might
take the credit for the best parts of the Bill—the weak
ones had been inset ted by them to avoid opposition, and
the worst parts had been inserted by the House of Lords.
—(Hear.) In fact he did not feel that the Government
were responsible for the Bill in its present shape any
more than a godfather would be fer the features of au
ugly child .—(Laugh ter.) The Ecclesiastical Commission
had been condemned by universal public opinion. The Bill
came before them with all the concessions the Commis-
sion were prepared to make to that universal opinion,
and they must, therefore, make the best,Bill , they could
of it under all the Circumstances. But let them see how
the Bill really dealt with the defects that had been
pointed out in the constitution of the Commission by the
Committee. In the first place, its great size was objected
to. It originally consisted of thirteen members ; it
was now forty-nine, and that made it a most unwieldy
body. How did the Bill remedy that ? It proposed to
add three more commissioners, making the forty-nine
into fifty-two.—(Hear, hear.) The next objection was,
that practically the Commission was not only inefficient,
but absolutely irresponsible. Well, take the 6th clause.
It proposed to appoint two paid Commissioners, and to
take that proposal in connexion with the report of the
Commission. It was composed of high functionaries of
the Stet--, and of persons very friendly to the Commis-
sion, and it might, therefore, be fairly inferred that any
alteration they proposed in the Commission would not
be proposed from any hostile felling, and could only
spring from the strongest conviction of its utility. But
the Committee suggested the appointment of three:Com-
missioners. New, what was the principle of that re
commendation ? What was the princiele of the Bill
itself ? Payment and responsibility, that was
the aim of the Committee, and it was the principle
which the House, in the discharge of the duties devolv-
ing upon it, ought ,now to carry out in that Bill.—
(Hear, hear.) These three paid Commissioners were to
attend daily to the business, and the Committee pro-
posed that one of them should be appointed by the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, because it was believed that the
Archbishop would then retire from the Commission, and
leave the business to be conducted by his Commissioner,
—(Hear, hear.) By the Bill the paid Commissioners
were reduced to two, and one of the two was to be ap-
pointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, removable at
his pleasure—(Hear, hear)—while the Archbishop him-
self and the whole bench of bishops remain members of
the Commission, while at the same time they had their
Commissioner appointed to do the ecclesiastical busi-
ness and look atter their interests thus on the paid
commission, the bishop's Commissioner would neutra-
lise the Crown Commissioner. In the estates com-
mittee he would be in the minority, and in the whole
board he would be in a minority of one against fifty.
The unpaid Commissioner would be a layman, but
practically he would be nullified, and from his posi-
tion as an unpaid member have no responsibility at-
tached to him. But even this was not enough. Not
content with thus neutralising the power of the public
paid Commissioner, a subsequent. clause of the Bill
provided that nothing should be done unless it was ap-
proved of by the whole board, He asked if this was
carrying out the professed principle of the Bill, payment
and responsibility ?—(Renewed cries of Hear, hear.")
He said the Bill throughout was conceived in a bad
spirit. If they wanted to see what that spirit was, let
them take the 14th clause, which increased the incomes
of seven of the deans to 1,500/. a year.—(Hear, hear.)
Did any one suppose that the other deans would not ask
for the same income ? If the Dean of Bristol could not
live upon less than 1,5001., why should the Dean of Ro-
chester starve upon 1,0001. a year.—(Haar, hear, and
laughter.) The Bill, be repeated, was most imperfect in
its details, mistaken in spirit, and if he was compelled
to make au election between accepting it in its present
shape without the chance of amending, he would move
its rejection at once —(Hear, heir.) But it was sus-
ceptible of considerable improvement in Committee, and
he would endeavour to show what these improvements
were. The first was to carry out the recommendation
Csse.
oEmcmeliesssiiaosnt cr
as
of the Committee and
parepaoiunptotnhrwe
He must say that the
Commissioners opposed that recommendation struck him
as being most extraordinary. They had suddenly dis-
covered that the Church was so poor that they could
not, in justice to the funds they had to dispense, afford
1,0001. a year to a bard worked Commissioner. Yet
the very parties who objected to pay a Commissioner
1,000/. for doing the work of the Beard, in the very same
Bill proposed to raise the income of seven sinecure
deaneries 4,0001., an increase which, if granted, would
be certain to entail an addition of 10,0001 a year on the
other deans, or 14,0001. in all: cries of s' Hear,
hear.") That was, however, not the only specimen of
the almost inconceivable economical inconsistency of
these parties, who made the poverty of the Church the
plea for refusing the salary of a single hard-working
Commissioner. It was not in that Board alone that
was exhibited. Practically the same parties had the
management of the Church Building Fund and Queen
Anne's Bounty. There were 41 members on the" Board
of the Church Building Fund. But the wholebuiiness,
as usual with the Ecclesiastical Commissions, fell
upon the secretary, who was also the treasurer.
Very few of the members attended the meetings, arid
the whole business fell into the hands of the secre-
tary. Until within the last few years there was not even
an audit established.—(Bear, hear.) The whole office
expenses amounted to about 4,0001 a year, and the whole
of the tunds they had to administer only amounted to
12,0001. out of a capital of a million and a half which
had been granted at two different periods. Farther, when
sense time since the Act appointing the board was about
to expire an application was made for a new Act, ex-
tending the duration of the Commission for five years
more, at an annual cost of - 4,000!. to manage a principal
of 12,0001.—(Hear, hear.) These officers were paid
from the Consolidated Fund, and he was sure the House
would have been very happy to accede to any proposal
from these economical Commissioners to reduce a few of
the clerks, or the surveyor, or some of the other mon-
strous expenditure for the administration of so smell a
sum. Iu the case of Queen Anne's bounty the same
pa: ties were the administrators, and there again the
secretary was treasurer and commissioner all in one. lie
called the meeting when he thought proper, but very few
attended. Ale might also have kept the money in his
own possession, fur all that the Commissioners had done
in the matter ; but as an honest straightforward man
of business, he had laid down a rule for himself, that
he would have no money in his hands, and be subject
to no suspicion in consequence. Hero, again, the ex-
pense of management nearly eat up one-hal of the
14,000/. intended for the augmentation of small livings.

The management of these two Commissioners threw some
li Jet upon the economy of those who, under pretence
of the poverty f the Church, now ob;cested to a Corn-
ini-ssioner of 1,0001.5. year. One of the gr-tit a-gumonts
its favour of the prep end ranee of the ecciesiastical eie
went in the compchition of the Board was, that the in-
terests of the Church required protection. But he said
that the business was purely temporal. The people
would repudiate any interference of the Commission
with religious questions. The Right Hon. Secretary of
State for the Home Department was a member, so was
the Right Hon. Gentleman the representative of the
University of Cambridge, and he would as soon treat
them as pious clergymen. Church property had been
plundered, but not by the people. It had been plun-
dered first by the sovereign, next by the nobles, ana;:
in our own day, by the Ecelesiasticel Commission.—
(A. laugh.) But the people had never committed
sacrilege. As to the representation, the Episcopal Bench
was represented, but what came of the parochial clergy?
Were they represented, or was there such an identity
between them that bishops, most of whom had never
been parochial clergymen,, were capable of representing
them ? By another part of the Bill the episcopal influ-
ence was plainly shown. In the early days of the
Church the residence of the bishop a as in the cathedral
city. His throne was erected in the cathedral, and the
bishop was the centre of the religious life around him.
But in modern times the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
with a courage at which he wondered, had subverted
the excellent principle to which he had thus briofly
adverted, and the bishop, instead of leading the godly,
peaceable life, hallowed, as formerly, by assoCations
which the lapse of ages could only render more ex-
cellent, had removed from the ancient seat of his reli-
gion, and betaken himself' to a modern aristocratic re-
tirement, to which his clergy could penetrate with
difficulty, and the poor not at all.—(Hear, hear.) The
retention of the bishops on the Commissions on account
of the Church in respect to the interests of the clergy
was wholly unnecessary. He objected to the bishops
being on the Commission, as they were wanted else-
where. Christianity had to contend against the views
and opinions of many, and to enkindle faith in an age in
which the infusion of the spirit was necessary. The
bishops of the Church were designated fathers in God,
but they were not found visiting the sick, consoling the
dying, or enkindling the faith of Christianity in the
minds of those who required to be thus inspired.—
(Hear, hear.) The mode in which bishops discharged
their duties was such as to sink the episcopal character
in the eyes of the people. The press, the Government,
Parliament, the clergy—all besought these heavenly
fathers to give up their temporalities, but they said no;
the property of the Church was theirs, for they were
the Church, and it should not be entrusted to any other
hands., The country had arrived at this point, that it
was asking what were the bishops for, and what were
their use amongst us? When he made his motion
of episcopal incomes, the Right Honourable Gentleman
said he (Mr. Horsman) seemed to have a low esti-
mate of episcopal duties. Now, he did not think
the bishops were to be saved from comment, if
their conduct merited that it should be censured.
He bad yet to learn that the duties of a bishop had any-
thing• to do with the Ecclesiastical Commission. The
Church taught them to respect the bishops, as the de-
positories of the true faith, handed to them from the
apostles, and although they did not look to find the
sanctity of the apostles in the bishops of the Church;
they ought to be cast in the scriptural mould. Now, lie
denied that anything like this was to be found in the
bishops of the Church at the present day, for it seemed
as if temporalities had more influence on their conduct
than the principle of charity. He would now turn to
the Bill to say what a bishop ought to be. He should
not be half the year an ecclesiastic and the other half
living in a palace shut up from his clergy. He did not
think it was the duty of a bishop to be engaged in look-
ing after fines and leases for the purpose of enriching
his family to the prejudice of the Church. According
is his reading, it was not a part of the duty of a bishop
to be in the House of Peers; and, lastly, it was not
the duty of a bishop to use his influence in the House to
the detriment of the Church which he was sworn to up-
hold. It is said that a Church establishment made men
temporal. This was an argument- against a Church
establishment. This was a deep-dyed stain of the
Church—that its spiritual interests were sacrified to its
temporal concerns. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
then referred to the 13th clause of the Bill, which
he said had been introduced into it by the bishops, and
they justify it upon the ground that the cry was " More
clergy and less bishops." He denied that this was the
fact in the way suggested. What was desired was,
that there should be a sufficient quantity of the working
clergy, with bishops to superintend. What he wanted
was, to spiritualise the bishops, and to do away as much
as possible with the secular character which was now as-
sociated with their calling. Those were his r. asons for
opposing the Bill.
Mr. GOULBURN said that, however the clauses of
the Bill might be objected to, there could be no reason
why the Bill itself should not be read a second time.
The Hon. Gentleman had pursued his usual course on
this occasion. He had come down prepared to attack!
violently those who were absent.--(Hear.) 'He waled -
dressing gentlemen who were-living in aediocese.
was presided over by a bishop whose exertions in pro-
moting religion were generally admitted t t be most
valuable. He denied that a bishop could exercise his
spiritual, without involving him in temporal
concerns; and, unless they were desirous of re-
turning back to the days of monks and nunneries--
(A laugh)—this must be the case. The utmost that
could be done, were the recommendation of the lio-
nourahle.Member carried out, would be to appoint fifty-
five new iuqumbents at a salary of 1001. a year each.—
;(Cheers) On the other hand, the appointment of the
Bishop of Manchester had led to the erection of a hundred
new churches in his diocese, the appointment of 135 a I.
ditional clergymen, and a dissemination of Christian
knowledge which had never before been the case in that
part of the kingdom. In the way of education, too, as
many as 180 new schools had ben etabliebed " there;
so that instead of lagging behind, education now went
before the increase of population in that densely popu-
lated and important district. Upon the whole, there-
fore, he thought it would be agreed by all well-thinking
people that a much better application of the money had
been made than that proposed by the Hon. Member op-
posite. He would new approach the question which the
Hon. Gentleman had also mooted, whether the bishops
were really paid more than was necessary for the im-
portant offices which they filled. He compared them for
that purpose with the emoluments of the law and of state
officers, but there was nothing common to the two pro-
fessions which could justify their comparison for the
object in view. However, be was willing to take the
comparison with the law, and the two cases might
be stated thus. There were three thousand barristers
and 21 judges, the judges having salaries amounting to-
gether to 38,000/. On the other hand there were 16,000
clergymen and 21 bishops, the salaries of the bishops
amounting to 140,009/. Whilst, therefore, the prizes in
the law were as 1 to 150, in the Chureh they were as 1
to 600, and what disproportion was there in those
figures, reference being bad to the duties of the two pro-
fessions? Again, the Hon. Member had referred to the
probate duty paid by some of the bishops which amounted
to 1,500,0001., and had endeavoured to found upon that
circumstance an argument that they hal led sordid and
avaricious lives. But he accused the Hon. Member of
purposely leading the House astray with a fact which
was fallacious, for the purpose he mentioned ; because
the Hon. Member having been a lord of the treasury,
must have known that the probate duty was so levied as
to afford no indication of the amount of property be-
queathei. The discrepancy in the present instance was
so great that, instead of 50,00 C/. being the average
amount of property left by the bishops to their children,
the real average was between 30,0001. and 40,000/., and
that made a difference of 500,0001., by which, in
stating it at 1,500,000/. he had exceeded the true sum.
The bishops made the most excellent use,of their salaries
fir the advancement of religion, and the increase of the
'propagation of the gospel in their several dioceses, and
they would be found large contributors out of their in-
comes to the support of local societies formed for the
general advancement of religion: He repeated his
opinion, that to a great extent the temporal functions of
their bishops were inseparable from the proper dis-
charge of their religious duties, and he felt convinced,
that notwithstanding the censure and vituperation in
which the Hon. Member opposite had indulged on this
and on former occasions, the public would not be blind
to the advantages of a Commission modelled and con-
stituted in the manner proposed by the Bill now before
thehouse.—(Hear, hear, and ironical cheers.)
Mr. E. DENISON said he thought that the recom-
mendation of the Committee had been mistaken as to
the constitution of the Commission. Ho had to express
his acknowledgments to the Noble Lord for bringing
this Bill forward, and as the Noble Lord had stated
that the Government intended to frame the Bill
in accordance with the recommendations of
the Committee, he did not intend to ask the Home to
act in opposition to the Government, but simply to urge
upon them the necessity of revising this point. They
that were really responsible should be something more
than mere officers to report to the main body of the
Commissioners.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said be presumed there
would be no objection to the second reading of the-Bill,
and that all matters of difference would be considered in
Committee. His Hon. Friend behind him thought they
were mistaken in the recommendations of the Com-
mittee. He (Lord John Russell) could not conceive
that this Committee meant that it should have a separate
authority, but treated it as a Committee of the Board,
and implied that it was to be, part of the Board.
He thought that the Bill, as it stood, would accomplish
that as effectually, for this being a small Committee,
and having these questions continually before them, he
conceived that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred,
their 'opinion would,sway the whole body.—( Hear, hear.)
Whether they bad three Commissioners or two, and one
unpaid, that was not vital in'thie Bill. He would not go
further then, as these points could be discussed much
better in Committee. Ha regretted the observations
made with regard to the bishops; as far as he knew,
them they were pious, learned, courteous, and hospitable
He certainly regretted that they should have opposed
the Bill which was sent to the Lords in 1840.
Mr. OSTIORNE said the Noble Lord would find it
difficult to go through with this Bill to thesatisfaction of
the bishops. He regarded, it as a compromise, and
might be licked into shape in the Committee. He thought
the language used by the Right lion. Gentleman the
Member for the University of Cambridge when he de-
signated the speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for.
Cockermouth as a piece of laboured eloquence, came
with a bad grace from him, who had taken lour weeks
to answer the former speech of his Honourable Friend.
The Right Honourable Gentleman's speech was laboured,
but not eloquent. Considering that the Right Honour-
able Gentleman was an ecclesiastical Member, he was
not sparing in his vituperation—and with all his com-
mendations of the bishops, he could not show that they had
given up anything from their own incomes, but left the
burthens on theirsuccessore. The remark which the Right
Hors. Gentleman made on his Hon. Friend, that baying

hest' a Lord of the-Treasury,-he wes a disappointed man
—and in that feeling hnti,brouglit iorward this 3ubjcitt—
u
that v:as a vulgar tt,rtnt—(Cheers)—rand did not be me
the It'ght Hon. Gentleman, who hung like a tin kettle to
the tail ,et ~the Member for Tamwortli.—(Laugh er.)
Wheneverithe Right Hon. Baronet moved from one bide
of the House to the other the movement was sure to be
noted by the tin kettle clicking behind his heelf.—
(Lughter.) On the part of his constituency, he thanked
his Hon. Friend for bringing forward this moon.
Although the Right Hon. Gentleman ran through 'the':
gamut in Praise of the bisimps, nothing would have been
done but fur the exertions of laymen like his Honourable
Friend, either in the promotion of education or the abo-'
lition of slavery, which had been effected by the exer-
tions of a layman, Mr. Wilberforce; and he hoped his
lion. Friend would persevere in his praiseworthy exec.
tions, uuinflaenced by the taunts of the ecclesiastical
Member, the Member fur the University of Cambridge.
Sir It INGLIS said, the fundamental error of the
Member for Cockermouth was that he confounded prin-
ciple& lie regarthd the bishops as stipeediaries, t.)
whom he might dole out what ho pleased, whereas they
held their properties by as good a title as any private
gentleman did his estates. The property of the Bishop
of London was attached to tle :•el for twtive hundred
years.—[An Hon. Memb,r exclaitned—Since the Refor-
mation.] That observation, no doubt, emanated from one
of those members who had sworn to defend the property
of the Church, and who would have never been j.er-
mittod to enter that House but for the easy credulity
of Nlembers of that House. He bad always received the
greatest attention in that llotts', a id could not complain
of interropt'on.

Sir BENJAMIN HALL then moved the adjouri
ment of the debte.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said he hoped the Hon
Baronet wouli not persevere with his motion. He
thought the Bill could be better discussed in Committee,
and he was prepared to move some amendments when it
arrived at that stage, which he would to- morrow lay on
the table of the House. The purport of one of them
would be t•) extend the proposal as to deans and chap-
ters, that no dean or canon should be allowel to have
cure of souls out of the precincts of the cathedral towns.
Sir B. HALL said that declaration was a further in-
ducement I,r him to persevere in his motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, if the Hon. Baronet
persevered, he would have to postpone many Bills
which he was anxious to send to the Lords for early con-
sideration, which would also have the effect of delaying
this Bill.

Mr. P. WOOD deprecatei the tone which character-
ised the debate, and thought an error had been com-
mitted in not bringing it forward at an earlier hour in
the evening.

Mr. COCKBURN strongly recommended the Hon.
Baronet to withdraw his motion, as his persevering
might endanger the Bill altogether.
Mr. HORSMAN said, if they agreed to take the fur-
ther discussion of the Bill on going into Committee, he
had no doubt his Hon. Friend would withdraw his mo-
tion. He would now call upon the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Cambridge to state the office for
which he bad been a candidate. From his experience
and standing in the House he should not make a state-
ment he had not grounds for, and in that view import-
ance would be attached to what he said. No man who
had held and afterwards took an iniependent
course, would be exposed to the same imputation. He
asked whether he would withdraw the insinuation or
state the ground upon which it was founded.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would fix an early
day for the discussion in Committee if the motion for
the adjournment was withdrawn.—(Hear.) He had
heard with pain the course the debate had taken, and
with regard to the insinuation that the Hon. Member for
Cockermouth was seeking for office, or disappointed in
not obtaining it, he thought there was not the slightest
foundation for it. At the same time he would observe,
in reference to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
(Mr. Goulburn), that there was as little foundation for
any attack on his integrity and public character.
Mr. GOULBURN explained; but in a tone inaudible
in the gallery; but he was understood to withdraw the
insinuations respecting the motives to which the course
of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horeman)
was attributed.

Sir B. HALL withdrew his motion.
The Bill was then read a second time.
REFORM IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mr. TURNER moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
diminish the delay and expense% of proceedings in the
High Court of Chancery. The Hon. and Learned
Member said be would merely explain that his Bill
would not interfere with the valuable orders recently
issued by the Lord Chancellor.

Leave was given, —and the Bill was brought in and
rewj.a first time.. The Bill was ordered to be read a
se-
cond time on Wednesday, May 22.
The Savings Bank Bill was brought in, read a first
time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday
next.

The House adjourned at a Quarter past One.

THE WINDOW DUTIES.
On Friday last a numerous deputation, representing various
sanitary, philanthropical, and architectural associations in
the metropolis, waited by appointment on the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, on the subject of the window duties.
The deputation having been introduced by Lord Robert
Grosvenor,

Sir RALPII HOWARD, Bart., briefly stated the general ob-
ject for which the interview bad been desired. He was
himself chairman of an association for improving the dwel-
lings of the working classes, Nvhith had found the window
duties an insuperable barrier to its progress. The superiority
of the model lodgings the society had erected consisted in
the arrangements they had made fur an adequate supply of
air, light, and water; but these arrangements had led, under
the present system, to such an increase of taxation that pri-•
vete landlords could not be expected to imitate the example.
Upon the buildings of the society in the Pancras-road they
were actually paying 1621. Ida. window duty, of which the
sum of not less than 351. was for duties charged upon their
sculleries and water-closets. If the window duties were to be
maintained, offices of this description and the windows of
basement floors should at least be exempted, and every sepa-
rate suite of rooms, let as lodgiegs, should be put upon the
same footing as chambers in the inns of court, which were
charged only at the rate of Is. 9d. per window.
Mr. W. E. Ilicsicsoer stated that the case of the model
lodging houses, important as it was, represented compara-
tively but a small part of a wide-spread evil. He would beg
to call attention to its magnitude by replying to an argu-
ment which had been urged by the -Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer in his place in the House of Commons. Sir Charles
Wood had contended that the window duties did not press
upon the poorer classes of the community, inasmuch as there
were 3,000,000 houses in Great Britain exempt from their
operation. But why were 3,000,000 houses exempt? Be-
cause in the case of certainly a third of the number they were
inadequately lighted and ventilated, and were so constructed
in order to evade the law. Cottages and farm-houses were
exempt, but the great majority of the working classes did
not live in either cottages or farm-houses. They were to be
found in towns, lodging in the back rooms of the upper floors
of what are called, under the Building Act, Sd and 4th-rate
Louses—houses that should have, twelve or fifteen windows,
but the occupiers of which, by darkening the staircase, pas-
sages, closets, and cellars, reduced the number below the
chargeable minimum of seven. The extent of the mischief
now in operation might be shown by an extract from a re-
cent Parliamentary return—
Total number Houses liable to
of houses. window duty.
Birminghem
Bristol - 18,907 ..... .. 4,350
Leeds.... ..... 31,626 2,479
Liverpool
Manchester 42,059 7,754
Norwich ......
It ought by this time to be understood that the sanitary
objection to the window duties did not apply to the windows
opened under the existing system,but to the windows closed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was refusing to remit the
tax in favour of those who studied the laws of health ; but a
landlord content to allow his tenants to live in dirt and
darkness, and their habitations to become a focus of conta-
gions disease, was to receive every possible encouragement.
In favour of a man who had reduced the number of windows
in his house from twelve to seven, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer remitted 21. 43. 9d. per annum ; or of another mho
had reduced his windows from thirty to twenty, the sum of
4/. 4s. per annum. This Was practically to act the part,
not so much of a finance Minister, as that of a Minister of pes-
tilence. The remedy, if the money could not be spared, was a
house tax. Windows were, in fact, parts of houses. Why
not tax the houses as a whole? Such a tax might easily be
rendered much more equitable than the present mode of
assessment, which bore no reference to the rental. There
were houses in public thoroughfares, rated to the poor-rates
at 2001. per annum,that paid little or no window-duty, the
separate floors being occupied in shops and warehouses ;
while private houses of less than half the value in a by-street
were heavily taxed. If difficulties arose in the adjustment
of this burden, while they were under consideration, let a Bill
be introduced to amend and explain Lord Althorp's Act of
1834 (4th and sth Wm. iv., c. 54),l so that the pledge
which was then given
pledge was, that the mightamontcnoolrectaetd last be redeemed. Theshould not be increased,
and that after the sth of April, 1835, every one should be
allowed to open new windows free of duty. Lord Althorp's
words were, that the effect of the Act would be, " to prevent
anvlincrease of revenue in the case of houses already existing."
The window duty collected for the year ending
April 5, 1835, was ••• •••
For the year ending April 5, 1849 7 £1,177,656
1,813,629
A large portion of this increase had been produced by a
rigorous system of surcharges. A quibble had been raised
upon the meaning of, the Act, and the pledge had been
broken. It was an extraordinary instance of breach of faith.
What would be said in private life of a landlord who, after
promising his tenant a lease at a fixed rent, raised it every
year? Paragraphs sometimes appeared in the newspapers,
headed, " conscience money, from which it appeared that
individuals wishing to make their peace with God
sent' large sums of which they had defrauded the
revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. , He
(Mr. Hickson) trusted the time would come when the con-
science of a Chancellor of the Exchequer would induce him
to restore to the public that surplus revenue which certainly,
since the passing of Lord Althorp's Act, in 1834, had been
wrongfully obtained. Perhaps in another session the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would be prepared with a compre-
hensive plan for a general revision of taxation—abolishing
the soap duty, the paper duty, the duty on advertisements,
&c., as well as the window duties. A moderate house tax,
as a substitute for some portion of the revenue sacri-
ficed, would then ' be more acceptable than at
the present moment. But, in the meantime, the sanitary ob-
jection to the window duties must be met. Permission must
be at once accorded to the owners of existing houses to render
them healthful without having the fear of the taxegatherer
before their eyes. The case of houses now building did not
peess. If new houses were to remain exempt altogether till
another session, the revenue would not lose 50,0901., and
would gain upon the timber employed in their construction.
Any delay in the abatement of the present evil would be de-
precated by public opinion, the Board of Health, and the en-
tire medical profession. A fearful epidemic had raged last
autumn ; it might break out again after the summer of thepresent year; and although it might be said that there would
be cholera if there were no window duties, the purification of
the air by all possible methods was really the only
this—the
known preventive. One broad fact was
basement stories of several hundred thousand
.houses
in Great Britain being now inadequatelyly lighted
1 and ventilated, became reservoirs of mephitic vapours;
these mephitic vapours, when rarified by the summer heats,
ascend to the upper flours and subject t e inmates to fevers
of -a more or less typhoidal form.he The Chancellor a
ellors3o,sfttehme
Exchequer, therefore, so long as
which operated as a direct premium for the encouragement of

dirt, darkness, and defective ventilation, was incurring a
heavy responsibility; he was in fact making himselt the
accountable agent, in the case of some thousands of the
population, for health and sickness, life and death.
Mr. T•j. B. WARD repeated the evidence he had given on a
former occasion to the Health of Towns Commissioners on
the physical influences of light both upon plants and
animals, and exhibited spec'rnens of plants (presenting a
shrivelled and. withered appearance) which had been
grown without light, under circumstances otherwise favour-
able. • With regard to the effect of a want of light on the
human constitution, he had frequently traced some of the
most lamentable instances of disease that he had ever met
with in his profession as a surgeon to the living in dark-
ened rooms; that is to say, in rooms of which one or more
of the windows had been closed to avoid the duties.
This was especially the case in the neighbourhOod of
Houndsditch, Rosemary-lane, and generally in the Jewish
quarters of the metropolis. The temptation of saving the
tax had been found irresistible, and of the poorer classes
among them it might truly be said, in the words of Scripture,
that '• there was no light in their dwellings." A tax upon
light could only have originated in the most profound igno-
rance of physical laws. Experiments had Fliown that the
tadpole, it kept in the dark, woull live and die a tadpole, in-
stead of 'becoming a frog, light being essential to this change
in its organization; and the ciTects of want of light upon
child en were analogous. ll,wever well supplied with ts d,
if brought up in rooms shut Out from the direct rays of the
sun, they lweame pale and sickly, and their growth was
stunted. Upon this head some striking facts had been pub-
lished by physicians employed in the hospitals of St. Peters-
burgh.

Co!ouel SYKES was desirous of expressing his strong con-
viction that the evil now in operation was so serious that it
was hardly possible to exaggerate its baneful influences;
but he felt convinced that the tacts already stated must have
weight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. and that the
system would be abanekned. l t was not a merely finan-
.:ial question, it was both a sanitary and a moral question ;
and the arguments in favour of a change were of the gravest
importance. _ _

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR observed that all men were
now so fully agreed upon the magnitude of the present evil
that he must really put it to the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer as a great public scandal that the resistance of the Go-
vernment to a simple measure or sanitary precaution should
have been prolonged up to the preset t moment. It must be
obvious to every one that the window duties could not be
defended upon financial grounds. If the money were re-
quired, it could be raiser by a moderate and equitable house-
tax, which he (Lord R. Grosvenor) should be quite willing to
support, as a direct tax, preferable in many respects to otnt-r
fiscal burdens affecting trade and industry. Were it not for
the fact that, in the midst of all our boasted civilisation, we
were taxing light and air, the existence of window duties
might be taken as evidence of a state of barbarism greater
than had prevailed in the middle ages, or at any period of
the world's history. The advent of Lord John Russell to
power had been hailed by many persons in the belief that
all objects connected with the moral and physical improve-
ment of the population would be actively promoted, and it
was to them a source of grief and disappointment that the
Government, instead of taking the lead upon these questions,
should have unnecessarily thrust itself into a false position.
Public opinion was turning against Ministers, and the report
of the window duties, it was now not improbable, might be
forced upon them by a hostile vote of the House of Com-
mons. He (Lord R. Grosvenor) should take a part in such
a vote with the greatest pain, and he implored the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer to put himself right with his friends
and right with the country, in gracefully and generously con.
ceding the measure of relief now solicited.
Mr. C. FLOWER, for himself and his brethren of the archi-
tectural profession, would testify to the grand fact that the
window duties were 'objectionable, not only on sanitary
grounds, but also as occasioning much structural deformity,
and as imposing an insuperable barrier to the progress of do-
mestic architecture. He felt anxious that there should be no
attem at made to modify the present system, in order merely
to palliate the evil, but that it should be wholly abolished.
The great point to contend for was perfect liberty in works of
construction in the direction of improvement. It was pre-
posterous to make the taxgatherer a censor of architectural
designs, and to allow him to blot out ad libitum the teatures
of a building most essential to its health and cheerfulness as
a human habitation. Taxes should have reference solely to
the value of the property taxed, and he, both as a private
individual and as a member of the vestry of St. Pancras, was
quite willing to agree to a moderate house tax as a substitute
for the window duties; and he thought that such a propOsi-
tion would be generally received by the public with favour.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the depu-
tation would not of course expect him to reply then specifi-
cally to the different points on which he had been addressed.
It had been his duty to listen to their representations, and it
would also be his duty to receive several other deputations
that had written to request an interview upon the same sub-
ject. The question of the window duties would receive the
fullest consideration of her Majesty's Government.
The deputation then withdrew,