The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-09 00:00:00

DITY BILL.

The Bishop of OXFORD moved the third reading of
the Upton-cnm-Chalvey Marriages Validity Bill, which
was agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF DEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord LANGDALE moved the second reading of this
measure. It was not necessary for him to occupy their
Lordships' time by stating the general principles of the
Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord entered briefly into
an account of the regulations which had been made for
registering deeds and assurances in Ireland, in the year
1785. Under the old system the expense was so great
as to prevent the Acts of Parliament from being properly
carried out. The present measure was intended to remedy
the defects of that system.
After a few words from Lord MONTE AGLE in
favour of the Bill, the second reading was agreed to.
Several Bills were advanced a stage, and their Lord-
ships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 8.
MERCANTILE MARINE BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. CLAY thought the House was legislating on a
great subject in a very small way. The Bill as it
now stood was greatly altered and improved since
it first came under the consideration of the
House ; but although many of those alterations
had had the effect of conciliating much of the opposition
with which the Bill was at first assailed, yet it was not
wholly unobjectionable to him. He was at a loss to
know why the coasting trade was to be left out of the
Bill altogether. He cordially agreed in that provision
of the Bill which provided for an examination of masters
and mates; but there was a second principle in the Bill,
namely, that which proposed an interference between
shipowners and their sailors, with a view to the protec-
tion of the latter, in which he could not concur, because
it was always in the highest degree dangerous and in-
convenient to intervene between a master and his servant.
A clause introduced into the Act obliging a certa'n
portion of wages being detained immediately upon
arriving in port, would obviate a great many evils
which resulted from his reckless character. With
regard to the Bill, he should have been much
more inclined to refer it to a Select Committee,
because he did not feel that hostility to the entire
Bill as was professed by some Hon. Members. He
thought there was great need of a general consideration
of this subject, and he thought that nothing could be
done without long and careful inquiry; but as it was, he
should certainly vote against the second reading.
Lord JOHN MANNERS had originally intended to
have moved to refer this Bill to a Select Committee,
but his opinion had undergone considerable modification
in consequence of the alterations which had been intro-
duced by the Right Honourable Gentleman. Still
there were many matters of detail connected with
the measure which would be much better discussed in a
Committee than in the walls of the House of Commons.
The appointment, and the constitution, and the working
of the local boards of examination were matters of this
sort. He was not himself disposed to attach much im-
portance to the statement of the consuls which had been
read to the House, because of course their reports would
be in accordance with the wishes of their Government;
neither was there much force in the fact that during the
time of war merchant captains were most frequently
under the control and direction of men of war captains
convoying them, because he thought that in 303 ears of
peace a new generation had arisen who were certainly bet-
ter qualified. If Hon. Members were still desirous that the
Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he was
quite prepared to propose the amendment of which he
hid riven notice.
Mr. LA.BOUCHERE was not disposed to quarrel
with the objections which had been raised by Hon.
Members against the principle of the Bill, and he was
quite ready to defend it upon the present occasion. It
had been said that this Bill was opposed to the wishes
of the shipping interest, but he could assert with
confidence that such was net the case. The
shipowners of Liverpool, Bristol, and Glasgow, were
warm supporters of the Bill in its principle, and even in
many instances of its details. The shipowners of Lon-
don were certainly divided in their opinions, but he
thought it was a remarkable fact that a Bill contem-
plating such great alterations should have met with so
little opposition. Having named constituencies so
powerful, he could name individuals without
number, but he would only select two from
a mass, and those should be two of the largest ship-
owners in the world, most excellent men, and celebrated
for their efforts on behalf of the sailor—he meant Mr.
Gilmour, of Glasgow, and Mr. Green, of London. He
complained of the extraneous points which had been in-
troduced into the discussion, and the Honourable
Member for Hull, for instance, had talked of some
measure which had been introduced respect-
ing lighting dues. Why, the measure which bad
been introduced by the Government had had the effect of
reducing the lighting dues exactly one-half, a boon which
was thankfully received by the whole coasting trade.
He admitted that the Bill was in some degree
a Bill of interference, but he would just point
out the objects of the contemplated interference.
There were three great objects embraced by this Bill—
first, to provide for the examination before competent
authorities of mariners before they were allowed to take
the command of ships; secondly, to deprive every cap-
tain of his certificate who should in any way misconduct
himself. He denied that he had made a charge against
the masters in the merchant service of wholesale in-
capacity; but he did say that great and gross
abuses existed in the service, which this Bill was in-
tended to check. The next part of the Bill bad given
rise to more difference of opinion; it related to the es-
tablishment of recognised shipping officers, and he urged
that principle upon the House because he believed it
would not only protect the hard-working sailor
from fraud, but also confer large benefits
upon the employer. No doubt it would give rise to
expense; but was the present system carried on without
expense? Certainly not. The merchant and owner
had to pay large sums to licensed shipping
agents, and all he proposed to do by this
part of the Bill was to establish a uniform
rate of fees to be paid to properly qualified and
public agents, whose appointment should be entrusted
to the Crown. The fee to be paid on the shipment of
each sailor would be 2s. In America it was a dollar,
while in Quebec the fee was 55., and he therefore thought
the fee he had fixed upon was nut extravagant. The
last object of the Bill was intended to secure strict
and proper discipline in the merchant Service. No one
could dispute with him that at present the discipline was
extremely defective, tending, as it did, to encourage de-
sertion on the part of the sailors, and jeopardise the
property of the owner of the ship. This part of the
Bill, then, provided a remedy for that state of things,
and when they get into Committee he should be pre-
pared to still further justify the details and provisions of
the measure. Without, therefore, troubling the House fur-
ther on the Bill itself, he would pass to the question which
bad been raised in the course of this debate of consoli-
dating all the Acts that composed the merchant law of this
country. Now that was at the present moment an im-
possibility; but pass this Bill, and he would undertake
to lay on the table, or extensively promulgate, a Bill
for consolidating all the laws. It would be his aim
to endeavour to amend and consolidate the law at the
same time, but until this measure had been fairly tested
by experience, it would be impossible to accomplish either
one or the other. In the early part of this discnssion some
objection was taken to the Bill, on the ground that it would
confer a large additional amount of patronage. Now he
had amended that part of the measure, and as it now
stood the appointments to be made under the
Bill would be vested in local authorities. He
therefore hoped, now that all objections had been
met, no more time would be lost in passing this
Bill, which could not do otherwise than confer large
benefits upon the shipping interest of this country.
Mr. HERRIES said it was a mistake to suppose that
the opposition was averse to the principle of the Bill,
for no side of the House, no party could object to a
measure which had tor its aim the improvement of the
mercantile marine of this country; but the question
was, did this Bill attain that end? He, for one, cer-
tainly did not think it did, nor did he believe that the
majority of the shipping interest entertained a
favourable opinion
towards the measure. No doubt
some ports did approve of is, but by no
means all, or even a fair proportion of them.
The great objection which he entertained to the Bill had
reference to what took place last session. When the
=don-laws were repealed the Government pro-
t4 relieve the shippu3g 'Merest of ell those but=

which. pressed upon them, and which prevented them en-
tering into an unrestricted competition with the foreigner,
but by this Bill they imposed still more onerous condi-
tions on that interest. The measure involved so many
conflicting questions, and would give rise to such im-
portant consequences, that ho would suggest that ample
time should be given to those who would be affected
by it, to consider the propriety of passing such a
measure before it became law. There wss no pressing
urgency for legislation on the subject, and though he did
not object to the House going into Committee, with the
view of considering the provisions of the Bill, he thought
it would be much better t) delay proceeding with it
further this session.—(Bear, hear.) Let them make
the Bill as perfect as they could by deliberations in
the House, and then give ample time, as he apprehended
they must, to the shipping interests to consider its pro-
visions, and if they did so, he considered they would
have a much better measure than the one now before
the House.

Mr. CARDWELL said, the question for the House
to decide was whether they should or should not
pass the Bill in its present state this session.
He was one who should give his decided support to the
measure, which he said had beet very much altered since

it was first introduced last session. -Although he enter-
tained strong opinions on several subjects which had
been excluded from the Bill, yet he would give
the motion for going into Committee his sup-
port, being anxious that all useful and im-
portant measures should be passed this session, and
reserve to himself the right of making such alterations
as he thought necessary in Committee.
Mr. MACGREGOR supported the Bill, observing that
if a Bill of this kind bad been passed 50 years ago
half of the shipwrecks and property, and lives, which
had been lost during that period by the neglect or in-
competence of stamen, would have been saved to the
country.
Mr. MOFFATT withdrew his amendment.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment of Lord John Manners,
for referring the Bill to a Select Committee 34
Against it
Majority
The amendment was consequently lost.
Mr. WAWN objected to the restrictions contained in
the Bill as vexatious, and expressed his deep regret that
the Government by this Bill had held out no expectation
to the British shipowner that he would be placed in a
condition in which he should be enabled to compete
with the foreign shipowner.
The House then went into Committee pro forma on
the Bill.

The House resumed, the Chairman reported progress,
and the House obtained leave to sit again to-morrow at
twelve.

The House then adjourned until Five o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
Mr. THORNELY brought up the Report of the
Committee on Public Petitions.
PETITIONS.

Mr. GLYN presented petitions from various places
against the Marriage Bill.
Mr WALPOLE presented petitions from Lewes and
other places in Sussex in favour of the recent alterations
in the Post• office.

Mr. GASKELL presented a petition against the Jews
Bill. The Hon. Member stated that he did not concur
in the prayer of the petition.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions in favour of
the recent alterations in the Post-office.

Mr. P. WOOD presented petitions from attorneys and
solicitors in various parts of Lancashire in favour of the
Lancashire County Palatine Act.
Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from various
places in favour of putting an end to Sunday labour in
the Post-office. _ _ _

Mr. BANJiES presented a petition from Sherbourne,
in Dorset, to the same effect; also a petition from
Corfe Castle against the admission of Jews into Par-
liament.

Mr. T. EGERTON presented petitions against Sun-
day labour in the Post-office.
Sir G. GREY presented similar petitions from places
in Northumberland. _ _

Mr. B. DENISON presented similar petitions from
various parts of Yorkshire.
Mr. LABOUC HERE presented several petitions in
favour of the Marriage Bill.
Mr. C. HOWARD presented a petition from Car-
lisle against the Jews Bill.
NOTICE OF MOTION. _

Lord NA AS gave notice that on the motion for going
into Committee of Supply he should move an address
to the Throne, praying her Majesty to take immediate
steps for establishing steam communication between this
country and the Australian colonies.
ECCLESIASTICAL BILL.

Mr. DISRAELI wished to ask the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government whether he intended to bring
on the Ecclesiastical Bill to-night?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL repliedin the affirmative.
THE IRISH MAGISTRACY.

In answer to Sir PERCY NUGENT,
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that Mr. John Fleming,
late of Longford, Ireland, had been appointed to a local
magistracy in Donegal upon the death of the late Mr.
Tyas, with a salary of about 400/.
EXHIBITION OF 1851.

Colonel SIBT/101i2 gave notice that on going into
committee of Supply he should call the attention of the
Government to the letters from the Commissioners of
the Woods and Forests to the Lords of the Treasury,
which had been laid upon the tible on the 4th of July.
The Gallant Colonel then proceeded to ask the Noble
Lord a question relating to the payment of any sums of
money by the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851,
with reference to any contracts entered into for that
Exhibition. _ _

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that when first the Ex-
hibition had been projected it had been intended to have
carried it out through private contract, but the sense of
the country was so decidedly against that mode, that it
had been abandoned, and the only sums which had been
paid were in consequence of those preliminary steps.
Colonel SIBTHORP inquired to what amount, and on
what security ?
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the amount was not
yet ascertained; the security was that of the Commis-
sioners.

WATERFORD, WEXFORD, WICKLOW, AND
DUBLIN, AND THE SOUTH WALES RAIL-

WAYS.
Sir IL VERNEY postponed his motion for a Commit-
tee of Inquiry into the petitions and printed papers (297)
affecting the dignity of the House until Monday next.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. BERNAL in the chair.
The consideration of the preamble was postponed.

On clause 1 being proposed.
Mr. HORSMAN proposed an amendment to the effect
that the Commission should consist simply of three paid
Commissioners, who should discharge all the duties in
connexion with the Commission. That proposition he
thought was sound in principle and would be found good
in practice. The evils in connexion with the
existing Commission which they had to remedy
were that it was too numerous, inefficient,
and irresponsible. Now, to secure an efficient and re-
sponsible body, he thought the best plan they could
adopt was to have three Commissioners, whose close and
constant attendance would insure the due performance
of all the business of the Commission. Three classes of
public men would, by such an arrangement, be relieved
from attendance at the board, viz., the judges, the
Cabinet Ministers, and the bishops and ministers.
the Lord Chancellor, the two Chief Justices, the
Lord Chief Baron, the Master of the Rolls,
and the Judges of the Admiralty and the Prerogative
Courts were at present members of the Board. Now,
what in the world had all those to do with the
Ecclesiastical Commission? (Hear.) They had
important functions to discharge, and they could
not give their attendance at the meetings of the
Commission without injury resulting to the public ser-
vice. Therefore public convenience and common sense were
alike in favour of the judges being excused from attend-
ance. Five Cabinet Ministers were members of the board,
and he was sure they would be as glad to be excused
as the judges. Again, the bishops were paid largely for
the performance of other duties, and if they attended to
the business of the Commission, those duties must be
neglected, and he could not understand on what
principle they claimed to have a seat at the
Board. Both reason and religion were in favour
of the change which he proposed in the
Commission, and if the prelates were opposed
to him, what construction could they put on their
conduct, except that the duties of their office
contrasted very unfavourably with other public duties?
No right or privilege of theirs was in any way
involved by their not being on the Commission.
Those estates consisted of every kind of property known
to the Church. Let the House take the cases of the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London.
The management of the estates of Canterbury and Lon-
don were but a tithe of their labours. They had to take
the management of the capitular estates of York,
Carlisle, Durham, Exeter, and other dioceses, and in-
stead of being confined to estates in which they had
an especial interest, they had to become general
manager of estates of which they had no knowledge
whatever, and of which they could have no know-
ledge except by giving such a close attention to
those secular affairs as must place the epis-
copacy in abeyance.—(Hear.) He Mr. (Horsman)
was not now seeking to do an act which imposed any
new doctrine; but he was only resisting a modern and,
to his mind, an extremely objectionable innovation.
—(Hear, hear.) If the House took this proceeding
as a question of policy, what did their experience
say? Was Parliament so well satisfied with the
past working of this Commission that it was ready
to make still further sacrifices in order to secure the
advantages of the presence of the prelatess? Ho be-
lieved there were few sincere members of the Church who
did not think the Commission had been anything but
benefited by the presence of the prelates of the
Church. He wanted to ask, therefore, what there
was in the nature of the business itself in the
past which made it necessary that the House shopld
have the benefit of the attendance of the prelates
in the Commission in future ? The business of the
Commission was entirely secular, and they legislated
entirely through orders in Council ; and there was no
necessity for the Prelates being members of that
board any more than there was of their being at
the head of the Home .Department.—(Hear, hear.)
The old law of the Church only recognized the bishop
as a spiritual pastor, and the further they attempted to
remove from that old law the greater labyrinths
they got into The feelings of the people of
England he believed generally
were in
favour of more clergymen, and less bishops. And why
was that? Why, because the bishops assumed more
than they were entitled to under the old law;
but the parochial clergy did not.—(Hear.)
He opposed it because its object WAS to perpetuate
'the burdening vi their ecelezieetical riders vnth AU OK"
• -

tension of temporal jurisdiction they ought never to
hold. If they wished to make their Commission at all
available the Commissioners must be less numerous,
and more responsible. The Hon. Member concluded
by moving that three Church Commissioners should
constitute the Commission.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the amendment, and
said that it appeared to him that the proposition was di-
rectly against the report of the Committee of the Howe
of COMM'JCIS. That Committee said that a change was

necessary, but the alteration they recommended was
}emus division of the jurisdiction, and not the abolition of
the Commission. They recommended the appointment
of some small Committee to manage details, but they
contemplated the maintenance of the present Commis-
sion. He approved of that recommendation. Oa the
contrary, the Hon. Gentleman proposed the abolition of
the Commission altogether. It was impossible but that
large questions should arise, and it was proper that they
should be decided by the larger bodies of Cemmis-
sinners. The Hon. Gentleman said that bishops and
judees were not proper persons to manage the general
affairs of the Commission, but it was for that very pur-
pose that they proposed the appointment of paid Corn-
missioners. They wished to absolve the body of the
Commissioners from the management of these small de-
tails, which could be much hover done by the small
Committee. He thought it better, therefore, to take the
plan of the Commit e 3 of that House, and not to depart
from it to so large an extent as proposed by the
Hon. Gentleman, Is ho seemed to have lost sight of the
original cause of the appointment of the Ecclesiastical
Commission. Formerly the business of each bishopric
was managed by the bishop of the di.:cese. The Bishop
of Durham had 21,0001. per annum, and the Archbishop
of Canterbury 22,0001. or 23,0001. per annum, and so on.
Those who had not sufficient incomes, made up their
incomes by holding deaneries and cures in commendam;
but Parliament thought proper to make a change in that
system, and hence this Commission was appointed to
watch the carrying out of the great and important
changes introduced by Parliament. There being some
objections to the mode of working the Commission, a
Committee of that;House recommended the changes em-
bodied in this Bill, and if it passed it would not take up
much of the time of the bishops or withdraw them mate-
rially from their spiritual functions. The Honourable
Gentleman had forgotten this, and that the Commission
watched over great and large reforms, and that it should
be so constituted as to command the respect and confi-
dence of Parliament and the public. For these reasons
he trusted the Committee would not agree to the change
proposed.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that when the Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Horsman) asserted that the bishops had ten
times more income than the First Lord of the Treasury,
he laboured under a very great hallucination, for the
highest annual income of any of the right rev. body did
not amount to more than from 21,0001. to 23,0001.
Sir B. HALL said that be had at all times the highest
reverence for the Church of Neigland, and for all per-
sons connected with it, and for that reason he wished
that they should act in such a manner as to gain the
esteem and confidence of the public which he feared
their general conduct did not seem likely to produce.
He well recollected that three years since they were re-
quired to send in the returns of their annual incomes,
and in those returns it was found that the annual income
of three bishops was no less a sum than 115,4181., which
they apprehended would be reduced by the income-tax
(as they represented it) to 92,1061., but when the average
income of seven years was struck, it was found that it
amounted not to 92,106/., but to 123,465/. He would
ask, what confidence could the public have in a body
that made such mis-statements? He was not far from
concurring with those who asserted that many of the
bishops expended' the moneys of the ecclesiastical fund
for their own benefit, notwithstanding the immense
revenue they were receiving from their respective sees,
and that this expenditure was being carried on without
any regard or attention to the wants of the clergymen
in their diocese. The Honourable Baronet then alluded
to eight palaces, on which there was expended for
building and repairing no less a sum than 143,400/.;
and he should say, relative to these palaces, that
when the Bishop of Exeter was called upon to pay
the teas tax he refused to comply, on the grounds that
he had removed his furniture from that palace, and that
he did not reside there; and he felt it his duty to add
that the sum of 3,5001. was taken out of the ecclesias-
tical funds for the repairs of this palace, in which there
was no resident—(Hear, hear)—and when he, some
time since, asked how this sum should have been drawn,
he was answered that it was the amount of interest due.
Now, be would appeal to the House, and ask, was their
anything more unfair then that those ecclesiastical
funds should be thus intruded upon, or that those bishops
should not keep their residences in proper order at their
own expense. He should next refer to the Bishop of
Oxford, who borrowed two sums from this fund, one to
repair his palace, and the other to improve his demesne,
though the Commissioners, as a collective body, had
passed a resolution that should the cost of repairing his
palace amount to more than the sum borrowed,
he (the Bishop of Oxford) should pay the remainder
from his own purse.—(Bear, hear.) The Honourable
Baronet then read the evidence of Mr. Murray in
corroboration of his assertions, relative to the moneys
taken from the ecclesiastical funds by the Bishops of
Oxford, Worcester, Ripon, Gloucester, Rochester, and
Lincoln, and said that he could not avoid desig-
nating the expenditure of that money as anything else
than malappropriation, which was most monstrous, par
ticularly when in eighty-four parishes, there were many
clergymen whose income was only 501. p, r annum, and
417 clergymen who had only from 501. to 1001. per an-
num. Ho also thought it most absurd that at the time
of the canonries being suspended. at Lincoln, the dean
of that diocese charged a large sum on the ecclesias-
tical funds for performing service during one month in
the year, though he had at the same time the income
of five parishes. On the whole, he looked upon the pre-
sent system, as carried on, as nothing more than an un-
just and blame-worthy squandering of money, and hoped
that the House would exert themselves to put an end to
such monstrous and nefarious proceedings, particularly
as the clergy, who were the labourers in the vineyard,
better deserved it, both on account of their assiduous
attention to their duties, and on account of their dis-
tressed circumstances.—(Hear, hear.) And as to the
canons, he could call them nothing else than a most use-
less set of drones. He was therefore prepared to sup-
port any proposition that would put an end to this sort
of machinery, and that would requite the poor clergy
adequately to their functions. The Honourable Baronet
then referred to a circular emanating from the bishops,
requiring contributions from the public for the ap-
pointmeut of another bishop for the diocese of Quebec.
lie was prepared to prove that the archbishops and
bishops of England and Ireland had only contributed
8101., while six laymen gave 9001. for this purpese.
This subject he alluded to, because the Honourable
Baronet (Sir R H. Inglis) stated that the income of the
bishops was scarcely sufficient in consequence of the
enormous charities they gave, and he should say that
instead of the diminution referred to by the Honourable
Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) that there was rather a very
great increase ; for example, he would refer to the as.
sessment of Paddington, which in 1837 amounts to
112,0001., and in 1843 to 191,154/., showing an in-
crease of the income of the bishop of that diocese
during seven years to be over 79,0001. He next referred
to the increase of the incomes of the Archbishop of
York, the Bishop of Chester, and several other bishops.
He also recollected that the Committee appointed to
investigate the system of the management of the eccle-
siastical funds, and that that Committee, on which were
the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the late la-
mented Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), pronounced
it as being ruinous both to the lessor and lessee, and
that some plan should be adopted to abolish fines in cases
of leases for life, and other similar docudients. He also
thought that it was desirable that the Committee should
inquire and know to whom the property belonged,
whether to the Church or to bishops, because he was
aware that the bishops claimed the property generally as
their own.—(Hear.) As regarded the answers given by
the bishops to the applications which had been made to
them for information respecting their livings, pluralities,
and incomes, he could make some curious statements to
the Committee. Out of twenty-six archbishops and
bishops, sixteen only sent answers, desiring to give all
the information in their power, end eight of them re-
fused to give any information at all to the Committee.
Those eight were the Bishops of Bangor, Carlisle,
Exeter, Gloucester, Oxford, Rochester, Salisbury,
and St. David's. Not one of those Right Reverend
prelates would give any satisfactory answers to the
Committee, and all they said was, that " the House of
Commons, or its Committees, had no right to ask them
any questions about their livings or pluralities." In
order to show the manner in which the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners had managed the affairs of the Church,
he would refer the Committee to a table showing the
number of clergymen who were now resident, and who
were receiving large incomes. By this table he found
that there were 4,307 clergymen non-resident at their
livings, and of those 937 were non-resident without any
knowledge why they were so. The sooner, then, he
must say, the bishops were sent down to their diocese,
to make those non-resident clergymen give an account
why they are not resident at their livings, the better.—
(Hear, hear.) Ile would read another table, which
would show that out of 4,322 benefices, 1,193 were re-
turned without any statement of their value. To an-
other table, showing the condition of the curates. Of
3,078 curates, 1,192 had no glebe, 685 were in receipt of
incomes under 60/. a year, 610 under 801., and there
were 2,058 curates non-resident.
Sir J. PAKINGTON rose to order. He apprehended
the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) was departing
from the question before the Committee, and that he
ought to confine himself to the amendment, which was,
that the Ecclesiastical Commission be limited to three
Commissioners.

yinCclLAlilnßg CHAIRMAN N thought there
orderwould
inbe souse
manner
-
culerl;he
suggested, it appearing to him that the lion. Baronet
was only referring to the matters objected to, for the
purpose of founding an argument upon them.
Sir 13. HALL said he was arguing that the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners as at present constituted, were not
worthy the confidence of the people, and he was endea-
vouring to show that they on all occasions took care of
their own interests, while they neglected those of the
poor and hardworking clergy; and he was also endea-
vouring to show that it would be mon:. for the benefit
of the public, and to the credit of the bishops, if they
would attend to the interests and business of their own
dioceses, where they would be far better employed,
than in att'nding at the Ecclesiast;cal Commis-
sion Board. He was endeavouring to show that the
poor curates of the Church were sadly neglected, when
the Hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakenharn) called him to
order. He had shown the Committee something of
what the bishops had done, and he would now show
what they had not done. Had they attended to the
promotion of the usefulness of the institutions of the
Church? There was a most useful institution, Queen
Anne's Bounty, and had they, with their pluralities, at-
tended to the proper distribution of the funds of that in-
ititittieh ter the benefit 91 the Pm; clergy? 119 fouid

hi

Isd

on the contrary, that of that bounty the bishops
borrowed 80,000/. for the purpose of building and alter;
ing their own palaces. He found, on the other halm
with respect t ) the attendances of the bishops at the
meetings of the committees for the distribution of this
bounty, that the late Archbishop of Canterbury attended
only nine times in a number of years; the Bishop 01
Oxford, eight; the Bishop of Lendcn and Bangor+
four times ; the Bishop of Salisbury, threw ; the
Bishop of Durham, with his 26,0001. a year, only once;
the Bishop of St. David's and the Bishop of Rochester,
once; and the Bishop of St. Asaph, with his,
16,0001. a Sear, attended only once at the meetings
~°1
the committees for the benefit of the poor clergy. 114";
only time several of them ever attended was when they
wanted to borrow 80,000/. from the bounty. Now, Oil
of the most worthy things the bishops could have done
was, to abolish pluralities; but, so far from having trie
to abolish them, he would show the contrary. In this
very diocese he would show that the Bishop of Loud°,
was one of the greatest pluralists. The Hon. Barone'
then enumerates several pluralities which had bon
created in and since 1842, with their large and various
sources of income, and said the bishops ought to be dis:
missed at once from the Ecclesiastical Board, and that
they ought not to be let down easy. He would show, the;
while the late Archbishop of Canterbury during 20 pat!'
received 174,0001., that a poor curate, from the dare of t"
Christian era, would have received only 129 500/., which
e
would I.ave a clear surplus in favour of the Archbislicg
of 44,0001.—(Laughter.) The Bishop of Durham he°
ben in the see 19 years, and 19 years Canon of Dui heal'
and had received 199,3001. The Hon. Baronet 001
directed attention to the numerous livings possessed
by the sons, nephews, sons-in-law, and other connexions
of the Bishop of Exeter, and said it seemed as though
the whole family were naturally parsons. He knew shill,
it would be said that this question was one of ember'
rassment and difficulty to the Government, but he rani/
say that the Committee ought to call on the Government'
without reference to inconvenience, to bring the whole
matter under the consideration of the House, and that Committee should be established on which the HAW
should not be allowed to sit.
Sir G. GREY must say that the speech of the 0913:
Baronet who had just sat down, had, in many parts "'
nothing whatever to do with the subject before the Cooli
mitte,s. Some of the Hon. Baronet's statements were e
very old date. He had spoken very freely of the Bolt'
siastical Commissioners, but he ought to have know
that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners bad not the
power to remedy the abuses of which the Honourable
Baronet complained. With regard to the episcopal re,
sidences, and the large sums of money expended oil
them, every one of the cases alluded to had been
thoroughly investigated, and it was found that the 501131.
laid out had not been extravagant or beyond the actin
requirements.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said that many of the
statements made by the Hon. Member for Marylebene,
respecting the expenditure on the episcopal residence'
of the Bishop of Rochester were altogether withal
foundation.

-gi;I3EKJAMIN HALL said ho had taken his ill'
formation from the only documents which the Bole
siistical Commissioners would allow him access g 2;
They were never contradicted, and he had a ilea;
therefore, to assume that the information was ‘lll—

Mr. GLADSTONE wished to correct an errouetoe;
impression which a statement made by the Honour"
Baronet the Member for Marylebone was calculated to
create. The sum of 51,000/., expended on the palace Of
estate of the Bishop of Lincoln, was for the purpose
bringing that ecclesiastic nearer to his diocese.
Mr. C. DENISON expressed a hope that the 11°°'
Member for Cockermouth would not divide the Coto;
mittee on the amendment. The constitution of °3
Commission, no doubt, was faulty, but it was in pro'
gress of reconstruction, and the change would be attended
with benefit.
Mr. HORSMAN could not consent to withdraw blc;
amendment, being most desirous that the bishops shot'
not be burthened with secular duties, to an adteitt`:l
inability for the proper performance of their opirittio'
duties.
Mr. P. WOOD quite agreed that the spiritual 1.
1
secular duties of the Commission should be separated'
but he was opposed to any regulation which struck "
the secular duties at one tell swoop.
The C instnittee then divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment ... 22
Against it ... 60
Majority against the amendment —3B
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 2, which provides for the payment of tic°
out of the five of the Church Estates Comraissionel*
being proposed,
Mr. EVELYN DENISON moved as an amendment;
that three of those Commissioners should receive 881/
ries. The business of those Commissioners would be
considerable magnitude, as the gross amount of proper%
which came under their supervision would not be le
o
than seventy millions. This Estate Commission was •
consist of five members, two appointed by the Crotri.o;
one by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and two by t,"
Ecclesiastical Commission, so that it might be said ihm
of those were clerical appointments. He thought, there;,
fore, that three of those ought to be paid. in order P,
ril
they might do their duty in that efficient manner which
paid officials were expected to do.
Mr. GLADSTONE opposed the amendment, 10—
.6
would be an unnecessary expenditure to pay more is
two of t'.ose Commissioners.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he did not think it nece„re
,ary to tax the ecclesiestical fund with more than t''ls
payment of two Commissioners, but if it should turn °'"f
after wards that the cervices of another paid Com missionied
was rtquired, some person who held another office Oube
be appointed, and which would save the expense tot,,
ecclesiastical fund. At present he could not agree to i"
am, ndment.
e.
Mr. P. WOOD said that it was always better to eg
a woo king paid committee than a gratuitous one, hid
ever active and responsible such might be, and he Wc°
therefore support the amendment.
Sir B. HALL objected to the present constitution 0,1
the Commission, as there would be two Commission)"
on the part of the Crown, and three on behalf of the ec,
clesiastical body. He would have the Commission re,
duced to three—two on behalf of the Crown, and 0°
appointed by the Archbishop—all three to be paid 111'
Mr. HORSMAN said he thought this was a Coe:
which Government should abide by the recommendstl,
of the Select Committee, and would support the an3e°
ment.
et
Lord J. RUSSELL said, as the matter at prefsg,a
stood, two paid Commissioners would be sufficient. Pni,
was found out afterwards that number was insuffielem
then another paid Commissioner could be added. act
Lord HARRY VANE supported the amendment; 11,1,
Mr. E. DENISON then said, that after what bad 00
len from the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Gentlelni!f
the Secretary for the- Home Department, he would
the present withdraw the amendment.
The clause was then agreed to, as also clauses 3,4,
and 5.
On clause 6 being proposed, which provides for !hoe
constitution of the Estates Commission' which Commislo
to consist of two members appointed by the Crown, t „
by tee Ecclesiastical Commission, and one by the Arc
bishop of Canterbury,
Sir B. HALL moved as an amendment, that the elist4l
be expunged, a 9, were it carried in its present shape.
episcopal interest would have three members in the Cow
mission, while the Crown had but two.
acs
Lord J. RUSSELL said the clause was framed in
cordance with the recommendations of the Select Coo, ;
mittee, and he denied that there was any ground ,°6s
saying that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were 1113,s
to be entrusted with the appointment of two of thee-
commissioners.
Mr. HUME contended that the present measure Ass
a sufficient reason why the Ecclesiastical Comusistif
should not be entrusted with these powers, for had tPO
clone their duty as they ought there would have been ,n
occasion for the introduction of such a measure. sot
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE supported the clause, as
also
Mr. GLADSTONE, who contended that as no il°o
could he done by the Commission unless one of 00
Crown Commissioners was present, that gave the Croll
a sufficient power over the other commissioners. 0
Mr. MANGLES held that no such power was gif.e„
by the clause as it stood, but that the Crown Convoli3O
sioners could be swamped by those Appointed by t'
episcopal interest.
Sir G. GREY said the intention of the Act of Pare
fitment_ was, that it should be executed by two of I. I
Church Commissioners, and that they should be preset
on all occasions. If the amendment proposed °I;
adopted, the effect would be to exclude such indivicho
as the Right Hon. Member for Ripon, whose habits °
business cud capabilities they all knew.
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY,
Mr. HORSMAN observed that the majority in tb.
Committee were in favour of three paid Commissioners
and that was thrown over by the House now and 0"
jetted, lie, for one, objected to the Archbishop of CO'
terbury and the Estates Commission having the 14,i
poititment of three Commissioners, while the Crown bpd
but two—thus placing the Crown in a minority, 105
practically swamping the decision of Committee of t
House.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared"'
Fur the amendment ... 33
Against it ... ... 76
Majority

The clause was then agreed to,
On clr.use 7 being proposed, ea
Mr. E. I)ENISON suggested that the Estate,
Commission should have the appointment of those 01:
cers, solicitors, and surveyors accessary to carry into e
feet the business entrusted to then.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the insertion of snob
words would create jealousies, and probably other oyilss
and he should therefore oppose it.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought the Hon. Gentle
would act with a wise discretion if he withdrew bi
amendment, at least for the present.
M. P. WOOD said, that as the Committee, under ,-,,e
Bill, was really to be the working body, and not the
Church Commissioners, he thought they ought to ha
the power of appoiriting their own officers.
The proposed amendment was, however, withdro
er
and the clause agreed to.

Clauses 8. 9, and 10 were agreed to.
On clause 11 being proposed, bead
Mr. HORS :lAN asked if the Noble Lord at the he
of the Government would consent to the amendment.,,jw,
proposed, that the Commissioners should make an alio"
report of their proceedings to Parliament ?
Sir G. GREY replied that the matter would be Coil
sidered before the report was brought up.
The clause was agreed to. • 'On
Clause 13 being proposed, which related to a divlsl
of the Episcopal and Common Fund,
On the motion of Sir G. GREY, an amendment Alf
%•j
proposed, which restored the clause as it had been, bloc!
altered in the-Ruse nf.Lords.