Commons Sitting of 12 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Arms (Ireland); Small Debts (Scotland): Owners of Vessels Liability (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Richmond Penitentiary; Corporate Property.— Read a first time:—Poor Law Amendment; Dean and Chapter of Worcester's Estate.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUTT, from Kingston-upon-Hull, for Charitable Trustees' Bill, and for Abolition of Church Rate; and by Mr. GROTE, for Jewish Civil Disabilities' Bill.—By Dr. BOWRING, from Dumbarton, for Municipal Corporations' (Scotland) Bill.—By Sir MICHAEL SHAW STEWART, from the Weavers of Johnston and Kilbarchan, for Relief.—By Mr. R. PIGOTT, from Bridge-North, against any interference with the Privileges of the Upper House.—By Mr. CUTHBERT RIPON, from Gates-head, for Reform of the House of Lords.—By Colonel THOMPSON and Mr. WAKLEY, from Kingston-upon-Hull and Kibworth, for Repeal of Poor-Law Amendment Act—By Colonel THOMPSON, from Glasgow, for the Interference of the House for A. T. Beaumont, he being Imprisoned in France.—By Mr. PRYME, from Licensed Victuallers, Cambridge, for Repeal of Additional Duty on Spirit Licences.—By Mr. CLAY, from Retailers of Beer, Tower Hamlets, to place them on the same footing as Licensed Victuallers.—By Mr. PRYME and Mr. CLAY, from various Places, for Recovery of Tenements' Bill.

RAILWAYS—REVISION OF TOLLS.
Mr. Sanfordpresented a Petition from the Shareholders in the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company, against the Railways' Revision of Tolls Bill. He wished to know from his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich whether it was his intention to press the Bill through this Session. It had already produced the most baneful effects. By the mere introduction of it, a panic had been created throughout the country, of which his hon. Friend could scarcely be aware.
Mr. Morrisonsaid, that he found himself in an embarrassing situation on this subject. He was, on the one hand, very strongly impressed with the importance of the Bill he had introduced, and he was most anxious that it should pass this Ses-

135
sion. Since he had brought the subject under the notice of the House, he had received communications from a vast number of persons well acquainted with what would be the probable effects of such a proposal, and he found that they were all of opinion that some measure of the kind was absolutely necessary. For his own part he retained his opinion on the subject; indeed, that opinion had been strengthened and confirmed since the introduction of the Bill, and he was now more convinced than ever that some such measure was indispensable for the security of the public. He was aware, however, on the other hand, that at that late period of the Session it would be extremely difficult to carry a Bill which was likely to encounter considerable opposition. He had come therefore very reluctantly to the conclusion that he ought to withdraw the Bill for the present Session. Another reason for doing so was, that many Members who would support the Bill had been obliged to leave town. Another reason was, that a measure had been adopted in the other House for inserting a certain clause in all Railway Bills now in progress that rendered the passing of this Bill this Session of less importance. When he originally introduced the Bill to the House, the proposal met with the universal approbation of the Members. The House then not only readily adopted all that he recommended, but hon. Members were even disposed to go further than he did, which was to include all Railway Bills then in progress through both Houses in the Bill, for they proposed to include railways that had been passed some years ago. He believed that a large majority of the House was still favourable to the measure. He was persuaded that a large majority of the trading classes of the country were favourable to it. As, however, he saw no chance of being able to carry it this year, he was obliged reluctantly to withdraw it. He begged at the same time to give notice, that early next Session he would bring in the Bill again for a similar measure.
Mr. Bainesmerely rose for the purpose of preventing a misapprehension from going abroad that the majority of Members in that House were favourable to the measure. He had taken some pains to ascertain the opinions of hon. Members on the subject, and he would state, that so far from there being a majority in favour of the Bill, there was a large majority against it. Those interested in railway speculations could know that there never was a measure more obnoxious to the majority of that House.

EXTENSION OF PAPER DUTIES.
Mr. Thomas Dvncombepresented a petition from two individuals resident in Bunhillrow, City, who were proprietors of a patent that had been granted to an individual of the name of Williams, in 1833, for the manufacture of an article to be substituted in many cases for paper and leather. They stated that at the time the patent was granted the Excise Board had reported that the article in question could never be considered paper, and that it would not be liable to paper duty—that they (the petitioners) had laid out a capital of 10,000 l.; in the manufacture, and that they now found that in the Paper Duties Bill, which stood for a third reading that evening, a special clause had been introduced rendering this article liable to the excise duty. The petitioners thought that they had a right to complain of this as a gross case of injustice. The operation of the clause in question would prove ruinous to the manufacture of this article, of which great use would otherwise be made in the railroads to prevent the jar between the iron trams and the stones. As the good faith of the Excise Board was implicated in this matter, his right hon. Friend should, at all events, permit the petitioners to manufacture the article without the imposition of a duty until the expiration of their patent.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was true that in the year 1833 an individual who was about to establish a particular manufacture applied to the Board of Excise, and laid before them a specimen of the article which he intended to manufacture, and out of which were to be made papier maché, &c. He was then informed that such an article would not be liable to excise duty. A further application was made to the Board in 1835, and it was then first discovered that an alteration had been made in the manufacture so as to render the article liable to the paper duty. The parties were accordingly informed that it would be proposed to Parliament not to interfere in the slightest degree with the original article as manufactured in 1833, but to impose a duty on the altered manufacture of 1835. As, however, there existed a difference of opinion between the petitioners and the officers of Excise as to the statements made, and as the imposition of a duty might involve a breach of engagements he would postpone the third reading of the Bill, and would to-morrow, at an interview which he intended to give to the Excise, officers and the petitioners, take care to hear both sides of the question. If he should

137
then find that the statements contained in the petition were correct, he would introduce a clause into the Bill saving the petitioners from the duty for the period of their patent.
Mr. Duncombesaid, that the proposal of his right hon. Friend would be quite satisfactory to the petitioners.
Petition to lie on the table.

BALLAD SINGING.
Lord Ebringtonhoped the House would indulge him while he called its attention to the petition presented yesterday by the Member for Wigan (Mr. Potter) from a solicitor at Barnstaple, complaining of the arrest and imprisonment of a boy there for ballad singing, by one of the magistrates of the borough, he would beg leave to read a statement from the magistrate in question. That magistrate stated that he had some time ago committed on his own view a boy of eighteen years of age for singing and begging in the streets, that the boy was one of a whole family which the father and mother sent about the country to beg, and that they subsisted on the product of their children's begging. The magistrate added, that the case had been brought before the town-council in his absence, but at their next meeting he laid before them a statement of facts which had satisfied them and the public of Barnstaple of the propriety of his conduct. He must inform the House that he had known the gentleman in question for many years, and he was sure there was no individual less likely to exercise his authority as a magistrate in an arbitrary or unjust mannre. He believed that his conduct as a Magistrate had given general satisfaction to the town-council and inhabitants of Barnstaple.
Mr. Pottersaid, that the main fact of the committal of the boy was admitted, and that he thought a subject for complaint.
Subject dropped.

FRENCH DUTY ON WOOL.
Sir Charles Burrellsaid, that on Friday evening, the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, had, in answer to a question from an hon. Member (Mr. Heathcote), stated, that the French Government had at length made a reduction in the duty on British wool. The duty hitherto had been so high as thirty per cent., while we admitted French wool and woollen manufactured goods at a nominal duty. As the subject was one of the greatest interest and importance to the agricultural community, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to state the amount of reduction which had been made in the duty by the French Government?
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that the duty had hitherto been thirty per cent., but that the French Government had consented to reduce it to twenty per cent., which reduction had been confirmed by an ordinance, and by an Act passed in the late Session of the French Chambers. That was a reduction of ten per cent., which he supposed the hon. Gentleman would regard as a considerable one.
Subject dropped.

SHIPS FOR TRANSPORTING CONVICTS.
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Lighthouse Bill being ready,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he wished to put a question to the hon. the Secretary of the Admiralty, not certainly on the subject of lighthouses, but in reference to maritime concerns, and therefore not entirely unconnected with that subject. It would be recollected that, some time ago he had called the attention of the House to the unhappy loss of two convict ships, which were wrecked on their voyage to New South Wales. It was the general understanding of the House that care should be taken in future to select seaworthy vessels for this service. Now, he understood that two ships, second-class ships, he believed, had been recently taken up for this purpose; the one, the Marquess of Huntly, had been built thirty-two years, and the other, the Bengal Merchant, was twenty-four years old, having been built in the your 1812. He understood that these ships had been taken up by Government for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales, and he wished to know whether that was the fact or not.
Mr. Charles Woodreplied, that although it was quite true that two ships had been lost, neither in one case nor in the other had the catastrophe occurred in consequence of any want of seaworthiness in the vessels, one of which was lost in making a dangerous passage during the night, and the other in consequence of the neglect of the master, and his ignorance of the coast. It had been agreed that all ships taken up for the transport service, should be of the class ranked A 1; and he assured the right hon. Gentleman, that a strict survey was always made by the proper officer, and the Lords of the Admiralty did not feel themselves satisfied until they received the Report of that officer. Immediately after the discussion which took place on this subject on a former occasion, he directed a full inquiry to be instituted into this service, and no vessel was finally taken up until she had been

139
strictly surveyed and reported to be seaworthy. With regard to the two vessels named by his right hon. Friend, it so happened that one of them was not engaged to be sent out on this service. The other which had been accepted took out convicts last year, and returned with a large and valuable cargo, which she delivered in safety. The Bengal Merchant, which was built at Calcutta in 1812, was a teak ship, and therefore must not be considered in the same light as a vessel built of a less durable material. In conclusion, he assured the right hon. Gentleman, that no pains either had been, or would be spared on the part of the Admiralty, to engage ships duly qualified for the service.
Subject dropped.

LIGHT HOUSES.
The House went into Committee on the Lighthouses' Bill.
Clauses 1 to 40 were agreed to.
Upon Clause 41 being proposed,
Mr. Warburtonobjected to it. He thought that the Ballast Board of Dublin, the Commissioners of Northern Lights, and the Trinity House, ought all to be placed under the control of a Central Board, that Board being under the superintendence of the Admiralty. His second objection was, that the Trinity Board was to have a control over the other Boards as to the mode in which the lights were to be used. He remarked that the members of the Trinity-board received 6,000 l. a-year in salaries, while the members of the Ballast Board in Dublin and the Commissioners of the Northern Lights acted gratuitously. He did not know why the members of one Board were to be paid 300 l. a-year each, while the others did not receive or seek for any payment for their services. He did not know why the members of the Trinity Board should not be under the superintendence of the Commissioners of Northern Lights, as the latter be under the control of the former. It was his opinion that the past conduct of the Trinity House Board was not such as to entitle it to the exercise of the increased powers proposed to be conferred on it by this Bill. He objected also to the constitution of the Board, in which there were no scientific men, no naval captains—that it was a Board self-elected, and consisting exclusively of the captains of merchant vessels. In proof of the soundness of his objections, he read a letter from one
140
of the Commissioners of the Northern Lights, showing the inattention of the Board to the establishment of lighthouses, subsequently erected by other Boards, and the difficulty of inducing them to adopt improvements in the mode of lighting. He proposed as an amendment, that all the words after the word "that" be struck out of the clause, for the purpose of introducing an amendment.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that the object of the amendment was to put an end to the powers now possessed by the Trinity House. The Trinity House, however, enjoyed certain powers over the whole lighthouses of the kingdom nearly. Those rights they held under various Charters and Acts of Parliament; and his hon. Friend would deprive that body of the powers which they had exercised, he must be permitted to say, so properly and advantageously for the country; and he sought not merely to alter the Bill, the object of which was to give the Trinity House Corporation additional powers, but he, at the same time, suggested various grievances, as against the constitution of the Trinity Board. Now he would ask whether the plan which had been suggested, would afford a remedy for those grievances. His hon. Friend complained of the constitution of the Board, of the salaries of its officers, and of the whole conduct of the Trinity House; and he had said that from their past conduct he was not inclined to vest further powers in that body. The redress which his hon. Friend proposed, would not remedy the defects in its constitution; but he would have another Board for the supervision of that of the Trinity House. Now the supervision of the Admiralty would not change the constitution of the Board. If his hon. Friend had referred to the Report of the Committee, which sat on this subject in the year 1822, he would have found that they recommended that the Trinity House should be continued in possession of the powers which were confided to it. That Select Committee recommended, that the general public lights should be placed under the Trinity House. This was more than the present Bill meant to do. The question of substituting the authority of the Admiralty, was one which was discussed before that Committee, who came to the decision, without a division, that the Trinity Board was the best Board to which those interests should be deputed. Surely, then, it would be absurd, after the two

141
solemn inquiries into the subject, to make the alteration proposed by his hon. Friend; because (he supposed) some party who had invented some supposed improvement in lighting lighthouses had not exactly succeeded. But let it be remarked that the Trinity House was a Corporation, incorporated by ancient charters, and if they took from them their property, they must make them compensation, so that no saving of expense would accrue to the country. He was not in favour of self-elected bodies, but he believed there was less inclination to jobbing in the nomination of their officers, than there would be if the powers of the Trinity House were vested in other hands. He had besides a very strong opinion upon another point. He approved most entirely of the rules of the Corporation of the Trinity House, that the masters of merchant vessels should be chosen for the officers of that body. He thought it a good and wise principle, to hold out to those men that sort of station in order that hereafter, we should have a better description of persons of that class; for he had in many instances found that, on commercial matters, these masters were lower in the scale, as to information, than they ought to be in this country, or than the same men were in America. He should be sorry, he repeated, to see the composition of the Trinity Board altered, it being the only office of trust open to, or, he should rather say, exclusively open for the captains of merchant vessels. If they were to admit officers of the navy, for instance, great interest might be made by the Admiralty or some other power, for Captain A. or Captain B., and he thought it better they should have as Members of their Board, hard-working, practical men. Since the Report of 1822, the Corporation had considerably reduced the dues in several instances, and they had always evinced the greatest readiness to carry out any practical suggestions of improvements; and, when his hon. Friend complained of certain pensions granted by the Corporation not having been abolished, he must say that they ought not to be discontinued. When the hon. Gentleman spoke of the two lighthouses which had been erected on the Isle of Man by the Commissioners of Northern Lights, he must observe that the question was, not how many lighthouses might have been put up by particular bodies, but it was, whether the coast in which they were placed was sufficiently lighted.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwas understood to say, that as to the Board of Northern
142
Lights, there never was a more irresponsible body; it was composed chiefly of lawyers of Edinburgh, men who, from the very nature of their profession, were, and must be, incompetent to carry on the important trust committed to their charge, though he believed they had generally acted with great zeal, and with the most perfect disinterestedness. They had, however, never once called to their Councils, any of the Sheriffs of the maritime counties. The petition which he had presented on a former occasion prayed, that every Sheriff of the maritime counties should be a member of this Board. The hon. and learned Member stated the fact that, along the coast of Kirkcudbright, there had been lost, in the course of the last thirty years, no less than sixty-six ships, many of them with the crews, he believed almost in every case for want of a lighthouse on the island of Little Ross. On the whole coast, there was one harbour of refuge to the mouth of the Dec. There was a roadstead, (and he vouched for the truth of his statement,) sufficient for fifty or sixty vessels to ride at anchor at low water, and wait for the tide, and sail up to the bay of Kirkcudbright. All these petitioners asked was, that a lighthouse should be erected, which would not cost more than 1,200 l. He approved of the general principle of this Bill, but thought that the Scotch Board required revision.
Mr. George F. Youngconfirmed the statement made by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the good management of the Trinity House. He (Mr. Young) did not defend the self-elected constitution of that Board; but the Committee had decided, that no better constitution could upon the whole be devised by them, and the hon. Member for Brid-port had not favoured the House with any plan on this subject. He cordially concurred with the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, in the importance of confining the Board to merchant seamen officers. He was, moreover, perfectly certain that the constitution of that Board was every day improving. He objected to any proposal for interference on the part of the Crown, recollecting under what circumstances four lights had been renewed some years ago, to which he would not trust himself to refer further. The Trinity Board had not the power to erect a light except upon application from those connected with maritime commerce. He thought it would be impossible to have the

143
business of lighthouses in better hands than in those of the corporation of the Trinity House. He thought commerce would derive great benefit from the passing of this Bill.
Sir Edward Codringtondid not think it fair that naval officers should not be allowed to take their seats on this lighthouse Board. It was true they were excluded by the resolution of the Committee; but there was a compromise which included that resolution. He (Sir E. Codrington) agreed that the constitution of the Trinity Board might be so far right, that a majority of its members should be merchant seamen. But he must say, that in his opinion masters, lieutenants, captains, &c, in the navy were as able to decide where buoys and lights might be most properly placed, as any merchant officers. Indeed, more so; for it was much more their profession than it was that of gentlemen in the merchant service. He considered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, as a very mercantile speech altogether, [laughter,] and as advocating exclusive sentiments not worthy of his station and character.
Mr. Robinsonthought the only question for the House to decide was, whether under the Bill proposed by the Government, the object proposed to be attained —a good system of lighting, would be better attained than under the amendment of the hon. Member for Bridport. And with all the respect which he (Mr. Robinson) entertained for that hon. Member's scientific knowledge, he felt himself compelled to say, that he must support, not his proposal, but the Bill as framed by the Government. The hon. Member for Bridport had argued this question as though all the lights in the country were to be placed under the absolute control of the Trinity Board. That was not the fact. The Ballast Board of Ireland, and the Commissioners of Northern Lights in Scotland, were to suggest where they consider new lights may be advantageously placed, or in what manner alterations may be effected in the old ones, and it was only provided that they should not have the power of either erecting or altering until the Trinity Board's concurrence had been given. That was in his opinion a very wise provision; but then let it be remembered, that it was combined with an appeal to the Privy Council; and thus you would have first, the local experience of the two Boards he bad mentioned; then the practical know-
144
ledge and scientific assistance of the Trinity Board, and lastly an appeal to the King in Council. This was not the proper time to discuss the merits of the constitution of the Trinity Board, but he agreed with the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, that it was of great advantage to the public, that the members of the Board were composed of mercantile marine officers; and considering the great importance to the commerce of the country that that marine should be stimulated to improvement by the hopes of advancement, he (Mr. Robinson) would not consent to take away from them the only prize to which they could now aspire.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the Committee, consisting of forty-seven Members, only seven of whom were what were called Conservative, had reported unanimously in favour of the present constitution of the Trinity Board. The question had been asked why the lighthouses were not given over to the charge of the Admiralty? he would reply by referring to the case of France, where the first act of the Convention was to put the lighthouses under the department of the marine, an arrangement, however, which had very soon been practically abandoned. He begged to refer to the Report of the Committee, to show that the Trinity Board had proceeded with regularity in the improvement of the system under their superintendence; and he must express his conviction, that if any new schemes could be devised for its further improvement, and for the further introduction of economy into it, there was no public department which would be found more inclined to adopt them, if practicable, than that Board. He could not conceive a greater encouragement to the mercantile marine of the country than to give to its members, on their retirement from that service, these distinctions. But he did not rest his defence of the constitution of the Trinity Board on that narrow ground, but on this higher ground, that it was on the whole the best authority to which the management of lighthouses could be committed. Lieutenant Drummond, in his evidence before the Select Committee, declared, that in every case of experiment the business was conducted in the fairest and most agreeable manner, and with every facility to the parties engaged. He did not think that there would be a higher testimony in favour of the Trinity Board than that afforded by this gentleman. This gentleman, however, suggested for the im-

145
provement of the Board, that it should consist of four persons, namely, an optician, the hydographer to the Admiralty, a chemist, and the President of the Board of Trade. Now he (Sir R. Peel) did not think that a Board so constituted would either be as efficient or as agreeable as that which at present existed. He did not wish to underrate the value of the services of scientific men in matters of this kind, but he was of opinion that it would be found a much more efficient plan to offer rewards to them for the discovery of such improvements as might from time to time be wanted, than to place them permanently upon a Board of this kind. He was certainly an honorary member of the Trinity Board, and he might, perhaps, on that account, be suspected of being prejudiced upon the subject; but he must say, that, apart from every consideration of the kind, he thought he had found, in the evidence before the Committee on this subject, the strongest grounds for confirming their report.
Mr. Hawessaid, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had not touched the proposition of the hon. Member for Bridport; but had confined himself to the constitution of the Trinity Board. It was no part of the proposition of the hon. Member to alter that constitution. The hon. Member for Tamworth indeed said, he did not approve of the Board being self-elected. But the hon. Member for Bridport only said, "I do not wish to alter the constitution of the Board at all: I leave it as it is—I leave it in possession of all the "collateral advantages" of which the right hon. Baronet opposite spoke." All the objections, then, to that proposition, which had been urged on the ground of any alteration in the constitution of the Board, fell to the ground. The real question was, how would the public service be best conducted? And certainly, looking back to the past, he (Mr. Hawes) did not think the Trinity Board entitled to unmixed praise. All that the hon. Member for Bridport proposed was, to place this and the two other Boards under the super intendance of the Admiralty. No arguments had been urged against that proposal, and he (Mr. Hawes) should support it to a division.
Mr. Aaron Chapmansaid, the amendment of the hon. Member for Bridport went to take away from the Trinity Board its duties; and as a Member of the Legislature, he (Mr. Chapman) objected to such a proposition: he contended, that the acts
146
of no public body should be brought upon the table of that House. He supported this Bill, as being calculated to promote the benefit of the mercantile interest. In his opinion, it was utterly impossible for the Admiralty Board to transact the business intended to be committed to the Trinity Board, unless the Admiralty were to neglect the business which properly belonged to it.
Mr. Wallacesupported the proposition of the hon. Member for Bridport, on the ground that it was not expedient to place such a degree of control as that which was proposed in the hands of a self-elected Board like that of the Trinity Board.
Mr. Ewartsupported the proposition of the hon. Member for Bridport, on the ground that it would bring the lighthouses of the country under the control of a body which would be subject to greater responsibility than at present existed. It was idle to suppose, that a body such as the Trinity Board constituted out of the House, having no representatives in the House, could be so responsible as the Admiralty. He did not see that there was any force whatever in the argument of the hon. Member for Whitby, that the Board of Admiralty could not attend to the business of the Trinity Board without neglecting its own. Surely, the Board of Admiralty might superintend and supervise the business in the same way as the Home Department exercised a control over departments the particular business of which was not conducted by it.
Sir J. Grahambore his testimony to the perfect satisfaction given by the mode in which business was conducted between the Admiralty Board, and the Trinity Board. He gave his cordial assent to the measure.
Mr. Humesaid, that it was perfectly true that he concurred in the Report which had been made by the Committee which sat upon this subject; because, when he found it impossible to carry his proposition for placing the three Boards under one body, which should be under the control of the Admiralty Board, and through the latter responsible to that House, he consented to the power given to the Trinity Board, after the Deputy master had come forward in an open and unconstrained manner, and declared the intention of the body to have some alterations in its constitution, which he, for one, considered essentially necessary. Whilst, therefore, he agreed in the principles on which his hon. Friend's proposition was founded, and expressed his conviction of its being ulti-

147
mately successful, he trusted that his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee upon it, particularly when he bore in mind that the present Bill went some way in correcting the abuses which arose from the existence of private lighthouses.
Sir Charles Adamwas clearly of opinion, that the principle of centralization which this Bill was framed to enforce was necessary; but he could not see the propriety of placing under the control of the Admiralty establishments which were supported by a tax on the maritime community.
Sir L. Parrybore his testimony to the satisfaction given at present in his country (Wales we suppose), at the manner in which the lighting at least was conducted under the Trinity Board.
Mr. Warburtonfelt bound to press his proposal to a division.
The Committee divided on the original Clause: Ayes 68; Noes 7;—Majority 6l.

List of the AYES—Not Official.

Thomson, C. P.

Estcourt

Sibthorpe, Col.

Neeld, J.

Philips, Mark

Baines

Parker, M.

Knox

Wood, C.

Graham, Sir J.

Adam, Admiral

Sandon, Lord

Lushington, Dr.

Peel, Sir R.

Hobhouse, Sir John

Inglis, Sir R.

Hastie

Chapman, A.

Chichester

Young, G. F.

Russell, Lord Charles

Pechell, Captain

Kearsley

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Baldwin, Dr.

Price, Grove

D'Eyncourt

Barry, Colonel

Potter

Dick, Quintin

Pringle

Fielden, W.

Thornely

Reid, Sir John R.

Fergusson, C.

Forster

Sharpe, General

Maule, F.

Pryme

Wodehouse

Jervis

Fitzgerald

Brocklehurst

Hamilton

Blamire, W.

Alsager, Captain

Poulter

Plunket

Lambton

Fremantle, Sir T.

Russell, Lord John

Praed, W.

Grey, Sir G.

French

Tancred

O'Ferrall, M.

Smith, Vernon

Humphery, J.

Donkin, Sir R.

Barnard

TELLER.

Pusey, P.

Labouchere

Minority.

Hawes

Hume

Wallace

Thompson, Colonel

Bowring, Dr.

TELLER.

Ewart

Warburton.

The remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved the addition of a clause
148
to put an end to the granting of further pensions by the Trinity Board. This clause he proposed in pursuance of the recommendation of the Select Committee, the Members of which very properly thought, that the moneys collected as light dues should not be applied in supporting the pension-list of the Trinity House.
On the question that the clause be read a second time,
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that all the information which he had been able to obtain upon the subject induced and justified him in opposing the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex. There had been no complaint whatever made by the shipping interest against the payment of the pensions in question, nor was there the slightest suspicion of any favoritism or misapplication of the money. The number of persons who benefitted by these pensions was 8,557, and the aggregate amount of the pensions was only 23,000 l. It would be extremely harsh and ungenerous to deprive the individuals in question, many of them widows and orphans, of the small relief thus afforded them.
Mr. Wallaceobjected, not to the charity, but to the manner in which the money was raised. If the hon. Member for Middlesex divided, he would, as a matter of principle, divide with him.
Mr. Aaron Chapmanconcurred in the opinions which had been expressed by the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. George F. Youngcalled the attention of Members to the charter of the Trinity House, by which it appeared that they were authorised and directed to distribute their surplus in the charitable manner they did at present. He referred to the late manifestation of opinion at Greenock, on a question that arose in favour of those pensions, and also to the unanimous approbation declared at the town which he represented (North Shields), which, in commercial importance, was entitled to great consideration, as equal to Liverpool, and only inferior to London.
Mr. Humeobjected to these pensions being paid out of the shipping rates. He knew a parish in Yorkshire from which a single ship had never sailed, and where, notwithstanding, there were ninety-five pensioners, he had no objection that private individuals should subscribe to this purpose if they chose to do so. All he asked was, that they should act on the recommendation of the Committee of 1824.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10; Noes 85;—Majority 75.

List of the AYES.—(Not Official)

Buckingham, J. S.

Wakley, T.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Wallace, R.

Ewart, W.

Warburton, H.

Lambton, H.

Williams, W.

Potter, R.

TELLER.

Scholefield, J.

Hume, J.

The House resumed. The Report to be received.

HAND-LOOM WEAVERS—ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Established Church Bill.
Mr. Maxwellbegged to be permitted to move the second reading of the Hand-loom Weavers' Bill.
Lord John Russellcould not consent to the motion,
Mr. Maxwellmust then move as an amendment, that the order of the day for the second reading of the Hand-loom Weavers' Bill be read.
The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 65; Noes 51;—Majority 14.

List of the AYES.

Alston, R.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bannerman, A.

O'Connell, M. J.

Blamire, W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Buller, C.

O'Loghlen, M.

Campbell, Sir J.

Parker, J.

Chapman, L.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir. H.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Parry, Sir L. J.

Clements, Viscount

Pechell, Captain

Divett, E.

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Donkin, Sir R.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Philips, M.

Forster, C. S.

Potter, R.

French, F.

Poulter, J. S.

Grey, Sir G.

Price, Sir R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Pryme, G.

Hastie, A.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hawkins, J. H.

Russell, Lord John

Henniker, Lord

Russell, Lord Charles

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Seale, Colonel,

Seymour, Lord

Horsman, E.

Stanley, E. J.

Howard, P. H.

Thompson, right hon. C. P.

Hume, J.

Jervis, J.

Thornely, T.

Knox, hon. J. J.

Townley, R. G.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Tulk, C. A.

Lambton, H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Lefevre, C. S.

Warburton, H.

Lennard, T. B.

Wilson, H.

Lushington, C.

Wood, C.

Lynch, A. H.

Wood, Alderman

Maher, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS.

Mullins, F. W.

Steuart, R.

Murray, rt. hn. J. A.

Smith, V.

150

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Mathew, G. B.

Baines, E.

Nicholl, Dr.

Bowes, J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Brocklehurst, J.

Perceval, Colonel

Brotherton, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Buckingham, J. S.

Plunket, hon. R. E.

Cayley, E. S.

Praed, W. M.

Chisholm, A. W.

Price, S. G.

Dick, Q.

Rippon, C.

Eaton, R. J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Elley, Sir J.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Estcourt, T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Fielden, J.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Stormont, Viscount

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Tennent, J. E.

Hardy, J.

Thomas, Colonel

Harland, W. C.

Trevor, hon. A.

Hawes, B.

Twiss, H.

Hay, Sir J.

Wakley, T.

Hindley, C.

Wodehouse, E.

Hogg, J. W.

Wyndham, W.

Hope, J.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Yorke, E. T.

Law, hon. C. E.

TELLERS:

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Maxwell,—

Lowther, Viscount

Forbes, W.

The Order of the Day for the Committee on the Church Bill was read. On the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair,
Mr. Jervisrose to make the motion of which he had given notice relative to the principality of Wales. It was notorious to every one who knew anything of that part of the country, that dissent had very much increased of late years; and he (Mr. Jervis) believed that that increase was mainly owing to the fact that the great majority of the clergymen and dignitaries of the Church in that district were Englishmen, and consequently alien in blood, in manners and in language from the great bulk of the population. To show that he was not without some foundation for this belief; he would beg the House to attend to the following short statement. In the seventeenth century, during a period of forty years, the Diocese of St. Asaph was occupied by four Welchmen; for a like period in the last century the same see was filled by four Englishmen. Let the House mark the different results which followed in the two cases. In the first period, one of the Bishops translated the Bible,—another the Testament into Welsh, and the other two were prelates of great learning and piety. In the second interval, one bishop was appointed because he had been tutor to a nobleman; and another was non-resident. During the earlier period, the population were converted from popery to Protestantism; during the later period, they were

151
drawn from the Church to Dissent. He (Mr. Jervis) did not trace this difference of effect solely to difference of language. The difference of manners between the English and the Welsh clergy would have great influence: the English were grave, serious, unaccustomed to gesticulation, while the Welsh were lively, active, and, acting upon feeling—were to be reached only by energetic and impassioned appeals: it might, therefore, be easily perceived, that the English mode of preaching was not likely to be so effective in the principality as the preaching of native teachers. But in fact the appointment of Englishmen to Welsh livings and sees, rendered him utterly incompetent to discharge some of the most important duties of their offices. The parishioners were deprived of the instructions of their pastors, which, under other circum-stances, were so beneficial; and the rites of the Church confirmation, for instance, were obliged to be performed through an interpreter. Now if this was not in direct contravention of the Articles of the Established Church, it was, at least, contradictory to their spirit. In the 24th Article, it was plainly requited that the Word of God should not be dispensed, nor the sacraments and the rites of the Church administered, in a language not understood by the people. He (Mr. Jervis) was not without authority and precedent on his side. In the reign of Henry 2nd or 3rd the Archbishop of Canterbury sending English Bishops into Wales, the Welsh people petitioned the Pope, saying, that the Archbishop sent them bishops who were ignorant of their language, who could not preach the Word of God to them, not administer the sacrament but through the medium of an interpreter; and the complaint was then attended to. It was his (Mr. Jervis's) object, in the motion which he was about to make, to place the Established Church in Wales on a sure and firm footing, by identifying it with the great body of the people. The only objection he could anticipate to his motion was, that it would then be impossible to find men in sufficient numbers competent to discharge the duties of the pastoral office in Wales. But that was confounding the cause with the effect. It was because of the practice which had so long existed, and which he was endeavouring to abolish, that great numbers of eminent Welsh clergymen had been driven from the Church to dissent. And let the House remember this: that it was not so much men of classic learning, or of high reputation for erudition, who were required in Wales, as men of piety and
152
respectability indeed, and devotion to the duties of their sacred calling. What more absurd than to set over Welsh parishes clergymen deeply read in classic lore, but unable to converse with the people of whom they have the charge. All that was wanted in Wales was, a body of clergymen who could communicate the great truths of religion, and dispense the sacraments of the Church, in a language in which they would be understood by their flocks. He begged to move that it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to receive a clause that no clergyman not fully conversant with the Welsh language be appointed to any see or benefice in the principality of Wales.
Sir Love Parrymost cordially seconded the motion, he thought the House bound either to assent to that motion, or to establish a general system of education to teach the Welsh the English language.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, before the House required it as an absolute condition of induction into any living or see in Wales that the clergyman or ecclesiastical dignitary should be acquainted with the Welsh language, they should be quite certain that the proportion of those who did not understand the English language was sufficient to justify such an enactment — which would so restrict the choice of persons best qualified for discharging the duties of the pastoral office in Wales.
Sir Love Parrycould assure the House there were immense masses of population, in Radnorshire, Brecknockshire, Caernarvonshire, &c, who could not understand a word of the English language.
Mr. Humesaid, that having presented several petitions from Wales on this subject, praying for such an enactment as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Chester, he should feel it his duty to support that proposal to the utmost of his power. At all events he agreed with the hon. seconder, that the House was bound either to make the proposed enactment, or to establish schools throughout Wales, to instruct the inhabitants in the English language.
Mr. Buckinghamsupported the motion. He could bear testimony to the fact, that the English Church suffered much in Wales for want of pastors who understood the language of the people.
Mr. Wynnsaid, it seemed to be assumed that Clergymen in Wales were, generally ignorant of the Welsh language; and that the

153
service was generally performed in the English language, whereas, as the law now stood, no clergyman could be appointed to a parish in which the Welsh language was prevalent, who was not conversant with that language; and he believed it was usual for the Bishops of Welsh sees to have a Welsh chaplain to examine candidates for institution into parishes so circumstanced. He (Mr. Wynn) could not consent, however much he was attached to the language and the customs of his ancestors, to go the full length of the proposal made by his hon. and learned Friend: for there were large districts in Wales in which the English language was almost universally diffused; and many in which the Welsh and English being pretty nearly equal, it was found advantageous to have an English and Welsh service alternately.
Lord John Russellwas not disposed to vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Chester. His chief objection to it was, that it would in his opinion tend to widen the separation between the two countries. It was undoubtedly desirable that parishes in which the Welsh language prevailed, Welsh clergymen should be appointed; and he was not aware that under the present system such was not the case in the majority of instances. But to enact positively that no person who did not understand the Welsh language should be presented to any living or benefice in Wales, he (Lord John Russell) believed would draw a line of separation between the Welsh clergy and the English clergy, which he for one did not desire should be drawn. If this motion were carried, what should prevent the same principles being extended to the case of Judges going upon Welsh circuits. Indeed the argument was stronger in that case, than in the case of a Bishop. And so the argument might be carried through a variety of other cases,—thus gradually widening the separation between the countries which all must wish to see removed. He (Loyd John Russell) was much more inclined to accede to the latter alternative of the hon. Baronet who seconded the Motion, and educate the Welsh in the English language, than to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Chester.
Lord Robert Grosvenorsaid, that though he did not feel it necessary to go as far as the hon. Member for Chester, he was favourable to his motion to a certain extent, because he believed the
154
great increase in dissent of late years had been mainly owing to the general appointment, as pastors of the Welsh Church, of men who were not conversant with the Welsh language. It was true, indeed, that the evil had been remedied in particular cases by the discrimination and good sense of the Bishops of some of the Welsh dioceses. But it was necessary to provide for cases in which that discrimination might not exist, still he should certainly not vote for a provision which would extend to the case of a district in which the great proportion of the population were conversant with the English language.
Mr. Pagetthought no measure would so much tend to promote the success of the Church of England and Wales, as the proposition of the hon. Member for Chester, and he would give it his cordial support.
Lord Granville Somersetthought, that the best remedy for the evil complained of by the hon. and learned Member for Chester, was in the exercise of a sound discretion, and not in the compulsory and absolute provision which he proposed to make, and which entirely precluded all discretion. There might be cases in which it would be inconvenient and improper to take the qualification he suggested as a test of the fitness or unfitness of a clergyman for a Welsh living, as well as cases in which it would be beneficial and proper so to do. There might be cases in which a bad Welshman, but a good clergyman, would be more desirable than an indifferent clergyman, though well versed in the Welsh language. He (Lord G. Somerset) agreed with the noble Lord, the Home Secretary, that it was exceedingly undesirable to keep up any such distinction in religious matters which might widen the separation between the two countries, as this motion would produce. Altogether, he had rather, as he said, that the remedy should be sought in the exercise of a sound discretion than in any legislative enactment.
Mr. Rice Trevorbelieved the great increase of dissent in Wales, was entirely owing to the absence of a sufficient number of clergymen acquainted with the Welsh language. And he thought it a very desirable provision which was proposed by the hon. Member for Chester. As to what had been said about its tending to widen the separation between the countries, if he (Mr. Trevor) thought it would have that effect, he certainly would not support it. But he did not think it at all likely that

155
the result would be such as had been anticipated. On the contrary he believed the surest mode of binding the Welsh people to this country was the encouraging in them respect and veneration for the Established Church, and the surest method for effecting that object was the sending them clergymen who would teach them its doctrines, and administer its ceremonies in a language which they could understand. He, however, did not think it necessary that all the Bishops of Welsh dioceses should be conversant with the Welsh language, because they could appoint chaplains who understood it, to examine into the fitness of the clergymen claiming institution into livings in Wales.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that agreeing as he did in the principle advocated by the hon. Member for Chester, and believing that the majority of the House conceded to that principle, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not divide the House upon his motion, because, as there appeared to be certain difficulties apprehended in the way of carrying his object into effect in the manner which he suggested, a wrong construction might be put upon the feeling and opinion of the House; and it might be supposed that the House did not agree in the principle of the hon. Gentleman, because they did not accede to his proposition: although he (Sir Robert Peel) could not go along with the hon. Gentleman in making it an absolute condition upon induction into a living or see in Wales, that the person inducted should be conversant with the Welsh language, he cordially agreed that the object he wished to attain was a very desirable one. He (Sir Robert Peel) owned that he was not influenced in his opinion upon this subject by being told that if this motion were carried, it would be impossible to resist another motion for extending its principle to the case of the Judges who went the Welsh circuits. He was not quite sure whether that would not be advantageous; and whether justice would not be much more satisfactorily administered, when the judge himself could understand the evidence of the witnesses directly from their own mouths, than when that evidence must be received through the medium of an interpreter. Neither could he agree with those who apprehended from this motion being carried, any tendency to widen the separation between the two countries. He believed it would have a contrary effect. Depend upon it
156
that by sending into Wales clergymen who would be able to converse with their parishioners in their own tongue, so far from producing a greater separation between the countries, you would be taking the most effectual means for promoting the disuse of the Welsh, and the prevalence of the English language, because you would thereby inspire the Welsh people with confidence in the English Government, and assure them that their interest were considered in this House. On the whole, although he hoped and believed the Bishops of the principality would see the advantage of exercising a proper discretion in the appointment of clergymen to Welsh parishes, and though he believed this debate would go some way in promoting the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he (Sir Robert Peel) hoped the hon. Gentleman would not by dividing the House upon a proposition to which he for one could not agree, give rise to the supposition that the House, in negativing his motion, did not adopt his principle.
Mr. Jervisexplained, that he had no intention to make his clause compulsory, in the case even of a parish in which the bulk of the population did understand the English language. All he desired was, that the Commissioners should have the power of requiring that the clergyman should be conversant with the Welsh language, in cases in which his parishioners could speak that language. If the House adopted the principle of his instruction, there could be no difficulty in framing a clause which should meet both cases.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that there could be no doubt as to the desirableness of the object which the hon. Gentleman wished to attain; but he (Mr. Goulburn) would rather that, if possible, it should be attained without legislative enactment. That object might be secured in two ways: by taking care that persons intended for the ministry in Wales should be acquainted with the Welsh language, or by providing that persons acquainted with that language should be educated as divines. The hon. member for Chester seemed to prefer the former course. Now that method was sufficiently provided for at present. For there was at this moment in Wales, an university for the express purpose of educating young men intended for the ministry in Wales, in the Welsh language. This was in his (Mr. G.'S) opinion the best mode by which the evils the hon. Gentleman complained of could be removed—it furnished the

157
bishops of Wales, who would (he was sure) be disposed to exercise a sound judgment on the subject, with the means of appointing to these benefices in which the Welsh language was spoken, pious clergymen conversant with that language. Thus every object which the hon. Member could wish to attain, would be reached under the present system, without involving the House in the difficulties attending the adoption of his motion.
Mr. Guestknew one parish in Wales, in which there was not one person who spoke English, and he certainly would support the motion.
Mr. Chisholmalso approved of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Chester. Nor could he see the distinction in this case between the bishops and parochial clergy.
Mr. Jerviswithdrew his original proposition, and, after amending it moved: —"That it be an instruction to the Committee, that they have power to receive a clause, empowering the Commissioners to make regulations by which no clergyman, not fully conversant with the Welsh language, shall be appointed to any see in the principality, nor to any benefice in Wales, the inhabitants of which are not acquainted with the English, language."
The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 64; Majority 10.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Guest, J. J.

Agnew, Sir A.

Hamilton, G. A.

Alsager, Captain

Hardy, J.

Alston, R.

Harland, W. C.

Biddulph, R.

Hastie, A.

Boldero, H. G.

Hay, Sir J.

Bowes, J.

Henniker, Lord

Bridgeman, H.

Hindley, C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Horsman, E.

Brotherton, J.

Hume, J.

Brownrigg, S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cayley, E. S.

Jones, W.

Chalmers, P.

Lambton, H.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Leader, J. T.

Chisholm, A. W.

Lennard, T. B.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Divett, E.

Lushington, C.

Eaton, R. J.

Mackenzie, S.

Egerton, Sir P.

Mathew, G. B.

Elley, Sir J.

Parker, J.

Estcourt, T.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Euston, Earl of

Pechell, Captain

Ewart, W.

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Forbes, W.

Phillips, M.

Forster, C. S.

Plumptre, J. P.

Gladstone, W. E.

Plunket, hon. R. E.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Potter, R.

158

Poulter, J. S.

Trevor, hon. A.

Pryme, G.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pusey, P.

Tulk, C. A.

Rippon, C.

Vesey, hon. T.

Russell, Lord C.

Wakley, T.

Ruthven, E.

Wallace, R.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Warburton, H.

Seale, Colonel

Wilson, H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Thomas, Colonel

TELLERS.

Thompson, Colonel

Jervis, J.

Thornely, T.

Hall, B.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Viscount

Lynch, A. H.

Adam, Sir C.

M'Namara, Major

Baillie, H. D.

Meynell, Captain

Baines, E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Baldwin, Dr.

Murray, rt. hn. J. A.

Bernal, R.

Nicholl, Dr.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Loghlen, M.

Buller, C.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Buller, Sir J.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Chapman, L.

Perceval, Colonel

Clerk, Sir G.

Power, J.

Donkin, Sir R.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Ebrington, Viscount

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Egerton, W. T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Sandon, Viscount

French, F.

Seymour, Lord

Gordon, R.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Smith, R. V.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grimston, Viscount

Sturt, H. C.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Harcourt, G. G.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hawes, B.

Wilde, Sergeant

Hay, Sir A. L.

Williams, R.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Wood, C.

Hogg, J. W.

Wyndham, W.

Knox, hon. J. J.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Yorke, E. T.

Lefevre, C. S.

Lefroy, A.

TELLERS.

Lemon, Sir C.

Stanley, E. J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Steuart, R.

The House went into Committee.
On Clause 10,
Mr. Lambton Mr. Lambton moved as a proviso, that no portion of the revenues of the see of Durham be devoted to other ecclesiastical purposes, until provision is made for the spiritual wants, and moral instruction of the inhabitants of that diocese had been adequately provided for out of those revenues. Durham possessed a numerous population, and their spiritual wants ought to be first attended to. There was the evidence of the Lord Chief Justice of England, that crime abounded in that county. Now, if religion was to be upheld, and that the superabundant revenues of the bishopric was to be directed to the

159
uses of religion, they could not be better applied than to the moral and religious instruction of the people of the county The whole body of the people of the county of Durham concurred in the principle of the proviso, and he trusted, therefore, that it would meet with the approbation of the Committee.
Lord John Russellthought, that his hon. Friend was mistaken as to the effect of the Bill. When he addressed the House on the subject of this measure on a former occasion, he stated that there would be a sum of money derived from the bishoprics, as well as about 129,000 l. from the suppression of certain offices in the Church, which surplus was to be devoted to the increase of the incomes of the holders of the smaller benefices and to the promotion of the religious instruction of the people. In the diocese of Durham there were some rich canonries, the holders of which had no duty to perform beyond that connected with the cathedral. It was proposed by the Commissioners, that after provision had been made for the service in the cathedral, that the remainder of the revenues of these canonries should be applied to the increase of the incomes of the holders of the poorer incumbencies, and otherwise to the making provision for the religious instruction of the people. There were undoubtedly many populous places in Durham, where there was not at present adequate provision of the latter kind; but when he stated that the surplus accruing in this way was to be devoted to the objects which he had described, it was not fair to suppose that no care had been taken to provide for the religious instruction of the inhabitants of the diocese of Durham. He denied, that one of the chief objects of the Bill was to take a considerable proportion of the revenues of the see of Durham away, with a view of creating two new bishoprics. There were certainly to be two new bishoprics, but these were to be created in substitution of two others in a different part of the country, which were to be suppressed. In short, it was proposed that there should be a new territorial distribution of the dioceses. It could not, therefore, be fairly stated that they intended to take away a large share of the income of the diocese. With respect to the object of the Bill, he should wish his hon. Friend to consider what were the intentions of the Commissioners with respect to the diocese of Durham. The Commissioners proposed to do away with what had been long a
160
reasonable source of complaint—that such rich bishoprics existed in one part of the country which might be contrasted with such poor ones in other districts—that to one bishopric there was annexed a superfluity of income which was not justifiable, while to another bishopric, in order to afford an adequate revenue, they were obliged to annex some prebendship or other office of dignity, or a benefice which then often had not proper care devoted to it. He felt the wants of the holders of benefices in the diocese of Durham; but when the Commissioners stated that they should, by the arrangement now proposed, be able to increase the revenues of those populous parishes, and to administer to the instruction of the people, he did not think that it would be proper or expedient to stop at the threshold, as was proposed by his hon. Friend, and to make an essential alteration in the plan for the benefices of the diocese of Durham. The Commissioners said, and he agreed with them, that it would be better to take up the subject and deal with it as a whole, and to apportion and divide the whole revenue that would be placed by this arrangement at their disposal, in such manner that each clergyman having the cure of souls might have an adequate income, and that above all, the revenue of the bishops might be placed on a more satisfactory footing than it was at present. As he went into great detail on this subject the other night, he would not detain the Committee by repeating what he then said. He could not help observing, however, that if they at once proceeded to apply themselves to the wants of each local case, and to the spiritual demands of each benefice, that the result would be that the plan of Church Reform now proposed, or any other which was likely to be proposed, would not be successful, and the hopes of those who now anticipated a beneficial change in the Establishment would be disappointed.
Mr. Arthur Trevorstated, that the greatest apprehension had been excited in the diocese of Durham in consequence of the recommendations of the Commissioners, and the measures which had been brought forward founded on them. He contended that adequate attention had not been paid to the wants of the population of this large and important diocese.
Mr. Harlandonly rose for the purpose of stating, that there existed on this subject a very strong feeling in the Bishopric of Durham. A great portion of the reve-

161
nues of the see had already been devoted to purposes of general education, and he was surprised that the present measure, which was a violation of Church Property, should be supported by those who opposed the appropriation clause of the Irish Church Bill. He would certainly support the clause proposed by his hon. Friend.
The Committee divided. Ayes 8; Noes 88; Majority 80.
Original clause agreed to.
The remaining clauses were severally agreed to.
The House resumed; the Bill to be reported.