Lords Sitting of 29 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Postage on Newspapers; Land Tax Commissioners Names.—Read a second time:—Paper Duties; Admiralty Jurisdiction (Prince of Wales's Island).—Read a first time:—Stafford Bribery.
Petitions presented. By Lord DUNCANNON, from Waterford, complaining of Great Irregularity in the Grand Jury Rates, and praying for Equalization of said Rates.—By Earl BROWNLOW, from Cleethorpe and Thrunscoe, against Oyster Fisheries' Bill.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from Poole, to be heard by Counsel against Poole Corporation Bill.—By the Duke of BUCCLEUCH, from the Synod of Caithness and Sunderland, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI, from the Grand Jury, Donegal, against Grand Juries' (Ireland) Bill; also that a Clause may be added to the Bill requiring the County Treasurers to pay over the Balance in their bands after each Assizes.

STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT.
The Marquess of Clanricarderose to renew the motion which he had formerly made—namely, that the Stafford Borough Disfranchisement Bill be now read a second time. The evidence that had been submitted to their Lordships, with respect to the corrupt state of this borough, had been so fully confirmed by the witnesses lately examined at the bar, that a doubt as to the propriety of passing the measure then on their Lordships' table could no longer be entertained. His noble and learned Friend opposite had been very severe on the evidence formerly given, and had said, that he could not act on the belief of that evidence; but that which had been adduced in the present instance was so full and clear—the evidence laid before the Committee of the House of Commons was so decisive—that no doubt of its truth could enter the mind of any reasonable man. It ought particularly to be observed, that all the witnesses brought forward, with scarcely one exception, were hostile witnesses—nay, one or two of them narrowly escaped severe censure, if not punishment, in consequence of the manner in which they gave their evidence; and that they had so escaped was owing rather to the leniency of their Lordships' House, than to the discretion or fairness of the witnesses themselves in giving their answers. Their Lordships had thought proper to begin the examination with reference to the election of 1835. The Bill, however, was not founded on any thing that had occurred on that occasion, and therefore the examination was so far irrelevant. The Bill then before their Lordships' House had reference to former delinquencies; and if at the latter period, that of 1835, the constituency sought to retrieve their character in some degree, that circumstance ought not to prevent their Lordships from legislating on preceding transactions of a culpable nature. Their Lordships then went back to 1826, and it was proved that the successful candidates at that election paid, the one 9,000 l., and the other 6,500 l., forming a gross sum of 15,500 l. In 1830 the two successful candidates paid, the one 2,300 l., and the other 2,500 l. The unsuccessful candidate paid 1,000 l., and had only one-half the number of votes that were given to the other candidates. In 1831, one of the gentlemen who had been elected in 1830, having got a better knowledge of the borough, and his agent being an acute observed, deemed it far cheaper to bribe than

651
to treat, and was returned by a considerable majority. In 1832, a petition was presented against the two successful candidates. That petition was referred to a Select Committee (a more fair or impartial Committee could not have been appointed) and in the Report of that Committee, the present Bill originated. As to the subsequent election of 1835, there was no necessity for their Lordships to inquire into it at all. This, however, he would say, that the election of 1835, so far from relieving the constituency of Stafford from the charges brought against it, actually stamped that constituency, looking to all the circumstances, with the character of corruption. It was proved that 186 persons had been directly bribed by one of the candidates, while a system of unlimited treating was encouraged by the rest. A sum of 5,500 l. was expended, and the gentleman whose liberality was best known was elected. It appeared that, in the course of five elections, which occurred in ten years, not less than 36,582 l. were expended amongst a constituency now stated to amount to 1,270, but of whom not more than 1,100 were in the habit of voting. Thus nearly 4,000 l. a year was poured into Stafford during these ten years merely for the purchase of votes. A number of persons had petitioned against this Bill. They expressed the utmost indignation at the charge of corruption which had been brought against the borough generally, and they besought their Lordships not to suffer them to be involved in the consequences of the guilt of others. Now, in 1832, a petition was presented against the sitting Members, and the petitioners called upon the Legislature either to pass a Bill for regulating the future elections, so as to prevent bribery, or to extend the franchise to the occupiers of houses of 10 l. a year. Now, he found that that petition was signed by 126 of the persons who had also signed the present petition. In the latter instance the number of petitioners was 407, of whom forty-five were non-resident. The petition was therefore really signed by 352 electors; and of that 352 no less than 220 were proved to have been directly bribed. In the address of one of the defeated candidates at a recent election, that gentleman actually spoke of the electors as corrupt; and one of the witnesses before the Commons' Committee declared that there was more virtue in the old constituency than in the new. It appeared, indeed, throughout the evidence that money, and
652
money alone, was considered by the electors in returning Members to Parliament. Treating had been practised to an enormous extent. He knew that treating was different from bribery, but it was not therefore a less offence. In a moral point of view, it might be considered worse. Treating had a more baneful effect in a town than bribery. Bribery affected only individuals, but treating filled the whole town with dissipation and debauchery. He contended, that almost the whole constituency of Stafford were involved in this charge, some he allowed in a greater, and some in a less degree; but, in his opinion, their general conduct had been such as rendered them unfit to return Members to Parliament. On these grounds, he called on their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
Lord Ashburtonadmitted that something ought to be done in this case, that some remedy ought to be provided for the evil complained of; and the question simply was, whether the most proper course for them to take was to pass this Bill. He had paid considerable attention to the evidence as given at the bar, and he had read it over again, to satisfy his mind on the subject. He would not occupy their Lordships' time by recapitulating the evidence in detail, but he would state what appeared to him to have been proved. They had two points to consider—namely, what had been proved, what were the real facts of the case; and then what was the remedy to be applied to the evil. He admitted, in the first place, that there had been some degree of corruption, but it was chiefly confined to treating, to ordinary treating, such as existed in many other places. While he said this, he begged to be understood as not defending the system of treating, which, on the contrary, he thought could not be justified. But while he considered that the charge of treating was a proper one to be considered by the House of Commons, he could not bring himself to think that it was a fit ground on which to pass an act for disfranchising the borough. So much for treating. As to bribery, it had been proved to a certain extent, but not to such an extent as would justify this measure. With respect to the election of 1826, when Vincent and Ironmonger were returned, there was no proof of bribery. Credible witnesses, witnesses who gave their evidence very fairly, had deposed at the bar that there was no bribery on that occasion. In the contest between Beaumont and Spooner

653
there appeared to have been considerable bribery. That certainly was the heaviest case of bribery that had been stated. Mr. Spooner was the popular candidate, but Mr. Beaumont came down with the writ, scattered money abundantly amongst the electors, and defeated the object of his opponent. In 1830, however, Mr. Gisborne got 656 votes without any payment at all. In the subsequent election of 1831, the candidates were the present Attorney-General, Mr. Gisborne, and Mr. Hawkes. There was then bribery on the part of those who acted for the Attorney-General and Mr. Gisborne, but no bribery was imputed to Mr. Hawkes. The Attorney-General, more cunning than the other candidate, stipulated to pay something down, and the rest when he was elected; but Mr. Hawkes, who made no bargain, polled 476 votes. Then came the election of 1832, when Blunt, Chetwynd, and Gronow, were candidates. On that occasion he believed that head money was almost universal. This brought them down to the last election, that of 1835. His noble Friend had said, that the number of votes at the Stafford election was always in proportion to the amount of payment. But, in this instance, it appeared that the person who resorted to bribery lost his election, and that those who received money had been scouted by the other voters. The two other candidates, Mr. Goodricke and Captain Chetwynd, who had not resorted to bribery, were successful, while Captain Gronow was defeated by a large majority. It was a remarkable feature in the election of 1835, that the poor voters, many of them shoemakers, resisted bribery, while those who were in better circumstances were seduced by it. As to the parties who were now, as at all times, most clamorous for purity of election, and most anxious to promote the passing of such Bills as that, he could not help observing that they belonged precisely to that class who, it appeared, were the prominent parties in the acts of bribery proved in the Stafford inquiry. He wished, then, that their Lordships would direct their attention to the exact situation of the facts of the case as they stood, with a view to adopt that course in their legislation which might appear best for the place intended to be made the subject of the act, and on the whole best for the country at large. The question now brought under the consideration of their Lordships was one of much moment. It was really no trifle to
654
disfranchise a county town with such a population as Stafford, and looking at the present state of the House of Commons, he felt himself fully justified in saying that it was any thing but desirable to diminish the number of moderate-sized towns sending Representatives to Parliament. He did not desire to see the House of Commons mainly composed of Members from agricultural counties, and from large manufacturing towns; on the contrary, he rather desired to preserve the power of returning Members to those which were more or less connected with both, and which contained that amount of population that prevented their partaking exclusively of the character of either. He, of course, was perfectly ready to admit, that in the case of Stafford something decisive must be done. They might adopt a Bill, the express purpose of which was complete and entire disfranchisement, treating the case of Stafford as one allowing of no remedy—that was one course open to the House; another was, to deal with distinct classes of the electors. Now, neither of these courses was free from difficulty; to one of them he must positively object, namely, the proposition for total disfranchisement. He did not feel favourable either to a disfranchisement of the freemen; they might be in some instances necessitous; in many cases he feared that they were so, but, at the same time Parliament ought not to overlook the fact, that the new constituency called into existence under the Reform. Bill, the householders could not be considered as altogether free from the accusation of poverty, or at least the sort of suspicion to which the absence of independent circumstances must render them liable; and therefore, so far as Stafford was concerned, the freemen and the householders stood in pretty nearly the same situation, and so far at least there was not much to choose between them. To total disfranchisement, then, as well as to a partial disfranchisement of the freemen, he professed himself averse; and instead of either of these courses, his feeling would be favourable to taking up the electors convicted before the Committee in 1835, and adopting the precedent created in 1771 with respect to Shoreham—namely, to disfranchise the guilty individuals by name. Time having been given them to reflect—having allowed them a locus penitentiœ of which they might have availed them-selves, he gave it as his decided opinion that the best course would be to disfran-

655
chise them by name, and in giving to the world a list, it would afford him great satisfaction to add the names of the persons who bribed, for they were the most culpable parties. He was fully aware of the difficulties attending almost any arrangement that could be made. To alter the whole Bill, excepting the word "whereas," with which it commenced, was a course that their Lordships would probably not like to pursue with respect to a measure that had received the sanction of the House of Commons; at the same time, he should be sorry to see a Bill of that sort rejected without having its rejection accompanied by a declaration expressive of the wish of that House to put an end to such practices, as he regretted to say, had prevailed in Stafford. He did not think it right then to trouble the House at any great length, for he wished not at that moment to propose any more decided step till he heard the opinions of noble Lords of greater experience and judgment than himself.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that by the Bill it was proposed totally to disfranchise the borough of Stafford, and to take out of the present House of Commons that number of Members which Stafford at present returned to Parliament. It might be true, as had been stated, that some of the respectable inhabitants of that borough had thought proper to express very strongly the feeling which late elections in Stafford raised in their minds; that, beyond all question, was to be received as a strong evidence of their increasing purity; but it was somewhat worthy of observation that the display of that purity appeared to keep pace pretty accurately with the progress of Reform in the Legislature, and the extension of liberal principles throughout the country; and he saw in that, nothing, certainly that entitled the constituency of the town to a continued enjoyment of the rights of electors, especially the lower orders of the electors, who were, in his opinion, the parties chiefly to blame, though less on the last than on former occasions. Considering, however, the great increase in the constituency of the town effected by the Reform Act, and looking at the result of the evidence, it did appear to him that a sufficient case had not been made out for the passing of the Bill, by which, as he had already stated, there would be a complete disfranchisement of the borough. At the same time it was impossible to go through the evidence without seeing that a strong measure was necessary, yet still not
656
to the extent proposed by the Bill. One mode of dealing with the question which had been proposed was to disfranchise distinct classes, the other mode was to disfranchise individuals To the latter there was this obvious objection, that the proof of the criminality of individuals came out incidentally—that it was not a subject of direct, formal, and regular inquiry, and therefore such information as might so have transpired on the subject ought not to be admitted as just ground for legislative enactment. They had only gone into evidence to show the practice of notorious bribery. The establishment of that fact being the point to which the inquiry was directed, and the evidence influenced in its character by the pursuit of that object, he confessed he did not see how they could with any propriety, entertain the proposition for disfranchising individuals by name. The Bill then before their Lordships raised this question—whether or not the whole town should be disfranchised? and to that he was prepared to give a negative. What more mitigated course they might hereafter think proper to pursue it was not for him then to suggest, but he felt clear in the opinion that they ought not to agree to the second reading of that Bill.
The Marquess of Clanricardebriefly replied, observing, it had been said that the persons professing liberal principles were the principal delinquents, while they were the most clamorous for purity of election. Be that as it might, one thing was clear, that if the House did not adopt the present Bill, they would declare themselves favourable to the practice of bribery.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought the Bill ought to be read a second time, and at a future stage they might take into consideration what modification appeared to be most expedient.
The Lord Chancellorwas afraid that they could not make such an alteration in Committee (with propriety, at least) as would satisfy the views of either party.
Lord Ashburtonunder these circumstances would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Viscount Melbournewould not vote for the second reading, but in making that declaration, he wished to guard against its being supposed that he was unwilling to do all that circumstances could warrant for the purpose of correcting the malpractices against which the Bill was directed. No one wished more earnestly than he did to put an end to such practices.
The House divided: Contents 4; Not-contents 55—Majority 51.
Bill put off for six months.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Bill of which he had then to propose the second reading was a measure founded upon the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown. The Reports of those Commissioners were already upon the table of their Lordships' House, and, as must be known to them, one of the recommendations contained in those Reports was, that the temporal offices attaching to the see of Durham should be separated from the ecclesiastical offices. The Bill, however, to which it then became his duty to direct the attention of the House, was one that did not at all require he should trouble them at any length in the way of general argument in order to persuade them to agree to the second reading; at the same time, it was in some degree necessary that he should trespass upon the indulgence of the House, in order to correct, or rather to guard against, some misapprehension that had gone abroad upon the subject, and more especially for the purpose of correcting some misrepresentations which had gone forth as well in another place as- outside the walls of Parliament. Still he should only trouble them with a few observations, stating the objects of the Bill, defending its authors, and explaining the principle upon which it was founded. It had been represented out of doors that the measure went to create two new additional bishoprics. The fact was not so. It did no such thing, neither did its authors propose to introduce into Parliament any additional ecclesiastical Peers. It had been found that the sees of Gloucester and Bristol might be advantageously united, as might those of St. Asaph and Bangor. It had likewise long been matter of great inconvenience and the cause of great complaint, that the sees of York and of Chester should be so very large. These two latter sees it was proposed to divide into four, and to unite those four first mentioned so as that they should form only two. Thus there would be no addition made to the House of Lords, no increase of ecclesiastical authority in that branch of the Legislature, nor would episcopal jurisdiction be in any way extended. On that point there was a general misapprehension of the provisions of the Bill, and he wished to give to that a most distinct contradiction. The next topic to which it would be necessary for him to
658
direct the attention of the House was the invectives with which the measure and its authors had been assailed, and one of the most prominent grounds of the attack thus made was the amount of income which the Commissioners recommended should be allotted to the Bishops. In the whole of the discussion of that question their adversaries had treated them as if the authors of the measure had to frame a new system, instead of dealing with one that they found already established, as if there had not existed in this country for many centuries an ancient and settled establishment, which the great majority of the people were determined to support, and to which they adhered with a most warm and cordial attachment. Even those who in a degree withdrew themselves from the communion of the Established Church, and who in fact professed themselves Dissenters from the Church, still would rather it should remain established, than submit to the dominancy of any of the sects into which the Protestant community was divided. The established religion had at all times commanded the respect and approbation of the great body of the Dissenters. With this state of things it was that they had to deal; and unless they intended entirely to alter the nature and character of that Establishment—which, for one, he begged to say he was by no means prepared to recommend or support; unless they were prepared to recommend a complete change of the nature and character of that Establishment, there was nothing for them to do but to retrench the superfluity, and correct that which appeared to them to be in some degree subject to the charge of being an abuse. He had seen out of doors the right reverend Prelates accused of great cupidity and avarice, as evidenced in the recommendation which they had concurred in making. Nothing, however, could be so unfounded as that charge. It was utterly impossible that the Commissioners could be influenced by such feelings; for, as the Bill was not intended to have any present or personal operation, they could have no individual interest one way or the other—no selfish object to promote. It was true that they might be attached to their order—it was true that they might be more or less under the influence of professional or religious prejudices, but it was not true that their conduct partook of a base, sordid, or dishonest character. He would ask their Lordships to give their consideration to what were the present incomes of the Bishops, and to what they proposed them to be; and he would begin

659
with the higher rates of income. Taking that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which they proposed should be 15,000 l. a year, he would ask their Lordships whether, considering the station which the Arch, bishop of Canterbury was accustomed to fill, and the respect and influence they desired to secure to him in his station, he was hereafter to hold—considering the nature of the society in, which he must move, and those rules of life, from the observance of which it was impossible for any man to escape—considering the wealth in this country and the distribution of that wealth—considering the fortunes that had been amassed and were every day amassing—could it be said that 15,000 l. a year was an extravagant income? Their Lordships knew very well what such an income as 15,000 l. a year was. He did not say, that if carefully attended to, if well watched, it was not sufficient for the purposes for which it was intended—he did not say, that it would not enable him who possessed it to live in comfort, to afford a decent and proper hospitality, or even to exhibit a becoming degree of generosity, but be must assert that it would allow of nothing superfluous; every man knew, that it would not furnish the means of princely splendour, of magnificence, or extreme luxury; above all, it would not admit of any waste, profusion, or negligence. Then he put it to their Lordships, and he put it to the country, whether, unless they intended materially to alter and change the character and nature of the Establishment—for which, he repeated, he was not prepared—it was just, to say that what was recommended on this occasion was in any degree exorbitant? and if this were true, as regarded the higher rates of income, he imagined it applied with greater force to the inferior incomes. When they were told, as they were perpetually told, that the proposed incomes were three times as much as was allowed to the principal Ministers of State, and considerably more than was allowed to the superior Judges in our Courts of Law, he begged to say he considered those comparisons as in no degree fair, or as leading to any just inference. As regarded the higher offices of the State, their Lordships knew that there always had been, and always would be found, competent persons of considerable fortune, who were tempted by motives of ambition to undertake such offices. That was not the case, he apprehended, in the Church. Fortune and title might descend on a man engaged in the ecclesiastical pro-
660
fessions, but he conceived it was a rare thing for a man with a considerable fortune to embark in the first instance in the Church. A man came to a see probably a poor man; it was very improbable that he came to it a rich man. He came to a high station in the state, then, a poor man, and with the disadvantage of having an income which terminated with his own life. Their Lordships were all aware of the embarrassments to which high station subjected individuals under such circumstances. With respect to the higher situations in the law, they were generally bestowed on barristers who had been lawyers in great practice, and who had had an opportunity of making a fortune in the course of their practice before they arrived at that station. He said, then, taking all these matters into consideration, it must be felt that, unless it was intended to alter the whole system of the Establishment, they were justified in allowing the incomes that had been recommended, and as far as any suggested change in the entire nature of the Establishment went, he would declare that he believed it not to be called for by the feelings or wishes of the country. There were two other points that had been made the subject of much attack—first, the constitution, and secondly, the powers of the Commission. It was thought that those who had become familiar with the subject in the course of the inquiry which had been instituted were likely to be the best qualified to carry into effect the recommendations they themselves had made. It was proposed that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of London should be permanent members of the Commission. There were to be two other Bishops in it, and a noble Earl, whom he saw opposite; there were two laymen, whom it was proposed to appoint; and these were to be removable at the pleasure of the Crown. The power given was to carry into effect the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Those regulations were not to be departed from, the powers of the Commissioners were to be limited to matters of detail and modification. Their duty, then, was to form a scheme to carry the recommendations into effect to be submitted to his Majesty in Council; and when approved of by the Privy Council, his Majesty would be empowered to make an order to carry the plan into operation and such order was to be laid before Parliament. He did not believe that, as regarded this arrange

661
ment, persons most jealously disposed could find any reason to be apprehensive of the authority with which this Commission would be trusted. He had now described the principal provisions of the measure, and, in conclusion, he would move that their Lordships should give the Bill a second reading with a view to carry the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he should not make any observations on the details of the Bill, but there were some of them to which he objected because they did not appear to go far enough. His chief reason, however, for opposing the Bill was, that he did not regard it as likely to be a final settlement of the subject. It might be said, indeed, that no Bill could be considered to be a final settlement of any question; but he thought that the Bill now before the House made very little advance towards such a consummation. He did not deny, that the Bill was calculated to do a great deal of good, but there remained much more to be done. The noble Viscount had made some very strong remarks for the purpose of justifying the proposed income to be allowed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he had said not a word about the proposition that the future Bishop of London should have 10,000 l. a-year,—a proposition which he was not prepared to accede to. He felt that it was rather an invidious task to make remarks of this kind, but he must say, that while he agreed with the noble Viscount that they were not called upon to provide the Prelates and superiors of the Church with means for splendor and luxury, they were bound to think a little of the other persons in the profession who really did a great deal of the work—he meant the working clergy and curates of the country. Misconceptions of the nature of the Bill out of doors might exist, but the disproportion of the work and pay of the clergy had long excited public attention, and he believed that very little misconception prevailed upon that point.
The Bishop of Exeterwas very unwilling to disturb the unanimity with which he hoped the second reading of this Bill would be agreed to. The object of the Bill, which he owned he entirely approved, was to put an end to the practice of commendams, and to discourage the practice of translation. He thought, too, that nothing could be better devised than the plan of distribution, because nothing was
662
taken from any other rank of the clergy than the episcopal. But, although he warmly assented to the general policy of the Bill, he must be permitted to make two or three remarks upon some of its provisions. He did certainly wish that a larger machinery than was necessary had not been erected; he thought that all that was necessary was, that a Commission should be created by Parliament to carry into effect the objects recommended by the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There was in the Bill as it now stood, a tendency to a perpetual change, because a machinery calculated to produce a perpetual change was to be established; and to that part of the Bill he did not feel disposed to consent. He thought, that instead of having a septennial revision of the revenues of the sees, it would have been much wiser to give the measure a permanent character, and a security against repeated changes. He lamented also that this Commission was to be made a Corporation, because there was no reason why it should be so, except for the purpose of making perpetual changes. He thought that it would be quite sufficient to appoint the Commissioners for the period of time which would be necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the preamble of the Bill. The noble Viscount had told their Lordships that the Commissioners who had made the recommendations were to be appointed; that was a very fit and proper regulation, but what security was there that those persons would be permanent members of the Commission, seeing that they were removable at his Majesty's pleasure? He did not deny, that there could be found a similar instance of persons being removable at the pleasure of the Crown who were Members of a Corporation; but he believed no instance could be produced in which the majority of the Commissioners were so. But the objection which he felt to the constitution of this Commission did not stop there. The Commission being subject to removal at the pleasure of the Crown, would necessarily become a political body, liable to shift and change with the change of Governments and the variations of political influence. They would therefore be exposed to the temptation of using their power for political purposes. It was only a very short time ago that an Ecclesiastical Commission for Ireland was appointed, and of all the Members of that Commission one only was removeable at the pleasure of the Crown, and therefore it was less likely

663
to be operated upon by political influence. This departure on the part of the present Government from the precedent they had so recently established, he confessed, did not a little startle him, especially as that precedent seemed to be avoided in such a way as to make the Ecclesiastical Commissioners totally dependent upon the political influence of the day. He was willing to hope, however, that when the Bill went into Committee it would receive some improvement in this respect. He must take that opportunity of expressing his dissent to that clause of the Bill which gave the Commissioners the power of summoning before them any persons, and of calling for any documents, thus rendering the Bishops liable to be dragged about from the very extremities of the country at great inconvenience and expense. In the 10th clause it was proposed, that the Commissioners should prepare and lay before his Majesty's Council such schemes as were calculated in their view, to carry into effect the recommendations of the Report. From those words, coupled with certain recommendations, it appeared to be possible that the Commissioners would recommend some scheme which would destroy the independent character of the clergy, and make them stipendiaries of the State; and that measures would be proposed which would enable the Commissioners absolutely to grasp the whole of the Church lands and estates. He considered that to be possible; but he did not think it had been gravely intended by the present Commissioners that such schemes should be proposed. He heartily thanked the Government and the noble Viscount for the manner in which the Bill had been brought forward; and he rejoiced that the noble Viscount had declared himself unwilling to become a party to any scheme for disturbing the entire establishment of the Church. Whatever defects there were in the Bill he hoped would be remedied in Committee; and he trusted that the end of their deliberations would be to strengthen their attachment to the Church, which he hoped they would ever continue to support, as it was established, for the purpose of upholding true religion, real piety, and sound morality and loyalty in the land.
The Bishop of Lincoln, as one of the members of the Commission, begged to assure his right rev. Friend that he had never contemplated any such propositions as those which had been conjectured by that right rev. Prelate.
The Bishop of Herefordfelt, that he could not give a silent vote on the present occasion—a vote, however, he could not call it, for there appeared to be so much unanimity in the House, that he supposed they would not be called upon to record their votes. But he could not say, that he felt satisfied with the Bill, or that he looked without fearful apprehensions to the consequences of the great changes which it was designed to make in the Church, and which he thought were calculated to destroy its independency. He believed that the effect of the Bill would be to render the clergy mere stipendiaries of the State. Although such a proposition was not positively stated in the Bill, he believed it must follow as a necessary consequence; for the man who was not at liberty to hold and administer his property himself, but was amenable to a tribunal which had the power to examine into the amount of his property, and to say to him—"Beyond this you must not go; deliver the rest to me"—such a man he could not conceive to be in any other state than that of a dependent person. He would ask, was that the intention of the Church Commissioners? But he would refrain from going any further, seeing the opinion that was held by a large majority of that House, or rather by nearly the whole of their Lordships; he would only say, that he felt this Bill to be a blow struck at the Church, which would be so fatal that he feared it would never recover from its effects.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas anxious to correct some misapprehensions on the part of the right rev. Prelate who last addressed the House, and who seemed to suppose that certain Bishops were to be under such a management that they would not be any longer masters of their own incomes and estates. If the right rev. Prelate had looked a little more accurately into the Bill, he would have seen that a certain payment was to be charged upon the larger sees, with a view of leaving them, on the average, as many thousands a year as were stated in the Bill. All the management of their own property was left to them, subject to the regulations prescribed. Suppose, for instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury's income was estimated at 18,000 l. a year; he would be charged a tax of 3,000 l, in order to reduce it to 15,000 l. a year on the average; some years it might be more and others less. When the Bill passed into a law, then, he would hare to pay 3,000 l. a year for the

665
next seven years, when a revision would take place, and in proportion to the varying increase or diminution of the revenue the tax would be augmented or decreased. There was then nothing but a mere tax, and nothing that in the slightest degree would take away from any Bishop's independence in the management of his own income. Some gross misrepresentations had been made in respect to this Bill, but they had been ably noticed by the noble Viscount; and there were some objections to be taken to parts of the Bill, but which were very properly reserved until it went into Committee, which would be the proper time for the discussion. He must, in conclusion, express his gratification at hearing the declarations of the noble Viscount with regard to his attachment to the Church, and his unwillingness to entertain any proposition for an entire change in its constitution.
Bill read a second time.