11)Ebatet anti lartnettfingt In 19 zationtut.

CHURCH-RATES.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. Beaslisr. reported from the Committee of the whole House the following resolution- " That, for the repair and maintenance of parochial churches and chapals in England and Wales, and the due celebration of religious worship therein, a permanent and adequate provision be made out of an increased value given to Church-lands, by the introduction of a new system of management, and by the application of the proceeds of pew-rents ; the collection of Church-rates ceasing altogether from a day to be determined by law; and that, in order to facilitate and give early effect to this resolution, the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury be authorized to make advances on the security, and repayable out of the produce of such Church-lands." Mr. BERNAL moved that the resolution be read a second time.

Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON moved an amendment,

" That it is the opinion of this House, that funds may be derived from an improved mode of management of Church-lands; and that these funds should be applied to religious instruction within the Established Church, where the same may be found deficient in proportion to the existing population." Mr. Johnston expressed his regret at being compelled on this ques- tion to oppose Ministers, whom he was in the habit of supporting, and with whose general principles of government he agreed. He approved of the plan proposed by Ministers, so far as it went to improve the pro- perty of the Church ; but he considered that the Church itself should have the benefit accruing from such improvement. It was a fearful reflection, that, if every place of worship within a radius of eight miles round London were full, only 640,000 out of a population of two mil- lions could find church accommodation. It was unfortunate that for this most pressing evil it was very difficult to find a remedy ; and he was opposed to any plan which would deprive the Church of the means she had of providing additional church accommodation. Mr. BAINES defended the Ministerial plan ; and, on behalf of the Dissenters, would say, that it would be a healing measure. It had been said that the Methodists were in favour of Church-rates ; but no petition against their abolition had been presented from that body; while, on the other hand, he and others had presented petitions in favour of the Government proposition, which had been signed by many Methodists. It was not the amount of the tax, but the principle In- volved in the payment of the rates, to which the Dissenters mainly ob- jected. Mr. HARDY ridiculed the idea that the Dissenters bad any conscien- tious objection to a state endowment. Their ready acceptance of the regium doming showed that, and the existence of Lady Hewley's funs}

compelled to pay for the support of a Church with whose proved that they were not averse to endowments when they could get baronet was now allied with the party whose leader was Chief Con-

Mr. HUME said, that the Dissenters justly considered it a degrada-

them. chaster massacre ; and be hoped that he should not deviate from Par- rim to be liamentary rules, if, in reply to his miscellaneous speech, he adverted to doctrines and discipline they could not agree. It was a tribute which they were called upon to pay ; whether the amount was in pence or pounds, it was still a tribute. Mr. BORTIIWICK said, the actual question before the House was,

whether, suppose a fund to be created out of the Church property, that Church was that property given ?—

fund should be applicable to the purposes of the Church to which it

belonged. He maintained that itand that the pre-elan measure

was neither more nor less than an English Appropriationse.

Mr. LAMBTON approved of the principle of the measure ; but wished to be touched, I trust, Sir, that the landed gentlemen in this House have toe protection to be given to the Church lessees, especially the tenants of much good sense to adopt any fear of the kind, and too much manliness not to

coal-lands, on whom it would operate unfairly. treat such opinions with contempt If it can be shown that the property of the Mr. Twigs contended that the Attorney-General's law respecting Church-rates was erroneous ; and that there was a legal obligation to rests and happiness of the people, that we shall benefit the public—if it can be

pay them which the Courts might and ought to enforce. He implored shown that this property is an enormous grievance"— .

the House for the sake of the poor not to diminish the opportunities of Strong expressions of dissent from Sir Francis Burdett interrupted acquiring the "means of grace and the hope of glory." Mr. Shell ; who said—"Why, the honourable baronet was Teller with

Sir ROBERT RoLFE (Solicitor-General) fully concurred in the law Mr. Hume on this division ; and if more names are wanted, there is that as laid down by the Attorney-General. In spite of Mr. Twiss's of Maurice Fitzgerald—( Cries if " Where was Lord Palmerston? ")- rhetorical flourishes, he maintained that all that the Courts could do and moreover that of James Scarlet. The honourable baronet said._

would be to compel payment of a rate legally made— " If it can be shown that this property is an enormous grievance,

The honourable Member for Cardiff (Dr. Nicholl) had stated on a recent will it not be absurd to say that it is not to be touched—that Parliament occasion, that he was in possession of certain manuscripts which established cannot alter the destination of the property of the Church, when it is shows the fact that in early times the laws sanctioned the doctrine that, when the that this destination is an alarming evil, and that the alteration will he produc- parish refused to make a rate, the Churchwarden might make it himself. If tive of great public good? But, Sir, I will admit, for the sake of argument, that were really the law, all difficulty on the subject would be removed. But that Church property is as sacred as private property. Is not the principle ou it was certainly very extraordinary that, in the numerous discussions which the which private property is held sacred that of the public good? If the right of subject had undergone, no one had before ventured to assert that such was the private property is proved to be an evil to the public, to the community at large, law. There was this fallacy which ran through all the debates on this measure. private property will no longer be sacred in my estimation ; for the sole end of all government, the single reason why any and every right is held sacred, is the good of the community. When, therefore, it is argued that we cannot touch Church propetty, that we cannot alter its (Iodination, this does seem to me so childish as to be unworthy of au answer, and undeserving even of considera- tion." Sir Fitatecis BURDETT then rose. He was greeted with vehement

cheers from the Tories, answered by sneering and sarcastic cheers from the Ministerial side of the House. It might, he said, be presumptuous in him to differ with a law officer of the Crown on a point of law, but he could not help believing that the common law rested on common sense ; and it was most surprising that there should be no means of en- forcing what was an imprescriptible right. If that were the case, the Court of King's Bench was bound to find a remedy to redress such a wrong. But as regarded the Wesleyans, who formed so large a pro- portion of the Dissenting body, there was no objection to pay their just debts to the Church. He was averse to the Ministerial measure, because it went to subvert a large portion of the property of the country, was in- expedient, impracticable, unjust, and interfered between proprietors and lessees ; and all this for so small a sum as 250,0001. With such a Mi-

nistry, too, it was impossible to sanction this measure. It had been carried by a majority of only twenty-three in that House ; but fortu- nately there was another House—[Loud Ministerial cheers interrupted this sentenced—there was another House, there was a check and con- trol upon the House of Commons ; and this most mischievous, impo- litic, and unjust measure, never would be carried into practical opera- tion. As for Mr. Baines, he talked of the Dissenters as if he carried them all in his belly ; but it was not the Dissenters at large, only the political Dissenters, who addressed themselves to that House. The Wesleyans took no part in the clamour. He acquitted the great body of the Dissenters, as he did the Roman Catholics, of participation in the political agitation that had been got up in favour of a measure which rested on calculations which, God knew, were little to be relied upon. Then, as to the pretence of the thing—

Why, men purchased property liable to Church.rates, and they had therefore nothing to do with them. Why, the case of these persons might be like those of individuals who objected to fox-hunting in the country, who were so exceedingly conscientious and sensitive that they thought the sports of the field were human; but, as an elegant poet said- . Born in the Samian school, may men be nigh, Who deem these healthful pastimes scarce humane;

But, to my mind, and not uugentle eye,

ills mind is pure %Welt knows no fouler stain."

Now, he denied the justice of the demand on the part of the Dissenters : be denied the policy of the demand, and he thought the mode proposed was most objectionable, and for the purposes intended it was likely to be the least effec- tive. Then, under these circumstances, and thinking that by this motion the Voluntary principle was put to the vote in much too contracted a view, to con- fine themselves to the question before the House, the question was, whether they were to adopt the Voluntary principle. Would the House of Commons be for the Established Church or not? That was the way in which he put it to the House; and be it recollected, that in a former discussion a short time back, the measure only received the sanction of the House (if sanction it could be called) by a vote of twenty-three in favour of the Administration. But he felt the ut- most confidence in the good feeling of those honourable gentlemen by whom be was surrounded: he had every confidence in their good sense and in the feelings of the people of England to support them from without, and he sat down in the perfect confidence that this measure never could be passed. Bat he would say a few words with reference to himself. It was with very great regret that he felt himself in a situation in which ha was placed in opposition to many honour- able gentlemen towards whom he entertained the greatest personal esteem. (" Bear, hear!" and "Oh !" from the Ministerial benches.)

It was a great sacrifice ; but his whole life bad been one of sacrifice for the good of his country, and whatever pain it cost him he was con- tent to suffer in the same cause. " His gratiora dictu alio ease scio : sed.me vera pro gratis loqui, meum ingenium non movet, necessitas cogn." With regard to the amendment, his objection was, that it stood between the House and the real question to be decided. He thought it time that the people of this country should set themselves against all further innovations in the Church, State, or Constitution. Mr.. SOUL said, that from the panegyrics bestowed upon Sir ?rams Burdett's speech by the party to which he was so long odious, It was evident that the Tories liked the conversion, whatever they might think of the convert. But in his opinion, Sir Francis Burdett would have been wise to preserve the silence which he had so long judiciously maintained, in preference to talking about Dissenters being in Mr. Baines's belly. He looked upon Sir Francis as a noble relic, in which obscene birds had built their nests and beasts of prey had made their haunt. If Sir Francis furnished no food for hope, be did for melan- choly contemplation; and that too had its uses. The honourable

stable of the Tower, and who were in power at the time of the Man-

Con-

some passages in. the political life of Sir Francis Burdett. Mr. Shell then proceeded to read extracts from some of Sir Francis Burdett's speeclhes. In 18'24, when Mr. Hume moved for an inquiry into the property of the Irish Church, Sir Francis Burdett asked to what " Certainly not to the Church which now holds it, but to another, from which it was taken by the State, and transferred to this. As to the arguments, there-

fore, which have been addresses! to the interest of the landed gentlemen, telling

them to beware of shaking their own property by suffering that of the Church Established Church in Ireland is so distributed as to be a great evil—if it can be shown that by altering that distribution we shall largely promote the inte-

With regard to the Irish Church, let the House attend to what Sir Francis had formerly said-

" With regard to the Church of Ireland, the single question is, does that Church -do good or evil ? Is Protestant ascendancy—for that is what is meant by pre- serving the Church—of so much benefit that it must at all hazards be preserved, or is it not a curse to the people of Ireland ? Even if it can be proved that the Protestant ascendancy is not an evil, it does not follow that the Church should be protected in all its wealth. But if that ascendancy is the cause why all classes have not equal rights—if it prevents the Government from doing justice to all its subjects—if it exposes the majority to the tyranny of a mina number, and will not allow the nation to be governed by any other principle than terror—then, Sir, I cannot consider this Protestant ascendancy as so ne- cessary to be preserved, or that it is not of more harm than good."

In 1834, when Lord John Russell in reply to a question Mr. Shell had put to him, had declared his honest conviction that the revenues of the Irish Church were too large, Sir Francis Burdett got up and said- " That in the tone of the debate and in the disposition manifested on each side of the HOUSC, both on the Ministerial bench and amongst the Irish Members, be thought he saw for the first time a glimpse of hope of removiug what had so long been laid:ling in the minds of the Irish people, and of making that union, so important in other respects. a source of strength and happiness to both countries. The object appealed to lw of such itiagoituife that all other subjects and details shrunk into titter insignificance. Ile was Nepotist to make as great a sacrifice in a spirit of justice and generosity as any It ish Alember ; for he felt it was both politic and wise in this country to carry this object into com- plete effect. He felt strongly on this subject; for, from an early period of life he had been deeply, though perhaps not prudently, implicated in it ; but it was a subject which was calculated to drive a wise man mad."

Now these were the opinions of Sir Francis 13urdett on the Gth of May 1834 ; and what had happened since ? Were those with whom lie then acted, were those with whom lie now acted, changed ? Were not the opinions and language of both the same ? With regard to the question more immediately before the House, Mr. Shell said lie felt bound to assist the English Dissenters to get rid of those bonds from which the Irish had been already relieved through the aid of the English Liberals—

The Member for St. Andrew's, who self, a Dissenter on the other side of the 'fweed—he might call him vinistie Member—deserved great credit for the anxiety he had mani Episcopal Church of Eng-

land ; but he thought he would on a occasion have done well to have

looked for a better distribution of the ley of the Church amongst its ministers.

Where was this prop and embellishment of the Church built on poverty's everlast- ing rock, when it was proposed to add two mitres at an expense of 15,000/. per annum to the right reverend bench? The honourable Aleinher did not come for- ward then and say, " This is monstrous ; the people are starving, the people want religious instruction " True it was that the Member for Weymouth did remonstrate against those demands, but the Member fir St. Andrews was most signally silent on that occasion. lie could not understand this anomaly in the course pursued by Mr. Johnston. Ile would, however, give him one authority on this subject of ecclesiastical afftits, Lamely, the noble Member for North Lancashire. The noble lord had himself devised another plan for the abolitioa of Church rates; that plan was, however, confined in its operation to Ireland. He created a new fund, and imparted a new value to the episcopal estates itx Ireland. It was true be said tithes should never be abolished, but betlid abolish Church-rates. Why then, after that, could it be said to be a violation of prin- ciple to abolish them in this country? Following that autholity, Mr. Shell would apply and extend the principle here.

After a brief speech from Sir RoBERT INGLIS, inaudible in a very noisy House, the debate was adjourned.

It was opened on Tuesday by Mr. BROTHERToN ; who contended that the Ministeriul measure was likely to produce peace and harmony, and said that it was very acceptable to the numerous Dissenters of Lancashire.

Mr. HENRY FITZROY did not concur in the opinion that the Dissenters were favourable to the abolition of Church-rates ; for be himself, though advocating the continuance of Church.rates, had been elected by a constituency of which the large majorfty were Dissenters, and he found that not only the number of petitions but the number of peti- tioners was much greater for the continuance than for the abolition of

the rates.

Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR said, that great alarm bad been occasioned among the tenants of Church property in Durham by the Ministerial measure; and be read the following extract from a letter of a well. informed person resident in Durham, which confirmed that statement- " As to the property held under the Dean and Chapter of Durham in this neighbourhood, I am sorry to inform you that it has been rendered quite un- saleable by the unwise interference of his Majesty's Ministers ; and unfortu- nately, those who have mortgages on that property have given notice to the mortgagees to pay in both principal and interest ; which cannot at present be done, as it is impossible either to put on a new mortgage or to realize the sum lent by a sale of the property. So that many iodustrious and respectable pec- ans have lust their little all by this measure."

Mr. Trevor then argued at some length, that the Ministerial measure would be injurious to the Church as well as the lessees of Church property. He could not support it without being guilty of a desecra- tion of the property devoted to the service of Almighty God.

Mr. CHARLES BubLea asked gentlemen who would condescend to devote attention to the matter in hand, what property was meant when the desecration of property was talked of? The present measure was one for giving an increased value to certain Church property, and for devoting the proceeds thereof to the use of the Church. He thought that there was a good deal of force in what Mr. Trevor bad said re- specting the hardship inflicted on lessees in certain parts of the country by adopting an unvarying rule of compensation in every see; but still, on the whole, the lessees had reason to be satisfied, and, in fact, by no means considered themselves the victims of an act of spoliation. But with reference to the main question, he would ask what would be the effect of adopting Mr. Johnston's amendment? It would be the erection of a fresh set of churches to be supported by an additional levy of church-rates. But was there any occasion for new churches ? He would venture to assert that no such necessity existed. In London one half of the church-room was not occupied-

" Desirable as it is that more people should he induced to go to church, I see no reason for believing that that end would be attained by giving more church accommodation, or that that accommodation can only be given by building more churches. A large proportion of the population of this city never set foot within a church. But why is it that they do not ? Is it because the churches are su full every Sunday, and all Sunday, that these people cannot squeeze into them? Everybody knows that this is not the cause; that of the churches of this metropolis, not one quarter are commonly filled or nearly filled, not one-half are usually half filled. It is not want of room, but want of in. clination, that prevents the people from going to church. Some few churches are generally filled; but these are the churches of a few able and popular preachers. But by far the larger proportion belong to no religious denomina- tion, and attend no place of worship. Ignorant or heedless of religion, they stay away from church, not because there is no room there, but because they prefer the gin-shop. Do you think that the mere aspect of a roomy church will certainly tempt such persons to enter it? Some simple man made the notable discovery, that the people of London were addicted to ardent spirits sulcly because they had not a sufficient supply of good fresh water ; and he proposed to annihilate the gin-shops by setting up in front of each the danger. ous rivalry of a pump and ladle. This is just the kind of competition by which it is now proposed to empty the gin-shops, trying only churches instead of pumps. Why, the one plan was not a whit more chimerical than the other. The mass of people who stay away from church relish religion as little as water."

Mr. Buller remarked that one reason for the small attendance at church was the decrease in the population of London, in consequence of the practice which had become so usual of the London merchants living out of town. In Manchester the same custom was beginning to prevail ; and such was the shifting and varying stature of the population of large towns, that if you built new churches in a populous district, it might shortly come to pass that they would be deserted, merely from the removal of the persons for whose accommodation they were erected. Mr. Buller went into a variety of statistical details to prove, that even in the " regions of destitution" there was a great deal of vacant church. room, and that, assuming the estimate of Dr. Chalmers, that one clergy. man could take care of from 2000 to 3000 souls, there was a super- abundance both of benefices and clergymen in Englund and Wales- " The fact is, that the superfluity of clergymen in particular districts is quite amazing. The diocese of Norwich contains as many benefices as all Scotland. I have taken the trouble of going over the list of incumbents in this diocese, and noting the number of souls really under the care of the richest clergy ; and I find that 185 beneficed clergymen in that diocese, being one-fourth of the whole number, divide an income of no less than 164,033/. and have charge of flocks amouutiug iu the whale to 131,107 souls; being an average income of uearly 9001. a year, and flock of little more than 700; being

almost at the rate of IL he rate in some of the most populous

pari,hes in London being fr e to eightpence a soul. In the diocese of Ely there are thirty-six c n, being also about a fourth part of the whole number, whose wh annual income is 44,5581. and whose united flocks amount to 39,989 souls, giving an average income of

1.238/. a year, and an average flock of 1,100 souls ; being just about 1/. 2s. 3d. a soul. But the most curious result is that obtained from investi- gating the very diocese about which the chief complaint is made, and from

which the chief complaint comes—I mean the diocese of London. Now, the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners states that there are in this unhappy region more than a million of souls with only 139 clergymen to look after them.

It this be correct, and apply only to the part of the diocese in London, there must

he a wonderful compensation in some other parts of the diocese; for I find from the returns that the population of the diocese is altogether 1,791,394 ; and that the number of resident parochial clergy, including resident incumbents, substitute curates, and assistant curates, amounts to ?6I ; so that here there is a clergy. man to every 2,354 souls, giving each a flock a good deal less than the manage- able size, according to Dr. Chalmers. Nor are these on the whole insufficiently paid, for the average income of incumbents, deducting curates' salaries, is 3441., and that of the curates 1001. The fact is, Sir, that nothing would be so easy as for the Church to provide for these destitute districts out oithe ample resources of its overpaid dignitaries."

Mr. STUART WORTLEY opposed the Ministerial plan ; and quoted passages from the works of Robert Hall to prove that that distin- guished Dissenter was in favour of an extension of religious accommo- dation among the people.

Mr. rowELL BUXTON spoke briefly in favour of Mr. Johnston's elation ; and wished to know whether Sir Robert Peel would support a proposition evidently onlculated to increase the power and promote Inc usefulness of the Estiblislunent ?

Sir JAMES GRAHAM regretted the introduction of religious animosi.

ties into Parliamentary discussions, and especially objected to such allusions to the individual opinions of Members as that of Mr. Shell to Mr. Johnston, who was called the Scoto-Calvinist. He admitted that the Irish policy of Ministers had been discussed usque ad mut. seam, but still he must remark that their policy towards England and Scotland was similar. Sir James then dwelt at length on the alleged hostility of Ministers to the Church in Ireland and Scotland ; and ob. served that Ministers, in introducing the present measure, had opened the first grand battery against the Church of England. He could not vote for the motion of Mr. Johnston, for it sanctioned a most unjust interference with the property of the lessees, and reduced the Bishops to the condition of mere mortgagees and annuitants. He implored the House not to lay rapacious bands on the property of the Church, but to make it available for bringing into the fold all who were now desti- tute and perishing.

Mr. SPRING RICE thought it a little too bad that gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House should complain of the introduction of religion into the debate— From the time of the formation of the present Government, what had been the course taken by honourable gentlemen on the opposite side of the House? Why, that every question, however purely civil in its nature, that had been ia- traduced, they had contrived and endeavoured, in some shape or manner, either for the purpose of displaying their own ingenuity or for some other us- acknowledged purpose, to convert into a question of religion. Every measure, however unconnected with the Church in its nature and its enactments, they bad strived to make appear a Church question, because they well knew that by the adoption of that course their own peculiar objects were more likely to be effected.

It was the privilege of Sir James Graham, if he thought proper, to accuse Ministers of a design to overthrow the Church ; but Mr. Rice proudly defied him to make good his accusation. Sir Francis Burdett had referred to the House of Lords as a place where the errors of the House of Commons would be corrected— He could only say, if there were an excitement to be raised against the House of Commons in this case—if there were a delusion to be raised within the land —if a cry were again to be made—a cry which some gentlemen opposite had already suffered by, and by which other gentlemen opposite had triumphed— the cry of 4. No Popery I "—the cry of " the Church in danger "—if those cries were again to be set up, he would not appeal to another place, which he was not at liberty to allude to without irregularity, but be would appeal to time itself, which was the best test of truth, of justice, and of policy, and which had convicted all those men in succession, come from what party they might and supported by what influences they might be, who degraded a holy and just cause by prostituting it to the vilest of party and political purposes. lie would appeal with confidence to that test—the test of time, because it always did justice. It did justice to Lord Grenville when, in 1806, he first made the declaration of an adherence to the principle of a Liberal policy ; it did juqiee to the right honourable baronet the Member for Tamworth, when preee:t ing the same good principle, although for a time be was made a victim, and was subject to the reproach of being held up as an enemy to the Church.

Mr. Rice then entered into a general defence of the Ministerial bill, as one calculated to benefit the Church, and which ought to be passed were there not a solitary Dissenter in the land. The opposition to it bad been got up by the grossest misrepresentation. In loony of its essential particulars it had been taken from the suggestions of Dr. Burton, Mr. Milman, and Mr. Townsend. It was a delusion to suppose that it had the support of Dissenters only ; a very large proportion of Churchmen were in favour of it. All that the House was now called upon to do was to sanction the principle of the Government measure. The details might be considered and Improved hereafter. As for the

motion of Mr. Johnston, he would not discuss it, for he was certain it could not be carried. Until this question was settled, every attempt to extend religious instruction by means of the Estublishid Church would be unavailing. Sir ROBERT PEEL remarked, that Mr. Rice, like a skilful tactician who knew that his position was indefensible, had endeavoured to draw

attention from it to extraneous objects. The real principle of the measure was to relieve the landed gentleman from a tux, and find au equivalent for it in the property of the Church. That was the prin- ciple—he dared any body to deny it—which they were called upon to

sanction. Now suppose this principle established in England, what would they do with the Dissenters in Scotland, where the land was charged with the maintenance of the Establishment? That was a question which had never been answered yet. In Scotland there was no superabundance of property—no bishops' lands to seize ; and .I,e therefore apprehended that the Ministers would shrink from currying their principle into operation in Scotland. It had been urged against him that he was willing to relieve landed property from the burden which he now wished to fix upon it, because he had supported Lord Althorp's bill— He certainly, to some extent, should relieve the land by acquiescing its the proposal of Lord Althorp, but in a different degree from that to which be should relieve it by taking the equivalent from the property of the Church, be- cause the landed property, if the equivalent were taken out t,f the public taxes, would contribute a material portion. The landed proprietor would contribute no small sum out of that sum of 250,0001., or whatever that amount might be. To derive the fund from the Church, was to afford an unqualified mitigation of the burdens to the landed proprietor without receiving any substitute. But his main objection to the present measure was, that it would dissolve the connexion between Church and State. He looked to the great principles that were involved in it. The question had been pat on its right footing by Sir Francis Burdett, whose speech had not been answered by Ministers. Mr. Shell, indeed, came down to the House armed with Hansard, to prove that there were excellent reasons drawn from authority for disposst ssing the Chutch of its property- " No one could be more alarmed than I was by the preliminary parade of the honourable and learned Member.' The moment the honourable hamlet (Sir F. Burdett) rose, the honourable and learned gentleman came in, tottering under the weight of Hansard. He had laid in his instruments from the ' armoury of Hansard. Ft our 1824 to 1834 he had searched and culled ; and, as he came in, he eyed the honourable baronet as though he were about to make a victim of him. He really reminded ins at the moment of Burke's description of the manner in which the philosophical Jacobins eyed the Duke of Bedford, in imagination pricking little dotted lines in his carcase, and marking out the portions fur stewing, or roasting, or boiling. The honourable baronet was

evidently to have been made the victim of a most tremendous effort of sarctstic eloquence. But that noble temple, of which the honourable and learned Metz her spoke as the refuse for birds of ill-omen, is still erect, and its pillars remain unshaken by the puny efforts of his pickaxe." ( Cheers and laughter.) Sir Robert referred to the plan of Lord Althorp, the opposition of Mr. Hume to that plan, the reply of Lord John Russell to Mr. Hume, and the subsequent declaration of Lord John, that in any arrangement with respect to Church-rates, provision should be made for the repair of churches out of some public fund. The present measure was to- tally at variance with that declaration. He could not support Mr. Johnston's motion, because he would not commit an injustice on the lessees of Church-property, or interfere with the independence of the Bishops. He was sorry that they could not come to a direct vote on the question ; for he must inform the new Members, so many of whom bad lately taken their seats on his side of the House, that the effect of Mr. Johnston's motion would be to prevent their coming in the first instance to a decision on the real question. He rejoiced, however, that the motion had been brought forward by a Scoto-Calvinist-

He cordially rejoiced in the circumstance—he cordially rejoiced in the union between the two Establishments, which was proved by the proposition made by the honourable gentleman. The time had passed. by for rivalahips and jealousies between the two Establishtnents. Their cause was a common one, and they ought to be cordially united. The question at issue was this—whether establishments were to be maintained, or whether they were to trust to the Voluntary principle for the due and proper maintenance of religion. That wan the question directly involved iu the proposition before the House; it was PO considered by the honourable gentleman—it was so considered by many Dis- senters ; and the main ground of discussion was, not the sum that was saved, but the principle that was involved.

Lord Joust RUSSELL hoped, that after what he had heard, Mr. Johnston would withdraw his motion, and allow the House to come to a vote on the main question. He thought that there was 110 occasion for Sir Robert Peel to taunt Mr. Spring Rice with the irrelevancy of any part of his speech—

Did Sir Robert forget what so very recently occurred ? Did he forget the speech made by one of those new Members (Sir F. Bartlett) to whom he

laugh)—one of the weakest and shallowest he ever heatd—con- taioing nothing. or next to nothing, on the subject, but filled with references to the conduct of Ministers in !rebind and Scotland—nothing. in fact, but a re- petition of what was before said in the letter to " Dear Mr. Pouncey?" That speech was not answered, or attempted to be answered, by Al inisters ; and for not doing so they were attacked that night by Sir James Graham. They were attacked because they did not follow the example of one of those young and ardent recruits, who entered into a dissertation on their manner of treating Ire- land and Scotland, for the purpose of showing that they were enemies to the Established Church. (" .Hear, hear, hear !" front Sir Junes Graham. ) When the right honourable baronet finished his vociferation*, he would proceed. He did not complain either of Sir Francis Burdett or Sir James Graham ; but lie thought it not quite fair on the part of Sir Robert Peel to attack Mr. Spring Rice for referring in his speech to what Members had said upon former occa- sions. If he was not mistaken, the right honourable Member for Tatnworth himself was the first person who introduced that custom of quotation, which had grown since to so inconvenient a length. Ile recollected that when Sir James Graham wag in the habit of sitting among them at his side of the House, whenever he saw the Member for Tainworth on the other side, with a book in his baud, lie used to cry, Oh ! here comes Hansard ! '" (A laugh.) lie believed that if he were to indulge in quotations. he could find the best answer to Sir Robert Peel's speech of to-night in some of Sir Robert's former speeches. In 1835, Sir Robert and his supporters had thought it very right to relieve the land from the burden of Church- rates. They held a different doctrine now ; and Sir Robert Peel said that (7iitircli-rates were a burden which the land ought always to bear. By the way, there was one argument of Sir Francis Burdett which might be worthy of a passing notice— It was said by the Member for Westminster that it wan most unjust on the part of the Dissenters to seek to get rid of the burden of Chureh-rates merely bemuse it would relieve their pockets. The honourable baronet, before lie made *toil an observation, should have considered that the Di:aenters not only supported their own churches, but even submitted to pay tithes. 'The Dia- seaters, it should not be forgotten, were subjected to hoidens connected with the Established Church, although they had also to maintain their own places of worship and pay their own ministers, who preached to them the word of God according to their own views. He therefore said, when they did all those things, it was most unjust to impute to them that they cared fur their own pockets, and cared for or regarded nothing else. But this was what, he supposed, Sir Francis Burdett called "the cant of patriotism." (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Ile must, however, say, that although " the cant of patriotism" might be disgusting, the "recant of patriotism " was still more N. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) In reply to the taunt of Sir Robert Peel about Scotland, lie would say, that the question had been satisfactorily adjusted in Scotland, but in this country it was the source of hearthurnings and discord. It bad been said by Sir Francis Burdett, that the decision of this House would be overruled in another place—

Ile must say that this reference called up to his mind former recollections— called up to his mind the time when the Alember for Westminster was a Re- former—when he went too far in the measures he proposed, and in the de-

clanuttions by which those topics were urged by him. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) It was then a common thing for the honourable baronet to say, speaking of that House, "the gentlemen assembled in this room ;" and when called to order by the chair, to correct himself, by adding, " Well. the gentlemen assembled in this House, falsely calling itself the Com- sat", House of Parliament :" inconsistent as it was, such was the language in which Sir Francis Burdett frequently indulged. He had repeatedly said, by way of insult, that that House did not fairly represent the people ; and was it 10 be borne, now that they did represent the people, that lie was to insult them by telling them that he did not care for their decisions, that he despised their resolutions, and that he looked to the other House of Parliament for the re• Tarsal of whatever they might do? (Loud cheering.) In conclusion, he would call on the House to pass this measure as a Eleastire of peace— If they went on, year after year, squabbling in vestries, they might tell them that the Church in one place gained a majority of 250 to 240, and in another of 1,000 to 960; but still they might depend upon it that, if they took pride in suck victories, they would in the end find, that instead of securing the Church, they would undermine its very foundations, and that Churchmen would com- bine with Dissenters against it. If they adopted the scheme now proposed by the King's Ministers, they would avoid all this; but, at all events, Ministers had brought lot ward this measure with that view ; and if they did not attain their abject, they would have the consolation to know that they had done their duty, and would Teat satisfied with the part they had taken. (Cheers.) Mr. JOHNS row said, he was much disappointed with the reception his motion had met; and, with theillouse's leave, would withdraw it. Mr. HARVEY complained, that when he had risen to address the House, Mr. Spring Rice had interfered, in a manner most unusual as well as uncourteous in a Minister of the Crown, and succeeded in putting him aside, although the Members near him had been desirous that he should speak. He gave notice, that be should move an in- struction to the Committee to provide for the entire and unconditional abolition of Church-rates; and that would bring the real question to issue.

The resolution was read a second time ' • and the main question was put—" That this House doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution."

Ayes 28 287 No es Ministerial majority 5

The announcement of the numbers was received with much cheering from the Opposition benches.

The bill was then ordered to be brought in by Lord John Russell, Sir John Campbell, and Sir Robert Rolfe.

MISCELLANEOUS.

BRIDGEWATER ELECTION.— On Wednesday, Sir WILLTAM MOLES- woRTIT presented a petition from Mr. R. B. Sheridan, complaining of the return of Mr. Broadwood for Bridgewater, on the ground of bribery. The petition was ordered to be token into consideration on the 13th of June.

GLASGOW, PAISLEY, AND GREENOCK RAILWAY BILL. On Wed- nesday, the order of the day for the consideration of the report on this bill having been read, Sir J. YARDE BULLER moved to strike out the clause which prohibited Sunday travelling on the railway. Sir A NDREW AGNEW said he should divide the House in favour of the clause. A conversation ensued ; in the course of which Dr. Bowline°, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, declared their opposi- tion to the clause. Sir ANDREW AGNEW withdrew it, announeing his intention of bringing in a bill to prohibit Sunday travelling on all rail- ways. Mr. ROTIF.RT STEUART and Sir ROBERT PEEL warned Sir Andrew that he must not reckon on their support of the bill. The re- port of' the Committee was agreed to.

IRISH COERCION ACT. On Thursday, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved the repeal of this act, as arbitrary and now unnecessary. Lord MORPETH regretted that he could not accede to the motion, though he admitted that the act was at present a dead letter, for the Government had not found it necessary to enforce its provisions. He thought it advisable to let it rim out the term for which it was passed—namely, live years front 15:35. Mr. Citawroico divided the House on Ins motion; which was rejected, by 87 to 5.

MUNICIPAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. HUTT obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend certain portions of the Municipal Act.

CLAIMS ON THE FRENCH COMPENSATION FUND. Mr. MACEINNON moved for a SeleetCommittee to inquire into the claims of Mr. IV Arc, Talbot and others, for a grant out of the fund paid by France to the Government of this country to compensate British subjects for injuries committed during the war. Mr. Talbot had received interest, but no principal. There was, Mr. Mackinnon understood, '250,000E. in the bands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests applicable to the payment of these claims. Mr. SPRING Rice opposed the motion. '1' he .250,000/. bad been repaid by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and had been applied by the Trustees of the Compensation Fund to the purposes for which it was paid over by France. He ob- jected to the interference of Parliament in this matter. Mr.O'CONNELL considered that inquiry should be made it was very strange that a man should receive interest when he had no claim to the principal. Mr. RICE declined entering into that question. The House rejected Mr. 51ackinnon's motion, by 49 to 39.

OCCUPATION OF CRACOW. Lord .D STUART moved for copies, and Austrian Govern- ments, correspondence with the Russiant ments, respecting the occupation o racow ; but was interrupted in his speech by a motion to "count out" the House, in which only 36 Members were present.