Committee of the whole House. The resolution propos& d by

Mr. Spring Rice on the 3d instant having been read by Mr. BERNAL, the Chairman,

Sir ROBERT PEEL addressed the Committee. He said ti at he rose thus early in the discussion, in order that he might preserve a con-

nected and consecutive course of reasoning, and not be led tavay by the temptation to answer previous speakers, or by a desire to ewe anima- tion to the close of a debate, when the sole object of those who occu- ?ied the time of the Committee on this important subject should be to influence the reason and the judgment. He fully admitted ti e difficulty of the subject, and that the evil of allowing the present state of things to continue was very great ; but at the same time, the diffieshy and the evil were not at all to be compared in magnitude with ti ose which must arise from acquiescence in the plan propounded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That plan was to abolish Churchaates ; and free the landed property of the country, whether heel by per- sons in communion with the Church or by Dissenter, from all liability to support the churches of the Establishmeta, and to throw that burden upon the Church itself. He should consider the financial part of the proposition in the first place,—remind- ing the House, that Mr. Spring Rice admitted that on his calculations he must stand or fall. If he could prove that the calculetions were erroneous, there was an end of the scheme. Mr. Spring Rice assumed that 261,000/. was the sum annually received for fines by Bishops and Nam and Chapters, and that 250.0001. was the amount le spired for the repairs of churches ; therefore 511,000/. was the sum which was to to be raised. Now, in the first place, no provision was made for the management of this property. A vast estate was to be taken from cer- tain parties by the State, to be managed by the State ; but no sum was

hid aside for the annual expense of management. Sir Rubert calcu- lated that at least 30,000/. a year would be required for this purpose ; and this sum added to the 511,000t, would make the permanent Mutual income to be provided for by theChancellor of the Exchequer 541,000/. It was calculated that the average term of the existing leases of Church- lands was twenty. four years, and at the end of that period the rental of those lauds would be 1,323,000/. : this was a deferred annuity, the present value of which was taken at 516,000/. ; whereas he would have 541,000/. to provide for ; and what was the present value of an annuity of 541,000/. for twenty-four years, tilting the rate of interest at four per cent ? It would be 8,248,000/. ; whereas the present value of an annuity of 516,000/. for the same term—and that was all that Govern- ment calculated upon getting—was only 7,820,000/. Here then was a deficiency of 423,000/. This, however, was on the assumption that twenty. four years was the average duration of existing leases; but, by reference to the leases granted in the bishopric of Gloucester, he had discovered that twenty-six years was the average duration, so that we should have to undertake a permanent charge of 541,000/. for twenty- six years, instead of twenty-four years. But, supposing that the average duration should be twenty-eight or thirty years, the whole plan would be destroyed, as the deficiency would be many millions. It was impos- sible to calculate with any certainty either the value of tne land to let, or the value of subsisting leases, without an actual survey and inquiry into each particular case. It was assumed by Mr. Spring Rice, that 7 per cent, was the rate of interest allowed on the renewal of leases ; but he apprehended that 7 per cent, was not the rate allowed on the renewal of leases of land. From inquiries, he had ascertained, that in the dioceses of London, Winchester, Lincoln, Chichester, Oxford, and Salisbury, the calculation of interest was 5 per cent. on the renewal of leases, lie admitted, however, that on house- hold property, 7, 8, and even 9 per cent, was allowed; but this was because the insurance, repairs, and other charges, were borne by the tenant. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, he was convinced that the present value of 1,323,000/., to be received at the end of twenty-four years, was nothing like 516,0001., while 541,000/. was the sum required. He had put questions to Mr. Arthur Morgan, of the Equitable Assurance Office ; from whose answers it appeared, that while 516,190/. was the present value of a perpetual annuity of 1,323,000t, to commence at the end of twenty-four years, the present value of a deferred annuity of the same amount to be derived three parts from land and one part from houses, was only 408,730/, sup- posing hind to be worth 25 and houses 16 2-5ths years' purchase. • But Sir Robert contended, that it was vain to hope that the caviler of a beneficial lease for a considerable number of years would give 25 years' purchase for land ; and he was persuaded that the proposed plan would entail a loss of several millions on the State. Stress was laid 011 the im- proved value of the Church-lands, but the notion was a complete &Racy : every shilling of the improved vilue would go into the pocket of the tenant, to whom it would be held out as an inducement to convert his lease into a freehold. It was the prirwiple of Mr. Spring Rice's plate to sell a remote interest in certain lands—to sell a distant reversion in the lands of the Church; the very practice of the owners of those lands which Mr. Rice had condemned a: a spendthtift and wasteful practice in them, though he adopted it himself. In cases where the occupying tenant had land in the neighbourhood of towns likely to be increased in value by buildings, it would no doubt be worth while for him to become the purchaser of the land on the terms offered : but to those who had no such inducement the plan would be a hardship. The only fair way would be to deal separately with each individual case. Sir Robert contended, that it was a most unjust and invidious proceeding hi Members of Parliament to relieve their landed property from an impost to which it had always been liable. He denied that the Atoll- tion.of the Vestry Cess in Ireland ought to be quoted us a precedent ; for It was expressly understood that the case of the Church in Ireland WU to be an exception to the general rule of legislation. He referred to former declarations of the present Ministers, to prove their incon- sistency in supporting the present measure. He ridiculed the idea of satisfying the Dissenters by adopting it. If an improved value could be given to the property of the Church, there were hundreds of poor livings to be augmented, and vast districts where new cherches ivere required ; and these were the purposes to which Church propoty was in the first instance applicable—not to the relief of the large landed proprietors, by whom hi effect the Church-rates were paid. 8.1t .Robert concluded by reminding the House, that posterity would Sit in judgment on its acts, and warning it against any attempt to put money into the pocksts of the laeded au. tie ace at the expense La. the Church.

Lord Howrca observed, that Sir Robert Peel had evidently had access to sources of information not open to Ministers; and he did not pretend to be able to follow him through all his calculations. However, he would show that the House ought not to rely upon those calculations, for they set out with a palpable blunder. Sir Robert had said that no account was taken of the expense of managing the Church lands ; but he ought to have known that the net, not the gross income, was the basis of their calculations ; that the expenses of management had been already deducted; and, as it was fair to presume that the proposed Board of Commissioners would manage the pro- perty more economically than its present holders, a gain, not a loss, should be set down on this head. 'Then again, Sir Robert forgot that the 261,000/. a year did not include the Church property in mines, copyholds, and heriots, amounting to 33,000/. a year. Besides, be was convinced that the property of the Church, in hinds and houses, was very nmeh greater than it was reported to be by the Bishops and the Deans andehapters. The fines paid by the tenants on the renewal of the leases were nothing like what they could afford to pay under a better system. Ile enlarged upon the evils of the present system, and the absolute necessity of removing them for the sake of the Church itself.

Sir ROBERT PEEL explained, that be had not bad access to any sources of information which were not open to any person who walked the streets.

Mr.GRANVIT.LE HARCOURTVERNON utterly disapproved of the prin- ciple of the measure ; but was quite certain that the lands of theChureb were let on very easy terms, and might be made to produce a very much larger rental than they did at at present— He wanhl mention nit instance. Sir Joseph Banks held land under a lease

to the Archbishop of York : the sum demanded for renewal was 9001. : Sir

Joseph Banks affirmed, that on the last renewal he only paid GOO/. : it was agreed to refer the case to Mr. Morgan, the. Actuary of the Equitable Insurance Office; and that gentleman said that the proper sum to be received by the Archbishop of York, at 5 per cent. interest, was I,S00/. Now this was a matter which had not been adverted to by any gentleman on either side a the House. The feet was, that the Archbishop was now invariably in the habit of applying to Nlr. 3Iorgan for his calculations. (Laughter, and trim's of "Hear !") The Archbishop, however, made an exception, for he never referred cases to Sir. Morgan where the lives in being woe under ti cage of fifty. In Sir Joseph 11 I tik.'s ease there were two lives, hoth beyond fifty. With regard to leases for lives, the general practice was for the Prelates to renew ilium an allowance of 5 per rent. interest ; and tvith regard to leases for years, upon an allowance of 9 per eNit. interest. His conviction was, that a very considerable fund couhl be realized by the measure pt ()posed by his Majesty's (overnment- ( Ministerial ckeers)—lint did be say that that measure was therefore politic or just ? ( Opinisition c)ieers.) Did he 'as', except bv some hoeus-purns trick which be could not understand, that any property so created could be justly taken away from the Church? Suppose, with reference to the case of the Archbishop of York and Sir Joseph Banes, this measure had passed prior to the difference between the 9001. atal the 1,8001. had been ascertained, would not the Arehltishop still have been entitled to that difference? The Church in fact had always possessed the power of getting the full value although they had never enforced It.

Mr. Fowere. Brx-roe defended the Government plan, as likely to benefit the Church, and produce peace and concord. At the same time, so sensible was he that their first duty was to provide Christian instruction for the multitudes; of neglected and destitute people in this country, that if lie could obtain a pledge from Sir Robert Peel to re- duce episcopal incomes, abolish clerical sinecures, and devote the sums to be derived from thence and from an improved management of Church property to the purposes of religious inetruction, he would vote with him and against Ministers. He had, however, no expectation of re- ceiving such a pledge ; as he recollected that a similar proposition, when kw lust made it, had been received with horror by Mr. Goulbrum; and when he reewnmeeded a reduction in the income of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Robert Peel laid usked where Nviv= that mode of proceeding to end, but in the utter confiscation of Church property ? He had therefore no hope of an efficient Chun+ reform from the Tories.

Mr. Gort.ureN Said, it had been a prittriple of law from the earliest periods, that the parishioners were hound to keep the parish-church in repair; and he cumuli not justify it to hie conscience to relieve them from that obligatima Ile would not, wi h such a demand-for increased church uccommodation, tam! the lendoweers le en the duty imposed on them by law of maintaining those sacred edifice: which now existed. He was opposed to the principle of the hill ; and lie implored the House to maintain inviolate the tinion between Church arid State.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON denied that Churelanites, in their present form, were of stab vet y high antiquity. They were I °roe?, ly a tax upon land, houses, stunk in trade, and personal propel ty. Now, there were very few ili' iii which any other property exceet land and houses were rated ; but there were st)IIIP. cutitended, that whatever might have been their orient, they laid become a practical evil of great extent, which the Legislature would do well to get ri 1 of, for the sake of the Church, PS well as to rcatore peace to the country.

The &bete was adjourned ; and the House rose at twelve o'clock. On Ttasday, the debate was opened by Sir WILLIAM roamer ; who trivet

et. to the proposed measure, as leading directly to tiw subversion of the Estahliehed Church. Even were the finuncial statements of Mr. Rice cot rect—and they had been proved to be chili teverste, by the unanswered and unanswerable speech of Sir Robert Peel—still his aversion to the measure would nut be lessu ned. I di Geed retirely from the doctrine that the rate. payers were the judges of the expediency of levying a late, and could make or reject, one at pleasure. By the common law of the hind, the inhabitents of a parish could Be compelled to make a rate for the repair of' the patislaelitirch ; although he did admit that this obligation was only enforce:0,1e through the Ecclesinetical Courts. The Court of Kiegas Bench had refused to issue a mandamus to a parish to make a rate ; bunt this wire only because the patieltioners could be compelled to make a rate by application to the Ecclesiastical Court, not because the obligation to make in rate was doubtful. He granted that the mode of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court was cumbrous and costly ; but, that being the case, the rates should not be abolished

—the law should be altered. lie much regretted that Lord Althorp's bill had not passed ; but gross was their inconsistency, who having sup- ported that measure, now wished to abolish the Church-rates altogether. I3ne part of the proposed scheme, which he especially objected to, was that which left the legal estate in the Bishops and Deans ; thus making them the parties in any action which might be brought, while it took away from them all discretion and power in the management of the property. Be could not tell where the principle of the measure would lead them to ; and be could not reconcile this new Appropriation-clause to the principles professed by its authors, who proclaimed themselves friendly to the connexion of Church and State, and supporters of that Establishment whose property they now wished to sell at half its value, in order to put an end to a clamour raised by the enemies of the Este- blisliment. With respect to the lessees of Church hinds, he contended that they would be hardly dealt with ; and he denied that there was any precedent for the course contemplated. In the case of Mr. Pitt's measure for regulating the letting and disposing of the Crown lands, the Crown sent a message to the House, requiring its assistance in order to let its property to better advantage : but in the present case, neither the Church nor its tenants, neither the lessor nor lessees, wished for legislative in- terfereve ; and yet Government interfered to the injury of both. It seemed not to have been taken into account that Church leases were made the subject of mortgages anel settlements ; for the value of the lessee's interest would be materially diminished without any reference to the parties who bad taken that interest as security for money ad vanced. He had many other objections to the scheme ; but after all, it was sufficient to insure his opposition to it, that its tendency was to subvert the Established Church.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, that Sir William Follett was mistaken in supposing that land was liable to Church-rates by law. That was the case in Scotland, but in England the rates stood upon a different footing. Churches were originally repaired out of the tithes—that was certain ; though it did not appear bow the Church got rid of the burden, and contrived to make Church-rates a personal tax. As it was, however, there was no existing law, civil or ecclesiastical, to eompel a parish to make a Church-rate. It was quite absurd to pre. tend that the Court of King's Bench would issue a mandamus for that purpose; and he challenged any learned civilian to point out the authority which could issue such an order. Well, as the resistance to Church-rates was spreading daily, it became necessary to alter the law, in order to save the churches from ruin. Some were for making the law more stringent ; and Sir Robert Peel had just hinted, that the rates should be abolished in towns and continued in urban districts ; but he could not sanction such impracticable schemes. Then there was the plan of Lord Althorp ; which he had always disliked—it was the only one of Lord Althorp's measures justly liable to the charge of thimblerigyery. The present plan was the best he could think of. It was quite original ; and had never been suggested by Mr. Hume, as had been said. As to the objection that it deprived the Hierarchy of the character of landowners, he deemed that a recommendation. The Bishops as well as the Judges ought to be relieved from the cares incident to the management of landed property. Churchmen, who had only life interests in the land, were always had landlords. There was an old saying in Sussex, that "the oak was too noble to grow upon servile land ; " the meaning of which was, that nobody would plant Church land or copyhold land, as the value of the timber would only go to increase the amount of the next fine. Now give some parties a permanent interest in the improvement of Church property, and its value would be increased. Hence might be discerned the prac- ticability of the Government plan ; which he thought the gentlemen opposite would do well to support, instead of leaguing themselves with such friends of the Church as the Bishop of Exeter,—who had charged him with being remiss in prosecuting libellers, though the late Visitation Charge of the Bishop was the most libellous production he bad ever seen ; and if he were to commence the practice of filing es. officio informations, the Bishop would be the first whom he should attack.

Mr. LAW opposed the plan. Mr. BENETT supported it.

Mr. CAYLEY contended, that the lessee of Church lands was to be unfairly dealt with ; and he went into several calculations of the com- parative value of leasehold and fieehold property to make good his argument. He did not think that any Administration could pass such a measure as that of Mr. Spring Rice; and thought that the Dissenters were too high-minded to accept a boon at the expense of injustice to the lessees. Still, as he approved of the abolition of Church-rates, he would vote with Ministers.

Mr. PEMBERTON, after bearing Mr. Cayley's speech, was exceedingly surprised at the determination expressed at its conclusion. For him- self, he doubted the justice of the proposed measure, as it affected the lessees, the Church, arid the State. As to the payment of Church- rates being voluntary,—which was the ground taken up by Sir John Campbell, Mr. Benett, and Dr. Lustiington,—he would quote the high authority of Dr. Lushington himself, who had laid it down in the case of the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, that all property from time immemorial was liable to that impost, unless there was some especial ground of exemption. The Attorney-General had strongly supported the Ministerial plan, and bad designated that of Lord Althorp as " thimbleriggery ;" though he suspected that the accident of his defeat at Dudley had alone prevented Sir John Campbell from supporting that plan, as he had supported this. It was now proposed to meddle with property to the extent of 1,323,000/. a year, which had remained undisturbed for three centuries. In the time of the Commonwealth, a somewhat similar attempt had been made ; and it nearly produced an insurrection in the North, and was abandoned, Lands held on lease in the same families for three centuries were scarcely distinguishable from freeholds ; and some fine morning multitudes would be disturbed by the information that land which they thought their own, really be- longed to the Church. Great would be the joy in the Court of Chan- cery ; infinite in number would be the commissions issued to set out the proper bounds throughout the kingdom, infinite the distinctions be- tween what is leasehold and what freehold property, and infinite the litigation that would arise. Ile believed that the popular feeling was against the abolition of Church-rates. He believed that Ministers

miscalculated the direction of the current of public opinion. Hs believed that the Church of England was hourly and daily gaining strength; and be trusted that the people of England would now come forward to support the Church, in the full consciousness that to yield would only be to provoke and encourage further aggression.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that it was agreed on all hands that the question of Church-rates demanded the interposition of the Leg's. lature ; and all that Ministers asked was permission to lay their piss for settling that question before the House of Commons. That was all. The House was asked to pass a resolution which would enable the Government to bring in a bill for the future examination end ems, sideration of Parliament. The bill had not yet been printed. How could gentlemen opposite tell that it did not contain many provisions which they considered necessary and would recommend ? If the pee. sent state of the Church-rates was unsatisfactory, should not Minis. ters be allowed to propose a substitute? Sir Robert Peel ackmas, ledged that some alteration must be made ; but he objected to the Government plan, and would not propose another. He merely suggested something about the separation of Churchmen and Dissenters—shoot relieving the towns from Church-rates and still leaving them as MI int. post on the country. The real object was to prevent Ministers from settling the question, and to keep it open as a subject of diseonteos

He had himself been charged with inconsistency on this subject. He had been quoted as having asserted that it was necessary in order

to maintain the Church Establishment that the fund for the repairs of churches should be raised by a tax on the nation at large. Now this opinion was not his : it would have been quite inconsistent with his vote to abolish Vestry Cess in Ireland; and also with the knows opinions and acts of Lord Stanley ; nay, with those of Dr. Leroy, who with respect to Ireland had supported the principle of this mea. sure. Could it be supposed that if the income of the Church were augmented by four or five millions, still it would be necessary, in order to preserve the principle of a Church Establishment, that the expense of repairing churches should be defrayed by a tax on the cominiin my at large ? Yet to this length the arguments of some gentlemen opposite would carry them.

" Now," said Lord John, " I will state what I really did say. I said it wee the duty of a state, in maintaining a church establishment, to provide for the repairs of that church. And I said, morever, with respect to the EstaldiAed Church of England, that if Church-rates were to be abolished, and the repair. of the churches were to be provided for out of the public funds, I did nut think that these funds could be provided out of the revenues of the Church Thie was my opinion on the subject ; it was my opinion respecting a que-tion of fact ; and I urged it in opposition to what was continually pressed upon int by many Dissenters in this House ; and when the honourable Member for Middle. sex stated that the revenues of the Deans and Chapters were sufficient to pro. vide a substitute for Church-rates, I said, in opposition to that proposition, that I thought those revenues were not sufficient. But I added, that any sur- plus that might be obtained by diminishing the expenses of Bishops and Deans and Chapters, should be and might properly be applied to the increase if livings and the augmentation of spiritual instruction, and that I thought there would not be a sufficient surplus as a substitute for Church-rates. But is there any thing to prevent me changing my opinion, if I find that greater sums car be obtained from an improved mode of collecting the property of the Church? When I find that there is sufficient for all the objects of the Church, giving to the Church that revenue which is necessary for its Bishops, giving that revenue which is necessary for Deans and Chapters, and giving three millions to the parochial clergy,—when I find, upon further and more correct inquiry, that this is the case, is there any thing inconsistent in my changing my opinion?" (Loud cheers from the Ministerial side.) The Church Commissioners had found that, by a new regulation of Episcopal revenues and the revenues of Deans and Chapters, a sum of 130,000/. might be saved, which they wished to apply to the increase of small livings : but the Church Commissioners, in the first instance, thought proper to secure the revenues of the Bishops and the other Church dignitaries, postponing the increase of small livings and the erection of new churches ; and that being the case, he certainly thought that Ministers, simple as they were, might fairly plead that these ob. jects should be again postponed for one which would be of most essential service to the Church, by producing concord and removing a crying grievance in the State. Three millions and a half were still left at the disposal of the Church, which would thereby be provided with what was necessary for its support. The statements and calculations of Sir Robert Peel had not shaken his faith in the soundness of Mr. Spring Rice's calculations; and be was the more ready to rely on them, because, if he had adopted Lord Stanley's principle of caleula. tions with regard to Irish Church revenues, the surplus would be, nut 260,000/. but 300,0001. a year. At all events, let the House condescend to examine the bill ; and not conclude at once that Sir Robert Pe4.1 was right, and Mr. Spring Rice, Mr. Finlaison, arid gentlemen mm imi side of the House, all wrong. He could not see that there wits any thing unfair in getting from the lessee what would only be ail equiva- lent for the advantage be acquired. It WAS not true that leases of Church-lands were renewed as a matter of course- " 1 could state to the House many instances that have come to my own know- ledge, in which those leases have fallen in, and in which the Bishop has .rfuwil

to teuew, or in which lie has put in a concurrent lease, and the original lease has been altogether destroyed. That right was exercised by the late Bohol) of

Ely ; and while it exists let no man tell me the lessees have this imglieof renewal. I have been told, on the authority of a solicitor in Durham, wmmh respect to that county, that in 1790 the value of the Church land mt. t.gosl almost to freehold property ; but in consequence of the difficult tennis id it' newel which had been enforced of late years, Church land Fold for fifteen ar loz• teen years' purchase. It is clear that there has been a peat change a- evils the terms on which these leases are renewed; and are vve not entitled to Ole advantage of the right of renewal." It had been asked by Sir Robert Peel, whether the Legislator:could interfere between a private gentleman and his tenants ? but theme was no analogy between the cases of' a bishop and a piivate geetleinun. Formerly it was held that Parliament had a right to inquire into the income of the Bishop of Durham, for instance ; but in the last ses-loe Parliament had ordered the Bishop of Durham to pay 2,0001.. to the Bishop of Ripon, and a sum of 11,00W. to the Church Co lllll so that the right of Parliament to interfere with the properts.sil [he Bishops had been expressly recognized, and could not liencelorpl.lie disputed. And under the arrangement proposed by this bill, no notary could be done to the Bishop of Durham, but the reverse-

wrss.-.ss "If the incomes of the see of Durham were to be depreciated, and fall, through any fortuitous circumstances, to 4,0001., 3,0001., or even 1,000/. a yerr,. the Bishop would still be obliged to pay over 11,0001. to the Church Com-

uns,ioners, and 2,000/. a year to the Bishop of Ripon. This being the case, one can tell me that this Bishop is in a position to have unlimited command over the property in hand, or to exercise under all circumstances, his own free

will and inclination in its disposal; for he may be obliged, when he would

rather not do so, to renew leases which int!), fall in, under very disadvan- tageous circumstances, in order to meet this certain, this unvarying, anti imperative annual call. Say the Bishop's income amounts on an average to 19,000/ a year—out of this he ha a to pay 11,0001., reserving the other 8,000/. far himself. But it', instead of taking the chance of the lives which fall in, by whieli in one year he might get 22,000/. and in another only 10,000/., we say to him, we will take care That you shall always receive 19,000/, out of which you may with regularity meet the demand against you of 11,0001. a year, and with as much certainty reserve the 8,000/. a year to yourself,-1 say that if we were to do this, so far nom doing an injury to this individual, we should be eonferrirg a great benefit upon him, by attaching a greater degree of certainty to his income."

Ile had been charged by Mr. Harcourt with baying made "an uten- sil" of the Church, after having belonged to the Church Commis- sion— " I can," said Lord John " with much more truth affirm that the Commis. timers have made an utensil of me. We %vent into the Commission upon this subject, in conjunction with the Prelates of the Church who formed part of it, with the full desire and intention of listening to all the plans for the reform of

the Church which they could suggest, with a sincere wish, whilst we directed

our attention to the correction of abuses in that Establishment, to do so in a way as compatible as possible with the views and sentiments of its Prelates.

I gave my consent to the propositiore which were then agreed upon ; but at

the same time, I must remark that those propositions were more theirs than mine. And 1 must take this opportunity of remaiking, in answer to what fell from the honourable Member for Weymouth, what the members of the Church Commission know full well, that I said I should been desirous that no Prebend should receive more than 4,000/. and that no Canon should have more than 2000/. a year. But whilst this was my own opinion, I

Was willing, nevertheless, to adopt the scheme for the reform iic certain abuses which was framed by the Commission. 1 proposed that scheme to the House; and when the honourable Member for Middlesex warned me that by acting thus 1 was ruining the prospects of the Ministry to which 1 belong, I told bun that, regardless of consequences, I had adopted that measure, :old that I was determined to stand or fall by it, conceiving the honour of the Administration

to be involved in it. (Lola cheering.) In doing this, are we to be accused of having ill treated the Church Commission ? On the contrary, we showed ouoelves ready to expelience and to brave some obloquy if, in concurrence with the Heads of the Church, we could pass some measure calculated to be of real and efficient service to the best interests of the Church."

Lord John coneluded by expressing his high admiration of the patriotism, piety, intelligence, and independence of the Dissenters ; and his earnest hope, that while he maintained the Church in all its splendour, he should be able to accord to those excellent and true

hearted Dissenters an object on which their hearts bad so long been set ; and thereby contribute to the general peace rind concord of the country.

At the end of Lord Jelin Russell's speech, the debate was again adjourned, and the House rose at one o'clock.

The first speaker on 1Vednesday was

Mr, Gisnonxe. He maintained that there was an end of Church- rates—that they were gone ; that the people refused tn pay them ; and that even Sir Robert Peel, Sir William Follett, and Mr. Pemberton, were oldiged to confess that a substitute must be provided. He was (pate willing that the fund in lieu of the rates should be raised in the manner proposed by Mr. Spring Rice, if by any process of alchemy that right honourable gentleman could succeed in extracting the 20,000/. a year out of the lands of the Church without injuring the lessees. Mr. Gisborne excited the laughter of the Committee by reading, in a comical tone and manner, the names of several obscure parishes in which petitionsAr Church-rates had been got up. One of' them was Tallyporcorner, famous, he supposed for tithe-pigs ; but be was convinced that if the reel state of the question laid been laid be- fore the good people of Taillyporcorner,—if they had been told that they were about to pray Parliament to continue a tax, the people of Tallyporcorner would not have been such fools as to sign the petition in question. 'Members had been told by Sir Robert Peel to beware of the verdict of posterity; but he could tell them that posterity would say, " Keep your fingers out of the pockets of' Dissenters, ye grasping and rapacious Churchmen ; " and when posterity saw the munificent Idonation of Mr. Byng to the Metropolis Church-building Fund, she would say to the defender of Church-rates, " Drop this pitiful tax, and go thou and do likewise." Mr. Gisborne then adverted to the meeting of Bishops, Liberal and Illiberal- " Black spirits and while Blue spirits and gray "— all mingled together in opposition to a bill not then introduced into the House of Commons, whose decision they most unconstitutionally wished to influence. He denounced the assembly of Prelates, as a vile and despicable cabal; and concluded with declaring his intention to vote with Ministere,—reserving to himself the right of resisting any

p at of the plan which would place the lessees in a worse position than they were at present.

Some interruption and desultory discussion occurred, in consequence of Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON wishing to move an amendment, to the effect that any surplus that could be obtained by in improved manage-

'ment of (hurch-lands, should be devoted to the supply of religious in- struction where it was most deficient. Finally, Mr. JOIINSTON with. drew his amendment for the present. Lord SANDON then replied to Mr. Gisborne ; repelling with Indies tuition that gentleman's attack on the Bishops ; and contending that it wauld be most unjust to the lessee's of Church Neils to force them to adopt the Government plan ; but that if a surplus could be fairly ob- tained, it should be devoted to the religious instruction of the people, not to the relief of the rate-payers.

Mr. BAINES defended the Government plan. Ile said that although the number of petitions presented in favour of Church-rates was 'setter than those which prayed for their abolition, the number of signatures to the latter was by far the largest. He knew that the Lord STANLEY said that he had been taunted with inconsistency, by Members on the Ministerial benches. He had been appealed to by Mr. Spring Rice, in tones such as be only used to those whom he eateemed—in terms of courtesy, such as in the midst of their:political differences, he had always experienced from the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer. He had been appealed to also, but in terms neither of cour-

tesy or kindness, by the King's Attorney-General. That learned gene thenen had asked Sir William Follett how he could talk of inconsist- ency, seeing who were sitting beside him ? Now, continued Lord Stanley, amidst ulternate cheering from the two sides of the House- " I wish to knew how the honourable and learned gentleman could venture to speak of inconsistency ? What pretence have I given for this attack? Who is he that taunts me %kith inconsistency ? Have I ever shruuk, since 1 have had the honour of a scat in this House, 'from manfully and frankly stating may opiniona, whomsoever they pleased or displeased? I call upon any man to show whenever I have blinked any question. I call upon au) loan to show if at any time I have laid one language out of the House and dit:crent language within it? I call upon any man to say when I have ever %him ermed and ea- lutimiated a hudei of men, and afterwards solicited to attach inysolf to that body of men ? Iask, zchi.t. main question was deperoliny whic4 ; .as diirfrasiny F,, those wida whom I 1,e;,1 office, wiather I hare crer ardided c.zpressing my opin:oo, or shdetrel myself under a matronly by a enure dent absence? Atal, finally, I :1-!: %via.a.Ler it is not in the knowledge of tl,e K'n!'s Attorney- General himself, am:Lycra- Member of this House, that when I 1,1 differ from my colic r goes luddin:: (Are, I abandoned office to maintain me principles? And now, Sir, when: ver the the Attorney-tieueral shall think -fit to answer these questions with rcgsrd to himself as I have answered them, I will, and not till then, place myself on the level to discuss the piestiou t,f e :msistemmc' with him. The honourable and learned Attorney-General last might, following up Ida attack, told me—in terms, indeed, eumplimentary as lo•a 2at,t them, that he knew my ingenulty too well not to be satisfied that I should le able to effect all but impossibilities—to satisfy the house with regard to my upposed chug. Sir, 1 accept no compliment to my ingenuity at the expense of the principles which I profess. This I will say, that without the excreote of the stnallest por- tion of the ingenuity for which the honourable and learnt,t1 gentleman has given me credit, and without the slightest sacrifice of those prinetplee which the At- torney-General assumes that I possess, I will demonstrate. if not to the satis- faction, I think at least to the conviction of the Attorney-General, that there grossest misrepresentations,had been e.oplo3ed hv tl e oppetiente to toe measure, who declared that Ministers were for pulling down the churches and destroying the sanctuary ; whereas, a principal object of the plan was to provide a safe and permanent fund for keeping them in repair. Mr. Baines read several statements of the compara- tive numbers of Churchmen and Dissenters, and gave it as his opinion that the numbers were pretty equally divided. From a return he had got of the churches and chapels in the county of Lancaster, it appeared that the Roman Catholics and Dissenters greatly preponderated in that county over the Churchmen. He contended, that vhen gentle- men pointed to the great deficiency of church-room he such places as Manchester, and called upon Parliament to build new churches, they should produce some evidence that people would enter them when er,!cted. In Leeds there was certainly church-room enough. Though apiiroving of the object of the Government measure, Mr. Baines thought that object might be secured by machinery less cumbersome than that proposed. He recommended that Queen Anne's Bounty and the First Fruits and Tenths should be honestly applied to the purposes for which they were designed, and then a sufficient sum would be obtained for the repairs of churches and the increase of small livings.

Mr. W. GLADSTONE addressed the Committee in opposition to the plan ; by which, he contended, Ministers would take •239,0001. a year from the Church, to give to the landlords, mainly with the view of keeping their party together, and in submission to the pressure from without.

Mr. POULETT Tuostsox spoke in defence of the Government pro- position, amidst great interruption. From the imperfect report of his speech, it would seem that he advanced no new al gionents.

is no inconsistency on my part—( Cheers, and loud cries ' • 0h, oh !")--I repeat, at, there is no inconsistency o my part—(" (fl, oh!" and checrs)—ia having supported, in having introduced, awl (I give the Atturnev-General the benefit of the admission) with having been the main suppoi t o.f. the Church Temporalities Bill, and upon the present occasion standing up in determined opposition to the principles embodied in this measure. Can any moan say that there is not a wide diffeience between that bill and the present a.easure, bath in its details and its principle?"

He vindicated Lord Althorp's plan for the settlement of the Church- rate question ; and expressed his conviction, that if Sir John Campbell could have got a seat in the House at that time, (after having lost Dudley,) Lord Althorp would have had his assistance in carrying through that measure. He taunted Ministers with their professions of' last year, that the State was bound to keep the churelies in repair; and asked whether they considered the funds they now wished to apply to that purpose belonged to the State? Ile conteraled, in oppo- sition to the dictum of the Attorney.. General, that Church-rates could be levied in defiance of a majority of the Vestry; and th it as far back a- the time of Canute Church-rates had been levied. He maintuined that the Church had an indefeasible claim on the State for the main- mance of its edifices. But if Ministers would only refer to last year's legislation, they would find that their bill for the consolidation and amendment of the Ecclesiastical Courts gave poweis to Justices of the Peace to amend and levy Church- rates.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, nobody disputed that the Courts woeld enforce a Church-tate when made; but the question was as to the making of the rate.

Lord STANLEY would then ask, whether the Attorney- General was a party to a bill for enforcing payment of rates whose valid 43, he denied? Sir JollN CAMPBELL rejoined, that he never had demui d the validity of a rate legally made by a majority of the Vestry.

Lord STANLEY said, as this mode of treating the su7iject did not please the Attorney- General, he would turn to another point. (Loud Ministerial cheers, and ironical cries if" Hear, hear !" assailed Lord Stanley, win, emph■y(d himself in turning over some paper m.) He then argued at some length, that there was a considerable difference between the principle of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, by which Vestry Cess was abolished, and the proposed measure; principally because the Vestry Cess was imposed em u people of whom the great majority dissented from the Church, and because in Ireland, where there was no restriction on Bishops' leases, the tenant had the Option of renewing his lease or not. He entered into an examination of the finameal part of the scheme; contending that there would be no surplus; and then referred tu the mode of applying the ssurplus, should there be any— This part of the subject brought hirn at once to the very ground.work of this measure—the principal on•which it proceeded. If it did not proceed wholly on that principle, he would at least be glad to know how far it was in- tended to go upon it. The question was, should the Church hereafter be maintianed out of funds belonging to the State, or should it not? (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Honourable Members on the opposite side uf the Houee seemed to think. that there waa no doubt that it should ; but at was desirable to look a little further, aud to say from what funds the sums for the Church's maintenance should be drawn. It was said to be objectionable to pay them out ef the Consolidated Fund, the property of the cumtunnity at huge, on account of the conscientious scruples enter tained by Dissenters. if the Cowervatives maintained that these funds were the property of the Church, -not of the State, and that the State had no power to aeply them, except for ecclesiastical purposee, flier' gentlemen opposite turned mm1(1111)1)11 them and exclaimed, that their present purpose ot applying them as an equivalent for Church- rates was an ecclesiaetical purpoee. Ile confessed he could not under- stand the supporters of this measure. He could not understand ivhether they ineant to assume Chet the fonds would be the property of the State, to be applied to ecclesiattical puroases, or to general put poses ; or whether they said that they were property of the Church, to be applied to ecclesiastical purposes only. Their conduct remieded him of a foulish story he had heard. Au American walked into a store, and asked the price of some biscuits, which he was told was three cents. Ile then a-ked the price of some gin, which was three cents alen Ile drank the gin, and when called npon for rho money, offered the biscuits for payment. The mister of the stole told him he had not pail for his biricuits. •• Why should I," said the onto, " whirr I have not eaten them ? " Now something akin to this seemed the conduct of his Ma- jesty's Ministers as regarded this measure of Church rates, ludierous as his mode of putting tile argument tnight appear. They said they wauld provide for the repair of churches out of the funds of the Chinch. The Conservatives %maintained that those foods ought to be applied to ecclesiastical parposes only. " Very well," eaid the Ministers, " these me ecclesiastical pup, 1.!1." But they seemed to lose sight of the fact that other more stt kill) ecclesiastical )ill-

Were proposed to be kft alt gether destitute if provision.

Ile seamed men of all pat ties, not to look merely to individeel in- terests, but to the genseal interest which was threatened, and to make what he firaily believed would be a lust stand fur the safety of the Church.

Mr. SPRING RICE denied that Lord Stanley had fairly represented his plan; which was in fact intended not only to relieve the Dissenters, but to benefit the Church. How could Lord Stanley suppose that a measure st Lich expressly provided for the repeir and Maiiiteilill■ee of the churches thraugholit the cottetry was intended or caleuhded to de- stroy the Establishment ? As to making a last stand fur the Church— why, this W 1*5 itliNdy:-.■ the cry. When Cetholic Emancipation, the repeel of the Tiest Acts, and the Irish Church Temporalities Bill Inul been brought forward, the ii Parliament and the semiltry vere

called upon ta ;nuke the le et stand for the Church. Mr. Eire denied that Mihisters loot truckled to the 1/h...enters. As to the question of

Lord Stanky, w Its tiler the increased value given by oct Ut I'll!.. tile! to Church pl jul ty belomi;a41 to the Church of tn tai! State, la would reply in Lord Statiley's own wurds, oiled deeeellee Lis al. :.uesais mea- sure which re e tamed the 1i ish Church, that it beluegud to the State. Mr. Rive \vie, aware that Sir Rohs it Peel leel mode illip.atitut rii is. takes ie his reticulations of the amount of the surplus; but he would riot at that late hour trouble the Committee with any remarks upon them.

A desultory conversaticn ensued ; in the course of which, several

Members, iiicluding Lord DUDLEY STUART, Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. 140DGS0N HINDI:, Mr. LAZISION, Mr. PEASE, and .Sir Iheevoiern Wm-mem:Hee, expressed their disapprobation of the measure, either us regarded its principle or details, or both. It seemed to be the general impression, that it would operate injuriously on the lessees of Church property in the North of England. Mr. AGLIONBY exit' essed his conviction that it never could he carried into effect ill its present form.

The Committee divided : Fur the resolution 273 Against it 2a0 Majority :et Loud Opposition cheers followed the announcement of these num here.

The number of petitions presented to both Houses fur and against the ubolltion of Church-rates, this week, has been very numerous ; but those ueninst theeibolition greatly preponderated, especially in the Lords.

On Monday, the Bishop of' Beet' and WELLS presented it petition :from Bath against the abolition ; stating that it was signed by all the respectable people in Beth. Lord Homesen said that he had pre- sented a petition with a cinerary prayer ; and was sure that, if not so mune rously, it was quite as respectably signed as the Bishop's. The Bishop of Been and Weees expluined, that he inteeded to say that his petition was signed by a mujurity of the respectable inhabitants of Bath.

Lord WYNVOILD presented two petitions fium Chelmsford and Earns borough against the ubolition ; aud said that they were signed by ad the respectable people of those towns. Lord lium.AND asked how it was possible Lord Wyalord could state that on his own knowledge ? Lord WYNYORD said, he knew all the respectable people in those places.

On Tuesday, Lord Beucenext said he wished the signatures to the petition for mid aguinst the abolition of Church-lutes could be counted : he was sure they would be found fifteen or twenty times more nume- rous for the abolition then for the continuance of the rates ; for in- stance, he had presented a petition from Birmingham signed by 19,000 persons.

No order for the couleiug of the signatures was made.

Tbutz day, after limey petitions bud been presented, the Bishop of Le...NI:et Cl 1, that lii 'st,meting the relative value of the netitions

%vial 1.rays s, 11112 ii f Vd10 petit.oned fer the abolition of the tex es.eht uiene to IA: ce.tinLCti till thiOt Side, its they alone felt any burden; but the non-payers who petitioned for the continuance of Church-nres ought to receive attention, for they were the parties wile would sufte most by the abolition.

Lord Meenounee protested against the distinction drawn by the Bishop of Llandaff ; and was sorry it had come from a quarter he respected. All his Majesty's subjects had an equal right to come before the House with prayers for the redress of grievances.

The Bishop of LLANDAEF said, he had never intended to deny theright of' peition to the most humble ; but that they who paid no rates

had no can:e of complaint, and thut their petitions should not receive much consideration.

CORN LAWS.

Mr. CLAY brought forward his promised motion on Thursday. It was for a Committee of the whole House " to consider the propriety of per

mittiug corn, grain, meal, and flour, the growth, produce, mid nianufae. ture of any foreign country, to be imported into the United Kingdom for consumption, on the payment of fixed duties, insteed of duties re. gulated from time to time according to the average price of British

corn." Mr. Clay hoped that the House would this year give the sub. ject of the Corn-laws its serious consideration ; as in 1P-35 lie hail post.

poned his 'notion rather than interfere with the progress of the .Muni.

cipal Bill, and again in 1830 in consequence of the appointmerit of a Committee to inquire into the state of Agriculture. He did not re- gret these postponements, us the evidence given before the Agricultu. ral Committee had afforded illustrations of the injurious working of the present system. Mr. Clay took a rapid survey of corn-legis. lation from the middle of the fifteenth century to the present time. lie argued that the existing law gave the landholder a different kind of protection from that which the British tnanufacturer enjoyed- " A protwting-duty, in the ordinary sense, is of fixed amount, Preceding Upon some calculation if the greeter cost of the home trade than of the similar

foreign mmumodity ; but it has no reference to the price in the home market of the article so protected. An illustration drawn from our praetice wirli regard to any teller commodity, will at once render clear this distinction, so important III its effects. Silk goods, for instance, are an article of home manufacture protected by it very high duty ; the Legislature has assumed 30 per cent. to be the amount of duty waieli will enable the Ili itish manufacturer to compete with his foreign rival—it imposes that duty, but it goes no further. 'f here is no attempt to uphold the price in the home market, by enactiog that the duty on foreign silk goods shall vat y inversely as the price of British piece goods—that if the price of glos de Naples fall -,20 per cent. the duty shall rise -20 per cent. The protection considered adequate to the different cost of production being once given, the price of the commodity is left to the natural effect of supply and deniaml; and the public enjoys the full benefit of that diminished price, which

either competition or diminished cost of production may oe,i.1,1,LI, What would he said to a propusition from the cotton. manufacturers, sir:- weavers.

or tile clothiers, that the duties on the eiiks and cloths of Franco, or the printed cottons of Switzerlaud, should be regulated front time to time by the average prices of Bi itish silks, cloths, and printed cottons ?—aud yet it woL".1 not be easy, I susivier, to show w hat better claim the producer of 100 ,paira rs of cora Ii is to have The price of his commodity kept steady,' as the phrase is, Cam the producer of 100 pieeee of broeil cloth.'" The advocates of the Corn-laws dwelt touch upon the value of the home markel. to the manufacturer— Their it: nit to alai le the manufacturer by the prospect of 1..sitig a market in which his too pieces of IA.0.0 cloth prwlinie him IOU pullers 4.1 wileat, when he ;3 to get in eeellange a customer who will gladly give hint 200 quarters, is

reckoning, as it appears to me, -inconsiderately on his credulity. Akin to these assertieus of the value of the home market, are the professions of anxiety for the welfare of the manufacturing classes by the same parties, and the earnest declarations of their belief that the imerests of those classes and of the land-

holder are itleatical. These prollesions have been reiterated, 1 had almost said ad n«u :yam, both within and without these walls, and have served as the iutroduction to every pleasure for keeping up the price of corn. It is high time that this talk should be put an end tn. The landholder and the manu- facturer have a community of interest under a system of flee trade is earn; they have not a community of interest under our present system ; on the con- trary, their interests are in direct opposition ; our present system renders high prices necessary to the prosperity of the agricultural classes, whilst low prices, at least mices tin a level with those of other countries, are essential to the reauufacturer. These lespective classes, accordingly, have never prospered at the same time since 151a—have never even appeared to prosper together, except at rare intervals, and from peculiar circumstances.

It as said that the revenue prospered only when the price of coot was bight ; but Mr. Clay proved by reference to facts, that front 1816 to 1819, when the price of wheat ranged front 72s. to 94s., the revenue fell to the extent of 6,412,000/. ; while front 1832 to 18;35, when the mean price of wheat was 49s., the inteease in the revenue was 3,040,000/. In fact, the revenue fluctuated inversely as the price of wheat, rising as the price fell and falling as the price rose. Ile described the consequeuces of persisting in the present system on the condition of the manufacturing population- " One of two things netst happcn—either your manufacturing capital would depart to other shores, and the population winch it at present supports must be reduced by emigvatiun, or the more dreadful process of misery, and the home market for corn being thus limited, the price of course reduced.; or you would drive your labouters to cheaper food, and thus equally diminish the demand for wheat. It is an absolute ctindition of the existence of our manufactures, that the rate of wages should not be greatly above the rate in other manufacturing countries; and if the price of bread be such that it is not within the reach of the operative, he will betake himself to potatoes. Where will then be your market for corn? what the condition of the humbler classes? what their re- sources against famine? what will be the chances of the preservation of order, or the stability of property ?" His proposition was, entirely to sweep away the present scale of duties on foreign grain, and substitute the following duties, which be considered would be a protection to the agriculturists equivalent to their peculiar burdens, and which was therefore all they bud a right to

chtim— • "I should propose, if the 1-louse accede to my motion, that the new levr should come tutu operation on the list of June of this year ; time from ahat

time to the 1st of June 1538, the duties should be 10s. per quarter on wheats 8s. on barley, awl tie. on oats ; to the 1st of Jung 1839, tels. OIL wheat, 6s. on barley, and -4s. on oats ; and from that thee permatieutly, Ss, per quarter on witeat, 4s. pa quarter un barley, and 3s. per quarter on vats. The ground on which I fix the relation between the different kinds of grain I have named, the duties to be exed ou the less important sett 1 have uut named, will be matte: of discussion in the Committee. I will now merely say, that the duties I have mentioned are more than a full equivalent for the whole of those charges which prtss exclusively on the landed interest, or enhance the cost of growing corn."

With a duty of 5s. he considered that wheat into the. extent of a fort-

night's consumption could not be introduced thts country at less than 40s. a quarter. It was not, therefore, so much a reduction in the Price 'of bread, as the extension of trade and the opening of new markets, that he expected would be the result of a fixed moderate duty on foreign grain.

[During Mr. Clay's speech, an attempt was made to have the House counted out, but it was not persevered in. When Mr. Clay sat down, the House was counted, on the motion of a Member for an agricultural county, whose name is not mentioned ; hut more than forty Members were present, and the discussion was continued.] Mr. VILLIERS seconded Mr. Clay's motion. He argued, that the agriculturists had no right to tax the food of the whole community on the ground that they had exclusive burdens to bear ; for whatever those burdens might be, they were not such as justified the landowner in calling for an indemnity for them. He hoped that the opponents of the motion would state the true reasons for maintaining the Corn. laws, and not merely repeat exploded fallacies.

The Marquis of CHANDOS said, that the agriculturists wanted merely a fair remuneration for their labour and capital; and anal afrce trade in manifactures was conceded, he did not see what right the manu- facturers had to demand a free trade in corn. Ile admitted that the corn averages might be advantageously altered, as they permitted fraud ; but he would meet Mr. Clay's motion with a direct negatit e. Mr. EWART admitted, with regret, that the people were not suffi- ciently alive to their own interest in reference to the question of the Corn-laws ; but they were beginning to understand it ; and when they were awakened to its real importance, would rise and make the aristo- cracy tremble.

The Earl of DARLINGTON declared his firm belief that we trust have protecting duties on corn, in order to preserve mannfiwturcs as well as commerce from ruin.

Sir WILLIAM Moteswonan supported Mr. Clay's motion, as pre- thin/try to the entire abolition of Cormlaws. His objection to any

corn-law was, that it tended to produce low wages and low profits ; high wages and high profits being essential to the prosperity and com- fort of the community. [The greater part of Sir William Moles. worth's speech is quoted in another part of the Spectator.

Mr. HANDLEY was willing to give up the Corn-laws when a7 mono- polies were swept away, but not before ; and he did not think that the time was near when such a change of the existing system could be made.

Mr. HARVEY spoke cleverly in support of the motion ; drawing some of his illustrations from evidence of the coadition of the labouring classes, which had just been given in the Poor-law Committee. For divulging this evidence be was called to order by Mr. SPRING Men.

Sir (immix HEATIICOTE, Mr. SHAW LEEEVIIE, Sir J. TYRRELL, Mr. GALLY KNIGHT, and Mr. RICHARDS, opposed the motion. Mr. Guest and Mr. Hume supported it.

The House divided : for the motion, 89; against it, 223; landlords' majority, 134.

MISCELLANEOUS.

MISC.OVERNME.NT OF CANADA. It was stated on Wednesday, by Mr. SPRING RICE, in the absence of Mr. Roebuck, that the debate on theCanada Resolutions should be resumed on Tuesday next. Sub- sequently, Mr. ROEBUCK said that he was no party to that arrangement, and should persevere in bringing on a motion of which he bad given notice for that evening. In the House Peers, on Monday, Lord GLENELG said, in reply to Lord RipoN, that it was the intention of Ministers to communicate the Canada Resolutions to the Peers, after they had passed the House of Commons. With regard to the late Commission, for which Lord Ripon bad said it would be difficult to prove any need, Lord Glenelg declined making any observation at present. Lord ABERDEEN said, that Ministers had placed themselves in a very awkward predicament, in passing some resolutions, and adjourn- ing the consideration of others until evidence, on which the whole were founded, could be put in the hands of Members ; and, lest the proceedings of the Peers should be stopped by a similar cause, be sug- gested that the House of Commons should be requested to communi- cate the evidence to the Peer:.

Loud GLENELG acceded to this suggestion ; but maintained that the resolutions were based on ample evidence.

POLICE MAGISTRATES. Mr. ESTCOURT asked Lord John Russell, on Monday, whether a gentleman, not bred to the bar, had been re- cently appointed a Police Magistrate ; and whether such an appoint- ment was not contrary to the invariable practice of former Secretaries of State? Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that Mr. Codd, who was not a barrister, had received such an appointment ; that Mr. Codd had for two or three years been engaged as a Magistrate in the neighbourhood of London, deciding cases similar to those which were brought into the Police- offices of the Metropolis; that he had given satisfaction in the performance of this duty ; that he had been strongly recommended by Mr. Senior and Mr. Stephen of the Colonial Office; and that there. (ore Lord John felt justified in departing from the usual rule of only appointing barristers to the Police-offices, in favour of Mr. .Codd. He also reminded Mr. Estcourt, that thousands of persons were annually tried and transported by Magistrates who bad never been 'brought up to the bar.

PARLIAMENTARY AGENTS. On Wednesday, Lord GEORGE LENNOX, as Chairman of the Brighton Railway Committee, stated, that one of the agents employed was a son and partner of Mr. Freshfield, a Mem- ber of the House. He moved that the Standing Orderadeclaring that no Member of the House should be engaged directly or indirectly in the conduct of Private Bills, be read by the Clerk. fhis baring been done, Mr. 1' ar:Snell:1.D explained, thut he had ito concern or CUIIIICX1011 Whatever with the Parliamentary- business of his son, although in other descriptions of business they were partners. Ile contended that the object of the resolution was to prevent Members from deriving profit from Parliamentary business ; and he derived none. Mr. Freshfield left the House at the conclusion of his speech. A discussion ensned, in which Mr. HARVEY, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. TOOKE, Sir F. Pota.ocir, Mr. GOULBURN, and Mr. Law joined. It would appear that the dis- cussion had no result ; as the only notice we find in the Votes of the House is "Resolution read."