On the grounds that the offices were originally founded on the basis of actual residence, he should feel it his duty to oppose the amendment. Mr. Estcourt said, that as it seemed to him these offices might be given as dignities to the rural deans, who would be brought in constant communication with the diocesan, essentially useful offices would be created. Sir R. H. Inglis objected to making all the officers of the Church purely stipendiary. Many of these establishments. were originally created without any fixed emoluments to the officers, but with merely a common fund from which they were to be provided with daily sustentation. He was strongly opposed to depriving the Church of those offices which were regarded as sources of dignity, and as inducements to the young and enterprising to enter its service; and if, therefore, the House should take away all those estates from which those officers derived their emoluments, they should, at least, leave it those honorary distinctions. If the amendment should not be adopted, he would propose that words to this effect should be introduced into the clause: Mr. Acland said, that many of the ecclesiastical officers would have their efficiency impaired by the great reductions in their stipends effected by this clause." That no appointment shall be made His (Mr. Acland's) object would be to preserve on the old foundations certain offices in cathedrals which at present exist, with a view to append them as dignities to the rural deans, and for that purpose he should move the omission from the clause of the words "nor to any prebend, dignity, or officer, not residentiary in any cathedral church in England or Wales." which may confer any title to any estate or emoluments, but that such appointment may be made, provided it does not confer any such title." If they deprive the Church of this internal support, they ought to leave it what on former occasions had been described as objects of such just and legitimate interests to its different members. List of the AYES. The Committee divided on the original Lord J. Russell said, the proposal of question-Ayes 86; Noes 16: Majority the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Acland) | 70. was inconsistent with the general scope of the bill. Its object was, that the officers of cathedrals should have certain functions and duties to perform, and that was incompatible with the present proposition. He must therefore oppose the amendment. Mr. Gladstone regretted the proposal of his hon. Friend had not a more favourable reception from the noble Lord, inasmuch as by the retention of the offices proposed, economical means would be afforded of rewarding with dignities meritorious clergymen. Adam, Admiral Elliot, hon. J. E. Evans, W. Gordon, R. Gore, O. W. Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Euston, Earl of Cavendish, hon. G. H. Dr. Lushington said, the stipends of the majority of the officers mentioned were so small, that they would not be Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Grey, rt. hn. Sir G. Hector, C. J. On the clause being again put, Sir R. H. Inglis stating, that the proposition which he was about to make, was not intended to disturb the decision to which the Committee had just come, and which would not deprive the general fund of a single shilling, but would preserve the institutions themselves; since, by the previous decision of the Committee, the House had declared that the Church should not have the establishment with money, let them have the establishment without it. He moved, that with respect to the offices comprised in the amendment of his hon. Friend, no future appointment should be made which should confer a title to any estate or emolument, but that such appointments might still be made without conferring any such title. Amendment negatived. Clause to stand part of the bill. was the clause by which the deanery of Exeter was to be vested in the Crown. Now, he thought, that this was not a measure which ought to be passed through the House without any discussion. The right to the deanery of Exeter had been litigated down to the present time, and it had at last been ruled by the unanimous decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, that the appointment was vested in the Cathedral church of Exeter. Lord J. Russell said, that the proposal to vest the appointment in the Crown, was made by the church commissioners long before the decision pronounced in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Crown had given up by this bill patronage to the extent of 50,000l. a year, and he thought, that the Crown was certainly entitled to the patronage of the deaneries. The Clause agreed to. On Clause 18, Sir R. Inglis said, the object of the clause was to prevent any person receiving the appointment of canon until he had been six years in priest's orders, and he proposed to introduce an amendment to the effect of excepting in the case of canonries annexed to any professorship or headship, or other office, not being an archdeaconry. Lord J. Russell suggested, that this point might be left for discussion in the other House. The clause had been recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Sir R. Peel was disposed to support the general recommendations of the commissioners. At the same time, if there were any matters of detail which were not supported by sound arguments, he thought it not at all improper to disagree with these recommendations. He hoped the Bishops and officers of the Church would make personal merit and qualification the chief grounds upon which to appoint individuals to ecclesiastical duties. He believed the Church of England would owe more security to that principle of selection than to any other measure that could be adopted. He thought the House should not deal with more subordinate points, which could afford no additional security to the Church, but which, on the contrary, would actually diminish it. The restriction would have the effect of excluding many distinguished men; Dr. Pusey, for instance, would be excluded by it. clause was to secure the appointment of men of experience, and not of men of brilliant talents merely. It would induce men to take orders at an early period of life. Clause as amended agreed to. On Clause 21, concerning the average income of deans and chapters, Mr. Goulburn objected to the latter part of the clause, which had not been recommended by the commissioners. He could not approve of fixing a money payment to be made to the canons and other dignitaries of the Church. He wished to see them allowed to retain the management of their property. He objected, also, to equalizing the incomes of the canons, and fixing them at so low a sum as 1,000l. He should move to omit all the words after 3,000l. Lord J. Russell said, that at present the incomes of the canons were very unequal, some of them extremely small, and others exorbitant, varying from under 2007. to more than 3,000l. He thought it would be a far more fair and satisfactory arrangement to bring them nearer to equality, and could not view 1,000l. as by any means an inadequate sum. The general working of the bill would be such that they would receive a great deal more; a canon of Durham would have 2,000l. Of all the professions in the country, he should say, that the Church was that in which the largest rewards were to be obtained. Mr. Goulburn observed, that the clergy were 15,000 in number, and that his proposition went only the length of giving 2,000l. a-year to nine below the rank of Bishop. Sir H. Verney said, that on his side of the House they were for giving adequate remuneration to the more meritorious portion of the clergy. Sir R. H. Inglis wished to remind the Committee, that they were not dealing with the public revenue, but with the estates of individuals. Mr. Goulburn said, that the general feeling of the clergy, as set forth in the petitions which they presented to the House, was decidedly in favour of the principle upon which his amendment was founded. The Committee divided on the original question:-Ayes 53; Noes 25: Majority 28. TRAFALGAR SQUARE.] Mr. G. Knight moved, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the plan sanctioned by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for laying out the vacant space in front of the National Gallery. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not so much object to the appointment of a Committee, but he could never be a party to advising the Crown to break a pledge given to the subscribers to the Nelson monument; and he must say, that with reference to that part of the alterations in front of the National Gallery, it Sir J. Graham observed, that the matter of this bill; and amongst them, the was of some interest, not merely as regarded Hand-in-Hand office subscribed 1001. tothe Nelson monument, but National wards carrying the object of the bill into Gallery also, which building remained an effect. From all parts of the country petieternal monument of the taste of the tions were poured in in favour of the meaHouse of Commons. sure; and, certainly, it was no small reMotion agreed to. commendation that it had passed the other House of Parliament without a dissentient voice. To prove the sufferings that climbHOUSE OF LORDS, ing boys were compelled to endure, the Monday, July 6, 1840. noble Marquess read extracts from evidence given before a committee of the House of MINUTES) Bills. Read a first time :-- Weaver Churches. | Commons, appointed to inquire into this --Read a third time :--Admiralty Courts (Judges' Sa. lary) Bill. subject; and called their Lordships partiPetitions presented. By the Earl of Haddington, from the cular attention to the sentiments delivered United Parishes of a District in Haddingtonshire, in fa- by Lord Meadowbank, on a trial which Four of the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill. recently took place in Edinburgh, when Damage or Settled Estates.) On that learned personage denounced the the motion of the Duke of Richmond, the practice of employing climbing boys as House went into Committee on the settled disgraceful to the country, and revolting Estates Drainage Bill. to humanity, and emphatically called upon The Marquess of Salisbury suggested all who heard him to join in their efforts that it would be advisable to refer it to a to put down such an atrocious system. He Select Committee. sincerely hoped, that their Lordships would The Earl of Wicklow expressed a hope favour of which so general, he might say, not refuse their sanction to a measure in that the machinery of the bill would be so universal a feeling, prevailed. simplified. That machinery was at pre- the chief provisions of the bill prohibited One of sent extremely complicated ; and the ex- the employment of any person under the pense that must be incurred under its pro- age of twenty-one years in the climbing of visions, was so great, that he feared the measure would not be attended with chimneys. To this it was observed, that any beneficial effect. persons of such an age could not enter The Duke of Richmond said, the mea- chimneys unless they were peculiarly consure was calculated to bring into cultiva: structed. The answer, however, to that, tion large tracts of land, which, while un- was, and it was the answer of experienced drained, were useless. Still, he should persons, that there were very few chimneys have no objection to refer it to a Select into which it would not be possible for Committee. individuals of small dimensions, though of Bill referred to a Select Committee. mature age, to enter ; and when the chim. ney did not admit of that, recourse must be Chimney SWEEPERS—CLIMBING Boys.] had to the machine. His noble Friend The Marquess of Normanby, rose to move a former evening, presented a petition from opposite (the Earl of Haddington) had, on the second reading of the Chimney Sweep- certain master chimneysweepers, praying to ers Bill, which came before their Lord. be heard by counsel against the bill. Now; ships very powerfully supported. It was if the prayer were acceded to, they would not a favourite measure merely with some be required to hear counsel on the other one particular class, but the general feeling of the mass of the people was in favour of side, and there would be no chance of He, therefore, must the measure. So strong was the feeling, carrying the bill. that he was convinced, if their Lordships object to such a course. passed this bill, they would give more The Earl of Haddington was not an public satisfaction than by almost any other advocate for the employment of boys in measure. The last bill that passed on this this species of vocation. He admitted all subject was nearly inoperative, in conse. the evils that grew out of, and were conquence of the case with which it was nected with it; and be wished as sincerely evaded. In favour of this bill all parties and as warmly as bis noble Friend opwere united ; and its provisions were cal posite to put an end to the system, if, at culated to meet the objections urged against the same time, he were well assured that former propositions. Every one of the security would accompany the abolition a 431 Ecclesiastical Duties {COMMONS) and Revenues. 432 clause was to secure the appointment of men of experience, and noi of men of List of the Ares brilliant talents merely. It would induce Adam, Admiral Pemberton, T. men to take orders at an early period of Baring, ft. hon. F. T. Philips, G. R. life. Bowes, J. Pryme, G. Brotherton, J. Redington, T. N. Clay, W. Rice, E. R. income of deans and chapters, Russell, Lord J. Mr. Goulburn objected to the latter part Douglas, Sir C. E. Rutherfurd, rt, hon.A. of the clause, which had not been recom- Elliot, hon. J. E. Salwey, Colonel mended by the commissioners. He could Euston, Earl of Slaney, R. A. not approve of fixing a money payment to be Finch, F, Smith, R. V. made io the canons and other dignitaries Gordon, R. Stanley, hon. E. J. Grey, rt, hon. Sir G. of the Church. He wished to see them Steuart, R. allowed to retain the management of their leathcote, Gilb. J. Harland, W.C. Stuart, Lord J. Strickland, Sir G llorstan, E. While, A. Howard, ho. E. G. G. Williams, W. Williams, W. A. the incomes of the canons were very un. Knight, H.G. Winnington, Sir T. E. equal, some of them extremely small, and Lambton, Hi. Wood, B. others exorbitant, varying from under 2001. Lushington, rt, hon. S. Worsley, Lord to more than 3,0001. He thought it Maule, bon. Fox would be a far more fair and satisfactory Morpeth, Viscount TILLERS arrangement to bring them nearer 10 Mors, D. Tufnell, II. Parker, J. List of the Nors. Acland, T. D. llolmes, w. lluglies, W. B. Darby, G. Pusey, P: Duggannon, Viscount Rushbrooke, Colonel Shirley, E. J. Sibthorp, Colonel position went only the length of giving Goulburn, nt. hon 1. Teignmouth, Lord 2,0001. it-year to nine below the rank of Graham, nt. hon. Sir J. IT! TRS. Bishop: Greene, T. Clerk, Sir G. Sir H. Verney said, that on his side of liodgson, R. Gladstone, W. E. the House they were for giving adequate House resumed, Committee to sit agaio. remuneration to the more meritorious por. tion of the clergy. TRAFALGAR SQUARE.] Mr. G. Knight Sir R. H. Irglis wished to remind the moved, that a Select Committee be apCommittee, that they were not dealing pointed to inquire into the plan sanctioned with the public revenue, but with the by the Commissioners of Words and Foestates of individuals. rests for laying out the vacant space in Mr. Goulburn said, that the general front of the National Gallery. feeling of the clergy, as set forth in the The Chancellor of the Eschequer did petitions which they presented to the not so much object to the appointment of House, was decidedly in favour of the a Committee, but he could never be a principle upon which his amendment was party to advising the Crown to break a founded. pledge given to the subscribers to the The Committee divided on the original Nelsun monument; and he must say, that question :-Ayes 53 ; Noes 25: Majority with reference to that part of the altera. 23. tions in front of the National Gallery, it |