The Earl of Suffolk stated, that when about three years ago he had it in contemplation to bring the situation of the curates under the consideration of the legislature, he received above 200 letters from individuals of that body, representing the hardships under which they laboured. This certainly amounted to a call on the part of that body for legislative relief. The noble carl stated some cases of peculiar distress, and concluded with giving his vote for the second reading of the bill, though possibly some of its provisions might not be such as he should altogether approve.

The Earl of Buckinghamshire argued against the bill on the same grounds as Lord Sidmouth. He could not conceive why the lay impropriator was left to manage with his curate as he should think proper, while the income of the bencficed clergyman was so extensively invaded.

The Archbishop of Canterbury traced the principle of an interference on the part of the bishops to provide a maintenance for the officiating persons, from the earliest period of the history of the church of England. He cited a mandate from the Pope, enjoining this interference, in the reign of Henry II., and adverted to several successive acts prior to the reformation, and since down to the time of his present Majesty. On constitutional grounds, therefore, the right of intervention was perfectly clear. The most Rev. Prelate then argued the propriety of the present bill, and contended that unless some such measure were passed, the situation of the curates must be eternally coming before their lordships year after year.

The Lord Chancellor, after the principle of the measure had been recognized twice by the other house, and once by their lordships, thought the bill ought at least to be read a second time, though he was not prepared to say that he would afterwards give his approbation to all the provisions of it.

The Duke of Norfolk argued in favour of the bill, on the ground that some remedy was necessary, and that the present measure was better than none. The noble duke replied particularly to the arguments of the Earl of Buckinghamshire.

Lord Lauderdale spoke at considerable length against the bill, which he contended militated directly against the pro

fessional exertions of the young clergy, checking their ambition, by affording at once the enjoyment of a comfortable Lease, and repressing their talents by removing the stimulus which was found most powerful in every profession. The noble lord then entered into the general arguments to prove,. that the incumbents of livings would be injured, without serving the curate, the church, or the Christian religion.

The house then divided on Lord Sidmouth's amend- ment.

Ayes, 17-Noes, 36-Majority for the second reading of the bill, 19.

June 28. Lord Harrowly, pursuant to a notice which he had given, rose to submit a motion to their lordships, which was suggested to him by some observations that had been made during the discussion of this question. It was agreed, and seemed to be wished on all hands, that something, should be done towards improving the condition of the inferior clergy. It had all along been his opinion, that the house was proceeding to legislate on a matter respecting which they had nothing like adequate information before them. This want of due information he felt very anxious to supply; and the object of his present motion was to endeavour to ascertain the number of livings which were under 150l. per ann. The noble lord then went into a variety of calculations, grounded on former accounts laid before the house, to show what were the number of those livings, how many of them did not exceed 30l.: how great would be the amount of the sum necessary to bring these small livings up to the 150l. per ann.; and how long the period of time, under the present circumstances, necessary for the attainment of that object. It was also an object with him to ascertain how many livings were assisted by Queen Anne's bounty. With a view to get at this object, (an act of parliament he did not think necessary to accomplish it), he should content himself now with moving an humble address to his Majesty, praying he would be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before the house an account of the number of livings under 150l. per ann.

The Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his thanks to the noble baron for the pains he had taken on this subject, and VOL. I

I

his readiness to co-operate with him in the prosecution of this object.

Lord Moira also gave his hearty concurrence to the motion, and declared that no man could be more anxious than he was to see the condition of the inferior clergy improved. It was not only the comfort of those respectable persons he had in view; but the improvement of the morals of the commonalty, which improvement was intimately connected with the ease and comfort of the clergy. Perhaps, in addition to the information moved for by the noble baron, it might also be expedient to have before the house an account of the accumulation of the funds, known by the name of Queen Anne's bounty.

Lord Harrowly and the Archbishop of Canterbury, in explanation, observed, that there was no accumulation of those funds.

Lord Hawkesbury approved of the motion, and assured his noble friend that every thing should be done by him to give effect to his laudable intentions and endeavours.

The question was then put on Lord Harrowby's motion, which was agreed to unanimously.

The order of the day was then read for the house to resolve itself into a committee on the bill, when

Lord Sidmouth rose to move an instruction to the committee. In his opinion, whatever came under the description of the object which the bill had in view might be embraced by it. Its object was to afford relief to resident curates, where that relief was justly required, and where it might be easily procured, His wish now was to extend that relief to curates appointed by lay proprietors, and his lordship concluded with moving an instruction to the committee to that effect.

Lord Hawkesbury was sorry he could not assent to the proposition of his noble friend. That proposition broached an entirely new principle, which was not connected with the present bill. It should therefore be introduced in a separate bill, and stand upon its own merits. The principle of the present bill was not new, but had already been, twice at least, recognised and sanctioned by parliament.

1

The question was then put on Lord Sidmouth's motion and negatived; after which the house resolved itself into the committee on the bill.

In the committee, a clause proposed by the Earl of Moira, for rendering the curates acting under the bill liable to penalties for dilapidations on the vicarage houses, was opposed, on the ground that there was an action at common law in such cases. On a division, the clause was negatived by a majority of 26 to 6.

Another division took place on an amendment proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the clause calling upon the bishops, when assigning to any curate the allowances under this bill, to assign the reasons on which he interfered. His Grace stated, that though the bishops were by the constitution responsible to the king as the head of the church, they were not under the controul of the privy council. It was therefore unconstitutional now to subject them to the authority of that tribunal.

The amendment was supported by Lord Hawkesbury, and opposed by

The Lord Chancellor, who though he allowed that the bishops were in ordinary cases responsible only to the crown, maintained that when extraordinary powers were given to them by the legislature, there was a right in the legislature to regulate and control the exercise of those powers. On the division there appeared.

For the Amendment, 15.---Against it, 16.

After some further conversation on the provisions of the bill, it was passed without any amendment.

The report was ordered to be received on the morrow.
June 29. On receiving the report of this bill,

Lords Holland, Lauderdale and Rosslyn, renewed their objections to it, and suggested several amendments, none of which, however, were adopted. The report was then received, and the bill ordered to be read a third time on the succeeding day.

June 30. On the order of the day being moved for the third reading of the Stipendiary Curate's Bill,

The Earl of Buckinghamshire renewed his former opposition to the bill, which was again supported by Lord Harrowby. The Lord Chancellor doubted the expediency of the bill, and wished to hear something upon the subject from the Right Rev. the bench of Bishops.

The bishops of Rochester, Bristol and Carlisle opposed the bill, as likely to produce more mischief than good.

The Bishop of London and Lord Hawkesbury said a few words in favour of the bill.

The Archbishop of Canterbury was favourable to the object of the bill, but thought that in its present state, it would not produce all the good that had been expected from it.

The third reading was negatived without a division, and the bill rejected.

February 17. A sermon was preached before the House of Lords by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.. Third chapter Joel, v. 9, 10.

"Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles,---prepare war,--wake up the mighty men---let all the men of war draw near---let them come up---beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears---let the weak say, I am strong."

On the same day the Dean of Lincoln preached a sermonbefore the House of Commons, for which he received the thanks of the house. Text, Kings b. 2. chap. 19. v. 11, 30 and 34.

"Behold thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lords, by destroying them utterly.---Therefore thus saithe the Lord, concerning the king of Assyria, he shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there; nor come before it with a shield, nor cast a bank against it, for I will defend this city to save it for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake."

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

March 21. Mr. Parnell moved for the production of an abstract of the petitions of claimants for compensation of tythes under the 27th of the king, chap. 36, and also an abstract of the proceedings of several courts relative thereto,

IRISH CLERGY RESIDENCE BILL.

April 11. Sir Arthur Wellesley rose in the House of Commons, pursuant to notice for leave to bring in a bill to assimilate the law in Ireland to that of England, relative to the enforcing the residence of the clergy upon their benefices. In doing this he thought it was hardly necessary to make many observations, or to use many arguments to induce the house