sition to his sentiments to total ignorance, or total indifference with respect to the interests of the church. A spirit of charity towards Roman catholics, or other sects, was by no means a mark of ignorance or indifference with respect to the superior value of protestantism. The present bill was calculated to do much injury, and little good. It was called for by no public feeling. The evils which the bill went to remedy, if real, must have been of long standing; yet, strange to tell, they were now, for the first time, complained of. The bill would set the curate against the rector, and the rector against the curate, and would place the bishop in the invidious situation of being umpire between both. It went to alter the condition and property of the families of the rectors and the curates. The sacredness of church property was invalidated by every additional instance of legislative interference, though certainly the legislature had a right to exercise such interference. The church was more in danger from the doctrines that accompanied this bill, than from the Pope or the College of Cardinals, not dispersed and wandering, as he was sorry they were now, but in the plenitude of their power. The conduct of some gentlemen in this case, reminded him of what Swift said in his letter to the Bishop of Sarum, that he did admire that sagacity that smelled out popery at 500 miles distance, and did not discover fanaticism under its nose, Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor contended, that evil existed, and that remedy was called for. There was not a sufficiency of resident clergy to do the duties of the church. The income of the curates did not keep pace with those of the rector, nor with the circumstances of the times. Hence, one curate was often obliged to serve two or three parishes; and thus baptisms and burials stand over to certain fixed days. Church property was given on the condition of performing the duties of the church, and the country had a right to provide for the performance of those duties out of that property. In a village near his residence, the duties of the church had not been performed by a clergyman for three years. The consequence was, that a blacksmith came to him for a licence to perform the duty.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended, that there

was an urgent necessity for the bill, and that the provisions contained in it were in strict conformity with the principles and usage of our ancestors. The bill was most favourable to the interests of the church and of religion, and most unfavourable to sectarism. He vindicated the exemplary conduct of the Right Rev. Prelate, who had been alluded to, (the Archbishop of York), in the exercise of his patronage. He allowed that some provision for the poorer curates would still be wanted; and he, for one, should be ready to entertain any proposition that may be brought forward to that effect. He thought it a great defect in the original institutions of lay impropriations that provisions was not made under the controul of the bishops for the performances of the religious duty. But this could not be mended by interfering with lay impropriations at the present time. He proposed to withdraw the motion immediately before the house, with a view to move an instruction to the committee to extend the provisions of the bill to Ireland.

Sir John Newport gave his hearty concurrence to the bill, as a general measure. The legislature was entitled to make provision from the revenue of the higher order of livings, in the performance of the duties of religion, having but two years since relieved the holders of these livings, from the penalties of non-residence.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir John Newport mutually explained.

The instructions moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were then agreed to.

On the question for the Speaker leaving the chair,

Lord Porchester stated, that neither the measure before the house, nor any other was called for, and went over the same grounds with Mr. Windham in opposition to it.

Mr. Tyrwhit Jones wished the bill to go into a committee, that it might be put in the most perfect form.

Sir C. Price was fearful the measure might produce a schism between the incumbent and the curate, and could not therefore but be adverse to the principle of the bill; should it however go into a committee, he hoped it might be fully and deliberately discussed.

The question was then anxiously called for, and the House divided on the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair,

Ayes, 131-Noes, 17.

The house then resolved itself into a committee on the bill, when it was moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Ireland be included in the operation of the bill.

This clause was warmly opposed by Mr. Sheridan, Sir J. Newport, Lord Milton, Mr. Tierney, &c. who contended that as far as the clergy of Ireland were concerned, a separate bill should be brought forward, as the circumstances respecting the clergy in the two kingdoms were materially different.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Arthur Wellesley, &c. argued in favour of the clause, when the house again divided:-

Ayes, 55Noes, 13.

The Committee next proceeded to discuss the other clauses, which called forth a variety of observations and amendments from Lord Milton, Lord Porchester, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. W. Wynne, on the one side; and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General, &c. &c. on the other. After which the house adjourned.

June 20.

The order of the day was read for the third reading of the curates' bill.

Mr. Barham opposed it strongly, as detrimental to church property.

Mr. H. Browne supported the measure, and recapitulated his former arguments.

Lord Milton shortly objected to the bill, as defective in point of principle.

Mr. Tierney thought the bill could be brought into operation only by the negligence of the rector, a supposition on which he did not think it dignified to act.

Mr. Windham followed on the same side; he said the bill was not content to let the church remain "militant here on earth," but it wished to render it a church litigant also.

Mr. Stevens supported the bill as tending to have the parochial duties performed by persons whose indigence would not disgrace their possession.

· Mr. Dickenson opposed, and Mr. Manners Sutton supported the bill.

Dr. Lawrence objected to the bill, that it tended to destroy the principle upon which not only ecclesiastical, but property in general was founded. He was of opinion, there was no necessity for legislative interference on this subject, and that it would be better to leave the appointment of curates' salaries to the diocesan. He considered it to be a great defect in the bill, that it did not apply to lay impropriators.

Mr. Whitbread stated, as matter of complaint, that the bill was intended to extend to Ireland. This was contrary to the understanding which prevailed when it was referred to a committee. It was with him a very great objection to the bill that it gave a discretionary power to the bishop. The instances were so few in which the principle of the bill could be made to apply, that they were not worth legislative interference.

The house divided on the question that the bill be now read a third time,

Ayes, 73-Noes, 20-Majority, 53. Lord Porchester then tendered a clause, by way of rider upon which another division took place,

Noes, 61---Ayes, 7---Majority against the clause, 54. The bill was then passed, and ordered to the Lords.

HOUSE OF Lords, June 21.

On the first reading of the curates' bill,

Lord Lauderdale rose and said, that he was determined to oppose the bill in all its stages. It was a bill which went to give the bishops an increase of discretionary power, which power they were known already to have abused, so that the present bill would only tend to enable them to extend that abuse in proportion as their power was extended.

The Bishop of London moved, that the bill be printed. In a day or two, perhaps on Thursday, he should appoint a day for the second reading of the bill. He should at present offer no observations upon what had just fallen from a noble earl, as abundant opportunities would occur of arguing the merits of the bill in its future stages.

June 22. The Duke of Rutland presented a petition from

certain of the clergy of Leicestershire, against the provisions of the bill; and

Lord Brownlow presented a similar petition on the part of the clergy of Lincolnshire. Ordered to lie on the table.

Lord Lauderdale renewed his objections against the bill. It was a bill of the utmost consequence, both as it affected property, and the established church; and above all, as it went to extend the power of the bishops, who already possessed but too much power. It was moreover brought into the house at so late a period of the season, that it was impossible to give it a full and mature consideration. It was yet only read a first time.

Lord Holland perfectly coincided in the observations of his noble friend.

The Archbishop of Canterbury observed that the prints of the bill were not yet on the table; but when they were, he hoped it would be to-morrow, he should then, (for then only would it be regular), move that the bill be read a second time on Friday.

Lord Lauderdale complained of the shortness of the notice, and again entered more fully into the mischievous consequences of the increased power which it would confer on the bishops, only one of whom he believed would have the spirit to oppose it.

Lord Harrowby called the noble lord to order, as allowing himself to degenerate into personalities.

Lord Lauderdale denied that he was out of order; and said, that he should take the next opportunity afforded him of proving that he meant nothing personal to the most Rev. Prelate who had spoken on the present occasion.

June 23. The prints of the Stipendiary Curates' Bill having been laid on the table,

The Bishop of London rose to move, that the bill be read a sceond time to-morrow.

This motion brought on a short conversation between Lord Lauderdale, Earl Moira, and the Lord Chancellor, during which, objections were started to the bill, and complaints made against so short a notice of the second reading, the bill not being properly before the house until this day. It was at