have no objection to assent to such a suggestion. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) considered, however, that their Lordships were clearly not in a condition to pass such a comprehensive Standing Order as was now proposed, professing to embrace all matters of this description that might come before the House, and the execution of which would be found in many cases impracticable. He must, therefore, press the noble Earl to withdraw his Motion, at least for the present, and perhaps, upon further consideration, he might be able to frame some practical measure which would be better calculated to attain the results he desired. most cordially and entirely in the observations which had been made by the noble Earl and right rev. Prelate as to the magnitude of the evil complained of, and the great desirability of providing some efficient remedy. He had felt the evil so much, that in the case of the improvements introduced under the Government with which he was connected, in effecting the metropolitan improvements, he had within a fortnight after he became Chief Commissioner of Woods proposed a Bill to enable the Crown to grant sites, free of any rent, for the erection of model buildings for the better accommodation of the poor. He found, however, that that measure was against all the punctilios of office, and perhaps against the rights of the Crown, and he had very precipitately to withdraw it. He thought it most desirable that a compliance should be required with some such beneficent provisions as those proposed in the Standing Order of his noble Friend. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had proved, however, in his own laudable and painful experience, that nothing was so difficult in this world as to do good to one's fellow-creatures in the way in which we should most like to do it. Desirable as the noble Earl's object was, and crying as was the necessity for some regulation on the subject, he (the Earl of Carlisle) thought the matters with which the noble Earl proposed to deal, required too much adaptation to the particular circumstances which surrounded them, to admit of their being subject to so stringent and peremptory an order, at all events in the shape in which it was proposed. He thought, therefore, it was for the noble Earl to consider whether he would propose to refer the matter to a Committee upstairs, or whether, by consulting with other parties who had taken much interest in this subject, and who were thoroughly conversant with the details and orders of Parliamentary proceedings, he might be able to free his Motion from the objections to which it was now open. The EARL of HARROWBY thought it was desirable to give this subject more full consideration before they agreed to a regular Standing Order. He would have been disposed to suggest that if equivalent accommodation was not provided, in cases of improvements or new works, for the labouring population whose homes were destroyed, the Committees should be instructed to report to the House. He certainly thought that the Resolution in its present form was too peremptory and universal in its application, and he considered that the best course would be to refer the question to a Committee, with the view of ascertaining in what way so desirable an object could be attained. Such an inquiry would be free from the objection to this Resolution, which was too general in its application. There would be no difficulty in a Committee ascertaining the nature and value of any property, as that might be obtained from the rating, and from information derived from the surveyors and parish officers. With regard to the difficulty that had been suggested as to planting the displaced population near the localities from which they were removed, he believed that by means of such structures as had lately been erected in various parts of the town, they might in a very small space accommodate a large number of persons, and provide them with many conveniences. He had some time ago seen the lodging-houses at Birken- The EARL of WICKLOW observed, that head, which, although they were very ill- there could be no doubt of the philanplaced, afforded accommodation with per-thropy, or the good intentions, of the noble fect ease to 400 persons in a space about as large as that occupied by their Lordships' House; and he therefore thought there could not be so much difficulty as was apprehended in placing a large number of persons in almost any part of the metropolis that might be selected. The EARL of CARLISLE concurred Earl who brought forward this question; but he (the Earl of Wicklow) thought the subject had not received the careful consideration which was necessary before a proposition of this kind was submitted to the House. It appeared to him that the noble Earl took it for granted that the property was in the persons who were in jured in the manner he had mentioned. | pants of houses destroyed for improvements Now, if the property was theirs, no new could be remedied, because such persons Standing Order was required, because it had no interest in the property for which was necessary for improvers, whether the the owners were entitled to compensation. Crown or a company, if they destroyed pro- He saw no more reason for debarring railperty of any kind, to make compensation way companies or the Government, by a to the owners. Surely, however, the Standing Order of that House, from carryHouse would not, by such a Standing Order ing on improvements, than for preventing as was proposed, establish a new descrip- landed proprietors, or any other body in tion of property in the case of those who the community, from improving their prowere merely tenants of others, and who, perty by pulling down houses, although as tenants by the month or by the week, such a measure might be attended with inwere liable to be dispossessed at any time convenience to a portion of the populathe proprietors might choose. Would the tion. House, if they required the same number The EARL of SHAFTESBURY was of houses that had been pulled down to be understood to say he believed that in many rebuilt, require also that the proprietors cases monstrous cruelty had been exercised should receive the old tenants back into towards hundreds of thousands of Her the new houses? If they did not, they Majesty's subjects by the removal of their would do nothing for the tenants; while if houses. The noble Chairman of Committhey did they might compel the landlords tees (Lord Redesdale) had fallen into great to receive tenants whom they did not wish error in alluding to the Common Lodging to have. He would suppose the Standing Houses Act. That measure related only Order now proposed had been in existence to the common lodging-houses which were before New Oxford Street was built. The registered; but there were tens of thounoble Earl had told them that, previously sands of persons living in houses which were to the building of that street, the houses not common lodging-houses, but where upon its site were crowded with sometimes four or five times the number of inmates they were intended to contain. Would the noble Earl be content, then, when new accommodation was obtained, that the people should continue to live in the same crowded state as before? He would not; and it would therefore be incumbent upon the persons who provided new accommodation, to provide four or five times more than had been destroyed. He (the Earl of Wicklow) would leave it to their Lordships to imagine how it would be possible to do this in the neighbourhood of Oxford Street or Regent Street, or any similar localities: the thing was totally impossible; and therefore he must say that if the Standing Order now proposed had been in existence some years ago, they never could have seen the improvements which had recently taken place in London, and which, though they might have been attended with a good deal of inconvenience to the unfortunate persons who had been deprived of their former homes, had on the whole been highly beneficial to the localities in which such improvements had been effected, by converting them from a nest of overcrowded houses into an airy, convenient, and healthy spot. He doubted whether even a Committee, if the noble Earl should think fit to move for one, could point out any mode by which the evil with respect to the occuVOL. CXXV. [THIRD SERIES.] there were ten or fifteen persons in a single room. It was very difficult to define what constituted a common lodginghouse; but it must be a house where lodgers were taken in by the night or by the week, where persons were constantly passing to and fro, and where the money was taken night by night. He saw that it would be vain for him to attempt to insist upon his Resolution. He thought, however, he had gained a great deal by the ventilation of the subject, and he had shown their Lordships that many of the public were directing their attention to that House, in the hope that a remedy would be provided for the great grievance under which a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects were suffering. He would therefore be glad to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and would move for the appointment of a Committee on the subject. He must say, however, that he would, with God's blessing, give their Lordships no rest until they had done something to remedy the evil he had brought under their notice. Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn. Afterwards it was moved "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire in what Manner and to what Extent it would be expedient to require that Provisions should be inserted in Bills introduced into this House by P which Dwelling Houses occupied by the Labouring Classes are proposed to be extensively destroyed to remedy the Evils produced by such a Displacement of that Population." On Question, agreed to. CHURCH IN THE COLONIES. LORD MONTEAGLE presented a petition, of which he had given notice, from Members of the United Church of England and Ireland residing in the diocese of Sydney, in the colony of New South Wales, against the establishment of any system of Church Government in the Australasian Colonies in which the Bishop, Clergy and Laity shall not meet and vote in one council with equal and concurrent authority. His Lordship said that the diocese of Sydney formed one only of the six dioceses in the colonies of Australia, and therefore he must not lead their Lordships into the error of supposing that this petition represented the feeling of the whole of the Australian Colonies; but he had every reason to believe that it expressed the opinions of a considerable proportion of the members of the Church of England in the diocese of Sydney. It bore many thousand signatures, including those of several members of the Legislative Council, of magistrates, and of many other persons of respectable position and property. The prayer of the petition was in itself simple; it involved no disputed question, and at that period of the evening he would not enter unnecessarily into any details relating to the petition, but would merely state the objects of the petitioners. They represented that the condition of the Church within the Australian Colonies had for some time past been most painful and unsatisfactory to the members of the Church throughout the province. The petitioners further stated that doubts had been expressed respecting the supremacy of the Queen as the head of the Church in these colonies, to the great dismay of the petitioners, who deprecated the assumption of a new ecclesiastical supremacy, inconsist ent with the ancient and Royal Supremacy of the Crown, which now threatened their religious freedom. They stated "That the constitution and form of Church Government suggested in the minute of proceedings of the Bishops of the province of Australasia, held in November, 1850, and by the Lord Bishop of Sydney, before his clergy, assembled on the 14th day of April, 1852; and in the petition to Her Majesty, subsequently adopted by the Bishop and a majority of the clergy of the diocese at that meeting, are not in accordance with the opinions or wishes of the lay Members of the United Church of England and Ireland in this diocese generally; and your petitioners most firmly protest against the establishment by law of any system of Church Government in which the bishop, clergy, and laity shall not meet and vote in one council, with equal and concurrent authority and jurisdiction, reserving to Her Majesty all the authority vested in Her Majesty as the head of the Church." The petitioners concluded by praying their riance with the sentiments of the petitionLordships not to assent to any law at vaers. He (Lord Monteagle) could not present this petition without expressing the earnest anxiety which he felt, in common, he was sure, with all their Lordships, with respect to the extension of the Church of England and Ireland in our colonial possessions. Whatever differences of opinion might exist with regard to the best mode of attaining that object, as to the object itself there existed, he hoped, no possibi. lity of difference among their Lordships. The progress which had been made by the Church of England in many of the colonies was one of the most encouraging and satisbut he must be allowed to add—and he felt factory facts in our modern colonial history; satisfaction in doing so that it would be impracticable to attempt to realise in our colonial possessions the idea of a dominant or exclusive Church. In the discussions which had taken place last year and the year before, the desire to create a dominant colonies had been disclaimed even by those and exclusively-privileged Church in the who professed to be the most interested in the prosperity of the Church of England. He felt that this truth should never be forgotten; it was important as a matter of principle, and equally important as a matter of expediency; he felt assured that it the Legislature of any desire to introduce a was only by the abnegation on the part of dominant Church into our Colonial Empire that we should promote the real progress of our branch of the Reformed Church. He believed it was by admitting, as we were bound to admit, that there was no intention of seeking any exclusive privileges that the Church of England would have the best chance of fair play, of full advancement, and of an ultimate diffusion of its doctrines among all classes of our colonial fellow subjects. The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY said, that the question of legislation for the better administration of the United Church of England and Ireland in the colonies, was a matter of great difficulty, but at the same time he believed it was a matter of great necessity. It was certainly consid ered a matter of the highest necessity by | Colonies to the necessity of legislation as the late Bishop of Sydney, whose untimely soon as possible with respect to the diffiloss was most deeply regretted by all who culties to which the Colonial Church was knew him, and who left the colony, where subjected, they saidhe had so long exercised episcopal functions, and had obtained the esteem and good-will of those among whom he had so long resided, for the sole purpose of giving his opinion and hearing the opinions of others with reference to this subject. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) begged to intimate that he hoped in the course of the Session to submit to their Lordships a measure which he hoped would meet with the concurrence, not only of the noble Lord who had presented the petition, but of their Lordships generally, as well as of the members of the Church in the colony. The DUKE of NEWCASTLE did not mean to trespass on their Lordships' attention for more than a few moments, but he thought it right to set at rest at least one of the alarms which had been created by recent circumstances in the colonies, and which were referred to in the petition presented by his noble Friend. He observed that one of the strongest apprehensions entertained by the petitioners was that the abolition of the supremacy of the Queen was aimed at by some of the bishops. Now, he understood that this most erroneous impression had arisen in consequence of the minutes which were passed at the conference of the Bishops of the Australian Colonies which took place at Sydney two years ago. He sympathised with the most rev. Prelate who had just spoken in regretting that the eminent man to whom he had referred had been removed by death before they had had the benefit of his opinions on this subject, into the general bearings of which he was not about to enter; but, as he (the Duke of Newcastle) thought it most desirable that, at the earliest possible period, the misapprehension with reference to the opinions of the Colonial Bishops should be corrected, he would, with the permission of the House, read a few words from a letter he had received within the last fortnight from three of these bishops, and which, though having their three signatures alone attached to it, represented, as he understood, the opinions of all their brethren on the subject. Those three prelates were the Bishops of Quebec, Antigua, and Cape Town, who happened to be in England at present. After calling his attention as Secretary of State for the hearty and loyal declaration of attachment to "We beg most emphatically to affirm our the supremacy of our Most Gracious Sovereign, and our earnest desire that we may remain, as heretofore, closely and inseparably connected with the United Church of England and Ireland; and we venture to express a hope that, in any measure which Parliament in its wisdom may see fit to sanction, provision may be contained for the maintenance of the supremacy of the Crown, and for preserving intact our connexion to add, that in making this representation to your with the mother Church. We beg leave humbly Grace, we speak not only in our own names, but in behalf of other Prelates of Christ's Church in the distant dependencies of the Crown, one of us being the delegated representative of all the with the exception of the Bishop of Rupert's Land, bishops of the Churches in British North America, who is known to be favourable to the general principle of the measures herein contemplated, but with whom there has not been sufficient time to communicate on the subject." He (the Duke of Newcastle) would not enter into any discussion on the general question after the statement which had been made by the most rev. Prelate. He begged only to add, that he did not do so because he deprecated a premature discussion on this subject, and that he rejoiced to hear that the most rev. Prelate had his attention directed to it. He only thought it right to take the earliest opportunity of setting the public right with respect to the views of the Colonial Bishops on this point. The BISHOP of EXETER said, that so far from the Bishops who had attended the Australian Conference indicating the slighttest disposition to interfere with Her Ma. jesty's supremacy, much less to deny it, they had actually made the following statement, which was contained in a paper that had been sent to all the Bishops in England, and which he would read to their Lordships: "We, the undersigned Metropolitan and Bishops of the province of Australasia, in consequence of doubts existing how far we are inhibited by the Queen's supremacy from exercising the powers such powers on the present occasion.” of an ecclesiastical synod, resolve not to exercise The paper then proceeded in these terms : "But we desire to consult together upon the various difficulties in which we are at present placed by the doubtful application to the Church in this province of the ecclesiastical laws which are now in force in England; and to suggest such measures as may seem to be most suitable for removing our present embarrassments; to con- the Petitioners for a system of church sider such questions as affect the progress of true government, in which the bishops, clergy, religion, and the preservation of ecclesiastical order in the several dioceses of this province; and, and laity should meet and vote in one finally, in reliance on Divine Providence, to adopt council with equal and concurrent authoplans for the propagation of the Gospel among rity and jurisdiction, it was clearly inadthe heathen races of Australasia, and the adjacent missible. In the document to which he islands of the Western Pacific." had referred, the Bishops said there must be synodical meetings, but that they ought to consist in part of the clergy and in part of the laity. It was true they said the laity must sit in a house by itself. Now he was not going to discuss the very intricate question of the rights of the laity in regard to this matter, because such a discussion could not fail to be distasteful to their Lordships. He would only say that these Bishops of Australasia did express a most decided wish that the laity should have their fair share in synodal action in that colony, but they did not propose that they should be in the same house in equal proportions. He challenged the noble Lord to show him a single instance of a synod in which the laity had been admitted with equal votes to the clergy. The Bishops did not wish to bring in the laity to be mere servants; they said that the laity should have a certain class of cases in which they should have equal power with the clergy. He would not now enter into a discussion on this question, because their Lordships would have an opportunity of discussing it hereafter; but he would say this, that their Lordships would leave the House with a wrong impression on their minds if they supposed the Bishops to be hostile to the legitimate power of the Queen. He would ask, was it fair in the petitioners to suggest the conclusion from words like these, that the proceedings of the Bishops had placed the Queen's supremacy in danger? The fact was that the Royal supremacy was asserted in the document to which he referred in the strongest possible terms, and in the manner in which the articles and canons of the Church affirmed it and when he spoke of the articles and canons, their Lordships would recollect that it was only they that any longer maintained the supremacy of the Crown. He would assert broadly and plainly, and he challenged contradiction to the assertion, that there was no longer in this country any authoritative and legal assertion of the supremacy of the Crown, except in the articles of the Church of England, and the canons of 1608. An attempt had been made in another place to base the principle of the Royal supremacy on the oath of supremacy. But that was a mistake the oath of supremacy simply denied the supremacy of the Pope; and the fact was there was no oath of supremacy in the strict sense of the word; that had been abolished at the Revolution, and the Act creating the oaths which were sworn by their Lordships when they took their seats, simply denied the supremacy of the Pope, and asserted no The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he supremacy of the Queen; and why was could not let the observations of the this? The fact was that the supremacy right rev. Prelate with respect to the suof the Queen, as imposed by the statute of premacy of the Queen pass unnoticed. the 1st of Elizabeth, and also by a statute He begged distinctly to deny that the of Henry VIII., was found to be perfectly supremacy of the Queen depended merely irreconcilable with the articles of union upon the articles of the Church of Engwith Scotland. It was because it was land, or of any Church. The supremacy impossible for Her Majesty's subjects of of the Queen rested upon the law of the Scotland to assert that supremacy, that land established by Act of Parliament. the oath had been abolished; for when What might be the incidence of that suthe union took place it was necessary that premacy with reference to ecclesiastical the oath should be equally satisfactory to matters in Scotland, was a matter wide of the Scotch as well as the English Lords, the discussion, which it would be improper and, therefore, the oath at present taken to enter into on the present occasion; but had been devised to suit Her Majesty's it must not go forth to the public unconScotch subjects as well as those of Eng-tradicted that the supremacy of the Queen land, because it was known that the in matters ecclesiastical rested merely upon doctrine of the Queen's supremacy would ecclesiastical canons or the articles of the not be endured by the members of the Kirk Church. of Scotland. With respect to the claim of The BISHOP of EXETER said, he had |