The Express. — London, England, 1847-07-20 00:00:00

Mabee, were not required for the spiritual government of the English church. The noble lord had never addressed himself to that question. Eleven years ago it was proved, not that the bishops bad over-much to do, but that their duties were unequally divided. Measures were then taken to equalise their dioceses, and it was proposed to do that with out any increase of the episcopacy. If it were replied that parliament had affirmed that the bishopric of St. /tomb should remain, and that it was universally conceded that the diocese of Chester was too large, then he asked why not place some of the diocese of Chester under the spiritual superintendence of the Bishop of St. Asaph / The member for Cockerenouth (Mr. Horaman), in his unanswered and nnansweraWe speech of Tuesday last, had shown that not more bishops ..ut more clergy were required, and that they had been much more cherished and fostered by governments than the working Mee of our church. It was intimated that there was to be a Bishop of Bodmin. He, as a Cornish man. protested against any such institution. The Bishop of Exeter write sufficed for the purpose. The minimum coot of • Bishop of Bodmin would be 4 or 6,0001. a year, a min which would be far better employed in improving the condi tion of the under-paid clergy of the district. Then, again, there would be the necessity of building an episcopal Palace for the new Bishop of Bodmin, an enormous outlay, judging from the expense of the palace for the new Bishop of Ripon, which rost nearly 16,0001. Sir G. GREY thought that the increase of population and of livings in the district where it was proposed to institute a Bishop of Manchester fully justified the appointment. T he population of the proposed diocese of Manchester would be 11,230. The population of the diocese of Chester was nt pre sent nearly two millions, so that it was evidently essential M relieve that see. Dr. N ICHOLL denied that the expense of the episcopal palace of Ripon had been so great as was stated by the hon. Unmet opposite. Mr. ESCOTT contended that the increase of population was no argument for the inereese of bishops. The augmen tation of bi•hops would render the chunk establishment odious to the country. Mr. HUME would repeat, as he had repeated over and over, that the present measure was a violation of the compact of 1836. Lord J. RUSSELL denied that there had been city com pact in the matter which przeluded the preeeeding with the present measure. The committee divided—For the amendment l4 Against it Mr. V. SMITH said that he had now to bring forward the amendment of which he had given notice, relative to the three additional bishops Tercet., d to in the preamble of the bill. The noble lord at the head of the government bad said that he was open to conviction, and would be ready to make any alteration in the measure which could he shown to him to be proper. The preamble recited, that three addi tional bishops were to be created as soon as convenient. Now these words were quite at variance with the rest of the preamble, and they contained a pledge which, to say the least, was extremely inconvenient, and one to which the House of Commons ought not to stand committed. There was nothing enacted in the bill upon these words in the preamble, and therefore he pressed on the noble lord the propriety of expunging them. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving that all the words relating to the creation of three new bishoprics be omitted from the preamble. Viscount CLIVE said that the retention or omission of • the words was a matter entirely unimportant, at nn enact ment Was contained in the bill consequent upon them. L srd J. RUSSELL said that if the words objected to by the right honourable gentleman could be made to hear the construction which he had put upon them, and to convey a pledge that the House of Commons would, at some futurc session, proceed to create three new bishoprics, which construction, however, he did not thick they could in strictness be made to bear, then he must admit that the objections which the right how. gentleman had urged were of some weight, and for that reason he was disposed to think the words in question might just as well be omitted, leaving the proposition for creatinz three new bishoprics entirely open to a future parliament. He therefore would agree at omit them from the preamble. After a few words from Sir R. INOLIS, Mr. AGLIONBY would be glad to get from the noble lord a pledge that he would not in a future session resuscitate the proposition for appointing three additional bishops. He complained of the constitution of the commission on whose report this bill was founded. It contained twenty-nine eccle siastics to twenty laymen, but he frayed that the major por tion of the business fell to the lot of the secretary. Mr. WYNNE Reproved of the concession which had been made by the noble lord. He trusted, however, that the altered mode of discussing the preamble would not be drawn into a precedent. Sir J. GRAHAM was sincerely rejoiced that the noble lord had agreed to alter the bill. He quite agreed with the right hon. the member for Montgomeryshire as to the inexpediency of discussirg the preamble of a bill, in the first instance, as a general practice ; but the peculiar cir cumstances of the present case must serve as an excuse for the course which had been adopted. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY was also well pleased at the con cession which had been made by the noble I, rd, the more so as it saved him (Mr. Wortley) and the house the trouble of discussing the amendments of which he had given notice. Lord J. RUSSELL said it was his intention to retain the second clause, striking out that portion which referred to the future appointment of three additional bishop*. Mr. HORSMAN complained that certain churches which had recently been built could not be opened, in consequence of the non-payment by the ecclesiastical commission of the stuns they had promised towards their construction and endowment. He thoueht this was a reason why the episco pal fund should be employed more generally to parochial purposes. After an observation from Mr. HENLEY, approving of the alteration, Mr. COLLETT (Athlone) said that having been absent front the house for a short time, he wished to hear from the noble lord the exact position in which they stood with respect to this bill. (Laughter.) Lord J. RUSSELL said that in the preamble as it hid originally stood reference was made to the future appoint ment of three additional bishops ; but the bill contained no enactments on the subject. He now proposed postponing all reference to that point to a future period. Mr. HUME regretted that the bishopric of Manchester had not been struck out along with the rest. After a conversation, Mr. ROEBUCK said that in the alterations which the noble lord had made in the preamble he had completely thrown over the recommendation of the commissioners, Ile (Mr. Roebuck) should move, therefore, that as these recom mendations had become a dead letter, they should be ex punged from the bill. Sir G. GREY said that the recital of the commission in the preamble was immaterial to the principle of the bill. If the preamble had not contained that recital, the bill would still have been complete in all its enactments. Mr. HORSMAN could not see what had been the One of the commission. Commissions were usually appointed to do work which government had not time to do itself; but here was a commission composed of members of the cabinet, who, basing made a report, proceeded themselves to frame a bill founded on that report. After a few words from Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Gonlburn, and Mr Hume, Mr. BUNCOMBE said he wished to know whether the words relating to the creation of three new bishops having been struck out of the preamble, it would be necessary, if her Majesty thought fit hereafter to found three new reel, that recourse should he had to parliament for the purpose ? Lord J. RUSSELL said it would be necessary to come to parliament —The preamble was then agreed to. On clause 1 being proposed, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to add the fol lowing words to the clause, after the word Bangor," and before the words " shall be repealed," " and also any order of her Majesty in council relating to the said union, and to the new see of Manchester." Sir J. GRAHAM apprehended that the order in council proposed to be now repealed was the order under which the new bishop was entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. If he did not oppose the words proposed, ho hoped that he would not be prejudiced with respect to the amendment on the second clause of which be had given notice (Hear.) After a few words from Mr. Sroa.ar and Mr. ROEBUCK, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that whether the order in council did, in fact or law, give the bishops a right to a neat in the House of Lords he would not then discuss. On discussing the second clause he would be prepared to show that this order had no such operation, and that it was a mistake to suppose that the bishops sat in the House of Lords by any legal right ; they sat aerely by custom. In answer to a question from Mr. Harrutzt, Sir G. GREY said the bill made no alteration whatever in the application of the revenues of the Collegiate Church of Manchester. Mr. M. PHILIPS asked whether any claims for compen sation esuld arise from parties at Chester, by reason of ecclesiastical courts to be constituted at Manchester ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the effect of the bill would be to leave the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Court of Chester untouched for the present. The words proposed to be added were then agreed to. Mr. AGLION BY objected to the clause, on account of its ref ning to other acts of parliament in extremely vague terms, and because it gave extended powers to the eccle• Masa& commissioners. He moved the omission of that por- tion of the clause. The SOLI C ITO R-0 EN E RAL quoted the clauses of former acts referred to, and contended that the reference to these provisions wu sufficiently definite. Mr. ROEBUCK thought the clause perspicuous enough, but objected to the extension of the powers given to the ecclo- Mastics' commissioners by the act of 1836. After a few words from Mr. J. Stewart, Mr. Healey, and Sir J. e Graham (suggesting a verbal amendment, which was ad opt, Mr. AGLIONBY withdrew his amendment. On clause 1 being proposed to stand part of the bill, Mr. HUME said he must divide the committee on this question. The committee divided—For the clause 128 Against it 25-103 On clause 2 being propued, Mr. J. 8. WORTLEY expressed his satiOiction that the noble lord at the head of the government had abandoned that portion of the preamble of the bill which had teferenee to the creation of three new bishoprice. While he concurred in the creation of the see of Mancheuer, he could not 'went to the deprivation of the individual so appointed from a seat in the House of Lords. He objected to this clause, Inasmuch u it interfered @rich the prerogative of the crown in eummoning peers of parliament to legislate : in reference to the dicta of Belden, Lord Coke, and dir Matthew Hale, the diocesan was the representative in the legislature, not only of the clergy of his dioceee,and thereby atof right entitled to a seat. He was aware that the use of the see of &odor and Man might be brabgbt against him, bet in mower to that, he begged to temlail the committee that the rotate who filled that me, though deprived of a seat in the senate, was still a member of the legulative council. It might again be urged, that the Irish spiritual peers only took their seats in rotation, but it could net be forgotten, that the same regulation attached to the temporal peers,‘ whose election was treated on the same grounds. Now, what were the peculiar circumstances ? Sufficient had transpired that night to show that an arrangement pro posed by the oommisaioners and solemnly sanctioned by par liament in 1836 would be set aside if this clause were re tained. On what ground was that arrangeme nt to departed from > With every respect to the authority of the crown, he (Mr. S. Wortley) was prepared to united that the crown had no right to withhold the writ of summons to a Bishop of Manchester, if duly created. The government, it was understood, had at one time been prepared to create the bishopric with full powers and dignities ; and probably now they repented not having taken such a course. Tim noble lord had incurred the hostility of • clam of members on his own side the house by pursuing a middle course ; and he (Mr. 'Wortley) entreated him now Vs look round, to review his position, and ask himself whether he would not do better to take a bold step at once and invest this bishop with complete privileges. For his own part, he believed it better for the public, the legislature, and the bishops themselves, if no bishops were ex cluded from parliament. Ile moved that the clause be expunged. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL commenced by observing that the foundation of the report of 1836, was the noa creation of additional bishops with seats in the House of Lords. It was proposed to adhere to that view, and there was no legal objection to that course. How did the bishops hold their 'cats ? In the times of the Saxons the bishops where what was called Free Arms. At the lima of the con quest the Conqueror created the sees baronies in fee ; and thus the occupants obtained seats in parliament. But this only referred to the older sees, the occupants of sees more recently created obtained their seats by patent. The ques tion resolved itself then into a question of convenience. The government had stated candidly that their object was not to create one, hut, pouibly, to create even four bishops. To admit all these fitur, would, he thought, be dangerous ; and , to admit one only would be clearly invidious. He trusted, therefore, that the house would affirm the clause. Mr. C. E. LAW complimented the noble lord at the head 1 1 of the government for the liberality and temper with which he had conducted this bill. He was seeking to confer a great benefit on the church and the public, ffirShe feared a great sacrifice would be made if the exelusion of bishops from their seats was to be the mice of it. The house must remember not only that the bishop of Manchester would for • time lose his seat, but that every bishopric would be in turn divested of the right. For the creation, therefore, of one individual bishop, not at first to hold a seat in the house, they were to admit the principle that every bishopric might be divested of its present privileges. It was said that the bishops had unanimously assented to the arrangement. He rather regretted the truth of that fact, because he thought it is .a not to be mentioned to their corn. mendation that th-y divested their sees of a prerogative of , which they did not individu illy divest themselves. The right hon. gentleman concluded with expressing his hope that the noble lord would not mar this measure by refusing to accede to the proposed amendment. Viscount CLIVE thought that the extension of the tem poral power of the henc:i of bishops was of slight importance as compared with the rendering them an efficient spiritual order • he considered the clause u it stood better calculated to produce this result than if it were accompanied with the amendment, and be should therefore support the clause. Mr. NEW DEGATE supported the amendment. Lord J. RUSSELL supported the clause. The proposi tion, indeed, was not • recommendation of the commis sioners; the point had been submitted to the commission, but no answer had been given. The bill, heweeer, came in its present shape from the House of Lords, where the right reverend bench had accorded it their complete sanction. (Hear, hear.) Hs did not at all see that the prerogative of the Crown was affected by the measure. If the Crown were bound, ex &kite juetitia, to summon every bishop to par liament, there would be no choice left in the matter, and no prerogative. The object here was not an extension of the political power of the bishops, but the advancement of their spiritual usefulness. Sir T. I). ACLAND accepted the proposition of the noble lord, because it was the first attempt made by any govern. ment towards remedying a great want in regard to the most reverend body, which was to be increased by the present bill. . . Mr. ROEBUCK said the noble lend ought to recollect by whom his bill was praised sad accepted, and from those praises to distru.t his own proceeding. The opposing party only sought to get the wedg.., in at its sharp I end, and the rest would soon follow. He eulogised the noble lord for being the first minister who had dealt with the spiritual power by a legislative enactment, and trusted that the first step would ultimately lead to an entire reform of the whole subject. Let the hon. gentleman oppo site take this to heart. The whole of the spiri tual body of peers were about to take a new plunks, and to have their turns in representing their order in the House of Lords. The minister would henceforward have the power of regulating the manner of admitting the spiritual peer into the upper house, and every sort of jobbing would be used in order to get the right sort of bishop. Would any one believe that all the dissenters would not be in arms in consequence of the first step ? And those who were about t support government in the matter would find their account in so doing. It was a very pretty quarrel, and he would leave it as it was. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that so a Roman catholic be had hitherto felt it to be his duty to abstain from ob servation on this measure. If it had been proposed to pay the new bishops out of funds belonging to dissenters or Roman mambos he might have thought himself celled upon to interfere, bat as the funds belonged to the established church he had thought that his mast proper course was to remain silent. (Hear, hear.) But now a question of public policy was raised on the point of giving the new bishop a seat in the House of Lords. He was quite prepared to support the view of the government. (ILar, hear.) Ho thought it very important that some at least of the junior bishops should be allowed to devote the whole of their time to the care of their flocks, without the risk of being called away to le gislatorial duties, at the very moment when, perhaps, their attendance was most necessary at their diocese , . Oa the whole, he believed that the best course would be, seeing that the established church was the church of the majority of the people of this portion of Great Britain, that the efficiency of that church should be increased, and he did not see how it could be increased without increasing the means of superintendence. With this view it was his intention to support the clause. Mr. AGLIONBY intended to oppose the amendment. The committee divided—Fur the amendment 67 Against it Lerd J. RUSSELL said he should propose to omit the two next clauses, there not being the same necessity for them so for the rest of the hill. Clauses 3 and 4 were then pat and negatived, and clause 5 was agreed to. W Mr. FREEN then moved the insertion of two clauses, regulating the patronage of the new diocesan. Sir 0. GREY objected to these being made part of the present bill, an the question formed part of a larger question now under consideration with regard to the whole of the bishoprics. The clauses were withdrawn. The house then resumed the report to he received this day. POOR LAWS ADMINISTRATION BILL. On the order of the day for considering the lords' amend ments to this bill, Lorl J. RUSSELL proposed, in reference to the clause which precluded the separation of man and wife above sixty years of age in the workhouses, that the house should dis agree with the lords' amendment omitting that clause, and that, a conference should be requested with the lords on the subject. The amendment was accordingly disagreed to. On the consideration of the next amendment (omitting the clause for the admission of the public to the meeting. of the Boards of Guardians), Lord J. RUSSELL proposed to agree to the amendment. Mr. WAKLEY moved the adjournment of the debate; ', but alter a conversation this motion was withdrawn. Mr. ET WALL argued in favour of the re-introduction of the clause. Sir G. GREY opposed it, and said that he had thought it objectionable when first proposed in that house ; it was • clause that had occasioned great alarm. Mr. WAKLEY thought the clause a most important one, and hoped there would be a division in its favour. Mr. BROTHERTON said the clause was a cruel one, as regarded the poor, who would naturally dislike to have their cases investigated before a crowd of people. Capt. PECHELL apprehended that the great cruelty would be in the poor not being allowed to come up to state their cases, as had been done in the Andover union. Mr. ET WALL desired to withdraw his opposition, but Mr.WAKLEY pressed a division, when the numbers were, For the Lords' amendment 89 For the dame l9-70 The other amendments were then agreed to. FEVER HOSPITALS BILL. On the order of the day for the committee on this bill, Mr. WAHLEY objected to the site intended for the pro- posed hospitals. One of them was to bo erected in the very centre of Islington—a course fraught with the greatest danger to the public health. Saving thin objection, he ap proved of the principle of the hill. Sir G. GREY said he had received a deputation front Islington on the subject of the proposed hospital, but he did not think the Secretary of State had any power to interfere. In his opinion, the only remedy of the inhabitants would be an appeal to the Court of Chancery. After a short discussion, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE strongly protested against the ereo lion of any hospital in Islington. Tho bill was then withdrawn. The house adjourned at 2 o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS.—LEITH HARBOUR. Division in Lamer of the third reading at the till for the Improve ment of Lei It Harbour. OONTOMI. Drat LIU& LOlO. Norfolk lthaar Falkland Wrottealey MAY4IO'IIEI6 Devon ussor. Moinstent Marna:do °martin &. Maph Stafford Lazadowas Drew ware. Strafford a.sam. Minto De Manley Damnify Auckland Remborough Canon Weal Grey Flora ifitahardhage Cattenham fledeley Caamball NOT oo.vrrxr. WIER LAIL& WU. LORDS. Richmond Harewixel Stradbroke Sondes Montrose Nol Buodench an EnninMen Cardkpui CodeWe visootirnt Walabagttant mammon. Bow Onebreeme Redeadale Agasbaryi et. Oscan' Pier/ OraL gour Huntley THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY 1. wit emprois.. ..... • • • MAIM The owlelel than! *Mk yds Marseilles, to the Medlterniewes, =Uwe. 0=1 411415 .. mei Nang. ho., witbe made up ea the sites The Mee Vips76parto, Llebea, lidedelra, Cad* and Gibraltar wM Irby at as athathe et the Ilth July. Tie mei Mr Sew SS h Wale. Van Diesenh Lead, log Na. aeai as or the SIAJely. tertieske;fimaderse, amid th, µevargi, mil be sob up GM Pis mandag Ur 2ed Agst. ne thr BMW Meth limadis, mg tits United Mates, pal be moth ith thi the emir of tth Ira Awed. 71seeserhod mils fat 0114•144 thatt.thrthes. the Irian Islands, ZM A .re s tr a l a g ad64 eriallak Ileatliampton, thelis thr lissiNwir , p,.u„ Mouth NM% Potham. =WIN Nadlith sod yres, will be me th ith ea the pc OM, 4th Await RION WATIIR AT LON 00 4.2811701.. 7.,. D -76,A1.. pug 6 , Afton.% Il Ala pot 7 . 70 , 31 —MAMA& 04 We. TAP 7 , Aturssaa, ;•7 Ala pre 7. LONDO.V, TUESDAY,JULY 20. IN the House of Lords yesterday, on the question of the third rending of the Leith Harbour and Docks Bill, the house divided, when the motion was carried by 26 to 20, and an amendment moved by Lord REDESDALE was rejected by 21 to 18, when the bill pane. In d the House of Commons, on the question of the re-committal of the Bishromic of Manchester Bill, Mr. Escorr moved as an amendment that the house should proceed to the other orders of the day. After a speech from Lord JOHN RUSSELL, explanatory of the coarse he had invariably taken with respect to ecclesiastical matters, and some discussion, the motion was withdrawn, and the house went into committee. Mr. M. PHILIPS moving as a further amendment to the preamble that the proviso for the establishment of a bishopric of Manchester forthwith, be struck out of the bill. After some fur ther debate, the amendment was negatived by a majority of 86 to 14. Mr. V. SMITH then moved that all the words relating to the creation hereafter of three new bishoprics be omitted. Lord JOHN RUS SELL, considering that the objections taken by the right hon. gentleman possessed some weight, was disposed to think the words might just as well be omitted, leaving the proposition of new creations en tirely open to a future parliament. The words were then struck out, and the preamble at length agreed to. After some discussion on the first clause, Mr. Hums: moved its omission, but it was affirmed by a majority of 128 to 25. On clause two being put, which proposes to enact that the number of lords spiritual should not be increased, Mr. J. S. WORTLEY moved that the Bishop of Manchester should not be deprived of a seat in parliament. On a division the amendment was lost by a majority of 111 to 57. The remaining clauses were then agreed to.—On the con sideration of the Lords Amendments to the Poor Laws Administration Bill, the clause struck out by the Lords, providing that man and wife should not be separated in workhouses when above sixty years of age, was reinserted ; but that of the admission of rate payers to the meetings of the Board of Guardians, as also struck out by the Lords, was not persisted in, on a division of 89 to 19. TIIE Prime Minister has run his head into a brake most unnecessarily in the matter of the new bishop. rice. There was a plain and simple course before him —that of uniting the two Welsh sets, and erecting in Manchester the bishopric absorbed in Wales. This was a practical measure of justice and reform, and might have been done without theory, without noise, without affrighting the anti-episcopalian, or identify ing the liberals with ultra church views or revival. The measure, as for as it related to Manchester, is merely the formal and practical carrying out of a resolution formed many years ago, and announced as one to be accomplished in due time by three or four successive administrations. The withdrawal of the scheme for uniting Bangor and St. Asaph is, however, a change of purpose which considerably alters the ease. We have on former occasions expressed our belief that the agitation against the union of the sees was rathc r of a decorous and respectable than of it deep-seated arid formidable species. Lord Powis, no doubt, as the principal champion of the cause, was in earnest in advocating it; and there were probably some scores of Welshmen brought to an irritable frame of mind bythe injustice to Wales, and some hundreds of church men, who considered the extinction of an ancient see a serious injury to religion. The rest of the petitioners preferred that the dioceses should remain distinct ; some from antiquarian sentiment, some in the belief that there was already more reason to complain of the paucity than of the number of bishops, and a great number from a general dislike to a violent change for which no very strong reason had been brought for ward. We believe, however, that if the government had chosen to be obstinate in its resolution, the blow to the church would have been forgotten almost as soon as it was inflicted, and that the clergy and orthodox laity would have contented themselves with the discharge of their consciences in protesting against the measure. On the other band it must be remembered that if public opinion against the suppression of St. Asaph assumed a mild form, there was nothing on the other side to set against it. The clergy whose in terests Mr. HUME curiously enough undertakes to represent, almost unanimously gave in their adhe sion to Lord Powis's opposition to the union. The Bishop of LONDON, one of the original contrivers of the sacrilege, showed his belief of the state of public opinion by repudiating his own handiwork; while his colleagues in the Ecclesiastical Commission were naturally suspected of an undue bias in their defence of a scheme for which they were themselves respon sible. The opponents of the church, dissenters or ethers, have scarcely a locus stun& in the contest. At least they could scarcely fail to strengthen the ride which they opposed. If they desire the suppression of the see as an injury to the church, they must adopt Lord Powis's arguments: if they urge that the funds of which the application is dis puted may be more beneficially applied to parochial purposes, it is naturally thought strange that they should wish to increase the efficiency of an establish ment which they so cordially abhor. There was, therefore, no resistance to Lord Powis's gentle pres sure. As the slowest horse will beat the horse who stands still, the " integrity of the British sees " crawled ahead of the opposing cause: and in accord ance with the sensible constitutional practice of de ferring to the wishes of any party which has no party to resist it, Lord lons RUSsELL, who may probably also havo been aware that there were no very over whelming reasons for a measure which had no friends bat its framers, determined that the bishops who pre ceded and opposed AUGUSTINE should still be repre sented by distinct lines of successors. This determination, though not so very important in itself, became eo by its effect upon the Om for creating a bishopric in Manchester. It was no longer the transference of a see, but the extension and mul tiplication of sees, in proportion to supposed religious wants. Consistently, and unfortunately, Lord JOHN Russets. thought it so, and proceeded to preface the endowment of the new bishopric by a theory according to which bishops, like Banquo's progeny, were multi plied in prospect. This opened a very serious question, a very PANDORA'S box of discontent and opposition. Lord JOHN RUSSELL discovered it to be so after no lengthened scrutiny, and last night he closed with pre cipitation the box which he had imprudently opened. Without the daring theory of indefinite bishoprics, Manchester is fairly entitled to a prelate. If a bishop be wanting anywhere, no field calls more loudly for his exertions than the cot ton district and its metropolis. If the ancient organisation of the country is in any degree to be imitated at the present day, it seems but reasonable that when parishes have grown into cities, the in cumbent should now and then ex into a prelate. There may, indeed, be some peda ntic fanatics who regard.' bishop only as a feti sh -man, with a magical power of transmitting some virus (to borrow a meta phor from vaccination) of which he alone can warrant the genuineness; but there can be no doubt that sensible episcopalians expect a bishop to exercise practical functions as well as to possess a certain sacred character; and leaving, as before, out of the question the determination of the actual nature of those functions, it seems that if they are to be per. formed at all, it is impossible for a single bishop to supply the spiritual wants of two millions of people. Lord JOHN Russett. is, we believe, sincerely at tached to the English church, and, probably, enter tains more definite notions than he has thought it necessary to produce, of the practical results to be expected from an increase in the number of bishops ; but however this may be, we think that as a trustee for the church, bound to consult the interests at the church in deeding 1 - 71Ei ecclesiastical property where no other party was concerned, he was fully justified EVENING, JULY 20, 1847. in anituning that, at least, Manchester required a bishop. In proposing the measure, he pro bab ly anti cipated the argunrestip Which would be used against him, by the en •sr e bishops, and by the ad ertS4 voeates of the eta: but he can hardly have been prepared Sir JAMES GRAHAM 8 s ingular -speech, which 'combines - combines with strange ingenuity the fetish view, the parliamentary " sincere friend of the church" view, and the official, business-like view, of the duties and character of a bishop. The fetish theory, which indeed, on closer examination, turns out to be rather the red-tape view of bishops than the mere supersti tious veneration, consists in Sir J. GRAHAM'S defini tion of the duties of bishops, as consisting principally in ordination, confirmation, and consecration of churches ; all of which services, as he justly observes, may be, by a judicious economy of time, performed for the largest diocese by a single functionary. Those who attach a quasi-sacramental character to such ceremonials, and to the bishop who performs them, will be greatly mistaken if they suppose that Sir J. GRAHAM shares in their reverence. It is perfectly clear that he is speaking of conse crations, and the rest, merely as forms which ought to be observed because they are established, and of bishops as of ushers or serjeants-at-arms, whose duties are merely ceremonial. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, as he complacently observes, performs these duties to universal satisfaction, though past 80 years of age ; from which, of course, it follows, that a healthy and active bishop of 50, particularly as Sir JAMES suggests, in these railway days, could get through double the number of manipulations in the time, or, in other words, preside to admiration over a diocese twice as ige as Canterbury. In his character of "sincere and attached friend to the church," Sir JAMES is of course seized with a vehement desire to benefit the parochial clergy at the expense of the bishops ;a measure for which much may be said, but which is scarcely a more valid argu• meat against the establishment of an additional bishopric than against the wealth of those that exist. The oddest part of Sir JAMES'S speech, however, was his declaration that dioceses ought to be large, to pre vent the bishop from being too familiarly known to the clergy, whom he may in certain cases be called upon to prosecute and judge. How this declaration of the " friend of the church," suggested as it is by official and administrative habits, may please those whom he professes to regard, we cannot say. A " friend of the church," in the sense in which Sir J. GRAHAM uses the words, is generally understood to be at least not an enemy to the clergy, and we have no I doubt he wishes to conciliate that body as well as to serve the interests of the public. We doubt his success in the present instance in pleasing either order of the hierarchy. The bishops may not I relish his account of them as mere masters 1 of the ceremonies, with duties so simple that a man of eighty can perform them for the largest district. However this may be, we are quite certain that the inferior clergy will not adopt his views as to the danger of a too existent and friendly intercourse with the bishops. We have heard many complaints of present evils and apprehended danger in church matters, but it certainly never occurred to us to fear, nor did we ever hear of any one but Sir J. GRAHAM who feared, that bishops would become too much at home in their dioceses, too careless of their own position, and too friendly and affable to the clergy committed to their charge. But the inconsistency, the insincerity, the clap trap electioneering spirit of Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S homily upon the church, has not prevented him from uttering some home truths, and from striking a chord in honester bosoms than his own, which jars vehemently with Lord JOHN ItUsSELL'S scheme of church extension—that is, of extending the church at the apex of the pyramid instead of at its base. NEVER was one less under the necessity of trum peting his own praises than Sir Rour.mr PEEL. Whatever may be the greatness of his merits, the public has certainly given him full allowance for them. To no statesman has the public voice been more indulgent or more grateful : in favour of none has it been so ready to overlook the questionable cha racter of the means in the nobleness of the euds. We are ourselves willing to go a great length in the acknowledgment of the merits of Sir It. PEEL. He has saved the country from a fierce struggle, during which all its interests would have suffered, and the upshot of which, without him, might have been little short of revolution. NVith the principles on which the old tory party of this country had been nurtured, with the ideas and the prejudices in which it gloried, coupled with the immense power which the aristocratic organisation of the country gave it, and still gives it, in despite of the Reform Bill, it would have been almost impossible to have carried those mea sures of economic, religious, and financial reform, had the liberals not found a helping hand—a useful ally— ill the camp of the It was, however, certainly more to his position than to his political wisdom or talent that Sir ROBERT PEEL was indebted for the power which enabled him to carry, or to aid puissantly in carry ing, those liberal reforms. The nature of that position, and of the power resulting from it, it would be invidious to analyse, but the circumstances are such as, we think, ought to preclude Sir ROBERT PEEL from coming forward and claiming for himself all the merit of these measures. If ever modesty was imposed upon a statesman, speaking of the past, it is upon Sir ROBERT, and it is therefore we think that such manifestoes as that addressed to the people of England, through the medium of the borough of Tamworth, ought at least to be no more than self vindicative. Sir ROBERT, however, does more than this. He draws up a statement of his acts—a portraiture of his policy. He places it beside those of other parties--of the liberals for example—and then calls upon the country to decide, bow mach cleverer a statesman Sir ROBERT PEEL is than any one else. The country may come perhaps to this conclusion ; especially if we have such another abortive parlia mentary campaign as that just closed. But even if it does, Sir ROBERT PEEL has now lost the power and the confidence of the conservatives which enabled him to do all those things in which he glories. For him to go on in that path, he must perforce come to the liberals for their votes and their support And in descending to the popular forum for these votes, Sir ROBERT should doff the arrogant robe of a conqueror, and make less boast of his superior address and unrivalled suppleness. There reigns at this moment a very general dissa tisfaction with the incomplete results of a long and painful session. All mast feel that this is not owing to want of talent, or of purpose, in Lord JOHN Rus sell. and his colleagues, but in the divided state of parties, and in the necessity of dodging through a host of influences, in order to carry anything. Let Sir ROBERT PEEL COMB in to-morrow in any way and with any friends, and even he may not escape the weakness of the time. The desire of the country would no doubt be to see a strong ministry, based on a broader party than now exists. We much fear that the present tendencies of party and of party leaders are not directed towards any such result. Far from deeming a coalition as one of the great events in preparation, we perceive ideas moat repugnant to it prevailing. Instead of whigs and Pcelites at all approaching each other, we see Lord JOHN coquetting with PEEL'. old and deserted mistress, the church, whilst PEEL in turn goes a con siderable length of way to pay his addresses is that popular party, and to those popular ideas and leaders, which had erected political standard and tent far beyond the old confines of whiggism. Sir JAMES GRAHAM takes the wind out of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S sails, as a church reformer! PEEL'S lieutenant twits the bishops ! And there is even an anxiety on the part of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S party to occupy the ground, left by the present ministry out of pure zeal for education, in the affections of the dissenters. All this indicatee, on the part of some of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S followers, an utter recklessness of principle, which is highly dangerous, not merely for any discredit it may bring upon men who have already displayed old TA LLEY RAN D'B contempt for consistency r but lest it might damage the popular party itself, of which such mercenaries look, by tho display of such mountebank qualities, to take the lead. , One of the most important eventualities of the time is • the formation of a popular party in England, an essay • never fairly made, and never even rationally set about. ; Many isolated men and many scattered minds may be said to belong to it ; but they are without argent ; ration, or common conduct, or generally admitted aims. All the elements exist of a great party, but who shall discipline, who combine, or who head them? How immature are popular political ideas may be judged from the nature, rank, and fate of all the penodicala or organs, eat up as the representatives of truly popular opinions. We do not know bat that such a party might be vivified into active and useful existence by such a leader as Sir ROBERT PEEL, if he came frankly to support its principles, and not impoee his own. But we must confess we should much dislike to see complete fraternisation between some of our honest popular politicians and the official hack, of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S administrations. If PEEL even brought his younger men, would keep them more steady, and make them abstain from ut tering political conundrums of the DISRAELI school, such a coalition might pass. But a cabinet, in which GRAHAM and COBDEN would sit side by side, for example, would only create a fear lest a stain should be cast upon the candid sincerity and simplicity of the popular politician. Aud the loss of character on both sides aught have the effect of defeating the hopes of a permanently strong administration, even by the very means precipitately employed to found one. WE have before urged attention to the county elections on the part of liberal politicians as essential to the maintenance and development of social and economical progress. Let not the active and intelli gent amongst the electors be satisfied with securing sound politicians as members for the trading and populous districts, but let them also do what they can to rescue the counties from aristocratic do mination. With his characteristic sagacity, Mr. COBDEN has pointed out the hazard to which the prospective measure of free-trade in corn of 1846 will be exposed in the next parliament, if the free trade electors, too confident in their recent victory over the political landowners, shall omit to return, at the coming election, members of tried convictions and competent knowledge on economical questions. The landocracy has been checked, but is not conquered. The anti-social monster, Monopoly, is not dead ; it can scarcely be said to sleep; it is on the watch to regain its control over the nation's subsistence. Now, the means by which this is °ought to be effected, is by strengthening the landed interest This is distinotly avowed by the chief organ of the tories, the Quar terly Reriew, which, in the June number, thus lays down, in an article on " I'eel policy," the course to be pursued by the protection ists :—" All government," says the reviewer, "what ever temporary interruptions may intervene, must be based on property, and especially on the most solid and substantial species of property, the land. . . . This great fundamental truth, which the conservatives should never forget, must secure to them the sub stantial government of the country, by whaterer indi vidtud hands it may seem to to administered." And after some further illustration of his position, in re ference to the measures of the next parliament, the reviewer adds, " The present corn law will have to he further suspended, or repealed, or continued." In these passages there can be no mistake, and that an attempt will be made in the en suing parliament to prevent the extinction of import duties on grain by the uninterrupted effect of the present law, is no longer a matter of doubt. The means of accomplishment will be to endeavour to strengthen the political power of the owners—practi cally little more than the nominal owners—of land. Now that power has been the source of all the evils, and they are neither few nor inconsiderable, which have been inflicted on this nation by legislation. The Reform Bill has, to a certain extent, broken down that power in the cities and towns; but in the counties it is, to say the least, as dominant as ever. Nor will it be otherwise until tho rural capitalists, the tenant farmers, shall have been rendered independent. This must be mainly effected by such emendations of our real property and insolvency laws as we have on various occasions sug gested, and which the progress of civilisation requires- To such topics it will hereafter be our duty to recur. At present, our purpose is to p'ace before the reader the workings of a portion of that machinery by which " the land" is to be continued " the substantial government of the country." The addresses of the counts - candidates for Gloucestershire, which we find published in a local paper, furnish materials for a glimpse of such workings. • Mr. EDWARD HOLLAND, the liberal candidate for East Gloucestershire (who we regret to see has since withdrawn from the contest), is favourable to exten sion of " liberal and free-trade principles, " which is of course diametrically opposed to the dominruicy of "the land" so strongly insisted upon by the Quarterly. He has done good service to agriculture by preparing and inculcating the form of a lease for agricultural land, which, while it protects the landowner, leaves the tenant in a great measure free to cultivate to the best advantage. Yet in Mr. HoLLassn's address there is no specific mention of that thorough revision of the law and practice applicable to landed property which is the great political desideratum of the day. The requisi tion to Mr. HOLLAND was, however, founded upon "the humiliating state of the division, in conse quence of its having, at the dictation of one family, returned two members, both giving their support to that halting policy now repudiated by every states man of eminence." Here it is quite clear that the requisitionists have got hold of the right notion that " the land " has had too much power. Sir CHARLES CODRINGTON repudiates the imputation of being a nominee of the Duke of BEAI*FORT, because he was member before he had married the duke's daughter; while the duke's son, the Marquis of WORCESTER, says that he "was called upon to come forward under peculiar circumstances fraught with danger to ' native industry.'" And then this scion of "the land" goes on to assure the electors "that upon the last mentioned subject his feelings are unchanged." Doubtless these eminent members of the protectionist party are guilt less of any docility to the teachings of experience. Members of this class have no sympathy with the opinions, or knowledge of the wants, of the industri ous community of which they are nominally the representatives. But what of that ? They are a part of the machinery by , which " the substantial govern ment of the country' is to be secured to " the land," and the wealth and power of this industrious nation rendered subservient to the aggrandisement of the landowning class. Let these things be clearly under stood, and there will be no difficulty in laying the foundation for a thorough change in the representa tion of the English counties. Let us turn now to West Gloucestershire, and there we find Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY, with the most naive unconeciousnc,ant, exposing to the public gaze the very wires by which the political puppets of " the land " are pulled. That gentleman appeals to the electors of %Vest Gloucestershire upon the ground that in electing him their member they would assert their own independence by rejecting a nominee of Earl FITZHARDINGE. That sounds well, but what are Mr. ORANTLEY BERKELEY'S claims to the confidence of the Gloucestershire farmers ? Are they founded upon the part he took in the game law committee? On his contemptuous statement, repeated again and again, that farmers always attribute to game depredations the failure of crops caused by their own bad farming? Or on his proved capacity for legislation ? Oh, no, nothing of that sort ; his claim to the representation of W est Gloucestershire is based on his personal wrongs. He originally came forward "at the request of Lord Fitzkardinge, under a protest," that his private fortune was insufficient to bear public exigen cies ; " and on a promise from him, that he would assist it with his ample funds." Thus Mr. G. BERKELEY was not only his brother's nominee, but his stipendiary member; and he now appeals to the electors "to reject the nominee and elect me," because his patron, upon family and per sonal considerations, had lowered, or declined to con tinue, the stipend. Is that a claim to entitle Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY to the votes of the liberals of West sire ? There is one circumstance, however, worthy of re mark in this family-politico-rebellion of nominee member against his landlord patron—that Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY, who upon the game com mittee spoke so slightingly of the farmers, is now eager to advance their questions. He says: Recent events have painfully forced upon my attention the dependent condition of the tenant farmer. It cannot be denied that very frequently, after many years of toil and anxiety, the only realised property the tenant possesses, is the improvement he has effected in the land of another. Of any benefit accruing from this, the will or caprice of an in tolerant landl wd may at any time deprive him. No reran. time may result from the tenant's prolonged industry ; his only reward, the mere means of existence in put years. If, therefore, any bill be introduced securing to the agricul turalist the fruits of his industry, thus actirg for the good of the many, by checking the grasping spirit of the few, itshall receive my earcest support. The farmers, who have read how Mr. G. BERKELEY spoke of tenant-farmers in the game committee, will admit that adversity has not been without its use to this gentleman. But he does not atop at tenant. right—he, the game law champion, professes to b e almost, i f ? not quite, a game law repealer. He says The game laws are widely condemned, perhaps as a „,m, from the harsh and wanton manner in which the) have oe ft . 'kindly been enforced, as from any internal detects. Since the select committee sat to inquire into these laws, some facts have been brought to my notice in regard to the pow, ' of oppression stiven to the few. that have greatly shaken my opinion of Me expediency of maintaining some of ow, enactments. Opposed to a more stringent Trespass Aat am free to consider to amend or to abolish a part or all o f the present game laws. Now there can be no question, that if the libetei electors could believe such professions as arc contained intheabovoextracts from Mr. CRANTLEV IlEssettles address, much feeling on his behalf would be excited, The political moral of this is, that if Mr. G. li I RK ELET, with such disadvantages as he labours wider, can hope to stir up the industrious liberal ele c t ors of di e district against the dominant laudocrocy, what might not be done by an intelligent and liberal middle -clan candidate ? The prosecution before the Court of Peers in th e Cubieres affair was at length brought to a close on Si. turday evening, when the court gave its decision. Th e court had deliberated with closed doors for the yet four days, not on the guilt of the accused, sh out which, seeing it was virtually confessed, there could be no discussion, but upon the punishment to be t n . flicted. The sentence pronounced by the Chancellor corresponded exactly with that which we gave by anticipation in our correspondence yesterday. M. Teste is to undergo three years imprisonment, to lime aivil right', and to pay a double fine equal to the amount of the douceur he accepted, that is to my ninety-four thousand francs to the State, and an equal sum to the fund for the support of the Ifo.piud e of Paris. The other two accused, General Cabbies and M. Parmentier are each fined ten thousand francs, condemned to lose civil rights, and to be imprisoned until the fines be paid, the term of ix. prisonment not to exceed five years. The Greta of the court immediately on the delivery of the se t . tence proceeded to the prison of the Luximbourg, where the accused were detained, and announced to them the sentence of the court. MM. Cubieres sad Pannentier, paid the fines, and were immediately* at liberty. The sentence of civil degradation against General Cubieres excited a sensation of surprise aril regret i n all circles of the French capital. It is stated that however seriously his i,nprudeeee might be regard e d, all the reasonable exigencies of justice would hare been satisfied by the exaction of a fine, and that eves temporary personal restraint would have been mereifal in his case compared with the privation of civil rights To appreciate the severity of this sentence in the case of General Cubieres, it is only necessary 'o consider what his position has been, and how the sentence will affect it. M. Cubieres is a peer of France, and a lieutenant-general in the army, holding besides va rious titles and decorations. The thirty-fourth article of the code defines civil degradation thus:—l. Dia missal from all public functions, employments, and offices, and incapacity ever again to hold such. 2. Privation of the right of suffrage, ineligibility m a deputy, and in general the privation of all civil and political rights, and of the right of bearing any deco ration of honour. 3. Incapacity of acting as a juror or as a witness in any process. 4. Incapacity of acting as a guardian except of his own children. S. Incapacity to bear arms, to enter the National Guard, or the army, to keep a school, or be an aseistsatia one. Those who are most desirous to see established the supremacy of the laws, and who admit most fully the neces,ity of repressing with a just severity the offences which have been admitted in this case by the accused, are strongly revolted nevertheless by tiu contemplation of such a sentence against Gems! Cubieres. . . -----__, The general, says Lc Slie!e, has committed, it is toe, an inexcusable fault. Believing, as he affirmed, that the government was in avaricious and corrupt hands. he beams the accomplice of the very abuses he stigmeised, and de corrupter of the minister whom be charged win cupidity. Such was his crime. But, in fact, he was the dupe otlal those by whom he was beset, losing his money, erg promising his honour, descending even to weakness, sad e one moment, by a strained sentiment of genereeity, es. posing himself to a charge mere infamous even then ail degradation itself. Forty years of noble services were as put in the balance against offences, great, we admit, be such as might have been otherwise ex: , isted. It eem he said that the example will only be the more terrible. Be it so ; may it also be the more efficacious. But, mar while, we may be allowed to express some commisersfia for a brave soldier whose blood has flowed through sir or ten wounds on the field of Waterloo, and who, in the& cline of his life, allowed himself to be betray-, .1 into theme paths of speculation and intrigue, without bringing tam the spirit of boldness, rapine, and trick to which to SW others in these days owe their impunity. The Constitutionnel, the organ of another ratty. and as well as the SiOele differing in its politics frog General Cubidree, says: We respect the decisions of consli•vited tribunal!, be we cannot forbear expressing the painful sentiments win which we have heard a sentence which puts in the use rank, and confounds in a common punishment, tle accused so much opposed in their character, thee antecedents, and in ail the circumstances of the pm cese. But we oilt go even further, and obaere that the punishment of civil degradation is not equa for General Cubieres and M. Parmentier : for the is a peer of France, a general, a soldier of Waterloo, ted degradation is the meat severe punishment which coed b., inflicted for a fault which was already expiated by Rate , rible consequences; for the other, a mere man of businim it will amount to nothing mere than exemption from gm ing as a juror, and from the duty of the national guard. Ift do not question the motives that may have dictated Mines teace. We respect them, although we do not coos head them; but we must be allowed to suggest all* effects of this severe judgmeut which are grounds dem passion fnr the object of it. La Presse devotes its leading columns to estaiiii that there are no grounds for acquitting the gee berg of the present cabinet of practices as id • those which have consigned M. Teste to a primed brought indelible dishonour on his old age. of the same kind exactly as those made Teste were lately made against them ; these MO were specific in time, place, and circumstance: 114 like M. Teste, indignantly disavowed them andel► tested their innocence ; but while M. Tote was foul into a judicial investigation by which his gate innocence could be decided by a competent tnbiul, the present ministers shrunk from all inquiry. Why (says La Preue) should we rut more fa& k the protestations of M. Duchfitel than in those of H. TWO If M. Duchltel has been Minister of Finance, if be is see Minister of the Interior, was not M. Tines also *Wird Justice and afterwards Minister of Public Works? Pita he was keeper of the seals was he not long one of the Ma eminent men at the bar—one of its glories? ,sr, he hi one evident advantage over his former coUeogui., 3/. De , chetel, that he never allowed atrocious charges to be sii against him and to remain unanswered. It was said on Sunday that M. Pellapm had swine in Paris, and would surrender in a few days N' interest is now felt regarding this personsge, o o from the threat which ke is represented as buiel thrown out, that lie will make revelations oxqw, milling many other persons high in office seeds M. Teste. M. Teste, who was formerly a member of tlibil i d sent cabinet, was, on retiring from the public works, appointed President of the 4 the C 014? des Comple, raised to the dignity of France, and received the decoration of officer of the Legion of Honour. L' Union Monarehique has the following: , 0 We hear, that yielding to the pressing entrails • wife and father-in-law, Leopold of Belgium bas • at least for some mouths, all thoughts of crown. Louis Philippe end his daughter hope, the opinion of his medical attendants, that the mild of autumn, joined to the efforts of the faculty, sae . ing health to the body,. operate a happy chaise is state of the royal patient. However, were theca prove delusive, Louis Philippe would advise, Tiit b other trial, and pray his son-in-law togs and pall • Italy, leaving the temporary regency of the hi .. , consort, in the name of the youthful heir to the We have received advices from ladrid. to Men* inclusive, with letters from our own c orrespoidea lt° the 11th, which we give below. The mails a/. 13th were due in Paris on Sunday , but did not unr6 The Infante Don Francisco de Paula , accompanied bi hie daughter, left Madrid for the baths of St. SA. tian at 3 o'clock on the evening of the 12th. Our news of yesterday a protocol had been signed by the Englisb: 'T e r and Spanish plenipotentiaries at Lisbon, disso the capitulation made by General Conchs and Wylde with the junta of Oporto. The liberal's! of Madrid appeals thereupon in forcible terms tg; government and the Spanish people. to !make question of national honour. Ind to insist spol„ convention signed by General Conchs beivg to the letter. The censure implied by the however, seems rather to regard the courrPr: by Oeneral Concha, in having exceeded hie Po , " - confiNirtnAedDßthlne,reJpetr.Lii,L. --