The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-17 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.

Sir It. INGLIS mked whether there *many hope of the
Chelsea embankment being carried out in the present year,
after it had been unanimously 11001111/11111111141 by the Commis-
sioners of Metropolitan Imimuromemik. some arced by the
Lords of the Treasury, and strengthenedlya caste of 20,0061. ?
Viacount KORPETH said it was glebe true the Treasury
bad authorised the advance of .2f4,0001 fir the Chelsea em-
bankemmt,,but tile commenema of the works had bean
meeeeril tiliami•mill apromma gal be angst MN
with At egeMemiand. *MOM
_properV. dam of the
AgegothAliwilgi Migaried Witt groat Malty, but
'..tacithittg wad begranling on As part of the Train, to
Agility* tile pram atilt
Sir It. INGLIS. Mai tistirri"mailas of the noble lord
me the bead of the govomast respasig the improvements
ks .Covontipertion. The Deka 01;110dford had at tint
stored to Om the ram of 10,000 L towards this improvement.
ri• e use than willing to saddle ids property with a rate of
I 00/. more. He further gave 1,0001., ; and on there being
st m a OOfluency of hinds, ha oared to lend the sum re.
qu tise 42,0001., declining to take more than four and a half
ps, • sent. interest. Alter all, this offer, so munificent in
ices If. and ao likely to lead to liberality in others, had been
/tiff, Mitt* rill without being accepted by the goverment.
The oti.v.cireurnstanos which he could suppose had jailo-
r.om the government to decline it wm the fact of the noble
duke being the brother of the noble lend at the head of the
„yen:, want ; but the metropolitan improvements ought not
to eta, v from any delicacy on the part of the noble lord.
Lord J- :RUSSELL said that his right hon. friend had
comedy noted the facts, as to me amount offered by the
Duke of t ImMord for the ;Impose of the new street. But.
with- rem dto his further inference, thatlesigovernment
ed
b the lege power of doing what we, pro —he had
to mete that, saidering the mount to oh' the Coal duties
were now eha.Ked, they could not hamelfeeted this improve-
ment without s ihgesKst the coal duties to charges beyond
the amount with eslbilitithel. were at present chargeable by
law. It wad, tiliaggibm, ye been necessary lir Introduce
a bill for the sam'lly OM for his part, both out of piece
and in °sok 100 hail low of opinion that this was an objec-
tionable/ma whastrie derive funds. (Hear, hear.) Ho
shay timillms have unit tale same answer to the
of
any Wpm penes as Ulm* done to that Of the MPectl
DeKtird. 1 s(lasseakdr et do Exchequer and himself had
eetasymlfitlb =Or My: tat; oat it woo not from
any
herd beinageppentil At imendoeffis brother that the offer
hadbean minmelc bat tom tie maddorations which he had
stated.

ground for the home to interfere. He believed the son of the
late Sir E. Wilmot was a person of ability and intelligence,
but he did not think the house ought to interfere to fetter the
discretion of the crown.
• THE RAJAH OF SATTARA.
Mr. HUME wished to take this opportunity of correcting
some erroneous statements which were made in answer
to his speech on • former occasion. It had been
stated that the rajah was not an independent
prince ; this he denied, and quoted facts to prove it. But if
he was not a sovereign, why deny him the trial of a subject
Let him, at all events, have justice as a subject. (Hoar.)
The hon. member then proceeded to canvass the document'
which had been brought forward on a former occasion by
Sir J. C. liobhouse, and to matend that they were unworthy
of credit. He then alluded to the conduct of Mr. Spooner
and Mr. Hutt, the officers employed in carrying out the
sentence on the rajah, and entered into • very lengthy detail
to prove the charges of perjury and forgery against the rajah's
accusers, and that he had been imprisoned until he was in-
duced to make a confession implicating himself. Ile had
placed a notice on the paper, and he understood there would
be no objection to his now moving, "That her Majesty would
be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this
house copies of the overtures made to Purtaub Sing, twenty
years Rajah of Satter', and now an exile at Benares, to the
effect that if be would renounce his claim to the sovereignty
of Sattara, he should be allowed to change his place of resi-
dence, and enjoy other advantages in return for his
compliance with these degrading proposals; also copies
of the orders by which them overtures were made;
also copies of the answer of the ex-rajah to
these overtures; and, also, copies of the correspondence be-
tween Major Carpenter, the officer in charge of the ex-rajah
at &norm, and the governor-general, and the secret com-
mittee of the court of directors in England on the subject.
That her Majesty would also be Famously pleased to com-
ply with the petition of the ex-rajah, presented to her Ma-
jesty? in 184.5, and grant him such a trial as the poorest pea-
sant in her Majes4's dominions is by law entitled to claim."
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE said he was eertainly not prepared
for this debate being revived. As the hon. member had
only now answered what he had stated 12 days ago, per-
haps the most convenient course for the house would be, for
him to take other 12 days in which to reply. (Laughter.)
The right hen. baronet then re-stated the circumstance' at-
' tending the rajah'. trial, and contended that he had been
most fairly treated throughout. The person on whose evi-
dence it was sought to prove that there had been a eonspi •
racy against the rajah, was one who had himself been con-
victed of forgery. He believed, from the statement of Mr.
Hutt, which was certniely worthy of credit, that the story of
the confession being extorted was wholly unfounded. The
case of the ex-raja bad been examined by screed successive
governments iii England and India, and all of them had
come to similar de. thous—which decisions bad been more
than once confirmed by the House of Commons, and backed
by the India-house and their servants in India. Under such
circumstances, be was certainly surprised that the hon. gen-
tleman should continue to press this matter Cu the attention
of the house.

CONFERENCE WITH THE LORDS.
Lord J. RUSSELL appeared at the bar, and stated that
the Lords wished to have a conference with the Commons, in
the royal gallery, but we could not ascertain on what subject.
Several members then left the house, for the purpose of
attending the conference.
On the return of the managers, on the part of the Com-
mons, Lord J. Russets., announced the result to the house.
Another conference was subsequently held on the Punish-
ment of Vagrants (Ireland) Bill.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE having resumed, stated that
the government of India bad a perfect right to dethrone the
rajah, and take posaefsion of his dominions, instead of which
they had placed his brother on the throne. which had given
rise to the jealousy that had (*wad this matter to he so
vigorously prosecuted. He was convinced, however, that
what had already been done must be maintained, and he,
I therefore, should oppose the motion.
Gen. MORRISON made a few obserrations, which were
quite inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. WAK LEY would ask the right hon. hart. the Presi-
dent of the'Board of Control, if he thought the matter could
remain where it was? Would the people be satisfied to
see a man deprived of his possessions, and banished,
without even the justice of a trial? (Hear, bear.)
He regretted to say that it was almost impossible to get one
government to review and reverse the decisions of a former
government. He believed the right hon. gentleman's mind
had been prejudiced in this case. It was painful to hear his
hon. friend the member for Montrose, who had done so
much for liberal principles in this country—to whose exer-
tions for thirty years it was mainly owing that reform had
been carried, and that a liberal government was now in
office—who had saved the people of this country thousands
upon thousands of taxation, implore the government to
grant a simple inquiry into this case, and to be refused.
(Hear, hear.) And what did he petition for? Not that the
rajah should be pronounced innocent, but that the question
of his guilt or innocence should be inquired into. (Hear.)
But he had said that the right hon. gentleman was influ-
enced by others in this case. Ho made this allegation
because he held in his hand a statement made by Captain
Copt*, a gentleman holding a respectable position in society,
' which stated that in an interview which he had with the
right hon. baronet, the right hon. baronet raid that he
would support the deposition of the rajah whether it was
right or wrong, and that he would punish those who agi-
tated in his favour. He (Mr. Wakley) contended that a
great injustice wsa!done in the case of the rajah, and if he had
a seat in the next parliament, and could get eleven others to
join with him, he would stop the supplies till • trial was ob-
tained. He thought that he was bound to take such •
COMIC
Lord J. RUSSELL said that some remarks had been
made by the hon. member for Finsbury which he thought
called for a reply. When this question had been before under
discussion he did not think that the hon. member for Montrose
had made • fair allowance for his right bon. friend,
in discharging what he conscientiously believed to be his
public duty. He (Lard J. Russell) might have said things
of that hon. member which he ought not to have said—
(hear, hear,) end which he regretted having said.
dHear, hear.) There was so member in that house who,
uring a long public life, had laboured more zealously in the
public cause, and he would be sorry if he used any expres-
sions which were inconsistent with that sentiment. (Hear,
hear.) But, whilst he said that, it was too much to
infer that, because the hon. member for Montrose brought
forward a case, there should, therefore, be an inquiry into
it. With regard to this case of the Rajah of Sattara,
there -.must be an end of trials, as there was an end of
them in other oases. Suppose a new trial were granted,
and that the decision were against the rajah, why
should not another trial be asked for ? This case
had been investigated by those who were best acquainted
with the circumstances. His right hon. friend thought that
the decision which had been come to was a right decision, and
bewas of opinion that the government ought to support it.
With respect to the statement of Captain Cogan, which had
been read by the hon. member for Finsbury, he thought the
house would agree with him, that it was such • tissue of im-
probabilities that it was not worthy of being listened to.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE begged to lay a few words to the
house in reference to the personal charge against him which
had been read by the hon. member for 1' insbury, and to
state what had occurred between Captain Cogan and him-
self. The right hon. baronet then stated that Captain
Cogan had been recommended by him to Lord Palmerston
to settle a treaty with the Imaum. of Muscat; that
having executed this mission, he called at Bom-
bey, on his return home, and entered into corre-
spondence with the agent* of the Rajah of Setters. When
he came to England he called upon him at the Board of
Control, upon which he (Sir J. Hobhouse) told him, that be-
ing employed by the government on another service, he hail
no business to go out of his way to make himself an agent of
the rajah. If gentlemen looked into the blue book, they
would find that he bargained for being an agent of the rajah
at the rate of 1,5001. • year. He did not blame him for gel-
ling his services at that rate, if they were worth it. On the
first opportunity, he (Capt. Cogan) -detailed what he called
the conversation between them, but which he (Sir J. Hob-
house), declared never occurred as he stated it. (Hear.)
Mr. OSBORNE regretted that the hon. member for Fins-
bury brought forward the statement of Capt. Cogan. If
private conversations were to be thus detailed there would
be en end of all confidence. (Hear) He was glad that the
noble lord, with that chivalry which was supposed to belong
to him, made the amends honorable to the hon. member for
Montrose. (Hear, hear.) It only remained for him to make
it also to the unfortunate and ill-treated rejak of Setters.
After a few words from Mr. WAILLET, in explanation,
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that the Rajah of Satter* hail never
been tried because he never received a copy of the charges
against him. If the rejah were present at the trial, he was
not placed in a position to rebut the charges made against
him, seeing that he was deprived of all the ordinary mean'
of defence ; while the daily bread of his judge* to some ex
tent depended on his being convicted. From beginning to
end the requidtes of justice were not complied with. Par.
don was offered to the rajah on the condition that he should
admit his own guilt ; a mode of proceeding which added in.
dignity to injustice. It was admitted that the highest autho-
rities of the India House were in favour of inquiry; and no
friend of the government ought, under the circumstances, to
resist It. _ _

The subject then dropped.
POOR.LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.
Oaths question that the Lords' amendments be considered,
Lord J. RUSSELL said, he would now state the course
which the government meant to pursue with respect to the
thief amendments in this bill. On the motion of the hon.
member for Evesham, a clause had been inserted in that
house by the decision of a majority; while another clause,
providing for the admi‘nen of rate-payers to the meetings of
guardians, was agreed to without a division. His own
opinion had been adverse to the introduction of the
first clause ; but after the decision of the house,
and considering that the attendance at the time
when it was pronounced was better than it was likely to be
again, be should be disposed to support the decision of the
hou e, and would propose that the clause which had been
expunged by the lords should be misserted. With respect
to the other clause which the brie lei also expunged, he
was dbuossed to woe to the eamaeat.
Mr. WALLY iheasht the Delis Iced had exercised a
very who dieuestioa In oho nem el the ant clause which he
had mmaenad, nal be sash regretted that be had not
taken the arm maim with to the second.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER eo soldered it utterly impossible
for any board of aliesrdiens to undertake the administration
04 the law if the beerd•roorn were open to all the rate-
pewee. (Hear, hoar.)
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to prepose, and the
house to consent, that the amendments should be further
considered on Monday.
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER BILL.

THE LATE AIR M. WILMOT.
Sie C. DOUGLAS salmi whether E wu intended in any
.7arrottre any paevtalen fee the featly of the late Sir E.
Lord J. ItIIIMMILL did not :Dial than woo any public

On th; order of the day Yoe ramming the adjourned
debate,
.....

Mr. HUME said he considered this bill a violation of the
compact of 1886 by which it was arranged that, only in the
event of the union of the nee of Bangor and Bt. Aaaph

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1847.

should a bishopric be created for Maoahastar. Seeing that
that union was not now to take place, the case originally
contemplated had not arisen, and the bill proposed a
appropriation of of public mosey. The crown had, in fact,
through its advisers, directed conualisioners to Meet, in order
to do that which was contrary to law. He could not but
remark that in the majority in the division list of the pre-
vious evening, there were 90 tones, 30 members of the
government, and 18 liberals. Where were the 300 whip?
(Laughter.) They ought to be in their place, but they were
not. (Hear, hear.) Ile hoped the noble lord at the head
of the government would reconsider a bill so much against
the tenor of his whole course of conduct. The hon. member
concluded by moving the postponement of the committee
till Monday.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said he would take every fair
means of resisting the progress of the bill. He believed
that the present number of bishops was sufficient ; and if it
were not, the best and obvious course would be to relieve
biehopa from their legislative duties.
Mr. J. COLLETT supported the amendment.
Mr. V. SMITH said the right hon. baronet, the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, bad stated on the pre-
vious evening that no one would be pledged to the appoint-
ment hereafter of any additional bishops by voting for the
bill. If that were so, he would ask the noble lord (Lord J
Russell) why the words in the preamble on that subject were
to be retained,? (Hear, hear.) He saw no:reason why the
house should retain words which might hereafter be said to
have pledged parliament, by implicaisen, to the principle in-
volved. There could be no occasion for objecting to the
postponement of the preamble, if the noble lord would con-
seat to the erasure of the words in question.
Sir J. GRAHAM, before the noble lord answered the
question, wished to state that, even though the alterations
suggested were made, he should still seek to alter the
preamble so fur as related to the exclusion of the new bishops
from seats in the House of Lords.
Lord J. RUSSELL, before adverting to the question of
the hon. member for Northampton, must say one word more
as to the statement of Mr. Hume that this bill sanctioned the
violation of the compact of 1838. The whole of the state-
ment in the first report amounted to this—that the commis-
sioners were not then prepared to recommend any addition '
to the number of episcopal sees. Now that that report made
in 1835 was to be considered bindiag in 1847, and for all sub-
sequent time, was an interpretation which he could not place
upon it—(hear)—now that regarded the compact itself. As
to the interpretation putupon it by Sir J. Graham, that right
hon. gentleman had argued that though it was right to
create a bishop of Manchester, it was proper to stop. there,
and not to violate the rule that bishops on their nomination
should be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. Now he
(Lord J. Russell) begged the house to observe how all this
argument hung together. If it was right only to create the
bishopric of Manchester, then it was argued that it was
right not to allow one bishop to be excluded from the House
of Lords. That appeared to him, he admitted, a logical con-
sequence. But her Majesty's government had taken quite a
different view of this awe. They did not think it right to
lay down that the wants of the church would be satisfied by
the creation only of one additional bishop. (Hear,
hear.) He must say that he thought there were
grounds for that decision. He did not think it right,
having a church intended for the population of the country,
to say that from tine to time, the circumstances of the church
should not be suited to the varying circumstances of the time.
(Hear, hear.) In all other churches it was considered fit and
proper to increase superintendence as it might be required;
and surely because the church of this country was united
with the state of the country, it was not to be said that she
was the only church to be made an exception to so salutary
a principle. Surely it was but reasonable that when
tke population increased, and the clergy increased, roper.
inteneierce should increase also. Every mercantile house,
every railway company, in proportion to the busi-
ness to be done, would increase the superintendence
of their respective concerns ; and surely what applied '
to civil would equally apply to ecclesiastical bodies. '
• Well, then, what was their proposal ? The preamble (which
he would propose in this case not to postpone but to consider '
first), recited the terms on which the bishoprics commission
was issued, by the sovereign. That recital was a recital of a
question of fact—not of a question in which the house was to
legislate. But, reciting that fact, he considered it necessary
to adhere to the words in the preamble, because he held, as
he had said before, that new bishoprics might be and ought
to be created where necessary, without seats in the House of
Lords. He would not wish to bind the house to the crea.
tion of four new bishoprics—the number might vary with
varying circumstances. But if such bishoprics were to be
created at all he thought it very desirable that no larger num•
ber of bishops should have seats in the House of Lords.
He thought it desirable that there should be no
addition to the number, because he considered that the
church was fairly represented in parliament already—that
an addition to the number might give rise to jealousies
among the dissenters—and because, as the commissioner of
inquiry themselves represented, the expense of taking a seat
in psrliament was very great and burdensome upon bishops
on their first appointment. On these grounds be thought we
ought not to limit ourselves to the creation of one new
bishopric, and ought not to admit any additional number to
the House of Lords, and he, therefore, proposed to adhere
to the preamble as it now stood. (Cheers.)
Mr. TRELAWNY reverted to the general question.
Whilst the working clergy were so ill paid, we ought to do
nothing more for the episcopacy ; and for his own part be
felt some doubt whether more bishops were wanted at all.
In the part of the country from which he came, the bishop,
for example, had been the great cause of injury to the
church, and certainly his example did not lead them to desire
another. _

Lord CLEMENTS deprecated the hurrying a measure of
such importance through parliament in the last week of
the sssaiou. An opposition offered to a bill like the pre-
sent, brought forward at such • period of the session, and
under such circumstances, could not be compared to the
rise of
rms .lfltehltehe Reform Bwillereordetvhe
isedCotorti•gtwe
e°;:liffecte:l:ll343pop.ularinTloeeption as against a majority of the house.
After some further conversation as to the circumstances
under which a minority would be justified in using the forms
of the house to defeat any measure,
Mr. COLLETT coruicnted to withdraw his amendment,
but intimated ho would still use every means the forms of the
house allowed to defeat the bill in its future stages.

--- -
On the preamble being read,
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the omission of the words bay-
ing reference to those additional bishopric'. The question
was whether an addition to the number of kishope, or the
parochial clergy, was most desirable to supply the spiritual
wants of the people, and he certainly did not think there
was any necessity for an increase of bishops. He might be
charged with inconsistency for having formerly sup-
ported the creation of a bishop of Manchester, but it
was now said that the union of tha sees of St.
Asaph and Bangor should no longer be insisted on.
He should have doubted the constitutional propriety of
setting forth in the preamble of the bill the intention of her
Majesty, in direct contravention of the existing statute. It
was now proposed to add three new bishops, and the state of
things was therefore entirely altered from what it was when
he supported the creation of the bishopric of Manchester.
When the qualifications of bishops were referred to, namely,
learning, piety, benevolence, charity, and BO on, it must not
be forgotten that the working clergy exhibited similar
acquirements end virtues, ; and many poor clergymen in his
neighbourhird, with only sixty er seventy pounds a year,
readily contributed their mite to charitable purposes. He
did not think the interests of the church herself would be
promoted by the creation of additional bishops (hear,
hear)—and if the number were once increased, there would
be no limit to it in future. His noble friend the mem-
ber for Liverpool had indeed last night spoken of the
desirability of having a bishop for every county. (" Hear,"
and a laugh.) He entertained the strongest opinion that
both the propositions of the bill were dangerous. He con-
sidered it would be a disadvantage to those bishops who did
not sit in the House of Lords, but he still thought it most
desirable that they should re:ain their seats in the other
house of parliament. He objected to the creation of more
bishops. He should conclude by moving the omission of the
words from " and " in the second line, page 4, down to tha
word " voting," in line eight ; and he should also vote I
against the second clause of the bill.
Mr. COLLETT had not pressed ►is motion, because it was
objected that it had reference merely to the recital of other
acts ; but if the right hon. baronet was allowed to more such
an amendment as he had proposed, he should also insist upon
putting his motion.
After a few words front Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Collett, and
Mr. V. Smith,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the words in the preamble
which were objected to did not bind the house to adopt the
provision' which the bill its, It contained. The words were,
however, of importance, as being introductory of the very first
clause of the bill, which went to carry into effect a portion
of the recommendations of the commissioners.
Mr. DISRAELI said that was true, but this recital did
not contain, as it ought, the whole of the recommendations
contained in the commissioners' report.
Mr. HUME thought the committee ought not to affirm
any portion of the preamble, which he was of opinion was
illegal and unconstitutional, and in direct contravention of
an act of parliament. He would suggest that the whole of
this recital in the preamble ought to be struck out.

The SOLICITOR-GEN EHAL said it was clear that the
preamble only stated a number of facts which could not be
controverted. These facts had been thought by those who
drew the bill to be necessary to be stated as the founda-
tion of the measure. For these recitals they had a precedent
in thestatute 6& 7 Will. IV., c. 67. What was the house
called upon to legislate ? Why, on the commissioners' re-
port and though the whole of the report was not set out,
yet ti.e framers of this bill had honestly and ingenuously
stated in their preamble, that beyond the foundation of the
bishopric of Manchester, there was in the minds of the com-
missioners the future consideration of the establishment of
other episcopal sees. (Hear, hear.) He thought this an in-
genuous and honest way of putting the matter; and even if
the words Were struck out, as proposed by the right hon.
baronet, any l►wyer or layman must refer to the report of
the commissioners, in order to construe and define the mu-
sure itself. . .

Sir J. GRAHAM admitted that the recital was honest
and ingenuous; but, with the avowal ju•t made, was preg-
nant with consequences. In short, it was an avowal that the
crown should do that which an act of parliament had de-
clared should not be done. . . . . .

Mr. LAW expresmd his surprise th►t the right hon.
baronet (Sir J. Graham) should be moved by the loose argu-
masts of the hon. member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) on the
subject of the illegality of her Majesty taking the advice of
her constitutional and responsible advisers u to the altera-
tion or improvement of aay statute. It was absurd to say
that such a procedure was either illegal or uncoastitutional.
After a few words from Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Wortley, Dr.
Nieholl, and the Attorney-General.
Sir F. THESIGER addressed somo observations to the
house in favour of the amendment moved by the right hon.
baronet near him (Sir J. Graham), and contended it was
for the house and not for the framers of the bill to select
those portions of the recommendations of the commissioners
as in the wisdom of the house ought to become the law of
the land. . . . .

....... .
Mr. ENTWISLE expressed his entire concurrence in
the views of the right hon. member for Dorchester.
Mr. ROEBUCK was of opinion that there were already
quite bishops enough in parliament. Bishops came into the
House of Lords without any of those hereditary feelings
which, to a certain extent, operated to render the hereditary
power of legislating less mischievous. It should be ever
borne in mind that bishops had originally been admitted to
seats in parlismeot, in virtue of baronial possessions, and in
pilot of fact, as laymen. The abstract 'lotion of a bishop
did lot include a legislator: he regarded a bishop as simiry
a spiritual overlooker, superintending other spiritual persona,
for spiritual purposes. In the present case there wail the re-
markable fact of a surplus in the hands of the government.
What was the feeling of the people as to the distribution
of a surplus ? First, certainly, that there should be no dif-
ference as to its application, founded upon religious distinc-
tions. The property here realised was essentially the pro-
perty of the public, and the public, the distressed, starving
public, would not hear with patience the proposition that this
surplus was to be applied to the preposterous payment of
four new bishops, utterly useless officers of one among the
many religious section. of the population. Why was this par-
ticular measure to be forced on, against the feeling of the
country, when so many measures of the greatest national in-
terest were contemptuously thrown over? The selection was one
most fatal to the character of the noble lord at the he,d of
the government, and of the liberal party who, on general
principles, supported the noble lord. The Health of Towns'
Bill, nearly affecting the health of the whole community,
was coolly abandoned ; so was the Incumbered Estates Bill ;
but the measure, which, in despite of the whole population,
except the more bigoted members of the Church of Eng-
land, forced upon the country new bishops, worse than need-
less, was pertinaciously insisted upon. Never mind the
people—never mind the working clergy, but we will have
more bishops, said the bishop-serving prime minister. The
people, however, thought more of themselves, and thought
more of the working clergy, than they did of bishops.
And all of them who—as the great body were—were
friends of the church, viewed the measure as one most dan-
gerous to the true interest, of the church.
Mr. BROTHERTON said that as the house had already
declared its opinion twice on the principle of the bill, it would,
he thought, be more consistent with the dignity of the house
not again to controvert the principle. As one opposed to
the measure, he could have wished that his vote against it
had been supported by the majority ; but as the opinion of
the majority had been declared the other way, he depre-
cated a further division en the same point.
Mr. ESCOTT called upon the noble member for Lynn
and the hon. member for Shrewsbury not to allow the
debate to close without declaring what they conceived
to be the real opinion on the subject of those whom
they represented in the house. Important party leaders as
they were, they should not remain silent on such an occasion.
It was said that they had no right to complain of the men.
sure because there was no money taken from the people.
What! was this groat question to be made one of pounds, shit-
tinge, and pence ? The question was, not where the money
came from, bet was it to be empkyed to a good purpose in
malting four new bishoprics ? (Hear, hear.) That was what
he wanted to have proved by the noble lord the member for
Lynn and the hon. member for Shrewsbury. He trusted
that they would not content themselves with giving a silent
vote on the question.
The house divided.—For the motion
For the amendment
The house then went into committee on the hill.
Mr. COLLETT (Athlone) moved that the chairman re-
port progrese, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. HIJ ME seconded the motion.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that no doubt it was oompetent
for the committee to omit any portion of the recitals in the
preamble or to add to them; but he thought the statement of
the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham), supported aa it had
been by the hon. mens'ier for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that
there was something illegal and unconstitutional In her
Majesty appointing a commio.ion with a view of submitting
measures to the consideration ofliament, was moat extra-
ordinary. He (Lord J. Russell)r
had never before heard
that an act of parliament was so sacred as that the crown
could not direct its confidential advisers to amend or repeal
it. (Hear, hear.) He agreed that it was competent to the
right hon. gentleman to move the omission of the words, and
when they came to that subject he would be ready to dis-
cuss it.

Mr. NEWDEGATE would suggest to the noble lord, as
the preamble gave rise to so much uncustion, to postpone its
consideration. . .

Mr. M. PHILIPS was understood to say that he objected
to the preamble altogether.
Mr. HUME moved the omission of the preamble
altogether.
Mr. S. HERBERT wished to know how the house could
agree to the preamble, when hon. members entertained such
different intentions with respect to the alterations that
ought to be made in it? The preamble was the essence of
the bill, and he did not know why the usual practice was
departed from on this occasion of postponing the preamble.
Sir G. GREY said that the question before the house was
the amendment proposed ly the hon. member for Athlone,
and be did not see why they could not go into a division
upon it.
Mr. BUNCOMBE said that the preamble had been
brought under discussion at the request of the hon. member
for Dorchester. His (Mr. Buncombe's) object was that
they should have the report of the committee on the eccle-
siastical commission before them. Unless the government
wished to sit for some weeks longer they had no chance of
carrying this hill. Why did they not persevere in carrying
measures that would be useful to the people ? (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord wished to please the bishops' party. The
noble lord was at one time accused of making fool* of the
bishops, but the noble lord replied that he was rather their
utensil. (Much laughter.) Ile wished to mous the noble
lord from the disgrace of being the bishop.'" utensil."
(Laughter.) There were no persons out of that house in
favour of the bill.. . . .

Lord CLEMENTS said that the government having
arranged their private conviviality for the end of the session,
they ought not to salt the house to legislate on a subject of
such importance.
Mr. E. DENISON said that, considering the state in which
the committee was, he thought that the best plan would be
to postpone the preamble.
Mr. 11011.SMA.N explained with reference to some obser-
vations of his with regard to the right hon. baronet the
member for Dorchester. . . .

Lord J. RUSSELL mid that the opposition of the right
hon. baronet the member for Dorchester was that the sub-
stance of the recommendation was contained in the pre-
amble, and he proposed that it should be taken before the
clauses. Ile (Lord J. Rumen) thought that reasonable, and
moved that the house go into committee. He still thought
that it was the best course. It was open to any hon. member
to object to the preamble. He was ready to defend it, and
the other parts of the bill. He was determined, despite
what bad been said by the hon. member for Finsbury, to
defend the bill as it was. ("Hear, hear," and cheers.)
He believed it was a measure useful to the country, and, till
the house decided by a division that they would not enter-
tain it, he should persevere. (Great cheering.)
Mr. HINDLEY asked the noble lord what reason he
could give for continuing both the sees of Bangor and St.
Aseph That was the question in imue. They had no ob-
jection to a bishop of Manchester. (Hear, hear.) He asked
most decidedly, and required a decided answer, why the
bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor were continued 7
Lord J. RUSSELL said that was discussed on the second
reading and on going into committee yesterday.
Mr. ESCOTT wished to ask if it was a parliamentary rule
that the name of the sovereign was not to be introduced in
their debates, whereas it was mentioned over and over again
in the preamble of this bill.
Mr. GOULBURN intimated his entire dissent to the doc-
trine laid down by the hon. gentleman, as the mention of
the queen's name was only a recommendation to parliament
of the came nature as the speech from the throne.
After a few wards from Mr. Hums,
Mr. DUNCOMBE wished to know from the noble lord if
he wished the preamble to be postponed. He so understood
it. ("No, no.") The proposition to discuss the preamble
was made by the right hon. baronet the member for Der.
cheater, last night, aad seceded to by the government, and
they had better go on with the discussion.
After a few words from Mr. ALDAN;
The committee divided—For the amendment 33
Against it . " • 132-99
Mr. M. PHILIPS repeated his statement that the bill
was uncalled for by the people of Manchester. They had
already a deanery and four canonries in Manchester, mesh.
toting a machinery abundantly sufficient for the purposes of
the church. The introduction of a bishop would be a signal
for the introduction of fends, and for the commencement of
hostility of the most active kind. He challenged the noble
lord to say that he knew as much of the feelings of the
people of Manchester as he himself did. The hon. member
eottcluded by moving the omission of the words in the
preamble, " And for establishing a bishopric of Manchester."After a few words from Xi. and cries of
divide,"

Mr. B. OSPORNE ud Mt. M. PHILLIPS severally urged
the hon. member for Athlone to withdraw his motion.
. .

Mr. B. ESCOTT suggested to the hen. met;;;;that he
might move to strike out the objectionable portions of the
bill in committee, a course which would be preferable to
his present motion, as not looking so like a factious
V. itia10.111113.7014 and Mr. MOVIIIICR also deprecated a
division ; the latter describing the conduct of the hon.
member for Athlone as calculated to make the minority in
that house, by the aid of the forms, tyrants over the
majority. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY said that the forms of the how* were the
only protection enjoyed by the minority. He thought the
preeent was a case in which those forms might be freely need.
He implored the noble lord at the head of the government
not to commit political suicide by pressing this bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if • single hon, member,
because he was sincerely opposed to a measure, was to resort
to all the forms of the house to obstruct its progress, the con-
sequence would be that all bills so opposed must be stop
and the minority have It, way, er else the forms of the house
—most valuable forme—must be altered. (Hear.) He said
most valuable, because there were occasions' such u when a
ri
majoty attempted to force on an objectionable measure at
one or two o'clock in the morning, in which those forms
might be most advantageously used. But, to say that this
power was to be used by every member who felt sincerely
opposed to a measure, was perfectly preposterous. (Hear,
bear.) Neither the Reform Bill, nor the bill repealing
the corn-laws, would be now on the statute book,
if such conduct were generally practised. He had not called
the course now pursued " factious opposition ;" but really if
the hon. member for Athlone persisted, he could hardly
Hod a term which would more aptly express his opinion.
Mr. AOLIONBY appealed to the hon. member to with-
draw has motion.
. _ _ _

Afters few words from Yr. Roza um,

• Mr. T. BUNCOMBE mid he would move that the chair-
man do report progress, unless some member of her myeety's
government rose to answer the remarks of the hon. member
for Manchester. (Hear, hear.) Where was the other hon.
member for Manchester [Mr. M. Gibson] t (" Hear, hear,"
and laughter
.) Had the government the power to compel
their underlings to take whatever course they pleased ?
(Hear, hear.) 'The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was trying
to cram this bill down the throats of the house. No one on
the Treasury bench had dared, or was able, to answer the
speech of the right hon. member for Llorshemer, delivered
on the previous evening. (Hear, hear.) Let the bill be at
least postponed until after the session. It ought not to have
been introduced in such a clandestine manner: it came, in
reality, from the bishops. (Hear, bear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said, be did not rise to defend the
creation of the bishopric of Manchester, having repeatedly
done so already. The proposition rested on an existing act
of parliament, which wee now in force ; and the effect of the
bill would be to cause the appointment to take place forth-
with, instead of taking place on the death of the Bishop of
Bangor. He did not pretend to know what might be the
feeling of the people of Manchester at the present moment—
(cheers)—but his belief was, that when the bishopric was
created, they would acknowledge that this bill worked well
for that town. Respecting the attacks of the hon. member
for Finsbury, he had only to observe, that being convinced
he wss doing his duty to the country, be would not be
deterred therefrom by myth' kg that hon. gentleman might
say. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. HUME was of opinion that the appointment of a
bishop to Manchester should not take place until the death
of the Bishop of Bangor, an event which, in all probability,
was not far distant. (Laughter.)
Mr. W. EGERTON attributed the introduction of this
bill to the differences which existed between the people of
Manchester and the dignitaries of the collegiate establish-
ment of that town.

Mr. M. PHILIPS defended the conduct of the people of
Blanchester in reference thereto.

Mr. S. HERBERT uid that the hon. gentleman's ob-
servations proved the necessity of an episcopal revision.
Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the chairman report progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL should certainly divide against that
proposition.—Strangers were "ordered to withdraw.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he would withdraw his motion.