The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-07-24 00:00:00

BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM RETIREMENT BILL.

M 1 Sir W. HEATIICOTZ resumed the adjourned debate on
the motion for the second reading of this bill, and urged
that at this late period of the session there was no time
for giving that consideration to the measure which its
'importance demanded. He moved, as an amendment, that
the bill be read a second time this day three months.
Lord R. CECIL seconded the amendment. The Bishop of
Durham offered to resign last year, and the Bishop of Lon-
don last June, and he did not see therefore why the question
should have been so long delayed. The Bishop of Dur_
ham's letter clearly painted to previous correspondence,
and he (Lord R. Cecil) hardly thought that the whole of the
correspondence between the bishops and the government
had been laid before the House. He complained of the
large retiring pensions proposed, and thought that if they
were granted the people would be in vain appealed to in
behalf Of Church purposes. He feared too that presently
this matter might become a bargain between a bishop
wishing to retire and a minister of the day, for it must be
remembered that the bishops were members of a House in
which a few votes sometimes went a long way. (Hear.)
Mr. M. MUSES contended that the argument which
had been raised against the bill on the ground that it
would lead to some general measure was a .gratuitous
assumption. (Hear.) The case of a character similar to
that contemplated in this bill—that of the Bishop of
Jamaica--which had recently occurred, passed without
any remark. He thought the same principle might be
adopted in this instance without any difficulty. One great
advantage of the appointment of coadjutor bishops would

It a clergyman thus nominated would have a full
opportunity of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the
diocese and the clergy before he came to have undivided
authority over it. If this bill were rejected no encourage-
ment would be held out to other right reverend prelates
to follow the laudable example of the Bishops of London
anti Durham.

Mr. NAPIER said the only question before the house
was the propriety and soundness of the principle on which
the bill was founded, and he regretted that he was not
able to overcome his objections to it. He begged to bear
his testimony to the valuable appointments which the
noble lord at the head of the government had made in the
church. His great desire appeared to have been to put
good and faithful men in the highest offices in the church,
and he had made an offer of a bishopric to the minister
of his (Mr. Napier's) church in Dublin, simply on account
of his merits. (Hear, hear.) He believed that if this bill
Passed the noble lord would place men in the sees of Lon-
don and Durham who would haye;his (Mr. Napier's)
full confidence; but still he could not consent to do evil
that good might come. He objected to the bishops com-
ing down and offering to resign on the strength of money
bauains, which partook of simony. If they resigned at
all, it should be from a sense of duty.
Mr. CARDWELL supported the bill.
_ _

Mr. ROEBUCK considered that the contract entered into
between the Government and the Bishops was a corrupt
one, punishable under the Ecclesiastical Law. Ile strenu-
ously opposed the bill.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM opposed the bill, contending that it
should not have been introduced at that late period of the
session. He also objected to special legislation on the
subject, and remarked that the present arrangements
could continue for a few months longer till a general
measure could be introduced.
Mr. WALPOLE supported the measure, and enforced the
claims of these prelates who had spent all in charities, and
Were entitled to an allowance from Parliament on their
retirement.

Sir J. SHELLEY supported the measure.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE opposed the bill, and observed that
the bishops had no right to dictate to Parliament the
terms on which they would resign their sees.
Mr. GLADSTONE feared much scandal would arise from
this bill whatever might be its ultimate fate. It was now
so late in the session that it would be impossible to ascer-
tain the scnse of the Rouse upon it, and he hoped, there-
fore, that the government would not abuse their strength
to pass it into law. Ile did not see the necessity for
legilation on the subject, and suggested that a remedy
would be found in the statute of 1534, which provided for
the appointment of suffragans to assist bishops.
Sir G. GREY defended the bill, and argued that the act
ef 1534, if applied to these cases, would have compelled
the retirement of the bishops on their full salaries.
Lord PALMERSTON said it was the intention of the
Government to stand by the salaries as proposed in the
bill, and if the pensions were reduced it would be for the
bishops to decide when they would retire. The Govern-
reont had fulfilled their part. of the bargains by the intro-
duction of the bill, and it was for the Rouse to decide
bether or not it should be adopted.
The House then divided. The numbers were—

For the second reading
Against it

Majority

m 11111 was accordingly read a second time, and ordered
c ,mnaittea to-morrow.
le House adjourned at six o'clock.

N ERROR IN TWO PLACES. Look round our gove!n-
-t offices, and you will find that the system of distribution
I follows :—Too much abilit) is demanded for the small
:;s, and for the large Places generally too little.—Punch.
LtomE ELECTION, Tuesday, July
Monday evening. At
o'clock this afternoon the returning officer declared
state of the poll to be as follows :—Bole
1 Nicoll (Liberal), 157; Majority for Boyyle,( I.Whig),