The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-07-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY,

The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter-past twelve
o'clock.

The Lords' Amendments to the Scottish Central Rail-
way Bill were considered and agreed to.

BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM RETIREMENT BILL.

On the order of the day for going into committee on

this bill,
Mr. HADFIELD moved, as an amendment, that the bill
be committed that day three months. He drew attention
to the fact that the Bishop of London had received the
large income of £22,000 per annum, while the President of
the United States received only £5,000 a year, the Pope
only £1,500 a year, for the Government of the Roman
Catholic Church, the cardinals only 1400 a year, and the
Roman Catholic Bishops in this country only .1300 a
year. While the bishops were in possession of these
enormous incomes, there were more than 10,000 clergymen
of the Church of England with incomes under £lOO a year.
Since the Bishop of London had entered upon his diocese
he had actually received no less a sum than 4'628,000,
while the Bishop of Durham had received 345,000. And
yet these right rev. prelates, after receiving between them
nearly one million sterling, now called upon the house
to give them retiring pensions amounting to over £lO,OOO
a year.

Mr. NEWDEQATEI seconded the amendment, and said
the best answer to the attack made by Mr. Hadfield upon
the Bishop of London was to be found in the admirable
manner in which he had distributed the revenues of his
diocese. He was opposed to the bill, however, because of
the mischievous precedent which it established. He
wished to know from the first Minister of the Crown if it
was in contemplation to bring in a general bill on the
subject in the next session of parliament ? There ought
to be the means of retirement for bishops, but any plan of
the kind should be carefully guarded, by having some
tribunal to judge of the necessity of such resignation.
[The business was here interrupted, in order to allow
Mr. Napier Sturt to take the oaths and his seat for Dor-
chester, in the room of Mr. G. Sturt resigned. The hon.
gentleman was introduced by Colonel Lindsay and Colonel
North.]
The Marquis of BLANDFORD hoped the government
Would adopt the suggestion of Mr. Newdegate. He had
voted for the second reading of the bill because, it was
impossible to leave the diocese of London in its present
state, but he felt the measure to be an exceptional one,
and hoped the :government would bring in a general
measure on the subject.
Mr. MOWBRAY also asked the government to give a
pledge to bring in a general measure next session. The
present bill was certainly exceptional, but even if a general
measure had been introduced, those two sees must have
been dealt with exceptionally, which was a sufficient
answer to those who objected to the present bill as an
exceptional measure. The hon. gentleman pressed on the
government the necessity of dividing the sees of London
and Durham into two each, as the revenues were sufficient
to support them.

Sir. J. FITZGERALD maintained that if this bill was
good for the bishops it was equally good for the inferior
clergy, and a general scheme, including the latter, should
be brought in by the government.
Mr. HILDYARD said, if any general measure should be
introduced on the principle of this bill he would give it the
same opposition as he had to the second reading of the
bill under consideration.

Lord PALMERSSON said he was not prepared to say
whether government would next session introduce a
general measure on this subject ; but even had the bill
before the House been a general one, there must have
been exceptional clauses for the purpose of dealing with
the Sees of London and Durham. He admitted that in
any general measure care should be taken that the men
wish of the bishop to retire on the one hand, or the wish
that he should retire on the part of the government should
not be sufficient to warrant such retirement. There
should be some safeguard if only for the purpose of pre-
♦enting the imputation of improper motives.
Mr. HENLEY could not admit the argument as to the
specialty of the case, and stated his intention of moving
an amendment in the preamble of the bill.
After a few wards from Mr. Kinnaird, in common jus-
tice to the liberal manner in which the Bishop of London
distributed his princely revenue, and from Mr. A Pellatt,
Mr. HADFIED withdrew his amendment, and the House
went into committee.

The House went into committee, and the first two
clauses were agreed to without alteration.

Oa clause 3, which provided for the retiring allowances,
Mr. DuNcomßE moved the omission of the words fixing
the pensions.

Mr. Gladstone supported, and Mr. Headlam opposed
the amendment, which was negatived by a majority of 75.
A proposition, made by Mr. Roebuck, to reduce the
allowance to the Bishop of London from £6,000 to £3,500,
was negatived by a majority of 85.
_ . .

It being ten minutes to four o'clock, the chairman
reported progress, and the sitting of the House was sus-
pended.

The House resumed at six o'clock.

AFFAIRS OF SPAIN,

In
answer to a question put by Mr. Murrough,
Lord PALMERSTON said that, looking to the judgment
and segacity of the Emperor of the French, there was no
reason to apprehend an armed interference by France in
the affairs of Spain.

THE CASE OP ME. JAMES SADLEIE.
Mr. HORSMAN laid on the table a copy of the indictment
found by the grand jury of Tipperary, against Mr. James
Sadleir.

ROEBUCK then moved the following resolution :
" That Mr. James Sadleir, having absconded from public
justice, he be expelled from this House." The hon. and
learned gentleman said he asked that House to exercise a
'power which was necessary for the maintenance of its
hon Our and efficiency, and to rid hon. members of the
companionship of a man who had disgraced himself in the
eyes of the country. He did not ask them to pass judg-
ment upon the charges against Mr. Sadleir, but to expel
him on the ground, that with grave charges against him,
he had disgraced himself by refusing to surrender himself
to justice. A messenger of the House had been sent to
Ireland to find Mr. Sadleir. He had not answered to the
call for him to appear in his place, and they had been
unable to find him, and, therefore, he (Mr. Roebuck) con-
sidered that he had fled from justice, and having fled from
justice, he thought there was sufficient reason for expell-
ing him from that House. There had been no conviction,
but the flight of Mr. Sadleir was a confession of guilt,
sufficient to satisfy the consciences of hon. members, and
he, therefore, called upon them to support his motion.
The hon. and learned gentleman quoted, as precedents for
his motion, the expulsion of George Robinson in 1732, for
fraud, on his refusal to appear in his place to answer the
charges against him, and the expulsion of Benjamin
Walsh, under similar circumstances, in 1812, and added,
in reference to the latter case, that the law did not touch
the offender.

Mr. NAPIER seconded the motion, and stated his opinion
that the House had power to decide upon the worthiness
or its members, and to take such a step as was now pro-
Rood. He quoted a number of precedents of the expul-
of members in cases similar to that of Mr. James
&Idle*, and called upon the House to agree to the resolu-
tion as an act of justice to the electors of Tipperary.
Mr. S. 'WORTLEY moved the adjournment of the debate
until the following day, in order that papers upon the
subject which had been laid on the table might be placed
in the hands of members.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland said that Mr.
Vlidleir had as yet had no opportunity of vindicating his
haracter, and appealed to the House to postpone their
decision till the result of the trial was known, when either
Mr. Sadleir would be made amenable, or outlawry would
have been pronounced. ,)
T e Attorney-General, Mr. Malins. and Sir H. Wil-

loughby, having spoken to the same effect, the motion for
adjournment was withdrawn.
Mr. HENLEY moved the previous question.'
Lord PALMERSTON supported the amendment, which
was adopted without a division.

Mr. ROEBUCK asked whether, in the event of application
being made batween this and the next session of Parlia-
ment for the Chiltern Hundreds, it would be refused ?
Lord PALMERSTON : Undoubtedly.

The committee on the Bishops of London and Durham
Retirement Bill was then resumed, and the remaining
clauses were agreed to.

The Lords' Amendments to the Metropolis Local
Management Act Amendment (No. 2) Bill, the Courts of
Common Law (Ireland) Bill, the Nuisances Removal, &c.,
Scotland (No. 2) Bill, the Formation, &c., of Parishes
Bill, and the Smoke Nuisances Act Amendment Bill, were
considered and agreed to.

The Evidence in Foreign Suits Bill, and the Sheep
Contagious Diseases Prevention Bill, went through
committee.

The House adjourned at ten o'clock,

ALARMING FIRE LAST NIGHT

Shortly after ten o'clock last evening, the inhab
of Prescot-street and London-road, were thrown into the
utmost consternation, by the policeman on duty in that
district, giving the alarm that smoke was issuing from
the shutters of the shop of Mr. Casterdine, the first shop
off Moss-street. Shortly before the fire was discovered,
the policeman had found that all was right. After he
had left, the alarm was given, and before assistance
could arrive, the whole shop was in flames. The reels
from the Prescot-street fire station, were immediately
on the spot, and having an abundant supply
of water, the efforts of the fire brigade were judiciously
brought to bear on the devouring element, and all
danger was speedily over, but not until the whole of the
property in the shop was much damaged, and a great
portion totally destroyed. The origin of the fire still
remains a mystery, but it is supposed that the gas was
left burning in the shop after the family had retired, and
had caused the conflagration. By the timely assistance
rendered by the reels and the men in attendance, the
adjoining property was saved from destruction. Mr.
Kirkus, who occupies the next premises, which as a
chemist and druggist is filled with combustible matter,
was from home, and on his arrival his thanks
%ere given to the police for having saved his property.
No little credit is due for the prompt attendance of
Inspector Barrett, of the West of England Fire Com-
pany, with all his force. The property is insured in the
Sun Fire Office, but not to the amount of the damage
done. Inspector Grica, Detective-officer Cousins, and a
large body of the police were present, and aided con-
siderably in keeping order and preserving the adjacent
property.