The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-16 00:00:00

BISHOPRIC OF CHRISTCHURCH BILL.

Mr. ADDERLEY moved the second reading of this
Bill. Tho Bill had been obstructed both by exaggera-
tion and misrepresentation. He would state in a few
words the object of this Bill. Bishop Selwyn, finding
the increase cf his population too great for his
unaided labours, stated that a division of his diocese was
essentially necessary. The colony too asked for this divi-
sion, and her Majesty was in favour of this division.
The sole difficulty in the case was, that there
was a technical informality in the deed by
which the Bishop had resigned half his patent,
and it was this circumstance which rendered the present
Bill necessary. He found that there were, some words
in one of the clauses cf this Bill which might be implied
as
_giving the power of the constitution cf Bishops
LJ Eirliameut. Those words he was Willing to strike
out. BO had been willing to adopt the title of the
bishopric, which had been proposed to him by the Hon.
Member for Youghal, but this the Attornep•Gencral was
unwilling to secede to. He trusted that the Bill would
not meet with any otztruction. _ _

Mr. W. WILLiAIIS should not offer any opposition
to the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that this was
not a Government Bill, but as a Minister of the Crown
he could not consent to entertain changes which bad been
proposed in the preamble of the Bill. In the year
1841, the bishopric of New. Zealand was founded
by letters patent, and bestowed upon Bihop
Selwyn. It hicame necessary from the increase
of population to create a new bishopric. Before it
was possible for her Majesty. to create a new bishopric
it was necessary that no right should exist. Now
Bishop Selwyn objected to surrender his diocese
according to the terms of his letters-patent.
The deed of resignation executed by him had been con-
sidered by the law Officers of so uncertain a character
that they bed recommended that the object should be
accomplished by means of an Act of Parliament. This
Bill only proposed to make this resignation valid in order
to enable her Zdsjesty to erect a new bishopric in Now
Zsaland. Ho did not think that any one considering
these circumstances could offer any serious opposition to
this Bill;

Mr. HEY WORTH objected to the Bill on the ground
that it would involve the levying of rates in this country
for tho payment of the salaries of bishops in New Zea-
land. He should move the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. ANSTEY would second the adjournment of the
debate." The point at issue was the ecclesiastical supre-
macy of the Queen in her colonial possessions, lie
entirely denied this supremacy, and had therefore
proposed the al ration in the preamble of the Bill.
The measure gale the Queen power to introduce into
Canterbury evel ecclesiastical abate which existed in
this country. He deprecated any such attempt to sub-
ject the Remelt Catholics and the adherents of the
Free Church, and the members of other denomina-
tions in New Zealand, to the law ecclesiastical and
courts ecclesiastical, which had always bid defiance
to reform, and of which they had little chance of getting
rid. The curse Of ecclesiastical law existed in Hong-
Kong and Victoria, and he wished to keep it out of
New Zealand. If the Hon. Member (Mr. Adderley) had
adopted the wise and guarded act introduced by the
Right Hon. Member for the University of Oxford
(Mr. Gladstone) he would not have opposed him in
Committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
understood the Hon. Member commenced his speech by
thanking the Hon. Gentleman who moved tho adjourn-
ment of the debate for the opportunity which he had
given him to make a second speech on the Bill, He ap-
pealed to the Speaker whether that was not an evasion of
the orders of the House.
The SPEAKER said it was an evasion of the strict
.letter of the orders of the House, because when a mo-
tion for adjournment was made the Member who se-
conded it could only strictly speak on the adjournment.
whereas the Hon. Member had made a speech on the
Bill.—(Hear.) The inconvenience of the practice had
frequently induced him to call the attention of the
House to the orders, because if it were allowed,
any Honourable Member, by getting a friend to
move either an adjournment of the House or
of the debate, might make as many speeches as he
liked. He hoped the rules would be considered, with
the view of obviating the inconvenience.
Mr. ANSTEY said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
bad misrepresented him.—(Cries of " Order.") Hon.
Members might hear or not, but until they did
they wou:d not be relieved from their ember-
rassment.—(A laugh.) He was obliged to deliver his
former speech in a thin House—(A.- laugh)—aad
wished now to give the real history of the case,
which had not been properly stated. Aa to his being out
speeches
of order, no man bad taken greater liberties with be
forms, of the House, for the purpose of making
over again, than the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
both now and when he was in opposition. Had he not
a great respect for the dignity of toe House, the manner
in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad inter-
rupted him would have induced him to follow a very
different course.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, though this was not a
Government Bill, the Government thought it was ex-
tremely desirable to pass it.
Mr. HUME considered the amendment of the Hon.
Member was a very appropriate one, as the days of Par-
liament were numbered, and this was not one of those
questions which required immediate consideration.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment of the debate ... 31
Against it
Majority against the adjournment ... —79
The House then divided on the main question, when
there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it .. 34
Majority for the second reading ... —77
The Bill was accordingly read a second time.
VESTRIES BILL.

]ll

Sir DE LACY EVANS moved the second reading
of this Bill, which he explained was to pat the parishes
of St. Giles's-in-the-Fields and St. George's, and St.
,Margaret's and St. John's, under the operation of Hob-
"use's Act, from which they had originally been ex-
cepted.

,-111 e ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could not
Pee to this Bill, because, in the first place, being in-
thereforelt public Bill, it was confined to the parishes
Ho felt ithcl
torciu,ced_a.s a
aret's, Westminster, and St. John's, and ought
of sritaGiles's•in-the-Fields, and St. George's, and
Mr. T.
time this have been brought in as a private Bill.
d: duty to move that the Bill be read a second
ikaiNt nlOoMnßthEs. defended the Bill as bein in
consonance with
op thought that the bject of the Bill
is general spirit of legislation. g
Mr. HENLEY
would be better a
an flue
mplished by a private and local Bill.
g been one of those who had
originalcon-
atihneera Bill
and
he taffectingthought
nmt et three;
curred in introdeeie
mistake, that the omission of these
01Mitannii:esMtrlilesh4clev,pgi
re::
twhhich they Bought by this
entitled to the
a few
words from Sir DE LACY
Bilfll.r. WALPOLE
wpPaorrieshes bad been
differences,
better for the two
11.
nece ssaryt.o
ateastthothuettowituwa:__Biy was quite un-
necessary
. . . and
.E...v bring
A 8 ii
6s , in a
parisheslocal Act.
ecidedly of opi-
nion that the objects desired h
After
-Y this
Mr. BUOTHERTON said heeite
Bill ought to be ob-
tained The House then divided, when there 8
by means of a private Bill.
For the second reading ......... appeared
........ 26
Against it .
Msjority ••• ...........
.... -—6 O
The Bill was, accordicgly lost;
MR. FEARGUS 0 CONNOR
up th.
e
Mr. Secretary WALPOLE brought report of
the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the
e-
tition presented by Miss O'Connor, praying
for the 6 re-
lease 01 her brother, Mr. Feargus O'Connor. The
Committee had reported that the facts contained in
that petition were all true, and that Mr. '-0
-cmuor
had been examined by two medical men, who certified
him to be of unsound mind, and a proper person to be
confined. The petitioner stated that she had made ar.
rangemente for the reception of her brother at the private