The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1837.

mover and seconder on this occasion were such as could not
be answered, at least nobody on the other side seemed pre-
pared to answer them.--( A laugh.) He rose, therefore,
chiefly with a view to claim the vote of the Noble Lord
the Secretary for the Home Department. —( A laugh.)
The same arguments which the Noble Lord had used the
other night, in giving his candid opinion that magistrates
ought not to belong to the commission of the peace (Loud
laughter, in which the Hon. Member joined.) He was very
glad to see that he was honoured by so much attention on the
part of the House : he meant clergymen. The Noble Lord
had impressed upon the House that the duties of clergymen
were inconsistent with the commission of the peace. If that
argument were true as respected clergymen in general, he
thought it peculiarly applicable to the Bishops,who had plenty of
duties to attend to if they chose, and wore well paid for it. Now
he would first put this question to the Noble Lord : whether,
upon the same principle he had formerly laid down, the pre-
sence of the Bishops in the House of Lords was not inconsis-
tent with their sacred duties? The Bishops had always acted
the part of political agents in the House for the Government
which had preferred them. This was not precisely true,
perhaps, of late years, for latterly the Bishops had been
generally opposing the Government. But let them look back
at the history of former years, and they would find that for
ages the Bishops had been the constant supporters of Govern-
ment in everything that they proposed militating against the
people, instead of interposing as peace-makers between them
and the people over whom they sought to tyrannize. The
Bishops had always been the eiders and abettors of tyranny.--
(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Did any one deny it?
He defied any of the Hon. Gentlemen opposited to point out
a single instance where the Bishops, as a body, (he did not deny
that there had been some honourable exceptions occasionally)
had not always been forward in aiding and abetting against
the people, aid every reform to which they aspired. They
had opposed the abolition of the slave trade; they had thrown
impediments in the way of the education of the people,
while, on the contrary, they ought to have considered their
own immediate business ; and as for every improvement in the
internal state of the country, he defied any Hon. Member to
show that the majority of the Bishops had not always aided
and abetted against it. By such conduct the Church had es-
sentially diminished the strength orits hold in the country,
and the sooner the practice was done away with, the sooner
the Bishops were sent back to the duties of their dioceses,
the better it would be for themselves, -forahe establishment to
which they belonged, and for the community at large.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, as the Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex has taken upon himself to report my opinions, I shall
take the liberty of denying the accuracy of his report, and at
the same time take the opportunity of informing the House
what are my opinions in my own way.—( Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman who brings forward this mo-
tion, in so doing brings forward a proposal for a change in a
very essential principle of the British Constitution, which, as
he must be aware, recognises " the Lords spiritual and tempo-
ral, and the Commons, in Parliamentassembled." The clisnt,se
which the Hon. Member proposes to make in this constitu-
tion is of a very essential and prominent nature. It is not
like the change which we effected when we passed the Reform
Bill, which was done upon the ground that the Commons' which
ought to represent the people, did not sufficiently do so,
and that it did not perform the functions which it ought to
perform, and in consequence of which it became necessary to
make it more in accordance with the ancient Constitution.
Now there is no such claim, there are no such pretensions, in
support of the present motion. It is a motion to alter one of
the most ancient points in the Constitution of these realms,
and to resort upon new grounds to a new constitution of Par-
liament. I say, therefore, that to such a change lam
averse, unless I have the strongest reasons, not vague and un-
determined, but strong and well-defined reasons, in its sup-
port. Now the reasons by which the Honourable Gentleman
sought to advocate his proposal aro altogether vague,
desultory, and unsatisfactory. The Hon. Gentleman began
by talking of removing the Bishops from the House of Lords ;
but appeared to be altogether uncertain with what object to-
wards the Church, and where his object would end. The
Hon. Gentleman quoted Bishop Leighton, and then pointed
to the Scotch Church, where there are no Bishops, in contrast
with the pomp with which the Bishop is installed in this country,
and the state of his enthronement on attending a cathedral,
which ceremonies and state I have seen attendant upon the
person of as good a man as ever lived in this or any other
country.—( Hear, hear.) Now, to what do these allusions
tend ? Do they tend to the question of the removal of the
Bishops from the House of Lords ? Not at all ; but to the
establishment of the Presbyterian system of the Church of
Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then re-
ferred to the United States, where there was no Church Es-
tablishment at all. —( Hear, hear.) When the Hon. Gentle-
man, therefore, proposes to me to have no longer a Parliament
of Lords spiritual and temporal and of Commons, but only one
of Lords temporal and Commons, the arguments he uses lead
at once to two altogether distinct considerations : namely, in the
first place, to a Church in which there are no Bishops ; and
in the second, to a State where there is no Church Es-
tablishment.—(l-Tear, bear.) Now I must own it appears to
me that if these are the grounds upon which the Hon. Member
proposes the charge he particularizes in his motion, these
grounds are not sufficient to support that motion, -nor will
the change he wishes in it be sufficient to answer
the Honourable Gentleman's purpose. This change, if
agreed to, must lead to farther change, and I must own that
such a change once commenced, I cannot see any point at
which we may consistently stop short of the constitution of
the United States, in which there is no Established Church.
--(Cheers.) The lion. Gentleman who makes this motion,
and the Hon. Member for Middlesex, argue that there nsuqt be
a distinction between civil and spiritual functions. The
Hon. Gentleman should recollect, however, that in this coun-
try the head of the Government and the head of the Church
are one. The King is the head of the Church, and the Go-
vernment of the Church becomes that of the Government of
the country ; it is impossible, therefore, with such a constitu-
tion to have the complete distinction of civil and spiritual func-
tions which the Hon. Gentlemen desire. Such a distinction
cannot exist consistently with a Church Establishment—
( Hear, hear.) It is a very different thing for the Duke of
Wellington to have said that in the appointment of Magistrates
it was advisable not, to select clergymen where laymen could
be found to do the purpose ; this is a totally different principle
from that proposed by the Hon. Gentlemen to remove the
Bishops from their seats and their duties in the House of
Lords.—( Hear.) The Established Church is a distinct.part
of the Constitution of, tifiascountry. The Bishops, by hold-
ing seats in Parliament, are the acknowledged representatives
of that part of our Constitution. If they are to be ex-
cluded from their scats, I then do not see by what rule
we could exclude the other orders of the clergy from seats in
the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It appears to
me, however, that the Bishops are that portion of the clergy
which can best execute the political duties of the Church,
and that with the least disturbance or interruption of their
spiritual functions, many of these duties being of such a
nature that they can be attended to when absent from their
dioceses, whilst the inconvenience attendant upon clergy-
men leaving the flocks of their respective parishes would
be very great.—( Hear, hear.) However this may be, I must
say I know not upon what grOunds we should pretend to
exclude this great body of men altogether from the privilege
of being represented in Parliament, considering the property,
that belongs to them, and the station they hold in the coun-
try. Would it not be exceedingly unfair in Parliament
to discuss and pass measures affecting all these interests—as
tithes, and advowsons, and ecclesiastical property in general—
and to say that on all these great questions they would not
allow those who are most deeply interested in them to take any
part? With respect to the total distinction and distribution
of civil and political functions, I own that all experience is
against it, for it has been found that persons who have re-
ligious functions to perform have not confined themselves
to the exercise of these functions, but have frequently taken
part in political contests. But if this is a characteristic of
Bishops, does not the same description apply to Dissenters ?
Since I have been connected with the Government, I have
heard of applications to the Lord Chancellor for livings of •
which he had the patronage, and may therefore take the li-
berty of stating how these applications are made, and also the
manner in which the patronage was given. I know that both
in the time of the former Lord Chancellor, as well as the
present Lord Chancellor, such a case as this has frequently
occurred. Application has been made in favour of a deser-
ving clergyman or a curate of fifteen or twenty years' stand-
ing, and it has been urged that 'he was a gentleman greatly
beloved, that he attended. te--all -the spiritual wants- of his
flock, and that all parties were anxious that the vacant liv-
ing should be given to him, and he was appointed. But
might not those who contend that civil and religious functions
should be separated raise their voice against such a practice,
and say, that though the curate is not a violent partisan, his
brother, or his nephew, or his cousin is, and that the living
ought not to be given to an individual connected with a person
of such political opinions ? With regard to the Dissenters, I
know many ministers of the different sects for whom I have the
greatest respect and regard ; I know how much they attend to
the spiritual interests of the Church to which they belong ; but
if I were to select those who are most respected, and if I am
asked whether they separated religious functions from spiritual,
lam glad to say they do not do so.—( Cheers and laughter.)
I am glad to say that so long as I have taken a share in po-
litics I have found the Dissenting ministers the warmest friends
of political liberty, and whenever the rights of their fellow-
subjects have been in danger, they have always been eager to
promote the cause of political freedom, and I give them credit
for it.—(Cheers.) To the proposition of the Hon. Member I
must therefore object, because in a country like this, where
political and ecclesiastical duties are so intermingled, I cannot
see how, by dint of resolutions, we are to reach the millennium,
and have a certain number of persons of the Established Church
ministers of religion—solely and exclusively devoted to
reli-
gious interests, with their eyes constantly directed to what is
above—and another set of persons who shall in like manner
confine themselves to political interests. The Hon. Member
who moved the resolutions said the Bishops had for many years
voted against measures in favour of political freedom, and for
measures calculated to oppress their fellow-citizens. Now,
though I seldom concur in the votes given by the Bishops, yet
I must say, while their appointment is vested in the Crown, it
is natural to suppose that the Minister of the day will raise pious
and learned clergymen to the bench who are favourable and
not adverse to his political opinions. That, however, has not
always been the case, and I can give instances of Bishops even
under Tory Governments who have advocated the principle of
separating political from religious functions. I allude tol3ishop
Wright, Bishop Kennett, and Bishop Headley, who were the 11
warmest advocates of political freedom. The latter prelate, in
his place in the House of Lords argued in favour of the separa-
tion of the functions, because the " kingdom of God was not of
this world," and asserted in the strongest manner the Whig
principles which he openly professed. And as it happened in
these days, when the Government was in the hands of the Tories,
so it happened when the Whigs were in office in the reign of
• Queen Anne and George I. The parties in power appointed

men of learning and piety, but at the same time men who
held the same political opinions. This was the case also in
the time of Lord Liverpool ; and what wonder, then, was
there that these Prelates, when raised to the bench of Bishops,
retained the same opinions which they held before their ap-
pointment? Had they acted in a different manner—had they
shifted from day to day—had those Prelates, for instance,
voted with Lord Grey on all occasions, and then shifted round
and voted in a different way when the Right Hon. Baronet
was in difficulty, though the first mode of acting might have
been more agreeable to my opinions, it would not have made
the bench of Bishops more respected.—( Hear.) The prac-
tice existed one hundred years ago, and continued in the Go-
vernment of Lord Liverpool, and it could not be considered
any argument for the proposed change that, a Government
which had been in office for twenty or thirty years had ap-
pointed Bishops who professed the political opinions of the
party. Rather general reasons had been given by the Hon.
Gentleman. 1 dissent from these reasons, because they would
not effect the object he has in view, and lam not disposed,
therefore, on such grounds to agree to the alteration.
Mr. E WART rose amidst loud cries of " Divide." After
the noise had subsided, be said, that was the way in which the
question was generally met. It was met by clamour, and not
argument, for he had heard noargument from the other side—
( Laughter and interruption.) The Noble Lord had admitted
that in former times men were created Bishops for their poli-
tical opinions, and that under Whig Governments they were
Whigs, and 'under Tory Governments, Tories.--(No, no.)
He bad also stated that within a certain time they had assumed
a Tory character. Now the statements of the Noble Lord
were at variance with the Constitution. The mitred abbots
were swept away at the Reformation, and that was as good a
precedent for the change as any precedents for the Reform
Bill. lie was astonished at the arguments of the Noble Lord.
They were the arguments of the Learned Prelate the Bishop
of Exeter, to whom the Noble Lord bad referred in the early
part of the evening.—(Laughter.) He was sorry the Noble
Lord had become the patron of that reverend, celebrated, and
most polemical Prelate, and had adopted his argument, that
the Bishops were the pastores pastorunz, and not the pastores
populi. He would appeal to the religious feelings of the
country on that point, and ask whether they represented
the clergy in the House of Lords? They might represent
the higher order of the clergy, but they did not repre-
sent the curates and the clergy in humble life. His
Hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex had correctly
stated that the votes of the Bishops were not in unison with
the feelings of the country. They had repeatedly voted against
one great measure for which the people had struggled so much
—the abolition of the slave trade ; but he could state more,
and the instance which he was about to give would show the
practical grievance of allowing Bishops to sit in the House of
Lords. On one occasion, and lie had seen the circular, the
Bishops were summoned to attend the House of Lords to vote
against the abolition of the punishmeut of death for forgery.
They went down and voted against their inward feelings, in
order to fulfil their political duty. Men of the highest cha-
racter concurred in the necessity of removing the Bishops from
the House of Lords. Hallam stated that the Bishops should
be swept away as the mitred abbots had been. Lord Falk-
land, though a Tory, voted against them. He might quote
also the, authority of Spencer and Milton, who were both
against there. He hoped the minority on this division would
far exceed the minority of last session, as that minority had
exceeded that of the preceding session. The principle was
working its way silently; there was a current underneath, the
people's minds were changing on the subject, and the public
feeling would eventually carry the question through the House.
Mr., G. BULLER was disappointed with the speech. of
the Noble Lord-=( Hear, hear)—because at an early ,part of
the evening, the Noble Lord had made a capital speech on
their side when he described the Right Reverend Prelate as a
libeller and a calumniator. It was strange, therefore, that he
could flx on none but one Right Reverend Prelate, and he was
astonished at his chivalry in running a tilt on behalf of one
whom he had so described. The Noble Lord had asked the
usual question when any reform was proposed—how far would
they carry the plan ? He would give a plain answer : the an-
swer of the Radicals was—they would carry the Bishops to
the door of the House of Lords, and let them go evhither they
liked.—( Laughter.) The most decent course they could
take would be to go to their dioceses.—( Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord had spoken of Presbyterianism, and -said if the
Established Church were Presbyterian there would be no
Bishops in the House of Lords ; but did not the Noble
Lord know that in France the Bishops had no seats in the
Upper House ? And the same 'was the case in Spain. The
Bishops in these countries had no legislative functions to per-
form, and why should not our Bishops be placed in the same
position ? Formerly there were three estates in this
country. These were Lords, Commons, and Clergy ; for the
clergy had a separate chamber, and were as much entitled to
legislation as the Commons or Lords. That, however, had
been done away with when the Convocation was abolished ;
and he was glad it had been abolished. The effect of the dis-
position of she clergy to meddle in political matters had fre-
quently been most injurious to the cause of liberal principles.
If the Noble Lord were disposed to deny this fact he (Mr.
Buller) would refer him to a late contested election for De-
vonshire. At that election the Noble Lord was defeated by a
majority of six hundred ; and he (Mr. Buller) understood that
more than six hundred parsons voted on that occasion against
the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord was, therefore, one in-
stance in his own person of the evils resulting from allowing
political to mix themselves with ecclesiastical considerations.
At the same time, if they took the Bishops away from the
House of Lords, he (Mr. Buller) should have no objection to
let some of the clergy into the House of Commons. Indeed
he should be glad to see them there ; for he was sure they
would be less noisy there than elsewhere.--(A laugh.) In his
opinion it was most unfitting that the First Lord of the Trea-
sury should have a religious patronage to be used for political
purposes ; and if any Hon. Member would move for the
abolition of such patronage, that Hon. Member should have
his support. While that patronage existed, whist, could
be expected but that, as the Noble Lord had sAatedt Bishops
elevated to the bench by a Tory Government should support
Tory principles, and that Bishops elevated to the bench by a
Whig Government should support Whig principles ? Let
them look through the annals of the House of Lords, and they
would find that the Bishops did not possess one legislative
claim on the gratitude of the people. On the gratitude of
governments they had many claims ; none on the gratitude of
the people. On the contrary, whenever any question was
brought forward which agitated and interested the people of
England, the Bishops were always found banded together as one
man to defeat the wishes of the people. They had opposed
the abolition of slavery.—(No, no.) He said they had. Let
the lists of the divisions on that question in the House of Lords
be examined, and that would prove to be the case. On all
questions of religious toleration the Bishops had shown their
hostility to liberal principles. He was for excluding Bishops
from the House of Lords on a principle recognised by the
Constitution in other matters. 'Why were Bishops not dealt
with as Judges were ? Judges were excluded from the arena of
politics.—(No, no.) They were all excluded, with the excep-
tion of the Lord High Chancellor.—(No, no.) He really
could not understand the cause of this extraordinary tumult.
His argument was, that there was only one Judge recognised
as such in the House of Lords, namely, the Lord High Chan-
cellor, and his legal merged in his official functions. Other
Judges might be raised to the Peerage, but they did not sit in
the House of Lords as Judges. Members of the legal profes-
sion were told, " If you become Judges you must separate
yourselves from political discussions and contests." This was
most fitting : but, surely, if it were necessary to adhere to
such a principle with those who only superintended the tem-
poral concerns of the people, it must be necessary to adhere to
i: with those who superintended the spiritual concerns of the
people. If it e ere necessary to guard the character of the
Judges from imputation, it must surely be necessary to guard
the character of the Bishops from imputation. The tendency
of the present system was to make at once bad Bishops and
bad Peers. Instead of attending exclusively to the discharge
of their important duties, the Bishops were now at the nod and
beck of the First Lord of the Treasury. Hopes of promotion
were held out to them as the reward of political services. The
Hon. Gentlemen opposite might not think it worth while, or
they might not think it prudent, to argue this question. They
might, perhaps, be desirous to leave to the Noble Lord the
unpopular task of defending the Bishops against the feelings
of the people. It was of little importance what they did. Let
them go on in the way they were going. The question itself
was making a rapid progress in the country ; and he had no
doubt that ten years hence the majority in its favour would be
greatet than the majority against it might, perhaps, be on the
present occasion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that if any unpopularity were
attached to the most decided opposition to the motion of the
lion. Member for Ashburton, to his full share of that
unpopularity, he begged leave to put in a distinct claim.—
( Hear, hear, hear. )—Feeling as be did upon the subject, he
certainly would not be guilty of so base an action as to
leave the whole of the unpopularity with the Noble Lord.
—(Hear, hear, hear.)—lt might not serve the Noble Lord
for him ( Sir Robert Peel) to say so, but he must declare that
he never heard a speech delivered in a more manly manner
than the speech of the Noble Lord, or one which reflected
greater credit on the Noble Lord's abilities and judgment.
—( Hear, bear, hear.)—For if it were true, as had been as-
serted by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, that the Noble
Lord had lost his election for Devonshire by the votes of
six hundred clergymen, and it being undoubtedly true that
a large majority of the Bishops were opposed to the present
Government, the Noble Lord had set a most laudable ex-
ample of the conduct which, under such circumstances,
ought to be pursued by every man and every Minister; and
had not allowed any personal feeling to prevent , him from
frankly avowing his opinion on a great constitutional ques-
tion like that under the consideration of the House.—( Hear,
hear, hear.)—There -was one objection to the motion of the
Hon. Member for Ashburton which struck him ( Sir Robert
Peel) as being at once fatal to it. The Hon. gentle-
man asked them to proceed, not by a legislative measure, but
by a resolution. The Hon. Gentleman asked the House of
Commons to agree to a resolution, depriving a portion of one
branch of the Legislature of its functions and privileges.
Now, what right had they to take any such step ? If the
Hon. Gentleman were desirous of involving the House of
Commons in a dilemma, he could not succeed more com-
pletely than by persuading them to pass a resolution which,
if passed, would have no effect whatever, but would be nearly
a piece of waste paper.—(Hear, hear.) In former questions
of a similar nature, it had always been proposed to proceed
by Bill. But the Hon. Member-for Ashburton proposed, by
a resolution, to effect that which he despaired of effecting
by Bill. Why should the House of Commons risk bring-
ing their own resolution—he would not say into coutempt—
but why should they pass a resolution which must prove in-
valid and unavailing ? The Noble Lord had justly observed,
that the inferences to be drawn from the reasoning of the
Hon. Member for Ashburton led 'to much more serious told
extensive eensequences, than the Hon. Member biznaelf seemed
to be aware of, Not out/1 however; was that tau elm with

the speech of the Hon. Mover. Every argument which
had - been used by the Hon. Gentleman who seconded
the motion went the length of showing the expediency, not
merely of removing the Bishops from the House of Lords, but
of abolishing the Establishment.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman said that when Parliament repealed the Test and
Corporation Acts, they established the principle that no reli-
gious creed should have any advantage over any other. Ile
( Sir R. Peel) had never beard such a principle maintained.
The Hon. Gentleman also contended that the same thing took
place on passing the Bill for the relief of the Roman Catho-
lics. Ile (Sir R. Peel) had never heard so before; but he
had heard the direct contrary. It would indeed be a great
discouragement to any attempt to relieve any portion of the
people from civil disabilities, if the House were to be told,
" You must not stop here; you must carry your measure in-
finitely further, and stop only with the destruction of the Na-
tional Church." Because the Test and Corporation Acts were
repealed, because relief was granted to the Roman Catholics,
was it thence to be inferred that no religious creed should have
an advantage in this country over any other ? It was evident that
if these Hon. Gentlemen were to succeed in expelling the
Bishops from the House of Lords, their next step would be to
propose that the Protestant clergy should no Linger hold the
exclusive possession of Church temporalities. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Liverpool had mistaken not only the argument but
the statements of the Noble Lord. The Noble 'Lord had
never-talked of any rapid changes on the part of Bishops from
Whig to Tory or front Tory to Whig principles. The Noble
Lord had never talked of Bishops rewarding their patrons by
mean political subserviency. What was the fact ? That while
human nature remained what human nature now was, and al-
ways had been, men possessed of patronage would, ceteris
paribus, exercise that patronage in favour of those who agreed
with them in opinion. And nothing could be more reasonable.
Why, if his Majesty's present Government were to depart
from that usage, and were, ceteris paribus, to select political
opponents for Bishops, would not the House hear the loudest
reprobation of such a proceeding ?—( Hear.) Undoubtedly,
the Noble Lord stated that during the long continuance of ya
Tory Government in power, the Bishops generally professed
Tory principles. But did the Noble Lord add that that was
out of servility to their patrons ? Not at all. They were
originally selected for advancement to the Bench of Bishops
because they were supposed to hold certain political opinions.
They did hold those opinions, and they continued to hold
them.—(Hear, hear.) But it was said by the Hon. Member
for Middlesex that after they had become Bishops the hope
of translation to more lucrative See'S would tempt them
to change their political opinions, and to maintain the princi-
ples of any new Government. Had his Majesty's present
Government found that to be the case ?—( Hear.) The poli-
tical opinions which they held at the time of their original ap-
pointment, they still held and acted upon._ The hope of transla-
tion had no effect upon them : there was not one of them
who had voted that black was white.--( Hear hear, and
laughter.) All, therefore, that their worst enemies could
allege against them was, that they were consistent, bigoted
politicians, who obstinately adhered to their own opinions.
As to the separation of the civil from the religious duties
of the clergy, he was convinced that it would be a measure ,
highly injurious to the country. He did not wish to see
the Church excluded from its fair share of political in-
fluence. If such an object were to be accomplished; if the
clergy were compelled to confine themselves to the discharge of
their ecclesiastical duties ; if they were compelled to eschew
all reference to or interest in temporal matters ; if they
were forbidden to participate in the feelings and wishes of
their lay countrymen, he doubted whether, instead of the
active, intelligent, enlightened, patriotic men, of whom the
great body of the clergy of this kingdom was at present
composed, we should not have a set of lazy, worthless, clois-
tered hypocrites.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Into that question he
would, however, not now enter. As to the plausible ar-
guments which had been urged in favour of the destruc-
tion of a monarchical and the establishment of a demo-
cratical Government, he should be ashamed of himself if he
condescended to say a single word in answer to them.
He had risen only because he did not wish it to be believed
that he was capable of desiring to leave all the unpopularity
of resisting the present motion on the shoulders of the Noble
Lord. Whether the declaration might be popular or unpo-
pular he cared not ; but he was prepared to give his most de-
cided opposition to a proposition, the ultimate tendency of
which would be to injure, if not to destroy, the civil and re-
ligious Constitution of England.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. LUS HINGTON made a brief reply, in which he ex-
pressed his conviction that the great majority of the people
of England were desirous of relieving the Bishops from their
Parliamentary duties.

The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when the
numbers were

Ayes.
Noes 197

Majority against the motion lO5
On our return to the gallery we found Capt. PECHELL
on his legs, moving for a " Return of the manner in which
prisoners for trial were confined during the times the quarter
sessions and assizes were holden in England and Wales, in
the year ending 31st January, 1837, especially as to dimen-
sions of rooms, classification, and separation of prisoners of
both sexes."

After a few words from Mr. FOX NIAULE, the motion
was agreed to.

Mr: Sergeant JACKSON moved for a " Return of the
names of all convicts discharged from the several gaols in Ire-
land, before the expiiation of their respective sentences, since
the Ist of May, 1835 ; 'distinguishing the offences of which
they were respectively convicted, the sentences pronounced
upon them, the date of discharge, and the authority under which
they were discharged, whether oral or written ; distinguishing,
also, the cases in which such convicts were under rule of bail,
and stating whether any, and what, bail was given before the
discharge of such convicts respectively." The lion. and
Learned Gentleman said he understood this return would not be

resisted on the part of his Majesty's Government; and therefore
he thought it unnecessary to make any statement to the House ;
but as he was then on his legs, he begged to set himself right
in reference to a matter connected with the debate on

a former evening. The Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ire-
land had done him the honour to correct him in regard to a
letter which he had read upon the subject matter then before
the House. He referred to a letter signed E. M. Clarke,
dated Lifford, August 13, 1836. lie ( Mr. Sergeant Jackson)
then stated that the letter in question of the Lord-Lieutenant's
Secretary had not been addressed to the Inspector, but to the
Governor of Lifford gaol. Ho held in his hand a copy of the
letter which, together with the Noble Lord's speech, had been
most correctly reported in the Morning Chronicle. The
letter, which was addressed to Lieutenant-Colonel Yorke, com-
menced thus:—" Sir—Agreeable to your wish, expressed in
your letter to the Governor, I have with him selected such
cases as we feel justified in recommending to his Excellency's
humane consideration," &c. This, then, showed that the do-
cument was addressed to the Governor and not to the inspector.
The Noble Lord, he was satisfied, had contradicted him from
inadvertency. He would not go into any statement however,
because that Noble Lord, he found, was not going to resist
his motion.

Lord Viscount MO RPETH said he quite admitted that he
had not adverted to the context of the letter, or he should not
have made the correction he had. He had no objection to
offer to the motion.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said he hoped the Noble Lord
would believe that he considered him quite incapable of mis-
representing the purport of his letter.
Colonel SIBTHORP begged to ask at what period the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would bring forward the Budget ? He was induced to put
the question as he had received various communications, and
many petitions had been presented, on the subject of the re-
peal of the duty on Sre ►nsurance. If, however, he was pre-
mature in the step he was taking, he would not persist in ask-
ing for the information he sought.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
_

the Hon. Gentleman owed no apology to him, or to the House,
in putting the question as to the time when he should moot
the question to which he referred. It was undoubtedly the
object he had in view to bring forward the state of the finances
of the country at the earliest possible period. That period,
generally speaking, is the completion of the financial year h
Aim ; but, if he were able to do so, he would bripg iorward
the Budget at an earlier date.
The House adjourned at ten o'clock.

BUCKS COUNTY F,LECTION.

(From the Morning Post.)

YLESBURY, THURSDAY.
The polling commenced this mor aing at the usual hour, but
went on rather languidly until about. twelve o'clock, when the
town began to fill very fast, and preset ted for the first time the
stir and bustle of a contested election.
Lord Nugent is in the town, exertir ,g all his weight and in-
fluence for Mr. Dashuood. I regrcr z. to state that a melan,
choly accident has just occurred to Mr. D'lsraeli., jun. -fie
was standing in front of the George In n, when ir.o suddenly fell
down in a fit, and in that state was car tied to t' 11C inn, where he
was bled and put to bed. lie had beun up • all night, and had
travelled through a great portion of the cor ,aty, canvassing for
Mr. Harcourt, without obtaining anyrest, and being in a weak
state of health, added to the sudden excitement and the great
fatigue he underwent, produced the fit, He is now, however,
much better.

Close of the First Day's Poll , Feb. 16.
,arcourt. Dashwood.
518 250
262 41
382 120
449 302

Aylesbury
Buckingham
Newport Pagnel ........ ...........
Beaconsfield