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

LONDON,
FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 1937.

In the House of Lords' last night, a Bill to suspend the
operation, until the Unions shall have been formed, of the
Act passed last session for the Registration of Births,
Marriages and Deaths, was read a second time.
The Grand Jury (Ireland) Bill was read a first time, and
ordered to be read a second time to-day.

One petition was presented, from some place in Surrey,
for the retention of Church-rates ; and an immense num-
ber for their total abolition were presented by Lord
BROUGHAM and other Peers. The Hamilton petitioners
expressed their astonishment, that the law-established
Church should be so mean; so unjust, and so obnoxious,
as to exact from its poorer brethren a tax which they con-
sidered they were in no wise bound to pay'. These peti-
tioners, as well as most of the others, strongly deprecated
a commutation, or the transfer of any portion of the rates
to a general fund.
In the House of Commons, a great many petitions were
presented for the abolition of Church-rates. Mr. LUSHING-
TON averred that one of these petitions alone—that from
the 400 delegates—embodied the sentiments of millions
of men.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply to Sir E. KNATEHBULL,
stated that no alteration whatever was contemplated in the
Bill passed last session for commuting Tithes.
Sir G. GREY, in reply to Mr. EWART on the subject
of the corn trade with Malta, said that Government in-
tended to act on the recommendation of the Committee
of 1830.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he should move the
second reading of the Irish Municipal Bill this day ; and,
as Lord F. EGERTON had, in regard to that Bill, given
notice of a motion similar to that which he had made last
year, in order to defeat the Ministerial measure, he should
propose the Committee for Monday. The Church-rate
question would come on on Thursday, and the subject of
Canada on the following Tuesday.
Mr. WYNN brought up the report of the Committee of
Privileges on the caption of Mr. LEctistEßE CHARLTON ;
it stated that there was no ground for discharging the
Hon. Member by reason of his Privilege of Parliament.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then moved that the pro-
prietor of the Morning Chronicle be brought up to the bar
of the House, for improperly noticing the proceedings of
the Committee on Mr. CHARLTON'S case. The motion
was subsequently withdrawn.
Lord JoHN RUSSELL obtained the appointment of a
Committee to inquire into the rights and privileges of Par-
liament, as respects its publication and distribution of papers
printed by authority Of the SPEAKER'S order.
The remainder of the evening was chiefly occupied with
the debate on Mr. LusurNoTos's motion, viz., That it
is the opinion of this House, that the sitting of the Bishops
in Parliament is unfavourable in its operation to the general
interests of the Christian religion in this country, and
tends to alienate the affections of the people from the Esta-
blished Church." The numbers for the motion were 92,
in a House of 289.

Though the motio❑ for relieving the Bishops from their
embarrassing political duties was lost last night in the
House of Commons, yet still the minority (ninety-two)
was so large, as to convince us that the question will ere
long be carried. We recognize in it the herald of a
future triumph. Last year the minority was scarcely 40 ; this
year, it is more than double ; and next year, we doubt not,
it will be such as to convince their Reverences of the ex-
pediency of a voluntary retirement from that bench which
they have so long graced with their political presence. But
though last night's minority may be considered a large, and
so far, a satisfactory one, yet when we come to peruse
the speech of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, WO are only sur-
prised that it was not much larger. A more trite,
threadbare set of sophistries, than those urged by the Noble
Lord in defence of the Bishops, was never yet palmed on
the House of Commons. Its speech was amphibious to a
whimsical degree, being half-Tory, half-Whig. Let those
screw a sound argument out of it that can ; we have tried,
and cannot. Can his Lordship find no better justification
for the Bishops sitting in the House of Peers, than that it
is a practice sanctioned by the most " ancient" usages of
the Constitution ? Is the wisdom of our ancestors all he
has to allege on their behalf ? Surely this is a weak argu-
ment to proceed from a Reformer, who professes to march
with the age, and consult good sense rather than the musty
precedents of antiquity ! Had his Lordship lived in the days
of witchcraft, we suppose he would have resisted its abolition
on a similar plea. Antiquity is worth nothing, when it is
at direct variance with common-sense ; yet antiquity is all
that the Home Secretary has to urge in favour of the
aristocratic privileges of a class of men who have ever been
foremost to exercise them to the detriment of the popular
interests ! " But," continues his Lordship," the Bishops are
that part of the clergy who can be absent from the discharge
of their other duties with the least inconvenience." Indeed!
Then why pay them in an inverse ratio to their utility ? Why
give a paltry stipend to a working clergyman who cannot be
spared, and a princely revenue to a bishop who can be
spared, from his duties ? If the labourer is worthy of his
hire, then the enormous income of the do-little-or-nothing,
prelate should instantly be transferred to the pockets of