The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-28 00:00:00

CATHCCLIC STUDENTS,

Mr. SCULLY moved- for address for copies of all
correspondence from the Ist day of January, 1864, up to
the making of the return, between the Foreign-office in
London and her Majesty's representative at Brussels, or
between such representative and the Belgian Government,
or between the Foreign-office and the Belgian Minister in
London, or between the Foreign-office and the Home-
office, with reference to the bourses or endowments hereto-
fore provided for the ethication'of Irish Catholic students
in the University of Louvain ; and of any memorial or
correspondence to or with the Foreign-office and the Home-
office respectively on behalf of Irish Catholics with refer-
ence to those bourses or endowments.—Agreed to.
BISHOP COLENSO.

Mr. DUNLOP asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies whether, looking to the, recent decision of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of
Bishop Colenso, by which, with reference to colonies with
representative Legislature, or in which the Church of
England had not been established by law, patents for the
erection of episcopal sees therein, purposing to confer
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, were pronounced to be contrary to
law, it was the intention of the Government to advise her
Majesty to abstain henceforth from issuing any more such
patents ferzpolonieS so situate, and also from nominating
successors under the existing illegal patents to bishops who
may die or resign, leaving the voluntary associations of
which such bishops were the chief ministers to provide
successors according to the rules and canons they have
adopted or may adopt for the government of their own
non-established communions ; and particularly whether
this course would be recommended in reference to Canada,
where by an act of the Canadian Legislature to which the
Royal Assent was duly given, all connection between
Church and State has been expressly abolished.

Mr. CARDWELL said with respect to Canada the prac-
tice of issuing patents has been discontinued. The bishops
there are selected by the Church in the colonies, and derive
their civil rights from the colonies. With reference to the
other matter referred to, the recent decision had led to the
necessity of giving that matter the most serious considera-
tion. No letters patent, however, would be issued until
that consideration has been brought to a close. •
EPISCOPAL SEES IN THE COLONIES.

, Mr. DUNLOP asked the Attorney-General to what
extent and effect, if any, patents erecting episcopal sees
in colonies having representative legislatures, or in which
the Church of England had not been previously by law
established, and purporting to confer ecclesiastical juris-
diction, were valid and operative ; and also to inquire
under what statutory or other authority the Queen, as
Sovereign of the United Kingdom, issued patents for the
erection of episcopal sees, in accordance with the religious
system established by law in only one part of the United
Kingdom, England, in colonies which never were, at any
time, colonies of England, but have been, from their origin,
British colonies.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was more diffi-
cult to say what these letters patent provided than what
they did not. It had been determined by the Judicial Com-
mittee that there wore no legal dioceses in the colonies to
which the late inquiry related, and that the letter patent
constituted no legal connection between the Church in
these colonies and the united Church of England and
Ireland. It was further determined that the letters
patent granted to the bishop did not introduce into
these colonies any part of the ecclesiastical polity of Eng-
land, and that they gave no legal power to the bishops
which they might not have under the voluntary system.
He found also in the judgment that letters patent were not
valid to create ecclesiastical corporations which the colonies
were bound to recognise.
UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL.

Mr. VILLIERS, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said the union principle having been adopted for the
purpose of administration instead of the parochial system,
it was desirable that the same principle should be adopted
with regard to settlement and rating instead of retaining
those latter within the area of the parochial system. This
was the principle which the bill sought to
bring into operation, and it was founded on
the results of several inquiries by committees
of the House of Commons and Royal Commissioners. It
had been contended, in some quarters, that the bill was in-
troduced to benefit the town population at the expense of
the rural districts, but this was altogether a mistake, as
such certainly was not the intention of the measure. The
late member for North Devon, he believed, was in favour
of the bill.

Sir B. KNIGHTLEY trusted that the question would
not be viewed in a party spirit. He objected to the bill
because it affected the value of every acre of land in the
country, and was of far too important a description to be
discussed by a moribund Parliament. He was therefore in
favour of postponing legislation, in order that the question
might be submitted to their constituents at the next gene-
ral election. He also objected to the bill, not only because
it would interfere with property, but likewise because it
would injure the interests of the labouring classes, who, in
the dull seasons, would be driven to the union workhouse
instead of being assisted, as they now were, in their own
cottages. The President of the Poor-law Board was not,
in his opinion, competent to legislate on a question of this
nature, as he never saw a green field except from the win-
dow of a railway carriage, and knew no more about the
rural districts of England than of the interior of Africa.
In conclusion, the hon. baronet, moved as an amendment,
" That, considering.the little knowledge this house pos-
sesses as to the practical working of the Irremovable Poor
Act of 1861, it is inexpedient, without further information,
to legislate on the subject of union rating during the pre-
sent session."

The amendment was seconded by Mr. BANKS-STANHOPE,
who contended that the bill would be an unjustifiable inter-
ference with property, and inflict irreparable injury upon
the poor of the rural districts.
Sir E. DERING also opposed the bill, on the ground
that it would relieve the ratepayers of the towns at the
expense of those in the country parishes. He suggested, as
a compromise, that the second reading should be postponed
until after the Easter recess, so that in the interim hon.
members might consult their constituents.

Mr. G. P. BENTINCK thought the house was not yet
in possession of sufficient information to legislate upon the
subject, and would consequently give his vote in favour of
the amendment.

Mr. HODGICINSON, in answering, the arguments of
hon. gentlemen opposite, denied that the present bill was
a step in the direction of national rating. It was, he said,
nothing more nor less than an act of justice, and was
intended to adjust a burden which, in the lapse of time,
had become disarranged.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE gave a warm support to the bill, be-
cause he was persuaded that it would prove a useful and
beneficial measure. The parochial system offered, ho
thought, a premium to the bad and dissolute labourer,
while it discouraged the good.
Lord HENLEY pointed out several instances of gross
injustice in his own union, and stated that, under the pre-
sent system, two close parishes paid a poor rate of Gd. in
the pound, while others paid as much as 6s.
Mr. SCOURFIELD advocated delay, and Mr. J. TOLLE-
MACHE was of opinion that the bill would relieve heavily
burdened townships at the expense of others.
Mr. SCILLY and Mr. PUGH spoke in favour of the
measure, the late hon. gentleman expressing his willing-
ness to sanction a much larger area of chargeability than
that contemplated by the bill.
Mr. FLOYER took an opposite view to that of the pre-
ceding speakers, arguing that union rating would lead to a
careless expenditure of the rates, as there would be no
longer that careful personal supervision on the part of local
guardians, without which the poor law could not be worked
effectively or charitably.
of MularioTnHraOtiMngP,SbOuNt,
inwaas qsmuucithe
asprepthaeredbiltio
wvoouitedincafauvsoeuar