The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-22 00:00:00

arose not so much from the cause stated by the right
rev. prerate, as the fear that the controversies of the
clergy, backed by the authority of the bishops, were cal-
culated to narrow the communion of the Church.

• 'After a few words from the Bishop of LpNDON, who
supported the clause as it stood.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said the noble earl had
shown that controversial discussions had arisen without
any act all, and he for one very much doubted Whether
any legislative' enactment could suppress them ; but as
for advocating the suppression of discussion by a specific
act of Parliament, when so many 'of their own proceed-
ings teemed with the result of discussion, was simply
ridiculous. Why, how could they possibly restrain thes3
assemblies from discussing what they pleased ? All that
could be done was to prevent them from passing any act
or establishing any regulations which was contrary to
the acknowledged faith and doctrine, and that this clause
did to the fullest extent. As the bill originally stood,
and when it came into the hands of the Government, it
simply provided that neither the acts nor regulations of
the synod should affect the standard of faith and doc-
trine ; but although the meaning of that expression was
well understood in general conversation it was not quite
so clear or intelligible in an _act of Parliament, and the
Government, therefore, suggested that it would be better
to, make the clause provide that neither the acts nor re-
gulations of these assemblies should be at variance with
the Book of Common Prayer, or the Thirty-nine Arti-
cles: of Faith—a suggestion which was immediately
adopted by the right reverend prelates who had charge of
the bill.

The clause was then agreed to, as were the remaining
clauses, and the preamble.
The house then adjourned at half-past 9 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)

RUSSIA AND -TURKEY.

Mr. LAYARD gave notice that to-morrow (Friday) he
would put a question to the noble lord (Lord J. Russell)
relative to the pending negotiations with Russia, and also
with respect to, the production of papers connected there-
with.

Lord D. STUART asked 'the noble lord the member for
the city of London whether, as it had been stated by the
government that a great number of British merchant ships
are detained in the Danube in consequence of the state of
that river, which has been produced by the neglect of the
Government of Russia to discharge that which has been
described by a Minister of the Crown as a great duty owed
by Russia to Europe, and as great loss must be occasioned
to British merchants by the detention of those ships,
whether Government will demand from the Czar, compen-
sation to those merchants for the loss inflicted upon them
by the culpable neglect of the Russian Government? Also,
whether, as it has been stated by the Government that
repeated representations have been made to the Govern-
ment of Russia respecting the interruption of the naviga-
tion of the Danube, the noble lord will have any objection
to lay upon the table of the house copies of the correspon-
dence on the subject ?

Lord J. RUSSELL doubted whether any claim could be
made on the Russian Government for compensation, for
though the Russian Government had not taken proper pre-
cautions with respect to keeping clear the navigation of the
Danube, yet natural causes also had very much contributed
to prevent the navigation of the Danube. There had
recently been an overflowing of the banks from accumula-
tions ; but those floodings had subsided, and there were
now several more feet of water in the channel than recently,
which of course would facilitate the liberation of the con-
fined vessels (we understood). With respect to the second
question, as to correspondence, the noble lord at the head
of the Foreign-office would look over it, and see if there
was any portion that ought to be produced ; if so, it would
be placed in the hands of members this session.