The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-06 00:00:00

tirb Nbittons

SUN OFFICE, Began o'clock,

NEWMARKET RACES.

(THIS DAY.)

STAKES.

Boarding School Miss

Ds►fodil

Eleven ran.
HANDICAP PLATE.

Mlu Charlotte
Firebrand

Eleven ran,

SWEEPSTAKES.

Nicotine

Testy

Four ran.
£5O PLATE.

Dsgobert
Loybourne

Nine ran

LANCASTER RACES,

(THIS DAY.)

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)

TRIAL PLATE.

Domino
Baena

Four ran.

LANCASTER CIIP.

Cleveland
Lancashire Lass

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(THIS EVENING.)
The house met at five o'clock.
The Earl of HARROWBY presented a petition from
420 licensed victuallers and beershop keepers in Man-
chester and Salford, and a petition from the inhabitants
of the same places, in favour of an improved system of
licensing public-houses and beer-shops.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented a petition
from Maitland, New South Wales, praying for certain
alterations in a bill conferring a constitution on the
colony.
CLERGY RESERVES IN CANADA.

The Earl of DERBY said he was credibly in-
formed that the Canadian Legislative Assembly
had passed an amendment to the address
for dealing immediately with the clergy reserves in the
colony ; and he understood that this step would
probably lead to interference with all church property
in Canada including Roman Catholic endowments.
He wished to know whether the Government bad re-
ceived any intelligence upon that subject, for if the
report turned out to be true, it might serve as a reason
for the Government reconsidering the measure which bad
been passed, allowing the Colonial Legislature to deal
with these reserves?

The Duke of NEWCASTLE said the Government
bad no official information on the subject. The last
despatches received from the Governor-General of
Canada was dated the 17th June, which was
the day on which the last mail left Quebec. This
despatch contained the speech of the Governor-
General to the Assembly. It was right to add that no
official or written information as to the address could
possibly have reached Halifax at the departure of the
last mail. The information received in this country, and
published in the newspapers, was derived by telegraphic
message from Quebec to Halifax, a journey which
the mad occupied four days in making, and
it appeared to have reached Halifax four days
subsequent to the departure of the mail to Eng-
land. The despatches of the Governor-General did not
give any reason to suppose that such an amendment
would be proposed, but he (the Duke of Newcastle)
rather supposed that it had been passed than it had not,
as it was not unlikely that, in a popular assembly like
the Legislative Assembly, the government of the colony
might, by a coalition of members, be defeated upon ques•
tions relating to the church.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Lord CANNING, in moving the second reading of
this bill, said a strong feeling had pervaded the minds
of all classes that the Universities of Oxford and Cam-
bridge did not fully discharge their duty of educating
and training the youth of England, and that if their
great wealth and educational resources and privi-
leges had been better administered, larger results
might have been attained. The noble lord then
entered into a detailed account of the circum-
stances which led to thu introduction of the bill,
the object of which he described to be to lay down, be-
yond all risk of disturbance, the fundamental principle
of self-representation, both the University of Oxford and
its colleges being left to carry out the reforms mule by
the bill in the manner which should seem to them best. I

• hon. bart, had quoted, were to be found in a pamphlet
written by the Rev. Mr. Hume, a non-resident clergy-
man of the city of London, who expected to have his
income raised by the operation of this bill from 3001. to
6001. a year. As a resident in the city of London, con-
stantly mixing with its inhabitants, he could state that
the city was generally opposed to the bill, and he hoped
the house would meet the wishes of the citizens by
throwing it out.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the bill, as its direct
tendency was to overthrow the parochial institutions of
the City. Besides the bill was indefinite in its provisions;
it neither mentioned the churches that should be pulled
down, nor the districts where the new churches should
be built. That was not the way to legislate on the mat-
ter. No doubt there was a superfluity of church accom-
modation in the City, and a corresponding amount of
spiritual destitution in the suburbs ; but if they were to
remedy the evil according to the principle of this
bill, let it be done by a measure which should
specify the churches to be pulled down and the spots
where they should be rebuilt.
Mr. S. HERBERT observed that no one had dispated
the fact that the majority of the City churches were
without congregations. This had been produced by the
progress of trade and commerce ; the houses and build-
ings remained as of old, but they were not inhabited by
human souls but filled with bales of cotta n goods, sarsa-
parilla, and God knows what, and the consequence was
that most of the City churches had fallen into disuse. Now
would it not be better that they should be removed to
where they were really wanted, part iculary if at
the same time they could so extend and iw prove the City
parishes as to restore them to their form er condition—
getting rid of non•residentr sinecurist cl ergymen, and
once more filling the parish churches with. pious and at-
tentive congregations. For his part he th ought it would
be, and though he did not believe the details of this bill
were sufficiently complete, he yet felt th a t the principle
was sound, and he should therefore Tote for the second
reading.
Lord R. CECIL did not deny that thea•e was spiritual
destitution in the suburbs, or that some of the City
churches were ill attended, but it would be an un-
exampled species of legislation to destroy at one fell
swoop the rights of parishioners witho nit previous in-

quiry.
Mr. T. HANKEY disputed the assertion of Mr.
Moffatt that the citizens of London wer t) generally op-
posed to this bill. They disapproved of nsany of its de-
tails, but they were favourable to its pr.itnciple, and if
the house would read the bill a second tit xie, all their ob-
jections could be removed in committee.
Mr. HENLEY warned the house to 13. e cautious how
they recognised the principle that, when -.the inhabitants
of a parish fell below a given number, say 500, they
should be liable to have their church pu [Pad down, and
packed off to another place.
Mr. MASTERMAN said all the information which
had come to him on this subject was the very contrary
of that stated by Mr. Hankey.
Sir J. DUKE also declared that the feeling of the
city was generally adverse to the bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE believed the citizens of Lon-
don thought this bill was a disgrace to t't to parties who
brought it in, and would be a scandal to the Parliament
that pas-ed it.
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND wished t o ask the pro-
moters of this bill two questions, if they were thus to
deal with consecrated ground, what was; the use of the
farce of consecration—(a laugh)—and ha, ring answered
that question, he would next ask them what was the
use of having bishops except for the pmrpese of conse-
crations. (Laughter.)
The house thee divided, when there ap Teared—
For the second reading 59
Against it
Majority —B4
The bill was accordingly thrown outt amidst loud
cheers.

The other 12 o'clock orders were there disposed of,
and the sittings were suspended at four o'clock.
The house resumed at six o'clock, and iv as
[LEFT SITTING.]