The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-01 00:00:00

Bill. He should oppose it, even if he stood alone in his oppo-
ition, and be certainly should make the amendments which he
intended to propose applicable to the whole Bill. He should
also move for an inquiry as to the necessity of the proposed
alterations.
The Duke of CLEVELAND said that be entirely differed
from the view which the Noble Marquis had taken of these
two Bills.
Earl GREY said that the present Bill merely related to
the separation of the palatinate jurisdiction from the see of
Durham, and to that purpose none of the Noble Marquis's
observations respecting the injustice that would be done to
the see of Durham at all applied. When the 'House went
into Committee, then their Lordships would have to discuss
how far these Courts might be retained. A Noble and
Learned Lord bad stated that he objected to the separation
of the Court of Common Pleas. Now that would be a very
proper consideration for the Committee. Knowing that great
inconvenience arose from the Bill not being passed, he had
taken the liberty of suggesting to the Noble Marquis that
he thought it would be better if he postponed his oppo-
sition until the Bill was properly before the House: The
Noble Marquis said that the two last clauses of the Bill
raised this principle. In answer to this, he (Earl Grey)
would say that the effect of the 29th clause was merely a re-
servation, and not in the slightest degree to open the gene-
ral principle. But the last clause, it was said, undoubtedly
contained a reservation. That clause only did this -. esta-
blished the principle that the diocese of Durham was to be
rated. It did not raise the question alluded to by the Noble
Marquis, but it only reserved to Parliament the right of regu-
lating the Bishopric, notwithstanding the appointment of a
Bishop in the interim. Such a reservation was thought ne-
cessary, in order that Paaliament might have the pdsver of
dealing as it should think fit with the very great revenues of
that See. Under these circumstances, he thought he had a
right to say that the observations of the Noble Marquis had
nq.application to the measure before the House. For his own
pert, he would say that he thought the Bill would improve the
administration of justice in Durham, and he certainly was
very anxious that it should pass without delay ; for whilst it
was pending, the confirmation of the present Bishop could not
take place.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY objected to the Bill
not only as regarded principle, but especially as regarded the
last two clauses ; for he thought that the Bill; like his Ma-
jesty's Government, carried a stigma in its tail.—( Laughter.)
' Earl GREY explained.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that the two
parts of this Bill were entirely distinct. The principal one
was for the purpose of separating the Palatinate Courts from
the see. Whether such a measure was advisable he .would not
take upon himself to say ; but he knew that it was recom-
mended by the Commissioners. Of the proposed mode of car-
rying the arrangements into effect he would not pretend to
judge ; those acquainted with the administration of the law
would be the best judges of the details. Of course the Noble
Marquis had a right to express his opposition to the measure;
but he would put it to him whether it was not extremely incon-
venient that the discussion on the two parts should be mixed up
together. The Noble Marquis hail referred to the last two
causes of the Bill, but after what had fallen from the Noble
Earl (Grey), it would really be unnecessary for him to say
more than that the 29th clause was a mere saving clause.
With respect to the other clause, it merely provided that
the Bishop should enter upon his duties subject to any re-
reservation which Parliament might make. lie did not know
whether that clause was absolutely necessary to the Bill; but
at all events it did not open the question of appropriation
generally. The Noble Marquis bad stated that he thought
immense mischiefs would follow if the recommendation of the
Commissioners were adopted. He (the Archbishop of Can-
terbury) did not apprehend that any such consequences would
follow. The Noble Marquis had also imputed to the Com-
missioners that they had proceeded without proper inquiry.
Noble Marquis certainly had a right to state his objec-
tions to the Bill, but be bad no right to stigmatize the inquiry
of the Commissioners, _ _ _

The Marquis of I.;ANSDOWNg would ask the House
whether it would go any further into this P4trgrilgiy irrOjteig
di,s4osion ?
Tke sphient here dropped.
Liord 4LJr4Np presented a petition from the mayor,
aldermen, and coalman council of the borough of Liverpool,
praying that the House would adopt measures for dispensing
with the declaration contained in the Corporation Bill of last
Yekir:
The Eaif of B URLINGTON presented a petition from the
borough of Coventry against the proposed boundaries under
the Corporations Amendment Act.
The petition was ordered to be referred to the Committee.
BISHOPRIC OF DURHAM BILL.
The Marciula of LANSDOWNE moved the second read-
ing of this Bill. The principal object of the Bill was to se-
parate the Palatinate Courts from the Bishopric, and to pre-
vent the inconvenience which would arise from a lapseo
Bishopric. It was also for the object of placing the Bishop in
a situation in which all Bishops ought to be placed, that of not
being impeded by any ordinary vocations from the high duties
committed to his charge. The object of the two clauses ob-
joet,ed to by the Noble Marquis was not that which he had
stat? 4, They merely reserved a power to Parliament to deal
with the rerooneg of Durham at any time within a period of
three years. The question, therefore, was, whether their Lord-
ships would permit the arrangement respecting the Courts to
take place. A Noble and Learned Lord had stated that one
of the Courts stood on a different footing to the rest, and
that it would be beneficial to the inhabitants of the county
of Durham to retain that Court. If he (the Marquis of Lans-
downe) could not e:)mply with the suggestion of the Noble and
Learned Lord he should certainly state his reasons for not do.
ing so on going into Committee. In concluding, the Noble
Marquis- had the satisfaction of knowing that the Bill was in-
troduced with the concurrence of the Right Rev. Prolate who
had lately been appointed to that see, lie should now move
the second reading, and reserve any further discussion for the
Committee.
- - - - - - - - -

Lord LYNDHURST entirely agreed with the Noble Mar-
quis his observations respecting the Court of Common
Pleas. It was a question for further inquiry, and if it were
I,Gt 4gainst the general spirit of the Act he should move for a
Comnsiitile for the purpose of inquiring whether it could not
be retained.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would read to their
Lordships two. letters which Ile had received from two Right
Rev. Priaktes in that House. They both related to the
Bishops' Charities, He Would riot trouble their Lordships
by reading any but those passitgets which appeared to him of
Pie most importance. The llrst letter was Oont an Individual
of tho liiglif,t§t character and talents :-
1' South Shields, May 10, 18:36.

. .
" My Lord—The following particulars may afford sufficient
tiAta to point out the loss that will be sustained by the abstrac-
tion of the episcopal and chapter revenues from the diocese,
without first making a due inquiry and suitable ecelesiwical
provision for the diocese itself. I should think the Bishop
distributed, in one shape or other, on an average during the
time he held the see, at least 6,0001. or 7,0001. a-year in the
diocese, Last year, it has been publicly stated that he gave
13,0001., and itt 1631 his late secretary, Mr. Faller, told me
that out of an income of 14,(1(01., Ott prothiee of -thg S9P that
year, the Bishop gave 4,0001. to various charities.
66 His charities flowed in every channel that 1V43 opened of
a benevolent description 1 hat I will nncicavoor to bring them
under a few specific heads,
1. As regards churches.
" He augmented small livings and endowed nine churches
in the gift of the see by alienating episcopal property to the
amount of about 1,0001. annually ; and he had plans in con-
templation, and some in actual preparation, by which lie pur-
posed alienating an annual sum of 1,2001. more for the same
object. These latter plans were not completed before his
death, and consequently remain in the same state. Besides
this lie Was in the habit of paying the whole or a portion of
the salaries of curates in populous parishes, where the emolu-
Monts of the livings were too small to meet such expenses.
At Hartlepool he paid the salary of the curate, 751. ; at Bar-
nard Castle he gave the same sum, to which some addition was
made by the inhabitants.
" 2. He was also equally benevolent in affording aid to-
wards the erection of schools for the education of the poorer
classes; and, when erected, he frequently became an annual
subscriber towards their support.
" 3. He gave 2,000/. annually to the Durham University, to-
wards the current expenses of that establishment.
" 4. He was also a liberal contributor to our Church Build.
ing Society, the District Committees of the Christian Know-
ledge Society, and every other ecclesiastical charity in the
diocese.
" 5. He gave largely towards the support of the widows and
orphans of clergymen left in distress, or with very limited in-
comes—to oar infirmaries, dispensaries, indigent sick societies,
and other local charities, which are too numerous to be
mentioned. _ _

" In this way the episcopal income has been made available
fur the general good of the diocese ; and if that revenue and
the revenues of the Dean and Chapter were to be abstracted
without due provision being made to meet those wants the dio-
cese will suffer very severely."
The second letter to which he would call their Lordships' at-
tention came from the Rev. J. Miller, the incumbent of the
parish of St. Lawrence Pitfington. The Noble Marquis then
read the letter. There was another letter, and it was the
last with which he would trouble the House, from the Clergy-
man of Stockton-upon-Tees. The Noble Marquis also read
this letter, and observed, with those three letters before him
he had felt bound to express an opinion in opposition to this
measure.
The Arobbishop of CANTERBURY could bear witness
to the truth of every word contained in the letters which the
Noble Marquis had just read, and which must have impressed
the House with a high notion of the princely munificence of
the two venerable Prelates 'alluded to.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
He had had the honour of being acquainted with them both,
and with all the proceedings of Bishop Barrington he was
particularly intimate. It had been truly stated by Mr. Butler,
who had published reminiscences of that Bishop's life, that
2,0001. had passed through his hands from the Bishop for
charitable purposes. There never was a man who did greater
honcur to the station which be filled,—(Cheers.) There was
another point to which the Noble Marquis had soarcely alluded,
viz., the munificence of the Chapter of Durham, and their sys,
tcmatic arrangement for the increase of small livings in the
diocese. He (the Archbishop) could only regret that consi-
derations of propriety had prevented the Commissioners from
laying before the public the details which had made so great
an impression upon their minds.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said—No man can agree
more entirely than I do in all that had been stated by the
Noble Marquis, and particularly by the Most Rev. Prelate.
It is to be regretted that any circumstances should exist which
must render it necessary to deprive the Bishop of Durham of
the ffloqqs of confirming thqse charities fqr thg Ntvirp, This
Bill, my Lords, as I nridevstand, is recommended by the Come
missioners, a board appointed under advice to wliielt j was a