The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, I:4O.NIiON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 183

hear)—and if it succeeded it was the only one against
which attempts had been at Lade to disturb it on the second
reading.—( Hear.) If thell must be railroads, for the sake
of the public the best ought to be selected, and it certainly
was a most unhappy mode of giving the choice, by taking away
the preference. Here wure two Bills, both proposed to e-o
from London to Cambridge, then- from Cambridge to Yor%
and they then both proposed hereafter to turn to the right,
and so on to the north.—/-Hear.) If they were prepared to
destroy the one, it woul. i help greatly to favour the other.
Was it not important tha t the Committee, before whom the
merits of these lines were to come, should have before them
the respective lines ?—(Bear, hear.) He was not dis-
inclined—looking at tho procipitancy with which these
plans were executed—he apprehended that they had not
in all cases the best outlool : at the irreparable evil that would
arise from an inconsiderate choice, and the comparative small-
ness of the inconvenience fr am delay—he was not disinclined to
defer everyrailroad respecth tgwhich there were competing lines.
It was stated that those who were now opposing this line were
extremely anxious to ava,'d expense, extremely anxious to
have the best line, extremely- impartial in their advice ; and yet
in some way or other those who were opposing the one were
supporting the other. They were told the notices were irregular
and that no line could be worse. How could they know that ?
These were mere assertions. It was a matter entirely to be
examined before the Committee..—( Hear, hear.) He thought
the House should not act partially, by throwing out what
might be good, and giving countenance to that which might
be bad.—( Hear, bear. )
Mr. O'CONNELL said the principle of railroads was
what they had all agreed upon, and if the question was what
was a proper line for a railroad, that was a question to be
decided by a Committee, and not by the House itself.
Mr. FINCH agreed with what had fallen from the Hon.
Member for Dublin, but he was afraid it would put the parties
to a great deal of expense. At the same time he thought, if
information was desired, that information should be obtained
which would lead to the most satisfactory conclusion.
Mr. EVEL YN DENISON believed the parties had already
been before a Committee, and the question was, whether they
had put themselves into a situation, as that if the line should
be considered preferable it ought to be adopted this year ?
He did not think they had put themselves into that situation.
They had not done that which was necessary to give the
parties interested in the Bill sufficient information, and he
should therefore vote against the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. CHILDERS said it appeared to him that the great
object should be to adopt not the best line between two towns,
but what would be the best leading from the extremities of the
country between London and Edinburgh, and London and
Liverpool.
Mr. PRYME was convinced that it would be impossible to
make the line in the fens of the country through which it
was proposed to pass without a very considerable expense.
Lord STORMONT briefly replied, and maintained that
the Committee was the proper tribunal to decide upon the
utility of the two lines.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw,—
when there appeared
For the second reading .
Against it 99
Majority against the 8i11.... ........ ..—I4

On our re-admission to the gallery we found Mr. HUME
presenting a petition against the Islington Market Bill for
abolishing Smithfield Market.
Petitions to the same effect were presented by Alderman
THOMPSON, Mr.; A. CNAPMAN, and Captain PECITELL from
Chelmsford.

Mr. BARNARD presented a petition from John Russell,
against certain clauses of the Greenwich Improvement Bill.
Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from Sun-
derland against the Scarborough Harbour Bill.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition against certain
clauses of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill, and one
against the Bill entirely.
On the motion of Mr. PLUMPTRE, the Ashford and
Maidstone Road Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The further consideration of the Report of the Committee
on the Trinity Harbour Bill was postponed for a fortnight.
ST. CATHARINE'S DOCK BILL.

On the motion of Mr. CRAWFORD this Bill was read a
second time.

LONDON AND NORWICH RAILWAY.

Mr. T. GLADSTONE presented a petition from an indi-
vidual of the name of Fellowes against this railroad.
LIVERPOOL FIRE POLICE.

On the motion of Mr. E WART this Bill was read a second
time. _ _

.•••—•
Sir H. WILLIAMSON presented a petition from Dur-
ham, in favour of the South Durham Railway.
A Message from the House of Lords brought up several

Mr. ROEBUCK, seeing the Under-Secretary for the Co-
lonies in his place, wished to ask him a question. He
wished to know whether the Government had received the
first Report of the Canada Commissioners ?
Sir GEORGE GREY said that the Government had re-
ceived the first Repoi:t of the Commissioners, but it was consi-
dered only partial.
EXCLUSION OF THE BISHOPS FROM THE
HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. RIPPON said it might be in the remembrance
of some Honourable Members that two years since, be
had brought forward a measure somewhat similar to that
which he was now about to offer. It was received by Lord
Althorp with contempt, that Noble Lord stating, that if any
one but the mover and secondir concurred in the motion, he
would state the grounds upon which he opposed it.
The division that took place afforded the best answer
to that, because although 128 voted against the motion,
no less than fifty-eight voted in favour of it.—( Hear.)
Having thus been defeated in his object, he was compelled
once again to bring the subject forward ; the subject advanced
in public interest, and its former reception by that House had
not checked, but on the contrary had augmented the feeling
which originally existed—f Cries of " Hear.") A spirit of
religious reformation was at that moment stirring which it
would be impossible to stay. He would entreat lion. Gentle-
men to banish from their minds those impediments to improve..
ment, veneration for antiquity, and reverence for established
practice—he would beg of them to consider whether the
practice of which he complained was at all beneficial to re-
ligion, or profitable to the great mass of society. It was his
desire to discuss this question without asperity of language,
and to avoid, as far as he could, giving needless
offence to any one. He would not weary the House by tracing
the origin of ecclesiastical government for the possession of
secular powers by persons prior to that time when the Crown
was substituted for hierarchy ; neither would he allude to the
events that took place in the latter period of our history, when
the Sovereign and the subject were at variance with each
other, and when the cry of " No Bishop" and " No King,"
was raised. Suffice it to say that Charles perished on the
scaffold—James became en exile from this country—and the
House of Stuart was banished fur cver.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
His present purpose was simply to consider what were the
duties attached to the office of Bishop, and to show that these
would be amply sufficient to engage the entire of his time.
By the first Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it
appeared that under the new arrangement there would be
no less than 10,400 benefices in th twenty-six dioceses of
England and Wales. these, if equally divided, would
give four hundred benefices to each of the Sees. The
second report called for a further increase of churches and
clergymen, to provide for the religious wants of an increasing
population. Now if every benefice had, as it ought to have, a
resident Paster, there would be 400 Pastors under the care of
one Bishop, and if the wants of the Church were attended
to there would be a great increase. He should next call
the attention of the house to that intimacy which should sub-
sist according to Ecclesiastical policy between the Bishop and
the Clergy, without which the best system of religious eco-
nomy must fail of producing good results. It was the duty of a
Bishopsto visit his Clergy—he should receive them without
ostentation, and approach them without reserve. He should
examine carefully into the affairs of the Church in the various
parishes under his charge—seeing with his own eyes, and
hearing with his own cars—not trusting to the reports of other
parties. He should attend to the establishments for the edu-
cation of the people, making the conduct and qualifications of
the masters the subject of diligent scrutiny and careful
examination.—( Hear, hear.) He should inquire into the
fitness of all candidates for holy orders, not- merely as
to their qualification in Greek and Latin, but in their habits
of industry, and their attention to the discharge of such duties
as would make them good clergymen arid fit bishops in office.
It was the duty of a bishop to administer the rite of confirma-
tion to all persons in his See, and to discharge all ecclesiastical
duties imposed upon bins by the acceptance of his high office.
They had seen by the Report of the Commissioners to which he
before alluded, that there were 1,248 benefices in the gift of the
Bishops, and it would be their duty to seek out proper persons
to fill the office of pastors without regard to the importunities of
needy friends, and seeking only worth and merit in those
whom they would thus promote. He trusted he had shown
sufficiently that onerous duties devolved upon the Bishops,
enough to engage their whole time and attention.
He would further enquire whether it was reasonable to super-
add to those overburdened spiritual duties a weighty and re-
sponsible office in the State—something between a chinch
overseer and a political peer. The ministers of the Church
ought to dedicate themselves, with vigour and diligence,
to the maintenance of religion and the instruction of mankind ;
but how could they do so if they were also obliged to attend
in their places in Parliament? He now wished to consider the
only plea he had ever heard put forth in justification of the
practice of Bishops sitting in the other House, viz., that they
represent the interests, and maintain the rights of the Church.
Now, in the first place, Ministers enjoyed the privileges with
other citizens of voting at the elections of Members, and as
far as he had seen, they exercised this privilege with a zeal
and earnestness that was not often surpassed. But supposing
that it was really meant to say that the Bishops were the Re-
presentatives of the Church, then why were they not elected
by the clergy, whereas they were appointed nominally by the
Crown, but virtually by the Ministers of State, always with
a due regard to their own political interests ?—( Hear. )
In the House of Lords the Bishops had no veto in ecclesiasti-
cal affairs. It was perfectly clear that unless the majority
of the laity in both Houses supported them, they would
not be able to support the fabric... 4 Hear, hear.) Serious
evils had resulted from their votes. They had often
secured the popular hatred not only to themselves,' but
to the Establishment.—( Cheers.) Why then not relieVe them
Why not limit their regard to those things
fasnodm
thoses uc h ap
persons
ot n
who were placed under their care ? In the
religion, he asked to be allowed to bring in this Bill.
He name
uld nw
believe that the Bishops ere pervaded with
a spiritocof
so purely worldly as to desire a continuance of things
as they now stood—he could not belie've that they were ac-
tuated by such a desire fur worldly pomp—by such a desire for
eminence in the political world. He would desire to regard
them as heralds of heavenly truth—as men gifted by God
and elected by men to fill high office in spiritual affairs. He