The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-22 00:00:00

SEE OF DURHAM.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented peti-
tions from Hartlepool, Stockton-upon-Tees, South Shields,
and about twenty other places in the county of Durham,
against any appropriation of the revenues of the See of
Durham. The Noble Marquis then presented a petition
from the Clergy of the Diocese of Durham, to which he
begged to call the serious attention of the House. The
petitioners who comprized all the working Clergy of the
Diocese, prayed that any surplus revenues which
might arise from the new arrangement relative to
that See, would be appropriated to local purposes.
He regretted that the Noble Duke (Cleveland) was
not in his plaee, that he might hear what his opinions upon
that subject were. So far as the first report of the
Church Commissioners went, he did not find that it went
to the extent of abstracting the whole revenues of a dio-
cese from local purposes, although it certainly did recom-
mend the appointment of two new Bishops. In the
second report the amount to be abstracted from each
Bishopric was stated, but in these cases the Commissioners
had appropriated the surplus to local purposes. He com-
plained, however, that in the case of Durham, the entire
surplus amounting to a sum of 41,0001. was to be
taken away from that county.--(Hear, hear.) The
Noble Marquis then entered into some statistical
details relative to the diocese of Durham, for the purpose
of showing that the spiritual wants of the people were un-
attended to, and that they also required a sum to be set
apart for their education, there being upwards of 23,000
children now without the means of education, a great portion
of whom had been educated at the expense of the late
Bishop. The Noble Marquis concluded by moving for the •
appointment of a Select Committee, to whom should be
referred the petition from the cc my of Durham,
and the statements of the clergy of that diocese, and
to report whether it would not be expedient to make
further inquiries previous to appropriating any portion of
its revenues, and to delay any legislative measure on the
subject till next Session.

After a few words from the Archbishop of CANTERBURY,
Viscount MELBOURNE should not have risen had it
not been in conseque ace of a remark made by the Noble
Marquis. The Nobie Marquis alluded to a transaction
which it was had taken place between him
(Viscount Melbourne) and a Noble Duke. He could only
say that nothing of the sort had ever taken place. The ef-
fect of the Noble Marquis's motion would be for the House
to reconsider a matter which had already been fully con-
sidered by Commissioners, who had come to a grave and
deliberate opinion. In short, if the measure were now to
be reconsidered on the grounds stated by the Noble Mar-
quis, it would go to the truth of the whole of the general
reformation proposed by the Commissioners, and it would
consequently be impossible to carry these measures into ef-
fect. The late Bishop of Durham had been allowed to be
of a particularly charitable disposition, and could it be ex-
pected that his successors would be equally charitable ?
Upon the whole, he thought it would be more reasonable
and more just to place things on a better foundation, and
not to let these revenues be dependent upon the acciden-
tal disposition of any Prelate who might fill the See. The
question would shortly come before the House, and then
there would be further opportunity of examining it, if
necessary. In the meantime, he would say, that he hoped
the House would not agree to the motion of the Noble
Marquis.
'1 he Bishop of GLOUCESTER said that the Noble
Marquis had made statements respecting the Church Com-
mission which he should be exceedingly sorry to see go
forth uncontradicted to the public. The Noble Marquis
had accused the Church Commission of injustice to the
county of Durham. How many months had elapsed since
the accusation was first made ? The interval that had elapsed
would be of itself a good answer to the accusation. The
Commissioners were desirous of augmenting small livings
generally, whilst the Noble Marquis was only desirous of
augmenting the small livings of the see of Durham. He
should, therefore, vote against the motion of the Noble
Marquis.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY—After what
had passed he should not press his motion.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
The Earl of MEATH presented several petitions against
the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill.
The Marquis of HE..kDFOßTpresented a petition against
the same Bill.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a peti-
tion from three individuals, the Dean, the Vice Dean, and
one of the Prebendaries of the chapter of Norwich, against
certain recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commission.

The Earl of ABERDEEN presented a petition from
the provost and council of Aberdeen, in favour of the
Scotch Universities Bill. The same Noble Earl also pre-
sented a petition from another place in Scotland against
the same Bill.

On the motion of Viscount DUNCANNON, the Ex-
cise Licenses (Ireland) Bill passed through Committee,
and was reported to the House.
PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT BILL.

On bringing up the Report on this Bill,
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, upon the first
clause of this Bill would beg leave to propose, as an amend-
ment, that the word " hereditarnents" be left out, and the
word " lands" inserted in its place.
The Duke of RICHMOND said the Bill could not
effect the clergy in the least, and if the amendment was
agreed to it would endanger the whole Bill. This amend-
ment had been founded upon the decision in the case of
Rex v. Joggrett, which he maintained was not law, and
which had been completely overturned by the subsequent
case of Addams, and by the whole practice of the country.
He should oppose the amendment ; but would suggest a
proviso to the effect, that nothing in this Act should affect
titheowners.

Lord WYNFORD approved of the amendment.
The Marquis of SALISBURY suggested that it might
be better to leave out the clause altogether.
The Earl of RADNOR thought that the House should
maintain the decision at which they arrived the other night,
in favour of retaining the clause. As to the amendment of
the Rev. Prelate, he thought it would be a very difficult
matter for the overseers to comprehend it.
The Earl of CHICHESTER expressed his concurrence
in the principle of the Bill, and his opposition to the amend-
ment of the Rev. Prelate.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, the object
of his amendment was merely to keep the titheowners just
as they were at present.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the object
of the Right Rev. Prelate's amendment, without involving
the clause in much obscurity, and he might say illegality,

might be attained by means of such a i)rovifio as was sug-
gested by the Noble Duke, that the Bill'. should not in any
way affect the Clergy.
After a few observations from Lord HIATHERTO N,

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY would be quite
satisfied with such a proviso, and would,. therefore, beg to
withdraw his amendment.

The Duke of RICHMOND then proposed a proviso,
to the effect "that nothing herein contain ed be construed
to affect or alter the principles or proportions upon which
the different lands or hereditaments of titlaeowners are now
rated."

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY proposed another
amendment, which also, afer a few obEiervations from the
Duke of RICHMOND, was withdrawn.

. The Duke of RICHMOND then proposed a further
proviso, the object of which we were unable to ascertain.
The Duke of WELLINGTON believed it would be
convenient to have the Bill re-printed, together with the
amendments which were proposed, in order that oppor-
tunity might be afforded for their being more fully under-
stood.

The Earl of RADNOR could see no necessity for the
suggestion of the Noble Duke.

The Earl of HARROWBY should, if their Lordships
concurred with him in his view of the am tter, move that the
Bill be read a third time this day three months.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that the Bill had
undergone the most ample discussion, a nd, as it was a mea-
sure that was most necessary, he truss :ed that their Lord-
ships would allow it to pass.

The Earl of HARAOWBY had suggested the post-
ponement merely because he thought tli e provisions of the
Bill required more consideration than had been given to
them ; but he must, at the same time, c ►bserve that he had
no wish to get rid of the measure alttbge ther.

After sonic further conversation th.e proviso was agreed
to, and, other amendments having been made in the Bill, it
was ordered to be reprinted and read a third time on Mon-
day week.
REGISTRATION OF MARMAGES BILL.

On the motion that the House do I r solve itself into com-
mittee on the Registration of Marriages Bill,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested that the better
way would be to go into committee pro forma on this Bill,
in order that it might be printed with certain amendments
which he had to propose.

Viscount MELBOURNE was crait e ready to adopt the
suggestion of the Noble Lord.
Lord WYNFORD bad very strong objectiorl to the
measure ; but although he would offer no objection.to the
course proposed to be taken, it was by no means to be un-
derstood by their Lordships that hel in any way accorded
his sanction to this Bill.

The Bishop of EXETER had strung objections to both
the Bilis relating to the registration ofmarriages, births, and
deaths ; and certainly hearing that; the principle of this
measure was to remain unchanged was no inducement to
him to waive his objections to it. Het lad heard much about
the principle of the Bill ; but for his part he should like to
know what its principle was ? He was williing to admit
that they should attend to the scruples of conscience of
those who objected to the office of -marriage as laid down
in the Book of Common Prayer ; but still he would be no
party to any measure which went to interfere with the rites
and ceremony of the Established Church. Now, this Bill
in his opinion, went the length of iniw•iting the members of
the Church of England to contract marriage without any
religious ceremony ; and that was a principle which he
hoped the Legislature never would adopt.
Their Lordships then went into Committee on the Bill
pro forma, and the amendments proposed having been
agreed to the House resumed, and t'ae. Bill, as amended, was
ordered to be printed.
The Registration of Births and Deaths Bill also went
through committee pro forma.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the appoint-
ment of registers should not be left in the hands of the
board of guardians, because they would be likely to appoint
the relieving officer to the office. Re was also desirous of
having some alteration made in the clause relating to bu-
rials, as it would, if it remained as it was, lead to great in-
convenience.

After some further conversation, the Bill, with the amend-
ments, was ordered to be re-printed.
The Earl of S HAFTESBURY brought up the report
of the Committee on the Church Discipline Bill.
The Cessio Bonorum (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time, and passed, with some verbal amendments, moved by
the Lord Chancellor.

The Bankrupts' Estate (Scotland) Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed pro forum to-morrow,
For the introduction of some amendments, on the motion of
the Lord Chancellor.—Adjourned.