The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-18 00:00:00

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF TIIE BISHOPS.

Mr. HUNT presented a petition from an individual
name John James Duffy, attributing the loss of the Reform
Bill to the Bishops, and praying for the disfranchisement

of those Rev. Gentlemen of all political power.
Mr. CAMPBELL deeply deplored that such a petition
should hove been presented. He was sure such petitions
roust have a direct and powerfal effect in defeating the very
objects which it was to be supposed they had in
view. Nothing could ultimately defeat the Reform
Bill unless it were indiscreet efforts of this kind.
He regretted the loss of the Reform Bill as much as any
man could possibly regret it ; but in whatever way the
Bishops voted, the House and the public must know that
they bad the right to exercise their constitutional power
in whatever way they pleased, just as any other Members
of the Legisl iture. While he was on his legs, the Hon.
and Learned Member thought it right to express an opi-
nion, that the efforts now making in this metropolis,
for the purpose of dictating to the Ministers, were at
least indiscreet. For bodies to assemble, and come to re-
solutions praying Ministers to adjourn Parliament only
for seven days, to bring in the Reform Bill again tote
dent verbis, and to create a large batch of Peers for the
purpose of carrying that Bill through the Upper House,
could only have the most injurious effect. The country
ought to have confidence in the Ministers t there could
be no doubt of the sincerity of Lord Grey ; his cha-
racter, which was to descend to his posterity, depended
on his conduct with respect to this Reform measure; and
some patience ought to be exercised, and faith reposed in
the efforts of that Noble Lord.
Mr. ROBINSON entertained great doubt whether such
a petition as this should be entertained at all. The Hon.
Member who presented it ought to be called upon to state
to the House how it had come into his hands, as there was
nothing about it to point out its genuineness. Bestde
the petition stated a falsehood on the face of it. It
alleged that the Reform Bill was lost by the vote of the
Bishops, which was undoubtedly untrue ; because,
if the number of the Bishops who voted was taken
out of the list of the majority, the deduction
would have had no effect it) the fate of the Bill.--
(Hear. ) This petition altogether was just like other
absurd petitions which the Hon, Member for Preston was
in the habit of nightly presenting to the House, as it would
appear for the mere purpose of abusing its patience.
Mr. HUME was surprised to hear the observations of the
Hon. Member who had just sat down. If the petition con-
tained the sincere conviction of tie individual who presented

it, he had just as good a right to have that petition laid be-
fore the House as any subject, or body of subjects, in his
Majesty's dominions had to have their petitions heard.
With regard to what the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr.
Campbell) had stated, he was sorry to hear his observa-
tions respecting the proceedings of the citizens of
London, because their conduct had of late been
most exemplary. As regarded the disfranchising of the
Bishops, though no one could deny they had at present
the power to vote on political subjects, yet he (Mr.
Hume) would venture to assert that the whole country cried
aloud for the removal of that power from the Bishops—
Hear)—and the time was fast approaching when all changes
that were fit and proper to be made for the benefit of the
public, would undoubtedly take place.—(Much cheering.)
Twenty- two Bishops voted against the Bill—if they had
not voted against the Bill, but in favour of it, then
that would have made a difference in the state
of the numbers of forty-four, which would have carried
the fill, consequently the loss of it was to be at-
tributed to the vote of the Bishops; and as Ministers
of peace and good-will, at all events, it became
them, if they did not think proper to vote in favour of
the Bill not to have voted against the wishes of the people.
His Majesty's Ministers and the Monarch himself. Again
with respect to the metropolis dictating to his Majesty's
Government, if the citizens of London were now to cross
their arms and be silent, they would be playing into the
hands of the Anti-Reformers. They had a right to
take every Constitutional means of expressing their
feelings on this all important subject ; and if they
considered that postponing for any length of time the in-
troduction of the subjeh into Parliament again would in
any way endanger the measure, they only acted properly
in expressing their dissent from such a course being
adopted. Any censure upon them could not but be unme-
riten in the highest degree.
Mr. RUTHYEN thought that the people ought not to
attempt to drive Ministers to add to the agitation which
now prevailed, by the adoption of any hasty step, but that
they ought to rely with confidence in their wisdom and
sincerity.
Mr. CAMPBELL in explanation, said he did not
mean to throw imputations on any individual. All he
meant was to deprecate the meeting of bodies, the selection
of what were called delegates, the passing of most
intemperate resolutions, and the proceeding at midnight
to the Prime Minister's house, calling upon him not to
prorogue Parliament far any length of time.
Mr. FRESHFIELD felt it to be hid duty to object to

the habit which some Hon. Members had got into of
daily and nightly attacking the Learned Bench of Bishops.
He considered the habit discreditable to the House, and one
that ought not tobe persisted in. The Bishops, by the Con-
stitution of the country, had a right to give their voice
on all the measures that canoe before the Upper House,
and no individual had a right to object to them exercising
their discretion. _ _ _

Colonel EVANS considered the resolutions that Mr.
Campbell had referred to resolutions of the most honest and
inoffensive description. And with respect to the Bishops
holding political power he had no hesitation in de-
claring his opinion to be, that, though they were
at this moment constitutionally acting in the other House,
both the spiritual and worldly welfare of his Majesty's
subjects, and his Majesty's dominioes, would he much
better consulted by having the Bishops out of Parliament
altogether.—(Cheers.)
The petition was then ordered to be laid on the table.
The petition being read at length,
Mr. ROBINSON thought the petition was a very im-
proper and absurd one, and ought not to be received. He
hoped the Hon. Member who had been chosen as the fittest
person to present the petition would, if any person did,
bring forward a clause to disfranchise the Bishops. This
petition had nothing whatever to do with public opinion.
Lord ALTHORP thought that a petition from a single
individual, praying that the House would disfranchise
a part of another branch of the Legislature should not be
received.—( Hear.) No one could regret more than he
did the vote to which the House of Lords had come, but
he thought the petition should not be received.

Aftet:'a few words from Mr. Howattn,
The SPEAKER said, the petition involved a question
of privilege belonging to the other House ; besides which, it
was a comment upon votes in Parliament; the House would
not permit the introduction of petitions in which was in-
formation and comment upon it, which information could
only be obtained by a breach of privilege ; and if th at
were not allowed, it would not be proper to allow such
comments upon the proceedings of the other House of
Parliament.—(Hear.)
Sir CHARLES ♦VETHERELL said he could not
conceive what had induced this individual to present
this petition, unless it was caused by the mischievous Press.
Mr. HUME read the petition to which the Speaker re-
ferred, " such result was caused by the votes of the Bench
of Bishops," and he contended that that mere fact would
not take it out of the general rule.
After some further observations Mr. HUNT withdrew
his petition.
Colonel SIBTHORPE moved for a return of the num-
bar of persons convicted of sheep-ste ding and horse-steal-
ing from 1826 to the present time, together with the sen-
tences, and the way in which they were carried into effect.
Also for a return of the number of stearu-vessels which
have been, and are, employed, and those now building by
order of Government, since it first took steam-vessels
into its employ, distinguishing how they were employed,
and of what horse power.
Lord ALTHORP asked the Hon. and Gallant Colonel
if the First Lord of the Admiralty had acceded to the latter
returns ?

Colonel SIBTIIORPE had submitted the motion to the
First Lord of the Admiralty, who had no objection to it.
Mr. HUME presented a petition and address from
Paisley, praying the House to ensure the early passing of
the Reform Bill. The Hon. Member next presented one front
merchants of London, who were suffer, ra by the misconduct
of the Brazilian Government in the capture of English mer-
chant vessels. The petition stated, that in 1829, the Bri-
tish Ambassador obtained an arrangement for the settlement
of the claims of the British merchants. But those claims
had never been finally settled. The Hon. Member re-
gretted to state that the American and French Govern-
ments had enforced compensation for the losses which their
merchants had sustained, and the only country which had
not had justice was England, whose merchants had now a
claim of half a million on the Brazilian Goveinment.
The Hos. MEstnna next presented a petition from New-
castle-on-Tyne, against the grant to the Kildare-street So-
ciety, and forthe continuance of the grant to the
Also a petition from the Clerkenwell Parochial Reform
Union against all taxes on knowledge ; from the parish of
Knockbreda, in the county of Down, complaining of the
tythe laws ; and three petitions against the law imposing
punishment on persons for expressing religious opinions ;
all of which were ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. HUNT withdrew his motion for leave to bring in
a Bill to allow the importation of foreign wheat and flour
duty free, which was fixed for this day, and gave notice
that he would introduce it next session.