The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 21.
Their Lordships sat this morning at Ten o'clock, for
the purpose of giving judgments ; and, after having dis-
posed of several causes,
Earl MINTO said that, in order to save time, he
would move the third reading of the Poor Removal Act,
it being understood that there was to be no debate upon
that stage of the Bill.
Lord REDESDALE and Earl GREY having assented
to the motion, the Bill was read a third time and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned during pleasure.
The House re-assembled at Half-past Four o'clock.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Wool-
sack, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor.
NEW PEERAGE.
The Marquis of Drogheda was introduced by the
Marquis of Cholmondeley, thee Eak of Rede.dale, and
Lord Wharneliffe, and took the oaths and his seat as
Baron Moore.

The House then adjourned till to-morrow at a Quarter
before One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 21.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly after Twelve
o'clock.

The Lords' amendments to the Manchester, Sheffield,
and Lincolnshire Railway (Supply of Surplus Water to
Manchester, Salford, and Stockport) Bill were agreed to.
Lord G. BENTINCK presented a petition from the
magistrates, proprietors, and others of St. George's,
Jamaica, complaining of the competition to which they,
were exposed in consequence of the reduction of the
duty on which slave-grown produce was admitted, and
stating that as they had to grow coffee and molasses by
means of free labour, they should not be exposed to
unfair competition.
The NOBLE LORD, in answer to a question from Mr.
Ilindley, said it was his intention to bring the whole
subject before the House in another Parliament, if he
had a seat in it.
The Lords' amendments to the London and South-
Western Railway Bill were agreed to.
The Jesus Hospital (Newcastle) Estate Bill was read
a third time and passed.
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON the following
returns were ordered :—A return of the number of days
on which the House sat in the session 1847, stating the
total number of hours occupied in the sittings of the
House, and the average time ; and. also, showing the
number of hours on which the House sat on each day,
and the number of hours after midnight ; and of the
number of divisions in the session 1847 ; stating the
subject of the division, and the number of Members in
the majority and minority, tellers included ; also, the
aggregate number in the House on each division ; dis
tinguishing, also, the divisions on private Bills from pub-
lic; and, also, the number of divisions before and after
midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No.
723 11, of session 1846)
DIRECT BI RM I NGHA M AND LEICESTER
RAILWAY AND MR: KUNTZ.

Mr. BANNERMAN complained of a statement Mr.
Muntz had made at a meeting of the scripholders
of fhe Direct Birmingham and Leicester Railway Com-
pany, in the capacity of chairman, reflecting upon the mem-
bers of the Select Committee appointed in 1846 to consi-
der the merits of the scheme. The Committee, the Hon.
Gentleman remarked, unanimously threw out the scheme,
believing it to be a perfect bubble, and it was quite evi-
dent from the manner in which the money of the unfor-
tunate shareholders had been wasted, that their decision
was a perfectly correct one. Mr. Munta, however,
seemed to think otherwise, which he had a perfect right
to do, but he had no right to attack the Committee in
the manner he had done at Birmingham on Satur-
day, simply because they did not agree with
him in that respect. The scheme had been
very properly denounced by the Railway Times and the
Railway Record, and it was not fair that the characters
of Hon. Members should be impugned because they had
conscientiously done their duty with the public. He had
felt: himself called upon not to allow this statement of
Mr. Manta, the Hon. Member for Birmingham, to pass
unnoticed.
After a few words from Sir EDMUND FILMER,
who also denounced the statement of Mr. Muntz and his
scheme, the subject dropped.
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER BILL.
Sir GEORGE GREY moved the third reading of
this Bill. .
Mr. HUME regretted to be compelled further to
waste th -. time of the House upon this matter, but upon
principle he must move that the Bill be read a third
time that day six months. •
Mr. E WART thought her Majesty's Government
would have acted with more discretion had they post-
poned this question till a future Parliament; but, never-
theless, he must confess that so far as the Bill acknow-
ledged the principle of the non-admission of bishops
into the House of Lords, he perfectly agreed with it.
Let them, however, improve the efficiency of the working
clergy, and they would be doing tar more service to the
people and the country than by establishing new
bishoprics of this sort. Still he did not think that his
Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would be doing
well to divide the (louse at the final stage of the Bill. 1
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was about to give a con- 1
scientious vote upon the third reading of this Bill, and
he wished to state his reasons for doing so. Some few
years ago the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment succeeded in passing a Bill providing for the estab-
lishment of a see of Manchester upon certain con-
ditions. These conditions were the union of the
sees of Bangor and St. Asaph, and upon that event
taking place, it was arranged that a bishopric of Man-
chester should be created, whose incumbent should be
entitled to all the rights and privileges possessed by the
other bishops. None of those conditions had been ob-
served, while this Bill was directly in opposition to that
portion of the arrangement which provided that any
Bishop of Manchester should have a seat in the House
of Lords. Now he altogether objected to that provision.
It was unjust, because it violated the prerogative of the
Crown. The introduction of it by the Government
was tantamount to admitting that the duties of a bishop
could be more effectually performed when the Right
Reverend Prelate had no seat in the Legis•
lature ; but upon the authority of the Bishop
of Chester himself he could state that this
conclusion was perfectly erroneous. But it was
said the present bishops had too much to do, and there-
fore they wanted assistance. It became, then, impor-
tant to ascertain what were the duties of a bishop. True
the bishop was always to be found taking the lead in
promoting the charities within his diocese, but,
upon the whole, he thought it would be found
that the bishops were by no means overworked.
in reference to episcopal matters.—(Hear, hear.) But,
admitting that the bishops were overworked, and re-
quired
aid in the performance of their duties, where was
the necessity of departing from the well-established prin-
ciple of every bishop having a seat in the House of
Lords. It was a right established beyond all doubt by im-
memorial usage, and he for one could see no necessity
for departing from the rule upon this occasion. Some-
thing, however, had been said in justification of the
departure from the established rule, of the diminution of
the Irish bench of bishops. But he could trace no justi-
fication whatever in that measure,
_and he looked upon
the exclusion of the Bishop of Manchester from the
House of Lords with the utmost alarm. The Honour-
able and Learned Member for Bath had told
them that this measure was the forerunner of
the separation of Church and State, and he
was strongly inclined to agree with the Hon. and
Learned Member, for already had disunion and heart-
burnings prevailed in the Church itself, and he was very
much afraid that this measure would only add to the
breach which already existed If they were to have
additional bishops let them clearly lay down the prin-
ciples upon which they should be uniformly
established, and not yield to the dictations of
any one portion of the Church. The conclusion be
had come to, then, was, that this measure would prove
dangerous to the Church, and it was the duty of all
Parties who respected the Constitution, or desired its
continuance, to stand in the breach and resist it to the
last breath, however unpopular it alight make them in
particular quarters or with a portion of
a popular
saPcraifiticye.
For these reasons, therefore, being prepared
vote against the
popularity to the dictates of his own conscience, he had
come to the conclusion of recording his vo
third reading of this Bill.
would abstain from
again going over the arguments which he bad already
urged upon the subject of the union of the sees of Bangor
and St. Asaph, but he would at once address himself to
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said be
the gronnd upon which the Right Hon. Gentleman
founded his opposition to the third reading of this Bill—
namely, the temporary exclusion of the Bishop of
of Lo d ii
Manchester from a seat 10 the HOLIBO r s.—( ear.)
of the
danger from the expulsion of one
hisbishops from
opinion upon
the House of Lords, and founded
while he
The Right Hon. Baronet thought that there was great
statements made in this House, . altogether
opportunity, it they thought
that the bishops in the Upper
overlooked the fact
*r opinions upon the subject. The
proper,House
express
set aside all this silence upon the
Right Hon. Baronet
said that he
part of the bishops, and s attached great
statements of the Hon. and Learned
weight to the
nathe Hon. Member for Kerry; but
Member for Bath a
o attach to
Hear, hear.)
ded his vote h b* Hon.
on t e su ject, so
Member had even recor
he
danger, real
a ear t' -
tothe
Illietti(eLord:eoihgphnratesßsfuutsdhlslieedill) did not think that that
his own opinion
He did not wish again to
did not se the question of the
rotation of the bishops ;
.ti n e any
the proposi He thought it would
or theoretical, in proposition.
be of some advantage to the. bishops if, instead of their
the first portion of their time, after their
having to spend
on tehnetersuiatitioest_(
grievous di-
visions , • tment in London in attendance on their duties in
with opportunity afforded
the acquainted
them of becoming acqinti .theduties of their
dioceses. Such an opportunity would have, no doubt,
been of great service to . the last
s tcreated bishop—the
Bishop of St. Asaph.
only say that •
of the Church, be would lt was his
wish see the Protestant character of
House of Lords, they
ithh drethpeee
most earnest to
Church of England fully and entirely maintained.
Mr. S. WORTLEY felt it incumbent on him, not-
withstanding the h
support which he formerly given to
ad
the Bill in its other stages, to join in the opposition to
the Bill in the present stage. His reason for opposing
the Bill was because of the retention
_. in the Bill of a
clause for excluding the new bishop from a seat in the
House of Lords, a principle which he considered to be
ive of the constitution of the country. If
utterly subvert
this measure were to pass, the responsibility of dealing
that severe blow to the Church would not rest so much
with the Noble Lord at the head of the Government,
I but with those Hon. Members on his side of the House
who had uniformly given their support to the interests
of the Church.
Sir R. H. INGLIS regretted the omission of such
words from the Bill as the Government had thought
proper to omit; but even the Bill in its present shape,
mutilated as it was, was such as in his opinion was
deserving of his eupport, end he could not therefore