The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-20 00:00:00

would be the oost of a Bishop of Cornwall ? It would
no doubt be equal to if not more than 4,000/. per annum.
Now, this sum would be sufficient to raise the minimum
ircomes of all the clergy in Cornwall to the amount of
1001 pi, r annum.
Sir G. GREY said that as the propo.ition for a bishop
of the county of Cornwall was not }et before the House,
it would not be thought necessary for him to follow the
Honourable Baronet who had just sat down in his argu-
ments upon that point. With respect to the necessity of
the appointment of a bishop for Manchester, he thought
a clear case had been made out for such appointment by
the fact of the great increase of the population of the
see of Chester, and not merely of general population,
but of members of the Church of England, and the vast
increase which had taken place in the number of the
places of worship and of the working clergy.
Dr. NICHOLL said that some very exaggerated
statements had been made in the course of the debate
with respect to the expenditure on the palace of the
Bishop of Ripon, the one advanced by the Election Com-
missioners had been only about 1,2001. instead of 54,000/.
as stated by Hon Members.
Mr. B. ESC )TT complained that the real question
at issue in this case, had not been adverted to by the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, which was, whether an increase of the po-
pulation required a corresponding increase of the number
of bishops?
Mr. HUME said that he had repeated again and again,
and would repeat again and again, till he had obtained an
answer to his objection, that this measure was a flagrant
breach of compact.
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that this was a breach of
compact. A settlement had been made some years since
on the subject. but there was nothing in that settlement to
prevent the Government at any future time from propos-
ing a measure similar to the present.
At'ter a few words from Mr. HoasMAN and Mr.
COLLETT, strangers were ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l4
Against it
Majority —72
The amendment was consequently lost.
Mr. V. SMITH then moved the following amend-
ment:—That in page 4, line 2, of the preamble, the
words " so soon as conveniently might be, three other
additional bishoprics," should be omitted. What. he
would ask, would be the case in a future Parliament, if
these words were allowed to remain part of the preamble?
Why, that these new bishoprics would be appointed ;
and, according to the views of the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Dorchester, the bishops at present ap-
pointed were not sufficiently occupied.
Sir J. GRAHAM—Not overburdened with labour.
Mr V. S MIT El—Well, that being he case, he thought
there were other points which should occupy their at-
tention before they proceeded to increase the number of
the Episcopal body, such as giving the bishops addi-
tional powers over the clergy. He was also of opinion
that the House should be influenced by the recommen-
dations of the Ecclesiastical Commission. That Com-
mission was of opinion that the spiritual destitution of
the people was to be removed by an increase in the
number of chapels, and of the parochial clergy. And
he (Mr. V. Smith) was at a loss to know how this re-
commendation would be carried out by an increase of
three in the number of the Bpiscopal body. After
quoting the evidence of the Bishop of London, in favour
of this view, he proceeded to say that the Noble Lord
had acted wrong in acceding to the suggestion of the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, in
not postponing the preamble, and also contrary to pre-
cedent. In his opinion it would give rise to a discussion
upon the preamble on every clause.
After a few words from Lord CLIVE,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that his object in in-
serting these words was, that the course of the Govern-
ment might be generally known ; but as they were
not intended to pledge any future Parliament, he thought
the words might be as well omitted.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Sir R. INGLIS,

Mr, AGLIONBY thought that the cause of not post-
poning the preamble was neither inexpedient nor in-
convenient. _ _

V,14.4 • • 41•11-..-" J•
Mr. WYNN thought the alteration consented to by
the Noble Lord, was a judicious one, and he trusted the
House would proceed with the consideration of the
clauses, and any further alterations in the preamble
might be made afterwards.
Sir J. GRAHAM was of opinion that, generally
speaking, it was judicious to postpone the preamble ;
but with regard to the present Bill, he thought that the
course was not convenient, and the turn which the
debate had taken, confirmed him in that opinion.
Mr. HUME regretted that as the Noble Lord had
consented to throw out three parts of the Bill, he did
not also consent to throw out the remaining portion,
namely, the Bishopric of Manchester. As it was, he
thought that the word " forthwith" should be omitted,
and the words " till such time as the two sees should be
united," substituted.
Mr. M. PHILIPS bad intended to offer this opposi-
tion, but was not certain that this was the proper time
to do so.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that although the recommenda-
tions of the Commissioners were mere matters of recital,
and might be objected to by a clause at the end, yet, as
the speediest way of settling the question, he thought
that Hon. Members should, if they saw fit, object to
each of the recommendations as they were read.
Mr. LAW thought that the discussion should be
taken when the whole question came to be discussed on
the after part of the B 11.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Noble Lord could no
longer depend upon any of e of the recommendations of
the commission, for by throwing out so much of the
recital he had altered in a very material degree the
character of the recommendations.
Sir G. GREY said that the Bill would have been
complete even without the introduction of these, and,
therefore, the objection of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath was of no force.
After some conversation, the portion of the preamble
under consideration was agreed to.
The remaining portion of the preamble was then read
and agreed to.
On clause 1 being proposed,
The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved that the fol-
lowing words be inserted—" And also any order of her
Majesty in Council relating to the said union (of the sees
of Bangor and St. Asaph) and of the new see of Man-
chester."
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that as it was his inten
don to raise the question on the second clause, he should
not then offer any opposition.
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. B.
OSBORNE,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL read the order in
Council of 1839 relating to this subject, and commented
upon it.
The amendment was afterwards agreed to.
Some conversation of rather a technical character
arose between the Legal Gentlemen on both sides of
the House, respecting the remaining portion of the
clause, which was terminated by
Mr. HUME, who said it was perfectl.s absurd to see
so much uncertainty upon a clause which ought to be
framed in the clearest manner. In order to get rid of
the difficulty, he should object to the clause altogether.
The Hon. Member then moved that the clause be
omitted.

Strangers were ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For ►he clause
Against it
__ . .

-103

-ed