The Sun.
London, England, 1840-06-30 00:00:00

contrary to the express words of the founders. The
Bill came before them with the highest sanction of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and ho (Lord J. Russell)
believed that the suggestion which was submitted for
its amendment would, if adopted, make them lose a
great advantage, then within their reach, for a vi-
sionary good. Gentlemen opposite wished that a Chair
of Theology should be established in each town, but
he owned he could not view the execution of such a
plan without alarm. He was persuaded that if cleri-
cal education were given in each town,instead of in
the Universities, as at present, they would run the
risk of introducing a diversity of doctrines which
might be extremely dangerous. Such institutions
might do some good, but he would venture to say that
in the course of 20 or 30 years they would throw the
country into a state of theological and polemical dissen-
sion. The funds did not at present serve any good pur-
pose, and the arguments used by Hon. Gentlemen °pp•
site supposed that ; and he would therefore ask if there
were anything inconsistent with the purposes for which
they were intended, that they should be applied to giv-
ing religious instruction, according to the doctrines of the
Church of England, to those masses of the population
who were now in an alarming, and in some places in a
total, state of ignorance ? These were generally his
reasons for disagreeing on the plan as proposed by the
Hon. Gentleman. There were two subjects, however,
which it was necessary for him to mention before the
House went into Committee. With regard to the
diocese of Wales he had thought it better to exclude
it from the present Bill, making that diocese hereafter
tho subject of another measure, and with regard to the
proposition made some time ago by the Right Hon.
Gentleman with respect to Ely, her Majesty's pleasure
had been taken on that subject, and she had been
pleased to direct that a great number of canonries
should be established in Ely, and two professorships
should also be founded. Upon the whole subject he
thought the Commissioners had come to a sound con-
clusion, and he believed if the principle of the Bill
were adopted, religious instruction would be increased,
the bonds of social union would be more tightly drawn
together, and the best results upon society generally
would be then effected.

S.r THOMAS ACLAND supported the propo.
sition of the Hon. Member for Berkshire. He thought
the Noble Lord had, in many instances, misconceived
the differences that existed between himself and those
on the opposite side of the House. A fallacy had run
through the whole of the arguments relative to supply-
ing. the destitution of the Church. lie thought that
by this Bill they would take away the whole character
of Diocesan Government, and thereby lower the dig-
nity of the hierarchy of the Church.

Mr. G. PALMER thought the Bill so objectionable
in principle that every Member ought to vote against it.
Straugers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—.
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority for the motion
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Clauses 1,2, and 3, were agreed to with a few verbal
amendments.
On clause 4 being put,

Mr. LIDDELL moved, as an amendment, that five
canonrics only should be suppressed at Durham. He
thought th!s a subject of so much importance, that it was
his determination to take the sense of the Committee- on
the subject.
Mr. LAMBTON trusted that the Noble Lord
would not accede to the proposition of the Hon. Mem-
ber for North Durham.

After a few words from Mr. Bell, Lord Dungannon,
Sir H. Verney, and Lord J. Russell,
The Committee divided, whcn there appeared—
For the amendment . 40
Against it
Majority
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to, and or-
dered to stand part of the Bill.
Lord DUNGANNON moved that Canterbury be
omitted from clause 5, so that the cathedral there
should have 6 canons.

The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 27
Against it 75
Majority —4B

On our return to the gallery we found
Sir W. FOLLETT complaining of the Bill so far as
it related to the bishopric of Exeter. The Bill would
suppress the chancellor, the treasurer, and two canonrics,
while there was in the district a great want of endow-
ments for the arch-deaconries in Cornwall. The chap-
ter of Exeter stood upon a different footing from others,
and he would propose that the Noble Lord should
suppress the three offices of chancellor, treasurer, and
two canonris, but he would move that Exeter be
omitted.

Sir C. LEMON hoped his Noble Friend could so
far accede to the motion as to allow the establishment
of a second archdeaconry in Cornwall.

After a short conversation, strangers were ordered
to withdraw, end the Committee divided, when there
appeared—.

For the clause
For the amendment 34
Majority against the amendment —23

. .
The House then resumed, and the Chairman re-
ported progress, and asked leave to sit again on Friday
next, which was agreed to.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Second reading put off for three months.
POOR-LAW COMMISSION CONTINUA-
TION BILL.

On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the

Poor-law Commission Continuation Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday
next. His Lordship stated, in moving the second
reading, that its object was merely to continue the Poor-

law Commission for another year.
The Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, No. 2,
was fixed for Thursday, as was the Qualification for
Voters (Ireland) Bill.
GOODS ON CANAL BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of the Goods
on Canal Bill,
Mr. BROTHERTON said that be could not con-
sent to the second reading of the Bill at such an hour
(one o'cic&&).
Mr. FINCH said if.the Hon. Member for Salford
objected to the Bill being proceeded with, he should not
consent to any other business being proceeded with.
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped, considering the late
period of the Session, and that the present was a good
Bill, he would let it pass one stage without discussion.
Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted that a most im-

portent principle was involved in the Bill ; but 11e
hoped, considering the late period of the Session, that"
the Hon. Member for Salford would allow the se-
cond reading, and take the discussion on going into
Committee.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY would support the
_ _

Hon. Member for Salford. If the Bill were of such
importance, it ought to have been introduced earlier.
Mr. B ROT HE RTO N, on the understanding
that a discussion should take place before going into
Committee, would consent to the second reading now
without discussion.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed on Wednesday week.
ARMS_ (IRELAND) BILL.

The Arms (Ireland) Bill was then read a third
me and passed.
THOROUGHFARES IN THE METRO-

POLIS.

Mr. E. J. STANLEY obtained leave to bring in

a Bill to enable the Commissioners of her Majesty's
Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Build-
ings, to make additional thoroughfares in the Metro-
polis,
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed
of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter after One
o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 29.
Their Lordships met at Five o'Clock.
The Marquis of NORMA NBY presented a pet
ion in favour of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bi

The Noble Marquis then said he would take the op-
portunity of telling the House that he had
consulted the Law Officers of the Crown on
a subject to which the Noble Earl opposite (the Earl
of Charleville) bad referred on a former occasion. The
opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was that a
Sheriff might be continued in his office though he had
since his appointment become a Peer. He believed there
was no doubt whatever on that subject.
The Earl of CHARLEVILLE was satisfied with
the assurance of the Noble Marquis. His only wish
had been to call the attention of the Government to the
matter.

Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from
Waterford, praying for certain amendments in the Irish
Municipal Bill.
The Marquis of DOWNS HIRE presented a peti-
tion from 8,000 inhabitants of Belfast, against certain
clauses in the Irish Corporation Bill; the Noble Marquis
then presented a petition from Mr. Stewart, the Se-
neschal of Belfast, praying for compensation for the
loss he would sustain by the passing of the said Bill.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH supported the
prayer of the petition.
Lord DUNCANNON laid on the table a copy of
certain instructions sent to the Governor-General of
Canada. _ _