The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-16 00:00:00

DEANERY OF MANCHESTER.

Mr. HOUSMAN inquired if the Rev. Mr. Bowers,
who had been recently appointed to the deanery of
Manchester would be allowed to retain the post of rector
of St. Paul's, Covent-garden.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, stated that he had consulted

the Duke of Bedford on the subject of the Rev. Gentle-
man's relinquishing the office which he held in St.
Paul's, Covent-garden. He said he had given the ut-
most satisfaction, and that he was a very proper person to
appoint to the vacant office, but as it might take a
short time to fill up the office, as the parish was a
difficult one, he inquired if any inconvenience would re-
sult from his performing his duties for a short time until
his successor could be appointed. He (Lord J. Russell)
consented, as there was no immediate urgency for the
Rev. Gentleman to enter upon his new duties.— (Hear.)
Mr. lIINDLEY said he had been acquainted with the
Rev. Gentleman for some time, and he believed his ap-
pointment would afford the utmost satisfaction.
PERTII, FORFAR, AND ABERDEEN
POST-OFFICES.

Mr. T. DUNCO MBE wished to ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer what was the reason that the mails from
the populous counties of Perth, Forfar, and Aberdeen
were detained at the Post-office of Inverness for sixteen
or seventeen hours daily, when on their way to the
inhabitants in the fishing stations, on the sea coast of
the large counties of Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness,
where the people were very sparingly employed and in
great poverty and distress, but which the delays and bad
management of the Post-office tended to aggravate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER com-
plained that the Honourable Gentlemen had not con-
fined his question to a specific matter, instead of blaming
parties who were in truth not to blame. The fact was
this : the Aberdeen mail went across the country to
Inverness in order to be carried on by the northern mail,
and the same was the case with the Perth mail ;
they were carried across the country by means of a
cross mail ; but the opening of railways east and
west caused these mails to be missed, and they had
consequently to be carried on by the mails next day.
Hence the delay. He admitted that the parties had good
reason to complain, but as soon as arrangements could
be made the evil would be remedied. The Hon. Gen-
tleman must be aware that all the cross mails could not
be dovetailed to meet the main mails at a certain time,
but nothing would he left undone to remove all reasonable
cause of complaint.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL. ARGYLE
CANAL. _ _

On the motion for going into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. S. WORTLEY regretted that the Government
had felt called upon to withdraw so great a public work
as the Argyle Canal, as he believed it would have been
of the utmost advantage to that portion of Scotland
which it would traverse.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the work advisable, but as the Government considered
that the Bill could not be carried this session, they
had felt called upon to withdraw it.
Mr. E. DENISON said, 2,000,000/. had been voted
for the purpose of enabling proprietors of land to meet
the difficulties that might arise from an alteratio❑ in the
corn-laws, by improving their land for the purpose of
producing corn; but out of this large sum Scotland had
received 1,600,000/., whilst but 400,0001. had been devoted
to this purpose in England. He wished the House to
bear this in mind before they consented to any addi-
tional grants.
TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND
THE NETHERLANDS.
Lord G. BENTINCK called the attention of the
House to the infraction, by the Dutch Government, of
the treaty of commerce contracted in 1827 between
Great Britain and the Netherlands, in respect to the
trade and commerce of the eastern territories of both
countries, and to ask Lord Palmerston if any remon-
strance has been made to the Government of the King
of the Netherlands.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he was unable to answer
the question, but perhaps the Noble Lord would defer it
till his Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foriegn
Affairs was in his place.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said he would readily
do so.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE complained that a return which
he had moved for, relating to the appointment of officers
in the British Museum, and which had been laid upon
the table of the house, had not been made in accordance
with the terms of the order of the House.
Now no appointment was valid unless signed
by the trustees—the trustees being the Lord Chancellor,
the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury ; but this return did not specify
whether this appointment had been signed by all the
trustees or not. A Commission had been appointed to
inquire into the management of that institution, and he
hoped this Commission would make a point of inquiring
into the reasons why this return had not been made in
the way the House had ordered it, and that they would
ascertain whether the appointment had been made le-
gally or not.
Sir R. H. INGLIS was understood to say that the
appointments had been signed by the principal trustee,
and that was quite sufficient in law to make them legal.
adr. lIUME said the return was certainly not in strict
compliance with the order of the House. 'r h o Commis-
sion alluded to by his Hon. Friend had only met twice
to arrange their mode of proceeding, but he had no doubt
the Commission would not lose sight of the matters
mentioned by his Hon. Friend.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
The whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the
House having resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported pro-
gress, and the report was ordered to be brought up to-
morrow.
TREATY BET WEEN GREAT BRITAIN AN

THE NETHERLANDS.
On the question being put for the third reading of the
New Zealand Bill,
Lord GEORGE BENTINCIC said he wished to call
the attention of the Noble Lord the Secretary .of
State for Foreign Affairs to an alleged infraction
of the treaty of the 17th of March, 1824, signed by Mr.
Canning and the Right Hon. Charles Watkin
lliams
Wynn. The treaty provided that, with regard to their
Indian possessions and the southern Archipelago, this
country should be placed upon a footing with the most
favoured nations. Such being the treaty of 1824, it
was alleged by a commercial firm of the highest re-
spectability in Manchester, Messrs. Butterworth,
Brooks, and Co., that an infraction of the treaty
had been committed by the King of the Nether.
lands, to the great injury of the commercial
interests of Manchester and this empire at
large. It was alleged by them, that on the 20th of
August, 1846, a treaty was contracted between the King
of the Belgians and the King of the Netherlands,
affording advantages to the Belgians which were denied
to British subjects ; and the question he wished to ask
his Noble Friend was, whether his attention had been
called to the infraction of the treaty of 1824, and
whether ho had made any remonstrance to the Dutch
Government, and whether it was his intention to
make any, or to obtain redress for British subjects ?
Lord PALMERSTON said the matter to which the
Noble Lord referred had been some time under the
consideration of the Government, and at the present
raornent it formed the subject of a negotiation between
the Netherlands and her Majesty's Government. It was
perfectly true, as was stated by. the Noble Lord, that a
treaty was come to in 1824 of the nature mentioned by
the Noble Lord, and it was quite clear that so long as the
advantages granted to Belgium were withheld from
British subjects, the provisions of the treaty would be
unfulfilled. In fairness, nowever, to the Netherlands
Government, it should,be stated that a counter demand
had been made by that Government, founded upon the
treaty of 1837. They demanded ;to be admitted to the
same privileges which were granted to Hanover.
That was still the subject of negotiation be-
tween the two Governments, and he t.rusted
that the honourable feeliogs which lie was sure animated

the British Government, and lie had no doubt inspired 1 levied upon the people of England. The duty of
that of the Netherlands, would insure the conclusion of this lion :e and the Government was now to deal with
these negotiations upon a footiag compatible with the the distribution of the Church property in such a manner
interests of both nations.—(hear, hear.) as might be considered best adapted for the purpose of
The subject then dropped. improving the moral and religious condition t t
RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN SPAIN AND the people of England. He certainly did thick
PORTUGAL i that if the Episeop il Fund were to he kePt
Sir R. 11. INGLIS said be wished to put a question to j separate and distinct under the management of the Ed'
the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign A tners with I clesiastical Commissioners, it would be better to make
reference to the treatment of British Protestants in the a stand at once, and say that this House would not
dominions of Spain and Portugal. It would he remem- sanction the endowment of any future bishops. It oP'
bored that De. Kelley was unjustly expelled from peared that there were two funds kept 1 distinct
Madeira because he was a follower of the Protestant by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. These were,
faith ; and as a etesespondence had taken place upon the "episcopal fund" and the "common fund:
the subject between her Majesty's Government and the And an Act was passed in the year 1840, the effect!,
authorities of Spain and Portugal, he wished to know if which was to fuse into one these two separate and do;
the Noble Lord had any objection to lay that correspon- tinct funds ; but in the year 1841 an Act was passe"
deuce on the table of the House ? to amend the Act of 1840, thereby repealing the pro-
Lord PALMERSTON said the subject mentioned by visions of the former Act ; and he could not dell
his Hon. Friend was one of great importance and no less but that subsequent Acts had recognised that
delicacy; but there could be no doubt that Dr. Kelley repeal of the provision for the fusion of the two Nue'•
had been unjustly treated, and some compensation In the late Government the subject of this Bill was very
was due to him from the Portuguese Government frequently discussed, but it was filially decided by her
for the insults and outrages he had been subjected to. Majesty's advisers that they would not recommend the
Dr. Kelley was obliged, for his personal safsty, adoption of the course proposed by the present Bille
to quit. An examination was afterwards instituted, DuringtheMelbourneAdministration areport was printed
and the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor had been by the Commissioners, recommending that no increefe
dismissed for their excesses on that occasion. A trial of of the number of the bishops should be made. That
,
others of the ringleaders took place, but from the con- report was signed by Lord Cottenham. the Marquis e`
stitution of the jury, and the high position of some of Lansdowne, Lord Melbourne, and Lord John Russell,
their families, they had been acquitted. Dr. Kelley at Now, it had been said that the duties assigned to the
present stood in this position. He was at present in bishops were generally too heavy. This brought hire f 0
England ; he had had his property in Madeira restored consider really what the duties of these bishops Were.
to the person authorised by himself to take pos- First, they had to perform the ordination services, wit°
session of it. But Dr. Kelley had now made a were confined to one of three early weeks in the year'
demand of compensation for all the injuries lie then they had to make a triennial visitation and ordino'
had received. He (Lord Palmerston) had asked tion ; and he was reminded of the service of the con,
the particular grounds on which he founded his claim, secretion of the churches, but with respect to the lattir
and the amount at which lie placed it, but he had as yet duties, he thought that he would be a fortunate bishoP
received no answer. The matter, therefore, rested with who had three or four of these duties torform iii Lh!
Dr. Kelley, and not with him. Dr. Kelley had asked half year. Now, he really could not think that they
whether he might return to Madeira ? There was labours were too much for any one bishop, and he Nvgl
nothing to prevent his doing so but his own apprehen- borne out in that opinion by the fact. that in some
sions. He trusted, therefore, that the Right Hon. the sees the duties were ably performed by bishops above
Baronet would not press for the production of these the age of eighty years. He thought that the ease of the.
papers. diocese of Chester was a peculiar one, and he really though;
Sir R. 11. INGLIS agreed to postpone his motion, and that upon a vacancy occurring in the see of St. AseP '
CO
the subject dropped. the Bishop of Bangor might have undertaken the date
THIRD READINGS. of the two sees, and filling up the vacant see by t"„
The Militia Pay Bill, New Zealand (No. 2) Bill, and creation of a Bishop of Manchester. A majority of,tild-.
the Canal Companies Bill were read a third time and other House, and her Majesty's responsible advisers,
o$ '
passed; as was the Trustees Relief Bill, after a few however, thought it necessary to recommend the homed'
words from Mr. JOHN STEWART. diate creation of the see of Manchester. It appears
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER BILL. that with respect to the episcopal fund, there was ft slh:
On the order of the day that the House go into Com plus in hand already amounting to the sum required fob
mittee on this Bill being read, the endowment of this new bishopric, and if he went ill
Mr. FREWEN rose to ask the consent of the House Committee on this B:11, he should make an arrange
to the withdrawal of the following clause, which he had at once for the utter obliteration of the distinctness 4
wished to be inserted in the Bill:—And be it further the two funds, and fin. causing the whole amount of te
enacted, that from and after the death of the present two funds to be appropriated for the entire wants of 4e"o
Archbishop of Canterbury the patronage of the several Church ; and it was his intention, with that vie Wee
advowsons of Rochdale, in the county of Lancaster, and move in Committee to expunge the second clause toof t
of Blackburn, in the said county, now held and enjoyed Bill, and he believed that in so doing he should be she
by by the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being, carrying out the recommendations of the report of „t'at
shall be separated from the see of Canterbury, Ecclesiastical Commissioners. From the report of the,
and shall be held and enjoyed by the Bishop ot Commission, it appeared that in the four dioceses of pet
Manchester for the time being, and his successors. don, Chester, York, and Lichfield, there welt,
And be it further enacted, that the right of presentment 108 parishes and districts, containing a P°Po,
to the several perpetual curacies and chaplaincies, de• lation of 2,590,000 persons, with about accor°3oo
pendent upon and appurtenant to the said advowsons, station for only 276,000, and although store
shall, when the patronage of the same has vested in the that report was printed in the year 1836. Cousidersior
said bishop, be separated from the incumbency of the efforts had been made to remedy the evil; still, seeie
said advowson, and shall vest in the said Bishop of Man- from mitigating, the evil had only increased with Pe'e,
chester, who shall thenceforth appoint directly to the increase of the population. He deprecated, theref°' 0
00 0
same as the same shall become vacant. any application of the funds of the episcopal or cat
°f
The HON. MEMBER, after a few words, withdrew his fund towards the erection of new bishoprics, insteaust
motion. meeting the intensity of the evil. He had the strength,
Mr. HUME said that he had occasion some short time view of the impolicy of creating a new bishop Unles:/ioet
ago to visit the Privy Council—(Laughter)—and he had were to be invested with the whole honours atterlecos
met two bishops chuckling to each other. He upon his office. It would be causing a most invfialthe
had no doubt (now that the purposes of this Bill could comparison to be made between the new bishop and the
not be mistaken) that the consent of the Government others, by keeping the one constantly confined to _io
bad been had to the violation of the compact en- duties of his see, and having no calls upon his titn,e4i
tered into with the ,bench of bishops. But no circum- consequence of his attendance at his Parliarnelnol
stances had arisen to justify this breach of compact. dutiee. Then again this measure would deprive solo",
Great alterations had been made in the laws in favour the older sees of the right which they had held for citie'r
of civil and religious liberty within these few latter years. turies, to sit in the House of Lords whenever a vflellor
Dissenters now formed more than one-half of the whole occurred; but here exception was to be made in fo'lol
population of the United Kingdom, and he totally dis- of the sees of Durham and Winchester, but why sbje ill
approved, in this state of circumstances, of the applica- this exception be made? He really saw no princiP like
Lion of the whole funds originally intended for religious the measure.—(Hear.) He would oppose anything ,0 g 0
purposes to one sect or party alone. From a return factious opposition to the Bill; he was prepared .a to
made to this House in the year 1828, it ap- into Committee on this Bill, and he was prepare,ose
peared that there were 2,268 pluralities in con- move to strike out from the preamble of the Bill all wsee.
nexion with the Church, and when he proposed words which which gave or implied sanction to the,Tee,
a measure to abolish pluralities, and give a resident tion of' any new bishoprics beside the first, and bell oe
clergyman to each parish, he was considered as the also move to strike out the second clause of the Biert go
greatest enemy to the Church; the fact was, that had believed that the first measure would be a fatal g" re•
his motion been acceded to, it would have been found the Church; it was not ornament which the buildinf,te.
i that in reality he proved himself to be the best friend to quired, hut buttresses to support the fabric. Wert, to
the Church by bringing forward that proposition. Then, ing these opinions, he could not but feel it his tin ibis
with respect to the extravagant expenditure of the adopt the course which he had before stated it Iv°
bishops on their palatial residences, it was most prepos- intention to take. Olt 10
terous. The House completely stultified itself by Mr. 1). ACLAND thought that the House on- hb°
submitting to this enormous expenditure on the be obliged to the Right Hon. Baronet for the sPeer„oo#
part of those who professed to be the had made; it showed fully the reasons why the 131.; bad
descendants of the Apostles, but who said vernment failed to keep itself in office, and why /ef the
that they could not live in anything else but palaces. lost the support of all good and honest churchmen -1, la'
He should most certainly protest against any abstraction country. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated,: ore
of public money for the purposes of the bishops. It was stance of the Bishop of Salisbury performing blut he
a most shameless attempt on their part, possessed as duties, and that of the see of Bath and Wells, u tot,
they were already of such enormous incomes, to endea- (Mr. Acland) would take the liberty of denyingool3,
your to obtain it by means of this Bill. He would and he did so upon the authority of the oet
therefore move that the House go into Committee on of Salisbury himself.—(Hear, hear.) The ste) for
the Bill this day week. Bath and Wells had suffered very macoo!
Mr. M. PHILIPS thought that unnecessary haste a time from the want of a bishop. Again, the , oft
ea
had been used in pressing forward this Bill, and he most Hon. Baronet accused the laity of not having .1„„a)
cordially seconded the motion of the Hon. Member. this question fairly in the face; but he (Mr. A° 1,01
There was a strong feeling against the measure in Man- maintained that they had, and the conclusion theY me
chester itself, and very active proceedings had lately come to was that more bishops were wanted for thehoge
been taken by an association in that borough, formed and proper management of the Church—bishops ".esr
for the purpose of obtaining a better and more equable attention should not for the greater portion of the 0050
distribution of the property already possessed by the be detracted from their duties by attendancesin the fle,eir
Church. He thought that the better course would be to of Lords, but who should be always engaged in "'.. of
withdraw the Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he certainly could not rtheespeccletirvgeydipoclaecseeds iunnt(liieercotnhetriorl
cahnadrgsuep._er(inuteenard,etial.ceiref3
complain of the opposition that had been again raised to He hoped, therefore, that when they got into Comtocne
this Bill; but, considering that the second reading had the House would not adopt the proposals of the
.0_11;te
been carried by a division of 124 to 15, the Honourable Honourable Baronet, but pass this Bill in I_7,,setit'
Member for Montrose could not wonder that he (Lord J. tirety. He would say thus much for the pm., re,
Russell) should propose to proceed with it after so mani- Government that they paid more attention to t°lotee
fest a concurrence in its favour, so far as it had yet gone, presentatives of the Church, and the Dissentincyjsero'
had been given by that House. It appeared to him that rest of the country, than did her Majesty's late 2''. orli
the whole objection of the Hon. Gentleman and of the During the last ten years, much had passed whicil9s 000
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester proceeded of them deeply regretted, but he hoped the tiMe,wheeota!
upon misapprehension. There was, as he had explained far distant when the Dissenting body would ur.)
the other day, no compact whatever, nor had he ever more united with the parent Church.—(Hear, hes74oblo,
heard that the bishops were to be kept up to a certain Sir W. MOLESWORTH regretted that the 'eve
number, and to have but a certain sum of money—that Lord at the head of the Government had not c°l3!,ele is,
39,0001. only should be allotted for the maintenance of to withdraw this Bill, because it was quite insP°69,iisco6,;
the bishops. He believed, indeed, that as far as the Act the few days of the session which remained to ''',.- OP,
was concerned, there was no mention of that sum in it; the merits of the various and important questions l jel
but if there were any compact, if there did exist any this measure necessarily gave rise to.—alei!r'sipPli'v„
ground upon which any compact could be inferred, it was he protested that the Episcopal funds could l'),-; eofrf
a compact that a Bishop of Manchester should be ap- to much better and more useful purposes than ''' eat e
pointed.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman who blishment of new bishoprics ; and as for the stateret, Oil
spoke last treated this as a new question, whereas a the lion. Gentleman who had just resumed his ShtinCh 00
Bill passed some ten years ago, to which Parliament the laity were favourable to an increase in the u„-et, I'll,
had given its assent, for the appointment of a Bishop Bishops, he utterly denied it. Cornwall, it was s;,;eledg
of Manchester; and, supposing that this Bill did not to have a new bishop, but he knew of his own ',
pass, and Parliament should afterwards refuse its that the people of that district were opposed to too. 0
assent to the maintenance of the sees of St. Asaph and An Hole. MEMBER—Southwark is to have o°ooo,
Bangor as separate sees, the proposition now made Sis W. MOLESWORTH said, as the repreTo teor,,
would follow that a Bishop of Manchester would be ap of Southwark, he must protest against it. fog pea,
pointed; and yet his Hon. Friend seemed to think that bishops were wanted ; and instead of establish OS:
the Government now, for the first time, proposed the sees, they ought to be considering a measure
vil teril'a
creation of that see. Then, as to this measure being any bling the existing bench of bishops to perf°lthey 6,0
surprise on the House, and being hurried forward, the functions in a more efficient manner than "io 115,
House would recollect that as early as the 12th of Fe- at present. The bishops ought not, , lenlo
bruary a commission had been appointed by her Majesty, opinion to have seats in the House r1e,03 the
to inquire into the propriety of keeping the two sees of because it distracted their attention n."10,(1 P,
St. Asaph and Bangor separate, and of appointing a Episcopal duties they had to perform, johora
Bishop of Manchester; so that from that time it must hoped shortly to see the day when the Bench ''f .tors, 10
have been clear to the House that this Bill would be in- would be relieved of their duties as Legisnlention
troduced. With respect to his Hon. f'riend's statement thereby enabled to devote more time and att.'s.
.3
as to the parochial condition of Manchester not being promoting the welfare of their respective dioceseeerme,
satisfactory, he conceived that that subject, as well as Mr. M. MILNES supported the Bill, on tile % veer:
many others duties imposed
that had been introduced into this discus- that the
,trl);,
sion, did not properly belong to the debate. If they more thanthey could_ conveniently perform, ._.e ye ~
were proposing to take away anything from the paro- wants of the people had so much increased of late
chial funds of Manchester, and to apply . them to the that an augmentation of bishops had become eu'
appointment of a bishop, he
could imagine that necessary. yet/
such an argument might be urged ; but these Mr. E. DENISON said this Bill embraced a'
lax,
funds were derived from the diminution of the re- large and important question, but nevert he ,
venues of the bishoprics of Durham and Ely, and if they had supported the second reading of the Bill at `.0104.'
were not to be applied to the creation of a Bishop of period of the session, under the impression thatog tll'f
Manchester, there was no imaginable reason why they who had more time and opportunity for considerlewt 05
should be applied to the parochial purposes of Man- matter had duly considered what would be the °lien $
chester more than to any other part of the country.— augmenting the Bench of Bishops, with a linsita`parl;
(Hear.) They would, indeed, be more naturally applied to seats in the House of Lords. The Right 1110,Thebb
to the parochial purposes of Ely and Durham, and their net the Member for Dorchester had made an $ e 00,e
neighbourhood, than to any part of Manchester. The speech upon this subject, and he regretted ver-'0030,17a
whole of that statement, therefore, was beside the that the Right Hon. Baronet while in office did eijo "te
question. His Hon. Friend, who had made a very tem- an effort to settle this very important questiefanfiebne frfieeli
perate speech, and nothing like an attackupon the mea- not, however, agree in all that had
sure, said that, being himself a Dissenter, he could not the Right Honourable Baronet ; and J 30%,
properly judge of this Church question; but he (Lord convinced that the Right Honourable Tre,
J. Russell) must say that it appeared to him that the would change many of Isis opinions upon the nrcrose seit
bishops formed part of the government of the Church of tion of the ecclesiastical fund, when he 11/ ritil
England.—(Hear, hear.) That government was not quainted with the further progress of the inquiry hoc
complete without the bishops; and it was no more an was going on upon that subject.—(Hear, hear') 0 higher
argument to say that you ought not to have more Lord SANDON did not think the duties of isecoa 00
bishops, because the parochial clergy of Manchester were so light as the Right Hon. Baronet 111,7. naY'doe
were in want, than to say that you ought not to make for Dorchester supposed, for scarcely a data io ere
another general by brevet, because you ought to apply hour passed, that a bishop was not engag,•eh berme
part of the money you have to spare in increasing the pensing of the business of the diocese over w`„l,,,,ith to
pay of the private soldier. The bishops formed part of sided. He (Lord Sandon) was aequain tee letter° he
the government of the Church; they were necessary to it; Right Rev. Prelate who had upwards of 5° 0 old ete
and, if the number of bishops were not sufficient—if, for write every morning upon the affairs of his:oer 'he ll,'
instance, the diocese of Chester were too large for one would ask any Member of that House whetst thst•ted
bishop, and he could not properly perform the duties any statesman whose duties were heavier teenteetel tee
belonging to it—it was a good argument why that diocese (Hear, hear, and laughter.) For himself be „ese Net,
should be divided. That appeared to aim to be a plain no doubt that there ought to be an inere-oe of Itetl
and:simple argument on the question. Every religious number of bishops, and if he wanted any Pers-d resnoe)
community, every religious persuasion, had their own it could be found in the good effects which flier, moo,
church government. Whatever they thought necessary from establishment of colonial bishoprics.--(d been inettet
for that government they proposed, and what was He was therefore glad that this measure hoe, of a h vs%
thought necessary for the government of the Church of duced, and he hailed it as the commencenseThe tied 'of
England was proposed by this Bill. No one, as ho be- state of things for the Church of England. 'eve theteei
lieved, suggested the taking away from the Church any suffered from internal dissenting, but he hoe
after Log
'
of the revenues to apply them to other purposes, and of her suffering was passed, and that herieheereits
then the question was whether, with regard to those should be united in securing her welfare, an
funds, they could be usefully applied to other purposes? her sphere of usefulness.—(Hear, hear.) , tbeethgeti;
0
Ile would not, however, at that time enter into the ques- Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the Bill; e.ee if
lion which had been raised, whether the whole of the the efficiency of the bishops would be eo'sre" $
ish°l3(l
revenues now applied to episcopal purposes could be had had seats in the House. the b rae
diverted to objects of another kind; and, having now said Lord CLIVE said that the very fact of dieregsl,oo
these few words, he would not dispute the right of the agreeing to this measure showed that theY then -tee
Hon. Member opposite to oppose the 1,1111.—(11ear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that as the lion. Member for seats in ipriden theof
Manchester had made a confession of his opinions to observance of the duties of their position in 1,0 which
the circumstances,
s, andto e
confine
ee
them 0
heriev- 0;
coon lie
the House, he would trouble the 'louse by informing Ho thanked the Noble Lord for his Bill, * „je‘l
them that he was a sincere member of the Church of would give his strenuous support. had juteb'r°tfl
England. With respect to the Bill, he thought that Mr. HORSNIAN observed that all he as t" tye $
the great amount of the property of the Church by the remarks he had made on this subject "nost /I°ol
formed the only fund upon which future out an alternative to those who said they that thObjec'
reliance could be placed for the instruction of the certain number of bishops, and to show them ss °wee°
people of this country in the principles of the Church of might have that number in a different sonde bet od
England, and he thought that it would be idle to sup- tionable manner. He thought the differeeot, .00
Church
that any future assistance for the purposes ot the the bishops and the clergy was at
Church of Eoglaud could be obtaiued awn tue taxes should be lessened; but he had had the adrasottla
1
GreTernment 911 two or three points, au'
present too
_Tiott C 3 00$

despair of ultimately effecting, a very salutary
re orm. He gave the Government credit for wishing to
reform their system of church discipline, but for the
reasons he had mentioned he hoped tbey would postpone
the measure, in order next year to bring forward a more
Comprehensive and a better we.
Mr. GOULBURN said that the same arguments
would constantly be urged for postponing the Bill, and
that he should therefore give it his support at the
present time.—(Hear, hear.) It had been stated
in the course of this debate, that they were
Precluded from creating the Bishop of Manchester by
the first Ecclesiastical Commission, but the very names
tetached to the report showed that it was not intended
that it should contemplate the binding up of this exten-
sion for ever. Surely if the Commission contemplated
the extension of the inferior clergy, it was also their
duty to provide a sufficiency or' ecclesiastical superin-
tendence. The question was now, whether there should
be a new Bishop of Manchester or not ? He did not
consider that a Bishop of the Church of England was to
be a mere ornamental appendage to that Church.— (A
laugh from the Hon Member for Montrose.) Did the
Ron. Member for Montrose, who professed himself a
Member of the Church of England, think that the Church
ought to do without bishops ? He knew the fervent at-
tachment of the Right Hon. Baronet behind him (Sir
J. Graham) to the Church of which lie was a member,
but lie thought that that Right Hon. Gentleman had not
stated correctly what were the duties of the bishops. He
considered that their duties were far more extended than
those ascribed to them by the Right Hon. Gentleman.
He might feel thus having lived under two ecclesiastical
superintendencies, which added to the duties instanced
by the Right Hon. Gentleman, others of a far nearer and
Still higher character.—(Hear, hear.) He would not
only vote for the creation of the new bishopric of Man-
chester, but also for that part of the preamble
which recognised the necessity for a further creation of
three more bishops—(" Hear, hear," from the Radical
benches)—and in taking that course he knew that he
should merit the thanks of the Churchmen of this
country.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that this was perhaps one of
the most important Bills that had been introduced into
the House in the whole of this session, and it
was therefore necessary that they should give the
greater deliberation to it. He had listened to
the speech of the Honourable Member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge with great attention, but he did
not hear him allege a reason why he had supported the
union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph, when in
office in one year, and in the following year, when out
of office, advocate the creation of five new bishoprics.
Throwing the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
how
n, out of the question, as it well deserved, let them see
n_ the question really stood. The objects of the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners were to benefit the poorer
c
illoergy, and the opinion of the working clergy, if taken
w, would be thatno new bishoprics were wanted. If they
thought. so, where were their petitions ? Where were
the petitions of the laity ? Yo one had petitioned for
this augmentation to the Bench of Bishops, but the
ofGo-
vernment had seen fit to do this unasked, and the House
Commons were asked to sanction it. But he believed
that the opposition now given would &feat the. measure,
and he believed also that her Majesty's Ministers would
be most grateful that they had done so. He did not
Ch think that the attempt to aggrandise that portion of the
de urch which was the most open to objection, would in anydegree tend to make the Church itself popular with
the country.
Mr. C. WYNN supported the Bill. He thought the
question of a seat in Parliament for the additional bishop
a very secondary consideration, and he thought that this
question might well be considered on a future occasion.
'1:11e Ron. Gentleman opposite asked where were the pe-
titioners in favour of this Bill.—(Hear, hear, from Mr.
st`c)tt-) Now, when a member of the Ecclesiastical
Commission in 1844, ho had taken some pains to ascer-
tain this, and he had found that the great majority of
the clergy and laity were opposed to the union of the
sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
Sir H. R. INGLIS supported the Bill, and felt greatly
jatstZigished that Sir James Graham should oppose it, as
irlY
identical with the measure which he him-
selfbroughthe forward about seven years ago. For his
11 part.o
reserved _cordially approved of the measure, but he
'muting tne Prerogative himself the right of moving that the clause
new Bishops to theg
aive of the Crown to summon the
in Committee. House of Lords should be expunged
Mr. S. WORTLEY
increase of the tempo 'cl%r'as of opinion that the great
would have justified arna' peerage since the Reformation
Lords increase in the number of bishops
in the House of He would have proposed that
the words in the preamble creation of the additional bishopsii a quasi pledge for the
had been left out, but
as these words happened to be inserted, he did not wish
to move that they should be expunged. He thought it
Most unconstitutional that such ancient biahoprics
as
PCarlisle or Norwich should be deprived of their ancient
rivileges, in order that these new bishoprics, as provided
IV the Bill, should have the privilege of taking
—their seats in Parliament by rotation. The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman ten
belden in support of this view, and concludecidt-"4
Calling upon the House to support the Bill, notwith
standing the objectionable points to which he had ad
Yerted, and which he hoped would be amended in Com-
rnittee.
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought that the question for con-
sideration was, how they should best d
plus funds of the Ecclesiastical Comlpiossaieonof. thlen 1111;
opinion this would be best done by increasing the
parochial rather than the episcopal clergy. It appeared
!_o Russell)
very strange that the Noble Lord (Lord John
ell) who, while in opposition, coquetted so much
with the Dissenters, should now appear so zea-
lous to ingratiate himself into thegood opinions
of the members of the Church. Ile be-
lieved that this proceeding would not be favourably
viewed by the constituents of the Noble Lord in
bL. ondo.n, and
if they marked their sense of his conduct
e lectioy rejecting him as their representative at the next
n, and making him a martyr to his new creed,
itt s_vo, n.ld be just punishment for his present flirtation with
ue uhurch.—(Cheers.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE opposed the Bill. He consi'
dered this measure was uncalled for, and would tend to
..o excite a deep feeling of hostility against its promoters.
113, present Government had no right to bring such
measure forward, and if it was intended
to increase the usefulness of the Church, they
should rather increase the parochial clergy than
the number of Bishops.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gen
tlemen, after reading several letters, which he had re-
ceived from the working clergy—(Laughter)—called
upon the House to reject the Bill, and join him in giving
it the most decided opposition at every stage.
Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the Bill, and considered
that the opponents of the measure were the best friends
of the Government, and the sincere lovers of their reli-
gion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COLLETT was also opposed to the Bill, and
thought it very strange that such a Bill would be advo-
cated by a Liberal Government.—(Cries of " Divide.")
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority... —llB
On our re-admission to the gallery we found
Mr. DUNCOMBE denouncing the result of the divi•
sion, as disgraceful to the House.—(Cries of " Order,
order," and great uproar.)
The SPEAKER called the Hon. Gentleman to order
for such language, as it was unparliamentary to impugn
the decision of the House.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said, that as well as lie could re-
member, the language of the Hon. Gentleman was, that
the vote come to was disgraceful to a weak adminis-
tration.
Mr. DUNCOMBE repeated what he had said, and
considered the vote most disgraceful. The Hon. Member
for Lambeth had displayed great inconsistency, for in
1836 he had voted against a Bill which was well known
as the Bishops' Bill.
Mr. 4GL[ONBY defended the course pursued by the
Hon. Member for Lambeth.
Lord J. RUSSELL censured the conduct of the Op-
position, which he characterised as quibbling, and hoped
the House would see it in its true nature.
Mr. B. OSBORNE wished to ask the Speaker if the
language of the Noble Lord was Parliamentary ?
The SPEAKER said that he would have called the
Noble Lord to order had he considered it necessary.—
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. ESCO yr defended the course pursued by the
minority, and contended that the quibbling was all on
the other side.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS said the best thing the House
could do, was to undo the Bill of 1836, in reference to
the Bishopric of Manchester. Nothing could be more
satisfactory to his constituents.
Sir G. GREY said that if they went into Committee
on the Bill, they might modify it there as the House
thought proper.
The debate was then adjourned till to-morrow (this
day).
The other orders of the da pastiweitzo.o.ioc.pkosed of,
the House adjourned at Half

MODEL ROOM OF THE ELECTR
TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
We were yesterday gratified by being permitted to
inspect the models deposited in the model room of the
Electric Telegraph Company, at 345, Strand. In this
?corn there are working Riedel' of every electric
telegraph that has ever been invented, and it is
most interesting to have the gradual perfectionemeni
of the instrument, from its first appearance as a mere
philosophical toy to its present state, in which it may
he considered as a power of even greater potency than
the printing press itself. Wonderful, however, as is
the double needle telegraph (the one at present in use)
it bids fair to be superseded by what we may call
the symbolic printing telegraph. The powers of this
telegraph are at present incalculable, but already by its
Means a thousand letters have been transmitted in one
minute from one terminus to another. In the same room
there is an electrical clock, which requires no winding up,
and which, were it not liable to wear out from wear and
tear, of material, might be considered as having solved
the problem of perpetual motion. The clock will go as
as the metal of which it is made shall last, or the
ejectric wires shall remain. We also visited the business-
room of theestablishment, and witnessed the transmission
(3f a message to Southampton, and the return of an answer in
less than half a minute. The gentleman who attended
" over the rooms was most attentive in showing the
working of the models, and most lucid in his explana-
tions_ of the modus operandi of the various telegraphs,
, of the relative values of the various inventions and
ImProvements.
The

East India and China Association have re-
cently published their comparative statement of the
number of British ships, with their tonnage, enteredr,lswaFds and cleared outwards from and to places within
1"9 limits of the East India Company's charter, from the
and ifeit:uary to the Nth of June, in the yeas Is4l