The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-17 00:00:00

his opinions on the subject remained unchanged, to move
that the clause should be re-inserted in the Bill. With
respect to the clause providing for the adrrtission of the
rate-payers to the meetings of the board of guardians,
which was expunged by the Lords, it was the intention
of the Government to move that the amendment should
be agreed to.
After a few words from Mr. Wakley, Mr. Christopher,
Mr. Borthwick, and Mr. Ilindley,
Sir G. GREY suggested the propriety of postponing
any discussion on the subject till Monday next, when the
Lords' amendments would be considered.

The subject then dropped.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Messengers from the Lords brought down the follow-
ing Bills, to which their Lordships had agreed :—Rail-
ways (Ireland—No. 2) Bill—Fishery Piers and Har-
bours (Ireland) Bill—Turnpike Roads (South Wales)
Bill—Canada Consolidated Revenue Fund Bill—Print
Works Bill—Shannon Navigation (Ireland) Bill—
Blackburn Improvement, Market, &c. Bill—Bathwick
Church Bill, without Amendment ;—Poor Laws Admi-
nistration Bill—Duffrpi, Llynvi, and Porth Cawl, and
Llynvi Valley Railways Amalgamation Bill—Glasgow,
Airdrie, and Monklands Junction Railway (Cowlairs
Branch) Bill— London Bridge Railway Termini General
Enlargement Bill—Exeter and Exmouth Railway Bill—
East Lancashire Railway (Southport Branch and Pres-
ton Extension) Bill—London and North Western Rail-
way (Kenilworth to Berkswell, &c. Branches and Ex-
tensions, &c.) Bill---Wolverhampton General Cemetery
Bill—South Devon Railway Extension and Amend-
ment Bill—Leeds Waterworks (No. 2) Bill—Leicester
Waterworks Bill—Portsmouth Paving, Lighting, and
Improvement Bill—St. Ives (Huntingdon) Improvement
Bill—Bingley Improvement Bill—Edinburgh and Nor-
thern Railway (St. Andrew's and Newburgh Harbour
Branches and Road Crossings—(Newport Railway Ex-
tension) Bill—Direct London and Portsmouth, Brighton
1 and Chichester, London, Brighton, and South Coast,
and London and South Western Railway Bill—Lynn
and Ely, Ely and Huntingdon, and Lynn and Dereham
Railways Amalgamation Bill—Liverpool Corporation
Waterworks Bill, with Amendments i—roor Relief
Supervision (Ireland) Bill, with an Amendment.
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER BILL.

The order of the day for the adjourned debate on this
Bill was then read.

Mr. HUME was surprised to hear that no answer
had been made to the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Dorchester. He should most certainly
do all in his power to oppose the Bill; it was a most
scandalous breach of the compact already made. With
respect to the division which took place upon the mea-
sure last night, he could see that there were in favour
of the Bill 90 Tories, 30 members of the Government,
and only 2S Liberals. lie thought that the Noble Lord
was only allowing himself to be made a cat's paw by the
Church to get another stick, which they would use here-
after to break his own neck with ; for it was his (Mr.
Hume's) decided opinion that every new Bishop he added
to the ranks of the Church would be a stick to break his
own head with eventually. He should move as an
amendment on the motion, that the SpeAker do leave
the Chair—that he should leave it on Monday next.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH would do all that lay in his
power to oppose the Bill by every fair means in his
power. He disapproved of the purpose of the Bill, for
he thought that the existing Bishops were well able to
perform the duties allotted to them. He should, however,
oppose anything like a factious opposition to the Bill.
Mr. COLLETT would support the motion of the Hon.
Member for Montrose.

Mr. V. SMITII thought that if the House was not
pledged, as was stated by the Noble Lord last night, by
any compact that had been entered into, then it was per-
fectly unnecessary to keep those words in the preamble,
and in the same clause which had reference to the crea-
tion of three new bishoprics, if the Government would
consent to expunge those words, he would have no fur-
ther objection to go into Committee on the Bill. He
would, therefore, wish to know from the Noble Lord
whether he would consent to the proposed alteration?
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that if the alteration proposed
by the Hon. Member were acceded to, he would still have
au objection to the preamble of the Bill. He should still
move to omit the words, " regard being had to the cir-
cumstance that her Majesty did not contemplate the
issue cf her writ to the new bishops to sit and vote as
Peers of Parliament, except as vacancies should from
time to time occur among the bishops of England and
Wales, now so sitting and voting."
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that this Bill was any
violation of the compact entered into by the Government
in the year 1836. The Hon. Member for Montrose had
quoted the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dor-
chester (Sir J. Graham) as an authority in his favour;
but he omitted to state that that Right Hon. Baronet
was in favour of going into Committee on the Bill, and
would not offer any opposition to the creation of a new
bishop for Manchester. With respect to the question of
the Hon. Member for Northamptonshire, the Govern-
ment had come to the conclusion that instead of one

bishop four bishops ought to be created, and her
Majesty had been advised to appoint a commission to
inquire into! and report upon the necessities of
the various parts of the country most requiring the
appointment of a bishop. He thought that it would
be placing the Church in a very unfair position
if her Majesty alone were to be interdicted from in-
creasing the power necessary for its own government.
It was a principle invariably recognised to increase the
power of the head or governing department, whether ec-
clesiastical, civil, or political, as the sphere of its opera-
tions was enlarged. Considering the importance of the
words relating to the four new bishoprics in the preamble,
he should depart from the original mode adopted with
respect to Bills in Committee, and should more, instead of
the preamble being postponed, that it be taken into con-
sideration at once. With respect to giving the new
bishops seats in the House of Lords, the Government
had come to the conclusion that it was not advisable to

give them seats in the House, as they considered that
the Church was already sufficiently represented in that
branch of the Legislature, but the new bishop would be
entitled to take his seat in the House upon any vocancy
occurring in the number of bishops. He had no objec-
tion to expunge the words having reference to the four
now bishops from the second clause, but he would not
consent to any alteration in the preamble of the Bill.
Mr. TRELAWNY took an objection to the Bill, on
the ground of its favouring one sect more than another,
and the Bill did not state of what religion these bishops
were to be ; they might belong to the Catholics, Wes-
leyan, or any other body. He thought that for the best
interests of religion it would be better to leave the
Church of England like other bodies, to be supported
upon the voluntary system ; the effect of endowments
was only to make a number of useless clergymen and
apathetic congregations. He thought that the better
plan would be to postpone this Bill until the next ses-
sion, when more time would be given for such a full
vindication of the measure as its importance suggested.
Mr. ENT WISLE thought that so long as the
Church was bound to the State by the thong of the
constitution, it ought to receive some degree of atten-
tion from the House. With respect to this Bill, ha
thought it would be much better permanently to ex-
clude the new bishops, than to deprive the ancient sees,
as it was proposed by this Bill, of that temporal dig-
nity which for centuries attached to them. It was his
intention to vote for the retention of the second clause,
and if that clause were agreed to, he would move to
expunge from it all words having reference to the rota-
tion in which the Bishops should occupy seats in the
House of Lords.

Mr. ROEBUCK thought that there was already a
very extensive suspicion abroad with respect to the con-
duct and influence of the bishops, and he tho❑ght it
very unwise to make any further addition to the num-
ber of these irresponsible Legislators. The bishops
were not like the hereditary nobles of the House of
Lords; they were in all cases sent up to that place in
consequence of some peculiar family connexions, neither
were they persons representing the public opinion of the
country, and it was his opinion that they were of very
little service in the cause of legislation. Ile wished to
know whether the minds of the people of England were
to be better employed in making these four bishops t
in devising some proper means of payment for the
working clergy. This measure was the worst that could
possibly be devised for the Church of England, as it was
one likely to bring it into that disrepute which they were
so anxious to avoid. lie would not trespass any further
upon the time of the House, but he would conclude by
strongly urging upon the Government to reframe and
remodel this Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON deprecated any factious pro-
ceeding with respect to this Bill. He thought that
there would be ample opportunities for the house ex-
pressing its opinion on the future stages of the Bill.
Mr. B. ESCOTT thought that there was no necessity
for the proposed measure, and he had heard no argu-
ments in favour of the measure sufficient to induce him
to give his support to it.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, the House
divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee 63
Against it l3
Majority for going into Committee —45
The House then went into Committee.
Mr. COLLETT moved that the Chairman do report
progress, and obtain leave to sit again.
After a few words from Mr. Hume, Mr. Osborne, Mr.
M. Philips, Mr. Escott, and Mr. Roebuck,
Mr. BROTHERTON rose and deprecated the course
of the Hon. Member, on the ground that the House
having sanctioned the principle of the Bill upon repeated
divisions, the more legitimate course to adopt would be
to endeavour to amend the Bill as much as possible in
Committee.

Mr. WAKLEY thought that the minority of the
House would be acting perfectly right in taking advan-
tage of all the rules of the House to defeat the Bill, and
it would incur a great responsibility if it did not adopt
all the means which the forms of the House permitted
to defeat the measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that if the minority were
to have the exercise of this power in their hands, it
would be impossible to pass any measure to which there
was any opposition, and the minority would have the
power of dictating to the majority, and neither the Re-
form Act, nor the Act for the repeal of the corn-laws,
could have by this time been the law of the land.
Mr. AGLIONBY requested the Hon. Member to with-
draw his motion.
After a few words from Mr. Roebuck, Lord Clements,
Mr. V. Smith, Mr. Hume, and Sir W. Molesworth,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, as the Hon. Gentleman withdrew his amend-
ment.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he had come to the
conviction that no necessity existed for an increase in
the number of bishops, and that it would be much more
advisable to increase the number of parochial clergy in
proportion to the increase in the population. He was,
however, opposed to the creation of any bishops who
should not have a seat in the House of Lords. He con-
tended for it, that the times we live in, and the power
which the bishops had over their clergy, made it neces-
sary that they should be held responsible for their con-
duct ha UQUs9 9f Parliament. He had seen the sale-

tary effect of such a regulation. He was convinced that
the propositiOn contained in the preamble of the Bill was
nut conducive to the good of the Church. He objectod
to the proposed increase in the number of bishops, and
also to the fact of any bishops being created who had
not a seat in the House of Peers. He, therefore, pro
posed the amendments of which he had given notice.
Mr. COLLETT said he would press his amendment,
which he had been induced to give up on the suggestion
that the words in the preamble were merely words of
recital, it' the Right Hon. Baronet proceeded with his
amendment.

After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK,
Sir J. GRAHAM repeated the words, and the line
in which they occurred, which he meant to have omitted.
The CHAIRMAN said it was competent to the Hon.
Member for Athlone to move his amendment.

Mr. J. COLLETT then moved the omission from the
preamble of the words relating to the sees of St. Asap',
and Bangor.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he thought that the proper
time for moving the amendment of the Right ion.
Baronet the Member for Dorchester would be when they
came to the enacting part of the Bill. He would ask
the Hon. Gentlemen the Chairman whether he thought
the Right Hon. Baronet had then a right to more his
amendment ?

The CHAIRMAN said that it was his duty to put the
amendments of Hon. Members, and that he could not
undertake to decide on the course which they ought to
pursue.
Mr. V. SMITH said he understood the Noble Lord at
the head of the Goveeninent to have declared that he
did not mean to establish any principle by that recital.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he considered that the word,
recited in the preamble would not bind Parliament to
adopt the measure therein referred to. But, at the
same time, they were words of considerable importance
because they were introductory to the enacting part of
the BBL
Mr. DISRAELI said he could not think that it was
at all desirable or eves desirous that they should leave
out an important recital, on which the enacting part of
the Bill was founded.
Mr. HUME said it appeared to him that the recital
was illegal. An Act of Parliament was at present in
existence by which Manchester was to be erected into a
bishopric ; and he considered it to be illegal and uncon.
stitutional that her Majesty should offer a recommenda.
tion opposed to the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
He thought they ought to leave out the whole of the
recital, and proceed in that case in the usual way, by
confining themselves to the clauses of the Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that even if they
were to leave out the words of which the Right Hon
Baronet the Member for Dorchester had proposed the
omission, those words would, nevertheless, continue i❑
the report of the Commission. The preamble only
stated a certain fact, which those who had drawn up
the Bill had thought it only proper to introduce, as it
formed the foundation of the measure. It appeared to
him that such a course of proceeding was the most
honest and ingenuous that could possibly be adopted.
The object of the recital was to show that, although the
Bill referred to the establishment of only one bishopric,
there were considerations which might hereafter lead to
the establishment of other bishoprics also.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he agreed with the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, that the recital was honest and in.
genuous; but it contained an avowal of a determination
to perform a further act, which appeared to him some-
what extraordinary. By an Act of Parliament which
had not yet been repealed, it was provided that the
Bishop of Manchester, whenever appointed, should
enjoy all the rights of the episcopacy, among which
rights was a scat in the House of Lords; and he could
not help thinking that it would be very unusual—he
had almost said it would be very unseemly—that it
should be declared, in the recital of that Bill, that her
Majesty would do that which Parliament had said should
not be done.
Mr. LAW said he was surprised to find that the
Right Hon. Baronet had been caught by the very loose
argument of the Hon. Member for Montrose, with re-
spect to what the Hon. Member had called the illegality
of her Majesty's consulting her constitutional advisers
as to the propriety of modifying or repealing an existing
Act of Parliament. W hy, that very course was pursued
every time that a Bill was introduced for amending or
repealing an Act of Parliament; and he could not un-
derstand how such a proceeding could be considered un-
constitutional or illegal.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said he found it laid down by Coke
that the King might hold a Parliament without any
spiritual Lords; and in fact there had been no bishops
in the two first Parliaments of Charles 11.
After a few words from Dr. NvestoL and the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
Sir F. THESIGER said he thought they had been
brought into a difficulty, in consequence of their not
having adopted the usual course, which was to postpone
the consideration of the preamble of a Bill until after
the clauses should have been discussed. It appeared
from a statement of his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Solicitor-General, that they had not before them the
whole of the recommendations of the Commissioners.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that they had the
whole of that report ; but the Commissioners might
make a further report.
Sir F. THESIGER continued—The question was not
what the framers of the Bill had thought proper to
introduce into the preamble, but the question was,
whether it was expedient that the House should then

adopt the preamble.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he admitted that it was per-
fectly competent for any Hon. Member to move in Com-
mittee the omission of the recital of any fact. But he
had been much surprised by the statement of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, that there was something illegal
• - • • " "

„
or unconstitutional in her Majesty's appointing a coin

mission with a view to submit a certain measure to
Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He had never before heard
that an Act of Parliament was something so very sacred
that her Majesty would not be justified in directing her
confidential advisers to prepare a measure for altering or
repealing any Act. That was a course which was very
frequently pursued, as the House must be aware. 'When
they came to the question about the omission under de-
bate he should be ready to discuss it.
Mr. NEWDEGATE would suggest to the Noble
Lord, as the words had led to so much discussion, and
involved a very important question, it would be advisable
to postpone the preamble.
Mr. M. PHILIPS had been led astray, he hardly knew
how—he had heard a quantity of what might be very
good law; but he really confessed he did not understand
whether they were now in a situation to proceed with the
preamble of the Bill or not.
Mr. DUNCONIBE wished the Chairman to state to
the House where it was with respect to the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN hero stated the position of the
question.
Mr. ;„iIDNEY lIERBERT proceeded to define the
particular wishes of each Hon. Gentleman, and after
fitting these, he asked how it was possible to go on with
the discussion of the preamble, when it had thus been
divided into some hundred pieces. He should therefore
propose that they postpone the preamble altogether.
Sir G. GREY said that they had now arrived at that
portion of the preamble—
Mr. HUME-- sir, I say that no portion of the preamble
has been read. lam in order, and I assert that the fact
is so.
Mr. GREENE, the Chairman, said that he had read
sentence by sentence, and paragraph by paragraph, to the
House, and the House had offered no interruption.
Mr. DUNCOMBE and Lord CLEMENTS recommended
the Chairman of Committees to leave the chair, as
his duty must be a very onerous and diagreeable one.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that ho would be prepared to
defend the preamble, if it were gone into, but despite the
Hon. Member for Finsbury he was prepared to go on,
and if the opponents of the Bill thought fit to divido on
the whole measure they might do so.—(Hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Ilajorityr.._.
--99

Mr. MARK PHILLIPS moved that the word;:' For
establishing forthwith a bishopric be left out."
Mr. NEVILLE opposed the amendment.
Mr. T. DLINCONIBE wished to know why it was
that the Noble Lord at the head of the Government had
given the city of Manchester an enfranchisement uner
the Reform Bill, if he paid no attention to the voice of
the people of Manchester. They declared against a new
bishop, and he did not reply to their petition.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that although the people of
Manchester might not now appreciate the benefits of a
bishopric established among them, yet they would, no
doubt, at some other time, understand the benefits.
After some remarks from Mr. lIUME and Mr. M.
PHILIPS,
Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the Chairman leave the
chair and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
A desultory discussion followed, when the House
divided, and there appeared—
For the motion ............................... 18
Against it ....................................... 129
Majority .............................. --11 l
Mr. B. OSBORNE would put it to the Noble Lord to
say whether lion. Members who attended in the House
at three o'clock, and sat till that hour without dinner,
were to go on till some later hour in the morning.
Lord J, RUSSELL said that he having to attend to
public business, was as much inconvenienced as any Hon
Member in that House. He should now therefore move.
that the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit
to-morrow (this day).
Mr. HUME moved that the House adjourn till
Monday.
Several Hon. Members opposed this proposition.
The gallery was ordered to be cleared, but although
the reporters were kept out a considerable time, no divi-
sion took place. On our re-admittance,
Mr. J. COLLETT said that most assuredly ho should
move, that on the third reading of this Bill, this House
be called.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that if the Bill were perse-
vered in, he should, when the order of the day was again
moved for, call the attention of the House to the state of
the administration the violation of their pledges, the
principles on which they had proceeded, and the princi-
ples on which the administration was to be conducted
hereafter. He would prevent the recurrence of the
thing, for that evening, by moving that the House do
now adjourn.
After some observations from several Members,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had no desire to
i fairly on
Saturday
Satrulryd atyo
discuss(this
thday),o if
preamblelio n. Mcm
al
the clauses, clause by clause.
After some further observations strangers were or •
dered.v nt? withdraw. It was arranged, however, (without
any bars
d,: au sittingo
), that the discussion on this Bill should be
taken on Monday at three o'clock, and that unopposed
busme: s should be taken at twelve on Saturday (to-day.)
The
other orders of the day were then agreed to, and
the House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.
press
lolsd pro
13: ?,

The Bishop of Adelaide had an interview yesterday
with Lat.]. Grey Pdt theCQlonial-offico.