The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-20 00:00:00

The Earl of WINCHILSEA—I do not mean the slight-
est disrespect to the Reverend Bench opposite in the ques-
tion I am about to ask ; but as it relates to a point
apparently made to have a connection with the
present question before them, I cannot forbear
asking for a contradiction, if one can be given upon au-
thority, of a rumour which has gone abroad on the subject
of a letter proceeding from the King to the Bishops. I
beg to ask, therefore, whether, directly or indirectly, any
communication has been made to the Right Rev. Bench
on an important measure lately before this House.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) It has been so stated, and has not
been denied upon authority. Now this is a point so
deeply affecting the independence of this branch of the
Legislature, both in and out of this House, that I think
I have a right to a fair and open answer. If such a letter
has been sent from the Crown to the Bishops (as stated
in The Sun newspaper), I will say that whoever advised
it, be he whom be may, was guilty of a gross dereliction
01 Constitutional duty, which no language I can use is
sufficiently strong to express my feelings upon.
The Bishop of LONDON—In the first place, I do not
consider myself, in the absence of the Right Rev. Prelate,
to whom I presume the question of the Noble Earl was
more particularly addressed, competent to give an
answer to that question, but if I were competent
to answer it I should decline doing co, because
I do not think the Noble Earl has a
right to ask it.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Ido not mean
to say that the Noble Earl, or any other Noble
Lord, has not a right to put what question be
pleases to the Bishops, but it is not, in the present case,
that sort of right which implies a duty on our parts to an-
swer it. My Lords, it might be exceedingly inconvenient
to answer the question.—(Hear, from the Opposition.)
If his Majesty, as head of the Church, is pleased
at any time to communicate his sentiments to his Bishops,
and I know no person who has greater right to do so, it
would be inconvenient for us to be called upon in
our places to communicate to the House whatever his
Majesty may have heen pleased to write. But this I will
say, that I do not h lieve his Majesty has made any com-
munication of such a nature as in the slightest degree to in.
friege upon the privileges of this House, or to warrant the
burst of indignation displayed by the Noble Earl. I entertain
the highest respect for the sincerity, manliness, and devoted
respect to the Church, of the Noble Earl; but I repeat,
that nothing has occurred to call forth the warm expres-
sions uttered by the Noble Earl, or to justify me in an-
swering his question.
The Duke of WELLINGTON agreed with the Right
Rev. Prelate that his Majesty was at full liberty to give
any advice to the Archbishop of Canterbury, respecting the
clergy of the country, which he thought fit ; but whether
any use had been made of that advice by the Archbishop,
was another question. He, however, earnestly entreated
their Lordships not to give credit to reports of the
description that had been referred to, as it only led to
jealousies which did much snore harm than good.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA admitted that at times
when he addressed that House, he did so with a warmth
of feeling which might be unbecoming in him, but he
could assure their Lordships that it proceeded from
the honest and conscientious feeling of his heart.—
(Hear, hear.) The only object he had in putting the
question was, to contradict a report which had gone
abroad, which he conscientiouly believed to be untrue. All
that he wished was a flat contradiction.—(Hear, hear.)
The subject then dropped.
The Earl of WICKLOW, before the order of the day
was proceeded with, wished to put a question to the
Noble Viscount opposite (Melbourne). It would be in
the recollection of the House that in May last, in conse-
quence of a discussion that took place on a motion
made by him (Lord Wicklow) for certain papers,
the Noble Viscount opposite had stated that
it was the intention of the Government in the course of
the present session to bring in a Bill for renewing the Bill
of the last session, which expired in Nov. last, by which
the landlords had the power of contracting with the rectors
of parishes for the future payment of tithes by giving a
bonus of 15 per cent. No Bill had as yet been introduced ;
and as the subject was one of the greatest importance to the
landed interest of Ireland, he wished to know whether it
was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to renew the
Act in the present session.
Viscount MELBOURNE said (as we understood) that
he apprehended it was the intention of Ministers to renew
the Act in the present session.
Earl WICKLOW wished the answer of the Noble
Viscount had been more explicit, as it was his intention,
if he bad stated his intention positively to introduce the
Bill, to have suggested some amendment which he thought
would be highly beneficial to the measure. He would,
however, now, with the permission of their Lordships,
state a few of them.—(Cries of " No, no.")
Lord KENYON rose to order. The House was
anxious to come to a conclusion of the debate on the Bill
now before them, and it was not compete. .t for the Noble
Earl to enter into the merits of a Bill that was not before
them.

The order of the day was then read, when several
Peers rose together. There were loud cries for Lord
Eldon, and the other Noble Lords gave way.
Lord ELDON then proceeded to say, that he felt it a
duty he owed to himself, to his most gracious King, to
the people of this country, as well as to the House, to
make some observations as to the consequences likely to
follow the passing of the Bill then on the table. They
were likely to be of the most awful kind, and it
was under that conviction, he assured the House upon