The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 25.

Mr. Alderman Wool), Mr. BuLwER, and others,
from the Commons, brought up the Blacklriars Bridge
Bill, Dramatic Performances Bill, and other private Bills,
which were read a first time.

The Duke of GLOUCESTER presented a petition
from the University of Cambiidge against the Jewish
Emancipation Biil.
The Chancery Regulation Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The Earl of HADDINGTON said he should have to
present shortly petitions from Glasgow, praying their
Lordships either to throw out the Bill entitled the Scotch
Burgh Reform Bill, or that they might be heard
by counsel against the Bill. But there was one
petition which had been intrusted to him, upon which
he wished to say a few words. It had been stated in
the newspapers in that part of the United Kingdom,
that he had given notice of his intention to propose, in Com-
mittee on that Bill, the insertion of a clause, to the effect
th it all inhabitant householders, paying five pounds rent,
should be entitled to vote for magistrates in these
hutglis ; hut he had never given such notice, nor had
any such intention, and should leave himself free
and unpiedged when the question came before Parliament.
Either from that misapprehension, or from some other
cause, be had received a petition from the tradesmen of the
city of Edinburgh for the extension of the franchise to all
persons in Scotland paying 51. rent. They bad a perfect
right to state their wishes, and he felt it his duty to pre-
sent the petition, expressing his regret that be could
not go to the full extent of their prayer.—(Hear.) The
petitioners prayed, either that the law might be enacted as
they wished, or the Bill rejected altogether. The latter
alternative he was more likely to agree to.
IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES BILL.

On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the
douse resolved itself into a Committee on this Bill.

Clause 79 was agreed to, with some verbal amendments,
as were clauses 80 to 89, inclusive.

In c!ause 90, at the suggestion of the E. 1.1 of WICK-
LOW, the words one hundred were substituted for 50.
Clauses 91 to 116, inclusive, were agreed to, with a few
verbal amendments.
On the 117th clause being put, .

Lord WYNFORD moved as an amendment, " That the
power of declaring churches vacant where divine worship
should have been admitted for the space of three years
should be vested in the Bishops or Ordinaries instead of in
the Commissioners to be appointed under this Bill."
The Earl of RIPON said it would seem, as well as he
could understand the Noble and Learned Lord's amend-
ment, that a power of appeal was to be given from the
decision of the Bishop or Ordinary to the Lord Lieutenant
and Privy Council ; but the same objection existed against
placing the power alluded to in the hands of the Commis-
sioners. He did not conceive that aoy body would be
more competent to discharge this particular duty than the
Commissioners. The power would only be applicable to
66 livings out of 1,400; and he would therefore ask their
Lordships on what ground it could be supposed the Com-
missioners would act unfairly.
Lord WYNFORD said his chief objection to the clause
was that the discretion was vested in the wrong hands.
This Bill was most derogatory to the character of the Irish
clergy—(Hear)—and his anxiety was, if possible, to save
them from some portion of the humiliation intended to be
heaped upon theta.—(Heir.) He wished to vindicate their
rights and privileges, and therefore it was that he wished
this duty to be performed by the Bishops, and not by the
Ecclesiastical Board.—(Hear.)
The Earl of LIMERICK expressed it as his opinion,
that if the clause were allowed to stand it would tend
greatly to the subversion of the Protestant Church in Ire-
land.—(Hear, hear.) Sitting in that House, quietly de-
bating public affairs, it was impossible for their Lordships
to form any adequate idea of the state of continual appre-
hension under which the Irish clergy lived. He had been
credibly informed that many of them had been driven
from their duties, and this he believed was true. He
should certainly oppose the amendment.
Lord PLUNKET said that the clause now under dis-
cussion was a very material part of the Bill, and in place
of destroying any benefices which at present existed or had
hitherto existed, notwithstanding the intermission of the
performance of divine service for three years, it was the
professed object of the Bill to deal fairly and equitably by
the Church of Ireland. It had no reference to any inter-
ference with the due performance of divine service in that
country. The object of this clause simply was, to invest
the Board of Commissioners with the power of deciding
that where divine service had not been performed for the
period of three years, they should either forfeit the revenues
arising out of such parish to the general fund fur the aug•
menta'ion of small livings, or forfeit it for the benefit
of the fund itself. This Bill would not prevent the per-
formance of divine service in any church, although it had
not been previously performed for three years, if the Board
of Commissioners considered it necessary for the good of
religion that it should be resumed.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND objected to this Bill as
forming a bad and dangerous precedent in undue interfe-
rence with the affairs of the Church.

Lord PLUNKET could only say, in reply to the Noble
and Illustrious Duke, that this clause only related to places
where divine service had not been performed for three
years. In point of fact, its main point was to compel the
performance of divine service; and the questio❑ in dispute
seemed to be whether the Ordinary of the diocese or the
Board of Commissioners should decide in what cases the
performance of divine service should be dispensed with in
the church. The Noble and Learned Baron opposite
(Lord Wynford) had opposed this Bill upon the assumed
ground that the granting this power to the Gurimissioners
would he i❑ derogation of the proper authority of the
Bench of Bishops.
Lord WYN FORD ob,erved that what he meant to
convey to their Lord;bips was, that it should be in the
power of the Bishop of the diocese to determine when and
under what circumstances divine service shou'd be resumed
in parishes where it had not been performed for three years.
Lord PLUNKET—Then the observation cf the Noble
and Learned Baron merely went to the extent of saying
that the discretion in this ease should be vested in the
Bishop of the diocese rather tha❑ in the Board of Commis-
sioners.

Lord WYNFORD—TIie Noble and Learned Lord had
so far understood hint correctly. Why take the jurisdic-
tion froni the Bishop of the diocese ?

Lord PLUNKET said that really the Noble and Learned
Lord was attempting to make a metaphysical distinction
in a case which did not admit of differences. He '(Lord
Plunket) had every desire to understand the Noble and
Learned Lord, but for the life and soul of him he could
not comprehend the meaning of the Noble and Learned
Lord, who never yet hail spoken without a meaning.-....
( Hear, hear.) It was very true that the Bishops, by
spiritual censure, could enforce the residence of the in-
cumbents upon their benefices, but who was to account
for the absence of discretion upon the part of the Bishops
in the enforcement of such a regulation ? It was under
these circumstances that it was considered necessary to
establish a Board having for its object the protection of
Protestant Christianity in Ireland.--(ilear.) It was said,
however, why not take the certificate of toe Bishop as to
the propriety of re-opening churches in which divine ser-
vice had not been performed for three years ? He
objected strongly to any such discretion being vested in
the Bishops as against the Board of Commissioners. The
Bishop might be partial, he might have family objects to
answer, and, therefore, he thought it would be safer to trust
the power to the Board of Commissioners. If the Com-
missioners did not discharge their duty properly--if, 58
it was hinted, they were regardless of the interests of reli-
gion—still they would in all cases be amenable to the
tribunal of public opinion, Indeed it would shock the