The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-14 00:00:00

THE BISHOPS.

Mr. CUTHBERT RIPPON, in rising to make his
motion, which was to relieve the archbishops and bi-
shops from their judicial functions in the House of
Lords, stated that he was well aware of the difficul-
ties with which he was surrounded. However, he did not
bring it forward from any love of popularity, but he offered

it from a long formed conviction of its necessity. He
wished to enlist no p irtizans, and no party feeling, in the
question, nor was he about to touch upon any theoretic ,l
topics, or to discuss the policy of the connection between
church and state. His only object was to offer his motion
as a measure of policy. He could not forbear calling the
attention of the house to the opinion of one whose opinion
was entitled to great weight—viz., Lord Bacon. I,The
hon. member then quoted a passage from Lord Bacon, but
in so low a tone that it was not heard! in the Gallery.]
Two hundred years had since elapsed, and the establish-
ment had still been continued. But a revolt had taken
place in the minds of men—an intelligent commuity had
demanded a reform in the church. He maintained that it
was the first duty of all civil governments to afford satis-
faction to those by whose opinions they were maintained.
He requested the house to obs,rve the signs of growing
discontent, and to remember by what means the reforma-

titan advanced. It was not his intention to weary the
attention of the house by referring to times long gone
by, nor should he consider that the right of Bi•
shops to sic in Parliament was sanctioned by ancient
usage. The times changed the condition of circum-
stances—the superior knowledge and education of the
clergymen had enabled them to maintain a superior in-
fluence in former times over the people, when nobles
were unlettered, and kings could scarcely sign their names.
At the time of Aliecket, the office of Chancellor was
filled by churchmen. At that time there sat in the other
house three or four archbishops, besides bishops, abbots,
and priors, making in the whole 54 or 55 ecclesiastics
He considered the present as the first step in church re-
form. He wished to begin with the heads of the esta-
blishment, in order to stow to the inferior clergy that
they would not act with impartiality. They ought then to
consider whether it was meet or useful that the beads of
the Christian church, whose duty rendered it necessary that
they should be retired from the world, whose profession
was utility, who had renounced the primps and vanities ut
the world, was it meet or proper that they should be
made agents in political affairs? Was it right to impose
such duties upon those who were set apart for the service
of God, and whose proper and sole duty ought
to be the care of the church of Christ ? What then were
the evils of the present system ? They were pluralities
non-rtsidence, and the unjust division of wealth. What
was it that caused nonresidence of the bishops, or at least
in some measure justified it, but their compulsory absence
from their bishoprics to attend in the other house ?
And the unequal division of wealth was justified by the
extraordinary expenses which their attendance upon their
political duties required. They were compelled to mix
with the splendour of the metropolis; to share in its
pleasures, and to gratify their pride, luxury, and in-
duienee......(Hear.) Before h e proceeded, he would, with

the p"-eit4seion of the houee, examine an argument which
ad bee put forth by the friends of the establishment, in
justification of the practice of sitting in the other house
of Parliament. It was said that they were the representa-
tives of the gre it body of the clergy, and that they watched
over the temp wet and spirituel welar.e of the church.
But were they chosen by the c!ecg) ? No, they were or-
da ned as virtually appointed by the King. llow, the:),
could they be called the representatives of the clergy when
the clergy bad no voice in their selection ? They were,
in fact, state, made parliament men. Private interest and
court favour offered a more powerful recommendation
than private worth. The evils of translation made the
bishops dependant upon ministerial favour. The possession
of state patronage must necessarily create an adverseness
to change, as its effect must be to diminish their power.
They ought also to see whether the conduct of parties
intrusted with this power was such as to create a tendency
to oppose all political improvements, for the purpose of
maintaining that power which they at present held.—
The pages of history were full of evidence that the object
of episcopal ascendancy was to support despotism, but he
would not now go over the history of former times, as
every gentleman acquainted with it was able to form his
own judgment. The plea of exclusive knowledge being
invested in the clergy, or the heads of the church,
wes no longer valid, and it was very desirable
that those exalted persons should exhibit the force
of example, and show that their engagement in the of-
fices they held was purely from a desire to promote the
cause of religion. The ministry of their sees would fur-
nish sufficient and full employment for the prelates, espe
ciaily when it was recollected that they were overseers
of hundreds of subordinate shepherds, from whose
circle they were now removed for a long period throughout
the year. The establishment had property, it was true,
to a considerable amount in its temporalities, which ought
certainly to be represented, but not by the bishops or any
other officers of religion whose peculiar duty was to pro
mote the practice of good works, purity of coaduet,
and spirituality of mind.—(Hear, hear.) In fact, the
property of the church was sufficiently represented
already, inasmuch as the clergy were entitled to vote for
representatives in the House of Commons. Let it then be

shown that they took office, not for the sake of filthy lucre,

and let the bead of the church be considered as the
guardian of their interests.—(ll,ar, hear.) The pre-
late and the pastor would then be enabled to turn
their eyes only to the duties of religion, and disencumber

themselves from all secular and worldly concerns.
A tnes.age was sent from the House of Lords, for a
report of the committee that sat on the Warwick Borough
Bill.—As-enred to.

Mr. GILLON seconded the motion of his friend, the

lion. member for Gates! e-id. It was one which had
the avention of the public out of doors, and de•
served to be entertained with a correiip,miling degree
of attention in that house.—(Hear.) He would follow
the example of his hon. friend, and be brief in his re-

marks. He should concele that as far as usage went to
smcti n th•• .practice of clog)men being legisla•ors, that
lay on the other side of the que.tion. Flom the most re-
mote periods the clergy were allows d to legislate. Before
a parliament sat at all the clergy were the only instructors

of pt inces, and were admitted into the Gmedium of the
nation. But the antiquity of the pracice wAs no reason
why it should he continue t, on the contrary, it was a
ieason why it should be the snore speedily aboli.bed.—
(Hear.) In the year 1641 a bill was introduced
:rim parliament for the 'impose of disabling bishops to sit
in the legislature. Their right was defend d then on
three groan is—namely, the antiquity of the practice; the
little h inn likely to IT done by the abselice of those pre-
lates from their dioceses once every three yea's;
and lastly, the great probaudity that tl,e respect
in which they were held by the public might be impaired
by their removal from the legislature. The important

point of a bishop's residing in his diocese was con-
sidered then ; and now that the absence of one teas
occasioned so frequently, and for so long a time, it

si ould meet with much more consideration. If
the superintendence of the bishops over their dioceses
was so requisite, how was it to be supposed that, in addi-
tion to these duties, they should take upon th,naselves the
cares and business of legislttion, and make themselves ac-
quainted with the intricacies of politics and the state pro-
ceedings of tie day—duties, be was justified in saying, that
hen. members of that house found sufficiently onerous ?
When, in addition to these duties, they had added those
of promoting and extending reliwon among the people,
who, he would ask, would be able to fulfil such a task?
The fluid objection, that it would take a, ay the respect
tshich they at present rnjoyed from the people, ii they
were deprived of their sea's in the other house, was by no
means a good one, as the effect would be directly the reverse.
. _

In all times it had been found that in proportion as clergy-
Men had merged their sacred ch r acre re in the arena of poli.
tics, in the stnie proportion they had lost the respect oi the
people. On that position, he should make a few short ex-
tracts from the speech of a distinguished nobleman and states-
man, Lord S and Seale. The hon member proceeded
to read an extract from the noble lord's speech, in
which he ascribed much of the anarchy and blood-
shed that had devastated the earth to the interterence of
churchmen in politics. The hon. member proct•eoed.
He would ask them had they not an example
of that picture in the pres'nt times ? Had they not
seen Ireland made the theatre of contention and
bloody strife, in order to continue an anti-national
priesthood upon the country, and force upon them a creed
which the people did not profess? Another part of the
history of the country to which he would refer was the bill
introduced in 1801, for disabling churchmen from sitting
in that house of the legislature. It had been then stated that

the same reasons that existed for excluding the Bishops
from the other house might be urged against their being
allowed to sit in that house. The advocates of these senri-
ments were no less statesmen than Mr. Grey and Mr. Fox.
He thought, as was then contended, that by that measure
au act of injustice was passed ; for while he should wil-
lingly concur in excluding all endowed clergy from either
house, on the broad ground that they could not efficiently
discharge the duties of both offices, he was inclined to think
that when a clergyman chose to separate himself from his
holy calling, and to devote himself exclusively to secular
offices, it was unjust to him, and to the constituency of
the country, in a Reformed Parliament, tbat he should be
incapable of becoming one of their representatives. He
was happy to observe that the hon. member for Cam-
bridge intende Ito bring forward a bill on this subject; it
should certainly have his support. Let them now look
to what had been pissing amongst themselves. It was
argued that it was fitting that the bishops should have
seats in tie other house of the legislature in order to
defend the rights and property of the church. Had
their interference been confined, he would ask, to
ecclesiastical subjects? Had their intermeddling in State
affairs been of that nature painted out by the Bishop of
London ? Or had they not taken an active part in all
those intrigues and cabals which rendered the present
times the most famous (he would not use a stronger ex-
pression) in bistoty ? Had they not mixed themselves up
with the factions and combinations in this and the last
parliament that they seemed not to content themselves
with such comments upon our spiritual privileges, but
had envied us our civil freedom ? He agreed with the
Reverend " Chan'thman" who bad thus eloqueney
written :—" If it be admitted that the value of any
public station, considered in its own abstract effects, or as
it bears on and is necessarily connected with the general
interests of society, be commensurate with its utility, it
follows that every privilege or occupation of the person
holding such sta ion should have an affinity to the essential
qualities of his office, and the objects for which it was
constituted. If this be admitted, my Lord, what connection
of a useful or moral kind hasa stormy midnight debate in
the House of Lords with the peaceful tenor of life and
manners which become an eccle-iastic? * * * * *.
Whilst such a temple as the House oft Lords is open
for the entrance of spiritual men, and such ladders
of ambition as from Llandaff to Canterbury, and
from Oasory to Armagh, pride will hold its domino- ,

tine, and exercise it over the hearts of men. If a
precedent be wanting for the removal of the bishops from
the House of Lords, b,hold it in the exclusion of all the
peerage of Ireland, except of the t +enty-eight representa-
tives. And let it be recollected that their right was here-
ditary. It is most weakly argued that the bishops repre-
sent the church, and refrain from every debate unless
where the interests of that church are concerned. This,
we we ] know, is not always the case ; and it is objected
that they can vote on all occasions. Where the affairs of
the church require the assistance and sanction of Parfit-
ment, can it be doubted that they would be received with
respect, and treated with favour, by that Parliameni,
upon a formal representation of the bishops, rather than
by a Ptrliam tit perhaps, exasperated by the opposition
or advocacy, no matter which, of spiritual men, of same
public measure, which had been the suiject of debate
amongst men of the first-rate talents, with their passions
excited by a contest for victory? When I use these argu-
ments I mean no invidious application ; the mot al, 'again
say, grows out of the obliquity of human affairs. 1
verily believe that there are many bishops of sanctified
hearts, single-minded, and of just conduct. Yet do I
think that all such should be tar removed from suspicion ;
and that vanity and arrogance would be imputed to them
were they animated by the zeal of St. Paul, ano
adorned with the simplicity of the disciple whom Jesus
loved, end on whine gentle bosom he leaned." The

' pride, pomp, and circumstances of evorldlq toi •
t: ted not the followers of n humble and lowly master ; a
heated and angry debate in the Houle of Lords accorded
lint i l with the meekness and charity which should dig-,I
tinguish a Christian minister. The arena of polit cal
di•putation was no place for the presence of a me,sengec
• of peace. He would remove those right reverend prelates
1, wn a scene so unbefitting their presence ; from the fri-
velities of a court and the temptations of a capital; and
would enable them, by devoting themselves to the duties
of their sacred calling, by the preaching and the prat ice
of Christian charity, to make themselves truly respected
and beloved. One point more be would allude to and he
td done. What justice was there that there should be
in one house of the legislature the representatives of one
church and one sect alone? Why were they to be more
favoured than the established church of Scotland, or than
t' e tens of thousands, the millions, who in every part of
empire conformed not to the favoured creed ? What
course his Majesty's ministers might adopt in regard to
Cis motion he knew not, but it was but too easy to
guess. The measure being carried which they bad looked
t a as a means of annihilating their political rivals formed y
n power, their motto seemed now to be, " Thus far shalt
thou go, and no further." No one measure of efficient and
s itisfactory reform had met with their concurrence. The
church and the aristocracy were taken under their espee
cial protection, while the people, on whose shoulders they
were carried into power, were forgotten.
Lord ALTHORP rose amidst renewed cries or
" Question, question," and said, "If I thought any rea-
cldertaagiirie;
.:ntahbel emn
outtinohne ro
fo f
tthhee
hmo enm. bgeernst
loe fman this
Ih o ushsea
uwl
do u
feel it my duty to discuss it with him, hut I do not.—
(Loud cheers.) I am convinced the House would not en-
tertain such a motion—(Renewed cheere)—and therefore
I feel myself excused from going into any discussion upon
the subject.—(Renewed cheering, which continued for
some minutes, and cries of " Question, question.")
Sir W. INGILBY could not but regret the determina-
tion to which the noble lord had come upon a question so
important as that referred to in the motion of his hon.
friend. It would, in his judgment., be better to have the
subject dispassionately argued pro and con in that house
than to leave it to the discussion of the people out of doors
who entertained a strong feeling upon it.--(No, no, and
Question.) What ! did not the dissenters entertain a
s-rong feeling upon it, and was it not one of the reasons
assigned for the numerous dissents which had recehtly
t iken place from the established church ? The bishops
ought not to be allowed to sit in Parliament ; they had
other more important duties to attend to than political
affairs ; and he was satisfied the time had come when that
house, reformed as it was, must not only entertain but
discus this question.—(oh, oh, and Hear.)
Mr. TENNYSON fully agreed that this was a subject
of the utmost importance. both in its nature and as to all
its results. He also concurred with his hon. friend who
had just sat down that it was a subject which ought not
to be pawed over without discussion, believieg ac Le did
that great excitement prevailed on the question out of
doors._(Cries of " No, no," and " Heir.") lie was the
r tpreseotative of a numerous constituent y, and he could
sty that in those parts of the country with which he R.:4
best acquainted the feeling which he had deserihed existed
tt a considerable extent. But at all events, the question
was one which it would be desirable to discuss, in order
t! ,at the grounds upon which they proceeded, in any c :n-
-clusien to which they might come, should be understood
by the country. He begged, however, to say that it
was not his intention at present to vote for the motion
of his honourable friend the member for Gateshead,
and for the reason that he considered this subject
.mly as part of those church reforms which be expected
before long to see realized, and that it would be ureair to
deprive the government of any part of that support to
which they were entitled in accomplishing the changes
which they proposed making in the ecclesiastical tem-
poralities. He thought that before any step of this de-
setiption was taken they should wait to see what the
measures were which the government intended to bring
forward. He suggested that one way of appeasing the
popular outcry on this subject would be to 'effect a more
rational equality of emolument among the clergy. If this
were done the presence of the bishops in the House of Lords
would be less objectionable than at present. The die--
smters naturally thought it unfair that the church of Eog-
land should be so largely represented when they were not
represented at all. The right hon. gentleman opposite
(Mr. Stanley) smiled at this, hut he (Mr. Tennyson)
must say that he respected the feeling from which the
discontent of the dissenters arose. He was a Protestant,
a member of the church of England, and he felt as ardent
a desire as any one to maintain the establishment securely
and efficiently. The present system of representation
adopted in the church exposed the bishops to much ani-
madversion ; but that might be avoided, and to the satis-
faction of all parties, if, instead of sitting for life, they
sat in rotation, as the Irish bishops did. There could be
no doubt that the employment of the bishops in secular
affairs was a great disadvantage to the character of the
church ; and some step should be taken to remove the
evil. He had no objectioa to allow a certain number of
bishops to sit in the House of Lords to watch over ecclesias-
tical affairs ; but it would be for the benefit of the church
itself if that number was smaller than at present. They
should, however, be precluded from intermeddling in
secular affairs, and above ell, they should not be at !Mercy
to add their weight to either side in disposing of political
questions in their nature purely secular.—(Hear, and
cries of " Question.")
Mr. H. HUGHES said he was convinced that the
course which his Majesty's Government had taken on this
occasion would meet with the approbation of the great
majority of the people in the country.—(Hear, hear.)
The opinion which the noble lord had expressed that this
question should not be discussed was the opinion of the
great bulk of the nation.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. JAMES rose amidst renewed cries of
" Question," and " Oh, ob."—He said that the reason
his Majesty's government had declined answering the
speeches of the bon. gentlemen who moved and seconded
the motion was because they bad no answer to give to the
arguments which his hon. friends bad adduced.—(A
laugh, " Oh, oh," and cries of " Question.") He was
convinced they bad not, or they never would have been
induced to get rid of the question as they had done, with-
out discussion.—(oh, oh, and cries of •‘ Question.")
Mr. BUCKINGHAM was scarcely audible in the
gallery.—He felt convinced that the Church of Engl ind
would stand upon much higher ground if the Bishops had
11 no seat in the House of Lords. With respect to any
difficulty arising from their possessing vested interests, it
might be got rid of. The numbers of the Dissenters had
increased, and were daily increasing, owing, as he con-
sidered, in a great measure to the connection between
church and state. The minority upon this question be
knew would be small, but that would not prevent it from
being fully discussed out of doors.
Mr. E. RUTHVEN said the people out of doors felt
great difficulty in believing the sacredness of the episcopal
character when they saw the great revenues enjoyed by
the Bishops and the manner in which they disposed of
them.

Mr. O'REILLY said that as he should vote on this
question, he was anxious to have it understood by the
house and by his constituents upon what grounds he would
vote. Whether, as a Roman Catholic, he was bound or
not bound by the oath he took on admission to that house
to do nothing tending to subvert or to weaken the Pro-
testant church as by law established—whatever might be
the interpretation put upon the oath—he felt that at least
lie, as a Roman Catholic, bad entered into a compact, and
that compact he would adhere to.—(Hear.) He felt
himself bound to give to the Protestant church—not as a
religion, because, as a religion, he entirely differed from
it, but as the church to which they belonged who admitted
him into that house as an institution dear to them, and
the preservation of which they considered of the highest
Importance—he would give it that support which be
thought himself bound by that compact to give to it. An
influential member of that house (Mr. O'Connell, we be-
lieve) said he did nut consider that any moral compact had
been entered into upon the occasion of the Catholic Relief
Bill having been passed. However that might have been,
he at 1. est recognised such a compact. This opinion might
not be popular with many persons in the country from
which he cane, who were yet smarting under the injuries
and oppressions inflicted upon them by those who were
a lberents to the established church ; but he felt confident
that the sentiments he expressed upon this point were
those of every honest, independent, and intelligent man
who considered the subject. Till the legislature should
come to some determination as to the precise meaning and
force of the oa'h he took on admission to that house he
would vote according to his conscience upon this and every
other question connected with the church. He would
opposea
all
todo w
theiiitiot, .
::1-„(ii. l
llear;
hear.)
was a question mer.ly of poli-
Air. O'CONNELL said this question bad nothing at
tical franchise. Could he persuade himself that it leas
oue of religion be c rtainly would not interfere with it.
If it coo d be satisfactorily shown to him that the
clicunistance of bishops having setts in the H iuse of
Lundy was productive of any political good. t‘i the
people, that it tended to the support of the -r
heri a,
t;,e advancement of their temporal or spirltu,l in.e-
rest9, the cheapness of goveinuient or the n-piession of
abuses, be would be one of the last men to deprive them
of their privilege. When be recollected, however, that

for the last 130 years they, as a body, were never found
upon any one occasion to take a part fivourahle to the
liberties of the pcoide; that, on the contrary, they in-
variably opposed concessions, whether to Dissenters or
Catholics ; that, far from wishing to enlarge, they were
disposed to oppose the progress of liberal opinions ; he
could not fee any good that could result from their having
seats in Parliament. Upon all questions of public liberty
they formed hut a negative quantity, always on the wrong,
never on the right, side.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY said it was a favourite opinion,
and entertained by many, and frequently expressed, that all
the various interests of the country were represented in
that house. He owed his seat there to a large and highly
respectable portion of the Protes'ant dissenters of this
'country; and he would, from no inducement, either reli-
gious or political, shrink from openly avowing his send-
talents upon this or upon any other question ; he felt that
it would ha a shameful abandonment of the interest of
throe who sent him there—an abandonment of their just
and reasonable expectations—if he were now to permit
this question to be smothered, as it were, in i's very birth
without declaring what his opinions were. He would
not now enter into the merits of the question as be origi-
nally proposed, and indeed bad prepared himself to do.
Another opportunity must arise, and then he would be
ready to take his part in the discussion. Not the shadow
of an arcLaatnent was offered against the motion. They who
were determined to vote against it were totally silent.
The motion, if disposed of in this way, without argument
or observation, would at least have this result : it would
prove to the country that the continuance of the bishops in
their seats in the other home of Parliament had not a sine le
supporter in that hotw. Was this to bo treated like
sonic paltry question of tithe, or one the oloject of which
was to determine whether or not a poor man should drive
to market in an untaxed cart? There was no question
that entered ,tore deeply into the feelings of the people at
large than this—none in which they considered their
most important interests more deeply involved ; anti
that feeling was gaining ground, was more rapidly ad-
vancing every day. It was in vain, therefore, to think of
disposing of it merely by silence. There was a principle
now at work, to which, if concession were not made in
due time, the question ere long would be, not whether
the bishops of the established church should retain
their seats in the House of Lords, but whether the
establishment should be retained at all. The dissenters
bad no wish to overthrow the established church. There
was a concessive spirit in them ; and when they were
charged with entertaining a desire to seize upon, and ap-
propriate to their own uses, the temporalities of the
church, be treated it as a calumny on the feelings and the
pt inciples of that most respectable body. They aid not
covet the good things of the church. They disliked its
worldly character, so little in unison with the gospel, and
they wished to see it reformed. If they could not hope to
obtain reform through the agency of calm reasoning and
argument and dispassionate inquiry in that house, they
must only seek it from some otter source, and direct
their attention to those other means of influence by which
great questions of this nature were, stainer or later, de-
cided. Tithes were not theology, dogmas were not dcc
trine, and the church of England must fall when she
once ceased to possess revenues. The doctrines of the
church were distinct from her connection with the state.
They rested on quite another basis, and would flourish
more vigorously if altogether dissevered from the cornice
Lion. The church of England, as displayed in her doc-
trine s and principles, was dear to the people, dear to the
dissenters, as well as to the members of that church
themselves ; but its doctrines were distinct from its
institutions as established by law ; and if they
dissolved the union between the temporal and
spiritual authority that church would still ceminue not
only to exist but to flourish. Man would then see its
principles in its purity, and in its professions its faith.
Nothing tended more to promote indifference and even
infidelity than to see the political gorgeousness, the trap-
pings of worldly greatness, in which bishops 'vete
decked; nothing was more repulsive to men of sincere
faith, nothing more inconsistent with the meek and hum-
ble genius of Christianity. Nothing, on the contrary,
would tend more to the spiritual goof of the people, no
thing reconcile them more to the establishment, than to
relegate bishops from their seats in parliament, from all
the cares of temporal lordship, to their proper and appro-
priate scene of action. From what hitherto appeared in
the course of the debate there did not seem to be
much concord among those who showed any disposi-
tion to suppott the motion. An honourable gentleman
near him (Mr. Tennyson) said his nhjection was not to
the bishops having seats in the House of Lords, but to
so many of them sitting there. The honourable member
would be content if there were a few, as in the case of the
Irish Bishops, to represent and to watch over the interests
of the whole body. Now for his part he did nut quarrel
with the number—he quarrelled with the ptinciple, and
if theme were bishops to remain at all in the House of
Lords he scold just as soon have the whole retain their
seats. In the degree in which the cause of religion was
to be advanced by episcopacy, in that degree he would
admit it was important that the church estsblishinent
should be complete. That with which lie quarrelled was
not a spiritual hierarchy, but the alliance of church and
state—of a spiritual institution with one that was or ought
to be exclusively tempotal. It might be said that the
Dissenters desired to have bill ops of their own in P
men% To attribute to them any such wish would be a most
unjust and groundless libel upon the nut:-confoemists, and it
was equally a libel to assert that they wished to appropriate
the temporalities of the establishment. Their object and
their desire was that religion should have no connection
with the state; that the objects of both being in nature
quite distinct, so too should be their existence. They
were of opinion that the history of the last sixteen cen-
turies of the Christian era, since first this unhallowed
connection was established, proved tbat such connection
only impeded the progress of true religion, of the
genuine principles of Christianity. Within the short space
of the three first centuries, Christianity, by the mere force
of truth, of purity, humili y, and charity—by the zeal
and holiness of its teachers—had triumphed over the
greatest obstacles, over the refinements of pride, the cruel-
ties, the persecutions, and superstitions of Paganism. It
subjugated the power of imperial Rome, and bought
down the pride of the Caesars. Nothing was found ca-
pable of restating its simple and sublime doctrines. How-
ever profitable, therefore, in a temporal point of view,
cant, subserviency, and parliamentary pliancy might be
.—however imposing and attractive the splendour of the
Crown—whatever sanctity might seem to belong to the
mitre, whatever solemnity to the crosier, Christianity did
not require their aid; and all the dissenters desired was to
let it stand on its own inherent and imperishable preten-
sions.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME thought it very desirable that bishops should
be placed in a situation in which they would be removed
from the occasion of voting against the interests of the
people. Their seats in the House of Lords only impeded
them in the discharge of their proper duties. By their
conduct on the Reform Bill they rendered themselves
odious to three fourths of the people, and it led the country
to this conclusion, that it would be desirable to take away
from thew all opportunity of coming again in collision with
the people. The re was httl , if any,diffei ence of opinion upon
this point. The bishops never acted together in poll acs but
to do mischief. Ministers said nothing upon this motion,
and for a very good reason, bectuse they had nothing to
say. They had no argument except old and established
usage. He respected old usages it they were good and
useful, if they were profitable to the people, and not other-
wise. Ministers were blind to the signs of the times.
They seemed perfectly indifferent to the feelings of the
dissenters. The motion seemed to be thought unworthy
of debate, but the time would come when it must be
debated.

Mr. SHELL said, from the silence upon this occasion
it would appear that a gnat change of opinion bad been
wrought in the noble lord (Althotp) and the gentlemen
near him since the time the bishops were desired to set
tl eir house in order. He did nut rise to enter into the
question, but merely to record his opinion as an indiv•dual
member of Parliament. If they had annihilated twelve
bishops prospectively in Ireland, was it too much to say
that they might now interfere retrospectively with some
of the mere political adjunc's of episcopacy? Why did Iva
the noble lord and his colleagues come down in the morning
when petitions were presented praying for the separation
of church and state, and oppose the reception of them, if
they considered the present motion so subversive of the
church as not to be fit even for discussion? If this mo-
tion was not to he entertained such petitions ought not to
be received. There were nine millions of dissenters in the
two islands. Motions end petitions in which any large
body of them took an interest were not to be treated with
neglect. It was said of the church of Scotland that it
stood on the rock of poverty, unendoweci, but immutable.
Fir from thinking that it would be attended with any
danger to the established church if the bishops retired
from their Parliamentary functions into respectable se-
questration, they would receive ample compensation for the
loss of political power in the increased respect and confi-
denceof the people.
Mr. EWART was scarcely audible from the noise in
the body of the house. We understood him to say that
the real interests of the church and of religion would be

better promoted iC the bishops had not seats in the House
of Lordq.
The boute then divided, when there appeared—

Against the Motion 125
For the Motion
Majority -67
HOUSE AND WINDOW TAX.

Sir S. WHALLEY would withdraw for the present
his motion for the repeal of the taxes upon houses and
windows in consequence of the noble lord (Althorp) having
introduced a bill for the repeal of the hous. tax. The hon.
member made some observations on the subject which were
inaudible in the gallery.
Lord ALTHORP also made some observations which
were inaudible.

STAGE COACHES AND OMNIBUSES.
Mr. Alderman WOOD rose for the purpose of moving
for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the plying, driving,
standing, places of arrival and departure of stage coaches,
omnibuses, cabriolets, and oth• r hackney coaches, and also
the passing and repassing of waggons and other carriages
used for the c inveyance of goods, within the city of London
and the lib.rties the! e )f. He thought that no hon. gen-
tleman could have di iven through the streets of the metro
polis without seeing the absolute necessity of passing some
measure for the regulation of stage coaches, omnibuses, and
other carriages. The principal regulation that he intended
to propose was that the drivers should be licensed instead
of the owners. He did not feel it necessary to state the
other regulations be intended to propose, as they could be
better considered in committee.

Mr. ROEBUCK had no wish to oppose the introduc-
tion of the bill. If, however, the object of it was to
lessen the public carriages in London, he should give his
decided opposition to it. He thought it of the greatest
importance to the poorer inh ib'tants of the metropolis,
that a free trade should exist as regarded these vehicles.
At present the poorer clerk , with salaries of from 1501.
to 170!. a year, were enabled to let their families live is
the purer air a few miles from town in consequence of the
cheep conveyance afforded by the omnibuses. He had no
objection to the introduction of the bid.
Mr. HUIIIE reminded the house that the subject was
referred to a committee last year, and after a long and
attentive investigation of the subject it was almost the
unanim,us opinion of the committee that the licensing of
the drivers would be objectionable. The public had de-
rived great advantage from making the proprietors of stage
coaches responsible for the conduct of the drivers. If it
was thouAt desirable to introduce the bill he would not
object, provided it was sent up stairs to a committee.
Mr. H. HUGHES would appeal to hon. members whe-
ther the accidents that daily occurred did not render some
measure of the kind necessary.
Lord ALT HORP begged to be understood that in vot-
ing for the introduction of the bill he did not pledge him-
self to support it at any future stage. The act for the
regulation of stage coaches hal been productive of the
greatest good. Ho did not mean to say that some po'ice
regulations on the subject might not he desirable, but he
would protest against any interference with the perfect
freedom now exist.ng with regard to the licensing of these
vehicles.

Mr. O'CONNELL obj,cted to the bill.
Mr. WILKS said one of the objects of the bill of the
worthy alderman was to interfere with the times ofarrivil
and departure of the public conveyances, which he (Mr.
Wilks) thought was tv.ost objectionable.
Mr. GROTE could testify to the inconvenience often
occasioned in the crowded streets by the stage coaches and
omnibuses, and hoped some means would be devised to
relieve it from that ground of compl ►int. He thought the
bill had better be referred to a committee. He should ob-
ject to interfering with the free trade now existing as re-
garded these vehicles. He also conceived it was not de-
sirable to license cabdrivers.
Mr. E. L. BULWER thought some regulations similar
to those existing in Paris as regarded the public convey-
ances might he adopted with advantage.
The motion was then agreed to, and the bill ordered to
be introduced•