The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-23 00:00:00

clause he should give Ms decided opposition to this amend-

Lord ELLENBOROUGH was sorry that the Noble
Lord bad come to that decision.

The Earl of HADDINGTON thought that it was fit
that the bench of Bishops should themselves have the se-
lection of persons whom they thought proper. If the
House came to a decision upon that point, he should vote
far the amendment.
After a few words from the Earl of CARBERY,
The Earl of WICKLOW said that the Church of Ire-
land would view such amendment with so much satisfac•
tion, and it would have such a tendency to reconcile them
to the measure, that he could not allow it to pass without,
in one stagaoor the other, taking the sense of their Lord-
ships upon it. He trusted that Noble Lords would with-
draw the opposition whiell they had given to the consi-
deration of this subject, and allow him to propose the
ameadment.

Earl GREY observed that no one had insinuated that
Ministers had an interest in making an improper selection.
In almost all appointments of this nature the selection had
been made by the Crown, and, according to all principles,
we ought to adhere to that mode of proceeding. There-
fore he should decidedly object to this alteration. If the
Noble Earl wished to persevere in his amendment, he might
do so, if he could do it by the orders of the House.

The Earl of WICKLOW should move the words " all
such four of the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland as
shall be elected from time to time by the Archbishop and
Bishops of Ireland." _

Lord ELLENBOROUGEI wished to leave out the word
" appointed," to insert the word " elected."

The Bishop of HEREFORD was in favour of all the
Bishops being Commissioners. As the Commissioners
were to transact business in all the dioceses, the Bishop in
whose diocese it was should have the power of attending.
He knew not anything about first fruits in Ireland, hut
es to the Board of First Fruits in England, it was well
known that all the Bishops in town constantly attended.
The question now was whether these four should be
elected by the Bishops, or be appointed by the Crown.
Without troubling their Lordships with the reasons, he
would vote for the appointment by the Crown.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that the
power ought to be vested in the Government, as the
Government must necessarily be responsible to Parlia-
ment for the exercise of it. If an improper selection
were made by the Bishops, they would not be respon-
sible.

The Bishop of LONDON said that the body of the
Prelates at large, whether e'ected by the Crown or by
the Bishops, would be equally responsible.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the due su-
perintendence of the whole proceedings under the Bill,
ought to he vested in the Crown, for the Ministers would
he responsible. He would put it to their Lordships to
say whether or not this was the first time that any such
elective power was given to the Bishops as that proposed
by the amendment. It was acid, however, that a prece-
dent could be found in the Board of First Fruits. This
he denit d ; for the case was not at all analogous. The
Irish Bishops sat in this House by rotation, and not by
election. He would not have agteed to the former amend•
ment, had he known that the present one was to be pro-
posed. This only showed the inconvenience of departing
from the fixed and regular mode of proceeding upon all
questions of this description. He would now only ob-
serve that out of eleven Commissioners, seven were not
amenable to the power of the Crown.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said a few words which
were not audible in the gallery.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed his hope
that the unity of principle would still be preserved in the
Bill, and the selection of the Bishops left with the Crown.
Lord WYNFORD said the great ground which he had
for wishing to see the selection of the Bishops vested i❑
the Bishops at large, was that the business to be done was
the business of the church.

Earl GREY denied that the Bishops would be equally
responsible with the Ministers of the Clown. They would
be responsible in a moral sense; they would be responsible
to their consciences and to their God ; but they would not
be responsible in a legal or political sense. There was no
instance upon record, in which the Bishops were called
upon to exercise the rights of election, for the Board of
First Fruits could not be cited as an example. As well
might it be said that Bishops sh:Add be appointed to their
sees by Bishops and not by the Crown, as that the selec-
tion of Bishops should rest with the Prelacy in the present
case. He was determined ta give his decided nagative to
the amendment.

The Earl of WICKLOW said, that though the power
was vested in the Crown, yet the clergy could not divest
their minds of the consideration as to who the Ministers
were that advised the Crown. Now it so happened that
the present Mini.ters were by no means popular with the
clergy of Ireland.
The Bishop of LONDON—The speech which the
Noble Earl has just delivered, is my strongest inducement
to vote fur the 8,11 as it now stands•—(Loud cheers from
the Ministerial benches.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I ant not surprised that
the Right Rev. Prelate should find such an inducement in
the speech of the Noble Earl, for that speech may he re-
garded as nothing less than a vote of distrust in the pre-
sent Government.—(Repeated cries of " Hear, hear,"
from Loth sides of the House.)

The Earl of WICKLOW—I totally disclaim and deny
the correctness of the assertion made b) the Noble and
Learned Lord. I disclaim and deny it in the strongest
language I can use consistently with the forms of the
House.—(Cheers.) Not one word that I have said could
in fairness be so interpreted. What I said was not that
th,• power would be ill used in the hands of his Majesty's
Ministers, but that I wished to give confidence to the
clergy nho distrusted them. If the Right Rev. Prelate
had done me the favour of attending to my words, he
would not have had occasion to make a speech first in
favour of the amendment and afterwards against it. The
Right Rev. Prelate, however, now finds at the last mo-
ment that Ministers are united in opposing the amend-
ment, and, therefore, he follows their example.—(Con-
tinued cheers from the Opposition benches.)
The Bishop of LONDON denied that he had made
any speech in favour of the amendment. What he hail
said was, that certain things must be done whether the
appointment was to be in the Crown or in the Bishops,
at the same time that his own inclination was in favour of
the latter. He would put the whole matter upon this
simple footing—here their Lordships would find a mea-
sure which was to be considered without any regard to
this or that Ministry, hut as a great constitutional question.
The Earl of SUFFOLK said it might be very clearly
inferred from the speech of the Noble Earl (Wicklow)
that he entertained no suspicion of the Crown, but of his
Majesty's Ministers.
The House was then cleared for a division.
The discussion continued for some time with closed
doors, but no division took place. We understood that
the clause was agreed to.
Clause 2 was also agreed to, with some verbal amend-
ments.