The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-04 00:00:00

Pintttttitoti

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

WORCESTER RACES.—(This Day.)

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
RAILWAY STAKES.

Prince Plausible.
Hera .......

MA.DRESFIELD STAKES.

Chatterers
Blue Bell

1
.2

Five ran.
FLYING STAKES.

New Brighton
Comfort
Ida

Sixteen ran. Won by a heid.

CORPORATION PLATE.

tlfrida

Grey Pyrrhll3.
Indian Qaeen

Nine ran.
EENTINCK STAKES.

Lucy Loekit.
• Whalebone
Westminster

1
2
3

Five ran.

IVPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

_.._

ROUSE OF LORDS—(This Evening.)
ne LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at E ye o'clock.

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF INDIA.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE, in presenting a petition
from the landowners, planters, and others connected
with the trade of Bengal, complaining of the construction
of the Legislative Council of India under the provisions
of the Irdia Act of 1853, and praying for an enlargement
of the Council by the admission into it, either by ap-
pointment or otherwise, of persons selected from the In-
dian communities, without distinction of race or creed,
said it appeared no person was eligible to serve in the
Legislative Council but officers who were in the service
of the East India Company ; so that 112,000,000 of her
Majesty's native subjects, be they Mahomedans, Hindoos,
or Christians, were wholly excluded from the Council,
as well as those 10,000 Europeans, who were neither in
the service of the Crown nor the East India Company.
The Council was as remarkable for its ignorance and
inefficiency as it was for its exclusiveness, and the
members of it were not to blame for this,
for they wera called upon to legislate for eight
different nations and communities without being
afforded the assistance of any of the natives. The noble
earl having read some extracts from letters in proof of
the facts, observei that the India Act of 1853 was
passed in ignorance of the general character and conduct
of the East India C.enpany.

EVIDENCE IN FOREIGN SUITS BILL.
This bill; on the motion of the LORD CHANCEL-
LOR, wag read a second time.

DWELLINGS OF TFIE: POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
The Ma.rcriis.:of CLANRICARDE moved the second
reading of this bill

The—Earl of. DONOUGHMORE objected to cer-
tain provisiois
~in the bill, and said, when their
lordships went into committee on the measure, he
should move some amendments.
The bill was then read a second time.
EXCHEQUER BILLS (4,000,0001.) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this
bill,

The LORD CHANCELLOR said before this bill was
read a third time he wished to move the omission of a
proviso introduced int ) the bill last evenin!, on the
motion of the right rev, prelate (the Bishop of Oxford),
which declared illegal any marriage between the
adulterous parties. It was his opinion that the
proviso instea,l of discouraging the commission of adul-
tery, would have a contrary effect. He did not intend
to divide on the subject, but merely moved the omission
of the proviso as a protest against the hill.
The amendment was then negatived without a divi-
sion, and the bill was read a third time and passel.
DRAINAGE Ace AMENDMENT BILL.
The report of the committee on this bill was received.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
Their lordships then went iota committee on this bill.
[LEFT BITTING

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(This Evening.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
COALWHIPPERS' BILL.
The Sheriffs of the City of London presented a peti-
tion from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common
Council against the Coalwhippers' Bill.
The Lords' amendments to the Monmouth Roads Bill
were considered and agreed to.
NEW WRIT.
On the motion of Mr. HAYTER a new writ was
ordered to be issued for Grine, in the room of the Kiel
of Shelburne, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
INCONIE-TAX COLLECTORS.
Mr. GLADSTONE wished to pat the following
question to the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, namely—Whether it was his intention
to increase the salaries of persons employed in the c
lection of the income tex
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was his intention to do so.
TROOPS IN THE WEST INDIES.
Mr. SCUOLE FIELD asked the Under Secretary for
War whether the three regiment, the 36th, 67th, and
fie in which have new been about five years stati me I
in the West Lelia 1 slairds, are shortly to be relieved ?
Mr. F. PEEL said the regiments destined for the
West ladies were now on their way to this country.
He could give the bore gentleman ne information rela-
tive to the destination or certain regiments.
THE BISHOP OF NEW ZEALAND.
On the motion of Sir G. GREY, that the house at its
rising adjourn till Monday,
. Sir J. PAKINGTON teree and said he could not per-
mit the session t r dare without calling the attention of
the house to this eubject. When the bish rp wad first
eppeinted, there was no distinct understanding that the
salary was to continue fir life, and he had been for
the, last two years deprived of it. He thought it was
neither creeitable nor hon,rurable that this state of things
should continue ; and-IT-the sa'ary was not restored he
should feel it 1111 duty next session to bring forward a
measure for its repayment. He therefore begged to ask
the Secretary of Siete for the Colonies whether it was
the intention of the Government to make any arrange•
enent for restoring to the Bishop of New Zealand the
moderate and necessary income of 600 L per annum,
which was provided fur him when he first accepted the
position he has so well filled, and was continued till the
last two years
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he approached the ques-
tion with pain and concern, believing the bishop had
been hardly treated ; and that pain was agg,avatel by
the high-minded and dieintensted conduct of the right
rev. prelate. The salary bad been discontinued for
three yeare. The bishopric of New Zealand was
founded in 1841, and he was placed on the civil list
at a salary of 6001. per annum. Since 1852, when the
right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) was C denial Se-
cretary, the salary had been omitted from the estimates.
0,1 that occasion, in reply to a question from Mr. W.
Williams, the right hon. baronet said that after that
year the grant of 600/. for the Bishop would not be asked
fur in the estimates, because the colony would in future
provide the necessary fends for paying the bishop, and the
salary had, in consequence of that pledge, been omitted
from the estimates. This country bad e- deavoured to
induce the colony of New Zealand to pay the COOL per
annum, but the Government of that country refused to
do so. He (Hr. Labouchere) should be sorry to find
the right rev. prelate was a sufferer from the regu-
lation be had referred to, and he thought he would not,
because the Churchmen of New Zealand were raising
funds for the establishment of fresh bishoprics, and he
supposed they would make the necessary pro vison for
the present bishop before establishing the new ones.
The Bishop of New Zealand left this country without
- any stipulation that he should continue to receive this
money, but he had reason to expect it. He (Mr.Labouchere)
thought that after the pledge given by the right hon.
bart. the Government could not propose the continu-
ance of the paymemt-of 600/. per annum to the Bishop.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought that under the circum-
stances the house ought to empower the Government to
renew the grant rather than let the Bishop depend on
voluntary donations for support.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS protested again t this question
being so continually brought before the house, and ob.
jetted to this country being Idled on to support the
religious establishments of the colonies.
Mr. DISRAELI said the case ought to be considered
with regard to the claims of the itidivi,ival rather than
on the principle of their supporting the Colonial Church.
The question the house ought to consider was whether
any engagement was made with the Bishop of New Zea-
land at the time he accepted the office, because,
if so, it ought to be carried out. A mistake appeared
.to have arisen with regard to the statement
of Sir J. Pakirgton in 1852 ; and on a reference
to
Hansard be found that the right hon. baronet, so far
from making a distinct pledge that this vote should not
b s repeated, he found the right hon. baronet commenced
his statement by saying he " was averse to giving any
distinct pledge," and further on, that " probably after
his year no further grant would be required."
Sir G. GREY supported the views of the Colonial
Secretary (Hr. Labouchere) with reference to the im-
plied if .not :actual pledge of the right hon. bart, that
this salary should not be continued.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the noble lord (Lord John
Russell) fint appointed the Bishop and then came to
the house for his salary. It being granted for 12 months
was no reason why it should be continued, and as
the noble lord appointed the bishop it was his
place to pay his salary. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
He condemned the principle of endeavouring to spread
the English Church over the world at the expense of
this country, and said there could be no doubt the
right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) when he made the
Statement referred to in 1552, wished it to be taken at