The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-19 00:00:00

vernment from the prisoners confined in the gaol of the
county of Cork, under sentence of the Judge of Assize, at
the last Autumn Circuit, for offences connected with
Tithes; and of all communications made on the subject of
every such Memorial by the Hon. Judge Moore ; and of
all letters from the Irish Government in reply to any cash
IWmorial, to any prisoner, or to the sherift of the county
of. Cork ; and of the letter or letters of such Sheriff to the
Irish Government on such subject; and of all communi-
cations betWeeu the Irish Government and the Gaol Coin-
mittee of the County of Cork on tha said subject.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR seconded the motion. He had
visited the gaol, and could confirm the account of his Hi n.
Friend.
Mr. lATTLETON should have no objection to the
production of the documents required, as he Was convinced
that they would add to the confidente which the people
reposed in the Governnient. lie would, therefore. ac-
cede to the productiOzt of all the communications required,
with the exception of one letter of the Hon. Judge
Moore, on the principle, that being on private business,
it could have nothing to do with the rase. If the Hon.
Member saw the letter, he would, he was sure, agree that
it was of no importance,
After a short conversation, the production of the docu-
ments, with the exception of that objected to by Mr.
Littleton, Was agreed to.
Lora ALTHORP suggested that it would be a great
convenience if the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Phillip,)
would postpone his motion respecting the Liverpool elec-
tion, as it was of the greatest importance that the Church
Temporalities Bill should be forwarded a stage as speedily
as possible.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, after observing that there
would arise many very great inconveniences from keeping
parties in attendance much longer, agreed to postpone his
motion to the 4th of July.
CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on
the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.
After a few obs.ito ations from Mr. SHAW, clauses 10
and 41 were agreed to.
On the reading of the 42,1 slaws, respecting the rota-
tion in which the Irish Bishops sat in the House of Lords,
Mr. PRYME rose pursuant to notice, and proposed
that all the words after the words "Episcopal see,"
in that clause should he left out, for the purpose
of inserting the following amendment :—" And he
it enacted, that no Bishop who was not at the
time of passing this Act, in possession of an Episco-
pal see in Ireland, shall hereafter sit in rotation in
the House of Peers; and that whenever the number of
Bishops who no-v possess sees, shall by decease or de-
mise, be reduced to twelve, then two Irish Bishops only
shall sit in the House of Peers : and whenever the number
of Bishops who are now in possession of sees in Ireland,
shall be reduced to six, then one Bishop only should sit
in the House of Peers; and whenever all such Bishops
shall become extinct, then, that the right of all the Irish
Bishops to sit in Parliament shall entirely cease; provided
always, that nothing in this clause contained shall preju-
dice the rights of an Irish Archbishop to sit in Parliament."
He argued for the amendment on the ground that he con-
sidered the duties of the church were not exactly connected
with legislation.
Mr. STANLEY thought such an amendment could
not be moved upon such a clause, according to the prac-
tice of the House, because it was not at all connected with
the Bill, the Hon. Member having advocated his alteration
on account of a difference from that of the Bill, namely—
the want of connection between the business of the church
and legislation.
The CHAIRMAN having, however, put the question,
Mr. STANLEY again rose, and contended, that by
the Act of Union, the Irish church was as much entitled
to a proportionate share in legislation as that of England
was ; and as the Irish Bishops were not entitled to sit in
Parli iment, the English Bishops were not.--(A laugh.)
He did not mean to assert that the English Bishops were
not entitled to sit. He should be sorry to make such an
assertion. He was of opinion that such a proposal should
not be introduced as an amendment on a clause in this
Bill, but as a separate measure.
Mr. SHAW said, that considering the grounds upon
which the amendment was advocated, viz., that the duty
of the churchman and the politician ought to he kept
distinct, he
.thought the proper course was to take it as a
separate measure.
Mr. HUME observed, that the ecclesiastical duties of
a Bishop must certainly be interfered with by political
duties. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
whether the Act of Union was not to be taken in favour
of the abolition of anything injurious to Ireland ? Of this
he was cute, that the Act of Union with Scotland had
never been allowed to stand in the way of any improve.
ment in the state of Scotland. It woubt do good to place
the Bishops in the best possible situation wits reference
to their flocks. To remove them from the House of
Lords would so place them. It would have the effect of
doing away much prejudice which now existed against the
Bishops. But why not do this at once ? Why postpone
what was calculated to be so useful ? It might be asked
also, why not do the same good for England as for Ire-
land ? For his part, be was prepared to confer the same
benefit on both countries.—(A laugh.) He strongly re-
commended the Hon. Mover of the amendment, therefoie,
to propose that his suggestion should be carried into
effect forthwith; or at any rate at the end of the present
Parliament.
Colonel PERCEVAL, in answer to the observation of
the Hon. Member for Middlesex, that political were in-
compatible with religious duties—(No, no) —remarked,
that in that case no political man ought to attend reli-
gious duties. No one could doubt the sincerity of the
Hon. Member in his wish to uphold the church. The
present was the first direct attempt to exclude the
Bishops from the House of Peers ; and lie trusted that the
Committee would treat the proposition as it deserved.
Mr. WYNN asked, on what the right of the Irish
Bishops to sit in the other House of Parliament was
founded ? On a solemn compact entered into between
the two countries. Twenty-two Irish Bishops, having a
right to sit in the Irish House of Peers, the Union was
agreed to on the distinct understanding that they should
be represented by one Archbishop and three Bishops in
the Imperial Parliament. What right had they to de•
prive them of their seats?

Lord ALTHORP said, that a much snore important
question was involved in the amendment of the Hon.
Member fur Huntingdon than appeared on the face of it.
It was quite clear that the real question was whether
Spiritual Peers should sit in Parliament? The Hon.
Member had brought the subject forward, as if it were
merely a question affecting the Church of Ireland : but
that was not the case—for no one could say, that if it
was improper that the Irish Bishops should sit in the
Howe of Peers, it was proper that the English Bishops
should sit there.—(Hear.) The proposition, therefore,
went to effect a complete alteration in a very important
p art of the constitution of one of the Houses of Parlia-
ment. Now, was it expedient or fitting that such an al-
teration should be proposed in the shape of an amendment
to a clause in a Bill having other objects in view ?—(Hear.)
If such a proposition were made at all, it ought to be made
in a more serious manner—as a separate and distinct sub-
ject of consideration. For his own part, however, he
should be extremely sorry to see any such charge effected
as that which the proposition tended to produce. He
hoped and trusted that, whatever raight be the wish of
individuals, the time would never arrive when the general
feeling of the House and of the country would he that the •
Church of England should not be represented in the
House of Lords.—(Hear, hear, hea-.) There might be
those out of doors who indulged in sarcasms upon the
subject; but he was sure that no man who valued the
Constitution would consent to so great a change in that
Constitution, without much stronger reasons for it than
any which had hitherto been advanced. Let the Coin.
mittee consider the precedent which the adoption of the
Hon. Member's amendment would furnish, and he was
persuaded that they would not accede to it.—(Hear.)
Sir E. KNATCHBULL had listened with infinite
satisfaction to the sentiments of the Noble Lord, who, as
the organ of his Majesty's Government, hag declared that
the representation of the Church of England in the other
House of Parliament was an indispensable part of the
constitution.—(Cries of " No, no.") Did those Hon.
Members who cried " No, no," mean to say that the
Bishops did not hold their seats in the other House of
Parliament by indefeasible right? By what tenure did
the Irish Bishops hold their seats there? By the same
tenure as the Irish lay Lords—the Act of Union. It
would be impossible to deny that Ireland would be treated
with the greatest injustice, if a successful atempt were
male to remove the Irish Bishops from the other House of
Parliament. Tiie Committee had been truly told by the
Noble Lord, that if they entertained the present proposi-
tion, they would in fact entertain the proposition that toe
Church of England shouA be altogether unrepresented in
Parliament. He had been delighted with the Noble
Lord's distinct declaration on the subject; and he congra-
tulated the country upon it.
Mr. HUME, in reply to the observations of the Hon.
Baronet, that the Irish Bishops held their seats by virtue
of the Act of Union, observed that one Act ef Parlia-
ment was good, and ought to be obeyed, until it was le-
scinded ; and no longer. Two Acts of Parliament bad
declared.that Bishops should sit in the other House of
Parliament. If an Act should be pasted declaring that
they should not sit, that Act would be as legal as its
predecessors, and ought to be as implicitly obeyed. The