The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-13 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 partizans, and no party feeling, in the
question, nor was he about to touch upon any theoretical
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. lie could not forbear calling the
attention of the house to the opinion of one whose opinion
was entitled to great weight—viz., Lord Bacon. LThe
hon. member then quoted a passage from Lord Bacon, but
in so low a tone that it warm 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 commnity 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 observe the signs of growing
discontent, and to remember by what means the reforma-
tion 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 sit 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 influ-
ence in former times over the people, and when nobles
were unlettered, and kings could scarcely sign their names.
At the time of A'Becket, 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 ecclesiastic s
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 show to the inferior clergy that
they wouid act with impartiality. They ought then to
consider whether it was meet or useful that the heads of
the Christian church, whose duty rendered it necessary that
they should be retired from the world, whose profession
was utility, who had announced the pumps and vanities of
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 case of the church of Christ. What then were
the evils of the present system ? They were pluralities,
non-residence, and the unjust division of wealth. What
was it that caused non-residence 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.
dolence.—(Hear, hear.) Before he proceeded, he would,
with theie permission, examine an argument which
had been 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 great body of the clergy, and that they watched
over the :temporal and spiritual welfare of the church.
But were they chosen by the clergy? No, they were or-
dained as virtually appointed by the King. How, then,
could they be called the representatives of the clergy when
the clergy had no voice in their selection. They were,
i❑ 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 dependent upon ministerial favour. The possession
of state patronage must necessarily create an adverseness
to change, as its effect must be to diminish t' eir power.
They ought also to see whether the conduct of parties
entrusted 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,
was 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 the word would fur-
nish sufficient and full employment fur the prelates, espe-
cially 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 establi-hment 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 conduct,
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 head of the church be considered as the
guardian of their interests.—(Hear, hear.) The pret
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 concernr.

A menage was sent from the House of Lords, for a
report of the committee that sat on the Warwick Borough
Bill.—As..ented to.

Mr. GILLON seconded the motion of his friend, the
hon, member for Gateshead. It was one which had
the attention of the public out of doors, and de.
served to be entertained with a corresponding 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 concede that as far as usage went to
stnction the practice of clergymen being legislators, that
lay on the other side of the question. From the most re-
mote periods the clergy were allowed to legislate. Before
a parliament sat at all the clergy were the only instructors
of princes, and were admitted into the Concilium of the
nation. But the antiquity of the practice was no reason
why it should be continued, on the contrary, it was a
reason why it should be the more speedily abolished.—
(Hear.) In the year 1641 a bill was introduced
into parliament for the purpose of disabling bishops to sit
in the legislature. Their right was defended then on
three grounds—namely, the antiquity of the practice; the
little harm likely to he done by the absence of those pre-
lates from their dioceses once every three years;
and lastly, the great probability that the respect
in which they were held by the public might be impaired
important
point their removal from the legislatuie. The
iere
o anl no w that the absence of one tsars
occasioned frequently,
n
point of a bishop's residingad for r so diocese
lo
in hisnga me
was
tic,o con-
sideredit
should 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 ditties, they should take upon themselves the

yes so.
quainted with the intt its pro-
ceedings of the day? , icing the
hon. member of that h, onerous.
When, in addition to these dot, aided those
of promoting and extending religion among the p?, pie,
who, he would ask, would be able to such a task? The
third objection, that it would take away from the respect
. hich they at present enjoyed from the people, if they
were de )rived of their sea's in the other holm., was by
no means a good one, the effet t would bedirectly the reverse.
In all tines it had been found that in proportion as cl rgy-
men had merged their sacred characters in the arena of poli-
tics, in the same proportion theyhad lost the rest:a of p o.tle.
On that position, he should make a few short extracts
from the speech of a distinguished nobleman and states-
man, Lord Say and Seale. The hon member procee
to read an extract from tl e noble lord's speech, in
which he ascribed much of the anarchy and blood-
sh, d that bad devastated the ear.h to the ilterference of
churchmen in politics. The hon. member proceeded.
He would ask them hid they not an example
of that picture in the present 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 sta'ed that
the same reasons that existed from excluding the Bishops
from the . tier house might be urged against their being
allowed to sit in that house. The advocates of these senti-
ments were no less statesmen than Mr. Grey and Mr. Fox.
He certainly thought that by the bill of 1801 some
hardship was inflicted, btcause, as he would be ev.r
ready to exclude those who were engaged in church af-
fairs from the duties of Parliament tip in the broad ground
that they could not discharge the duties of loth, so should I e
continue to think as he did Oh t it would be unjust toward,
The house was then addressed by Lord Altborp, aho
was ready to ent r into tl e question if the house wished.
—(Question, Question.) And next by Sir W. Ingleby,
Mr. Tennyson, Mr. H. Hughes, Mr. James, and Mr.
Buckingham.
The house was twice cleared for a divislon, but ncne
took place.

(LIFT SITTING.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mead 12.

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF

HERTFORD.

Mr. BERNAL'S speech, conclnded from our se and
edition of last night.
Ile thought the house was bound to make the Reform
13111 a wholesome and salutary measure, and therefore
he trusted that no gentleman would get up and object
to the second reading of this bill.—(Hear, hear.) The
house had sufficiently committed itself by sending the bill
up stairs, and all that remained to be done now was to
adopt the remedy suggested.

Lord G. SOMERSET could not agree with the bon.
member that because the house agreed to an inquiry it was
bound to agree also to the second reading of the bill.
O❑ all former occasions, bribery of the most gross kind
was the ground of a measure of disfranchisement. He also
had the sanction of the present House of Commons for
saying that, in a case of the most gross and glaring
bribery, it was enough to satisfy the justice of the mat-
ter that ene individual only should be prosecuted.
He alluded to the case of Newry.—(Hear, hear.)
That was a case in which great corruption was proved ;
and yet that was all that was ordered by a reformed
House of Commons.--( Hear, hear.) He did not see
why one measure of justice should be meted out
to one borough and another to one that was proved
not to be so corrupt. The disfranchisement of 300 indi-
viduals, whatever their station in life, was a matter of
very considerable importance, and was worthy the attention
of that house. There was a considetable difference be-
tween bribery and treating, and, in his opinion,
there had been nothing proved against Hertford
that at all amounted to legal bribery.—(Hear.)
In the borough of Hertford the hon. member opposite
hid in a very handsome m inner expressed his disbelief in
the evidence adduced by a person named Russell Davis.—.
( Hear, beam) As far as he remembered the evidence
that had been given before the committee upon the
subject, he did not believe that any case of bribery
had hien brought forward, with the exception of
the case of Russell Davis, and the money that was
given to him, was clearly proved to be given out
of charity. He thought that when the house were
about to disfranchise 200 or 300 poor men, and
that, too, upon a point which the Legisla-
ture, by its statutes, and by the decision of
its committees, had concurred in it, should pause
before it inflicted such severe punisbment—(Hear)—
and use every endeavour to purify the borough, instead
of disfranchising it. He was not one of those who did
not think that offences of the description to which the
hon. member opposite had adverted, should not be
properly punished, but he thought some other punishment
than that of wholesale disqualification should be resorted to.
Believing that the measure was fraught with gross injustice,
he begged leave to move, as an amendment, that the bill
be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. HALCOM seconded the amendment.

On the question being put,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he would vote for the se-
cond reading: It was in vain to talk of treating as a
proof of bribery, for in that case, in his opinion, one-half
of the boroughs and the counties of England would have
to be disfranchised. He thought it a matter well worthy
of consideration whether an attempt should not be made
by that house to define by law what was meant by the
word bribery.—(Hear, hear.) If bribery consisted in
treating—in this five-shilling ticket system, then must he
say that the borough of Tamworth, which he had the
honour to represent, had been oft times guilty of bribery.
For the last hundred years this system had prevailed—.
the system of tickets for treating, he meant; for he sin-
cerely believed that not one shilling was ever spent with
a view, or in the hope, of influencing a vote. Never, ac-
cording to his impression, had a ticket been given with any
otter intention than as an admission to a supper, or some.
little gaiety ; this was its bona fide character. Why,
all the wealthy electors were in the habit of
having dinners, one of which, perhaps, would not cast
the candidate less than two or three hundred pounds;
and yet no one found fault with them for being
treated. There was no outcry about treating in their
case. Then why should there be with the poor voters?
They merely said thus—You will not admit us, poor men,
t.► your sumptuous banquet, therefore, at least give us
something of a less costly character at this gay period.
Now, when excitement was abroad—wben party-spirit ran
very high, as it usually did at election dines, he did not
know but these tickets were frequently serviceable in pre-
serving the borough from open riot and in doing away
with angry feelings, or at all events directing them in a
milder current. Though he should vote for the second
reading, he should not consent to the bill passing the
house as it then stood. There were no grounds whatever
for extending the limits of the borough ; for he found there
were no less than 430 respectable ten-pound voter., and—
Mr. H. BULWER was understood to deny their re-
spectability.

Sir R. PEEL—WeII, if they are not so, the Reform
Bill did it. Now, the report of the committee expressed
an opinion that the general body of voters were not en-
gaged in these disgraceful transactions. If, then, he (Sir
R. P.) found a class not tainted, be thought it rather
hard they should visit them with the penalty, when they
were exempt from blame. Now, Hertford had been ex-
tended by the Reform Bill ; and the presumption was
that the present limits, as constituted by the bill, were
the fairest that could be hit upon. The first Reform Bill,
it was well known, disfranchised all freemen, with the ex-
ception of 101. householders; and the present Reform Bill
calculated on tbeirextinction when the constituency of this
borough would consist merely of the 10-pounders, within
the present limits. lie objected, also, to a fourth member
being given to the county. Why should they add ten
agricultural parishes to this town ? He had heard it said
that the agricultural interest was already too strong in
that house, and were they to increase it? Why it would
be better to disfranchise the entire body of voters at once,
than turn the town into a small county—than thus com-
pliment Ware (which has furnished the bludgeon men),
by the gift of the franchise. By the proposed arrange-
ment, be saw the seeds of eternal discontent and party
spirit; and he therefore could not, for one, pass suck a
censure on the Reform Bill, as agree to the bill as it then
stood, though, as he said before, he considered it his duty
to vote for the second reading.
Mr. H. 11ULWER sad, there was a great number of
voters in llertford who could be ejected at a ten days'
not ice by the Marquis of Salisbury and other-, and tl ese
he could not characterise as respectable.
Mr. IIALCOMB said that, previous to the passing of
the Reform Bill, there could not be found an instance of
a borough being disfranchised, or its suffrage exteneed,
without full proof of a majority of the voters being corrupt.
This was not the case at Hertford.
nit. CLAY slid the committee were prepared to dies

franchise all who received half-crown tickets, which tickets
they got exchanged in the public shops for goods. No
practices could be more demoralising; and be (Mr. Clay)
would confidently ask the house, were persons so miscon-
ducting themselves the, individuals whom the committee
should have further intrusted with the elective franchise ?
The places to be added to the borough were of great
respectability, and their junction would not injure that
which he considered the overwhelming interest of the
house—the agricultural interest. The elective franchise
was not a privilege, but a duty--(Hear, hear)...-therefore,
when the house considered it was not fairly used, they were
bound to remove it.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Lord G. SOMERSET, which
did not reach the gallery,
Sir HENRY HARDINGE rose to protest against the
position taken up by the hon. member, that a borough
was to he disfracchis-d from expediency. He combated
such a conclusion, and would contend there were no pre-
mises to justify it. He knew not how they could allow
Newry to escape, and yet persevere to punish Hertford.
Another consideration should weigh with the house—Hert-
ford had not been heard by counsel.—(Hear.) Counsel
bad been only engaged for the members, but the burgesses'
cause had not been pleaded; he, therefore, strongly pro
tested against proceeding to disfranchise a borough with-
out due, proper, and legal evidence of its corruption having
been given.
Mr. ROEBUCK denounced treating in any instance;
and in reply to the right bon. baronet's (Peel) remark,
upon giving suppers to poor men, said five shillings were
five shillings—(Laughter)—and if he (Mr. Roebuck) was
opposed to the rich being treated, he was also adverse to
the poor being made drunk. A voter had a solemn
duty to perform, and his acceptance cf any, even
the smallest favour, lessened his attitude of inde-
pendence, and was calculated to be productive of
the greatest mischief. The right honourable baronet
had spoken " of innocent festivities." He (Mr- Roebuck)
knew not what such festivities were for, except for cor-
ruption, and he would reform them altogether. If the
house wished effectually to put down bribery, they should
resort to the ballot, a mode of taking votes in upholding,
which he might not have many to agree with him in that
house. The hon. and gallant member below him bad
said that a borough should not he disfranchised except
evidence was given of its corruption. What did the Re.
form Bill do ? It proceeded to disfranchise numbers of
boroughs without one tittle of evidence being beard. In
fact, schedule A was filled with whole lists of them.—
(Hear.) Difference in number made no difference in
principle, and therefore the proceedings were not without
precedent. For his own part, he should be happy to see the
entire powers of the committee referred to a single judge,
because he considered the house, cons.ituted as it was,
not altogether adequate to adjudicate upon such matters.
A judge, having the eyes of the country upon him, would
proceed to decide, uninfluenced by any consideration but
of his public duty.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE explained.
Sir J. SCARLETT was strongly opposed to the doctrine
laid down by the hen. member of the necessity of suc-
cumbing to political expediency. Such a doctrine, if
carried into execution, would be found destructive of poli-
tical rights, and calculated to strike at the root of every
principle then venerated and esteemed. In legislating
upon the rights of whole masses, such as the 40s. free-
holders of Ireland, expediency might be for a moment
deferred to, but in the case of a single individual, if ex-
pediency was permitted to govern and direct them, he
would pronounce such expediency the rankest and the
grossest tyranny. He could not see that the mere act of
giving a half-crown dinner should be considered bribery
and corruption. The, time of a general election was
generally not a time for fasting, but fi r festivity, and he
could not conceive why the candidate, if he joined in that
festivity, even at the expense of half-a-crown, should be
considered guilty of a crime.
Mr. HARDY said, the only case in point was one
which came on before the Court of Common Pleas, and
the judges of that court did not hold the doctrines pro-
pounded by the on. and learned member. The doctrine
they held was, that it was unlawful to treat between the
period of the testing of the writ and the return. He
was astonished to hear the noble lord and the hon. and
gallant member draw a difference between bribery and
treating. By the statute of William 111. there was no
such distinction drawn. Bribery and treating were all
put together in one clause, and the election was declared
void if any of them took place between the testing
of the writ and the return. The argument of the
noble lord and the honourable and gallant mem-
ber appeared to him to be, that insomuch as no
treating was proved between the testing of the writ and
the return, they might be permitted to treat as much as
they chose before the testing of the writ, and after the
return was made. But was that the doctrine held by
committees of the house? In the case of Hallyburton,
the election was set aside by the committee which sat upon
it, on account of treating before the issuing of the writ.—
(ilear, hear.) But when he heard the noble lord and the
gallant officer say that treating was allowable, he would
beg to ask how it happened that it was carried on at all
times with so much secrecy and discretion—with every
precaution to avoid detection—but that it was considered
an off nce ? If the hon. anti learned member still doubted
corruption, he hoped he would call the noble lord who
stated in his evidence before the committee that his ex-
penses with '760 voters was 9,0001. He (Mr. Hardy) was
an satisfied of the necessity of checking treating, before and
after, as well as between the issuing of the writ and the
return, that he would, in the bill which be should have
the honour of bringing before the house, make a provision
to prevent any thing like tinting, bribery, or any thing
else which might influence a vote, either before the testing
of the writ or after the return. He concluded by saying
be should feel it his duty to support the second reading of
the bill.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT explained.
l'llr. SHAW said, this was the first time that a borough
was attempted to be disfranchisnd merely for treating.
Mr. BERNAL rose to reply—He should be ashamed
of himself if he were to bring forward a measure for the
disfranchisement of a borough on such trifling grounds of
treating as the hon. and learned member for Norwich had
supposed. But be appealed to the members of the com-
mittee who sat on the Hertford election, to say if they had
ever heard ofsuch gross corruption and falsehood, as that
which came out on the evidence brought before them ? It
plainly appeared from that evidence, that I/. was the ge-
neral price given for a plumper, and 10s. for a split vote ;
with the additional douceur, occasionally, of a white bat.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT said, that no one was more
averse to corruption and treating than he was himself ;
and if any hon. member would bring in a bill to prohibit
all treating on occasions of elections, he (Sir J. Scarlett)
would support such a bill.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Wednesday next.
ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND)