The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-24 00:00:00

IRISH CHURCH BILL.

The order of the day having been read, the House re-
solved into a Committee on this Bill. _ _

After some ob•ervations from Lord Ellenhorough, the
Earl of Wicklow, Lord Plunket, Lord Retlesdate, and the
Marquis of Clanricarde, the 20:h clause was agreed to.
The 21st clause was agreed to without amendment.
On the motion of the Bishop of LONDON, the word
gratuity, in the 22d clause, was omitted, and the clause
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The 231, 24th, 25th, 26 h, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th,
and 31st clauses were agreed to.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that this was a
clause to which as it stood there were very strong objec-
tions, but he thought that it might be so amended as,
without injuring the principle of the Bill at all, to please
all parties. It had been observed by ti e Noble Earl, that
but for one or two obstacles, the principle of this clause
might have been put into effect by his Majesty, in the
exercise of his Royal prerogative, of intrusting one see is
commendam to the holder of another. There were objet•
tions to this, however, in the articles of the Union, and as
regarded the transfer of the temporalities of the aee thus
intrusted. He (the Duke of Wellington) thought that
all such difficulties would be obviated, the full principle of
the Bill retained, and all parties satisfied by the introduc-
tion into the clause of the amendment " To enable the
King to grant the sees of Waterford and the others pro•
posed to be abolished, as they fell in to the other Bishops,
but surrendering the temporal property attached to these
sees to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be applied to
the uses set forth in the Bili." He did not conceive that
there could be any objection to this amendment, which
clearly would not make any alteration in the principle of
the Bill. The Noble Duke concluded by moving his
amendment, which was as follows:
" Whereas his Majesty has been graciously pleased to
signify that he has placed at the disposal of Parliament his
interest in the Temporalities, and custody thereof of the se-
several bishoprics and archbishoprics mentioned in this Act,
and in the schedule B thereunto annexed : Be it therefore
enacted, that in case his Majesty, his heirs, or successors shall
be minded to grant in commendam the bishopric of Water.
ford, now vacant, and the other bishoprics named in the first co-
lumn of the said schedule, when, and as they may respectively
become void, to be held in commendam with the bishopric or
archbishopric mentioned in conjunction therewith respectively
in the second column of the said schedule, it shall and may be
lawful for his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, at the same
time, to grant to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and their
successors, for ever, the temporalities of the bishopric so to 1)2
held in contniendam ; and from and after such grant, all and
singular the lands, tenements, and hereditaments, belonging or
appertaining to such bishopric, together with all and singular
the tithes, rents, and emoluments whatsover, thereunto be.
longing or appertaining, shall become vested in and transferred
to the slid Ecclesiastical Commissioners and their successors
for ever, subject to all leases, rents, charges, and incumbrances
now, or at the time of such transfer legally affecting the same,
save the annual tax, rate, or assessment by this Act to be im-
posed and levied ; to be by them received and applied to, for,
and upon the several uses, trusts, and purposes in this Act
mentioned ; and under the like rules and regulations as are
herein expressed and declared of and concerning the said an-
nual tax vested in said Commissioners and their successors
for ever; provided always that such grants, or any of them,
shall not be liable to stamp duties, or fees of office, or any
other charge whatsover."
Earl GREY really could not sse any material difference
between the amendment and the original Bill. It appeared
to him only a different way of doing the same thing.
There was no doubt but that sees had been granted in
commendam by the King, but they had also been granted
in commendam by Parliament, and he thought this the
more convenient and safer way of the two, generally
speaking. Making it an Act of Parliament would leave
no doubt of its being carried into operation, but the Noble
Duke's amendment merely left it permissive in the Crown
to make the grant, " if it should be so mind*" Surely
this was not the best way of going to work—perhaps " the
King, his heirs, or successors," might not be so minded
—(Hear)—not that these was the slightest suspicion of
such a contingency at present ; what c::uld be done then ?
He thought it hest to make things sure, and leave grounds
for no contingencies.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord WICKLOW thought there would be little danger
in leaving the grant to the King. The A et itself came
before them solely on the ground of the King's speech—
there via no doubt of his good will towards it. All he
(Lord Wicklow) wanted was to satisfy the minds of the
clergy of Ireland, winch he thought would be effected by
the Noble Duke's amendment.
The Earl of ROSSE considered the clause a gross
violation of the Act of Union. The Noble Earl opposite
could not deny that. Had the Noble Earl been a Member
of the Irish Legislature, before the Union, he would ha,
had a very different notion of this matter. The Irish

Bishops a paltry matter of pounds, shillings, and pence.
He 'could conceive that the time might arrive, when
England would be engaged in foreign war, or distracted
by internal convulsion, and when Ireland would cast aside
the Act of Union. It was, therefore, necessary to con-
ciliate, or at least to do justice to the people of Ireland.
The Irish would with reason say, that by entering into
the Act of Union, they bad forgone their Parliament, and
many other advantages. But there were some institutions
of which they were deprived, the lons of which they had
never contemplated, and least of all did they contemplate
the loss of ten of their resident Bishops.—(Flear, hear,
hear.) After this the Act of Union would be considered
as merely waste paper. Would it have been believed, at
the period of the Union, that within forty rats ten of
the Irish Bishops should have bem struck Aff ?—(He ,r,
hear.) He t! ought that no one could h .ve v

Nothing could lie more expre4.4 thin the Art of
Uni:n on thi: eu je,t. Not only was the number of
Arclibi,hops and Bishops laid down explicitly, Lot the

number of the 8i4.09Q, and the rotai )n in which tilvy

were to sit in 'hat Hour, Was particularly s!at d.--
( Bear, hear.) He would as!;, it this clat,se wt re to
pais, v:hat seNtrity the people of Ire!and should havc,
that tlie numlur of Irish tepreseotatice Peers 0.0111.1
not be r, duced from twenty- eight to eightret, ?—(llear,
hear, hear.) In pre'' ..rwe to such a tiolvinu cf the
Act of Union, lie (Lord Roise),,ould say, " Give us hack
. .

our local Parliament, or we will deny your power to en •
force this m,asure. You have violated your 1,411 with

119. Y.-,u have no :ongtr observed the e mtract into Ivf,ieh

-ve entered as Nulls, an I the contrlet i. therrfore
—(Heat, hear.) There was no one more attached to
'relict(' than he (Lord Rosse) was, or more anxi,es to
advance its interests, and on those grounds he sh•e think
it his duty to oppose this measure. With regard to the

c wonation oath, he would ask if the coronation i ath Vi a

to be made such a slip-knot that it could be undone eve: y
time it was thought convenient ? How was the poor moo,
who must see that laxity, to he exptctetl to value the Oh-

gation of an nob ?—(H-ar, hear.) He did not oppn e
the measure from any wish to embarrass the Mini,ter.,

for he was well aware of the difficulty of the situation iu
which they were pliced. He only did what he considers d
a fair, honest, arid wise course, and such being hi 4
opinion, he would onen r• the Bill, be the consequ,nci-s
what they might.—(Hear.)
The Duke of CUMBERLAND concurred in every word
whi,:hftll from the Noble Earl. So strong, inal.-id, was

his feeling upon this part of the Bill, that had the Noble
Duke not moved the amendment, he had intended to tender

his protest against the cl fuse. So firm was he in hia op-
position to the clause, that be would take the .sens. of the
[louse upon it ; for he considered it a viola ion both of the

rights of the Church and of the Act of Union. The King
was placed in a dilemma by his advisers, and he (the Duke
of Cumberland) called upon the House to deliver his Ma.
jesty from that dilemma by rejecting the present clause..
The Atchbishop of DUBLIN said, that no one would
be more unwilling than himself to legislate ftr the berteFit
of England at the expense of Ireland. But he wou'd
remind the [louse that the object of this measure was not
to transfer any part of the Church property in Ireland to
England. It was professedly to benefit Iceland, aLd
Leland alone.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that the amend-
ment was nominally intended merely to alter the form of
the clat:e, but in reality, it altered it in substance.—
(Hear, Lear.) The Ministers of the Crown were un-
doubtedly his Majesty's responsible advisers, and be (ti e
Marquis of Lansdowne) would tell the Ilhistrions Dud:
that they would not shrink from that responsibility.
Neither would they shrink from advis:ng his Majrvy to
carry into effect the whole provisions of this clause t's
opportunities for carrying them into effect occurred. The
present was one of the utmost importance as regarded the
people of Ireland, and the Church itself. The amend-
ment made by the Noble Duke was decidedly a matter of
substance, and it went to throw that into uncertainty and
doubt which at present was fixed and settled.—(Bear.)
It was on those grounds that be felt indisposed to give his
consent to the amendment proposed by the Noble Duke.
• He did not inte,cl to follow at full in discussing the clause
with the Noble Earl who bad been the second last
speaker; but he begged to ask that Noble Earl, whither,
in recognising the Act of Union as they both did, the
BNuisbhle opEsEarl s could uvl 0
as at
rey
nth at
of dtihni n ish
ettAei the
He number
or
maintained

that not only it was not, but that it was preserved as
pure as ever. In the election of the Irish teptesentatire
Peers, did the Act of Union stipulate that the number
who elected should continue the same? No such thing,.
On the contrary, there was a provision in it to the effect

that the number of lay Peers should be diminished. He
would not enter into all the topics adverted to by the
Noble Earl, hut be teally could not consider as a serious
argument the assertion that his Majesty was precluded t y
the coronation oath from concurring with the other two
branches of the Legislature in placing the Irish Church
establishment on a basis that would be permanent, because
it would be satisfactory. Lest his authority on. the paint
should be disputed, he would quote from a speech icade
by a late Nable Earl against the Catholic Einencip itiiin
Bill ; it was a powerful speech against that measure, an-I
aster the Noble Earl had expressed several strong argu-
ments against the measure, he expressed his disdain for
those arguments against it which arose out of the Mows-
Lion oath. The Noble Earl be quoted was the late Lori!
Liverpool, and be wag doing little more than using his
words on a former occasion, if he now said, that all three
arguments lately founded urn the coronation oath were
a tissue of nonsensical assertions.--(fiear, hear.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON had already stated his
motives for proposing the amendment before their Lord-hips.
He preposed•that amendment with no sinister and ulte-
rior design, fur he considered that, when once the present
measure became the law of the land, no Mini-ter would
attempt to tamper with it, and he assured their Lordships
that be, the humble individual before them, would be
the last, under any circumstances, to attempt to meddle
with it. He certainly should be better satisfied with the
measure if the principle were introduced into it upon
which the Church hitherto existed, that the Bishops
hereafter should, in the same manner as formerly, hold
the proposed unions of sees i,, commendam. In that
way they had held them since the Church was established,
and in that way he felt they should continue to hold
them. He would not dispute what had been said by the
Noble Earl opposite on a former evening, that some of
the sees formerly united were held by Act of Parliament,
but be really believed that no such Act existed at the
present moment, at least be knew of none. There might
be more in the measure as it stood originally than there
would be if his amendment were adopted ; but he begged
to repeat, that if the measure was passed into a law, no
Minister could dare to alter it. Besides, he intended to
propose another clause, that would render it impossible for
any Minister, however bold, 'to prevent the measure from
being put into execution. He again assured their Lord.
ships, that the propeeal lie made was made in the sin-
cereee good !ALI), and with the sincerest desire, to improve
the Bill.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was sure 'hat
the Noble Duke made his proposal without any insidi.ns
intention, and he concurred with the opinion of the Noble
Duke, that the measure ought to be made as beneficial
in its tffcts towards Ireland as possibls. He knew from
personal experience that a strong feeling prevailed among
the Irish clergy against having their Bishops appointed
by Parliament. The Noble Earl (Err! Grey) said he
bad Parli inientary authority for uniting, as the measure
iseposed to unite, bishoprics, and the Noble E trl men-
tmed Ball's Index, in which statutes were to Ire found
respecting the union of the diocese of Cashel with Epley,
" aed of Meath with Gontancnaire. In consequence of that
assertion he had caused books to be searched, and con-
sulted the very best authorities, and he found that no
such Acts were in existence. Consequently he could not
a omit the autherhy of Acts that were nowhere to be
tumid. They were said to tie private Acts of Queen
E-izilietli, which was very probable, as he knew ler to
have been a Monarch extremely jealous of the interference
of Part ament in tire affairs of the Church. The Right
Rev. Prelate concluded by supporting the amendment.
The Bis'uop of EXETER hail but one or two observa-
tions to make, and one of them was called tip by what a
Noble Marquis said about the opinion of a late Noble E irl
(Liverpool) respecting the coronation oath. It was
, true that the Earl of Liverpool did declare at the time of
the debates on the Catholic Emancipation Bi 1, that if it
should be presented to tie King, though be (Lord Liver-
pool) (gip ised it, still as a Minister he would not advise
his Majesty to give his dissent to the Bill merely on ac-
count of the obligations of tore coronation oath. But in
that very satire speech the Earl of Liverpool said that the
oath bound his Majesty in his legislative capacity, and
that if enytliing like- a union of sees was proposed in Ire-
land, he would not advise his Sovereign to assent to itt,,,
since by the coronation orth his Majesty was bowl_
u ethan
maintain the interests of the Protestant Chureinlal
of
wbether then
his intros.
oath. On the present clause it :_vii'4 by a
most
elluded to by
:ion particularly after the example set trim
his Majesty did give such assent, it would beHfoat:thl
ainst the general
r
principle
ed
oPfreslaintek,intgo say
:altillYnci:::',,e,:g.p7i.,ifiortesd,,
to object to that par t of
Bishops to the vacant see. Wi:lt
were willing I
Elie Nobl ,
at
, 1 .
in ecclesiastical :alto, with respect to the tutiou of
respect to
iti:pririi:v(a:!:edsrcaotre:st,e;lsteedif
NEylaier iet_ etab,.,otot
...,,
nitv

bishoprics under those stetutes, and he found that when
those unions in the time of Elizabeth did take place, it
was in consequence of a vacancy ; and the Act to unite
the two sees left it to the option cf the Bishop whether
he would accept the increased charge; but here no option
was left to the Archbishop of Cashel—he must accept
whether he would or not. He appealed to a Rev. Prelate
behind him, whether, if he were the Archbishop of Cashel,
with his weight of 85 years upon his shoulders—whether
lie would feel justified before God to undertake the per-
formance of such additional duties. He was sure his Rev.
Brother beside him would not consent. lie begged to
mention what happened to a Right Rev. Prelate—the
Bishop of Norwich. That Right Rev. Prelate refused a
brief situation in Ireland, because at his advanced age he
ct nsidered that I e could not discharge the duties of the
office offered to him. That was good of him, and became
his well-known conscientious character ; but after refus-
ing, would it not be monstrous for him to he compelled,
by Act of Parliament, to take upon him additional duties?
He had already alluded to his Venerable Friend beside him.
Now if the present Bill should become the law of the
land, and the Archbishop of Team should die before his
Venerable Brother, he would be made to become, by
Parliament, Bishop of Team, the largest diocese in
Ireland, and perhaps as large as any in England.—(Hear.)
By the Bill, the Archbishop of Dublin would be obliged
to undertake the duties of the diocese of Kildare, which
was to he appended to his see. In the next place, the
Bishop of Killala, whose feelings, as was notorious, were
against the present measure, and who was prevented from
coming to that house to raise his voice against it by phy-
sical infirmity—who was upwards of 90 years of age, and
who had for many years discharged the duties of a large
diocese, and stiil continued to do so, because he was so well
acquainted with that particular diocese, would have, if the
proposed measure passed—he saw that he would have
Tuam, and not, as he fled erroneously stated, that it would
be his Venerable and Rev. Friend near him. So that
Tuam, a diocese extending in length 77 English miles,
and in breadth 63, and consequently larger than the
diocese he (the Bishop of Eseter) held in this kingdom,
would go to a Right Rev. Prelate now upwards of 90
years of age. The bishoprics of Killaloe and Kilfenord
were to be united with Ardfert. Now the dioiiese of Kil-
laloe was one hundred miles in length, and the present
Bishop was 80 years of age ; and yet the diocese of Kil-
fenord was to he added to its duties. The fourth instance
he should mention was that of the Bishop of Oasory. It
was notorious that they, in that House, lost that Right
Rev. Prelate's zeal and presence on account of his extreme
illness; and yet the present Bill, if it should pass, would
fasten upon him, if he should survive the Bishop of Edina,
the additional duties of that diocese also. He contended
that Parliament had no right, no authority, to make
Bishops enter upon the discharge of duties which they
would be unwilling to perform.
A RIGHT REV. PRELATE slid that, as to the pro-
posed reduction of the number of Bishops, he certainly
could not give that his support.
Lord PLUNKET said, that those who acceded to
the amendment or the Noble Duke agreed to the principle
that the number of Bishop.s ought to be gradually dimi-
nished, and that was the principle of the Bill. It bad
been argued that the change which the Bill went to effect
would prove nothing less than an infringement of the
Articles of Union, and a violation of the coronation oath.
Upon these he had only to observe the amendment of the
Noble Duke was also a violation of both, and that upon
that ground there was nothing to choose between the
amendment and the original clause, for the one was just
as great a violation as the other. He, as well as his
Noble Friend on the other side, was in the Irish Par-
liament before the Union, and with his Noble Friend—
whom he should still continue to call so, notwithstanding
some political differences—he anticipated results from that
Union which certainly had never been realized. Both of
them had anticipated that Ireland would have heavily suf-
fered by the change. Fortunately, they had both been
disappointed ; and it would now become the duty of every
man in the country to oppose to the uttermost any at•
tempt to dissolve that Union ; and he was sorry to hear
his Noble Friend say that there was a growing tendency
in Ireland towards the dissolution of that Union. He much
regretted to hear his Noble Friend mike such a statement,
ft r lie was enabled to affirm from his own experience, that
so far from there being any tendency of the sort, the feeling
of the people was quite otherwise. The great body of
the rational part of the community were desirous rather of
cementing than of dissolving such a Union, regarding with
decided hostility any such chimerical project as that of
dissolving a connection alike beneficial to both countries.
It appeared to have been argued that, by the articles of the
Union, it was not competent to the Legislature to alter
the share which Ireland was to possess in the representa-
tion of the country, or the number of seats enjoyed by Irish
Prelates in that House. It surely could never have been
the intention of the Legislatures of both countries in that
day, to bind themselves and their successors irreversibly,
had there even been any nation mad enough to contem-
plate anything so absurd. It was perfectly true, that
there were in the Union, as in every such measure, cer-
tain fundamental principles agreed upon ; but be it re -
membered, that the present Bill did not touch the dog •
trines or the discipline of the Church, or the religion of
the country, in any way whatsoever—it deals with the
revenue a and the temporalities of the Church, but with
nothing more ; and he would take leave to say that no-
thing would more advance the interests of that church
than alterations having a tendency to improve the condi-
tion of the people. In the present state of the public mind
it would be in the highest degree dangerous to hazard the
rejection of the Bill.
The Earl of HARROWBY observed, that the Noble
Duke near him had not pronounced any opinion as to the
number of Bishops which ought to form the -episcopal
body in Ireland ; he merely suggested a better mole for
rat rying the objects of the Bill into effect ; there was one
very serious and important consideration with the subject,
to which, in an episcopal degree, be wished to direct the
attention of their Lordships. There was a large and most
valuable portion of the clergy of the Established Church,
who entertained strong and most conscientious scruples
against submitting themselves in ecclesiastical matters to a
Board composed of partly of laymen, the nominees of the
Crown. Ile was sure that the House would not unneces-
sarily or wantonly do anything to insult the feelings of
that excellent body—a holy which the Church in Ireland
could ill spare at any time, and least of all, in times like
the present.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Bill made
the consolidation of certain bishoprics, as they became
vacant, compulsory on the Ministers for the time being—
it left them no option ; whereas the amendment of the
Noble Duke would, if agreed to, permit the Ministers, if
so minded, to recommend, instead of the incorporation
provided for by the Bill, that the vacant bishopric be
filled by some excellent and learned and pious friend of
his, who for good and episcopal reasons ought to be in.
ducted into the vacant see. He contended that the
amendment of the Noble Duke gave them no security
whatever that any one bishopric would be abolished. It
would leave that question dependent on who might be
Ministers. The Noble Lords who were now ready to
convent to the consolidation of some sees, might not be
;always so di-posed; and if they said they should be always
an minded, they claimed for themselves a greater insight
into futurity than he was disposed to give them credit
for; and assumed to themselves more sagacity than he
attributed to them. The Noble Duke might be always
disposed to act in the spirit he had described ; but if the
law were left optional, could the Noble Duke answer for
whoever might be Minister ? Could he answer for the Il-
lustrious Duke, should be have to advise the Crown ? or
would it be consistent with the opinions held by the
Noble Earl who spoke last, to advise the Crown to
consolid rte the bishoprics ? He contended that those
who would vote for giving the power to the
Ministry must, out of consists ncy, if they would
act plainly, vote for the clause as it stood, which
would do that by Act of Parliament which they would
leave to be done or not to be done by the Alinisters. It
would be more wise, more straight-forward, more open, to
vote against the abolition of any one bishopric, than to
reject the clause which would abolish it by Act of Parlia-
ment, while they would leave it to be abolished by the
power of the Crown. The Noble Lords might say that
they would give power to the Crown to abolish the bishop-
ric', because they had no confidence in the present Mi-
nistry ; but be could not understand that argument when
used by those who would give any power to abolish them
at all, and yet would vote for a clause which would place
that power in the hands of the Crown, instead of voting
for the clause which would abolish those bishoprics by
Act of Parliament. One great objection against the op-
tional cl use proposed by the Noble Duke was, that the
country would have no security whatever, the people of
Ireland would have no security, Cher) Curch of Irelan d
would have no security--(Hea h— h
that any reduc-
tion would be effected. It would be optional with the
Ministry for the time—uncer/ain, slippery, delusive, illu-
sory, not to say collusive—(Allaugh)—and he would warn
Lordships against it, and invite themto give it,
as he meant to give it, his most decided
i opposition.
Let their Lordships look at the situation n Which it
nit
(tsmithflifface the King. With respect, for example, to
7:jap,\--,...-iti:Cracimaiai • n oath.—(Hear.) He would not then go
...::,-1 ° iiik*u emits which had been stated on that sub-
' af7., .14i;' a* 3 fre2l3 ore given his opinion, and that opinion
(/
it 't'-'fliadt.-, ,W'',., ~co ed by all be had heard ; but he might
-„i .4.\ ' t`'-'fein4l:l(3.itioi opinion of the late Lord Liverpool, which
AaVZ,s±c-; •,,e.---... -!':;31,

bad been referred to by a Right Rev. Prelate, was much
stronger than that Right Rev. Prelate had quoted it. He
had gone to the fountain head, and he must say that the
language of that Noble Lord was much more strong and
expressive than had been quoted. The Noble Lord had
said, " As to the arguments on the coronation oath, they
were all a pack of nonsense." He would not, he said, then

enter into the arguments on the subject of the coronation
oath ; but if he embraced the opinions, concerning the
obligation of that oath, of the Noble Lords opposite—if
he were the firmest of all the sticklers for that oath, he
should not know how to vote for the clause of the Noble
Duke in preference to the clause as the Bill now stands.
Why, the coronation oath must, in that case, be conti-
nually violated—there must be a conflict on the subject of
the oath on the suppression of every bishopric—the coro-
nation oath must be broken ten times—it would be
violated whenever a bishopric became vacant. Why,
if the Bill were a breach of the coronation oath, which
he did not say, the amendment of the Noble Duke would
not save the oath, but would compel a frequent violation
of it. Again, if it were left optional, the decision would
not he the result of calm and deliberate judgment; but of
intrigues at Court—of intrigues in the Cabinet, and in
Parliament and out of Parliament—it would not be the
result of any principle, but it would be made a party and
personal matter. "Only this thing would be certain,
that there would be much uncertainty—much inconve-
nience—and much injury to public business. Finally,
and principally, he objected to the amendment, because it
would frustrate the great object of the Bill.—(Hear.)
The Noble and Learned Lord then alluded to some general
objections which had been made against the clause ; and
first, it had been said, that it was creating a Bishop by Act
of Parliament, which an Act of Parliament was unable to
do.—(Hear, hear.) But certainly it was a most gross
abuse of language to call the consolidation of sees, and
the requiring one Bishop who was already there,
who was consecrated, and already fulfilled the du-
ties in one see to fulfil the duties in another—it was a
gross abuse of language to call that creating a Bishop by Act
of Parliament ; but even if it were so, the thing would not
be without a precedent. Laws bad passed making Bishops
in the West Indies and Canada, and there was now a Bill
before the other House of Parliament, to which their Lord-
ships had, in a conference, given their assent, which went
to create two Bishops in India. He did not understand,
therefore, how those who assented to that measure could
object to this Bill, that it created Bishops by Act of P.ir-
liament. Some persons said also that several of the Eng-
lish sees were too large, and some were too small. Per-
haps they were. He did not say that some of the smaller
bishoprics, particularly the Welch bishoprics, might not be
consolidated, and some of the larger ones divided, but
those who contended for that were strangely inconsistent
in objecting to this Bill, for how could any one see be di-
vided, or any two be consolidated but by Act of Parlia-
ment? They both denied the authority of Parliament
and demanded its interference.—(There was here a call of
" Question," we believe by the Duke of Cumberland, and
a call of " Order, order," from the Peers sitting on the
Ministerial side. In reference to the call of " Question,"
the Lord Chancellor was understood to say, "Is that
decent ?")
The Duke of CUMBERLAND rose, and addressed a few
words to the Noble and Learned Lord, acknowledging,
we believe, that he had called Question, by stating that he
thought the Noble and Leard Lord had departed from the
question before the Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in continu ition, said, be
did not doubt the Illustrious Duke's impatience. It was
very natural in the Illustrious Duke, and in a short time
the Illustrious Duke would be gratified. One objection he
was about to state to the Bill was, that it would throw
very onerous duties on these Bishops who were to be called
on to take charge of additional sees, and it was ccmpelling
them to do these duties whether they liked it or not, and
which they might be unable to perform. There was much
said about the difficulties this would impose on the Bishops,
hut, whatever they might be, he wished their Lordships
to remember, that the whole of them would be as com-
pletely felt, and all these objections as exactly applied
to the amendment of the Noble Duke, as to the clause as

it stood. But all the evils complained of might come in the
course of nature. An old Bishop might grow infirm, and,
in relation to his infirmities, the duties of the one see
might be as onerous as the duties of two sees to a young
and healthy Bishop. But when he heard so much of the
duties to be imposed on the Irish Bishops, he naturally
looked to the number of benefices. He had beard some-
thing said of the Archbishop of Tuam having 11,437,000
—he supposed souls; but no, they were acres, and acres,
many of which, being mountain and bog, never would
hive any inhabitants; bat though this Prelate had so
many acres, the pastures or benefices he had to look after
-vere only forty-three.--(Hear.) And to these forty-
three it was proposed to add, when the time came, thirty-
one more, making in all, when united with Clogher, only
74 benefices, while one diocese in England contained 1,100
or 1,200 benefices. He bad never heard anybody say
that the Bishop of that diocese was overburdened with
work.—(Some Prelate said it had been complained of.)
He for one thought the diocese might be too large, ex-
tending from the Thames to the Humber ; but take the
small diocese of Norwich, which had at least three or
fur hundred benefices.—(The Bishop of London said
it had 1,100.) He was told there were 1,100 ; and
would any man say that the bi.hopric of Norwich ought
to be divided? He had never heard that said, and never
heard that the beloved, the adored, the venerated Bishop
of Norwich had complained that he had too much duty to
perftrm, or that any person had complained of his duties
not having been done. He did not feel, therefore, the
force of that argument which was grounded on the addi-
tional duties to be imposed on some Irish Bishops. As
respected the provision to be made in case the Bishop of
the see to which another was to be united, being aged and
infirm, that was an objection which might apply to bi-
shoprics at present without any additions. He would
conclude by re-asserting, that if they agreed to this amend-
ment, they would go as near as they could to destroy the
efficacy of the Bill.—(Hear, bear.) The amendment
would utterly nullify the whole principle of this great
measure—a measure so cordially agreed to by the other
House, and which came before them so warmly recom-
mended in the Speech from the Throne. Every vote in
favour of the amendment involved the peace, the prospe-
rity, and the safety of the Church.
Earl HARROWBY, after some observations on the
speech of the Noble and Learned Lord, which he thought
nothing to the purpose, proceeded to vindicate himself
from the charge of inconsistency brought against him by
that Noble and Learned Lord. He repelled the charge
that his conduct was in any way wanting in fair dealing.
His only intention in supporting the amendment was to
render the clause as clear, intelligible, and as free from
objectionable qualities as possible. He denied that his
object was, by any side-wind, to defeat the measure : such
an idea was as remote from his thoughts as any thing
could possibly be.
The LORD CHANCELLOR made a few observations
in explanation, to the effect that the Noble Earl had mis-
understood the tenor of his observations with reference to

himself.
The Bishop_ of LONDON (as we understood him)
thought it would be as well for Parliament to legislate
prospectively with reference to the sees as they should
become vacant. The Right Rev. Bishop (as we under-
stood) concluded by an observation to the effect that, di-
vested of the temporalities, the additional mitre and crosier
would hinny be an object.
Earl GREY could not but express his surprise at the
judgment passed by a Noble Earl on the Noble and
Learned Lord's speech, which to him (Earl Grey) ap-
peared one of the clearest, closest, and most convincing
that he had ever heard. He was sorry to lengthen out
the debate, but he could not help making an observation
on the amendment under discussion, which he considered
so decisive of the efficacy of the Bill, that if agreed to, the
Bill would be good for nothing. No proposition which
had been suggested appeared to him so efficacious or so
certain as the original. With regard to the amendment
of the Noble Duke, it appeared to him that it would leave
the future efficacy of the Bill in a state of real uncertainty.
The very terms of it left it entirely optional with the
reigning King to do as he should think fit in the matter.
The Noble Lord suggested, and very plausibly, that, wah
a King like his present Majesty, who had, as it were
given his sanction to the Bill, and with a Ministry whose
own Bill it was, there could be very little doubt as to its effi-
cacious olliration. This might be all very true, but he would
suggest to the Noble Earl that the next King, the next
Ministry, whenever a change occurred, might think very
differently about this Bill, from the present King and his
Minivers.—(Hear.) If so, where would be the efficacy
of the measure ? He would repeat that the amendment
would operate to the destruction of the whole Bill. If
another Ministry believed this Bill to be contrary to the
principles of the Constitution, it would be their duty to dis-
suade their Sovereign from lending any sanction to it.
What had been mentioned by a Noble Prelate as to the
crosierch ance of
wsLnsyaßidshicfis
Pculrteyruwsihngichanhwaddniet%ioenralocmcuitrrrd t
mitre and
him (Earl Grey). If, however, it should really occur that
any Prelate objected to the addition to his spiritual
charges, such a difficulty might be remedied by ap-
pointing some person to act with such Prelate in the ca-
pacity of coadjutor, with the prospect of succeeding to
the bishopric when vacant.
The Bishop of EXETER would remind the N hie
Earl, that to he the coadjutor of a Bishop, it would be

necessary to be made a Bishop, in order to be competent
to perform the functions of one.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that, in bringing
forward his amendment, his sole desire bad been to render
the clause as unobjectionable to all parties as possible.
The amendment was open to improvement ; and if the
Right Rev. Prelate had any amendment to make upon it,
he (the Duke of Wellington) would readily consent to its
admission.

The Bishop of LONDON bad no amendment to pro.
pose. His wish was to render the measure as effective as
possible, and at the same time satisfy the Irish clergy,
whose opinions, he certainly thought, ought to be con.
sulted.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then divided on the Duke of Wellington's
amendment—

Contents
Non-contents
Majority in favour of Ministers --14
The clause was then agreed to.
The 33d, 34th, 35th, and 36th clauses were then
agreed to.
On the 37th clause being read, a conversation took pl ice
regarding what was to be done with the palaces of the sup-
pressed Bishops, when the Bishop of LONDON suggested,
that if the election of a residence were to be upon the
Bishops themselves, it might be well to put some check
on their choice. Perhaps the election ought to be placed
in the bands of the Lord Primate.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
The 38th, 39th, and 40th clauses were agreed to with
out amendment.

The 41st and 42d clauses, after a short conversation,
were postponed.
The 43d to the 48th clauses, inclusive, were agreed to,
after which the House resumed, and the Chairman obtained
leave to s't again to morrow.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 23.
The SPEAKER resumed his seat at five o'clock.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

A message from the Lords announced that their Lordships
bad agreed to several private Bills, among which was the
Bill relating to Thelluson's property.
An HON. MEMBER (name unknown) begged leave to a'k
a question of the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General re-
specting the revision of the criminal law. It had been
promised that a Commission would be appointed to which
the whole of the criminal law would be referred in order
to its revision. He begged to ask whether any commission
had issued, and if so, whether any progress had been made
by it. . . .

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said a commission had
passed the great seal to appoint Commissioners to revise
the criminal law and to frame some one statute in which
to consolidate all the old statutes; with regard to those
founded on the common law, they would consider
whether it might be consolidated, and if so, then the
whole would be comprised in one criminal code.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) At all events the experiment would be made,
and he hoped it would be satisfactory to the public.
_ _ _