The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-23 00:00:00

showed that it did not originate with him. /ire (Sir J. Graham) would rather continue the evils compla.ined of
from these bishops being unable to effectually ',dies
charge their duties a little while longer, than by agree-
ing to the second reading of the bill affirm a principle
that was novel, dangerous, and had been unwisely
adopted by the present Government. (Hear, hear.) It
was impossible to consider this question apart from
the correspondence alluded to, and simony, divested of
all technicalities, was this : the purchase or sale of the
voidance of a spiritual cure for a monied con•
sideration stipulated to be paid upon its void-
ance. In making these proposals the two bishops
appeared to have had that in view. They (felt
there was a legal obstacle to such an arrangement
as this, for they both used the same remarkable expres-
sion, "if the law allows it"—clearly feeling that the law
of simony was, as they understood it, a preliminary ob.
jection. The right hon. baronet then proceeded to look
at the question in tbatslight, and called attention to the
effect it would have on the clergy if such privileges were
to be given to the heads of the Church and
denied to them. He objected to the bill because
it had been laid down that where money
was considered; however pure the intention of the party,
it was simony, and that the bill, if passed, wouldprevent
hereafter the adoption of a general measure to extend
to other bishops. At this time there were two other
prelates in the Church whose cases were similar to those
under the consideration of the house. One was the
Archbishop of York, who from paralysis was unable to
leave his mansion ; and the other was the Bishop
of Norwich, who had expressed his desire to
retire, feeling incapable of efficiently discharging
his episcopal duties. From the Reformation downwards
(with the exception of the case of the non-juring
bishops) there had not been a case of resignation by a
bishop of his episcopal duties or a seat in the House of
Peers. In the reign of George 111., when Bishop Sher-
lock was Bishop of London, the duties of the bishop
were performed for seven years by Bishop Pierce,
Bishop of Rochester, without scandal to the church,
and without inconvenience resulting. Doubts there were
entertained as to the legality of a bishop resigning, and
the resignation of the Bishop of Rochester was approved
by the Ministers. The right hon. baronet then said there
was no immediate necessity for the house adopting this
measure, because the duties could be done by deputy
as was now the case. He thought the bill as intro-
duced into the House of Lords, to meet the late case of
the Bishop of Bath and Wells, if it had been also
passed, would have met the evil now complained of.
Mr. WALPOLE, in a lengthened and eloquent speech
supported the bill, which he said was in accordance with
the statute 26th of Henry VIII., which had been consi-
dered and was now the law of the Church.
Sir J. SHELLEY supported the bill. It would be
for the advantage of the dioceses. He objected to the
Bishop of Oxford having to do duty for the Bishop of
London.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE opposed the bill. This was a
bill likely to bring the Church and the religion of the
country into contempt, and the more it was known the
greater would be the indignation of the people against it.
He could not help regretting that the noble lord at the
head of the Government had soiled his hands with such
a dirty bill. He for one would not be a party to it.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that whatever knight be the
result of the debate, great scandal would arise from this
hill. The session was now far advanced, still it would
be impossible to collect the opinion of the house on the
subject, and, therefore, ho trusted that the bill would be
rejected, and that the Government would not collect all
its powersand•force this bill into a law. Legislation on
this subject was not at all required. The act of 1534
provided for the appointment of suffragans to assist the
bishops. There might be cases where a resignation would
be better than the appointment of a suffragan, but on
the other hand a suffragan would in some eases be pre-
ferable to a resignation. It had been said that a rector
could not retire on a pension, but a rector coull appoint
a curate, and the act of Henry gave the power to bishopet
to appoint a suffragan, which was, in fact, a bishop's
curate. (Hear.) The pume set down in the bill as pen-
sions were generally considered too large, and many of
the members of the house had stated tha although
they would vote for the second reading of the
bill, they would not pledge themselves to assent
to the amounts so set down. He begged to put a ques-
tion to her Majesty's Government, which he wished
answered. Whet he wanted toknow was, whether it was
competent for the house to go into committee to reduce
the amount of pensions without endangering the passing
of the bill. For the reasons he had stated he should
vote against the bill.

Sir G. GREY defended the bill, and stated there was
no contract in this case. The•letter of his noble frien
that had been alladed to was merely one which state
that the wishes of those rev, prelates should be submit-
ted to Parliament with a view to their ,beink carried
into effect. The act of Henry, if applied to
this case, would have compelled the retirement
of the bishops on their full salaries. He trusted that
the bill would receive the sanction of the house, and
thus approve of the means that had been adopted to
meet the difficulties of the case.
Mr. HENLEY insisted that any c9urt of law would
bold a transaction similar to the present to be simony,
if it had occurred between the,poor rector and his patron
with regard to the resignation of his benefice, and
that the Court of Chancery would hold that the nego•
tiation which had been entered into hatween the two
prelates and tle Government was a binding coatraCt.
Lord PALMERSTON said the Government intended.
to stand by the Ealaries as proposed in the bill,
and if the pensions were reduced it would be for the
bishops to decide whether they would retire. The Go-
vernment had fulfilled their part of the bargain by the
introduction of the bill, and it was for the house to de-
cide whether it should be adopted. The Government
had been asked during this discussion what course the
bishops would adopt if the proposed salaries were re-
duced in committee. The only answer he could give to
that question was that it would be for the bishops. them-
selves to decide.

Mr. GLADSTONE—My question was not' what
course the bishops would take, but what the Govern-
ment would do if the salaries were reduced.
Lord PALMERSTON—The Government would wil-

tingly announce what course they would take if the re-
duction of the salaries was insisted on. (Loud cries of
" Oh, oh.")
The house then divided, when there appearid—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority in favour of the second reading ----79
The bill was read a second time, and was ordered to
be committed to-morrow at 12 o'clock.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the house adjourned at six o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Crirriminioner Foriblanque.)

His Honour was the only carnmi3sioner, and was
k!ngafei.l during the early part of tha day at private
meetings up stairs.