The Sun.
London, England, 1869-07-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THUISDAY EVENING, JULY 15, 1869,

Archbishop of CAVERBURY affirmed that none
more keenly felt the nconveniences arising from the
present state of thigs than the disabled bishops
themselves. We dc not like to contradict the
Primate of All Enland, but we may at least be
allowed to say that he bishops take a singular way
of manifesting thir concern. It reminds us
rather of Chief Jutice LEFROY'S anxiety for the
administration of iustice. When well on in
the nineties he used to think that no
one could lay down he law so well as himself, and
that the public wouk sustain a grievous loss if he
ceased to sit and dos on the bench. That was an
exceptional case, not often seen in the legal profes-
sion. We wish we ould say the same thing of the
clerical. But with thepresent condition of one-half of
the Province of Qnterbury we are unable to
do so. We are ompelled to urge, with the
Duke of SO3IERSEI, a nobleman with whom
we do not often find ourselves agreeing,
that this bill shill not be permissive but
compulsory, and that he same arrangement which is
to be made for ascertaining if a bishop is mentally
incapable of superintending a diocese shall be made
in order to ascertain Ihysical incapability. Bishops
are scarcely likely to deal very severely with bishops.
If the inquiry were eitriisted to priests or deacons,
a somewhat severe standard might be formed as to
the degree of impotence which would necessitate
retirement, for a vacancy involves promotion. But
a bishop would remenber that he, too, might some
day be subject to an eriscopal inquest, and he would
be merciful, in the hop of obtaining mercy.
Exception was taken, and not unnaturally, to
another provision of this bill. It is proposed that
an imbecile bishop shall continue to receive all the
income save £2,000 a year. A retiring bishop is to
reside in the episcopal palace. We had supposed
that episcopal palaces were considered necessary in
order that the bishops might be in a central position
for adminiApr;ng :4-
the palace is rather for the personal comfort of the
bishop, and that he has a vested interest in it which
does not cease even when he no longer performs
episcopal functions. This is a light matter com-
pared with the amount of revenue which is to be
given to a coadjutor. £2,C00 a year is not a
small sum, it is true, and there are few countries out
of England where bishops get so much. But if £2,000
a year is enough for doing episcopal work, from
£3,000 to £B,OOO is something more than
enough for doing nothing. If it is absolutely neces-
sary that a bishop should possess the income of a
nobleman, it must be as necessary whether the bishop
be sole bishop or bishop coadjutor. The coadjutor
will have to provide for travelling expenses, charities;
subscriptions, and, in fact, everything which the
bishops now have to provide, except a house in town.
But we presume that this last charge will cease
altogether so soon as a suffragan is appointed. If
the bishop is incapacitated for work, he will be
incapacitated also for sitting in the House of Lords.
The saving thereby effected might be added
to the income of the suffragan. As it is, the Arch-
bishop of CANTERBURY'S Bishops' Resignation Bill
is very like the Irish Church Bill, as the ARCHBISHOP
and his friends have made it. The disendowed
Church is presented with nine-tenths of its endow-
ments, and, by way of satisfying the four-fifths of
the people who do not belong to it, they are offered
a concurrent endowment out of funds which do not
exist. The imbecile bishop, if he happens to preside
over the diocese of Winchester, will enjoy Farnham
Castle and £G,OOO a year; the working bishop will
receive £2,000 a year, and have to find lodgings.

SOME ten years ago a venerable member of the
House of Commons used to introduce every year a
bill to prevent housemaids from falling out of win-
dow. It was one of the stock pieces of the year, and
it was as much a matter of courseas Mr. BERKELEY'S
motion on the Ballot and Mr. SPOONER'S on May-
nooth. The Marquis TOWNSHFND is as eccentric in
his legislation as old Sir CHARLES BURRELL,
but he has a good deal more imagination.
The venerable member for Shoreham wearied the
House by the time that he had got through his
annual performance for the third time. The young
Marquis provides the Peers with endless variety. He,
too, has had an anti-falling-out-of-window bill; but
his boundless fertility has produced a large number
of other measures. He has proposed one to
govern the metropolis, another to govern cabmen ;
he has attempted to put down mad dogs, ditto
quarrelsome women. His last performances
have been two bills, whereof one is to com-
pel children to go to school, the other is to prevent
their going out to nurse. His measures are generally
twins, and they are always stillborn. He makes
a short speech on the second reading, is answered
by Earl GRANVILLE, who suavely suggests that the
bill might be improved, or by Lord SALISBURY, who
sarcastically tells the enthusiastic legislator that it is
hopelessly absurd. The Marquis then rises and says
that in consequence of the opinions expressed by
their lordships on both sides of the House he will
withdraw his measure, and withdrawn it is.
Perhaps the funniest performance of this amiable
young nobleman's is his " Infant Life Preservation
Bill." We have all heard of baby-farmers
We know that infants in their nursing arms
have a remarkable tendency to get " over-
aid," and to suffer other calamities which do
not promote infant longevity. But we do not know
how to put down this trade of baby-nursing, for if
maternal instinct is stronger than law, and unmarried
mothers desire to get rid of their offspring,itisthemost
difficult thing in the world to baulk them. Yet the
ever-ready Marquis TOWNSHEND has a scheme of
his own. He proposes that no person shall be allowed
to take charge of a baby who has not received a
license from a magistrate. Unfortunately, this
bill had one serious defect, as the Marquis's bills
usually have, and that defect proved fatal to it, as
these defects always do. It was pointed out
by Lord SALISBURY, amid shouts of laughter, that
this measure would prevent mothers from taking
charge of their own babies without the permission of
a justice of the peace. As Lord MORLEY well
observed, if the " Infant Life Preservation Bill"
were passed there would be no infant life left to
preserve. So the usual result followed, and the bill
was withdrawn. We would suggest that in future
the Marquis should get his bills drawn by a profes-
sional .parliamentary draftsman. It would save the
House of Lords a good deal of time and himself
much ridicule.

Syr,
"V4l::lrPoir '
TIT VIII 141:1____P-_ "i"
tlitn LI; t
,I 4

HER MAJESTY.

WINDSOR CASTLE, July 14.

The Queen, accompanied by her Royal High.
ness Prince Louise, drove in the grounds yester-
day afternoon. -

Her Majesty, accompanied by Princess Louise,
Prince Leopold, and Princess Beatrice, went out
this morning.

7 0 THE EDITOR OF 7 TIE TIMES.

. Sir,—Observing in your notice of the divisions
of Monday night that I am named, among others,
as having voted for the Dul,e of Cleveland's
amendment, and as being absent from the division
on Lord Stanhope's amendment, allow me to state
that on the occasion in question I paired in favour
of Lord Stanhope's amendment with Lord Sher-
borne.—l have the honour to be, sir, your obedient
servant, LYTTON.

12, Grosvenor-square, July 14.

ARCHBISHOP MANNING will, on Sunday next,
assist pontiffically at high mass and preach, at the new Pro-
Cathedral in Kensington.

THE WEATHER 1N THE NORM—A good deal of
rain fell in the county of Northumberland yesterday, and
the wind wile from the north and cold. It was blowing
hall a gale at awn.