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

LORD LUCAN AND THE JUDGE-ADVOCATE-

GENERAL.

Mr. KINNAIRD asked whether it was likely the
report of the Board of Inquiry at Chelsea would be in
the hands of hon. members before the prorogation of
Parliament!

Mr. VILLIERS said he had every reason to believe
the report would be in the bands of boo. members before
that time, and he should therefore forbee.r continuing a
controversy which a noble lord in another place had
originated and seemed disposed to continue. (Cries of
order, from Colonel French.) He hoped the friends of
the noble lord in that house would allow him (Mr. Vii.
tiers) to say a word or two more on this matter,
which was of a personal nature, and attacked
his character. (Hear, hear.) He repeated that he
should decline continuing the controversy then,
because he thought it showed a want of respect for that
house to bandy personalities there with the noble lord—
(hear, hear)—and also because the report would shortly
be in the hands of hon. members and before the public,
when they would have an opportunity of judging whe-
ther he had stated anything incorrect with respect to
the inquiry or to the evidence. (Hear, hear.) They
would then see whether a solitary case of personal ani-
madversion by the Commissioners was satisfied by the
evidence, and whether the irquiry with regard to it was
or was not complete. (Hear, hear.) He was convinced
a friend of the noble lord's in that house would convey
to him what passed there, and if he did so he hoped he
would tell the noble lord from him (Mr. Villiers), that
he treated with the utmost indifference his personalities.
(Loud cheers.)
Col. FRENCH said that he considered the explana-
tion of the noble lord's in another place perfectly satis-
factory. The noble lord there denied that he had said
anything offensive to the right hon. gentleman, and fur-
thermore that he never meant to have done so.

The subject then dropped.
GRAND JURIES, &c., (IRELAND) BILL.
After a short discussion the motion for the second
reading of this bill was withdrawn.
POOR LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

The order for the second reading of this bill was die-
charged.
BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM RE-
TIREMENT BILL.-L-ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the resumption of the debate on this bill,
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said that, in the unavoidable
absence of the right hon. gentleman the member for
Oxfordshire, he intended to move the motion of which
the right bon. gentleman had given notice. He (Sir
W. Heathcote) urged the Government not to push for-
ward this bill at that period of the session ; and, if there
was eo other objection to be urged against its progress,
it was the want of time to properly consider a measure
that would be of the utmost importance in its imme-
diate application to the Church, and the conse-
quences that might result from it in the considera-
tion of other causes of a similar character. He called
upon the Government to abandon this measure, and in
the next session introduce one of a general nature. If
deiven to a decision on this bill, he should feel no diffi-
culty in voting against it on its merits, believing that it
partook largely of the character of simony. The Go-
vernment ought not to force the house to a decision,
and he hoped hon. members would support him in his
amendment, that the bill be read a second time this day
three months. (Hear, hear.)
Lord ROBERT CECIL seconded the amendment.
He objected to the principle of the measure, because it
would have the effect of leading in every case to re-
tirement for a twofold bargain. One between the re-
tiring bishop and the government relative to the amount
of the pension, and the other between the government
and Parliament relative to granting it. It was also
likely to give rise to political jobbery. He should give
the measure his most strenuous opposition.
Mr. M. MILNES said this was an exceptional mea-
sure, and to consider that it would be taken as a prece-
dent cc as the groundwork of a general measure, was an
assumption on the part of those who reiva,nced that line
of argument that he hoped the House would not listen to.
This measure would be advantageous to the dioceses in
question, and no scandal would attach to the Church from
it, except from that which had fallen from those who
opposed it. He hoped the houso would not be led
away by the exposition of schemes for a general measure,
and in consequence reject this bill. There were only
two grounds on which the house aould reject it,—first,
upon the ground that the duties of a bishop were so
unimportant that these aged prelates were able to per-
form them as well as any one else ; and secondly, on the
ground that the terms e% hich the bishops bad proposed
were so exorbitant that the house could not agree to
them.

Mr. NAPIER supported the amendment. He
thought Parliament ought not to be called on to assent
to the conditional resignation of a bishop, which was
unsound in principle. The resignation of a bishop, ac-
cording to the doctrines of the church, should be pure,
simple, and absolute. The correspondence bet% een Lord
Palmerston and the Bishops of London and Durham
showed that the resignations of these bi:;hops would not
he -pure, simple, and absolute, but that they would par-
take 'J f a sitneniachl character.

Mr. CARDWELL supported the bill, as being neces-
sary to provide efficient supervision for the two dioceses
in question.. Be. considered the charge of simony un-
founded.
Mr. ROEBUCK opposed the bill. Ile condemned
the house providing "soft cushions" for these effete .
bishops on their retirement, in the shape of a Fen%
sion of 6,000/. ayear, whilst they deprived aged
and infirm clergymen from making similar. advantageous
arrangements. The whole of the husinesi was a scandal
and a shame to the Church, and he hoped the house'
would not sanction it.
Mr..A. BLACK supported the bill.
.There. was no-
thing immoral in a bishop asking for a retiring pen-ion,
nor was it contrary to the Bible. •If they rejected the
bill they would be. inflicting a great injustice on the
country. lie should be glad if the Church was left to
itself, hut so long as the house meddled with church
affairs so long must these discussions contihue.
Sir J. GRAHAM acquitted the noble lord at the
head cf the Government of possessing any desire to in-
crease his patronage by this measure, because the corre-
opondenoe between him and ;be rev! .prelates referred to,