The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-25 00:00:00

-iIePERIAL PARLIAIYI'LIi T.

pledge themselves t i bring, in a general measure next
session, hut not of the character of the measure referred
to the previous day by the right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Carlisle. He hoped this measure would be taken
as a precedent for the resi,inotion of bishops as none had
taken plou,) since the Rettrotation, but not with regard
to its details. He objected to the present state ol things,
and was at a loss to understood how any C t rcbman
could c insider that a " tolerably satislacto stal;e of
things " where one bishop had to assist ann., er on ac•
count of his age and infirmities. A more dangerous ar-
gument could not be used by the friends of the Church.
He urged on the noble lord in considering this subject
that he would not confine any general measure he might
introduce to provide for the retirement of bishops, but
for the extension of the episcopate by the division of

B.OUSE OF LORDS 17
_ESTERDA.Y.)
The LORD Cii..v.icgT.Loa took his seat on the wool-
,!:Back at five o'clock.
• Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from cer-
3,:tain learned societies, c ,tnplainioF.,, of the existing
translation of the Bible, and praying for the appointment
f of a committee to revise the same.
THE AFFRAY AT NENAGH,
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE called the atten•
'tion of the Secretary at War to the late affray at Nenaah
.-between the militia and the regular troop, and asked
what were the intentions of the Government with
'''respect to that matter. He begged to off-r a tribute
';'of praise to the commanding officer, Sir J. Chatterton,
" for his prompt meAsnres on the occasion.
" Lord PANMURE said that the parties really
gniity of the mutiny would he dealt with with
firmness. The men of the militia who hal _ been

dioceses.
Sir J. FITZGERILD opposed the bill on account
of its exclusive character. A general measure should be
introduce I extending it to all the clergy.
Mr. RILDYARD should object to any general mea-
sure based upon the principles of this bill. The most
pressing spiritual destitution was the inadequate provi-
sion for tin, wcrking clergy, and he objected to the funds
applicable to them being diminished under any circum-
stances. Of all functionaries bishops were looked at
with less con iteration than any other, and as in reference
to their religious animosities and prejudices showed
themselves it was nece,...sary the utmost caution should

t guilty of the outra!ze on this ncca-inn would be
'-hau-led over to the civil tribunals. Fr.lrn information he
'had received the rinqleadera had been identified, and
would be brought to just,cr..
Lord ELLENTOIIOU TS bore his testimony to the
merits of tie Irisu militia. From returns he had re-
ceived be found the desertions from the English
''militia were 23 per cent., the Scotch 20 per cent.,
and the Irish only five per cent. The English
gave recruits to the army at the rate of 7 per cent., the
—Scotch at 1.,q, and the Irish at 21. The latter was
therefore the most valuable to the service of the country.
THE LEGION OF HONOUR.
Lord CALTHORPE called the attention of their
lordships to the distribution of the Legion of Honour,
and asked why it had not been conferred upon four gal-
lant officers who formed a portion of the staff of the late
Lord Raglan, notwithstanding the wish of the Emperor
,• Napoleon, after the battle of Inkerman, to confer such
a distinction upon the officers engaged.
After a few observations from the Duke of CLEVE-

be usefi in dealint► with them.
Lord PALMER:STON said that as to the intention
of the Government with reference to a general measure
he could not then give a direct answer. Had there
been a general measure introduced there must have been
clauses invi.inf, exceition;tf provisions for these two
particu'ar sees. If the Government should bring in a
general measure next session it would be on their re-
sponsibility, and nothing that had been said in the
course of this dihata would be considered as a pledge to

support or oppose such a measure. It must be con-
sidered entirely on its own merits. A bishop ought not
to be allowed to retire at his discretion, nor at the wish
of the Government of the day. A bishop willing to re
sign should show physical infirmities and incompetency
to discharge his duties, and when such existed, and the
bishop refused to resign, he ought to be compelled.
He considered special legislation in these cases objec-
tionable.

LAND and Lord CoecnEseeo,
Lord PA.NMURE said the Commander-in-Chief had
forwarded eo officers commanding in the Crimea
instructions to send over the, names of those
officers entitled to the distinction. The
names were transmitted by the Minister of Foreign Af-
fairs to Faris. He believed that General Simpson and
Sir W. Codrington had made the selection of those
names without any favour or affection. The Government
were not reeponsible for the selection. He had referred
to the Foreign-office to see whether any correspondence
existed on the subject, but he could not discover any.
" There was no slur whatever intended by the alleged
omissions on the memory of Lord Raglan. (Hear.
hear.) There was not an officer on the staff
' of Lord Raglan who bad not received one step in pro-
motion, if not two. Col. Somerset had received the dh•
• tinction of Commandership of the Bath in addition to
a Lieutenant-Coloneley before he left this country, and
he was too young to receive the next step, because by
such promotion being made a number of senior officers
would have to be passed over.
The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH said he believed
the claim of Colonel Somerset was urged on the score
of his father's services. Now, it was his opinion
. that distinction should never be conferred fir vicarious
services, otherwise there was a deception, and a soldier
would be ashamed to wear it. The rule he had laid
down when he was in India, he believed, was the cor-
rect one, and it was that a soldier should never receive
• a military medal unless for services under fire.
After a few words of explanation from the Duke of
CLEVELAND and Lord CALTEIORPE the subject dropped.
MARRIAGE LAW OF SCOTLAND AMENDING
BILL.
The LORD CHANCEL LOR moved the consideration
of the Commons- amendments to this bill.
Lord PORTMAN reminded their lnrdships,that by
one of the standing orders passad in 1707, the puts of
watching and explaining amendinedts made by the Com-
mons in bills passed by the Lords devolved upon the
noble and learned occupantof the woolsack. Now it was
quite impossible that the Lord Chancellor could find
time to discharge that necessary and important duty,
:-Anetelete wooldetherefore-stegget to the Government the
jerePriet3o,•fetieineiliet'in e it tee afire (item else.
r.m,LOttetiliiNCELLOß!riplied that the noble lord
e,:teae probiGly riot; aware that it had been already an-
, ghat thiGoverrirnent bad it in contemplatiun to
orapetethe appointment of an officer whose duty it should
be to assist both houses with regard to the amendments
e, made by each in the bills of the other.
The amendments were then teceived.
HOSPITALS (DUBLIN) BILL.
This bill passedthrough committee.
BURIAL GROUNDS (IRELAND) BILL
Tbis hilt passed through committee.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS SUPERANNUATION
cee- -
• - (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
JOINT STOCKS BANK BILL.
,Tbia bill passed through committee.
• The following bills were read a third time and passed
:eeelncorne and Land Taxes, Stamp Duties, Racehorse
Duty, Coast Guard Service, Corrupt Practices Preven-
tion, General Board of Health Continuance, Militia Pay,
Cureitor Baron of the Exchequer, Lunatic Asylums Act
Anietdment,'Deeds (Scotland), Judicial Procedure, &c.
(Scotland) Bills.
The Marriage, &c., Registration Acts Amended Bil
was also read a third time, some amendments being in
troduced relative to the mode of entering tho marriage
The Commons' amendments to the Mercantile Law
Amendment Bid were agreed to.
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
- On the order for considering the Commons' amend-
ments to this bill,
The Duke of ARGYLL said, knowing the majority
which the noble duke opposite bad on this bill, he should
not trouble their lordships to divide. He regretted that
this bill, which was a compromise between the two par-
ties iu Scotland, was not agreed to by the noble duke.
He conceived that they must fall back in Scotland upon
what was called the denominational system. In Eng-
land there could be no doubt that that system, under
the aids granted. by the Committee of Privy Council,
had, on the whole, operated in favour of the Estab•
liehed Church. In Scotland he did not believe that it
would operate in the same manner. There was a feeling
of jealousy and dislike on the part of the Free Church
against the great landowners of Scotland, which was
, aroused in 1842, and which he was sorry to say had not
yet diminished. They had in Scotland a great rival body
conducting most eueceesfully a system of education.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH urged that the compro-
mise was one which wentto get rid of the greet principle
on which the Scotch parochial schools were founded, and
he contended that there ought to he a religious test for
the schoolmasters. This was the first step of an attack
against the Church itself; for what was good reason for
abolishing tests in the schools would he a good reason
for abolishing them in the Church. He also urged that
the school system of Scotland was essentially a national
one, f :r the children of all denominations were freely ad-
' mitted into the schools without reference to their profes-
sion of faith, and that with the consent of their parents.
He regretted that it was impossible to do otherwise than
move that the first amendment of the Commons be agreed
to, but that the second be disagreed to.
After some remarks from Lord PANSIURIC and the
Earl of lIADDINGTON,
The first amendment was agreed to, anti the second was
negatived.
Their lordships then adjourned.

After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY,
Mr. KINNAIRD said that the Bishop of London
had admiuist&•red his revenue with liberality. lie had
built a church at his own expense, with a rectory house,

HOUSE OF COMAIONS.--(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after 12 o'clock.
praVATE BUSINESS.
The L :Hs' amendments to the Scottish Central Rail-
way Bill were considered and agreed to. and also those
of the Perth Burgh and Harbour (No. 2) Bill.

NEW MEMBER.
Captain STMT took the oaths and hi 3 seat for the
borough of D-rehester.
THE BISHOPS OF LONDON A.ND DURHAM
RETIREMENT BILL.
On the motion that the house go into committee on
this hill.

were :

and had endowed it.
Mr. PELLA.TT supported the original motion.
Mr. HADFIELD withdrew his motion.
The house then went into committee.
Ou clausel, providing for the retirement of the Bishops
of London and Durham,
Mr. GLADIONE, in moving an amendment ou the
clause, denied that he and those who thought with him
on the measure had raised technical objections to the
bill, but had founded them on true principles, recognised
throughout Christendom. One objection he had to the
bill was, that it was a bill for sanctioning an individual
bargain, which would not be necessary in a general mea-
sure, To raise the question, he moved that the words
of the clause, " by the said Charles James, Lord Bishop
of London" should be struck out, and the words "by
any bishop of the province" inserted.
Sir G. GREY said the alteration proposed would so
affect the other portions of the bill that the adoption of
the words would virtualy negative the bill, because it
would give it a general character.
Sir J. GRAHAM asked if the letter dated 21st June
was the first communication received from the Bishop
of Durham with reference to the amount of retiring
allowance, and whether that letter was not the ultima-
tum that passed between the Government and the bishop.
He understood there were repeated communications be•
tween them, and that a larger sum was asked by the
bishop.
Lord PALMERSTON said he first heard of the
Bishop of Durham's wish to resign in the autumn.
After that he was informed the right rev. prelate did
not wish to resign, and the matter dropped. After that
he had a verbal communication from the bishop, and
the first intimation in writing relative to the allowance
was contained in the letter referred to.
Sir J. SHELLEY said that with reference to the
Bishop of London he was enabled to state that the only
proposition ever made by him was contained in the pub-
lished correspondence.
Mr. E. DENISON objected to the introduction of the
words. It would be impossible to make this a general
measure, and if they admitted the words difficulties
would occur at every stage.
Mr. HENLEY did not consider these words would
have the effect of making the measure a general one, or
would compel alteration in the other clauses of the bill.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that was so. What he
wanted to do was to make the Law of Resignation gene-
ral. This bill did not propose to authorise resignation
but to allow it, and the alteration he proposed would
remove any doubts that might hereafter arise in regard
to filling up a bishopric under this bill.
Mr. NAPIER having addressed a few remarks to
the committee,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, addressed the com-
mittee at some length, in the course of which he contended
that the charge of eimony did not apply to the arrangement
under consideration, and it was to be regretted it should
have been introduced into the debate. Any person con-
versant with the law and ecclesiastical history must be
aware that what was now proposed was in strict con-
formity with the law of the Church, and with the muni-
cipal and conventional law on the subject of simony.
The hon. and learned gentleman cited the resignation
of the Bishop of Durham in the 13th century, and that
of Archbishop Grindell in the latter period of Queen
Elizabeth's reign. In these cases stipulations were wade
by the bishops for resigning their sees.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the cases quoted by the
learned Attorney-General did not touch the cases now
under consideration in the slightest degree, and he had
conveyed to the house an unfair impression of the cha-
racter of these cases. Tue point at issue was not that it
was improper to assign a maintenance to a bishop on his
resigning his bishopric, for that had been admitted by
the hon. member fur Finsbury, who was not over favour-
able to bishops—(laughter)—but the question was
whether the house could have, or ought to have, or there
ever had been an individual bargain—(hear)—for a re-
signation in which there was an engagement to receive a
pension made on condition .1 the resignation. (Hear,
hear.) That was the whole point at issue, and the learned
Attorney General ought to have known it. In the case
of the Bishop of Durham, in the 13th century, there
was no bargain for a resignation, and so far as Arch-
bishop Grindell was concerned he had an intimation of
rather a significant character from the Queen to resign,
which was more full of meaning than anything proceed-
ing from that house ; and it was after he had resigned
unconditionally that he asked for a residence with some
land at Croydon, The right hon. gentleman contended
at some length that the bargain between the Bishops of
London and Darharn and the Government partook of
simony.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in reply, arid amidst
much laughter, said that the right hon. gentleman the
member for Oxford University had shifted his ground
with the dexterity of a special pleader, and had
shown how dangerous a thing was a little memory.
(Laughter.) The learned gentleman reiterated that
the cases he had quoted were in point. In the
case of the Bishop of Durham, he stipulated, on
resigning, that he should have his palace at Stockton,
&e. ; arvil as regarded Archbishop Grindell, he stipulated
for three thing -e two of which were the dwelling at Croy-
don and to the freedom of dilapidation.
Mr. GLADSTONE contended the learned Attorney-
General was in error. The grounds, &c., at Croydon,
asked for by Archbishop Grindell, were not, he (Mr.
Gladstone) contended, conditions of his resignation. In
the case of the Bishop of Durham, the enjoyment of the
palace at Stockton was not a stipulation for resignation.
Mr.NAPIER conte tided that there could not be by law
a resignation with a condition annexed to it, and
charged the Solicitor-General with attempting to mislead'
the house on a simple point of law.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the Bishop
of London had made no conditions contrary to the law
of Henry VIII.
The clause was then agreed to without a division,
Oa clause 2, granting to the Bishop of London the use'
of the palaee at Fulham,
Mr. ROEBUCK moved its omission, but the clause
was ultimately agreed to without a division.
On clause 3. grantinQ• the two pensions,
Mr. T. DVNCOUBE moved the omission of the
words fixing the amount of pension as a condition of their

. Mr. HADFIELD moved that it be committed that
day three menthe. The imputation of this country was
27,000,000, out of which 9,000,000 only belonged to the
Established Church, and yet they were asked to grant a
retiring pen4on of 6,0001. a•year to the'Bishop of Lon-
don, and of 4,6001. per annum to the Bishop of Dertiam
a year. The 6th anti 7th Viet. stipulated that the sa-
lary for the dincese of London shall he 10.000 i. per
annum, yet the hiehop actually received 22,000/
whilst
out of the 10,000 working clergymen throu Y170%4, the
y. country room of their salaries did not average-1
. annum. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman then per,
re-
ferred to the career of the Bishop of London, and stated
that be had received from the Church for four years
during the time he was Bishop of Chester, 12,000/.,d
for the2BYears he had been Bishop of London, 616,0. _9O/ ,
waking together 625,0001., be-iies possessing the pa-
' tronage of 97 livings, valued at 70,0001. The
Bishop of Durham had received 320,0001., when he
should have received bat 160,0001., and he also pos-
. Bossed the patronage of 47 livings, These rev, pre
. later bad enjoyed an income'greater than any digni-i
taries of any other church, and far above that paid
to the Ministers of the Crown. Together these rev.
gentlemen had received from the Church 973,0001.,
and it was diegraceful for them to come to that house
and stipnlate'that they should receive a retiring allow-
ance for relinquishing offices they were unable effi-
ciently to discharge the dutiee of. Lie condemned'
bishops having seats in the Upper House, .and saisi
pthzret.i. always. shown themselves. the obstructers of
Mr. NEWbEd k^',E•
Fail that the 'fr answer that
could he given to thenetrieturesof 111 r. _..atifleld 'on the
a
• Bishop of London t tie necessity of their granting
him a pension, was thefact before the honer', that
his liherality to his Po,trer
almost destitute. He Su, ethren had left himn
, and
asked ported
the motion for going
into committee, the noble lord if it Was
his intention to introduce next session a general measure
on this subject, and detiuing the terms on which bishos .
a e'ioulti resign ? p
Toe Marquis of BLANDFORD WaS of °Onion that. The, home resumed G. O'clock.
I MR. JAMES SADLEIR.
general measure should he introduced, f.tr noti "- g
(lo "h would 11ir.
flousstAN.brought np a copy of the bills of indict-
bring greater scandal on the Church andwhentna(),ry e I
stlaedrilteifro uncl by the Clonmel grand jury against Mr. Jas.
mischief than introducing special measures when
prelate wished to resign. He supported the second itsl.l3o WED SC iioOLzi IN IRELAND.
reading of, this bill,
because he thought the wants of the Mr. Ka e IRK sk 1 whether the report of the commis-
diocese required efficient supervision, which could not. sioners on tbece'selifoole was ready, or 'nearly so ?
be obtained without a measure of this kind, If this Mr. HORSkAN said the report? was in a state of
case were made a
,precedent,be thought itwould have.:the furwardne
effect of connecting the Church too closely with 'the night Of next
MERSEY STEsess'onE (AL
AND IRON
COMPANY.
State, and give it a political character it ought not to
possess. Col one ORT.II a if there- would* be any obct ea
Mr. MOWBRAY hoped the Government would' tion to lay on t'•
e table a copy of the report on th p prov-

resizninc.
Colonel NORTH complained of the manner in c! hich
Mr. Hadfield had multidlied the income of the Bishop
of London tit increase prejudice against him, and said
that the Bishop of London hal not put it into his pocket,
bat had distr hilted it in charity.
Mr. HADFIELD replied with some warmth, and
said the charities of the right rev. prelate ought
not to be vaunted tefore the puhlie, seeing that he had
1, en charitable at the expense of the 10,000 clergymen
et the country. -
Mr. GLADSTONE interposed, and the further dis-
cussion on the point was put an end to.
After some remarks from Mr. HEADLAM,
Mr. CARDWELL suggeAed two divisions should
take Waco lu the amendment, because he thought the
Bishop of Durham should only receive one-third of his
ree,goised salary of 3,0001 per annum.
Tim committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause lO5
Against it
30
Majority
—75
Mr. 'ROEBUCK then moved that the sum of 6,0001.
should he reduced to 3,500/., one-third of his recognised
salary of 10,0001. a-year.
Tue committee .agani divided, when the numbers

For tae amendment
Against it
nii ,rity agauist the amendment
Ti,e other orders on tthe paper were disposed of, and.
i 1 ~ iH ~ fair o'clock, by the forms of the house it 3 sit-
, Irs,
tiog W3S su 'pentled.
- --