The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-24 00:00:00

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 lat 4
Lord 'Raglan, not withstanding 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•
LAND and Lnrd COLCHESTER,
Lord PANINTURE said the Commander-in-Chief had
forwarded to 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 Paris. lie believed that General Simp.on and
Sir W. Codrington had made the selection of those
names without any favour or affection. The Government
were not responsihle 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 lead not received one step in iv,-
motion if not two. Col. Somerset had received the dis-
tinction of Commandership of the Bath in addition to
a Lieutenant-Colonelcy before he left this country, and
he was too yountx to receive the next step, becau,e by
such promotion being made a Dumber of serdor officers
would have to be passed over.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said he believed
the claim of Colonel Somerset was urged co. the score
of his father's services. Now, it was his opinion
that distinction should never be conferred for vicarious
services, otherwise there was a deception, and a soldier
would be ashamed to wear it. The rule h s had laid
down when he was in India, he believed, wa.s the cor-
rect one, and it ',vas that a soldier should nevNer receive
a military medal unless for services under fin!.
[LEFT SITTING.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--(This Day.)
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after 11 o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lards' 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 STURT took the oaths and his seat for the
borough of D ,rchetlter.

THE BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM

RETIREMENT BILL.
On the motion that thithouse go) into committee on
this hill.

Mr. HADFIELDhnoved that it be comm j tted that
day three months. The popnlation of this cou:ntry was
27.000,000. nut of which 9,000,000 only belonii ed to the
Established Church, and yet they were asked "to grant a
retiring pension of 6,0001. a-year to the Bishoii of Lon-
don, and of 4,500/. per annum to the Bishop oil, Durham
a year. The 6th and 7th Viet. stipulates thri t the sa-
lary for' the diocese of London shall be 10.i:100/. per
annum, yet the bishop actually received 22,000?., whilst
out of the 10,000 working clergymen throw flout the
country many of their salaries did not average 1001. per
annum. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman then re-
ferred to the oareer of the Bishop of London, at id stated
that he had received from the Church for four years
during the time he was Bishop of Chester, 12, 0.:10/ , and
for then yea,rsbe had been Bishop of London, 6116,0001.,
making together 623,000/., be'ides possessing- the pa-
tronage of 97 livings, valued at 70,000i'. The
Bishop of Durham had received 320,0001., hen he
should have received bet 160,0001., and he rt !so pos-
sessed the patronage of 47 livings. These r ev. pre-
lates had enjoyed an income greater than art v digni-
taries of any other church, and far above ti 'at paid
to the Ministers of the Crown. Together th ese rev. '
gentlemen hail received from the Church 97"3,0001.,
and it was disgraceful for them to come to this house
and stipulate that they should receive a retiring; allow-
ance for relinquishing offices they were nn m ble effi-
ciently to discharge the duties of. He coil demned
bishops having seats in the Upper House, nd said
they bad always shown themselves the obstructors of
regress.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the best answer that
could be given to the strictures of Mr. Hadfield! on the
Bishop of London and the necessity of their ranting
him a pension, was the fact before the hou m.e, that
hie liberality to his poorer brethren bad 1 tft him
almost destitute. He supported the motion for going
i
into committee, and asked the noble lord f it was
his intention to introduce next session a general m m measure
n this subject, and defining the terms on which ibishops
honld resign ?
The Marquis of BLANFOIID was of opinion that, a
general measure should be introduced, for nothim I would
obring greater scandal on the Church and do he cr more
mischief than introducing spec's.' measures wh 3 n any
prelate wished to resign. He supported the second
reading of this bill, because he thought the want of the
diocese required efficient supervision, which cot ild not
be obtained without a measure of this kind. :if this
owe were made a precedent,he thought itwould h:i.ve the
effect of connecting the Church too closely with the
State, and give it a political character it ought not to
possess.
Mr. MOWBRAY hoped the Government would
pledge themselves to bring in .a general measurii next
session, but riot of the character of the measure ra leered
to the previous cl,my by the right hon. baronet the. mem-
ber for Carlisle. He hoped this measure would be taken
as a precedent for the resignation of bishops as UC4ne had
taken place since the reformation, but not with t .egard
to its details. He objected to the present state of :things
and was at a lose to understand how any Churi :hrear,
could consider that a " tolerably satisfactory sti ate of
things," where one bishop had to assist another ion ac-
count of his age and infirmities. A more danger t.ue ar-
gument could not be used by the friends of the Cluurch.
He urged on the noble rd in considering this isiabject
that he would not confine any general measure be ;might
lat"duce, to provide for the retirement of bishops, but

f•'r the extera-ion of the episcopate by the division o

diPceseq.
Sir J FITZGERALD opposed the bill on tccour,t
of its exclusive enaracter. A geoeral measure should be
introduce,' ext-rpling it to al the clergy.
Mr. HILDYARD should obj-,ct to any general ales
cur.- based upos the principles of this bill. The mos.
pressing spiritual destitution was the inadequate pros,'
sion for the working 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 c )niideration than any other, and as in reference
to their religious animosities and prejudices showed
themselves it was necessary the utmost caution should
be used in dealine with them.
Lord PALMERSTON 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 makin; exceptional provisions for these two
particular 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 debate 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-
tional,le.
After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY,

Mr KINNAIRD said that the Bishop of London
had administered his revenue with liberality. He had
built a church at his own expense, with a rectory house,
and had endowed it.

Mr. PELLA.TT supported the original motion.
Mr. HADFIELD withdrew his motion.
The house then went into committee.
On clausel, providing for the retirement of the Bishops
of London and Durham,
Mr. GLADSTONE, in moving an amendment ou the
clause, denied that be and those who thought with him
on the measure had raised technical objections to the
bill, but bad 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 virtually 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 understcod 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 autun n.
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 bishoprick under this bill.
Mr. NA PIER 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 simony 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
ref Archbishop Grindell in the latter period of Queen
Elizabeth's reign. In these casesstipulations were made
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. Tee 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 a condition of 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 sargain between the Bishops of
London and Durham and the Government partook of
I shoofly.
Ttfe SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in reply, and 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,
35e..; and as regarded Archbishop Griradell, be stipulated
for three things, 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.
Mri.NAPIER contended 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 oT 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 palace at Fulham,
Mr. ROEBUCK moved its omission, but the clause
was ultimately agreed to without a division.
On clause 3, granting the two pensions,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the omission of the
words fixing the amount cf pension as a condition of their
resigning.
Colonel NORTH complained of the manner in which
Mr. Hadfield had multiplied the income of the Bishop
of London to increase prejudice against him, and said
that the Bishop of London had not put it into his pocket,
but had distributed it in charity.
Mr. HADFIELD replied with some warmth, and
said the charities of the right rev, prelate ought
not to be vaunted before the public, seeing that be bad
been charitable at the expense of the 10,000 clergymen
of the country-
Mr. G LADSTONE interposed, and the further dis-
cussion on the point was put an end to.
After some remarks from Mr. HEA.DLAM,
Mr. CARDWELL suggested two divisions should
take place ou the amendment, because he thought the
Bishop of Durham should only receive one-third of his
recognised salary of 8,0001 per annum.
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause lO5
Against it
Majority —7s
Mr. ROEBUCK then moved that the sum of 6,000/.
should belreduced to 3,5001,, one third of his recognised
000/. a-year.
The committee again, divided, when the numbers
were :

For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment
The other orders on the paper were disposed of, and
it being four o'clock, by the forms of the house its sit-
ting was supended.
The house resumed at 6 o'clock, and was
[LEFT SITTING

PRESENTATION OF COLOURS.—New colours were pre-
sented to the 25th Regiment, or King's Own Bordererp,
yesterday, at the Salford Barracks, by Lieut.. General
Sir Harry Smith.

The Mania for establishing Credit Mobiliers in Ger-
many shows no signs of subsiding. To those of Vienna,
Frankfort, Darmstadt, Leipsic, Dessau, and others, of
which the shares are at premiums ranging from 10 to
90 per cent., there are now two additions which have
just been introduced at Berlin. The first consists of
several second-rate merchant, and bankers. The other,
which is designated the Society of Commercial Credit,
counts among its administrators some of the first mer-
cmitile names in Berlin. The capital is fixed at 15,000,000
thalers (or 2,250,0001.), of which the directors take
7,500,000 thalers at par, while the remainder are to be
sold at a premium, which is to be carried to the credit
of the company. Upon a subscription being opened for
a portion of the amount at 10 premium applications
were sent in to the extent of 140,000,000 thalers. The
eagerness to obtain shares is attributable to the fact of
the company having at its bead commercial men who
have always been known to be successful. The'managers
reserve to themselves 5 per cent. out of the profits, and
the directors are to have 5 per cent, before any distribu-
tion whatever is made to the shareholders. The shares
are of 200 thalers each, and are already in great demand
at 17 per cent, premium.