The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-07 00:00:00

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seal on the woolcack
at five o'clock.

THE JEW BILL.

The Duke of MARLBOROUGH gave notice that
when this bill was in committee he should move the in-
sertion of a clause prohibiting persons of the Jewish
persuasion from giving advice to the Crown with respect
to Ecclesiastical appointments.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition complaining
of the absurdity of the present railway system, and
praying for amendment. The noble lord also presented
petitions from Manchester, Edinburgh, and other
places, praying for an amendment of the law with respect
to the rights of warned women.
The Bishop of OXFORD presented petitions from
Fenny Stratford, and other places, against the abolition
of church rates.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.
The Earl of HA.RDWICKE brought up the report of
amendments on this bill, and explained to their lordships
the nature of the several additions that had been made
to the measure, relating to the sale, purchase, transfer
of ecclesiastical estates, in committee. The noble
earl concluded by moving that the report be received.
Lord RAVENSWORTH moved the insertion of the
following amendment :—" That no appointment or ex-
change of ecclesiastical patronage under the provision
contained in the Act of the 6th and 7th years of King
Wm. IV., chapter 77, section Ist, shall be carried into
eff,et without the consent in writing of the bishop of the
diocese within which such ecclesiastical patronage so
proposed to be appointed or exchanged snail be situate."
The noble lord stated at some length his objections to
various parts of the bill, but he complained tuore espe-
cially of the obstruction, he might almost say the spolia-
tion, of 24 livings, involving revenue to the amount
of 16,0001. from the diocese of Durham, to improve
the almost unenclowed sees of Ripon and Manchester.
Such a proceeding, he contended,was contrary to consti-
tutional as well as ecclesiastical rights.
The Earl of CHICHESTER said that the ecclesiasti-
cal commission acted not only in conformity with the
provisions of the act of the 6 and 7 Win. IV., but with a
view to what they believed to be for the benefit of the
several dioceses, and the spiritual welfare of the people.
The Bishop of DURHAM said that as he was per-
sonally concerned in this matter, he did not wish to say
anything, but he might be permitted to remark, that it
was extremely inconvenient to have a large portion of
the livings of one diocese transferred to another. if it
were possible to avoid that inconvenience it would be
extremely desirable, bat as being personally concerned,
be should prefer leaving it to some one of their lordships
to devise means for ;Abet purpose than to suggest any
himself. (Hear.)
The Earl of DERBY observed that the law under
which the ecclesiastical commissioners acted passed in
1836, and that act gave them power to recommend
schemes for the distribution of patronage amongst the
different dioceses, so as to make it as nearly as possible
equal to the magnitude and importance of the dioceses.
He believed that all the bishops who were concerned in
the changes which had been effected were appointed since
that date, so that there was no ground for the possibility
of complaint on the part of any individual bishop. He was
not arguing in favour of any plan. He only said that the
ecclesiastical commissioners acted under what had been
the law of thelsaid for 22 years, and that it became neces-
sary under that act to assign some amount of patronage
to the new sees. His noble friend compared the import-
auce of, Durham with the dioceses of Ripon and Man-
chester. He agreed in the principle laid down by the
right rev: prelate, that it was as far as possible desirable
that the patronage of each see should consist of benefices
within the see, and that they should not take away the
patronage of one bish,:p to give it to anal het. But the
case of these three sees of Durham, Ripon, and Man-
chester. was rather peculiar. He had a list placed in his
hands that morning, which showed at all events that, if
patronage was to be distributed with regard to the
magnitude and importance of the dioceses, no great
equality prevailed even after the distribution was made to
the sees of Ripon and Manchester. The population in the
bishopric of Durham was 701,000, in that of It!pon it
was 1,033,000, in that of Manchester 1,400,000, or very
nearly double the population of Durham. The beneficed
in the see c f Durham amounted to 242 ; in Ripon, to
373: in Manchester, to 315. But with regt.rd to patron-
age, the position of the dioceses was very diff srent, for
in Dwhain there were 70 livings wui tb 39,0001., where-
as in liipou there were only 47 livings worth 10,00 W ,
and in Manchester only 33 livings worth 9,000/. It the
Ecclesiast.cal Cemmissiouers were to carry out the prin-
ciple of the act of 1836, they must subtract from the pa-
tronage of the one diocese to make up for the inadigo,te
patronage as-i.gnvd to Manchester. It Lis noble fliond
intended to introduce any provision of the kind irsoie.ted
iu his proposition, he should move for a repeal of the
provision of the act 6 and 7 Wm. IV., under which the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners acted. The proposition of
his noble frier d went so far as to say that the bishop
should not be deprived of his patronage at all, tee it
would require the consent of the bishop. This would
render value'ess to a great extent the power of the c oL-
ruisaiontrs. ho were th•• Ecclesiastical Commissioners?
Tney were the body of the bishops themselves. Ant it
was by the coneeet t f the body of bishops themselves
that the arrangement was made. If they referred a por-
tion of their busiuess to a committee of three laymen,

that only indicated the confidence they placed in the
judgrnentand discretion of these three laymen. He could
not consent to the proposal of his noble friend, the effect
of which would be to defeat the power of the commis-
sioners. The cialinissioners had only the power of train-
ing eehemes. They whet receive tbeeanction of an order
in council. He believed that, practically, it would make
no difference ; but if his noble friend arts satisfied with a
proposition of this kind, thatnoaltera,ion should be made
with regard to the d.stribution of the patronage of the
bishop without a month's notice being given to the bishop,
ise should assent. That would give the bishop an oppor-
tunity of laying any remonstrance on his ! art before the
ecc!esiastical commissioner,, and also of bringing his case

Wore the privy council and astiiegthern nut toart.e to

the scheme of the commissioners. If his noble friend put
this propositt.n in that share he thould be willing to
introduce it into the bill, but he could not consent to
give the bishop an absolute veto on the decision of the
oonmiissioners.
Earl GREY raid there was great inconvenience in
transferring the patronage of one diocese to another, the
bishop of which was living at a distance, and without
that knowledge of the wants of the population which the
bishop residing in the diocese must possess. If there-
fore his noble friend pressed his amendment he should
support him.
After a few words from the Earl of Powis and the
Duke of MARLBOROUGH,
Their lordships divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority egaiust it
The LORD ULIANCELLOR proposal alter clause 33
to insert new causes, lithe object of which was to give
power to the trustees to raise money for the purpose of
enfranchising or buying reversions.
The clauses were agreed to.
The Bishop of OXFORD then proposed clausss for
the purpose of endowing the chancellorships of the
diocese.

12
,?.8

The E. 41 of DERBY thought the subject required
more coLsideration ; for it was calculated that the sum
required would be 5,000/. a year. It would be better to
let the question be iaised in the House of Coolincus.
After a short conversation, the right rev. prelate post-
poned the matter till the third reading.
The report was then received.
PORTENDIC AND ALBREDA. CONVENTION
BILL.
This bill was read a second time. _

CHURCHES, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
PUBLIC GROUNDS AND PLAYGROUNDS
BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' AMENDMENT'
BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
MARRIAGES (MOSCOW, TAHITI, AND
NINUPO) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
COUNTY COURTS DISTRICT BILL.
On the report of amendments,
Lord BROUGHAM observed that the amounts sued
for in the county courts during the past year had been
no less than 700,0001., a large propnr‘ion, of which had
been recovered. Of snits for sums bet .eeu 201. and 501.,
which might be tried either in the county courts cr in
the superior courts, no fewer than 10 000 cases had hem

disposed of in the former, and only 2,000 in the latter
mode. Under these circumstances tie thought the
salaries o 4 the judges ought to be equalised at the highest
rate now received, namely, 1,5001. a year.
The LORD CHANCELLOR s..iit that it would not
be possible to eqwalise the salaries of the judges while
the labour they had to do was so unequal. Some of
those learned gentlemen were absolutely overworked ;
but from a paper which had been furnished him by
Lord Wensleydale he found there were some who did
not sit on more than 45 days in the year. The object of
the present bill was to render the distribution of the
business more even ; and he recommended the noble
lord to wait and see whether the work when so equalised
would in eaeh cage be so considerable as to render it
desirable to raise the salaries of some of the judges.
The report was then received.
CHINESE PASSENGER ACT (1855) AMENDMENT
BILL.

On the third reading,
Lord BROUGHA.M. doubted wh4ber the bill went
quite far enough, but there could be no question that it
would effect a great improvement. From information be
had received, partly from private sources and partly
from public documents, he was enabled to say that the
persona on board the Regina Cosli were not tree negroee,
but were slaves who bad been released for the purpose of
being embarked as free emigrants. They came, iu point
of fact, from a well-known place called Monuah, the
obief of which was one of the moat determined slave
sellers who ravaeed the neighbouring country.
The Eail of DERBY regretted that the noble lord
should not have made the statement he bad just done,
while his noble friend the Foreign Secretary eas iu the
house, because his noble friend eater taincd quite a diffe-
rent opinion as to the persons on board the vessel in
question. He (Lord Derby) was not saying anything
in favour of the French emigration system ; but he
understood that his noble friend had last evening shown
the noble lord a paper from which it appeared that the,
persons on board the Regina Cc&i Lai been collected,.
from Monrovia, in Liberia, and not from the district tcr
which the noble lord had referred.
Lord BROUGHA.NI—The paper treated the Regina.
Cwli as a slaver.

The bill was then read a third time and parsed,