The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-17 00:00:00

the power of the Bishop of Norwich to erect small p u-
tilities was highly ohj •ctionable, because in that dioce-,s
most of the parishes did not exceed 1,000 acres, and did
not produce more than from 801. to 1001. a-year ; and
the churches were so close, that a clergyman could with
great ease officiate in more than one, and thus obtain what
would be a decent provision. No man was more friendly
to the church than he was, and church property, be con-
ceived, ought to be preserved and devoted to religious pur.
poses. But this Bill passed over the abuse of the union of
large livings, while it limited that of small ones. The
principle on which he wished to go was that of value, and
he would give to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as head
of the church, and to the other Bishops, large discre-
tionary powers. These, however, should he restrained
within certain limits,—say that of no union producing
over 3001. a year ; and he thought there should be a strict
return made of all livings in the church which produced
higher emoluments. He would not, however, say more
now, as they were about to go into Committee.
The Earl of ELDON thought that this Bill ought to
be postponed, as, in his opinion, it contained many provi-
sions which were very objectionable.
Lord HOLLAND observed, that the Noble Earl, on
the last discussion of this topic, had amid., that be would
have nothing more to do with the ChoattnAvlssreas-he now
wished for several days' further time to consider the subject.
The Earl of ELDON did not object to the Noble Lord's
wit at his expense, as he was happy to find the Noble Lord
upon any terms recognize so humble a being as himself in
that House.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that different
objections were made to this Bill by some, that he was in-
novating on the Church, while a Noble Lord near him
(Suffield) said the Bill was a delusion, inasmuch as it
only pretended to prevent the creation of large unions.
He would refer particularly to the diocese of Norwich, in
which the Bishop had with pleasure given up his right,
and, expressed his satisfaction at the provisions of the Bill,
while the Noble Lord (Suffield) held an opinion quite the
reverse. He had not heard any of the Noble Lord's ob-
jections before to-night, and he did not precisely compre-
hend thOm now, as the Noble Lord's statement was very
confused. However, it was his (tie Archbishop's) wish to
bear every objection that might be entertained, a,id his de-
sire was, consistently with the rules of the House, to afford
an opportunity for this being done. He apprehended the
Committee was the beet stage for the purpose, and intended
himself to propose one or two amendments, and afterwards
a day might be fixed for the discussion of the whole subject.
Lord SUFFIELD was sorry he had not explained him-
self sufficiently, but his wish was to go into Committee to
have the whole subject discussed.
The Bishop of LONDON thought it right, for fear of
misconception, to state that the object of the Bill was to
enable the poor clergyman to hold two livings without a
dispensation, the expense of procuring which was now
considerable. He gave full credit to the Noble Lord
(Suffield) for the purity of his motives, and for his seal
towards the Church ; and he only regretted that when
this Bill bad been so long before the House, the objections
entertained had not been before stated, so as that if pos-
sible they might be obviated, and the Bill pass during the
present session.
Lord KING defended the course pursued by hie Noble
Friend (Lord Suffield), who thought that the union of
large, and not small livings, ought to be prevented. For
instance, Stanhope and Winwick, in Lincolnshire, o'
7,0001. a year, might be held under this Bill. The
clergyman, too, who }coked to private patronage might
be excluded from all benefit, as livings generally went
with estates, which were scattered, and not, perhaps,
within the distance of SO miles, allowed by the Bill.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY would say one
word as to the possibility of holding large livings under
this Bill. The Noble Lord who had spoken of this bad
made no allusion to the power vested in the Archbishop of
Canterbury, who under the Bill was to have the power of
giving a dispensation, or a license for the holding of more
than one hying. By the Bill his powers, hitherto doubt-
ful, would he settled; and when hi often _Allis _power
under the Bill, he did so under a ity which it
was not at all likely he would violate.
Lord SUFFIELD meant no discourtesy, nor had he an
opportunity before to-night of stating his sentiments res-
pecting this measure. But would any one believe that
under this Bill one person might hold the bishoprick of
Winchester, the deanery of Durham, the rectory of Stan.
hope, and the living of Winwick, the largest benefice in
England, all together ?
Lord KENYON, after some observations which were
inaudible in the gallery, was understood to express his
surprise at the eagerness displayed by the Right Rev.
Prelate opposite (the Bishop of London), in supporting a
measure of this description, which went to prevent in
future others from holding pluralities, when be had him-
self held at the same time a large living in London, and
another in a distant part of the country.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY defended his
Right Rev. Friend from the attack made upon him by
the Noble Lord, and said that both the parishes in ques-
tion, when held by hint, had been exceedingly well ad-
ministered.

The Bishop of LONDON said, that before he accepted
the larger living of Bishopegate be had laid out on the
smaller living of Chesterford more than would purchase
the advowson of it. Considering, therefore, what he had
laid nut on it, taking into account its smallness, and know-
ing that he could have the duties of it fully perfortred
with the assistance of a curate. he confessed, that he did
not feel he was acting wrong in accepting at the same
time the larger living in London. But supposing that lie
had acted wrong in that instance, was that any reason
why he should not support a measure of this description ?
(Hear). He begged to observe that the number of epis-
copal was very small, compared with the number of lay
pluralists.
The House then went into committee pro forma on
the Bill, and having resumed, the Bill was ordered to be
committed to a Committe of, the whole House on Friday
next.

The London Bridge approaches Bill was read a first
time, and ordered to be printed.

Adjourned at Half-pa Eight o'clock to Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MIACK 16.
LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.

Alderman WOOD moved the third reading of the Lon-
don Bridge Approaches Bill.
Sir THOS. BARING asked a question of the Hen.
Alderman as to whether he intended to propose any
amendment respecting the progress of the Bill in another
place, as far as regarded a subject which had lately excited
so much attention.

Alderman WOOD did not see the propriety of the
question which the Hon. Member put to him ; he really
was unable to say whether or no he should speak to any
Peer upon the subject. It had been advertised that in the
Committee the restoration of the Ladye Chapel, or the
proposition to grant the space in front of it, was carried
by a majority of 17 to 2. The fact was, that two Mem-
bers were absent from the Committee.
After some further observations from Mr. BYNGI and
Alderman Woon, the Bill was read a third time.

Mr. Alderman WOOD then moved the first reading of
a clause by way of Rider to the Bill. It was merely to
designate the new sheets on the London and Southwark
sides of the bridge, as Adelaide-place, King William-
street, Arthur-street, Wellington-street, and Duke-street.
The clause was then read a first, second, and third time,
and added to the Bill, which was passed.
Sir F. NORTH brought in a Bill for the better Light-
ing and Paving the Town of Hastings in Sussex, and for
Supplying the Inhabitants with Water, which was read a
first time.

Mr. STRICKLAND brought in a Bill to extend and
enlarge the Acts of the 4th and 6th Geo. 111., for drain.
ing and improving certain low lands in Holderness, in the
East-riding of the county of York, which was read a first
time.

Lord SANDON brought up the report of the Com•
mittee on the Liverpool and Manchester rail-way.
Mr. SHAW brought in a Bill for providing an addi-
tional cemetery in the parish of St. James, in the city ol
Dublin, which was read a first time.

Lord R. GROSVENOR brought in a Bill for extend-
ing the period for completing Dee bridge .n the county of
Chester, which was read n first time.
LABOUR IN FACTORIES BILL.
Mr. HEYWOOD presented a prtition which was
signed by 735 operatives employed in certain factories at
Salford. They viewed with alarm the Bill before th•
House, which was to reduce the hours of labour from 69
hours a week, the period allowed by the Act of last ses-
sion, to 58 hours, and they declared that such a deduc •
tie° would so much reduce their Wages, is greatly to