The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-11 00:00:00

MR. BARON ALDERSON.

Sir G. GREY entered into an explanation of an error
which the reporters had fallen intu last night in stating
that he had communicated with Mr. Baron Alderson on the
subject of the case uf the Eastern Counties Railway Com-
pany. The report in the papers was substantially correct,
but he altogether disclaim, d the right of any Secretary of
State or Government to call upon any Learned
Judge for any explanation of what he may have
said in trying a civil case. (Hear, hear.)
There was a court of appeal to decide or adjust
errors of judgment on the part of the learned
judges, and no Government ever had a right to inter-
fere with its functions.—(Cheers.) What he did say
was, that a communication had passed between
the Under-Secretary of State and the Learned Judge on
a matter of fact, and not on the subject of the charge the
Learned Judge delivered on the case in question.
ALLEGED BRIBERY OF A MEMBER.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR, seeing the Hon. Member for
Wicklow in his place, he wished to ask him whether or
no it was true,as it had been reported in the newspapers,
that the Hon. Member had stated at a meeting held in the
Rotunda, of Dublin, that be had been offered 5,0001. for
his vote in that House.—(Oh, oh, and cries of " Order.")
Mr. HENRY GRATTAN was understood to say
that it was not so.—(Order, order.)
THE LATE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
Lord HOTHAM, after relating the circumstances
connected with the recent appointment of the
present Archbishop's son to a sinecure of-
fice, observed, in explanation, that it had
been erroneously insinuated that the reason the late
' Archbishop did not fill up the office was, that ho had no
son of his own to appoint to it, while it had been
stated, equally without foundation in truth, that the Bill
which had been passed for reforming these ecclesiastical
offices was only passed just before the late Arch-
bishop's death, and that had he lived a little
longer the office would have been filled up by him.
He thought the statements he had made would show
that the surmises which had been raised wero tot illy
without foundation. But the late Archbishop
had acted upon higher grounds ; he had acted
upon the principle that it was not competent
for him to fill up offices in reversion, and
he therefore declined to do so. In making the state-
ments he had done he had no further object in view
than to rescue the late Archbishop from the stigmas
that had been endeavoured to be thrown upon him.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL bore testimony to the up-
right conduct of the late Archbishop. He believed that
both out of and in that House the highest respect was
entertained towards the late Most Rev. Prelate.
THE NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS.

In answer to a question from Mr. OS BORNE,
Mr. GREENE stated that he believed the New House
of Commons would be ready for the reception of Mem-
bers, merely for the purpose of experiment, during the
next week.
ECCLESIASTICAL INCOME RETURNS. _ _

Sir lIIALL-Puta variety of questions to Lord J.
Russell in so indistinct a tone that it was impossible to
collect the exact purport of them in the reporters' gallery.
The Hon, Baronet was understood to say that the Eccle-
siastical Commission was appointed in 1838 for the pur-
pose of procuring information as to this revenues of the
bishops and archbishops. It was notorious that
several bishops had refused to make returns, and
the Commissioners were unable to fulfil their duties fully
and satisfactorily. The return in 1345 was most unsatis-
factory, as the incomes were given in gross and not
sufficiently detailed. The Hon. Baronet was understood
to instance the returns from the sees of Canterbury,
London, and Exeter. There were circumstances which
had occurred likely to augment the value of those sees,
and yet the returns did not show the fact. In the see
of London great improvements had taken place in re-
spect to the erection of buildings and houses in various
parts of the diocese, and yet he found the returns to be
as follows:—In 1831 the income was stated to be 15,7471.
In 1845 it was only 13,5191. What he wished to ask
the Noble Lord was, whether the Commissioners received
a full account of rents, tithes, leases, and other
sources of revenue; whether they placed these sources
of revenue under different heads; end whether they also
distinguished in the same manner the several kinds of
expenditure? If the Ecclesiastical Commissioners did
dot adopt this system, then he wished to know what
data they had for stating the several amounts as the
revenues of the various sees from which they had re-
ceived returns? He wished further to ask whether the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners received a full account of
all sources of revenue, and full particulars respecting
church leases?

Lord J. RUSSELL said the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners in 1844 sent a number of queries the bishops,
asking them to place in a table, forwarded to them,
under the various heads, the sources of their incomes,
and in another table, under different heads, the amount
of their payments. On comparing the different tables,
and deducting the amount paid from the amount re-
ceived, they were enable] to form an estimate of the
yearly incomes received by the bishops. The state-
ments of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were made
out septenially, and in 1851 they would no doubt be
prepared with another statement, and then the lion.
Baronet would be able to obtain more complete answers
to his present inquiries. The Commissioners, he be-
lieved, had not published any accounts of the increase
in the value of leases, tithes, and various other items
comprising the episcopal revenues; but no doubt the
forthcoming statement would be found to contain all the
information that was necessary in that respect. With
respect to the difficulty in obtaining returns alluded to
by the Hon. Baronet, he had not heard of assy serious
difficulty the Commissioners had in obtaining infor-
mation.