The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-25 00:00:00

"iPEkt tAL PA It LIAM EN T.

ix.l3
tir ynarlo
-1-10 US E OF LORDS, June 24.
heir Lord hips assembled at Five o'clock.
fELDUN esented a petition from
favour protection
fto wricultare.
14rqubi of SALISBURY presented a similar

RAJA OF SATTARA.
Lord Lt, • • -
tertai '"AUNIONT, in presenting a petition from
justice East India Proprietors, complaining that in-
NI had been done to the Raja of Sattara, and
ting that justice may be done to him, said he
t"oozed to ask the Noble Earl the Secretary of the
t 4 of Control, whether it was his intention further
itirtlvestigate the charges which had been made
I,ist the Raja of Sattara?
ittenP Earl of RIPON said, it was certainly not his
terntion to recommend the Court of Directors to en-
thea gain into the investigation of this subject, for if
be 3' were to do so, he believed that its effects would
kne°osiderablv to shake the authority of the Com-
te in the East. The case had already been gone
iv 3' int°, and the decision which had been come to
t4r% that the deposition of the Raja of Sa-
ha:it I'm just, and ought not to be rescinded. He
been gone carefury through the papers which had
Neaici before Parliament on this subject, and the
itt_'uslon to which he had come was, that the sub-
uaght not to be again opened.
Le, ,MANCHESTER BONDING BILL.
k BilrQ STRANGFORD rose to call the attention
l House to this Bill, which was, he considered,
co °f great importance to the commerce of the
(Jae bill
„ ~e." 41.1 of MINTO rose to order. He thought
thi "Per time to call their Lordships' attention to
Le; subject would be when the Bill came properly
setr the. House, especially as. the Bill had been
OW)) for a third reading that night.
STRANGFORD thought the Bill ought to
, "
Earl
printed.
of DAT HOUSIE said this was not a
b
ut a rivare Bill.
be,'„ e Earl opf
SHAFTESBURY said, the Bill had
Printed by the parties who had 'introduced this

Afterteri ~ a few words from Lord MONTE*GLE and the
or AriVrox, the subject dropped.
111TBLIC 'NATIONAL GRANARIES.
?rid: Earls ot WINCHILSEA gate notice, that on
Jett at 3; heShould present some petitions on. the sub-
tolli the corn-laws, and he would take that oppor-
of • ~..
the calling their Lordships' attention to
thdrquestion of the expediency of establishing
jeo national granaries, a subject which he
,nl3 earnestly and deeply considered.—(Hear.)
BISHOPRICS OF ST. ASAPH. AND
BANGOR BILL:
I eieN the motion for the House resolving itself into
Lttotittee on this Bill,
th, °,1,;(1 MONTEAGLE wished to know whether
le''ehle Duke opposite- had the consent of her
si:ty to the passing of this Bill, as during the last
rsindn
ed of Parliament the Noble Duke had recom-
-41 the Noble Earl (Powis) to withdraw the
tilinel(tintil the consent of her
,Majesty had been ob-
tetThe, puke of WELLINGTON said that he had
jr-teeeired her Majesty's consent to the Bill.
Thauswer to a question from Lord CAMPBELL,
ea, ci Duke of WELLINGTON said he should
ItirtteSee. the motion for the Bill to go through Com-
-1.(1 1,
4,1
kliipe ONTEAGLE then rose to Pall their L0rd-
,,,,. attention to the principle upon -which this Bill
147 founded. He had been one of the 'lay coin-
-1,,4,.... .
41°Tiers upon whose report the union of the
Nor, St. Asaph and. Bangor had taken place.
the Commission, in their report,.. recommended
aki establishment of a bishopric of Manchester,
theu, theY also recommended the union of
ite,,„--..,_ei of St. Asaph and Bangor. Several other equally
,POP,
recommendations were made and acted
riq and he contended that this Bill, if passed, would
ii, er -ineffectual the steps which had been taken
kri;t3li the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Corn-
rlii". He thought it would be unjust to the paro-
lkii clergy of North Wales to pass this Bill, and,he
Of eyed that if it should be sanctioned by their Lord-
thalPts it would create discontent and distress amongst
pl,,Portion of her Majesty's subjects.
Mae Earl of POWIS contended that the advantages
rei, had been anticipated in the Ecclesiastical Com-
AsToners' report from the union of the sees of St.
th arid Bangor had not been realised. It *as
stiti-',,,Pated in that report that the surplus revenues
tar—g from the union would be divided amongst the
tt4ehial clergy in the two dioceses. This he con-
Ilki Zcl was not the case, and that no such application
' _Leh made.
NTi.,'e Bishop of BANGOR believed that the genral
%oleo both amongst the clergy, and laity of North
hees, was that the Bishopric of St. Asaph ought to
,l'ostered.
-ttile Bishop of SALISBURY expressed his regret
41, 80 ^much delay had taken place in the establish-
Itit;t or a Bishopric of Manchester, for such a step
tlk greatly needed. At present there - were -no less
Aricil three millions of souls in the diocese of Chester,
t 4 Ile thought that alone was a sufficient reason ;for
litvelection of a Bishopric at Manchester. He be-
tiete' also that the time had. arrived when it Was
pail to sub-divide other dioceses in the kingdom.
alli, he Bishop of NORWICH complained of the
theOation of the tithes which have taken place from
fat the
clergy of North Wales, and he believed
Ailthe opposition to the union of the sees of St.
Wit o and Bangor had arisen from that and that only.
respect to the appointment of a Bishop of Men-
the ter, he could not help expressing his surprise that
the tuarlY wealthy persons of Manchester had not,
' fittt (11:101rives come forward and provided the income
4 bia,,,hishop. He confessed that sooner than not have
tk'uopric of Manchester, he would consent to the
of one of the bishoprics of North Wale's, if
it:ere necessary, for the establishment of a see in
,lehester.
,41e Bill then passed through Committee, and was
4'4tiered to be read a third time on Monday. ' ,
131toTHELs SUPPRESSION BILL.
tile "e Bishop of EXETER moved that the HouSe do
resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
% earl FITZHARDINGE said he had been one of
felle,,l,eet Committee to which this Bill had been re-
s t'-_,'4, and in that Committee he moved that it 'was
'4)r:talent to take evidence upon the subject. In' hat
%tirr,-I.°tl he stood alone, but he still entertained the
Lb' opinion with respect to the necessity of examm-
te, eVidence upon the matter. He thought they ought
oh ,are examined some of the leases of the property
ll''lleh brothels were situated, in order to ascertain
14ther prohibitory clauses had been introduced. It
bbee u said that he had made a charge on the last
on this Bill was before the House against the
!htirf....and Chapter of Westminster. He had made no
tc,-Ist whatever against those individuals ; but
%11..°111(1 now make a direct charge against them:
kitele, the last discussion on this subject, he had made
riiin.7l-es of the vestry-clerk of St. Margaret's, West-
Ot „-ler, and he foUnd that at that instant there were
ter -si4tence, on the property of the Dead and Chap-
c)t. Westminster, brothels of the very worst de-
-Ihe Wen. Now this must have been known to
oav —ean and Chapter of Westmister, and they must
ke shared in their profits.—(Roars of laughter.)
Nb.theught that while they Were legislating on this
If trets they would not give satisfaction to the public
tai4, did not subject the Dean and Chapter of West-
. ambner to the operation of a Bill of Pains and Pe-
, theirs If they allowed these houses to continue on
• l,, Property. .
la4-7,e,Hishop of GLOUCESTER defended the Dean
dChapter from the imputation which had been at-
ted to be thrown upon them. The houses to
held,the Noble Earl had referred were at present
sae
leases for 40 years, many of which had many
kits: to run. It was, therefore, impossible to get rid
the Qll houses from such property as that. Such was
144loxiety of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster
teveear r their property of these houses that they had in
• the, eases purchased the leases, and in many cases
101 l had had - the houses pulled' down ; in others the
lihiprs were shut up. He would remind their Lord-
*lli that property in the Almonry, in Weatminster,
'till very different to property- in Berkeley-square,
home a landlord could choose his, own tenant. The
Itietrsoin the Almonry, however, could not be let to
I,o4Layourable tenants.—(Laughter.) The Noble
had evidently grounded his charge upon a state-
ht
qtriowthich had appeared in a newspaper called The
tia'he Earl FITZHARDINGE said he had 'made
refnarge upon a newspaper statement ; this charge
troeit.ded upon a statement which he had received
Arestia:r. Rogers, the vestry-clerk of St. Margaret's,
ktriti Muster. With respect to the newspaper state-,
11,261'.1e had originally seen it in the Examiner. The
.1,47 he had never seen his life.
viiis • Ihihoi of GLOUCESTER said the statement
Req...ontradieted in the Morning _Herald and the
at,dZ din January, 1842. -So far from the Dean
lie „... !ipter of Westminster gaining by these houses,
N,,':uuloi assure their Lordships that in many cases
• ko.r were absolutely losers. On that very day they
ht,4„ i-s..'ven notices to many of the tenants of. these
-ordzed—toillbethreenp
...se, • ,
The °lot•Pli!'
CoVr2lttothrough Committee, and was
morrow (this day).
thetoe II the table were - -
41vanced a stage, and
''' Lord,hi
ps then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 24.
Wel SPEAxEn took the Chair shortly before Four
Lek
0 It43CHDALE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Itel: the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the
44,
pdsle Improvement Bill was read a third time
" sed.
h„
f- report of the Kingston-upon-Hull Docks Bill
arther considered, and the Bill was ordered to
lutroaged.