The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-05 00:00:00

CEYLON.

Mr. HUME had a WtitionC> present from several
inhabitants efi Ceylon, on the subject respecting which
he had put some questions to her Majesty's Governme.it
last night. The main object of the petition, the sub-
stance of which was;read by the lion. Member, was to ask
whether Government meant to make any and what com-
pensation for the injuries inflicted upon them by the
execution of martial law during the iaty insurrection.
TENANT RIGHT IN IRELAND.
Lord CASTLEREAGH rose to point the attention
of her Majesty's Government to the meeting which had
lately been held in the county of Dowu respecting the
question of te:nant right, which had been presided over
by some Presbyterian minister, and at which very in-
temperate language had been used. lle also wished to
know whether it was the intention of Govern(' cut t)
introduce a Bill for the settlement of this questio,-.
Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE said it was his in-
tention, on the 18th, to lay a Bill upon the table to
amend the law of landlord and tenant.
THE BULLION TRADE.

In answer to a question from Mr. CALEY.
Mr. LABOUCFIERE said it was quite impossible to
give an accurt.t, account of the cxports of buliior, as
so much of it was carried on through private hands.
SAVINGS' BANKS—POSTPONEMENT OF THE
CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S
MOTION.

Sir G. GREY said that his Right Hon. Friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable, from indispo-
stion, to bring forward te)-night his mction for the ap
pointment of a Select Committcc on Savings' Bank:, and
had requested him to postpone it until Monday.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

Mr. lIORSMAN then rose to move " that a Commit

tee of this House, to which was entrusted an inquiry
into the composition and management of the Ecclesias-

deal Commission, having recommended the appointment
of three paid commissioners for the management of the
property under the commission, it is expedient that
tffeet he given to that recommendation." He said that
from the nature of the Committee, which was e ppt inted lust
year, he had expected that the recommendations which
they would send fat th would be without bias or prejudice,
but he regretted to say that he had been deceived. The
events of every succeeding day proved more ensi
mote the necessity which existsd for placing the
,etnporalities of the Church in safer hands
He was, therefore, compelled, however reluctantly, once
more to call the attention of the House to the eubjsct.
It was unnecessary frr him to st tte what the Ecclesiasti-
cal Commission was, as, unfortunate ly, they were ail ac-
quainted with its character and proceedings. They knew
it to be a very powerful body, exercising most important
unctions, and enjoying the administration of vast funds.
They knew there was hardly a county in the coustry
where it did not exercise control over estates, or a parish
where its influence, for good or evil, was not felt. Indeed,
as regards the temporalities of the Church, it wields more
more power than had been possessed by any body since
the Reformation. Then, did it not become Parliament to
keep a vigilant eye upon its movements, seas to take pre-
cautions against possible abuses. It could not be denied that
the duties of the Commission cast additional burdens upon
our ecclesiastical dignitaries, whose shoulders were not
able to bear them. Their spiritual duties were sufli
cient to occupy the whole of their time and attention,
and when, therefore, they proceeded to lead themselves
with other duties of an entirely opposite char actor, it
was manifest that one set of duties must be imperfectly
discharged. Therefore it was a matter of importance,
indeed of necessity, that a choice should be made between
these two incompatible duties, as a conviction was gain-
ing ground in the public mind that the more our Eccle-
siastical dignitaries confined themselves to the spiritual
duties of the church, tied the less they meddled
with its secular concerns, the better L would be.
Another party perceives that whilst the cause of the
complaint is net so much that wa have not bishops
enough, as that those we I ave were not labouring ns
their tight vocatior, and that they are in London de-
voting themselves to the administration of tempo-
ralities in Whitehall to the manifest neglect
of spiritualities in their more appropriate sphere.
It was obvious that that el, ficiency would sever be ac-
cepted by Parliament as an argument for supplying that
deficiency out of the church's funds. Then there was
another patty, and he himself belonged to that party,
who took still higher ground. They said whether the
duties were too onerous or too light, the
pecuniary concerns of our church establish-
ment working the management, among other
things, of dishonest estates, were altogether alien to the
vocation of ecclesiastics.—(Cheers) It was not a
bishop's vocation to be " a server of tables." His voca-
tion was of a higher order, and the calls on his time were
more sacred and more imperative, and be should leave
to other men the intricacies of secular business. It was
fur him to be familiar with the concerns cf every parish,
cognizant cf the character of every clergyman, supplying
all ts ants by his energy, controlling all abuses by his
vigilance, enaouraging all that was good by his ex-
ample,—it was now for him to live as a father among
his pe
ople, spreading around him an atmospheres
oflove, a'nd reverence, and religion. Such, in
its earliest days, was the Church's notion of
what a Christian Bishop ought to be, and suck
he wished to see her practice again. But these
was a third and more numerous party who pointed to
the Ecclesiastical Commission, and said that it was in-
competent to discharge the duties that it had under,
taken to discharge, and to the enormous injury to the
Church's res onus which had resulted from its manage-
ment. It would appear, then, that from the expressions
which had been used, and from the protest which had been
entered, as well as the expressions which had been used
against the continuance of a system that was pregnant
with nothing but evil, that there was no body through-
out the country more opposed than the clergy
of the Church of England to a continuance of
their hierarchy in a position which placed them
so invidiously before the people They wished their
diocesans to be removed from this board of commission,
because they felt that their presence then was neither
creditable to them nor beneficial to themselves. It had
beers hoped that either a sense of justice or of honour,
would have induced these members of the Ecclesiastical
Commission to have been sensible of their duties, and
that each of the talents committed to their charge,
would produce its ten talents, but it was now ascer-
tained that no such principle could move these men
that no sense of justice, no influence of principle, was at
all likely to alter their future line of conduct, and that
the only remedy that could possibly- be adopted for evils
so loudly and justly complained of, and so mischievous
in their tendency, then to compel the several members
of the bench of bishops to retire from the Commission.
And he could only, therefore, appeal to the justice and
intellect of thst House. This Commission was estab-
lished in 1836, or rather he ought to say that it was
the result of Commissions previously issued
by which its Constitution had been recommended
Consisting only of thirteen, the Commission came in
course of time to give great dissatisfaction. The Bishop
of London assigned as a reason for this dissatisfaction
that there was not in the board a sufficient number to

represent the Episcopal Bench. The popular version,
however, was somewhat differed. The Commission
was charged with matters that were of some
consequence ❑ot only to the interests of the Church in
general, but of the bench of Bishops as well. AP
matters connected with the incomes of Bishop',
with the building of palact s, the selling ef
estates, and many little things relating to the
convenience and comforts of the Bishops were in
the hands of the Comission. _ A seat on the

Commission came at last to be considered one
of the great prizes of the church, and a violent agitation.
was got up by the excluded bishops against their
brethren, whom they called monopolists ; and in course
of thee the doors of No. 5, Whitehall, were thrown
open, and in rushed the whole episcopal bench. How
it was that the deans and canons did not get
in too, had always been a matter of wonder.
The Commission consisted originally of eight laymen
and five ecclesiastics, but the number had since been in-
el eased to 29 ecclesiastics and eight laymen; and whet
had been the result of their proceedings? Poor pastors e ere
left half sturvieg, and poor coegregations wei-e allowed to
go untaught, while vast sums of the Church's treasures
were spent in palaces and luxuries for tae
Bishops. The alteration in the constitution of the
Comeeission had resulted in no good whatever,
and as if to render confusion more confounded,
they had no permanent charinar. The Commissiorer
present who was highest in rank occupied the chair, so
it happened that when b
a junior Bishop presided he tee t
hardly warm in his scat before he had to give tray to
a senior Bishor, and thus a series el inVirrup-
Lions took place until the Archbishop of Canterbury
made his appearance, and jumped over the heads of all
the rest. Now, he would like to know, with such a
system as this, the business of the Commission
e,!uld be properly carried on? Could the proceedings
Of that House, for instance, prosper, if the Speaker
had no fixity of tenure, aid was compalkti to
leave his alit every few ininute? lite, ati :f to make
the a.a-ter 'worse, a number of Stleet Committees LA
t"- appoutte d, ye - v one tf vvbeh %la; composed of a
giel.er nuileber tf Members than the number
which formed the average attendances cot the board