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

RAJA OF SATTARA.

Lord BEAUMONT, in presenting a petition from
certain East India Proprietors, complaining that in-
justice had been done to the Raja of Sattara, and
praying that justice may be done to him, said he
wished to ask the Earl the Secretary of the
Board of Control, whether it was his intention further
to investigate the charges which had been made
against the Raja of Sattara ?
The Earl of RIPON said, it was certainly not his
intention to recommend the Court of Directors to en-
ter again into the investigation of this subject, for if
they were to do so, he believed that its effects would
be considerably to shake the authority of the Com-
pany in the East. The case had already been gone
fully into, and the decision which had been come to
was, that the deposition of the Raja of Sat-
tara was just, and ought not to be rescinded. He
had gone carefully through the papers which had
been laid before Parliament on this subject, and the
conclusion to which he had come was, that the sub-
ject ought not to be again opened.
MANCHESTER BONDING BILL.
Lord STRANGFORD rose to call the attention
of the House to this Bill, which was, he considered,
a Bill of great importance to the commerce of the
country.
The Earl of MINTO rose to order. He thought
the proper time to call their Lordships' attention to
this subject would be when the Bill came properly
before the House, especially as the Bill had been
set down for a third reading that night.
Lord STRANGFORD thought the Bill ought to
have been printed.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said this was not a
public but a private Bill.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said, the Bill had
been printed by the parties who had introduced this
Bill.

After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE and the
Earl of WILTON, the subject dropped.
PUBLIC NATIONAL GRANARIES.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA gave notice, that on
Friday he should present some petitions on the sub-
ject of the corn-laws, and he would take that oppor-
tonity of calling their Lordships' attention to
the question of the expediency of establishing
public national granaries, a subject which he
had long earnestly and deeply considered.—(Hear.)
BISHOPRICS OF ST. ASAPH AND
BANGOR BILL.
On the motion for the House resolving itself into
a Committee on this Bill,
Lord MONTEAGLE wished to know whether
the Noble Duke opposite had the consent of her
Majesty to the passing of this Bill, as during the last
session of Parliament the Noble Duke had recom-
mended the Noble Earl (Powis) to withdraw the
Bill until the consent of her Majesty had been ob-
tained.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that he had
not received her Majesty's consent to the Bill.
In answer to a question from Lord CAMPBELL,
Tho Duke of WELLINGTON said he should
oppose the motion for the Bill to go through Com-
mittee.

Lord MONTEAGLE then rose to call their Lord-
ships' attention to the principle upon which this Bill
was founded. He had been one of the lay com-
missioners upon whose report the union of the
sees of St. Asaph and Bangor had taken place.
That Commission, in their report, recommended
the establishment of a bishopric of Manchester,
and they also recommended the union of
the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. Several other equally
important recommendations were made and acted
upon, and he contended that this Bill, if passed, would
render ineffectual the steps which had been taken
upon the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission. He thought it would be unjust to the paro-
chial clergy of North Wales to pass this Bill, and he
believed that if it should be sanctioned by their Lord-
ships it would create discontent and distress amongst
that portion of her Majesty's subjects.
The Earl of POWIS contended that the advantages
which had been anticipated in the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners' report from the union of the sees of St.
Asaph and Bangor had not been realised. It was
anticipated in that report that the surplus revenues
arising from the union would be divided amongst the
parochial clergy in the two dioceses. This he con-
tended was not the case, and that no such application
had been made.
The Bishop of BANGOR believed that the genral
opinion both amongst the clergy and laity of North
Wales, was that the Bishopric of St. Asaph ought to
be restored.
The Bishop of SALISBURY expressed his regret
that so much delay had taken place in the establish-
ment of a Bishopric of Manchester, for such a step
was greatly needed. At present there were no less
than three millions of souls in the diocese of Chester,
and he thought that alone wgit'sufficient reason for
the erection of a Bishopric at Manchester. He be-
lieved also that the time had arrived when it was
necessary to sub-divide other dioceses in the kin don.
The Bishop of NORWICH complained of the
alienation of the tithes which have taken place from
the parochial clergy of North Wales, and he believed
that the opposition to the union of the sees of St.
Asaph and Bangor had arisen from that and that only.
With respect to the appointment of a Bishop of Nan-
chester, he could not help expressing his surprise that
the many wealthy persons of Manchester had not
themselves come forward and provided the income
for a bishop. He confessed that sooner than not have
a bishopric of Manchester, he would consent to the
abolition of one of the bishoprics of North Wales, if
it were necessary, for the establishment of a see in
Manchester.
The Bill then passed through Committee, and was
ordered to be read a third time on Monday.
BROTHELS SUPPRESSION BILL.
The Bishop of EXETER moved that the House do
then resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Earl FITZHARDINGE said he had been one of
a Select Committee to which this Bill had been re-
ferred, and in that Committee he moved that it was
expedient to take evidence upon the subject. In that
motion he stood alone, but he still entertained the
same opinion with respect to the necessity of examin-
ing evidence upon the matter. He thought they ought
to have examined some of the leases of the property
on which brothels were situated, in order to ascertain
whether prohibitory clauses had been introduced. It
had been said that he had made a charge on the last
occasion this Bill was before the House against the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster. He had made no
charge whatever against those individuals ; but
he would now make a direct charge against them.
Since the last discussion on this subject, he had made
inquiries of the vestry-clerk of St. Margaret's, West-
minster, and he found that at that instant there were
in existence, on the property of the Dean and Chap-
ter of Westminster, brothels of the very worst de-
scription. Now this must have been known to
the Dean and Chapter of Westmister, and they must
have shared in their profits.—(Roars of laughter.)
He thought that while they were legislating on this
subject, they would not give satisfaction to the public
if they did not subject the Dean and Chapter of West-
minster to the operation of a Bill of Pains and Pe-
nalties if they allowed these houses to continue on
their property.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER defended the Dean
and Chapter from the imputation which had been at-
tempted to be thrown upon them. The houses to
which the Noble Earl had referred were at present
held under leases for 40 years, many of which had many
years to run. It was, therefore, impossible to get rid
of such houses from such property as that. Such was
the anxiety of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster
to clear their property of these houses that they had in
several cases purchased the leases, and in many cases
they had had the houses pulled down ; in others the
houses were shut up. He would remind their Lord-
ships that property in the Almonry, in Westminster,
was very different to property in Berkeley-square,
where a landlord could choose his own tenant. The
houses in the Almonry, however, could not be let to
such favourable tenants.—(Laughter.) The Noble
Lord had evidently grounded his charge upon a state-
ment which had appeared in a newspaper called The
Patriot.

The Earl FITZHARDINGE said he had made
no charge upon a newspaper statement; this charge
was founded upon a statement which he had received
from Mr. Rogers, the vestry-clerk of St. Margaret's,
Westminster. 'With respect to the newspaper state-
ment, he had originally seen it in the Examiner. The
Patriot he had never seen in his life.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER said the statement
was contradicted in the Morning Herald and the
Standard in January, 1842. So far from the Dean
and Chapter of Westminster gaining by these houses,
he could assure their Lordships that m many oases
they were absolutely losers, On that very day they
had given notices to many of the tenants of these
houses to quit.
The Bill then went through Committee, and was
ordered to be reported to morrow (this day).
The Bills on the table were advanced a stage, and
their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 24.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

ROJJDALE TMPRQVEMENT BILL,
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the
Rochdale Improvement Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The report of the Kingston-upon-Hull Docks Bill
was further considered, and the Bill was ordered to
epgrosseci.