The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 11.
SEES OF BANGOR AND ST. ASAPII.

Earl POWIS, after presenting . several petitions
against the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph,
said that he never, on any occasion, approached a
question with such great anxiety as he did On
that occasion, for he felt much on the subject-matter of
the petitions he had just presented. On this important
Church question he was sorry to find himself opposed to
a Noble Lord and a Bight Rev. Prelate, whose weight
and character in their Lordships' House made it difficult
for him s'ngly to bring that subject under their notice.
It little became him to waste their Lordships' time by
making any apology for thus ocupying a little of their
attention, and he would therefore as briefly and as satisfac-
torily as possible, hoping, at the same time, that their Lord-
ships would extend to him that favour which he had
always experienced. He would follow up the petitions
he had presented by reading a letter he had received
from an individual intimately conversant with the
matter before them.—(His Lordship then read the
letter, which supported the prayer of the petitions.)
He thought they ought to listen to the remonstrances of
the people of North Vales against the union of the sees
of St. Asaph and Bangor, showing that shortly atter the
union of the sees of Sodor and Man and Carlisle, the
people who were affected by it resisted it, and the Act for
the union of those sees was, in consequence, repealed.
He thought the labour far too great for one Bishop.
They must consider that in that ease the Reverend Pre-
late's sphere of action must be over six of the most-
mountainous countries in North Wales. The Noble
Earl then read portions of a speech made by a Right
Reverend Prelate on the occasion of the union of two
spiritual sees in Ireland, and on that occasion it was pro-
mnlgated that, according to ecclesiastical law and usage,
such union could only take place ex necessitates causa.
One thing was clear that the union now contemplated
would prove vastly injurious. It would throw a greater
degree of labour on the Bishop of Gloucester. and Bris-
tol, by adding to his already laborious duties. One
great reason fur the disunion of these two sees of St.
Asaph and Bangor was, that the population in those
dioceses was increasing at a very rapid 'rate. The in-
habitants of the northern districts of Wales had in-
creased 149,000 in forty years. It was true that the
activity of the Welsh clergy enabled them to do a good
deal, but it was impossible that that activity could keep
pace with the religions wants of the people in these par
tieular districts. Having stated the case so far, he would
leave it in their Lordships' bands. He had brought it
forward at the request of the people of Wales, being im-
pressed with the great importance of the question ; for
he believed it to be one well worthy of their Lordships'
earnest and deepest consideration. He should, there-
fore, move the second reading of the Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he still felt it to
be his duty to oppose the motion of his Noble Friend.
The motion was fur the second reading of a Bill to re-
peal an Act which was passed eight years ago, and the
matters which the Noble Earl had brought under the
consideration of their Lordships ought to have been
urged when the Bill itself, which united the two sees,
was under the consideration .of Parliament. He (the
Duke of Wellington) would briefly call to their Lord-
ships' recollection the objects of the Bill, which the
Noble Earl sought to repeal. Early in the year 1835 a
Commission was appointed for the . purpose of revising
the state of the revenues and patronage of the Church,
the expenses of the dioceses, and all those circumstances
which would have, by any alteration, the effect of being
beneficial to the country. In March, 1835, the report
was made, and that report was the one which
proposed the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
This report when it was made was no secret, it was laid
on the tables of both Houses of Parliament, and was no-
torious to everybody. The matter was then fully dis-
cussed, and the country was made well acquainted with
the contents of that report. When that report was con-
sidered by Parliament both the Bishops of Bangor and
St. Asaph were present.
The Bishop of BANGOR--Certainly not.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—They were not pre-
sent when the measure was passed, but they were pre-
sent when the report recommending the union of these
sees was considered. The Bill itself was generally sup-
ported in that House, and passed without opposition in
the month of August, 1836. Under this Bill, her Ma-
jesty iu Council was authorised to carry into effect the
recommendations contained in the report of the Commis-
sion of 1835, and accordingly, under the powers of that
Bill, directions were given by the then Government for
carrying into effect the measures recommended in those
reports. Yet, now his Noble Friend came down with a
Bill to repeal that part of the original Act which was, in
fact, the foundation of all the measures which were re-
commended by the Commission of 1835. His Noble Friend
must recollect that the recommendations of the Commis-
sion of 1835 applied to other ecclesiastical matters besides
the union of the two sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, as, for
instance, the appointment of a Bishop of Ripon, and the
creation of other bishoprics. Should the Noble Earl's
Bill be carried, an organic change would be made in the
constitution of that House. An augmentation of the
Members of the Right Rev. Bench would be made, and
he would remind their Lordships that, although that
augmentation was proposed, no provision was made for
them by his Noble Friend. These were points which he
thought his Noble Friend had not sufficiently considered.
He (the Doke of Wellington) should, therefore, oppose
the second reading of this Bill, and move that it be read
that day six months.

The Bishop of BANGOR said he was sorry to be
compelled to oppose the views which were taken by her
Majesty's Government on this subject. He denied that
this Bit! would affect the general principle of the Act of
1836. His Noble Friend merely called for a repeal of a
portion of that Act, and he did not interfere in any way
whatever with the other parts of the measure. Ho had
long hoped to see the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head
of the Government himself bring forward a measure
similar to the present one. He would remind their
Lordships that the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor were
far more ancient than the see of Canterbury itself.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY had listened
with great attention to the speech of his Right
Rev. Friend; and, although he believed that there was a
strong feeling in favour of the motion of his Noble
Friend (Earl Powis) in the principality of Wales, both
with the clergy and the people, yet he thought the sub-
ject had not received that attention which it merited
from either party. He had heard that the injury done
to North Wales by this union was strongly spoken of,
and he thought that there had been, he would say, an
unfair use made of the measure. With regard to the
expediency of creating a new Bishop, he did not see the
necessity for doing so. He knew, however, that in this he
was opposed to many of his Rev. Brethren. Ho had,
however, given the subject his undivided attention, and
he felt himself called on to oppose the measure of his
Noble Friend.

The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S felt himself compelled
to say something ; but he would not weary the House
with any lengthened arguments upon the subject, as those
were ably discussed by others more able than himself.
He thought, however, there were some arguments which
had not been advanced, or had been so little brought
forward, that they might be thought comparatively new;
and he thought also that there were elements advanced
which must have been really disregarded. It was his
firm belief that what he had to say was somewhat on the
subject before their Lordship's House, and he
therefore prayed their earnest attention to it.
He reminded their Lordships of the evils under which
Wales was labouring in the want of the means of effi-
cient education. This evil was particularly felt in South
Wales. It was true that a college had lately been esta-
blished, but the endowments wore of the most scanty
description. There was a grant from Government for
the maintenance of that college, but in its amount it did
not equal one-tenth of the grant which was annually
made to the College of Maynooth. This want of the
means of adequate education in Wales was a subject
which the Government would do well to take into

their serious consideration. Now, with respect to the
question immediately before the House, be would ask,
where was the amalgamation of bishoprics to stop ?
They must recollect that their population was vastly
increasing, and if a bishopric of Leeds should be sought
to be established, he would ask, whether they would
unite the bishoprics of St. David's and Landaff to ac-
complish that object ? If this union of the two sees
of St. Asaph and Bangor were to be cuidilitled, wberk.,
he would again ask, were they to stop ? Ile looked
upon the union of the bishoprics of St. Asaph and
Bangor, as a degradation of the Church, and one which
could only have arisen out of an oversight, and in con-
sequence of great ignorance on the part of its promoters,
of the Principality of Wales.
The Bishop of LINCOLN was understood to sup-
port the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor,
as the only means of establishing a bishopric of Man-
chester.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA said that it was with the
deepest regret that he was obliged to oppose those for
whom he entertained the highest respect ; but, at the
same time, he never rose with more satisfaction to oppose
any measure than he did to oppose that proposed by the
Noble Lord. It had been urged that it would be a vast
inconvenience for the poor clergymen of Wales to com-
municate with a distant Bishop if the measure before
them were not agreed to, but it would infer no great in-
convenience for poor clergymen to go thirty, or forty, or
fifty miles, even if two bishops were appointed. Ile
thought the object of his Noble Friend was merely con-
fined to the erection of the two bishoprics. He
would not trouble the House with any further remarks,
but he would protest against the reading of his Noble
Friend's Bill.

The Bishop of LONDON said that he was opposed to
the Bill in its present state.
Lord VIVIAN said that he begged to state a fact
to their Lordships, namely, that the people of the Prin-
cipality of Wales cared very little about the juncture
of the sees. He wished to remove the impression from
their Lordships' minds that the population generally didso.
Theßishopof EXETERsupported the Bill. Ile would
not care for a seat in that House, if he had to hold it
against the feeling of the country. lie for one would be
glad to retire from that House, if the people of the coun-
try should entertain an opinion that the Bishops ought
not to have a seat in that House; but he believed that
the presence of the Bishops had a very beneficial influ-
ence on their Lordships' deliberations. With respect to
the question before the House, he feared that the Noble
Earl (Powis) would be unsuccessful in his motion, but he
trusted that the Noble Earl, if defeated, would renew his
motion from year to year until at last he succeeded in
extracting this measure from the Government.
The Duke of WELLINGTON and the Archbishop of
CANTERBURY briefly explained.
The Bishop of SALISBURY said, that having had
the duties of two bishoprics thrown upon him, he
must say that his experience had led him to form the
opinion that a union of two sees could give satisfaction
to no man. Of all the petitions that crowded their
Lordships' table, was there one which was in opposition
to the Bill introduced by his Noble Friend? It was not
without pain that lie and other Reverend Prelates were
compelled to oppose Nina whom they were accustomed to