The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PA 3i LIA3IEI T.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 2.
on
The Loan Clial:cm.Lost took his seat 112 the Woolsack
at Five o'clock.
Messengers from the Commons brought up certain,
The Earl of ROS'EREIIIIV presented several F
lean different places- in Scotland against the Maynoot it
Ile did not concur in the praiers of those petitions.
FREBII-WATER FISHERIES (SCOTLAND.)
The till N Lfavour
OBLE EAR also presented a petition in o_fctultie_
for he protection of fresh-water fish in the rivers of ,
le,,nd. The Noble Earl gave notice that on Monday he
shouldS
"rtw the attention of their Lordships to the rapert of the Core
taittee on the subject.
NEW BANKRUPTCY BILL.
CAMPBELL presented a petition from Boston,
- 47-ng for a revision of the clause in the Act of last sesion
Ithieli did away with imprisonment for debts under 201.
ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
Sever petitions were presented praying for a repeal of the
"set for the union of the Diocesiss of St. Asaph and Bangor.
MAYNOOTH.
Tha Bishop of SALISBURY presented several petitions
agalint:s.l.h.e 11laynooth Bill.
rtbe ts"hep of ST. DAVID'S had two petitions to pr
.se.nert
fiCheittatket of
fromda grant to Maynooth, the pray
k_n u differed that of many of the p.:titions had
-ye he resented on the subject. The: petitioners were in favour
the r
grant
were signed They were
by boththe May from theor, Aldermen, borough of amrmeamr:
o 010 sod the Town Council, and in fact by almost
th6ue respectable inhabitants of the borough. He
ght that he had better read to the House a portion oftt,htte.
tents n' The petitioners stated that they were allProan
th s. bat thatthey were desirous of seeing justice done;
the d
Rill,
duaux.usotnut
good oba"lsg that the Maynooth Bill was founded on
all Id cs:nto do unto others as we would that others
they prayed the House to consent to the
lasts!, He felt bound to say that he found that in some few
to from h
ina n
pdytenitotiry were but a few, the same names
arisen solely
' we
r attached
e enc,el.mt he believed that this had
taThe Bist
co '°P of CASHEL presented several petitions from
to May-
4°Qtbus places in Ireland,• t additional grant
d There Wa agains any
taw the • s one of these petitions to which he wished to
by 0 Particular attention of their Lordships. It was signed
from frorona, a small number of individuals—only by 18 It -
014t.g1nRlei in he county of Kerry. Of these 18 individuals
veris ire* had been born Protestants. The others. werec
tenets rota the Roman Catholic faith. 'I he said that the
taug4t the college of Maynooth were uncharitable.
445•14iofluelnit°-if Per:eulion,andfat the petitioners bad suffered in
Priem, Loegree from the persecutions of the Ma}7ooth-.ladred
.
ra4,ent-',Leeause they had exercised the right of private ju g
surtatiof s'b.ad become converts to the Protestant faith. Only
the Petitioners had been originally Protestants, an
v" had been converts from the Roman Catholic faith.
f The e9alher
eer that of Protestants originally in the parish had been so
would hap "" not these petitioners been converted the pa.tr.is3hdies ,
Act; blleen suspded under the Church Temporall
tistt"" conseqnence of he conversions of heads of fa-
sixty " Protestant congregation- had been increased to nearly
lad Csmis, and the parish had been saved in consequencue,
l'aas frosme6ifteen heads of families had suffered great persec -
The the Roman Catholic priests on that account.
sloted arquis of BREADALBANE presented 82 petithionfis,
frera tbuY 10,604 persons in different parts of Scotland, c le y
itsinste,e°ogregations of the Free Church in that. country,
knit, tue grant to Maynooth. He would take tills oppor•-•
ter 4,9 f expressing his surprise at the mode in which
throu-ieslYe't,Covernment were-pushing.the grant to Maynooth
.Illneortstitut.; /louses of Parliament—this., he might call it,
1e Petitions .°llal mode. It appeared that, however numerouus
courW might be, and however earnest the expression.e
.f
'tt con ry against it, yet the Government were determin
this ra sequence of the rnajority which they possessed, to carry
T,:l3iiin
,eturough both Houses of Parliament.
*orris ae of WELLINGTON felt compelled to say a
ifew
(Pais to,"_?onsequenee of what had fallen from the Noble 11 ar-
Pared 47 d just sat down. The Government were not pbre;
they ZPush measure in an unconstitutional manner, u
tlstit;',:_re prepared to take the sense of Parliament, and on
.Ise ere prepared to act.
totriuo OfJG HAM lin risin to present a petition from
4portuet.ttington against the Wgest London Railway, took the
*,tild tinny of
s,ayin,,
that it was a very great mistake, he
Deat 9t say a "misrep tation, but it was a ve.ry
41 the rn'stak° to supposeresentl at because the majority
they ,Zountry had notetiti-snedi in favour of Maynooth, that
Rh, ;Tr', against the grant.P 'The contrary was the case. They
Patition e, In favour of the grant did not think it necessary to
*ere foil' °Qt. as a Noble Friend of his had observed, if there
kale h r Persons in favour and one asminst it, the fifth, be-
4°tice, wits the most noisy person 'of the let, got all the

Earl D rIEER AND SPIRIT HOUSES.
I`et►tic, 'ITZ WILLIAM presented an immense. number of
Qr , •n. from all parts of England and Wales against. the . sale
6W -°' liquors on the Sabbath, and for the diminut!on
likicses madhe sale of spirits and beer. A great alteratr. pointtqutte in the law in 1899, which had grievously diwslo,
14 the e h
those oho had advocated it. He was one of ihosen
144 trust °4° of Commons, had voted against that measure,,ef.
tion,rs.ed the House would entertain the prayer of the 1 i
~ rhe N
ItrlQ °IlLt EARL also presented seven petitions from
hiri arthen ;
a,,','° Wales, against the union of the sees of
f
8°1.01g44-" gt. Asaph : likewiae a petition from the county
Lord
‘I, against the Maynooth Bill.
fel, ' ANDY preented a petition from Diss, LI Nor-
ot Roalainst the Maynooth- Rill • also one from the tradesmeut sessiclo4tiost the 20/. clause oe the Bankruptcy Act of lab
the The ii• ~
r '4l°P of LONDON presented several Thellierl union of Bangor and St. Asaph. petitions against
ftvour 0f.',11 of CLANRICARDE presented a petition in
banle we di g'eat Irish railway from a place in Ireland whose
4The D '" nol catch.
%4 Qke of RICHMOND pre et 'Y f Lan ~ e fron, 4,_ gor against railway r ,
t avelling on
of beershops on
resented a petition Sunday,from alsothe
da 'aloe place against the opening
I L )''
4 141
VlVlANpetition
tyli,oth , presented a against the grant to

of CRIMINALS.
The I) CONFESSIONS OF 'lke of BUCKINGHAM wishedhtaot cwaallstmheadaettbeynttire
teurtipatr Lordshilbs to a written statement tle.
4ury to the chap-
lain of e.ll who was lately executed at
refused '4 gaol there, the Rev. Mr. CoxY, Which 'statement he
Li , to deliver up to the magistrates on their requiring
`o do so e (Mr. Cox) told them he had no objection
tom°l4lte :
sket. a private and confidential communication to them en
it, kng it, but refused altogether to make a disclosure
I.,Pert Court. Now, he (the Duke of Buckingham) wished
." 4 tow from her Majesty's Government whether the chaplain
of tow
cad was authorised to withhold such a statement from
nit' magistrates on their requiring him to deliver it up ?
~The Duke of WELLINGTON had no authority from the
`I oaernment to make any answer to the question ; but, con-
''',d*red that, unless in a case where the life of the minister
iflitaself was in danger or in cases of high treason, the common law
Chade hint to make any disclosures of a confession made to
ro under such circumstances.
The M of CLAN RICA RDE thought that as the
eh%Pla' arqu's
knownin had, as he understood, made the communication
kt, to the Secretary of State, and the judge who presided.
,i'ne trial, that it could no longer be looked upon as a pri-
-4 coranl uni cation.
he puke of WELLINGTON said that it was no private
*elk, .
Peru>,
tnetion, as it had been made in the presence of a third
Lord the governor of the gaol.
Was n° MI CAMPBELL said, that by the law of England theere.
speer Protection given to the minister of any religion with re-
pd ritim t,',' such a confession. It was over and over againase
Islip-, 'ilat they were bound to disclose it. Even in. c
tt,terr, 4 enfess.ion had been made to a Roman Catholic priest
•rt, %,I‘,ll circumstances he was compelled to disclose it. _
Irsilurte,'ltilhoP of EXETER said that it was a portion of the
~.blinial°o'ftth
.Church of England, and the liturgy of the
'Aglsed ti:'•nkland was recognised as a portion of the liw of
via% 4114 at 'lf a clergyman saw a sick man, on whom be
of con
leiell,e
it was was labouring under compunctionssick an,
lied tnttt,a' Ntas his duty to ease the conscience of the
the litchi 'flat oenfession to further the ends of public justice.
qt.hit to 4,411,1-earn d Lord was mistaken in the supposition
lsafn-(l,4B.lll),!schtp-eNsieestk:h, hee had referred.n
oTfhtehecascehwuraesh nooftEtnhga.t
kiltgi.se
~1,..t %,,,a
not
toettriof a clergyman
tflPsocthwilten ;
and
there
beforewaanruoastthiceer Bcasulelerobf but
ohreefuljrme
Justice
tarke tit al
poble
tririgthi i3p.!riwu,ll:eite had beets decided by. Mr.
..
principle
A fter t
htaathLti
trial
lr
Learned
theie,
de
t,..,11° 86.11Leearrie,1 Loared"kardidngadvtoocattheed.
"°•;e g -P°' EXeter) hid communicated with
Ithieit..nd on referencthe decision of Lord Elhleenb.orougehr:
tained that tkkenicoelin the to
Northern Circuit, they 1
its o,_ `uat Lord_had
"ethat
NI- 541 have ett
e).onh, on a subsequent occasion, statedhbo.
Learned
:41tc:111111111°44aoltddbenciatehdli•;:inte e
trusted evidencethaot nt
the
thoreferrea, an di- eug.
.
h Noble and
him presumptuous in stating
that
444 "is °. wn, but t hat of the high au, hori!itehlisto.opiivnanh
Lord- eo,rdAs os!pubdiihee.uhsat.deemmadi those observations in order
l geht not be prevented.b
per'
4,,:irltuier.eq-oLXY said that the confessions
omraidne
thye vpery
lii,reralty
the life, at the hour of deat
01,
f public justice.
h,"ethee :tro, Could further no ends
• these un-
ly e' ergYinan who attended the person in
was
ttar tiZetuhtastaoncrea
.liad acted wisely or otherscse, it ,
~,,4-f. .r, e c n.ession would further no ends of public jus-
Nn44-•ie confession was made to clear the conscience,
con-
kdaPrlat
~agt9n4tgh: f,u_.ture spiritual welfare of the individual.h have
t
in (1,41,-*e in no way act as a confession mg
ressie "eilog ilse ends of justice. The pu.blicantdionorof
to
lf; 4 Wall of value only with a view to this e ,
conceived
filt; a PrUrient curiosity, - and he (Lord Stanley)
hp •,t) 04,
wouldb.st,
cf .;444, 1., Lin. t...atpubl' 't was necessary for that
It SVaals.
titiL:lest. tonteZentnaplain in this calacss'beyecotuhlodurgehateal;lt.e contents
a
ft4tail°4 or discret? '4'll
personsrt ; and if the visi ing ma, hands were d' ')n• on his pa , the re
ds, 4, issatished, they ha wn
~.ntatiley)4,7Y had the power of removinb
. .
omehdiyin.iti tHheeir(
L')ord
the i 7 old venture to sa that, under such circumstances
hile4,,,llf4tteted with the pryesent subject, there was
L eapi,ja t interferenne of the Secretary of State to force
ment,
j4,-,ar 114,-,°„r4lve up possession of the (too°
Lord who had
iji"Poken "L'OHAM agreed with the Noble
t ietion. titnd thought the clergyman had exercised a sound
ti'or;gote.rfere ;" was no part of the duty of the Secretary of State
; t the ,:n such cases as that brought under the consiclera.-
At,, nouse, or to bind magistrates as to the particular
foettifo•etati,,._s
~,,0 that should be given to points of law...
gsT.ohe
11/a4e lini.”"eiher clergymen were bound to disclose confessions
tact P;'alienet2re trial under a pledge of secrecy, did not arise in the
that 'lnit4nual, This Was a case, and he would not. speak s
tettuttNedit-it, ill
.which a fession made after
they
yloonnwoat tiot for t° he gi,:en up. Innthis-case, he would state,.
was
5.5.
ited:ittnhOlUerlt to suppose, that an after confessio.i The
'oglit t„ 81. to satisfy the public or the jury.
l'art: ''' rest sat• 4 , the verdict, There were three
I, ~,, to .
satin . ts ed with
wr,:sse war; let, the jury, the Wig,
i no confession
n fied with the giailt 111 g grllla
.l _ _ tp
an.d the Crown, and it
be tieee'soY after that. . Bat
slte " to if juries
.I,ffefoni,
fooons being . 4(t
rto 1 , speculate upon pall
tils 411 in. stead of carefully weighing evidence,i
Nilt u arise. If a jury had any doubts whatniria they
no
vltlPtilt Ott t° convict, it ought to be kdnoshwl,l,tihhaatvjeuries
„.0124.tt ir, to eonvict upon ovide ce, an
4rut,-- They ought te be told, that they ought not to
l'itle, that
, ley 1,,t un confessions, which were worth SO veil /,__; t 4
4114, ‘.l: filet
mss resorted to by criminals in "f4PF
b Til th, ir
leeol.llplieeS to escape.
the Noble
t•ntde,..,karqu;s :.`f NORMANBY agreed with
question
ha",;`' had nr (let; him in the view of the
wilh sidvenee'irf "e '
an6.lter point
til. ho
t, , • There was . •
was before
i: tiot,„ offs reference, while this businest: -at ---• .It '• 't a Sent
et elute was respecting tut or I
the orison ,
,°riti,,, hideath. Their Lordships kill3W tft it belief l'Y4'
114k,e,,the by person.s unmaly.
Power of opening letters, .
,ath es,,,t_haa they had the power of furnishi:guwfor
t which had
'Z' LI ting and blasphem.ous.letters,,,,Lsed ki thp eon-.
publication
~,. ti!,,,,, Peered in the public prints. at '''';very sentenee 0
rtel, -vo:er to two unfortunate females ~ no hoped at
t4iNt , gilt to have been buried in oblivion, 0 more,
tig_at the Secretary of State would, if he did ti
0,.
stoh
440 tinsel and advice to prevent the recurrence r i,ltitOrdejlls,ro‘e.yedings.
til spok,,,IAIAN concurred with the Noble Lord who bad
11,Ptdaie",, an Hoard that after a aeyclict was given by a jury
but, should
ktd3ts at nad ight to doubt its integrity,
was
0,20 tp be
tiZessed.any time arise, the throne of mercy
its ex•
Rt 1;" cu,i Ye hoped the public mind wouldeseeuP
linttiog riertY, in respect to publications containingedto.
lie did
dis-
ele thatJOß as those which had been referr
d
h an
id
since the prisoner, who wu e man of weal
such

station, had had the benefit of such able counsel as defended
him, and had been tried b. fore so excellent a judge, ;slid so
impartial a jury, that his con..", ssion of guilt under such cir-
cumstances was a matter of much cmyequence, as it could mot
in the least add to the satisfaction on the mind of every one
that he was guilty of the crime laid to his charge.—(l-I,ar,
hear.) He must confess that he did not see how the magis-
trates, more than any one else who might take an interest in
the matter, had any right to call for the production of any
communication made to the chaplain.—( Hear, hear.)
The Duke of BUCK!NGIIAM thought the question. vas,
whetheri'or not the chaplain was justified in withhol ding a
statement made to him under such circumstances.

- -
Lord STANLEY said he woula make inquiry of Ole }Tome
Secretary into the e'rcumstances, and would take. an early
opportunity of communicating the result to their Lordships.
BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH.
Earl POWIS presented several petitions from -places in
Wales against the union of the sees of Asaph and Bangor. In
moving the second reading of the Bill it became necessary for
him now to state the result of the communications he bad
with the public on the subject of disuniting the two sees. He
had lately received petitions in favour of his tsseasure from
nearly every county in England and Wales, and all
of tl.em complained of the difficulties and inconveni-
ence which had arisen from the union of the
two sees. There was a numerous population in
both set s, and their Lordships must be fully aware of the
difficulties the present Right Rs v. Prelate had to contend
against, owing to the dissimilitude which existed between the
two languages. That Right Rev. Prelate was distinguished
for his learning and piety, and although he had the love and
confidence of his flock, he confessed that he found it extremely
difficult to pay due and sufficient attention to improving the
state and condition of the numerous flock under his charge.
And if the Right Rev. Prelate experienced difficulties of this
kind, how would his successor, who might happen to have less
experience and be lest distinguished for his talents, be able to
contend against them ? Then, if they wanted any additional
evidence of the inconvenience resulting from the union of two
dioceses, they had it in the case of the dioceses of Gloucester
and Bristol, the union of which had given rise to extraordinary
inconvenience and difficulty. Many persons had petitioned
their Lordships whose interests were directly advanced by the
union of the two sees ; but the petitioners (for instance, the
clergy and inhabitants of Manchester) had petitioned
against the union, declaring their conscientious ob-
jection to receiving benefit from an Act which inflicted in-
jury on another part of the country. He regretted that a
Noble Lord who took a deep interest in this matter last year
was unable to attend on that occasion, but he had the satisfac-
tion of assuring the House that that Noble Lord's (Harrowby's)
opinion on this matter remained unchanged. As regarded the
appointment of a Bishop of Manchester, he thought the
enormous and increasing population of Lancashire, as shown in
the last census returns, was a sufficient inducement, or at all
events it would be an ample justification for them agreeing to
this part of his measure. The next topic to which he would
allude was an amendment which had been introduced by his
Noble Friend, on the Act of Gth and 7th William IV.,
which had been the foundation of the Church Commission. He
only wished that his Noble Friend had been of the same
opinion now that he was when this Commission was issued ;
and that he and the inhabitants of North Wales could have the
advantage of the argsmerits which he had then u,ed, for he
was sure that then her Majesty's Government and the several
members of the Ecclesiastical Commission would act with him.
The report of that Commission was made on the 17th of
March, 18:35, and in the year following, on the 4th of March,
a great alteration had been made in the view taken
by the Ecclesiastical Commission of the union of the secs
of St. Asaph and Bangor, and on the increase of the incomes
of those dioceses. Their object at the latter time appeared to be
to alter those sees, and to apply the sums to other purposes than
those contemplated by the Ecclesiastical Commission when first
this reduction was mooted. The income of the diocese of St.
Asaph was 5,20,4. a-year, and that of Bangor, 3,800/. It was
proposed to take from these the sums of 2,3001., and, with the
28,000/. already appropriated from other sources, to create a
sum of upwards of 30,0001., which was to increase the incomes
of the thirteen Bishops, to the amount of 3,000/. a year. This
report, however, did not hear the signature of Sir R. Inglis,
but of Thomas Spring Rice. At the time it was first proposed
to take anything from the 3,800/. of the diocese of Bangor,
the money was to be appropriated to the improvement of the
poorer livings. During the long time in which he had had to
fulfil his duty to the principality, he had frequently had occa-
sion to see persons high in-the confidence of her Majesty's Go-
vernment ; but during the whole of his experience he had
never received a more explicit reply than had been made to a
deputation, which had, on this subject, waited on Lord John
Russell and Mr. Spring Rice, at that time Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and, from the words which fell from Lord John
Russell, it was certainly the impression of the deputation that
it was the intention of the Government to place the bishoprics
in 'Wales on precisely the same footing as other bishoprics. They
conceived at that time that no portion ought to be taken from
the revenues of the Welsh benefices, as they were at
that time only sufficient, and barely sufficient, for the
wants of the people, and that if they did so they
would reduce the revenues balow the requirement
of the country for spiritual instruction. That deputation had
been composed of men of the highest position, and of all par-
ties. After the interview, however, he was free to confess that

the hope of the deputation had gone by. Yet Lord John Rus-
sell had admitted that there was no opportunity of taking any-
thing from the amount of the incomes of the sees of St. Asaph
and Bangor ; although he had stated the intention of the Go-
vernment to modify those bishoprics. Since 1836, con-
siderable attention had been paid to the interests of North
Wales, but still not that degree of attention which its interests
were entitled to. In south Wales the cases were somewhat
different, yet to both portions of the country the same prin-
ciple applied. There were in the whole of Wales deaneries,
and to each see there were two canonries attached. Not-
withstanding the declaration of the Government, that it was
intended to place the Church in England and Wales on the
same footing, and to assimilate the number of the canonries to
those belonging to the chapters in England, the number re-
mained unaltered, and while the deaneries in England were
1,000/. each, while those in Wales were only 7001. each ; arid
while the canonries in England were 5001. a-year, those in
%Vales were only 300/. a-year. There was another source from
whence the sums required might be drawn and applied to
North Wales. This was the revenues of what were called the
sinecure vicarages, to which no duty was attached, and no in-
jury would therefore be done by applying their
incomes to active and useful purposes. If it was
not taking too great a liberty, he would address their
Lordships on two other poiots. They were illustrative of the
sense of two important bodies on this question. It would be
recollected by their Lordships that last year the University of
Oxford had conferred a degree upon him. At the time when
this great honour was conferred lie was unknown to that uni-
verti. y, except through his connexion with the question of the
union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. His conduct on
that question had found favour in their eyes, and hence it was
that they conferred on him that which he looked upon as the
greatest compliment ever paid him since his entry into public
life. His only passport to their favour had been the conscien-
tious discharge of his duty. And this he would say, that his
reception for the part he had taken, and the proceedings con-
nected with that reception, coming from the young blood and
education of England, supported by the learning and ability
that presided over it, was not to be slighted or lightly passed
over. In this country public opinion virtually reigned, and
their Lordships would do well to consider it. This was not a
demonstration gotup by public excitement, and by ignorant men,
but of a body who perfectly understood the subject and the con-
sequences which would result from it. The next point to which
he would revert, as illustrating public opinion on this subject,
was a vote of thanks given him by the clergy of the diocese of
Bangor, for the part he had taken in endeavouring to prevent
the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. The Noble
Lord here read the vote of thanks, and concluded by moving
the second reading of the Bangor and St. Asaph and Man
chester Dioceses Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he could not give his
assent to what the Noble Lord who had just sat down proposed.
With respect to the petitions which had been presented, he
must express his admiration of those who had signed them for
their attachment to the Church. Still they should not be led
away by these petitions. He had looked into the petitions
presented against the union of Bangor and St. Asaph, up to
the close of last sitting, and out of 312 presented, only one-
third, or about 100, were presented from the dioceses of St.
Asaph and Bangor. The ethers were from all other parts of
England.— ( Hear, hear.) He would make some observations
on these petitions presently. But what he wished to call their
attention at present to was the particular provisions of this
Bill. It was a Bill neither more or less than to repeal the Act
5 and 6 William IV., which Act was intended to carry into
effect the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He
would state the object sought to be obtained by that Com-
mission. It was desired to remove many anomalies from out of
the Church—to render it, in the exercise of its duties, more
efficient and more general—to extend its influence into parts
of the country where its superintendence was much required,
anti to render it an object of attachment and affection in all parts
of the nation, but more especially in populous districts. The great
object was to review and revise the whole system, and to render it
more useful for the wants of the people. This it was desirable
to do by the means already at the disposal of the Church, and
hence, in 1835, the Government recommended the issuing of
the Commission. In the report drawn up by that Commission
certain recommendations were made, and it was well known
that the arrangements proposed to be carried out, founded ois
that report, involved 4 great sacrifice of patronage, not only
on the part of the country, but by the Ministry, the Right
Reverend Prelates and Noble Lords of both aides of the
House. All this sacrifice was made with the single object of
rendetineb the Church more efficient in its ministrations, and
better adapted to the wants of the people. For he did not see
why the public should be made to incur greater expense than
was absolutely necessary, and he was quite confident that if
this union took place, all that could be desired for the efficient
maintenance of the Church would be fully secured. He could
easily account for the number of petitions that had been pre-
sented by Noble Lords against the union of the sees, by a feel-
ing on the part of the petitioners that by the proposed arrange-
ment the temporal interests of the Church would not be suffi-
ciently atended to. No one felt more than he did the neces-
sity of making proper provision for the interests of the Church,
and he considered it one of the greatest advantages which th s
country possessed—the having men of great attainments, and
with moral worth, filling the highest offices in the Church
which he contended was to a certain extent to be attributed to
the circumstance of the having an adequate remuneration for
the discharge of the important duties which devolved upon
them. Associating as he did there and elsewhere with them,
he was enabled to say that a more worthy or more excellent
body of men did rot exist, and the public could not secure
the services of such men unless they were properly recom-
pensed for their services. Many, as he had already remarked,
had thought that the proposed arrangement would not effect
this, and to that cause he attributed two-thirds of the peti•
tians that had been presented against the union of the sees,
but he could assure the Noble Lord. that such would not be
the case. That union was certainly the foundation of part o
the system in relation to tithe, and it appeared to him that
they would not be able to maintain the other parts of the
system if they adopted this measure.—( Hear, hear.) It would
iinturdjtely be supposed by their assenting to it that it was
their intention tq withdraw from the system altogether.—
(Hear, Ivor.) He begged their attention for a few minutes,
alma Ise thought he rould be able to shod them
that
the dioceses of kit. Asap b and Bangor had no reason
whatever to complain of the whole arrangement. A
sum had been already given to augment the amount enjoyed
by the small livings, but he was not aware that any portion of
that cams from the dioces.es of Sr. Asaph and Bangor, He then
came tq consider what the sacrifice would be to the diocese of
Bangor when this Apt camp iuto operftlion, and also what the
gain would be, The sacrifice which would be made by the
diocese of St. Asaph and Bangor would be altogether 4,7501.,
but, on the other hand, they would acquire the advantages of
the sinecure rectories, which would amount to 3,9001. It was
intended that the several rectories all over England and Wales
cloud N f„-;fle,rened, and the revenues applied to the parochial
service of the diocers le ¢hsch they ewist, But that Act went.
further, for one Ciatas7e of it enabic4 tlig pownissioaeril not to
wait till the demise of the present inemplients, bni tq pnraiase,
the 4.dy9wspris at any time, so that the propeeds might be ap-
plied by the Apt fox the pqrpqseii of parochial spryipt.. Another
4dVantage would be the gain of throe hitehhapPna are' an
increase of deans, chapters, and canons, all of whom would be
properly provided for ; and they would also gain by the parochial
services being more efficiently attended to. He would now
come to the inconveniences of the proposedarrangement. The
two dioceses, when united, were not so large, nor did it con-
tain so riitoy liviv as many other dioceses, and he could not
understand why oue could net perform
without difficulty or inconvenience the same d'iities 14,5 another
Right Rev. Prelate? whose diocese happened to be in another

part of the country. He could not, either, see bow any com-
plaint could be made to the taking away of one Bishop, when
there were other persons appointed to perform his duties. On
the whole, he thought he had said sufficient to convince their
Lordships that there was no neussity for the measure of the
Noble Lerl, and he should, therefore, move as an amendment
that it he rea I a second time that day six months.
The Bishop of BANGOR implored the House to listen to
the petition of the people of Wales, and the majority of the
people of England, and not to create a union of the two secs of
Langer and St. Asaph. It would greatly inconvenience him-
self and his Right Rev. Friend the Bishop of St. Asaph, with-
out either benefiting the clergy or the pot ulation of the two
dioeeses. The Noble Duke, in treating this question, seemed
to consider it a matter of pounds, 0-tiliings, and pence, and
dwelt upon the money-saving which would result to the two
dioceses if a union were effected ; but the question, in his opi-
nitin, and in the opinion of the clergy and people of Wales,
assumed a higher and more important character. It was cer-
tainly with them not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence,
but a question bearing upon the spiritual wants of the princi-
pality. The people of \Vales looked upon the union at a step
towards reducing the means afforded them of spiritual instrulion,
and it was upon that ground, and 'hat ground alone, that they
supported the measure which the Noble Earl had submitted to
their Lordships. The office he filed, he could assure their
Lord hips, was an thing but a sinecure. He believed there
were no sinecure tithes or livings in the diocese of St. Asaph,
from which his h ight Reverend Friend, who was not then
present, derived any benefit. With regard to the see of Man-
che-ter, he could see no difficulty in providing funds for its
support. Whether well or ill endowed, whether rectories,
vicarages, or curacies, it was the desire of the people that the
sees should remain as they are; and as long as they entertain
a hope that they shall not be amalgamated, they will persevere
in every exertion to prevent what they conceive to be a mis-
fortune. Whatever might be the opinions of their Lordships,
he hoped that they would not be drawn away by the eloquence
and the arguments with which the Noble Lord on the Wool-
sack was accustomed to delight their Lordships. Ile would
now conclude by recommending the petitions and the feelings
and the inserests of these people to their consideration.
The Earl of WINCH ILSE A felt that it was necessary to
call the emphatic attention of their Lordships to the course
which they were now pursuing. There was no axiom more
true or which, as Christian legislators, they were called upon
to attend to, than that they should not follow any course which
was in itself evil, in order to produce what was in itself good,
for he was confident that if any good (lid apparently arise, it
would in the end turn to mischief. What was the case ? Why,

that they were called upon to sacrifice the spiritual interests
of thousands for the sake of a paltry saving of 15,000/. a year.
The Ecclesiastical Commission might perhaps have had no
other course than that of recommending the union of these sees
at the time their report was made. But now the rose was
widely different. England was gorged with wealth, and it was
going out with its millions in what he could not but term the
most shameful gambling speculation. Ills Noble Friend had
earned to himself that which was beyond all price in these days
i,f liberal, or rather he would say. of impious opinions, by stand-
ing up for those principles on which the greatness of this coun-
try had been built, and through which alone the spiritual wel-
fare of the country could be secured. He called upon their
Lordships to support his Noble Friend in this Bill, and to di--
regard all private opinions. and if it was necessary to
stand between the Ministers and the Crown, not to hesitate
to show the Crown what was the opinion of the hereditary le-
gislators on this important Bill. There was no vote which
would give him more hearty satisfaction than that which he
should give on this occasion, and he earnestly thanked his
Noble Friend for his manly and steadfast perseverance in the
conduct of this measure.
Lori MONTEAGLE felt that he might be considered as
deficient in Isis duty if he did net express his opinion on this
measure. The House was called upon to loek at this question
in reference to its efficiency, and in doing so he was Lound to
inquire into the efficiency of the episcopal superintendence of
those sees. In 1805 there had been only 520 dissenting
chapels in Wales ; in 1810 there were 954, and in 1832 there
were 1,428. This proved that the members of the Church of
England was not a majority, as it ought tobe, but a small minority.
Such was the truth, and he was induced to ascribe this inef-
ficiency to the fact, that the parochial system had been sacrificed
to the episcopal system, and the funds had been taken from the
parochial clergy to support the bishoprics. If the endowment
of these sees could claim, as it was represented, high
antiquity, he should be quite ready to assent to
that claim ; but such was not the case, for a
great portion of the endowment was altogether of
modern date. The four archdeaconries of Anelesea were
founded in 1685. The three archdeaconries of Bangor were
endowed at the same time ; and others in different parts of the
country were endowed in 1710, and others as late as 1813.
The endowments of these bishoprics stood on different grounds
from those of many of the bishoprics of England. There was
now no surplus fund in the Ecclesiastical Commission; and the
question was, not whether they should destroy one of these sees
in order to endow the bishopric of Manchester, but what were
they to do with the surplus. The Commission who recom-
mended this amalgamation of the two sees had been signed by
the metropolitan of all England, by all the Ecclesiastical mem-
bers of the commission, by the Noble Lord on the Woolsack,
by Sir Robert Peel, and by Mr. Watkins W. Wynne.—
(" Hear, hear," from Earl Powys.) His Noble Friend cheered
at the name of Mr. W. Wynne, but he (Lord Monteagle)
attached the greatest weight to the name of Mr. Wynne,
not only from his personal weight, but from the
great connexion which he had with the principality. He
wished to bring under their notice the parochial condition of
North Wales, in order to lay its state before their Lordships'
consideration. The Noble Lord then read several extracts
from documents which he held in his hand, illustrative of the
parochial state of North Wales, and showing the necessity of an
improvement in the classification and distribution of livings. It
had been said that the Noble Duke on the other side (the
Duke of Wellington) argued the question as one of pounds,
shillings, and pence, but whether it was so argued or not,
it was the duty of the Government to make the clergymen
efficient in the discharge of their duties, by adapt-
ing their circumstances to the important duties
they had to discharge. He looked upon the religious institu-
tions of the country with as much veneration as any of their
Lordships could do, but it was one thing to love and respect
them, and another to look up to them with superstitious awe
and veneration. It was a matter of indifference whether the
seat of episcopacy was at Bangor or at St. Asaph, so long as
the spiritual interests of the people were properly attended to.
If they were to give way to such petitions as these, there would
be no calculating the difficulties to which it would lead.
Lord BROUG II A NI said he was not going to debate the Bill,
for he gave his support to it, on the grounds which Lis Noble
Friend (the Duke of Wellington) had stated, and on the re-
commendations contained in the Commissioners' Report. The
whole question at present was the second reading of the WO,
which he would decidedly oppose, and would vote for the
amendment of his Noble Friend.
The Bishop of SALISBURY said the Government mea-
sure for the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph was
founded on the Report of 1835 ; but It ought to be recollected
that the Commissioners afterwards changed the'r opinion on
the subject, and admitted they had not sufficiently considered
the difficulties of the case before making their report.
The dean and chapter of Christchurch, Oxford, for instance,
possessed the impropriate tithes of seventy parishes, and if the
parochial wants of the diocese were great, he did not see why
they should not call upon the Legislature to pass an Act to
transfer these funds to the wants of the destitute clergy who
might happen to be in the diocese. The principle was the
same. If they interfered with the arrangements and appro-
priation of ecclesiastical revenues in Wales, he did not see why
any other diocese in England should be exempt from such in-
terference.—( Hear, hear.) The number of petitions of those
who opposed the union of those sees were to be accounted for
under the influence of the feeling that if one member of the
household suffered all the rest suffered with it.—( Hear, hear.)
It was gratifying to see how the Church had under the greatest
discouragement from princes and statesmen risen to its present
flourishing state. It now numbered twenty-two bishops, and
1,200 clergy, but if this system of interference were tolerated,
he could not indulge in the anticipation that this state of things
would long continue.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY opposed the Bill, notwithstanding the re-
spect he had for the Noble Earl who introduced it.—the high
character of the Right Rev. Prelate who had just sat down—
and the public support which it had received out of doors. It
was not a question to be looked to on local grounds, nor on its
temporal bearings, but one which must be regarded as it
affected the spiritual interests of the Establishment.—( Hear,
hear.) He would throw aside all the arguments that might
be drawn from the exercise of the Royal prerogative on the
subject, and he contended that it was for the good of the
sees themselves that this union should take place.—(Hear.)
What were the circumstances under which the Commission of
1834 was appointed ? Previous to that time there was through-
out a large portion of the community a growing hostility to-
wards the Church, arising out of a belief that the Church did
not properly peform the spiritual duties attached to it, while
on the other hand, its enemies were exciting some alarm by
pointing to the revenues which the Church received. Now,
these ware the circumstances under which the Commission of
1834, was appointed. It was made up of venerable and learned
men, and after due and deliberate investigation it came to the
i conclusion that it was advisable that the union of the sees of
Bangor and St. Asaph should be made. Now, he
begged their Lordships :to remember that this Commission
was appointed by no Government hostile to the Church. The
objects of that commission was to make inquiry into the
dioceses of England, end to ascertain the amount of the church
revenues. There were other inquiries also, such as cathedral
dues, &c., but on that part of the question he would not enter.
The object, be it observed, was the equalisation of the revenues
on the one hand, and of the duties on the other. How then
could it be said that the principle which actuated the commis-
sion was placed upon an erroneous basis? Well, then, it left
only three dioceses untouched, and the commission remo-
delled or recognised all the other dioceses of the kingdom.
The commission certainly recommended the establishment of two
now sees, but the funds saved by the union of the two sees of
Baneor and St. Asaph were not applied to the establishment
of either of them, but to the augmentation of two other Welch
bishoprics, namely, Landaff and another. But how could the
House complain of the union of those two sees? Did not the
Commission alter and disturb the see of Rochester in a similar
manner? And were not the sees of Bristol and Gloucester
consoldated ? True, they were, and, notwithstanding what
hail been stated by some Right Rev. Prelates, he could assure
their Lordships that the result had proved most satisfactory to
the country. Was it wise, then, after these experiments, which
had given so much satisfaction, to irritate or unsettle
the public mind on this subject ? It was admitted that the
alteration would not stop here. It was intended hereafter
if this measure were carried to make a gradual increase to the
numb; r of bishops who occupied seats in that House.—(" No,
no.") Noble Lords might say no, but he told them that such
was the opinion out of doors, and he warned their Lordships
not to excite an hostility in the country towards the Church,
which, if it did not eventually destroy, must most assuredly
prove a very serious injury to the Church. Was it wise then
at the present moment to press this measure? Would it not
endanger the seats of all the Right Rev. Prelates who held
seats in that House? Let them pause then before they took
a step which was likely to lead to a result so disastrous,
granting that there was a necessity at the present
time for augmenting the number of Bishops, which he was
not prepared to do, he should still be inclined to think that the
consolidation of the union of the sees of Bangor and St.
Asaph ought not to be disturbed. The two united together
were 369,450, being very little more than half the average of
the whole of the dioceses, which was 558,000 souls. -The
number of benefices was 262, but this was not a fair average,
because the population in these two benefices was not all equal
to the population of benefices of other dioceses. One half
of the population, too, of these benefice!, it should be
remembered, wore Dissenters from the Established Church.
He should like, then, to see any Noble Lord arguing for the
division of the two sees, and the retention of Exeter or of Lin-
coln as one diocese. Whether it was from the want of suffi-
cient episcopal superintendence, or other causes, the labours of
the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor were lighter than those
of almost all the other dioceses in the coesntry. He quite
a'feed in what fell !rem a Nohle Lord the other night, that
'-ley eeeld not aepareta Wales from England, but that they
must consider the two countries as identical; and he should
conceive that the best mode of distributing the whole of the
epiglopal staff of the whole country, so as to equalise the
from the statements of the eccle-
siastical and the revenues of all the sees. If the principle were
; in favour of Wales a balance of
to be adopted of considering the two countries as separate,
Wales would lose more than it gained, for Wales gave more
this'al the revenues of the sinecure rec-
-7,501. ; and there was even now
into th? coffituo.n kad, there Would
thanl,l 5
fund,
uggnel
Throwing
0 thatwlin gtaiip,
neptreoearwe
!)üblic feud for MM. more. With
ihoir iall
I.islholfehdr4voei. 4L9.9ja1, i:... i t
• au applicatioo to the