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

regai-d to the distace of flih bishOp hi flock,
the fact ' *is, 'there was a railroad ibsoluiely fiow
forming which would. - pass' through 'both the towns of
St. Asaph and Bangor, and would bring them as near to each
other as Liverpool and Manchester. He felt deeply the induls
gence of the House for his long trespass upon its patience at
that late hour of the night, but he did feel this to be a great
and an important question, and that it was absolutely necessary
for the equalisation of the spiritual duties of the country, that it
should lie cafried; they . would allow this business to be
worked by the Eccleiiastical tommisSionefs. If they would
allow them to undo the evils of former days, if they would allow
the Church to assert its own rights, and not raise the question
of the spiritual ur political superintendence of the Church, they
would be best serving the interests of that Church. He felt
that this was a qttestion purely of principle, and, if it were not,
he *mild With pleasure have eoted for the Bill of the Noble
Lord (Earl Powis), but he felt bound to give it his smog de-
cided, but most conscientious, opposition.
The Bishop of St DAVID'S would have felt considerable
reluctance to rise on any ordinary occasion, but he was anxious
to clear up some little difficulty which had been thrown on the
yes'ion, and the more so as he thought the question had
assumed a new phase since he last addressed them. The Noble
Lord was mistaken if he supposed that any one advocated this
question on any other grounds than those which it could prefer
as being a part of the Church of England. No such idea as
that had ever existed in the mind of ant individual. But }vet
the Church of Wales had its rights and its privile:es, and if
the Campus Martius of Perth and the Curragh of Kildare
could put in their claims to consideration, the Church of Wales
had also an equal right to the protection of the Government.
The Constitution did not recognise that any one individual of
the community should be sacrificed, much less such important
interests as those under consideration. The inhabitants of
Wales in this matter, as in many others, considered they had
been overlooked and neglected. This was a strong reason why
their Lordships ought to be cautious in dealing with such a
question. He did conceive his duty, knowing these feelings,
to call upon their Lordships to give their assent to the Bill be-
fore the House. He admitted that in the measures founded
on the first report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it might
be supposed that a benefit was proposed to be conferred on the
Church of Wales; but what could they think of this Commis-
sion, in their second report, which deprived North Wales
of one of her dioceses, and took its revenues and applied
them to support the general church funds ? Since he last ad-
dressed the House the state of the question was much
changed, as It was admitted, on the other aide of the House,
that the lair needed amendment, and that there was an injus-
tice Which required to be redressed. He d.d admit the great
Want of spiritual instruction in North Wales, and that if the
surplus funds to be disposed of were applied to improve that
spiritual instruction, great good might result from the mode in
which it was to be effected. He considered the speech of the
Noble Lord (Lord Stanley ), consummate as it was in ability,
a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end, having no other
intention than to divert the attention of their Lordships from
the real merits of the question. That Noble Lord had endea-
voured to impress on their Lordships' minds that in consentirg
to the Noble Lord's (Lord Yowls's) Bill they would be up-
setting all that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had done. He
(the Bishop of St. David's) adm'iletl the great good that that
Commission had done, hut so far from the present Bill
frustrating the labours of that Commission it would carry
them out in the most efficient manner. The measure of the
No'.le I ord, so far from running•counter to the report of the
Commission, carried out and confirmed that report in its most
material spirit and recommendations He sincerely believed
that all that had been said respecting the revenues and super-
ficies of North Wales would not bear out the Noble Lord

( Stanley) in the general statements he had made respecting
the resources of the church in that district. This was not a
question whether it was more to the benefit of the Church
that she should retain her surplus revenues for the use of
the dioceses in North Wales, or apply those sur-
plus revenues to the spiritual instruction of populous
districts in other parts of the kingdom.--( Hear. )
He would beg to draw their attention to two or three points,
which he thought likely to make their Lordships think less of
the evils which tne Noble Lord had pointed out as likely to re-
sult from the adoption of this Bill. First, he would ask them,
if the principle which they proposed to carry out with respect
to the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor, had worked well
when reduced to practice on other occasions. He denied that
it did, but on the contrary had proved most pernicious to the
interests of the Church.—( Loud cries of " Question, ques-
tion," amid which the Right Rev. Prelate sat dawn. )
The Bishop of LONDON felt a deeply-rooted conviction,
which the experience of every year strengthened, that they
were bound to increase the number of bishoprics, and he
thought that if he had the Noble Lord (Stanley) as his coad-
jutor for o.ie month, he had no doubt of being able to convince
him not only of the desirableness, but of the necessity of in-
creasing the number of bishops.—( Hear, hear.) He should
not have touched upon that part of the subject had not the line
of argument used by the Noble Lord imposed upon him the
necessity of doing so. He could not consistently with the
opinion's he entertained object to the Noble Earl's motion,
but, from the peculiar position in which he stood, he would
abstain frOrn voting altogether.
The Earl of FITZWILLIAM hoped that the language in
which the Noble Lord had so beautifully clothed his sentiments,
would not dazzle their Lordships, or induce them to lose sight
of the argument which formed the burden of his speech. The
Noble Lord says you must not add to the number of bishops ; but
if the Noble Lord had been a short time in the position which
the Bishop had desired—coadjutor over a population of
I,Boo,ooo—he did not consider that the Noble Lord would talk
of any reduction in the number of Bishops.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord LYTTELTON thonght that, with the number of
souls over which the Bishops had superintendence, instead
of a reduction in their . number, that more of them were re-

quired:—( Hear, hear.)
The Earl of CA RNA RYON said that after what had fallen
from the Neble Lord (Earl Fitzwilliam) and the Right Rev.
Prelates•(the Bishops of St. David's and London) he could
see no sufficient reason why they should resist the strong cur-
rent of public opinion which had set in in favour of this mea-
sure.. The almost universal feeling of the clergy of Wales,
and the all but unanimous sympathy of the laity, afforded a
great reason for carrying out the measure before the House ;

a:kd he did not see iny"reason to apprehend any of that dor
mans hostility to the Church which was threatened on the in,

troduction of a new Bishop into that House. When he recol-
lected the great disparity which had arisen between
the temporal and the spiritual Peers, since the re-
volution, he could not but think that the crea-

tion of new Bishopi would shortly be a necessity. At
the time the Eccles astical Commissioners made their report
and recommended the abolition of one of the Welsh sees, it was
apprehended that no funds could be raised for endowing the
new see of Manchester, but he was glad to find now, from
every ride of the House, that there was no similar ground
of fear on .that aecount, and he therefore felt assured that had
the Commissioners been acquainted with the state of things as
they are at present, they never would advise that to which so
much allusion had been made. If the measure was not passed
it was his impression it would leave an impression of wrong on
the minds of the people of Wales; and when he recollected
the number of the petitions presented on this subject, and the
,pirit by which the petioners were actuated, he could not
turn a deaf ear to their prayer.
The House then divided, when there appeared :
Contents present
Proxies
Nora-Contents .
Proxies

. 58-129

Majority against the Bill 32
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 2.
The SPEAKER took the chair at Four o'clock.
THE DUDDESTON AND NECHELLS IMPROVE-
MENT (No. 2) BILL.
This Bill, on the motion of Mr. SPOONER, was read a
second time, after a few words of opposition from Mr. Muntz.
RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
During the time of private business,
Mr. APGE ACHY,
who formed one of the Committee on Group X, stated that
since the morning he had ascertained that he had a pecuniary
interest in one of the railways of the group on which he sat, and
he therefore begged to be excused any further attendance on the
Committee. The Hon. Gentleman was according:y dis-
charged from any further attendance.
CORNWALL RAILWAY.
Sir G. GREY and Lord CLEMENTS presented a considerable
number of petitions in favour of the Cornwall and Devon
Railway Bill.

IHISTOL AND DORCHESTER RAILWAY.
On the motion of Mr. MUNDY, this Bill Was read a first
tme.

HARROGATE RAILWAY.
On the motion of Mr. BOWES, this Bill was read a second
me.

DEPTFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Mr. BARNE BY presented petition; against this Bill.
GLASGOW, BARRHEAD,-AND NEILSTON DIRECT

RAILWAY.
This Bill was read a second time.
BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY.

On the motion that this Billberr;11; second time,
Mr. G. BANKES said that he would take that opportunity
of presenting a petition from Lady Georgiana Fane, and
others, and from several of her tenants, against the passing of
this Bill. He believed that this Bill was in a peculiar po-
sition. It had been taken into consideration by the Com-
mittee previ, us to the second reading. It was certainly an
anomaly in the proceedings of Parliament, that the principle in
the details, of a Bill should be decided upon before it bad
been approved upon by the House at large. He should there-
fore beg the especial consideration of the House to the petition
which he had now to present, which prayed that the petitoner
might be heard before the Committee personally or by counsel.
iose.
The SPEAKER said that the plan which the Hon. Mem-
ber ought to adopt would be to move for the reference of the
petitions to the Select Committee. There would be three
rirm.ilßteAeNaKndEtshe act e oendsid e
on clear days before the lit of June, between the decision of the
Co
suggestion,
n the
and thHeu petitions
were referred to the Select Committee.—rl, will be recollected
by our readers, that' n our report of the proceedings of the Se-
lect torniiiittCe on the Bristol and Exeter Railway Bill
it was stated by Mr. Merrc•wether, Counsel
for some of the petitioners against the Bill, that
rathtii°sti
the Bill had not been read a second time in the House of
CoMfilon!, and that the Committee were competent to take
evidence in favour or against the Bill, though they were un-
able tti exclude the prayer of any petitioner, and of
course to
decide on the preamble. the Chairman, the Ho-
nourable J. H. Liddell, and the Committee, taking
this view of the matter, the further consideration of the
preamble was deferred in order that the Bill might be read a
set tittd time in the Commons, and that they might proceed
legitimately to the eoftsiciMetafion of itsinerits 1
AYNOOTH.
Colonel Conolly, Mr. Thornely, Mr. Broadley, Lord North-
land, end gther Hen. Members, presented petitions against the
grant to Alaynootil.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHBRY presented a petition from
the pdrish Bt, tiedge4l, Sotithwark, signed by 800 persons,
against the Maynooth grant.
Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions against the proposed,
or any grant to Maynooth, from places in the counties of Cum.
berland, Essex, Gloucester, and from the counties of Down,
Goirt; and Donegal, in Ireland.
hivatsti DISABILITIES BILL.
• Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from a large number
of persons in Shropshire against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the Chancellor
and Members of the University. of Oxford, praying that no
alteration might he made in their Act.
Sir J. TROLLOPE presented a petition from Holbeach,
in. Lincolnshire, praying fora change in the Insolvent Debtors'
wi:h a view to the better recovery of dtbts under 2 :/. ;
also several petitions against the grant to Maynooth.
Colonel ACTON presented a petition from the parish of
Shillelagh—(Laughter)—in the county of Wicklow, against
the grant to Maynooth.
•petit;ons from •
Mr. FERRAND presented various parts of
England and Ireland against the grant.
Mr. HAMILTON presented twenty petitions from various
places in Ireland against the grant.
.Mr. DIVETT presented similar petitions from Exeter.
Mr. BRIG HT presented thirteen petitions against the grant.
;Lord RENDLESHAM presented similar petitions from
Wolk.
Colonel SIBT HOR P presented a number of petitions from
'Wales ta the same effect.
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Carlisle
against the grant to itlaynooth. The petitioners complained
that be Bill had been forged through the House against the

EVENING, MAY 8, 1845.

voice of the country ; also several petitions, praying that the
drflstment of wages shoted be done away with.
Mr. DUNCAN pfnentt4 a letition from Ferfarshire
against the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. GODSON presented a petition from ccriain turnpike
road trustees, praying to be heard by counsel against the Berks
and Hampshire Railway.
NEW ZEALAND.
_ _

Sir R. INGLIS said, that not.vithstanding that he had
seen that certain communications had taken plane between
her Mtjesty's Government and the authorities of New Zea-
land tipOn the subject of a notice that an Hon. Member had
upon the paper, which had indL eed that Hon. Member to
withdraw that notice, still, seeing that Right Hon. Gentleman
the secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, he would
put to him, now in public, a question he had previously asked
him in private, namely, whether the communications that had
taken place were of such a nature as to alter the po;ition of
the missionaries of that colony with this country ; and also
the position of the natives of the colony and the New Zealand
Company with this country, and that of those parties with each
other?

Mr. HOPE said he felt it necessary to give some explana-
tion with respect to what had passed last night. He d d not
pretend to say what had passed between the Noble Lord under
whom he served and the Hon. Member fur Liskeard. In the
first place, the withdrawal of the notice of the Honourable
Member was wholly unsolicited on the part of her
Majesty's Government, who were about to justify their
conduct with respect to the missionaries. From the manner in
which it reached the press, it would appear that the measure
was more fully before the Government than was the case.
The fact was this, that the Noble Lord at the head of the Colo.

nial Department heard from the New Zealand Company that
an arrangement would be submitted to him for
hia consideration. He answered that whenever such an
arrangement should be rroposed in a proper manner, he
would give it his consideration. No such alteration had yet been
made or decided on with respect to the New Zealand Com-
pany. He should, however, state that there was no compro-
mise whatever on the part of her Majesty's Government.
In answer to a question put by Lord DUNCAN,
Sir R. PEEL said that his Noble Friend at the head of the
Commisston of the Woods and Forests had a Bill in prepara-
tion containing certain salutary regulations. He wished the
Noble Lord would postpone his question until the resuming of
business after Whitsuntide.
THE BRAZILS.

Mr. LA BOUCHERE said that he saw in the public papers
a statement that the Brazilian Government had recommended
the Brazilian merchants to impose 20 per cent. on cotton goods,
as long as their sugar was distinguished in duty from other
colonial sugars. His question to the Right lion. Gentleman
was, whether the Government had received any communica-
tion on this subject, and whether such information zdfirmed
or denied the statement ?
Sir IL PEEL said he felt confident that no official information
had been received on the subject to which the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman referred. If the Right Hon. Gentleman had given him
notice f the question, he would have been prepared to answer
it ; but, as far as he knew, no such official information had been
received.
HOLYHEAD HARBOUR AND RAILWAY.

Mr. HUME put a question (as we understood it) relative
to the sale of Holyhead Harbour for railway purpose.. Folk-
stone Harbour had been sold, and he feared that all the har-
bours would eventually meet the same fate.
Mr. YORKE replied that he thought the question a proper
one, and would have the informality erased from the Bill.
Mr. COLLETT wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman.

the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respeCling a motion which
stood on the hook for that day. The Right Honourable Gen-
tleman intended to add the name of Mr. Alilnes Gaskell to the
five members already named, as a Committee on the Chester
and Holyhead Railway ; did he mean that the Committee
should consist of six members, or that Mr. Gaskell should be
substituted for another Honourable Member ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did
not intend to persevere in the motion.
SCOTCH BANKING, AND SCOTCH POOR-LAWS.

Mr. FOX MAULS wished to know when the second
reading would take place of the Scottish Banking Bill, and
the Scottish Poor-law Bill ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said it would be necessary to take
some votes of supply on Monday, but be hoped to move tine
second reading of those Bills before the holidays.