The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-07-21 00:00:00

Elrip trial Varitament.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURSDAY

EDUCATION

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved for the return of mi-
nutes of proceedings before the privy council on the subject
of education, which he said would be satisfactory to all who
took an interest in the important subject of education.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY expressed satisfaction
at what had fallen from the noble marquis, and was gratified
that all the differences that had existed on the subject be-
tween the authorities of the church of England and the com-
mittee of the privy council, with respect to the appointment
of inspectors of schools, were likely to be removed.

HE REGENCY

The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose and said, my lords I
trust your lordships will ,be of opinion that the importance of
the subject to which I am about to call your lordships' atten-
tion justifies me in departing from that which is the custom
of this house, not to make a statement on any bill until it

comes to the second reading. But my lords, I am anxiour
that your lordships should be put in possession of the general
provisions of this bill before it is placed in your lordships
hands. Your lordships will recollect, that immediately be-
fore the accession of her present majesty to the throne, it
was thought necessary to make a provision for the only con-
tingency which might at that time occur, and which ap-
peared a possible event—of the crown descending to an illus-
trious individual who, from his important position as the
sovereign of another country, might not be in these domini-
ons at the time of his accession to the throne. For that con-
tingency your lordships and the other house of parliament
thought it proper to make a provision for the government of
the country until the sovereign himself should arrive to fulfil
the duties and prerogatives which so devolved upon him. That
is not the only contingency, my lords, which isto be guarded
against now. An event may occur which for a long series of
years may leave the country in this state that the heir to the
throne may be an infant of tender years, and incapable of dis-
charging the duties and of exercising the rights and preroga-
tives of a sovereign. That is a contingency which your
lordships do not contemplate—(loud cries of hear, hear)—
and if the prayers of a nation be heard, it will not occur.
(Much cheering.) The nation hopes, my lords, that the life
of her majesty may be prolonged, far beyond the term when
the presumptive heir may arrive at a majority. But it is needful
for your lordships, with all desire to trust in Providence, to
guard against the possibility of that event which might hap-
pen at any term within a long series of years, during which
the heir to the throne would be in a state of infancy. Your
lordships have therefore to consider whether it is not expe-
dient to guard against this possibility, and to provide the
means by which, in such an event, the royal functions should
be exercised. If that should be your lordships' opinion of
the duty of parliament, and if any of your lordships should
think it expedient now to make the provision, the question
then will be—First. To whom the important right of exercis-
ing the royal powers, during the infancy of the sovereign,
shall be confided. and whether there shall be any provision
made as to the mode in which that individual shall exercise
those functions. It is a relief to me, in submitting a mea-
sure for this purpose to your lordships' consideration, to find
that, under circumstances very similar, the, opinion of par-
liament was declared in an act passed in the year 1830. I
great satisfaction to me, because that act passed
_.:r circumstances which entitled it pre-eminently to the
consir

leration of this house, and not only received the sanc-
tion of both houses, but became the law of the land. It was
introduced by a noble and learned friend of mine, a member
of the then administration. It made but little progress be-
fore that administration change.!, but it contained provisions
so much approved of by parliament, that it was taken up by
the government which followed, and became law by the
unanimous approbation of all parties in parliament. I said
it was a great satisfaction to me to find that precedent, be-
cause it enables me to recall to your lordships' recollec-
tion the provisions introduced into that measure on the
two subjects I have referred to, and therefore supersedes
in a great measure the necessity of travelling back to an ear-
lier period of our history, and to the discussions of former
parliaments. The act of 1830 was passed on the accession of
his late Majesty, her present Majesty being then of tender
years; of years that would have been impossible for her, if
the crown had descended to her, for her personally to have
administered its duties. The provisions of that act were,
that in that event the illustrious mother of her Majesty
should have the guardianship of the person of the Queen, and
exercise the duties of, and act as regent for, her Majesty, un-
til she attain the age of 18 years, under certain restrictions.
This act contemplated the crown descending on a minor, and
making provisions for the government. That to which I now
call your lordship's attention also provides for the possible
event of the crown's decending to a minor ; and in that pos-
sible event there is a possibility, at least, of the infant's sur-
viving its parent. My lords, that surviving parent, so iden-
tified with the interests of the infant sovereign, is the person
to whom you would naturally look as the proper person to
have the care and guardianship of the infant, and to have the

administration of the duties of office. It was so considered
in 1830 ; and I trust your lordships will entertain the same
opinion now. (Hear, hear.) Another question remains,
whether the regent so appointed should be fettered by any
parliamentary restrictions, or whether the regent should be
permitted to exercise all the power, all the duties, and all the
functions of the sovereign ? My lords, a case may un-
doubtedly occur, in which parliament may think it necessary,
for some temporary absence, or some temporary illness, of
the sovereign, to provide the means of exercising the royal
authority, and yet the great object may be to preserve the
royal authority unimpaired to the sovereign when he may re-
turn. Such was the object of the bill to which I have
before adverted, and which passed in the first year of
her Majesty's reign. The bill did not appoint a regent ;
it appointed lords justices ; and the object of the bill was to
do as little as might be, but to preserve things in that
state, that the sovereign, on coming into this country to
assume the reins of government, might find public affairs
in the same state, as nearly as possible, as they had been
left by the preceding sovereign. But, my lords, when
your lordships are making provision, the object of which
must be to provide for the government of the country for a
long series of years, your lordships will be of opinion, that
it is not prudent, that it is not safe, and that it is not con-
sistent with the principles of the constitution, that the sove-
lower should be fettered in the bands of the regent.—
ir' hear, hear," from Lord Lyndhurst, and other noble
The power and prerogatives of the crown are given
to the crown to preserve the balance of the different parts of
the consititution of the country,—they are given to the
crown in that state in which it is most beneficial to the pub-
tonld be preserved. They are not, therefore, given to
for any other purpose than being exercised, and,
occasion may require, of adding to or strengthening the
power of the crown, or dealing with the affairs of the state
in such manner as it is the duty of the crown, according to
the constitution, to exercise or deal with them. They are
not larger than the constitution of the country thought ne-
cessary.; and if they are necessary so to be exercised, in the
person of the sovereign sitting on the throne, in his right

band, and in the plenitude of the power which a sovereign
exercises, how much more necessary must they be when the
powers of the sovereign are exercised, not by one in his own
right, but by a person with the diminished powers and au-
thority of a regent. (Hear.) After some further observa-
tions, the noble and learned lord moved that the bill be read
a first time, which was agreed to nem. con. The bill was
then ordered to be read a second time on Monday.
The noble lord then moved the third reading of the admi-
nistration of justice bill, which was carried after a few words
from Lord DENMAN.

The grammar-schools bill and the convicted infants' edu-
cation bill were afterwaids read a second time, and the house
then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TnURSDAY.
BISHOP OF CARLISLE'S ESTATE BILL.
On the motion of Mr. KEMBLE, this bill was read a second
time; and on the question that it be committed, Mr. DUN.
COMBE rose to oppose the motion. He could not understand
why this bill had been kept back so long, and why it was to
be forced on at the present period of the session, when it was
impossible there would be time sufficient to discuss its pro-
visions in committee. Now, what was the object of the pre-
sent measure? It was to permit the sale of the estate belong-
ing to the prebend's stall in St. Paul's Cathedral, the property
of the Bishop of Carlisle. The value of that stall was £l4BO.
a year, for which the only duty to be performed by that bishop
was preaching two sermons annually. The present bishop
had granted a lease of that property, of which 274 years were
unexpired, to the city of London ; and the bill was to enable
the .sale of the whole property to the city for the sum of
£240,000., £40,000. of which was to go to the present Bishop
of Carlisle, and the remainder was to be paid to the governors
of Queen Anne's bounty ; but that amount was afterwards to
be taken out of their hands, and given to the present Bishop
of London, to be by him appropriated as he should think
proper. Now, he (Mr. Duncombe) could not see wby such
a distrust should be shown of the governors of Queen Anne's
bounty. The real secret of the bill was, that it was intended
to defeat the provisions of the ecclesiastical duties and re-
venues bill. Such being the case, he could see no reason
why the bill should be passed through the house during the
present session ; and he should therefore move, that the bill
should be committed that day tnree months.
Mr. WAKLZY seconded the motion.
Mr. KEMBLE thought that which had been stated by the
hon. member showed the necessity for its being referred to a
committee. The object of the bill was to enable the Bishop
of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury to enter into
the sale of the property to the corporation of London, anti to
apply the moner_to the endowment of churches five miles
west of St. Paul's and five miles east of Westminster ; and,
according to the provisions of the bill., the whole amount of
any endowment was not to exceed £3OO. He trusted, there-
fore, that the house would allow a bill, having such laudable
objects in view, to proceed. (Hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY said, that by this bill he was called upon to
alienate from the church a property which, when the lease
expired, would produce £47,500 per annum ; and he was
called upon to legislate upon the bill in total ignorance of all
the facts of the case. It was not fair, either to the house or
to the public,- and there was no reason_ fur such haste. At
all events, delay it till next session, and, during the recess,
members might have an opportunity of making themselves
acquainted with all facts relating to the property. It ap-
peared to him to be an unjust proposal ; and even if the bill
went into committee, it was impossible that it could pass
during the present session. Why should not the property be
put up to public auction. He was aware that £200,000
was
to be paid as the purchase money ; but they were sacrificing
an income of £47,000 for one of only £7,000. He trusted
the house would agree not to proceed with the bill during the
present session.
Mr. FRESHFIELD said, it was true that the property would
produce an income of £47,500 at the end of 274 years • but
that would be only provided, that some party had such a' n in-
terest in the property as to keep it in good repair. He would
assure the house, that there was no improvidence in the bar-
gain, nor would the church suffer any damage ; for the full
present money value of the whole property was to be paid
down. Members voting for the amendment would do so be-
cause of the want of information, yet they would take the
only means to prevent it from being supplied. There was
plenty of time for the consideration of the case, and he trusted
the house would refer the bill to a committee.
Sir R. INGLIS said, the fact was that, if the present Bishop
of Carlisle should live so long as 274 years, he would lose
£47,000 a year ; but, unless they identified him with the
church, the church would remain unaffected by the bill.
Captain PECHELL asked the right hon. baronet to consent
to the postponement of the present bill, until they had ascer-
tained what was the feeling of the house with regard to the
Farnham Rectory Bill. It appeared to him, that, the Bishop
of Carlisle not being a consenting party to the bill, more time
should he given for inquiring into its details.
Mr. DARBY said it appeared to him that the Farnham
Rectory Bill was based upon a totally different principle from
the present measure. _

Sir S. LUSHINGTON was also of opinion that the bill
differed essentially from the Farnham Rectory Bill. He
confessed that he had some difficulty in believing that the
present was by any means an advantageous bargain for the
church. He did not, however, mean to vote for the amend-
ment of his hon. friend, because he thought the objections
which had been urged could be just as satisfactorily discussed
in committee. He thought it extremely injudicious to give
up public property to the amount of £17,000 per annum for
the sake of a sum of £200,000, more especially when he con-
sidered that it twenty-seven years that property would be
worth £1,200,000. It was not wise, in his opinion, to make
such a sacrifice.
Mr. GOULBURN said he should vote for going into com-
mittee on much the same grounds as the hon. member for
the Tower Hamlets. He had over-estimated the future
value of the property ; but lie concurred with him, that the
bill should go into committee. The house then divided, and
the'numbers were—For the motion, 85 ; for tilt amendment,
11; majority, 74.
The report of the committee on the Shrewsbury and
Holyhead Road Bill was brought up.