The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-18 00:00:00

The Law of Libel Act Amendment Bill was committed
pro forma, and was reported with amendments to the
house.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

The Eastern Union Railway Bill was read a third time
and pasted.
The Market Harborough and Coventry Roads Bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
Lord AsEILKY and other members presented numerous
against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.
Sir R. PEEL, in reply to Mr. P. Borthwick, said the
British government had received a communication from
Don Carlos, who stated his object was the tranquilization
of Spain. The proposal of Don Carlos was, that if his
proposition was agreed to, viz., the marriage of his eldest
son with the Queen of Spain, he (Don Carlos) would
make certain concessions. As regarded his own rights,
these concessions, however, were not clearly pointed out.
The British government were content with forwarding
these communications to the government of Spain, with-
out expressing any opinion as to whether they were likely
or not to quiet the public mind in Spain, the government
of that country were the best judges.
Mr. I'. BORTIIWICK considered the answers of the right
hon. baronet were not satisfactory, therefore he should
proceed with the motion of which he had given notice.
On the order of the day being read for going into com-
mittee on the Sugar Duties Bill,
Mr. EWART rose and brought forward a resolution to
reduce the duty on foreign sugar to the same rate of duty
as colonial sugar.
Mr. GOULBORN excused himself from dealing with this
motion at any length, on the ground that this proposal
had been so often discussed on former occasions. He ad-
mitted that, it the revenue would allow it, a very large re-
duction of the sugar duties would be desirable, but not an
entire withdrawal of protection by the equalisation of all
the duties on that article.
On a division, Mr. Ewart's motion was defeated by a
Majority of 259 to 56.
The Dissenters' Chapel Bill went through committee
pro forma, and was ordered to be recommitted on Thurs-
day.

The Joint Stock Company's Bills were read a second
time.

After some discussion on the Vestries in Churches
Bill it was ordered to stand over for the present, in order
that the parishes of England might learn the nature of the
measure, and have the opportunity of expressing opinions
upon it.

HOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY.
The Earl of Pow's, after presenting a great number of
petitions against the union of the sees of Bangor and St.
Asaph, moved the second reading of the bill which he
had introduced, to repeal so much of the act of 1836 as
provided for the union of those sees. The noble earl
having urged the unanimity of the vast number of peti-
tions presented to the House, and the universal feeling of
the clergy of North Wales in favour of his proposition,
proceeded to answer the objections he anticipated. It
might, he said, be called inconsistent to repeal part of an
Act so lately passed ; but then it would be worse than in-
consistent not to repeal it, if it were found to work a great
evil. But he had a precedent for his motion. Within a
short time after the oriiinal Act was passed-, it was thought
desirable to repeal so much of it as related to the union of
the see of Sodor and Man with the see of Carlisle. Why,
then, should that which had been granted to the entreaties
of the inhabitants of the Isle of Man be refused to the en-
trecies of the clergy and inhabitants of North Wales?
The great increase of the population in Wales, the extent
of the surface over which the bishop would have to ;xer-
cise his spiritual functions, and the natural difficulties of
the country. were all potent arguments against the pro-
posed union of the sees.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, on the part of the govern-
ment, opposed the bill. ' The arguments used by Lord
Powis, he said. might be very good against the Act of
1836, but now that the Act was in operation, and that the
orders in council consequent of it had been promulgated,
it would eaibarass the Government and her Majesty in
council, if a bill to repeal part of this Act were to be
passed into a law. His Grace continued :—" The orders
in council were made in 1838, six years ago, and the
orders having been duly registered as required by the Act,
Loy noble friend now comes for a repeal of the Act, which
is the foundation of all those measures. My noble friend
has argued the question as if nothing had been done, and
as if we had now to consider whether these sees should be
united or not; but if he comes forward to repeal the act
uniting the sees, on which are founded the other measures
under the order in council, he ought, at least, to have
provided all the means and machinery for which the orders
in council, under the authority of the Act of Parlia eat,
have made provisions; but on these points my noble
friend and his bill are entirely silent. The Act, however,
and the orders in council, provide not only for the pecuni-
ary means, but also for the political situation of the new
Bishops of Ripon and Manchester. It provides that if
two new bishops are to be appointed, two of those who
had formerly seats in this House shall be withdrawn, and
unite the sees of Bristol and Gloucester, and secondly of
St. Asaph and Bangor, thus leaving the number of bishops
in the House the same as before the passing of the Act.
My noble friend should have adverted to this, and seen
that his measure would make an organic change in the
Constitution of this House, and in the number of spiritual
peers. It makes the augmentation, but no provision in
which those bishops shall be called to take their seats in
the House ; no provision for rotation if the number
should not. be greater than at present, nor for any con-
sequences of making one more bishop. Considering the
necessity of providing for these points, I intreat yaur
lordships to remember the difficulty in which you and her
Majesty in council will be placed if you give a second
reading to this bill." The noble duke moved that the bill
be read a second time that day six months.
The Bishop of BANGOR warmly supported the bill.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY admitted that the
feelings of the clergy and laity of Wales were in favour of
this measure ; but argued that the opinions of the commis-
sioners were against it, and against the expediency of
maintaining the sees separate. The most reverend prelate
opposed the bill.
The Bishop of St. DAVID'S charged the Government
with want of regard to the grievances of the Welsh people.
He knew that representations made to the Government
previous to the recent disturbances in Wales had been
discharged, and the principality now felt the bitter effects
of that discharge. The Church in Wales was labouring
under the effects of that general disregard.
The Earl of WINC FIELSEA warmly supported the bill.
The Bishop of LONDON opposed the bill, on the ground
that, if carried, it would endanger the creation of the new
see of Manchester.
The Bishop of EXETER supported the bill, and argued,
that it was in committee on the bill that the inconveni-
ences mentioned by the Duke of Wellington, and the fu-
ture provision for the B shop of Manchester would have
to be considered.

The Bishop of SALISBURY adduced his own personal
experience as an instance of the mischief and disappoint-
ment attending the unions of sees. lie had, he said, the
misfortune of having cast upon him the duty of two dio-
ceses; most unwillingly he had been induced by the
example of those, to whose judgement and experience he
felt great deference was due, and by a supposed state of
necessity in the Church, for which he had been told no
other remedy could he found, to undertake the care of
another diocese in addition to that which properly belonged
to him. Now. he could assert, that the union he was
concerned with had given satisfaction to no man, and least
of all to himself. The burden of it distracted his attention
from the duties of his own peculiar diocese : it over-
weighed his spirits, and it broke his health. He had
earnestly desired to be relieved from that burden, but for
that relief he had petitioned in vain. The clergymen of
his own diocese might well complain that a portion of
their care and superntendence which were due to them had
been diverted from them ; and those of the other diocese
deeply felt, he knew, that they were deprived of the care
and oversight of a bishop residing amongst themselves.
The right reverend prelate assured the government that,
by rejecting this measure, they would greatly shock the
feelings, disappoint the hopes, and shakethe confidence of
those who were the firmest friends of the Church.
Greatly would the Church rejoice—exclaimed the right
rev. prelate—to see a government strong not only in finan-
cial resources, not only in its success in both Houses of
Parliament, but strong also in those higher attributes
which attached to the Government the affections of the
people. Greatly would the Church rejoice to see an .ad-
ministration strong in that faith, which can trust for a
blessing on all religious questions ; strong in that
.hope;
which can . animate to meet diffieulties ; and strong ib
that enlarged charity for the sell',, of men, which would
make them* to be a statesman's duty, to bring reli-
gion honveieirthe dnors or the people, and that the offi-
ciencver thi‘Ctlutelaof Christ was the only sure founda-
tion alike of social order and eternal peace..,
The Etta IrAnikoN;vni.j.
Their LOttrshiPs supported the bill.
For the second rkahtio.t.gee. ! ;•
For the Dnke.of 49
Majority .82tainst ,a,liMendment 37
• a *-10,TFoinent: —l2 The bill *is read'a second-time, .. '
HOUSE OF CONIMpft."-tuiu,,,,y
Mr. Boarriwl4 moved for a select
,coeepiltee' to in-
quire into the operation of *the Anatomy Aet. .bet,,t,ha
motion *as resisted by Sir J. Graham, and refused
a division.
Mr. WARD then brought on his annual motion for a
committee of the whole house on the temporalities of the
Irish Church.
Lord
.obServed uppn the vagueness of this pro-
posal for
,a •committee; by , which the hon mover had
evaded.the making of any specific proposal whatever upon
the imphrtant,sutject of this motion. He quoted the
declar.tions'of many distinguished advocates of the Ro-
man Catholics against the disturbance of the Protestant

The adjourned debate on the Church Temporalities of
Ireland was resumed. After one or two members had
spoken,
Sir J. GRAHAM remarked that the thin attendance
and the apathy of the few members who did attend were
a justification of the praise given to the mover as a man
who manifestly outstripped the spirit of the age. The
subject of the Roman Catholic oath was irrelevant to this
debate; and he would only observe upon that oath, that
he considered its construction to be matter for each mem-
ber's individual conscience. With respect to the imme-
diate matter of discussion—the Irish church, the govern-
ment had endeavoured to purify it, but, in its purified
state, were resolved to uphold it with their utmost
strength: It was asked, would you, if there was no Irish
Protestant church in existence, create now such a church
as this ? That question was not an applicable one in the
case of a nation's ancient institutions. He would not say
that the union precluded all changes in the temporalities
of the church; but his opinion was, that such changes
should be made, not with a view to weaken, but to con-
firm the establishment. On this ground it was that he
had been a party to the removal of sinecures and other
abuses ; but he would not be a party to reductions which
should carry away the church property to uses not con-
nected with the church. As to Sir C. Napier's threat of
mischief from hostile steamers, it was an injustice to the
loyalty of the Irish Roman Catholics; a sure way of nul-
lifying any danger in the Channel would be to place the
gallant admiral himself in command there. The assumed
analogy between the unions with Ireland and with Scot-
land was an inaccurate one ; for the religion established
in Scotland was not only that of the majority of the Scotch
people, but had been that of the Scotch legislature ;
whereas the religion of the majority in Ireland was one in
which the Irish legislature did not participate. The go-
vernment had been reminded in this debate that they had
promised to remove all substantial grievances and to effect
all safe improvement in Ireland. He believed the now
pending measure respecting the registration of Irish
electors to be a measure of this beneficial character.
He had the same impression with respect to the
pending Municipal Bill, which, mutatis mutandis, was
that of. England. Then as to the facilitation of a ROman
Catholic endowment ; on that subject a bill was prepared,
would be forthwith introduced, and was intended to be
passed in the present session. Moreover, it was the de-
sign of government to increase the vote for religious edu-
cation in Ireland. All these were legitimate boons. But
this proposal to take away the property of the Irish
church, whether for the endowment of the Roman Catho-
lics or for secular purposes, was one which, iii his:opi-
nion, justice, honour, and policy alike forbade, and which
the government was determined firmly to resist.
Lord Jotter RuSSELL pointed to the present excitement
of Ireland, and the flourishing exchequer of the Repeaters,
as strong reasons for the present motion. From the
speech of Mr. Shaw it might have been supposed that he
was speaking of a' Protestant church in the midst Of a
Protestant people; but even if all its abuses were ad-
mitted to be in a course of extinction, still there remained
the argument that the whole state provision for religion
was in the hands of only one-tenth of the people. He was
surprised at the high ground of adherence to the Union
Act now taken by Sir J. Graham, who had been a party
to a bill taking away £300,000 from the Irish church.
Sir R. Peel had used more moderate language as to the
extent in which the Union Act should be considered as
obligatory at the present day. He would next inquire,
whether the Protestant church now answered the proper
purposes of an establishment so completely that no change
could fitly be made in it? His own view of an establish-
ment was, that it should give the means of instruction to
the people. As the state punished the people's offences,
it was bound to teach them how to avoid offending. For
the diseases of the body, the patient suffering pain would
seek relief of his own accord; but the diseases of his im-
mortal part being usually unfelt by him, the remedy was
not spontaneously sought, and consequently those were
the cases in which the state was especially bound to inter-
po e for his preservation. Besides, where the religious
teacher was dependent wholly on his congregation he had
an inducement to flatter their vices; and to that cause
might be traced the guilty support which was given to
slavery by religious teachers in the United States. Poll •
tically, too, it was inexpedient that the teachers of religion
should have an interest to side with the people against the
state. How important an object was it, therefore, to en-
gage the Roman Catholic clergy on the side of the state,
by some provision which should make them in some de-
gree independent of .their flocks! There were 217 Irish
parishes without a single Protestant; and what duties
connected with the s,atc could the pastors of such pa-
rishes have to perform ? The church might he called the
eyes of the social body; but you would scarce think it ex-
pedient, for the sake of having six eyes, to give up the
arms and the legs. It was no argument to sav that dif-
ferent supporters of this motion had different plans ; that
was equally the case among those who made the first
movements towards the reform of Parliament; hut all had
agreed in the fitness of such a reform, and finally in the
manner of effecting it. The dangers of war were now
treated lightly ; but experience had shown that such dan-
gers, when they actually arrived, had brought concession
with them. True, the Irish people were yet loyal; but
when they should see that you imposed upon them what
no other nation in Europe submits to, the warmest loyalty
might cool. While you refused to apply to Ireland the
rule which you apply to England and to Scotand the dis-
contetit of Ireland vvas a justifiable one. Proceed, then,
into committee, and there consider what terms the wor-
thy bishops and clergy of Roman Catholic Ireland will
agree to. Until you have done that, you have no right to
say you have done justice to Ireland.
Sir R. PEEL said, that having in the last, and again in
the present session stated his opinions upon the subject,
he regretted to be under the necessity of repeating them
now; hut he should rot shrink from such a repetition in
the official position which he held. Lord J. liusseli had
not stated the principle which he would adopt in the pro-
posed committee; but lie had said that which would trad
to a conclusion that the Roman Catholic religion must be-
come the established one in Ireland ; for he had treated
the discontent in that country as justifiable' unless the
same rule were applied to it which was applieel to Scotland
and to England. Sir R. Peel reminded the house of the
extreme opinions professed on former occasions by Mr.
Ward, and cautioned them against going into this com-
mittee, unless prepared to carry those opinions into ef-
fect. He admitted that he had treated the Act of Union
as not absolutely binding under all circumstances and at
all hazards, but he had also stated that its spirit was not
to be departed from without a strong necessity. He
quoted a speech of Mr. Plunket, the authorised advocate
of the Roman Catholics in their suit for emancipation, in
which speech Mr. Plunket had expressly pledged h mself
that emancipation was riot to involve any hostile attempt
upon the church establishment, and had insisted upon the
distinction in principle between the Irish and Scottish
unions. He had himself, when he introduced the Relief
Bill of 1829, relied on the understanding that the inte-
grity of the Irish church was to be preserved ; no other
intention or impression had been entertained by Mr. Pitt
at the time of the union ; and it was roost dangerous that
these great compacts and mutual understandings should
be lightly rescinded. He did not believe that the reli-
gious animosities of Ireland were generated by the exist-
ence of the Church establishment, or would be removed
by its extinction. Very recently, on the Dissenters' Cha-
pels Bill, he had found much greater animosity between
different sects of Dissenters than between Dissenters and
the Established Church. But if a change in the Church
of Ireland were necessary for the removal of religious
animosity, what sort of a change was it to be? In a church
establishment there ought to be a control by the state
over the church ; but the Roman Catholics refused to
permit the state's intervention at all. They would not
accept a public provision for themselves ,• and so they
claimed that a public provision should not be allowed to
the Protestants, but that the fund should be transferred
to secular purposes. Surely that was no very reasonable
demand. Again, how was equality to be arranged with
respect to the seats of • bishops in the House of Lords ?
and was there to be also an equal or a proportional
of the churches of Ireland between the two sects ?
When Lord Althorp introduced the bill for the abolition
of ten bishoprics, it was hailed by the
thatßefor merswith'de
light; yet now, only ten years afterlarge reform,
harsher language was used than when the whole was un-
reformed. His refusal to enter into this committee was
not because he wished to avoid any useful correction of
non-residence, or of any other still remaining abus6, for'
in such corrections he was ready to persevere; but he op-
'posed the motiora because he was satisfied that the Church
ought to be maintained, and that to,go into committee
-would be only to countenance delusion.
Mr. SgEir. desired, to know what course was to be:
taken respecting Mayoooth, about which -nothing had
been said. Surely,the :government would not be so:-dis.:
ilgPnuOUSas to, offer an endowment -to the clergy -which''they knew the clergy would,refuse, and to withhold an
endowment from Maynooth which'-they knew that Map-'nooth woutd . accept? Yet the -government had )been-
wholly silent on this important point. In Sir R. Peel's
adrininistiation of 1834 a bill•was:brought in taking 25 per
cent. froin the church,-,and giVing it to the landlords.
That was no ecclesiastical purpose. (Mr. SHAW said it
was an allowance.) The right ham gentleman called it
an allowance; he would call it a consscationi; but call it'
by whatever name, :it would • smell as sweet to the land-
lord,- and as offensive ter the parson. - He blamed Sir J.
Graham, fur having -thrown- out an intimation that- to
touch theJrish Church would be to- endanger all (Witt,'
Irish property ; . that was the excitement of an unfair pre
judice—Of a, false alarm--it Ties -the' invocation of the
ghost of Cromwell to mount guard upon the ministerial
camp. He drew a parallel between the Canadian clergy
reserves and the Irish Protestant-Church. There was no
express mention of the temporalities of the Church in the
Irish:Act of, Union r- while in the Canadian constitution
the reserves bad been expressly guarded ;- yet, under the
popular pressure of necessity the sanctity of the reserves
was given up by Lord Sydenham. What he now asked