The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-22 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMN lONS- ..TEDNESDAY.

On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM the house went into
committee on the Episcopal Functions Bill, which pro-
vides for the performance of the episcopal functions in any
diocese, when the bishop, from bodily or mental infirmity,
is rendered incapable of attending to his duties.
On clause 7 being proposed, Lord CLIVE moved its
omission. He thought the power of issue or nominating
the commission, in case of either of the archbishops,
should be given to the archbishop of the other province,
instead of to the Lord Chancellor. The power, if taken
from the Church, was likely to be used for political pur-

poses.
Dr. NICHOLL supported the clause, and held that there
were ,efficient checks against abuse. The patronage pro-
perly belonged to the crown.
Lord CLIVE said, his objection was not to the composi-
tion of the commission, but that the power of appointing
and nominating it was given to other than ecclesiastical
authority. He must, therefore, divide against the clause.
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the clause......
Against it..
Majority
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the bill.

Mr. HAWES objected to making the bishop a member
of the Court of Appeal in temporal matters. It was most
undesirable to mix up judicial with ecclesiastical functions.
Sir J. GRAHAM contended most strenuously for the
supremacy of the crown over all ecclesiastical matters.
In conformity with the principle of the Church Discipline
Act, although it was not desirable to enlarge the power of
the bishops in matters temporal, yet in matters spiritual—
and spiritual matters were here involved—there was not
only no objection, but it was highly proper that they
should have jurisdiction as a Court of Appeal in the last
resort.
The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
A discussion ensued on the question that the house
should resolve itself into committee on the Chelsea Pen-
sioners Bill. Ultimately it went into committee, and a
debate took place as to the period for which it was to con-
tinue in operation, the government proposing it as a per-
manent measure, while Mr. Hume and other hon. members
contended that its duration should be limited to three or
five years. On a division, the proposal for limiting the
operation of the bill to five years was negatived by a ma-
jority of 76 to 33. A second proposition to limit its du-
ration to five years and six months was also rejected by a
majority of 82 to 14.
Mr. HUME declared that he would give no further op-
position to the bill, though his opinion respecting it re-
mained unchanged.
In reply to a question from Mr. Ewart, Sir J. GRAHAM
said, that though the government had no present plan of
education, yet they would turn their attention to the sub-
ject during the recess.
Mr. CHRISTIE moved the committee on the Defama-
tion and Libel Bill, stating, at some length, its provisions
to the house.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the Bill contained
provisions to which he was opposed, because they appeared
to him to be carrying them back.to the barbarous severi-
ties of the old law before it was ameliorated by public
opinion. He was, however, willing to adopt anything in
the bill which was an improvement in the existing law,
especially that permitting the plea of truth in cases of
criminal information.
The various clauses were, afterAlliossion, agreed to,
and the house soon after adjourned.