HC Deb 25 May 1843 vol 69 cc853-5
Mr. V. Smith

wished to ask the noble Lord, whether any divisions had taken place in the legislative assembly of Canada upon the resolution to impose a duty of 3s. per quarter on American wheat? and also what was the noble Lord's authority for stating that the resolution referred to had the unanimous approbation of the legislative assembly.

Lord Stanley

said, the hon. Member for Montrose had already referred him to some divisions which had taken place on the 29tb of September last, with respect to the duty on American corn, and had read some extracts from a Canadian newspaper on the subject. But he bad at that moment copies of the journals of the House of Assembly before him, and he could find no mention of the divisions to which the hon. Member referred. There had, however, been a division upon a motion to lay an additional tax upon agricultural produce coming from America. That motion was negatived. There had also been a division on the question that the bill should not pass until a corresponding measure should have passed the Parliament of this country, and that motion had been negatived. There had been no division on the general principle of the bill, for the second and third reading were passed without any. He thought therefore, that he was justified in saying that the bill had the general assent of the Canadian Legislature.

SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR. Mr. Clive

I beg to ask my hon Friend the Member for Anglesea, whether he is disposed to postpone the motion of which he has given notice for this day? I am induced to put this question in consequence of a discussion that has lately taken place elsewhere, and of the opinions expressed by those deeply interested in the welfare of the church and principality, who are desirous of such postponement.

Mr. W. O. Stanley.

—In answer to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire, I can assure him I have but one common object with him—namely, the advancement of the spiritual welfare of the principality. I should be most unwilling to put myself forward in opposition to the feelings of those hon. Friends with whom I have been acting so long and so cordially; and should be most sorry to bring forward the motion that stands on the votes of the House for this evening, if it were considered that my doing so would prejudice the cause we were advocating in common- I would most willingly postpone that motion provided I could obtain some assurance from the right hon. Baronet the Prime Minister, that he will apply any surplus funds to be derived from episcopal revenues in the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor to the augmentation of poor and populous vicarages and curacies in the principality?

Sir R. Peel

wished that the hon. Member had exercised his own discretion in the matter. He wished to intimate to him that if he did exercise his own discretion, and brought forward a motion for the repeal of this act, which passed both Houses of Parliament with but little opposition, which act united the bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor,—if the hon. Member, pursuant to his notice, moved that that act be repealed, he would exercise his own discretion, and offer the motion of the hon. Member his most decided opposition. That act was proposed to the House upon the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was brought forward by the late Administration, and passed through Parliament with but little opposition, although be was aware that out of doors it had met with great opposition. With regard to the appropriation of any surplus fund which might exist in consequence of the union of the sees he could give the hon. Member no assurance. He would adhere to the declaration of Parliament with respect to the union of the sees. He could only say, if the see of Manchester were founded, and funds not originally contemplated were appropriated for its endowment, and if the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor were endowed out of the great tithes of the neighbouring parishes, he should with great reluctance see them applied to the endowment of the new bishopric of Manchester. He should reserve to himself the full power of considering whether the surplus revenue of the church ought to be first applied to the endowment and allotment of livings in North Wales.

Mr. W. O. Stanley

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, he should best consult the interest of those whom he represented by not bringing forward his motion.