HC Deb 25 July 1856 vol 143 cc1429-30

Bill read 3°.


condemned the clause in the Bill which restricted the time within which it should be competent for the Government to effect a readjustment of the diocese, revenues, and patronage of the see of London, to a period of three years.


explained, and defended the provision thus impugned.


said, that supposing the dowager Bishop—if he might so term him—died, and a Bill dealing with the diocese of London were introduced, and it shared the fate of so many of the noble Lord's measures—namely, was massacred among the other innocents—at the end of three years the Legislature would find this enactment an obstacle to any contemplated improvement. The power of Parliament was theoretically unlimited, so much so that De Lolme had remarked that it could do anything but convert a female child into a male one. Practically, however, the case was very different, and the objection that they were flying in the face of an Act of Parliament could always be used with effect.


observed, that, if a Bishop had held his see for a series of years, it was natural that he should think it hard on him to make an arrangement considerably curtailing his patronage and emoluments, and extensively changing his position. This clause, however, had been inserted perhaps from over caution. It was scarcely necessary, inasmuch as whoever succeeded to the see would receive his appointment on the understanding that he would be subject to any change, within reasonable limits, which Parliament might make. It was too late then to alter the clause; but supposing a Bill to be brought in, and to fail in being carried until the three years had expired, the Bishop would of course have received previous notice of the new arrangement that had been contemplated; and in any subsequent attempt at legislation this circumstance would, doubtless, be fairly considered.


suggested that the clause should be amended in the other House.

On the Motion of Mr. HENLEY, the following was inserted in lieu of the original preamble:— Whereas it is expedient to make provision for certain annual sums to be paid in case of the resignation of the Right Hon. and Right Rev. Charles James Lord Bishop of London, and the Right Rev. Edward, Lord Bishop of Durham, respectively.

Bill passed, with the Amendment.


said, that he had a remark to make on the question as to affixing the title to the Bill.


said, that this was a Lords' Bill, the title to which was never affixed by the Commons.


In that case, he would speak on the question that the Clerk take the Bill to the other House. He had a right to complain of the conduct of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) towards him. The noble Lord doubtless did not intend anything disrespectful to him, but the fact was nevertheless the same. When he (Mr. Roebuck) yesterday proposed an alteration in Committee, the noble Lord stated that he fully agreed with him, and promised that the alteration should be made on the third reading. But the Bill had now been read a third time and that promise was not fulfilled.