BILL FOR CREATING A NEW DIOCESS OF MANCHESTER.
The government brought in a bill for this purpose which excited much discussion in parliament, and much discontent in the locality more immediately interested. The second reading was proposed by Lord Lansdowne on the 7th of June. The bill also created a new archdeaconry of Liverpool, The bill proposed to exclude the new bishop from a seat in parliament. This evoked opposition from the high church party, but the success of the measure was secured by this proviso; for the opposition raised in Lancashire was so great that the government could hardly have proceeded with the bill had a seat in the House of Peers been associated with the new see. It was provided, however, that when a vacancy, by death or otherwise, occurred on the bench of bishops, the bishop of Manchester should succeed to a seat in that house. This introduced a new principle in the relations of the episcopal bench to the peerage; for a bishop would not in future have a seat in their lordships’ house as a matter of course, but would occupy his see without such privilege until a vacancy occurred.
DEBATE ON THE ANNEXATION OF CRACOW.
The annexation of Cracow to the Austrian empire has been already related in this chapter. Several allusions were made to this in the debates on the address, but on the 4th of March Mr. Hume brought the subject forward in a formal manner. Mr. Hume, however, so mixed up the subject with the Russo-Dutch loan, that his resolutions as far as regarded Cracow were impracticable, and he withdrew them after uselessly occupying the time of the house by a long debate.
There were few matters of interest connected with the remainder of the session. Lord Palmerston delivered a speech in which he animadverted so severely on the bad faith of the Spanish government, in reference to Spanish bonds, as to produce great indignation in Spain. It was supposed that the good effects of the speech, however, would be felt by those interested in the punctual disbursements of the Spanish government. That government had too little probity to meet the calls of honour, and too little shame to be moved by the disapprobation of honest men.
It was resolved by the government of Lord John Russell to advise her majesty to dissolve parliament, so that the elections might terminate before harvest; various bills were therefore postponed or abandoned.
Lord Lyndhurst had been accustomed to take a retrospective view of each session, in a speech which recapitulated the doings and misdoings of government, according to his lordship’s view of them. Lord Brougham, ambitious to do everything, even when he knew others could do it better, resolved to perform the task usually sustained by his brother ex-chancellor. The performance was inferior to that usually accomplished by the noble Baron Lyndhurst, although in declamatory force Lord Brougham’s oration was perfect. All the bills passed in the session he described as bad ones. Many of those lost or abandoned, if introduced by government, he represented as useless, and their introduction as a waste of time. Every epithet of contempt furnished by the English language, and by any other which his lordship knew, however imperfectly, was heaped upon the defunct bills. They were consigned to the shades below, to that “lean world” where—
“Ibant obseuri sola sub nocte per nmbram Perque domos Ditis vacuas et mania regna.”