Showing 18614 results

He encloses petitions from the parish of Holyrhood and the united parishes of St Lawrence and St John, all in Southampton. He regrets that the wealth and population of these parishes render their petitions so insignificant but persuades himself that his lordship will be good enough to present them to the House.

He congratulates his lordship on the result of the division in the House of Lords. He envies his lordship's triumph and trusts that it may be regarded as complete and that his lordship will have no formidable opposition to encounter in the Commons. But that body unhappily contains such a heterogeneous collection of persons, who entertain such hostility to the Church, that one can seldom feel confident of carrying any measure which tends to strengthen her hands and to increase her hold in the affections of the people. Nevertheless, he regards his lordship's ultimate success as certain and only hopes that it will not be long delayed.

He invites his lordship and Viscount Clive to come on to Blenheim from Oxford 'after the D. C. L. Business is over'.

If his lordship's Bill comes on in committee on Monday next, he will be glad if his lordship can get him a pair-off, as he has some friends to dinner on that day. He read with great pleasure a report in the Morning Post of a short speech delivered by Lord Clive last night. 'He prides himself thereby to be worthy of being your son.'.

He wants his lordship to see the Speaker tomorrow. The House of Commons privileges are to be put forward. Lord Canterbury says that there is nothing in the question. [Marked: 'Private'.].

He desires his Grace to lay before the Queen his request that the House of Lords be notified of the Queen's permission for the Bill to prevent the reading.

A reply to No. MC2/225. He has consulted the Queen's servants but has received no authority to signify her consent and has no reason to believe that he will receive such authority. It is the opinion of some that the Bill in question ought not to have been introduced or discussed in the first instance in the House of Lords consistently with the estabilshed rules for the conduct of business in the two Houses respectively. If this opinion should be well-founded it cannot be doubted that the Queen could not with propriety be advised to signify her consent. But whether the discussion of the Bill in the first instance in the House of Lords is or is not a breach of the admitted privileges of the House of Commons, there can be no doubt that its provisions affect the prerogatives of the Crown and the state of the Church of England and it has always been considered that such Bills ought to receive the consent of the Sovereign in the course of the discussion upon them in the House of Lords. He does not propose to consult the House of Lords on the discretion of referring this Bill to a committee or to give his lordship further trouble upon it unless some alteration should be made which would render it necessary for him to draw the attention of the House of Lords to it. MC2/227. [1844, June] 29. C[onnop Thirlwall], Bishop of St. Davids, Abergwili to the Earl of Powis. He encloses his proxy and hopes that his lordship will not need it. He begs that his lordship will make use of his speech. He only regrets that he did not enter more fully into some parts of the subject on which he is afraid that he hardly made himself understood. It is very pleasant to see that the original ground on which his lordship's Bill was opposed has been virtually at least entirely abandoned.

He hopes to be at his lordship's house on Monday in order to learn what course his lordship proposes to take. His own opinion is that while on the one hand it would not be advisable to take a strong course, such as a motion for an address to the Crown, it would on the other not be well to drop the matter 'sub silentio' or without a clear expression of opinion 'both as to this mode of preventing the progress of the measure and that this is not to be its final termination'.

That thanks be given to the Rt Hon. the Earl of Powis and the Rt Rev. the lord Bishop of St Davids 'for their able and manly support and advocacy in Parliament of the Continuance as separate Bishopricks of the Diocesses of Bangor and Saint Asaph and of the existing Church Establishment of Wales by which they have evinced their sincere regard for the National Feelings and best Interests of an ancient, religious and loyal people'. Copy. MC2/230. 1844, July 5. Baron Willoughby de Broke, Compton Verney, to the Earl of Powis. He has left his proxy with Lord Redesdale on condition that it is used in favour of the Bangor and St Asaph Bill. He was sorry that he could not stay longer in London personally to attend the Bill through the House of Lords.

The statement made by Lord Vivian last Monday that the people of North Wales are indifferent about the union of the sees of St Asaph and Bangor is not the truth. Petitions to both Houses of Parliament against the union were taken from house to house in Ruthin 'that none might feel hurt at being passed over'. They were signed by the principal supporters or 'heads' of the various sects of Dissenters and by their congregations generally. Many of them expressed in rather strong language their opinion of the injustice of the proposed union. The petitions were not promoted by an order from the bishop of the diocese or of the rural dean of the district. He has ventured to intrude upon his lordship from a sense. Of duty to the Church which he has been taught to love and cherish and also from an earnest desire that the cause which his lordship has so kindly and so warmly undertaken should not be inspired by either unfair or uninformed reports.

There are some singular incidents connected with the late debates on his lordship's Bill which may have escaped his lordship's attention. Every syllable uttered by Lord Monteagle is to be found in a memorial to the Queen from the clergy of North Wales. He does not agree with the principle of appropriation involved in his lordship's Bill but is driven to inquire why nothing was done for the Welsh parochial clergy by the Government and Commission of which Lord Monteagle was a distinguished member. Had the surplus funds of the sees of North Wales been appropriated when Lord Monteagle was in power his lordship's Bill could not have been introduced with even a show of reason. It is remarkable that, while Lord Monteagle speaks of the claims of the Welsh parochial clergy the Duke of Wellington speaks of the claims of the sees of Manchester, Llandaff, and St Davids. 'This I suppose is the difference between the powers that were and the powers that be', for they never succeeded in obtaining a pledge from the late Government that they would do what Lord Montague says ought to be done, that is, that they would apply the surplus to improve the prospects of the parochial clergy. They had every reason to believe until the period of the last dissolution that the plan of the late Government, that is, to apply the fund to augment the see of Manchester or of Llandaff or of St Davids, had continued unaltered; in fact, their views seemed to be the same as those now held by the Duke of Wellington. His lordship ought not to feel annoyed or discouraged should the Bill be defeated by the aid of the royal prerogative. So extraordinary an exercise of power cannot fail to strengthen the sympathy of the country with the claims of the dioceses of North Wales. The Government probably will, after taking such a step, never consent to the separation of the two sees. But in order to reconcile the Welsh to the refusal of their claims and also to reconcile the country generally to so unusual a mode of procedure he believes they will feel themselves compelled to make very large and liberal concessions to the Church in North Wales. The memorial to which he alludes is published in his pamphlet entitled Statistical Illustrations of the Claims of the Welsh Dioceses. He does not perceive that either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London, who have belonged to the Ecclesiastical Commission under both Governments, have given any intimation of opinion that this fund should be applied for the benefit of the parochial clergy of North Wales.

He encloses No. MC2/229.

He acknowledges the receipt of his lordship's letter and regrets that in his letter of the 5th instant [No. MC2/231] he omitted to state that his lordship was at liberty to use its contents in the House of Lords or elsewhere. Lord Vivian's speech was calculated to mislead those noble Lords who were ignorant of the feelings of the inhabitants of North Wales. To speak in the mildest terms of that speech he ventures to remark that it savoured more of a spirit of hostility to the Church than of a desire to promote the best interests of the Welsh people, 'who have already too much uphill work before them, and need not so dire a calamity as that contemplated by the Act of Par't your lordship desires to repeal'.

He desires to know what course his lordship has decided upon with respect to his lordship's suspended Bill. He takes it to be very desirable to avoid a risk of reversing, by a division upon the merits of the Bill, the favourable decision of the House pronounced upon the second reading. There are two modes of escaping that danger. One would be to resume the debate and motion for third reading, saying that after that stage were passed his lordship would not move that the Bill 'do pass' until the Royal consent had been signified. This would leave aside all question of the matter of the Bill and would leave his lordship free afterwards to move an address to the Crown or to make, without any motion, an appeal to the Government and a remonstrance upon their conduct. The other course would be to adjourn the debate and to move, or give notice of, an address to the Crown. If his lordship made such a motion and it were defeated his lordship might thereupon decline to proceed with the Bill, while the effect of the judgement of the House upon it would remain unimpaired by that defeat. He hears that some bishops and peers object to an address as being 'disrespectful' to the Crown. This is surely a strange mistake. He feels that the Bill, his lordship, and the House have not been treated fairly. The Ministers caught up L[or]d M[oun]teagle's suggestion too hastily and indiscreetly. They have mooted a question very embarrassing to the House and are now making an improper and dangerous use of a privilege not belonging but usually conceded to the Crown, merely for their convenience. The passing of his lordship's Bill cannot affect any scheme of their policy or injure any part of the community. And it cannot be unreasonable to change under altered circumstances a plan adopted some years ago under a then apparent necessity.

Has his lordship thought of moving an address to the Queen, praying that she would be graciously pleased to grant her royal assent to the measure which, on his lordship's motion, has all but passed the Upper House? He cannot but think that his lordship must carry it. It will embarrass the Ministry, of course, but there are higher objects than pleasing them.

He fears that this year they cannot do much but still he hardly thinks that the Government can resist on account of the Queen's consent alone. Tuesday will show them what they have to expect. His opinion is that eventually the Irish proposition will be adhered to, that is, Manchester endowed from other sources and the surplus on the union of St Asaph and Bangor given to the poorer vicarages. He must oppose a repeal of the Act of Union if it is to leave the revenues and bishoprics as they are.

He has no authority to receive the Queen's assent to the discussion of the Repeal Bill. Should a motion be made that the Bill do pass, he must oppose it.

A reply to No. MC2/233. He requests him to convey to the Court of Quarter Sessions his grateful thanks for this mark of their attention and support. It is the countenance of such bodies that induces him ultimately to look forward to a favourable result, notwithstanding the power and high character of his opponents. Draft.

He thanks his lordshp for informing him of the decision of the Committee of the House of Lords. He must own that, in common with the great majority there, he cannot but lament the probable fate of his lordship's exertions. He must, however, at the same time admit that the position of the Ministry in the matter is a very difficult and delicate one.

He encloses a list of thirty-five peers who voted in favour of the second reading of his lordship's Bill. He sent Lord Kenyon a list of the pairs on the evening of the division. He thinks that there were ten or eleven of them. He has only included seven bishops, but ten voted in favour of the Bill and Lord Kenyon is more likely than any man to let his lordship know who were the other three. He desires to know how his lordship intends to vote on Monday as his lordship holds the proxies of two very good friends. He hopes his lordship will support the measure, as his lordship's brother did in the other House and as he thinks that all who read the arguments on both sides in debate without prejudice must feel themselves called upon to do.