The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TunatT, 'yrs 21.
Ur Low; Cawmuzios teak kin sod as 6 eclat
M 10
UG 1111CMIL
1011121101:1611, lis et Biesirm. km lasi sal abar
plum ad Ili lbsfillbsp st ban Nasal mil 'NNW
airs st issberMssksislisk. at the Mak st Twos
BM Lard Sum" Om the draiikusrsoss if Itimesaw. So
valit dis eargards sesmsi d Oa Sm.
ItssisbeAss ; Ost-Piisskasn KW-
tzsd Greenwich ; Maass at Dallas (Part Natal); Dessitois
ItStallt.—Jltsd 1= amiss; ally Oomsilsdos; Thrisplks
ikellssoss /Pk
• MID ILEADMUL--[*r4 litwq 111.11611•1 t (Leakand); r.
=of Alma; Ilewhasdiri Owasemeat; Loma Bonstles;
rnsloornal (trolisti); !midmost st Vagrants, (Ireland);

RAILWAY BUBINIBB.
Lord BROUGHAM, in postponing to railway resolutions
until Monday next, took occasion to swan his disappoint-
ment at the sudden withdrawal et the Railway Bill in the
other house of parliament. Anything more lamentable,
he might add more ridiculous, he never remembered.
PORTUGUESE AMNESTY.
The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH begged to all the atten-
tion of the government to the wording of the amnesty re-
cently issued by the Queen of PortugaL Hu reading of
that document led him to fear that it was only of a retro-
spective and not of a prospective character; thus excluding
such members of the junta as might have submitted subse-
quent to its date.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE believed the amnesty to
be full and complete ; but would have nu objection to lay it

on the table.
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER BILL.
On the order of the day for the committee on this bill,
The 'Nakao of EXETER said that he should be most
anxious to support this bill, but that there seemed to him to
be special objections to it on constitutional grounds. The
bill claimed for the sovereign the right of appointing bishops
without at the same time giving to them their writ of sum-
mons to the House of Peen. Now, according both to Lord
Coke and Sir Matthew Hale, this was a contravention of the
constitution. Having made tkis objection, he should not
take any further step, except to say, " Not content " for
going into committee.
Lord BROUGHAM was understoodto concur in the view
taken by the right rev. prelate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the bill claimed
no unconstitationel power for the crown. Nobody ques-
Mooed the right of every bishop existing to his writ of sum-
mons; but tins was a scheme for creating four new bishops
without that right, except as vasubsisi &sold occur, and the
scheme was expressly submitted M perdistrest for its appro-
bation. The crown would do nothing is the matter without
the consent of parliament.
After a few words from the Bishop of Emma the house

weTtLit,;eemtufttee.
The first clause was agreed to.
Lord REDESDALE moved the omission of the second
clause, and to substitute the following And whereas
doubts may arise whether bishops of the new sees to be
establiahed under the powers of this act may net demand as
of right writs of summons to parliament, be it there-
fore enacted, pursuant to the declaration of her Majesty
herein before recited, that until her Majesty she be
graciously pleased to summon to parliament any bishop
!miffing one of the said Nees, no bishop holding that see shall
be entitled to demand, as of right, a writ of summons to
parliament." The noble lord urged, in support of his
amendment, that the bill offered the first instance on record
of the interference by law with the rights of the peerage,
and that it was the only case in which the holders of peer-
ages by right had been excluded from their privileges by set
of parliament. The no le lord complained further, that the
bill limited the rights of the crown in respect to issuing writs
of summons. For all these reasons, he moved that the
clause be struck out of the bill.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the mere object
of the bill, as stated in the preamble, was to enable the
crown to create four new bishopric'. The amendment pro-
posed by the noble lord would totally alter the character of
the measure. The bill did not deprive the crown of any
privilege or prerogative, inasmuch as the power of issuing a
writ of summons to any one of the new bishops was com-
pletely reserved. All that the legislature proposed to
effect was, to enable the Queen to create bishops,
leaving her Majesty still the liberty to make peers of them,
if so advised. 'The crown would still continue to call to
parliament two archbishops and twenty-four bishops, in all
twanty.six spiritual peers, and the clause in question merely
prolonged the power already enjoyed on that score by the
tjueen. The spiritual peers at in that house by a different
tenure from that of any other peer ; their presence was con-
stitutionally requisite. But for the eery reason that their
peerages were not transmitted from father to son, it was
within the competence of parliament to limit and to pre-
scribe the mode now proposed for their admission into their
lordships' house. The honor would not fail to observe that
the four principal bishoprics., York, Casterbury, London,
and Durham, would still continue to send their diocesans to
parliament, notwithstanding that they might be the junior
bishops. The government had been called upon to give par-
liament security that the creation of four new bishops should
not, ipso facto, create four new peerages, and upon that en-
gagement the claim under consideration had been framed.
Lord STANLEY maid the noble and learned lord on the
woolsack, in mower to some objections made to the preamble
of the bill by hie noble and learned friend (Lord Brougham)
had just now stated, that it ha 4 no relation whatever to the
enactments or clauses of the b.'', whereas the noble marquis
had more recently asserted that the mere object of the bill
was to carry into effect the preamble. Which of these two
statements was the house to rely upon ? The noble marquis
bad insisted very much on the pledge given by the govern-
meat, that the legislature would not be called upon to
Mate spiritual peen, but he for one had never either called
for or desired each a pledge. The clause in question was the
most obj-ctionable anode of realising that pledge that oould
have been invented, for not only did it restrict the preroga-
tive of the crown, but it likewise invaded their lordehips' pri-
vileges. If it was intended hereafter to increase largely the
numbers of the bishops, the clause was objectionable, but if
the four new bishops were to be the utmost number created,
it was still more indefensible. The occupant of any one of
the new sees would be as much entitled to his writ of sum-
mons as any temporal peer, and, for the reasons he had
stated, he should cordially support the amendment of his
noble friend.
The LORD CHANCELLOR supported the clause. It
in no degree lessened the prerogative of the crown, which
would remain precisely the same after the passing of the
measure as before. As to the proposition that the clause in-
terfered with the privileges of the lay lords of parliament, he
did not at all understand this argument. There was no ex-
clusion whatever from the privileges of parliament of any
peer, either for himself or his successors. The noble lard
opposite repudiated the precedent of the Irish bishops as
applying to the present case, on the principle that this pre-
cedent went upon a compact. Why, the present case was a
compact. (Haar, hear.)
The Marquis of BUTE objected to the clause altogether.
It would create great dissatisfaction throughout England
for any of her bishops to be excluded from parliament.
The Bishop of EXETER contended that the crown,
when a new bishop was created, was at once empowered
and bound to summon him to parliament. Lord Coke dr
cared distinctly that every bishop was entitled, ex debito
Matinee, to a writ of summons to the louse of Lords. From
time immemorial all English bishdps, as bishops, had had •
fall and undoubted right to a seat in the great council of the
nation. As to the Irish bishops, however just and proper
their admission to the imperial parliament, it was to be
observed that at the time of the union Lot one of them had
en inchoate right to a seat in that parliament.
The Bishop of LONDON weighed the relative conve-
niences and inconveniences of the hill itself and the amend-
mast of the noble lord, To give the sovereign power to
summon one or all, would be exceedingly inconvenient and
•bjectiooable. What political influence would thereby be
given to the minister of the day ; and how much would not
the character of the prelate suffer who was so summoned to
vote in favour of the government on any question of dubious
pbllcy ! If there were to be any bishops out of parliament,
it was surely desirable that-these who were last appointed
should be out of parliament, in order that they might have
the earliest opportunity of residing in and becoming ac-
quainted with the clergy in their dioceses. Conceding that
any bishops were to be out of the House of Lords, he thought
this bill made choice of the best means available of meeting
the difficulty. He thought it right to add, that he was not
one of those who thought a very large increase of bishops
necessary. With a proper number of archdeacons, he be-
lieved a bishop might fulfil the duties of • very extensive
diocese, especially ir he were relieved from many of the
eeculirduties which were now thrown upon his hands.
Lord REDIBUALI having replied, their lordships divided,
For the clause—Content 44
Against it—Non-Content l4-30
On clause 3,
The Bishop of SALISBURY observed that this clause
left it a matter of doubt if the crown could endow any
deanery with mare than 1,0001. a year. He proposed words
in amendment is satisfy this doubt,
The Yammil saf LANSDOWNE opposed the amendment
as being lacanitsat with the object contemplated by the
ecclesiastical aomaimioners.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
agreed to ; alter wild& the bill pored through commit
WeLthe Mbar et DANOOa having postponed the motion of
wlialt Ye bad IOW& entice, defining the sees of St. Asaph
mad Bangor until the bringing up of the report.
Their lordships adjourned at a quarter-past eight.

HOUSE OF OOMMONB.—TOseDAT, Jutra 22.
The Bruits took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PIMPS mrsomos.
aaporri commomum.—amamma Asa
rXsat ) ;
etyk 46=1.8., • loom= art Itedga-
Yeti barons lioalsW sad So; Lehi essl Think Be&
erg gookesille red klillhi .1WI; Lob sod Mink
= Brawls tom Ifeboestay as atia., ha); Lob rot
ma Pcikkaßaldeas It g i LIAR laa•
ealloomotßlTerwhitillir= Tormasie ,• SI. toes
Weltedeld Ow•, Toth aal Gel MONA
fkrle Postoss); NIL
I.ll.llBll4os.—lfelkei Imposeemt; Odollesks__Pa#SM
rbsoillathat
)odd lesuhse 41 to the BEolmolt
rzeTmaraich;) dloalsolla GrodNarthsea
ahrdatkass betwcao Ormillokt - AIM Port
; Test mil Mama Wawa, ladka end
Ilinehis); Irno
IMIIMOOIL-41olle.leoloVAtrahresti.Leari ea.
Mossl"=:.
LsashotA Irt livsor
• tome ; mt. bra Iheal ma ma.
maw vast talatsa, la Ma +q.—ltr. Pam,. tma
Ilmseijoissootel taut Boum; ..d
18r.imattatm.ptat Mies ants auty 4111 wpm .
lIIPROVICKINT BILL.
16. Matra !Mg mimed the thhd reading of this bill,
. Mr. ROW ogisormil it au behalf of tie great majoirit7 of
a; r
;SPA

the inhabitants ef Wilk" ea amennt de loft's& par.
timmelp ami samples of the town estmsW who wool&
L^
tba power staVegibe bill We opestian, and whom
be sWmged vidi large hods rabid by that belly
ads" a Lew MIL MINEed OM the bill be road a mewl
thus that day two nesnoba.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL sommisi the astsmimant.
Lord A. CHICHBOTIR sweporlsi the bUL
Mr. DTVITT amid the aims LA hem pointed oat
te the easmodieso, mai se mmeneens law amps ; bat the
committee Pee PAL to adds wbsikair tlawy lININOtEUI
'plan of jobbing without, or boa pow abase wI 10. the
town masa itself. Belot the emsmiliee dna owe 1111
pees se the bill, and merely /41•MEll that port of it width
wrest directly to Ppm tho %wad Whet, he Loggia ft
eupperlost
might to be mertionetllly the Mese.
Mr. 8. CIIAWFOILD tbe amendment. ilis
heal know eof IMAM twilit Din to say that the bill
was not dub i Viet town.
Mr. Flamm mad Mr. M. J. O'CON-
NELL
The Zail—Perart:d reading B2
For the ammdmest l2-50
The bill was then road a ddrd time and pined

SALT MONOPOLY. -
Mr. SWART postponed the motion on this subject, of
which he had given notice, so the necessary papers were not

read . _
yNAVIGATION OF THE ST. LAWRENCE.
Sir H. DOUGLAS begged to put a question to the
right hoe. gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colo-
nies. It appeared by the papers that the Governor-General
of Canada had issued a proclamation, permitting the vessels
of the United States to peas up to Montreal, giving them the
free navigation of the St. Lawrence. He begged to know if
it was the case, and, if to, whether the measure was adopted
with a view to such an alteration in the navigation laws as
would prevent the import of the produce of the United
States in the ships of that country. in common with British
ships, a privilege which, by the navigation laws, had hitherto
been reserved to the latter?
Mr. HAWES said that no account of the proclamation
had been received ; but what had been done related only to
the smaller American yawls, and was only intended to con-
tinue during the suspension of the navigation law in the
present emergency, nor had it any reference to the general
question.
NEW ZEALAND.
Mr. V. SMITH begged to ark the right hon. gentleman
the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, whether any new ar-
rangement had been come to between the New Zealand Com-
pany and the Colonial-office, and if there had been, whether
he could explain what it war; and also whether there were
not recent despatches from Governor Grey, which it would
be expedient to lay on the table before the arrangement was
concluded?
Mr. HAWES said them had been an arrangement with
the New Zealand Company, and in a few days he should be
prepared to lay it before the house. There had also been
important and satisfactory despatches from Governor Grey,
which he would also soon produce to the house.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
Mr. HENLEY begged to ask the right hon. gentleman
the Home Secretary, whether the bill for the continuance of
theEeelesiastical Courts Bill would be soon brought in. or
what course the government intended to take ?
Sir G. GREY said the measure referred to would be
brought on in the other house in a few days.
HIGHWAYS ACT.
Mr. T. EGERTON begged to ask the right hon. gentle-
man (Mr. V. Smith) what had been done with the High-
ways Aet ?
Mr. V. SMITH said that it had been referred to a select
committee. He wished it to stand for to-morrow.
Sir G. GREY was understood to fix it for to-morrow
(this day) fortnight.
ANDOVER COMMITTEE.—EXPLANATION.

Mr. VILLIERS said that in nence of what paned
yesterday during his absence he most the house for a
moment's indulgence. If he had had the most distant notion
that it had been arranged that an order of the day was to
have been moved to enable members to discussthe Andover
Committee he would have been in his place ; but he hod no
notice of it, and he was not able to make the remarks which
he was now *limit to do. He would not have referred to the
matter if it concerned only himself, but another person was
in question, and, therefore, he asked to be allowed to refer
to it.
The SPEAKER reminded the hon. gentleman that there
was no question before the house.
Mr. VILLIERS threw himself on the indulgence of the
home. He was assuming that, in a question relating to the
personal character of a member, and when a mistake had beta
made in a statement during his absence, the house would
allow him an opportunity of explanation. He was saying
that another person was in question, and that was Sir F.
Lewis. He (Mr. Villiers) had brought forward this matter
Deems, be had received a letter from that gentleman, in
which he communicated to him a statement which was at
variance with what had been said in the house on a previous
eyeing. He said that he heard with astonishment that it
had been denied that • question had been put to
him as • witness which he had answered, and in doing
had gone into long details, and that denial was made by the
person himself who put the question. It was still the un-
person of Sir F. Lewis that that question had been put,
icr he had answered it, and entered into long and what
was thought satisfactory details. The hon. member for
Weymouth denied upon his honour that he had put the
question. It was centrary to the forms of the house to dis-
pute that assertion. It was, however, pertinent to refer to
the journals of the Louie, and, without doubting the hoe.
member's honour, he might refer to question 22,622 in the
report of the Andover Committee. It was this: " When
you ceased to be a poor-law commissioner was any arrange.
relent made with your ton who succeeded you ?" The hon.
member for Weymouth said that be explained that his object
was to ascertain if Sir F. Lewis had cautioned his son
against Mr. Chadwick. It was clear the two questions were
distant from each other, and they IMO so viewed by the
I committee and Sir F. Lewis, and he proceeded to explain
that be was no party to any arrangement. Upon this the
report went on to say that " Mr. Christie said he did not
refer to any arrangemet which might not have been made
with perfect propriety." He (Mr. Villiers) said that he had
no right to put any question with regard to an arrangement
between the father and sou, and that it was not pertinent to
any Tuition about a caution against Mr. Chadwick. That
was his original statement. There was ao question as to
whether the arrangement was proper or not, but whether
any question at all should have been put about an arrange-
ment—and the honourable member for Finsbury thought
it should have been answered. Three questions
after that, this one occurred, " When your son
succeeded you, did you caution him against Mr. Chadwick ;"
and there was no connexion between the two. He (Mr.
Villiers) had been misled by the evidence as offizially re-
ported, and to which the hon. member for Weymouth was a
party. With romped to his not having given notice that he
was about to read the evidence, he could only say that it was
not his intention to do so; but on conferring with the hon.
member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), • member of the
committee, and telling him that he had a letter from Sir F.
Lewis, he said that the homes would not receive that as a
contradiction of a statement, but that he must search
the journals to find if it was correct. He then
read the evidence. He was justified in making
the statement he did, as the private character
of Sir F. Lewis was involved, and the matter was officially
reported. The statement of the hon. member for Weymouth
last night was about clearing the room, which he (Mr. Vil-
liers) did not dispute. It was part of the arrangement last
night that some of his friends should come down to support
him.
Visct. INGESTRE rose to order—The hon. member was
going at greater length into the matter than was necessary.
He was making a debate of it, and rather attacking other
members than explaining.
The SPEAKER said the hon. member ought to confine
himself strictly to the justification of his own conduct.
Mr. VILLIERS did not refer to any member but the hon.
member for Weymouth. The conduct of that hon. member
was complained of by several witnesses, who spoke of his
tone end the character of his questions. He (Mr. Villiers)
was reedy to give up the names of those witnesses. ft.r F.
Lewis complained now, and he bad complained t 3 the chair.
man of the committee, of the manner in which be had been
trotted. Sir F. Lewis, as a former member of that house, as
a pubic officer, and considering his station in life, was en-
titled to respect. Mr. Westlake, a more humble individual,
was also entitled—(order, order)—
Mr. CHRISTIE said if ha might interpose, he would ex-
press a hope that the house would allow the hon. member to
om•
Mr. VILLIERS said he could only repent, that if the
matter affected only himself, he would not have brought it
forward.
Mr. CHRISTIE said he was satisfied from the mode in
which the hoes. yesterday revived the denial he gave to
the statement of the hon. member for Wolverhampton, and
from the testimony which was borne to his conduct by
those hon. members who saw and heard him daily, what
the feeling of the house was, and he should think it be-
neath him again to deny what he had yesterday denied on
his honour as a gentleman. (Hear.)
LEGACY DUTY.
- - - •

Dr. BO WRING said, as he saw no chance of carrying hie
motion for a select committee to inquire into illegal deten-
tion of certain sums by the Treasury, for lawny duty on
property of persons not domiciled in this country, he should
withdraw it.
COPPER DUTIES.
Mr. MUNTZ, after entering into some details connected
with the importation of copper ores and the smelting-trade
of this country, moved, pursuant to his notice, " That the
house resolve itself into a committee of customs to consider
the duties on the importation of copper, under the act 5 & 6
Vie , chap. 47, with a view to their reduction or abolition."
Mr. EWART seconded the motion, on the ground that
the duties were an import on a raw material of manufacture
which ought to be free.
Sir C. LEMON said he interposed before his right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed the house,
for the purpose of asking his right hon. friend, before he
elarated to any obeage,fif be would afford an opportunity of
!slidestooell the alas seartected with the oorgar duties,
by a West amielase eyeelein?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
Eat be bed sealed et the emessiostuent of the mica, and
be sew spreads *at lye flamer of the waft were not
is ask • eeedillea es le per hi= to reeks • aseilloe of
ray ROW retresae. Oa *ea Wads, it wee 'dime for
• wilbes• piste Ivorlee lie 'maim et pereent, to
stall Rat ha taws swept tlr metes Oder boa, amber for

kftsr-e. fee words bola Lord W. Point-rt., in opposition
to the notion,
Ye. CAREW letool to the hey sUwarmed by the hon.
bianneS WINWW (Me C. lgowla). UllaMP watjeet would be
refired to the eterileratiom of a ellen committee.
Mr. BROWN said he had no desire to embarrass the
Chaneellor of the lizehequer, but he was anxious for the