The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-12 00:00:00

.I.3IPERIAL PARLIAMENT

-4
HOUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening,

The LORD CIIA.-NCELLOR took his seat upon the woolsack
at the usual hour.

THIRD READINGS.

The following bills were read a third a time and passed :
—Dundee Churches and Hospital—Charing-eross Railway
—.Peebles Roads—Metropolitan Railway—Wrexham
Mold and Coanah Quay Railway—Londonderry and Lough
Swilly Railway—London and South Western Railway
(additional work)—Carmarthanshire Railway—Tunstall
Railway—Lynn and Sutton Bridge Railway—London and
North Western Railway (additional powers)—Corris Rail-
way or Tramroad Midland Railway (St. Pancras Branch)
—Weald of Kent Railway—and Midland Railway (Ches•-
terfield and Sheffield.)
BELFAST IMPROVEMENT BILL.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, in resuming the
adjourned debate upon this bill, went at some length into
the circumstances connected with the measure, and urged
their lordships not to read the bill a third time before the
petitioners against it had been heard before a committee.
He was unwilling to move the rejection of the bill, and
therefore he preferred moving that the bill be recommitted,
Earl GREY, as chairman of the committee to which the
bill had been referred, said the ratepayers of Belfast had
ample opportunity of appearing before the committee
and giving such evidence as they felt disposed. The
litigation between the promoters and the opposers
of the bill had gone on for over three years, and after the
decision of the arbitrators had been given it would be un-
wise to disturb the matter. He therefore opposed the

motion.
After a protracted discussion, the bill was read a third
time and passed.
TIIB BURIAL SERVICE.

Lord EBURY moved an address to her Majesty, pray-
ing for the appointment of a commission to consider what
steps should be taken to obviate the evils complained of' as
arising from the present compulsory and indiscriminate use
of the burial service of the Church of England. He made
a similar motion last year, when he had cited in favour of
his proposition a petition presented to the Episcopal bench
signed by 4,000 clergymen. In that document the peti-
tioners complained that the almost indiscriminate use of the
burial service imposed a heavy burthen upon the con-
sciences of clergymen, and was the cause of grievous scandal
to many Christian people, That petition was presented 13
years ago, but nothing had since been done. When he made
his motion last year the Archbishop of Canterbury pro-
mised to consult the bishops and clergy, and see whether
any alteration could be made in the law. In the present
session, however, the most reverend prelate had stated that
the bishops and clergy were unwilling to assent to any
change in the law ; while he guarded himself from any ex-
pression of his satisfaction at the exciting state of things.
He understood, however, that the Archbishop was willing
to assent to the appointment of a commission ; and it was
not therefore necessary for him to do more than make his
motion.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was willing to
consent to the appointment of a commission to inquire into
the best mode of obviating the evils complained of, on the
understanding that they were not to consider any alteration
in the service. He was also willing that the same com-
mission should take into consideration the reconstruction of
the table of lessons.

The Bishop of LONDON thought that it was requisite
that the subject should be dealt with, but suggested that
the house should not agree to an address, but that the
appointment of a commission should be left in the hands
of the Government. He was opposed to an alteration in
the burial service, but thought that the difficulty might
be met as it was in France, by authorising clergy men to
read the burial service under certain circumstances, or
on certain grounds. The clergy generally were indisposed
to any change, but although due respect should no doubt
be paid to their opinion, too much weight should not be
given to it. Upon the whole he would recommend the
Government to take the matter into their own hands, and
appoint a Royal commission.
Earl GRANVILLE was not prepared to pledge the
Government to appoint a commission; but he was ready to
communicate with the Archbishop of Canterbury and
Lord Ebury on the subject.
After a few words from Lord REDESDA.LE,
Lord EBURY expressed his willingness to withdraw
the motion, on the understanding that the Government
would take the subject:into consideration.

After a short conversation the motion was withdrawn.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION
;:(IRELAND.)

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for a series of
returns exhibiting the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners of Ireland, from the Ist May, 1861, to the
lst May, 1864.

PUBLIC AND REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL.
The report of the committee on this bill was brought up.
The Earl of DONOUGHNIORE objected that the till
vested the power of deciding at what hour public-houses
should be closed in corporate boroughs in the town coun-
cils and not in the magistrates. He contended that the
latter were the persons who ought to decide, and moved
an amendment vesting the discretion in their hands. He
also objected to the application of the bill to places not in-
corporated, but under the Local Government Act, and
moved the omission of the words which empowered the
governing body under that act, in any place, to fix the
hour for closing public-houses.
Earl GRANVILLE opposed the amendment.
After some conversation the house divided, when there

were
Contents
Non-contents
Majority —B
The amendment was therefore negatived.

The Earl of DONOUGHMORE then moved that the
claufe giving power to fix the hours of closing public-
houses to the town councils of corporate boroughs should
be struck out.

Earl Granville and Lord Stanley of Alderley opposed the
amendment, which was supported by Lord Egerton and
Lord Romney.

Lord BROUGHAM described the working men's dining
room recently opened in the New-cut, and entered into
various particulars with reference to the carte and the
prices of the diflerent dishes; and, amidst much laughter,
recommended their lordships to visit this establishment and
try the dinners.
The Earl of HARROWBY said that if it was right that
a licensed victualler in London should be forbidden to keep
his house open between one o'clock and four o'clock in the
morning, he did not eee why the same principle should not
be applied compulsorily to the country generally.
The house then divided, when there were—
Contentef
Non-contents
As there was thus a tie, the clause stood part of the bill.
The report was then agreed to.
The India Office Bill was read a second time.
The Life Annuities and Life Assurances Bill passed
through committee.
The Summary Procedure (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Lunacy (Scotland) Bill passed through committee.
The Thames Conservancy Bill was read a second time.
The house adjourned at 20 minutes past 7 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--Last Evening.
The SPFAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Ardroesan Harbour—Great Eastern Railway (Junctions)
—Great Eastern Railway (Metropolitan Station and Rail-
ways)—and Metropolitan Railway (Trinity Square Ex-
tension).

MEETING OF CONVOCATION.
Ur SHAW LEFETRE gave notice that on an early
day, lie would draw attention to the proceedings in Con-
vocation, and ask tho law officers of the Crown as to their
legality. _

MUTILATION OF MONUMENTS IN IRELAND.
Mr GREGORY asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland
whether be had received information of the mutilation of
ancient monuments at Clonmacnoise, in the Ring's County,
and, if so, whether the Government would prosecute the
offenders according to the provisions of the act 24 and 25
c. 39.
Sir It. PEEL said he had received no special report on
this subject, but there was no reason to doubt the accounts
which appeared in the newspapers, and instructions had
been given to the law officers to prosecute the offenders.
The act alluded to had reference to a totally different sub-
jerA, (Laughter.)

THE IRISH CHURCH..
Sir F. HEYGATE asked the hon, member for Swansea,
whether he intended to persevere with his motion on the
Irish Church during the present session of Parliament.
Mr DILLWYN said that it was too late to proceed with
such a lengthened and important inquiry this session, and
if he brought it forward it would be merely to test the
opinion of the house, while his object was to
effoct some practical result. His desire was to
ascertain if the statements on which ha founded
his views were true or not. Besides it would be most incon-
eniont for Irish gentlemen to attend Parliament at this
poriod of the session. Under all the circumstances, he
thought it would be advisable not to proceed with the sub-
ject this session, but he gave notice that on the earliest
period next session he would submit to the h'use the
same, or a similar motion, on this most important sub-
ject. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. HEYGATE strongly deprecated this subject
being kept hanging over the house from year to year.
THE TRANSFER OF LAND INLAND BILLS AND
THE CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.

In reply to Mr. MONSELL,
Mr O'HAGAN said that he would introduce the first of
these bills next week, but that he could not proceed with
the other at so advanced a period of the session. It was
his intention, however, to proceed with it early next au-
Edon.