The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T

ROUSE OF LORDS, AUGUST 4.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at the usual hour.

The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from the
Bishop of Sodor and Man against the annexation of that
see to that of Carlisle. The petitioner had been in posses-
sion of the bishopric for ten years, had discharged the duties
which devolved on him in an exemplary manner, and was
now prompted to make this application to their Lordships
from a regard for the interests of his successors, as he was
himself now advanced in years, and could not be disturbed
during his lifetime.
Lord STRAFFORD presented a petition in favour of
the Charitable Trusts Bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
from Manchester, in favour of the Beer Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND informed their Lordships
that, with respect to the Poor-Rate Bill, there were amend-
ments proposed which were worthy of attention, and he
should, therefore, postpone the consideration of the subject
until Monday. _ .

Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition against one
of the clauses in the Municipal Corporations Act.
The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition in
favour of the Charitable Trusts Bill.
The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition
from Finglas, in Ireland, complaining that that district
contained 400 Protestant inhabitants ; and upon their ap-
plying for 450/. i❑ order to repair the church, they re-
ceived an answer that the Commissioners had not funds
sufficient to supply half the demands upon them for such
objects. He should be glad to know where the Noble
Viscount's (Melbourne) surplus was to be found, if such
claims as that which he had stated could not be satisfied.
After a few words from Lord HATHERTON, which
could not be heard with distinctness in the gallery,

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE observed, that he
had passed by the church in question, and from its appear-
ance he should say it was capable of containing 400 per-
sons. When the Noble Earl (Haddington) taunted those
at his side of the House with there being no surplus, and
founded that taunt upon the alleged fact, that in one
parish of Ireland a church was in want of repair, he
begged to remind the Noble Earl that his opposition was
against the extent of the whole establishment being greater
than the want of those connected with it. He should
like to know also how many policemen there were in that
parish ?
Lord FITZGERALD said that the fact of a number
of the inhabitants of a parish being policemen did not do
away with the necessity of providing them with a fit place
for religious worship ; particularly when it was considered
that their being policemen was prima facie evidence of
their good conduct and respectability of character. He
bore testimony, from his knowledge of the reception which
similar applications from other parishes met with, of the
justness of the complaint made by the petitioners, as to the
refusal of the commissioners to comply with their request
from their want of means to enable them to do so.'

The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that in his
parish the windows were actually falling out of the church
for want of repair, and they could not procure any assis-
tance from the Commissioners.

The petition was laid on the table.
BRIGHTON RAILWAY BILL.

The Duke of RICHMOND, in moving that the report
on the Bill be received, asked their Lordships whether,
after a Committee had sat upon the subject for fifty days
in the House of Commons, and it had also been inquired
into by a Committee of their Lordships, which sat for
eighteen days from ten in the morning until the time at
which the House met, after an examination and cross-ex-
amination on behalf of every one of these lines, and after
having given the fullest inquiry to the matters brought
before it, was it right that that Committee, instead of re-
porting their opinion on the Bill, should shirk the question,
and move as an amendment on the second resolution,
that it was inexpedient to proceed with it any further ?
Now, their Lordships would see that the great advantage
of this decision to the opposing lines was, that it enabled
them to concentrate against Stephenson's line the oppo-
sition of all those Peers who were favourable to either of
the other lines. But it was said that the speculators in this
instance had no right to complain. In his opinion they had
a fair ground for complaint ; for, if there were not private
individuals to come forward to promote works of the greatest
magnitude and benefit with their capital, the Government
of this country, like those of other countries, would be
driven to apply for disbursements from the public purse to
promote works of essential value to the community. This
Company had a right to call on their Lordships, and he
thought they had a right to say which of these lines was the
best. But was it the Company whose rights he was advo-
cating? No ; but those of the community. Did they
think that persons of substantial capital would come for-
ward on these speculations if they were subject to an ex-
pense of 100,0001., and after such an outlay were told by
the House of Lords, " We can't make up our minds on
the subject of your Bill." Was it of no importance also
that the landowners between the Metropolis and the town of
Brighton should be kept in a state of suspense with regard to
a work so important to them and the public, and that a wide
field should be opened to every little pettifogging attorneyin
this town or out of it, to come forward and issue prospectuses
of the great advantages which would flow from adopting
their respective lines ? Would it be any satisfaction to
those whose capital might be lost in such speculations that
a Committee of the House of Lords not having done their
duty was the cause of their misfortune ? The Committee
might have said that Stephenson's line was not the best that
could be found, if proper search were made. That would
have been intelligible and fair ; but by the course which
they had adopted they collected, in opposition to Stephen-
son's line, the vote of those Peers whose opinions were in
favour of either of the other lines He warned their Lord-
ships against allowing the Committees of that House; which
had hitherto maintained a high character in the opinion of
the country, to fall into disrepute ; an event which, if it did
arise, would do more to shake the existence of their Lord-
ships' House than any line of conduct which could be pur-
sued by them.—( Hear, hear.)
The Duke of CUMBERLAND believed that no two
Peers of the Committee could form an opinion as to which
of the four lines was the best. He did not mean to commit

himself by expressing his approval or disapproval of any of
the four lines; but be agreed with the decision of the Com-
mittee. As to a canvass of voters he knew nothing of it,
and never countenanced such a proceeding.
The Earl of ABINGDON supported the view of the
Committee.
After a few words from Lords MONSON and WHARN-
CLIFFE,
ENGLISH TITHE BILL.—CONFERENCE.

Lord J. RUSSELL and others appeared at the Bar, and
requested a Conference with their Lordships on the subject
of certain amendments in the Commutation of Tithes
(England and Wales) Bill.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDO WNE, the
Conference was agreed to, and the Managers of the Con-
ference appointed, namely—the Lord President, the Lord
Privy Seal, the Earl of Albemarle, Lord Say and Scale,
the Earl of Minto, Lord Falkland, and the Bishop of
Hereford, who forthwith withdrew to committee-room No.
5, where the Conference was appointed to take place.
On the return of the Noble Managers of the Conference,
The LORD PRESIDENT announced that. the Com-
mons had agreed to some of their Lordships' amendments,
and disagreed from others, for which they had given their
reasons, which the Noble Marquis then read. On the
motion of the same Noble Lord, the reasons were then
ordered to be printed, and to be taken into consideration
to-morrow.