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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 22.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack shortly after Five o'clock.
Messengers from the Commons brought up several
151 s, which were read a first time.
THE RAILWAY BILLS (No. II.)
Lord BROUGHAM said he saw by the Votes of tlr
other House of Parliament that the Railway Bill (No 2)
had been withdrawn, and he could conceive nothing
more ridiculous and laughable than the course Govern-
ment had pursued with respect to that measure.
RAILWAY RESOLUTIONS.
The Earl of DEVON called the attention of the
Rouse, as we understood, to the resolutions recently
Pasted, and the decision of a Committee which he thought
not in accordance with their spirit.
Lord BEAUMONT said that he believed he was
chairman of the Committee to which the Noble Earl had
referred, but he was perfectly unable to hear anything
Which fell from the Noble Earl in his speech, and had
therefore to labour under the disadvantage of answering
speech which he had not heard. The Noble Lord
then preceeded to refer to the conduct of the Committee
upon the Wexford Bill, as we understood, and contended
that the decision was in strict conformity with the spirit
of the resolutions recently adopted by the House, and
they had introduced amendments in conformity there-
with.

The amendments introduced into the Bill by the
Committee were then agreed to.
BATHS AND WASH-HOUSES BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL gave notice that on Monday next
he should move that the House go into Committee on
this Bill.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the
Churchwardens of the collegiate church of Manchester
Praying for an inquiry into the corporate revenues.
HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL.
The Bishop of NOitWICH presented several petitions
in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.
The Bishop of OXFORD also presented a petition
in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER, Sec., BILL.
On the order of the day for going into Committee on
this Bill being read,
The Bishop of EXETER said that it was with con•
siderable pain to himself that he felt bound to oppose the
further progress of this Bill. He was unwilling to make
motion, and would, therefore, content himself by say-
ing that the Bill did not meet with his approval in its
present state.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, with
spiritual
to the law, as it related to the appointment of
opiritual and temporal Peers,
The LORD CHANCELLOR agreed with his Noble
and Learned Friend in the opinion he had expressed
Upon the proposal of the Right Reverend Prelate.
The House then went into Committee.
On the ed clause being proposed,
,Lord REDESDALE rose to move the amendment of
Which he had given notice, namely, " And whereas
doubts may arise whether bishops of the
new sees to be established under the powers of this Act,
it.4nent,t 13' no deman
sut, it d, as of righ
nt writs of summ to
Majesty, herein
be enacted, pura to the decla ration of her
herein before recited, that until her Majesty
snail be graciously pleased to summon to Parliament
1111 bishop holding one of the said sees, no bishop
as of
that see shall be entitled to demand,
of right, a writ of summons to Parliament."
It Was always hitherto contended that where a Peerage
was conferred a right to be summoned to Parliament
as also conferred, and they had always obtained in
dCountry. except when the powers of this House were
royed by a republican Government.
The Marquis of LANSDO •VNE was understood to
ZPose the insertion of the clause. He considered that
f e spiritual Peers sat in the House under totally dif-
eetent circumstances from the temporal Peers ; in their
ease the right to the peerage did not descend from father
to son
,len as was the case with the other Peers.
6rd STANLEY thought that the mode in which this
newl4
; bishop was to be appointed was most objectionable,
'"lternuch as it would be an obstruction upon the prero-
:ative of the Crown, but it was more than this—it was
n invasion of their rights, whether spiritual or tem-
PreL—(Hear, hear.) Independently of this objection
1„. Point of principle, 'it was also objectionable with
ifsPect to those other bishops who were to be at a future
appointed. If, however, new bishops were to be
deinted he considered that they must be appointed in a
irerent mode, and under different circumstances, but
n..the plan of the Bill were carried out, many of the
err,eg talented members of the Church would be ex-
datkled from seats on the Bench. Besides establishing a
th:gerous precedent, it was seriously interfering with
ni..Drerogative of the Crown ; and he hoped, therefore,
4,,711. Lordships would pause before they rejected the
ieedment of his Noble Friend. They were called
upon
to establish Baronies without seats in that House,
111 he thought the principle was most dangerous and
8t11• restricting
Just as well might they be asked to pass a
. restricting the number of Marquises who should
bold seats in that House. The Bishops of Exeter and
sa
isbury had just as much right to seats in that House
the Marquis of Exeter or the Marquis of Salisbury,
tip• their Lordships had no legal right to deprive any
ee„4119 of a seat in that House. For these reasons he
aq,e,l'lly should give his support to the motion of his
u'"
..„"Le and Learned Friend.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the difficulty
was not whether there should be a new bishopric
heinded, but whether he should have a seat in the House.
teLad been objected to this measure as an undue in-
il:lerence with the rights of the Crown, of the Right
Prelates, and the whole of the temporal Peers be-
He was at a loss to account how these results
b'4`c,▪ follow from the passing of this Bill. Was the
Cvtlee prepared to say that every new Bishop should
b
to e a seat in the House, without regard to the numbers
appointed, or would their Lordships allow that
• Per spiritual superintendence to be afforded to the
ntrYs which was so much needed, by proper and efli-
Trt persons, who would not have a seat in that House ?
theNe, were the only two courses which he saw open for
e,l3,:ouse to adopt. He thought that the Bill was one
thol,?° met the difficulties of the whole case, and he
jght that it was one which was entitled to receive
✓ Lordships support.
The
(.543 Marquis of BUTE said that he felt reluctantly
Pkel led to oppose the further progress of the measure,
lenvue should give his support to the amendment of his
'" Friend.
_el,4ae7 Bishop of EXETER said that in his opinion the
leo° eat Bill would have the effect of placing a restraint
tie: the prerogative of the Crown, in the creation of
Thishope.
NI -9 Bishop of LONDON said as they might expect
' as one of the Commissioners appointed by her
edttsty to carry out her Majesty's recommendations
t, respect to the appointment of new bishops, to say ia
Words, he would do so. He was ready to take his
'hare in the blame which might attach to those who had
r, t,„--Petsed this Bill. His Noble and Learned Friend (the
anin7°P of Exeter) said that the right of a bishop to be
leraened to that House was created at the time of his
lov-sttlre but the right existed as well with respect to
Ong
as to old bishops. There was considerable weight
eh '4,e objections made by the Noble Lords ; but then
bebee from whom the Bill emanated had to deal with
he4ltt difficulties, and they chose what appeared to them
the best. After detailing the circumstances which
Id led to the introduction of the Bill, the Right
tTfverend Prelate proceeded to say, that he was
ith_ion that bishops, after they were ordained,
itsunld reside some years in their diocese before
4",eY came to the metropolis. There ought
t,weays to be a sufficient number of bishops to represent
, church ; but he did not think so large a number of
116 w bishops should be appointed, as many Noble Lords
seemed to suppose, because he thought that a bishop, by
the aid of archdeacons, might be enabled to accomplish
Feat good in his diocese. Upon these grounds he felt
tt his duty to support the Bill.
turd REDESDALE considered that the clause would
pro•
ve dangerous to the prerogative of the Crown, and
therefore he should vote for its rejection.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and their
c'ttips divided:—
-e'er the amendment
Against it
,
1, Majority against the amendment —3o
ef he Bishop of OXFORD then proposed the insertion
wilt clause (the purport of which did not reach the
737) which was agreed to without a division.
The Bishop of SALISBURY, on clause 3 hang pro-
.instn„' 41, oved an amendment regulating the rights and
tethelLties of the deans and chapters in connexion with
T,lll establishments of the old foundation.
sen:le Marquis of LANSDOWNE rese to state the rea-
the IVY he objected to the amendment proposed, but
equid°°le Lord spoke in so low a tone of voice that he
not be heard in the gallery.
e clause was then agreed to.
The other causes were then agreed to.
..-111:e following
Ni Bills were then read a third time:—
! Southern and Western Railway Extension (Por-
hrilington to Tullamore).
,t; and Drogheda Railway (Branch from Navan to
S• outhern
Barrhead and Neilston Direct, and Glasgow
°l,_thern Terminal Railway Amalgamation.
Miter N. Barrhead and Neilston Direct Railway.
%enthr Harbour Improvement.
ligt.er'norton and Dorchester Railway.
tr n Counties Railway (Maldon, Witham and Brain-
• " Railway purchase).
vtl
*lose* tfolk Railway (Yarmouth Extension).
Qrent Itailway (Wymondham Branch).
se estern Railway (Branch to join London and
S Z tltnqtrestern Railway at Lambeth). a4sea galley •
Railway.
bev't Railway and Harbour (Alteration near Read-
ton eto.
%d
Lichee
and Perth Railway (Inchture, Polgrave and
arh Michael Branches).
1401181 Other Bills were forwarded a stage, and their
iPs
ad'adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock.

Tit ROUSE OF COMMONS, June 22.
B,,,PEAILER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS.
side e reports on the following Bills were further con •
ket:Qtand agreed to :—Blackburn Improvement, Mar-
-4104 7,•; Chester and Holyhead Railway (Exten-
ll'e. Ho] head ; Crowland and Cowbit Washes,
tio,
"ralnage ; Inverness Harbour and Navigs.-
; Inverness Municipal and Police, Sac. Leeds
txto Thirak Railway (Eaglescliffe and Stillington
tvilibil;io2) Leeds and Thirsk Railway (Branch from
Itaieh---ruY to Northallerton, &c.) ; Leeds and Tlarsk
6a,;a7 (Harrogate and Pateley Branch, &c.) ;
Improvement ; Norwich Small Tenements ; St.
(Huntingdon)York Improvement ; Wakefield Gas;
11Itrehm an )North Midland Railway (East Riding Canals

LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
lowlillne amendments of the House of Lords to the_fol-
Q 4 Bills Were further considered, and agreed to:
Ork
J - ) Blackrock, and Passage Railway; liingsnorton,