The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

110IISE OF tv LORDS--x_ESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at 5 o'clock.

NEW PEERS.

The Bishop of CARLISLE and the Earl of SHELBURNE
took the oaths and their seats as peers of that house.
THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMY.
Tho Duke of SOMERSET asked the Secretary of
State for War whether in the appointment recently made
to the office of Commander-in Chief of the Army, her
Majesty's advisers had recommended that that appoint-
ment should be made under different circumstances than
formerly ; secondly, whether the position of the present
Commander-in• Chief in regard to the Secretary of War
was different to that of the former gallant nobleman ?
Lord PANMURE sa►d, in answer to the first ques-
tion, he begged briefly to state that no alteration what-
ever had been made in the terms of the appointment
of the present Commander-in-Chief from those of any
former appointment to the same office. In regard
to the second question. no difference whatever
had been made in the present appointment in the
relation which existed between the Secretary of State
for War and the Commander.in-Chief. He had on a
former occasion stated his opinion that in the arrange-
ments which existed between the Secretary of State and
the Commander-in• Chief the responsibility of the acts of
the Commander-in-Chief was laid upon the Secretary of
State. He made no appointments of the higher class
—staff appointments—without consulting the Secretary
of State. In touching upon this question he felt he was
only doing his duty to the late Commander-in-Chief in
expressing the deep regret which her Majesty's Govern-
ment felt at his resignation of the chief command of the
army. (Hear.) He knew of no individual who could
have filled with greater credit to himself and satisfaction
to the army and the country the responsible office of
Commander•in-Chief than the gallant nobleman whose
services in that capacity had just terminated.
Lord MELVILLE, while concurring in the tribute
paid by the noble lord to the merits of the late Com-
mander-in-Chief, joined in the general congratulation
which existed in respect to the appointment of the noble
viscount's successor. (Hear.) He, however, thought
that all military promotion should be vested exclusively
in the bands of the Commander-in-Chief, and that be
should have under his command the discipline and orga-
nisation of the army. The divided authority which existed
under the present system was greatly to be deprecated.
THE BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM
RETIREMENT BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of this bill, the object of which was to
provide retiring pensions to the Bishops of Lon-
don and Durham after the resignation of
their respective sees, took the opportunity
of passing a glowing eulogium upon the merits of the
two rev. prelates, upon their great personal liberality
and disinterestedness.

Lord REDESDALE said that when the noble and
learned lord first introduced this bill, he was
very anxious that its objects should be very
clearly defined. He, however, guarded himself
from expressing any opinion upon the principle involved,
(Hear, hear.) Having seriously given his best attention
to the subject before their lordships, he felt that
the only opinion he could arrive at was that this
was a measure which it was not expedient for their
lordships to adopt. (" Hear, hear," from Lord Derby.)
There was no precedent whatever for such a measure as
this since the time of the Reformation. Under such cir-
cumstances he thought their lordships were fully justified,
even if some delay be occasioned, in granting this relief in
pausing before they established what would for the time to
come be considered a precedent. The bill bore evidences
of having been hurriedly prepared, and he thought it
would be far better to delay passing measures which
affected the Church generally until such time as a gene-
ral measure, to apply to the whole establishment, should
be introduced. Such a course he should not object to,
but he objected to a particular measure of this kind
applicable only to two cases mentioned. (Elear, hear.)
He also objected to the sums set down as the retiring
pension as being excessive ; the smallest sum, 4,5001.,
that provided for the Bishop of Durham, was
larger than the incomes of some of the other
right rev. prelates whose incomes amounted to 4,2001.
per annum. After again stating his objection to this
bill, as it referred only te the cases mentioned therein,
the noble lord concluded by moving that it be read a
second time that day three months.
The Earl of CHICHESTER was in favour of the
bill. He perfectly agreed with the noble lord opposite
that it would be well that a general measure should be
introduced.

The Duke of CLEVELAND said such a measure
ought to have been passed long before. Had it not been
necessary in the instance of the Bishop of Bath and
Wells I Bishop Blomfield had done much and given
much for the Church. and bad received little thanks.

The Bishop of EXETER was pained to oppose the
motion—not that he objected to the retiring pension, but
he thought that the bench ought to have been consulted.
They ought to have time to examine the bill.
The Earl of DERBY would vote against the second
reading of the bill, to which he objected that it dealt ex-
ceptionally and with an individual case, in place of being
founded on a great general principle. As for the bar-
gain it was contrary to the law of England, and a most
dangerous precedent.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that none
but an enemy of the Church could desire two sees so im-
portant as London and Durham to remain vacant.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought it essential to
the Church that the power of resignation should exist.
Lord DENMAN said the wish of the country was
that this bill should be rejected.
The Bishop of OXFORD opposed the bill as untimely
and hurried.
Their lordships then divided, when the numbers were—
Content 47
Non-content 35
Majority
The bill was then read a second time.
METROPOLITAN LOCAL ACT AMENDMENT
(No. 2) BILL.

Their lordships went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1,
The Earl of MALMESBURY proposed the omission
of that part of the clause that proposed to abolish the ad-
vantages formerly possessed by property, and placed the
owners in the same position as the ordinary ratepayers.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY opposed the
amendment. ' The clause was the same as that introduced
in Sir B. Hall's Act of 1855.
The committee divided—
For the amendment 2l
Against it lB
Majority —3
The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
The remaining clauses, after some amendments, were
then agreed to, and the bill passed through committee.
ST. SEPULCHRE'S MANORS (DUBLIN) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
SHERBURN HOSPITAL.

This bill passed throuvh cemrnittee.
STOKE POGES HOSPITAL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
The Oxford Colleges Estates. Revenue (Transfer cf
Charge), Encumbered Estates (Ireland), and the Mar-
riage and Registration Bills passed through committee.
The Commons Enclosure Bill was read a second time.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE 01? COMMONS.--.-(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' Amendments to the following bills were
considered and agreed to, viz. :—Crystal Palace Com-
pany, Gloucester Gas (No. 2), Grand Junction Water,
Leeds Improvement Acts Amendment, London and
South-Western Railway (Yeovil to Exeter), and the
Thames Haven Dock and Railway.
The Perth Burgh and Harbour (No. 2) Bill was read
a third time and passed.