The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-30 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(ThsTBRDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
Lard SOMERS took the oaths and his seat.
CHURCH RATES.

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition against
the total abolition of church rates.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a number of petitions
in favour of the abolition of church rates. He wag in
favour of the abolition of church rates without any sub-
stitute. _ _ _

A number of petitions both for and against church
rates were presented by other noble lords and right rev
prelates

MIDDLE CLASS EDUCATION.

Lord EBURY presented petitions from Kensington
and other places, praying for improvement in middle
class education, and also against church rates.
THE DIVORCE LAW,
_

The Bishop of OXFORD presented petitions praying
fnr a revision of the divorce law.
VICTORIA STATION AND PIMLICO RAILWAY
BILL.

The Earl of DONOUG H MORE moved that the First
Commissioner of Public Works should have liberty to
• appear .by counsel before the select committee on the
said bill. It was necessary the First Commissioner
should be heard, because if the railway was carried
across the river near Chelsea-bridge it would interfere
with public property that ought to be protected.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said the Chief
Commiiisioner stood in the same position as a private
individual in this matter. When the bill was intro-
duced in the other house, the Chief Commissioner ex-
pressed his concurrence in the scheme, and it was not
until he was precluded by the forms of the other house
from interfering that he bad !petitioned this house.} He
hoped their herdships would not assent to the motion.
If the bill wets thrown over the session they might not
be able again to obtain the assent of the interested
parties on such favourable terms. The course
now proposed was a most unusual one. The Chief Com-
missioner would have an opportunity of showing on the
third reading of the bill that the place where it was pro-
posed to carry- the railway across the Thames would
materially injure public property.
The Earl of HARDWICKE considered her; Ma-
jesty's Goverument were justified in making the
motion before the house. Their only desire was to
protect the interests of the public. It was a matter
of great public interest, and he hoped their lord•
ships would agree to it. By adopting the - motion
they would not be establishing a bad precedent for future
legislation under similar circumstancee.
• Lord REDESDALE considered it desirable the Chief
Commissioner should be heard before the committee
and the points at issue, relative to the mode of
carrying the railway across the Thames, and its interfer-
ence with th e Crown lands, fullydiecuesed and considered.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE opposed the mo-
tion. The opposition to the scheme originated from a
change of Ministry, and a desire on the part of the pre-
sent Chief Commissioner to review the decision of the
previous Chief Commissioner on this subject. It was
an unusual proceeding, and one that ought not to have
emanated from the Government.
The. Earl of MALMESBURY said that if the First
Commissioner was refused a bearing on the bill, the
Government would be disposed to recommend that the
royal assent should be withheld. The word " veto" was
not the proper term to apply to the case. The late
First Commissioner had not seen the plans, the present
Commissioner had,rand he was of opinion that the ex-
penditure on Chelsea-bridge would be thrown away if
that plan wag not modified.
The-Earl of WICKLOW said that no sufficient rea-
sons bad been rbown to induce their lordships to depart
from their usual rule. All the circumstances were known
to Sir B. Hall, tiian whom no man in the office of First
Commissioner had conferred greater benefit on the
public. (Hear,) The companies promoting this bill
had incurred enormous expense ; and if the bill were
now defeated, it was probable the public would be per-
manently deprived ofthe advantage which it would afford.
Earl GRANVILLIT said, if the, Government was
determined to rsf.iee tba consent of the Crown, which
must be given to the bill at some stage, there was an end
of the question.
Lord REDESDALE said he was only anxious to
ascertain what was the relsation of the Crown to the
property in question.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said that the late
Chief Commissioner hal been informed that he might
petition, if he thought proper; taut be had not thought
it necessary to do so. The case slow made against the
bill was the most frivolous that cesaild be imagined.
Lord REDESDALE said that file land of Battersea-
park bad been bought by a grant of public money, and
was vested in some form or other in file Board of Works.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY was understood
to deny this, and to say that the assort of the Crone
was not necessary to the progress of the bill.
After a conversation,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was necessary
that a legal opinion should be obtained as to the rights
of the .Crown: He had bad no previous notice that the
question maul I he raised, or he sbotild have been pre-
pared to advise the house. lie would therefore suggest
an adjournment of the discussion.
After a few words !rani Lord CRANWORTH,
The Earl of DONOUGUMORE consented to an ad-
journment until Thursday.
LEASES AND SALES OF. SETTLED ESTATES
ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord CRAN WORTH moved the second reading of
this bill. His of jest was to remedy a defect in the act
passed two years ago 'with reference to married women
residing abroad, and as to other matters of detail.
After a f w words from Lord ST. LEW/ARDS the bill
was read a second time.
COUNTY MANAGEMENT DILL.
Earl STRADBP.OKE moved the second reading' of
this bill, and gave some explanation of its provisions.
The bill was read a second time.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
This bill was passed through committee proforma.
INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
Loid BROUGHAM, at the request of the Earl of
Malmeebery, postponed the second reading of this bi:l
till Monday next.
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES
BILL.
This bill passed through committee proforma.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND THE LAW OF
SEQUESTRATIONS.

Lord ST. LEONA RDS asked the Archbishop of Can-
terbury
_Whether he intended to introduce a bill for im-
proving church discipline and the law of sequestration 4,
with a view to deter incumbents from getting into-debt,
and neroonn from advancing money to them on loan on,
the L i ‘d 'sr thc.rn unreasonable
credit, and to compel aa—tl.uwati;l it r•
form their duties although their livings are under se-
questration I
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY felt greatly obliged
to the noble and learned lord for bringing f,)rward this
subject, because it gave him an opportunity of making a
statement which he had for some time been anxious to

make. The bench of bishops bad long been aware
of the evils to which the noble and learned lord bad re-

'erred, and they had taken great pains to devise means
for amending the law. They had hoped to be able to lay
a measure on the table of their lordships' house, but they
had been informed that under the present circumstances
of the session there would be very little chance of pass-
ing such a bill. They had, therefore, contented thein•
selves with laying the measure before her Majesty's Go-
vernment, in the hope that early next session it would be
submitted to Parliament, and would receive the sanction
of their lordships and of the other house. The right rev.
prelates proposed that when a livir was sequestrated,
and the clergyman had absented himself, a more adequate
stipetad should be allowed the curate, and that he sheuld
also sicquire a right to the parsonac,,o house. (afar.) Next
session he should feel greatly obliged to the reads and
learned lord if he would afford his valuable aid with a
view to improve the measure ty; much as possible.
The Bishop of LINCOLN defended the right rev.
bench from any blame in reference to the cause of se-
questration. If a eleig,yinan would but reside in his
parish, his living might be sequestrated, but in the case
cuopheed. the-living was already under sequestration.
Lord ST. LEONAUDS said 'his object vas to compel
residence by monition or by some other means.
The Bishop of LlNCOLN—Suppose he will not
anmer to the monition ?

10dtiT.:1,142.-ON.Aftitheil power shon!d be given
to take tie living away from him.

„ .
Lord REDESDA LE said, when this qussti3n wag
mocged before, Liu toads a suagestion which he woul•t

novi'repca', namely, that if a clergyman had Bo mih-
coudiicteil himself that be inuld no longer live in his
pariah with advan',.4gs to his parishionere, his living
should be taken away from him altogether,
Bishop of °Luca ESL'ER. observed that be hai
on two occasions proAecnted clergymen and obtained

convictions, but he had not been able to procure a severer
sentence then suspension for two years in one instance and
three years in the other, though in the one case the clergy•
man was convicted of habitual intemperance and immo-
rality, and in the other of repeated acts of adultery.
Such cases were happily very rare, but when they did
occur the bishop should have the power, which he bad
not now, of deprivation.
Their lordships then adjourned.