The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-12 00:00:00

I IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 11.
Their Lordships met at Five o'Clock.
Lord SANDON appearedat the bar with a message from
the Commons, praying their Lordships to tvlow the
Earl of Fortescue to attend and give evidence before
the Postage Committee of the House of Commons.—
Leave given.

Messengers from the Commons brought up several
Bills.

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition against
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill; also petitions in favour of
the Bill. The Noble Lord took that opportunity of
complaining that copies of the evidence taken before the
Committee on Gaming had not been circulated generally.
The copies had only been circulated amongst the mem-
bers of the Committee.
Earl FITZHARDINGE presented a petition from
Gloucester against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition in favour of the
Bill. The Noble Lord took that opportunity of alluding
to a rumour which had gained ground, that many Noble
Lords had changed their opinion on the subject of this
Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW said he had been originally
opposed to the Bill, but as it had passed both Houses of
Parliament, he did not feel justified in attempting to
throw it out upon the amendments which had been
made by the Commons. A somewhat noisy conversation
then ensued upon the subject, during which several
Noble Peers attempted to speak at the same time. The
petition was ultimately laid on the table.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL presented several
petitions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT presented a petition from Man-
chester in favour of the Bill.
Lord FOLEY presented two petitions against the
Bill. The Noble Lord said he did not concur in the
prayer of the petitions.
• Earl FOR TESCUE presented similar petitions.
SEES OF ST. ASAPH. AND BANGOR BILL.
Earl POWIS then rose, and said that it was his in-
tention to withdraw this Bill, in consequence of the report
of the Committee which had been appointed on this subject
being against him. He had also since the last discussion
upon this Bill, been in communication with the Noble
Duke near him (Wellington),-as -to-whether it was likely
that her Majesty's consent would be obtained for the pass-
ing of this Bill. The answer of the Noble Duke was that
such consent would not be given ; and, under these cir-
cumstances, he (Earl Powis) felt constrained to adopt
the course which he had just intimated to their Lordships.
The Bishop of SALISBURY recommended her Ma-
jesty's Government to reconsider this question. He very
much regretted that the Noble Earl had been compelled
to withdraw this Bill, for he felt that if it had been
passed it would have been found to be a very beneficial
measure. He trusted, however, that the Government
would in the next session of Parliament introduce a Bill
themselves upon this subject.
The Earl of MOUNTEDGECUMBE regretted that a
decision of a majority of that House had been put aside
in a manner by which the majority on the second reading
of this Bill bad been rendered ineffectual. He felt that
it would not be more for the benefit of the country than
her Majesty's Government if _they were to re-consider
this subject, and render it unnecessary for the Noble
Earl to bring in his Bill again in the next session of
Parliament.
The Duke of WELLINGTON defended the course
which had been taken by her Majesty's Government.
He contended that the repeal of the union of the sees
of St. Asaph and Bangor would cut away the foundation
of all those Acts which were passed in 6 and 7 Wm. IV.,
upon the recommendation contained in the report of
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. By these Acts
certain powers were granted to her Majesty, and there-
fore the present Bill materially affected her Majesty's
prerogative. Her Majesty had, therefore, not been ad-
vised to give her consent to this Bill. It was Ithe
duty of the Ministers of the Crown to abstain from ad-
vising her Majesty to give her consent to a measure
when they believed that that measure would not be
condusive to the public good.
The Bishop of SALISBURY having explained,
Lord LYTTELTON said that the meaning of the
consent of the Crown, was the consent of her Majesty's
Government to the discussion of this Bill. He thought
it would only have been a matter of courtesy to his
Noble Friend, wbo had introduced this Bill, for the Go-
vernment, to have given the consent of the Crown to the
measure. He thought the Government were not justified
in the course they had taken.
Lord PROUGHAM. defended the course which had
I been adopted by the Government. There were certain
Bills for Parliament to discuss; to which the consent of
the Crown, by a rule of Parliament, it was necessary to
obtain. This Bill now under their Lordships' conside-
ration was one of those Bills, and therefore it was the
duty of the Government, if they thought fit, to interfere
when a discussion of the measure was brought forward,
and they could do this at any stage of the Bill.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that this was
the first instance in which the consent of the Crown had
been withheld for the purpose of preventing their Lord-
ships passing a Bill. He said that the consent of the
Crown in this case had been refused, because the con-
stituents of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were
favourable to this Bill, for if the Bill had gone down to
the other House, it would have been rather inconvenient
for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to vote against it.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE repelled this imputation, and
said that, if *hat the Noble Marquis had stated was
correct, then that Noble Marquis knew more about the
intentions of the Government than he (Lord Wham
cliffe) did.

Lord MONTEAGLE was of opinion that the Go-
vernment were justified in the course they had taken..
The Bishop of BANGOR expressed his regret that
the Noble Earl had been compelled to withdraw this
Bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON briefly explained.
Lord CAMPBELL blamed the Government for al-
lowing the Bill to be read a second time before they in-
terfered; and withheld the consent of the Crown.
The Bill was then withdrawn.
DISMISSAL OF MR. O'DRISCOLL.
Earl FORTESCUE postponed his motion relative to
the dismissal of I‘fr. O'Driscoll till Tuesday next.
PAUPER LUNATICS (IRELAND.)
Lord MONTEAGLE then rose to call the attention
of the House to the state of the pauper lunatics in Ire-
land. It was a common practice, he said, in that coun-
try, to commit pauper lunatics to rison in order to their
being kept in safe custody. -He thought it was the duty
of the Government to establish a central asylum for lu-
natics in Ireland, similar to that which existed in this
country. Under the present system both criminal lu-
natics, and lunatics who were guiltless of any crime,were
all herded together, and the manner in which they were
treated was anything but what it ought to be. He
contenderl that it was in the power of the Government
to remedy the evils which had been so loudly com-
plained of, and it was with this object that he
had taken the liberty of bringing the subject
under the consideration of their Lordships. Huma-
nity called upon them to take this subject, into
their serious consideration. He asked for nothing more
than was at present done in England; and in doing this,
they would be only carrying out the recommendations of
a Committee which had been appointed to investigate
the subject. He could not conclude without expressing
the regret he felt for the loss of his lamented friend,
Lord Fitzgerald. Had Providence spared him to the
country, he (Lord Monteagle) would not have been
under the necessity of bringing this subject under the
consideration of their Lordships. He trusted, however,
that, out of respect to the memory of that Noble Lord,
his colleagues would now adopt the suggestion which
he (Lord Monteagle) was about to make, which was,
that an address be presented to her Majesty, praying
that she would be pleased to give directions that steps
might be taken to ameliorate the condition of the pauper
lunatics in Ireland.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE apprehended that, in order
to carry out the recommendation of the Noble Lord, an
Act of Parliament would be necessary. He however
would take an opportunity of consulting the Chancellor
of the Exchequer on the subject, and he could assure the
Noble Lord that everything which they could con-
sistently do would be done by the Government to meet
the Noble Lord's wishes.

Lord MONTEAGLE, in reply said, that everything
was provided for by the Acts which were already in
existence, and the only thing that was now necessary,
was a disposition on the part of the Government to carry
out the provisions of the existing Acts.
The address was put, and negatived without a division.
The Bills on the table were then advanced a stage,
and their Lordships adjourned.