The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-09 00:00:00

SAtURDAY. JULY 9, 1536.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY EL

The House was engaged till half-past five 04cidok iti
hearing. Counsel upon the Stafford Disfranehir;enient
The further hearing df the matter waA postponed till I.Ved-
nesday at ten o'clock;
The CotinSdl dripdsingr the Oil' dpPlied that the, liottse
should send a message to the dorrinlorii; d§iiirig that the
Attorney-General might have leave to attend and give evia
dence at the bar.

The Swansea Harbour, Murderers' Execution, and other
Bills were brought up from the Commons.
MARRIAGE BILL.

Mr. WILKS and others brought up a message re-
questing their Lordships to strike out a clause in the
Marriage Act which had been retained in the Bill, though
it had been ordered to be struck out.
Lord MELBOURNE cited a case in 1797, and one
in 1823, of a similar nature. He thought the proper
course would be to expunge the proviso, and have it
printed without it, and communicate that to the Commons.
Lord ELLEN BOROUGH thought that it would be
a bad precedent for them to interfere with the Bill.
Lord HATHERTON thought the proposition of the
Noble Viscount was the proper one for adoption.
Earl SHAFTESBURY said the more proper course
would be for the Commons to ask that the Bill be sent
back again.
After a short conversation between several Noble Lords,
Lord MELBOURNE moved that the proceedings
already had, on the Marriage Bill, be annulled—that the
proviso alluded to. be struck out. The motions were agreed
to, and the Bill was again read a first time.
CHURCH PATRONAGE.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH moved for a copy of
a petition which had been presented to the Crown,
through the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
relative to the Church patronage, which was now vested in
the Crown, the former possessors of it having been
Roman Catholics. There was much of the patronage in
Ireland in the hands of the Crown—it having been named
trustee of the persons who could not nominate to
the livings. The descendants of the former possessors
were in many cases Protestants, and according to the Act
the livings should now be restored. The petitioners
had been led to expect that they would have had an answer
before this time, but it appeared as if they were not to get
one. It was for the honour of the Crown that the matter
should be inquired into, and he hoped the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government would take steps for its immediate
settlement.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH did not think the matter
rested either with the Crown or with the Secretary of
State. If the persons who signed the petition thought
they had a case of hardship to show, it was their duty to
lay it before the Legislature—they ought to bring in a
Bill and endeavour to pass it.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought it was a
matter which rested entirely with the Crown, which was a
mere trustee for those persons who were the descendants
of Catholics.

After a few words from the Bishop of EXETER, and
the Duke of CUMBERLAND,
The question was put, and the motion agreed to.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.

On the motion of the LORI) CHANCELLOR the
Bill was recommitted.

Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to, and clauses 3,4, and
5 were postponed, on the suggestion of the Bishop of
EXETER.

Clauses 6,7, 8, and 9, were agreed to, and clause 10
postponed.
The Bishop of EXETER wished to propose to their
Lordships a clause of ()Teat importance. The Bill as it
at present stood was defective in one material particular,
viz., that it afforded no encouragement to the prosecution of
those cases in which prosecutions ought to be instituted ;
nay," rather contained a provision which went to discourage
those prosecutions, because it was provided that no person
should be allowed to institute a prosecution against any
clergyman unless ha would submit to enter into a bond of
1001. He spoke from experience when he said that the
difficulty of procuring voluntary prosecution was at present
almost insuperable ; and undoubtedly the expenses must
always be such as would deter individuals from prosecuting.
He begged to propose a clause to the effect—that after any
suit should have been commenced, if the party should be
unable effectually to prosecute his charge, by reason of the
expenses attending that prosecution, the Bishop may ap-
point an Archdeacon to carry on the prosecution, and bear
all the lawful charges ; and that such Archdeacon should
report to the Bishop a true account of all expenses so in-
curred, deducting therefrom any costs which may have
been allowed to him in the cause ; and that the Bishop
shall subscribe an order to refund those expenses, ad-
dressed either to the Governors of Queen Anne's bounty,
or any other treasurer of the revenues of suppressed sine-
cures in the diocese ; and that, after the production of
such order, such treasurer be directed to pay out the sums
from one of the said funds. _ _

Lord WYNFORD expressed his approbation of the
clause.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was afraid, by that
clause, that all the proceedings in every case would ulti-
mately fall upon that fund. The clause was in opposition
to the principle of law, that the prosecutor was responsible
for the propriety of the proceedings.
The Bishop of EXETER was far from being bigoted to
his own plan ; but he was confident that, unless some
means were devised to shield prosecutors from the neces-
sary expenses, there would be an end to the discipline of
the Church.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said it was very
desirable that some means should be devised of defraying
the expenses, when really a prosecution was required, and
the case was one of a trying nature ; but, according to the
amendment first proposed, there would not be a single
cause found in which the expenses were not paid out of the
fund. Now, he should be sorry to divert the fund alluded
to, which was intended for the increase of small livings, to
any other purposes ; for by adopting that. whilst they were
doing good to the Church in one way, they would be im-
peding one of the very great purposes for which the Church
Commission was intended.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested that some clause
might be founded upon the principle of the Rev. Prelate's
amendment, and might be proposed for insertion upon the
third reading.
The Bishop of EXETER then withdrew his proposition.
Clause 11 was then agreed to.
Clause 12 was struck out.
Clause 12, with a verbal amendment, was agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Upon clause 15, which enacts that the trial shall be be-
fore a jury of nine clergymen,
The Bishop of EXETER proposed that the number of
Clergymen should be four, which he considered quite suf-
ficient.

Lord WYNFORD should prefer twelve, but was pre-
pared to concur in the recommendation of the Right Rev.
Prelate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was in favour of the
clause as it at present stood.
After some further conversation, it was agreed that the
jury should consist of seven clergymen, and that the con-
sent of five shonld be necessary to convict.

The clause, so amended, was then agreed to.
The Bishop of EXETER proposed an amendment
which would have the effect of taking cases of heresy out of
the jurisdiction of the tribunal, as constituted by the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that would be
contrary to the whole scheme of the Bill.
The amendment was not pressed.
Clause 17 was postponed.
Clauses 25 and 26 were withdrawn, for the purpose of
substituting others.
The other clauses were agreed to.—Report on Monday.
Adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS. JuLr 8.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
GREENWICH PIER BILL.

On the motion of Mr. ANGERSTEIN the above Bill
was read a third time.
A clause was proposed to be added by way of rider.

Mr. Alderman WOOD complained that it would abolish
those rights of the Lord Mayor which he held as Conser-
vator of the River. The clause enacted that the in-
habitants might have power to do certain things, if they
had leave from the Admiralty, which could not now
be (lone without the authority and consent of the Lord
Mayor. Such an attempt was made about fifty years ago,
but then the Admiralty failed in showing that they had
any right over the Thames at all. He hoped the clause
would be postponed, to give time for some communications
with the Admiralty, in order to have the matter settled
without the loss of the Bill.

Mr. C. WOOD said that the only objection he had to
this Bill was that it interfered with the rights of the Ad-
miralty. The same objection had been made to the
Gravesend Pier Bill ; but the parties, to obviate the objec-
tion, submitted to have a clause inserted in the Bill which
preserved the rights of the Admiralty, and he had no ob-
jection to the present Bill passing if a similar clause were
inserted. The only wish which the Admiralty had was,
that a clause might be introduced into the Bill to limit the
building of the pier in such a way as should be approved of
by the Admiralty.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that nothing could be more
just than the insertion of a saving clause to preserve
the rights of the Admiralty on navigable rivers.
and if this Bill contained any clause that interfered
with those rights, it was proper that it should be corrected ;
but he must say that there was here a question of conflict-
ing jurisdiction, and it would be clearly unjust to introduce
a clause that would give the Admiralty a power which they

•

, did not possess at present. It would be unfortunate at
present to interfere with the question of jurisdictidti, talc n
committee was sitting to consider the subject of the Nani-
gatiori or the part of London, when the whole question of
must necessariiv fdrt?l,p4rt of the enquiry. He
edrietirt'ed his 1-ida; Friend (tithicTe!..rf Wood) that
this Bill gate. a iidWer td the Adafiralty b'y taking it
the tiorporation; which diight Otit to' be Idad.
Mr: C. WOOD could assure the Hod. IN letuliet' that
there was no such desire On the part df floe Adrriiralty:
There was nothing in the elaUse heoprepdsed to introdtke

which interfered with the power of the COrptiration.
After a few observations from Mr. ANCiERSTEIN, Mr.
BARNARD, and Mr. Ald. Wool), the further coridi,a'ration
of the clause was postponed till Monday.
HUNGERFORD AND LAMBETH SUSPEN-
SION BRIDGE.

Mr. HAWES presented a petition from certain owners

and occupiers of houses in Hungerford and Lambeth, pray-
ing the Committee might be allowed till the 25th of July to
make their report on the Hungerford and Lambeth Suspen-
sion Bridge Bill.
An HON. MEMBER opposed the extension of time. He
understood that the great majority of the landed proprietors
were opposed to the
Mr. HA WES explained that the promoters of the Bill
had been since March last in constant communication with
the landed proprietors, who would come to no conclusive
agreement with them. He denied, however, that there
was any opposition on their part. The opposition origi-
nated with a Company interested in a rival bridge. He
trusted that after the House had sanctioned the second
reading of the Bill, that no objection should now be made
to the motion.
On the suggestion of the SPEAKER, the Bill was re-
ferred to the Standing Order Committee.
On the motion of Mr. VYVYAN, the Swansea Har-
bour Bill was read a third time, and some clauses having
been added, the Bill was passed.
DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY.

- _
Mr. O'CONNELL brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on this Bill.
SOUTH CEMETERY COMPANY.

Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition against
this Bill from certain persons in Southwark.
IRISH CORPORATION REFORM.

Mr. FRENCH iresenteTla petition from Kilbride, in
the county of Roscommon, in favour of the Irish
Municipal Reform Bill, and a petition from Shank-
lin, and other places in the same county, stating
that they were grateful for the measure of Municipal Re-
form granted by this House, and that they considered the
interference of the other branch of the Legislature unjust.
The petitions also prayed for the total and unconditional
abolition of tithe.