The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-02 00:00:00

TION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved the order of the day for
considering the amendments of the Lords to this Bill.
Mr.
I'. LENNARD objected to the first amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think the amendment was
one of any great importance, nor did be think it so objec-
tionable as the Hon. Member did.
After a short conversation Mr. T. LENNARD with,
drew his objection, and the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. H. CURTEIS objected to another of the Lords'
amendments in the 9th clause, which substituted the word
" oath" for " declaration."
Mr. HUME supported the objection.
Lord J. RUSSELL in principle certainly preferred de-
clarations to oaths ; but he was understood to support the
amendment.
Mr. HUME hoped the Noble Lord would give them
his vote against this amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the objection
a groundless one in respect to the oaths required by this Bill.
The House then divided—
For the motion
Against it 3O
Majority in favour of the Lords' amendment —.52

The amendments were agreed to down to clause 41.
Mr. CURTEIS proposed that this clause (41) should_
retain its original position in the Bill.
The House divided upon the question that the amend-
ment of the Lords be agreed to.
Ayes
Noes

Majority
The remaining amendments were agreed to.
Mr. HUME remarked that this was the proper time for
asking whether some means would not be taken to provide
for the payment of Church-rates. He thought they ought
to provide for them out of the surplus arising from tithes ; if
some such plan were not adopted dissatisfaction would be
felt by the public.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not consider this the proper
time for taking this subject into consideration.
MURDERERS' EXECUTION ACT.
Mr. AGLIONBY called the attention of the Noble
Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department to
some circumstances which had occurred with respect to this
Act. The Act received the Royal assent on the 14th July.
On the lath a man was sentenced at Winchester and exe-
cuted on the 15th. There was time for the judge to have
received notice of the Royal assent being given. In Ireland,
lie believed, the judges could have received notice on the
17th. In Clonmel two men were sentenced on the 21st,
and the next day another. In these cases the old law was
carried into effect. He wanted to know whether means
could not have been taken to have the notification of the
Royal assent being given.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL took blame to himself
for not taking care that the Bill came into operation in a
month--on the Ist of September, or some certain day after
passing the Act—instead of its being in operation the mo-
ment after it received the Royal assent.
Mr. HUME thought that the passing of the Act could
never be known in sufficient time until the present monopoly
was at an end.
Mr. AGLIONBY said it was his intention that the
Bill should come into immediate operation.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that in Winchester the
man was sentenced on the 13th, and the Act did not re-
ceive the Royal assent till the 14th. In that case the
Judge was not to be blamed. He did not know until the
Bill was printed that the Act was to come into operation,
and he desired the Under Secretary of State to have the in-
formation conveyed to the Judges as soon as possible.
COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee.
Mr. WAKLEY having moved the third reading of the
Medical Witnesses Bill, it was moved as an amendment
that the House be counted, when there appearing to be
only 39 Members present, the House adjourned at a quar-
ter to three o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, AUGUST 1.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at the usual hour.
• The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
signed by 800 persons, against the Bill for the Abolition of
Imprisonment for Debt ; also a petition against the Dis-
senters Marriages Bill.
Mr. BERN 1L and others from the Commons brought up
the Charitable Trustees Bill, the Court of Sessions (Scotland)
Bill, the Foreign Collieries Bill, and several other Bills ;
message was aso brought requesting a copy of the evidence
taken before the House of Lords on the Stafford (Borough)
Disfranchisement Bill.
Earl GREY presented a petition in favour of the Sco of
Durham Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Portsmouth in favour of a railway from Portsmouth to Lon-
don ; also a petition from the clergy of the diocese of Meath
against any further reduction in the amount of the tithes to
be paid to the Irish Clergy.
Lord TEYN H A NI presented a petition against the Poor
Laws Amendment Bill, and gave notice that next sessiou he
should move for a Committee to investigate the working of
the present system of Poor Laws.
DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY.
Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI moved the second
reading of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill.
Lord TEMPLEMORE would not object to the second
reading of the Bill, but he would feel it his duty to object
to the last clause but one of the Bill, which he conceived
to be most objectionable in its principle. He begged to
move the .introduction of a clause, the purport of which
was that the Shareholders should be prevented from pro-
ceeding with the works unless they had obtained the sanc-
tion of Mr. Verner, through whose property the line passed,
and also the sanction of the Admiralty.
The Duke of LEINSTER objected to the introduction
of such a clause. The Bill had received very general support
in its present shape, and he would not consent to any clause
the effect of which would be to suspend, at any time, the
entire operation of the Company.
Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI said there never
was a Bill which had received so large a share of public
support as the present, and it would, in his opinion, be of
very great benefit to that part of the country. The line was
32 miles long, and, because it passed through one mile of Mr.
Verner's property, their Lordships were now called upon to
sanction the introduction of a clause which would at any
time arrest the progress of the works along the entire line.
He should most decidedly oppose it.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH also opposed the
clause.
Lord TEMPLEMORE replied, and strangers were or-
dered to withdraw, but no division took place. The
clause was then added to the Bill, after which the Bill
was read a third time and passed.
PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT.
The Duke of RICHMOND moved the third reading
of the Parochial Assessment Bill.
Lord DACRE moved an amendment to the first clause,
the object of which we did not distinctly catch.
The Duke of RICHMOND opposed the amendment.
After a few words from Lord LIVERPOOL, the fur-
ther consideration of the Bill was postponed till to-morrow.
RAILWAYS.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in moving that an ad-
dress be presented to his Majesty on Railways, would observe
that the subject was one of very great importance, not only
to this country but to Ireland. The object of the prezent
motion was that a Commission should be appointed, by
whom some general report should be made upon the diffe-
rent lines of railway in Ireland, to be submited to Parliament
next session. It was most important that that report
should be made. by
competent persons, and by
the present proposition it was intended that his Ma-
jesty should authorize the Board of Works in Ire-
land to consider the various plans submitted to them,
and thus a general survey by persons best qualified for that
purpose would be made, before the particular Railway came
before their Lordships or the other House of Parlia-
ment, and made, he would add, by a competent and im-
partial Board.--(Hear, hear.) He regretted that such
a plan bad not been adopted with respect to England, as it
would have tended much to lessen the enormous expense
and protracted competition for rival lines that had lately
taken place. Ireland was as yet a virgin soil, untouched
almost by such undertakings, anti in making the present '
motion, he wished it to be distinctly understood, that how-
ever strong the recommendation of the Board might be, the

assistance of the public would stop there. The Noblo Mar-
quis then submitted his motion.
The Duke of LEINSTER expressed his gratitude to
the Noble Marquis for having brought forward such a pro-
position.
Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI cordially supported
the motion, which was then agreed to.
MARRIAGES (ENGLAND) BILL.
Upon the bringing up the report,
In clause 12,
The Bishop of EXETER moved, as an amendment, that
the words " on oath," after the word " declaration," should
be inserted.
Lord \VYNFORD moved as an amendment that the
words "affirmation in cases where the law provided that an
affirmation should be taken," should be inserted.
The amendment of Lord Wynford was agreed to will.-
out a division.
Upon clause 80,
j The Bishop of GLOUCESTER moved an amendment,
to the effect that in cases in which a caveat was entered
against the granting of a license, the superintending regis-
trar should he required to refer the matter to the regis-
trar-general.
Viscount MELBOURNE said be thought the arner,d_
ment of the Right Rev. Prelate entirely unnecessar-,.
Lord PLUNKET said that it would be suiV,ient for all
the purposes of justice that an appeal sh:ould lie from the
superintending registrar to the registrear-general:
After a few words from the ishop of HEREFORD
and the Earl of RIPON, the amendment wns postponed.
In clause 20,
Viscount 114,11.1LBOURNE rose for the purpose of mov-
ing that the words introduced into this clause in the Com-
mittee. on the motion of a Right Rev. Prelate, be struck
out, It was first proposed to allow Dissenters to celebrate
marriage according to their own customs, and that a civil
officer should attend at the ceremony to verify the contract.
This was objected to by Noble Lords opposite, and conse-
quently it became necessary to introduce a declaration for
the purpose of satisfying- the Registrar that the marriage
had been contracted. The words inserted by the Right
Rev. Prelate gave a religious character to the declare. ion.
This he (Viscount Melbdurne) undoubtedly thoufat open
to considerable objection.
Their Lordships then divided, upon the *question that the
words proposed to be omitted stand v.:ft of the Bill :
Contents
Non-contents
72
Upon our return the gallery we found
Lord PLUNY;ET proposed an amendment upon the
25th clause, to the effect that it should not be lawful to im-
peach or invalidate any marriage on the ground of the
Qilect of any forms which by this-Bill were made neces-
ary to entitle parties to receive a license or certificate.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that, as he understood
it, the object of the Noble Lord was this, that marriages
once solemnized should be good, no matter what irregularity
might have taken place.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord Plun-
ket.) Now if he (Lord Ellenborough) were to look at the
question upon principle, undoubtedly he could find no ob-
jection to it ; but he really did think that it was of so much
importance that it ought to be the subject of a separate
Bill, rather than be introduced suddenly and unexpectedly
into the present Bill.
Lord PLUNKET said by the present Bill parties might
marry by certificate ; that certificate was, however, guarded
by certain previous forms, and lie did contend that this
would be a trap to involve persons in marriages that might
be annulled if, when they introduced those new forms, they
(lid not also introduce a proviso that the neglect of those
forms, though punishable, should not have the effect of an-
nulling the marriage.
Lord WYNFORD opposed the amendment.
Lord ELLENBORO UGH would strongly recommend
to their Lordships to make this Bill in conformity with the
present law.
Lord HOLLAND contended that the principle of nul-
lity ought not to be extended further than it was carried by
the existing law.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH believed that the Bill as

then stood was precisely in conformity with the existing
law ; there could be no doubt that it was the intention of
Parliament to make it so.
Lord PLUNKET could answer the Noble Baron that
the Bill was not in conformity with the present state of the
law. Howeve ,if he found that the sense of the House
was not with him he could not take upon himself, with his
knowledge of the law on the subject, the responsibility of
pressing his amendment.
Lord LYNDHURST proposed that as they had not
seen the proposition of the Noble Lord in the Bill it
should be printed, and the Noble Lord should move it
again on the third reading, at the same time suggesting that
the different forms alluded to should be distinctly and in
terms specified in the motion.
Lord PLUNKET thanked the Noble and Learned
Lord for his suggestion, and expressed his readiness to
adopt it.
The amendment was accordingly postponed.
On clause 36 being proposed,
Lord ELLENBO ROUGH thought it desirable that
the penalties provided by the clause should be struck out.
According to the clause as it stood, if a female did not
state her age correctly, she was held liable to a very severe
penalty. Now it was well known that ladies had a par-
ticular objection to state their ages correctly, and it was
notorious that in many instances where ladies had become
the purchasers of Government annuities, they had paid
more than would otherwise he necessary, in consequence
of describing themselves to be younger than they really
were.—(A laugh.) He would propose, after the words
" touching such marriage," that the part of the clause that
provided penalties should be omitted.
The amendment was agreed to.
The other clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, and
,be House resumed.
REGISTRATION OP BIRTHS BILL.

On the motion that this Bill be a third time,
Lord WYNFORD was opposed to the principle of the
Bill. The intention of the measure was to give to the
Dissenters a better mode of registration. To that he had
no objection, but he did not wish that this should be ac-
complished in a manner that would subject the members
of the Church of England to inconvenience and expense.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII moved some supplementary
clauses, which were agreed to, after which the Bill was read
a third time and passed.
THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL.
The Order of the Day for going into Committee on the
Established Church Bill having been read,
Lord LYNDHURST perfectly approved of the ap-
pointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission. However,
there was a point on which he was anxious to say a few
words, though he was not prepared to offer any amendment
respecting it. He alluded to the abolition of the bishopric
of Sodor and Man as an independent bishopric, and its
junction with the see of Carlisle. The situation of the
Bishops of Sodor and Man was peculiar, and different from
that of other Bishops. The Bishop was a member of the
legislative body and of the executive government of the
island. He was, moreover, cx officio, principal trustee of
the charitable institutions there. The abolition of this see
was decidedly against the feelings of the inhabitants of the
island, and he would therefore express a hope that the
bishopric of Sodor and Man would be excepted from the
general alterations proposed by this Bill.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER fully concurred ist 11
that had been said by the Noble and Learned Lord.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY defended the
course taken by the Church Commissioners. They did not
think, considering that there were only eighteen parishes in
the island, that the number was sufficient, according to the
principle they applied, to constitute a distinct see.
Lord LYNDHURST, with all possible deference to
the Commissioners, did not think that the case of the Isle
of Man was analogous to that of the other bishoprics. It
was, he might almost say, a separate kingdom. It had a
separate legislature, and he did not see why they should
make it conformable with the rest of the kingdom in respect
to its bishopric, when they considered it distinct in point of
legislature.
Viscount MELBOURNE thought that the whole sub-
ject had already been fully considered, and that in conse-
quence of the fewness of the parishes, it was not thought
that the residence of a bishop would be necessary.
The Earl of RIPON did not think the Isle of Man
should be deprived of its Bishop.
Lord LYNDHURST thought that TIO sufficient reason
for the abolition of this bishopric had been' assigned. _ Lord HOLLAND belieyed that several petitions had
been presented to their Lordships' House from the Isle of
Man in favour of the proposed measure.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER was understood to deny
this, and to say that the petitions presented were for the
augmentation of the small livings, and not in reference to
their having a resident Bishop.
The Bishop of EXETER considered that it would be
most inconvenient to join the Isle of Man with the bishop-
ric of Carlisle. It would require the Bishop of Carlisle to
make one or two voyages a year to the island ; and this he
was satisfied would be incompatible with the due discharge
of his other duties.
The Marquis of LANSUOWNE contended that the
Bishop of Carlisle would be fully capable of performing all
the duties required of him.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that, at all
events, their Lordships were bound to take care that the
duties now performed by the Bishop of this island should
be properly discharged hereafter. The subject had been
fully considered by the Commissioners ; and he, for one,
was anxious to give his support to the recommendations
which they bad made, at the same time that he was desir-
ous of supporting the Church.
After some further observations from Lord LYND-