The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-08 00:00:00

.BISIIOP6' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved the third
res.:ling of the Foreign Consecration to Office of Bishops'
Act ARI e;-dnient Bill.
The Ear. of RADNOR did not know the ground on
which the Bill had, been brought tbrward, and his present
opinion was that the measure was a most unadvised and
useless one.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that the
Bib. had been brought forward with a view to the better
reguu•tion of the congregations of English settled in
foreign countries, especially on the shores of the Medi-
terranearf.. and in the Turkish empire, and there
was one gi....‘.at safety in the Bill, which was, that
under its provisions nothing could be done with-
out the previous consent of her Majesty. He
(the Archbishop of Canterbury), before he brought
in the Bill. had consulted the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, and several other persons well ac-
quainted with the subject, all of whom were of opinion
that the provisions of the Bill would be attended with
the best results.
The Earl of RADNOR could not see the necessity
or cause for such a Bill; it was in truth the enlargement
of a Bill passed in the reign of George the Third, and it
assume(' that it was' unlawful for the Archbishop of
other countries. to consecrate Bishops without license
from the Crown, He knew that such a thing was
criminal in this country, but he did not seo why
that should also be the case in other countries.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY said, that
rnanypersons learned in the law had stated, that, as the
law at present stood, it was liab?e' to great doubt ; and he
was sure the Noble Earl would aot insist that he (the
Archbishop of Canterbury) should participate in any
act that was liable to the construction of illegality.
The Earl of RADNOR had no wish to oppose the
passing or the Bill, but it appeared to him altogether un-
necessary.
Tbe Bill was then read a third time and passecL
-ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL
_ .

On the motion of Lord COTTENHAM the Admi-
nistration of Justice Bill was read a third time; and on
;the question that the Bill do pass,
:"':Lord COTTENHAM moved that the period at which
thu' fZill"tiLY conic into Operation he. 'altered from the 25th
to the 15th Dtheober,
Lord CAAPBtI4, had prepared a clause, in pursu-
ance of the iiitentlo* he had given on a previous even-
ing, in order to remove doubts as to the eligibility of Irish
barristers for the situation of Vice-Chancellor under the
'Bill then lvfore theirLordshcps.. It appeared to him that
"lithe Bid at present stood such._ elattse Was necessary,
The• Bill referred to the English Court of Chancery and;
the clourt of Exchequer, and when it
stated I;arris.!..cr-at-law, it might very naturally be
inferred that it- merely applied to English barristers.
Ile trusted their Lordships would not o'!fer any objection
to the clause, which was; the following effect :—" And
be it furthef enacted and declared, that in the construc-
tion of this Act,: and of every other Act relating to of-
dices and
appoiiltments„ the expression barrister, or bar-
rister-at-L,w be taken to mean barristers practis-
ing in England or Ireland, "
unless where it may be
otherwise expressly provided.
Lord BROUGHAM thought it a very useful addition
to he made to the Bill, and if it satisfied a respectable,
a learned, and able body of men, it ought to be intro-
duced. He would remind his Noble and Learned Friend,
'how'ever, that when the-Bill was sent down to the other
House. last year, when he (Lord Campbell) was a Mem-
ber of that House, he had not then thought of intro-
ducing such a clause. -- It appeared to him that the
Bill would merely make them eligible, and•
• it
not was very
proper that they should be so but let it go for
more than it was worth—le"' It be understood that
there was no intention of appointing an Irish barrister to
such a sittnttion.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the clause too
comprehensive.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had no objection to
the e:ause. He believed that tinder the general term
" barrister," the Irish bar as well as the English
bar was included, and he was the more strengthened in
his opinion, because, in acts where it was intended to
confine the office to the bar of one country or another, it
'seas expressly so stated. He thought offices of that sort
should be :open to gentlemen of both countries. He saw
210 objection to the introduction of the clause.
MIN- a sew words' in explanation from Lord
BELL,

The clause was then agroed to, and the Bill passed.
Lord WILIRNCLIFFE movtst that the name of the
Lord Bishop or Derry be erased from the roll of the
Housc., on the ground that his Lordship had taken his
seat by inibake. The motion was agreed to.
L. nies.age was brought up from the house of Com-
mons with the Report of the Commissioners appointed
to inquire into the Navigation of the Thames.
The Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire
into aid report upon the Colonization of New Zealand
was also brought up.
The Earl of GLENGALL presented a petition from the
householders, ratepayers, &c., of the city of Dublin corn-
plainin of bnpropar practices having been had recourse
.to by parties with regard to the burgess roll to be
Son nder the new Corporation Bill. Ills Lordship
ewentlAn to say that those practices were
caLetilatt)d to produce a fictitious constituency.
it reemet, impossible under the present system fly the
'''
proper o '.cers to know whether or not one individual
, lras persl.ating another when lie
.canie up to vote. A

Committee, which had been appointed to examine
the books, he found very gross cases of fraud. It
appeared in many of the rate-books, that houses valued
originally at 71. had been changed to 101. No human
power could, under such a system, make out an accurate
burgess-roll. There were alterations and interpolations
throughout the book, all tending to create a false constitu-
ency. If such an evil were to pass unredressed, the Corpo-
ration of Dublin would fall into the hands of repealers and
agitators. He trusted, therefore, the Government would
endeavour to apply a remedy to the grievance com-
plained of.
The Duke of WELLINGTON was obliged to the
Noble Lord for having called the attention of the House
to the subject, but he did not think it was a case in
which the House of Lords could interfere. The parties
might, however, forward their petition to the Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland or to her Majesty. If the Noble
Lord left a copy of the petitibn he would take any steps
in his power for bringing the matter under the conside-
ration of the proper authorities.
The Earl of GLENGALL hoped that either the
Lord-Lieutenant, or her Majesty's Government, would
interfere to correct the abuse of which he had complained.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the House of Lords had
no power whatever to interfere in the matter.
The Duke of WELLINGTON did not blame his
Noble Friend for bringing forward the subject. All ho
had said was that the House of Lords had no power to
interfere.

The petition was then laid on the table, and their
Lordships adjourned at Six o'Clock to a Quarter after
Thre© to• morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Sept. 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes before
Four o'Clock.

The SPEAKER then informed the House that the
securities for the pr.lsecution of the election petitions for
the following places had been received and were unob-
jectionable :—Great Marlow, Nottingham, Weymouth,
Thetford, Clitheroe, Lewes, Wigan, Rutlandshire, and
the borough of Harwich.
Mr. WEST presented a petition from upwards of 1,000
inhabitants of Dublin, stating that under the Municipal
Act the churchwardens were bound to furnish lists of
the rate-payers ; but, on referring to the poor-rate as-
sessment, it was found that the lists were kept in
so imperfect a condition that it was impossible to make
the necessary returns. It was stated that the lists were
thus imperfectly kept for electioneering purposes. The
petitioners prayed the House to devise some remedy for
the evil complained of.
ELECTION PETITIONS.

Petitions against the returns for the following places
were laid on the table: —Thetford, Belfast, town of
Nottingham, Wareham, Newcastle-under-Lyne, Carlow
(two petitions), Lyme Regis, Merthyr Tydvil, Shrews-
bury, Downpatrick, Barnstaple (two petitions), Harwich,
borough of Stafford (two petitions), St. Ives, Rutland,
New Windsor (two petitions), borough of Carnarvon,
and the city of Waterford.
POOR-LAWS.

Mr. R. YORK gave notice, that, on the introduction
of the New Poor-law Bill, he should move to insert a
clause to prevent the Commissioners from enforcing the
separation of man and wife, and to provide that such
separation should in no case be allowed where the appli-
cation for relief arises from infirmity, and not from im-
providence or crime.