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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Sept. 7.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on theWoolsack
at Three o'Clock.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY laid on the
table tho 21st Annual Report of the Commissioners for
building new churches. Ordered to be printed.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from an
individual named Winter, residing at Wilton, in Somer-
setsiaire, in which he set forth that he was deeply in-
terested in an action of ejectment, which was instituted
so far back as 1820, and at the present moment final
jiidgment had not been pronounced. The cause was
brought into that House by writ of error. It
was argued, he (Lord Broughham) believed at
the bar in 1832, and certain questions were
left to the Judges. Their Lordships required another
argument of the case, which took place in 1839, and
again the same questions were left to the Judges, who
had not as yet given their Lordships the benefit of their
decision. He blamed no one, for it was a case
of the utmost difficulty, but the petitioner, who
was seventy years of age, naturally prayed
that a decision might be given as early as possible.
While he was addressing their Lordships he begged to
call the attention of his Neble and Learned Friend on the
:Woolsack to another matter, which he trusted would
'meet with immediate consideration ; he alluded to some
of the penal statutes which still remained on the Penal
Statute Book. There were many dormant penalties
still on the books, but it had always been found that,
wherever a chance appeared, they were made the handles
for working oppression, either to the malice or the over
zeal of individuals. He could not give a stronger in-
stance of his meaning than what took place yesterday.
There were penalties of a very severe nature
attached to the offence of any Member of Par-
liament who should sit and vote without previously
taking certain oaths and subscribing certain declarations.
Now, if those penalties were of a moderate nature, and
of a distinct amount, say 501. or 100/., he believed they
would be found to be perfectly stringent to ensure every
person taking the oaths before he performed any legisla-
tive act.—(Hear.) But the penalties were of such
a nature that it was found necessary to pass a Bill of
indemnity, which no one would think of were the penal-
ties of such an amount as he had named. But they were
of a totally different nature, and were of so cruel a de-
scription that it never was thought of putting them in
force, even if the offence were wilfully committed in
piece of by accident, as in the case alluded to.
It amounted in fact to this, a total, absolute, and
perpetual disqualification ever to hold any office or place of
profit under the Crown ; also a total, absolute, and per-
petual disqualification from ever sitting or voting in
either House of Parliament, or of giving the proxy ;
an absolute incapacity to sue in any action either at law
or in equity, or incapacity under all circumstances
of taking any devises or bequests, or of profit-
ing by any deed of gift. In fact, the penal-
ties amounted to total, absolute, and perma-
nent civil incapacitation, and the consequence was,
that whenever a person incurred the penalty, even if he
had incurred it wilfully, he should think it could never
be exacted; but whenever it had been incurred, as
in a recent instance, accidentally, a Bill of Indem-
nity was invariably passed as a natural result,
Now that would not be the case if they altered the pe-
nalty, and instead imposed a penalty of 501. or 1001.
No one would then think of a Bill of Indemnity,
and the penalty would be invariably exacted. He
would now call their Lordship's attention to
other instances, and he wished particularly to direct
the attention of his Hon. and Learned Friend on the
Woolsack to the cases to which he was about to allude.
Their Lordships were aware that there existed on the
statute-book Acts which had been passed in very
remote times, for the purpose of compelling
attendance at church on the Sabbath-day. There was a
statute of Elizabeth imposing a penalty of one shilling on
every individual who should be absent from church
any one Sunday, and by a subsequent statute
passed in the same reign, by the 23d of Elizabeth,
a penalty of 211. .was inflicted upon every indi-
vidual who should be absent from church for four
successive Sundays, and if the absence were
persisted in, the penalties became much more severe.
Those Acts still remained unrepealed, and he could not
see how magistrates, when called upon to do so, could re-
fuse to inflict those penalties. He had heard magistrates
blamed for inflicting penalties under such circumstances,
hut the fact was, that they ;had no choice. That had
been done recently. Within the last three or four weeks
eleven persons had sued for the lesser penalty, and had
been convicted of one shilling. Some of these per-
sons had since paid the penalty, and others had not,
and costs, amounting in one iustance to 145., and in an-
other case to 225., had been run up, and were still in-
creasing in consequence of the non-payment of the pe-
nalty and costs, in one instance for sixty, and in an-
other for sixty-one days. Now, surely the person
who was the most anxious to prevent the non-observ-
ance of the sabbath—the person who was Most
anxious to promote attendance on the public
worship of the Church—would be the first to feel
that this was a most unfortunate occurrence both for the
one cause and for the other, and that nothing
could tend more to desecrate the worship of the
Church ; and those statutes were never put
in force except in many instances by the spite, and in all
by the personal feelings and desires, of an individual.
No blame could attach to magistrates for convicting
in such instances. A criminal information might
go against them if they refused to convict in instances
in which the law was so clear. He did hope that they
should soon see all such Acts erased from the statute
book, and the law left as it ought to be, and no legal
provision made on the subject.
FOREIGN CONSECRATION TO OFFICE OF

BISHOPS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved the third
reading of the Foreign Consecration to Office of Bishops'
Act Amendment Bill.

The End of RADNOR did not know the ground on
which the Bill had been brought forward, and his present
opinion was that the measure was a most unadvised and
useless one.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that the
Bill had been brought forward with a view to the better
regulation of the congregations of English settled in
foreign countries, especially on the shores of the 'Medi-
terranean and in the Turkish empire, and there
was one great 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 ADNOR 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
as3llned 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 see why
that should also be the case in other countries.

The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY said, that
many persons learned in the law had stated, that, as the
law at present stood, it was liable to great doubt ; and he
was sure the Noble Earl would not insist that he (the
Arehbishop 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 of the Bill, but it appeared to him altogether un-
necessary.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
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 COTTENHAAI moved that the period at which
the Bill do come into operation be altered from the 25th
to the 13th October.
Lord CAMPBELL had prepared a clause, in pursu-
ance of the intention 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 before their Lordships. It appeared to him that
as the Bill at present stood such a clause was necessary.
The Bill referred to the English Court of Chancery and
the English Court of Exchequer, and when it
stated- barrister-at-law, it might very naturally be
inferred that it merely applied to English barristers.
lie trusted their Lordships would not offer any objection
to the clause, which- was to the following effect :—"And
be it further enacted and declared, that in the construc-
tion of this Act, and of every other Act relating to of-
fices and appointments, the expression barrister, or bar-
rister at-law
be taken to mean barristers practis-
ing in England or Ireland,
Lordunless where it may be
otherwise expressly provided."
UGHAM thought it a very useful addition
to be 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,
however 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-
(lacing such a clause.
It
ta-eared to him that the
Bill would merely make them appeared
and it was very
proper that they should be so ; but letit not go for
more than it was worth—
let it be un derstoocl that
there was no intention of appo------b;eche, an Irish barrister to
such a situation.'
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the clause too
comprehensive.
• The LORD CHANCELLOR had no objection to
the clause. He believed that under the general term
" barrister," the Irish bar as well as the English
bar :vas 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 coun'rec r another, it
was expressly so stated. He thought offices of that sort
should be:open to gentlemen of both countries. He saw j
no objection to the introduction of the clause.
Aftee a few words in explanation from Lord CAMP-
BELL,
The clause was then agreed to, and the Bill passed.
Lord WHAIINCLIFFE moved that the name of the
Lord liishop of Derry be erased from the roll of the
House, on the ground-that his Lordship had taken his
seat by mistake. The motion was agreed to.
A message 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 and 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 com-
plaining of improper practices having been had recourse
to by certain parties with regard to the burg ese roll to be
formed under the new Corporation Bill. His Lordship
went on to say that those practices were
calculated to produce a fictitious constituency.
It seemed impossible, under the present system for the
proper officers to know whether or not one, individual
was pereonating another when he came up to vote. A