The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-14 00:00:00

- . - --.
/
,
//-2Z/
--t's
•. _ .._
. . rx, •)9. A, _ A
e
Ho °S* 0 D ;A An 13.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took took his sea at 17h-ft ,' lock,
having sat before to hear appeals.
Mr. CAMPBELL (from the East India House) presented, an
account of the compensation proposed to be granted to eN?litt
officers, late of the Hon. East India Company's service.
Lord LONGFORD took the oaths and his seat.
CHESTER CRIMINAL COURT'S BILL.
____

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER called the attention of
their Lordships to csytain clauses in this Bill relating to the
expenses of executitiais and burials, which he thought pressed
rather hard upon the city of Chester. He therefore proposed
that the third reading of this Bill should be deferred t.intil
Monday next.
The 1,6,T,D CHANCELLOR said there was no new
charge thrown t;,.."1 the city
of Chester, and he saw no reason
for postponing the til;:d reading of the Bill.
The Bill was then read .P• third time and passed.

ECCLESIASTI L REFORMS.
O
opportunity of referring toLord BROUGHAM took an
certain votes in the House of Commons oln the previous night,.
relating to the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in
matters of tithe, and other motions respecting Ecclesiastical
matters, of which he could only be cognizant by looking into
the papers. He did not feel on the part of their Lordships
the least degree of jealousy of the other House, nor bad he the
smallest objection to this proceeding, because he believed they
would exercise their power in a judicious manner ' • at the same
time he thought that nothing should be done which wavelet
founded on the report of the Ecclesiastical Commission of
1831-34. That Commission was composed of men of the
highest talent and capability, who, after a patient investiga-
tion. furnished a report which, for learning, the soundness of
its views, and the correctness of its conclusions, could not be
surpassed by the report of any other Commission. This was not
the first time he had panegyrized that report, forhe did so in 1831-
Such opinions he still entertained on the subject. In conse-
quence of the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—on
which Commission was his Honourable and Learned Friends
( Sir J. Nicholl and Dr. Lushington), who assented to that re-
port—he (Lord B.) deemed it his duty to have Bills pre-
pared with el view to carry into effect the recommendation of
that Commission. Accordingly the Bills were prepared—six
several Bills referrinff to the sin several subjects embraced iu
the report were prepared, for the reason that some might ap-
prove one Bill and some another, and with a view to separate
matters relating to such multlie.eious topics, that otherwise
might have been combined in one Bill. An objection, however,
was made to this separation, and after ti.e. six Bills were pre-
pared, in consequence of a further recommeeedation from ,`}to
,Commissioners, which he was bound inetlifeiteiiete to attend nee
'he consolidated the six Bills into one, and brought it before then:
Lordships-on July 12, 1833. They ordered it to be printed,.
and it was precisely similar to that introduced into the Commons
last night. The title of the Bill was, " An Act to Consolidate
the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of England and Wales." The
title of that introduced last night into the other House of
Parliament confined it merely to England, although he
hoped it was intended to be extended to Wales also.
It also proposed to enlarge the powers of, and to consolidate
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of England. That was the only
distinction. The third Act was one for the consolidation of
the jurisdiction, and to alter and amend the laws in cer-
tain matters Ecclesiastical ; and another was for the better
discipline of the clergy. The Bill, it would consequently
appear, had in view precisely the same objects. The Bill that
he ( Lord B.) had the honour of bringing under their Lord-
ships' attention was not proceeded with—it was read only a first
time. At that time their Lordships would recollect that there
was a Bill in their Lordships' House relative to the East
India Company's Charter; another relative to the Emancipa-
tion of the Slaves in the West Indies ; another, as to the IrisEr
Church ; and three or four law bills of great importance, all of
„b;, :h were sufficient for them to get through that session.
On an-0)ot, therefore, of the great importance of the business
they had tent.: he recommended that the Bill should stand
over till the next
Session. He stated that there were two sub-
jects embodied in - aLat Bill, which ought not to have been
introduced in it. The -o,:e was respecting Faculties, and the
other as to the power of accommodating, his Majesty's sub- .
ejects in Churches ; but, in deference to the recommen-
dation of the Ecclesiastical COThenissioners, he yielded.
That Bill was then brought in for the i'enst time, and ordered
to be printed, but never proceeded with for the reasons before
stated. In the Session of 1834, the opinion tend assistance of
a learned person ( Sir H. Jenner) was obtained, and a new Bill,
leaving out the rate clauses, and remodelling, if not entirely omit-
ting the clause respecting the law of real and personal estate,
was directed to be framed while he (Lord B.) held the Great
Seals, and was in the course of being framed, and would have been
at once presented to Parliamennin the beginning of the session.
As it was impossible for them to tell what would be the fate of
the Bill in the other House, there could be harm in re-
assuming their own measure ; and he should therefore
present it to their Lordships in the shape in which he held it
. ought to be presented. He should not of course press any pro-
ceeding until lie saw that the other Bill was not likely to
come up. He intended to leave out everything respecting
Church rates, as that was not a fit subject for their Lordships,
because it related to the levying of money. The reason he
had asked their Lordships to omit those clauses was, that an
Hon. and Learned Friend of his, the Member for Edinburgh
(Sir John Campbell) had brought 'in a Bill in the other
House of Parliament addressed to this very subject,
but that Bill did not profess to . proceed on the
two Bills which he had now stated the title of to their Lord-
ships, and which were brought in last night by the Attorney-
General—that Bill did not profess to proceed upon the ground
of the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or
their Report. There was an unfortunate conflict of opinion
between the Ecclesiastical Commission and the Commission
on the law of real property. The Ecclesiastical Com-
mission took one view of some points, and the real property
Commissioners, one of whom was the late Attorney-General,
( Sir J. Campbell) took an opposite view of some of these
points. He agreed in the main as to some of the most ma-
terial; among one was that of extending the statute of frauds
from devises of reality to bequests of personality. The
Commissioners of real property proposed making some
very extensive alterations in the law, to which the other
Commissioners had not directed their attention.—( Hear. )
That being the case, he should wish to have an. oppor-
tunity of bringing in a measure founded on those clauses
mentioned in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
He should wish to hare an opportunity of seeing and consider-
ing the Bill brought into the other House of Parliament, not
founded on the report of the Ecclesiastical Commission, but
founded upon the report of the real Property Commissioners.
With that view he should present the Bill with those new •
alterations. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a
first time.
The LORD CHANCELLOR din not rise for the pur- •
pose of objecting to the Noble Lord's proceeding with his
Bill, but to enter into some explanation of the circum-
stances to which the Noble and Learned Lord had referred.
The Commission to which the Noble and Learned Lord
had alluded, was a Commission issued by the Govern-
ment of the Noble Lord. (Hear, hear.) He agreed
with the Noble Lord, as to the merits of the individuals
who composed that Commission, and also as to the merits of
their Report. That Report was made about three years ago,
and he believed that Report had been preferred and laid on
their Lordship's Table, although it had never been printed, or
at all events not circulated. • He had made enquiry respecting it.
He believed that another Bill had been prepared, and very
coneiderably. advanced; indeed, that it had been sub-
mitted to the consideration of Sir H. Jenner and Sir
J. Nicholl. When it was submitted to him it appeared to his
mind to be an extremely desirable measure. He con-
sidered that lie had taken the proper course respecting-
it—lie wrote to the late Attorney General, asking him whether
he intended to bring in that Bill to the other House—that
Lion. and Learned Gentleman in reply said he ccnsidered
the bill to belong to the Government. He (the Lord Chan-
cellor; then had some communication with Sir H. Jenner and
Sir J. Nicholl, and the result was that in his opinion the bill,
as it embraebfi two or three propositions, should be brought in in
so many differeot bills. Should the Bills, or either of theta,
be thrown out in the other House, or should.they come up hr
such shape as to be disagreeable to their Lordships, then it
would be quite competent for the Noble and Learned Lord to
proceed with his,Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM said he had not the least objection to
postpone his Bill upon such grounds. It gave him very great
pleasure to hear what bad fallen from the Noble and Learned
Lord relative to the real property Commissioners. His opinion
was exactly the same upon that quection, which gave it the
more weight, as they had not the slightest communication ninon
the matter.
..In answer to a question from the 'Duke of CUMBERLAND,
Lord BROUGHAM said the .difference between his Bill
and that Of the House of Commons was, that the litter con-
tained nothing about church-rates and wills. •

THE PILOTAGE BILL.
Earl RAI)NOR, after referringto a petition signed by 180
individuals, praying for some alteration in the law relative to
pilotage, said that in presenting that petition he understood the
Noble Duke apposite (Wellington) to say that he would do
everything in his power to effect the object applied for, which
he also understood he said he could do by virtue of his office as'
Warden of the Cinque Ports, without a fresh Act of Pernaliunent. lie understood further, that it was the intention of
his Majesty's Government to issue a Commission for inquiring
into this subject; and he begged to ask the Noble Duke, if
that Commission would terminate its labours early enough to
furnish a report, to enable the House to legislate upon the
the question during the present session ?
The Duke of WELLINGTON said the Noble Earl
was mistaken, in supposing he had said that he
could carry into execution the clauses of the Bill to
which he referred. He bad no power to force the pilots to
reside at any fixed spot upon the coast, for as soon
as they were furnished with their warrants, they were
compelled to go afloat, and cruise upon the coast off
Dungeness. With reference to the Commission, he re-
plied that he believed the report wOuti
,i)e furnished in suf-
ficient time to enable the House, to ,itgulate this measure
during the present, Session.
ABOLITION 'OF OATHS BILL.
Upon the motion of the Duke of, RictimoNn this Bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday
next
The Duke of GORDON presented several petitions from
Inverness and other places in Seetland in support of the Esta-
blished Church of that country.
Earl FIT ZWILLIANI presented petitions. from the ope-
ratives and master manufacturers of Pudsey, in Yorkshire,
praying for as alteration in the FliCtory Bill.
Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition from the hand•
loom weavers of some parish in Scotland-pfting for relief.
The DUKE OF RICHMOND presented a ..Petition front
the Ceunty of Kent for the Repeal of the M4t, Also a
• ,