The Sun. — London, England, 1812-01-24 00:00:00

cellorship of Llandaff, was lost, on the gro'und that the Ec siea'ical Court was prohibited from taking cognieance of patent places. 'Since that period, "undoWeedly, many appotntments .had been male, without a 'iue consideration whether or not the per. son appointed A , as qualified for the situation.: As, however, the motion' for the Committee slid not tend to remove this or other abuses, he should op pose it. A MEMBER, whose name we could not , learn, made - a few. observations in a very low. tone,of voice on the ease of Mary Ann Dix. He said he was in formed that no .monition was wanting in that case, and thearebefe.had been nothing whatever illegal in the.wl ole proceeding. - Si? W. SCOTT thought that the Noble Lord was not quite apprised of the extent of his motion, : and of the greatemmber of inferior Courts of Ecclesiastie cal jurisdiaion in the country. He was, far from being of opinion, that, if necessary, the House ought to.shrink from their duty on this subjea, however laborious; but, he conceived, unless it were proved absolutely necessary, they should pause before they concurred in the motion of the Noble Lord. Let the consequence be considered, of bringing . up - for examination from every quarter, a vast. number of persons, at an expence for which the petty emote, ments of their respective situations would afford no. ads quite compensation. If it were proved .that there existed mischievous and unprovoked oppressi- - on, then, and not till then, ought the House to consent to the' examination of, the subjea. Before lie-entered on the general question, he would advert to the constitution of these Courts, not meaning., however, to follow the• Noble Lord through those regions of fancy into \ehich he had wandered, when lie l+~rd described circuinstanves of ancient date, no wise conneteed with the existing state of the Courts thernselvea. The employment in which the Noble Lord seemed to think the Ecclesiastical Courts were principally, if not wholly engaged, formed in truth but a small part of their occupation. They were Courts to which the administration of no inconsider able part of the civil law devolved. They had to decide on.- matrimonial and testamentary law; on tithes, and on ottser civil rights. He did not mean to say ehet it a 'new arrangement were making, it might _not he advisable that the determination of such questions ought to be left to Consistorial Courts, but - . he contended,' that situated as they weir, it had not been shewn • that there eecisted in those Courts any evil or abuse greater than what, was inseparable from all human establishments.— From tee printed papers which the. Noble Lord had put into his hands, n the ground on which his mo tion proceeded, it appeared that in 13 years there were but seven complaints of the nature alluded to. Did that exhibit a sufficient necessity for Parliamen tary inquiry ?, The Nohle. Lctrd represented the evils of.which he complained as atising from a wish for theemoluraentsof office. It was not so. Every man went into those Courts as he went into• any other Civil Courts. Much had been said of the hardships suffered by those who were cited but lot-small sums. Thesmaller the sum, if justly doe, the greater was the error in not paying it. With _respeet to the Church rates, persons were as much bound to pay • them as they were bound to pay the Poor rates. if they refused, what could the Courts do but enforce iteeir authority? If those persons, therefore„ to the injustice, in the first instance of non-payment, added the injustice of defending their- conduet, who was to blame for the consequences, the -party -vt ho drove, or the party who was driven to litigation ? The Noble Lordcomplained that the Petitioner-, in whose case the present'discussion originated, having been a minor, had been illegally treated. But this was nor true ; fur defamation, of which she had been guilty, was a mixed case, and was. that for which a minor was answerable, and liable to punish ment. There was nothing wrong, therefore,, in the case, so tar as minority was concerned.—He.would . 'state to the House what was the ordinary mode of proceeding its such cases. The party accused was cited—appeared—performed penance, and paid the costs. s But the penance was not that. ludicrous csrembny of standing in a •sheet, which was the' the praeficetof former times. All that was required . was that the individual should go to the vestry, and . in the presence of the Minister and party detained express concern for the cffence, aed promise not to repeat it. The costs seldom exceeded twenty stills 5 linos. If the offender did not appear to this citation, or if, appearing, made a dishonest defenc r e, throwing every possible obstacle in the way of the Court, all the evil that followed was to be ascribed not to the Court, but to theoriainators of the mischief. It might be'said, however; tliat in some cases of `'de famation, the parties defamed deserved to be so.— 'Would that justify the defamer) It would not by • any law. It would not by the• Ecclesiastical law.— If the person defamed had` - committed any offence, that person was erneneble to the law ; but no one for any single aal aught to be exposed to private slan der during the whole of life. -As to those patties who mere stated by the' Noble Lord to have been so poor as to be unable to employ a Proctor, .1.0 would eels, did they apply to sue and be sued in Prnza paeperis ? Had that been denied them ? It they a el not do so, they placed themselves in th i e situation' of common litigants. A great outcry had been_ rahed against expence, but the expence was una voidable, final : the process to which, in such cases, the Ecclesiastical Courts were obliged to resort. The expences would be but trifling were it not for the ob stitiacy of the parties accused. The House would re member, the expences of 'all Courts were augmented by the duties on stamps, which the call of public necesaity obliged Government to impose. He hoped he had now said nearly enough -to make it appear that the Noble Lord had nut -made oat a case that called for the inquirrlte had ; proposed ; though enough of malignant industry had been ex exerted. (rte. by the Noble Lord himself, he was certaib) by bringing forward every topic of abuse that could • be .brought forward against those Courts, still no Reef injustice had been proved. That cases of hardship had been adduced, he was ready to admit, but•Stilkehatever the sufferings of the party' concerned' might se, - the law while in existence should be kept 'up, and no . one be suffered to hold hitnse,lf, above its summons. He hoped the House• would see no'reason for entering into an inquiry. so troublesome and so inconvenient to the patties et - reeled byeit, as • that which the Noble Lord had recomeneedeie "It nfght• be proper that an' al,er *don should be made in the law, latit that was not the question at present- b ‘ efire the House. He thought it might be well mot the process of cx communicatioo.to be. done away, and some process substituted, that would- be less expensive, less - op pressive, and less unseemly, s and he was certain that it 'was in the power of Parliament to grant no boon thai would be mile gratefully received by those who practised in those Courts. . Sir S. ROMILLY said, the arguments of the Right Gentletean - who bad just sat• down had not satisfied him tiler no inquiry ought to he instituted by that House. It was-true that the Reselutions of the Noble Lord proposad the appointment of a Committee to -inquire into the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court, in order to a , certain whether Or not . any reform was necessrry, but he con!cl not see that the motion went toatie extent to which it had been supposed to f,r . He admitted that a strong case ought to be made out before any' Court of kistice was called upon to hold up its (rand before a public tribunal ; but he did not see that in appoint in the Committee proposed, any Court of Justice would be so arraiaened. 'lt - was admitted that a case of hardship had• been adduced; why then; if such were the case, it was tha duty of that House to inquire, if the hardships complained of arose from the misconduel of those who administered the law, or from the law itself. He thought it probable it originated not in the condud of those who were appointed to 'administer justice in that Court, but from the constitution of the Court itself ; and he thought now the subjea was brought fair ly before tliern, they ought not to forego the opi' portunity of looking into the merits of the case. Übe House would recollect what excommunication was. It excluded a person from the communion of the sacrament;- from all the benefits to which Christians - conceived themselt es to be entitled, feton giving evidence in a Court of Justice, and hence necessarily exposed them to great inconvenience In the case of this poor girl, who was-not even yet an adult, for instance, while , in. gaol, it violence had' been offered to her person, she could have obtained •no redress, because her evidence coulr) • not be re ceived in a Court of Justice. If a murder were committed in her presence, the murderer would be allowed to escape, for the same maser). Persons excommunicated could not sure iii guy Court ; they were put 6rat of the protection of all law, and pre cluded from discharging the duties they owed to so ciety. The evils ansing , fiom teissysiem, had been complained of -even in the time of Jainrs I. = On the 131 of April, 1606, a communication was made to Par:iament from that Monarch by the Archbishop of Canterbury-, in which its being used for small offences was complained of, and• a Bill recommend ed to be brought in, to prevent its being- used but in " great matters." That Bill, however,- had ne ver been brought in, or if it bad, it had been thrown. out, and the evil had ebntinued to exist up to the present day. While slanders in high lite of greater consequence were hardly noticed, it was justly to be complained ot, that it 3 woman in the lowest si tuation in life used a come word to another, she was to be confined for two years, nay for lite,-un less rescued from -confinement- by some benevolent person paying. the costs of the process. What the Right, Honourable Gentleman had said of the neces sity of protecting the reputation of a woman, who might in one instance have been guilty of an ad of indiscretion, did not apply to the case of a woman who kept a house of ill fame, sod who kept it at the time when the obnoxious expression was used, and which-only went to give her a name which be longed to her. It would ben fortunate circumstance if, .out of the sufferings of this unfortunate female, a change of system. were to arise. What good was it not in the power of the Right Honourable • Gen- tleman to do ? He had but to will reform, and a reform would be effeated. If he brought in a Bill on the subject, it would hive the support of 'Go vernment, and the object in view would be gained. From all be had heard, he thought the appointment of a Committee would be to cast no igieutwion on the Courts in question, and he should, for the rea sons 'be had given, concur with the motion. Sir J. Niel-LOLL went over nearly the same ground as Sir W. Scott, and contended that no abuse bad been proved on the part of the Officers of the Courts, but that the hardships complained of arose out of the constitution of the Courts themselves, and on these grounds he: opposed the proposed inquiry as unnecessary. Mr. W. SMITH thought that as it •had been ad mitted by the two Learned Gentlemen opposite, that there existed a soreethii,g wrong in those Courts ; the House had a right to expect them to 'propose a remedy, and if they did this, he thought the Noble . Lord would have no' objection to his motion. He had heard of many cases of a sinrilar nature to that which was then before the House.— In particular, 'l:e remembered the - situation of two .poor wonien who were confined eleven years in the jail of Nottingham. He himself had seen them after they had been nine years in confinement.-- They were certainly enthusiasts, but they were en thusiasts of the most harmless and moral description. They were in 'some respects like Quakets, but from some peculiar tenets which they held weft: not re. ceived'as members of that body. 'Kiley in particular had a something- in their marriageS wive!) bore a resemblance to the Manner of the Quakers.-- In cons' cons!Auence of their differing in. this particular from the Establiihed Church, they. were accused of living in fornication, and summoned before an Ec clesiastical Tribunal. This summons they dtd not answer, as it cited' , them by their ma:den names. They 'were ready to appear if called on by those which they conceived belonged to them as wives. By them they - were not cited; and for not answer 'ing to theit maiden names, they were committed for contempt of Court, and remained in jail - eleven years. [Here the Hon. Member was informed that seven years •,was the period of their confinement.] He was informed' they were confined but seven ; he thought they had been kept in prison eleven years. He then proceeded to notice the change of system which had taken place in the higher Couris,with re spect to prisoners who refused to plead. They were no longer pressed to death, but the-trial went on in the regular way, though the man was silent. A si milar change he (bought might have. been made in the Consistory Courts. The poor women to whom he had alluded, might, be thought, have been fined, or subjected toa penalty, instead of being (as they had, been) confined for seven years. If such a sentence had . been passed upon them when they were first biought before the Glut, !he whole country would have indignantly - reprobated such unjust severity. He then proceeded to combat the idea of any slur b(-ing first instance thrown upon those Courts by adopting the motion of the Noble Lotd. While on this subject, he inquired if t he-Grand:Committee on Coorfs of Justice, annually appointed, was under . - stood to throw .any slur on the Courts of Justice ? His Noble Friend, he thought, would not object to the subject being referred to tins Committee, and he thought the conclusion they, would come to would be the same as that which might- be expected from a committee to be appointed for that purpose only. He concluded expressing his concurrence in the motion. - The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had heard nothing to make him think the motion ought to be accedelta. Cases of great hardship had been stated, and those might be true, but the .question was whether or not any mal-adtninistration of the law as it at present stood had occurred ? This did not apreq, and there fore the propo,ed inquiry was unnecessary. The . change of. system alluded- to by the last speaker in the higher Courts, respeaing persons who refused to plead, he said was not their own AO, but the consequence of an nit•.l of Parliament. It that corn plained of was only the - fault of the law (and it seemed to be. generally -admitted), why, then, it would be better to corred that law than to make the inquiry recommended by the Noble Lord. - The House had every reason to expect that for this, pur pose a Bill would be brought in by his-Right Friend. No man could be better fitted for the task than his Honourable Friend ; :and from his deserv edly high , charader,• to no one:could it be commit ted with greater safety. He had no doubt buthe would unJertake it, and midertakingit, perform it - Sir J. NEWPORE stated the gr evanees of the present system to be very severely felt in Ire land. Lord FOLKESTONE did not know whether or 'not it vas the intention of the Right Honourable Gen tleman opposite to bring in a Bill on the .sub jeet. Sir W. Scorr expressed himself willing to do so in compliance with the wrsh.,of the House: Lord FOLKESTONE then propoied to- withdraw his motion ;, and after a tew words from the Chan cellor of the Eichequer, the motion , was with- drawn. Lord FOLKSTONE then rose to speak on the sub-_ ject of atioiding relief to the unfortunate woman whose Petition was on the table. The SPEAKER suggested the proOriety of re serving that subject for the consideration of a future day, and in this suggestion the Noble Lord acquiesced._ . _ _ Sir J. NEWPORT had intended bringing before the House a' motion for extending the provision' of the both Geb. 111. ch.-85, regulating the takir'g of securities in offices in England, to all parts of the kingdom ; but as he understood the subject was to be brought torward.by another Hon. Gentleman, he should defer his motion for the present. He would now, however, call theattention of the House to atiotlber subjeat, of which he had given notice. The Right- Hon. Gentl.rnan then, .after a few , ap propriate observations, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to exempt from the payment of any duties under the Legacy Aa, all advertisements relating to bequests of sums for the education of poor children, or for the support of widows and other poor per sons ; and also, all advertisements calling meetings. for charitable purpo,es, or announcing benefattions, to any charity. The CHANdE4LoR of the EXCHEQUER entertained a doubt as to the principle of the policy of the re, gulation of the Right Hon. Baronet. It was not athisable to recognise the policy.,of encouraging bequests of the description alluded to, because any per.on on his death-bed Might'give to acharity that pwrtion of his property which his immediate rela tions were entitled to. The Legislature was , not called on to administer to the wishes of such per sons. These persons might be surrounded by those. whose interest it was to induce. the testators to will their property to theprejudice of their relations and nearest 'of kin. With respect to the publishers of newspapers, :they undoubtedly charged what they conceived necessary for the insertion of advertise ments relating to public charities, and to interfere with them was improper. The whole of the sug gestions of the Right Hon. Baronet, if attended to, would be accompanied by such inconvenience, that the measure would produce no benefit, but must be both inexpedi-nt and disadvantageous. Sir 'JOHN NEWPORT made some observations in reply, in the course of which he observed, that as . the motion did not seem to meet the wishes of his friends, he would_ not press it to a division. The motion was then put and negatived. The nilt Duty Bill was read a second time, and committed fur to-morrow. DISTILLERY BILL. On the third reaping of the. Distillery Bill,' Mr. HuTc.urNsorCre-stated the argnments which he used on the last night, aing 1 . 0 the clause which went ,to prosiba ,the 'distillation iii Iceland, •which he . •denOnlinated a violation Of the solemn compact of union, and asked - why the 11 , ght'HOn. G-ntlernan. had presumed to violate that comptct ? In so doing bespoke the opinion of the People of .-Ireland, and, in particular, of agricultural and manufa6th ing part. • Mr. H. FITZGERALD, though he was not rer 'feCtly saii4ied with the clause, Skill was emboldened to say, that so far from con,iderina it a grievance, the people of Ireland regarded it in' the' light Of a boon. The agticultural and manufacturing classes so felt it, .and it cc, tainly was of veal benefit to 'the Res enue. He apprehended scarcity olsusietiance in this king.' dom, made it necessary for' the Legislature to enact some provision Of the kind. With respect to the vio lation of the articles of UciOn, insisted upon by the Hon. Gentleman,- could a measure 'Of necessity, a measure of reciprocity to both kingdoms, be con sidered in any other light than as it boon . ? Load FoLKsToua observed, that the objection of the Hon. Gentleman related entirely' to the breach of Union, and therefore it became a question whe ther by once violating the At - twits, the House wouldi not in future ? The CHANCELLOR of the, EXCHEQUER,I con ceived that the . whole Of the Hon. Gendetnan (Mr, Hotchinion's) speech was - to induce a t'epe - al of the .Union. The mcasttre'no* introduced was," as his Right Hon. Friend had truly stated, a mea , ure of reciprocity, a measure which would be'beneficial to Ireland,_ and which by the Union t his country' W 35 bound to adhere to. . It wasnot a little extraordinary tart the Hon. Gantleman and the Noble Lnrd sltouldobjearo a measure having that for its object, But .the Hon Gknnleman—the grett champion for the-rights of Ireland upon-all occasions—a patriot for her .liberties—the protector; of the Distillers—wag not au fait to this boon. He was for extending a measure which went to the prejudice of his own constituents. e interests or helarkt would never be riegiecttd.When they ought to be protectQd. measure which bad ultimately the interests of Ire= hind in view would be rt ceived as boon, though such regulation. might .be an infringement of the Articles of Union. He had -already said so much on the subject that he was• ashamed, and theref4oe would not trouble the House any. furtliQr... . Mr. W. SMITH made a few obs,-rvations, and then roof clauses were added to the Rill. Mr. Grpnx entered his protest against any future Bill, pri the ground that it eras a tneAsure. of principle. , . Ti.e other Orders of the Dv were then disposed of, and at 12 o'clock the IT lose adjourned. In the case of the American ship Femele, Cnuaa, master, detained fora blea c h of the Orders .n ,oun cil, and brought to adjudication bA.)re the Curt of Admiralty, on Tuesday last, Dr. PHILLIMOR4 moved the Court for permission to introduce evi-• deuce to sliew that the operation of the D e c r e es o f . Milan and_Berlin had ceased, He stated, that if this fact could (as he was credibly informed it could) be proved, he should then think he might confidently contend before the Court, that Americans would he entitled to the restoration of their piopetty, evetk though there was no formal revocation of the Orders 7 in Council on the part of our Government—that . the ground of his 'argument would be, that ae., the Orders in Council were allowed to be contraPy to tl , e Law of Nations, and only justified' as 6 mea sure of retaliation, if it could be shun that the DecreeS, which they were intended to retaliate, were no longer in existence, then these Orders would be come ipsofabiocdncelled and an ul " h ave no legal validity in a Courtol the Law of Nations. The Learned Counsel urged the prOpricty of grant ing every indulgence to American merchants, 'cvho were trading in strid • cern formity to , the.ancient ac knowledged rules of Maritime Law, and whose pro perty. could only, be liable-to confiscation under in novations lately introduced into that SCOTT, after inquiring whether, the eroofS suggested could be immediately prodbeed, rejected the appli cation. He thOught the case in question mtist tor-, loW.the course of the other American cases,- he could not presums,a revocation of . the Order s.iu Conned. till it had be,en notified to him by Government, and' be suggested, that even if it - Could' be shewn that 7 . the French Decrees were revoked, here would stia be a j qnestiOn of laW, whet her a rer,enl of them' as to .; America alone would• be considered as a repeal by our Government. On Sunday evening an attempt w::s made to rob Mr. Bentley's house,, cheesernonger, in Carey-atreet, the corner of Searle -street, during the time. all the family were gone to a place of worship. ScNerat tubs orbutter, and other property, to a consider able amount, were removed into the passage, ready to be handed into a hackney-coach, which was waiting close to the door ;e but, fortunal-ely„ one of the family- returned home, and, on opening the door, the robbers bounced out, and. made their escape, . On Saturday last, the Lady of Henry Owen, Esq. of Broadelist-road, Exeter, of A Daughter. • On the 2151 Inst. at Old Windsor Lodge, the Lady or • George Stevens, Esc', of a Daughter. • it /A On Monday, at Prcston, Lancashire, Charles Whitaker, Esq. of Roe Field, in that County, to Eliza, eldest daugh ter of Samuel Hot - rocks, Esq. M. P. for Preston. On the 22t1 inst. at St. George's, Itanover•square, by the 'Rev. T. Davis, lames Adarns, Esq. Architedt, of Stone. house, Devon, to Caroline, youngest daughter of the late Francis Wheatley, Esq: R.A. On Wednesday last, at Hillingdon, john Delafield, Esq. of,•Red-lion-square, to Mary, only daughter of john berts, Esq. of Wlittchurch, Bucks. Yesterday, at St. George's Church, Hanover-square, john Shore, Ebq, late of Bengal ? to Letitia, tourth daught t r o f Henry Thwaites, Es q . o f 13a,stogliall-street. On the 23d' inst. at Sr. Gcmge's ' Queen-squat. joins Grillard, Esq, late of'Calcutt a , to Miss Sloper, of DeVUII. shire•street. On Thursday, Lieutenant William Hunt, of. the Royal' Marines, to Miss Michell, daughter of, the late GeorAc Mi chell, Esq. Dllri On the 6th of August, at Bombay,• in the East Indies, Dr. Jonathan limy, fir .it Member of the Medical board of that Vresidency. On Thursday ihegth inst. suddenly, Mrs. Elizabeth Ban:'. nister, aged 67 years, ;the wire of the Rev. Marinaduke Ban 'lister, Perpetual Curate of Tring, in Hertfordshire. - On Thursii;:y the 16th inst. aged 72, years„ Mrs. %Vines, of Difiwicit. 'The same•day, in the ssith• year of his ?se, Mr. Stcventoti Pepys, or islinAzon. OT, ;untlay lot, at Fryston, after a Ipng illness, Martha, eldest claughjer of the late Iticlixrd SlateTlnes, Esc' t>n the zest: inst. rrt MuiyiTaux-stie,q, I.:dovaie-rual, in the6.4t her ue. , Airs. lirLitavv, latL: Ilaker.streef, l'ortinlai-scoare. On the izd inst. at ;ver, Bucks, Mr. Guoch, in his 83a year, ()It Wedig.,s,lay warning, Alr§.. firownle.y, of Greek-stru=t, Sotto. - Latt‘ly, in Ntilsom=strect, Bath, Mri. Dawson, aged S 4, relict I).iNson, Esq. of Craven, in Yorkshire. she or 411:. Dr. R:-.-gts, formerly C,,non'of AlndsZ,r. IR IC E PEST ItO W. LONDON : Printed by 1 HUNAS WOOL), of No. 35, Maiden-lane, Covent-garden ; and Published H, IVI LLIAM AIZMICER SCRIPPS, South Nlolton-street, Grasvevor-squaret ..At the ; 'Slit" 014 La 10E, No, 112, Strand, where Advertisemenls, Orders for t Leiters for ,the Editor , &c. (past-paid), inu3.t. be,addre”ed. ' j ilt Chzitenharn, Li,:utenatit-Cpl:;nel Henry Leninn,'of the flcr,gai' btoth,:r of Colonel Le fi n vi ,, o f - Mtred-streel, Ili tll3t 'City: At L. ini)ton, Devon, the Hon. Mrs. , Pennant, daughter 'of the -late Vibcount Havvanten, and wile or---- Pennant, Esq. , • srocks R DAY. Batik' Stock. ' ' I rilia Bonds, 17s. iBi. pr. Navy 5 per Cent. 94 ii Exe 3 l . le 4 q 3.. • p l3 r i l 31_k,i,1. 3(1, p, pe; di da l ::: Irish 5 per Cent. 3 4 Per.o eut• 79 i i i 4,. 6s. pr. 3 per Cent. nett 63 al onmium, 3 per Cent. Cons. 6t A - 63 6ai Imperial 3 per Cent. 11:rt. L. Ann. 16 a 7. :bins , Ditto Ann. I inlia Stock, Cons. for z7th Fcb. 63 i 63 'HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MOR- Morning, 45 min. after iI. Evening„ 14 min. after t 2.