The Sun. — London, England, 1844-04-23 00:00:00

TOE RUN, LON DON, TUESD A Y EV N I NO, A PRIL 23, 1 Th—..‘...^."........-..t00n....... eB iii • - ----.-... .- - 04 ~ Was then read a second time. 1 entirely correct -(Oh, oh, some cheering, and coasi- planation with feelings - of disgust. Now here is entirely that it t y b ne rnotioa that the Bill be coeamitted in order I derable disapprobation.) a separate miestion. The Hon. Gentleman the 'Member MR e q o P ti °s li t rt P° rt ned, • ' 1 Mr. HOGG (with inuah warmea)-I beg, then, so for Beverley thought it not necessary, and thought it tithe //0 - n - . 4 . A .T e k.i . li said . ._he wished to put a question i ' his lenity to (declare that it wt's not m intention to take the would not be Superfluous labour, when he presented r ..I. _ mberfor Knareshorough. Th it Hon. I sliglrtest notice of what appeared in that paper, or of report, to explain what he considered to be the law o. titl e n ' d use, his thl stated that a Minister of the Crown Iwe at fell from the Hun. Gentleman. I did not act • bribery, and how that law applied to particular tree-Bac solely upon my own impression, or upon my own opinion. dons ; but whether the lion. Gentleman rightly under • izi oee aLtn:c)_dnfluence as a Minister of the Crown to tut peers of the Goverdment, he believed an 1 I arri r not peculiarly sensitive, for I know that men in stood, or whether he mistook that law, is no question fler tilt eut Veer-lay. public situations of life are liable to have their us to investigate or settle. The question is . whether the •uto a , - Coenmissioner, to make a false re- I conduct made the subject of iiublic continent, Hon. Gentleman acted honestly and conscientiously in Ale I. that House n . loer tiff .of that for the purpose of crushing a I and lam not particulaEy sensitive when I know the discharge of his duty- , e , I solemn' duty imposed upon in hold se._ hear.) He was jus - i the quarter from which imputations come.-(Cheers.) him by the House; or a a hether he acted corruptly or nehohttas kin g who Was that Minister of the Crown I took the opinion of friends upon bath sides of the perverted the law for the purpose of either injuring ate al l _ ee hu s med. his ._ !I ii;owuagshett 0 .b.:._ _ power ; mho was the officer House, be n sou the Croton' mployed ; and who was the Mem-and of eentlemen out of this House, as to the individual or favouring any particular party in this course I should pursue. They told me that this matter House.-(Cheers.) That must be the question. I have 'crushed, for it must have been that was unworthy of notice -(Cheers)-and they desired me no hesitation in saying, that neither of these charges can to take no notice of it, either out of the House or in the be substantial. I think I remember stating at the time, 'PM i laist 'f' a upon the wheel. The Hon. Gentle- House and I confess that that advice accorded with my with respect to the Hon. Member for Beverley, that I ,t wh o th _6 .7 ," e them a peculiar light on the matter as L o h ! powe c r elinister of the Crown was who had used pression. inhavebeen foralone perm a own im , • S' I i nter 4 'of the Government to induce a sworn Member of this House, and elsewhere I ha;ve been long that he did as any other man would have done who had before the public. I hal no anxiety-I hope I did not undertaken the very arduous and responsible duty 0 t h i l:PO , A 4 ol , l ilake a false charge to the House fur the lace a preeuinotuous confidence in my own character- chairman of an election committee. The Hon. Gentleman crushing a Member of the House. But if but I h a d no anxiety-and, t h e r e fore, I f e lt sa ti s fi e d w ith the Member for Knaresborough must consider that he th4ll"ge turne d out to be false, what where . they to the advice g iven to me , tha, the observations w hich w ere differed in opinion with the lion. Member fur Beverley, V) ()f an II at a -a e r _ on. Member who accused a Minister of made by the Hon. Gentleman were not deserving of con- or that a certain feeling was produced as to the accu use own with •'nt to induce using the authority of the Govern- sideraeioe.-(Cheers.) But it now assumes a very dif racy of the judgment of that Honourable Gentleman. 'N ate f , 'tune an officer of the Government to pro- ferent character. hat ausehoods which would be a dis g race to human I should disregard . what . fell from the The question will be the charge against the honour and Hon. Gentleman when he was itinerating the country, honesty of that Hon. Gentleman. I must say, with the o re? Air . and vituperating men with wholesale and foul calumny. Hon. Member for Beverley,. that such a charge need not not t lEBIUND said the Right . Hon. Gentleman But when he avows before this Housed-when he states have been - noticed House; . , in this but, having been no n:11,4" able in do lea he _ n this case. to avail himself of that syethin in his place in Parliament, that a . .siyorn officer of . this' ticed i -havin become matter of question-let the Hon. vi e to as , ge orally resorted in that House, of coming 'lose, in the discharge of his publie duty, was infln- Gent omen ta g ke . what time he pleases let him look to ee ttel t a, , ,!!Ke, an undue advantage of an Hon. Member. eneed b•- a Minister of the Crown grossly to abandon the weight of his language, and - to . the effect which it 1 that - public duty'(a duty which he was sworn upon oath might be likely to produce; but he is bound . to outmaee r a onnttroe(sla Fernand) was prepared, as far as his own ;;_hhich herent, to state to the House the circumstances to dicharge) 'for ' an ill and a foul purpose-Sir, it be- his allegations with respect to the integrity of the Right t nn e ete aw ,_hferred. During the discussion of the New comes ' incumbent upon me no longer to treat the matter Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De with indifference or contempt, but to call upon the pertinent, as a Minister of the Crown; i and he d is eh la l o r u a n e d - It ' 11 0 , 4 7 . that House, it happened that he addressed Hon. Gehtlernan to substantiate his charge.-(Cheers.) to-make out the charge against the ion . euran , enedi atei After he had sat down-he believed it was t lroli at ta Y_ on his resuming his seat-the Right Hon. Ido not want him to substantiate the charge. I call ter of the Hon. Member for Beverley, in the . discharge on that Hun Gentleman to rise in his place, and leave, of his duty as chairman of an election committee, and `ttllt a re ,..l Secretary of State for the Home Depart ii%ealla.hyee'vrintitat? ? o b f a t r h g e e b s o n ; opposite to him a report, from if he can u . on the minds of this Mouse a doubt-or if he cannot make out those charges, he will be shown leave upon ' this House the slightest suspicion, that in the to have unjustly calumniated a Member of . th . is House, t ainst him (Mr. Ferran]) as a discharge of my public duty I was influenced by dis- and to have endeavoured to weaken the opinion of the f tho lthee t wer nu inhabitant of the Keightley union, which honest or dishonourable motives.-(Great cheering.) peorle as to the honour and integrity of the Members o 4 ssist ant e f alse- That report had been obtained by If he should raise that doubt-if he should raise that this House.-(Cheers.) rear, r A Cooor-law Commissioner, Mr. Mott.- euspicien-let me be covered with well-merited obloquy, Sir ROBERT PEEL-Sir, I really am sincerely s s en or? e tt : l _cleir e i n , k '_ramittee of that House was appointed and let me depart this House as a man no longer worthy that the Hon. Gentleman, the Member f f or Sheffield e t tr ‘e_s, p otr.. to the allegations of that report. Magic- to take his seat, being no longer vvorthe of confidence.- (Mr. Ward), has noticed in the House of Commons some etti e i d, le an ? guardian; servants of the union, de- (Continued cheering.) But there is another view of the expressions which I intended to permit to pass over in of tech ten. it the other, that it was untrue, and some question. If that Hon. Gentleman cannot raise that silence. But they have been noticed in the House of ta tt nat It t " It was scandalously false. A Committee doubt in the minds of this House-if he fail to satisfy Commons, and an importance has thereby been attached at aae tt h. had declared,ce though he was sorry to say this House as to his grounds fur doubting my hem .u'r to them: I know perfectly well what would be the re that ' t t t et mi n : rnittee do justice under the circum- and integrity, then let that Hon. Gentleman be branded suit if I were now to remain silent with , respect to be ial ;ltort w %ase, still it declared that many parts of as the asserter of foul and false calumnies-let him stand these expressions. I should b 3 continunly told to t t a ` t clN i t er° overcharged. But he was not going to convicted as such before this House and before the coun- for the next fortnight, such expressions had been insia t tla ss y the report of that Committee. He came try, and it will be then for him to consider whether he alluded to, and I had not noticed them. Now I see it Th e I, i !re- t i ' and asked for fresh returns, to procure is worthy longer to sit in this assembly, or command stated, day after day, and rc ceived with loud cheers, and and tj. 4ht Hot and and for the rate-payers of the parish. respect as a gentleman.-(Continued cheering) I repeat expressions of great disgust, that on one occasion, I when N ot e s eert h. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, my calm declaration, that I had trot the slightest retiring from t , h , e House of Commons to the lobby,__ was Ara i th ese t art of State for the Horne Depart:nent, op- intention of bringing this matter before the 'louse, heard to say. that the Christian feeling of the House 11 ., at tt ell r eturns. He in vain applied to that House to but when it was repeated by *the Hon. Member in his of Commons had beaten the Government on the factory ta tt froi n oh .littere was an inclination at first to prevent place in Parliament, I must of course notice it, and question?' I never said one syllable or anything of the. le s ; 'retial ni , l a lnit'g them, but, at last, the Noble Lord, throw myself not only on this side of the House but on kind. I never said anything which by possibility could ah uel h e t h, for the City of London, said he thought it the other. I appeal to your feelings as gentlemen- be construed into a foundation for such a statement. I ,, a ° se ret ur e - l.st on the part of that House to refuse him those feelings which, I know, are always responded to. We find generally some foundation for reports, however insfeeno Noes were counted on that order, and it Since I have had the honour of a scat in this House-I absurd and exaggerated they . may be ; but I cannot call sa nity n it the;he Government that they would be in a speak in the presence of those gentlemen who are in to mind anything more likely to form the . foundation table ? Ti resisted his motion. But what was the the habit of appointing Committees-and I say that I for such a . statement, than that I, one night, in the lobby, en vte till flit returns, which were not laid on the have never sought to be placed on any Committee in my said, that if the Government took time, and gave an op the Nu ) . "„ e „nd of the session, proved that the report life-, and I may add, that I never refused Co discharge, portunity to Members . to consider the probable effect of t rev l i ce s d i ''' . ll a before another session came Mr. Mott, to the best of my humble ability, any duty the House interference with labour, very likely the Government n t 'lltea fro Commissioner, was dismissed, and thus might be pleased to impose upon me. They imposed wonld be . in a majority.-(Cheers and laughter.) I t h e th e 9 131 being brought to the bar of that House. on me the arduous-the painful-the sacred-tire so- never . said anything more nearly approaching the ex -. t e nav e ec usances of the ease, it vvas the duty of , h t a trn ate lemn duty of Chairman of an Election Committee, which pressions which have been imputed to me than that. N. _ ei s et nt to give information to that House and The subject . then dropped. k 4 ''al o f urtry as I discharged to the best of my humble ability as their to the reasons of the dis- officer, and I claim from them the right to be The Committee on the Factories Bill was then post or t 1 , 14 art fir, Mott.--(Hear, hear.) He himself 'lt a ' Il ea - t i e 'ght that question under the notice supported. sworn I claim this from them. If lam guilty, I poned till Friday. will willingly submit to the consequence, and I will . ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL. oft j t ;"ttry to a Re appealed to the First Lord of the submit to be branded with infamy. But I require from ' Dr. yicHoLL, in moving the second reading Of . the t tte. el e , t o justice to the rate-payers of the parish this House protection. If the Hon. Gentlemen cannot Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, said that although the subject pay er s • tie 4tltii oft, cou l d tell him that there was not a state the grounds for his accusation, or raise a doubt in had been frequently under the consideration of both l aw by hits t hat parish who was not fully prepared to the minds of this House, then I claim that he should be Houses . of Parliament, and many Bills brought in and t at lY f a i se `:' , and to prove that the rep Art was scanda- branded in the manner he deserves.-(Loud cheers.) - committees appointed to inquire . into the best means of F e , 4l )• of and until the Right Hon. Baronet the Se- Mr. FERRAND-When, Sir, I uttered the language amending the ecclesiastical law since the year 1839, yet lat'lla) a ntate for the Home Department told him (Mr. which . the Hon. Gentleman has now brought before the not one of them had been adopted. In that year, on el t t i t ght eat ild !he country how it was that report was House I was all ' udiog to the feeling of this'House on the the recommendation of the Duke of Wellington, a select t t he h a e e t the box, he could not cease to repeat occasion when the lion. Gentleman presented his report, committee had been appointed to inquire into the matter, ti c, a li o ns said on this subject. a tt li b hnttl it 's' ott lTCK said hem ust complain that his noes- and I said that when then the Hon. Gentleman did so he nhen . a report was drawn up, in which considerable al displayed a good deal of " haggling." terations were recommended, and that the diocesan tin i gth been answered. He had appealed to him to Mr. HOGG-That is not the part. It is that part in courts should only exercise discretion in testamentary tat t qla en , an officer of the Crown had used his power which you said, the Right Hon. Baronet influenced me to affairs. In the year 1831 a committee was ap flat,tteen'te over an officer in the employment of the pointed, which produced a report making similar re commit perjury. tea 7) Til t° induce him to make a false report.- Mr. FERRAND-The Hon. Gentleman is, I believe, commendations. In 1833 a committee was • appointed th at that th e 11 011. Gentleman had done nothing but labouring under a mistake when he salts that I used such which recommended that these courts should have the et, to eth e report was false. The charge still remained language, power. allowed to them of granting probates, and in 1804 , I Q rPo s ee r of the Crown had used his power for such I did not say anything of the kind. If the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had given me notice a Bill was brought in which recognised their right of , t11 1.. 1, 51-C ri n tl howscandalous the charge was the Hon. on , granting probates, but . it was never !aid upon the table: ter to ' l'a iti.t upt shown.-(Hear, hear.) of his intentioe to put these questions to me, or if the H Member for Montrose had e done ao, I should have bad In 1836 another Bill was brought into the House aside , Leant I n ' l ‘ l , D did not know what the Hon. Mem- .. Lord bys, the then Lord Chancellor, but it was set asi e, eh t Ito ; natng such language.the newspaper in my hand, and I should have been pre tth Ellta ck slin pared to have read the language which I uttered. They and h referred . to a select . committee . ,. or, rather, a_ Com k q a le said his language was plain, and it ''' no ant•WaShave not given me that opportunity, knowing, that as I .Mbt . tCL` appointed to consider a petition presented upon at e 4R R t plain, . had not the newspaper present, it would be a good time this subject, and the recommendation was that the dio -Itbi e klie g A ND said the Hon. Member was not go keg al.. aims Ile had used language in that House for them to take me at a disadvantage, and they. have cesan courts should have the power of granting letters ' 1 , 4 ' unbeenn. done so. When I used the lannuaee to which the Hon. of administration in the case of all sums under 3001., i ell hem ing him us a Member of that House, 4a t. er a " •-. Member for Beverley has referred, was alluding . to the and that the heads of these courts should be allowed a t ab ont Aste --(Hear, hear.) feeling of this House on the occasion on which he pre- salary not exceeding 500/. a year, and that they should 4 'ate „thER said he must call upon the Hon. eented his report; and I said that when the Hon. Mem- have certain testamentary jurisdiction. N . otwithstand at 1 '.1 , t •ewaet his expressions. ben for Beverley was " haggling" and " higgling" ing , all those measures having been introduced so I, l ll 4hhe R o pe t -114 0 1 :_gD said "he would willingly do every through an excuse, those on this side of the House lis- • frequently to Parliament, yet they were fol nerehttOnrititer wished., tened with feelings of disgust. There was but one lowed by no practical result. Now many of the (tf t er neat CIC wished to know whether the Hon. Member on this side who cheered, and that Member principles of the Bill introduced last year were founded ti ll ') he a t'ated the charge to which he had referred? e r a ro was the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for upon the report of the committee of 1836, and although the " 1 4 ' RR . a 1 / AN T) _ the Home Department.-(Laughter.) Now I believe Bill did not g et the sanction of the House on the second 4 t d a on. G e said what he stated wee,. that the that is as nearly the language I used on that occasion as reading, yet there were a great many persons by whom Si rel at e. ntleman had used his influence to procure t 't "' 6l' t• nossible.-4Cries of" No, no.") Yes; and if I had known the principles upon which it was founded were warmly fc, t 4 th x.A.R I would have been prepared to read the very words to supported. From the feeling expressed out of doors, it an t , e In tl t Alt said, until the last words which fell , toe House, and, as I told the Hon. Gentleman, those words was determined upon to retain the testamentary power to ' l ' i he q bete t l e 4 ensber he had looked with great indif- in the leading article to which the Hoa. Gentleman has diocesan courts ; and also to the archbishops' courts, be -0 J'n. It /ea , the charge and t o the discussion itself. referred, to the best of my knowledge, are the words I cause it was necessary that there should be an appeal ta te \ ( qtr. a • nuoer had deliberately asserted that which tak t . 4 t eraham) h a d h ar dly th oug ht he could uttered. But if the House and the Hon. Gentlemen to those court s, and ultimately to th e Cr o wn ; and also, less i think proper, I will to-morrow bring down the .7'imes because it would be wrong to deprive the bishops' N l l l l his u pon himself to assert of him, much newspaper with me, and I will be prepared to stand by courts of that power which the diocesan courts possessed. ,i'lw, l , e (si Presence and before that House, viz , those words again to-morrow. Lail! not retract them, There were three hundred and thirty courts t' , 4c 4 at ts til ot t r ah h a uleh r, . Graham) had used his official for the words I used were the result of deliberate obser- throughout the kingdom which possessed testamen t! ni 414 i t false repot a He (Sir J. Graham) vation as to what took place when the Hon. Gentleman tary jurisdiction. Now, ft was proposed to . abolish e tt t h Nvi ) worth while to move that the words be q 'tl; q t ' w hi husual in such e ein e ° w as c was the course - those courts and establish (with various qualifications ham Election Committee. The Hon-Gentleman could recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners) '''' ,, elet i "Y sta s te l l o mistake that the Hon. Gentleman had not have forgotten that he felt himself called upon to in their stead thirty-three other courts. He pro d the IN tl, after some deliberation-because he p a ee s • • explain the proceedings of that Committee. There was posed that a regularly qualified judge should be appoint a'etl t „ tie nt . eerily the question in the first instance, a strong feeling in the country that the Hon. Gentleman ed. to each court, who should be paid by a fixed salary, t t`tin • ass I°ll was then re eated-that he was pre- should not hold his peace as to his conduct on this oc- that appropriation of the profits or fees of the court i t he Ateell%verl'at that he ' (Sir J. Graham) had used his casion ; and after the report was presented, the Hon. and the practice of the court should be as much as possi lvowyss, or nu. influence to obtain a false report for Gentleman found it necessary to stand up for h a lf- an ble the same as that- of the Admiralty Court...lie also ; I ' ° llli c i e q . b e i . crashing him (Mr. Ferrand). He thought hour together and attempt to explain the proceedings in prop . osed to introduce into the Bill a power which . would t \,, kv,,let,,, thileinossible, considering that assertion, and that Committee. lam a public man as well as a Mem- confer upon those judges the power of summoning wi - Itts a e t i t ,r et he Position which he (Sir - J. Graham) held be ' rof this House, and I have a right to form an opinion nesses, and of issuing commissions. It was proposed Ne e 'ber et I t• A la Zesty-considering that the assertion to theproceedings of that Committee, or of the mein- that the rule of practice in court should be determined. tts s i b , L' awe, '3' made-he was quite sure the Hon. a b s erswho P were upon it. - I will not hesitate to give my by the Queen in Council, and that the salaries Li kci ll, o 'Q tO ( - I; na ' a : Well as himself, feel that it was im • opinion upon them or upon what I should consider the of the registrars should be fixed and independent of the .eit t , Ad ana ud redress then, but he hoped that the It ` 4 44 1t , ° teas prepared to take theproper course public conduct of this House. If this House, or fees of the court. With respect to the right of . appeal, be 'tit e th e h. any friend of mine should tell me . that I there were several provisions made in the Bill, one a de, ljatt e arge.-(Opposition cheers.) - q estion which used laneuage that was too strong, I will re- of which was, that right of appeal would lie t h at th-tlleed.,,f the there was another u •to the Prerogative Court in London. But if tract it, but I will not beintimidated, as I have been eat .11ieh t ater importance.lt had been asserted he , net n 'loin Secretary oQil. n i t ien _ of State had made use of attempted to be intimidated, by men who have not dared the parties did not assent and agree to pay the remain • hthe costs the causes should with courtbelow. Oa tu hi re ce to induce the lion. Member who to meet me on the hustings-(Laughter)- . but who . are to 'tan t (Mr. Hogg, we understood the Hon. jealous of the unanimous regard and affection which has Thus far he had stated what W:3,5 intended to be the \v a le, t • ° refer t ) been shown to me by t?ns of thousands of injured men- practice of those courts ; and if, with these improve ments and increased powers, the courts should not prove ih,, i 4l _ ic,n 0 „ 0 , when Chairman of the Netting - men whom you (pointing to Lord J. Russell) have de tih Otaeality he to commit perjury ; for such ee'hOconirteatl, as __ Welt of the charge, as he presumed as be made with almost universal concurrence. ceived-yes, and who have cast you 0 11.--(naughter.) as ' en e t ffi e c e ie b i l i d tthe public would desire, further improve- I will stand to what . I have uttered out of this House, e4,4teg t 0 was w 1 1 as the other members of an Elec- and I will maintain it. In m both the provinces the diocesan courts and the ' ' his Sworn to deliberate and decide, ac- Sir R. PEEL rose, but gave way to ' et. test is consc i ence.lt appeared to him that that ,wh e Ile a . serie in e brow Sir J. GRAHAM, who said -Sir, there is no "hag- were attended by the same pleaders,.. .. prerogative were superintended by the te th a `diet cearge ght against the Right andsam same it judges, was , ti earned o, o , h imselfoh aira , and against the Hon. Gentleman gling" or " higgling" here--(Cheers-) We are in the. fore, proposed to unite their jurisdiction, giving comport , th _4t . il h e a n au of the Committee in question, and British House of Commons ; and the Honourable Gen- sation to the present holders of the abolished offices. It ni l a Etti t PAY to hear some explanation of it. tleman has accused me, as a Minister of the Crown, of was further provided that the reg.isttraiaerss to e f the the a c bo e l u is e h e e il d , 4 a e)cp 4 N I) -I b having exerted my influence as a Minister to obtain a-- courts should send in the d ir h r a e v g ACSit Se re ss i o beg leave to say that I never usedregistries power of directing tt ' Ante) 11 . -- (Oh oh, y false report for the purpose of crushing him. There shall- and that her Majesty shout ( .11 li t : r e s tlinlo oti , - „I am boiLd ' to say that the impression be -no surprise. He says that I, as a Minister of th e where the wills and papers shou e ld be deposited._ The ta tt tee th ...! Inculcated in the country at large- Crown, used my influence with a Member of this House- Bill provided further, that ell probates and settlements te-'' I n tt •"'. the Chairman of a Committee of this 'Sir. FERRAND-No, I did not say so.. t. l iet t ' te e ci ft ttiheueeodn,fieichtairge of his duty, which was to decide under- them, which had not yet been contested, should sir J. GRAHAM-I understood the Hon. Gentleman be declared valid, because in making this change, ng claims of two parties, had grossly to refer to the Hon. Member for Beverley, as Chairman and it reducing the number of courts from 330 to to het • to duty' '1 ) , tut ta Y, and that lee used subterfuge in order of a Committee of this House, with whom I used my in- 33, was thought advisable to grant, as it were, a .4 o ,_ r) a 'Member fluence. - - general amnesty. Tho Bill . also air tah h )e a a i ous tt the of this House who was supposed Mr. FERRAND- 7 No, no. and preserve d' ( the ale of Ul u I tle persons in power, and who was in order to provide for the better custod P y reP Sir J. GRAHAM--Very well. I will have no stir- tion of those papers, the registrars should periodically a tl o. t y i ll stehairmane of of the working classes-that osed . that, ho ta e 14 4eh a Nva I the Committee) discharged his phirise. Again, I repeat, that we have no " haggling" or report to the Secretary of State, who should have au a, t tl al l'on hi m Iv 3h:s to cause the whole House to cry in" here, but to - morrow I will not appeal to the thorny to direct surveys to be made, and such altera should appear to he made the report to the House, generosity or the fairness of the Hon. Gentleman, but dons and repairs as from time to time tli: t hat the e nlY, the Soutar • 4. 11 0 , of the Bight solitary voice which cheered him, tr red t 7 It etatt ne s ut Hon. Baronet the Secretary for I will appeal to the generosity and the .fairness of both him to be necessary. There was al m so e a provision in re sides of the House, .and I expect that • to-morrow the ference to brawling in churches, which . would . he I ,_ lls Hy_ runent. And I had no idea when I en- Hon.. Gentleman will come down with a specific charge the recurrence of vexatious proceedings, such preventas had 'ar'rre 'use that such against me-not only as a Minister of the Crown, but as ' given rise to so . much complaint ; and it was further 1 l ' 4 1 i's W° old a question as that which is Itt 1 c o p u have been brow ht forward, and of a Member of . this House, whose . honour he impeaches, proposed to abolish all penalties for non-attendance at 4t ttee will u u av e no • - and whose official character he impugns. I call on him, ' divine worship. Marriage licenses were now granted by t'e ll -at justad, intention o taking part in it; or rather I call on the House to compel the Hon. Gen- peculiar authorities, such as the Dean and Chapters, t cell several „ no to something which has been allltetttelllsehieen made, these public meetings to which refe- tleman, to be specific in his allegations, and I challenge &c. ; but it was intended to confine that power to how a th e n e by the ceteinch was, that euch was the sense the Hon. Gentleman to any inquiry before any tribunal Bishop, to whom . it properly belonged,. giving him, h e o un. -before any Committee of this House, however consti- ever, authority, with the sanction of the Queen in C. do ti ‘tht a at nigh t 1 ,7 'louse respecting the Factory Bill, t A , 'a it dine Stat ed ',tin- Baronet at the head of the Govern- toted. I will not challenge the name of any Hon. Gen- col, to issue commissions giving to persons in certain ls „the u tseu ss i on 'l l __ o s ae night, when leaving the House tleman who may be placed on that Committee, and I tricts the power of granting licenses. He now called on 4;4:stio te nse h ad tnthis Bill, that the Christian feeling challenge the Hon. Gentleman to prove any such charge the House to censider whether this was not a great , 11 . as that he has brought against me. measure of improvement, by which nearly three hun lhht.oh,--Lem beaten_ , the Government on the factory Lin it4Lt thea no tt cneers.) I cannot help hoping that Mr. FER . RAND-To-morrow I hope the Right Hon dyed of those courts were got rid of. The Bill had also received the sanction of the other House of Parliament, i Y th utt ee 1 , .? of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) t t , alii : a arni l . l l4 to say that he has been misled Baronet will be pressed to explain how he became - pos: and he had not heard of any objection alleged against it sessed of that document which he took out of his box to own feelings on a subject by the country at large. If the Bill did not carry out aid 4 h e talc ": of his p i a s t efa ti _ s _ .1 an interest, and that he had not at- use against me.-(Cheers and laughter.) I beg your pardon, but it is no laughing matter; and I think t ein - all that he could wish, and all that those whoa pproved of the Bill of last year would desire to see accomplished, t h :', 4 uti he tent not to the words - he was using, terruptions of the Hon. Member for Bath are excessively there was, however, nothing in it to prevent them carry tkietnlnis ae . e na at the moment aware of the deep im- calculated to make on the unbecoming.--(Renewed laughter.) I again repeat that to in out further improvements at a future time.. Ile k l ark of , n - Z h they I expect that to-morrow the Right Hon. Baronet- a g b en e ta o naturally supposed that the Hon. Gen-would earnestly urge upon the House, undea theeecir ,, tht tt be bett for he is on his trial as well as myself-well be hie explain to the House in what manner he became pos- cumstances, to accept so large a measure of imPrave a,hlr. 1 , 4 th e ,, er acquainted with what is passing ti ttt • •Utit,,,T could b e . sessed of that report, which he drew out of his box, and meet, . . and not to throw it to the winds in the ho e of •o a / nu te i f ha ve s . 0 -I am quite prepared to stand bn . k r ttla ng ft aid, but I never recollect such expresj- which he used against me almost immediately, if not getting a better measure at another time. He Oita, gin' immediately, on my resuming my seat in the debate. on that all was done that could be . done at prest t en witli s Or, Ong fro .i,,n, .. the new poor-law. Mr. HOGG-I hope that I shall be permitted to bring the concurrence of a large portion of the peop etc e titht FERN ( - eta Oastler. tt e li A ND -I am not Mr. Oastler's keeper. The concluded by moving the second reading of the Bitt nate ti net r but ht het the Home Secretar was a short h' - ' ag o, cit h Baronet the report to which- the Hon. Gentleman has referred, and to read that report to the House ; and if it shouldg GEORGE GREY had thought thateetkhen the.: Ri g ht Hon. Gentleman brought this Billebefori n thil t , il t e o :lte e t te 11 1 : now at liberty.-(La y ughte;.) But not be liable to the imputation which has been cast upon o at I used relating to the Not- lit by him, I hope the House will call en that Hon. Gen- House he would have pointed . out . the pfietichlar h a ju s t a el: el ect :lanwhich it differed from the Bill which he had ore• t has t lde tne nan, I have to state that I never said " the amen to disavow that which he has uttered, or to re- brought in, and which he recommended to the 11 .111 -'' l ,' ' . k„". --.... (e ' . I said, "those who sat on this side of the quire him, in any manner you please, either before this an able and conclusive speech. That Bill was carried' heattlioG n ri es of " Oh, oh ") or any other tribunal, to bring his proofs ; and I will be s . atisfie . d, if he should raise a doubt or suspicion as to my upon the second reading in the House of Commons, by qlt to ‘-'e-I hope the •e, er ta , stat e to Hon. Gentleman will be kind 1 h at 11 /_ 1 h 0 ,,, the House what he did say.-(Lourl integrity, to su .. le consequences. If on the con- a majority of ninety; and he had not heard one word this i7g 4vo e di d 7 he Will be kind enough to state distinctly submit to tl treat:, he should fail to do so, I hope the House will visit evening from the Right Hon. Gentleman to alter or lessen it t alp the re e hope that he will either avow or n v NV t t ate, and T the impression which was then made upon the House.na he manner he deserves.-(Cheers.) (Hear, hear.) The measure now proposed was totally t o l; n on , . Port of him in t his speech, which never would Lord J. RUSSELL-I do not think that it very inadequate-it departed altogether from the principles of /4,„ :eh w 4 `3:e if I had not seen a prominent part of ; much matters what are the particular words and ex- the Bill which was last year introduced by . the Govern tt. ~ given in on / ",b 4 , That , a _. eof th e healing columns of the 1 pressions which were either used by the Hon. Gentle- ment through the Right . Hon i . Gentleman himself-which li tt _ r t a le Particular statement reseecting myself I I man, or wore reported in the Times newspaper. The ( e eh oe e r ttw, oat:ldr statement which has been alluded to I question will be whether the Hon. Gentleman can al- was carried, and in which le . (Sir G. Grey) . ga . v? his 1: 1 :;. 4 4 1,4 •) nut a inever heard of until this moment.- leg e, or can give proof in support of such allegation, that most cordial support. This Bill abandoned i the princl ples which had been assented to by the highest cedes', ten et i t l ? tell ho pe the lion. Gentleman will be kind ' the Right Hon. Gentleman caused, or directed, or pro- astical authorities, who pronounced these courts . to be that h e s p t?e _, House whether he has seen the re - I cured, a false report to be made to him fur a specific p i purpose. It would be beside the question to say that nuisances to the Church, and to expose her to enmity and oa ts .. w i n d ci m the Times newspaper, and I ho e ' reproach by their arbitrary and tyrannical proceechngs, by t tt / 4_ will 41;71%1174 state to the House, and I hope the I the Right Hon. Gentleman had received a report in which many families were ruined. He (Sir G. Grey) t 4 er t r t e th e that h aat I have a right, not only to request 1 which some of the facts were inaccurately stated, and would oppose the second reading of this Bill, because he elle s Chts anhi.":,-cetirentlentan was interued loud that he used that report, relyinon the authority of ht Hon. Gentleman believed that its effect would be to perpetuate these ob te' r et rtete a c r, of . this House, in the discharge ta of L an inspecting officer . without having verified the facts, noxious courts.-(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had told the House that this was a great measure of re tetlittrre 4, 4 M -a right to demand that this House ' The question is whether the Rig anr etti ?w th e s 'ton. Gentleman distinctl to avow or used his influence with the intention of procuring form : Wi t h out a d m i tt i ng so muc h, h e wou ld cons id er y +4l, , in ftltly that it was a great advantage to get rid of the peculiars, Peech as reported, and which has been . such a result. Then with regard to the Hon. Member and to improve the administration of the remaining 1.. hes,ti.)ateprut forward in a leading article of the 1 for Beverley, the Hon. Gentleman said that the Hon. 'et t ,'''-Eltp P A ~„,7---(Great cheering-) ' Member for Beverley had thought it necessary to make oh , end 'hee4D as courts. It was also very well to take away the juris the th e - saw the trading article in tl 'an explanation as to his conduct as chairman of the I re diction of the courts in case of tithe, of scandal, and of tatah, words which I used, and 6 "11 ref what I asserted committee, and that certain Members of this House- smiling.-(A laugh.) But if they created thirty-five erred to ar th 1 certain side of this House-had listened to that ex- . Dr. ,NICHOLL--Thirty-three. ? e ere quoted, and on a are 1 , 4, . Sir GEORGE GREY said there were thirty-five in h r sehed de. If they created those thirty-Jive new courts, with salaries suz:a al to induce moil of high.itanl log at the bar to take office in them, together with a host ofregistrars--he believed that then, if the courts,proved to the nuisances which they now were, Atli to ex pose the administration of juctica to the reproach which they now exposed it to—the effect of the Bill would be to ' hpr ur the kiagdo:n to the juris lotion 0: the Chureh.—(Cries of No, no ") Such wre t l,l be !.he e'3e3t of the suggestion of the - Noble Lord. His other proposal, also, to which he intimated the readiness of his constitaents to fteetel.., was that all the contested business inight be removed to Loa•loe, and all the mere formal business might remain ie the country. That was only saying that all the pro fitatile business might be retained, and all that was troublesome might be sent elsewhere.--(Hear, hear.) The lion Member' for Oxford had pot it to him (Sir J. Graham), whether this measure was to be regarded as an instalment of legislation only, and whether it was' to lead to further changes; or whether it was to be con-d -dered the matured determination of the Govern . ment ? He did not hesitate to say at once, that he msinteined the opinion he had often expressed in reference to the principle of the Bill of last year, in preference to that of the present measure. lie did thin& that it would have been more expedient, upon the whole, for the testamentary business of the country, both as to real and personal property, to have been placed under the responsible jurisdiction of a judge nominated by the Crown and sitting in London, in preference to being placed under the control 'of the Ec clesiastical Courts. This was the plan he (Sir 'James Graham) should have preferred. But if his Hon. Friend asked him whether he contemplated any further legisla lation on this subject, he would say that, from the cape • rience he hal had of ecclesiastical Bills, both now and heretofore, he could not conceive that, during his (Sir James Graham's) lifetime, he should ever undertake to bring in another. With respect to the details of the measure ha intended to introduce a clause by which no tice would be given to all proctors hereafter enterine. Doctors' Commons, that if any further alterations shoula be made in the jurisdiction of that court, they should ac quire no claim to compensation for the abolition of any office, or the loss of any business that might be the con sequence of the change. At the same time, after the best consideration he could give the subject, he was not prepared to say that the present Bill was the one he should have preferred ; but he believed, from the expe rience of Lord Grey's Government, of the former Ministry, and of the present one, that it contained as much of salutary alteration as, at the present moment, could be proposed with any reasonable chance of success. There were other points of the Bill to be considered, but they were mere matters of detail. The Hon. Member for Oxford recommended that the judge of the diocesan court should be paid by fees instead of by a salary, He quite differed from this recommenda tion. The judge of the prerogative court at present only derived an income of 801. a 'year from contested wills, but from his fees on common form busi ness he received 3,0001. a-year. He preferred allowing the judge to be paid by a fixed salary. The Hon. and Learned Member for Devonport said the present was an inadequate measure, particularly in re ference to the diocesan courts. He had already declared that he should have preferred the principle of the Bill of last year. But to carry that principle to its full extent was impossible. He admitted that on the second read ing of that Bill there was a numerical majority for the Government; but the discussion plainly showed that the measure was a condemned one. Many Hon. Members wished to carry out the recommendation of the Real Property Commissioners ; but he had always consi dered it of importance to maintain a bar of civil lawyers in this country; if they took from their court the jurisdiction of real property there would be no time in periods of peace to train up a bar of civilians. That was a matter of importance and ought not to be over looked. .It had been urged by the Right Hon. Gentle man the Member for Devonport that the amount of con tentious business in the local courts was small. He (Sir IrGraham) admitted it. A great part of the per sonal property brought into those Courts waS . funded property. The present Bill made it compulSiiry on the ordinary to nominate a layman duly pi:elf:fled as judge. He believed that the measure; even in its pre sent form, would be a great advantage. All peculiar courts were abolished, all consistory courts were abolished, all archdiaconal courts, with the exception of four, were abolished. The number of local courts were diminished from 330 to, he believed, 34. With regard to jurisdiction, all jurisdiction with regard to defama tion was taken away. The jurisdiction will regard to minor civil affairs, in connexion with religion, was ma terially diminished. He had already . alluded to the Crown with regard to the contentious jurisdiction and the regulation of fees, which was reserved to the Queen in Council. All sinecures were abolished by the Bill, anti ample security was taken for a complete registra tion. He would say that his opinion was, 'that the pre sent Bill was not so perfect as the one he' had the ho nour of submitting to the House last session, but he was satisfied it was a great improvement on the existing law. He believed that the complete transfer of local jurisdictions was a matter in which the feelings of constituencies should be taken into consideration when no great principle was violated ; and he did not feel that it was derogatory to the honour of the Government to say that they yielded to that conviction, and to ask the House to agree to the second reading of the Bill. He had a confident expecta tion that this Bill, coming down as it did with the sanction of the ether House of Parliament, was a great improve ment in the existing law, and he had a strong hope that such a measure, on such a difficult and intricate subject, would be conducive to the best interests of the country. Lord R. GROSVENOR explained. He had said that he approved of the jurisdiction of those courts ; but he was desirous of having a registry without reference to that jurisdiction. After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM, • Lord J. RUSSELL said, that both the Right Hon. gentleman who proposed the second reading of the Bill Ind the Right lion. Gentleman who had just sat down, seemed to feel the difficulties of this subject. He did not wonder at it, for it could not be forgotten that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, stated last year to the House that he would aot alter his mind on the subject—that he had given it the greatest consideration—that he was persuaded the plan he proposed was the best that could be adopted — and therefore felt called on to persevere with it. The Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government spoke with great pride of the exertions which he made some years ago • for the improvement of the law, and with regard to this subject he stated that he had proposed a Commission to inquire into it, and that he was determined on carrying into effect the plans which were recommended by persons of the highest authority. The Bill accordingly of last year tarried into effect the plan recommended by those per sons of high authority and of every description. That Bill passed a second reading by a majority of more than eighty, and the Bill was never again brought seriously under the discussion of the House. It was totally altered in a committee pro forma. The Right Hon. Gentleman now totally abandoned the whole principle of that Bill, which last year he had made up his mind to defend and to carry; and be it remembered, too, that the Right Hon. Gentleman told them that this Bill came to them recom mended by the authority of the House of Lords, while, as far as they knew from the public reports, it appeared almost every person of authority in the House of Lords spoke against the principle of the Bill, and that the only reasons for keeping up the abuses of the present system was that the House of Commons would have it so. The Government had every reason to press the Bill, but they ran away from shadows of difficulty, and threw the onus of what was wrong in the present Bill upon the House of Commons. The Right Hon. Gentleman who proposed the second reading, said that some of the persons on the original Commission, who recommended the measure, had changed their minds, and that that some of the persons who voted for the second reading in the House of Commons meant to vote against its further progress. The principle of the measure wus opposed to the great authority of Lord Tenterden, Sir N. Tindal, Lord Denman, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell. It was opposed to the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Lincoln, Durham, and St. Asaph, and others of the highest ecclesiastical , authority. It was op poSed to the authority of Dr. Lushington, Sir J. Nichol], Sir Jenner Fust, and other persons of the greatest authority as civilians. But then the Right lion. Gentleman said that seine anonymous persons had changed their ;minds, and that some Members of the House of Commons, who had voted for the second read ing, would not support it at another stage. Could any Government have left higher authority than the names he had quoted for such utterly unstable support ? His Hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford was very much against the diminution of ecclesiastical tribunals, which he thought would lessen the just share of the Church in the institutions of the country. That was a very natural prejudice on the part of his Hon. Friend, and quite consistent with his views on the sub ject. But he (Lord J. Russell) must say, at the same time, that he did not think the principle of their institutions rested on any such grounds of reason ; and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of 1829, the Committee on real property in 1833, and tho Committee of the House of Lords in 1836, were of opinion that a change ought to take place with regard to the mode in which those matters of ecclesiastical law were carried on. He believed that if a search was made into the origin of this authority, it would be found to have commenced in the 14th century, by usurpation on the part of the Pope's Legate. It was not according to the ancient principle of the law in this country. Was it at all according to reason that at this day when people left large property in the Three per Cents., they should be governed by the maxims of the 14th century, which were directed by the authority of the papal power in this country. It was obvious that ecclesiastics should not have authority in those matters. What then was the principle which the Commissioners endeavoured to esta blish? That principle on which the Right Hen. Gentleman rested last year, namely, that there should be a court in which the chief judge would be named by the Crown, and who would have the chief authority in the ultimate disposal of personal property and wills. It was quite another question, whether they would go further, ar d make this court similar to the Court of Chancery, or one with those already existing, or one in which ques tions of real property and personal property would be decided at the same time and ruled by the same decision. But this was matter for subsequent consideration. Now the first plain question was, whether those matters were to be left to ecclesiastical tribunals ; whether the j ud g es were to be appointed by ecclesiastical authority, or ap pointed by the Crown; and whether civil matters were to be governed by rules which regulated matters of ecclesiastical authority? The Right Honourable Gentleman agreed with him that the judges should be named by the Crown. The Right Honourable Gentleman said that the Commissioners were of opinion that there should be a separation of civil and ecclesiasti cal matters, and that the diocesan courts should be abo lished. But he omitted some of .the history which sub sequently occurred. The bishops, at least a great num ber of them, stated it would be impossible to regulate matters satisfactorily till the question of Church discip line were settled. He believed that there were dif ferences of opinion amongst the bishops themselves, and other ecclesiastical authorities, as to the mode in which the. Legislature should proceed in regard to Church discipline. It was not till 1840 that the Bill on Church gre - atly increase the obstacle; to their abllition.—(l-Lear, hear.) Last session the Right HJa. Gentleman (Dr. Nicholl) cited largely from the authorities, up in which he rested hio Bill at that time. But on the present oc casion he alluthd to those auth or iti es i n a very light and trenchant manner.—(Hear, hear.) But .he would en deavour to supply the deficiency from the Right Honour able Gentleman's own able and convincing speech. First, Uwe was the report of the Ecclesiastical Com mission appointed in 1829, upon which were the Arch bishop of Canterbury, the BiShops of Loudon and Dur ham, Lord Tenterden, Sir Nichola§ ..th,e„c'llief Justice of the Common Plea s , Si r John NiCholl, and Dr. Lushington, &c. In this report the - condemnation of those courts was as strong as language could express it. The Right Hon. Gentlem a n ad m itt e d that some of the surviving members of that Commission retained their opinions, but others had changed them, and thought they had gone too far. But could the Right Hon. Gen tleman ask the House, on that account, totally to aban don the principles which, only last year, the House adopted in a great measure upon the authority of those Commissioners, of whom many retained their opinions to the full?—(Hear‘ hear.) In the report, also, of the Real Property Commissioners, the abolition of the courts was recommended, if not as directly in terms, certainly as strongly in fact, as in that of the Eccle s iastical Comtnis- sion-ani this, also, was one of the Right Hon. Gentle man's authorities. That Commission contained the names of men of the highest eminence in the legal pro fession. He (Dr. Nichol') produced, also, the authority of the Committee of the House of Commons, moved for by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and also the authority of the Committee of the House of Lords, appointed in 1836. The Right Hon. Gentleman was quite correct in saying that a Bill similar in principle was introduced into the House of Lords in 1836, but that Bill was far more stringent in its reforms and better calculated to meet the wants and desires of the country. However, the peculiars were by the present Bill to be abolished, and that was something gained, for he did not believe that any one could be found to say a word in favour of them. except, perhaps, the Right Hon. Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), who held everything in connection with ecclesiastical matters to be sacred and inviolate. The diocesan courts were, however, found to be too strong for the Government, and to a power which they could not or would not grapple with the country was to be sacrificed. It might, perhaps, be difficult to trace ex actly and correctly the origin of these courts, but he might state his own opinion, that their origin would be found in superstition. But every ground which could possibly exist for their jurisdiction had now ceased to exist. Now the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Graham) had himself east year denounced and discarded these diocesan courts, and he wished now to ask him if he abandoned his former opinions, or if he maintained them ?—(Hear.) Before these courts questions of the utmost interest, both in testamentary and matrimonial affairs would be brought—questions relating to the legiti macy of children, the rights of families, the happiness and security of society—and he (Sir G. Grey) wished to ask whether by this Bill such judges were secured as would give the public a proper confidence in the administration ofjustice?—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman (Dr. Nicholl) had stated the Bill to be an experiment, but why did he not give them the Bill of last year as an experiment? The principle of last year's Bill was con centration—the principle of this Bill was distribution in the jurisdiction in matters testamentary and matrimo nial. And this jurisdiction was to be exercised by judges not appointed by the Crown but by the Bishop. They were to be barristers of five years' standing, and the Right Hon. Gentleman thought that because they were to be confirmed in their appointment by the Crown that good judges would be obtained. But he (Sir G. Gre) asked the House if it were possible, unless ample salaries were attached, to attract competent men to these judicial situations ? The fact was , they could not make the diocesan courts efficient for the purpose the House ought to have in view. To reform them was impos sible, and abolition was the only real cure for the ?;riev ance.—(Hear, hear.) But let him remark that these judges were not only to exercise jurisdiction in testa mentary and matrimonial, but they were to be armed with powers like to those intrusted to the judges in West minster-hall. For by clause 86 of the Bill, it was enacted that for the better punishment of contempt the power of committing to prison should be given to - these judges, the same as was entrusted to the highest judges of the land.—(Hear, hear.) . This was a most formid able power to give any one in a country district—such a power, in fact, as he (Sir G. Grey) would only entrust to men of the highest qualification, judgment, and character. Now, having shown that the principle of this Bill was different from that brought forward last year—the one being for concentration of power, the other for distribution—he thought the House had a right to know the reason of the change. Again, on the bona notabilia, what was the reason for the change of the• views of Government from last year to this? The evils connected with.the bona notabilia were . now actu- - • ally to be perpetrated and extended.—(Hear, hear., This evil had been the subject of just and indignant complaint, and yet no effort was to be made to remove or reduce it. It had existed for centuries, and it was to exist still. The Bill was a bad and pernicious Bill in every respect, and he opposed it not merely because it was so, but because if passed it would be an effectual bar to any attempt at improvement hereafter. Let it but pass and there would be an end to all hope of eccle siastical reform. It was said, take the Bill as an instal ment. He (Sir G. Grey) should do no such thing; for he was satisfied there was no hope of future or further payment. And for these grounds he had now to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six 'wails- Sir ROBERT INGLIS said his Right Hon. Friend had stated that this Bill was a great improvement and a. step in the right direction ; and the Right Hon. Gentle man on the other side of the House said he would not take it as an instalment.' He (Sir Robert Inglis) thought t4t- Bill objectionable in many respects, and the vote which he would give would be very different from that which he had come into the House prepared to give. His Right Hon. Friend supported this Bill on account of its des-. tructive character, but Hon. Members on the other side did not think there was enough in the Bill to g ratif3 their appetites for destruction. Last year he had ob jetted to the principle of centralization embodied in th. Bill—and he was free to admit that in this respect the present Bill had been improved. He believed the object of her Majesty's Government was honest and good, and he would support the second reading, t h oug h the Bill went much further than it s h ou ld go. He would modify the proposed Bill in one important respect—viz., grant the parties interested the option of applying to the me tropolitan or to the local courts, which would often prove to be of very great convenience. Another sug gestion he would make was, that an index of wills and legacies should be prepared, which could be done at the expense - of half a dozen or a dozen of clerks, and would be vastly beneficial to the public. He would give to the supreme central court the power of regulating the in ferior courts, so that there might be an uniform it y of practice. He was in f avour of the abrogation of salaries altogether, and the substitution of a system of fees. He was grieved to witness the gradual withdrawal of the name and influence of the Church from testamentary mat ters, and he feared the country would have reason to regret it. If they alleged that any institution was abused, they • ught at least to prove the abuse before they destroyed' the institution. Let them paint out in what part of their duties the Court of Peculiars hid failed. There were some of their duties which they could not well pro cure any one but ecclesiastics to undertake, and if they could not get others to discharge those duties, they would, in destroying the courts, h a ve carried their prin ciple further than the inter es t of the community re quired. He also excepted to the clause, which ordered that all or any bills, deeds, and documents, in these courts, might be transmitted to London, and refereed to the Court of Arches or the Court of Chancery—he thought this provision a needless violation of conve nience. He denied that the utility of the diocesan courts was to be judged by the number of litigated cases that passed through them—it was from the amount of unliti gated business they disposed of that they were to be judged. At the same time, he confessed that he looked at the general principle of the Bill with a very different spirit to that with which he regarded the measure of last year. The present Bill did not sever the ec clesiastical jurisdiction of England from that in timate connexion with its • civil affairs which it had for so long a period possessed, and did not deprive the Church of England of some of its most im portant and most ancient points of connection with the people. He did not believe that it was a matter of in difference to the people that the transmission of their 'personal property, should be made in the name and under the authority of the Church—by that administra tion which the Church had been called on for centuries to exercise. In this respect the Bill was a great im provement on that of last year, yet he still thought it needlessly limiteikthe ;jurisdiction of the Church, when all that wait reqirtred was an improvement of its admi niltration. rd . ROBERT GROSVENOR said he h a d b een r :s*Viethoftywho etestroyed the Bill of last year, in which 1 "e - 4 - etletite ably assisted by the Hon. and Learned Mem hei for:o4(4d, who then voted with him against it. He ,(Lord IL' 'Peosvenor) would not yield to that Hon. !ebitsmber..lii•4ttachtnent to the Church of England ; b u t. ehe Thought' m ore its jurisdiction in civil matters was 'llo; 3 ;trii4 Kill/ b e tter it would be for the Establish.. 'Melit' He coup imagine what was the object of the ( Gii.yeriMeh . -ten tZoposing this Bill, which went to re eonitru6t.the diocesan courts, which were generally con demned. He app e roved of the abolition of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in civil matters, but this Bill went to perpetuate it ; the proposal of last year, to 'abolkth it was hailed with satisfaction from all sides of House. They would not permit persons to take out registrations where they chose, be cause they were afraid that Doctors' Commons would lose some of its business. There was an excessive want of a general system of registration. They had got courts of registration already, and, instead of trying to reconstruct bad diocesan courts, why could they not pass a Bill making them courts of registry for wills, deeds, and documents, and all kinds of property? That would do more good than any reconstruction of the law they could possibly devise. That suggestion had been made more thaq once, and had never been answered. Sir J. GRAHAM said before the House came to a decision on this Bill, he thought it right that he should have the honour of addressing it. Before he approached swathadtowhna.dfallen If he understood the Noble Lord, he frankl y ac linow:edged f t r h o e m ge t n h e e r N al o q b u le es L tio o n rd , he must uhsatdn just t e that he was one of those who destroyed the Bill of last year. He also stated himself to be as warm a friend to the Church as the Hon. Member for Oxford. This he proved by going further even than the Member for Oxford himself, as his suggestion would submit all the d'seipline passed the House. He stated at the time that ,t when the question was settled they might proceed satisfactorily with reg ird to those further settlenients." The present Bill, however, proposed to go back and to proceed in contradicCon to all those autho: itie ,-and to all the proposals which they made, and to establish diocesan courts. He objectel to those diocesan courts having the power which this Bill would give them—in the first place, because it was contrary to .priaciple that they should have it. It arose only from the usurpation of the dark ages, and was contrary to all the requirements of the present day. In the second place, he was opposed to it because there appeared every kind of objecti:tri arising, from the constitution of those courts. No stronger instance could be adduced than - those shown in cases of bona notabilia. If a person took out a probate in a different diocese from that in which his bona notabilia were, the probate would be void. In fact, every kind of delay and disturbance arose from the complexity of the law. Another reason against those diocesan courts was, that they had hitherto no busi ness, and therefore the judges had not sufficient experi ence to enable them to decide upon the difficult questions that at times came before them. 'lt appeared that on the average, those courts had only six contested causes be fore them—and yet it was proposed to give those judges, who had so little business, an increase of power, and, he supposed, adequate salaries. The deputy-judges had very trifling salaries. In the diocese of Bath and Wells, the deputy's salary was 101. In that of Bristol 461. In an other place in the diocese of Bristol, 361. in Chichester, 101., and in Llandaff, 61. That was cheap justice, at all events. Bat was it likely that judges so paid would be able to decide on the very difficult ques tions that would at times come before:them? The object in bringing forward the present measure was to please certain parties who had a vested interest in the subject, and to give patronage to the bishops. From the means of rapid communication that now existed, both time and expense would be saved by parties coming to London, instead of going by a cross-post to a diocesan court, with the disadvantage of the bona notabilia, and an ' inefficient judgo. In the present Bill there was a most extraordinary provision with respect to the removal of those judges. If a judge in Westminster Hall were guilty of gross misconduct the Crown could be addressed for the purpose of having him removed. But in the case of those judges, should any of them prove unfit for their office, if there were an address sent up, whom were they to address—the Bishops or the Crown ? The Crown had no power to remove them; and what, then, did the Bill provide ? Why, that the Secretary of State should give to the parties sending up the address a certificate that he had applied to the Bishops for the removal of the judge. Was there ever a more clumsy device ? The Right Hon. Gentleman gave a singular reason for not concurring in the opinion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—namely, that they took too long a time before they made their re port. The very reason, in his (Lord John Russell's) opinion, considering the other duties which oc cupied the attention of the several Commsssioners, why additional weight ought to be given to their decision. All that was good in the Bill might have been contained in three or four clauses. The Right Honourable Gentleman said that it was to be a final measure on the subject. It was the ultimate decision of the Government, and one opposed to the measure they said last year they would stand by; and as there was no hope of a better one, or that it would be amended in Committee, he would vote for the amendment of his Hon. Friend. Colonel SIBTHORP said that while the Noble Lord was in his present uncomfortable situation he would be sure to cppose any measure brought forward by the present Administration. He hoped he would never see the Noble Lord and his colleagues in the place of those who now sat as Conservative Ministers on the Treasury benches. It was strange that the Noble Lord, who was, as it were, the child of the Church, and who owed all to :the spoliation of the Church, should be first to rise up against the Church. With these observations, he should reserve his assent to the second reading of this Bill. Mr. ELPHINSTONE entirely concurred in the opinion of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for De vonport, that the Bill was exceedingly defective ; and the only point which could be urged in its favour was, that it abolished those courts which, for so many years, had been a disgrace to the country. He thought it a matter of regret that the recommendation of the Eccle siastical Commissioners had not been adopted, that church-rates should be taken out of the ecclesiastical courts, should be referred to the ordinary tribunals, and that all questions relating to church-rates should be de cided in quarter sessions. The great mistake of this Bill, however, was, that it re-established these diocesan courts, thus acting in direct opposition to the recommen dation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? As the Bill now stood, there was given to the diocesan courts a power to imprison any person who was guilty of con tempt in the face of these courts. This was a power which at present they did not possess, and he considered it open to great objection. With respect to salaries, he thought it would be better that salaries of judges and other persons should be made the subject of a separate That had been done in other cases, and he thought great advantage would be derived from it in this instance. Mr. WATSON perfectly agreed with his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Devonport in reference to this Bill. The principle of centralisation was that which ought to have been adopt. If this Bill passed into a law, there could be no future amendment. The mischiefs which were connected with the ecclesiastical courts must be admitted on all hands to be very great ; and he thought the only correct principle on which to establish them was that of centralisation. The House then divided, when there appeared--- For the second reading Against it . ... 89 Majority for the second reading —69 On our return to the gallery we found Mr. T. DUSCOMBE addressing the House. The Bill, he said, which was brought in by the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, last year, the Right Hon. Gentleman declared to be an honest measure. That Bill proposed to sweep away the diocesan courts, and also the courts at York. The present Bill proposed to retain them. He opposed the original Bill, because it did not go far enough. In his opinion there should be no ecclesi astical courts at all—(Cheers) —they wanted no canon law.—(Renewed cheering.) All the ecclesiastical courts ought to be swept away. But that would not suit the purpose of the Government or its supporters, because at the same time it would sweep away the vast patronage which was derived from those courts. For what purpose, he would ask, were those courts estab lished ? For the purposes of the soul ? Why the very purposes for which they had been originally . established were annihilated at the time of the Reformation. They ought, most certainly to abolish those courts in which the right of trial by jury was not recognised. Sir J. GRAHAM—That right is recognised in the Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—Yes ; but then it was at the discretion of the judge.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He felt'himself bound to protest that, so help him God, this was nothing more than a gross job, and as such he should give it his most strenuous opposition, because he thought the Bill was brought in through dishonest motives. Sir R. PEEL said he would support the same state ment which he had made last session when her Majesty's Government brought in the question.—(Hear, hear), The Government foresaw the difficulties with which this question would be beset, and that the Bill would encounter serious opposition in consequence of the many interests with which it was mixed up ; and, also, that there would be great opposition on the part of those who generally supported the Go vernment, because they disapproved of the Bill on prin ciple ; foreseeing this, • her Majesty's Government still thdught it to be their duty to propose the present mea sure. At the same time he felt bound to say that if her Majesty's Government could carry the Bill of last ses sion, he and his Right Hon. Friend would persevere with it—but he could see no chance of that result. They were opposed by his Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who protested as strongly against it as the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who stood his antipodes in the political sphere. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Bath had expressed his opinion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.—(Hear, hear.) . Now he (Sir Ro bert Peel) knew that during future stages of the Bill they should meet with the most decided opposition. He would ask the House whether it would be right on the part of the Government of this year if they were to propose the Bill of last year, when they were confident of its failure, or content themselves with introducing such a reform as they knew they would be able to carry? It was from those motives they thought it more con sisten on the part of her Majesty's Government to make certain of a minor measure of reform than to make the same unsuccessful attempts as those which had prevailed during the last twenty years. Why the certainty was that if they proposed the Bill of last year, they would have failed in carrying it. Why, there fore, if it were so desirable a measure, throw upon them selves and the House the responsibility of rejecting it ; the more particularly so, as her Majesty's Ministers were met on the one side by the most decided opposition, ,and on the other by a most lukewar m support? Therefore they thought the best course to adopt, and the one which was most likely to be beneficialw, some was to proposehi andchthe that y successful, s u a hi n . eoct had e an d p t o h i n e t t c a h m a i n e c e m s o t f s e r c i a o r u r s y o i nnge nvolvehderein this. was the subject of compe nsation on account of what was i T termed vested interests in the several offices attached to th o se courts. compensating The amount required for compensating the individuals who held those vested interests would a necessarily very large. This was one of the most serious impediments to the extension of this reform, for it would subject the public to a vast expense. He thought the system of recrimination in public debate was much to be deprecated, and thatne thee ev re o vir n ti ,c e www p i shs a hi r le t oe ; yy s toe l l i ul o ee u nl eN l t d eekor n bi o ilote t .t s o a L. T y oßhr t udi o st, —oe enteredhavewhi eh thishn into o even v h va e esn o e t h isfy e s it the Member for London, would he support (Sir Robert Peel's) proposition? It WriS true he ver speculated on the support of the Noble Lord, or allowed himself to be influenced by the vie w he might take of the question. parties with takin g a different course He thought that nothi ng could be worse than to taunt from what they h a d t a k en i n another.rse For t his s session pa honoured the man more w h o, h av i ng honestly alteredr, h t his e opinion, came forward and avowed the change, and took consequently a different course, than the man who should say, that " although my opinions are changed, I will adhere to the same course which I have already taken." —(Hear, hear.) Yet he thought that the course which the Noble Lord himself had taken gave a sufficient rea son why he (Sir Robert Peel) should be the less ready to take his advice. The Noble Lord had further • objected to the Government's hav ing abandoned the Bill of last session without taking the sense of the House upon it ; but the Noble Lord himself carried in the House of Commons a mea sure for the purpose of paying church• rates out of the Consolidated Fund, and he carried it by a majority of 150. But afterwards the Noble Lord abandoned that measure, and gave as his reason that he found the feel- ing of the public was egaiest the- measure.—(Hegr.) Still he (Sir Peel) did not 'nest to justify his owe.— coure by that of the Noble Lord for lie had given to the Flour the reasons for which be felt that he could give his eepport to the present Bill, althongh it fell short of that alteration in the law which was propoeed in the,Bill of last year, and which, if he could succeed in carrying it, he would prefer to have.—(Hear.) Mr. C. BULLER gave the Right Hon. Gentle man the credit which he claimed for honesty, althoerilx. he could not at all agree with him as to the hones */ of this I iill.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet hall shown that he had taken out of the Bill of last sessions everything that could be opposed by the gentlemen on% the opposite (the Ministerial) side of the House. The very difficulty which the Right Hon. Baronet complained of, as impeding all kinds of law reform. was the very thing which brought him (Mr. Buller) down to the House to oppose this measure. That was the difficulty created by vested interests. But this Bill wes to create twenty-six new judges. Now, the effect cf this would be, that whenever it should be attempted to reform those courts, in a manner worthy of the country, they would have to contend with all these new vested into. rests.—(Hear.) The measure of last year was much worthier of the views which the Right Hon. Baronet% now professed, and it would have found greater sup-- port in the House and the country. The Government would' have more successfully conciliated opposition by taking out of the former Bill all that was really objection able and suspicious.—(litar.) The Right Hon. Gentle man could have come forward and tested the House.-- (Hear.) He couid have said that he had now produced a good and efficient measure, and he left to the House the responsibility of rejecting it.—(Hear.) But the Bilt. of this night, far from grappling with the evils of the, Ecclesiastical Courts, kept nothing of the other Bill but. the increase of office and salaries.—(Hear.) What was the meaning of those formidable schedules (not filled up) at the end of the book—one of offices and the other of salaries—the more formidable because they were note filled up?—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet: talked of his desire to reform the institutions of the country. But he would recommend the Right Hon. Ba rOnet not to interfere with the old institutions until he could reform them effectually. Dr. NICHOLL wished to know what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman coisidered suspicious in the Bill of last year ? Mr. BULLER'S answer was not heard. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed. COUNTY COURTS BILL-SUPERIOR COURTS BILL. Sir J. GRAHAM said that there were many provi sions of the Superior Courts Bill, introduced by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Chester, which were far from interfering with the County Courts Bill, but would, on the contrary, assist its objects and opera tion. He, therefore, would suggest that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman should not press the second reading of this Bill, but would allow the County Courts Bill to go through Committee pro forma, with a view to recoil:- 6k the two Bills in Committee. He should also wish that the compensation clause should be brought up, andi the report received. Mr. JARVIS had no objection to the course proposed. Mr. WATSON wished to call the attention of the Government to the neeessity of having barristers of station and character to preside over quarter sessionst.. Such appointments would greatly relieve the business at the assizes, and tend to the diminution of the county rates. After a few words from Mr. W. Ellis, Sir J. Graham, and Mr. Hawes, the Bill was read a secoud time. IRISH REGISTRATION BILL. In answer to question by Lord J. RUSSELL, Sir R. PEEL stated that he did not propose to bring on the Irish Registration Bill before the 6th of May. ' The House then went into Committee on the County Courts Bill, which went through Committee pro forma. The report . to be brought up on Monday next. The Superior Courts Common-law Bill was then read a second time, which was ordered to be brought up =- Wednesday week. CLERK OF THE CROWN. The report on the Committee of Supply was then about to be brought up, when Mr. BARING wished to know whether or not it was true that the Clerk of the Crown was about to be salaried out of the House of Lords ? Sir R. PEEL said the affair had not come under the consideration of the Treasury, and, therefore, he could not give a direct answer. Lord J. RUSSELL repeated the question. Surely the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern ment must know that an address had been presented on the subject by the House of Lords to the Throne ? Sir R. PEEL must repeat, that the matter had not come under the consideration of the Treasury. He must own he had heard of it, but he could not at pre sent give a definite answer on the subject. Lord J. RUSSELL wished to explain, in reply to. some observations of the Noble Lord (Stanley), regard ing the appointment of the Bishop of New Zealand, that he had not pledged the House in any way to the subject. After a few words from Lord STANLEY, The Bailiffs of Inferior Courts Bill went through Committee.—Report this day. VESTRIES. Mr. S. O'BRIEN rose to ask leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit the holding of vestries in churches. Mr. HAWES objected to bringing in a Bill of such importance, and which would entail considerable ex pense on many parishes, at that late hour, which pre cluded the possibility of discussing its provisions. Mr. S. O'BRIEN said the Bill was not the same as that of last year. Sir R. PEEL said there were many cases in which Bills were allowed to be introduced without entering into a statement, and he did not see any objection against such a course being allowed in the present case. He should reserve to himself the right of acting as he thought proper when the Bill was read a second time. On the motion of Mr. S. O'BRIEN the Bill was then brought in and read a first time. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter-past Twelve. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. NEWMARKET FIRST SPRING MEETING, 1844. NEWMARKET, MONDAY EVENING, 5 P.N. The company in the town has considerably increased since our last, and as the weather continues fine, and the anxiety to see the first favourite for the Derby is, if possible, greater than ever, we may look for the largest attendance to-morrow that has been seen at Newmarket since the Crucifix year. Great numbers were on the heath this morning to see the two cracks; both were out and looking the " perfection of racing" trim. The Ugly Buck, who made his appearance about six o'clock, was for nearly three hours the " observed of all observers," and it will be satisfactory to his absent admirers to hear, that however lazy and " pot— te;ing " in his walk, his action when gallopping is, by the majority of critics, pronounced to be un exceptionable ; that he merits the character given him of being " the best horse ever trained at Danebury," re mains to be proved—that the field he wilimeet to-morrow is good enough to extend a horse of such formidable pretensions may be doubted. Meanwhile betting on the Derby pro gresses languidly . ; 5 to 2 is taken about the Ugly Buck. 17 to 1 each about Campanero and Leander, 25 to 1 about Bay Moms, and 1,000 to 15 freely about Elemi For the 2,000 Guineas Stakes 3to 1 goes current on the Ugly Buck, and only 3to 1 offered against his winning both events. The late hour at which the races terminated must be pur excuse for deferring a list of the fashionable arrivals funtil a more favourable opportunity. Of the sport we subjoin the usual details : • 50/. ; for four yrs old, 7st 10lb ; five yrs, Bst 91b ; six yrs and. aged, 9st. Last three miles of B.C. Lord Albemarle's The Brewer, 4 yrs .........(Whitehouse) 1 Mr. Watson's Antidote, 4 yrs Lord Exeter's Czar, 4 yrs . ••••••••••• 3 Mr. Rogers's Prosody, 5 yrs Betting-11 to 10 agst Brewer ;3to 1 agst Prosody : and 7to 2 agst Czar. Nearly all the running was made by An tidote, The Brewer lying at his quarters from the ditch, and ! getting to his head at the Duke's Stand. The Brewer then took the lead from Antidote, kept it to the chair, and won cleverly by a length. Czar and .. Prosody were pulled up be- ! fore they entered the cords. Sweepstakes of 100 sovs. each. for colts Bst 91b, and Mos, i Bst 51b. R.M. (4 Subs.) - Lord Glasgow's c by Velocipede Duke of Beaufort's Craude Frollo ........................ . best at his . Even betting—Claude Frolic. made running thanks to pace, and at the cords had the best of It ; but, the judge to pronounce whipcord, was caught just in time for h vin broke down (Robinson.). 0 0 d ; . i t i it a dead heat. The Velocipede colt a a o f v t e e r r . the dead heat, Bedford's Oakley, Bst 71b Match-300, T.Y.C. Duke of Bedford's ,a Emma, sst silb (Ab (Robinson), beat Lord G. Benti k i: n Bst t c a 7 n lb t e each.r . was drawn, and Claude Frollo walked , dale). 6t04 on Oakley. . AI (5 Subs.) Lord Exeter's Merope (Mann) I agst Example. 2 Mr. Thornhill's Example Sweepstakes of 100 sovs. e.alelhro,illibftY,afelernfigltlhies, f 4 b o y n M is ul ie e r y op 3 e l , ol a o n ch d , b 2 y t A o Actaeon o a n g Lord Glasgow's filly made plays - to the cords, where she was beaten ; Merope went on with the running, and won by a L oß rd et ? i l n as g_6 gow t 's o head; Example, who made a waiting race of it, never ha ving quite reached her. • Sweep. of 100 sovs. each, li ft, for 4 yrs old, A.F., 4 subs. an 6 d st 7 11 t 1 o b 4 against Duke of Bedford's Minotaur, 7st ............(Whit e h ouse ) 1 Duke of Gra ft on's &sop, 6st 41b .. Lo 6 rd to E 4 xe o t n er 3 's li F no ra ta u u le r i , n Fraulein , ... 3 lEsop.The light weight cut out the work into the cords, where Minotaur, who had followed Franlein into the bottom, took the running . i away from him, and won cleverly by a length. The Palace Filly Stakes of 100 sovs. each, for three yrs old, : Bst 71b each;, D.M. (6 Subs.) Duke of Rutland's Crenoline • (Boyce) I Lord Stradbroke's Boarding School Miss - 2 Lord Albemarle's Robinia Lord Exeter's Economy 4 Even on Crenoline. and 3to 1 agst Miss. Economy made the.running at a moderately good pace, followed by Boarding School ]Hiss and Robinia, the favourite waiting. At the 1 cords Robinia and Economy were beaten, and, Crenoline i passing them, challenged Lord Stradbroke's filly half-way ••• up, and defeated her by a neck. Sweepstakes of 50 sovs. each, for foals of 1841, colts, Rst 71b, and fillies, Bst 31b ; A.F. (9 Subs.) Mr.. Phillimore's Skeleton, allowed 31bs ...............(Sly) ,I Mr. Combe's Keeley .. ... .......................... .. 2 Miss Julia ....... ... ...... 3 r. Lord Orford's c by Elis, out of .. _ Lord G. Bentinck's The Great Mog ul ........................ .. 4 5 , Lord W. Powlett's Falconer ......... .. .... ... .... 6 to 4 agst Keeley, and 7 to 4 a g st the sort,Skeleton. The Great followed to • Mogul made running at a g ood p ace for he lead was the • top of the hill by Keeley' and Skeleton; . t th . then taken by Skeleton, who had no competitor a e cor d s , and eas y by t w o lengths • the Miss Julia c a bad third. won , Match. First half of Ab. M. " 150, It ft. Mr. Grenville's Molly Nogg, 3 yrs, Bst 71b Nat 0 - ' Lord Glasgow's fby Bay Middleton, out of Intemperance, 2 yrs, 6st 71b ................................................... ... 0 ' 6t04 on Impertinence filly. A dead heat. New. Match for Thursday.—Duke of Bedford's Espoir, ' 9st 71b, agst Lord Glasgow's fby Bay Middleton, out of Im pertinence, ist. First half of Ab. M. 200, h ft. . Two Thousand Guineas Stakes.—Rhino, Brush, Arragon, and the Best Bower, are scratched. : One Thousand Guineas Stakes.—Liberia, Here. I-go. with- ' my-eye-out, and the Fidelity filly are scratched. : Newmarket Stakes.—The Fidelity filly, Arragon and ' Slanderer, are struck out. , 4 PM!!'7' of last .1 1 e )et- ~~