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

"."-- The Bill was then read a second time. On the motion that the Bill be committed, in order that it be postponed, 111 r. ROEBUCK said he wished to put a question to the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. That Hon. Gentleman had stated that a Minister of the Crown had used his influence as a Minister of the Crown to induc e an officer of the Government, he believed an Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, to make a false re turn to that House for the purpose of crushing a Member of that House.—(Hear, hear.) He was jus tified in asking who was that Minister of the Crown who had thus used his power ; who was the officer Whom the Crown employed ; and who ivas the Mem ber sought to he crushed, for it must have been that a fly was crushed upon the wheel. The Hon. Gentle- Man must give them a peculiar light on the matter as to who the Minister of the Crown was who had used the power of the Government to induce a sworn Officer to make a false charge to the House for the Purpose of crushing a Member of the House. But if the charge turned out to be false, what where they to think of an Hon. Member who accused a Minister of the Crown with using the authority of the Govern ment to induce an officer of the Government to pro- Pagate falsehoods which would be a disgrace to human nature ? Mr. FERRAND said the Right Hon. Gentleman had not been able in this case to avail himself of that systign to which he generally resorted in that House, of coming Luckily to take an undue advantage of an Hon. Member. he (Mr. Ferrand) was prepared, as far as his own recollection went, to state to the House the circumstances to which he referred. During the discussion of the New Po or -law in that Honse, it happened that he addressed the Rouse. After he had sat down—he believed it was ba lranl ediately on his resuming his seat—the Right Hon. r onet the Se c retary of State for the Home Depart went drew out of the box opposite to him a report, from 'L i ch he made charges against him (Mr. Ferrand) as a ic a ,:Payer and inhabitant of the Keightley union, which t'F: ' k new were false. That report had been obtained by (R ear.) Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, Mr. Mott.— . i o s lar.) A Committee of that House was appointed in q ui re into the allegations of that report. Magis qv_ • eitt , poor -law guardians, servants of the union, de ("ane after the other, that it was untrue, and some them that it was scandalously false. A Committee fat H ouse h a d d ec l are d , t h oug h h e was sorry to say that Committee did not do justice under the circum st s of the case, still it de c lar e d that many parts of b e btePort were overcharged. But he was not going to t o Put down by the report of that Committee. He came j that Hou se an d as k e d f or fresh returns, to procure Tree for himself and for the rate-payers of the parish. Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, b r ," the Secr e t ar y o f State for the Home Department, op ei..`4ed those returns. He in vain applied to that House to F im ilt ,them• There was an inclinat;on at first to prevent th e f ro obtaining them, but, at last, the Noble Lord, w tTlembe r f or t h e City o f L o ndon, said he thought i t eald be un j ust on t h e part o f t h at H ouse t o re f use hi m wose returns. Noes were counted on that order, and it r n Et3 l „ f° .ond by the Government that they would be in a res ult if they nuit ? resisted his motion. But what was the The returns, which were not laid on the table the end of the session, proved that the report the . Poor -law ; a n d b e f ore a nother session cam e M r . M o tt, Commissioner, was dismissed, and thus treeented from being brought to the bar of that House. to r ider th e c i rcumstances of the case, it was the duty of e , G overnment to give information to that House and ki Ws country as to the reasons of the I:B4die of M r . M ott. —(H ear, h ear. ) H e hi mse lf k ia brought th a t question und e r th e no ti ce T re t ue Rouse. He appealed to the First Lord of the of t a i sury to do justice to the rate-payers of the parish tv ,..hgley, He could tell him that there was not a it.' Payer of that parish who was not fully prepared to C ti a o d by him, and to prove that the report was scanda- NZ ) : f alse; and until the Right Hon. Baronet the Se- Ir el ;`Y of State for the Home Department told him (Mr. ) 3 ,-atid) and the country how it was that report was wh l ight out of the box, he could not cease to repeat A t he had said on this subject. ti o „ r t ROEBUCK said he must complain that his ques t e tts 4 „ad not been answered. He had appealed to him to lia t Fu-lh that an officer of the Crown had used his power 40,14fluence over an officer in the employmeut of the (letup - lent to induce him to make a false report.— ps o ; t r.) The Hon. Gentleman had done nothing but Ne that the report was false. The charge still remained h officer of the Crown had used hi s . po wer f or suc h ke - tse, and how scandalous the charge was the Hon. r had not shown.—(Hear, hear.) be s • 'ERRAND did not know what the Hon. Mena meant by using such language. *ha t ROEBUCK said his language was plain, and k r ee meant was plain. 'ERRAND said the Hon. Member was not go ie7t B chool him. He had used language in that House atid it was unbecoming him as a Member of that House, TO gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) k ° SPEAKER said he must call upon the Hon. bee to retract his expressions. t hia s : +l ,ERAND said he would willingly do every i _l47,*ue Speaker wished. ROEBUCK•ket o i; wished to know whether the Hon. (Re repeated the charge to which he had referred? RIghtORRAND said what he stated was, that the fal e „, _On- Gentleman had used his influence to procure si r report f tr o °te t j h' e TtAHAM said, until the last words which fell -reus e L _ on. Member he had looked with great indif lie uoth to the charge and to the discussion itself. 11 s ( • s e .°- Member had deliberately asserted that which Oye Graham) had hardly thought he could i o 4 1 . 1 " 11 upon himself to assert of him, much 'est h his presence and before that House, viz., tves t e 6 (Sir James Graham) had used his official 41,4 anot th9 h tain a false report. He (Sir J. Graham) thi nk it worth while to move that the words be 41t th er -w n, which was the usual course in such cases. as " attl e „ was no mistake that the Hon. Gentleman had 44,14-' stated, after some deliberation—because he p a ,th e Ila oecessarily the question in the first instance, ofiq to question was then repeated—that he was pre cialpoassert that he (Sir J. Graham) had used his It Illas os Wer and influence to obtain a false report for ee,l l lltl ; l e Of crushing him (Mr. Ferrand). He thought -3L de e impossible, considering that assertion, and I,,ljavorlertlg.,,.the position' which . he (Sir . J. Graham) held d, lib u , her Majesty—considering that the assertion umber w e r , ll tely made—he was quite sure the Hon. •Vale t i n; as well as himself, feel that it was im 10-11. dem and redress then, but he hoped that the 8 / 1 1)3 t4h;• la all was prepared to take the proper course 4 ) 42% // V I , the charge.—(Opposition - cheers.) th a `:aera e d tE said there was another question which the Sty . s ha greater importance. It had been asserted Gt°laeial " t li on. Secretary of State had made use of hel l i e , l athien ce to induce the Hon. Member who 4 1 41e /A hun (Mr. Hogg, we understood the Hon. ' l a all to ref gg ' • Was ; I ect;„ er to), when Chairman of the Notting- Ol t ~.411 resift Committee to commit perjury ; for such ti e ,,‘-hai rma i the nature of the charge, as he presumed ,o,,,",Oottunitt as well as the other members of an Elec *it's Ing t o his ce was sworn to deliberate and decide, ac 411t 4 Most conseience. It appeared to him that that 11: o s n serious charge brought against the Right ,waT,,,,et. himself, and against the Hon. Gentleman :illoalearnan of the Committee in question, and ts eh r- Ftß it A aPPy to hear some explanation of it. e xpr beg leave to say that I never used Iv% r • WARri° ll --(0h, oh.) (Q h aed ulou , —I am bound to say that the impression sesesq.....thsly inculcated in the country at large— litty3c, in the Chairman of a Committee of this eto nischarge of his duty, which was to decide ululated that conflicting claims of two parties, had grossly ttt • dut to be rid or 3r7 and that he used subterfuge in order %t ee eh h a 'Membe r of this House who was supposed ad °xiou s d e he to the persons in power, and who was (th e of the rights of the 1 • 1 th t Ilty • Ch a i m wor cing c asses— his q an of the Committee) discharged his v_ 11 Pon h• way as to cause the whole House to cry 1 , 4 g at the lin when he made the report to the House, tli e t hat "IY, the solitary voice which cheered him, the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for s o w thi s 7Pnartment. And I had no idea when I ea- Vc ob bef ore .. 1 ° se that such a question as that which is te 1,, us, .Ivould have been brought forward, and of I w i li °ll , l a have no intention of taking part in it; - "'ed just l's 4 at sev er advert to something which has been L ee h ss be eral of these public meetings to which refe c,rtaited e i _ t t made, which was, that such was the sense ale` theßight "(ter stated n. Baronet at the head of the Govern-. Of tk on one night, when leaving the House 4 0 „nlon on this Bill, that the Christian feeling tVittp h Z f e r tl o ad beaten the Government on the factory s,iistood fe k. l .4 nd cheers.) I cannot help hoping that &I ttoneenng of the n Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) the , e him to sa that he has been misled I,vhi e h warmth 0„ t ae eh he take • his own feelings on a subject 444 t wadi _ es an interest, and that he had not at- Arts eh h e N e ,nt importance to the words he was using, duds sto h .as not at the moment aware of the deep im _welch the were ort eeo Y calculated to make on t h who naturallybetter supposed that the Hon. Gen an th e acquainted withwhat is • passing Whir. - s , Eob y could be. ti t „ l t Iaa,""AND—I am quite I.q/4111' e s aid, but I quite prepared to stand by 4 1 from never recollect any such expres x„.l% Virk.,„onl me. Oastler. Saber, RR, th.”t R o AND —I am not Mr. Oastl • hsle at, liaronet the er s keeper. The sere h Home Secretary was, a short t in r espe ct he is now at Ebert• —(L h I, l ,Rha oi et to the language I y. ug te.) But ao oleo- used relatina• to the Not -. 0 -lon, I have to state that I • ou ht. ° llse." I said, " those who never said " the t afar., ti •-- (Crie s o f ti Oh se sat on this side of the , oh.") e _ t o hope the Hon. Gentleman will be kind tvt ee t , i.) T S t ate to the House what he da_at h e ~1)e he will be kind did say—(Loud enough to state d' • O v ow utti S tate, and I h • istinctly t th e re ope that he will either avow or 4 14 al port of his speech which never would Y °Ye if I had not seen tskek P'S given in ofthe a prominent part of one leading columns of the tie,* ot thrt particular statement respecting m self I Other statement which has been alluded y to atittitelep,.) er "ut never heard of until this moment.— po rt th to tell hope the Hon. Gentleman will be kind th at Of h i the House whether he he he speech in the Times has seen the re- w.ill distinctl newspaper, and I hope . (/.l ere 111 , that state to the House, and I hope the tt4ers......th'eu'ilpont.hotralnthlave a right, not only to request A , ll i u st s p i t : aa officer of tehlisalL'uvsas i . nterupted by loud requilm,l duty —a right to in the discharge of tkltbte.vowrettalat Hon- demandGntlemrtnlit. that this House 'i!re''4111(11111t1i3 speech as reported, an s d la w c h l i y ch to h a a y s ow bee o n r put forward in a leading article of the Tine' ti„'„P_Per--(Great cheering ) i;)/te.s, a nd D-- I saw the -* th, the vs o d `• leading article in the r s which I used, and what I asserted 'mon referred to, are h t ere quoted, and are TkIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY 'EVENING, APRIL 23, 1644. entirely correct.—(oh, oh, some cheering, and consi- planation with feelings of disgust. Now here is entirelytl derable disapprobation.) a separate question. The Hon. Gentleman the Member Mr. HOGG (with much warmth)—l beg, then, so for Beverley thought it not necessary, and thought it lemly to declare that it was not my intention to take the would not be superfluous labour, when he presented his slightest notice of what appeared in that paper, or of report, to explain what he considered to be the law of what fell from the Hon. Gentleman. I did not act bribery, and how that law applied to particular transac solely upon my own impression, or upon my own opinion. tions ; but whether the Hon. Gentleman rightly under • lam not peculiarly sensitive, for I know that men in stood, or whether he mistook that law, is no question for public situations of life are liable to have their us to investigate or settle. The question is whether the conduct made the subject of public comment, Hon. Gentleman acted honestly and conscientiously in and lam not particularly sensitive when I know the discharge of his duty—a solemn duty imposed upon the quarter from which imputations come. —(Cheers.) him by the House; or whether he acted corruptly or I took the opinion of friends upon bath sides of the I perverted the law for the purpose of either injuring an House, and of gentlemen 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 he the question. I have 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, House, arid I confess that that advice accord.-d with my with respect to the Hon. Member for Beverley, that I own impression. Sir, I have been for a long period a ' believed he had conscientiously discharged his duty, and Member of this House, and elsewhere I have been long that he did as any other man would have done who hail before the public. I had no anxiety—l hope I did not undertaken the very arduous and responsible duty of place a presumptuous confidence in my own character— chairman of an election committee. The Hon. Gentleman but I had no anxiety—and, therefore, I felt satisfied with the Member for Knaresborough must consider that he the advice given to me, that the observations which'were differed in opinion with the Hon. Member for Beverley, made by the Hon. Gentleman were not deserving of con- or that a certain feeling was produced as to the aecu sideration.—(Cheers.) But it now assumes a very dif racy of the judgment of that Honourable Gentleman. ferent character. 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 and vituperating men with wholesale and foul calumny. Hon. Member for Beverley, that such a charge need not But when he avows before this House—when he states have been noticed in this House; but, having been no in his place in Parliament, that a sworn officer of this ticed—having become matter of question—let the Hon. House, in the discharge of his public duty, was influ- Gentleman take what time he pleases, let him look to enced by a Minister of - the Crown grossly to abandon the weight of his language, and to the effect which it that public duty (a duty which he was sworn upon oath might be likely to produce; but he is bound to make out to discharge) for an ill and a foul purpose—sir, it be- his allegations with respect to the integrity of the Right 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 partment, as a Minister of the Crown; and he is bound Hon. Gentleman to substantiate his charge.—(Cheers.) to make out the charge against the honour and charac- Ido not want him to substantiate the charge. I call . ter of the Hon. Member for Beverley, in the discharge on - that Hon. Gentleman to rise in his place, and leave, of his duty as chairman of an election committee, and if he can, upon the minds of this House 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 this House, discharge of my public duty I was influenced by dis- and to have endeavoured to weaken the opinion of the honest or dishonourable motives.—(Great cheering.) people as to the honour and integrity of the Members of If he should raise that doubt—if he should raise that this House.—(Cheers.) suspicion—let me be covered with well-merited obloquy, and let me depart this Home as a man no longer worthy to take his seat, being no longer worthy of confidence.— (Continued cheering.) But there is another view of the question. If that Hon. Gentleman cannot raise that doubt in the minds of this House—if he fail to satisfy this House as to his grounds for doubting my hone ur and integrity, then let that Hon. Gentleman be branded as the asserter of foul and false calumnies—let him stand convicted as such before this House and before the coun- Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, I really am sincerely sorry that the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward), has noticed in the House of Commons some expressions which I intended to permit to pass over in silence. But they have been noticed in the House of Commons, and an importance has thereby been attached to them. I know perfe ,- ;tly well what would be the re sult if I were now to remain silent with respect to these expressions. I should be continually told for the next fortnight, such expressions had been try, and it will be then for him to consider whether he is worthy longer to sit in this assembly, or command respect as a gentleman.—(Continued cheering_) I repeat my calm declaration, that I had not the slightest intention of bringing this matter before the house, but when it was repeated by the Hon. Member in his place in Parliament, I must of course notice it, and throw myself not only on this side of the House but on the other. I appeal to your leclings as gentlemen— those feelings which, I know, are always responded to. Since I have had the honour of a seat in this House—l speak in the presence of those gentlemen who are in the habit of appointing Committees—and I say that I have never sought to be placed on any Committee in my life; and I may add, that I never refused to discharge, to the best of my humble ability, any duty the House might be pleased to impose upon me. They imposed on me the arduous—the painful—the sacred—the so lemn duty of Chairman of an Election Committee, which I discharged to the best of my humble ability as their sworn officer, and I claim from them the right to be supported. I claim this from them. If lam guilty, I will willingly submit to the consequence, and I will submit to be branded with infamy. But I require from this House protection. If the Hon. Gentlemen cannot state the grounds for his accusation, or raise a doubt in the minds of this House, then I claim that he should be branded in the manner he deserves.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. FERRAND—When, Sir, I uttered the language which the Hon. Gentleman has now brought before the House, I was alluding to the feeling of this House on the occasion when the Lion Gentleman presented his report, and I said that when the❑ the Hon. Gentleman did so he displayed a gopl deal of " haggling." Mr. HOGG—That is not the part. It is that part in which you said, the Right Hon. Baronet influenced me to commit perjury. Mr. FERRAND—The Hon. Gentleman is, I believe, labouring under a mistake when he says that I used such language, I did not say anything of the kind. If the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had given me notice of his intentio.i to put these questions to me, or if the Hon. Member for Montrose had done so, I should have had the newspaper in my hand, and I should have been pre pared to have read the language which I uttered. They have not given me that opportunity, knowing, that as I had not the newspaper present, it would be a good time for them to take me at a disadvantage, and they have done so. When I used the language to which the Hon. Member for Beverley has referred, I was alluding to the feeling of this House on the occasion on which he pre sented his report; and I said that when the Hon. Mem ber for Beverley was " haggling" and " higgling" through an excuse, those on this side of the House lis tened with feelings of disgust. There was but one Member on this side who cheered, and that Member was the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department.—(Laughter.) Now I believe that is as nearly the language I used on that occasion as possible.—(Cries of" No, no.") Yes; and if I had known I would have been prepared to read the very words to the House, and, as I told the Hon. Gentleman, those words in the leading article to which the Hon. Gentleman has referred, to the best of my knowledge, are the words I uttered. But if the House and the Hon. Gentlemen think proper, I will to-morrow bring down the Times newspaper with me, and I will be prepared to stand by those words again to-morrow. I will not retract them, for the words I used were the result of deliberate obser alluded to, and I had not noticed Them. Now I see it stated, day after day, and I.( ceived with loud cheers, and expressions of great disgust, that on one occasion, when retiring from the House of Commons to the lobby, I was heard to say " that the Christian feeling of the House of Commons had beaten the Government on the factory question." I never said one syllable or anything of the kind. I never said anything which by possibility could be construed into a foundation for such a statement. We find generally some foundation for reports, however absurd and exaggerated they may be ; but I cannot call to mind anything more likely to form the foundation for such a statement, than that I, one night, in the lobby, said, that if the Government took time, and gave an op portunity to Members to consider the probable effect of interference with labour, very likely the Government vvonld be in a majority.—(Cheers and laughter.) I never said anything more nearly approaching the ex pressions which have been imputed to me than that. The subject then dropped. The Committee on the Factories Bill was then post poned till Friday. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL. Dr. NICHOLL, in moving the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, said that although the subject had been frequently under the consideration of both Houses of Parliament, and many Bills brought in and committees appointed to inquire into the best means of amending the ecclesiastical law since the year 1839, yet not one of them had been adopted. In that year, on the recommendation of the Duke of Wellington, a select committee had been appointed to inquire into the matter, when a report was drawn up, in which considerable al terations were recommended, and that the diocesan courts should only exercise discretion in testamentary affairs. In the year 1831 a committee was ap pointed, which produced a report making similar re commendations. In 1833 a committee was appointed which recommended that these courts should have the power allowed to them of granting probates, and in 1804 a Bill was brought in which recognised their right of granting probates, but it was never laid upon the table. In 1836 another • Bill was brought into the House of Lord bys, the then Lord Chancellor, but it was set aside, and referred to a select committee, or, rather, a Com mittee appointed to consider a petition presented upon this subject, and the recommendation was that the dio cesan courts should have the power of granting letters of administration in the case of all sums under 3001., and that the heads of these courts should be allowed a salary not exceeding 5001. a year, and that they should have certain testamentary jurisdiction. Notwithstand ing- all those measures having been introduced so frequently to Parliament, yet they were fol lowed by no practical result. Now many of the principles of the Bill introduced last year were founded upon the report of the committee of 1836, and although the Bill did not get the sanction of the House on the second reading, yet there were a great many persons by whom the principles upon which it was tounded were warmly supported. From the feeling expressed out of doors, it was determined upon to retain the testamentary power to diocesan courts ; and also to the archbishops' courts, be cause it was necessary that there should be an appeal to those courts, and ultimately to the Crown ; anti also, because it would be wrong to deprive the bishops' courts of that power which the diocesan courts possessed. There were three hundred and thirty courts throughout the kingdom which possessed testamen vation as to what took place when the Hon. Gentleman explained to the House his proceedings on the Notting ham Election Committee. The Hon. Gentleman could not have forgotten that he felt himself called upon to explain the proceedings of that Committee. There was a strong feeling in the country that the Hon. Gentleman should not hold his peace as to his conduct on this oc casion ; and after the report was presented, the Hon. Gentleman found it necessary to stand up for half an hour together and attempt to explain the proceedings in that Committee. lam a public man as well as a Mem ber of this House, and I have a right to form an opinion as to the proceedings of that Committee, or of the mem bers who were upon it. I will not hesitate to give my opinion upon them or upon what I should consider the public conduct of this House. If this House, or any friend of mine should tell me that I used language that was too strong, I will re tract it, but I will not be intimidated, as I have been attempted to be intimidated, by men who have not dared to meet me on the hustings—(Laughter)—but who are jealous of the unanimous regard and affection which has been shown to me by tens of thousands of injured men— men whom you (pointing to Lord J. Russell) have de ceived—yes, and who have cast you off.—(Laughter.) I will stand to what I have uttered out of this House, and I will maintain it. tary jurisdiction. Now, it was proposed to abolish those courts and establish (with various qualifications recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners) in their stead thirty-three other courts. He pro posed that a regularly qualified judge should be appoint ed to each court, who should be paid by a fixed salary, that appropriation of the profits or fees of the court and the practice of the court should be as much as possi ble the same as that of the Admiralty Court. He also proposed to introduce into the Bill a power which would confer upon those judges the power of summoning wit nesses, and of issuing commissions. It was proposed that the rule of practice in court should be determined by the Queen in Council, and that the salaries of the registrars should be fixed and independent of the fees of the court. With respect to the right of appeal, there were several provisions made in the Bill, one of which was, that right of appeal would lie to the Prerogative Court in London. But if the parties did not assent and agree to pay the costs, the causes should remain with the court below. Thus far he had stated what was intended to be the practice of those courts ; and if, with these improve ments and increased powers, the courts should not prove as efficient as the public would desire, further improve ment could be made with almost universal concurrence. In both the provinces the diocesan courts and the Sir R. PEEL rose, but gave way to Sir J. GRAHAM, who said -Sir, there is no "hag gling" or " higgling" here.—(Cheers.) We are in the British House of Commons ; and the Honourable Gen tleman has accused me, as a Minister of the Crown, of having exerted my influence as a Minister to obtain a false report for the purpose of crushing him. There shall be no surprise. He says that I, as a Minister of the Crown, used my influence with a Member of this House— Mr. FERRAND—No, I did not say so. Sir J. GRAHAM—I understood the Hon. Gentleman to refer to the Hon. Member for Beverley, as Chairman of a Committee of this House, with whom I used my in fluence. prerogative were superintended by the same judges, and were attended by the same pleaders, and it was, there fore, proposed to unite their jurisdiction, giving compen sation to the present holders of the abolished offices. It was further provided that the registrars of the abolished courts should send in their registries to the Council, and that her Majesty should have the power of directing where the wills and papers should be deposited. The Bill provided further, that all probates and settlements under them, which had not yet been contested, should be declared valid, because in making this change, and reducing the number of courts from 330 to 33, it was thought advisable to grant, as it were, a general amnesty. The Bill also proposed that, Mr. FEHR AND—No, no. Sir J. GRAHAM—Very well. I will have no sur prise. Again, I repeat, that we have no " haggling" or " higgling" here, but to-morrow I will not appeal to the generosity or the fairness of the Hon. Gentleman, but I will appeal to the generosity and the fairness of both sides of the House, and I expect that to-morrow the Hon. Gentleman will come down with a specific charge against me—not only as a Minister of the Crown, but as im peaches, and Member of this House, whose honour he and whose of fi cial character he impugns. I call on him, or rather I call on the House to compel the Hon. Gen tleman, to be specific in his allegations, and I challenge the Hon. Gentleman to any inquiry before any tribunal —before any Committee of this House, however consti tuted. I will not challenge the name of any Hon. Gen tleman who may be placed on that Committee, and I challenge the Hon. Gentleman to prove any such charge as that he has brought against me. Mr. FERRAND—To-morrow I hope the Right Hon. Baronet will be pressed to explain how he became pos sessed of that document which he took out of his box to use against me.—(Cheers and laughter.) I beg your pardon, but it i s n o l aug hi ng matter; an d I think the in terruptions of the Hon. Member for Bath are excessively unbecoming.—(Renewed laughter.) I again repeat that I expect that to-morrow the Right Hon. Baronet — for he is on his trial as well as myself—will be able to explain to the House in what manner he became pos sessed of that report, which he drew out of his box, and which he used against me almost immediately, if not immediately, on my resuming my seat in the debate on the new poor-law. Mr. HOGG—I hope that I shall be permitted to bring the report to which the Hon. Gentleman has referred, and to read that report to the House ; and if it should not be liable to the imputation which has been cast upon it by him, I hope the House will call on that lion. Gen tleman to disavow that which he has uttered, or to re quire him, in any manner you please, either before this or any other tribunal, to bring his proofs ; and I will be satisfied, if he should raise a doubt or suspicion as to my integrity, to submit to the consequences. If on the con trary, he should fail to do so, I hope the House will visit him in the manner he deserves.—(Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL--I do not think that it very much matters what are th e part i cu l ar words and ex pressions which were either used by the Hon. Gentle man, or were reported in the Times newspaper. The question will be whether the Hon. Gentleman can al lege, or can give proof in support of such allegation, that the Right Hon. Gentleman caused, or directed, or pro cured, a false report to be made to him for a specific purpose. It would be b es id e the question to say that the Right Hon. Gentleman had received a report in which some of the facts were inaccurately stated, and that he used that report, relyi ng upon the authority of an inspecting o fficer without havin g ver ifi e d the facts. The question is whether the Right Hon. Gentleman used his influence with the intention of pr6curing such a result. Then with regard to the Hon. Member for Beverley, the Hon. Gentleman said that the Hon. Member for Beverley had thought it necessary to make an explanation as to his conduct as chairman of the committee, and that certain Members of this House— on a certain side of this House—had listened to that ex al order to provide for the better custody and preserva tion of those papers, the registrars should periodically report to the Secretary of State, who should have au thority to direct surveys to be made, and such altera tions and repairs as from time to time should appear to him to be necessary. There was also a provision in re ference to brawling in churches, which would prevent the recurrence of vexatious proceedings, such as had given rise to so much complaint ; and it was further proposed to abolish all penalties for non-attendance at divine worship. Marriage licenses were now granted by peculiar authorities, such as the Dean and Chapters, &c. but it was intended to confine that power to the Bishop, to whom it properly belonged, giving him, how ever, authority, with the sanction of the Queen in Coun cil, to issue commissions giving to persons in certain dis tricts the power of granting licenses. He now called on the House to consider whether this was not a great measure of improvement, by which nearly three hun dred of those courts were got rid of. The Bill had also received the sanction of the other House of Parliament, and he had not heard of any objection alleged against it by the country at large. If the Bill did not carry out all that he could wish, and all that those who approved of the Bill of last year would desire to see accomplished, there was, however, nothing in it to prevent them carry ing out further improvements at a future time. He would earnestly urge upon the House, under these cir cumstances, to accept so large a measure of improve ment, and not to throw it to the winds in the hope of getting a better measure at another time. He thought that all was done that could be done at present with the concurrence of a large portion of the people. He concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill. Sir GEORGE GREY had thought that when the Right Hon. Gentleman brought this Bill before the House he would have pointed out the particulars in which it differed from the Bill which he had before brought in, and which he recommended to the House in an able and conclusive speech. That Bill was carried upon the second reading in the House of Commons, by a majority of ninety; and he had not heard one word this evening from the Right Hon. Gentleman to alter or lessen the impression which was then made upon the House.— (Hear, hear.) The measure now proposed was totally inadequate—it departed altogether from the principles of the Bill which was last year introduced by the Govern ment through the Right Hon. Gentleman himself—which was carried, and in which he (Sir G. Grey) gave his most cordial support. This Bill abandoned the princi ples which had been assented to by the highest ecclesi astical authorities, who pronounced these courts to be nuisances to the Church, and to expose her to enmity and reproach by their arbitrary and tyrannical proceedings, by which many families were ruined. He (Sir G. Grey) would oppose the second reading of this Bill, because he believed that its effect would be to perpetuate these ob noxious courts.--(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had told the House that this was a great measure of re form. Without admitting so much, he would consider that it was a great advantage to get rid of the peculiars, and to improve the administration of the remaining courts. It was a l so very well to take away the juris diction of th e courts in case of tithe, of scandal, and of laugh.) But if they created thirty-five— Dr. NICHOLL--three.-thre. Sir GEORGE GREY said there were thirty-five in h schedule. If they created those thirty-five new eourts, with salaries such as to induce men of high stand ing at the bar to take office in them, together with a host of registrars—he believed that then, if the courts proved to be still the nuisances which they now were, and to ex pose the administration of justice to the reproach which they now exposed it to—the effect of the Bill would be to greatly increase the obstacles to their abolition.—(llear, hear.) Last session the Right Hon. Gentleman (Dr. Nicholl) cited largely from the authorities, upon which he rested his Bill at that time. But on the present oc casion he alluded to those authorities in 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, there was the report of the Ecclesiastical Com mission appointed in 1829, upon which were the Arch bishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London and Dur ham, Lord Tenterden, Sir Nicholas Tindal, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir John Nicholl, and Dr. Lushington, &c. In this report the condemnation of those courts was as strong as langua g e could express it. The Right H on . G ent l eman admitted 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 Ecclesiastical Commis sion—and 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. Nicholl) 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 bo 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 last 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 tke 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. Grey) 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 griev 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 36 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 months. 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 the 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 gratify their appetites for destruction. Last year he had ob jetted to the principle of centralization embodied in the 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, though the Bill went much further than it should 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 uniformity of practice. He was in favour 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 point out in what part of their duties the Court of Peculiars had 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, have carried their prin ciple further than the interest 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 referred 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 matte r o f 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 limited the jurisdiction of the Church, when all that was required was an improvement of its admi nistration. Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR said he had been one of those who destroyed the Bill of last year, in which task he was ably assisted by the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Oxford, who then voted with him against it He (Lord R. Grosvenor) would not yield to that Hen. Member in attachment to the Church of England ; but he thought the more its jurisdiction in civil matters was taken from it, the better it would be for the Establish ment. He could imagine what was the object of the Government in proposing this Bill, which went to re construct the diocesan courts, which were generally con demned. He approved of the abolition of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in civil matters, but this Bill went to perpetuate it ; the proposal of last year, to abolish it was hailed with satisfaction from all sides of the 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 theta 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 than 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 the general question, he must notice what had fallen from the Noble Lord who had just sat down. If he understood the Noble Lord, he frankly acknowledged that he was one of those who destroyed the Bill of last y th e e a r c . h u l r l e e h a a l s s o t stated e n h . i m m s e e h t e o r b f e e a r s O w x a f r e m r d a friend to .This he proved by going further even than the Member for Oxford himself as his suggestion would submit all the. lay proprietors of the kingdom to the jurisdiction of the Church.—(Cries of " No, no.") Such would be the effect of the suggestion of the Noble Lord. His other proposal, also, to which he intimated the readiness of his constituents to accede, was that all the contested business might be removed to London, and all the mere formal business might remain in the country. That was only saying that all the pro fitable business might be retained, and all that was troublesome might be sent • elsewhere.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Oxford had pat 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 consi dered the matured determination of the Govern ment ? He did not hesitate to say at once, that he maintained 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. He did think 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 expe rience he had 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 he intended to introduce a clause by which no tice would be given to all proctors hereafter entering Doctors' Commons, that if any further alterations should 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 bast 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 SOL 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 J?Graham) admitted it. A great part of the per sonal property brought into those Courts was funded property. The present Bill made it compulsory on the ordinary to nominate a layman duly qualified 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 wi:h 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, and 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. lie believed that the complete transfer of local jurisdictions was a matter in which thefeelings 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 lion. Gentleman who proposed the second reading of the Bill and the Right Hon. 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 not 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 y ear carried 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 Lards 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 thiew 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 was 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, it J. Nichol!, Sir Jenner Fust, and other persons! of the greatest authority as civilians. But then the Right Hon. Gentleman said that some 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 highel. 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 the 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.Gentlernan 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, and 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 judges 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 ecelesiastis 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 r egar d" to Church - discipline. WAS not till 1840 that the Bill.on-Ghurch discipline passed the House. He stated at the time that when the question was settled they might proceed satisfactorily with regard to those further settlements. The present Bill, however, proposed to go back and to proceed incontradiction to all those authorities, and to all the proposals which they made, and to establish diocesan courts. He objected to those diocesan courts having the power which this Bill would give them —its the first place, because it was contrary to principle 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 objectisn 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. It 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 deput y had very trifling salaries. In th e di ocese of Bah and Wells, the deputy's salary was 101. In that of Bristol 461. In an other place in the diocese of Bristol, 36/. in Chichester, 101., and in Llandaff, 61. That was cheap justice, at all events. But 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 judge. 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, bad 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 Bill. 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. DUNCOMBE 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 Bill. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—Yes ; but then it was o,t 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 throughl 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 thought it tube 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 rejetectrinsg were t re i -i it; the more particularly so, as her Majesty's met on the one side by the most opposition,dectdedMulisefore and re on the other by a most lukewarm support? Therefore they thought the best course to adopt, and the_ onewhich was most likely to be beneficial and __successful, was to propose that which they had some chance of carrying. There was another point and a most serious •ne involved in this subject, and that was the subject of compensation on account of what was termed vested interests in the several offices attached t o th os e courts. The amount required comp ensat i ng the compensatin the individuals who held those vested interests would be necessarily very large. This was one of the most serious impediments to the extension of thi s re f orm, - for it would subject the public to a vast exp ense. Ile thought the system of recrimination in public debate was much to be deprecated, and that ono party should not say to the other,—l have this merit, while you lack it. This was a system which he never wi s h e d to enter i nto. B ut even if he entered into the views of the Noble Lord, the Member for London, would he support (Sir Robert Peel's) propositi on ? I t was true he never speculated on the support of the Noble Lord, or allowed himself to be influenced by the view he might take of the question. He thought that nothing could be worse th an t o t aun t parties with taking a different course in this session from what they bad taken in another. For his part, he honoured the man more who, having h o n es tly a lt ere d hi s 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." —(lcer, 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 against the measure.—(Hear.) Still he (Sir R. Peel) did not want to justify his own course by that of the Noble Lord ; for he had given to the House the reasons for which he felt that he could give his support to the present Bill, ' although it fell short of that alteration in the law which was proposed in the Bill of last year, and which, if he could succeed in carryi►ig it, he would prefer to have.--(Hear.) Mr. C. BULLER gave the Right Hon. Gentle man the credit which he claimed for honesty, although he could not at all agree with him as to the honesty of this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had shown that he had taken out of the Bill of last session 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 tiling which brought him (Mr. Buller) down to the House to oppose this measure. That was the difficulty created by vested interests. But this Bill was to create twenty-six new judges. Now, the effect of 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 inte 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.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentle man could have come forward and tested the House.— (Hear.) lie 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 Bill 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 not 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 t h • Hon. and Learned Gentleman considered 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 T. 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 recon cile the two Bills in Committee. He should aiso wish that the compensation clause should be brought up, and the report received. _ _ Mr. JARVIS had no objection to the course prOposed. Mr. WATSON wished to call the attention of the Government to the necessity of having barristers of station and character to preside over quarter sessions. 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. v 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 on Wednesday week. CLERK OF TILE 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 ho 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.M. 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 tering " 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 will meet 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 Momus, 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 our excuse for deferring a list of the fashionable arrivals 'until a more favourable opportunity. Of the sport we subjoin the usual details : 501. ; for four yrs old, 7st 101 b ; 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,s yrs 4 Betting-11 to 10 agst Brewer ; 3 to 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 load 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 fillies, Bst 51b. R.M. (4 Subs.) Lord Glasgow's cby Velocipede ..... (Robinson) odr Duke of Beaufort's Craude Frollo 0 1 Even betting—Claude Frollo made running at his best pace, and at the cords had the best of it; but, thanks to whipcord, was caught just in time for the judge to pronounce it a dead heat. The Velocipede colt having broke down after the dead heat, was drawn, and Claude Frollo walked over. Match-300, T.Y.C. Duke of Bedford's Oakley, Bst 71b (Robinson), beat Lord G. Bentinck's Emma, sst silb (Ab dale). 6t04 on Oakley. Won by a length, in a canter. Sweepstakes of 100 sovs. D.M. each (5 , It fi, for fillies, Bst 71b eac h . D. Subs.) _ _ Lord Exeter's Merope (Mann) 1 Mr. Thornhill's Example 2 Lord Glasgow's f by Muley Moloch, by Actaeon Betting-6 to 4on Merope, and 2to l agst Example. Lord Glasgow's filly made play to the cords, where she was beaten ; Merope went on with the running, and won by a head ; Example, who made a waiting race of it, never having quite reached her. Sweep. of 100 soy s. each, It ft, for 4 yrs old, A.F., 4 subs. D D u uk ke e ofef Gaftm.e Bedford's r( 11.itelineopt, 6st aur 41b , 7st ... ... ..(Whitehouse) 1 2 Lord Exeter' s F rau l e i n, 6 st 111 b 3 6t04 on Minotaur, and 7to 4 against Asop. The light weight cut, out the work into the cords, where Minotaur, who had followed Franlein into the bottom, took the running away from him, and won cleverly by a length. The Palace Filly Stakes of 100 sous. each, for three yrs old, Bst 71b each ; D.M. (6 Subs.) Duke of Rutland's Crenoline (Boyce) 1 Lord Stradbroke's Boarding School Miss _ _ . rord 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 Boaiding School Miss and Robinia, the favourite waiting. At the cords Robinia and Economy were beaten, and, Crenoline 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, Bst 71b ; and fillies, Bst 31b; A.F. (9 Subs.) Mr. Phillimore's Skeleton, allowed 31bs (Sty) I Mr. Combe's Keeley Lord Orford's c by Ells, out of Miss Julia 3 Lord G. Benthick's The Great Mogul Lord W. Powlett's Falconer . 5 6to 4 agst Keeley, and 7to 4 agst Skeleton. The Great Mogar made running at a good pace for the sort, followed to the top of the hill by Keeley and Skeleton ; the lead was then taken by .Skeleton, who had no competitor at the cords, and won easy by two lengths • the Miss Julia c a bad thi r d. Match. First hal f Ab. M. 150, h ft. Mr. Grenville's Molly Mogg, 3 yrs, Bst , 7lb Nat : 0 Lord Glasgow's f by Bay Middleton, out of Intemperance, 2 yrs, Gst 711) 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, 7st. 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.l-go.Wlth any-eye-out, and the Fidelity filly are scratched. - • Newmarket Stakes.—The Fidelity • filly, Arragon,'. And slenderer,: are struck out.