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

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

The Clerk having read the Petition of Mary
Anne Dix,
Lord FOLKSTONE said, that he desired the Peti-
tion to be read, not because his motion was to be
confined to it alone, but because it appeared to him
a convenient way of opening to the House ail idea
of the power which was lodged in the Ecclesiastical
Courts. The case, when first it came under his no-
tice, appeared to him, as he was sure it must to
every one, to be a case of great hardship ; still he
thought it impossible that it should be a case with-
out rerAdy. lie bad no doubt that there existed
some process of law, adequate to the relief of per-
sons so situated. On inquiry, we found that he was
mistaken, that no remedy existed, that no relief
could be procured ; and on investigating more mi-
nutely into the riatureof Ecclesiastical Courta, he
found their powers to be such as called for imme-
diate Legislative interference. As the motion he
,should now make, extended to all Ecclesiastical
Courts, be feared'that be should be obliged to go at
Rome length Into their history. In the early periods
of our history, the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction went.
hand inhand with the Temptireal ; and, previous to
the Conquest, the Spiritual and Civil Judges sat to-
gether in the same county and hundred Courts. By
an ;Ad of William the First, they were separated;
from what motive it w3as unknown. Whether the
attachment of that Monarch to the custems of his
own country produced the change, or whettera
Wish.to get rid of the trial by Jury might be consider-
ed a mote natural and obvious reaionse it was cer-
tain that such was the consequence, and that by
that Ad he had laid the foundation of the subse-
quent: enormous power claimed and exercised by
Ecclesiastics. He conceived that the House would
not be tempted to look upon the Spiritual 'Court,
wi:h a very favourable eye, when they reflected that
it had its origin in an attempt to overthrow the
Constitution, by undermining the great principle of
Trial by Jury ; nor were the worsts of the charter
itself likely to paepossess them.' The Courts being
thus established, did not obtain much support in tha
SUcceeding reign : but the Clergy, 'well knowing
the advantage to he derived from them, proceeded,
even in the yigQi9US• reign of Henry the First, to
-exert their influence; In that reign the Archbishop
of-Cantet bury informed the King that the Pope had
taken all ecclesiastical appointments out of the hands
of Laymen. In the teoublesome times Which suc-
ceeded this reign, they acquired considerable power,
and in 1.14 t they arrived at such an enormous ex-'
cess as enabled Thomas Becket to reduce his
Sovereign, Henry the Second, to the most hum-
liating condition. They would find that Henry
was necessitated to sign six articles, one of which
contained a provision, that every layman who broke
peace., with an Ecclesiastic should be tried by a Bi-,
shop, and that no Ectlesiastic should be tried by a
Temporal Cotirt. It was not likely that in the mili-
tary reign of Richard much attention would be paid
to them, but so forcible was their operation in that
of John, that he consented to take the 'crown horn'
elf his head, and accept it as a grant from the Ecclee
siaatical Power. Even in the worst periods of our
history, and before the principles of freedom were
properly understood, they never were favourably
received, or kindly amalgamated with the sentiments
of the people. On the contrary, there were perpe-
tual remonstrances against the abuses by which-they
were overrun. The Temporal Courts were alwayi
in diced hostility with them, and Lord Coke had
said that their establishment produced no other ef•
fed than that of encroaching on the jurisdiction of
the Temporal Authorities. In the reignseof Henry
111. and Richard 11. two statutes were enacted,
which limited their power in some degree, but the
Clergy were too active in the enforcement of their
privileges, and wherever an, opportunity occurred of
adding to their vigour, were ready to take advantage
Of it: Thus in the reign of Henry IV. though op-
posed by the Parliament, they were able to over-
come that ,Menarch. The Wickliffites and Lol7
lards beginning about this period, the seeds of the
Reformation were sown, but the Parliament and
the Courts experienced alternate succtsses and de-.
feats, Henry VII. led the way to what passed iri
the succeeding reign, 'and in the reign of Henry
VIII., a dispute arose between the Clergy and
the Parliament, respeding an Aa which went to re=
fuse them temporal power. The Dean of Winchester
published a book about this period, for the purpose
of farming that the Clergy should be exempted from
the authority of Temporal Courts. In a few years
after, the King recommended to Parliament to in-
quire•into the nature and proceedings of such tribu-
nals, arid by an Act of Henry the Eighth, a Com;
mission was appointed, corisis,ing of thirty-two per-
sons, for the pOrpose of making out a code of laws
for their future regulation. Bishop Crantuer wrote
a book exposing their evil tendency, but notwith-
standing' all this, nothing was dune to mitigate the
evils and abuses with which they abounded, or to
soften the objections to which they were exposed, up
to the present moment. In the subsequent reign
Archbishop Cramner dretakup a form of regulations,
but they had never received the sanction, and, of
course were never acted on. In the reign of Eliza-
beth, the whole jurisdiction was tested In Commis-
sioners ; and by the 7th of that reign, a regulation
was made, which extended no farther than to the:
writs issued by those Courts. During the whole of
Elizabeth's reigu, the sama jealousy existed in Par-
liament and in the people against them, and their
proceedings Were the subject of constant complaint.
In the reign of James 1. there were other Canons
passed, and some regulations took place in
1()40, but their powers were not confined.—
i
An attempt was afterwards made in the feign
of James 11. to renew the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission, but nothing was done. In the reign of
111. there was another attempt at . npiove-

mem, and another repetition of neglet.'l, and no step
was °taken since, except the passing of two Acts in
the reigns of George 11. and. George 'III. which
were mere suboidinate provisions ; sp that from the
time of the Reformation nothing was done, though
it was thought to be so necessary at that period. An
Ad was passed in the reign of Henry VIII. w hi.h
wr,is the one under which the Courts now acted.--
`.[ iteir code was composed of the general Cis zt LatO,
and the Cjnou Law, re,,ulatcd by the common Law

, ,cate Of TAW ;it was thereforit,neietsdrifr very ilntri:
1, and requited great leafning.and study. One of
the Subjetis he had to complain of was, that person;
were.appointed to those Courts who did not possessi
the inforinatioti that was essential; he knew them
were spate exceptions, but generally speaking, Lilo
Judges who presided in them had no legal knowledgs
or experience. There were regulations in the Carted
Law WhiCh described. the qualifications required;
but he believed it would be found that the degrees
which qualified persons for such situations, were
conferred by the Unive,sitv of Oxford. With re-
gard to the nature of the Petition before' the itiouid,
they would-see that it w.is the excommunication aryl
imprisonment of an indtaridual, a power with which
he thought these Courts ought not to be entrusted.
There were ot hercircumstances connected with therm
whiCh al4o required regulation and reformation. The
charges -were exorbitant. He should state some
eases of attachment for contempt,. vvnich would ex-
plain them more accurately to the HOuse. One was
the case of a woman, who being summoned to appear,-
and nocappearing, was imprisoned it. consequence.
She was previously c,xcorrimulieJte,.d. The elfeat of-
excommunication, according to ihe 39 articles, was,
that the person upon whom such a sentence was pass-
ed, was looked upon as a- heathen and a publican,
disqualified frpio appearing as a witness or a juror.
and, in case of death, refused Christian burial. The
Woman whose case they had mentioned was released,
after some tiri,e, upon paying 1 11. 123. but not re-
lieved from the sentence of excommunication.—lts
remained to be iequired by what means a writ froth
the Court of Kiria'S Bench, addressed to the Sheriffs
of Bristol, caused the unfortunate woman- who was •

the objeCt of it to be imprisoned in the 'gaol of
Gloucester.. There, however, she was confined for
three years and a half. There was another case, of
John Williams, who being cited for the non-pay-
ment of -18 s. Od. towardi the church rate, was, in
consequence of not appearing, excommunicated,and
rendered liahle to-eery heavy costs. A man of the
name of Rawlings having been cited for non-paj merit
of tithek, vas proceeded against in the same way.--
The stern for which he was rated was less than 405.;
so that a much more summary way alight have been
instituted. ' The Procior whom he employed not ap-
pearing., was pronounced contumacious ; and, subse-
quently,:: lie • hitnself, for not appearing, was pro•
nounced:contumacious, excommunicated, imprison-
ed, and released only on the payment of costs to the
amount of dill ty-five pounds. Another case was of
John Willis, a pauper, also excommunicated for
contumacy. By the laws of these Court.:, the an-
swers must be delivered in writing. ThieWilliscould
not write, and being a pauper, was miable to employ
a proctor, so that for non-payment in the first in-
stance of 4s, or 6s. he was kept in gaol for above
three years, and at length liberated on the expences,
trhicls amounted to a considerable sum, being paid
by his son -Was it fitting that this kind of .crinte
should be punished in such .a manner? In the Court
of Chancery, the whole punishment for non-appear-
ance, was a fine of 18s. 10d. The great uncertainty also
of the charges was a serious grievance. Oqe person
in Bristol, who was committed, and excommunicated
for contempt, was released, on the payment of
101. 15s. while a husband and wife, who were
placed in the same situation, had to pay,' the man,
271. the woman, 241. making in 'tie whole, 51.1.
It was evident, from the proceedings in these
Courts, that the costs-were the great objecis of anx.
iety. There was nothing more remarkable in their

history, than that charges of this nature hail alw:tya
been broOght against them. ; Although the pra6lice'
of commutation for penance did not now exist, yet
the spirit of that praaice remained. Blackstone
described it as " an extraordinary.bartering of jus-
tice," and observed, that the. Ecclesiastical Courts
appeared
,to think " that poverty was the best Me.
dictne -pro salute anitlye." Many of the suits iq
these Courworiginated in malice and revenge. The
Noble Lord here. recapitulated the circumstances of
the case of Mary Ann Dix, and having dwelt at
considerable length on the necessity of Parliamen-
tary interference, to prevent the recurrence orstich
abuses, moved

", That a Comtn:ttee he appointea to inquire into the state
Of the InErior Courts of licclesia,..tieal litrisdietion in this
Covntr,, to c,n).,i(ter if any r,:tormation Was necessary
therein'; ;;.n,.1 to report the carne to.the House.' •

. ,
HERBERT was ,of.opinion. that his Noble
Friend would have brought forward his proposition
more intelligibly, had . he separated, those objeas
which' ielonged to, the laW itself, from those which.
'related solely to the-admioistratiOn of the.law. A 4
great pan of his Noble Ft fiend's observations coo,.
Slated of radical objeaions to the I.lw itself, Hve
admitted that it would be extremely desirable if the
mode of enforcing the authority: of Eccl-.!sia.tical.
Courts by excommunication, Ste. could be abStained
from ; but such an investigation as rite one proposed
would . not provide a remedy for the evil.* This
evil arose principally out ~of, the jealousy with
which the Common Law viewed Courts of Ect.
clesiastical LaW, and• which compelled the latter,
in then absence of dire& means of enforcing their
authority, to have recourse to a. circuitous, incon-
venient-, and expensive process for that purpose.
Although he maintained that the evils were not so
great as his Noble Friend apprehended, he admitted
that it might_ be. very desirable to amend the state of
the EccleSiastical Law in this respect, and he was
inclined to believe that there was no person possess-
ing any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction who would not re.i.
joice at such an ocdurreuce. But to this the mo-
tion did not go. His N6•2le Friend had' alluded to
the 127111 Canon, by which which it was ordained
that no Pearson should- be allowed to be‘a Chancel-
lor,-a Commissioner, &e, without a knowledge of
the Civil art-lEcclesiasticafLaw, and also, witi:our
NI being a lAVter -of Arts, &c. This Canon had un-
questionably been disobeyed; and the consequences
were very injurrous. \Vete all the &lechers of the
Ecclesiastical Courts filled by such men as the Right
lion. Gentleman opposite to him, no compl,na
suer as the present would ever havel;een made.
When first the Canon try' which he 1.14 alluded
was instituted, it was obeyed. In 1615, .however,
a petition was presented to King James, stating the
ig-uorancre -abd incompetence of one 444 ,the inch.
viduals holding authority in an Ecclesiastical Court.
This petition was referred to the Archbishop of Can,
terbUry,- and the cousevence was, that a son-in-lag
'of- the iltirn Bishop of Llandati was displaced from
his situation. In 1625, a similar application was
made to King Charles, and was followed *by a s‘iini.
lar result,. in the 0,11 of Wiiliartr and Ma!y, how-
ever, a suit of a similar kind, resuectine the Ch:in..

cellorship of Llandaff, was lost, on the gro'und that
the Ec siea'ical Court was prohibited from taking
cognieance of patent places. 'Since that period,
"undoWeedly, many appotntments .had been male,
without a 'iue consideration whether or not the per.
son appointed A, as qualified for the situation.: As,
however, the motion' for the Committee slid not
tend to remove this or other abuses, he should op-
pose it.
A MEMBER, whose name we could not , learn,
made-a few. observations in a very low. tone,of voice
on the ease of Mary Ann Dix. He said he was in-
formed that no .monition was wanting in that case,
and thearebefe.had been nothing whatever illegal in
the.wl ole proceeding.
- Si? W. SCOTT thought that the Noble Lord was
not quite apprised of the extent of his motion,: and
of the greatemmber of inferior Courts of Ecclesiastie
cal jurisdiaion in the country. He was, far from
being of opinion, that, if necessary, the House ought
to.shrink from their duty on this subjea, however
laborious; but, he conceived, unless it were proved
absolutely necessary, they should pause before they
concurred in the motion of the Noble Lord. Let
the consequence be considered, of bringing. up-for
examination from every quarter, a vast. number of
persons, at an expence for which the petty emote,
ments of their respective situations would afford no.
ads quite compensation. If it were proved .that
there existed mischievous and unprovoked oppressi--
on, then, and not till then, ought the House to
consent to the' examination of, the subjea. Before
lie-entered on the general question, he would advert
to the constitution of these Courts, not meaning.,
however, to follow the• Noble Lord through those
regions of fancy into \ehich he had wandered, when
lie l+~rd described circuinstanves of ancient date, no
wise conneteed with the existing state of the Courts
thernselvea. The employment in which the Noble
Lord seemed to think the Ecclesiastical Courts were
principally, if not wholly engaged, formed in truth
but a small part of their occupation. They were
Courts to which the administration of no inconsider-
able part of the civil law devolved. They had to
decide on.- matrimonial and testamentary law; on
tithes, and on ottser civil rights. He did not mean
to say ehet it a 'new arrangement were making, it
might _not he advisable that the determination of
such questions ought to be left to Consistorial
Courts, but-. he contended,' that situated as they
weir, it had not been shewn • that there eecisted in
those Courts any evil or abuse greater than what,
was inseparable from all human establishments.—
From tee printed papers which the. Noble Lord had
put into his hands, n the ground on which his mo-
tion proceeded, it appeared that in 13 years there
were but seven complaints of the nature alluded to.
Did that exhibit a sufficient necessity for Parliamen-
tary inquiry ?, The Nohle. Lctrd represented the evils
of.which he complained as atising from a wish for
theemoluraentsof office. It was not so. Every man
went into those Courts as he went into• any other
Civil Courts. Much had been said of the hardships
suffered by those who were cited but lot-small sums.
Thesmaller the sum, if justly doe, the greater was
the error in not paying it. With _respeet to the
Church rates, persons were as much bound to pay •
them as they were bound to pay the Poor rates. if
they refused, what could the Courts do but enforce
iteeir authority? If those persons, therefore„ to
the injustice, in the first instance of non-payment,
added the injustice of defending their- conduet, who
was to blame for the consequences, the -party -vt ho
drove, or the party who was driven to litigation ?
The Noble Lordcomplained that the Petitioner-, in
whose case the present'discussion originated, having
been a minor, had been illegally treated. But this
was nor true ; fur defamation, of which she had
been guilty, was a mixed case, and was. that for
which a minor was answerable, and liable to punish-
ment. There was nothing wrong, therefore,, in the
case, so tar as minority was concerned.—He.would .
'state to the House what was the ordinary mode of
proceeding its such cases. The party accused was
cited—appeared—performed penance, and paid the
costs. s But the penance was not that. ludicrous
csrembny of standing in a •sheet, which was the'
the praeficetof former times. All that was required.
was that the individual should go to the vestry, and .
in the presence of the Minister and party detained
express concern for the cffence, aed promise not to
repeat it. The costs seldom exceeded twenty stills
5 linos. If the offender did not appear to this citation,
or if, appearing, made a dishonest defencre, throwing
every possible obstacle in the way of the Court, all
the evil that followed was to be ascribed not to the
Court, but to theoriainators of the mischief. It
might be'said, however; tliat in some cases of `'de-
famation, the parties defamed deserved to be so.—
'Would that justify the defamer) It would not by •
any law. It would not by the• Ecclesiastical law.—
If the person defamed had`-committed any offence,
that person was erneneble to the law ; but no one
for any single aal aught to be exposed to private slan-
der during the whole of life. -As to those patties
who mere stated by the' Noble Lord to have been so
poor as to be unable to employ a Proctor, .1.0 would
eels, did they apply to sue and be sued in Prnza
paeperis ? Had that been denied them ? It they
a el not do so, they placed themselves in thie situation'
of common litigants. A great outcry had been_
rahed against expence, but the expence was una-
voidable, final: the process to which, in such cases,
the Ecclesiastical Courts were obliged to resort. The
expences would be but trifling were it not for the ob-
stitiacy of the parties accused. The House would re-
member, the expences of 'all Courts were augmented
by the duties on stamps, which the call of public
necesaity obliged Government to impose. He
hoped he had now said nearly enough -to make it
appear that the Noble Lord had nut -made oat a
case that called for the inquirrlte had ;proposed ;
though enough of malignant industry had been ex-
exerted. (rte. by the Noble Lord himself, he was
certaib) by bringing forward every topic of abuse
that could • be .brought forward against those Courts,
still no Reef injustice had been proved. That cases
of hardship had been adduced, he was ready to
admit, but•Stilkehatever the sufferings of the party'
concerned' might se,- the law while in existence
should be kept 'up, and no. one be suffered to hold
hitnse,lf, above its summons. He hoped the House•
would see no'reason for entering into an inquiry.
so troublesome and so inconvenient to the patties
et-reeled byeit, as • that which the Noble Lord had
recomeneedeie "It nfght• be proper that an' al,er-

*don should be made in the law, latit that was not
the question at present- b‘efire the House. He
thought it might be well mot the process of cx-
communicatioo.to be. done away, and some process-
substituted, that would- be less expensive, less- op-
pressive, and less unseemly,
sand he was certain that
it 'was in the power of Parliament to grant no boon
thai would be mile gratefully received by those who
practised in those Courts..
Sir S. ROMILLY said, the arguments of the Right
Gentletean- who bad just sat• down had not
satisfied him tiler no inquiry ought to he instituted
by that House. It was-true that the Reselutions of
the Noble Lord proposad the appointment of a
Committee to -inquire into the proceedings of the
Ecclesiastical Court, in order to a,certain whether
Or not.any reform was necessrry, but he con!cl not
see that the motion went toatie extent to which it
had been supposed to f,r . He admitted that a
strong case ought to be made out before any' Court
of kistice was called upon to hold up its (rand before
a public tribunal ; but he did not see that in appoint-
in the Committee proposed, any Court of Justice
would be so arraiaened. 'lt- was admitted that a
case of hardship had• been adduced; why then; if
such were the case, it was tha duty of that House to
inquire, if the hardships complained of arose from
the misconduel of those who administered the law,
or from the law itself. He thought it probable
it originated not in the condud of those who were
appointed to 'administer justice in that Court,
but from the constitution of the Court itself ;
and he thought now the subjea was brought fair-
ly before tliern, they ought not to forego the opi'
portunity of looking into the merits of the case.
Übe House would recollect what excommunication
was. It excluded a person from the communion of
the sacrament;- from all the benefits to which
Christians -conceived themselt es to be entitled, feton
giving evidence in a Court of Justice, and hence
necessarily exposed them to great inconvenience In
the case of this poor girl, who was-not even yet an
adult, for instance, while, in. gaol, it violence had'
been offered to her person, she could have obtained
•no redress, because her evidence coulr) • not be re-
ceived in a Court of Justice. If a murder were
committed in her presence, the murderer would be
allowed to escape, for the same maser). Persons
excommunicated could not sure iii guy Court ; they
were put 6rat of the protection of all law, and pre-
cluded from discharging the duties they owed to so-
ciety. The evils ansing,fiom teissysiem, had been
complained of -even in the time of Jainrs I. = On the
131 of April, 1606, a communication was made to
Par:iament from that Monarch by the Archbishop
of Canterbury-, in which its being used for small
offences was complained of, and• a Bill recommend-
ed to be brought in, to prevent its being- used but
in " great matters." That Bill, however,- had ne-
ver been brought in, or if it bad, it had been thrown.
out, and the evil had ebntinued to exist up to the
present day. While slanders in high lite of greater
consequence were hardly noticed, it was justly to
be complained ot, that it 3 woman in the lowest si-
tuation in life used a come word to another, she
was to be confined for two years, nay for lite,-un-
less rescued from -confinement- by some benevolent
person paying. the costs of the process. What the
Right, Honourable Gentleman had said of the neces-
sity of protecting the reputation of a woman, who
might in one instance have been guilty of an ad of
indiscretion, did not apply to the case of a woman
who kept a house of ill fame, sod who kept it at
the time when the obnoxious expression was used,
and which-only went to give her a name which be-
longed to her. It would ben fortunate circumstance
if, .out of the sufferings of this unfortunate female,
a change of system. were to arise. What good was
it not in the power of the Right Honourable • Gen-
tleman to do ? He had but to will reform, and a
reform would be effeated. If he brought in a Bill
on the subject, it would hive the support of 'Go-
vernment, and the object in view would be gained.
From all be had heard, he thought the appointment
of a Committee would be to cast no igieutwion on
the Courts in question, and he should, for the rea-
sons 'be had given, concur with the motion.
Sir J. Niel-LOLL went over nearly the same ground
as Sir W. Scott, and contended that no abuse bad
been proved on the part of the Officers of the
Courts, but that the hardships complained of arose
out of the constitution of the Courts themselves, and
on these grounds he: opposed the proposed inquiry
as unnecessary.

Mr. W. SMITH thought that as it •had been ad-
mitted by the two Learned Gentlemen opposite,
that there existed a soreethii,g wrong in those
Courts ; the House had a right to expect them to-
'propose a remedy, and if they did this, he thought
the Noble. Lord would have no' objection to his
motion. He had heard of many cases of a sinrilar
nature to that which was then before the House.—
In particular, 'l:e remembered the -situation of two
.poor wonien who were confined eleven years in the
jail of Nottingham. He himself had seen them
after they had been nine years in confinement.--
They were certainly enthusiasts, but they were en-
thusiasts of the most harmless and moral description.
They were in 'some respects like Quakets, but from
some peculiar tenets which they held weft: not re.
ceived'as members of that body. 'Kiley in particular
had a something- in their marriageS wive!) bore
a resemblance to the Manner of the Quakers.--
In cons' cons!Auence of their differing in. this particular
from the Establiihed Church, they. were accused of
living in fornication, and summoned before an Ec-
clesiastical Tribunal. This summons they dtd not
answer, as it cited', them by their ma:den names.
They 'were ready to appear if called on by those
which they conceived belonged to them as wives.
By them they -were not cited; and for not answer-
'ing to theit maiden names, they were committed
for contempt of Court, and remained in jail-eleven
years. [Here the Hon. Member was informed that
seven years •,was the period of their confinement.]
He was informed' they were confined but seven ; he
thought they had been kept in prison eleven years.
He then proceeded to notice the change of system
which had taken place in the higher Couris,with re-
spect to prisoners who refused to plead. They were
no longer pressed to death, but the-trial went on in
the regular way, though the man was silent. A si-
milar change he (bought might have. been made in
the Consistory Courts. The poor women to whom he
had alluded, might, be thought, have been fined, or
subjected toa penalty, instead of being (as they had,

been) confined for seven years. If such a sentence
had.been passed upon them when they were first
biought before the Glut, !he whole country would
have indignantly - reprobated such unjust severity.
He then proceeded to combat the idea of any slur
b(-ing first instance thrown upon those Courts
by adopting the motion of the Noble Lotd. While
on this subject, he inquired if t he-Grand:Committee
on Coorfs of Justice, annually appointed, was under.-
stood to throw .any slur on the Courts of Justice ?
His Noble Friend, he thought, would not object to
the subject being referred to tins Committee, and
he thought the conclusion they, would come to would
be the same as that which might- be expected from
a committee to be appointed for that purpose only.
He concluded expressing his concurrence in the
motion. -

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had heard nothing to
make him think the motion ought to be accedelta.
Cases of great hardship had been stated, and those
might be true, but the .question was whether or not
any mal-adtninistration of the law as it at present
stood had occurred ? This did not apreq, and there-
fore the propo,ed inquiry was unnecessary. The.
change of. system alluded- to by the last speaker in
the higher Courts, respeaing persons who refused
to plead, he said was not their own AO, but the
consequence of an nit•.l of Parliament. It that corn-
plained of was only the- fault of the law (and it
seemed to be. generally -admitted), why, then, it
would be better to corred that law than to make the
inquiry recommended by the Noble Lord. - The
House had every reason to expect that for this, pur-
pose a Bill would be brought in by his-Right
Friend. No man could be better fitted for the task
than his Honourable Friend ; :and from his deserv-
edly high,charader,• to no one:could it be commit-
ted with greater safety. He had no doubt buthe
would unJertake it, and midertakingit, perform it

-Sir J. NEWPORE stated the gr evanees of the
present system to be very severely felt in Ire-
land.
Lord FOLKESTONE did not know whether or 'not
it vas the intention of the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman opposite to bring in a Bill on the .sub-
jeet.

Sir W. Scorr expressed himself willing to do so
in compliance with the wrsh.,of the House:
Lord FOLKESTONE then propoied to- withdraw
his motion ;, and after a tew words from the Chan-
cellor of the Eichequer, the motion, was with-
drawn.

Lord FOLKSTONE then rose to speak on the sub-_
ject of atioiding relief to the unfortunate woman
whose Petition was on the table.
The SPEAKER suggested the proOriety of re-
serving that subject for the consideration of a
future day, and in this suggestion the Noble Lord
acquiesced._ . _ _

Sir J. NEWPORT had intended bringing before
the House a' motion for extending the provision' of
the both Geb. 111. ch.-85, regulating the takir'g of
securities in offices in England, to all parts of the
kingdom ; but as he understood the subject was to
be brought torward.by another Hon. Gentleman, he
should defer his motion for the present. He would
now, however, call theattention of the House to
atiotlber subjeat, of which he had given notice.
The Right- Hon. Gentl.rnan then, .after a few, ap-
propriate observations, moved for leave to bring in
a Bill to exempt from the payment of any duties
under the Legacy Aa, all advertisements relating to
bequests of sums for the education of poor children,
or for the support of widows and other poor per-
sons ; and also, all advertisements calling meetings.
for charitable purpo,es, or announcing benefattions,
to any charity.
The CHANdE4LoR of the EXCHEQUER entertained
a doubt as to the principle of the policy of the re,
gulation of the Right Hon. Baronet. It was not
athisable to recognise the policy.,of encouraging
bequests of the description alluded to, because any
per.on on his death-bed Might'give to acharity that
pwrtion of his property which his immediate rela-
tions were entitled to. The Legislature was, not
called on to administer to the wishes of such per-
sons. These persons might be surrounded by those.
whose interest it was to induce. the testators to will
their property to theprejudice of their relations and
nearest 'of kin. With respect to the publishers of
newspapers, :they undoubtedly charged what they
conceived necessary for the insertion of advertise-
ments relating to public charities, and to interfere
with them was improper. The whole of the sug-
gestions of the Right Hon. Baronet, if attended to,
would be accompanied by such inconvenience, that
the measure would produce no benefit, but must be
both inexpedi-nt and disadvantageous.

Sir 'JOHN NEWPORT made some observations in
reply, in the course of which he observed, that as.
the motion did not seem to meet the wishes of his
friends, he would_ not press it to a division.

The motion was then put and negatived.
The nilt Duty Bill was read a second time, and
committed fur to-morrow.

DISTILLERY BILL.

On the third reaping of the. Distillery Bill,'
Mr. HuTc.urNsorCre-stated the argnments which
he used on the last night, aing 1.0 the clause
which went ,to prosiba ,the 'distillation iii Iceland,
•which he.•denOnlinated a violation Of the solemn
compact of union, and asked - why the 11,ght'HOn.
G-ntlernan. had presumed to violate that comptct ?
In so doing bespoke the opinion of the People of
.-Ireland, and, in particular, of agricultural and
manufa6th ing part.
• Mr. H. FITZGERALD, though he was not rer-
'feCtly saii4ied with the clause, Skill was emboldened
to say, that so far from con,iderina it a grievance, the
people of Ireland regarded it in' the' light Of a boon.
The agticultural and manufacturing classes so felt it,
.and it cc, tainly was of veal benefit to 'the Res enue.
He apprehended scarcity olsusietiance in this king.'
dom, made it necessary for' the Legislature to enact
some provision Of the kind. With respect to the vio-
lation of the articles of UciOn, insisted upon by the
Hon. Gentleman,- could a measure 'Of necessity, a
measure of reciprocity to both kingdoms, be con-
sidered in any other light than as it boon.?
Load FoLKsToua observed, that the objection of
the Hon. Gentleman related entirely' to the breach
of Union, and therefore it became a question whe-
ther by once violating the At-twits, the House wouldi
not in future ?

The CHANCELLOR of the, EXCHEQUER,I con-
ceived that the. whole Of the Hon. Gendetnan (Mr,
Hotchinion's) speech was-to induce a t'epe-al of the
.Union. The mcasttre'no* introduced was," as his
Right Hon. Friend had truly stated, a mea,ure of
reciprocity, a measure which would be'beneficial to
Ireland,_ and which by the Union this country' W 35
bound to adhere to. . It wasnot a little extraordinary
tart the Hon. Gantleman and the Noble Lnrd
sltouldobjearo a measure having that for its object,
But .the Hon Gknnleman—the grett champion for
the-rights of Ireland upon-all occasions—a patriot for
her .liberties—the protector; of the Distillers—wag
not au fait to this boon. He was for extending a
measure which went to the prejudice of his own
constituents. e interests or helarkt would never
be riegiecttd.When they ought to be protectQd.
measure which bad ultimately the interests of Ire=
hind in view would be rt ceived as boon, though
such regulation. might .be an infringement of the
Articles of Union. He had -already said so much
on the subject that he was• ashamed, and theref4oe
would not trouble the House any. furtliQr... .
Mr. W. SMITH made a few obs,-rvations, and
then roof clauses were added to the Rill.

Mr. Grpnx entered his protest against any
future Bill, pri the ground that it eras a tneAsure. of
principle. , .

Ti.e other Orders of the Dv were then disposed
of, and at 12 o'clock the IT lose adjourned.

In the case of the American ship Femele, Cnuaa,
master, detained fora bleach of the Orders .n ,oun-
cil, and brought to adjudication bA.)re the Curt
of Admiralty, on Tuesday last, Dr. PHILLIMOR4
moved the Court for permission to introduce evi-•
deuce to sliew that the operation of the Decrees of .
Milan and_Berlin had ceased, He stated, that if
this fact could (as he was credibly informed it could)
be proved, he should then think he might confidently
contend before the Court, that Americans would he
entitled to the restoration of their piopetty, evetk
though there was no formal revocation of the Orders 7
in Council on the part of our Government—that .
the ground of his 'argument would be, that ae., the
Orders in Council were allowed to be contraPy to
tl,e Law of Nations, and only justified' as 6 mea-
sure of retaliation, if it could be shun that the
DecreeS, which they were intended to retaliate, were
no longer in existence, then these Orders would be-
come ipsofabiocdncelled and an ul " have
no legal validity in a Courtol the Law of Nations.
The Learned Counsel urged the prOpricty of grant-
ing every indulgence to American merchants, 'cvho
were trading in strid • cern formity to,the.ancient ac-
knowledged rules of Maritime Law, and whose pro-
perty. could only, be liable-to confiscation under in-
novations lately introduced into that
SCOTT, after inquiring whether, the eroofS suggested
could be immediately prodbeed, rejected the appli-
cation. He thOught the case in question mtist tor-,
loW.the course of the other American cases,- he could
not presums,a revocation of. the Order s.iu Conned.
till it had be,en notified to him by Government, and'
be suggested, that even if it -Could' be shewn that 7 .
the French Decrees were revoked, here would stia
be ajqnestiOn of laW, whet her a rer,enl of them' as to
.;
America alone would• be considered as a repeal by
our Government.

On Sunday evening an attempt w::s made to rob
Mr. Bentley's house,, cheesernonger, in Carey-atreet,
the corner of Searle-street, during the time. all the
family were gone to a place of worship. ScNerat
tubs orbutter, and other property, to a consider-
able amount, were removed into the passage,
ready to be handed into a hackney-coach, which
was waiting close to the door ;e but, fortunal-ely„
one of the family- returned home, and, on opening
the door, the robbers bounced out, and. made their
escape, .

On Saturday last, the Lady of Henry Owen, Esq. of
Broadelist-road, Exeter, of A Daughter.
• On the 2151 Inst. at Old Windsor Lodge, the Lady or •
George Stevens, Esc', of a Daughter.

• it /A
On Monday, at Prcston, Lancashire, Charles Whitaker,
Esq. of Roe Field, in that County, to Eliza, eldest daugh-
ter of Samuel Hot-rocks, Esq. M. P. for Preston.
On the 22t1 inst. at St. George's, Itanover•square, by the
'Rev. T. Davis, lames Adarns, Esq. Architedt, of Stone.
house, Devon, to Caroline, youngest daughter of the late
Francis Wheatley, Esq: R.A.
On Wednesday last, at Hillingdon, john Delafield, Esq.
of,•Red-lion-square, to Mary, only daughter of john
berts, Esq. of Wlittchurch, Bucks.
Yesterday, at St. George's Church, Hanover-square, john
Shore, Ebq, late of Bengal? to Letitia, tourth daughttr of
Henry Thwaites, Esq. of 13a,stogliall-street.
On the 23d' inst. at Sr. Gcmge's' Queen-squat. joins
Grillard, Esq, late of'Calcutta, to Miss Sloper, of DeVUII.
shire•street.

On Thursday, Lieutenant William Hunt, of. the Royal'
Marines, to Miss Michell, daughter of, the late GeorAc Mi-
chell, Esq.

Dllri

On the 6th of August, at Bombay,• in the East Indies,
Dr. Jonathan limy, fir .it Member of the Medical board
of that Vresidency.

On Thursday ihegth inst. suddenly, Mrs. Elizabeth Ban:'.
nister, aged 67 years, ;the wire of the Rev. Marinaduke Ban-
'lister, Perpetual Curate of Tring, in Hertfordshire. -
On Thursii;:y the 16th inst. aged 72, years„ Mrs.
%Vines, of Difiwicit.
'The same•day, in the ssith• year of his ?se, Mr. Stcventoti
Pepys, or islinAzon.

OT, ;untlay lot, at Fryston, after a Ipng illness, Martha,
eldest claughjer of the late Iticlixrd SlateTlnes, Esc'
t>n the zest: inst. rrt MuiyiTaux-stie,q, I.:dovaie-rual, in
the6.4t her ue. , Airs. lirLitavv, latL: Ilaker.streef,
l'ortinlai-scoare.

On the izd inst. at ;ver, Bucks, Mr. Guoch, in his 83a
year,

()It Wedig.,s,lay warning, Alr§.. firownle.y, of Greek-stru=t,
Sotto. -

Latt‘ly, in Ntilsom=strect, Bath, Mri. Dawson, aged S 4,
relict I).iNson, Esq. of Craven, in Yorkshire.
she or 411:. Dr. R:-.-gts, formerly C,,non'of