The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-04 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, April 3.
The LOP.D 011ANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
PETITIONS.
_ _

Lord REDESDALE presented several petitions
agianat Papal aggression.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented several
petitions with a similar prayer.
The Earl of STRADBROKE presented a petition
from some place in Somersetshire, praying for an alter-
ation in the laws of settlement and of rating.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented several petitions
against Papal aggression; also a petition from some place
in Sussex praying that the ratepayers might have a voice
in the assessment and disposal of county rates; also a pe-
tition against Jewish emancipation; also a petition from
certain of the clergy complaining of the manner in which
the clergy were assessed to the poor-rate; also a petition
from liorsemunden against free trade, and several from
the county of Lincoln with a similar complaint.
REFUSAL TO BURY A DISSENTING MINISTER
IN CHICHESTER.

The NOBLE DUKE then rose to present a petition
complaining of the proceedings of the Rev. Mr. Ken-
rick, incumbent of St. Peter's, Chichester, and he felt
that ho was placed in a moat painful position in bringing
forward a complaint against a clergyman, who, he be-
lieved, was a good and charitable Min, but who on the
occasion referred to had exhibited what he must consi-
der a great deficiency of Christian charity and a neglect
of duty. There had resided for many years in Chi
chester an Independent minister, the Rev. Mr.
Parsons, a reverend gentleman with whom he was well
acquainted, and who had borne a most exemplary cha-
racter. Mr. Parsons had purchased a piece of ground in
the churchyard of St. Peter's, in which his wife bad beea
buried; and on his deathbed Mr. Parsons had expressed a
desire to be buried by the side of his wife. Application
had been made to the rector, and he had replied that the
body of Mr. Parsons might be buried in the churchyard,
but that he would not read the burial service over it;
and he had added, that he was aware that he was
violating the law, but that he was determined to
refuse at all hazards, because, unless he refused
there was no chance of any alteration being made in
the law. , Now he (the Duke of Richmond) could con-
ceive nothing more dangerous than that respectable
gentlemen of education should hold and maintain
such opinions.—(Cheers.) If clergymen of the Church
of England could not conscientiously conform to the law,
it was their duty at once to resign their situations, or
to conform to the law. The Bishop had been applied to,
and he had written a most proper and Christian letter to
Mr. Kenrick, who still refused to read the burial service
over Mr. Parsons, who bad been baptized, because he
had been a Separatist and a teacher among Separatists;
and the result was, that Mr. Parsons was buried in his
own chapel. It might be said, why did they not apply
to the Ecclesiastical Court? But that would involve an
enormous expense ; and, although he believed every
country gentleman in Sussex and every inhabitant
of Chichester would have subscribed towards the
expenses, yet there would have been a technical
answer that that body bad not been taken to the church.
yard and burial demanded, but had that been done a
riot might have been occasioned. There was another
Gage against the same clergyman : an unfortunate woman,
named Sarah Rogers, had been found drowned in
the canal, the coroner's jury had returned a verdict
that she had destroyed herself, being at the time insane;
yet Mr. Kenrick had refused to read the burial service
over her on the ground that he was convinced that she
had destroyed herself being of sound mind; thus,
without making any inquiry, setting up his own
judgment against the verdict :of the coroner's jury.
delivered upon the oath of twelve men. It would
be most dangerous if such things were permitted
to pass unreproved, and clergymen were allowed in
this manner to outrage the feelings of the peaceable in-
habitants of a town. If in some towns such occurrences
had taken place as had taken place in the case of Mr.
Parsons, the public peace would have been endangered.
He attributed the conduct of Mr. Kenrick to an entire
want of judgment, but he would say, that if a law
was passed that he felt he could not conscientiously
carry into effect he should resign the commission of the
peace, and not refuse to perform his duty, and it would
be much better that this gentleman should resign his
living than refuse to execute the law. He presented the
petition, which was from the town council of Chichester,
praying for the adoption of measures to prevent the re-
currence of such scenes.
The Bishop of CHICHESTER said it was with in-
tense pain that he rose on this occasion. He felt grate-
ful to the Noble Duke for the testimony which he had
borne to the character of the Reverend Gentle-
man concerned, and for the temper with which he
bad stated the case. The Reverend Gentleman
was a man of most benevolent and irreproachable
character, and was actuated, he was convinced by
conscientious motives, however mistaken his views
might be. He lamented most deeply that
the Rev. Gentleman had taken the view of the subject
which he bad taken. The Rev. Gentleman had, on
several occasions, read the burial service over Dissenters,
but he had refused to read the service over the body
of this Dissenting clergyman, because, as he ,under-
stood, there were several Dissenting clergymen at
the funeral. He deeply regretted the conduct which
this reverend gentleman had pursued, and had no
sympathy with the reasons which he had adduced; on
the contrary, he had always felt that it was a most for-
tunata circumstance that the Dissenters had contented
themselves with erecting their own places of worship, and
had buried their dead in one churchyard, thus keeping
up, as it were, a connexion withlthe Church, and facili-
tating a return from the principles of dissent
to those of the Church, and he thought that
no consideration should induce clergymen of
the Church to throw obstructions in the way of thi-
usage. He had repeated this to Mr. Kenrick, and also
that he was guilty of a breach of duty in violating the
laws of his country. Unfortunately those representations
had been disregarded. He could bear his testimony to the
legh respectability of Mr. Parsons, who had been bap-
tised, and who was among the most respectable and
most respected of the inhabitants of Chichester,
and he could not but regret that Mr. Kenrick had
taken such a view of the subject. Mr. Parsons had
not been convicted of schism, and therefore could not
be so regarded, and was consequently entitled to have
the burial service read over him. He could well un-
derstand that the consciences of clergymen might be
wounded when they had to read the burial
service over persons who had died perhaps
in the commission of a crime—in such a
case the minister of the Church felt himself placed in a
most difficult situation. He said this not with a view to
justify the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, but in the
hope to induce their Lordships to consider his
conduct with as much forbearance as possi-
ble. With regard to the case of the unfor-
tunate woman who destroyed herself, be could not
but ask what power a clergyman had of instituting any
inquiry into such circumstances that could be satis-
factory? It was the duty of the clergyman to be
guided by the decision of the proper legal tribunal; yet he
might be permitted to observe, in excuse for this gentle-
man, that coroner's juries were often somewhat lax
in the execution of their duty, and were not in-
clined to sift too nicely in such cases the evidence
as to insanity, and to assume that the fact of com-
mitting suicide was itself sufficient proof of in-
sanity, but still he admitted that the verdict of the
coroner's jury should have been conclusive with this
Reverend Gentleman, and merely urged these
considerations on their Lordships, in the hope
of inducing them to view the conduct of the Rev. Mr.
Kenrick with less disfavour. That conduct he did not
attempt to justify, as he admitted that the Rev. Gentle-
man was bound in duty to obey the law, and begged to
be understood as not attempting to defend or extenuate
the conduct of the Rev. Mr. Kenrick.

The Bishop of LONDON took that opportunity of
stating, in reference to this subject, that it was not his
intention to re-introduce the Church Discipline Bill du-
ring the present session, but next session he intended to
introduce a measure to facilitate the institution of pro-
ceedings for the correction:of criminal and contumacious
clerks; and also for the institution of a tribunal of appeal
to decide ecclesiastical causes.

Lord BROUGHAM bore' his testimony to the defective
state of the law in ecclesiastical cases, and mentioned an in-
stance in which a Right Rev. Prelate had to pay several
thousand pounds costs for merely having done his duty, and
nothing more nor less than his duty, and for doing less than
which he would have been censurable.

The Bishop of EXETER said that the Noble Duke who
had introduced the subject of the proceedings at Chichester
spoke with great discretion when he said that the verdict of a
coroner's jury was a prima facie ground for supposing that a
person had really died in a state of lunacy. He rejoiced
that the Noble Duke had used that phrase instead of saying
that it was absolutely conclusive, for he apprehended that
many cases had occurred, in reference to insurances and
other matters, in which such verdicts had not been held to
be conclusive evidence of the state of a man's mind. If a
clergyman, then, had good reason to believe that a man
had died by his own hand while in a sane state of mind, he
(the Bishop of Exeter) held that he would be quite justified
in withholding from him the rites of the Church, notwith-
standing any 'verdict to the contrary. In saying this he was
not speaking his own sentiments only, but the sentiments of
one of the best, the most pious, and not the least learned of
the• prelates that had ever adorned the Church of England,
he meant Dr. Wilson, the Bishop of Sodor and Man.
The matter here dropped.
COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM having presented several petitions in
favour of this Bill, moved that it be re-committed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose and contended that the
state of the law was not such as to require the alterations
which the Bill proposed to effect. He objected that it was
inexpedient to give a general authority to persons to go
into the county court, and refer matters in their own discre-
tion, without leaving the Court an option whether it would
or would not take upon itself the office with which the par-
ties proposed to clothe themselves. He did not see any ne-
necessity for any such legislation. This applied to the five
first clauses. The facilities they afforded were already pro-
vided by other Acts of Parliament. The next series of
clauses referred to the Court of Reconcilement; but it did not
appear to him to be suited to the feelings and constitution of
the people of England. It would enable a cunning man to
know the case of his opponent; and having done that
he would go to law with him.—(Hear.) If it were to be
said this would do no harm, he answered that was not
enough ; they shoul I not pass laws except to do a positive
good.—(hear.) As to the clauses which dealt with equity,
it did not appear to him expedient to adopt thorn. What
they proposed would be found, in a great degree, already
done by the 9 and 10 Viet., c. 22, s. 13, for this Bill did the
same thing as that Act. As to the proposal for judges on the
circuit hearing causes, he would say that from his experience
it was seldom that they had the time or the opportunity for
doing so As to the proposal for permitting clerks to at-
torneys to appear fur their principals, he said there could not
be a greater nuisance. The proceedings at the criminal
courts showed that such persons, that is persons attending
about the courts in the names of attorneys, have been proved
to have despoiled the poor of their money, under the pretence
of procuring counsel and having a legal ,defence for them on
their trial=.—(Hear, hear.) - He could speak from personal
experience of the mischief caused by persons acting
As attorneys who were not attorneys. What sort of

business must that be which was to be repre-
sented in a court of justice by a six-months'
clerk to an attorney? The Bill would give a licence to the
lowest set of attorneys to lend over their names to unworthy
persons, and, taking it in connexion with that of the attend-
ance of counsel not instructed through attorneys, was a pro-
position which he was sure his Noble and Learned Friend,
on further consideration, would abandon. As tithe-rents were
now only recoverable by distress, it was proposed by this Bill
to give the tithe-rent owner a power to recover where per-
haps there had been nothing titheable raised in the land. The
most facile remedy was by distress; but for it was to be sub-
stituted personal action. The only ground for the clause
was, it wounded the clergyman's feelings to levy a distress,
and it was proposed to give him the power of sending a man
to prison. He did not approve of any such proposition, and
not approving of the changes proposed, he moved that the
Bill be committed that day six months.
Lord BROUGHAM ,was greatly surprised by the course
now proposed to be taken by his Noble and Learned Friend.
If his Noble Friend had given him the slightest hint, if he
had suggested to him the entertainment of a shadow of a
doubt even resting upon his mind as to any of the clauses,
he would, as a matter of course, after the documents they al-
ready had on another subject, have postponed his Bill until
to-morrow. The course now adopted was very inconvenient
to hit:, and he was sorry to say would be very inconvenient
to their Lordships, for it would oblige him to address them
at much greater length than he intended to have done. But
to give their Lordships a sample of the arguments which his
Noble and Learned Friend had employed against this Bill he
would take up that which his Noble and Learned Friend had
said with regard to the equity clauses. His Noble and
Learned Friend took them up and said, Of what use are
they; they are all to be found in the Act of 1846 ?" Now,
he would convince his Noble and Learned Friend that be
never made a greater mistake; that the mistake of his
Noble and Learned Friend was the greatest possible one
that could be committed on a subject of this kind.—(Hear,
hear.) These equity clauses were not now for the first
time proposed ; they were all in the Bill of 1833 ; they
underwent the most full and elaborate discussion in that
House, and they were lost because the Bill in which they
were contained was then thrown out. In '846, when a
Bill was proposed by Lord Lyndhurst, and afterwards
adopted by Lord Cottenham, the late Master of the Rolls,
not finding those equity clauses in the Bill, was anxious to
have them introduced. So anxious was the Master of the
Rolls—such value did he, who had such experience of the
practice of that court, attach to these clauses, that he
came down there the other night expressly to support those
clauses.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was sure that his
Noble and Learned Friend must be aware that the last thing
he would wish to do would be to take him by surprise, or to
do anything unfair towards him. It was but within the last
few hours he had given his attention to the subject, and
would have no objection to the postponement of the Commit-
the until to-morrow.

Lord BROUGHAM never, he said, intended to complain
of anything unfair on the part of his Noble and Learned
Friend. If his Noble and Learned Friend were to
do anything unfair to him, it would be the first time
in his life he had ever done so. He did not say that
the course taken was unfair—he only complained that it
was inconvenient. But now, as a sample of the whole
cargo of his Noble and Learned Friend's arguments, and
to show how incorrect he was, he must state that the
view entertained by him respecting the equity clauses
was the very opposite of that entertained by the late
Master of the Rolls (Lord Langdale), who, knowing from
experience the value of those clauses, and their full bearing,
had come down expressly to support them. In 1846 the
Master of the Rolls could only obtain from Lord Co' tenham
an infinitessimal portion of these clauses, that part which was
contained in the 22d clause, and which small portion his
oble and Learned Friend found was equal to the whole.
His Noble and Learned Friend referred to the 22d clause as
giving powers which it did not confer. There could be no
doubt, then, that the clauses he proposed were necessary, and
that those the best acquainted with the proceedings in Chan-
cery considered them a great improvement in practice.
He would show him that these clauses had been carefully
prepared. They were first considered in 1833. Then they
were discussed in a Committee of that House, of which several
of the most eminent Law Lords were members. Within the
last six weeks they were again brought before the most
eminent equity practitioners and masters in this country,
and not only before them but also beore the Master of the
Rolls himself. He (Lord Brougham) had acquiesced in a
suggestion that was then made to him by striking out
several clauses and making the Bill more compendious. He
had had communications also with several of the County
Court Judges, several of whose suggestions he thought
it his duty to receive. He had added several clauses in
consequence of those suggestions, each of which
having undergone the most careful consideration, in re-
spect to the question of tithe, referred to by the Noble
and Learned Lord—namely, the proposition to allow tithe-
rent charge to be made the ground of a summons for a plaint
before the County Court Judge he ( Lord Brougham) thought
it would be very hard that the claimant should go without
his tithe or distress. Though it was a very painful operation
for him to have recourse to distress, it was bat fair that he
should be placed in a situation of recovering it as he would
an ordinary debt. Oh, but his Noble and Learned Friend
said, it was only a debt due in proportion to what was on
the ground, and if there was no titheable matter to be
found, then there could be no distress. But he (Lord
Brougham) should like to know what titheable matter was
produced by a horse, chairs and tables, carts, or any of those
other articles which were subject to distress? If there was
no titheable matter to be found on the ground, why, then,
that was an argument for submitting the question to the
decision of a judge. As to another point referred to,the
knew that his Noble and Learned Friend did not take the
same view of the courts of arbitration which he
( Lord Brougham) did. What was the present course
of proceeding? When a case comes into court, and
all the expenses incidental to bringing it there were
incurred, it was very often thought to be a fit
matter for reference. The parties were then compelled to go
through a renewal of the expenses before the arbitrator.
What was the consequence? The case lingered before the
arbitrator for a considerable time, because being paid day
by day, he had no particular interest in speedily disposing of
it. Neither had the attorneys or barristers any interest in
having the matter settled within any brief space of time.
Why, it was notorious that many of these references in
England had no end, because the arbitrator had no direct
motive to cut them short. But every one knows that if a
paid arbitrator of experience and ability were appointed be-
fore whom these cases were to be submitted, the proceed-
ings would be rendered much shorter and more satisfactory.
In respbct to the courts of reconcilement his Noble and
Learned Friend seemed to think that this was a visionary
scheme which would have no practical result. But it should
be recollected that this was a practice adopted by more than
the half of Europe, and with the the most beneficial results.
He had received letters faom the most eminent law) era in
France and other countries, bearing most valuable testimony
to the great benefits which even in France were received
from the action of those courts of reconcilement. More
than half the cases which go before these judges of the
courts of reconcilement were settled amicably by their
advice. In these cases it was perfectly voluntary with the
parties whether they would go against these courts or not.
A certain formality was necessary to be observed in France,
but even then no party was bound to tell his story in these
courts unless he liked it. Tho Noble and Learned Lord
made one objection as to the option of jurisdiction clause,
and said it would be a hardship for a party to be obliged to
bring his witnesses from a remote part of the country to
give evidence in a court where this option of jurisdiction
had been exercised. That no doubt was a very possible
case, but it was one not likely often to happen. It was
much more probable that the case would be tried in the
neighbourhood of the contending parties and their witnesses,
as of course it would be their interest to save as much ex.
pense in the matter as possible. But the objection raised by
his Noble and Learned Friend was equally good as against
the existing system. The evil apprehended by him might
happen any day now, under the law as it now stands. If
the action was not local, but transitory, the venue might be
laid wherever the parties pleased. He would postpone any
further comments upon the other objections raised by
his Noble and Learned Friend to a future occa-
sion, when there would be a more desirable op-
portunity for making them. There was not, how-
ever, one of those objections which he was not prepared to
meet, and he pledged himself to give a perfectly satisfac-
tory answer to it. As to the exclusion of counsel and at-
torneys from practising in some of these courts, it was found
that the most respectable members of these professions will
not attend the county courts. The result was that the busi-
ness was apt to fall into the hands of an inferior class of
practitioners. To meet this evil he had proposed a clause
which he thought would prove most advantageous to the
contending parties, and more conducive to the ends ofjwstice.
It was now for their Lordships to meet the motion as they
thought fit. He had, however, the greatest confidence in
the truth of that sentiment expressed by Lord Bacon and
Lord Coke, that a good proposal for a change in the law—
though it be for a time opposed from prejudice or ignorance
was nevertheless, in the end sure to produce its whole-
some fruit in good season.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that the speech of
the Noble and Learned Lord was very strong in everything
but argument. He would withdraw his amendment with the
view of having the matter fully discussed in a future stage
of the measure.

Lord BROUGHAM wished that the matter could be dis-
posed of at once, as both sides had been heard.
Lord BEAUMONT would move the adjournment of the
debate, as he wished to make some observations upon the
measure which it was not convenient then to proceed with.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he had often sat until after
twelve o'clock upon much less important business.
Lord BEAUMONT said that the thinness of the House
was a sufficient justification for an adjournment. (There
were only about half a dozen Peers present at this period.)
He would ask the adjournment until the following evening.
Lord CRAM W 0 ni said if they were to have an adjourn-
ment, it would be inconvenient to have the matter discussed
before Monday.

Lord BROUGHAM having suggested some other amend-
ments he meant to propose in the Bill,
Lord BEAUMONT said that the Noble and Learned Lord
ought to lay those amendments on the table, with a view to
their consideration before they had the question again under
discussion.

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the most con-
venient course to pursue would be to recommit the Bill pro
forma, for the purpose of adding those amendments now
suggested.
Their Lordships having acquiesced, the House went into
Committee pro forma, when those amendments were added to
the Bill. It was understood that the discussion would be
taken upon them on Monday.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF Co:WMONS, April 3.
The SPEAKER took the ?,hair at Four o'clock.

NEW MEMBERS.

Sir JOHN RO➢IILLY, the now Master of the Rolls, and
Sir ALEXANDER COCKBURN, the new Attorney-General,
the formar the Metnher for Devonport, and the latter the
Mlmber for Southampton, took the oaths and their seats
on their re-election.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following Bills were read a third time and
passed:—
Manchester Parish Highways.
Stli and Gloisop Road.
Wlii:by Waterworks.

The reports upon the following Bills were considered
and agreed to:—
Bangor and Caernarvon Railway.
Leicester Waterworks.
Wiveliscombe Turnpike Roads.
PETITIONS.
Mr. FAGAN presented a petition from Cork against
the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Petitions to the same effect wore presented by several
other Hon. Members.
Mr. PLUMP PILE presented several petitions from
Kent, praying for a more stringent measure against
Popish aggression; also a petLiou against the admission
of Jews Into Parliament.
Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition from Brad-
ford againat the slave trade.

Mr. BAILLIE presented four paitions from kw:-
ness against Papal aggrmion.
Similar petitions were preamtel by Mr. Cowan,
from PeebieF, Cockppn, Kirkaidy, and other plac,?.s in
Scotland ; by Mr. Corcowall Lewis, from Merionethshire,
and by other lion. Members.

Mr: SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition, from Bir-
mingham fur th© Lupprcsaicn of piracy at Borneo.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition praying for an
alteration of the law respecting the newsal)vr press; also
a petition from Falkirk, complaining of the intimidation
and bribery at the last election, and praying that Mem-
bers might bs elected by ballot.
. _

Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from a place in
Glamorganshire against a state church.

PROCEEDINGS IN BORNEO.

Mr. HITME said ho saw from the Gazette that a day
had been fixed in this month for the distribution of toe
pirate or head-money among the parties engaged in the
late proceedings at Borneo; and he wished to ask the
First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was consistent
with justice and the proper application of public money
to distribute this money before the inquiry which he
hoped the House would grant had been made?
Sir F. BARING said the money was due by law, and
after certain forms had beQn gone through the Admi-
ralty were bound to pay it.