The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-27 00:00:00

\

THE SUN, LONDON, 7SVEDXESD4Y /EVENING,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, March 26.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at the usual hour.
Messengers from the Commons brought up the Inter-
national Copyright Bill and the Annual Indemnity Bill,
which were read a first time.
Lord KENYON presented a petition from Denbigh-
shire in favour of protection to agriculture. The Noble
Lord gave notice that on Thursday next he would pre-
sent a petition from the University of Oxford against
the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
• Lord. CAMPBELL presented a petition from the pro-
vost, magistrates, and town council of Edinburgh, pray-
ing fer the:repeal of the Act of Parliament, which re-
quired that all professors in Scotch Universities should
sign the Confession of Faith, .and be members of the
Church of Scotland.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
On the motion for going into Committee on. this Bill,
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from the
Archdeaconry of Taunton, against that part of the Ec-
clesiastical Courts Bill, which related to the Arch-
deaconry of Taunton.
Their Lordships then went into Committee.
Upon clause 1 being proposed,
Lord COTTENHAM said he hoped their Lordships
would have ao objection to afford the same powers of
jurisdiction to this Bill as those which he proposed in the
Bill introduced to that House in 1836.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was unwilling
to deprive those Courts of the jurisdiction which they
at present possessed. He had been told by gentlemen
connected with Doctors' Commons, that the exercise of
this jurisdiction was attended with many benefits, and
at a trifling expense.
The Bishop of EXETER said the power of excom-
munication was absolutely essential to the stability
of the Church, and without that power it could not
exist. If the Noble and Learned Lord had any other
means by which he could support the discipline of the
Church,' he hoped he would explain it to the House;
but until then he would entreat their Lordships to scout
any proposition which would deprive the Church of this
jurisdiction.
The clause was then agreed to; as were also clauses
2,3, and 4. On clause 5 being read,
Lord COTTENHAM expressed an opinion that, as
this clause went to convert donatives into presentatives,
the consent of the .Crown should have been given. Ile
also thought there was some unfairness in the arbitrary
disposition of the propertY- of individuals. He was not
prepared to move an amendment to the clause—no good
would result from it—but he felt called upon to express
his dissent to the clause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the clause had
been expressly recommended by those Ecclesiastical
Commissioners whom the Noble and Learned Lord had
so warmly eulogised the other evening, and in his (Lord
Lyndhurst's) opinion was one of the most useful and
necessary-clauses in the Bill.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM and the
Bishop of LONDON the clause was agreed.to.
Clauses 6 and 7 were then agreed to.
Clause 8 Was then proposed:
Lord COTTENHAM said the Bill Proposed to
establish throughout the country diocesan. courts;
that was to say a court in each • •diocese
of England and Wales., Now, this was a preposition
condemned not only by all those individuals who had
considered the matter, but it was condemned by the
reports of two Commissions which had been appointed
with respect to this subject. It had also been con-
demned by the reports of two Select Committees—
one of that House, and one of the other. House of Par-
liament. It had also been condemned by many influential
Members of the present Government ; and if their Lord-
ships decided in favour of this Bill, they would
do so without having a single authority to support them.
They would thereby perpetuate an evil to the coun-
try, without any reason having been advanced for it.
This showed that although the Government had the
power, they had not the moral courage to carry out a
measure which they themselves acknowledged would be
attended with most beneficial results.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was quite wil-
ling to acknowledge his responsibility in taking up the
Bill whiclehad_been introduced into the House of Com-
mons, and-in the same state as that in-which it. was left,
because it would effect much of what had been sug-
gested by the Commissioners. If his Noble-and-Learned
Friend, or any other Noble Lord, could suggest any
further improvement, he would be glad to give it every
consideration. He thought this measure would be
attended with most beneficial results, if they took care
that there were proper and competent pirsoes appointed
to discharge the duties of judges in those Courts. When
gentlemen of such high acquirements in the ecclesiastical
laws as Dr. Phillimore and others Whotnlhe could men-
iton occupied the judicial bench in -those Courts, he felt
confident that they must be attended with the best re-
sults. _ _ -
Lord CAMPBELL said it was .true his Noble and
Learned Friend had not-accused them of destroying the
right of property, yet that if they succeeded in carrying
this measure it would be an infringemint of the rights
of property. His Noble and Learned -Friend was wil-
ling now to abandon what he formerly owned. He stated
that the Bill had been framed in 1835, and that he then
approved of the abolition of all those jurisdictions, and
he acknowledged that he did the same last year, because
he said that it was brought into the- House of Commons
. with his approbation quite as much as with that of Sir
Robert Peel. It was true these Courts had existed for
one thousand years, and it was a long experience of
• their inherent bad qualities which Called for-their aboli-
tion. The Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst) had
said that agreeing to the present Bill would not hinder
Noble Lords carrying their improvements further on
another occasion ; but he (Lord Cainpb.oll) was satisfied
that if next session, or any succeeding session, an at-
tempt was made by himself or any ofi his Noble Friends
to amend the present measure, the Noble and
Learned Lord (Lyndhurst) would_ be he fiery first to
treat such attempt with derision.- It- was impossible
that in these diocesan courts they could have good
judges, it was impossible they could :have good advo-
cates, it was impossible they could have -good practi-
tioners. Why he appealed to all his Noble-and Learned
Friends behind ' him whether a case had ever come up
from York that was lot disfigured by -the grossest
blunders?
Lord BROUGHAM—And folldwed by- reversals.—
(Laughter,) _
Lord CAMPBELL—Just so; and -followed by re-
versals: and yet these Courts were to-be retained, and
though formerly condemned, were now to be loudly
praised. :The inconveniencies -attending the jurisdiction
t(beir abolition. -
annoyance
thatdf suitors,
he
oo could
dd
nt the
and practice of these Courts were enormous; but they
mere pretence of the Noble
wdeetrrlnitoenbteorfeisintieede,tooniathtyheneda
caanrdryLaetrinlleednacLotirndg
Lord-BROUGHAM said he agreed with every word
that had fallen from his Noble and Learned Friends in
condemnation of those ecclesiastical courts. They had
neither eye nor head—neither bal. no judge—but yet
they had a prison.—(l laugh.) -However, he (Lord
Brougham) was one who wished to get on when he
' could, and if he could not travel at a -full-pace, he was
always disposed to take such step-p_ onwards as he could.
This Bill was certainly a great amendment on the ex-
isting system.' These courts were bad, very bad,—but
then they were to be improved by the-Bill--(Hear and
laughter.) Besides their Lordship& should_ recollect
that they were not prevented from carrying-their amend-
' ments further in future, and that the hands of the Le-
gislature-were not tied up because or the-preient mea-
sure.
After a. short conversation, strangers were ordered to
withdraw; and their Lordships divided, when the num-
bers were—
Content - 47
Non-cOntent - 20
Majority
On our re-admission to the gallery, we found that
clause 9 was agreed to without opposition; as was also
clause 10. . - -
On clause 11 being put, - -
Lord COTTENHAM said that-if a person were com-
pelled to institute a suit in the ecclesiastical courts, he
was compelled to employ a proctor alone. He might
have his own solicitor, inwhom he placed the utmost con-
fidence, but thatperson was not allowed to act personally,
but was compelled to employ a preictor: To illustrate the
hardship of this, he would state from his own knowledge
that in one case the proctor pocketed upwards of 6,000 L
for which he never did more than sanction the use of his
name by the attorney, who did the entire business. He
would, therefore, propose that some provision should be
made, by which attorneys should be permitted topractice
in those courts.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, attorneys were
allowed to practice in all cases which came from the ec-
clesiastical courts by appeal to the P:rivy:Council. He
knew that the gentlemen practising as proctors were in
the greater number of cases men of high intelligence
and education. His Hon. and Learned Friend mutt be
aware that these offices were of ;such: a nature, that it
would be impossible to abolish-them without making
some compensation to the proctors; For many years
a cry prevailed to abolish the office of Six Clerks ; and
at length, the Parliament decided upon doing so, giving
those officers compensation for the loss of their offices.
Now, the sum required for this- compensation was up-
wards of 40,000/. ; and the chaige was so heavy that
the Court, of Chancery found it.- necessary to continue
the fees in this office.
After a few words from Lord COTTENHAM, the
clause was agreed to. - - -
Clauses 10 to 12 were next agreed to-without oppo-
sition.
Clause 13 was agreed to, :on the -understanding
that the title of the Surrogate should be amended on
bringing up the report.
Clauses 14 to 58 inclusive were thini agreed to.
On clause 59 being put, - - -
The Bishop of LONDON proposed that certain
sequestrations, the proceeds of which went to the fund
called Queen Ann's Bounty, should _have precedence of
all other sequestrations. "
After a few words from the LORD. CHANCELLOR,
the proposal was agreed to.
Clauses up to 81 inclusive were agreed to.
Clauses from 82 inclusive up to 89 were struck out.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, the House
resumed, and the report was ordered to'bo brought up
on Thursday.
Their Lordships adjourned at Nine o'Clock.

• SOUSE OF COMMONS, March 26.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
The Maryport and Carlisle Railway Bill was read a
second time.

BRIGHTON AND CHICHESTER RAILWAY BILL.
Colonel WYNDHAM presented a petition against the
Brighton and Chichester Railway Bill. '
Mr. PAKINGTON presented several petitions in
favour of the Bill.

Lord MARCH moved the second reading of this Bill.'
Col. WYNDHAM opposed •the faiOiibii, and " lived