The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-01 00:00:00

GLASS DUTIES.

On the motion Of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
.
CHEQUER, the Glass . and Vinegar Duties' Bill was
committed pro.forma, . .
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

On the motion for reading the Order of the Day for
going iutO Committee on the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill,
Captain PECHELL presented a petition from
Brighton against the Bill.
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from the Law
Society of Manchester, praying that a clause should be
inserted-in the Bill, consolidating the powers of certain
of these courts.

.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose to move an instruction to
the Committee to abolish all ecclesiastical courts, and
to transfer the jurisdiction of those courts to civil
tribunals. His object was to take away all jurisdiction
from the ecclesiastical courts, and to put an end to the
caprice and injustice that took place there. To effect
this there could be no doubt that the whole of Doctors'
Commons must be swept away, and that in its place
proper tribunals must be appointed to replace the
mummeries and impositions that not only disgraced the
country, but affected the best interests of religion.
He did not believe that 658 gentlemen calling themselves
reasonable men would attempt to bolster up a system so
inconsistent' with reason. He wished to see all the doctors
and proctors who infested Doctors' Commons cast out,
and he for one would be prepared to give them all the
compensation they could prove themselves entitled to. In
all the proceedings which • had taken place from 1829,
when the Ecclesiastical Commission was appointed, in
all the Bina which had been introduced into Parliament
whether by Whigs or by Tories ; they had but pro-
ceeded from bad to worse till they had arrived at the ne
plus ultra of worthlessness in the present matter.—
(Laughter.) He thought that the Learned Civilian
whom he saw opposite (Dr. Nicholl) would be' obliged
to sit down in despair in attempting to improve
the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, for.he would find that his
materials.were so rotten and so corrupt that he would
be the tinker perplexed, who in curing one hole created
twa.—(Laughter.) It was true the Bill got rid of some
spiritual jurisdictions and offences, such as tithes,
and defamation, and smiting in the church-yard—
(Laughter)—which subjected the offender to the loss of
one ear, and if he had not one he was to be branded on
the cheek with the letter F.--(Laughter.) But that the
health of the souls of her Majesty's subject:
might, not be altogether neglected, tht y left behind
such offences as simony, heresy, brawling, blasphemy,
perjury, drunkenness, incest, adultery, fornication, incon-
tinence, and other evil habits--(Laughter)—over which
the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court was continue&
The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts over
Church-rates was continued, though the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners recommended that it should be abolished.
He knew no reason why this jurisdiction should be con-
tinued, except that it occasionally promoted fraud, and that
it brought grist to the mill of the lawyers in Doctors'
Commons. He would give one instance in which the
Rev. Theodore 'Williams proceeded ag .inst Mr: J. Hall,
and upon which a most absurd decision was given by
Dr. Lushington. It' seemed that there was a meeting
in the vestry for a church-rate, at which the Rev.
Vicar was expected to be present, but he was behind
time, apd a motion for adjourning the meeting was car-
ried. 'He came after this, and no doubt was very angry.
Some dispute took place between him and Mr.
Hall, who said he was a disgrace to his cloth,
for which he was dragged into the ecclesiastical court.
The House would be surprised to hear what the costs
were in that case. The first was an item " for the
soul's health."—(A laugh.) Gentlemen might laugh, but
the words were pro salute anime.—(Renewed laughter.)
He supposed that this was something for the soul to
take with it in its travels to the other world—a sort of
viaticuin, he supposed.—(Great laughter.) But the fee
had been transferred' from the soul to the stomach.
and Peter had been robbed to pay Paul, or rather to
pay Theodore.—(lncreased laughter.) Well, what was
the next charge ? He did not know very well
what the word meant—it was " Fortunate," 3s. 6d.
—(Loud laughter.) He really could not throw any
light upon the subject. He did not know what the item
meant—whether it was fortunate for the clerk, fortunate
for the court, or fortunate for the suitors.—(Laughter.)
The Right Hon. Baronet opposite perhaps might els-plain
the meaning of these charges ; he did hot ask the
reason of them, for there was no reason in them, and he
would not insult the Right Hon. Gentleman, by asking
him to find a reason.—(Laughter.) He must come now
to the judgment, and he must say, that he never read
so absurd a judgment in his life. The judgment was,
that Mr. James Hall should be excommunicated from the
parish church for ono week of seven days.
The judge said that the words used by the
Rev. Theodore Williams were . words of contempt,
and that Mr. Hall spoke under provocation when he
said that Mr. Williams was a disgrace to his cloth, and
he would therefore order that 301. should be deducted
from the costs—(Hear, hear)—but even after this de-
duction, Mr. Hall's costs amounted to
,180/.--(Hear,
hear.) But what was the punishment upon Mr. Hall,
besides the payment of this money? He was to be
shut out for seven days from the parish church,
into which he would never enter if he had a
spark of spirit.—(Hear, hear.) Now, let them look
to the class of offences to which the jurisdiction of these
courts extended—drunkenness, idolatry, fornication,
incontinence, and other evil praotices—(Great laughter)
—for all of which; any of you (said the Hon. Gentle-
man) may 'be liable 'to be cited to the ecclesiastical
courts—(Shouts of laughter)—for all these they were
liable to be called on to do public penance, and in any
place which the court might appoint—(The laughter
was so great, that it was quite impossible to catch cor-
rectly the words of the Hon. Gentleman)—they might
be called upon to do public penance in the church—(Re-
newed laughter)—and to recant—(Laughter.) Yes, he
was serious; they would be obliged to recant.—(Laugh-
ter.) He was not speaking of imaginary things, for in
the district which he had the honour to represent a wo-
man had lately been obliged to do public penance in the
church, because she had spoken, perhaps, too
lightly of the chastity of her sister.—(A laugh.)
The following scene occurred in St. John's;---Rebecca
Cohen, the Jewess, having imputed to Deborah, her sis-
ter, a total want of chastity,a, process was commenced in
the spiritual court of the Bishop of London, and after
about 701. had been run up in fees, Reba was allowed
to expiate her offence by going to the cluirch in ser-
vice hours, and then and there, before the church-
wardens, overseers, and ministers, recanting. The re-
cantation was, in fact, a fraud, because, instead
of being done publiCly in the church, as had
been ordered, the parties wore let in and out pri-
vately at the vestry-door, and hundreds of persons who
had heard that this ceremony for the good of Rebecca's
soul was to take place, were disappointed.—(Hear, hear.)
Well might the parochial authorities and the ecclesiass
tical courts be ashamed of such a proceeding ; but that
House ought to be more ashamed if it continued its
sanction of courts from which emanated 'such an amount
of absurdity. What a, hardship was it upon the subject
that this individual had to pay 70/ for this process. Now,
with regard to•the brawling, what had happened to Mr.
Theodore Williams within the last few days ? He had
been brought before the bench of Middlesex magistrates
for inciting to a breach of the peace one of his own pa-
rishioners, a respectable freeholder. He certainly did
not do this in the churchsyard, but on the highway.
The House would recollect the language used by
Hall to Williams : let them now compare it
with that used- by Williams to Mr. Smith. He said
to him." You are a thick-headed fellow," and shook his
fist in thezomplainant's face, The clergyman then said,
" You are a dirty fellow--you are a shabby fellow—you
are a coward," and he added, " You dare not fight."
On complainant saying, "If I am a coward, I will meet
yousinany spot 'you please ;" the defendant exclaimed,
"What, what, we'll discuss the question, Sir."---.-(A laugh.)
What was. the result ? Why that ,the magistrates in-
flicted dui highest fine which they could impose under
the Police Act, namely, 408, I so that, in point of fact,
there was one law in the ecclesiastical courts
and another in the civil courts ; whereas 40s.
was (he highest fine which' oould be inflicted in
the one, 1801. for costs, and -seven ' days' banishment
from church, could be imposed in the other, Well, then,
were all these offences to remain upon the statute book ?
He had the authority of a 'tight Rev. Prelate in favour
of his views. A Bill had. been, introduced into the other
House or- Parliament by the Bishop of Exeter, for the
purposo of putting down incontinency; fornication, and-all
those other evil habits ; proving that these courts had
neglected their duty
and Hera not adequate to suppress
the immorality
the age—. A Bishop might have better
opportunities of' ascertaining the truth than himself. The
Ilon. Member was then pros eecim' g to quote the Bill,
when he was interrupted by
The SPEAM‘ who stated that, the was lot
bertgO the 1.40,u4e, i 4 Could at, as
,not be quoted.
Ails Ts Di.TNOOMBE proceeded--The ecclesias-
tical courts would-do well to confine themselves to the
affairs of their own courts,' could not see why
the . courts of assiß were not competent to decide
questions that were usually brought before the cede'.
314.stie0 courts. Such tribunals were founded on Com-
, Moss sense and common justice, and Lord lisle and Laid
Uelt had denounced the' ecclesiastical catis,to as iris
bunals against common justice tossd eernmon sense.—
(Hear, hear.) The --snees Uentleusan concluded by
ipoving the .xenon of which he had given notice,
' lIIPME seconded the motion.
Dr. NICHOLL said that the prinelpie ofthe Bill had
been affirmed on the second reading, so far as related to
the.retention of gertAin .portions of ecclesiastical juris-
• dictleiri but the-110% Gentleman was-not satisfied with

~:( ~ ~ a
~~'°!~O% ice. y,.n~,{i

that, and wanted to hand the ecelesi
altogether ; but •at the end, of hikk!
tleman said that be..was prepares 1
siastical jurisdietion,for ate, thsciplia.,
was absolutely. essential for be maint_
blished Church, that it, shoulstpossess It tWi
thm. With regard to the Pa%e.alluded to-.1-oiy e op. ar ..:
tleman, he begged to Ten4ind him that where t ere were
two
.litigious persons, a case N‘ould be attendel+vtith. •
iarge costs in any of their courts of equity or cotta.non .
laik:i; but the . case, 'alluded to by the Honourable
entieman would be put an end to by- the Bill, if
)theibrawling did not take place in:the church ; but if it
-ti:olt place in. the church surely the Hon. :Gentleman
Would not, for decency's sake, wish that there should not
be a means to prevent it. The Hon. Gentleman had
.alluded to' a Bill broullit in by the Bishop of Ext ter. -
Ile had never heard of it, and it would not meet with his
POpprobation if it came to that House. , The Hon. Gen-
:•'Peinan alluded to him as being personally; connected
With those courts. Now he had ceased to have any
Connexion with them since 1841, and he would not for
the- future have any iaterest in them directly or in-
directly. There were two Commissions,appointed, the
Real Property Commission anti the Ecclesiastical
Courts Commission. The Peal Property Commission
made their report in 1833, and they recommended, the
transfer of . testamentary matters to the Chancery Court.
Both these reports were afterwards referred to a Select
~
Committee, before which persons of the highest eminence
were examined, and they arrived at the conclusion
that it was not desirable to act on the rep: t
of the Real Property Commissioners, and accordingly
Bills had been brought in, both un:ler Lord Grey's Go-
vernment and under the Government of his Right Hon.
Friend, leaving matters of testamentary jurisdiction to
the ecclesiastical courts. He thought, upon the whole,
that the Bill was one of the best which could be devised, •
and he hoped the motion of the Hon. Gentleman would
be rejected by a large majority.
Sir G. GREY said that the question had been sub-
stantially
decided by the House as stated by the Right
Hon. Gentleman in the second reading, but as he (Sir
G. Grey) was in the minority on that occasion, he was
not precluded from speaking now.—(Laughter.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman said . that a criminal jurisdiction
was absolutely essential to an established church. He
(Sir G. Grey) did not wish to deprive the ecclesiastical
courts of such jurisdiction with regard to offences against
discipline, but he objected to their retaining the criminal
jurisdiction which the report of the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners said they ought not to have. He understood
from the Right Hon. Gentleman that, with regard to
brawling, he intended to repeal the statutes of FAlward
VI., and to leave untouched the common-law jurisdic-
tion. With regard to incest and adultery, it appeared
from the report that offences of such description were
brought before the court for a series of years, ,
and they were of opinion that they ought to be abolished,
altogether. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that no
Bill which bad been introduced into that Ilou-e went the
length of abolishing all the ecclesiastical courts. But
every Bill had proceeded, on the assumption that there
should be only one court to exercise jurisdiction, although
that court should be one which exercised the jurisdic-
tion which now belonged to the ecclesiastical courts.
They had now the option either of abolishinc, these
courts altogether, or of submitting to about five-aud-
thirty ecclesiastical courts, not merely retained but
reorganised. Under these circumstances, and looking at
the altered circumstances in which they were Vier).
placed, he should support the amendment of his "ion.
Friend.

r~,
~. ~ f
-; ~
A

6r-K

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he had listened
with great attention to the speech of the Hon. Member
for Finsbury, and derived from it great entertainment ;
but his reasoning seemed to lihrrather inconclusive., lie
was not there to justify the course of proceedings in, the
ecclesiastical courts in all particulars ; but it did not
follow from that admission that all the powers possessed
by the ecclesiastical courts should be abolished. He
was quite sure that the Hon. Gentleman had not consi-
dered the utter impossibility of the civil courts, as at pre-
sent constituted, exercising the powers of the ecclesiasti-
cal courts. Now, he had had some experience of the
ecclesiastical courts, and he saw no reason to complain of
the manner in which they exercised their jurisdiction. He
could not see that the slightest benefit would result from
transferring their powers to the civil courts. He did not
understand the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Devonport to be disposed to do more than abolish a part,
of the powers possessed-by these courts. He thought no
case had been made out for the course proposed thk, Hen,
Gentleman.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
•
Against it 115
Majority
—45
The House then resolved itself into Committee.
Sir G. GREY moved that the criminal jurisdiction of
the ecclesiastical courts should be abolished, and also
their jurisdiction witk respect to church-rates.
Dr. NICHOLL opposed the motion.
Mr, JERVIS trusted that the proposition of the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Devonport, would
be re-considered by the Government.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said a very strict jurisdic-
tion existed in the Scotch Church.
Dr. ELPHINSTONE said it would be far better to
carry into effect the recommendatkon of the Archbishop
of Canterbury and the other Co,lnmissioners, that offences
of this nature should be talzett` before civil tribunals.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the recommendations of
the Archbishop of "Canterbury, and other bishops, in-
cluding the lde Bishop of Durham, ought to be carried
into effeet.

M". ESCOTT said he should vote for the clause as
`..mended.

Dr. NICHOLL said he considered the recommenda-
tion of the Commissioners was a hasty recommendation
in this respect.
Lord J. RUSSELL was surprised at the statement of
the Right Hon. Gentleman that this was a hasty recom-
mendation: The Commission was appointed in 1830,
and their report was made in 1832. The recommenda-
tion was signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Bishops of London, Lichfield, Bangor, St. Asaph, by
Sir N. Tindal, by Sir J. Nicholl, Dr. Lushington, and
other Commissioners, and he certainly would be rather
guided by the opinions of those persons on a Church
question thus solemnly expressed, than the opinion or
the Right Hon. Gentleman, who now said it was a hasty
recommendation.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the Bill, in its present
form, had come down from the House of Lords with the
sanction of the heads of the Church. The question was
not now whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were
right in changing the opinion they appeared to have en-
tertained in 1832. They had changed their opinion, and
it was a very grave question whether the Church should
not have a power of correcting abuses within itself. He
thought the Church should possess a power of repul-
sion. The question was not now whether the present
tribunal was the best to try those offences, but the ques-
tion was, whether it wa not right, that till such a tri-
bunal was established, the power here claimed fir tho
Church ought not to exist in the Church.
Mr. WARBURTON supported the amendment.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment —lB
On-the admission of strangers we found
Mr. WARBURTON contending against the clause
which gcave to the ecclesiastical courts a criminal juris-
diction in cases of what was called brawling in churches.
Mr. JARVIS insisted that brawling in churches
ought to be dealt with as other breaches of the peace.
Dr. NICROLL said that the sacredness of the house
of worship required peculiar protection.
Mr. WATSON thought it was a great offence against
morals and decency to interrupt any congregation of
worshippers in divine service. But the criminal law of
the country was sufficient to repress any such outrage,
without the necessity of extraordinary powers to the
ecclesiastical courts.

Mr. ROEBUCK said the whole object of the clause
was to obtain costs, and such was the object of the sole
remnant of the old gigantic papal power in this coun-
try—costs—money. Those old monkish superstitions
about its being a greater offence to knock a man down in
a churchyard than on the highway, had been long since
exploded, at least in a moral sense ; and it was too bad
in this enlightened age to perpetuate such a legal absur-
dity and injustice. He was one of those who did not
think that the enunciation of a few words from a human
being like ourselves, made that spot the more sacred ;
and he, therefore, considered that the punishment for
assaulting a man on the highway should be as great as
for the same offence in the churchyard, and that
there was no reason why it should not be tried in the
same manner.
Sir G. GREY wished to be understood. He wished
to take away ecclesiastical jurisdiction altogether in
criminal matters—to leave such matters for the decision
of the common law courts.

Mr. WARBURTON wished to know why the same
regulations should not apply to the churchyards of Dis-
senters as to those of Episcoralans.
Dr. BOWRING put the hypothesis to the House, if a
man who' wished to hear the tenets of the Established
Church, and yet from religious and conscientious scru-
ples would not take his hat off, was such a man to be
punished by the ecclesiastical court ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said such a man should
stay away altogether.—(Hear, hear.) If he committed
any indecency or indecorum in a house of Divine wor-
ship during Divine service he certainly was punishable
according to the ecclesiastical law.—(Hear.)
Mr. JERVIS deprecated a system which at present
existed in rural districts where the clergymen of the
parish turned out sheep and other cattle to graze in their
churchyards.
Colonel SIBTHORP, in reply to the question from
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bolton, as to what
would be done to a person, such as a gentleman who
wore his hat in a church from conscientious motives,
stated that it was his opinion such a man ought not to
be turned out only but afterwards placed in the stocks.
Dr. BOWRING spoke a few words in explanation,
The Gallant Gentleman had misunderstood his question.
What he asked was whether if a Quaker should act so
injudiciously as to wear his hat in a church; would the
Common law reach him, or was that Bill necessary to
punish him?
Mr. BULLER could see nothing in an offence com-
mitted In a churchyard which should prevent it being
dealt with by the common law of the land.
After a few words from Mr.WATSON and Mr. ROE-
BUCK; the galleries were cleared for a division. None,
ilewever, took place, and on our return to the gallery.
we found

Sir R. PEEL addressing the Rouse. He was under-
stood to say that there were undefined offences, which
could only be dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts.
Mr. HUME said it was then to be understood" that-
she offences which wore to be left in the <'hands of
ecclesiastical courts were offences which could not be
described.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said there was no offence cognizshle
by the ecclesiastical courts which was not also cognizable