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

Lord CAMPBELL said it was trite 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 infringement of the rights
of property. His Noble and Learned Friend was wil-
ling now to abandon what lie 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 mnh 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 fdr 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 Campbell) was satisfied
that if next session, or any succeeding session, an at-
tempt was made by himself or any ofg-his Noble Friends
to amend the present measure, : the Noble and
Learned Lord (Lyndhurst) would be the very 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-
eates, it was impossible they could -have good practi-
tioners. Why he appealed to all his Noble and Learned
Friends behind him whether a ease had ever come up
from York that was Rot disfigured- by- the grossest
blunders?
Lord BROUGHAM—And followed by reversals.—
(Laughter,)
Lord CAMPBELL—Just so; and followed by re-
versals: and yet these Courts were to be-retained, and
though Thrmerly condemned, wire now :to be loudly
praised. The ineonveniencies attending the jurisdiction
eadaanne
rdtdrryi p7Lraeaeneßa ttrii
Learned
de j
nouafsr
jet
oittcihrned eg, s et h
eCor uarbt so t enormous;_
were to be retained Tnththeeaninneory4ncreeteonfeseuiotfortsh,eanNdotbhlee
ion
(Lyndhurst), that he could not
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 WI- nor judge—but yet
they had a prison.—(A 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 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 Lordships should recollect
that they were not prevented from-carrying their amend-
ments further in future, and that the hatids of the Le-
gislature were not tied up because of the. present mca- 1
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 oppositioni as was also
clause 10. -
On clause 11 being 1194 - -
Lord COTTENHAM said that if a person were com-
pelled to institute a suit in the ecclesiastical courts, ho
was compelled to employ a proctor alone. He might
have hisown solicitor; in whom he placed theutmost con-
fidence, but that person was not allowed to act personally,
but was compelled to rtmploy a proctor. 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 .sanctionthe use of his
name by the attorney, who did the entire business. He
would, therefore, propose that some provision should be
made, by which attorneysshould he 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 Privy_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 Leisrned Friend must 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, Fo"r 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 charge 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 wore then 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_e 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 be brought up
on Thurs€lay.
Their Lordships adjourned at Nine o'Clock.-

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 26.
The SrEAKER 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
Bsighton and Chichester Railway Bill.
Mr. PAKINGTON presented several petitions in
favour of the Bill.
• 'r
Lord MARCIfinOVed the second reading of this Bill.
Col. WYNDHAM opposed the motion, and moved

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 for 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 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 no 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. He
also thought there was some unfairness in tho arbitrary
disposition of the property of individuals. He was not
prepared to move an amendment to the clause—no good
would result from it—bift 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 than 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 proposition
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 which had 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. lie thought this measure would be
attended with most beneficial results; if they took care
that there were proper and compeitent_persons 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 whomlhe could men-
iton occupied the judicial bench in those Courts, he felt
confident that they must be attended- with the best re-
sults.