The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-23 00:00:00

d'seipline passed the House. He stated at the time that ,t
when the question was settled they might proceed
satisfactorily with reg ird to those further settlenients."
The present Bill, however, proposed to go back and to
proceed in contradicCon to all those autho: itie ,-and to all
the proposals which they made, and to establish diocesan
courts. He objectel to those diocesan courts having the
power which this Bill would give them—in the first
place, because it was contrary to .priaciple that they
should have it. It arose only from the usurpation of the
dark ages, and was contrary to all the requirements of
the present day. In the second place, he was opposed
to it because there appeared every kind of objecti:tri
arising, from the constitution of those courts. No
stronger instance could be adduced than - those
shown in cases of bona notabilia. If a person
took out a probate in a different diocese from that in
which his bona notabilia were, the probate would be
void. In fact, every kind of delay and disturbance arose
from the complexity of the law. Another reason against
those diocesan courts was, that they had hitherto no busi-
ness, and therefore the judges had not sufficient experi-
ence to enable them to decide upon the difficult questions
that at times came before them. 'lt appeared that on the
average, those courts had only six contested causes be-
fore them—and yet it was proposed to give those judges,
who had so little business, an increase of power, and, he
supposed, adequate salaries. The deputy-judges had very
trifling salaries. In the diocese of Bath and Wells, the
deputy's salary was 101. In that of Bristol 461. In an-
other place in the diocese of Bristol, 361.
in Chichester, 101., and in Llandaff, 61. That was cheap
justice, at all events. Bat was it likely that judges so
paid would be able to decide on the very difficult ques-
tions that would at times come before:them? The object
in bringing forward the present measure was to please
certain parties who had a vested interest in the subject,
and to give patronage to the bishops. From the means
of rapid communication that now existed, both
time and expense would be saved by parties coming
to London, instead of going by a cross-post to a diocesan
court, with the disadvantage of the bona notabilia, and an
' inefficient judgo. In the present Bill there was a most
extraordinary provision with respect to the removal of
those judges. If a judge in Westminster Hall were guilty
of gross misconduct the Crown could be addressed for
the purpose of having him removed. But in the case of
those judges, should any of them prove unfit for their
office, if there were an address sent up, whom were they
to address—the Bishops or the Crown ? The Crown had
no power to remove them; and what, then, did the Bill
provide ? Why, that the Secretary of State should give
to the parties sending up the address a certificate that he
had applied to the Bishops for the removal of the judge.
Was there ever a more clumsy device ? The Right Hon.
Gentleman gave a singular reason for not concurring in
the opinion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—namely,
that they took too long a time before they made their re-
port. The very reason, in his (Lord John Russell's)
opinion, considering the other duties which oc-
cupied the attention of the several Commsssioners,
why additional weight ought to be given to their
decision. All that was good in the Bill might have
been contained in three or four clauses. The Right
Honourable Gentleman said that it was to be a final
measure on the subject. It was the ultimate decision of
the Government, and one opposed to the measure they
said last year they would stand by; and as there was no
hope of a better one, or that it would be amended in
Committee, he would vote for the amendment of his
Hon. Friend.

Colonel SIBTHORP said that while the Noble Lord
was in his present uncomfortable situation he would be
sure to cppose any measure brought forward by the
present Administration. He hoped he would never see
the Noble Lord and his colleagues in the place of those
who now sat as Conservative Ministers on the Treasury
benches. It was strange that the Noble Lord, who was,
as it were, the child of the Church, and who owed all to
:the spoliation of the Church, should be first to rise up
against the Church. With these observations, he should
reserve his assent to the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE entirely concurred in the
opinion of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for De-
vonport, that the Bill was exceedingly defective ; and
the only point which could be urged in its favour was,
that it abolished those courts which, for so many years,
had been a disgrace to the country. He thought it a
matter of regret that the recommendation of the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners had not been adopted, that
church-rates should be taken out of the ecclesiastical
courts, should be referred to the ordinary tribunals, and
that all questions relating to church-rates should be de-
cided in quarter sessions. The great mistake of this Bill,
however, was, that it re-established these diocesan
courts, thus acting in direct opposition to the recommen-
dation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? As the Bill
now stood, there was given to the diocesan courts a
power to imprison any person who was guilty of con-
tempt in the face of these courts. This was a power
which at present they did not possess, and he considered
it open to great objection. With respect to salaries, he
thought it would be better that salaries of judges and
other persons should be made the subject of a separate
That had been done in other cases, and he thought
great advantage would be derived from it in this instance.
Mr. WATSON perfectly agreed with his Right Hon.
Friend the Member for Devonport in reference to this
Bill. The principle of centralisation was that which
ought to have been adopt. If this Bill passed into a
law, there could be no future amendment. The mischiefs
which were connected with the ecclesiastical courts must
be admitted on all hands to be very great ; and he thought
the only correct principle on which to establish them was
that of centralisation.
The House then divided, when there appeared---
For the second reading
Against it . ... 89
Majority for the second reading —69
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. T. DUSCOMBE addressing the House. The
Bill, he said, which was brought in by the Right Hon.
Baronet the Home Secretary, last year, the Right Hon.
Gentleman declared to be an honest measure. That
Bill proposed to sweep away the diocesan courts, and also
the courts at York. The present Bill proposed to retain
them. He opposed the original Bill, because it did not go
far enough. In his opinion there should be no ecclesi-
astical courts at all—(Cheers)—they wanted no canon
law.—(Renewed cheering.) All the ecclesiastical
courts ought to be swept away. But that would
not suit the purpose of the Government or its supporters,
because at the same time it would sweep away the vast
patronage which was derived from those courts. For
what purpose, he would ask, were those courts estab-
lished ? For the purposes of the soul ? Why the very
purposes for which they had been originally
.established
were annihilated at the time of the Reformation. They
ought, most certainly to abolish those courts in which
the right of trial by jury was not recognised.
Sir J. GRAHAM—That right is recognised in the
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—Yes ; but then it was at the
discretion of the judge.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He
felt'himself bound to protest that, so help him God, this
was nothing more than a gross job, and as such he
should give it his most strenuous opposition, because he
thought the Bill was brought in through dishonest
motives.
Sir R. PEEL said he would support the same state-
ment which he had made last session when her Majesty's
Government brought in the question.—(Hear, hear),
The Government foresaw the difficulties with which this
question would be beset, and that the Bill would
encounter serious opposition in consequence of
the many interests with which it was mixed
up ; and, also, that there would be great opposition
on the part of those who generally supported the Go-
vernment, because they disapproved of the Bill on prin-
ciple ; foreseeing this, • her Majesty's Government still
thdught it to be their duty to propose the present mea-
sure. At the same time he felt bound to say that if her
Majesty's Government could carry the Bill of last ses-
sion, he and his Right Hon. Friend would persevere
with it—but he could see no chance of that result.
They were opposed by his Hon. Friend the Member for
the University of Oxford, who protested as strongly
against it as the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who
stood his antipodes in the political sphere. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman the Member for Bath had
expressed his opinion that the Bill should be referred to
a Select Committee.—(Hear, hear.) . Now he (Sir Ro-
bert Peel) knew that during future stages of the Bill
they should meet with the most decided opposition.
He would ask the House whether it would be right on
the part of the Government of this year if they were to
propose the Bill of last year, when they were confident
of its failure, or content themselves with introducing
such a reform as they knew they would be able to carry?
It was from those motives they thought it more con-
sisten on the part of her Majesty's Government
to make certain of a minor measure of reform
than to make the same unsuccessful attempts as those
which had prevailed during the last twenty years. Why
the certainty was that if they proposed the Bill of last
year, they would have failed in carrying it. Why, there-
fore, if it were so desirable a measure, throw upon them-
selves and the House the responsibility of rejecting it ;
the more particularly so, as her Majesty's Ministers were
met on the one side by the most decided opposition,
,and
on the other by a most lukewarm support? Therefore
they thought the best course to adopt, and the one which
was most likely to be beneficialw,
some
was to proposehi andchthe
that y successful,
s uahin.
eoct had e
an dptohi nett
cahmainec em
sotfs e
rciaorursyoi nnge
nvolvehderein this.
was the subject of compensation on account of what was
iT
termed vested interests in the several offices attached to
those courts. compensating The amount required for compensating
the individuals who held those vested interests would a
necessarily very large. This was one of the most serious
impediments to the extension of this reform, for it
would subject the public to a vast expense. He thought
the system of recrimination in public debate was much
to be deprecated, and thatne
thee ev reovirnti
,cewwwpi
shsahirletoe;
yystoelliuloeeunl
eNltdeekornbioilotet.t soaL.
Tyoßhrtudiost,
—oe
enteredhavewhi
eh thishn into
o
even
vhvaeesnoet hisfye sit
the Member for London, would he support (Sir Robert
Peel's) proposition? It WriS true he ver speculated on
the support of the Noble Lord, or allowed himself to be
influenced by the view he might take of the question.
parties with taking a different course He thought that nothing could be worse than to taunt
from what they had taken in another.rse For
thiss session
pa
honoured the man more who, having honestly alteredr, h
t his
e
opinion, came forward and avowed the change, and took
consequently a different course, than the man who should
say, that " although my opinions are changed, I will
adhere to the same course which I have already taken."
—(Hear, hear.) Yet he thought that the course which
the Noble Lord himself had taken gave a sufficient rea-
son why he (Sir Robert Peel) should be the less
ready to take his advice. The Noble Lord had
further • objected to the Government's hav-
ing abandoned the Bill of last session without
taking the sense of the House upon it ; but the Noble
Lord himself carried in the House of Commons a mea-
sure for the purpose of paying church• rates out of the
Consolidated Fund, and he carried it by a majority of
150. But afterwards the Noble Lord abandoned that
measure, and gave as his reason that he found the feel-