The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-22 00:00:00

Friend near him (Lord Coftenham) seemed to him not
to be aware—at least, he did not argue as if he were
aware—of the difficulties which were iu the way of this
measure. There was no other measure which gave him
s%) much trouble and labour in preparing and digesting,
as the measure he introduced on the subject. If there
was one deputation, there were 200 or 300 ; if there was
one memorial and remonstrance, there were 800 against
the R. gi,try Act. The Reform Bill ii.self had not nr. t
with so much opposition out of doors—he did not say in
their Lordships' Hons.., but out of doors. The same in-
fluences which were at work against the Registry Act ,
were now at work in opposition to the present measure.
The entire influence of the landed gentry, with their
solicitors and proctors, was at work to support their
local courts, and to prevent an efficient measure of re
form. He therefore believed that almost insuperable
difficulties were opposed to the carrying out of the mea-
sure—not in this House, but in the other House of Par-

liament ; and it was the business of this House not to
send any measure to the other House which there was
not a reasonable prospect of carrying.—(Hear, hear.)
They ought, therefore, to take all they could get. But by
this Bill they were going to create thirty diocesan
judges, who would have considerable salaries. The con-
sequence was, that they were throwing obstructions in
the way of further reform, if it was deemed necessary.
He therefore thought that they should accept their
offices on the understanding that their removal was not

to stand in the way of any future reform.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that was provided

for in the Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM—Then his objection was alto-
gether removed. His principal reason for supporting
the Bill was, that it did away with the courts of pecu-
liars and exempts—one of the greatest improvements
which could be made. He thought that they were a
scandal in the ecclesiastical system. For this reason
principally, but reserving to himself the option of pro-
posinc, such amendments in Committee as he might be
advised, he should vote for the second reading of the
Bill.

Lord CAMPBELL said the House bad had no intima-
tion of the reasons which induced her Majesty's Mi-
n►sters to abandon the Bill which was introduced last
session. His Noble and Learned friend who spoke last
had offered an ingenious apology for the present Bill, but
had not stated that he was present at the deliberations
of the Cabinet, or that he had been chosen as the organ
of the Government to communicate information to the

House. Now their Lordships were entirely in the dark
as to the motives which caused the abandonment of the
Bill of last session. Yet there were fire members of the

Government present, and amongst them a Noble Duke,
who was able to explain the advantages and disadvan-
tages of any measure ; and there was the President of
the Council, himself a judge, and also the President of
the Board of Control, who, as a magistrate at quarter
sessions, must be well acquainted with the working of
these courts. Yet they were all silent. The Right Rer.
Prelate (the Bishop of London) gave no explanation
whatever, but confirmed the objections of his Noble and
Learned Friend ;Lord Cottenham), saying that he would
prefer the Bill of last session. The Right Rev. Prelate
had concurred in the Report of the Commissioners, who
recommended the abolition of the litigious jurisdiction of
these courts. In 1836 a Bill to that effect did pass the
House of Commons, and it was rejected in this House ;
but the Noble and Learned Lord who moved the second

reading professed to anticipate his (Lord Campbell's)
support. However, he should be guilty of the grossest
inconsistency if he supported it, because it re-
tamed all the litigious jurisdiction in respect to
marriages and wills. It continued the necessity of two
prerogative courts for each diocese—one in the provinces
and one in London. The Bill of Sir Frederick Pollock

provided for the appointment of officers in the country
for the regulation of wills, but it would have taken
away the jurisdiction in personal and testamentary
cases. (He (Lord Campbell) did not wish to interfere
with the authority of the Church in matters of ortho-
doxy or discipline, but what had the Church to do with
wills and marriages ? All questions relating to mar-
riage resolved themselves into the construction of an

Ad of Parliament to be determined by the Queen's
Judges, and the ecclesiastical courts had no right to
interfere with them. With respect to wills, the Right
Reverend Prelate (the Bishop of London) said,
that he much regretted the Church had anything
to do with them ; and he wished, as soon as possible,
that it should be relieved from them. The Church

equally claimed to have cognizance of wills, because it
was in former times usual for persons to leave money to
the Church to say masses for their souls ; but now the
Church had as much to do with wills as with policies of

insurance. His opinion was, that there ought to be only
one court to control these matters for England and
Wales, and that should sit in London. He was for
local courts; but, in the comtitution of local courts, two

conditions were necessary ; first, that there should be
business ; and, secondly, that there should be competent
judges. In the diocesan courts there was neither one
nor the other. None of their had more than the frac-
tion of a case in the year ; and how could the judges be
competent, when they were chosen from persons who had
no knowledge of the civil law ? He could say from
his own experience that there never was a statement in
which the greatest blunders had not been committed,
not excepting the metropolitan courts. Two Eccle-
siastical Commissions, and a Commission of that House

on real estates, had condemned these courts.

He was

sorry that his Noble and Learned Friend on the Wool-
sack had not more fully explained the motives of the
Government in abandoning their own measure of last
year. In 1835, when his Noble Friend held a different
position in that House, he enlightened their Lordships
with an elaborate review of the business of the session,
for the purpose of showing that the Government
of that day had not carried the measures which
they had introduced. Amongst other things
he taunted them with not having brought in a measure
founded on the report respecting ecclesiastical courts
which was prepared by Dr. Lushington. Now, in 1842,
her Majesty's Ministers were instructed to inform the
House that a measure would be laid before Parliament
to revise the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. :But
in that year no Bill was introduced. Why was it not ?
At that time there was not the same prejudice against
the measure which had since been raised. In 1843, her
Majesty's Ministers again intimated that a measure upon
this subject would be introduced. Why was that not
done ? A Bill was introduced in the House of Com-
mons in a proper form by the Attorney-General, who
proposed to abolish the litigious jurisdiction of
these courts. That Bill was supported by Sir James
Graham, and no measure could have received warmer sup-
port, in that House. But he must say that it was not the
fault of their Lordships that the Bill did not pass, for it
never reached them. He would conclude his observa-
tions in the words of his Noble and Learned Friend,
when he said that the measure which they (the Govern-
ment) themselves had devised, prepared, and brought
forward—involving, as they told them, the most im-
portant interests of the country—they, without scruple,
gave up, at the wish of a section of a party. He (Lord
C.) must say there was some mystery hanging about
that transaction that required explanation, and which
he hoped his Noble and Learned Friend on the Wool-
sack would clear up.
The Bishop of LONDON denied that he had, as at-
tributed to him by the Noble and Learned Lord
(Campbell), said he would oppose the Bill of last year
it it were now introduced. He had said nothing of the
sort.

Lord CAMPBELL said he must have been under
some misapprehension. He had thought the Right Rev.
Prelate had said so.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to make a few
obesrvations in answer to the Noble and Learned Lord,
who had asked what reason the Government had for de-
parting from their original plan. His Noble and Learned
Friend had supposed that he (the Lord Chancellor) as
a member of the Government had not concurred in the
policy of introducing the Bill of last year into the House
of Commons. His Noble and Learned Friend was in
that respect quite mistaken. Nothing that he (the Lord
Chancellor) had said that night in the course of the dis-
cussion warranted his Noble and Learned Friend in
coming to that conclusion. He, in common with the rest
of the Cabinet, entirely approved of that measure, and
they were all most desirous of carrying it into effect.
The Noble and Learned Lord now turned round and
asked why they had abandoned that measure, and why.
they now introduced a measure curtailed of some of
the better parts of the measure of last session.
His Noble and Learned Friends thought there was some
mystery about the matter; but if they referred to the
history of the Bill in its progress through the other
House of Parliament, it would afford them an explana-
tion of the matter. After the second reading of the
Bill in the House of Commons, it was seen by every
Member in that House that it would be quite impossible
to carry it, in its then form, through to the third read-
ing. Such alterations were made in the Committee as
then
should
be The
w hol
ly question
abandoned, the
to render it probable that it might be carried in the
form h nwas,
o
whether
athe t measure assumed.
should be carried in its curtailed state. What reason
tti
had they to suppose that the Bill, in its original form,
as it had been sent to the House of Com-
mons, if again so sent, would not be treated
in a similar manner as it had been last ses-
sion? The Bill now introduced was in Mt state
in which it went through Committee last session in the
other House, and in which it had, he believed, been laid
before their Lordships' House. He thought it right and
prudent not to do that which experience had shown
would be ineffectual, but to bring in a measure which
had already obtained approval. The Bill could be read
a second time, and then, if any Noble Lord thought that
the measure of last year could be passed into a law, he
could move an amendment to that effect. But he (the
Lord Chancellor) would not give his sanction to any
such amendment. That was his explanation of the
course which had been pursued by the Government in
the matter; and in that course every member of the
Government concurred.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Tuesday next.
After a few words from the Duke of BUCCLEUCH,
relative to the observations made that night by the
Noble and Learned Lord opposite (Lord Campbell) with
respect to the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Annuities
Bill,
The Commons' Amendments to the Gaming Transac-
tions Witnesses' Indemnity Bill were agreed to, and the
House adjourned at Nine o'Clock.