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

planation with feelings of disgust. Now here is entirely
a separate question. The Hon. Gentleman the Member 3.
for Beverley thought it not necessary, and thought i -
would not be superfluous labour, when he presenled•Ns •
report, to explain what he considered to be the la* vfb".- •
bribery, and how that law applied to particular transac-
tions ; but whether the Hon. Gentleman rightly under
stood, or whether he mistook that law, is no question for
us to investigate or settle. The question is whether the
Hon. Gentleman acted honestly and conscientiously in
the discharge of his duty—a solemn duty imposed upon
him by the House; or whether he acted corruptly or
perverted the law for the purpose of either injuring an
individual or favouring any particular party in this
House.—(Cheers.) That must be the question. I have •
no hesitation in saying, that neither of these charges can
be substantial. I think I remember stating at the time,
with respect to the Hon. Member for Beverley, that I
believed he had conscientiously discharged his duty, and
that he did as any other man would have done who had
undertaken the very arduous and responsible duty of
chairman of an election committee. The Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Knaresborough must consider that he
differed in opinion with the Hon. Member for Beverley,
or that a certain feeling was produced as to the accu-
racy of the judgment of that Honourable Gentleman.
The question will be the charge against the honour and
honesty of that llon. Gentleman. I must say, with the
Hon. Member for. Beverley, that such a charge need not
have been noticed in this House; but, having been no-
ticed—having become matter of question—let the Hon.
Gentleman take what time he pleases, let him look to
the weight of his language, and to the effect which it
might be likely to produce; but he is bound to make out
his allegations with respect to the integrity of the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, as a Minister of the Crown; and he is bound
to make out the charge against the honour and charac-
ter of the Hon. Member for Beverley, in the discharge
of his duty as chairman of an election committee, and
if he cannot make out those charges, he will be shown
to have unjustly calumniated a Member of this House,
and to have endeavoured to weaken the opinion of the
people as to the honour and integrity of the Members of
this House.—(Cheers.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, I really am sincerely sorry
that the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Sheffield
(Mr. Ward), has noticed in the House of Commons some
expressions which I intended to permit to pass over in
silence. But they have been noticed in the House of
Commons, and an importance has thereby been attached
to them. I•know perfectly well what would be the re-
sult if I were now to remain silent with respect to
these expressions. I should be continually told
for the next fortnight, such expressions had been
alluded to, and I had not noticed them. Now I see it
stated, day after day, and in ceived with loud cheers, and
expressions of great 'disgust, that on one occasion, when
retiring from the House of Commons to the lobby, I was
heard to say " that the Christian feeling of the House
of Commons had beaten the Government on the factory
question." I never said one syllable or anything of the
kind. I never said anything which by possibility could
be construed into a foundation for such a statement.
We find generally some foundation for reports, however
absurd and exaggerated they may be ; but I cannot call
to mind anything more likely to form the foundation
for such a statement, than that I, one night, in the lobby,
said, that if the Government took time, and gave an op-
portunity, to Members to consider the probable effect of
interference with labour, very likely the Government
wonld be in a majority.—(Cheers and laughter.) I
never said anything more nearly approaching the ex-
pressions which have been imputed to me than that.
The subject then dropped.
The Committee on the Factories Bill was then post-
poned till Friday.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
Dr. NICHOLL, in moving the second reading of the
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, said that although the subject
had been frequently under the consideration of both
Houses of Parliament, and many Bills brought in and
committees appointed to inquire into the best means of
amending the ecclesiastical law since the year 1839, yet
not one of them had been adopted. In that year, on
the recommendation of the Duke of Wellington, a select
committee had been appointed to inquire into the matter,
when a report was drawn up, in which considerable al-
terations were recommended, and that the diocesan
courts should only exercise discretion in testamentary
affairs. In the year 1831 a committee was ap-
pointed, which produced a report making similar re-
commendations. In 1833 a committee was appointed
which recommended that these courts should have the
power allowed to them of granting probates, and in 1804
a Bill was brought in which recognised their right of
granting probates, but it was never laid upon the table.
In 183eanother Bill was brought into the House of
Lord bys, the then Lord Chancellor, but it was set aside,
and referred to a select committee, or, rather, a Com-
mittee appointed to consider a petition presented upon
this subject, and the recommendation was that the dio-
cesan courts should have the power of granting letters
of administration in the case of all sums under 3001.,
and that the heads of these courts should be allowed a
salary not exceeding 5001. a year, and that they shouldl
have certain testamentary jurisdiction. Notwithstand-
ing all those measures having been introduced so
frequently to Parliament, yet they were fol-
lowed by no practical result. Now many of the
principles of the Bill introduced last year were founded
upon the report of the committee of 1836, and although the
Bill did not get the sanction of the House on the second
reading, yet there were a great many persons by whom
the principles upon which it was founded were warmly
supported. From the feeling expressed out of doors, it
was determined upon to retain the testamentary power to
diocesan courts. and also to the archbishops' courts, be-
cause it was necessary that there.should be an appeal
to those courts, and ultimately to the Crown ; and also,
because it would be wrong to deprive the bishops'
courts of that power which the diocesan courts possessed..
There were three hundred and thirty court,.
throughout the kingdom which possessed testaineu-
tary jurisdiction. Now it was proposed to abolish
those courts- and establish (with various qualifications
recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioner.)
in their stead thirty-three other courts. He pro-
posed that a regularly qualified judge should be appoint-
ed to each court, who should be paid by a fixed salary,
that appropriation of the profits or fees of the court
and the practice of the court should be as much as possi-
ble the same as that of the Admiralty Court. He eke*
proposed to introduce into the Bill a power which would
confer upon those judges the power of summoning wit-
nesses, and of issuing commissions. It was proposed!
that the rule of practice in court should be deternained4
by the Queen in Council, and that the salaries
of the registrars should be fixed and independent of the,
fees of the court. With respect to the right of appeal,
there were several provisions made in the Bill, one
of which was, that right of appeal would lie
to the Prerogative Court in London. But if
the parties did not assent and agree to pay the
costs, the causes should remain with the court below..
Thus far he had stated what was intended to be the.
practice of those courts ; and if, with these improve-
ments and increased powers, the courts should not prove
as efficient as the public would desire, further improve-
ment could be made with almost universal concurrence.
In both the provinces the diocesan courts and the
prerogative were superintended by the same judges, and
were attended by the same pleaders, and it was, there-
fore, proposed to unite their jurisdiction, giving compel-,
sation to the present holders of the abolished offices. 1
was further provided that the registrars of the abolis/seeil
courts should send in their registries to the Conned.,
and that her Majesty should have the power of direeein4
where the wills and papers should be deposited. The
Bill provided further, that all probates and settleinwits
under them, which had not yet been contested, FahOtad
be declared valid, because in making this change,
and reducing the number of courts from 330 to
33, it was thought advisable to grant, as it were, a
general amnesty. The Bill also proposed
in order to provide for the better custody and p.rer
Wriavens*
tion of those papers, the registrars should
report to the Secretary of State, who should
thority to direct surveys to be made, and
altera-
tions and repairs as from time to timeashould appear to
dranethulte,
provision in re-
ferencehim to be necessary. There was also
which such "-
the recurrence of vexatious proceedings,wet ; and it was further
given rise to so much comp
to brawling in churches,whih waouicilhd parseshean(tt
divine worship. Marriagelicensesggrated by
proposed to abolish all
peculiar authorities, such as the Dean and Char. tens,
&c. penaltieso
cofif onre weretnhoannt non-attendance
power
ne
; but it was intended
ths
authority, with the sanction of the Queen
He
r.rot caallegdreoaiti
in 'Coun-
ceivle,rtO issue commissions giving to persons in certain dis-
Bishop, to whom it properly belonged, giving hi-as how.
gs
irdaenrt iwn gh licenses.ether
powerto coofn
measure of improvement, by which netirly three hun-
dred of those courts were got rid of. The Bill had also
received the sanction of the other House of Parliament,
tthriectsHtohaese
and he had not heard of any objection alleged against it
by the country at large. If the Bill did not carry out
all that he could wish, and all that those who approved
of the Bill of last year would desire to see accomplished,
there was, however, nothing in it to prevent them carry-
ing out further improvements at a future time. Ile,
would earnestly urge upon the House, under these
cumstances, to accept so large a measure of impros _
went, and not to throw it to the winds in the hope, of
getting a better measure at another time. He tlo- h
aug..t
that all was done that could be done at preser,t with
the concurrence of a large portion of the people. He
concluded by moving the second reading of the
Sir GEORGE GREY had thought that when the
Right Hon. Gentleman brought this Bill before the
House he would have pointed out the particulars iu
which it differed from the Bill which he had before
brought in, and which he recommended to the House in
an able and conclusive speech. That Bill was carried
upon the second reading in the House of Commons, by
a majority of ninety; and he had not heard one word this
evening from the Right Hon. Gentleman to alter or lessen
the impression which was then made upon the House.—
(Hear, hear.) The measure now proposed was totally
inadequate—it departed altogether from the principles
the Bill which was last year introduced br the Govert
ment through the Right Hon. Gentleman iimself—whi, sts
was carried, and in which he (Sir G. Grey) gave 'ids
most cordial support. This Bill abandoned the princi-
ples which had been assented to by the highest ecclesi-
astical authorities, who pronounced these courts to be
nuisanges to the Church, and to expose her to enmity and
reproach by their arbitrary and tyrannical proceedings, by
which many families were ruined. He (Sir Ga, Orrey)d
would oppose the second reading of this Bill, because her
believed that its effect would be to perpetuate these o.lv-
noxious courts.—(Hear.) The Right Ho.'
a. Gentleman
had told the House that this was a great measure of re-
form. Without admitting so much, would consider
that it was a great advantage to get ' rid of the peculiars,
and to improve the administrate
on of the remaining
courts. It was also very well J take away the juris-
diction of the courts in case of tithe, of scandal, ands eft'
smiling.—(A laugh.) But if tl'iey created thirty-five--
Dr. NICHOLL—Thirty-three.
Sir GEORGE GREY said there,„ were thirty-five in