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

h schedule. If they created those thirty-five new
eourts, with salaries such as to induce men of high stand-
ing at the bar to take office in them, together with a host
of registrars—he believed that then, if the courts proved
to be still the nuisances which they now were, and to ex-
pose the administration of justice to the reproach which
they now exposed it to—the effect of the Bill would be to
greatly increase the obstacles to their abolition.—(llear,
hear.) Last session the Right Hon. Gentleman (Dr.
Nicholl) cited largely from the authorities, upon which
he rested his Bill at that time. But on the present oc-
casion he alluded to those authorities in a very light and
trenchant manner.—(Hear, hear.) But he would en-
deavour to supply the deficiency from the Right Honour-
able Gentleman's own able and convincing speech.
First, there was the report of the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission appointed in 1829, upon which were the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London and Dur-
ham, Lord Tenterden, Sir Nicholas Tindal, the Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir John Nicholl, and Dr.
Lushington, &c. In this report the condemnation of
those courts was as strong as language could express it.
The Right Hon. Gentleman admitted that some of the
surviving members of that Commission retained their
opinions, but others had changed them, and thought
they had gone too far. But could the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman ask the House, on that account, totally to aban-
don the principles which, only last year, the House
adopted in a great measure upon the authority of those
Commissioners, of whom many retained their opinions to
the full?—(Hear, hear.) In the report, also, of the Real
Property Commissioners, the abolition of the courts was
recommended, if not as directly in terms, certainly as
strongly in fact, as in that of the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sion—and this, also, was one of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man's authorities. That Commission contained the
names of men of the highest eminence in the legal pro-
fession. He (Dr. Nicholl) produced, also, the authority
of the Committee of the House of Commons, moved for
by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for
the Home Department, and also the authority of the
Committee of the House of Lords, appointed in 1836.
The Right Hon. Gentleman was quite correct in saying
that a Bill similar in principle was introduced into the
House of Lords in 1836, but that Bill was far more
stringent in its reforms and better calculated to meet
the wants and desires of the country. However, the
peculiars were by the present Bill to be abolished, and
that was something gained, for he did not believe that
any one could be found to say a word in favour of them,
except, perhaps, the Right Hon. Member for Oxford
(Sir R. Inglis), who held everything in connection with
ecclesiastical matters to be sacred and inviolate. The
diocesan courts were, however, found to bo too strong
for the Government, and to a power which they could
not or would not grapple with the country was to be
sacrificed. It might, perhaps, be difficult to trace ex-
actly and correctly the origin of these courts, but he
might state his own opinion, that their origin would be
found in superstition. But every ground which could
possibly exist for their jurisdiction had now ceased to
exist. Now the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J.
Graham) had himself last year denounced and discarded
these diocesan courts, and he wished now to ask him if
he abandoned his former opinions, or if he maintained
them ?—(Hear.) Before these courts questions of the
utmost interest, both in testamentary and matrimonial
affairs would be brought—questions relating to the legiti-
macy of children, the rights of families, the happiness and
security of society—and he (Sir G. Grey) wished to ask
whether by this Bill such judges were secured as would
give the public a proper confidence in the administration
ofjustice?—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
(Dr. Nicholl) had stated the Bill to be an experiment,
but why did he not give them the Bill of last year as an
experiment? The principle of last year's Bill was con-
centration—the principle of this Bill was distribution in
the jurisdiction in matters testamentary and matrimo
nial. And this jurisdiction was to be exercised by
judges not appointed by the Crown but by the Bishop.
They were to be barristers of five years' standing, and
tke Right Hon. Gentleman thought that because they
were to be confirmed in their appointment by the Crown
that good judges would be obtained. But he (Sir G.
Grey) asked the House if it were possible, unless ample
,salaries were attached, to attract competent men to these
judicial situations ? The fact was, they could not make
the diocesan courts efficient for the purpose the House
ought to have in view. To reform them was impos •
sible, and abolition was the only real cure for the griev-
ance.—(Hear, hear.) But let him remark that, these
judges were not only to exercise jurisdiction in testa-
mentary and matrimonial, but they were to be armed
with powers like to those intrusted to the judges in West-
minster-hall. For by clause 36 of the Bill, it was
enacted that for the better punishment of contempt the
power of committing to prison should be given to these
judges, the same as was entrusted to the highest judges
of the land.—(Hear, hear.) This was a most formid-
able power to give any one in a country district—such a
power, in fact, as he (Sir G. Grey) would only entrust
to men of the highest qualification, judgment, and
character. Now, having shown that the principle of
this Bill was different from that brought forward last
year—the one being for concentration of power, the
other for distribution—he thought the House had a
right to know the reason of the change. Again, on
the bona notabilia, what was the reason for the change
of the views of Government from last year to this? The
evils connected with the bona notabilia were now actu-
ally to be perpetrated and extended.—(Hear, hear.)
This evil had been the subject of just and indignant
complaint, and yet no effort was to be made to remove
or reduce it. It had existed for centuries, and it was to
exist still. The Bill was a bad and pernicious Bill in
every respect, and he opposed it not merely because it
was so, but because if passed it would be an effectual
bar to any attempt at improvement hereafter. Let it
but pass and there would be an end to all hope of eccle-
siastical reform. It was said, take the Bill as an instal-
ment. He (Sir G. Grey) should do no such thing; for
he was satisfied there was no hope of future or further
payment. And for these grounds he had now to move
that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said his Right Hon. Friend
had stated that this Bill was a great improvement and a
step in the right direction ; and the Right Hon. Gentle
man on the other side of the House said he would not take
it as an instalment. He (Sir Robert Inglis) thought the
Bill objectionable in many respects, and the vote which
he would give would be very different from that which he
had come into the House prepared to give. His Right
Hon. Friend supported this Bill on account of its des-
tructive character, but Hon. Members on the other side
did not think there was enough in the Bill to gratify
their appetites for destruction. Last year he had ob
jetted to the principle of centralization embodied in the
Bill—and he was free to admit that in this respect the
present Bill had been improved. He believed the object
of her Majesty's Government was honest and good, and
he would support the second reading, though the Bill
went much further than it should go. He would modify
the proposed Bill in one important respect—viz., grant
the parties interested the option of applying to the me-
tropolitan or to the local courts, which would often
prove to be of very great convenience. Another sug-
gestion he would make was, that an index of wills and
legacies should be prepared, which could be done at the
expense of half a dozen or a dozen of clerks, and would
be vastly beneficial to the public. He would give to the
supreme central court the power of regulating the in-
ferior courts, so that there might be an uniformity of
practice. He was in favour of the abrogation of salaries
altogether, and the substitution of a system of fees.
He was grieved to witness the gradual withdrawal of the
name and influence of the Church from testamentary mat-
ters, and he feared the country would have reason to regret
it. If they alleged that any institution was abused, they
.ught at least to prove the abuse before they destroyed
the institution. Let them point out in what part of
their duties the Court of Peculiars had failed. There
were some of their duties which they could not well pro-
cure any one but ecclesiastics to undertake, and if they
could not get others to discharge those duties, they
would, in destroying the courts, have carried their prin-
ciple further than the interest of the community re-
quired. He also excepted to the clause, which ordered
that all or any bills, deeds, and documents, in these
courts, might be transmitted to London, and referred to
the Court of Arches or the Court of Chancery—he
thought this provision a needless violation of conve-
nience. He denied that the utility of the diocesan courts
was to be judged by the number of litigated cases that
passed through them—it was from the amount of unliti-
gated business they disposed of that they were to be
judged. At the same time, he confessed that he looked
at the general principle of the Bill with a very different
spirit to that with which he regarded the measure of
last year. The present Bill did not sever the ec-
clesiastical jurisdiction of England from that in-
timate connexion with its civil affairs which
it had for so long a period possessed, and did not
deprive the Church of England of some of its most im-
portant and most ancient points of connection with the
people. He did not believe that it was a matter of in-
difference to the people that the transmission of their
personal property should be made in the name and
under the authority of the Church—by that administra-
tion which the Church had been called on for centuries
to exercise. In this respect the Bill was a great im-
provement on that of last year, yet he still thought it
needlessly limited the jurisdiction of the Church, when
all that was required was an improvement of its admi-
nistration.
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR said he had been
one of those who destroyed the Bill of last year, in which
task he was ably assisted by the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Oxford, who then voted with him against it He
(Lord R. Grosvenor) would not yield to that Hen.
Member in attachment to the Church of England ; but
he thought the more its jurisdiction in civil matters was
taken from it, the better it would be for the Establish-
ment. He could imagine what was the object of the
Government in proposing this Bill, which went to re-
construct the diocesan courts, which were generally con-
demned. He approved of the abolition of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction in civil matters, but this Bill went
to perpetuate it ; the proposal of last year, to
abolish it was hailed with satisfaction from all sides
of the House. They would not permit persons
to take out registrations where they chose, be-
cause they were afraid that Doctors' Commons would
lose some of its business. There was an excessive want
of a general system of registration. They had got
courts of registration already, and, instead of trying
to reconstruct bad diocesan courts, why could they not
pass a Bill making theta courts of registry for wills,
deeds, and documents, and all kinds of property? That
would do more good than any reconstruction of the law
they could possibly devise. That suggestion had been
made more than once, and had never been answered.
Sir J. GRAHAM said before the House came to a
decision on this Bill, he thought it right that he should
have the honour of addressing it. Before he approached
the general question, he must notice what had fallen
from the Noble Lord who had just sat down. If he
understood the Noble Lord, he frankly acknowledged
that he was one of those who destroyed the Bill of last
ytheea rc. h
ulrleeh a
al ssotstatede
nh.i mms ee
hteor b
fee ar s
Owxafremr
da friend to
.This
he
proved by going further even than the Member for
Oxford himself as his suggestion would submit all the.

lay proprietors of the kingdom to the jurisdiction
of the Church.—(Cries of " No, no.") Such would be
the effect of the suggestion of the Noble Lord.
His other proposal, also, to which he intimated
the readiness of his constituents to accede, was
that all the contested business might be removed to
London, and all the mere formal business might remain
in the country. That was only saying that all the pro-
fitable business might be retained, and all that was
troublesome might be sent • elsewhere.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member for Oxford had pat it to him (Sir J.
Graham), whether this measure was to be regarded as
an instalment of legislation only, and whether it was to
lead to further changes; or whether it was to be consi-
dered the matured determination of the Govern-
ment ? He did not hesitate to say at once, that
he maintained the opinion he had often expressed
in reference to the principle of the Bill of last,
year, in preference to that of the present measure.
He did think that it would have been more expedient,
upon the whole, for the testamentary business of the
country, both as to real and personal property, to have
been placed under the responsible jurisdiction of a
judge nominated by the Crown and sitting in London, in
preference to being placed under the control of the Ec-
clesiastical Courts. This was the plan he (Sir James
Graham) should have preferred. But if his Hon. Friend
asked him whether he contemplated any further legisla-
lation on this subject, he would say that, from the expe-
rience he had had of ecclesiastical Bills, both now and
heretofore, he could not conceive that, during his (Sir
James Graham's) lifetime, he should ever undertake to
bring in another. With respect to the details of the
measure he intended to introduce a clause by which no-
tice would be given to all proctors hereafter entering
Doctors' Commons, that if any further alterations should
be made in the jurisdiction of that court, they should ac-
quire no claim to compensation for the abolition of any
office, or the loss of any business that might be the con-
sequence of the change. At the same time, after the
bast consideration he could give the subject, he was not
prepared to say that the present Bill was the one he
should have preferred ; but he believed, from the expe-
rience of Lord Grey's Government, of the former
Ministry, and of the present one, that it contained
as much of salutary alteration as, at the present
moment, could be proposed with any reasonable chance
of success. There were other points of the Bill to be
considered, but they were mere matters of detaiL The
Hon. Member for Oxford recommended that the judge
of the diocesan court should be paid by fees instead of
by a salary, He quite differed from this recommenda-
tion. The judge of the prerogative court at present
only derived an income of SOL a year from contested
wills, but from his fees on common form busi-
ness he received 3,0001, a-year. He preferred
allowing the judge to be paid by a fixed salary.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Devonport said the
present was an inadequate measure, particularly in re-
ference to the diocesan courts. He had already declared
that he should have preferred the principle of the Bill of
last year. But to carry that principle to its full extent
was impossible. He admitted that on the second read-
ing of that Bill there was a numerical majority for the
Government; but the discussion plainly showed that the
measure was a condemned one. Many Hon. Members
wished to carry, out the recommendation of the Real
Property Commissioners ; but he had always consi-
dered it of importance to maintain a bar of civil
lawyers in this country; if they took from their court
the Jurisdiction of real property there would be no time
in periods of peace to train up a bar of civilians. That
was a matter of importance and ought not to be over-
looked. It had been urged by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Devonport that the amount of con-
tentious business in the local courts was small. He
(Sir J?Graham) admitted it. A great part of the per-
sonal property brought into those Courts was funded
property. The present Bill made it compulsory on the
ordinary to nominate a layman duly qualified as
judge. He believed that the measure, even in its pre-
sent form, would be a great advantage; All peculiar
courts were abolished, all consistory courts were
abolished, all archdiaconal courts, with the exception of
four, were abolished. The number of local courts were
diminished from 330 to, he believed, 34. With regard
to jurisdiction, all jurisdiction with regard to defama-
tion was taken away. The jurisdiction wi:h regard to
minor civil affairs, in connexion with religion, was ma-
terially diminished. He had already alluded to the
Crown with regard to the contentious jurisdiction and
the regulation of fees, which was reserved to the Queen
in Council. All sinecures were abolished by the Bill,
and ample security was taken for a complete registra-
tion. He would say that his opinion was, that the pre-
sent Bill was not so perfect as the one he had the ho-
nour of submitting to the House last session, but he was
satisfied it was a great improvement on the existing law.
lie believed that the complete transfer of local jurisdictions
was a matter in which thefeelings of constituencies shOuld
be taken into consideration when no great principle was
violated ; and he did not feel that it was derogatory to
the honour of the Government to say that they yielded
to that conviction, and to ask the House to agree to the
second reading of the Bill. He had a confident expecta-
tion that this Bill, coming down as it did with the sanction
of the ether House of Parliament, was a great improve-
ment in the existing law, and he had a strong hope that
such a measure, on such a difficult and intricate subject,
would be conducive to the best interests of the country.
Lord R. GROSVENOR explained. He had said that
he approved of the jurisdiction of those courts ; but he
was desirous of having a registry without reference to
that jurisdiction.
After, a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM,
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that both the Right lion.
Gentleman who proposed the second reading of the Bill
and the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down,
seemed to feel the difficulties of this subject. He did not
wonder at it, for it could not be forgotten that the Right
Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, stated last year to the House that he would
not alter his mind on the subject—that he had given it
the greatest consideration—that he was persuaded the
plan he proposed was the best that could be adopted—
and therefore felt called on to persevere with it. The
Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government
spoke with great pride of the exertions which he
made some years ago for the improvement of
the law, and with regard to this subject he stated
that he had proposed a Commission to inquire
into it, and that he was determined on carrying into
effect the plans which were recommended by personS of
the highest authority. The Bill accordingly of last year
carried into effect the plan recommended- by those per-
sons of high authority and of every description. That
Bill passed a second reading by a majority of More than
eighty, and the Bill was never again brought seriously
under the discussion of the House. It was totally altered
in a committee pro forma. The Right Hon. Gentleman
now totally abandoned the whole principle of that Bill,
which last year he had made up his mind to defend and
to carry; and be it remembered, too, that the Right Hon.
Gentleman told them that this Bill came to them recom-
mended by the authority of the House of Lords, while,
as far as they knew from the public reports, it appeared
almost every person of authority in the House of Lards
spoke against the principle of the Bill, and that the
only reasons for keeping up the abuses of the present
system was that the House of Commons would have it
so. The Government had every reason to press the Bill,
but they ran away from shadows of difficulty, and thiew
the onus of what was wrong in the present Bill upon
the House of Commons. The Right Hon. Gentleman
who proposed the second reading, said that some of the
persons on the original Commission, who recommended the
measure, had changed their minds, and that that some of
the persons who voted for the second reading in the
House of Commons meant to 'vote against its further
progress. The principle of the measure was opposed to
the great authority of Lord Tenterden, Sir N. Tindal,
Lord Denman, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Cottenham, and
Lord Campbell. It was opposed to the authority of 'the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London,
Lincoln, Durham, and St. Asaph, and others ! of
the highest ecclesiastical authority. It was 'op-
posed to the authority of Dr. Lushington, it
J. Nichol!, Sir Jenner Fust, and other persons! of
the greatest authority as civilians. But then the Right
Hon. Gentleman said that some anonymous persons had
changed their 'minds, and that some Members of the
House of Commons, who had voted for the second read-
ing, would not support it at another stage. Could any
Government have left highel. authority than the names
he had quoted for such utterly unstable support ? His
Hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford
was very much against the diminution of ecclesiastical
tribunals, which he thought would lessen the just share
of the Church in the institutions of the country. That
was a very natural prejudice on the part of his Hon.
Friend, and quite consistent with his views on the sub-
ject. But he (Lord J. Russell) must say, at the same
time, that he did not think the principle ' of
their institutions rested on any such grounds
of reason ; and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
of 1829, the Committee on real property in 1833, and
the Committee of the House of Lords in 1836, were of
opinion that a change ought to take place with regard
to the mode in which those matters of ecclesiastical law
were carried on. He believed that if a search was made
into the origin of this authority, it would be found to
have commenced in the 14th century, by usurpation on
the part of the Pope's Legate. It was not according to
the ancient principle of the law in this country. Was
it at all according to reason that at this day when people
left large property in the Three per Cents., they should
be governed by the maxims of the 14th century, which
were directed by the authority of the papal power in
this country. It was obvious that ecclesiastics should
not have authority in those matters. What then was the
principle which the Commissioners endeavoured to esta-
blish? That principle on which the Right Hen.Gentlernan
rested last year, namely, that there should be a court in
which the chief judge would be named by the Crown,
and who would have the chief authority in the ultimate
disposal of personal property and wills. It was quite
another question, whether they would go further, and
make this court similar to the Court of Chancery, or
one with those already existing, or one in which ques-
tions of real property and personal property would be,
decided at the same time and ruled by the same decision.
But this was matter for subsequent consideration. Now
the first plain question was, whether those matters were
to be left to ecclesiaStical tribunals; whether the judges
were to be appointed by ecclesiastical authority, or ap-
pointed by the Crown; and whether civil matters were
to be governed by rules which regulated matters
of ecclesiastical authority? The Right Honourable '
Gentleman agreed with him that the judges should
be named by the Crown. The Right Honourable
Gentleman said that the Commissioners were of opinion
that there should be a separation of civil and ecelesiastis
cal matters, and that the diocesan courts should be abo-
lished. But he omitted some of the history which sub-
sequently occurred. The bishops, at least a great num-
ber of them, stated it would be impossible to regulate
matters satisfactorily till the question of Church discip-
line were settled. He believed that there were dif-
ferences of opinion amongst the bishops themselves, and
other ecclesiastical authorities, as to the mode in which
the Legislature should proceed in regard" to Church
-discipline. WAS not till 1840 that the Bill.on-Ghurch

discipline passed the House. He stated at the time that
when the question was settled they might proceed
satisfactorily with regard to those further settlements.
The present Bill, however, proposed to go back and to
proceed incontradiction to all those authorities, and to all
the proposals which they made, and to establish diocesan
courts. He objected to those diocesan courts having the
power which this Bill would give them —its the first
place, because it was contrary to principle 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 objectisn
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. It 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 had very
trifling salaries. In the diocese of Bah and Wells, the
deputy's salary was 101. In that of Bristol 461. In an-
other place in the diocese of Bristol, 36/.
in Chichester, 101., and in Llandaff, 61. That was cheap
justice, at all events. But 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 judge. 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,
bad 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
Bill. 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. DUNCOMBE 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
Bill.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—Yes ; but then it was o,t 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 throughl 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
thought it tube 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 rejetectrinsg were
tre
i
-i it;
the more particularly so, as her Majesty's
met on the one side by the most opposition,dectdedMulisefore
and
re
on the other by a most lukewarm support? Therefore
they thought the best course to adopt, and the_ onewhich
was most likely to be beneficial and
__successful,
was to propose that which they had some
chance of carrying. There was another point
and a most serious •ne involved in this subject, and that
was the subject of compensation on account of what was
termed vested interests in the several offices attached to
those courts. The amount required compensating
the compensatin
the individuals who held those vested interests would be
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. Ile thought
the system of recrimination in public debate was much
to be deprecated, and that ono party should not say to
the other,—l have this merit, while you lack it. This
was a system which he never wished to enter into. But
even if he entered into the views of the Noble Lord,
the Member for London, would he support (Sir Robert
Peel's) proposition? It was true he never speculated on
the support of the Noble Lord, or allowed himself to be
influenced by the view he might take of the question.
He thought that nothing could be worse than to taunt
parties with taking a different course in this session
from what they bad taken in another. For his part, he
honoured the man more who, having honestly altered his
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."
—(lcer, 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-