rose, pursuant to notice, to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill into Parliament during the present Session for better regulating and rendering more efficient the Medical Charities of Ireland; and if so, whether it were in- tended that such bill should contain provisions similar to those contained in the Bill for the better regulation of Medical Charities in Ireland introduced by Her Majesty's late Government in 1837; or provisions similar to those contained in the Bill for the like purpose introduced by the noble Lord the present Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1842; or any or all of the provisions recommended by the Select Committee appointed last Session to inquire into and report upon the Medical Charities of Ireland?

had nothing to add to the statement which he had already made on the subject, which was, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure for the regulation of the Medical Charities in Ireland during the present Session.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government a question relating to certain occurrences reported to have recently taken place at Alicant, in Spain. It was reported in the newspapers that Colonel Pontaleon Bonet, who had been at the head of the late movement at Alicant, and who had conducted himself with great humanity towards the prisoners who had fallen into his hands; had, after a compromise entered into by the person commanding the fort of Alicant with the besiegers, made application to the commander of a British ship at Alicant to receive him on board, representing that unless he was taken on board the ship it was impossible that his life could be spared, and reminding the officer in command, in confirmation of this inference, of the treatment which other persons in his position had experienced at the hands of Roncali when they had fallen into his power. It appeared—at least it was so represented—that at the same time a major who had acted under his command made a similar application, under precisely the same circumstances, to the captain of a French vessel lying in the same port; that the major was successful, and that in consequence he was at this moment alive. On the other hand, it appeared that Colonel Bonet was refused to be taken on board of the British ship; that he then returned to the shore; and in making a desperate effort to regain the mountains was taken, and by the orders of Roncali was shot in- stantly, and without a trial. The question he had to put to the right hon. Gentleman was whether, according to the representations in the newspapers, express and direct orders had been given to the officer commanding this and other ships, to refuse, under these extreme circumstances, to take on board Spanish subjects; or, whether, in the absence of these instructions, the officer, acting on his own responsibility, had refused to take Colonel Bonet on board; or whether the statement was altogether without foundation, or, as he was informed, exceedingly exaggerated.

in answer, had to state that no specific instructions had been given by Her Majesty's Government, or by any authority acting under the control of the Government, having special reference to this particular case. The general purport of the instructions given to the Commanders of British ships of war, during these unfortunate civil contentions in Spain, had been to afford protection to the lives and property of British subjects, but to observe, as far as possible, strict neutrality between the contending parties. In this case no special instructions had been given. It was quite clear that if British ships of war were, as a matter of course, to receive those who had been engaged in insurrection against the constituted authorities, and that were known, it would be a great premium upon insurrection; because parties might try the experiment with a perfect assurance that in case of failure they would be received on board a British ship of war. No express instructions, therefore, were given with respect to the reception of refugees under such circumstances. The general instructions were the same now as he believed they had always been—to maintain, as far as possible, strict neutrality; and it was left to the discretion of individual officers to deal with any particular case. With respect to the case of Colonel Bonet, as reported in the newspapers, if he were to judge from the only Report which was in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, received from Captain Drummond himself, he should say that the circumstances stated in the newspapers could not have taken place. He held in his hand a Report of Captain Drummond. It made no mention of any application addressed to him by Colonel Bonet. It introduced the name of Colonel Bonet; but he would say that this Report of Captain Drummond was inconsistent with the accounts in the newspapers. At the same time it was stated that the Scout ship, commanded by Captain Drummond, in consequence of information received from the British Consul at Alicant of its being the intention of the Spanish Government to blockade the town of Alicant, had arrived off Alicant, and that thirty-seven British subjects had been taken on board of the vessel, and received protection. The Report also stated that many applications had been made by Spanish subjects to be received on board, but that they were not received. That was the whole of the information which Her Majesty's Government had received on this subject. As he had said before, no direct information had been received from Captain Drummond, as to whether any application had been made to him by Colonel Bonet.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any objection to desire Captain Drummond to furnish a statement of the transaction, as far as regarded Colonel Bonet?

—Certainly not. I should think, as a matter of course, such a statement would be reported to the Board of Admiralty. On a question of this sort, I shall always take the opportunity of expressing my abhorrence and disgust at these sanguinary proceedings, which have occurred on the part of the constituted authorities of Spain, on the insurgents there. These wholesale massacres without the regular forms of trial are doing more to injure the character of Spain in the estimation of the civilized world than any other course which the Government of that country could pursue. I do believe that even barbarous nations would observe greater humanity in their civil contentions than has been observed by both parties in Spain.

said it had been his intention to have moved, on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee up stairs; but he thought the most appropriate time for doing so would be when the Order of the Day would be moved to be read for the House going into Committee on the Bill. The Committee would be confined to the question of wages, because (there was no use in the House deceiving itself on the subject) there was a strong impression amongst the operatives that the restriction of labour to ten hours would not reduce wages. He knew that they said, and that others in their behalf also said, that they were prepared to take the consequences of a reduction of wages; but, then they always said that a reduction of wages would not be the consequence. The opposition of the Government to the noble Lord's proposition was founded upon the argument that it would be injurious to the working-classes, in consequence of the reduction of wages that would necessarily ensue from it. On a consultation with the short-time Committee lately, he told them that he believed a different impression from that which they entertained prevailed in the House of Commons. They complained of the ignorance of the House of Commons on this question, and, as practical men, he proposed to them to go to a Committee of the House of Commons, and explain their grievances on the matter there, and, with regard to this particular point, meet the argument of the master manufacturers that this limitation would reduce the amount of wages. They complained, and he thought justly, that the House attended more to the statements of masters and mill-owners, than to the feelings and representations of the operatives. He believed it would be satisfactory to a great portion of the working-classes, and he thought it was also due to the public, that some further investigation should take place on this subject. He did not believe that which he was told would be the case if this Bill were referred to a Committee up-stairs, that it would be hung up for the remainder of the Session. But he thought it better that it should be hung up for the remainder of the present Session than that it should be passed in the shape to which Ministers had at present reduced it. That it would pass in that shape there could not be the slightest doubt. It was a perfect delusion to suppose that the Motion of the noble Member for Dorsetshire could by any possibility be carried, or that it would be acceded to by the House. The only chance the noble Lord had of carrying his point was by fighting step by step in every stage in the progress of the Bill through the House for the principle which the House had already agreed to. The noble Lord (Lord Ashley) gave up an opportunity of introducing his Clause in Committee, and he had given notice of his proposition for the third reading. The noble Lord might have introduced a Clause in Committee, and he might also have introduced it on the Report, but he let those opportunities go by, and deferred it to the time when the Speaker was going to put the question from the Chair, that the Bill do pass. Then it was that the noble Lord's Clause was to be brought up, and the right hon. Baronet and the Government would then properly say to the noble Lord and to the House, that the provisions which he proposed militated so much against the whole principle of the Bill, and the provisions which had been already agreed to, that it would be totally impossible for the House now to accede to it. There would be perfect good sense in that. It was perfectly proper on the part of the Government so to do if they allowed, as the noble Lord was about to do, the Bill to slip through the House until it was about being passed. The noble Lord was to take a flying shot, it seemed, at the Bill as it was about to pass, but he would find when he came to fire his second barrel that the Bill was out of the way. That would be the result after all the discussions that had taken place, and after the decision which the House had come to, that women and children should not work for more than ten hours. He did not complain of the Government on the present occasion in the slightest degree. They had fulfilled the promise they made to the noble Lord before the recess, that he should have an early opportunity of bringing on his Clause. The noble Lord had got that opportunity, but had not availed himself of it. This was the time for discussing the principle of adult labour. The operatives would say that we had been trifling with their interest—that the whole thing was a delusion. He did not think that there was the slightest chance of the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire carrying his Amendment on any future day. No good would result unless the right hon. Baronet consented to a Select Committee up-stairs for the purpose of having evidence on the subject. Let the masters and the men meet before an impartial Committee, and let the pub- lic be thus satisfied who was in the right, and who in the wrong. By these means only could they disabuse the public mind of the impression which prevailed that the House of Commons was totally ignorant of the interests of those for whom they were legislating.

said it had not been his intention to make a single remark, but the observations of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) induced him to read to the House three lines of a letter received by him that morning. The hon. Gentleman said that the operatives considered that he had deluded them—that his conduct was, in fact, tantamount to a surrender. Now, he believed that the operatives of England were quit as fit judges of what was for their own good as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury; and he was quite sure that they had amongst them ten times more justice and ten times more candour than had been exhibited by that hon. Gentleman. The letter from which he was going to quote, was written by the authority of the central short-time Committee in Lancashire, in answer to what they had heard of what he had stated as to the course which he had taken, and which they had seen in all the public journals, and which public journals the hon. Gentleman had evidently been studying, with a degree of accuracy, care, and diligence, which did him great credit. The words of the letter were,

"My Lord—We are all of opinion that the course you have adopted in reference to the interests of the working-classes, is the best which, under the circumstances, could have been adopted; and we shall give you all the support that lies in our power."

That he thought was a sufficient answer to the hon. Member for Finsbury.

trusted that the hon. Member for Finsbury would not do anything which would have the effect of endangering the success of the Motion which the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire intended to bring forward. It was his firm belief that the noble Lord had the cause of the operative classes at heart. He had supported the noble Lord on a former occasion, and it was his intention to vote again for his Motion. From everything that he had seen and heard of the noble Lord's conduct, he (Mr. Aglionby) was persuaded that the noble Lord's sincerity was as great as his judgment, and his judgment was as great as his sincerity. He depended entirely upon the judgment and sincerity of the noble Lord. He hoped that the noble Lord would not fall into the trap which had been laid for him. It had been said that they wished to practise a delusion upon the working classes; that the wages of the operatives would fall, and that the ruin of the master manufacturers would follow. In his humble opinion the working classes were as competent to form a judgment of the probable effects of the noble Lord's proposition as they in the House of Commons were. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury with reference to the mill-owners and master manufacturers. He considered, with that hon. Member, that they were too much disposed to pay exclusive attention to the opinions of the mill-owners and master manufacturers. He did not deny that there existed great difficulties in connexion with the subject; but certainly no one could refuse to admit that the operatives had a right to judge for themselves; the working classes had well considered the question, and were perfectly competent to come to a sound conclusion on the matter. It was too much for hon. Members who had no intimate acquaintance with the practical details of the Measure to theorize as they did with reference to it.

did not know upon what authority the Member for Finsbury presumed to lecture hon. Members upon the course they thought proper to pursue with regard to the question under discussion, and that too at the very moment when he himself was postponing to another day his own Motion. He thought that the House should not be called upon to discuss Motions of that kind upon the question of reading the Bill a second time. The hon. Member for Bath had given formal notice for a Motion on going into Committee, and the hon. Member for Finsbury had also given notice of his intention to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Sheffield had also intimated his intention of proposing an Amendment on the discussion of one of the Clauses. It appeared to him (Mr. S. Wortley) that great inconvenience would result if all these Motions were discussed at the same time. Therefore, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair which Motion would have precedence,—that of the hon. Member for Bath, or that of the hon. Member for Finsbury?

in answer to the question which had been asked by the hon. Member, begged to say, that according to the rules of the House, on Friday next, after the Order of the Day for Committing the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, had been read, it would be in the power of the hon. Member for Finsbury to bring forward his Motion, and move that the said Order be discharged in order that the Bill may be referred to a Select Committee. Should that Motion be negatived, and when it was moved, that the Speaker do leave the Chair preliminary to the House going into Committee, it would then be competent for any hon. Member to move any resolution, relevant to the matter before the House.

As several of the Clauses contained in the Bill would be exceedingly oppressive in their operation, it was his intention, when the Bill was in Committee, to propose the addition of several Clauses affecting other branches of manufactures as well as the woollen trade.

was anxious to express to the House the reasons which had influenced him in taking a course contrary to that which he had pursued on a former occasion, when the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire was under the consideration of the House. The subject, in all its details, was generally admitted to be one of great complexity and difficulty. So much exaggeration and so many misstatements had been made on both sides of the House, that he had considered it to be his duty to appeal to those who he thought were in possession of the best means for coming to a sound conclusion on the subject. With this object in view he had taken the opinion of several of his constituents at Belfast, and his impression was, that they were favourable to a Ten Hours Bill, and consequently he voted in favour of the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire; but no sooner had he done so than some of his constituents expressed regret that he had not consulted them on the subject. It was thought that any interference with the hours of labour would materially injure the Flax Trade of Belfast. Meetings had been held on the subject, and a Petition numerously signed had been presented from Belfast, signed by working men and young persons about the age of fifteen, praying the House not to intro- duce any measure which would interfere with labour. The petitioners, taking a different view from that entertained by his hon. Friend, asserted that it was their belief that the inevitable consequence of reducing the hours of labour would be a reduction in the wages of the operatives. Seeing, therefore, the opinion of the master manufacturers backed by the opinion of the working men,—perceiving, he said, a similarity of opinion between these two classes,—he considered it to be his duty to take another course from that which he had previously adopted. He was aware that his conduct was open to the charge of inconsistency; but he thought it better to expose himself to such an imputation than act at variance with what he conceived to be right and just.

thought that the best argument in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury was, the speech which had just been made by the hon. Member for Belfast. The change of opinion which the hon. Member for Belfast had that evening announced with regard to the Factory Bill proved to him the absolute necessity of probing and sifting this matter to the very bottom. The doctrines of political economy were not opposed to the principles of humanity. He trusted that the hon. Member for Finsbury would persevere with his Motion. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had taunted the House with having been influenced by a "tyrant majority," but the conduct of Government was such, that they deserved to be designated by the term "tyrant minority." In fact, he never witnessed a Government attempt to beard the House of Commons as the present Government had endeavoured to do.

could not conceive how the hen. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat could reconcile his opinions ex-expressed in, with his conduct out of, the House. Had not that hon. Member, some years back, made himself notorious by having infringed all the provisions of the Factory Act? Yes; he repeated the charge, and he left to the hon. Member to explain, if he could, his conduct upon that occasion. He would place more confidence in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Belfast than in the judgment of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyme. The hon. Member for Belfast had been influenced, he said, on a former occasion by the exaggeration and misstate- ments which had been made on this subject, and therefore he voted in favour of the Motion of the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire. But then the hon. Member before he recorded his vote, took the trouble to inquire in a judicious manner into the subject, deriving his information from practical men—among the men as well as the masters. The hon. Member had now the manliness to come forward and state the grounds upon which he had thought proper to change his opinion. He had always been opposed to any interference with adult labour. If they once commenced trying the experiment of interfering with adult labour they must regulate wages. Did they think they could rest with the Bill in its present shape? They would have to extend their inquiries into labour the whole length and breadth of the land. The effect would be that the trade of this country would go into the hands of foreign nations. Let the hon. Member, during the Parliamentary recess, traverse the Continent of Europe, and place before the House the result of his inquiries into this subject. The whole thing was a delusion on the working people—it was a delusion to which he could not be a party. He was opposed to the appointment of sub-inspectors of Factories. In his opinion, inspectors should be Gentlemen—they should be selected from persons of the highest class. The appointment of an inferior description of sub-inspectors was attended by many disadvantages. He also objected to the establishment of a central office in London in connexion with the inspectorships. The office ought to be in the districts particularly interested in the matter. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet's attention would be directed to this subject. He considered that much exaggeration was prevalent with regard to the accidents said to be caused by machinery. They were more rare than many hon. Members appeared to imagine. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet would look into these facts. If he thought that any danger existed, he should be as anxious as any hon. Member to do everything to obviate its occurrence.

begged to be allowed, as observations of a personal nature had just been made by the hon. Member for Manchester, to throw himself on the indulgence of the House whilst he offered to it some explanation. He had heard the charge repeated no less than three times in 1836, and he had not thought it necessary to make any reply to it; but, as the statement had been cheered by the House, he must suppose that hon. Members really believed he had acted inconsistently as a millowner, and in the professions he had made on the subject in his place in Parliament. He trusted, therefore, he should be allowed to state what had been the real circumstances of the matter. In 1836 he was connected with a large concern in the north of England, and he had desired that in that concern the Factory Bill should be strictly observed, and he had every reason to believe the law was so observed; but, as he lived in London, 200 miles off, he could not know whether or not his partners were in the habit daily of observing the law. However, on the very day after he got into the country, at the close of the Session of 1836, he had asked the managing man casually whether they had strictly observed the Factory Act. The man replied, "No," for that they had been working the Factory twelve and a half hours per day, because they were working twelve and a half hours at Staleybridge, and therefore he had been obliged to do the same. He had the evil corrected; the following week the Factory Superintendent brought a charge before the Magistrates, and he had not attempted to extenuate the force of the charge; on the contrary, when the sons of his partner came to him to ask what they must do in the matter, he at once said to them, "Go and pay the penalty—you deserve punishment, and therefore whatever the Magistrates choose to call upon you to pay, you must pay, or I must pay it for you." The Magistrates fined them each 20l. and 40l., the largest fine ever imposed, and it had been paid. He did not know, nor had he ever found fault with that proceeding, though the Factory Superintendent had made a speech against him, charging him as being a law-maker and a law-breaker, and in order to diminish his (Mr. Hindley's) influence with the House on this question, he had printed that speech and sent a copy of it to every Member of the House. If this was the way they thought to crush him or this question, they were very much mistaken. He thanked the House for its attention, and he trusted he had removed the impression which had been created.

wished to remark, in reference to what had just fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester, that he (Mr. Ferrand) had attended a meeting of the working classes in that Borough, when the people had expressed their gratitude and delight that the House had determined tolegislate in their behalf. They expected also that their two Representatives would have attended that meeting, for the purpose of discussing that question; they had challenged the masters to meet them; they did not fear to meet them openly, face to face; they knew that on their side they had truth and justice, whilst on the side of the masters, there was falsehood and injustice. If the working classes were in fault in seeking this protection, how did it happen that the masters would not confront them, and show them that they were in error? As the hon. Member for Cockermouth had truly said, the working classes were better able to discuss this question than two-thirds of the Members of that House, and they never would be satisfied until they were protected under a ten hours' Bill. The Factory Inspectors had by their Reports themselves proved that the present system was destructive to human life, and the House had decided to give them protection. He asked the hon. Member (Mr. M. Phillips) to go down and meet his constituents, and he would find that there were not ten working men who were not in favour of a ten hours Factories Bill.

Bill read a second time.

On the question that it be committed,

I wish to ask a question of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and if in doing so, I misrepresent him, I hope the hon. Member will correct me. It is reported of that hon. Member that he has charged a Minister of the Crown with having used his power as a Minister to induce an officer employed by the Government— namely, an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner—to make a false Report for the purpose of crushing a Member of this House. Look at the propositions contained in this charge. The first is, that a Minister of the Crown has used his official power to induce an officer of the Government to make a false Report; and the next is, that the false Report has been so obtained for the purpose of crushing a Member of this House. Now, I think, that as this charge has been publicly stated, I am justified in asking the hon. Member for Knaresborough, who is the Minister of the Crown who so used the power of his office, what is the name of the officer of the Government who was employed for that purpose, and who is the Member of the House attempted to be crushed? It may be that the fly has been crushed under the wheel; it may be, that the insect was there before the wheel was turned on to it; it may be that the hon. Member for Knaresborough can throw some peculiar light on the matter which will bring in the Minister of the Crown charged with having employed the powers of the Government to induce one of its sworn officers to make a false Report for the purpose of crushing a Member of it; but if it shall turn out that the charge is false, I want to know the value of the authority of that Gentleman who shall thus employ his powers in propagating such a falsehood.

If the hon. and learned Member for Bath had shown me the courtesy usually observed by hon. Members towards each other on occasions like this, I would have come down to the House properly prepared to give him a full explanation. As he has not done so, but pursued that system to which he usually resorts—that of coming duly prepared to take an undue advantage of an unprepared Member — I must answer as well as I can. Luckily, however, I am prepared, as far as my recollection goes, to state to the House the circumstances to which the hon. Member has alluded. During the period of the discussion of the New Poor Law Bill in this House, it happened that I addressed the House on that Measure, and immediately after I sat down the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department drew out of the box opposite to him a Report, from which he made charges against me as a rate-payer of the Keighley Union, and the other rate-payers of that Union, which I knew were false. That Report was obtained from an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner of the name of Mott. At the time I denied the truth of that Report, and at length a Committee was appointed to inquire into the allegations of that Report. Several Magistrates were examined, many of the Guardians of the poor, several of the servants of the Union, all of whom declared that many of the charges they knew to be un- true, and some of them went so far as to say that the Report was scandalous and false. I am sorry to say that the Committee on that occasion did not do full justice. They declared, indeed, that many parts of that Report were overdrawn; but I was not to be put down. I came down to the House after their Report was presented, and asked for fresh Returns, in order to procure justice to myself and the other rate-payers. The right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, opposed the production of those Returns. I appealed in vain to the House to grant them. There was an inclination to prevent them being produced; but at last thanks to the interposition of the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, who said, that he thought it would be unjust to refuse these Returns, and after noses were counted on this side of the House, and the Government found that they would be in a minority if they resisted, they were granted. Now, these Returns proved that the Report was false. They were laid on the Table at the end of the Session; but before the next Session commenced, Mr. Mott was dismissed from office, and thereby prevented from being brought to the Bar of the House. It was the duty of the Government to have stated the reasons of his dismissal, for I brought the question forward during a debate in the succeeding Session, and appealed to the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury to do justice to the parish of Keighley. There is not a rate-payer in that parish who will not stand by me and declare that that report is false. How did it get secretly into the box of the right hon. Baronet? Until the right hon. Baronet explains this circumstance, I will not retract one word of what I have said upon this question.

.—The question I have put has not been answered. The question was, that a Minister of the Crown had used his power as a Minister to induce an officer employed by the Government to make a false report. The hon. Member for Knaresborough has shown that the report is false, but the first part of my question remains still unanswered. That part of the charge that the right hon. Baronet used his power for this purpose still remains without explanation. That charge scandalous as it is, the hon. Member has not substantiated.

. — I have performed my duty to the House to the best of my ability, and I tell the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that he is not going to school me. He has used language unbecoming him as a Member of the House and as a Gentleman.

.—The hon. Member must retract the last words he has used.

.—Certainly, as such, Sir, is your decision. I shall say he has acted in a manner unbecoming his position as a Member of the House. The words I uttered were these:—that the right hon. Baronet had taken steps to procure a false report for the purpose of using it in this House to crush a Member of the House. Those words I used—those words I do not retract.

.—I must confess, that until the last words fell from the hon. Member for Knaresborough, I felt great indifference both as to the matter itself and as to the turn of this discussion. Until the charge was deliberately made, I could hardly have thought it possible that the hon. Member would venture on that assertion anywhere, much less in a British House of Commons and in my presence. The charge is that I used my official power to obtain a false report. I do not think it worth while to move that the words be taken down, though that would be the regular course. About them there can be now no mistake, as the hon. Member has distinctly stated them after some deliberation. The hon. Member avoided answering the question at first: the question has been repeated: the hon. Member has deliberated, and says that he is prepared to assert that I used my official powers to obtain a false report for the purpose of crushing a Member of this House, that Mr. Mott is the officer, and that the Member is the hon. Gentleman himself. Now, considering the position which I hold by favour of Her Majesty—considering that the assertion is made deliberately, I think it impossible, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member will feel it to be impossible, that the matter can rest here; and I hope the hon. Member is prepared to take the proper course to substantiate so grave a charge.

. — I have to put another question, which is even of greater importance. It has been asserted—for I have read the report, which I hope is not true —it has been asserted at a public meeting that the light hon. Baronet the Home Secretary made use of his influence to in. duce an hon. Member, who now sits behind him, when Chairman of an Election Committee appointed to inquire into the return for Nottingham, to commit perjury. That is the extent of the charge. The hon. Member as Chairman of that Committee, must have been sworn, and if in that capacity he stated opinions contrary to his own conscientious conviction, it would be perjury. Now it appears to me that this is a most serious charge both against the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Beverley. I trust that the report is inaccurate, and that the hon. Member for Knaresborough will offer some explanation respecting it.

.—I beg to say that I never made use of such expressions.

.—I am bound to say that, an impression to that effect has certainly been inculcated throughout the country. It has been represented that the hon. Member for Beverley grossly violated his duty, and that he sought by subterfuge to get rid of a Member of this House, who was obnoxious here because he was considered the advocate of the interests of the working classes. It has been represented that the hon. Member discharged his duty in such a way that the whole House marked its opinion of his proceedings, and that when he presented the report from that Committee, the only voice that cheered him was that of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I did not expect that this discussion would have taken place, or I would have come prepared for it: but I have a lively recollection of these words, or something like them, having been used at more than one of those meetings, where it is said such singular unanimity prevailed. There was also an assurance given at one of those meetings that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had said on leaving the House and entering the Lobby, that it was the Christian feeling of the House which had defeated the Government. I cannot help hoping that the hon. Member for Knaresborough has sufficient good feeling to say that he was misled by the warmth of his feelings on this question, and that he did not attach that importance which he ought to have done to the words he used,—words which are calculated to make a deep impression on the minds of all who heard him, and who would take the facts us he stated them, or that there was no foundation for the report.

.—I never alluded to anything that fell from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. [Mr. H. G. Ward.—Then it was Mr. Oastler.] —Perhaps so; but I am not Mr. Oastler's keeper. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was his keeper some time since, when he was a prisoner in the Queen's Prison; but now Mr. Oastler is free. I never said anything about the whole of the House viewing with disgust the conduct of the hon. Member for Beverley. I only spoke of the feeling of my side of it, and I am prepared to stand by what I did say.

.—I hope the hon. Member will state to the House now what he did state then. I hope that he will avow or disavow the report of his Speech, which would never have met ray eye if it had not occupied a prominent place in a leading article of The Times. The hon. Member cannot fail to have seen that report in The Times, and I hope that he will distinctly state to the House whether it be correct or not. Indeed, I have a right to request, nay, to demand that the House will require and compel the hon. Gentleman distinctly to avow or disavow that Speech so reported and so prominently put forward in a leading article of The Times. [Mr. Ferrand.—I believe every word used in that report is entirely correct.] I declare most solemnly that it was not my intention to have taken any notice of what appeared in that paper, or what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman. I did not act, however, on my own impression. I am not peculiarly sensitive, for I know that public men connected with public affairs are subject to public comments, and I am not peculiarly sensitive particularly when I know the quarter from which the accusation comes. In this matter I took the advice of hon. Friends on both sides of the House, and also of private friends of my own out of the House, and they concurred in regarding the observations as unworthy of notice, and in desiring me not to take any notice of the matter either out of the House or in my place in Parliament. I have been now for a long period a Member of this House, and I have elsewhere been long before the public, and I felt satisfied with the advice given to me—which concurred with my own first impressions—that the observations of the hon. Gentleman were not deserving of consideration. The matter now, however, assumes a very different aspect. I might disregard words used by the hon. Gentleman when itinerating about the country as unseemly vituperation and foul calumnies; but when the hon. Gentleman avows in this House that I, a sworn officer of the House, in the discharge of a public duty, was influenced by a Minister of the Crown grossly to abandon that public duty —a duty discharged under the solemn sanction of an oath—and to give a false verdict, from a foul and vile abandonment of my duty, it is incumbent upon me no longer to treat the matter with indifference, but to call on. the hon. Member to substantiate his charge. I call on him to rise and to create on the mind of the House a doubt, or the slightest suspicion, that in the discharge of my duty I was influenced by dishonest or dishonourable motives. If he can raise that doubt, if he can create that suspicion, then let me be covered with merited obloquy, and depart from this House, as no longer worthy to sit in it or to communicate with Gentlemen but, if he cannot raise that doubt, if he fall to prove any just ground for that imputation, then let the hon. Member stand convicted before the House of foul and false slander and calumny; and it will be for him, after he is so branded, to consider whether he is worthy to sit in this assembly or to communicate with Gentlemen. I repeat my solemn declaration, that I had not the slightest intention to bring the matter before the House, but now that the imputation has been repeated in this place, I am compelled to do so. I throw myself on the House. I appeal to your feelings as Gentlemen, and I know that that is a feeling to which you will always respond. Since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I never sought from those by whom Committees are appointed a seat on any Committee; and, at the same time, I have never refused, to the best of my humble ability, to discharge any duty the House has thought fit to impose on me. The House imposed that duty upon me, and as a sworn officer of this House, I think I have a right to be supported. I claim that right, because, if it should appear that I am guilty, every one must feel that I deserve to be branded with infamy. Under these circumstances, then, I require your protection, and I shall only add, that if the hon. Gentleman should not succeed in raising any doubt with respect to my conduct, then I hope that he will be branded in the manner he deserves.

.—When I uttered the language which has been brought under the consideration of the House, I said that the hon. and learned Member haggled and higgled.

.—That is not the part. You concluded by saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department induced me to betray my duty, and then raised a solitary cheer amidst universal disgust.

.—The hon. and learned Gentleman is labouring under a mistake. I said nothing of the kind. If the hon. and learned Member for Bath had given me notice of his intention to bring this question before the House I should have brought down the newspaper with me, and gone through the report word for word, and I do not believe that there would be any necessity for my disavowing any portion of the report; on the contrary, I say now, as I said before, that I believe the report of my Speech in The Times to be perfectly correct. But the hon. and learned Member for Bath, disregarding the courtesy usual on such occasions, did not give me an opportunity of stating with the requisite explanations the words contained in my Speech. When I used the language contained in that report I alluded to feelings which prevailed in this House. I said that the haggling and higgling of the hon. and learned Member for Beverley excited disgust at this side of the House, and amongst the hon. Members by whom he was surrounded on that occasion he was not cheered by more than one (and that one was the Secretary of State for the Home Department); that is, as nearly as possible, what I said. If I had the newspaper here this evening, I should have been prepared to stand by every word I uttered. I have now stated, to the best of my knowledge, all that I said on that occasion; but I will to-morrow attend here, bring with me the paper, go over the whole of the report, and be prepared to stand by any assertions I have made, which, as I believe, are correctly reported in the publication referred to, I trust at the same time that no one will retract any of the observations which he has deliberately made this evening. The hon. and learned Member for Beverley seemed totally to have forgotten that on the occasion which has given rise to this discussion he found it necessary to deliver to the House a long explanation of his own conduct in this matter. He addressed to the House of his own accord an excuse of half an hour's duration. Surely there must have been something very extraordinary which rendered it necessary for him to take so much pains to justify his conduct. Now I beg leave to remind the House that I am a public man as well as the hon. and learned Member, and that I have a right to form and to express an opinion of the conduct of any Members of this House as well as anybody else, either within it or out of it. On the occasion to which I have been referring, there was a general condemnation on this side of the House of the manner in which the hon. and learned Member had discharged his duty, and I had no hesitation as to forming my own opinion respecting his conduct. Though that might be galling to him, yet such a circumstance forms no reason why an attempt should be made to intimidate me. I repeat, that I will not suffer myself to be intimidated by attacks which proceed from jealousy of feeling shown towards me, and which originate with parties opposite and the Government, jealous of the enthusiastic manner in which I have been received by tens of thousands of the working classes in the manufacturing districts during the last three weeks, whilst I have been asserting their rights—men who once trusted you but whom you now dare not face, because you have betrayed them. The object, as I have stated, which you have in view, is to crush me, and I will not permit myself to be put down in this House, where I have as much right to state my political opinions as any other hon. Member within its walls.

.—I am happy to say that we are here before an assembly, not such as those which the hon. Member for Knaresborough has been recently in the habit of addressing. There shall be no haggling or higgling here. We are before a British House of Commons. The hon. Member has accused me of this —that I, being a Minister of the Crown procured a false report to be made for the purpose of doing him an injury, and the hon. Member, proceeding to be more specific, alleged that I, as a Minister of the Crown, did use undue influence over a Member of this House, and the Member of this House, to whom he so alluded is the hon. and learned Member for Beverley, and the further allegation is, that I used this corrupt influence for the purpose of depriving another hon. Member of his seat in this House. I trust that to-morrow there will be neither haggling nor higgling. I claim this,—that the accusation brought against me be clearly and unequivocally stated. I claim, also, that the foundation on which these accusations rest be examined without delay. This I claim, not from the generosity of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, but from the justice of both sides of the House. It will I hope be understood that the hon. Member is expected to come down to-morrow prepared clearly to state, and fully to substantiate, the charges which he has made against me—charges which affect me, not only as a Member of this House, but as a Minister of the Crown. In my official character I think I have a right to call upon the House to compel the hon. Gentleman to bring forward and prove his accusation. I challenge him to any species of inquiry which he can possibly suggest. I am willing to go before a Committee, no matter how constituted, and I here pledge myself to him that I will not object to the name of any Member whom the House may think fit to place on that Committee.

.—I hope when the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department next addresses the House, he will be prepared to explain how he became possessed of the document which he used against me. The right hon. Baronet will then be on his trial quite as much as I shall be, and I hope he will explain the manner in which he became possessed of the Report which he took out of his box, and used against me.

—I hope the hon. Member for Knaresborough will read to the House the report of the speech which he has made, and if it bears anything like the interpretation which people in general put upon it, I will call on the hon. Member distinctly to disavow it, or immediately to bring forward proof of his allegations before any tribunal which may be appointed for the investigation of my conduct; and if he raises a particle of doubt, or even suspicion, I shall be ready to acknowledge that he is successful; on the other hand, if he should fail in producing such an effect, I trust the House will visit such conduct according to its deserts.

I do not think it a matter of much importance whether the particular words were used by the hon. Gentleman, or whether they were correctly reported in the Times newspaper. The question is, whether the hon. Member can allege, and give proof in support of his allegation, that the right hon. Gentleman caused or directed a proceeding by which a false report was made to this House. It is quite beside the question whether the right hon. Gentleman received a Report in which some facts may be incorrect, and had used that statement without verification; the question is, whether the right hon. Gentleman used any influence for the purpose of procuring such a false Report. So, also, with regard to the question against the hon. Member for Beverley. The hon. Gentleman alludes to the fact of the decision of the Committee, and he makes a statement that to the explanation of the hon. Member, certain Members on one side of the House, listened with disgust. Now, there are two separate questions. How the hon. Member applied the law to a particular case, whether he had rightly understood it, or had mistaken it, is no part of this question. The question is, whether the hon. Member honestly, purely, and conscientiously, discharged his duty—a solemn duty imposed upon him by this House, or whether he acted corruptly, or perverted the law, influenced by any individual, for the purpose of injuring another, or to do good to any party in this House. That is what will be the question before the House. I do not hesitate to state my belief, that neither of these charges will be substantiated, I recollect stating, at the time, my opinion, that the hon. Member had fairly discharged his duty as Chairman: for I thought it was due to the Chairman, acting in the discharge of such a duty, to be supported by the House to the utmost, when he had been acting honestly. And the hon. Gentleman must consider, that he will not prove his allegation, by showing any difference of opinion as to the law, or of the impression produced upon his mind as to the law. The question will be, whether the charge against the honour and the honesty of the hon. Gentleman can be substantiated? Although I should have thought with the hon. Member for Beverley, that such a charge need not be met when stated out of doors, but as the matter has been noticed in this House he could not have refused to meet it. Let the hon. Gentleman take what time be may require to look at what he has alleged, and what he purported to allege. He is then bound to make out his allegation. He is either bound to make good in this House his charge against the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, acting as a Minister of the Crown, and to make good his charge against the hon. Member for Beverley, for dishonourable conduct in the discharge of his duty, as the Chairman of a Committee of this House; or he will show that he has unjustly calumniated Members of this House, and that he has tried to weaken the opinion of the people in the honour of Members of this House, without having any foundation for his calumny.

I really am sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield took any notice of what fell from the hon. Member as to any expression which is said to have fallen from me. I had not intended to refer to it; but knowing the importance which will be attached to the charge, as I am in the House when it has been noticed, if I remain silent, and knowing that in such case I shall be told, during the next fortnight, that this charge was made in my presence, and I did not notice it, I will say a very few words. I see it stated, day by day, first with loud cheers, and then amidst great disgust, that I said, on returning into the Lobby after the Debate on the Factory Bill, that the Christian feelings of the House, or Christian principles had beaten the Government. I never said a syllable of the sort, nor anything like it, nor anything that could give a possible foundation for such a statement. It is generally thought that there is some foundation for rumours of this kind, but in this case, there is no pretext whatever for such a statement. I said this,—that if Government took time, and gave opportunity to hon. Members to consider the consequences of interfering with labour, Government would hare a majority.

Bill to be committed.

in moving the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, said, the subject was one which, from the time of Henry VIII. had at intervals engaged public attention. It was not necessary to allude to the early attempt at remodelling the jurisdiction;—but in 1812 a Bill had been introduced by Sir William Scott, the object pf which was to transfer the greater por- tion of the business to the Diocesan Courts. That Bill was lost by a dissolution of Parliament. The next Bill passed in the House of Commons, but was lost in the House of Lords. In 1829, the Duke of Wellington issued a Commission of Inquiry into the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the jurisdiction exercised by them. That Commission recommended that all jurisdiction in contentious and testamentary matters should be exercised by the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York. In 1832, during the Administration of Lord Grey, a Bill was introduced by Lord Brougham, then Lord Chancellor, carrying out that recommendation, but it did not advance any further. In the year 1833 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed, of which the right hon. Member for Taunton was chairman. That Committee concurred in the recommendations of the Commissioners, for removing from the Diocesan Courts the contentious and testamentary jurisdiction, but recommended its transfer to one Queen's Court sitting in London, instead of to the two Provincial Courts. A Bill was prepared accordingly in 1834— with this modification, however, that it gave to the Diocesan Courts the power of granting probate in cases of small amount. In 1835 a Bill to the same effect was prepared, and leave was obtained for its introduction by the Attorney General, but owing to the change of Government, the Bill was not brought in. Later in the same year Sir John Campbell introduced another Bill, in which the whole of the contentious and testamentary jurisdiction was transferred to one Queen's Court, but it proposed to give certain powers to the Courts of the Vicars-General; but that Bill never advanced to a second Reading. In 1836 a Bill was introduced by Lord Cottenham, which was a reprint of Sir J. Campbell's Bill, but a Committee of the House of Lords, to whom certain petitions from the Diocesan Registrars were referred, recommended that the Diocesan Courts should have jurisdiction in granting probate to the extent of 300l., and that the Diocesan Registrars should be paid a salary averaging 500l. per annum each, but there was no recommendation as to whether they were to receive fees or what was to become of them. What the Committee did recommend was, that the Diocesan Courts should exercise some of the functions of testamentary jurisdiction. In the year 1835 a Bill was also introduced by Mr. Serjeant Goulburn and the hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire. That Bill proposed to give testamentary jurisdiction over a certain part of the Metropolis to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and proposed to establish as Local Courts certain of the present Ecclesiastical Courts, amounting altogether to forty. The effect would have been to have given to the Diocesan Registrars a large increased amount of fees. It made no provision for the abolition of sinecures. That Bill was not even read a second time, and he had mentioned these various Bills to show the great difficulty which had surrounded the question from its commencement, how entirely disappointed the expectations of successive Governments had been, and also to show, that though the jurisdiction of the Diocesan Courts had been to certain degree and more or less interfered with by these Bills, still that those Courts had been in all of them retained. Such was the effect of the Bill of last year also; so that from the first Bill of 1812, down to Lord Brougham's Bill of 1832, and in every Bill since, those Courts had been retained. The Bill of last year certainly proceeded very much upon the principle of the Bill of 1836, altered as it had been by the Committee. But the Church Discipline Bill having passed in the interim, the Bill of last year necessarily had to provide a tribunal for the trial of appeals in matters of Church Discipline—for the Arches Court, the Court of Appeal in such matters, ceasing to be the Court of the Archbishop, and becoming the Queen's Court, it would have been contrary to principle, that the appeal should still lie to that Court, that is, from the Bishop direct to the Crown, omisso medio the Archbishop. Being a Commons Bill too, it had to deal with sinecures and salaries, and consequently with private interests. Unfortunately, though that Bill received the sanction of that House upon the second reading, it was manifest that there was, both in that House, and also out of doors, a strong feeling against certain parts of it; and it was also quite manifest that a large proportion of those who voted for the second reading would have opposed the third reading unless considerable modifications were introduced. He believed that the noble Lord, the Member for London and other hon. Members were inclined to receive it favourably, but he likewise remembered that many hon. Members on either side of the House, announced their intention of opposing it on the third reading. At the same time, there existed a strong feeling that the jurisdiction of the Diocesan Courts in granting probates and administrations might be made advantageous and convenient to the public, provided they were reformed. It was thought by persons of great knowledge and experience, that these Courts, which had been coeval with the Constitution, were necessary for the maintenance and administration of clerical discipline, and it was considered impossible that they could be efficient for these purposes unless the Judges who presided over them and the Counsel who practised in them had business enough to engage their attention, and to induce qualified persons to practise in them. It had been said that abuses might have crept into those Courts, but they could be got rid of without destroying so much of their jurisdiction. The various opinions upon the matter which had been expressed led to a conviction that it would be impossible to carry the measure as introduced last year, with that concurrence which it was desirable to have in every great measure affecting the feelings and the practice of large masses of the community. It had therefore been determined in the Bill of the present year to retain the Diocesan Courts, leaving to them testamentary and contentious jurisdiction, and to endeavour, at the same time, to reform them. It had also been thought necessary to retain the Archbishop's Court as a Court of Appeal. The present Bill, framed upon those principles, accordingly proposed, in the first instance, to abolish, he believed, upwards of 300 Courts, which at present exercised contentious, testamentary, and voluntary jurisdiction. In fact, it destroyed the whole contentious, testamentary, and voluntary jurisdiction of all the Peculiar Courts; and upon the propriety of that step he conceived there could be no question. It proposed, in each diocese, that there should be a Diocesan Court, to which would be transferred the contentious, testamentary, and voluntary jurisdiction hitherto exercised by the Courts of Peculiars, which were to be abolished. It had been said that this Bill established two new courts, viz., the Court of Ripon and the Court of Manchester; but they could hardly be looked upon in that light, because, by constituting a see of Ripon and a see of Manchester, Diocesan Courts were created by operation of law. The Bill proposed to introduce great improvements in the Diocesan Courts. It proposed that the Judges should be advocates or barristers of a certain standing, and should be approved by the Crown. That provision he thought a most important one, because it secured Judges of mature age, instead of persons just entering the world, and persons of sound legal attainments, instead of persons totally unacquainted with law. It also provided that these Judges should exercise their duties in person, and should be paid by fixed salaries; and it moreover provided that the proceedings and process and practice of the Court should be placed upon the same footing as the proceedings, process, and practice of the High Court of Admiralty. It is proposed to introduce the power of examining witnesses viva voce, of issuing commissions so to examine witnesses, and also to give those Courts the power of granting issues, thus introducing the trial by jury. It also proposed that a table of fees should be established, it being the intention of the Bill to give to the Queen in Council the power of establishing tables of fees, and rules of practice for all the Diocesan Courts. It was also proposed that the Registrars should be persons of legal education, and paid at fixed salaries; there should be no grants in reversion or remainder, no appointment of two persons to the same office—in fact, every single sinecure that existed at present in any Ecclesiastical Court was to be abolished. The salaries of the Judges it was proposed to fix according to the schedule annexed to the Act, and the salaries of the Registrars and other officers were to be fixed by the Lords of the Treasury. Another provision in this Bill was, that copies of all wills proved in the Diocesan or Archidiaconal Courts should, within twenty-one days after their approval, be transmitted to the London Court, and there be filed and registered. For the future, therefore, the London Court would contain a complete record of the contents of all wills and of all grants of administration. There was also a provision that all contentious suits might be sent by the Judge, either of his own accord or upon the application of either party—not of the plaintiff only, as at present—to the Court of the Province. In cases of smaller moment there was the power of reference by the Bishop to an Archdeacon, or a Commissary, specially appointed for that purpose. If after this trial of these increased powers and amendments the Diocesan Courts should still be found inefficient, they would be abolished with perhaps universal consent. As to the Provincial Courts, it was proposed to consolidate the Arches and Prerogative Courts of Canterbury, and also the Courts of York. Hitherto these different Courts in both Provinces had been presided over by the same Judge, attended by the same Bar, held in the same room, and to all intents and purposes had been one and the same Court. This Bill proposed to consolidate these establishments, to reduce them to one. It was intended also to provide compensation for all those whose offices were effected by this abolition; and it was proposed that the amount of compensation should be left to the Lords of the Treasury. Further provision was made, that the Registrars of the abolished Courts should send in to the Council lists of all wills, and that the Council should have the power of directing where those wills should be deposited. The Bill further provided, that all Probates and Administrations and Assignments under those Probates which were still subsisting, and were uncontested, but which might be void or voidable, by reason of jurisdiction, that the Courts from which the same had been obtained had not jurisdiction to grant such Probate or Administration, should be rendered valid. That was a very necessary step, because great confusion had been introduced by the multiplicity of Courts which previously existed. It was thought necessary that there should be, in consequence, a sort of general amnesty. The Bill also provided, in order to insure the careful custody and preservation of these documents, that the Registrar should periodically make Reports to the Secretary of State, and that the latter should direct the necessary alterations and repairs and surveys to be made in these registries; and to provide that the valuable documents therein should be duly taken care of. The Bill also proposed to repeal numerous provisions which had been a great source of vexation for many years, especially in the Country Courts; amongst others, it proposed to abolish all suits for tithes and defamation—brawling in any building, except in a church or chapel, all penalties for non-attendance on Divine Worship. These alterations would tend to remove to a great extent, if not entirely, the complaints of the exercise of oppressive jurisdiction which were occasionally urged. It provided, that the granting of Marriage Licenses should be confined to persons deriving their authority from the Bishops. That was the true principle of the Church; but in order to provide for the convenience and accommodation of the public, the Bishops, with the consent of Her Majesty in Council, were empowered to authorise persons to grant licenses in certain districts. He left the House to consider whether this Bill were not a great practical measure of reform, by which upwards of 300 Courts out of 380, having the right to grant Probates of Wills were abolished. This Bill had received the sanction of the other House of Parliament, and he had not heard any objections raised against it. It was in every respect a step in the right direction, he was not aware that it interfered with the possibility of carrying out on a future occasion the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if such a course should be thought desirable. He proposed to restore a Clause, which had necessarily been struck out elsewhere, enacting that parties taking appointments under this Bill should hold them subject to the future regulations of Parliament, and should not obtain any vested right in them, nor be entitled to compensation on any change taking place in the construction of these Courts. He called on the House to accept this large measure of reform, and not to reject it because it did not do all that was recommended to be done. It was better not to cast to the winds such an improvement in the hope of getting something more. He believed that the Bill did all that could at present obtain general concurrence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

said, it was with some curiosity that he had listened to the reasons of the right hon. and learned Gentleman for moving the second reading of a Bill professing to be a Bill to reform the Ecclesiastical Courts, but which was in fact a Bill founded on a totally opposite principle to the Bill which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had obtained leave to introduce last Session. After the clear and able manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had laid down the principle of the Bill of last year, the House, after a protracted debate, had affirmed the principle of the Bill of last year. He had listened, in vain, for any reason which could justify a departure from the principle of the Bill of last Session. The present Bill was utterly inadequate for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He had last year given his cordial assent to those parts of the Bill which carried out the suggestions of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and he had only differed from the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in its recon- structive parts; and in that respect he differed quite as strongly from the present Bill. He believed that a majority of the House was last year prepared to assert that the Reform in the Ecclesiastical Courts ought to be in conformity with the main recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He was prepared to stand by the recommendations of the Commissioners. He believed that the majority of last year had pronounced the doom of the Diocesan Courts, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman last year had condemned in emphatic language, and which he now sought to maintain in increased power, and vainly hoped to render efficient those Courts which had called down the censure of all who had examined into their workings as public nuisances, and as a means of inflicting utter ruin on individuals through their arbitrary processes. His grounds of complaints against the present Bill were, first, its utter inadequacy as a measure of reform; and next, the positive mischief which he believed this Bill would impose on the country by the perpetuation of Courts thus universally condemned. If this Bill were carried there would be no future power of removing these Courts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this Bill was a step in the right direction. He conceded that the abolition of the Courts of Peculiars was a good step; and he agreed that the abolition of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the cases of tithes, defamation, and smiting, was a great advantage; but he believed that if they now established thirty-five Ecclesiastical Courts to continue in operation, with Judges not receiving miserable salaries (though the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not told them what the salaries were to be), but salaries sufficient to attract men of character and standing at the Bar, amongst whom these appointments would rest in order to give these Courts that respect which the right hon. Gentleman hoped they would acquire, they would thereby establish a most formidable obstacle to any further reform in these Courts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had only transiently alluded to those authorities which he had last year quoted in favour of the abolition of these Courts. The right hon. Gentleman had last year referred to the Ecclesiastical Commission, appointed by the Duke of Wellington in 1829, and which made its Report in 1832. It was hardly necessary for him to call the attention of the House to the names of the dis- tinguished individuals appointed to serve on that Commission. The Commissioners had all concurred in condemning these Courts in terms as strong as could be employed. The authority of these Commissioners had been last year quoted triumphantly by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In addition to the Ecclesiastical Commission, there was the Real Property Commission, which had recommended the abolition of those Diocesan and Ecclesiastical Courts. A select Committee of the House of Commons had similarly reported, and a Committee of the House of Lords, in 1836, had made a Report which contained a summary of the whole question. In 1836 a Bill had been introduced into the House of Lords similar in its detail to the Bill of last Session, and various Petitions had been presented against it by that very interest out of the House to which the Government had, it appeared, given way on this occasion. This Committee had been appointed to consider that Bill, and how far it was desirable to preserve the Diocesan Courts, and they had reviewed the different authorities on the subject, and they had recorded in the most emphatic terms their concurrence in the views of the previous authorities as to the abolition of the Diocesan Courts, and their opinion that all Courts for the granting of probates in England and Wales should be abolished, and one Court he appointed for the granting of administrations. In introducing his Bill last year the right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown the original grounds for the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of these Courts had entirely failed. Their jurisdiction in testamentary cases had originated in superstition. The professed object of administering for persons who died intestate was for the welfare of their souls and to prevent, as it bad been called, "their sinning in the grave." The right hon. Gentleman had last year also shown that the reasons for the Jurisdiction of these Courts in matrimonial cases had entirely failed, and that the jurisdiction in these cases ought to be removed to some more competent tribunal. After shewing that in testamentary cases the amount of property under the jurisdiction of these Courts had greatly increased, and the right hon. Gentleman said—

"Suitors in Courts in which questions affecting property to such large amounts were raised, ought to have the advantages of able Judges, instructed by able counsel, and practitioners constantly engaged in such matters, attending Courts where questions relating to them were publicly discussed and decided, and in which there was sufficient business to keep up their knowledge of law. The want of such a tribunal occasioned discontent and dissatisfaction—miscarriage of justice; multiplication of appeals were carried on to a final hearing, which a properly appointed Court would have decided on points preliminary to the merits of the case."

It was obvious that questions of the greatest nicety might be decided in these Courts; and he asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he sincerely believed that, by adding the Clauses he proposed, he had secured Judges of the character he described? and whether he had secured a Bar such as he held to be essential to the due administration of justice in these cases?

"Where," as he truly said, "abilities of the highest order are required, a great knowledge of the law and principles of evidence, great power of sifting and weighing testimony, and the correct adjudication of which required an accurate knowledge of human nature, and of the springs of human action."

The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the present Measure was only an experiment; he hoped, however, that the House would not assent to the principle of the Bill. He would venture to say, on the authority of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, that the principle of the Bill of the present year was essentially different from the Bill of last year. That right hon. Gentleman thus spoke of the principle of last year:—

"The Bill has not been brought forward prematurely, nor without ample preparation on the pan of the Government; and I should only be guilty of deception if I were to lead any one to believe it possible that I could change my views respecting this Measure."

The right hon. Gentleman also said,

"The principle of the Measure is the concentration under a Judge appointed by the Crown, of the supreme jurisdiction in matters testamentary and matrimonial."

He wished to call the attention of the House to this important principle involved in the Bill of last year, and ask them whether even a shred of this important principle of the Bill of last' Session was retained in the measure before the House. Instead of adhering to this, the judges were not to be appointed by the Crown, but by the Bishops, and the only qualifications required was, that the judge should be an advocate or a barrister of five years' standing. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Nicholl) now seemed to think that this qualification of standing at the Bar would be sufficient to ensure efficient judges, and that there would be a sufficient check in removing those judges on the Address of both Houses of Parliament. He would ask whether, from the nature of the business before these Courts, they would be enabled to get competent Judges, aided by an efficient Car, to sit in these Courts? This matter had not been overlooked by the Commissioners in 1832, in referring to the present constitution of the Diocesan Courts. In their Report he found it stated:—

"In the course of our inquiry we became early convinced of the impracticability of having Judges duly qualified, together with a competent Bar and skilful practitioners, to administer in the Diocesan Courts, the testamentary and matrimonial laws, which involve natters of such very high importance to the parties litigant and the public. The returns which have been obtained from the Diocesan Registries, show that the annual amount of business, and the emoluments of the Judges and other officers and of the practitioners in these Courts, make it impossible in the greater number of dioceses that efficient Courts can be maintained. This is a defect which, if it cannot be removed, outweighs all the advantages that may sometimes attend the exercise of episcopal jurisdiction within the local limits of the respective dioceses."

It appeared that the question of the constitution of these Courts had been maturely considered by the Commission, and the conclusion that these eminent and learned men arrived at, was, that the reform of these Courts was impossible, and that the abolition of them was absolutely necessary, for the amount of business was not such in any of them as to give a good Bar, without the presence of which an otherwise good judge would degenerate into a bad one, and, therefore, would never effectually or satisfactorily administer the law. The number of cases which came before these Courts on an average, did not at the date of the Report, amount to above one in the year for each of those Courts throughout the country, and there was every reason to believe that the number of causes had not increased since that time. This one case, however, might be a heavy one, which would require, for a proper decision, the highest experience on the part of the Judge, and a most learned Bar to argue it. But the Judge of each of these Courts would have all the powers of committal now possessed by the Superior Courts. It is proposed by the 33d clause of the Bill, that the Chancellor of each diocese shall have the same powers by the attachment and committal of the person to any of Her Majesty's gaols, and subsequent discharge of every person committed, as by any statute, custom, or usage, belong to the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty; and again, "that upon the Judge of any Ecclesiastical Court, having pronounced any persons contumacious, and in contempt, a writ de contumace capiendo shall issue." This was a very formidable power to give to a Court constituted as these would be under this Bill, and exercising its jurisdiction in some remote County-town, where there was no Bar to check the conduct of the Judge as there was in the Superior Courts. He thought that the House should hesitate before it gave such powers to Judges of such a description as would be created by this Bill. He not only complained of the essential difference between this Bill and the Bill of last year, but he also complained of the conduct of the Government respecting it, that it had been stated by the highest legal authority in another place, that although the Bill of last year was acceptable to the other House, that it was not so to the House of Commons. Now the fact was, that the alteration that had been made in the Bill of last year was not the result of the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons. The principle of the Bill received the sanction of the House on the second reading by a majority of nearly a hundred, and although some of that number might object to many of the details, yet the great principles of the Measure were agreed to by the House. The right hon. Gentleman, however, went into Committee on the Bill, pro formâ, for the purpose of introducing alterations, and when the Bill afterwards came under the notice of the House, it was an altered Measure altogether, the principle completely extracted and the ground was cut from under the feet of those hon. Members who supported the second reading of the Bill. It was rather extraordinary after the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, that a complaint should be made of the House of Commons that it would not sanction or give support to such a Measure. There was another topic of great importance, which had been referred to by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and on which this Bill was defective. The Commissioners in their Report complained much of the evils of the state of that part of the law called bona notabilia. By the Bill of last year, the whole of this would have been got rid of, but it would be preserved and perpetuated if this Bill became law. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners said on this subject:

"The law on the subject of bona notabilia is extremely complicated and ill defined, but we do not deem it necessary to enter into any minute discussion of the principles on which it is founded, nor the decisions which have occurred; it is sufficient to say, that in all cases where probate or administration is taken out in any Court within the province of Canterbury, except the Prerogative Courts, or perhaps, a Royal Peculiar, and in some cases other Peculiars, if it should afterwards appear that the deceased died possessed of bona notabilia within another jurisdiction the probate or administration is null and void. Bona notabilia are said to be constituted by the possession of personal property to the amount of 5l. in another jurisdiction. In some of the older cases there are many nice discussions as to the amount and mode by which bona notabilia shall be determined, but the general rule is sufficiently illustrative of the existing state of the law."

But it appeared that the highest legal authority in the other House of Parliament, although he admitted the evils arising out of the state of the law with regard to bona notabilia, added, that the abolition of those evils would require the abolition of the Diocesan Courts also. Therefore those evils were to be continued, although they were so loudly complained of and had been complained of for centuries. One defence for these Diocesan Courts was, that, from their local situation, parties would rather go to them than be compelled to come up to London. One glance at the position of such places as Bangor, Peterborough, St. David's, Rochester, and Chichester, as regarded the rest of the places in the respective Dioceses, would be sufficient to dispel the opinion and show that it was wholly imaginary. Some of the Diocesan Courts were eighty miles from other places in the same Diocese. But in every point of view this argument was unfounded. The fact was, that people did not themselves go to the Court to prove a will, but they sent instructions by post, and by the present rapidity of communication, and reduced rate of postage, a probate could be taken in London, in most cases, with greater convenience than in the Local Diocesan Court. He must also complain that no option was left to parties to prove wills in London under this Bill. Now, as to the expense that was to be incurred under the Bill. He had already pointed out several of the evils which resulted from the existence of these Ecclesiastical Courts, and he should like to know the price they were to pay for abandonment of principle in order to continue them. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he should propose Clauses to be inserted in this Bill, to give salaries to the different persons to be appointed under it, as it necessarily came down from the other House without such Clauses. He thought that the House, before it was called upon to sanction the second reading of the Bill, should be informed of the expense likely to be incurred under it. But the right hon. Gentleman told them that Peculiars would be abolished by this Bill; and he urged the House not to forego such a desirable improvement, which must be the case if it rejected this Bill. He admitted that if the Bill had been brought forward only for that specific object, it might have been right to support it. But this was not the case, for it created a number of new Judges for the Ecclesiastical Courts, and created new interests which would tend to perpetuate all the evils existing under these Courts. If the right hon. Gentleman would bring in a Bill reciting in its preamble the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the desirableness of carrying them into effect—but that the Government was unable to accomplish, owing to a powerful interest out of doors to which Her Majesty's Ministers, on this question, thought it necessary to succumb—and would limit the Bill to only one or two objects, without pretending to call it a Bill for the Reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts, then there might be some hope that it would not prevent the future reform of these Courts. He could not help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman must agree with him that if they passed the Bill in its present form, there could be no hope of seeing these Courts abolished during either of their lives. He had been told to take this Measure as an instalment; but it was clear from the language of Government, that if they carried this Bill, there was no intention on their part to endeavour to carry further measures on this subject, and he believed that the only effect of it would be that, at the end of the Session, it might figure among measures for which the Government would claim credit as one of Legal Reform. He, however, looked upon the Bill as precluding all hope of effectual reform, and for the reasons which he had stated, he felt bound to move that it be read a second time this day six months.

said, his right hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down, able and eloquent as he always was, had failed in this instance to convince him of the propriety of the course which he had recommended to the House. The speech of his right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill made him hesitate as to how far he could concur in the vote which was asked. His right hon. Friend had said that this was a step in the right direction, and the phrase was repeated by his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir G. Grey,) His right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill encouraged Gentlemen opposite who were likely to be his opponents, by telling them it was possible that he might revert even to the Bill of 1836, and, generally speaking, gave the House to understand that though this was a measure of great reform, it was not a measure of such complete reform as even he himself wished. If he could feel that the present measure was merely an instalment—if he could feel that it was only a step in a direction right or wrong, and not promising to be a final decision on the question, the vote which he would give would be different from that which he came into the House to give, and which, up to that moment, he hoped to be able to give. His right hon. Friend said the Bill was a great improvement, but on what ground did he support that statement? chiefly on the destructive character of the measure. He said it would destroy more than 300 Courts at present existing: yet that concession, great as it was, was not all sufficient to appease the appetite for destruction which his right hon. Friend opposite indulged. His right hon. Friend would not be content till every fragment of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was destroyed, and his right hon. Friend would probably be supported, at least, by all those who sat on the same side, unless they were possessed of the self-denying spirit of Cromwell and his associates. He had objected to the measure of last year, on the ground that it centralized all business in one Court, while it destroyed 380 Courts, establishing one great centralized Court, by the destruction of 380 Local Jurisdictions. He then contended that it was a most inconsistent course for hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to pursue—that men who were professedly the advocates of bringing cheap justice to every man's door, acted inconsistently in endeavouring to destroy those Courts which were established in every diocese and county in the Kingdom, for the decision of testamentary and matrimonial suits, There might have been some abuses, but the real test of abuse was an appeal against the decision of some of these Courts. His right hon. Friend had spoken with great force—and he hoped with more force than effect—on the evils existing in those Courts, but could his right hon. Friend or any other hon. and learned Member allege any large proportion—he might almost say any single instance—but that would be carrying the assertion far beyond what was necessary—of appeals maintained against the decisions of the Courts which he was anxious to destroy. In the case of one of those Diocesan Courts which it was proposed to retain, and the retention of which was as great a grievance in the eyes of his right hon. Friend as the creation of two new Diocesan Courts—in that Court (the Diocesan Court at Exeter) only three decisions of the Judge who had presided there for twenty-three years had been reversed. Could so much be said of the Court of Chancery? He had heard of statements being made in another place, to the effect that the Ecclesiastical Courts had, by the delay and expensiveness of their proceedings, become a positive nuisance; and he could not help thinking that the individual who had made that observation must have known that there was another institution in England which had been complained of by the people for two or three centuries, on account of the suffering and inconvenience arising from the expense and dilatoriness of its proceedings. From no man, and least of all from a Chancery lawyer, and one who had been a Lord Chancellor himself, could the expression come with less propriety, that the Ecclesiastical Courts had been a burthen to the people of England, from the delay and expence of their proceedings. He trusted that before the close of the debate the House would have an assurance from some Member of Her Majesty's Government that this Bill was not a step in any direction; but a Measure which would remove the difficulties and consult the substantial grievances of the people of Cornwall and Cumberland, as well as those of London. He should be content if he were told on such an authority that the Measure was not merely an instalment, but the full payment of a debt; for he could not accept the Bill if he were told that it was merely a step in advance, and that perhaps next year the Bill of 1836 or 1843 would be reverted to. Believing that the Bill was introduced by the Government with an honest intention of serving the country, he should not oppose the second reading; but he could not conceal from himself that the Bill went much further than he could desire. The existing Courts, he thought, might be preserved in some parts of their Administration, and altered in others, with great advantage to the country. He would give the option to parties in the country to choose whether they would register wills in the local Courts, at Bodmin for instance, or in the central Court in London. That would give the public all the advantages of centralization, without the balance of disadvantage. That would also obviate the difficulty arising from the inconvenient distance between the extremity of one Diocese and the seat of the Diocesan Court, as noticed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He would also suggest that there should be an index of wills formed, and kept in London, but did not think a bodily transfer of the wills themselves at all necessary. He would make another suggestion, and he thought its adoption would give satisfaction, and that was, that there should be an index, not merely of wills, but of legacies. At present there was no security for legatees. They might never know their rights, and it was clear that the Stamp Office afforded legatees no protection, because so long as the Legacy Duty was paid, the Stamp Office was indifferent whether the legacies were paid or not. Now, in the way of legal reform, he submitted that the establishment of an index for both wills and legacies would be a great improvement. There was another suggestion which he had to offer, and it might be incorporated in the present Bill, and that was the construction of some Court competent to revise the proceedings of local tribunals. While, however, he considered that the formation of such a Court would be beneficial, he still adhered to his objection against the system of centralisation; and what he meant was, that a Court of revision should be established, for the purpose of rendering uniform the practice in all the local Courts. An Objection which he had to the present Bill was, that the Judges to be appointed under it were to be paid by salary, and not to be remunerated as at present by fees. It was said that the incomes derived from fees were too large: but although they might be large, still they knew that those who did the work were the parties who received the remuneration. It might be otherwise if salaries were given. Those whose duties might not occupy more than an hour or two in the day would, perhaps, receive large incomes, while those who really did the work, who devoted their whole time to the discharge of their duties, might be inadequately paid. He considered that granting salaries in such cases was a misapplication of the public money. He had another objection to the present Bill, but in this he was not supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, or the hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House: and that was, that the tendency of this Measure was the gradual withdrawal of the name and influence of the Church from the Ecclesiastical Courts. It was true the nomination of the Chief Judge of these Courts was to be left to the Metropolitan of all England, and that the Bishops of the several Dioceses were to have the nomination of the Judges of the Diocesan Courts. Their choice, however, was to be limited. They would not be at liberty to appoint any except laymen, or any laymen except advocates or barristers of five years' standing: and barristers to be substituted for the Clergymen who now presided in the Diocesan Courts might be members of the Church or belong to any other sect. He disapproved of this limitation of the discretion of the Bishops, and he asked whether any one would assert that the decisions of any Barrister of five or of ten years' standing would give as much satisfaction as those of Chancellor Bruce Knight, or Chancellor Martin, of Exeter. It was, he admitted, possible that Judges might have been appointed who were not competent, but still, as there had been no complaint of malversation, or, he should rather say, in-competency, he thought that the discredit thrown on these Judges by this Bill might have been spared. Not only did they propose to destroy the Diocesan Courts, which had existed for centuries, but they deprived the Archdeacons, whose inquisitorial rights were to be preserved, of all power to enforce their sentences. On another point, he contended that wills ought not to be transferred. He thought that the transfer of copies would answer the purpose, but he perceived that by the 41st Clause power was given to Her Majesty in Council to transfer wills either to the Arches Court in London, or the Diocesan Courts which were to be retained. This lurking design would not be apparent to those hon. Members who looked only to the marginal note: and he contended that the House ought not to concur in such a proposition, because it was a needless violation of the existing practice. Reference had been made to a statistical table to show that the existing local Courts had no suits, and it had been said, that Courts in which there were not more than one or two causes per annum, ought not to be perpetuated. He, however, denied the accuracy of this table. It related to contested suits alone, but omitted all mention of the uncontested business, and that was, in fact, the important business, the business which proved the usefulness of these Courts. They should recollect that if they destroyed 350 of these Courts, and left only 32, that the whole of the business would have to be transacted by the Courts allowed to remain. He had now referred to some of the details of the Measure, although, should the Bill get into Committee, there were certain points arising out of several of its Clauses, which it would be his duty to notice. With respect to the general principle of the Bill, he looked upon it with different feelings from those which he entertained in reference to the Bill of last year, because it continued the name and authority of the Church in all testamentary proceedings. This was an improvement in the Bill of last year, and there might, perhaps, be other improvements; but still he should object to any Measure that militated against the connection between the Ecclesiastical and civil authority of the Church in testamentary causes. He hoped he should be assured by his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that this Bill was to be considered, not as an instalment, but a final Measure in reference to the whole system of Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence, and then and not until then, should he vote for the second reading of the Measure.

said, that having been one of those who had assisted in destroying the Bill of last year, he thought it right to explain the vote which he should give on the present occasion. He was supported in his opposition to the Bill of last year by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, and was sorry to find that he could not hope for his assistance in preventing the present Bill from passing into a Law. The hon. Baronet complained that they were gra- dually removing from the Ecclesiastical Courts the jurisdiction and authority of the Church; but so far from joining the hon. Baronet in that complaint, he (Lord R. Grosvenor), although as much attached to the Church as the right hon. Baronet, considered that the removal of all contentious jurisdiction would be a real benefit to the Church. He was happy that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had entered the House (with other of the Cabinet Ministers) for the state of the Treasury benches previously had appeared to indicate that the Government were so ashamed of their Measure that they left their Judge-Advocate-General to defend it as he best could. They had every reason to be ashamed of the Measure assuredly, and the only excuse they had attempted, namely the opposition offered to the Bill of last Session, would not avail them, for the opponents of that measure had not objected to the abolition of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in civil matters, but to the abolition of Diocesan Registries. He denied that the Bill of last year had been opposed on factious grounds, for every objection had been stated in minute detail in order that there might be no misunderstanding on the subject, and why it was now to be inferred that their opposition to it was based upon the fact of its abolishing the Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts in civil matters he could not conceive. What he had then struggled for was the convenience of the people, and what he had then stated, as the House would recollect, was, that the Registrars of those Courts would be satisfied if the common form business were left with them, and the contentious business removed. Now what defence could be set up for preserving in this Bill all the evils of bona notabilia, why would they not allow the parties to be at liberty to take out probate either where the person died or in London? That would be a great public advantage. The fact however was, that the hon. Gentlemen opposite feared, if this proposition were adopted, the Courts at Doctors' Commons would have nothing to do. If his right hon. Friend the Judge. Advocate would consent to take the advice of so humble an individual as himself, he would suggest to him a plan which should enable him to provide for all the existing officers without compensation, and it should have the additional merit of causing very little opposition, and it was this. There was a great want of registries, not only for wills, but for deeds relating to real property throughout the country; let him instead of re-constructing bad Courts, make the present Courts places for the registry of all wills and deeds connected with property generally, and he would effect more real good than by any Law in reference to property which they could pass. It should be borne in mind that the objections to the registration of deeds was not directed against local registries, but because the effect of a central registry would be, it was feared, to bring the whole of the business of the country to London. His constituents were interested in this Measure, but all they wanted was, that the common form business should continue in the local registries. Government might succeed in passing the measure through the House, but it should never have his consent so long as it contained its present most obnoxious and utterly indefensible provisions.

said, that before the House came to a division, it was only right that he should have the honour of addressing them, and particularly after the part which he had taken in the former discussions on this subject. Before he adverted to the general principles of the Measure, he deemed it necessary to make some comments on what had fallen from the noble Lord. The noble Lord was in favour of the general registry for deeds as well as of wills, and he therefore proposed that the registries attached to the Diocesan Courts should be converted into general registries for deeds and wills relating to the title to property, Real and Personal. This proposition would place the title deeds of the laity under the custody and charge of Ecclesiastical authorities throughout England. Now, this was going somewhat farther than the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, and, in passing, he must observe, that the constituents of the noble Lord, who were interested in this Measure, were willing if the common form business were retained to them, to allow the transfer of the contentious business, or, in other words, to keep the profitable part of the business, and transfer the unprofitable to any other tribunal. The proposition of the noble Lord was perfectly intelligible, and would therefore be perfectly understood by the House. He should now comment on what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. His hon. Friend put it to him to say whether this Bill was intended merely as an instalment, or as a permanent Measure, and be did not hesitate to state to the House that he retained all the opinions which he had expressed in reference to the policy of the Bill of last year, and that he greatly preferred that Bill to the Measure now under discussion. He thought it more expedient that where there was litigation respecting testamentary matters, that litigation should be placed under a responsible jurisdiction, should be decided in a Court where the Judge was nominated by the Crown, and sitting in London, surrounded by an extensive and learned bar. That was the principle which he preferred; but if his hon. Friend asked him whether there was to be any further legislation on this subject, he could only say, and he should say so frankly, that according to the experience which he had had of Ecclesiastical Court reforms, his belief was, that if this Bill passed, as far as he was concerned, he was not likely again to meddle with this thorny subject during the remainder of his life. Although he said this, he was bound also to state that he meant to propose a Clause having for its object the affording of facilities for ulterior changes. The Clause to which he alluded would notify, that parties who entered the profession of Proctors at Doctors' Commons hereafter, would have no claim for compensation, in the event of future changes taking place. This, however, he frankly told his hon. Friend, was not the Bill which he desired; but still he believed that all experience—the experience of Lord Grey's Government, and of the late as well as of the present Government—proved that it was as great and as salutary a change as any Administration could possibly hope to carry. There were one or two matters of detail which he would now notice. His hon. Friend, the Member for Oxford, wished to have an index of legacies, and he could assure his hon. Friend that the Government had not neglected that part of the subject. They had made inquiries with regard to the point, but the result of those enquiries was a conviction that so far from being beneficial such a plan would be productive of the worst consequences. Parties having no real interest would pry into these indexes, would institute vexatious suits, or fraudulently set up claims founded on simulated pretensions. His hon. Friend also declared that the Judges should be paid by fees and not by salaries; but in this he differed from his hon. Friend, because his belief was, that salaries rendered Judges independent in the exercise of their functions. What did the House think was the salary of the Judge of the Prerogative Court, arising from the causes tried before him that were contentious suits? Why, only 80l. a year, while the income which he derived from fees, or what was termed common form business, amounted to 3,000l. This clearly showed that the present system was wrong, and respecting as he did the judicial office, he thought that the Judges should receive salaries rather than be dependant on fees to this large amount in common with the practitioners in their Courts, for their remuneration. His hon. Friend had commented on the Clause respecting the transfer of original wills, but he overlooked that the whole object of this was to prevent those wills from being destroyed, by having them removed from the Peculiar Courts which were to be abolished, to either the Arches Courts or the Diocesan Courts, which were to be retained. He now came to the observations of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport. The right hon. Gentleman said, that this was an inadequate measure, and that it was inadequate because of the perpetuation of the Diocesan Courts. He had already stated that he preferred the Bill of last year; but, at the same time, the experience which he then acquired convinced him that it would now be impossible to carry any such measure, and hence no attempt to carry it was made. The noble Lord the Member for Chester stated, that he was one of those who destroyed the Bill of last year, and in this, he frankly admitted, the noble Lord was right; for, although there was a numerical majority in favour of the Bill on the second reading, yet the whole discussion showed that it would be impossible to carry it in its ulterior stages. The right hon. Baronet had given notice of his intention to move that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and a petition was presented from the Law Society, praying that instead of such a measure, the recommendations of the Real Property Law Commissioners should be adopted. He was always anxious to preserve a Bar of civilians, and the inquiries which had taken place in reference to the Admiralty Court some years back, when the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was examined, satisfied him of the necessity of having a distinct tribunal for the decision of testamentary causes, and maintaining the rights of the existing Bar at Doctors' Commons. He thought it was a national object of great importance to have a Bar versed in the civil law and the maritime law; this could only be attained by maintaining a body of learned gentlemen in constant practice in that Court. He thought, so far from such a distribution being impolitic, that sound policy recommended it. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford had talked of the despatch of business and of cheap equity, but without disparagement to Doctors' Commons, that expedition and cheapness, might be sought in Doctors' Commons as well as in the local Ecclesiastical Courts. He had stated last year that he felt that there was some incongruity in the Government proposing to establish local Courts for the more easy settlement of small debts, and yet with respect to matters testamentary, absolutely abolishing local jurisdiction. He stated then that much might be argued in favour of Diocesan Courts, and with respect to the "Peculiars," he thought that even his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford had almost abandoned their defence. By the Bill now before the House the means were afforded of abolishing 350 of those Peculiar Jurisdictions. He admitted that by retaining the Diocesan Courts they still retained the great imperfection with respect to bona notabilia; but so far as they diminished the number of these Courts they so far diminished that evil, although they did not remove it altogether. It had been argued by the hon. Member for Devonport that the amount of contentious jurisdiction in these Courts was small. He (Sir J. Graham) admitted that it was true that a great mass of personal property under this jurisdiction was funded property; and therefore locally situate in London, and subject to the exclusive control and jurisdiction of Doctors' Commons; but everything in the Bill of last year in that respect was accomplished by the present Bill, and everything with respect to funded property must be transacted in Doctors' Commons, as heretofore, in the presence of an able Bar, and in the presence of a Judge, whose fitness for the office was guaranteed by his appointment subject to the approbation of the Crown. With respect to Diocesan Courts, contentious jurisdiction would be no longer exercised by those Courts except by lay Judges, learned in the law, and duly qualified. There were various advantages contained in this Bill which had been enumerated by his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate, and he thought that very great improvements would be obtained from the measure in its present form. All the "Peculiars," and all the Consistorial Courts would be abolished; all the Archdeaconry Courts would be abolished, with very few exceptions, and the number of local Courts now amounting to 380 would be reduced to about the number of thirty-five. With respect to the jurisdiction, all the jurisdiction with respect to tithes would be abolished, and with respect to some minor offences regarding the Church, the jurisdictions would be materially diminished. With respect to "donatives," by a peculiarity in the law respecting donatives, the ecclesiastics appointed to donatives were not under ecclesiastical control as other ecclesiastics were, but by the present law donatives were placed on the same footing as other ecclesiastical appointments. He had already stated the power to be exercised by the Crown with respect to the Judges to be nominated; and with respect to fees, the power of regulation had been left to the Queen in Council. All sinecures were abolished by the Bill, and ample security taken for a perfect registry; every quarter of a year either the original will, or copies, or extracts, were to be remitted to Doctors' Commons, and ample security would be taken that there should be in Doctors' Commons a registry applicable to all wills throughout England and Wales. Then with respect to the safety of the registry in the different dioceses, a power was given to the Secretary of State to have reports made to him as to the places of registry, and if the place was insecure or unfit, a power was given to the Secretary of State to provide that the place of registry should be made more secure, and to be approved by him. Upon the whole, although he could not state that this was so complete a measure as that which he bad submitted to the House last Session, yet it was nevertheless a measure which must be considered a great improvement upon the existing law; and with respect to the total transfer of local jurisdiction to central authority, it was a matter on which, in a representative Government, the feelings of the constituencies of the country, as reflected in that House, must be viewed with deference by any Government when no great principle was to be violated, and when a great change was for the first time to be introduced. Now, he saw in the present Bill no violation of principle, but rather an adaptation of the principle of the Bill of last year in conformity with the expression of public feeling. He did not feel that it was derogatory to the Government to yield to that conviction, and without hesitation he would undertake to recommend the Bill to the favourable consideration of the House. With respect to the details, he should be willing to attend to any suggestions from any quarter of the House. He confidently expected that this Bill, coming down to that House recommended by the House of Lords, would receive the assent of the House of Commons. This was a vast and intricate subject, which involved many, and various, and conflicting interests, and he thought that, as the best measure which there was any probability of being able to carry, the present Bill would be found a great improvement on the existing law, and would be productive of great public advantage.

explained. What he had recommended was, that, in addition to the present registration, there should be a general registration of all deeds connected with property.

said, both the right hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading of this Bill and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down have stated that this was an exceedingly difficult subject to deal with by legislation. It must not be forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department stated last year to his opponents that he had no hope that he could alter his mind on this subject—that he had given it the gravest consideration, and that he was persuaded that the plan he then proposed was the best that could be adopted, and that he felt bound to adhere to it. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury spoke with just pride of the exertions which he had many years ago made for the improvement of the law, and he stated that after he had endeavoured to accomplish other legal reforms, he had proposed a Commission to inquire into the constitution and character of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and that he was glad of the opportunity— being again in power—to carry into effect the recommendations that had been made on this subject by persons of the highest authority. Accordingly, the Bill of last year proposed to carry into effect the plans recommended by persons of the highest authority of every description, and that Bill was carried through its second reading by a majority of more than eighty. That Bill was never again brought seriously under the discussion of the House—it was totally altered in a Committee pro formà, and the Judge Advocate and the Secretary for the Home Department have risen tonight to defend a Bill altogether opposed to it in principle, the right hon. Gentleman having altogether abandoned the Bill which last year he had made up his mind to defend and stand by. When the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) tells us that the present Bill comes to us recommended by the authority of the House of Lords, so far as we know from the public reports, it appears that every person of authority on the subject in the House of Lords spoke against the principle of this Bill, and the only reason alleged for keeping up the abuses of a defective system was, that the House of Commons would not consent to the abolition of all the existing abuses. Now, if ever the position of any hon. Gentlemen was humiliating in passing from the consideration of a Bill, it is the present position of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Having run away from the shadows of difficulties which they fancied they would have to encounter—they now have the House of Lords throwing the entire onus of what was wrong and defective on the House of Commons, there being nothing in the conduct of the House of Commons, whereby they could justify the abandonment of their own Measure of last year. The right hon. Gentleman told us that some of the Commissioners had changed their minds, and that some Members of this House who had voted for the second reading of the former Bill had declared that they had changed their minds on the subject, and would vote in opposition to its future stages. But who were those Commissioners, or those Members of this House, who had changed their minds the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us; so that we have the change of opinion of those anonymous persons opposed to the great authority of Lord Tenterden, of Sir N. Tindal, of Lord Lyndhurst, of Lord Denman, of Lord Cottenham, of Lord Campbell in the Law, and in the Church, of the Archbishop of Canterbury, of the Bishop of London, of the Bishop of Lincoln, of the Bishop of St. Asaph, and of the Bishop of Durham; and, in addition, of Doctor Lushington, of Doctor Nicholls, and of Sir H. Jenner. Opposed to this array of great authorities we have some anonymous Commissioners supposed to have changed their opinions, and some Members of this House who are said to have stated that they would not persist in supporting the former Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford has expressed himself very much opposed to the diminutions of what he thinks the due weight that ought to be given to the ecclesiastical tribunals, and their just share in the institution of the country. This is a very natural objection on the part of my hon. Friend, and in consistence with his views on such subjects; at the same time I do not think that the principle of those institutions rests on any solid ground of reason, and never were men more justified than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of 1829, the Commissioners of Real Property, in 1833, and the Committee of the House of Lords, in 1836, in saying that a change ought to take place with respect to the mode in which those matters of law are conducted. If we endeavour to search into the origin of those tribunals we find that at the commencement of the fourteenth century there was an usurpation on the part of ecclesiastical persons—on the part of the Pope's legate, and persons of at that time great authority in this country. They for some cause or other, and by some means or other, obtained the control over all property left by will. This was not in conformity with the ancient law, nor is it in accordance with reason — that when a person is left property in the Three per Cents., this property should be governed by the maxims of the fourteenth century, which in this respect were governed by the Papal usurpations in this country. It is obviously in accordance with all rational principles that the ecclesiastical authorities ought not to have power in these matters, and this principle the Ecclesiastical Commissioners endeavoured to establish, that these matters should be dealt with in a Court in which there should be Judges nominated by the Crown, and that this Court should have the chief disposal and legitimate authority with respect to those matters of personal property and the probate of wills. It is worthy of consideration whether you should go still further and make this Court similar to the Court of Chancery, and Courts already in existence, where personal and real property should be considered at the same time, and subject to the same decision. These further questions might be considered in a plan of reform; but the first question to be considered is, whether these are matters for an ecclesiastical tribunal, and to be decided by ecclesiastical authority, or whether they should be decided upon by Judges appointed by the Crown and subject to the same rules that regulate other civil matters. The right hon. Gentleman seems to agree with me that they should he left to the adjudication of a Judge appointed by the Crown, and that this should be a Civil Court. And all the authorities I have stated are in favour of this plan. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading of this Bill went through a summary of the proceedings of last year, and referred to the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—of the Real Property Commissioners—of the Committee of the House of Lords in 1836, and he stated, that they had come to the conclusion that the Diocesan Courts should be abolished. Many of the Bishops stated that it would be impossible to regulate these matters satisfactorily until the question of Church Discipline was settled, and it was a question amongst the Bishops themselves as to the mode in which legislation should proceed with respect to Church Discipline. It was not until 1840 that a Bill on the subject of Church Discipline passed in the House of Lords, and it was stated at the time that as soon as that question was settled they might hope to proceed with this further settlement. The present Bill proposes to go back, and in contradiction to all these authorities, and all former proposals, to establish certain Diocesan Courts. Now let us judge whether we ought to invest the Diocesan Courts with the power over property. In the first place, it is contrary to rational principles, and only arose from usurpation in the dark Age3. It is contrary to all the requirements of the present day; and, in the second place, there is every kind of objection to the constitution of these Diocesan Courts, and then there is the question of bona notabilia. One reason which I think is sufficient against the continuance of these Diocesan Courts is, that they have no business to enable them to become efficient Courts for the discharge of their duties. They may have difficult questions come before them, and on which men of the greatest eminence may differ; they may have questions before them which require the most profound knowledge of the law, and the greatest ingenuity in its application; and how can the Judges in those Courts acquire sufficient knowledge to make them efficient, considering that they might not, on the average, have more than six contested cases before them in the course of a year? You propose that these should be Judges with this small amount of experience and small amount of business—you increase their powers and give them increased salaries. Now, look to the salaries that some of those persons at present receive, and you may judge of the nature of the business they have to do. In many of those Courts the business is performed by deputies, and I find that the salaries of these deputies vary in different places, but the amount will serve to show the business they have to perform. In the Diocese of Bath and Wells the salary is 10l. a-year; in Bristol, in the Diocese of Bristol, 46l.; in other parts of the Diocese of Bristol, 26l.; in the Diocese of Chichester, 5l.; in the Diocese of Lincoln, 10l.; and in the Diocese of Peterborough the salary is only 2l. 2s. per year. Now, it would be hard to be convinced that Judges so paid are likely to be fit and competent persons to decide on such questions. When you pass this Bill in order to please persons having vested interests, and the Bishops to whom you give considerable patronage, you propose that Judges should be appointed with competent salaries. You will not have business enough to secure judicial talent, but you will have some persons appointed who have learned a little, but who will learn very little from the business in those Courts. However, one thing you are certain of, the payment of the salaries. You will have to pay the salaries of those thirty-five Judges, that, at least, you are sure of. My noble Friend near me proposes a local registry. It appears to me, that in consequence of the rapid communication now established between London and most parts of the country, a person may go to the Surrogate, and that Surrogate may communicate rapidly with London, and the Probate will be effected; whereas if you go to the Diocesan town, the probability is, that you may lose more time than by communicating with London. It is said that there is a provision in this Bill with respect to the removal of those Judges, but how are you to get rid of them. They are to be appointed by the Bishops, subject to the veto of the Crown. If a Judge of Westminster Hall misconducts himself, this House may address the Crown for his removal, but if we send up an Address for the removal of one of the Judges of these Local Courts, the Bill does not specify to whom the Address is to be sent. The Bill states that if an Address should be sent to the Crown, the Secretary of State should transmit to the Bishop the fact of such an Address having been presented, that the Bishop should then appoint another Judge—was ever such a clumsy contriv- ance? I do not think that my hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, would be very willing to visit the Bishop with pains and penalties if he did not obey the Address of Parliament. The right hon. Member who moved the second reading of this Bill gave several reasons for not concurring with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He said that they had taken a long time before they had made their final Report. Now, I think that the length of time, and the grave deliberation with which that Report was made, adds considerable weight to its authority. It has been said that this Measure, though not perfect, may be considered a settlement of this question; and the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed all fears on this subject. All that is good in this Bill might be contained in three or four Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman has said this is so far to be lookod on as a final Measure, and that if it pass, he does not expect, in the course of his lifetime, to propose another Measure on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to state whether he meant his official or his natural life. Well, then, if this is the last Measure of the present Government on this subject, if it is their ultimate decision, I can only say it that it is opposed to all the authorities on which they formerly relied, and to the Measure which the right hon. Gentleman declared that he was ready to stand by last year. The right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, censured me for proposing, with respect to the Factory Bill, that it should be left to the decision of the House; and he said, with respect to the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, why was I not equally ready to take the part of the Government when they yielded to the sense of Parliament? Now my complaint is, that they did not yield to the sense of Parliament on this question. I complain that they have not placed the entire question before Parliament, and obtained a formal decision upon it. The right hon. Gentleman prided himself on his law reforms. Let him, then, produce a good Measure; if that Measure fail, he will not be bound to produce another Measure, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that when he brings forward a Measure, good or bad, on this subject, without considering whether it were likely to become an Act of Parliament, that the Government has done its duty. For the reasons I have stated I shall give my support to the Amendment.

expressed his dissatis- faction that the noble Lord, who was the child of the Church, fed, taught, and supported by the Church, should be the first to vote for the spoliation of the Church. The fault which he found with this Bill was, that was not to be a final Measure. He objected to all changes—except the late change of the Ministry. In assenting to the second reading of the Bill, he reserved to himself the right of expressing his opinion upon the several Clauses in the Committee.

I entirely agree in most of the remarks which have been made by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Devonport. I think that in many respects the Bill is exceedingly defective. I must also take the liberty of saying, that I think the alterations which have been made in this measure since last year, are any-thing but creditable to the Government who have introduced it. The only point I can see in its favour is that of the 372 Ecclesiastical Courts, which have for so many years been a by-word and a disgrace to the judicial system in England, no less a number than 337 are entirely abolished, and, consequently, no less than 337 Ecclesiastical Judges, and 337 Ecclesiastical Registrars, will for the future be deprived of all power to extort fees from the public. I must, however, protest against the Bill being in any way considered as a final settlement of the question of a reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts. I look upon this Bill as but a trifling instalment of what is due to the public. With the exception of the Clauses relating to Diocesan Courts, and to which I will presently more particularly allude, it seems to me, that the chief faults of this Bill are rather those of omission than of commission. The Bill purports to be founded on the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1832; but, in point of fact, with the exception of the abolition of the smaller Courts, and with the exception of the Clauses relating to donatives, sequestrations, and certain points of practice in the Court of Arches, I find that all the principal recommendations of the very learned persons who farmed that Commission, are entirely neglected. It would almost seem as if the right hon. Gentleman (the Judge Advocate) were desirous of showing with what dexterity he could evade and mutilate all the really useful suggestions of the Commission. In the first place, the Commissioners recommended that the validity of wills of realty should be established and decided upon in the same Court as wills of personalty. The House was probably aware, that the validity of wills of realty is now decided in Courts of Common Law, and the validity of wills of personalty in the Ecclesiastical Courts. The Commissioners state, that by altering the law as they propose, the public would be saved considerable trouble and expense, and that the security of titles to landed estates would be increased. I must say, that inasmuch as the same number of witnesses, and the same circumstances are now required to establish the validity of both descriptions of wills, it appears to me that a Clause to this effect ought to have been introduced into this Bill. In point of fact, a Clause for this purpose was introduced into Lord Cottenham's Bill in 1836. The Commissioners also made an important suggestion in relation to Church-rates, which is entirely neglected in this Bill. They proposed that all jurisdiction over Church-rates should be transferred from Ecclesiastical Courts to lay tribunals; they proposed that all questions relating to Church-rates should be adjudicated upon at the Quarter Sessions. I think that when we consider the annoyance to which all classes of Dissenters have been subjected in the various Ecclesiastical Courts, that Clauses ought to have been introduced for this purpose. The Commissioners also recommended that, for the sake of the public health, in any change of Ecclesiastical Law, all persons should be prohibited from burying dead bodies in the interior of churches. I think no person can have read the valuable Report of Mr. Chadwick, on the practice of interment in towns, without being convinced that for the sake of the health, I will also say, for the sake of public decency, that an enactment of this nature is essential for the well-being of the inhabitants of this metropolis. The Commissioners also recommended that all jurisdiction over temporal matters should be entirely taken away from the Diocesan Courts, and that all suits relating to marriage, and all matters relating to wills, should only be adjudicated upon either in the Court of Arches or the Court at York. The Commissioners state, that except in these two Courts, it is impossible for the public to hare Judges, advocates, or practitioners, with sufficient knowledge of the law to decide on the complicated questions of law which arise in these matters. Now, I do not understand why all these suggestions have been disregarded, and why, instead of abolishing, the Government have thought fit to increase the jurisdiction, and to increase the power of the Diocesan Courts. These Bishops' Courts have been condemned by every person capable of forming an opinion on the subject who has inquired into the matter. Lord Tenterden, Chief Justice Tindal, Lord Denman, have all concurred in expressing their disapprobation of these Courts, and yet in spite of these high legal authorities this Bill actually proposes to give these Bishops' Courts the power of committing persons to prison for contempt —a power which they do not now possess. The parties who are interested in the continuance of these Courts have pressed the argument that it is desirable to bare local Courts for the probate of wills. I could understand this mode of reasoning if by local Courts these parties meant Courts bona fide situated in the neighbourhood of the persons who are compelled to use them; but the Diocesan Courts are local only in name and not in reality. If the Bill be not altered in Committee, the public will be put to the greatest possible inconvenience. Take as an example the Borough of Southwark. Now Southwark is situated in the diocese of Winchester, and the consequence of this is, that if a tradesman in Sowthwark dies, leaving household property in some street in that Borough, his executors will be compelled (instead of quietly walking over London Bridge and going to Doctors' Commons) to make a journey to Winchester. The case of Hertford is perhaps even more absurd. Hertford is to be in the diocese of Rochester. Under the provisions of this Bill, executors would have to travel from Hertford to Rochester, but the only public conveyances between these two places pass through London; so that instead of proving the will when in London, the unlucky Executors will be compelled to take a farther journey to Rochester. Now, I would ask the House for whose benefit is this extra trouble and expense to be exercised?—certainly not for the family of the deceased, bat merely for the sake of giving fees to the attorneys who practise in Winchester or in Rochester—the Bill, in point of fact, leaves untouched all the absurdities of the present system of probate. The proving a will means, that a Court of competent authority certifies that the document is a valid one; and what the interests of the public requires is, that when a will is once proved in the Court of Arches it should be valid for all purposes throughout England and Wales; but as the Bill now stands a probate granted in the Court of Arches will have no effect in the Province of York, but probate must be taken out both in the Court of Arches and in the Court at York for the property which may be locally situated in the two provinces of York and Canterbury, so that the executors will still, under the provisions of this Bill, be put to double trouble and unnecessary expense. As the Bill now stands, if a merchant or manufacturer in Bristol or in Birmingham dies, leaving for his children property in the funds and in his counting-house, or his manufactory, at either of these two places, one probate in the Court of Arches is sufficient; but if a merchant or manufacturer in Liverpool dies, with a similar fortune for his children, leaving money in the funds, and property in Liverpool or Manchester, one probate will not be sufficient; but probate must be taken out both in the Arches Court and in York, or perhaps in Chester or in Lancaster. I do not understand on what principle you place the family of the cotton-spinner in Manchester in a worse situation than the family of the button-maker in Birmingham; and I complain that while you pretend to be making great changes you leave the real nuisance untouched. The only way of avoiding this difficulty (if this Bill is to pass into a law) will be by inserting a Clause to the effect, that if the public choose to go to the Court of Arches, that that Court shall have full power to grant a probate, which shall be valid and effectual for all purposes throughout England and Wales; by inserting a Clause of this description, you would fairly test the value of these Diocesan Courts. I believe the public only go to these very incompetent Courts because they are obliged. If you give them the option of either going to the Diocesan Court, or to the Court of Arches, I am satisfied that the good sense of the public will give the preference to the Arches and that the Diocesan Courts will find themselves without any business to transact. There are various other matters of detail in this Bill which must be altered before it can become law. As the Bill now stands, the present registrars in the Court of Arches are allowed to practise as Proctors. I think this is most objectionable—in fact, the Bill admits that it is objectionable in principle, that Registrars should practise, as it enacts that the future Registrar shall not practise. Then it will be necessary to insert a Clause, to prevent wills being proved in the Diocesan Court of London, and to transfer all jurisdiction in the Diocese of London over wills to the Court of Arches, otherwise a large number of wills will be proved in a Court which has no proper registry attached to it, with conveniences for preserving and for taking care of the wills which may be brought to it. I have thought it my duty to make these few observations to the House: I see that great and useless changes in smaller matters are made by the Bill—that individual interests are largely affected —that large salaries are to be given to the Judges and Officers of the new Courts; but I cannot see that the real interests of the public at large are effectually promoted by this measure, and I therefore reluctantly feel myself obliged to vote against the further progress of the Bill.

did not know upon what principle the Diocesan jurisdiction was retained, but he would put his objection to the measure upon higher ground. He thought there ought to be one jurisdiction alone for the probate of wills—there ought to be but one law for the whole country as regarded wills of realty and of personalty. If this Bill were to become law, it would prevent all future amendment, and we could hope for no further reforms. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had said there was some intention of further reform; but it should be recollected, that if the Diocesan Courts were abolished ten years hence, those who obtained fees under the present Bill would then be entitled to compensation in proportion. On these grounds he should support the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Devonport.

The House divided on the question, that the word "now" stand part of the question—Ayes 158; Noes 89: Majority 69.

Main Question again put,

said, the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government last year made a strong speech in support of the measure then introduced by Her Majesty's Government, which he emphatically declared he believed to be an honest measure. But the present Bill was totally different from that of last year. The Bill of last year proposed to sweep away all the Diocesan Courts, and he recollected very well upon that occasion hearing an hon. Member who was not now present, and who presided over the Diocesan Court of York, make a very convincing speech upon the subject of these Courts, the wretched practice of which he most powerfully characterised, when he declared that he, as Judge, sometimes decided right and some- times wrong. This was certainly an extraordinary confession for a Judge to make, and one which ought to carry some weight. But the present Bill varied from the last in many other important particulars. Amongst others, the whole patronage of the Deans of Arches, which was heretofore in the Crown, was proposed to be given to the Bishop. All the approbation, then, which the House thought proper to impart to the right hon. Gentleman last year was now thrown away. If the former were an honest measure, how could this be so? He opposed that because it did not go far enough, and he now opposed this because it did not go so far. He said there ought to be no Ecclesiastical Courts at all. We wanted no canon law. We wanted only common sense and justice. The Ecclesiastical Courts were founded pro salute animœ, for the soul's health; but that having been abandoned the Courts ought to be abandoned also. They allowed no trial by Jury except in the discretion of the Judge; but as they had now the right of imprisoning for Church-rates, such a trial ought to be given. The right hon. Baronet said, that his measure last year was, so help him God, an honest measure; and he (Mr. T. Duncombe) would say now that he believed, so help him God, that this was one of the greatest jobs, and an act of the greatest disgrace, that was ever contemplated by that House.

said, he would attempt to reconcile his support of this measure with the statement which he made last year, which was perfectly founded in truth. In proposing the measure of last Session he had undoubtedly stated that it was an honest measure, by which he meant to say that it was peculiarly disinterested, and that it was proposed from the most honourable motives. They, however, foresaw that that Bill would have to encounter the most serious opposition—great opposition on account of involving an interference with vested rights and life-interests, and also an opposition from those on that side of the House who had given the Government their general support. That opposition was not influenced by any interested motives, but it was evinced by a great party who disapproved of the measure upon principle. Foreseeing that they would have to encounter so serious an opposition, they still thought it their duty to propose that measure. He did not hesitate to say, on this occasion, that he greatly preferred that Bill which had been brought forward last Session to the one which was now under the consideration of the House; and if he thought that the Government could carry the Bill proposed last Session, he would certainly have advised his right hon. Friend to persevere in the attempt to carry it through the House instead of the present measure. But he could not suppose when they proposed such a Bill that they should meet with the cordial and encouraging support of those hon. Members who generally afforded it to them. They were on the former occasion opposed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, who at that time acted in cordial harmony and co-operation with his political antipodes the hon. Member for Finsbury. The hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey), who had spoken so ably to-night against this measure, leading the Opposition, had on the former occasion declared his intention to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and had further declared that he would give his decided opposition to its second reading. He thought he had stated the circumstances of the case correctly, and he for one must say that nothing surprised him more than the majority by which had been carried the second reading of that Bill. He believed that many hon. Gentleman had anticipated the defeat of the Government on that occasion. Although they had received the concurrence of the majority on that occasion, yet it was accompanied with a most distinct declaration by some hon. Members, that in future stages of the measure—that is, in Committee—the Government would meet with the most decided opposition. This year then, Government had to determine whether they should propose the last year's Bill, and ensure the failure of the attempt to reform the system complained of, or content themselves with a more imperfect measure of reform, by bringing forward the present Bill. And therefore, from the same motives, and equally honest ones, the Government thought it more consistent with their duty to secure the minor and less complete reform, rather than go back to the Bill of last Session, with a well-grounded anticipation of losing altogether the chance of effecting any reform, and go through the same labours as they had already encountered for several Sessions, in making ineffectual attempts to reform the Eccle- siastical Courts. They thought that by the course they were now taking, they would, at all events, ensure the extinction of the Courts of Peculiars. They had, at the same time, relinquished that patronage on the part of the Crown which they had enjoyed. They ensured too, the extinction of a sinecure office which the Archbishop of Canterbury, under the existing law was competent to fill. He did not hesitate to say for himself, and for his right hon. Friend, that it would have been much easier to say—"This is the Measure of her Majesty's Government, and we will throw the responsibility of rejecting it upon the House." That would be by far the most agreeable and easiest course for them to pursue; but, as he said before, by bringing forward the old Bill, and taking such a course, they would have failed in securing the success of any measure of reform. Looking, then, at the divisions last Session; looking at the lukewarm support which the Government had received from hon. Members on one side of the House, and determined opposition of hon. Members on the other side, they thought that under the circumstances, it was their duty as a Government to consult the public interest, and secure as much reform as was consistent with the feelings of the House. He did not believe that an Executive Government, in time of peace, could render more important service to the country, than by reforming the Civil, the Criminal, and the Ecclesiastical Judicature. He well knew with what difficulties they had to contend, not in the country, but in the House of Commons, where those connected with great interests necessarily affected by these measures of reform, would naturally give their decided opposition to them. Such a party would form an union with those Members who, from purely disinterested motives, were opposed to such extensive reforms upon principle, and united their opposition was not to be overcome. There was yet another impediment—namely, the extent of compensation which, under the circumstances, it would be reasonable to offer, entailing an enormous expense to the country. Looking at the interests which were involved in what were understood to be offices held for life—the vested interests of all those who would be affected by such reforms, the extent of compensation to be provided in any Bill for the extinction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, raised up a most formidable impediment, which furnished one of the greatest obstacles to measures of such extensive reform as they had contemplated. And whatever amount of compensation that might be, they should consider that they did not perhaps then end the accounts with the public and these parties in question. He was always afraid that although they granted the compensation for the fee they abolished, that fees would again revive under some other character, and the danger which it was intended to guard against would still exist. Great caution, therefore, was requisite not to subject the public to any expense for the abolition of fees which could not be effected. These were the grounds upon which the Government had proposed the present Bill. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) spoke of humiliation. He felt none whatever, neither did his right hon. Friend in taking that course which they thought most consistent with the public interests. Recrimination was a species of argument which he, for one, never wished to indulge in; but the noble Lord asked what right had they to calculate upon a greater degree of support now than they had received heretofore. They knew that they should meet with great opposition, and they admitted that they had no right whatever to presume that the noble Lord would have given them his support. He had never taunted the noble Lord for the course he had taken on the Factory Bill, or any other Bill. He believed that the noble Lord was at all times influenced by the purest and most honourable motives. There was nothing more absurd than the presumption of infallibility. In taking a different course from that of last Session, they were not thus to be taunted with inconsistency. He honoured that man infinitely more, who, having received great additional information upon a particular subject, took a different course from that which he had previously advocated, than he who sheltered himself from the charge of inconsistency by giving the same vote on all occasions, although he had seen reason to alter his opinions. It had been charged against them that they had given up a measure without taking the sense of the House upon it. He did not mean to vindicate the course they had taken under all circumstances; but he thought he had sufficiently answered that objection by stating the motives which had influenced them in their abandonment of their former proposition. He recollected the noble Lord, who, on the question of appropriating a large sum from the Consolidated Fund for the abolition of Church Rates, was backed by a majority of 150; but it appeared that the noble Lord had afterwards thought it much more advantageous to the public interests to anticipate defeat, and not submit the proposition again to the House. He, however, did not defend the course of the Government by a reference to that which had been taken by the noble Lord; but he called upon the House to bear in mind the occasional necessities of Government, and to think that they may still be influenced by honourable and upright motives, when they thought it necessary to propose a somewhat different measure from that they had heretofore advocated. He had thus attempted to explain what was the ground on which they abandoned their last year's Bill, and in doing so, he should again say that such a Bill was an honest one. He could, however, give his support to the present proposition with an easy conscience, while feeling assured of not being liable to any charge of inconsistency in introducing a former Bill which, if they thought they could more readily pass through that House he would not hesitate to say he should be more willing to vote for.

thought the explanation of the right hon. Baronet had entirely explained away the honesty of this Bill. The right hon. Baronet had proved that the Bill of last year had been brought forward by the Government, they knowing it would excite the hostility of their friends; and what was the present measure? Why, it left out everything that could excite the hostility of anybody on the right hon. Baronet's side of the House. As to the right hon. Baronet's argument with regard to compensation, it was the very argument which had induced him to come down and oppose this Bill. The right hon. Baronet stated that the great difficulty in the way of the Measure of last year, was the hostility of those who possessed vested interests, and yet what would be the effect of the present Bill? Why, it would create twenty-six new Judges and as many new Courts—it would give besides additional business to the Courts in Doctors' Commons, so that the consequence would be that when the Government really brought forward an effectual Measure for the Reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts—a Measure such as both the right hon. Baronets opposite should think worthy of the Government and useful to the country they would have to compensate all these new functionaries, and they would have to contend against all these newly-created vested interests. If the Government had taken from the Bill of last year all that was really objectionable and most suspicious, they might then have come forward and tested the House—they might then have said the Bill was a good Bill, and have thrown the responsibility of its rejection upon those who were its opponents. And what was the position of the Government with reference to their attempted legislation on the matter? They had last year brought forward a Measure—an honest Bill — knowing it would subject them to an Opposition. At the very first menace of that Opposition they to their surprise found themselves supported by a majority which, the right hon. Baronet admitted, astonished him, and yet, rather than face the Opposition, they had withdrawn the Bill, and had this year brought forward a miserable Measure, which grappled with none of the evils which had so long made the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts one of the great grievances of the country, and which contained none of the good of the Measure of last year, but which created a great addition of useless offices. What was the meaning of the formidable Schedule at the end of the Bill? If there were not to be twenty-six new Judges, there were to be at least two for the two new Dioceses. It would have been much better (if he might be permitted to advise the right hon. Baronet) not to attempt any law reforms except when the exigencies of the case required a reform which would be really efficient; and that if the right hon. Baronet thought the opinion of Parliament was adverse to substantial reform, it would be as well not to touch law reform until he had a reform which was worth his proposing for the adoption of Parliament.

Bill read a second time and ordered to be committed.

said, with the permission of the House, he would now state shortly the course he meant to pursue with reference to the County Courts Bill. He (Sir J. Graham) had given his best attention to a Bill which stood for a second reading to-night, the Superior Courts (Common Law) Bill, and which had been introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Chester, and the hon. and learned Member who sat behind him (Mr. Watson), and this consideration led him to think that this Measure would be productive of some salutary reforms. To a great portion of this Bill he was prepared to give his assent, and he thought with slight modifications, the two Bills should go on pari passu, and become the law together. The 26th Clause of the Superior Courts Bill proposed the appointment of new Judges. He would, however, suggest that the Judges to be appointed under the County Courts Bill should do the duties of assessors under the former Measure. The summary jurisdiction under his Bill was 15l., but under the Bill of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the sum was 20l. It was, however, quite open to the House to consider whether that jurisdiction ought not to be higher. He should propose that the Bill of the hon. Members opposite should be read a second time, and that the County Courts Bill should go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of introducing certain alterations to which there could be no objection. He hoped that hon. Members opposite would agree to this proposition, and that there was a perfect understanding, that the second reading of this Bill was to be allowed, for the purpose of making such alterations in the Measure as he thought necessary to render both Bills capable of being worked together.

had no objection to the course which the right hon. Baronet proposed.

contended that the criminal business of the country required that some person of station and character should preside at the Sessions. The great advantage of this Bill would be, that you would obtain a Judge who would be a gentleman of station at the Bar, somewhat similar to the Assistant Barrister in Ireland; and there would be this additional advantage, that the Magistrates might choose him as Chairman of Quarter Sessions. He would be a person able to administer the Criminal Law, and he would have a jealous Bar. It would relieve the Assizes of a large number of criminals, and there would be no reason why all, except the gravest offences, should not be tried before such a Judge of Quarter Sessions. The effect on the county rates would be very great; for, instead of keeping a prisoner in gaol for six or eight months before the Assizes, he would be tried in the course of a few months at Sessions, and the county rates would be very much reduced. Gentlemen who attended the Assizes—for instance, the hon. Member for Halifax— must know that the great mass of criminal business to be tried in the West Riding of the county of York required a person of legal acquirements to preside. No doubt Magistrates acquitted themselves to the best of their ability, but they were wholly unacquainted with the administration of the law; and it must be remembered that in the criminal law of this country there was no appeal. He was happy to find that the right hon. Baronet gave his sanction to the Bill of the hon. Member for Chester.

asked if the attention of the right hon. Baronet had been given to the Amendments of which he had given notice, establishing Personal Service of Summons on the Defendant in all cases for more than 151., and providing that, according to the practice of the Bankruptcy Courts, where the debtor did not make affidavit that he had a good answer to the claim, he should be compelled to pay the debt.

said, he had paid attention to the hon. Member's notice on the paper, but he could not say that he was prepared to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts as the hon. Member proposed, if he (Sir J. Graham) understood the intention of his Amendment; but the question would more properly arise in the Committee on the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Chester.

said, the objection to the Bill, if any, was, that it either went too far, or not far enough, and that the machinery for the recovery of very small debts was larger than was necessary for the purpose of the Bill. That objection would be better attained by the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Chester. He thought that the right hon. Baronet might so modify his Measure as to render its machinery like that of the Courts of Requests. A Jury ought never to be called in to adjudicate in small cases where the process was summary.

The County Courts Bill was considered in Committee, and reported.

said, it had been stated, and he believed upon good authority, that there existed an intention of increasing the salary of Mr. Edmonds out of the funds arising from fees in the House of Lords, without any communication being made to the House of Commons on the subject.

replied, that the matter had not yet been brought under the consideration of the Treasury, and that when it was, he would lose no time in making a communication to the House on the subject.

stated, that an Address from the House of Lords to the Crown had been agreed to, and sent up on the 28th of March last, virtually suggesting the proposed increase.

said, that the matter had not yet come before the Treasury.

observed, that there had been a discussion the other day respecting the Vote for the Bishop of New Zealand, in which his name had been introduced. When the appointment took place he proposed that a certain salary should be given to that Prelate, but he wrote to Dr. Selwyn, saying, he would not undertake to assure him that the House of Commons would agree to the proposition, and leaving it to the right rev. Prelate to decline the appointment, or to go out on the chance of the House of Commons agreeing to the proposed Vote. Dr. Selwyn regardless of pecuniary considerations, did go out; and it was to be supposed that under the circumstances Government would make the necessary provision for him.

said, he intended to propose a Vote for the Bishop of New Zealand, finding that he had gone out upon a full assurance that such provision would be made. That arrangement had been recorded in the office.

certainly thought he had stated to the Bishop that he was not to consider himself secure in any salary.

Report brought up and agreed to.

House adjourned at a quarter past twelve o'clock.