Page images
[graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors]


by the supreme and that lie would

Wk the forum domes-
Ipnre the full exercise
ry Bishop on the
wers the Bishops
■elves, but so far
iby the bill, they
hen it came into
sible to suppose,
on a prose-
hen he might
■ the milder
■eproof. A


been committed with Lordships would now allow the bill lo be men, while any attempt read a third time, prosecution bore more The Bishop of Exeter rose lo answer two lecutor than the prose- questions put to him by the most rev. Prenot shrink from the late. The most rev. Prelate had asked if he Sty which such unfair could prevent a cause being now brought lad heard that night originally from the provincial or diocesan igainst himself and 1 court into the Court of Arches in London, his bill. lie was not lie begged most distinctly to say, ihat he episcopal authority, could. The most rev. Prelate said, that hrileges of the forum , the report contained directly the contrary; jght rev Prelate said, he would put the report into the hands of pure of this kind to the most rev. Prelate, and entreat him to himself of the spi- point out the passage. He had, as was his duty, made it his business to ascertain what was now the practice, and he had clergyman, by his asked his own chancellor whether he Bience, to repent of granted letters of request ex debito juslitue fend his life. But did or ex gratia, and he had been informed, that so far from being a matter of course, he (the chancellor) always deliberated whether or not he should grant them, and had added, that there was then a case in his court in which he had refused them. He had learned also, that it was impossible in all the cases of the correction of clerks to find a single instance in which by letters of request the causes had originated in the Court of Arches. The next question put to him was, as to the party who pronounced now the sentence of deprivation, when the As the law now existed, the sentence was ^^Hess, i pronounced by the bishop, not coming up to the Court of Arches, but in his own diocesan court. If the sentence was appealed against, it came to the Court of Arches, and then went back to the diocesan court, where the Bishop pronounced sentence. He protested, that such was, he firmly believed, the state of the law at nt.

1 Brougham said, that he was that some of the right rev. bench ved on the commission should ^^■bportuuity of addressing the ^Hbiubject; but as none of desirous, mixed up as he Hhu question, of offering a ^^Mfaeir Lordships. He ^Httt had fallen from 1.11'.- in the very candid which he had ject he had in ^^man who he (Ixird ^^Bbiness to jbon km w ■»|U the

purity of liis intentions—of that purity which had influenced the whole of the most rev. Prelate's career. The most rev. Prelate might now differ in opinion from those with whom he had before agreed—he might now have a new view of the subject from that which he entertained when on the commission, and this was an additional ground for confidence in the candour of the most rev. Prelate. But it was one thing to give the most rev. Prelate credit for candour, and it was another thing to consider he had been wrong in his views in 1830—again in 1832, and again in 1835, when a bill on this subject had been most fully discussed in Committee, and without opposition. He (Lord Brougham) had listened with the utmost attention, as he always did, to every thing that fell from the most rev. Prelate, especially upon ecclesiastical matters, and with an extremedesire to learn what had produced so great a revulsion and change of sentiment in one who had agreed with him (Lord Brougham) on a former occasion. He had listened with profound respect to the most rev. Prelate, but from the beginning to the end of his speech he had been unable to discover any single shadow of argument against the report of the commissioners, or against the bills founded upon it three or four different times by the Government of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington), by the Government of the noble Viscount near him (Viscount Melbourne), and by the Government of Earl Grey—bills all intended to give that report full and immediate effect. The arguments of the most rev. Prelate had been confined, not to a comparison between this and fo'rmer remedies, but between this bill and no remedy at all for the present defective state of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He had no wish to interfere between the two right rev. Prelates, both of whom were eminent ornaments of the Church, but he could not help feeling but that the ri<rht rev. Prelate was justified in complaining that the recommendations of the commissioners had been so completely departed from in the present bill. The most rev. prelate appeared to be surprised at the strictures passed on this measure by theright reverend relate. He (Lord Brougham)would only say on this point—

"Tantsene animia cailestibus irtc" But he thought that the most rev. Prelate

did not stale the facts of the case quite fairly when he referred to the extreme case of Mr. Free, and asked whether for such a case of delinquency there should not be provided a remedy. The right rev. Prelate, however, did not say that such a state of things should be allowed to continue, for he distinctly slated it was a very bad state of things, and that a remedy should be provided, but that the present measure would not be an efficient remedy. He (Lord Brougham) agreed with the right rev. Prelate that there should be a remedy, but that the former one that was proposed was infinitely better than that proposed in this bill. The most rev. Prelate^said, that the court recommended in the report of the commissioners, and proposed in the former bill, was not so perfect a court, as there was not so much legal knowledge in it as there was in the court of Arches. The report did not propose, as had been supposed, that the Bishop should preside in this court; but it recommended that he should have an assessor. It did not propose, that the Bishop should be personally sitting in foro domestico, but that he should be there by deputy. The present bill, if passed, would take the immediate jurisdiction from each Bishop, and would provide that all cases should come up to Doctors'Commons from all parts of the country, even the most remote. Therefore, if the conduct of a curate residing in Wales was called in question the case must be brought up to London; and the same with a poor parson in Cumberland, in Berwick-onTweed,or at the Land's-end. According to this bill every case must originate in Doctors' Commons, although the commissions had unanimously recommended that the case should in the first place be heard before the Bishop or his assessor. He was satisfied that it was better that the matter should commence in this way, as was proposed in the other bill, than that every matter of this kiud should be dragged up to London. Now, this bill would really disable a Bishop from proceeding in case of delinquency if he was at all anxious as to the amount of the expenses he was likely to incur. The Bishop of the diocese, be it recollected, was liable to all the expenses of this proceeding, for lie must defray the charge of bringing the witnesses up to the Arches Court, and their maintenance here, and the employment of counsel, and all the


other heavy expense of proceeding in this dilatory court. He entertained great respect for Sir John Nicholl and his nephew, Sir Herbert Jenner; but, notwithstanding all his respect for these learned judges, he must most strongly object to the mode in which the business was conducted in their court. In their court the judge never saw the face of a witness, but the evidence was taken by depositions, and the form in which it was taken was as objectionable as the system which existed in the old court of session in Scotland before it was reformed; and the form of the pleadings in this court was in conformity with the inconvenient, verbose, and antiquated mode provided by the civil law. Instead, therefore, of examining the witnesses vivd voce on the spot where the character of the poor clerk might be known, the whole of the parties were to be dragged up from the most distant parts of the country to Doctors' Commons, where the witnesses would not be questioned in open court, but where they would have to make depositions which would have to be written out, then printed, and, after the lengthened proceedings on one side and the other, judgment might be given; then the case might be carried to a Court of Appeal, and the whole proceedings would have to be gone over again. This bill, therefore, had first the bad quality of preventing a Bishop doing his duty, unless he were willing to incur the responsibility for the heavy expense that necessarily would be entailed by such proceedings as were directed in this bill, in this most expensive court; and, secondly, it enabled a malicious person—if there could be such a being on the bench of Bishops—to subject the clergy of a diocese to ruinous expense, by adopting proceedings against them in this court. If they went on legislating in this way, by passing a bill unanimously, for two consecutive years, and then in the following year passing a measure every enactment of of which was contrary to those in the previous bill, he did not see how they could obtain any respect for the proceedings of that House. He did not see how they could ever hereafter get men of great learning and acquirements to act as commissioners if their labours were to be treated with the contempt which they had been, by adopting in this bill, principles directly at variance with their recommendations, There were

fifteen commissioners, men the most eminent for their learning and acquirements, who had inquired into these matters, and after they had expended, much time and pains on the subject they unanimously adopted a report, to which they affixed their names and signatures.. The report gave the reasons why the commissioners adopted the various recommendations contained in the result of their labours, and all of which recommendations had been embodied in the bill which had wisely been suggested by them. He had entertained not the slightest doubt on this part of their labours, and he had himself introduced a bill which he might almost say had been prepared by the commissioners for the carrying out the object which this bill was brought forward for the purpose of effecting. The same measure had been brought forward twice in the other House by Sir F. Pollock, but in consequence of the late period at which it was brought forward on both occasions it had not passed the other place. In 1836 the bill, however, which he had introduced passed through all its stages in that House, but at too late a period of the Session to be passed into a law. But what did Sir John Nicholl do? After agreeing to the report and signing it he had taken active steps to call upon the Legislature not to carry the recommendations of the commissioners into effect. No new light struck him on the subject until 1838, when he found out that all the recommendations introduced into the report —which he had signed and sealed, and which he had taken such an active part in preparing—were fallacies, and that it was advisable to frame an enactment on principles diametrically opposed to those of the former bill. The only explanation which he had deigned to give was in a letter which he had sent to other commissioners, in which he said that, as an objection had been made to the recommendations of the commissioners—but he did not say from whence or what was the nature of the objections, or upon what they rested—it would be better to introduce another bill, of a different nature from the former. This bill had in consequence been introduced, and it was diametrically opposed to the recommendations which were contained in the report to which Sir John Nicholl had set his seal and signature. Now, he thought that the least this learned individual could do was

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

vns jomcaliintf .-nmln^niwm rJiisya
wrr>. n i'nnne/inencR. called; aoQa t
n "tin vi nth* ul itia renonuiKnilacirma of
Ul lie ither "^lmnuraaneTS. For kia vma
wr", ie To arose denirtefiiy
Ins nil. md in fawrar of the aid

liit :ror :nn«. ;r an rr>cnmiaend Haws ii' iia iTrimmmaoners wen: tm be Heated ia '.us T't'". hac anj man <&i tearam^ or ••nunencii viunvcringent to- s«rse a« a comnisriianiu' uruit Ic was eieas that those ■fir. -iir-jeii wir!i Out pro«i*uiG« of this Vu rnua: <i:rfer m tmh from all the irmc.r.uenr.t >:f zli<t forauir one, aod yet Zaivj '.iad art aeard a sic^te reason why •Mt tfussLA ao« be adapted in the

zieux ej z&t Lirci>rr wiikfa. was the result of 'za lahc-ir'd vj ai,iay learned individuals. Ca* idi-tr iTiind oi objection to this \ m u tte tnae in which it was brought J.t*i:i ia Hcue. If it passed it faA hz w:ia:o a week of the time in »; thi former bAl was sent down to Uss otrer Hoase, and which was thrown oat by it, in the sessions of 1836, because it came down at so late a period to be cons.der'.d. Soch he also ventured to foretell woold be the result of the present bill, should it pass that House. They were now, however, called upon to pass this measure, and to give up their own opinions for that of one commissioner, who showed that he was fickle and uncertain in his opinions. Was it then a sufficient reason to give up their opinions merely because Sir John Nieholl had sent the other commissioners a letter, or rather verbota el grandis epistola venit, which mentioned no reasons which could justify a change of opinion on such an important Bubject? It was very possible, also, that this learned person, who had so hastily changed his opinions on this suhject, might do so again; they therefore should not hastily adopt the present plan. At any rate, it was clear that the bill could not pass the House of Commons during the present year, for he was sure that House would look into the report of 183*2, and this alone would be sufficient to prevent their getting through the bill this Session. This bill had not been many weeks before Parliament. [The Bishop of Exeter: it was not introduced until the present month.] TnJer these circumstances he could not bciiere, that the proposers .■f this measure were sincere in wishing to j.iiss it ilur.rg the present Session. He •vpeau-u, that no reasons bad been given

« PreviousContinue »