The BISHOP of EXETERpresented a petition from a very respectable body of clergymen in his diocese on a subject of very great interest to the clergy of the Established Church in general. It related to a Bill which had recently been introduced by his noble and learned Friend on the opposite benches for the consolidation of the Criminal Law, and prayed that the penalty of prœmunire, which was very vague and almost unintelligible, might be exchanged for something distinct and practical. As affairs were now conducted, it was really impossible for any man, either lay or clerical, to state what the law of prœmuire was; for the Court of Queen's Bench on a recent occasion (namely, the case of the Queen v, the Archbishop of Canterbury) had been equally divided upon it. Two learned Judges in that Court had expressed opinions diametrically contrary to those expressed by two others; and thus a motion of great importance had been refused, because in all such cases, when the Court was equally divided, the motion was considered as decided in the negative. His noble and learned Friend, in his Bill for the digest of the law, said nothing on this subject either on one side or the other. Now, it would be satisfactory to the House, and to the petitioners, and to the country in general, if his noble and learned Friend would say that it never was his intention to leave the law in such a condition, and if he would introduce some words into his Bill of a declaratory character.
LORD BROUGHAMwas anxious to remove all doubts upon this subject, by exchanging the words, of which the petitioners complained, for some others which might hereafter be agreed on. His Bill intended to leave the law on this subject exactly as it found it. He fully concurred with what his right rev. Friend had said, namely, that there had been no decision on this subject in the case recently before the Court of Queen's Bench. That case was quite as undecided as if it had never been in the Court at all. It would be expedient, however, before his Bill was passed, that Parliament should apply itself to the consideration of the law of prœmunire, and that it should not leave it in a state which was an opprobrium to the country.
The BISHOP of EXETERconcurred with Lord Brougham in thinking that the present condition of the law on the subject was an opprobrium to the country. On 1031 every occasion of the confirmation of a bishop, it was doubtful, first, whether an archbishop was not guilty of a dereliction of his duty if he did not make a stringent inquiry into the qualifications of the bishop about to be confirmed; and, secondly, whether he was not infringing on the prerogative of the Crown, if he ventured to carry out such an inquiry. He threw out, as a mere suggestion—for he would not make a Motion to that effect—that it would be desirable for the House, before it came to a decision, to ask the opinions of the learned Judges on this subject.