§ The Attorney-Generalmoved for leave to bring in the other Bill, of which he had given notice. Its object was to improve the maintenance of the Discipline of the Church of England. The inconvenience of the Ecclesiastical Courts continuing to exercise their present jurisdiction had been clearly pointed out, and the case of Dr. Coote had been cited as a striking example of delay, expense, and inefficacy. For the purpose of procuring an effectual administration of justice, it was proposed that a Bishop should preside in each Court, but that he should always be assisted by a legal assessor. There should be a due investigation of each complaint, which should be followed by a speedy execution of any sentence which the Court might think fit to pronounce. He thought it unnecessary to go into further details upon this subject. He had already stated to the House that the Report upon which the Bill was founded proceeded from a Commission, issued in January, 1830, which was renewed upon the demise of the Crown, in July of the same year. That Commission continued to sit, and it made its Report in February, 1832. He neither blamed the Government nor any Member of the Commission for not immediately bringing forward the measures that had been since founded upon the Report; but it was the fact, that the whole of the Sessions of 1832, 1833, and 1834, passed away without one measure being produced founded upon the last Report. It was not of so much importance from what side of the House any measure proceeded, as it was of importance that it should be well considered and speedily brought forward. He was anxious to put the House in possession of the facts relative to the origin 925 and preparation of this Bill, so that praise might fall in the proper quarter. First, he must acknowledge that the Duke of Wellington's Government were entitled to praise for having originated and appointed the Commission, the Report of which was the basis of the measure. Next, the Commissioners themselves were entitled to the highest degree of praise for the admirable manner in which they had discharged their functions; and lastly, to the late Government for having prepared the Bill and put it into form. But, at the same time, he must claim for himself and the present Government the praise which was merited by them on account of the readiness with which they had at once brought forward this and the other Bill at such an early period of the Session as would enable them to get it passed this year; and even in this respect he should be contented with the bare acknowledgment, that the Government had shown a disposition to place no obstacle in the way of measures, the necessity for which had been affirmed by large portions of former Parliaments, and by the general voice of the community.
§ Sir John Campbellwas sure that his hon. and learned Friend would not claim any praise in this matter, or in anything else which did not belong to him. His hon. and learned Friend had stated that the Bill had been prepared, and was ready, under the late Administration. That Bill was ready, and might have been introduced in the last Session; but it would be in the recollection of many hon. Members, that last Session he was taunted by the right hon. Baronet for having brought in his Bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt at a time when the House had so many other important matters before it. If, then, he had brought forward the measure which had been prepared on this subject, he should have heard still stronger objections against lading the Table with business which there was no prospect of carrying through. If the late Government and the late Parliament had not been dissolved, and if Parliament had been allowed to meet at the usual time, early in February, it was his intention to have taken the earliest opportunity which the Session afforded.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that all the credit he desired to claim for the present Government was, that they had thrown no obstacle in the way of this 926 measure, and that they were disposed to adopt those reforms which were rational and well considered.
§ Mr. Humehad not intended to complain of the learned Attorney-General, but of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had arrayed himself in borrowed plumage, from which he wished to pluck a few feathers. Nothing ever gave him greater pleasure than to expose those who laid claim to merits not their own; and as the right hon. Baronet's speech certainly did seem to him to lay claim to the merit of others, he hoped he would not be offended at the candour with which he had told him so, and taken him down a peg.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that the reason why the subject was not brought forward in 1833, was, that a Committee, consisting of Sir Christopher Robinson and others, had sat upon the Admiralty Courts, and incidentally the subject of probates was gone into. That Committee sat till the end of the year. Next came the preparation of the Bill, which, he could assure the right hon. Baronet, was not so easy a matter as he appeared to think; and one gentleman who had undertaken the task gave it up in despair. It was, however, ready by the commencement of the last Session, and Lord Althorp pressed him (Dr. Lushington) to bring it forward; but he had said, that, although it would sound very well to lay the Bill upon the Table, yet that with a measure for the commutation of English tithes, another for the commutation of Irish tithes, besides the Church-rate Bill, it would be impossible to get through with it in a proper manner. If, therefore, blame existed any where from the Bill not having been brought forward last year, it rested with him.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the name of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, the Member for Cumberland, had not been mentioned; but it was right the public should know, that, of all the non-lawyers who devoted their time and attention to this subject, the right hon. Gentleman stood pre-eminent.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.