Commons Sitting of 25 April 1839

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Captain BERKLEY, from Bristol, against the present system of Registering Parliamentary Electors.—By Mr. LITTON, from Kilmore, against any further Grant to Maynooth College; from another place, against the present system of Education in Ireland; from several places, against the Irish Municipal Reform Bill; from two places, against compelling Presbyterian Soldiers to attend the service of the Established Church.—By Lord DUNGANNON, from a parish in

511
Durham, against alienating any of the Surplus Revenues of that See; from a place in Denbighshire, for Church Extension in Canada; and from several places, against any system of National Education not founded on the Scriptures.—By Sir G. CLERK, from the Edinburgh and Leith Glass Company, against the Excise Regulations; and from three places, in favour of Church Extension in Scotland.—By Mr. LOCKHART, from two places, to the same effect—By Captain BERKELEY, Mr. HAWES, Mr. C. DUNDAS, Sir H. PARNELL, Mr. BARING, Dr. LUSHINGTON, Mr. PHILPOTTS, Mr. M. PHILIPS, and Sir R. PEEL, from a great number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Sir R. INGLIS, from several places, for Church Extension in Canada.—By Mr. STANLEY, from eight Parishes in Anglesea, against alienating any part of the Church Property of the Islands.—By Mr. PAKINGTON, from several places, for Church Extension in Ireland.—By Mr. COMPTON, from a place in Hampshire, against the present system of Licensing Public Houses.—By Mr. EASTHOPE, from eight Congregations in Leicester, against the Imprisonment of David Jones and Mr. Thoroughgood.

LITHOGRAPHED PETITIONS.
Mr. G. Wood,in presenting the report of the Committee on public petitions, said he had been requested to call the attention of the House to the fact of several lithographed petitions having been recently presented, and to ask the House whether they were of opinion, that as printed petitions were, by a rule of the House, rejected, lithographed petitions did or did not fall under the same rule?
Sir G. Clerkdid not think there should be any distinction made between them.
Mr. Warburtondid not see the common sense of excluding printed petitions. It was said that they were less likely to be the spontaneous act of the petitioners than manuscript petitions; but he could not see how that was the case, since the petitions, whether written, printed, or lithographed, were prepared by other individuals than the bulk of the petitioners themselves. He did not know, therefore, why they should make a difference between petitions which, merely for the sake of saving manual labour, were printed or lithographed, and those that were presented in manuscript. He hoped the reception of lithographed petitions would form a precedent for the reception of printed ones.
Lord Stanleyobserved, that it was well known that a great number of petitions were got up, a considerable portion of the persons signing which were utterly careless, and sometimes utterly ignorant of their contents. Now, there was nothing more likely to draw contempt upon the whole system of petitions, and he much feared that the admission of printed and lithographed petitions would only increase that evil. The hon. Member for Bridport hoped that the reception of lithographed petitions
512
would lead to the introduction of printed ones; he went to the opposite conclusion, and, adhering to the rule of the House, hoped that by checking their reception, they would prevent the introduction of petitions which, upon the face of them, were not the spontaneous petitions of the parties signing them. If they objected to printed petitions, they ought also object to lithographed ones. He saw no difference between them.
Mr. Humesaid, that, as admitted by the noble Lord, persons were frequently called upon to sign petitions which they did not understand. If so, what better means could be resorted to for rendering petitions intelligible than by having them printed? There were many persons who could not read written who could read printed petitions. Besides, if petitions of any considerable length were printed, hon. Members would be much more likely to read them. He always asked if he could have a printed copy, as he could read it much more easily.
The Speakersaid, that it certainly was necessary for the House to come to some decision upon the subject. It having been decided, by a resolution of the House, not to receive printed petitions, it behoved them to assign a reason why they should receive lithographed petitions. The object to be attained was, to put the House in possession of the real sentiments of the people; and as it was rather a matter of importance, perhaps some hon. Member would think it right to call to it the attention of the House.
Mr. Woodgave notice of his intention to do so on Tuesday next.
Subject postponed.

FOURDRINIER'S CLAIM.
Mr. Mackinnon,in bringing forward the motion on this subject, of which he had given notice, said he regretted that the case of Messrs. Fourdrinier had not fallen into hands more competent to do justice to it than he could pretend to be. The task, however, had been forced on him. In 1836, a committee was appointed to investigate the claims of Messrs. Fourdrinier, and at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was named on and appointed chairman of that committee. Until then he had no knowledge whatever of the claimants. When he presented the report of the committee to the House, it was objected to by the Speaker, because the

513
word "compensation" was used in it, and he called attention to this point only because a report was read in 1832, in which not only the word "compensation," but the expression "pecuniary compensation" was to be found. He mentioned this to show, that if the report of 1836 was objectionable, it was no fault of his; that it was so, because there had been a precedent previously established for pursuing such a course. It might be said, that Messrs. Fourdrinier were not the inventors of this plan; but although they were not the inventors, yet it had been brought by them to such a degree of perfection., as to enable the country to benefit by the discovery. The merits of an invention, it was admitted, did not belong so much to the individual by whom the discovery was originally made, as to the party by whom it was applied to the advantage of the community. The House was probably aware, that previously to the discovery, paper was made by the hand, and the process was both tedious and expensive. The machinery invented by Messrs. Fourdrinier was of a very complicated nature; but by it paper could be made, without manual intervention, of any length, to the extent of several thousand yards in one continuous piece. It might be asked, how had they lost the benefit of this patent? It appeared that they had expended a great portion of capital in bringing the invention to perfection. Many attempts were made to pirate it, and thus involved them in litigation. An action was brought by the Messrs. Fourdrinier, and they obtained a verdict, but, on an application to the Court of King's Bench, the Chief Justice granted a new trial, merely because the word "machine" instead of "machines" was inserted in the patent. Their funds were by that time exhausted, having expended upwards of 40,000 l. in the invention, and they were unable to defend their rights any longer. The boon to the public, by the invention, had been immense. Every trade, and every department of science, and the arts, had been benefitted by it. In the potteries, it had been shown that, but for the invention of Messrs. Fourdrinier, it would have been impossible to have brought china to such perfection ss it had been. Mr. Brunel, the eminent engineer, considered the invention one of the most splendid of the present age, and Mr. Lawson, of the Times newspaper, had given similar testimony. The machinery of Messrs. Fourdrinier was
514
such, that all risk and labour was avoided by it. In 1800 there were no machines in existence, and the duty on paper then received, amounted to only 193,533 l. In 1821, the amount of duty had risen to 572,867 l., and in 1835 it was 833,832 l., He did not mean for a moment to say, that had machinery not been invented, the duty would not have increased progressively, but he would say that, without the aid of the machines of Messrs. Fourdrinier, it would have been perfectly impossible that it could have risen in the extraordinary manner that it had. From 1800 to 1835, the absolute gain to the community amounted to 6,000,000 l., and the increase in the revenue was not less than 500,000 l. a year. He hoped that he would not be opposed on this occasion by her Majesty's Government. They could not refuse to remunerate Messrs. Fourdrinier, otherwise they must refuse to remunerate any inventor in future, which would be a great detriment to the public generally, and upon the same principle, the country had been injured to the amount which had been paid to former inventors. He did not wish to occupy the time further upon the subject, and should therefore conclude by moving, that the report on the re-committal report of the Committee on the claims of Messrs. Fourdrinier be taken into consideration.
Mr. Humesaid, he apprehended, that the hon. Gentleman should either move an address to the Crown, or that the House should go into a Committee of the whole House on the subject of his motion. It was quite clear, that the House could come to no resolution on the present motion.
The Speakersaid, that there were three stages to be gone through before the hon. Gentleman could arrive at the object which he had in view; and the first step to be taken was to refer the question to a Committee of the whole House, and to have their report on a resolution for granting the money intended to be given as compensation.
The Chancellorof the Exchequer said, he had certainly understood from those who had waited upon him on the subject, that no money vote was to be asked for on the present occasion. He fully concurred in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.
Mr. Mackinnonsaid, that he would adopt the suggestion which had been thrown out. The hon. Gentleman then

515
moved, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the claims of Messrs. Fourdrinier.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was not there to deny in any shape the merits of the invention of Messrs. Fourdrinier, or that it had been of great benefit to the public at large, and also to the revenue of the country, but it by no means followed that they were entitled to pecuniary compensation from that House. There was no subject upon which the House was bound to exercise greater discretion than in money grants. The mere question of the ingenuity of an invention would not give the party a claim upon the bounty of that House, and he did not think the present case formed any exception to the general rule upon that subject. He was one of those who thought it right that rewards should be given to merit, but it behoved the House to exercise the power they had to give those rewards with caution, otherwise they would be offering a premium to applications for pecuniary grants. He was willing to consent to the present motion, and after the opinion of the House had been expressed upon the subject, he would state what course her Majesty's Ministers intended to pursue.
Lord F. Egertonthought, that the Government generally had drawn the line of reward for merit with great severity. He was of opinion, that the most liberal consideration of the House ought to be directed to this application. The invention was one of great importance, and in the highest degree deserving of public support.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, that there was scarcely any invention which had been productive of greater advantage than that of the Messrs. Fourdrinier. There was no one more opposed than he was to granting public money from any regard to individuals; but this case was of so peculiar a nature, that he thought there was a very strong claim upon them for compensation. He had been a Member of the committee, and in his opinion a stronger case was never made than that of the Messrs. Fourdrinier, whose invention might truly be termed a magnificent one—an invention scarcely inferior in importance than calico printing. Such results as had followed that invention would not have been otherwise produced, and feeling strongly
516
the claims which those gentlemen had, he hoped, that compensation would be granted to them. Every Gentleman acquainted with the merits of the case, and with mechanical agencies, was an advocate for the compensation of the originators of so important and valuable an invention. He had presented petitions from several talented individuals of that description in support of this claim, and he should not be doing justice to them if he did not give his opinion as entirely favourable to the grant of compensation.
Mr. Bainessaid, that every individual, with one exception, to whom the Messrs. Fourdrinier had been indebted, was paid 20 s. in the pound. It was a most important invention, and one from which the public every day derived advantage, inasmuch as it had considerably reduced the price of paper. If it had not been for that invention, a great deal of the benefit which had been derived from the extension of cheap information would have been lost to the public. There could be no stronger claim than that of the Messrs. Fourdrinier, whose fortunes had been overwhelmed by the exertions they had made to bring that invention to perfection, and push it forward into practical operation.
Mr. Humesaid, that it was true every inventor thought that his own discovery was of the first importance to himself and the nation, and perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be right in opposing such a claim as at first sight that appeared to be. But it was, however, a case which possessed peculiarly strong claims upon their sympathy. Sir William Congreve had got 1,200 l. a-year for the invention of rockets; and with that fact before them he thought that they might feel themselves justified in compensating the author of an invention certainly not less useful to the public. With respect to the details upon which the claim was founded, he should say that he never heard a case so well supported by the evidence as that had been. Every individual who had any experience with respect to the consumption of paper and the expenditure attendant upon it, had borne testimony to the vast importance and advantage of that invention. He thought that her Majesty's Government ought to take the case into consideration, particularly as from the time of life at which the Messrs. Fourdrinier had arrived, it was not probable they would be long a burthen upon the public.
Sir R. Peel:—Sir, I regret that her Majesty's Government have not pursued another course with respect to the claim which is now before us. The constitution has wisely given to the Government the sole power of deciding in such cases as to whether any claim of this description shall be admitted or not; and, no matter how the House of Commons may decide, the veto lies with them. If, in every case where any invention was made, calculated to diminish human pain or labour, or to advance science, the claims of those who were the inventors should be brought under discussion, and recompense granted, the Government would establish precedents that might ultimately be found productive of great difficulty; but, on the other band, if this case be found to be one which, from its peculiar merits, is not calculated to produce the evils which might result from a bad precedent—if it should appear that it is an extraordinary exemption of that description—the Government have the power to grant the compensation claimed. I think, however, that bringing this case before the House for discussion, at a period when her Majesty's Government have not made up their minds as to whether compensation should be granted or not, is calculated rather to embarrass them in its further consideration, and raise hopes in the minds of the claimants which may not ultimately be fulfilled. In such a discussion, where there is a claim before the House upon the part of a person who may be possessed of great ingenuity, and who may also be suffering from the pressure of poverty, when it is no party question, the natural sympathies of the House will be found in favour of the claim, and the majority will be found to vote for compensation. Persons are naturally inclined to lend support to one who is represented as suffering disasters consequent upon his exertions to bring forward an ingenious invention, and it is on that account that the constitution has given to the Government the decision of those claims for compensation. Public sympathy will in general be found to support such claims and I venture to state that I could bring forward one hundred similar cases where the sympathies of the majority in this House would be entirely in favour of the claimants for compensation. Persons are naturally literal towards those possessed of ingenuity. The public purse is very
518
deep; but, although it can afford to grant rewards for inventions or discoveries which have a tendency to benefit the public, that does not supply a sufficient reason why we should establish the precedent of leading inventors to hope for reward from any other source than the success of their inventions. I object to this discussion before the minds of her Majesty's Government are made up with respect to the admission or rejection of the application; for if the House should decide in favour of compensation, it is clear that the Government will scarcely have a fair discretion left to them. If they do not concur with the decision of the House, then it is equally clear that the discussion is entirely thrown away. If they were acquainted with the merits of the case, why did they not come to some decision upon it, instead of permitting it to be discussed in this House with such imperfect information as must necessarily exist, where some hon. Members merely recollect the circumstances and others are unacquainted with it? Why did they not avail themselves of the assistance which they could easily command in order to enable them to come to a decision upon it, instead of allowing it to be discussed here; for it is manifest that the difficulties of the case will be greatly increased, so far as the Government are concerned, if they should feel it necessary to act in opposition to the determination which the House of Commons may come to. It appears that these gentlemen were engaged in a profitable trade in 1800 and 1801; in 1800 their profits amounted to 14,000 l., in 1801 to 14,215 l., but in 1802 they only amounted to 4,000 l., in consequence of the withdrawal of capital from their business for the purpose of pushing forward an invention. I regret that persons engaged in so profitable a business did not give better consideration to the subject before they withdrew their capital from it for the purpose of carrying out that invention. The other cause of loss which has been assigned is some technical objection which was made before the Court of Queen's Bench. I regret that this loss should have taken place, but if these grounds be adduced as the reason for our granting compensation, I must say that a thousand cases equally strong might be brought before us by inventors. We cannot establish such a precedent, no matter how great the skill or ingenuity displayed, of making the

519
public the paymasters for those inventions, notwithstanding the public may receive benefit from them. There are hundreds of cases which might be adduced where great advantage has been conferred upon the public without a corresponding benefit to the inventors; for instance, surgeons who have not succeeded in business, although they might have made discoveries which vastly diminished the amount of human suffering. I should regret as much as any one, that such deserving individuals should not receive a benefit in some degree proportioned to that which they might have conferred upon the public, but I could not permit my sympathy with individual loss to overbear the public interest. It would be better, if the Government wished to grant those gentlemen some reward, that they appointed them to offices in the Excise, or some similar office, than that they should establish such a precedent. I do not blame the Government for not having done this; but I merely say that it would be a better mode of granting them a reward for this invention, or a compensation for their loss. There have been thousands of cases in the navy and various other departments, where, as I before remarked, great public benefits have been conferred without a corresponding advantage to the inventor; and we could not grant compensation in this case, without opening the way to those other individuals who were not successful in their inventions. There are numerous inventions made by artisans in a low situation to which these observations would equally apply, and by voting compensation in the case now before us we shall merely establish a precedent for those applications. It is extremely painful to be obliged to oppose a claim with which we cannot but have sympathy, but in such cases our better feelings are often opposed by our sense of public duty; and I must again say, that there are numerous other cases, perhaps not so strong as this, to which, by granting the compensation now applied for, we should suffer our sympathy with individual loss to overbear the public interest. The same may be said of inventions connected with the navy, where the inventors have, from some cause or other, not received the rewards of their ingenuity.
Sir Robert Inglis,agreeing with his right hon. Friend who had just sat down,
520
as to the easiness of being liberal at the public expense, believed that there was no danger of any improper precedent being established by granting compensation in the present case. Only one similar case had occurred within the last thirty years, and if there really existed the danger imagined by his right hon. Friend, it was extraordinary such a period should have elapsed without any such application. He believed that these gentlemen had a claim on the justice of the House for compensation, as they had contributed largely to the increase of the public revenue at a great loss to themselves, and he could not concur in the course taken by his right hon. Friend. He did not think his right hon. Friend would have objected to the vote if the Government themselves had proposed it. He understood his right hon. Friend to object to the grant, because it was one of those cases which might be brought forward hereafter to compel the Government to yield a similar grant. If that were so, he (Sir R. Inglis) hoped his right hon. Friend would not suffer this case to be prejudiced merely because her Majesty's Ministers had not taken the precise mode of bringing the case before the House which they ought to have taken. He hoped that such compensation would be given to the Messrs. Fourdrinier as their invention deserved.
Mr. Godsonsaid, that in the year 1800 the Messrs. Fourdrinier were worth £.14,000 a-year. They had applied a portion of their capital for the purpose of introducing this machinery and making improvements. Owing to this they found they were opposed by all the paper manufacturers in the kingdom; and it was not one law suit, it was nearly one hundred which they were obliged to bring for the purpose of enforcing their rights. The House would see that no individual, however rich, could stand a combination such as this. In 1807 they found that by courts of law to protect their rights and other proceedings they were £.60,000 out of pocket. In 1807 they became bankrupts, and the assignees determined to go on with the actions; they recovered a verdict; and on a motion for a new trial, the Lord Chief Justice said, that as the patent was for making paper from 30 to 40 feet long, and from 3 to 12 feet wide, the machine which was produced in Court could not effect that; so that they were ruined, not from a defect

521
in their patent, but from a want of mechanical knowledge in the Chief Justice, for had they had property sufficient to have gone to a new trial, they would have proved that a combination of those machines was capable of making paper in the manner described. He thought that the better way to consider this case was, to suppose that there was no patent at all, and to suppose that an individual had introduced an invention by which the Government in the consumption of paper in the Stationery-office saved £.15,000 a-year. The ingenuity of the invention was so great that felt for the preservation of ships' bottoms might be made by it. Teaboards and many other articles might also be made by the same machinery. Then, what was the principle on which they were asked to reward this ingenuity? Putting the question of the patent out of consideration, they had an invention by which it was admitted that they were enabled to have paper of any size, and by which they obtained also many other advantages. If the House at any other time were right in granting a reward, they would be right in granting one in this instance; but if they wished to establish a precedent that they were never to grant another reward, then he could understand their position.
Mr. Pryme,as a member of the committee, begged to offer his testimony to the extraordinary merits of the invention. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be induced to reward it.
Mr. H. G. Knightsaid, one important thing to consider was, that the unfortunate inventor had in this case been ruined by protecting the invention. He hoped that on this occasion the House would attend to the application.
Mr. D. Macleansaid, he had been on the committee, and had heard sufficient to be convinced that this would be a most worthy exception to the general rule, and a very proper occasion on which to make a grant. He would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it were not a claim to be taken into consideration. He did think, that if there ever were a case on which to set up a precedent of justice, this was a case. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow them to go into committee, after the general expression they had heard in favour of the grant.
The Chancellorof the Exchequer hoped
522
the hon. Member would withdraw the motion. He fully concurred in the general principle laid down by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel). He thought this was a very peculiar case, bearing on the whole manufacturing industry of the country in various branches of manufacture; and he thought it was not too much to ask, on the part of the Government, before they finally made up their minds, that they should hear evidence on both sides, and other evidence besides ex parte evidence. He was anxious that they should have the opportunity of hearing both sides.
Mr. Mackinnon,in compliance with the feeling of the House would withdraw the motion, being perfectly satisfied with the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would take the case into consideration.
Motion withdrawn.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.—DAVID JONES.
Mr. Hawessaid, that he thought it his duty to bring under discussion in that House a petition which he had had the honour to present a few weeks ago from a poor tradesman, who was confined in gaol under the authority, or, he should rather say, in consequence of the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. In bringing a motion of this sort before the House, involving, as perhaps it would involve, the mention of the names of individuals of some station in the country, he wished while he did not in the slightest degree shrink from stating the facts, and expressing his opinions on those facts, to state those facts accurately, and to express his feelings and opinions without committing any personal offence. If he were correctly informed, if the facts stated in the petition were true, a more flagrant case of oppression had scarcely ever been brought before the notice of the House of Commons; and although it might be difficult to deal with individual cases, or to offer compensation or reparation for the wrong or injury, that might have been sustained, at least the discussion would have this effect, that it would direct the eyes of the public to the course of proceedings of those Ecclesiastical Courts, and if it did not ultimately remove them, it would in all probability materially temper and influence the exercise of their power. In the first place, then, he would state the

523
facts of the petition; he would then draw the attention of the House to a similar case of oppression arising out of a suit instituted by the same individual, and he should then call the attention of the House very briefly to the report of the commissioners on Ecclesiastical Courts, with a view to justify his motion. The petitioner in this case was a man in a very humble station in life; and on that account, having neither name, nor family, nor fortune to back him against oppression, had only to look to the sympathy of that House, and he therefore trusted, that the Members who were present would feel it their duty to support his present motion. The petitioner, whose name was David Jones, was at this moment a prisoner in Carmarthen gaol; he was a weaver, and was of a persuasion that was exceedingly obnoxious and offensive to persons entertaining what were called orthodox opinions; he was a poor man and an Unitarian. He resided for many years at Llanon, in the county of Carmarthen, and in 1837 was elected Churchwarden. Conjointly with him a man of considerable wealth and consequence was also elected, and he wished to impress upon the House the difference with which these two persons were treated. In the same year in which the petitioner was elected, Mr. Rhys Goring Thomas was appointed vicar's Churchwarden, by the vicar, the rev. Ebenezer Morris. Mr. Thomas never attended Church, he never discharged any duty of Churchwarden, and yet he was never cited into the Ecclesiastical Courts to account for his neglect of duty. The petitioner, after his appointment as Churchwarden, called a vestry. That vestry was called to make a Church-rate. About twenty-five persons attended the meeting; a question of adjournment was moved and successfully carried, so that this individual endeavoured to do his duty; he endeavoured to get a Church-rate; he failed by the decision of the parishioners in vestry assembled, and he now asked the House to attend to the steps taken by the Minister of peace and charity against this poor man. The first thing done by this clergyman, who, if he was not a Minister of peace, was a Minister of the Church of England, and a pluralist, was to send to the petitioner on the 25th of May a written notice to provide bread and wine for the sacrament, to which the petitioner on the 11th of June
524
replied, that he had no funds out of which to procure them, and that he was too poor to provide them at his own cost. Upon this, the petitioner was cited into the Ecclesiastical Courts, and proceedings were commenced against him, to which proceedings he would presently allude. The result was, that the petitioner was condemned for contumacy, and by a process issued by the Court of Queen's Bench, the petitioner was arrested for the debt and costs, and was incarcerated in the gaol at Carmarthen, where at that hour he remained. In order to show to the House the nature of the proceedings, that had been taken against the petitioner he had thought it right to ask for the best legal authority he could obtain, and he was fortunate enough to obtain the opinion of two most eminent civilians; and he hoped, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir S. Lushington) was present, for he was sure his hon. and learned Friend would bear his testimony, that there were not two more eminent men in their part of the profession than Dr. Addams and Dr. Haggard. He had obtained the opinions of those eminent men, and he would first read the opinion of Dr. Addams, upon the articles that had been exhibited against the petitioner in the Consistorial Court. The following was the answer of Dr. Addams:—
"The only answer required to these articles is a negative issue on the part of the defendant. The promovent is then put on proof of the articles, and must make such proof of them as he best can. The articles themselves are absurd, and their admission should have been opposed on the part of the defendant. As it now stands, all that the defendant can do is to cross-examine promovent's witnesses, if he thinks fit; and when their examinations are concluded, should it be necessary, to file a defensive plea. If the defendant can prove by cross-examining the witnesses of the prodmovent the necessary facts to his defence (especially that he, the defendant, called a vestry, which vestry refused a rate), it may be unnecessary for him to plead, otherwise he must file at the proper time a defensive plea. I think the promovent's case untenable, and his proceeding unwarrantable on the face of it; and unless the cause is mismanaged on the behalf of the defendant, the final issue must, I think, be the dismissal of the defendant with his full costs."
The case did proceed, and the court did not come to the result which was an-anticipated by Dr. Addams; and here he

525
begged to say that he should have a few words to address to them respecting the competency and disinterestedness of the judges of those courts; but he would now proceed to read the opinion of Dr. Haggard, which was as follows:—
"I am of opinion that the articles are not proved; and that the defendant, upon the evidence sent herewith, is entitled to his dismissal. It would have been as well to have established that the defendant is in a humble condition of life, and that the incumbent's warden had not qualified; hut these circumstances appear to me not sufficient to induce me to advise his proctor to plead, and I recommend him to decline pleading, and to submit that the case is not proved, and that the defendant should be dismissed with his costs. The proceeding is but little calculated to assist the question of diocesan jurisdiction, and will, in my opinion, on an appeal, make but a very sorry appearance. Should, however, the defendant be sentenced against, it would, I think, be proper to consider whether he should not appeal; but I trust that the case will be dismissed."
With all these circumstances, that there should be a tribunal possessing these powers, that the law should be intrusted to such hands, and that a court should proceed to incarcerate a man and keep him in prison for months, appeared to him to be the most flagrant case he had ever heard. He must say, seeing that the abolition of the jurisdiction of these courts had been long before the House in a report made by commissioners, of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman, (Sir N. Lushington), was one, that it reflected no credit upon a reformed Government that they should have allowed the question to remain still unsettled. If this were a solitary case he might, perhaps be scarcely justified in doing more than placing the petition upon the Table of the House and calling the public attention to it; but this was not the only instance in which the rev. Gentleman in question, meek and charitable no doubt, had distinguished himself in a similar manner. A respectable farmer, a person farming to the amount of two hundred acres of land, had also been treated in a similar manner by the same prosecutor. This rev. Gentleman, Mr. Morris, was also vicar of Llanelly, where it was the custom to elect one churchwarden, who was called the vicar's churchwarden. Mr. James, a dissenter of the Independent persuasion, was elected to the office of churchwarden by the parish. In this case it was understood that Mr. James
526
was not to act differently from his predecessors; whereas, in fact, he did do more than many who preceded him in that office, and rendered some useful services to the parish. In the meantime, in 1837, the general election took place. Mr. James fancying he had a right to vote as he pleased, gave his support to Sir J. Williams. The vicar, however, happened to be a warm partisan of the Tory candidate, and gave his strenuous opposition to Sir J. Williams. After a year of his office had expired, Mr. James was cited before the Ecclesiastical Court of St. David, by the rev. E. Morris, Mr. James being a dissenter, and known to be such when elected to his office; he was cited for absenting himself for several Sundays from church. He was cited; the case proceeded, and eventually he was condemned and cast in costs, and, as he did not choose to pay them, he was committed to gaol. [An hon. Member: Is that circumstance mentioned in the petition.] There was no petition in this case, but he thought he was entitled to speak of an individual case of oppression without a petition, and from his own personal knowledge he could vouch for the correctness of the facts he mentioned. The judge of the court before which Mr. James was cited was the rev. James Orchard Williams, a rural dean and surrogate, and also the editor of the Tory Carmarthen journal. So that in this case here was the prosecutor, a clergyman and a Tory partisan, and the judge who condemned him also a clergyman and a Tory partisan. In the year 1812 Lord Folkestone presented a petition to this House, complaining of a case of oppression very similar to the present, the circumstances of which were these:—Two women of whom the petitioner was one, fell out and abused each other in the street. In consequence of some expressions made use of by the petitioner her opponent instituted a suit against her in the Ecclesiastical Court, and at the end of a year she was sentenced to perform penance. Having failed in this, she was ultimately excommunicated. A process was afterwards issued out of the Court of King's Bench, under which she was arrested, and for two years she continued a prisoner in the gaol at Bristol. The petitioner was a pauper, and her father, who was also a pauper, supported her in prison, being assisted therein by several charitable individuals. Now, he

527
always thought that the union between the Church and the State was prejudicial to the Church, and he must say, that he thought such proceedings as those he had detailed would be most likely to strengthen that opinion in the minds of others, who did not at present entertain this view so strongly as he did. He was aware that this House could not come forward to liberate a man who was imprisoned for a debt; all they could do now was to send forth such an expression of opinion upon the subject as should put an end to such proceedings as these for the future. The prayer of the petitioner was only this—that "his sufferings might not be inflicted upon others, and that an end should be put to this odious jurisdiction," In 1830 a commission was appointed to inquire on this subject, and the recommendation of that commission was as nearly as possible the same as the resolution which he (Mr. Hawes) was now about to move. He wished it to be observed also that this report had the sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and several other eminent authorities, including his right hon. and learned Friend below him (Sir S. Lushington). One single recommendation of this commission had only been adopted, namely, that of transferring the jurisdiction of the delegates to the Privy Council. When he looked to the number and variety of the ecclesiastical courts, he thought that the House would see the propriety of taking the subject into its consideration with the least possible delay. Besides the ordinary ecclesiastical courts, including the provincial courts of Canterbury and York, there were peculiar courts of various descriptions in most dioceses, and in some they were very numerous—Royal, Archiepiscopal, Episcopal, Deaconal, Sub-Deaconal, Prebendal, Rectorial and Vicarial. These peculiar jurisdictions in England and Wales amounted in number to 300. It appeared further from the report that in some cases these jurisdictions extended over large tracts of country, embracing many towns and parishes. In others several places might be comprehended, lying at a great distance apart from each other. Again, some included only one or two parishes. The jurisdiction exercised in these different courts was not defined by any general law. It was often extremely difficult to ascertain over what description a causes the jurisdiction of any particular
528
court operated, and much inconvenience resulted from this uncertainty. In the majority of the peculiar courts, and perhaps in all there neither were, nor could be, efficient and experienced judges, officers, advocates, or practitioners, the emoluments being too small, and the number of cases too few, to ensure those requisites for the due administration of justice. The consequence was, that no confidence was reposed in these tribunals; and delay arose, and expense was incurred in applying for letters of request, and in resorting to other means of escaping the jurisdiction. In some cases, too, the grievance was enhanced by the multiplication of appeals. In 1812, when the case he had referred to was brought before the House, the opinions which were then pronounced with respect to these Courts, were supported by Sir S. Romilly and many other eminent authorities; and Sir W. Scott (Lord Stowell) brought in a bill, which passed the House of Commons, for the purpose of putting the inferior Ecclesiastical Courts under the higher provincial Courts. He considered this subject was one of the greatest importance. When they saw clergymen acting everywhere as political partisans, and also acting as judges, and invested with the means of perpetually examining into matters of conscience of individuals, and persecuting them for their religious opinions—when they saw the Church prostituted to such miserable and contemptible objects, if there was one thing more than another, that could bring discredit and weakness upon that Establishment, it was, that a state of things such as he had described should be allowed to continue. The House of Commons had come forward the other night to pass a vote in approval of the conduct of Ministers in vindicating and protecting the principles of religious liberty in Ireland; he could only now hope, that the same protection would be extended over the rights of conscience of the people of England also. He trusted, that the House, by its vote this evening, would give an earnest of its willingness, when a gross case of oppression was brought before it, not to be backward in affording all the redress in its power. He should conclude by moving a resolution, "that, in conformity with the recommendation of the Commissioners on Ecclesiastical Courts in England and Wales, this House is of opinion, that the jurisdic-

529
tion of the inferior Ecclesiastical Courts should be abolished without delay."
Mr. Prymerose to say, that he could not assent to the motion. He would admit, that the case made out was one of great hardship; but he hardly thought it a sufficient reason for abolishing courts that might have other functions and powers which were exercised beneficially. He was adverse to every case being brought up to the metropolis, inconvenient and expensive as it might be to the parties concerned; and although there might be some points on which most hon. Members would say these courts ought to be abolished, yet he thought, that instead of that being done, it might be better to modify them, and would therefore suggest an amendment to that effect.
Mr. W. O. Stanleyobserved, that he considered this a case of oppression, and that the poor man had here suffered for the neglect of the rich. If any part of the statements which had been made by the hon. Member for Lambeth were questioned, he had the proofs of their correctness in his possession. He would put it to those who had regard for the Church to say, whether that power should not be abolished which was tyrannically exercised. He hoped the House would use its utmost endeavours to purge the Church from abuse.
Mr. John Jonessaid, that he was a personal friend of the clergyman, Mr. 'Ebenezer Morris, and of the other gentlemen who had acted as the judges on this occasion, but he knew nothing of Mr. James, who had been mentioned, and he had therefore some right to complain, though if he had been aware that such a case would have been brought forward he had no doubt he should have been able to give a satisfactory answer to it. With respect to the resolution, he was of opinion that it went too far, and that it was based on a very weak foundation. The courts in question might require some alteration, but that he would leave to the Ministers of the Crown. The petitioner, Mr. Jones, had gone further than the hon. Member for Lambeth, for he had called on the House to abolish all inferior ecclesiastical courts; and this, he supposed, was, because Mr. Jones was in prison; but the hon. Member had not expressed such a wish, acting no doubt out of respect to the constituents of his borough. Now, if these courts were abolished, where, he
530
would ask, were persons to go to prove wills and obtain letters of administration? Were they all to come to London? In a volume to which he would then refer, and which was called The Welch Levites tossed in a Blanket, he found, that in 1691 the Welch clergy had been made the subject of attack, and that it was said, that bishops' courts, fiddles, and gingerbread were an abomination, and ought to be put down. The petitioner prayed the House to grant him such relief in the premises as they should think meet, and he conceived this to be, that the House should pay the money and take him out of gaol. It had been stated and admitted, that Mr. Jones was a Dissenter, but by a statute of William the 3rd. Dissenters were exempt from the office of churchwarden if they thought fit to claim it.—[Sir S. Lushington: Or by substitution.]—Yes; or by substitution. In this case, however, Mr. Jones did not claim the exemption, but took the oath of office as churchwarden at Carmarthen. The gravamen of the charge appeared to be, that another churchwarden had been named with him, who had not been called on to do any duty whatever. Mr. Rhys Goring Thomas was the patron of the living held by Mr. Ebenezer Morris, and having gone down to reside in the parish, had been nominated as the clergyman's churchwarden. Immediately upon this, circumstances of an important nature had called him up to London, and had kept him here during the whole of last year, and indeed up to the present time: Mr. Jones was perfectly aware of that, but had never complained of it; and was, perhaps, rather glad of it, as it enabled him to act without the interference of another churchwarden. That statement would, he thought do away with all idea of any blame attaching to Mr. Morris. With regard to election matters, would the House believe, that this man (Mr. Jones) had been called on to provide the sacramental bread and wine before William the 4th was even taken ill? Mr. Morris was an excellent clergyman, passing rich, with about 200 l. per annum; he held the largest parish in Carmarthen, preached four sermons every Sunday, two in Welch and two in English, and gave up all he received from this parish to a worthy curate, who had been nominated by the bishop. He held two parishes adjoining to this, and Mr. Thomas had therefore given him this living. Mr.

531
David Jones was appointed churchwarden, and a rumour was spread, that he had not prepared the sacramental bread and wine that had been considered requisite. By the 20th canon of the Church, churchwardens were required to provide against the time of the communion, with the advice of the minister, good sacramental bread and wine, and if it were said, that these canons were not a part of the law of the land, he would say in answer thereto, that by a statute of Elizabeth, and another of Charles the 2d., they had been made such. Jones was at the time well aware, that the arrears of church rate then due, and which he could have collected if he pleased, were more than sufficient to provide for the sacramental bread and wine, but he neglected to collect them, and neglected also to provide the requisite bread and wine. Mr. Morris, finding that the churchwarden neglected this, and unwilling that any interruption should be made of the sacred service, provided the bread and wine himself, but sent a letter to David Jones noticing his neglect, and requesting that a similar omission might not occur. No notice having been taken of this communication, a written notice was sent requiring him to attend at a vestry He did not attend, but it could be proved, that on the same day he came to an alehouse near the Church, and there he used such obscene, profane, and blasphemous language, applying to the sacred elements, as he would not pollute the ears of the House or his own lips by repeating. Mr. Morris then did what he considered his duty—he cited him to appear in the Ecclesiastical Court, and at the same time it was intimated to him, that if he did appear and promised to behave better, no further proceedings would be taken, and he should not have any costs to pay. He did not comply with this advice, but went on to fight the battle out in every way he could, and he was cast. He was then called on to pay costs, and for non-payment he was sent to prison. The hon. Member for Lambeth had said this poor man was incarcerated for not paying costs, amounting to about 80 l. Now, perhaps, the falsehood of one of the petitioner's statements might shake the faith of the hon. Member in the others. So far from the costs being 80 l., the feet was, that they were under 30 l. And for refusing to pay these, which he had voluntarily
532
and unnecessarily incurred, he now called on the House for redress—that was, of course, that he should be discharged from the consequences of his contempt. See what a precedent would be established, if the House should go as far out of its way as to comply with the prayer of the petitioner. The Table would be covered with applications from persons in all parts of the kingdom, who were detained for contempts of court. It was urged by the hon. Member for Lambeth, that a clergyman, the rev. Mr. D. A. Williams, was the judge of the court in which the case was tried, and that he was also the editor of the Carmarthen Tory journal. Now, it was true, that a clergyman was the judge, but he was assisted by a legal assessor: but it was utterly untrue that Mr. D. A. Williams was the editor of the Carmarthen or any other journal. The facts of the case then were simply as he had detailed them to the House—that this Mr. David Jones had taken on himself the office of church-warden when he might, if he claimed it, have been excused or allowed to serve by deputy; that he voluntarily took the oath faithfully to discharge its duties; that he willfully neglected those duties; that he was cited in court, and refused to appear; and that at length he went on and put the rev. Mr. Morris to very considerable expense and then, when called upon to pay the costs, he said he would go to prison rather than pay them. Could any one who heard those statements—and he could prove them all at the Bar of that House or elsewhere, if necessary—doubt that this man Jones was a willing martyr on this occasion; that his object was, that notoriety which might probably be followed up by a public subscription among the Dissenters, and perhaps by a public dinner? He had felt it necessary to make this statement as an act of justice to his respected friends Mr. Morris and Mr. Thomas, who were, as all who had the pleasure of knowing them could testify, men of high and as pure character as were to be found in the country.
Mr. W. Ellissaid, that there were many excellent and most conscientious men amongst the Dissenters, who would prefer going to prison to paying anything towards Church-rates, and that great allowance should be made for their conscientious scruples. The House should bear in mind the valuable services rendered to the country by Dissenters, by the excellent

533
instruction which they gave to a large portion of the people when that duty was neglected by those who should have attended to it. Any one who recollected what was the state of religious instruction in the country about thirty years ago must be aware of the good done by the Dissenters since then. The cases cited that evening were not the only ones which could be metioned of persons preferring to go to prison rather than pay Church-rates. There were several he knew amongst his constituents who were disposed to take the former alternative.
Viscount Dungannonsaid, that there could be no stronger proof of the justice of that old adage, "audi alteram partem," than had been afforded by the present discussion. Here was a case put forth by the hon. Member (Mr. Hawes) as one of gross oppression of a poor man by a clergyman of the Established Church in Carmarthen, but when the other side was presented to the House, the outrageous part of it changed sides, and it was shown, that the conduct of the petitioner, David Jones, was such, that the punishment which he of his own accord endured was not beyond his demerits. Occasion was taken from this case to allude to the clergy of the Established Church as political partisans. He denied the charge as applicable to that body, but it might have been applicable to the Dissenting clergy, or to the Roman Catholic priesthoood. In the present case, he would contend that the rev. Mr. Morris had done no more than his duty. David Jones, it was evident from the facts of the case as detailed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, was the sole aggressor in the affair; that his object in this willing martyrdom was evidently the love of notoriety. He would have remained unnoticed and unknown if some hon. Members, who were glad to avail themselves of every opportunity of saying something against the Established Church, had not brought his case before the House and the public. As to the case of Mr. James, his hon. Friend, the Member for Carmarthen, had not adverted to it, because he had received no notice that any mention would have been made of it. If he had had such notice, it was probable that he would have been able to give as satisfactory an answer to it as he had to that of Mr. Morris—the rich pluralist, as he had been described, with a living of 200 l., in a pariah in which he had to preach four
534
times every Sunday—twice in English and twice in Welsh. Then great stress had been laid on the distinction made between the poor church-warden, who it was said, tried to discharge the duties of his office, and the rich one, who neglected them altogether; but the fact turned out that the rich churchwarden (Mr. Thomas) was prevented by domestic affairs from attending in the parish during his year of office; and yet this was the foundation for the charge of the persecution of the poor man. He repeated that there was no persecution in the case. Jones undertook the office voluntarily. He took a solemn oath to discharge its duties faithfully; but from Jones's subsequent conduct, it was his belief, that he took that oath with the premeditated intention of violating it. What other inference could Abe drawn from the obscene and blasphemous language which he used at the alehouse when speaking of the sacramental elements? Was it fair in the hon. Member for Lambeth to bring forward charges such as those he had stated without inquiry? or would the lion. Member say that he had made inquiry into them before bringing them under the consideration of the House? Did he make any inquiry of Mr. Morris before he preferred such charges against him? No man, he contended, had a right to make a public charge of such a nature against another until he had satisfied himself by strict inquiry that the allegations were founded on something better than merely probable evidence. What would be said by some hon. Members opposite if charges were brought forward here against a Roman Catholic clergyman? Would it not be said that it would be unjust to bring them without previous inquiry as to their probable foundation? He would say the same for the clergy of the Established Church. He did not say that hon. Members opposite intended to bring charges which they believed to be unfounded, but he would say, that there existed a disposition to catch at anything which would bear against the clergy of the Established Church. The clergy, however, would rise triumphant over such attacks. The clergy of the Established Church derived their influence from the respect which followed the conscientious discharge of their duties, and he had yet to learn that any of them had ever exercised that influence in an unjustifiable manner. He must say that even

535
if the case brought forward against Mr. Ebenezer Morris had been ten times worse than it was, it would have been most unjust on that account to designate the clergy generally as political partisans. But it was evident that he had been attacked without sufficient reason, and never was the old adage of "audi alteram partem" more necessary to be borne in mind than on the present occasion.
Sir S. Lushingtonsaid that, as he had been appealed to from the other side of the House, he felt bound to offer a few obervations on the subject under discussion. In doing so, however, it was his intention to deal with both parties to the question with somewhat less of virulence and heat, and more of temper and moderation, than characterised the speech of the noble Lord who had just spoken. And he could not help thinking that anything but concord was the result most likely to be produced by the mode of arguing the question adopted by the noble Lord, condemnatory as it was of the conduct of the entire body of the Dissenters. Before, however, he proceeded to the case at issue he felt it to be his duty to set forth as briefly as possible what had been done by the ecclesiastical commissioners in the matter relative to the Courts in question. The ecclesiastical commission, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury was at the head, had after mature consideration come to the resolution that the whole of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts which had any thing in it of a criminal nature, as in contradistinction to its civil jurisdiction, should be utterly and entirely abolished; that was, that the power of adjudicating on such issues as that which gave rise to the case before the House should be altogether taken away from these Courts, inferior and superior as they were without exception. If that resolution had been carried into effect the House would have escaped the case before it, as it was one of those comprised in the class of cases comprehended in that objectionable jurisdiction. In addition to this, another cause of their abolition existed in their number and the diversity of the practice which obtained in them. There were upwards of 360 of them in all, and each had generally a distinct system of administering the ecclesiastical law. It was, therefore, recommended that they should be abolished, and the jurisdiction left remaining to the Ecclesiastical Courts
536
vested in the Prerogative Court at Canterbury. On that occasion the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge had disagreed with him as to the propriety of adopting that resolution, on the ground that to carry it into effect it would cost the country too much; but he differed from the hon. and learned Member altogether on that point, as he did not believe it would cost the country sixpence, while he was decidedly of opinion that it would greatly benefit the public. On the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners being made in 1832 nothing was done in the case, because the House was then occupied with the consideration of the Reform Bill. In 1834, however, a Bill founded on the report was introduced to the House, but, receiving a strong opposition from several influential quarters, it did not pass in consequence. In 1835 Sir Robert Peel again introduced a Bill to the House, almost the same as the preceding, with the exception of some slight modifications; but it fell through in consequence of his relinquishment of the Government shortly after. It was introduced again by the succeeding Administration, but it did not pass. So it remained for another year. In 1837, however, the Lord Chancellor introduced a measure of the same nature into the House of Lords, and a select committee sat on it for upwards of ten weeks. The result of the labours of this committee was a report which the House of Lords adopted. That report stated the objections of the House to the bill, and required certain alterations to be made in it before it could be permitted to pass. He (Sir S. Lushington) should not pronounce any opinion upon the nature of these alterations at the present, but simply state that such was the fact. Since then, nothing had been done in regard to the question, but he (Sir S. Lushington) had it on the authority of her Majesty's Ministers that a bill on the subject would be shortly introduced into that House. It might be asked, why it had not been done before? The reason, as he had been informed, was, that a Bill called the Clergy Discipline Bill had been passed last year in that House, and thrown out in the House of Lords; that it was considered essential to the proper working of the other measure that this Bill should first become law; that that Bill would be again introduced to the House very shortly; and that when it should have so passed

537
into a law, the Bill for the regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts, as modified by the House of Lords, would then be introduced to the House of Commons by the Government. So much for the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the measures founded on it. He would next proceed to the facts of the case under discussion. He would take the case of David Jones, and the facts connected with it, without reference to one side or the other, but solely on their own merits. It appeared that this person was chosen to serve the office of churchwarden; and there was no doubt that, according to the statute quoted by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, he had the right to excuse himself on the ground of being a Dissenter, and a power to serve by Deputy. But, then, that remedy might also be ineffective for him, as a deputy, in most cases could not be obtained without the payment of a considerable sum of money. That David Jones took the churchwarden's oath, he (Sir S. Lushington) did not mean to question, neither did he intend to deny that he was unquestionably bound to adhere to it; but he certainly could not admit the allegation of the noble Lord on the other side of the House, that it had been taken by him with a full knowledge of the duties attached to the office, or with the manifest intention of violating it. He declined to provide the sacramental elements; and the prosecution complained of then took place. That it was his duty to provide them, there could be no doubt, if he had funds for the purpose, neither could there be any doubt that it was his duty to call a vestry for the purpose of providing them, and to collect outstanding arrears of rate also to that effect. But still he considered the prosecution was wrong, because it was most injudicious, as between a clergyman of the Church of England and a Dissenter. The hon. Member for Carmarthen had made out a strong case for the rev. Mr. Morris, and, as a consequence, against David Jones; but he had seen the whole of the papers connected with the original suit, which had been laid before Dr. Addams and Sir Herbert Jenner, purporting to contain the entire proceedings in question; and he was not at all of opinion that they sustained the case made out by the hon. Member. There was a very great difference between what was stated by that hon. Gentleman and what was stated in the pro-
538
ceedings taken into the superior Ecclesiastical Court. In fact, they were two different cases, and without coincidence. But laying that fact aside, and meeting the case on the hon. Member's own showing, Mr. Morris was not, in his opinion, justified in instituting the prosecution, simply because David Jones had gone to a public-house near the church, and made use of bad language in reference to the sacramental elements. That was, properly, no part in the proceedings. When, however, he (Sir S. Lushington) saw a man incarcerated who should not be so—and when he saw the administration of justice in the court which condemned him to it so imperfect—the practitioners in it being so ignorant as not to know that an appeal lay from its decision—he felt heartily desirous of removing that blotch altogether from the judicial system of the country. The hon. Member for Leicester had spoken of a man committed to Chelmsford gaol for five years by the Ecclesiastical Court in London. It was he who sentenced that man; he regretted it, but he could not help it. He put it off as long as possible, but he had to do his duty at last. He regretted it; but his answer to all attacks on him for it was, "Amend the law." He was not on the bench to make laws, but to administer them. "Amend the law," he would say—give the jurisdiction of the inferior courts to the superior—and, above all, abolish the power of personal arrest, replacing it, if necessary, with a power of levying a distress upon the goods and chattels of the party. He would ask the House to reform the law for three reasons—first, for the sake of justice; secondly, for the sake of their own character; and, lastly, for the sake of that which every well-regulated Government should have nearest and dearest to their hearts—the appeasement of the bitterness of that religious dissension, which day after day disgraced and debased the discussions of Parliament. It was a practice most injurious to the welfare of the Established Church which had grown up of late, the system of setting up a bar to all improvement in its constitution, and thus laying it bare to the obloquy of the public.
Sir C. Burrelldenied, that the clergy of the Established Church stood in the way of improvement, for, on the contrary, they had ever manifested a spirit of the greatest liberality in regard to mea-

539
sures likely to promote the welfare and prosperity of the people. In regard to the manner in which they discharged their duties, he was bound in justice to say, that there was no class of men who exhibited a more anxious desire to perform their duties honestly and diligently than the clergymen of the Church of England.
Mr. O'Connellwould vote for the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, but in following that course he did not mean to impute any blame or censure to Mr. Morris. The hon. Gentleman (the Member for Lambeth) had stated two facts, which in his opinion, entitled the rev. Gentleman to whom the motion had reference to the respect of every one. The rev. gentleman was a pluralist in point of fact, but he was no pluralist in practice. He gave the whole emoluments of one of the livings which he held to the person who performed the duties, and he resided on the other, and preached regularly to his congregation four times a-day on Sunday. Such conduct was highly praiseworthy, and certainly entitled the rev. Gentleman to respect. There was one part of the statement of the hon. Member for Lambeth which he wished he could have forgotten. The hon. Gentleman had said, that Mr. David Jones had talked of the objects of reverence in the Established Church in irreligious and revolting terms. Now, Mr. Jones was not punished for that, but he ought to have been; for he could imagine nothing more unbecoming than for any individual to speak irreverently on such subjects. It was a bad habit, and he was sorry to say, was becoming every day more common. Such conduct was disgraceful, disgusting, and abominable, and could not be too severely punished. The noble Lord opposite had made strong imputations against the Roman Catholics; yet the noble Lord had stood forward as the advocate of toleration. He had, however, set so bad an example, that no one would be tempted to follow him. The noble Lord boasted of having the confidence of the clergy of Durham, and condemned the conduct of those who brought charges against absent individuals who might find no person to defend them. But had the noble Lord acted upon that principle himself? No, for the noble Lord had imputed premeditated perjury to an absent individual. Here as charity—here was Christianity? The noble Lord had admitted he knew
540
nothing of the facts; that he had never heard before even the name of the individual against whom he had made so grave and serious a charge—
Viscount Dungannonsaid, he had judged of the conduct of the individual in question by his acts.
Mr. O'Connellhad a right to be heard without interruption, and he begged that the meek and modest representative of the clergy of Durham would allow him to proceed. In regard to the motion before the House, he was of opinion that the course which had been pursued in Scotland relative to minor ecclesiastical courts ought to be adopted here. Was there any Gentleman who could vindicate the jurisdiction exercised by those courts, where the costs were enormous, where appeals would be ruinous, and where the judges had no practice to qualify them for the performance of their duties? Practice was disregarded by the judges of those courts, and yet every one was aware that practice was absolutely necessary to qualify a judge for the proper discharge of his important functions. The officers of those courts, too, were interested in the number of causes which were brought for trial, and they were also interested in increasing the amount of costs. Let the House consider that Mr. Jones, as it had been stated by the highest authority, was in gaol upon an illegal decision. He had been imprisoned against all law and all justice, and he would ask whether a stronger case could by possibility be made out for the abolition of those courts than that which had been laid before the House by the hon. Member for Lambeth? Such proceedings as had taken place in the case of Mr. Jones tended to injure religion, and it was necessary for the safety of the subject that those minor courts should be abolished.
Mr. Darbythought, if the House were to divide upon the motion of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lambeth, and if the hon. Gentleman were to carry with him a majority, that a grievous imputation would be cast upon the characters of Mr. Morris and Mr. James, and he was therefore, unwilling that the House should pursue a course so fraught with injustice. But there was another circumstance which was deserving of the consideration of the Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite had stated the cause of the delay which had taken

541
place in introducing some measure relative to the minor ecclesiastical courts, and he had also contended that reform was necessary. If, therefore, the House were to affirm the resolution of the hon. Member for Lambeth, then they would impute blame to the Government, and the vote would, in fact, be a vote of censure directed against those who had delayed to bring in a substantive motion founded upon the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Such would be the dilemma in which the House would be placed if the motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite were pressed to a division. For himself, he thought it would be highly improper to decide, on a motion of this kind, what parts of the courts to which it had reference ought to be abolished. He would not, therefore, give his support to the vote which was asked for, and he must protest against the system of making charges against absent individuals upon ex parte statements, when those individuals had no opportunity of defending themselves, and when it was only by chance that the charges could he contradicted. The hon. Member concluded by moving the previous question.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould explain, in a few words, why the resolution of the hon. Member for Lambeth did not, in his opinion, imply any censure upon the Government, or cast any reflection upon the rev. gentleman to whom allusion had so often been made. He felt great reluctance, at all times, in being called upon to decide, by a resolution of the House, on any matter affecting the private character or conduct of individuals, or in regard to any judicial proceeding, and he thought, unless the case was extreme, that it was better for that House never to adopt such a proceeding. In the present instance, however, although the hon. Member for Lambeth had introduced the name of Mr. Morris into the statement which he had made, yet the resolution before the House had no reference to the case of that individual. The House was not called upon to pass any judgment upon the conduct of that individual, and for himself he should decline giving any opinion on the transactions which had been brought under their consideration. He would assume, on the statement of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, that Mr. Morris was the best of all clergymen, and that there was no ground whatever for any imputation upon his
542
conduct. But, allowing all that, did it follow, that the rev. gentleman was a good judge also? And what was the result of the proceedings in the case before the House? They had come to a sentence which the highest legal authority in the House had pronounced to be illegal, and upon which an individual had actually been imprisoned. Surely such a fact was a strong argument for the condemnation of the system. The allusion which the hon. Member for Lambeth had made to the Rev. Mr. Morris had been complained of, but if the hon. Member had not called attention to that case, his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir S. Lushington) would not have been prepared to make the statement which he had laid before the House. But the motion itself had no reference to Mr. Morris, and the resolution which they were called upon to affirm was only in confirmation of the resolution of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that the inferior ecclesiastical courts ought to be abolished. When it was stated, that there were upwards of 300 of those courts, and when the proceedings of those courts had been shown in debate to be injurious, he should on those grounds alone have been prepared to advocate reform; but when, in addition to that, they had the authority of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in their favour, he could have no hesitation in affirming the resolution which had been moved. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that it was unfair to bring charges against absent individuals. That was an excellent maxim, and he would recommend hon. Gentlemen opposite to act upon it. They had not, however, followed the maxim lately, for there were hundreds of cases in the recent debates on Ireland in which such charges had been made. He had now to offer a few words upon the resolution. In his opinion it was simply nothing more than an affirmation of the resolution of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The delay which had taken place in carrying that resolution had been fully explained by his right hon. and learned Friend, and it was therefore unnecessary for him to offer any defence on the part of the Government. However, after the statement which had been made by his right hon. Friend as to the proceedings which were necessary to carry into effect the views of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he trusted the hon. Member for Lambeth would consent to omit the two last words of his motion—namely, "without delay." He asked for that omission, not on account of the

543
Government, but merely with a view to the convenience of the House. It would be useless to retain those words unless the hon. Member was prepared to bring in a bill at once. No one agreed more heartily than he did in the opinion, and he was led to the conclusion, by all the information that he had obtained on this subject, that the whole question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction stood in need of a thorough reform. There were two great motives for this reform; one was an amendment of the whole of the ecclesiastical judicature, and the other the taking away of the causes of dissension between Churchmen and Dissenters, which were productive not merely of scandal to the Church, but of inconvenience and prejudice to Dissenters. He was convinced, that the duties both of clergymen of the establishment and Dissenting ministers would be better discharged if they were left to pursue their respective avocations in peace, and if the causes of the present heartburnings and contentions between them were removed. On these grounds, on church grounds, as well as more general grounds, he should give his hearty concurrence to the motion of the hon. Member.
Mr. G. Knightexpressed a hope that his hon. Friend would not press his motion to a division. He hoped everybody would give him credit for having at all times protested against the indulgence of any feeling of asperity on the subject of religion in that House. But if, according to the wish of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were to entertain any hope of different sects living in peace together, those sweeping charges which were too often made by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House should not be repeated. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had attacked the clergy of Durham, speaking ironically of their meekness and modesty—
Mr. O'Connell: I spoke of the Member for Durham as the champion of the clergy.
Mr. G. Knight: Well, at all events, it was too much the practice to attack the clergy, and he thought those sweeping charges which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Lambeth against the clergy of the Church were little calculated to promote peace. It certainly appeared to him that the hon. Member for Lambeth had at least indulged in strong insinuations against the ministers
544
of the Church of England, and he should only repeat that it could not be expected that feelings of resentment would not be excited on one side of the House, if such charges and hostile feelings were not abstained from on the other.
Lord Grenville Somersetwas anxious to express the feelings he entertained on this subject, in consequence of the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the head of the ecclesiastical courts of this country. There was one point in which he fully concurred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he agreed with him in wishing to see a complete change in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the country: and he was led to adopt that desire by the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had made a declaration of his opinion upon an ex parte statement; upon a statement which had been submitted to the counsel engaged by one of the parties only interested in this matter, he never having seen the statement on the other side. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had seen the proceedings submitted for the opinion of Dr. Addams, and on that statement had expressed a decided opinion against the proceedings of the court in Wales. His authority, not only from his own personal character, but also from his judicial station, must be of great importance. He had expressed a decided and unqualified opinion against the conduct of the inferior court, and had thrown out charges of ignorance of the common principles of law against the judges of that court, without having heard any vindication of its proceedings, except what he had heard in that House. Was it right that a gentleman in his judicial station should in such unmeasured language condemn the conduct of the court in Wales? As an independent Member of Parliament, he had a right to express his astonishment that a learned judge should think himself justified in denouncing the conduct of an inferior court unless called upon in his judicial character to decide upon the question. There was another point referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman which had rather astonished him, namely, the case of the individual whom he (the learned judge) had sent to prison in the county of Essex, and which he said was for the non-payment of the paltry sum of 5s. The charge against that individual was not the non-

545
payment of 5s.; the charge was, that he refused to comply with the orders of the Court, and set the law at defiance. Whether the amount concerned were 5s. or 5,000 l. the principle was the same; and was the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his high station to tell us, that this was the case of a paltry sum of 5s.? It was the majesty of the law, and not the amount of the money that was to be regarded. With respect to the attack made on the conduct of Mr. Morris, he could not help thinking, that it was a very fortunate thing, for that gentleman, that it had been made, because the result had been, that his excellent character as a clergyman had been proclaimed in that House; whereas if the hon. Member for Lambeth had not brought forward the accusation, although the character of the rev. gentleman would have been known in his own parish, it might never have been made known to the whole world as it now would be. As to the motion proposed by his hon. and learned Friend—that of the previous question—what if it were adopted, would be its effect? Why, exactly the same as that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who proposed to leave out the words "without delay." All that the previous question meant to say was—that the House did not wish to enter into a discussion at this particular moment. Was not the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite one of the Commissioners? Why did he not propose some measure founded upon his own report? If this resolution were a condemnation of anybody, it was a condemnation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as representing her Majesty's Government, and of the right hon and learned Gentleman, one of the Commissioners; and either one or the other of whom ought to have propounded this measure of reform to the House.
Sir S. Lushington,in explanation, denied, that he had declared any opinion on the conduct of the inferior Ecclesiastical Court upon a mere ex parte statement. His opinion was formed after seeing the whole of the proceedings themselves, which no explanation could by possibility alter. Upon the face of the proceedings themselves, there appeared to have been throughout them the greatest possible irregularity. He could not, therefore, have given any other opinion than he bad done consistently with good faith. The
546
noble Lord had also said, that he had represented the offence of the man whom it had been his judicial duty to commit to prison, to be a trivial matter, because the real value involved in the suit was only 5s. It was true he did state what the amount of the demand was, but he never represented, that the matter was, therefore, of a trivial nature; on the contrary he stated, that he regarded it as a question of principle.
Mr. Easthopesaid, that he had presented several petitions that day on the subject under discussion, from the borough which he had the honour to represent, and he understood, that during his temporary absence from the House, his constituents had fallen under the very severe displeasure of the hon and learned Member for Carmarthen—[Mr. Jones had not said anything about the hon. Member for Leicester's constituents.] He was very glad to find, that his constituents were absolved from the hon. and learned Member's anger. Most certainly he did not complain of any discourtesy in any language that had fallen from him; but he understood, that in his temporary absence the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that he (Mr. Easthope) had acquiesced in a petition containing unqualified terms of censure of an individual, which petition he had not read. I believe said (Mr. Easthope) the hon. and learned Member was understood to say, that I had not examined it.
Mr. Jones: No, no. What I stated was, that the hon. Gentleman had presented a petition, in which very unqualified abuse was used against a friend of mine.
Mr. Easthope: Very good. I shall be glad to take the hon. and learned Gentleman upon his own statement. I understand him now to state, that I adopted the very strong and unqualified abuse which he alleges is used against certain parties in this petition. Why, there is no abuse of any party; and I do think, after having read all the words of the petition in my place, that it is matter of some complaint against the hon. and learned Gentleman, who sets himself up as a censor of others, that he should be so mistaken as to the ground of the complaint he has made. There is no complaint contained in the petition, except a complaint against the judgments of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The petitioners state, that David Jones and Mr. Thoro-

547
good have been confined in gaol by order of the Ecclesiastical Court. I will state the contents of the petition fairly. The impatience of the hon. and learned Gentleman certainly betrays great sensitiveness. The complaint of my constituents is, that under the judgment of the Ecclesiastical Courts, these two men are confined in gaol by virtue of a law, which they consider to be disgraceful to the spirit of the age, and worthy only of the darkest periods of Ecclesiastical tyranny, and which they deem to be an insult to the great body of the Dissenters of this country, and a flagrant outrage upon their liberties. The petitioners then entreat the House "to take measures for the immediate and unconditional release of these persecuted men." To take measures—how? By repealing those laws which they consider to be a disgrace to the age, and in which, with all deference to the opinion of the hon. and learned Member, I again repeat my full and hearty concurrence. I think these laws both a misfortune and a disgrace. With all respect for the religion of the country—and I yield not to that hon. and learned Member in respect for and attachment to the religion of my country—I do submit that there is nothing less calculated to promote true religion—nothing more adverse to the spirit of real piety—nothing more at war with every thing that the Christian religion teaches, or more antagonist to that principle of charity, which in its whole scope and tendency, it seeks to cherish, than those obnoxious laws. I envy not the feelings of that man who can look with approbation at the laws under which these individuals have been imprisoned. He may claim for himself the reputation of being the champion of religion; but I wish not to be a party to, or a friend of, such a religion. It is not the religion of Jesus Christ. It is not the religion which the Church, the pure Church of Christ teaches, and which good Christians, whether Churchmen or Dissenters, seek to promote. I wish, indeed, to stand opposed to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if this be his interpretation of religion—this the spirit of attachment to it he wishes to inculcate. I could not help feeling, after the extreme sensitiveness displayed by the hon. and learned Member, that I should have failed in my duty to my constituents if I had not vindicated them from any imputation of assailing, improperly, the
548
feelings of others, or any want of Christian spirit in their own proceedings.
Mr. Jonessaid, that the absence of the hon. Gentleman during the time he (Mr. Jones) spoke was very unfortunate, because if the hon. Gentleman had been present, he would have known that no reflection had been made by him as the champion of religion. He did not presume to stand up in that House as the champion of religion. What he stated was, that he did not know whether the ecclesiastical courts wanted amendment or not: his principal object, however, in rising, was to vindicate Mr. Morris, and to set the House right as to a matter of fact. His eye was bad, and not having the pleasure of knowing the hon. Member for Leicester, he asked whether that hon. Member were in the House, and it was said that he was. So far, therefore, from having done any act against him in his absence, he spoke in the belief that the hon. Gentleman was present. A friend of his being personally concerned in this matter, the House would, perhaps, permit him to observe, that what had fallen from the hon. Member for Lambeth had been previously inserted in a newspapar, and Mr. Ebenezer Morris, having been called upon to reply to the charge, did negative every accusation made against him, and the Court of Queen's Bench had granted a rule nisi for a criminal information against that paper.
Mr. T. D. Acklandobjected to the House proceeding upon particular cases of grievance to the adoption of general principles to enforce the discipline of the Church. The real cause of these discussions was, that there were two parties in this country, the one of whom was desirous of maintaining the connection of the Church with the state as it now existed, while the other was conscientiously desirous of severing that connexion. He thought it most objectionable to attempt to alter the Church, as by law established, upon a mere isolated case. He, for one, should endeavour to avoid entering into a discussion of abstract questions so introduced. If, however, he should, at any time, be led into such discussions, he trusted he should abstain from all acrimonious feelings and bitterness of speech. He would submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and to those who held his opinions, whether it would not be much better, if they were determined to bring forward this great question, affecting as it did the vital prin-

549
ciples of the ecclesiastical constitution of the Church, to bring it forward as a substantive motion.
Mr. Hawesreplied, and said, that he had a precedent for the course he had pursued on this occasion. In a question which greatly affected the church, precisely the same course was adopted by Sir William Scott, who, in the first instance, brought forward individual cases, and afterwards' founded a general measure upon them. The reason he had not mentioned, in his notice, the case of Mr. James, as well as that of Mr. Jones, was, that all the Welch papers were full of the statement of that particular case, which made it unnecessary for him to give hon Gentlemen any specific notice of it. With regard to the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to omit the two last words, he was most willing that the motion, so altered, should be adopted.
Mr. Darbysaid, that after what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. G. Knight), although he still entertained the opinion he had already expressed on the subject, he would not press the previous question to a division.
Previous question withdrawn, and original motion, as amended, agreed to.

CUSTODY OF INFANTS.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdrose for the purpose of asking permission of the House to bring in a bill founded upon the principle of that bill which was introduced last Session of Parliament, and which passed the House of Commons with very large majorities, and which was only thrown out by accident in the other House of Parliament by a majority of two. The bill bore the title technically of "The Custody of Infants Bill," the principle of which was to introduce some mitigation into the construction which had been recently put upon the law relating to parent and child, husband and wife; by which law was given to the husband all control over the children, exclusive of the wife, whatever might have been his misconduct, or whatever might be the claim of an innocent mother. By that law she was excluded all access to her child, which thus worked injustice in silence, for the injuries of the innocent in those cases seldom came to light. If the present bill were merely a transcript of the bill of last Session, supported, as that measure was, by a majority of this House, among some of whom were men the last
550
to be charged with feelings of immorality, he should have felt it unnecessary to intrude upon the House a single word; but as the provisions of the present bill would differ in some important respects from those of the bill last year, and as it was made a charge against him on the former occasion that he had abstained from entering into a statement of his measure, he would ask permission of the House to be allowed to state what was the nature of those provisions. The first class of cases with which he would deal was that in which an innocent and injured wife, having sued for a dissolution of the marriage, had procured a sentence in her favour from a competent court. It would hardly be believed, that when the husband had been found guilty of adultery and cruelty, and a sentence of divorce had been for that reason pronounced, the children which the wife had by him should be placed under his absolute control, and that he should thus find means of revenging himself on her for vindicating her womanly right. His proposal was, that in these cases, the Consistory Court, and the Court of Arches, when they pronounced sentence of divorce on the prayer of the wife, should have power to dispose of the custody of the children—that they should declare who should take care of the children; and that where the husband should be convicted of adultery, these courts might, if they should think fit, but not otherwise, give the custody of the children to the wife, and allot a sum for maintenance, with a view of providing for the due care and education of the children. The second class of cases to which his bill referred, was that in which the husband should proceed in a court of law on a motion by force of the writ of habeas corpus to recover possession of the children. The case of the King and Rekell had, in his opinion, placed a forced construction on an Act which was intended only for the delivery of persons under immediate restraint, when they applied that Act to the case of a young child at the mother's breast; but the judges had, though reluctantly, placed such a construction on the Act; and his proposal was, that when the judge should be called upon to make an order, and when he would have all the facts of the case before him, to take the child from the custody of the mother, and to deliver it to the father, he should have power, if he should think

551
fit, to make such order as to him should seem meet for the access of the mother to her offspring. It was said of the former bill, that the fifteen judges held up their thirty hands against it; but if they should hold up their thirty hands against his present proposal, they would hold them up against what they had repeatedly said they wished the power to do. The third proposition included in his bill was, where the husband and the wife were living apart. He had not, in the present bill, given the power of making any order to a common law judge, which had been objected to by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) who had done him the honour of taking charge of the bill last year in the other House; but he now proposed to give a power to the Lord Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, and the Master of the Rolls, in England, or to the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, on the petition of the mother, to order her, if they should so think fit, free access to the child; and that where the child was within the age of seven years, she should have the sole custody till it should attain that age. This was simply placing the mother of legitimate children in the same situation as the mother of a bastard child was placed. These were the main provisions of the bill he now wished to introduce; but to those he would add, and he was willing to avow it, that he did not intend to give the judge power to make any order in any case in which the mother had been in any way convicted of adultery. A strong feeling had been entertained against a clause giving such a power, and he thought that such indulgence should be conceded to general opinion, that the Legislature should not even be supposed to hold in small abhorrence the crime of adultery, and he would rather that some one instance of hardship should go unremedied than that the tone of morality should be relaxed. An objection which had been urged against the bill of last year could not be brought forward against his present plan, for litigation would not be multiplied, and it would not be necessary to set the law, with all its long machinery, in motion. In the two first classes of cases reached by the present Bill, all the facts would be before the judge when he would be called upon to decide, and upon those facts already before him he would determine whether he would or would not
552
grant the application. As, however, the former bill had been objected to by its friends, who said it did nothing because it did not do enough, and as the objection had been strangely echoed by its enemies, who said, that it did too much unless it did more, he had this year endeavoured to enlarge the sympathies of the one, if he could not conciliate the good opinion of the other, by rendering it more simple, and, at the same time, more comprehensive, than the former bill. It would seem, however, from the conduct of those who were the patrons of domestic tyranny, that the Bill of last year would not have been wholly ineffectual. He had been subject, as every one who embarked in such a cause must be, to scandal and to slander; for this he cared not, but he would proceed so long as he had the honour of being supported by so respectable a majority of the Members of that House in his endeavour to procure a mitigation of the lot of innocent and injured mothers, and of giving something more than empty rights to that sex which had now a just cause of complaint.
The Attorney-Generalhad no objection to the introduction of this bill; and as to the reflections to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded, he must despise them, for he had with honour fought the battle of the other sex. At the same time he would not say at present that he would support the bill in all its details. They were all desirous that the evils which his learned Friend had pointed out should be remedied, and the only question was, whether the remedy which was proposed would, or would not, be a greater inconvenience than the present evils. He hoped, however, that the bill, in its details would be unexceptionable, for it would give him great pleasure if he could conscientiously support it.
Leave given. Bill brought in, and read a first time.