§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he rose to move for a return of the appointment of Officers in the Consistory Court, Rochester, and also in the Archdeacon's Court in the same city. He apprehended there would be little or no objection to his Motion; but, inasmuch as the dignity and character of that House was in some measure concerned, he would state the reasons which had induced him to put the notice upon the paper. On the 2nd May, 1850, that House resolved that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that certain returns might be made in reference to the Ecclesiastical Courts; and he was informed by the officers connected with the Government of that day, that they had the very greatest difficulty in obtaining the papers from the Officers of those Courts—so much so, that thirteen months elapsed before they were presented to the House. Another Address was agreed to by the House on the 7th August, 1851, praying Her Majesty to order that certain further returns might 208 be made in reference to the same Courts; and similar difficulties had been experienced in obtaining those returns from some of the Courts, whilst others of them had made no return whatever. The fact was that some of these returns were not made until the 10th of May, 1852, exactly nine months after they had been called for by the House. He thought that when an order was made by that House, either through the medium of an Address to the Crown, or directly by the House, the persons to whom such order was sent ought to obey it. And no return having been made by the Ecclesiastical Courts of Rochester, he had no hesitation in submitting this Motion to the House, in order that the information in, question might be obtained. He would also take that opportunity of stating that should that order not be complied with, he should take further steps to compel a compliance with it.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, a return had been laid on the table of the House with the fullest information on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Courts of which the Government were in possession; and he could account for the absence of the returns of which the hon. Baronet complained only in this way. Several returns of that kind had been moved for by the hon. Baronet, and the officers thinking they had already made those returns in full, had neglected to continue the returns which were subsequently asked for. He was further informed that a return which had been moved for by the hon. Baronet in 1849, was presented to the House, and that the hon. Baronet never moved that it should be printed. If the hon. Gentleman would now move to have that return printed, he would gain from it fuller information than he could have from the return which he now asked for.
§ SIR B. HALLsaid, he apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman was under a mistake. During the Session of 1849, he (Sir B. Hall) was unable to attend the House except on one day; he had not made any Motion on the subject except in the years to which he had referred, and the officers of the Ecclesiastical Court of Rochester had made no return whatever to those Motions.
§ Motion agreed to.