Lords Sitting of 21 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Cessio Bonorum.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of SALTSBURY, from Westminster, for an Inquiry into the state of Weights and Measures.—By the Bishop of EXETER, from Aberdeen and Tuniff, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill; and from the Clergy of Exeter, against Marriages and Registration of Births' Bills.—By the Marquess of LONDONDERRY, from various Places, against the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the See of Durham to remote districts.—By the Archbishop of ARMAGH, from various places, against the Church of Ireland Bill,—By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from Aberdeen, for Universities' (Scotland) Bill.

DIOCESE OF DURHAM.
The Marquess of Londonderrypresented petitions from the town of Darlington, from Slockton-on-Tees, from South Shields, and several places in the diocese of Durham, against the See of Durham Bill, and praying that no transfer of the revenues of that See might be made until the spiritual wants of the diocese of Durham had been fully provided for. The noble Marquess also presented a petition from the clergy of the county of Durham, praying for the delay of the legislative measures affecting the spiritual interests of the diocese of Durham.
The petition having been read by the Clerk,
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that the petition which had just been read, and which emanated from that most respectable body, the clergy of the county
362
palatine of Durham, deserved the serious consideration of the House. He hoped that their Lordships would grant the prayer of those petitioners, and that they would agree to the motion for a Select Committee, to which this and other petitions of the same nature might be referred, with which it was his intention to conclude. He would not take up their Lordships' time unnecessarily, by making any remarks on the nature of the general advice given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but he would call their especial attention to the petition which had last been read, and to the parties from whom it came. They were individuals who well understood the situation in which the see of Durham was likely to be placed if the revenues abstracted from it were appropriated to general purposes; they were not uneducated men—they were, in fact, the parochial working clergy of the diocese, and they called on their Lordships not to sanction a departure from the principle which had been laid down in other cases, where surplus revenue was to be appropriated; they requested that their Lordships would not suffer to be done, with reference to the see of Durham, that which had not been insisted on in other instances,—in other words, they required, and nothing could be more reasonable, that the application of the surplus revenue of the See of Durham should not be applied to general purposes, until local purposes were fully answered. He felt that he stood in an embarrassing position when he advocated the cause of these petitioners, since, in doing so, it might be supposed that he wished to cast reflections on the Commissioners. He had no such intention; and he should state the object of the petitioners, without meaning to challenge the enlarged views of the Commissioners. He should confine himself to that one point, and harboured no intention whatsoever of animadverting on, or stating his general opinion of, the course which the Commissioners had recommended. He was sorry that the noble Duke (Cleveland), the Lord-lieutenant of the county, was not in his place to support the view which he took of this subject. The noble Duke was not, however, present; and if that noble Duke had received any intimation or any communication from the noble Viscount opposite as to the abstraction of the revenue of the See of Durham, or

363
upon any other point connected with that subject, he hoped the noble Viscount would state what that communication was. He had certainly heard that something had been communicated; but he should be sorry to state, in the absence of the noble Duke, that which he had heard. He feared that, in bringing this subject forward, he should be entirely bereft of aid; for he was informed that the opinion of the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington) had been strongly given on the question. He should say nothing against the Report, generally speaking, of the Commissioners; but he objected to parts of it, especially that part which related to the See of Durham. He understood that the noble Duke near him did not hold himself responsible for any of the proceedings of this Commission. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Duke would look into this part of the subject, and extend the same support to the parochial clergy of the diocese of Durham, a diocese unequalled for its poverty, that was proposed to be extended to the clergy of other places. The great object of the second Report appeared to be to create new bishops, and not to extend the influence and efficiency of the parochial clergy. No; everything was to be grasped at for the purpose of creating two new bishops. The first Report did not by any means go to the extent of the second. The first Report said nothing about abstracting the revenues of the deans and chapters, which were now applicable to local purposes, for purposes of a general nature, which the second Report recommended, and then went to fix the amount to be abstracted from different sees, from Durham, London, Canterbury, &c. Part of the revenues thus abstracted was, it appeared, to be employed in assisting the clergy of Wales. But he could prove that there were livings in Durham as poor as any living in Wales. Now before they took, as was proposed, a surplus of 41,000 l. from Durham, they ought to consider the actual wants of that diocese. Yes, the spiritual wants of the see of Durham required a sum very little short of 21,000 l. The petitioners, by their concluding summary, showed that, on a moderate computation, not less than 21,000 l. would be requisite for spiritual purposes. They argued that spiritual wants should first be provided for, before general purposes
364
were attended to, and they wished that an act should be passed for that object. The petitioners said, "Appropriate, if you will a certain portion of these surplus revenues to general purposes, but do not abstract the whole, and neglect the spiritual wants of the people, by neglecting the interest of the parochial clergy." The noble Marquess quoted a number of tables to show the spiritual wants of the See of Durham, of which the following is a summary.
"If the just and imperative, claims of the livings of the Bishop and the Dean and Chapter on the surplus funds were granted to the full amount required—*and if half the amount necessary for augmenting livings in other patronage than that of the Bishop and the Dean and Chapter were granted, on condition that lay patrons or lay impropriators furnish the remaining half, a principle now acted on by the Governors of Queen Ann's Bounty Fund, in augmenting poor livings—the following sums would be required, viz.:—

According to the Archbishop's Act.

According to the plan suggested.

Bishop's Livings

£3,252

£3,318

Chapter's ditto

5,423

5,419

New Churches

5,000

5,000

*Other Livings

7,645

6,940

Total annual amount required

£21,320

£20,677"

This statement shows that, on a moderate scale of augmentation, there ought to be a reservation of an annual sum of no less than 21,000 l. out of the alleged surplus ecclesiastical revenues of the diocese. That the ecclesiastical wants of the diocese of Durham should be provided for in the first instance is but common justice, both as regards the inhabitants and the right disposition of the revenues left for its specific ecclesiastical requirements. The abstraction of its church emoluments, without first attending to its own necessities, will create, and justly so, universal dissatisfaction throughout the diocese. The livings in the patronage of the Bishop and the Dean and Chapter of Durham have an especial claim on the surplus ecclesiastical revenues of the Bishop and the Dean and Chapter. All the churches in their gift, under the amount specified, are situated in parishes which pay tithes, or otherwise contribute to the respective emoluments of the Bishop and the Dean and Chapter. It, therefore, cannot be satisfactory to the inhabitants of such parishes to see tithes and other property paid over to Queen Ann's Bounty Board, to be given to churches in London or elsewhere, while their own churches

365
remain so inadequately endowed. To abstract these revenues without first supplying the wants of such benefices from what was their original endowments would be an act towards them of the greatest injustice, and it is to be hoped that neither House of Parliament will sanction such a principle. Although the livings not in the patronage of the Bishop or Dean and Chapter have not an equal claim with those in their patronage, yet they certainly have a prior claim for augmentation to all benefices not within the diocese, and the plan suggested in this statement may obviate some difficulties which might arise as regards the claims of such livings on the surplus ecclesiastical revenues. The endowments required for new churches ought to be provided for out of the alleged surplus revenues in whatever parishes they are wanted. In general the poverty of the people, where new churches are needed, and where, consequently, very little can be expected from pew rents, renders the incumbents in a great measure dependent on the endowments for their support. From these considerations it appears highly important that a sufficient sum be secured for the diocese, by a special enactment of the Legislature. If this statement be productive of no other effect, it will tend to show the real wants of the diocese of Durham, and the justice of applying such of its ecclesiastical revenues as the Commissioners consider to be surplus to the real ecclesiastical wants of the diocese, before any of it be applied to the general augmentation of livings throughout the kingdom. The surplus of the revenues of the diocese of Durham, as stated by the commissioners, is as follows:—

From the See

£11,066

From the Dean and Chapter

29,886

Total Annual Amount

£40,952

If this amount of revenue were abstracted the parochial Clergy would have no confidence that any portion of it would hereafter be applied to the local necessities of the diocese. They very reasonably asked, that at least a certain portion of it should be left to be applied to the local wants and necessities of the diocese. He hoped that the local wants of the diocese would not be overlooked, and that the whole revenues of the diocese would not be seized upon by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purpose of creating new Bishops. He had received a letter from a Clergyman in that diocese, which would show the manner in
366
which many of the parochial clergy of that diocese were provided for. The letter was as follows:—
"Hartlepool, July 12, 1836.
"My Lord—It is the humble request of my parishioners, the inhabitants of Hartlepool, that your Lordship will be so condescending and obliging as to present this their petition to the House of Lords. I regret that it is not more numerously signed, but a great majority of all who can write have signed it, and I am sure it has the good wishes of nearly all the rest. The death of our late lamented diocesan is, perhaps, a greater loss to Hartlepool than to any other place; for the endowment of the living (during the two years I have had it) exclusive of the surplus fees and Easter offerings, has scarcely realised 70 l. per annum. At the end of the first year of my incumbency I laid this statement, with its various items, before the late Bishop, and he presented me with 100 l., and as my health at that time was delicate he supplied me with a curate, engaging to do so during his incumbency. His Lord-ship intimated also that, as I have a numerous family, and have had a great deal of sickness in my house, with little or next to no private resources, I might always look up to him for assistance in my pecuniary difficulties. I never doubted of his Lordship allowing me a yearly sum to relieve my wants, but I have no express engagement in any of his Lordship's letters to that effect. From this your Lordship will perceive that Hartlepool, in a peculiar manner, and to a great degree, will suffer by the proposed abstraction of the surplus revenues of the see of Durham.—I am, my Lord, your Lordship's humble and devoted servant,
"R. TAYLOR.
"To the Most Noble the Marquess of Londonderry."
In the diocese of Durham there were eleven livings under 70 l. per annum, twenty-eight under 100 l., six under 200 l., and seventy-nine under 300 l. Now, under the Act of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Durham was empowered to raise these livings to 300 l. a year. There were many similar livings under the Deans and Chapters, and a very appropriate application of a portion of this surplus would be made in raising the amount of those livings. The Noble Marquess proceeded to read the following statement:—
"The population of Durham, in round numbers, is 350,000, and the number of scholars in the free schools of Catholics and Dissenters only amount to 500. Now, see the number educated under the Established Church. There are at present in connexion with the Diocesan School Society 309 schools, at which are educated 23,428 children, either altogether free of expense or on payment of a very small sum, say a penny weekly. Hence, by means

367
of this Society, upwards of 23,000 poor children receive an education which they otherwise would not receive, and the schools are maintained principally by the Bishop and Dean and Chapter; and thus it is obvious that if the income of the Bishop be reduced the Prebendaries abolished, and the money hitherto spent by them be carried to other counties, the Society must fall to the ground for want of funds, and the children of the poor will be deprived of the advantages of education. By transferring, however, the so-called surplus revenue of the Bishop and Prebendaries to the increase of small livings this result will be prevented; for the report shows that the parochial Clergy are as liberal, according to their means, as the higher dignitaries, in supporting the Society."
He would ask the right reverend prelates whether they had been informed to this extent before they had seen the paper to which he had just referred? Their Lordships' Table was daily crowded with petitions from every part of the county of Durham; there were petitions both from the people and the clergy; and he trusted their Lordships would not disregard them. He hoped the House would consider whether, by some clause, or an instruction to a Committee, a portion of the revenues of this bishopric might not be reserved to augment the poor livings of the see. On this point he would read a paper sent to the late Bishop of Durham in April, 1835:—

QUERIES.
1. In devising the best mode for providing for the cure of souls, and in making a new distribution of Church property for this purpose, ought not the ecclesiastical revenues of each diocese and county to be first directed towards the supply of the spiritual wants of the parishes and districts out of which they now arise, before any part of them be appropriated to other places?
2. Will the arrangement for securing an adequate income to the parochial Clergy be complete unless regard be had to local circumstances as well as to population; on the same principle as that already proposed in the Commissioners' first report, in reference to episcopal revenue and duty?
3. Does not a scattered rural population present a charge as laborious to a Clergyman as a population much more numerous, but more condensed, in a town?
4. Are not the scattered inhabitants of small hamlets, and of remote farmhouses, more destitute of the common means of acquiring knowledge, and less desirous of acquiring it, than those of towns? Being also at a greater distance from the place of public worship, are they not more in want of a
368
Clergyman's admonitions and instruction id be brought to their own doors?
5. Are not the resources of a country Clergyman fewer in number, as to libraries, book clubs, society, &c.? Are not his opportunities of having access to books, except by purchase, more limited; and are not his general and necessary expenses larger than those of the Clergy of towns? For example, the keep of a horse, which is indispensable if his parish be large; the price of fuel, and the carriage of every article which he receives into his house. In application of these principles to the distribution of the revenues of the Church of Durham a table is appended to this paper, showing the condition of nine parishes in the diocese of Durham, on the borders of Scotland. They are selected because they are contiguous and form one large district; because almost all the great tithes belong to the Dean and Chapter, and because the incumbent of each parish is presented by that body. These nine parishes are a sample of many others in the same diocese, similarly situated as to extent, contiguity, population, patronage, and spiritual condition. The Dean and Chapter of Durham have 38 benefices in their gift, from which they draw the great tithes; 26 of these are under 300 l. a year, and nine of them have no parsonage houses. Many of these parishes are very populous, and extend over large tracts of laud. It would require not less than 4,000 l. per annum to augment these livings in the gift of the Dean and Chapter so as to give a proper maintenance to the incumbent; and not less than 5,000 l. to build the parsonage houses that are wanted, to say nothing of provision for church accommodation, which is also required. It may be added that the populous towns of Darlington, Stockton, Sunderland, Monkwearmouth, North and South Shields, Newcastle, Chester-le-street, and Alnwick, with the wide spreading parishes of Lanchester, Middleton-in-Teesdale, Gainford, Earsden, Newburn, Whittingham, Allenton, Hallyston, Carham, Kirknewton, Warkworth, Hartburn, Long Horsley, Simonburn, Falston, Allandale and others, neither of which extend over less than 10,000 acres, are all in the diocese of Durham, and require funds in aid for spiritual purposes. Can the Church of Durham, there-fore, be said to have a surplus revenue which will admit of appropriation elsewhere before the spiritual wants of those places are supplied?"
These were the questions submitted to the late Bishop of Durham.
He would apologies for having troubled the House at such length; but he could not reconcile it with his duty not to call the attention of their Lordships to these facts. The subject was one foreign to his habits, and the importance of the question was undoubtedly great; but his intention merely was to direct their Lordships' at-

369
tention to the peculiar hardships of the case, and, having urged as well as he could the view which he took of it, he should conclude by moving that "a select committee of the House be appointed, that the petitions from the county of Durham and the statements of the Clergy be referred to it, and that it report whether, under the peculiar circumstances of the diocese, it would not be expedient to make further inquiries as to the spiritual wants of the see previous to the abstraction of its revenues for general purposes, and delay any legislative measure affecting the revenues of the see until the next session of Parliament."
The Archbishop of Canterburywas obliged to express though he did it with reluctance his dissent to the motion of the noble Marquess. If the bill which was before the other House of Parliament came up to their Lordships they would then have a proper opportunity to discuss this question.
Viscount Melbournedenied that there, had been any communication between himself and a noble Duke who had been adverted to by the noble Marquess, with respect to the appropriation of the revenues of Durham. The motion now submitted to their lordships by the noble Marquess was one calling upon them to reconsider a subject which had been already fully considered by the ecclesiastical commissioners, and upon which they had given an opinion deliberately and carefully formed. If their lordships were to reconsider the question upon the grounds which had been stated by the noble Marquess, it was clear that the whole of those reforms in the church which it was proposed to effect would be endangered and that they could not possibly be completed. But he should not go into the question; he would content himself with saying that it was better to put the whole church establishment upon a more reasonable and just foundation, than to preserve a state of things in which certain advantages might be enjoyed by the clergy, as the noble Marquess had represented, but which were entirely dependent upon the accidental disposition of those particular persons who might happen to fill the superior situations of the see in question. As their lordships would soon have the whole question before them, he should now go no further than to say, he could not agree to the motion.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, some remarks had been made by the noble Mar-
370
quess respecting the church commission, of which he had the honour to be a member, of a kind that he could not permit to go forth to the public without some reply. The ecclesiastical commissioners had been accused of precipitation, and a want of due caution in their proceedings. To that accusation he thought their Lordships would not be disposed to give much attention, when they called to mind how many months this subject remained under the consideration of the commissioners, and, he would add, under their very careful, anxious, and daily inquiry; and further, that no part of the subject had been inquired into more minutely than the revenues of the see and chapter of Durham. The only ground which he could understand the noble Marquess to have taken was, that the revenues of this see and chapter ought to be appropriated in the first place towards the increase of all the small livings in Durham, to the amount of not less than 300 l.; and the noble Marquess had kindly supplied their Lordships with some statistical information on the subject. But the noble marquess was mistaken if he supposed that subject had escaped the attention of the church commissioners; they had had the whole question before them; every thing was analyzed and looked into with the greatest care and anxiety. With regard to the particular point under discussion, in the statement of the commissioners he counted 17 livings in Durham under 70 l. a-year, but he should also observe that 15 of those livings belonged to private patronage. Was it to be expected that those livings should be raised to the amount of 300 l. out of the public patronage of the Crown, or out of that of the bishopric? What probability was there that their Lordships would at any time sanction such a proposition? [The Marquess of Londonderry spoke of 11 livings under 70 l.] he begged pardon of the noble Marquess, but he adhered to the accuracy of the paper he held in his hand. Without entering into the question as to the source from whence the revenues of the see of Durham were derived, he would ask was it not true, that at that moment there were one Welsh and two English bishoprics deriving considerable assistance from the revenues of the see and chapter of Durham? Indeed, he knew not that they could be better disposed of than to enable persons who were in possession of very inadequate revenues to meet the expenses and demands which were consequent

371
upon their station. By the increase of the small bishoprics the necessity of commendams would be superseded, and the revenues of the stalls of Durham would go for those very purposes. The noble Marquess ought not to think that the local wants of the see of Durham would not be attended to; such an assumption was unjustifiable. He was aware that these topics would again come under the consideration of their Lordships and therefore he should say no more than that he dissented from the statistical observations of the noble Marquess, and the inference which he had drawn, that the spiritual wants of Durham were greater than those of other parts of the kingdom; as the motion of the noble Marquess would go at once to stop the progress of all church reform, he should oppose it.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that after what he had heard, and seeing that the feeling of the House was against him, he should withdraw his Motion, feeling satisfied, however, that he had done his duty in bringing the subject under their Lordships' attention.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, if the noble Lord would look into the returns again, the noble Lord would find that he was right in stating, that there were 17 livings in Durham below 70 l. a-year of which 15 were connected with private patronage.
The Marquess of Londonderrybelieved that there were 11 livings under 70 l. a-year not connected with private patronage.
The Motion was withdrawn.

POOR-RATES.—PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS.
On the order of the day for receiving the report on the Poor-rate Bill,
The Archbishop of Canterburyrose to propose the introduction of some amendments which he should have submitted without a single observation, but that he wished to say, in reference to some statements which had been circulated in the public papers, to the effect that the clergy through him, were endeavouring to obtain an exemption of some part or portion of their tithes from the payment of the parochial assessment, that nothing could be more unfounded than such an assertion. He believed, that by the act of Elizabeth every man had been made liable to be rated to the legal provision for the poor and that the law remained in that state still. The clergy desired that all property should be assessed on its reputed value as at present; as they therefore wished that
372
the law should remain as it was now, he would propose an amendment to insert "lands" instead of hereditaments which would have the effect of exempting tithes from rates.
The Duke of Richmondbelieved, that anciently the rating for the poor was upon tithe, for he found that the maintenance of the poor was chiefly an ecclesiastical affair, a fourth part of the tithes being intended to be appropriated to that purpose. He did not blame the clergy for attempting to maintain their tithes, but he thought that before their Lordships allowed these amendments to be put into the bill, their Lordships should inquire whether they would not entirely neutralize it. He maintained, that the rateable value of property was its fair annual rent—just what it would fetch, and no more. The profits of the farmer formed the result of his own labour, and could not be taxed, any more than the profits of any tradesman or merchant. They might as well inquire what the profits of Drummond's banking establishment were, and tax that. The position which the opposes of this bill wished to take was founded upon the case of "Rex v. Joddrell," the decision upon which had been since overthrown, and shown to be untenable. If the object of the most rev. prelate were, not to defeat the Bill, the much more simple course to pursue would be to add to the clause these words,—"Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be supposed to alter the existing law respecting tithes." There were not ten parishes in England where such a principle as that recommended by the most rev. prelate was acted upon. He wished this bill to pass into a law, because he believed it would have the effect of preventing the fraud which was carried on under the present system, and he would oppose the amendment of the most rev. prelate, because he believed it would have the effect of putting into the pockets of tithe-owners what ought properly to go into, and had heretofore gone into, the pockets of the landowners.
Lord Wynfordapproved of the most rev. prelate's amendment, because it left it open to the Court of King's Bench to decide what the real law and what the true principle on the subject was, while it would not alter the effect of the bill.
The Marquess of Salisburyfeared, if such would be the effect of the amendment, that too many law suits might result from it-He thought it would be better to leave

373
out the clause altogether and upon that point: whether the amendment of the most rev. prelate was carried or not, he felt very much inclined to take the opinion of their Lordships.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that with regard to the last proposition, their Lordships should recollect that they had divided upon this clause a few nights ago, upon which occasion they determined to retain it. In his opinion, the clause made no alteration in the present law respecting the rating of property. It had been urged the other evening—and he presumed it was upon that ground the noble marquess had expressed a wish to have this clause rejected—that it would occasion great confusion and great expense, inasmuch as every parish must be revalued. The overseer of the parish was bound to value it; and if the valuation were found to be incorrect, and in some places fraudulently made, by being rated on different proportions, then, of course, it would be necessary to have a new valuation, in order that each person might be fairly rated, as the law never contemplated any thing else. With regard to the words moved by the most rev. prelate, who said he proposed them because he had some fear that tithe would be rated in an unjust proportion; and which the noble and learned lord opposite supported not on the ground that they would prevent tithes being rated, but because they would leave the matter open for further consideration, he must observe if these words would have the effect anticipated by the most rev. prelate, they would be mischievous; and if they contained the meaning given to them by the noble and learned Lord, they only encumbered the clause by a superfluity of words, without doing any good. As to rating profits, he did not think that any one could seriously entertain the idea. How was an overseer to calculate or ascertain what portion of the value of the land went in the shape of profits into the pockets of the tenant? If the farmer's profits were to be rated, profits of almost every other description must also be rated.
The Archbishop of Canterburyhad no intention whatever of doing injury to the Bill, his only object being to keep things just as they were.
The Lord Chancellorobjected to the amendment, as containing the principle that there was a difference in rating with regard to land and other property; whereas the principle of rating was equality.
374
That was the principle under Elizabeth and the only question was, how to arrive at that equality. He apprehended that the object of the most rev. prelate might be attained by the proviso suggested by the noble Duke, without involving the clause in the difficulty and obscurity, indeed, he might say, the illegality, which the amendment would attach to it.
Lord Hathertonsaid, be certainly was not satisfied with the terms of the clause as it stood in the Bill. He feared this would lead the overseers in many instances into confusion as to the mode they should act upon in the rating, not only of land, but of canal, railroad, and other property. On the other hand, although he disapproved of the clause, he thought that the amendment of the most rev. Prelate would lead the overseers still more deeply into error. In his opinion it would be better to introduce a proviso, to the effect that nothing in the Act contained should be supposed to alter the proportions in which the different descriptions of property had been heretofore rated.
The Archbishop of Canterburyhad no objection to such a proviso, and to make way for that, begged to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Richmond The Duke of Richmond moved a proviso to the effect stated—viz: "that nothing herein contained shall be supposed to alter or affect in any way the principle or proportions upon which the different kinds of hereditaments are now by law rated;" which was agreed to.
The Earl of Harrowbyobserved, that, ignorant as he confessed himself to be on this subject, it appeared to him, from the manner in which it had been discussed, that many of their Lordships were not much more intimately acquainted with it than he was himself. He therefore felt inclined, if he thought he should meet with any support, on the motion for the third reading, to move that it be read that day three months.
The Duke of Richmondwas much surprised that the noble Earl should think of taking such a step after the Bill had gone through so many stages, and been so fully discussed. He believed a measure of the kind most necessary in order that, the people of this country might know if they were justly and equally rated, and that the confusion and fraud which at present existed might be put a stop to. The present system of appeal, for instance, was a

375
mere mockery, and yet the noble Lord intended to move that the bill be read a third time that day three months, and that too upon the one only ground, that the House was not sufficiently informed upon it. If that were the case, he would only entreat the noble Lord to give an example by examining the different clauses, and by making inquiry of those who knew something on the subject. If he did so, he would venture to say, he would not then think this Bill unnecessary.
The Earl of Harrowbyobserved, in explanation, that his reason for wishing to defer this Bill until next session arose from the great uncertainty which appeared to prevail on the subject. On that account he thought it might be as well to take more time to consider it, but if their Lordships were of opinion that they would have time this session to do so, he should be sorry to throw any impediment in the way.
Report received.

MARRIAGES.
On the motion of Viscount Melbourne, the order of the day for the House to go into Committee on the Marriages Bill was read.
Lord Ellenboroughhad several amendments to propose in the Bill, to which, not being inconsistent with its principle, he believed no serious objection would be made by the noble Viscount opposite. The most convenient course would therefore be now merely to allow the Bill to go through the Committee pro forma, that those amendments might be introduced, and take the general discussion on a future stage.
Viscount Melbourneapproved of some of the amendments proposed to be introduced by the noble Baron, having had an opportunity of looking at them privately. He had no objection to the course pointed out by the noble Lord.
Lord Wynfordprotested against being considered in any way friendly to the principle of the Bill.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that when the Bill was first introduced he stated to their Lordships the only ground on which he could consent to forward it even a single stage. He had, in fact, strong objections to both of the Bills relating to marriage and to the registration of births and deaths; and certainly hearing that the principle of this measure was to remain unchanged was no inducement to him to
376
wave his objections to it. He had heard much about the principle of the Bill; but for his part, he should like to know what its principle was? It was not a little remarkable that it professed to be a Bill "to amend the law relating to marriages in England;" but not one word was said as to why this was necessary. Now, if the intention were to satisfy the conscientious scruples of the Dissenters, he, for one, would support such a measure; but that plainly was not the principle on which this Bill was founded, or there could have been no objection to express the intention in words. He was willing to admit, that they should attend to the scruples of conscience of those who objected to the office of marriage as laid down in the Book of Common Prayer; but still he would be no party to any measure which went to interfere with the rites and ceremonies of the Established Church. This Bill, in his opinion, went the length of inviting the members of the Church of England to contract marriage without any religious ceremony; and that was a principle he hoped the Legislature never would adopt. By this Bill parties would be enabled to contract marriage without uttering a syllable as to the nature of the contract, beyond that they desired to live together as man and wife. They would not be even obliged to say that it was a contract for life, notwithstanding it was a contract of the most solemn and binding description. The only period in the history of this country at which a similar attempt was made was during the time of the Usurpation; but although marriage might then be contracted before a magistrate, a strictly solemn and religious formula was enjoined. Here, however, the contract was to be purely civil, and attended with no greater solemnities than would be required for a contract entered into between parties for mere service. He must insist that a contract so sacred and indissoluble should be accompanied by suitable solemnities, and unless this were done, no earthly inducement could prevail with him to allow the measure to progress another stage without opposing it.
The Bill then went through the Committee pro forma, and several amendments were introduced
The House resumed.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS.
The order of the day for the committal of the

377
Registration of Births Bill having been read,
The Duke of Richmondwished to call their Lordships' attention to that clause which allowed the guardians of unions under the Poor Law Amendment Act to appoint as district-registrars such officers as they should think fit, subject to the approval of the registrar-general. He did not mean to say the guardians would not appoint fit and proper persons; he believed they would appoint their best relieving officer, but without reference to the other important duties he had to perform. The relieving officers of the several districts had already the most arduous functions imposed on them; they were bound to go through the different parishes, to see that those who were relieved were proper persons, and really in indigent circumstances; they were also obliged to visit the sick, and take care that the medical men were properly attentive in all parts of the union, and much therefore of the success of the Poor Law Amendment Act must depend on the manner in which they discharged those duties. The best person he believed that could be appointed was the collector of the poor-rates; but at the present moment there were several unions in the country without such an officer. He had thought it his duty, as chairman of a very extensive union in Sussex, formerly one of the most pauperized districts, but now, he was happy to say, very much the reverse, to state thus much, in order to call attention to the subject. There was another cause, which declared that a clergyman should not bury dead bodies until the relatives of the deceased should produce a certificate that his death had been duly registered. In that part of the country with which he was immediately connected, no greater evil could possibly arise than that of keeping a corpse in the church-yard while a certificate was being procured.
Lord Ellenboroughdid not think the services of the district-relieving officers could at present be taken advantage of under this Bill. He agreed with the noble Duke (Richmond) that the fittest person would be the collector for the union. With respect to the appointment of registrar by the board of guardians, the registrar-general would have the power of removing him, which was some slight security for good conduct.
The Bill went through the Committee with amendments.
House resumed.