Lords Sitting of 16 May 1839

MINUTES.
Petitions Presented:—By the Earl of RODEN, from one place, for the Repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Act—By the Earl of ROSEBERRY, and the Marquess of LONDONDERRY, from several places, for a uniform Penny Postage.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Glasgow, for commuting the Sentence of Transportation for Seven Years, passed on Five Cotton Spinners, in January, 1838. —By the Duke of RUTLAND, from several Boards of Guardians, in the Counties of Derby and Leicester, for some trifling alteration in the New Poor Law Act.— By the Earl of CAWOOR, from one place, for Church Extension in Scotland.—By Lord KENYON, from one place against converting Ecclesiastical Revenues to ally but Ecclesiastical purposes.

GLASGOW COTTON SPINNERS.
Lord Broughamhad a very important petition to present, and he was glad he had the opportunity of doing so in the presence of his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury. It was agreed to, at a public meeting held in Glasgow, and was signed by from 6,000 to 7,000 persons, and they prayed for the merciful interference of the House on behalf of the five cotton-spinners who were sentenced to seven years' transportation for a conspiracy in January, 1838. The petitioners stated, that those five men were found guilty by a majority of only one of the jury of the two minor counts of the indictment, namely, assault and threats; that their moral character was unimpeachable, and their conduct

1029
while on board the hulks exemplary. The petitioners, therefore, implored their Lordships to take the hardship of the case of these men into their serious and merciful consideration, and he would add one word in support of that prayer. If these men had committed the same offence fifty or sixty miles to the south of Glasgow, viz., in England, they could, by law, have been sentenced only to three months' imprisonment; but, by the mere accident of locality, they were sentenced to seven years' transportation, and, of these seven years, eighteen months had already been passed in the hulks; and, by a blunder to which they were no parties, committed by the persons intrusted with the management of, the Crown Law Office in Scotland, they; had been arrested, and kept three months in prison before trial, so that they had spent twenty-one months in confinement, or seven times as long as they could have been imprisoned if they had committed the same crime sixty miles to the southward, in Westmoreland or Cumberland. He really did not think it for the credit of the law, that so great a want of uniformity should exist in the measure of punishment to be inflicted, nor for the credit of the mercy of the Government that the equalisation of the punishment had not been effected by their interference. He hoped the cases of these men would be taken into the merciful consideration of her Majesty's Government. He should not, on the present occasion, give any notice for a particular motion on the subject, because he was reluctant to propose any unusual interference on the part of that House; but he submitted the case to the attention of the Government.

DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that he had several petitions to present on a subject which had excited a great sensation amongst a large portion of the clergy. He alluded to the Church Discipline Bill, which the petitioners prayed their Lordships not to pass; but, at the same time, prayed that some measure might speedily be introduced to provide an efficient mode of correcting delinquent clergymen; and it seemed to them that the suggestions of the committee of 1832 might, for that purpose, be easily embodied in an act. But, with respect to the proposed measure, the petitioners stated that they saw in the bill the extinction of some of the most important parts of the constitution of the Christian Church (as
1030
regarded the Church of England), as they considered that it was calculated to promote the decline of episcopacy, and that the subordination of the clergy to the Bishops was almost done away with by the bill. They further expressed the opinion that the clergy would be subjected to endless vexation from malicious persons, who would have the power to drag them from the extremities of the country to London, on groundless charges. In the Archiepiscopal Court of the diocese of York, too, at the present time, justice was administered most satisfactorily; and, upon that ground, one of the petitions he had to present prayed their Lordships not to expose the clergy of that diocese to the vexation of being brought to London for no useful purpose whatever. Such was the feeling of the clergy with respect to this bill, that he felt convinced, before it again came under the consideration of their Lordships, numerous petitions would be presented against it. The right rev. Prelate presented petitions against the Church Discipline Bill, from the clergy of the deanery of Exeter, and of various places in the diocese of Exeter; also petitions from the clergy of the deanery of Ripon, the deanery of Borough bridge, and several others.
The Bishop of Gloucesterbegged to add his testimony to that of the right rev. Prelate, as to the feeling of the clergy with respect to this bill. He had already received several petitions from the clergy of the dioceses in the north of England, against the bill, which he thought, instead of removing, would only aggravate the existing grievances.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that he hoped his right rev. Friends would excuse him if he offered one or two observations upon this subject. He had not been prepared for this discussion, but the language which had been used was so strong, that he could not suffer it to go forth to the public without making a few remarks, which he hoped would prevent the effect that might otherwise be produced by the observations of the right rev. Prelates. As to the tendency of that bill to undermine or extinguish episcopacy, he believed that, upon reconsideration, his right rev. Friends would not persist in that objection, because it could in no manner infringe upon episcopacy, properly considered. It undoubtedly prevented the Bishop's chancellor, or the Bishop himself, from administering penal justice; but it did not with-

1031
draw the clergy from the control and superintendence of their bishops. As to the strong feeling which was said to exist amongst the clergy against this bill, it was possible that at present, in some districts, objections might have been found to this bill which at first were not discovered, because it was to be remembered that the Church Discipline Bill had been before Parliament at least twelve months, and the clergy generally had, no doubt, long ago become acquainted with its provisions: but if they had not seen the bill itself, at all events all its defects had been brought before their notice by the strong and able speech of his right reverend Friend (the Bishop of Exeter) on a former occasion. He believed the fact to be, that the parochial clergy did not view this bill in the same light as the right reverend Prelates; and certainly it was not a little remarkable, that if this bill went to the extinction of episcopacy, and the abolition of the superintendence of the bishops, no apprehension of the kind should have been expressed by the clergy, notwithstanding that the powerful speech of his right reverend Friend bad been published, and had no doubt been read by all the clergy of the country, until they had been stirred up to apply to Parliament on the subject by the letters which had appeared in different newspapers. He, however, was free to admit, that the right reverend Prelate's objections to this measure were not wholly without foundation; but the measure was to be judged by a balance of convenience and inconvenience; and he considered that the plan proposed by this bill for the correction of delinquent clerks, would be better than that suggested in the recommendations of the Committee of 1832, to which he was a party. At that time he did not see the difficulties of carrying into execution those recommendations, but he now thought that the practical objections to that proposal were quite insuperable; and though certainly there were some to the present measure, still they were less formidable than those which presented themselves to his mind as arising against the former bill. When the bill came regularly before the House, he should be prepared to defend it as effecting a great improvement in the present state of ecclesiastical law.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that he would not then enter into any argument on the subject; but he should have felt that he had done injustice to the petitioners if he had forborne from stating their prayers dis-
1032
tinctly to the House. He knew not the precise words which he might have used; he certainly had not said that this bill would positively extinguish episcopacy, though he very likely might have said, as he thought, that it had a tendency to produce such a result. He only wished to add, that he was no party to the publication of that speech to which the right rev. Prelate had referred. When the proper time came, he should be prepared to justify his statements in respect to this bill.
Petitions laid on the Table.

ADJOURNMENT.
Viscount Melbourne moved that the House, at its rising, adjourn till Monday, the 27th.
The Duke of Wellingtonsuggested, that it might be more convenient if some other course was adopted, instead of moving the adjournment for so long a time; and he submitted to the noble Viscount whether there might not be an understanding that no important business should be brought forward before the day mentioned, so that the House, if necessary, might continue its sittings on account of the judicial business, which would not then be delayed. He thought that such an understanding might be acted upon by all parties in that House. There was another thing which he wished to recommend to the noble Viscount; he had some concerns to attend to in another part of the town on the 27th of May, which, if he mistook not, would be Trinity Monday—[a laugh]—and he rather fancied that the noble Viscount also had business to transact in that part of the town on that night. He therefore suggested to him whether it might not be convenient to adjourn to the 28th.
Lord Hathertonsaid, it would he necessary for the House to meet on the 27th, in order that witnesses on the Irish Committee might be sworn.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he had no objection to such an arrangement as that suggested by the noble Duke; but as to extending the period of adjournment, he thought that the House of Commons was in that particular state in which such an extension might he inconvenient in case any communication were necessary.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, if the House were not to adjourn till the judicial business was terminated, it would never adjourn at all. Besides, when he was not employed in that House he was in the Court of Chancery, where the business was also very heavy; so that, taking the

1033
whole administration of the justice of the country together, it would not suffer at all by the adjournment.
Motion carried, and their Lordships adjourned.