Lords Sitting of 1 April 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Registration of Protestant Places of Worship.
Reported.—Dean Forest Encroachment; International Copyright.
3a. and passed:—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Indemnity; Ecclesiastical Courts.
Private.—1a. Marquess of Ailsa's Estate; Midland Railways Consolidation.
2a. Bolton and Preston Railway.
Reported.—Edinburgh Cattle Market; Rochdale Gas.
3a. and passed:—Bury (Huntingdonshire) Inclosure; Ramsey Inclosure; Cababe's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Redesdale, from Netherwitton, and from Norfolk and Whitburn, against the Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By the Bishop of Hereford, from Chin, and 8 other places, and by the Bishop of Bangor, from Clocainog, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By the Earl of Malmesbury, from Wellington, New Zealand, for Protection to Settlers of Cook's Straits.—From Chichester, for the Suppression of Duelling.—From Debtors in Monmouth and Wilton Gaols, in favour of the Creditors and Debtors Bill.

NEW ZEALAND.
The Earl of Malmesburypresented a petition from 700 inhabitants of the town of Wellington and the neighbourhood of Cook's Straits, New Zealand, calling the attention of their Lordships to the unprotected state of that colony, and praying that some measures might be adopted for their safety. The petitioners also prayed for a settlement of the disputed land claims. He should state to their Lordships, that the question appeared to be mooted in consequence of the massacre which took place in the colony on the 17th of June, 1843, arising out of those disputed claims; and as very great apprehension existed amongst the

1675
colonists, as well as amongst their friends in this country upon the subject, he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they had already taken, or intended to take, in restoring the confidence of the settlers, by adding to the military force for the protection of the colony, and also what steps were in contemplation for the settlement of the land titles?
The Earl of Riponreplied, that the commanding officers of the military forces in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land had been directed to forward a force from those two colonies respectively to New Zealand, for the purposes to which the petitioners alluded; and that the force so sent was deemed sufficient for the protection of the colonists by the commanding officer in New Zealand itself. The apprehensions of the settlers, it might easily be conceived, went beyond the actual necessity of the case; but, under any circumstances, the arrangements which had beers made would afford them the security they sought. At the same time, he must be allowed to remark, that it was impossible for the Government not to feel that the practice of removing troops in detachments from one colony to another, was liable to considerable inconvenience. Looking at the vast extent of our colonial possessions, there would be great inconvenience in the attempt to meet every case of this kind, unless a much greater military force was employed: and with regard to the detachment which had been sent to New Zealand, he could not say how long it might be possible to maintain it there. There were, however, means by which the colonists might provide for their own safety. The government of the colony was authorised to levy a militia, or a constabulary force, constructed upon the principles of the constabulary force in Ireland, for the protection of the colonists; and, seeing that there were 10,000 inhabitants in the colony, he should say there would be but little difficulty in providing, in the way he had stated, for their mutual protection. With regard to the other question which his noble Friend had put in reference to the titles of land, all he could say was, that Captain Fitzroy had been sent with instructions from the Secretary of State, for the purpose of bringing those matters to a satisfactory termination. No blame whatever attached to the Government upon this subject.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, he had
1676
been informed by persons well acquainted with the colony that a very small force would be sufficient; but what the colonists particularly wished was that a small armed steamer should be stationed at Cook's Straits, as the most effectual means if protection. He was the last man who would impute blame to Her Majesty's Government on the subject, and the settlers themselves, in their petition, were very far from blaming the Government; on the contrary, they stated that the dispatches of Lord Stanley had given them every hope of a speedy prosperity, but they felt compelled to add, that the local authorities did not act up to the spirit or the letter of that noble Lord's instructions and dispatches. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) would not on that occasion trouble their Lordships with the particulars of the complaints of the colonists against the local authorities; but they asserted generally that very great blame rested with the executive of the colony, but not with the Government here.

SIPPLEMENTAL TREATY WITH CHINA.
The Earl of Aberdeen: My Lords, I beg to lay upon your Lordships' Table, by command of Her Majesty, a copy of a Supplemental Treaty made between Her Majesty and the Emperor of China. This Treaty contains the regulations of trade between England and that country. By it the northern ports of China are now open to British commerce; and, I am happy to say, with every prospect of complete success. It affords me, my Lords, much satisfaction to add, that general goodwill on the part of the population of that nation exists, and the best feeling on the part of Her Majesty's subjects. I trust that the precautions taken will prevent that good feeling from being diminished. I cannot allude to this subject without directing your Lordships' attention to the ability of the very distinguished man, Sir Henry Pottinger, by whom those negotiations have been effected, surrounded as he was by complicated difficulties—your Lordships cannot be aware how great they were—in a country so entirely new; but the great experience which he had previously gained elsewhere, enabled him, in spite of the complicated difficulties, which is not a little matter—to accomplish what he did. By the energy of his character, and the resources of his own mind, he surmounted them all.

1677
I will add, that in a country where suspicion and distrust are proverbial, he has contrived to instil a degree of confidence among the people that may be deemed almost insurmountable. My Lords, I do not hesitate to state, that we are mainly indebted to Sir Henry Pottinger for the happy result of the proceedings in China; but I am sure your Lordships will deeply regret that the state of his health requires his immediate return to this country. We are endeavouring to fill his place; and your Lordships may rest assured, that Her Majesty's Ministers are actuated by an earnest desire to forward his views with as little delay as possible.
The Marquess of Lansdowneconcurred cordially in the eulogy which had been passed by the noble Earl upon Sir Henry Pottinger. Every person who had served in the expedition against China, every person who had made himself acquainted with the proceedings which had recently taken place in that part of the world, would be aware of the distinguished and valuable services of that man, whose life had been spent in his country's service. Coming home, as he did, to the regret of Her Majesty's Government and of the country generally, on account of bad health, it might be satisfactory in some degree to know, that he carried out with him, when he was appointed, a fall knowledge of the great risk he incurred—he being at the time subject to a disorder, brought on in the course of previous services, which he knew would be aggravated by the climate to which he was proceeding. It must, however, be peculiarly gratifying to Sir H. Pottinger, and satisfactory to every person in the kingdom, to hear the services of that officer acknowledged in the handsome manner in which the noble Earl had that night acknowledged them, in laying upon their Lordships' Table the Treaties which those services had so much contributed to effect.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH TURKEY.
Lord Beaumontrose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to draw the attention of their Lordships to the state of our Commercial Relations with the Sublime Porte, and stated that he should endeavour briefly, and he hoped clearly, to point out the great disadvantage which British merchants, trading with the Levant, laboured under through the manner in which the Convention of 1838 had been carried out.
1678
In stating this, he begged to observe that he had no reason to complain of the supineness of Government in this case; for, from the very first moment the attention of the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) had been drawn to the subject, he had (he was aware) sought information from those quarters which could best afford it to him in that country, and the result of that information had convinced him that some steps must be taken to place our commerce with that portion of the world on a satisfactory footing, and that some negotiations must take place with a great northern power, to induce them to allow British merchants to be placed on the same footing with Russian merchants. It was not his wish to cast the slightest reflection on the conduct of the government of the Sublime Porte in this matter. He believed there was no ground for complaining of want of faith on the part of Turkey, that country having done its best to carry out, not only the letter, but the spirit and meaning of the Convention of 1838, but it had been thwarted in those good intentions by the influence which always prevailed most powerfully with the Porte—the influence of Russia, which had ever been hostile to British interests in Turkey. It would be necessary to state briefly the position in which the duties and customs of Turkey, in regard to its trade with foreign countries, had stood previous to the Convention to which he had alluded, and having done that, he would proceed to explain the nature and object of the Convention itself, also the character of the Treaty which had since been negotiated between Russia and the Porte, and the manner in which the two Conventions—that between the Porte and England on the one hand, and between the Porte and Russia on the other—operated to the detriment of British interests, and the great gain of Russian merchants. Previous to the Convention of 1838, all goods imported into or exported from Turkey, were subject to various duties in their internal transit through the country, every different district its different an separate duties, the levying of which, often in the most arbitrary and harassing manner, had been found to impede commerce in a considerable degree, and to interfere with the business of the merchants. And although in some provinces, as in the middle of Asia Minor, those duties were not more than 2 or 3 per cent., in others they were upwards of 9 per cent. on exports, and more than 2 per cent.

1679
upon imports. In addition to those internal duties, seacoast and frontier duties were also imposed upon all imports and exports, the duty on exports being greater than the duty on imports. To remedy this state of things, which was injurious both to the British merchant and the Turks themselves, negotiations were set on foot between England and Turkey, the result of which was the Convention of 1838, a Convention admirably conceived for effecting the object in view and conferring enormous benefit on Turkey; and, if fairly carried out, giving that advantage to British merchants which, even under all the existing disadvantages, they would be loth to forego, viz., the advantage of simplifying their transactions with the customhouses of the Ottoman empire. That Convention was framed upon these bases; that all imports and all exports, on arriving at the frontier or at the port, should pay an ad valorem duty of 3 per cent.; and that all imports should pay a duty of two per cent ad valorem, in lieu of all those harassing duties to which they had been previously subjected in the interior, thus making the total duty on imports 5 per cent. ad valorem, freeing them in regard to their future transactions from all other imposts. With regard to exports this was the plan—that they should pay 3 per cent. at the port, and a commutation of 9 per cent., in lieu of the internal duties, making a total export duty of 12 per cent. The advantage of this arrangement must be obvious; and they had upon their Lordships' Table evidence of the great benefits which had followed the Convention. The Ottoman merchants, and the people of Turkey generally, were alive to those advantages, and commerce had increased under the operation of the Convention. Their Lordships had the evidence of the British Consul, at the Dardanelles, who stated on the authority of merchants and others with whom he had communicated, how beneficially the Convention had worked so far as Turkey was concerned. Unfortunately, however, Russia, shortly after, was desirous of renewing her commercial Treaty with the Porte. She renewed her Treaty, and in doing so she established au ad valorem duty, and to prevent disputes between the two powers in carrying out that Treaty, a tariff of value was framed of the different goods in which the two countries traded, and a fixed price was put upon them. With regard to that tariff, he might observe in passing, that the prices were a
1680
trifle lower than those which had been put upon the goods in the tariff between England and Turkey; but that difference, as appeared from Mr. Cartwright's letter was not great. While under that tariff a duty of 3 per cent. was imposed by Turkey both upon imports and exports, as between Russia and the Porte, and in any case in which any dispute as to value should arise, that 3 per cent. was to be taken in kind, not one word was stated in the Treaty of the 9 per cent. on exports, and the 2 per cent. on imports, commutation duties which were imposed in the English Convention in lieu of the internal duties; and in the greater part of Turkey not 1s. of those internal duties did Russia pay. In the preamble to the Russian tariff, signed Sept. 27, 1842, it was stated that ''Russian merchants must pay, as import duty and as export duty on merchandise imported into and exported from Turkey, 3 per cent. To prevent disputes in valuing the goods, the contracting powers have made a tariff to stand as a fixed rule. If disputes should arise about the value of any goods, 3 per cent. on such goods shall be paid." Consequently, the Russian merchants possessed an advantage over the English merchants in their trade with Turkey of 9 per cent. on all exports and 2 per cent. on all imports, to the evident destruction of the British trade. And even in those cases where the Pacha of any district resisted the attempt to avoid the internal duties, it was the custom of the Russian merchants to pass their goods through as English merchants, claiming the benefit of the English Convention, until they arrived at the port or frontier, where they became Russian merchants again, and so escaped the internal duty altogether. As showing the extent to which this system prejudiced the British merchant he would refer to the evidence on the table:—Colonel Barnett, the Consul at Alexandria, states that
"The disadvantages under which British commerce labours, in consequence of Russian subjects being able to import and export on payment of only 3 per cent. cannot be disputed, and British goods have been imported in British vessels consigned fraudulently to a Russian subject to escape the 2 per cent. composition duty. Many Greeks will take advantage of the facility of obtaining Russian protection to elude payment of the extra duties, to the great detriment of our commerce."
Colonel Rose, writing from Beyrout, says,

1681
"The Convention of 1838, acted upon by the Russian tariff, has caused such injury to the interests of the British merchants that they practise evasions in order to free themselves from the payment of the excess of duty which they have to pay beyond that paid by the Russian merchants. One British merchant pays so much per cent. to a person who is a Russian merchant to trade as a Russian merchant. Russian merchants, all persons trading under Russian protection, do not pay duties equivalent to the commutation duties of 2 and 9 per cent. paid by British merchants under the Convention of 1838. The Russian seller can, therefore, drive the British seller out of the market. Mr. Chapeaud says, 'I, as a British merchant, lost at least 30,000 piastres this year, owing to the difference between the duties payable by us to those which Russian merchants pay.'"
Col. Wood, the Consul at Damascus, stated—
"As no extra internal duty is levied on Turkish produce beyond what is levied in the first instance on the grower, which is equally paid indirectly both by the British and Russian merchants, notwithstanding that the payment of the commutation duty of 9 per cent. is obligatory on the former, and is not so on the latter—and as the Russian merchants in carrying on their trade in Turkey are not subject to the payment of the commutation duty of 2 per cent. to which the British merchants are liable—the degree of injury to the British import and export trade in competition with the Russian trade may be easily calculated—namely, the difference between the Russian tariff of 3 per cent. import and export duties, and the British tariff and commutation duties of 5 and 12 per cent. the advantages therefore to the Russian merchants are a saving of 2 per cent. on imported and of 9 per cent. on exported goods, which by destroying competition, prejudices to a great extent the British import and export trade, or at least throws it into the hands of the Russian merchants, or of the natives under Russian protection."
Vice-Consul Neale added:—
"It is a notorious fact that imports to this country from Great Britain and oilier countries, when they consist of valuable commodities, are, whenever it can be effected, received under the name of a Russian merchant, or others under the protection of Russia, and trading under the Russian tariff."
Mr. Cartwright, who had obtained the evidence of British merchants in Constantinople, stated that our trade with Turkey, in consequence of the advantages given to Russia, was suffering more injury than it had experienced even before the Convention of 1838. Such a system could not but be
1682
productive of great loss of trade to this country, and the question he (Lord Beaumont) was anxious to put to the noble Earl opposite was, whether any negotiations had been set on foot to remove the inequality to which British merchants were subjected in their dealings with Turkey as compared with Russian merchants? and, if so, on what bases those negotiations were intended to be carried on? for he should be sorry to think that all the advantages of the Convention of 1838 would be lost to us, and that we should be placed as we were before that period, merely on the footing of the most favoured nations, restoring all the monopolies and the complicated system of imports which formerly existed. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to demand that the spirit of the Convention should be maintained, that was so far as the fixed duty on all imports and exports was concerned, and the principle of the tariff, by which all disputes of value were removed, and whether the noble Earl would endeavour to induce all foreign Powers, having commercial regulations with Turkey, to adopt the same principles, and thus establish for Turkey, that which would be of immense advantage to her, viz., a system of import and export duties to be levied at the port or the frontier, abolishing the internal imposts?
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, the noble Lord had given a most correct description of the inconvenience and disadvantage under which British commerce laboured in the Levant under the operation of the commercial treaty of 1838; but when the noble Lord asked whether negotiations were on foot to remedy those inconveniences, he must recollect that those negotiations did not depend upon this country and Turkey only, but upon the will of other Powers which had not acceded to the treaty in question. France had accepted the treaty as now concluded on the part of Great Britain. Austria had provisionally acceded to it; but Russia, when it was concluded, had not thought proper to accede to it. Previous to the date of that treaty, all nations alike paid in Turkey three per cent. duty on both exports and imports; a sum so moderate, that the Porte, to indemnify itself, found it necessary to have recourse to various internal duties, by which commerce was impeded and injured. No doubt the treaty of 1838 was a great improvement, both for Turkish and foreign commerce: but it was perfectly free to Russia, as far

1683
as she was concerned, to accede or not to accede to a treaty concluded by Turkey with other nations. By the first article of the treaty, however, if Russia was placed upon a more advantageous footing than this country, this country was entitled to be placed in the same condition. But the noble Lord would, if he referred to the reports of the consuls, find that not one of them—disadvantageous as our situation appeared to be—not one of them was anxious that we should be placed on the same footing with Russia. The matter was one really not for negotiation between this country and Russia. It was rather for the Porte to negociate with Russia, with a view to completing with that Power a similar treaty to that which it had completed with us. Perhaps he (the Earl of Aberdeen) would be most satisfactorily answering the questions of the noble Lord, and meeting all his expectations upon this subject, if he stated the simple fact that, within a recent period, instructions had been sent to the Russian Ministers at Constantinople to enter into negotiations for a treaty with the Sublime Porte, founded upon the same basis as that which had been concluded with Great Britain; and he had reason to hope before any long time had elapsed it would be acceded to. He could assure the noble Lord that Government had not been idle in this matter, but had used such efforts, and in such quarters, as they thought were most likely to be of effect. The noble Lord had correctly described the inconveniences and disadvantages to which British merchants in the Levant were subject under the existing state of things; but he hoped that in consequence of this direct communication between the Government of Russia and that of the Porte they would be avoided before very long. If they should not, it would become necessary for this country to exact what it was entitled to under the former treaty, that her subjects be placed upon an equal footing with those of the "most favoured nations."
Lord Beaumontsaid, he was delighted to hear the statement of the noble Lord, and he hoped the British merchants who had intended placing themselves under the protection of the Russian flag, would be induced to abstain from so doing, and to remain under that of their native country.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
The Lord Chancellorhaving moved the third reading of this Bill,
Lord Cottenhamsaid, that he did not rise on the present occasion to renew the discussion on this Measure, but he was anxious to offer a few, and they should be few, words for their Lordships' consideration. He thought he should be excused in thus troubling their Lordships, when he found that he had been charged with taunting the Government for the course they had adopted. He never charged the Government with giving up their opinions to a majority of the other House of Parliament. It was, however, no great merit on the part of the Government in yielding to a majority of the House of Commons. They could not help themselves in such a case. What he complained of was, that they had given up the opinions which they had expressed—they had given up the opinions expressed by the House of Commons—they had not yielded to Parliament, because the House of Commons had supported them; they had not altered their course in consequence of what had taken place within the walls of the House of Commons, but they had abandoned their measure because of what took place out of doors. He would refer to the speech of a right hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons on the second reading of the Government Bill of last year, in which he (Lord Cottenham) entirely concurred. The right hon. Gentleman uttered these opinions:—
"He could not consent to its withdrawal after all the pains bestowed on it by the Government, because it was his sincere conviction, regretting, as he undoubtedly must, that many private interests would be more or less injured by it, that it would greatly promote the public interest. Such being his firm conviction, and combined with the knowledge that ample compensation would be afforded to all those injuriously affected by it, it was impossible that he should accede to any proposition for the withdrawal of the Measure. It was equally impossible for him to acquiesce in the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport, because with all his respect for the Select Committee which the right hon. Baronet might propose to appoint, with all his conviction of the advantage which such a Committee could not fail to derive from being presided over by the right hon. Baronet, he felt assured that the details of the Measure had been arranged with the advice and concurrence of higher authorities than would be found in any Select Committee which could be appointed. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that all the details, without exception, were admitted by the Admiralty Commission. He had also the author-

1685
ity of a Measure almost identical with the present one, introduced in 1835, when the right hon. Baronet, now at the head of the Government, was in power. On the part of Earl Grey's Government, he (Sir J. Graham), after the Report of the Admiralty Court Committee, prepared a Measure identical with the present. Earl Grey quitted office, and Lord Melbourne succeeded, and Lord Campbell and Lord Cottenham undertook the same subject, and after bestowing infinite trouble and labour upon it, did not materially alter the measure which he (Sir James Graham) had framed. He had the opinions of three Chancellors in its favour; of the Ecclesiastical Commission, the opinions of Attorneys General, men of the highest legal authority on both sides of the House, and the Report of a Committee of the House of Lords. He, therefore, could make no concessions with regard to the principle. The details had been framed after the most minute investigation, and with the advice of the highest authorities; and with all deference to the House, he could hold out no hope—if this Bill should be rejected—that he should be able to offer any other which would be more acceptable with regard to its details. It was a question of principle which the House were now called on to decide, and should it be their pleasure to reject it on the second reading, he should deeply deplore such a result, nor could he help believing that for reasons which it would be indecorous in him to state—from the effects of private interests powerfully operating on the minds of individual Members the public would be deprived of a Measure which, it was his firm belief, would materially promote their interests."
Lord Campbellexpressed a wish that his noble and learned Friend had mentioned what the majority in favour of the Bill was, on being read a second time, because there was a considerable majority—a majority of nearly two to one, he believed.
Lord Cottenham: For the second reading, the Ayes were 186, and the Noes 104.
Lord Campbellsaid, that still, although they had a majority of nearly two to one upon the last occasion when this Bill came to a division, they had since themselves abandoned it. There could be no doubt that if they had supported it with determination, they would have succeeded in passing it through both Houses of Parliament. The Bill might have given offence in some quarters, where parties' interests were affected by it, but that was no reason why they should have abandoned the interests of the public. He could not help remarking, though he did not wish to enter upon that subject at
1686
present, how different the conduct of Her Majesty's Government had been in respect to this Bill to what it had been recently in regard to another measure, with which they had persevered, although the House of Commons had three times divided against it.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was not fair to say, that Her Majesty's Government had abandoned the Measure of last year upon this subject. The present Bill departed from the Measure of last Session only in one particular, that of the abolition of the Diocesan Courts. This the present Bill did not propose to do. The Government had adopted this course upon the conviction that although the principle of their Measure was generally agreed to, they should never be able to carry the abolition of those Courts. They, therefore, sent the Bill to a Committee, who had returned it in the very shape in which it was now before their Lordships. It was impossible to run entirely counter to the opinions of the House of Commons; but the Government, instead of "abandoning" the Measure, brought in one in its present form. The preceding Government had brought in Measures similar to that of last Session, and had failed; nor were the difficulties of modern origin. Sir W. Scott had stated, in the discussion on the Measure he had proposed upon the subject, that so long ago as the reign of James I. complaints had been made of the Ecclesiastical Courts' jurisdiction, and complaints which it had been unsuccessfully endeavoured to remedy in the reign of that King, in the reign of Anne, and, again, in the reign of George III. (1772). The present and the preceding Government had alike failed in Measures abolishing the Diocesan Courts. But the present Government unlike the former, endeavoured now to carry a Measure which was substantially that proposed by Sir W. Scott who (in 1813) said, in his statement of what his Measure purported to effect:—" He began with reforming part of the law as to excommunication; "—which the Government had not thought it necessary to advert to, as Bills upon the subject had in recent years been passed. "Next there was a provision for the abolition of a number of the minor Ecclesiastical Courts, on the principle that improvements in jurisprudence were promoted by the extension of jurisdiction;" that was just what the Government had done in

1687
their present Measure, they having therein abolished all the "Peculiars," which were the Courts alluded to by the learned Personage whose authority he was alluding to. "And it is intended to remove the proceedings in those inferior tribunals into the Diocesan Courts," so that Sir W. Scott recommended the continuation of the Diocesan Courts, and the removal into their jurisdiction of the business of the "Peculiars;" precisely what in the present Bill it was proposed to effect. "The qualifications of the Judges were also to be attended to" (and the rest of Sir W. Scott's Measure was occupied by provisions respecting Tithes and Church Rates). Now, the qualifications of the Judges in the continued Courts had been fixed at the rate which was deemed requisite; and Tithes also had not been overlooked; though, probably, nobody would consider that they had acted unwisely in not mixing up in the Measure the important, the difficult, and delicate question of Church Rates. Sir W. Scott had proceeded to explain that he had not extended his Bill to Ireland on account of his not feeling himself sufficiently acquainted with the Ecclesiastical Law of that country; and that eminent individual thus concluded his address upon the proposition of his measure: "Under many circumstances of disadvantage, he had discharged the duty the House had imposed upon him with great diffidence, well aware of the magnitude and importance of the subject. If the House should adopt his Bill, he should feel gratified; but if they should reject it, he should part from it without much regret." Sir S. Romilly said, "he regretted that a Measure which promised to be so generally advantageous should not be communicated to Ireland." Under all the circumstances, and with such authorities, had not the Government pursued a proper course? Was it not advisable to attempt to carry a Measure which every one admitted was advantageous, rather than run the risk of losing it by adding a provision disagreeable to the other House? On these grounds he recommended the Measure to their Lordships as one which, while it did not go the whole length some might wish, would yet effect highly useful and advantageous alterations in the law.
Lord Cottenhambegged to be allowed to observe, that the Bill of 1836 was not proceeded with for this reason, that the most Rev. Prelate at the head of the
1688
Church said it would be inconvenient to pass it before some Measure had been adopted for regulating the discipline of the Clergy. That was the only reason why the Bill was then abandoned. Indeed, he believed, that setting aside this one difficulty, he had the support of the majority of the Rev. Bench for the principle of his Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: But there have been several Bills of this kind abandoned within the last eight years. In 1832, the Bill brought in by the then Lord Chancellor; in 1833, another Bill by the same noble and learned Lord; in 1835, a Bill brought in by the then Attorney General: and in the same year, another Bill by the noble and learned Lord now sitting near me. Then came his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, in 1836, who brought in a Bill which also failed.
Lord Denmancould not help regarding it as a most melancholy and mortifying circumstance, that a Court whose abolition had been recommended for fourteen years—a Court which was a public nuisance, whose operation was most oppressive towards individuals, which had been condemned by all authorities of every description entitled to respect, should baffle the attempts of a Government which had come in with so much power to effect its removal. He would not enumerate cases of individual hardship, but there were some which would make their Lordships shudder. He observed a statement made in the debate which took place in the House of Commons on this subject, that the petitions were not numerous against these Courts, but were on the contrary numerous against their abolition. That would always be the case in grievances of this nature, where the sufferers were not sufficiently numerous to make an impression on the public, while at the same time the combination of interested individuals possessing power and influence in the country by means of private communication with Members of Parliament and the Government was often effectual in accomplishing their object. No doubt if the Bill should pass in its present imperfect state it would leave a most important question on the mind, whether by permitting the existence of these Courts, they did not, in fact, give their sanction, and thus add strength to the combination of interested persons in resisting any future

1689
attempts at reform. For the sake of the benefit which it did unquestionably confer, however, it was well that it should pass; raising though it did the important question, whether it would not, by continuing in existence, appear to extend a Parliamentary sanction and approval to the preservation of these Courts, and might not add strength to the combination of those interested in their opposition to the abolition of those Courts on future occasions? He heard, indeed, with pleasure, that the principle of that abolition had not been abandoned by the Government, who had yet thought it right, at present, to attempt only what they were certain of carrying. But his experience of late years had not led him to deem it disadvantageous for the ultimate success of any measure, that one of less extent, but tending to the same result and founded on the same principle, should previously be carried; and he hoped that this would be exemplified in the present instance.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that he felt compelled to say a very few words in consequence of what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. Having been one of the Commission which had sat on this subject, he must beg to say that he was not aware of any opinion which had been expressed by them at all, to the effect that the Diocesan Courts were a public nuisance. It certainly was stated in the report of the Commission that these Courts were founded during a totally different state of society, and were not adapted to the present state of society, and recommended that their jurisdiction should be transferred to a superior Court. But, as he said before, he never heard these Courts called a public nuisance in any document or report of which he was aware. With respect to the cases of hardship which were found in these Courts, he was aware that there had been some. But were there not also cases of hardship occurring continually in the Courts of Common Law, and in the Courts of Equity? The real fact was, that the hardship of many cases which had occurred in the Ecclesiastical Courts, arose from the restricted nature of their power. They could only go a certain length; they could sentence and commit to prison for contumacy, but had no authority to release. But he hoped that cases of this kind would not occur again; because the peculiar matters upon which they
1690
usually arose were taken by this Bill out of the jurisdiction of the Diocesan Courts.
Lord Denmanwould willingly submit to the rebuke of the right Rev. Prelate if he had used expressions too harsh; but he certainly had always been accustomed to consider these Courts as nuisances; and he had never heard in any other Courts of cases of such extreme hardship as he had known of in these. He owned he heard the right Rev. Prelate's concluding observations with apprehension, intimating, as he was afraid they did, a disposition rather to continue than to abolish the Diocesan Courts. He thought, really, that the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the character of the opposition to the Measure for their abolition might not be wholly inexpedient.
Lord Campbelldenied that the Church Courts would by this Bill be deprived of all power to inflict punishment. A man might still be libelled in those Courts for Church Rates, and put to an expense of 100 l. He also protested against the assertion of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, as to the identity of the present Bill with that introduced last year, from which, he contended, it differed both in detail and in principle. The principle of that Bill was the establishment of one Court for the whole of England and Wales, with regard to all contentious jurisdiction with respect to wills and marriages. This Bill, on the contrary, not only preserved all the Diocesan Courts, but established two new ones, and those who hoped for their speedy abolition would find themselves miserably disappointed since this new creation. His noble and learned Friend had referred to the opinion of Sir S. Romilly, forgetting that it was not between the establishment of a single Court for England and Wales, in matters of contentious jurisdiction, and the Diocesan Courts, that he had to decide, but mere improvement on the old system. Seeing the favourable sentiments manifested in favour of last year's Measure by the right Rev. Prelates and others, what reason was there for supposing that it could not have been carried?
Bill read a third time and passed.
House adjourned.