Lords Sitting of 15 March 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. 3½ per Cent. Annuities; 3½ per Cent. Annuities (1818); Consolidated Fund.
Private.—Reported.—Bow Brickhill Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Hereford, from Deanery of Burford, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Stamford, respecting their Local Jurisdiction.—By the Earl of Haddington, from Schoolmasters (Scotland), praying for Better Remuneration.

RAILWAYS.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, a petition had been entrusted to him, which he believed he could not consistently with the usages of Parliament lay on the Table, but upon which he would beg to found a few observations. It was a petition from some of the inhabitants of Scarborough, against certain provisions of the York and Scarborough Railway Bill, now before the House of Commons. The particular points to which the petitioners objected were, that this branch Railway, which was forty miles in length, was projected by a company whose main line was only twenty-seven miles long; and the next objection, which was a more important one, was against the making this a single line. Many persons thought there was danger, but he was sure there was at least much inconvenience, in having a railway of such length as forty miles, consisting only of a single line. It was true their Lordships had last Session given their sanction to the construction of a railway about the same length in a single line, but he thought that was very injudicious, and hoped they would not strengthen the practice by repetition, for if they sanctioned such a principle no lines would ever be made double, because, of course, the single line was cheaper and more convenient to the projectors. He could not help expressing his strong wish that the Executive Government of the country would take into their serious consideration the whole question of the system of Railways throughout the country. He was satisfied that even now, after the number of Railways that had been made, the Government could most efficiently and usefully under take the conduct of the others. His notion would be that they should issue a commission to survey the country, and to determine what were the points which required to be connected by means of railway communication, and then to lay down the lines, and after that to leave it to individuals to execute them. He was not desirous that the Government should undertake the formation of lines of Railway, but he thought enormous expense and a vast deal of ill-feeling would have been saved a they had originally undertaken the control of them to the extent

1061
he had stated, for if a landowner residing in the country were told on the authority of the Government that a particular railway, though inconvenient to him, was of importance to the country, he would, if he had any good feeling, readily submit; but he was not likely to be so complaisant if the persons with whom he had to deal were speculators who projected railways, not for the interest of the public, but merely that they themselves might be able to gamble in the shares in the market. There was a line of importance now in contemplation—the line through Cambridge to the North of England, which would shorten the distance between Yolk and London by twenty or thirty miles, but since that Railway was projected, there had been movements on the part of a great company to give to the people of Lincoln such a modicum of railway communication as would render them less anxious for that original line: such were the projected lines from Swindon to Gainsborough and Lincoln, and from Nottingham to Lincoln. He had no doubt the Committee now appointed in the other House had every desire to do what was right, but as the Government had the power to do whatever they pleased, he thought the appointment of such a Commission as he had suggested would be of great service.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas understood to say that the whole subject would be taken into consideration, with a view to an inquiry into the means of increased accommodation to the public.

THE REV. HERBERT MARSH.
Lord Campbellsaid, he wished briefly to notice some observations which had, on a preceding evening, fallen from the right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), relative to the case of the Rev. Mr. Marsh; and he did so for the purpose of setting the question right with respect to the law as it affected that case. The right Rev. Prelate had stated, that he could not interfere on account of the provisions of the Church Discipline Act, the operation of which was confined to offences committed within the diocese where the preferment held by the accused party was situated. He did not mean to refer to the general law on the subject, but he felt it necessary to point out what was the operation of the particular measure alluded to, because he had the honour of being Attorney General at the time it was enacted; and if its
1062
operation were such as had been stated, then he, and all the Members of both Houses of Parliament who had concurred in it, were liable to considerable discredit. One reason assigned by the right Rev. Prelate for not proceeding was, that if the offence were committed out of the diocese where the party held preferment, he was prevented from acting, and the offence might be committed with impunity. On referring to the Act it would be found that wherever the offence was committed, the Bishop of the diocese in which it was committed was authorised to issue a Commission to inquire into it; but it did not stop there, for by the l3th section of the Act, in every case the Bishop of the diocese in which the preferment lay might, if he pleased, refer the case to the Court of Arches, in the province of Canterbury, and to the Supreme Court, in the province of York, and if the right Rev. Prelate had considered this a fit case, he might by letter of request, have referred the case to Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, and evidence would have been taken upon it, whether the offence had been committed in the diocese of Peterborough, the diocese of London, or as he conceived, in any part of the world. He was glad to have an opportunity of stating that in this respect the Church Discipline Act was properly framed, and that the scandal which was supposed to have arisen out of the circumstances in question was not to be imputed to the existing state of the law.
The Bishop of Peterboroughsaid, he was obliged to the noble and learned Lord for having stated what the law was on this subject; and for having shewn that there is a provision in the Church Discipline Act, by which a Bishop may proceed against an offence, though not committed in his own diocese. The statement which he had made in their Lordships' House was certainly the impression of his own mind on the subject. It appeared that he was in error on that point. When the subject was last brought to their Lordships' notice, he was, as it were, taken by surprise. The noble and learned Lord and the House would bear in mind that he (the Bishop of Peterborough) said, that the question of time was in itself conclusive, the Act of Parliament excluding all cases of offence committed more than two years ego; and the offence of Mr. Marsh had been committed four years ago. The opinions which he (the Bishop of Peterborough) had expressed, were entertained by many

1063
persons besides himself, who had not given the subject that deep consideration which the noble and learned Lord had done. As he had before said, the question of time—viz., four years having elapsed since the offence was committed—was one which of itself put a stop to all proceedings. Their Lordships would recollect, that he gave three different reasons, which, according to the Act, prevented his proceeding; namely, the time,—and the offence having been in another diocese, and the fact of the benefice being in his own patronage. He frankly admitted to their Lordships that he had felt something like an unwillingness to proceed against a clergyman when he was accused by a person of ill fame for an act committed four years ago. The fact of the accusation was all he knew of the case at first, and when further inquiries were made he was told that Mr. Marsh had paid a visit to this unhappy woman at Paris four years ago. Under these circumstances, while there was living in the parsonage an aged and excellent mother in a very precarious state of health to whom any agitation might have been fatal, he had felt thankful, and he was sure their Lordships would enter into his feelings—he had felt thankful that there was an opportunity given him to be backward in this case until something more came to light which would justify him in proceeding. Some persons seemed to think that be had known all that came out on the late trial; on the contrary, however, a great portion of it was altogether unknown to him; so much so, that he was perfectly astonished when he read the complete disclosure. The utmost he had been led to suppose that was laid to the charge of Mr. Marsh was described as "an occasional visit and intercourse" with this woman in Paris four years ago; but on his own confession it appeared that he was in the habit of visiting houses of the same description in London; and he now felt himself pressed by his right rev. Friends, by their Lordships, and by all who had regard to the character of the clergy, to proceed in a manner he did not feel before; and the noble and learned Lord had shown a method by which this might be done,—by bringing the case before the Archbishop's Court. Still there was the great obstacle—the time. There were many difficulties in the existing state of the law. A Bishop might give a licence of non-residence to a clergyman for certain reasons, such as personal ill-health, the ill-
1064
ness of a wife, or a very near relation; and supposing a person applied for non-residence whose case did not come under any of these heads, still a licence might be obtained by application through the Bishop to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Now, if a clergyman whose example in his parish was bad, and whose presence was altogether useless, applied, a Bishop naturally felt an inclination to give a licence for non-residence; whereas a person of character, performing his duty regularly and well, could not obtain it. There was certainly something in that case that seemed rather strange. Again, suppose a living was worth only 140 l. or 150 l. a-year, the curate might take it all,—and not too much; but suppose it were worth 900 l. a-year, the non-resident might put the whole in his pocket, allowing the curate only 150 l. But, however contradictory these things might appear, there was one great consolation he had in believing and knowing that such cases as that of Mr. Marsh were very rare. When this case came before the public, some people said, "See what things take place in the Church;" but the very excitement which had been caused, in this great town, and the attention which their Lordships had given to the case, showed that such cases were very rare. Such cases where laymen were concerned might occur and no notice be taken of them at all; and the notice they attracted when clergymen unfortunately were the parties to be blamed is itself an argument of their rare occurrence. Indeed, he thought it might fairly be urged as a ground for excusing the ignorance he had shown on the subject, that Bishops were so seldom called on to investigate such charges; and he believed if the offence had occurred in any other diocese, his right rev. Brethren would have happily been as inexperienced as he was. He certainly had been under the impression that it was only when the offence was committed within his diocese that the Act enabled a Bishop to interfere. Although a difference of opinion on some points of more or less importance might prevail among the clergy, yet immorality among them he believed to be rare; and he should feel indeed distressed if such charges could be brought before the public as at all affecting the general character of the clergy. Immorality had been the exception, not the rule; and, instead of the Church falling off, it was improving in its character and increasing in its efficiency every day, to which most important end the mode in which some of their Lordships had

1065
exercised their patronage had in no small degree contributed. He deeply lamented that such a case should have occurred, but he repeated it was a rare occurrence, and he trusted it would become still rarer. He should not have troubled their Lordships with this statement but for the observations of the noble and learned Lord, for whose explanations he felt most thankful.
Lord Lilfordwas understood to say that discussions of this nature, as far as they affected the character of a body, had better be suffered to sink into oblivion. But he wished to state the reason why he had taken the liberty of originating this subject. He had put a question to the right rev. Prelate, because he felt it important that there should be a denial of a report which he had seen in the newspaper of the day, and which was to the effect that "this man continued, and continues, with the connivance of his Bishop, to preach the gospel—to administer the sacraments, and to appear as the authorized representative of the English Church—the guardian of souls, the guide of consciences to an English congregation." He thought, after the explanation which their Lordships had heard, they would consider that the course taken by the right rev. Prelate was the only one that he could have taken, and he trusted they would acquit him (Lord Lilford) of any unnecessary interference.
House adjourned.