§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read. Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.
The Marquess of Clanricardewould request the right rev. Prelate, who had charge of the Bill which stood for a second reading to-night, to postpone the measure, which had only been presented to their Lordships on the 16th of June, and was one of the utmost importance.
The Archbishop of Dublinhad conceived that no opposition or objection whatever would have been offered to his proceeding with the Bill, because he could not conceive that any person could be averse to it, whose conduct was, as he believed that of the noble Marquess to be, and as he was bound to suppose that of every one of their Lordships to be, fair, and honourable, and upright. It would not put a stop in any way to proceedings against the bishops in Ireland in contests respecting rights of presentation; but it would enable them to lay on their successors the legal expenses to be incurred on their account. The whole object of the Bill was to prevent the bishops from being grievously impoverished, or deprived of their just rights. The principle was no other than that already affirmed by Act of Parliament, that the building of the parson's house or the see house, should be charged partly on the successors of those to whom they belonged for life.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, the right rev. Prelate had given an answer befitting the country of his adoption, and of his (the Marquess of Clanricarde's) parentage; for, having asked the right rev. Prelate to postpone his measure, he had entered into a long statement describing it. He should remind their Lordships that this Bill was only read a first time on the 16th; and as no one but some of their Lordships especially interested had had time to read it, he should move that it be postponed until the 30th. The preamble went on the assumption that the lay patrons were the aggressors, whereas almost in every case they had succeeded in the lawsuits with the bishops. Besides, why should not the owner of an estate strictly entailed, be allowed to charge the expenses of such lawsuits on his heir, if the bishop was allowed to do so as to his successor?
The Earl of Wicklowdoubted whether the noble Marquess could give better reasons 851 for opposing this measure than he had just delivered, supposing their Lordships agreed to his postponement. The fact was, this Bill was a necessary consequence of that passed last year, limiting the time of bringing these actions. The advowsons would be handed over to the claimants, if some such protection was not afforded; for it could not be expected that prelates elevated to sees often at an advanced period of life, would incur enormous expenses in defending rights by which their successors would benefit.
§ Their Lordships then divided, on Question, that "now" stand part of the Motion:—Contents 19; Non-contents 35: Majority 16.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he considered it was against all precedent to press forward a measure, with the nature of which many noble Lords were wholly unacquainted. He might state that a dispute had arisen between a right rev. Prelate and himself with reference to a right of presentation; his adversary had taken the case through every court, and eventually it was brought before their Lordships; and after a lapse of nine years from the commencement of the proceedings a final decision was given, the judgment of every court having been in his (the Marquess of Clanricarde's) favour.
Lord Broughamsaid, he entertained no objection to this Bill, and he did not think the noble Marquess had any state-able grounds of objection to it. He considered that a great injustice was inflicted upon the Irish prelates by the Act of last Session, which fixed a time beyond which no action could be brought to try the title of presentation to a living. The bishops were compelled to proceed in such cases within a certain time; and consequently actions which might bave spread over a century were crowded within one or two years, and the unfortunate archbishop or bishop at present in possession of the see, was compelled at his own proper cost to defend his rights. He saw no objection to the second reading of the Bill to-night, for the noble Marquess would have ample opportunity of discussing its merits in Committee, on the Report, or on the third reading.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid their Lordships had had as much time for considering this Bill as was usually afforded them in the case of other measures.
§ Lord Cottenhamthought their Lordships 852 must have seen enough of the Bill to convince them that it was absolutely necessary for the interests of the Irish prelates. The existing bishops might be ruined by litigation before their rights were ascertained, and the object of the measure was to provide against this evil by the mode adopted in other cases. The question was between the lay patron, who claimed the right of presentation, and the ecclesiastical patron, who enjoyed the patronage; and the ecclesiastical patron had to pay the expenses of litigation with regard to rights in which he himself had very small interest.
§ The Earl of St. Germansthought that individual prelates ought not to be saddled with the expense of such extensive litigation as that in which they might be involved for the maintenance of their rights; and he hoped their Lordships would not consent to delay a Bill of so much importance.
Lord Campbellsaid, this might be a very meritorious Bill, but he thought that further time ought to be allowed for its consideration. In his opinion they should be cautious to provide some check upon useless and unnecessary expenditure; for if a bishop presented without just right he was the assailant. It was proposed by the Bill, that the Judge should certify that there had been reasonable grounds for defending actions of this nature. He considered that this provision would impose an invidious duty upon the Judges; and he would suggest that the Attorney or Solicitor General for Ireland should give his opinion before the case came on for trial as to whether there was just and reasonable ground of defence.
The Marquess of Clanricarderecommended that the Committee on the Bill should be put off till time was afforded for consultation with the parties in Ireland.
§ Lord Denmanagreed with Lord Campbell, that it would be necessary to look fully into the details of the Bill.
§ Bill read 2a.
§ House adjourned.