Lords Sitting of 20 May 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. 1a Debtor and Creditor.
2a Clergy Offences; Naval Prisons; Naval Service of Boys.
Reported.—County Buildings.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Bristol and Sheffield, for the Enactment of Sanitary Regulations for the Health of Towns.—From Gloucester and Bristol, against the Introduction of a Clause in any future Railway Bills, compelling the Running of Railway Trains on the Sabbath.—From Stourbridge, against the proposed Government Plan of Education.—From Halifax, against the Factories Bill; and from Glasgow and other places, in favour of the same.

THE KENTISH RAILWAYS.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONrose to call the attention of their Lordships to three Bills relating to railways, the consideration of which he wished should be referred to the Railway Commission. He was most anxious that every safe and practicable measure should be taken for the purpose of giving the Government and of giving Parliament the most complete knowledge, as well as all necessary control over those modes of communication now so rapidly extending over every part of the country. It appeared to him most important that the Government should possess the most entire and complete information of all the transactions which were going forward between the parties concerned in railways, in order that measures should be taken to render those modes of conveyance as useful as possible to the public at large, and as conducive to the public service as circumstances would permit. The object of one of the Bills then before their Lordships was to continue a railway direct from Dover to the metropolis through Canterbury. That continuation, as must be evident to every one, was a great object to the town of Dover, as well as to the whole county of Kent; and he certainly was anxious that the road from Canterbury to Dover should be continued; but he was not free from apprehension that, in consequence of some transactions which had recently taken place between the parties, that object might not

1095
be attained. His wish was that the most accurate knowledge possible should be obtained and communicated on the subject; and therefore he proposed that the Bills which then stood for a second reading should be referred to the Commissioners. The three Bills to which he alluded were the South-Eastern Railway (North Kent line), the South-Eastern Railway (Stroud to Maidstone), the South-Eastern Railway (Mid-Kent and Direct Tunbridge).
LORD BROUGHAMwas glad that his noble and gallant Friend had taken this matter into his own hands, because it was a most grievous thing to the public that parties should be allowed to come to an understanding on these matters amongst themselves. He knew that it was the noble Duke's constant recommendation to Parliament, when these railway schemes first began, that much more superintendence and care should be taken of them than was at the time unfortunately taken; and he was always of opinion that Government ought to exercise greater influence over these raiways than they did.
The EARL of RADNORobserved that it was owing to the opposition of the landowners of Kent that the railway was carried round instead of going direct through Canterbury.
EARL FITZWILLIAMreiterated the opinion which he had formerly expressed, that the whole question should be taken into the hands of Government.
LORD REDESDALEwished to ask the Government whether it was their intention to proceed with the Bill for giving powers to the Railway Commissioners during the present Session of Parliament. Such a measure was absolutely necessary; and if not passed during the present Session, it might not be so easy to pass it in the ensuing Session, when the railway interest might acquire greater strength in the Legislature.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEreplied that the attention of the Government was very seriously directed to the subject.
Bills to be referred to the Commissioners of Railways.

CLERGY OFFENCES BILL.
The BISHOP of LONDON, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that considerable alteration had been made in the present measure as compared with the Bill of last year, and he hoped that the changes which had been made would prevent much ill-feeling on the subject. In
1096
the first place, he wished to state that an attempt was made, and very undeservedly, to cast imputations on the Bill, upon the ground that its provisions were of an arbitrary character. He trusted that when its provisions came to be examined, those imputations would appear wholly unfounded. He wished further to state, that there would not be under this Bill any interference with the clergy upon doctrinal points, except in such cases as should be specially provided for. Another point of alteration was, that parties were to be examined before the diocesan council, with the power of cross-examining witnesses—a power which was not previously possessed; they would be examined by an excellent body of men, the cannons residentiary, or the rural deans. The changes made in the present Bill would also obviate many of the objections which had been urged against the former measure, because it would provide that no parties, except the bishop of the diocese, should be entitled to proceed against a clergyman for an offence not committed within the preceding five years. Under the old law the clergy might be brought before a court consisting of a single individual; but now they might be brought before the bishop, assisted by lawyers of experience and others of their brethren. He should be happy to attend to any alteration that might be suggested for the improvement of the Bill; but he hoped that there was nothing in it contrary to the spirit of the constitution of the Church or of the constitution of the country. The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMwas not prepared to deny that some measure was necessary to remedy the defects which had been so long complained of in church discipline over the members of that body; and if there had been any doubt upon the point, several recent cases before the courts had completely shown the impotence of the present law to correct the abuses that prevailed. At the same time, he was not prepared to say that the whole of this measure ought to receive the sanction of the House; and in particular there were two points to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention. The first was the revival for certain purposes of the Court of Delegates—a court than which no criminal had gone to his doom with the more unanimous consent of the bystanders; and the second was the constitution of the diocesan council, which he thought would

1097
be possessed of too much power, inasmuch as three out of the five who composed the council could not be challenged. But he would leave it to a more convenient opportunity to discuss those points, hoping, that as he had no wish to obstruct the progress of the Bill, the right rev. Prelate might in the meanwhile be enabled to remove the cause of his objections to it. He might, however, say that there was one part of the Bill which he most entirely approved of, and that was the clause which gave the power of selecting the diocesan court or the Court of Arches. That clause—in short, the whole measure—had been most carefully framed, and evidently by a person who was well acquainted with the subject.
The BISHOP of LONDONobserved, that it was drawn by his right rev. Friend near him (the Bishop of Exeter).
The BISHOP of EXETERwas much obliged to his noble and learned Friend for supporting this Bill. That it admitted of improvement, no one could deny; but he was surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord complain of the revival of the Court of Delegates—a court that had existed for centuries without having any reflections cast upon it. He was glad of the promised assistance of his noble and learned Friend in modelling this Bill; and he hoped it would become an efficient and perfect measure. On all questions of doctrine, however, he thought there ought to be a numerous court of divines to determine those questions, and he hoped that in Committee such an amendment would be made; and he thought the diocesan council would work well. But he merely threw this out as a suggestion, as he wished, without violating any principle, to make the measure satisfactory to their Lordships, gratifying to the clergy, and bearing on its face the most benignant character. As to the bishops, there was a most efficient discipline; for when they offended against the ecclesiastical law, they were to be tried by the archbishop, who called to his aid six bishops. It was for the clergy at large that further legislation was necessary.
The LORD CHANCELLORassured their Lordships that no one was more sensible of the defects of the law, or was more desirous, while he corrected their faults, of protecting the clergy against accusations which were false. But, at the same time, he could not feel very confident that the happy time was come when this could be effected. He had himself introduced a Bill to apply a remedy, which had passed
1098
through Committee without opposition; it had been approved by all parties, and it was introduced with the unanimous concurrence of the right rev. Bench, and, but for the unfortunate interference of the right rev. Prelate who spoke last, the Bill would have become law. It had, however, been lost; and the result was, that all parties now agreed that some Act was necessary. In his Bill he had proposed a preliminary inquiry, with an appeal to the Judges of the Court of Arches; and he thought it of importance to provide a court of review, not only to protect individuals, but because the fact of a right to appeal made the party who pronounced the original judgment more cautious; and he confessed he preferred any respectable and competent body to restoring the Court of Delegates, where the judges would be only selected for each particular question. The great difficulty he had met with was how to defray the expense, and at the same time have a competent tribunal. He was of opinion that the accused party ought to have the right either to submit, if he pleased, to the jurisdiction of the inferior court, or, if he preferred it to carry the cause at once from the diocesan court to the Court of Arches.
The BISHIP of LONDONexpressed his willingness to make any modification in the Bill that would tend to promote its object, which was to effect speedy and inexpensive justice.
LORD CAMPBELLdid not like the idea of the Court of Delegates being revived. It had been universally condemned; and he believed it would never again be tolerated. It was always considered a very defective tribunal; and the present measure was not calculated to reform it. The principle upon which the court was constituted was bad, it being made for the particular occasion, and appointed to sit for each case as it arose, toties quoties, which was in itself a great objection. It had been made a matter of complaint that no bishop was allowed to sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He, for one, should be very glad to see some of the right rev. Prelates present and assisting at that tribunal, which he considered a far more preferable course than that of adopting the proposed measure.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsupported the Bill, and approved of the principle on which the new tribunal was proposed to be constituted. A great deal had been said about protecting the parochial clergy; he was of

1099
opinion that the greatest protection which could be given to them was, to provide a ready means by which the innocent clergy might be protected from the disgrace which the had conduct of a few was now capable of reflecting upon the whole body, owing to the almost impracticability of bringing punishment home to the evil-doers. As the law now existed, many disgraceful and dishonourable crimes, on the part of a few unworthy clergymen, were allowed to escape unpunished. He hoped an effectual remedy would be provided for this evil. But the Court of Arches was not the tribunal best adapted to afford that remedy; for every one knew that from its peculiar machinery, and its own way of managing its affairs, great facilities for escape were afforded to the vicious, provided they did not mind the expense.
Bill read 2a.

NAVAL PRISONS BILL.
The EARL of AUCKLAND The EARL of AUCKLAND moved the Second Reading of the Naval Prisons Bill. In the course of the noble Earl's explanation of the nature of the Bill (in which he was almost inaudible), he was understood to say, that with reference to a subject mentioned by a noble Friend opposite (Lord Colchester) a few nights ago, namely, the enabling naval courts-martial in certain cases to pass a sentence short of death, that if the noble Baron would bring in a Bill for that purpose, it should receive his most favourable consideration.
LORD COLCHESTERdid not oppose the second reading of the Bill, and would reserve some objections he had to the details until it was in Committee. He offered his thanks to the noble Earl for the kind manner in which he had received his proposition, the object of which was this—that whereas, by certain articles, naval courts-martial were restricted from passing sentence short of death, he wished that they should have the power, as in the Army, of pronouncing a sentence of death, or of such other punishment short of death, as the offence should to the court appear to deserve. He wished to see the same rule prevail in the Navy as in the Army.
After a few observations from Lord SALTOUN, Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.