§ LORD BROUGHAM moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It would on Saturday next be thirty-two years since an address was presented to the Prince Regent by both Houses of Parliament, praying His Royal Highness to appoint Commissioners to digest the statute law of this country. Although thirty-two years, however, had elapsed since that time, no legislative measures had been adopted on this important subject. There were some persons who were anxious for reforms in the law, but who would not be satisfied with any reforms that might be proposed: while there were others who were opposed to all reform, and who seemed to think that the law of England was almost perfect. For his own part he was in favour of well-considered and slow—because sure—reforms in the law; for he desired so to amend the law of England that it might 991 be not only almost but altogether perfect. In asking their Lordships to give this Bill a second reading, he proposed to refer to a Select Committee, and he intended to lay before that Committee a digest of the reports of the Commissioners who had collected information on this subject. He did not propose to proceed with the Bill in the present Session, and therefore ample opportunity would be afforded during the long vacation of considering its provisions.
The LORD CHANCELLORwas glad that his noble and learned Friend proposed to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, as it related to a subject upon which many different opinions existed, and one which required serious consideration.
LORD CAMPBELLalso expressed his entire approval of the course taken by his noble and learned Friend. He thought, however, that if his noble Friend had communicated privately with the Judges, and with other persons conversant with this subject, he might have brought his Bill to something like perfection before he had submitted it to the House. If the noble and learned Lord persevered in the course upon which he had entered—if he introduced a comprehensive and beneficial reform in the law of this country—he would, like another great man, go down to posterity with his code in his hand.
The EARL of POWISsaid, he wished to call their Lordships' attention to a very important provision in this Bill. Among the clauses relating to offences against the Queen's person, not amounting to high treason, there was one providing that any dean or chapter who should refuse the election as bishop of a person named in a letter missive, or any bishop or archbishop who should refuse to proceed, in a certain number of days, to the consecration of such person, should be guilty of an offence under that Bill, and should be punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years, or by fine, arbitrary and unlimited, or by both. He considered that, if a person holding ecclesiastical dignity felt it his duty, under certain circumstances (which they would easily conceive might arise, as such instances had already occurred), to refuse election or consecration to any individual who might be appointed to the office of bishop, such a person should not be stigmatised as an offender against the Queen's person, or classed with Chartists. He thought the interests of the Church required that this subject should be carefully 992 considered, and with a seriousness consistent with the importance of the question.
LORD BROUGHAMrejoiced to see the earnestness and zeal with which the noble Earl had taken up this subject; but he might be allowed to observe that zeal was more valuable when it was accompanied by knowledge, than when it was dissociated from it. Now, as the law at present stood, any dean and chapter, or bishop, acting as the noble Lord had described, were liable to what was termed in law the penalties of prœmunire—to forfeiture of lands and tenements, goods and chattels, and to imprisonment during life. But the purpose of his (Lord Brougham's) Bill was to abolish prœmunire in this case altogether, and to diminish the punishment to imprisonment for three years. The Crown really appointed the bishop, but there was still preserved an absurd ceremony, whereby the deans and chapters were called upon to elect a person as to whom they had no choice; and in all cases all opposers of his election were called upon to appear, and if they did appear they would not be heard, and if they did not appear they were declared contumacious. He thought that as the Crown in fact appointed the bishop, it would be much better that the Crown should do it in form as well as in substance.
§ LORD DENMANsaid, that the proposed alteration was very favourable to deans and chapters, and other ecclesiastical persons, who might under the present law incur the penalties of prœmunire; but he must say that he hoped this would be taken out of the criminal code altogether, and that the power of appointing the bishops would be vested directly in the Crown.
§ The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHobserved, that though the Crown were to appoint directly, yet the archbishop must consecrate, and then the difficulty, which it was suggested might be avoided by the direct nomination of the bishop by the Crown, might arise.
§ LORD DENMANsaid, the election and consecration of bishops were ministerial not judicial acts. It was a direction to the archbishop. Certain questions were asked by the archbishop, and when they were answered he was bound to proceed with the ceremony.
Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
Committee named.