Lords Sitting of 9 June 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Ecclesiastical Courts (84); Ecclesiastical Procedure and Registry * (85); Dogs (134); Pensions Commutation * (128).
Report—Trust Funds (Investments) * (165).

FRANCE—THE COMMUNIST INSURRECTION AT PARIS—BRITISH SUBJECTS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEwished to put a Question to the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether he could give any information to the House as to the number of British subjects now imprisoned in Paris in consequence of the late disturbances?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am quite willing to answer my noble Friend's Question as to a matter of fact. A statement having been made that several thousand Englishmen were engaged in the late melancholy occurrences at Paris, Lord Lyons made it his duty to inquire in every possible way how many had really been concerned in them, and he could not find that more than one Englishman had entered the National Guard. At all events, the number, instead of thousands or hundreds, could more easily be counted by tens. With respect to the particular Question put to him by the noble Earl—although innumerable prisoners were taken by the Versailles troops, not more than 15 or 20 English-
  1746
  men were among them, and as against two-thirds of these there was no case whatever; and at this moment the British Embassy have ascertained that there is only a single British subject in prison, and that one an unfortunate boy, who, having been taken fighting behind the barricades, may possibly be severely dealt with. Though it is not perfectly regular, I may take the opportunity of reading a despatch I have received from Mr. Malet as to the conduct of a gentleman who has behaved with admirable judgment and ability at a very trying period, and in a post of great danger. He says—
  "On Wednesday morning, the 24th inst., news was brought to the Embassy that two English officers of Engineers, Mr. Noel and Mr. Churmside, had been arrested and taken to the barracks of the Louvre. I wrote a letter to General Douai, commanding in the Place Vendôme, asking for their release, and Mr. Saumarez volunteered to undertake the matter himself. He thought it advisable to endeavour to find the officers first, in order to be able to state positively to General Douai where they were, and to prevent their immediate execution at a time when prisoners, especially foreigners, are being shot indiscriminately. On reaching the Rue do Rivoli, Mr. Saumarez found it deserted, and going on under the arcades was summoned across the street by a soldier, and then saw that he had been under the Ministry of Finance, which was blazing. It was also clear that the whole of the street was under fire from the Hôtel de Ville, still defended by the insurgents. Mr. Saumarez reached the Tuileries, which was burning, and inquired of an officer whether there were any prisoners at the barracks of the Louvre; the officer replied that if there were any they must be burnt or shot by that time, and not till then did Mr. Saumarez give up his pursuit in this direction. He again crossed the Rue do Rivoli, while the shells were bursting among the arcades, and succeeded in reaching the Place Vendôme, where he found the arrested officers, who had indeed been started for the barracks of the Louvre and brought back as it was impossible to reach them. I should have brought Mr. Saumarez' conduct to your Lordship's notice sooner, but I have only learnt by degrees the details which I have the honour to give. On my inquiring at the time whether he had been successful he merely replied that both the officers were out."
  I think your Lordships will be glad to have been made acquainted with the contents of this despatch.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL—(No. 84.)
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL—(No. 84.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, it is, no doubt, somewhat late in

  1747
  the Session to move the second reading of the Bills now before your Lordships, but the delay has been owing to one or two circumstances beyond my control. At an earlier period of the Session the Returns for which I moved last year were very incomplete—indeed, they are not now exactly what they should be; and, in the next place, I waited for the presence of the most rev. Primate, whom we are all glad to see again in his place. The two Bills, with very few exceptions indeed, are almost identical with the Bill that came down from the Select Committee; but I admit that both in Committee and in your Lordships' House certain noble Lords reserved their undoubted right of protesting against some portions of the measure, and of opposing them to the utmost extent of their power, and resistance to it on this occasion was therefore to be expected. I confess, however, I was not prepared to hear a Member of the Episcopal Bench (the Bishop of Peterborough) give Notice that he should move the entire rejection of the whole Bill—the rejection not merely of the clauses to which objection was taken in the Committee, but of the proposed Amendments in the mere construction and conduct of the Courts. Now, I feel that this sudden opposition places me in a great difficulty, and I am therefore prepared to surrender one part of the measure for the present, with the view of securing the remainder. I have at all times been far more anxious to secure due reforms of the Ecclesiastical Courts in their construction and procedure, than to obtain any of those clauses relating in some measure to doctrine or discipline. I have been more anxious to secure cheaper and more expeditious tribunals, than to carry any of those proposals which raise so much opposition. I am prepared, therefore, to withdraw the famous 33rd clause, which gave power to the laity to promote the office of the Judge and to institute suits without the concurrence or approbation of the Bishop, and all the clauses connected with it. It is to that clause that the greatest opposition has apparently been directed, and I propose to bring it forward as a separate Bill next year. I do not attach any great value to it, for were it carried it would very seldom be brought into operation; and I believe, moreover, that the laity have never lost the power which they formerly possessed of pro-
  1748
  moting the office of the Judge; it was, we have reason to believe, not taken from them by the Discipline Act, as it is called, of 1840, and an opportunity will no doubt arise of testing that power in some one of the superior Courts, and of coming to a conclusion upon it without the necessity of enacting it anew. But I must ask your Lordships to give your aid in effecting the necessary reforms in the construction and conduct of the Courts. Now, when I brought forward this measure in 1869 I adduced a great many testimonies in proof of the character of these Courts, and though I should be sorry to weary your Lordships by a repetition of them, it is necessary that I should remind you of the judgment pronounced on them by high authorities who have maintained the absolute necessity of a thorough reform. The first opinion I will quote is that of a Committee of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury in 1853. They reported—
  "That they are unanimously of opinion that the present state of the law touching the discipline of the clergy is unsatisfactory, and that it needs amendment. That the great expenses and delays attending such proceedings, which amount frequently to a denial of justice, have not been removed by the recent Acts upon this subject. That the provisions of the last Act, which governs the present administration of the law, are inadequate for their purpose."
  They concluded by saying—"It is highly important that such evils should be remedied." Lord Cranworth in 1856, in introducing his Bill on the subject, described the existing system as "cumbrous, dilatory, and expensive," and quoting the famous case of "Farnell v. Craig," he said—
  "The proceedings commenced in March, 1845. The Commissioners, who sat for nine days, no doubt at an enormous expense, agreed upon a report. Mr. Craig was not satisfied with it, and brought the case into the Court of Arches in November, 1845, where it remained hung up and pending at an enormous cost until 1847. There was then an appeal to the Judicial Committee, and in March, 1849, four years from the commencement, the Judicial Committee decided there was no ground for the action, and the defendant was set free, subject only to the enormous costs of the suit."—[3 Hansard, cxli. 1255.]
  In 1859, the Bishop of Killaloe, a high authority, said—
  "I believe that the present state of the ecclesiastical law and the Ecclesiastical Courts in England tends greatly to uphold the influence of evil by affording shelter to grave delinquents, and obstructing the effectual punishment of immorality and the expulsion of religious error."

  1749
  I will only quote one more opinion, that of a high authority, the most rev. Prelate who presides over the archdiocese of York, who, speaking in 1865 in the Convocation of that Province, used these very strong words—
  "The mode of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts in dealing with cases led to endless and countless delays, and constant miscarriages of justice, and he know that if there should be one erring brother causing a scandal to Christ's flock out of the many who were doing their duty faithfully, it was not in the power of the Bishops to bring such offender to justice without very long delays and very considerable expense, which had to be borne by himself. First, as to delays, he should like to see the Ecclesiastical Courts, in their rules and proceedings, assimilated to our Common Law Courts; and then it would not be possible for a man to dodge and put off his trial by dilatory pleas, which had to be answered by tedious replications, but upon a certain day he would be brought to his trial, and the public mind would then be satisfied, either of his innocence or of his punishment; the thing would be brought to a close, and the scandal removed."
  He went on to describe a case in which the Bishop was asked to punish one of the greatest offenders ever known in our Church; but having already spent £4,000 upon another case in the same year, he was unable to bear the expense of another process. He added—
  "The delays and the expense and the cumbrous procedure of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which had descended to us from past generations, should be swept away, in order that simple justice might be simply done. He would not be thought to wish for more powerful machinery to bear upon the clergy, but he knew that it was the feeling of all the Church, of the clergy, and of the laity, that when a great scandal arose it should be inquired into by a strictly legal examination as to the guilt or innocence of the party accused. Such a power was essential to the safe conduct of the Church, in whose welfare they all took so deep an interest. … One necessary provision would be, in any alteration of the Ecclesiastical Courts, that the rules and course of procedure should be assimilated to the Common Law Courts, which worked so well."
  Now, that is precisely the object of the Bill—to assimilate these Courts to the Common Law Courts, to make the process cheap and expeditious, and thus to render them accessible to the community at large. There have been numerous instances of the heavy costs involved in some of the suits. Your Lordships have all heard of the Purchas case. That case, I am told, occupied nearly three years, and, although undefended, cost almost £8,000 to one side. Now, this is a state of things which your Lordships will feel demands some remedy; and when I
  1750
  proceed to show the means of providing for it, and the large resources at our command, I think you will see that it is still more necessary that no time should be lost. In 1869, when I first brought the question forward, I was told that my financial scheme rested on an insecure basis, and that the funds were not so great as I then described them. I afterwards, however, moved for Returns from the various dioceses of all the fees, and resources by which the whole of this ecclesiastical system was maintained, and of the expenditure also. I had, in my first statement, put the receipts at about £50,000 per annum; but the Returns, though not by any means complete, show that they amount to £71,794. As the Return of marriage licences from the Diocesan Courts might not be considered full and correct, I applied to the Registrar General, who informs me that the average of the last 11 years gives 19,620 marriages by licence annually, and 18 by special licence. The fees derived from those licences amount to £39,639. From institutions, ordinations, &c., they amount to £13,773; from visitations, procurations, &c., to £13,105; from consecrations and faculties to £3,317; from miscellaneous diocesan business to £1,820; and from contentious suits to £140; making a total of £71,794, although no Returns have been made from Hampshire and from 32 archdeaconries, while very incomplete Returns have been received from surrogates in 17 districts. Now, in remarking on these tables, it may be taken as substantially correct that £880 is received annually by Bishops for visitation fees. I cannot think that such an item ought to appear; it is hardly right that the Bishops should take this sum either from the parishioners or the parochial clergy. The next item in the Returns is £10,648 received by Bishops' secretaries. Now, it is only within the last 20 years that Bishops' secretaries have appeared in the list of ecclesiastical officers and have received salaries avowedly from these sources; it is a serious item. Then came the Chancellors, who divide among themselves £8,600. The Chancellors, no doubt, are, many of them, worthy and good men, but their appointment proceeds on an altogether wrong principle. There used to be a Vicar General and a Chancellor, the former being the officer to advise the Bishop,

  1751
  and the latter the judge to sit on all cases brought before him; but the offices are now united in every diocese but Canterbury; so that in any legal matter the Bishop consults his Vicar General, and if he is advised that the suit should proceed the same gentleman appears afterwards as Chancellor to try the very cause on which he has advised. That I hold to be altogether wrong and vicious in principle, and a matter to which I must invite the instant and earnest attention of the Lord Chancellor. The office, moreover, is in almost every instance an absolute sinecure. I may take as an illustration, the Chancellor of the diocese of Chester, who is a very excellent person. He is a clergyman, and was appointed under the old system, combining the offices of Chancellor, Vicar General, and official Principal. The Return gives a number of cases in which fees are payable to him for the consecration of churches, and collations to benefices and honorary canonries, institutions to benefices, and licences to perpetual curacies; the duties to be performed being in each case described as "none." He also receives fees for faculties for restoring or altering churches, and for the removal of corpses, and from marriage licences alone he receives £603 a-year. What is the duty performed? The answer is—None, except that the licences are issued in his name and under his seal, and that all matters connected with the issue of them are under his regulation. He also receives £104 from episcopal visitations, his duty being to attend the triennial visitation Courts, to examine the presentments of the outgoing churchwardens, and to admit their successors. This is a very fair statement of the duties of the Chancellors. They have not all, it is true, the same emoluments. But I have adduced here one case in which £704 is paid to a Chancellor, for which no duties whatever are performed. Who can wonder that the following formula, as an attempt at justification, is almost universally adopted in the Returns?—
  "Although certain of the above fees are allowed to the Chancellor without any duty being required of him, it is right to add that they are regarded as an indirect way of remunerating him for learned opinions and assistance given from time to time to the Bishop and clergy, and attending the Bishop's visitations."
  Now, I ask, what assistance do the Chan-
  1752
  cellors give to the Bishops? One Bishop said to me—"I do not consult my Chancellor five times in the year;" and only two days ago the Chancellor of one of the largest dioceses in the kingdom told me—"I receive, perhaps, three letters, and give as many signatures." For this he receives fees amounting to an annual sum of £460. But what is the business transacted by the Chancellors for the sum of money which they receive? I think your Lordships will be surprised when I compare that business with the business transacted by the Common Law Courts, as shown by the judicial statistics of 1869, the last year for which we have Returns. The proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts relate to dilapidations, church rates — now abolished — pew rights, forcibly entering churches, and other simple matters, and the number of suits of that kind in 1869 was 38. Turning to suits for faculties, I find no less than 150 for erecting or altering churches, and 24 for erecting a school, removing buildings, &c., the total number of matters which came before the 27 Chancellors being 212, the greater number of which were for unopposed faculties, which in all probability were settled in a quarter of an hour. Indeed, I have heard it stated by a person of authority that one gentleman could discharge in six weeks the entire duties performed by those 27 Judges in the course of a whole year. Now, in contrast to the 38 suits in the 27 Diocesan Courts, chiefly about sequestrations, pew rights, &c., and the 174 faculties almost entirely on matters of routine, take the amount of work performed by Her Majesty's Judges in the three Common Law Courts. The Returns are drawn from the official documents on judicial statistics. In 1869 the suits tried in town and country were—at Westminster, 1,423; at Nisi Prius, 1,421; and trials in Error, 40, making a total of 2,884; add criminal trials, 3,546; and the total number of suits and trials was 6,430. I must, however, add the business in Judges' Chambers, amounting to 194,110 cases—so that the grand total of cases was 200,540. It thus appears that the civil and criminal proceedings in the three superior Courts of Common Law in town and circuit, and in the Judges' Chambers, exclusive of election business and attendance in the House of Lords (ac-

  1753
  cording to the Returns), number more than 200,000. These duties are performed by 18 Common Law Judges, while 27 Ecclesiastical Judges, at an expense of nearly £9,000 a-year, are occupied with the despatch of 38 suits and the issue of 174 faculties, chiefly unopposed. Your Lordships will see that there is here an enormous waste of judicial power, and that another Session ought not to pass without some limit being put to such a flagrant abuse. I must now turn to the registrars. They divide no less than £21,500; but what are the duties? Why, they are often performed by deputy, the deputy paying the registrar a fixed sum a-year out of the fees. The deputy of Winchester naturally makes a complaint that he bears all the expenses of the office and "does much unrequited work," and that he has to pay the registrar £200 out of the fees he receives. Generally speaking, the business of the registrar might be discharged in a few hours a-week. I am told by a gentleman well acquainted with the details that in any case they might be performed in eight hours a-week, and oftentimes in about three, yet some of them receive for this small duty, no less a sum than £1,000 a-year. Then the apparitors divide amongst them £1,166, derived entirely from the clergy, for visitations, procurations, and inductions. Now, what are the apparitors? I turn to the Return from the diocese of Carlisle—and all these Returns, your Lordships will understand, came from the several dioceses—and I read—
  "There is not any formally appointed apparitor, but the Bishop's personal servant acts as such at the consecration of a church, and at the triennial visitation, and for the former duty he receives (under the table of March, 1866) the fee of one guinea, and for the latter (under the table of March, 1869) the fee of 3s. 6d. from each of the parishes from which it is practicable to collect the visitation fees, and also 10 s. 6d. for each faculty. The nominal apparitor's duties at a consecration and visitation are to bear the mace before the Bishop, and in the Consistory Court his duty is to make proclamation for parties to appear, and of the opening and adjournment or closing of the Court."
  He receives a fee at episcopal visitations "for every parish from which it is practicable to collect visitation fees"—your Lordships should mark the expression "where it is practicable"—and I do not know anything to which the clergy are inclined to offer more opposition than
  1754
  to these visitation fees. Take the case of Exeter. I read—
  "The apparitor has no duty beyond bearing the mace before the Bishop. This is done by his deputy, who receives a salary of £30 per annum. The apparitor, who is also nominally bailiff, or keeper of the Bishop's palace, and of his gaol or prison, holds a house adjoining the palace of the annual value of £40. The office of the apparitor is a patent office, and is held for life."
  The office is held by a gentleman of some standing, for he is styled "esquire," and has a country seat; and he is entitled to the following fees:—On collection or institution to a canonry, prebend, or benefice, 3s. 6d.; on consecration of a church, cemetery, or burial ground, 21 s.; and for every marriage licence, 1s. 4d., although there are no duties to be performed, and the office is discharged by deputy. In the archdeaconries the same thing is repeated. The archdeacons receive £3,500 a-year, their officials receive £800 a-year, their registrars £6,041, and their apparitors, £1,656. Thus the total amount of the fees paid to apparitors, to Bishops and Archdeacons, is £2,823, derived entirely from the clergy for visitations, procurations, and inductions. The Bishops' surrogates receive £14,500; but these fees are paid, I believe, principally to the poorer clergy, and so I say nothing about them. There is yet another sum to which I must call your attention; £2,500 is paid as compensation to the proctors in the Probate Courts; but this will expire in 1872, and though it will fall as patronage to the Archbishop of Canterbury, I am certain that the present Primate—or, indeed, any Primate—will be most unwilling to take that sum and distribute it among persons already overpaid, and that he will surrender it at once for the benefit of the community, to be applied for the purpose of the amendment of these Courts. I now wish to suggest a scheme which, however, is not embodied in the present Bill, to show how the funds might be apportioned, and what a large surplus would remain. It is proposed simply as a scheme for the consideration of the functionaries appointed to draw up the rules and regulations, subject to the approval of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The object, I again state, of the Bill is to cheapen and expedite procedure in the Ecclesiastical Courts; and I believe that the plan I propose will

  1755
  effect that object. In the first place, the authority of the Bishop is in no way interfered with, and all vested interests are respected, all persons in the receipt of incomes continuing to receive them during their life. I proposed at first to leave the Chancellor as an honorary officer, and eventually, on the death or removal of each Chancellor, to take away the salary, but I now propose to assign a salary. We shall have to provide for a new Judge at about £3,000 a-year, and about £1,000 a-year for clerks and travelling expenses; but the £2,500 I have already mentioned as falling in from the proctors expenses would go a good way towards this end, and about £1,200 more would enable the Judge to carry his duties on—so small a sum as this could easily be raised by mortgaging the fees until vacancies shall have occurred sufficient to pay off such mortgage and provide for all future expenses. We have made a large and liberal estimate. I propose to retain the Bishops' secretaries, two (Canterbury and York) at £500, and 25 at £300 each, salaries in every instance being substituted for fees, on the principle adopted in the Common Law Courts. The Chancellors will be two, Canterbury and York at £300, and 25 for the remaining dioceses at £100, and the registrars one at £800, one at £600, and 25 at £300. At Canterbury we propose a chief clerk at £200, and other clerks at £100, £100, and £80 respectively; in the registries of York, London, Chester, and Manchester, four chief clerks at £150, four at £100, and four at £80, and in the remaining 22 registries a chief clerk at £150, and another at £100. We propose that there shall be one provincial Judge appointed. I have heard it said that this would suppress the ancient Courts of Canterbury and York. It is no such thing, we leave the two Courts in all their vigour, with one Judge for both. Neither do we appoint a new Judge; it is the fusion of two into one, for whom there will, after all, be but little business. Neither do we in any way interfere with the Bishops' Courts. The Bishop, if he chooses, may have cases tried by his Chancellor; but if he prefers it he can, by sending letters of request to the Archbishop, obtain the services of the provincial Judge, who will go down to the spot and there try the case. Much advantage will be gained
  1756
  by this process; we shall have greater facility of evidence, very abridged time, and far less cost. There will be also this advantage—that the number of appeals will be lessened, for the appeal from the provincial Judge will go straight to the Judicial Committee, whereas there is now an appeal from the Episcopal Court to the Archiepiscopal, and thence to the Judicial Committee. This estimate I believe to be not only large and liberal, but more than adequate. It has been submitted to Dr. Bayford, the Chief Registrar of the Court of Probate, who approved it as being, according to his ample experience, in every way sufficient for the purpose. I wish your Lordships to bear in mind, however, that the scheme is only a suggestion, and that the decision will be left to those who will prepare the rules and orders. I have heard it said that the financial basis is insecure, inasmuch as it rests on the fees for marriage licences, and that the Marriage Commissioners have reported in favour of the abolition of such licences. This, however, is not the fact. These are the Commissioners' words—
  "If, however, it is considered necessary still to charge fees for the solemnization or for any of the other legal requisites or incidents of marriage (either on account of the difficulty of replacing the deficiency which their abolition might cause in the incomes of some of the parochial clergy, or for any other reason), we think that a uniform table of such fees, upon as moderate a scale as practicable, should be settled by law, and that such fees should not in any case be augmented by the imposition of stamp duties, such as those now imposed in England on common licences."
  You will observe, my Lords, that the Commissioners' Report is in favour of retaining them for ecclesiastical purposes, and all that they propose is that the fees should be on a moderate scale, and I believe that in that case the receipts would be considerably augmented, as many persons, the cost being reduced, would prefer to be married by licence. The Government, too, derive £12,500 per annum from stamps on these licences, which they would be unwilling to lose, and it is clear that licences, in some form or other, will continue in demand. On an average, therefore, the ecclesiastical fees may be reckoned as amounting to at least £71,000, and the whole expense of the Courts that I propose might rest either upon the fees from marriage licences or upon these fees. Either is able to bear the whole weight.

  1757
  The proposed estimates for carrying out the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries Acts is £31,800, consequently the marriage licence fees alone would meet such an expenditure, leaving a surplus of £7,839. If the marriage licence fees be abolished and the other ecclesiastical fees be retained, which average £32,155 4s. 6d., there would even then be a surplus of £355 4s. 6d. It is a part of my suggestion that if there is a surplus of any amount it should be applied, if it can be done with safety, to the abolition of the fees which press so heavily on the parochial clergy, such as fees for letters of orders, consecration of churches and churchyards, institutions, and all that kind of thing. This would, of course, be in the discretion of those who will be appointed to draw up the rules and orders. I am by no means bigoted to the scheme I propose, but I think I have brought forward a state of things which ought not to be tolerated in any civilized country, and appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who will see, and I hope acknowledge, that what I have described as to the Chancellors, apparitors, and other officials cannot be permitted to continue. I am ready to accept any scheme that would effect the object in view. My only desire is to make the Ecclesiastical Courts, as Courts of Justice, accessible to the community and to prevent this intolerable misuse of public money.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I wish to say a few words before my right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Peterborough) proceeds to move the rejection of the Bill. I will begin by stating my intention to vote for the second reading, and I believe that in that course I shall be supported by a large part of the Episcopal Bench. Before explaining my reasons for supporting the Bill, I beg leave to correct one or two mistakes into which my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has fallen. He stated that there are in the Ecclesiastical Courts a great number of sinecure offices, and urged on your Lordships that this was an intolerable state of things; but at the close of his speech he proposed a salary for everyone of those persons. Now, though no doubt that salary is smaller than the amount
  1758
  of fees they receive at present, if their salaries are a waste of the public money, and if they are such a nuisance to society, as the noble Earl describes them to be, they surely ought to be allowed nothing. It would seem, therefore, that there must be a slight mistake in the noble Earl's view of those persons. I consider the fact to be different from the representation of the noble Earl. With regard to the Chancellors, my experience of the office in the diocese of London—an office held by Lord Stowell, by Dr. Lushington, and by Dr. Twiss—is that without its due discharge the episcopal duties could not be properly performed. While holding the see of London, I was in continual communication with the Chancellor, Dr. Lushington, and afterwards with Dr. Twiss, on important legal matters connected with the work of the diocese, and it would have been impossible for me to dispense with their services. I am glad, therefore, that it is not proposed to dispense with that office. My noble Friend was indignant at the existence of apparitors and other officers; but I believe that such officers are necessary to every Court, and I appeal to noble and learned Lords whether it is not necessary for some person to discharge such functions. After all, too, the payments by fees are apparently very small. I perfectly agree with him that all such officers should be paid by salaries, and that those salaries should be as moderate as the circumstances of the case admit. The scale which the noble Earl has proposed seems to me a very fair one. Were all these persons paid according to what are called in the legal profession fees for work done, they would probably receive a great deal more than the salaries now proposed. They are legal gentlemen, whose time is extremely valuable, and they should be paid—not for the length of time they give to a case, but for the value of the opinions they give, which opinions are absolutely necessary for the business of the diocese. As to visitation fees, which the noble Earl thinks the Bishops had better give up, I have never recently received such fees, nor has my most rev. Brother (the Archbishop of York). Whether it is right that they should be received or not is a matter which would very fairly come under consideration when this measure is carried fully into operation. As to the persons invi-

  1759
  diously called Bishops' secretaries, I wish the public to understand that in no sense are they simply Bishops' secretaries. They are persons who, acting for the Bishops, perform some public acts for which they are paid by those for whose benefit the acts are performed, and were they, like attorneys, to send in their bills for each transaction the clergy would not be likely to be satisfied with the change. Having corrected these misapprehensions which might arise from the valuable speech of my noble Friend, I wish to express my hearty approval of the principle of his measure. It is now two years since a Select Committee was appointed to consider this subject. It was a very large one, consisting of the highest legal and some of the highest ecclesiastical authorities, quite competent to produce a good Bill on a very difficult and intricate subject. They went into the matter with the utmost care, they considered both the noble Earl's Bill and that which I had introduced, and the present measure is substantially the result of their deliberations. That Committee itself was the result of a great many abortive attempts to cure the evils complained of. On the very first day that I had a seat on the Episcopal bench, 14 years ago, I found that the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts was a matter eagerly pressed upon the Bishops, and one which they were very anxious to deal with. I stated, two years ago, that my Bill was one of many measures which had been introduced on the subject. A learned counsel told me the other day that he had prepared 12 or 13 Bills to be laid before Parliament for the reform of these Ecclesiastical Courts. This matter, therefore, has been well ventilated. It has been ventilated in your Lordships' House as well as out of it, in Select Committee, and almost every year in the meetings of Bishops, who have always said they desire some such reform as that proposed by the noble Earl. It might be said that though some reform is necessary it has not been shown that this particular reform is what is needed; but, looking at the whole matter, I am of opinion that this Bill does contain a satisfactory solution of the great difficulties to be encountered in dealing with these Courts. These Courts are tedious and expensive, and, according to the present arrangements,
  1760
  there is not sufficient provision made to secure the services of good Judges. At this particular moment we are fortunate in that respect; but we are always liable to find ourselves in a different and much less satisfactory position. When it was proposed some years ago to abolish the jurisdiction of these Courts in matrimonial and probate matters, it was objected that the result of such an arrangement would be to take away the chief means for the payment of the Judge of the Court of Arches, and it was then said in answer that the country could always afford to remunerate its officials amply; but, as a matter of fact, up to the present time no step has been taken in that direction, and the salary of the Judge of the Court of Arches is now, I believe, scarcely £40 a-year. He was convinced that it was necessary that a Judge should be provided for our principal Ecclesiastical Court, and the method of payment proposed by the noble Earl was the same as that which had been adopted in the Court of Chancery—namely, that the fees would be paid as usual, but were to go into a general fund out of which the officers of the Court were to receive stipulated salaries. Whether the Bill provided for the payment of too large a salary is a matter which we can consider later, but there is no doubt that the Judge has a great deal to do, and is entitled to a fair salary—a salary which there are ample means to supply out of the fees. Then comes the question whether it is right that there should be one Judge for the two Provinces. The plan proposed by the noble Earl, as I understand, is that the two Archbishops should concur in the nomination to the Crown of a fit person to fill the office, and not that these ancient Courts should be abolished. The question too, of course, arises whether this Judge is to supersede the Diocesan Courts. I find nothing in the Bill to that effect. As your Lordships are probably aware, a case in the Ecclesiastical Courts may pass through four stages. First there is the Commission, then there may be the Diocesan Court, then the appeal to the Court of Arches, and finally the appeal to the Privy Council. But four trials, I think, will be generally allowed to be too many, and the Bill provides two instead of four. It is proposed to abolish the original commission, but the Diocesan Court remains in full

  1761
  vigour, and if all the parties concur an appeal may be carried direct to the Privy Council instead of being first decided by the Court of Arches. By this Bill, too, the provincial Judge is authorized to go down into the district and hold his Court there, thereby of course tending greatly to a diminution of expense. The noble Earl also proposes that the scale of fees shall be entirely re-cast, and that fresh rules and orders shall be framed for the simplification of the practice in these Courts; and this is the more necessary inasmuch as there is great waste of time and money arising through the mode in which matters are now conducted in these Courts. It is true I have heard the argument used that expense and delay are so far advantageous that they discourage litigation, and that to reduce the expense would be to encourage it. I cannot admit the argument—though I should be surprised to find a man who entertains a stronger objection to litigation in ecclesiastical affairs than I do. No man can be more pained than I have been at the spectacle exhibited of laymen as well as clergymen concentrating their whole attention upon vestments and matters of ceremonial at a time when no man with eyes in his head can look at the state of Europe without regretting that such matters should occupy the attention of those whose thoughts and best exertions should be devoted to the ungodliness and ignorance which disgrace the century in which we live, and which require all the efforts of the clergy and laity to remove.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: I need not say, my Lords, with what willingness I complied with the request of the most rev. Primate that I should allow him to precede me in addressing your Lordships, and I need scarcely say with what feelings of pleasure I listened once more to the voice of the most rev. Primate in your Lordships' House. The announcement made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that he intends to withdraw the 33rd clause of this Bill, and the clauses that depend upon it, happily relieve me of what in any case would have been a painful and invidious task, that of asking your Lordships to accept the Motion of which I have given Notice. I am as keen a Church reformer as the noble Earl himself; I am as deeply convinced of the evils of the abuses of which he has spoken this evening as he himself can be; and I was most anxious
  1762
  to have been able to give my vote with a clear conscience in favour of the noble Earl's Bill. But I was bound to oppose, and always shall feel bound to oppose to the utmost of my ability, and by every means which the forms of your Lordships' House will permit, any clause or any series of clauses which in my judgment would prove fatal—not to the privileges of my order, for upon that point I care little to contend — but to the independence of the clergy and the peace and progress of the Church. It would not be right or fair that I should trouble your Lordships with any observations upon the clause or clauses which the noble Earl has determined to withdraw; but, in justice to myself, after the speech of the noble Earl, I should say the reason I was prepared to ask your Lordships to refuse the second reading of this Bill was that, as it appeared to me, the 33rd clause and those depending upon it raised a most important question of principle, which I believe has never yet been fully argued out in your Lordships' House—the question whether the clergy are to have that protection against frivolous and vexatious prosecution in the discharge of their duties which is granted to the members of all other professions in this country. I should have been prepared to show that that was a question involving a very important principle, and one on which the clergy of the country have not yet had an opportunity of expressing their feelings or presenting Petitions to your Lordships' House. It was because I dreaded that your Lordships might have been induced to pass a vote which, in my conscience, I believed would have been received with feelings of alarm and exasperation by the great majority of the clergy of all theological parties in this country, and because I felt that my opposition could not possibly obstruct the Bill, inasmuch as it is quite certain, from the state of the Business in the other House, that the Bill could not become law this Session, that I felt I might lawfully, and within the strict rules of the House, oppose the noble Earl's Bill in what I thought the most straightforward and most honest way by moving its rejection on the Order for the second reading. Of course, however, as the noble Earl has withdrawn the clause to which I most strongly objected, I shall withdraw my Motion against the second reading of the Bill, and refrain

  1763
  from troubling your Lordships with any further observations on the subject—excepting that I wish with all possible distinctness to repeat to the noble Earl the pledge I have already given to him—namely, that he will receive from me, both in and out of this House, and in every possible way in which one man can oppose another, the most determined opposition to what I consider to be the mischievous principle contained in the clause to which I particularly refer.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the proposal in the Bill, which, in effect, repealed those portions of the Church Discipline Act which imposed certain restrictions on the right of initiating prosecutions against the clergy, he was afraid would have the effect of aggravating discord and promoting ill-feeling in many quarters. The most rev. Primate had said that this Bill was mainly identical with that which came down from the Select Committee two years ago; but it should be remembered that the Bill which resulted from the deliberations of that Committee only showed the opinions of the majority of the Committee, in which body there were great differences of opinion on several important provisions in the measure. But many of the provisions contained in the Bill of the Committee were not contained in the present Bill—the Diocesan Courts, for instance, though they were carefully preserved in the Committee's Bill, were, in fact, destroyed by the present measure. It might be said that the Diocesan Courts were not matters of paramount importance; but inasmuch as the noble Earl wished to see ecclesiastical justice made as accessible as possible to all classes of the community, and inasmuch as he, no doubt, looked forward to a considerable increase in the number of suits, those Courts became important. The financial basis of the present Bill was, in his opinion, utterly unsound, and he, for one, should strongly resist any proposal to apply the funds which were held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for spiritual purposes to the support of Ecclesiastical Courts as proposed by the noble Earl. The noble Earl had informed them that the fees for marriage licences amounted to £40,000; but it should be remembered that of that sum not less than £12,000 was intercepted in its way for stamps and handed over to the State,
  1764
  and that made a very considerable diminution in the fund on which the noble Earl so confidently reckoned. It was, therefore, in his opinion, wildly chimerical to suppose that the sums received for marriage licences would recoup the Commissioners for the money they would be called upon to advance. He objected further to the proposal that persons nominated as Bishops by the Crown must of necessity be consecrated by the Archbishop of the Province, without the laity having any right to raise objections to them on grounds affecting their faith or morals. Neither was there any provision in the Bill for dealing with criminous Bishops. Now that it was proposed to reform the Ecclesiastical Courts, and to give facilities for instituting suits against priests and deacons who offended against the laws ecclesiastical, it was but fair that some assurance should be given that those who preside over the Church should be as amenable to the laws of the Church as the humblest clergyman within her pale.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I purposely refrained from offering the few remarks I wish to make upon this Bill until the Motion for its rejection had been withdrawn, the reason for such withdrawal being that the noble Earl has dropped for the present the clause having reference to legal proceedings by parishioners on account of offences charged against the officiating clergy. But I am not prepared to go the length of saying, with the right rev. Prelate, that the laity ought not to possess the right of initiating proceedings against the clergy. On the contrary, I think occasions have arisen in which the laity might have been subjected to great oppression if some such remedy were not provided for them. It may be said that there is a special remedy provided by the present Bill; but it seems to me that the empowering any three parishioners to take proceedings against their clergyman is an unsuitable provision, and such a remedy strikes me as being calculated to produce vexation, instead of promoting harmony and peace. I think the laity have of late been greatly aggrieved by alterations made in the mode of conducting the services to which they have been accustomed—and this frequently without any notice being given to them of such a course being intended, and without any remedy in their hands

  1765
  by which matters might be restored to their ordinary and normal condition. What I think ought to be provided is some means by which such a state of things may be easily and promptly remedied. My great objection is not in reference to any question of doctrine or discipline, but because any such course of procedure as I have adverted to—namely, the changing the whole administration of the services of the Church unexpectedly and against the wish of a large portion of the parishioners—must tend to destroy entirely that parochial system which, in my opinion, is the most valuable part of our institutions connected with the Church. It is quite obvious that if a clergyman is at liberty to introduce any change in the administration of the services of the Church according to his individual caprice or fancy, although he may be able to attract large congregations composed of persons whose feelings are in unison with his own in reference to his mode of conducting the services, this result will be attained at the expense of excluding from the Church a large number of parishioners who object to such a course of proceeding. I recollect an instance in point. A clergyman examined as a witness before the Ritual Commission had introduced into his church practices to which his congregation were entirely unaccustomed, but he said, in answer to a question—"I have taken every step with the assent and concurrence of my congregation." He was thereupon asked—"Does your congregation consist of your parishioners?" To this he replied, "No." "How great a part of your congregation do you suppose consist of your parishioners?" He replied, "Not one-fourth." This clergyman, therefore, had expelled from the church no less than three-fourths of his parishioners in order to gratify persons who came to him from other quarters. If, then, courses like this are to be pursued, the parochial system must break down entirely throughout the country. Consequently, the laity have the greatest possible interest in seeing that what is just and lawful shall be accomplished in their respective parishes. As regards the second reading of the Bill, it seems to me that none of your Lordships can doubt the propriety of reading it a second time. Last year the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) in-
  1766
  troduced a Bill on this subject, and at the same time another Bill was brought forward by the right rev. Primate, whom I rejoice to see once again among us. Both those measures were referred to a Select Committee, which reported in favour of a Bill very similar to that which has now been introduced by the noble Earl. After that I think it is impossible for us to say that the Bill ought not to receive from your Lordships' House the advantage of being read a second time, in order that its details may be scrutinized in Committee. Into those details I will not now enter; but I may, perhaps, be allowed to remark that the financial question will probably constitute the chief difficulty when it comes to be fully discussed. I should rejoice to see efficient Courts established, because great difficulties exist at present in ordering the affairs of the Church, which ought to be conducted on legal and constitutional principles. The expense of removing a clerk in Holy Orders is enormous. I am old enough to recollect the case of a clerk who shut up his church and placed a dunghill in the porch, in order to prevent any other person from officiating. It took five or six years to remove him, at an expense of £12,000 or £13,000. Such an offence as this would, by the noble Earl's Bill, be settled in two days at least, if not in two hours. I believe, too, that the course pursued by the noble Earl in giving facilities for hearing cases by consent is a most valuable part of the Bill, and ought to be more completely developed. These advantages are of immense importance, and it is highly desirable that we should secure them. The Bill, however, is not yet, I confess, in such a state that a great deal of alteration will not be required in Committee, and I think there will be very great difficulty in passing it through the other House of Parliament this Session, considering the state of Public Business there. As regards the question of finance, I may remark that it would be hardly possible to maintain the marriage licence fees at the present figure; but at the same time it should be borne in mind that £12,000 is now paid for stamps, and the Government would probably not be willing to relinquish this sum. The recommendation of the Marriage Law Commission was that the fee should be reduced from £2 to 10 s. or 5s. Then, it

  1767
  should be remembered that there is a growing fashion of being married by banns. Again, the fees which the Church is now receiving with regard to presentations and consecrations cannot be kept up. These fees have been considered by the two Archbishops and the Lord Chancellor; but I think we have fixed the scale too high. We acted according to the best information we had then received, but I think the fees will have to be reduced. Therefore, what with the reduction of marriage licences and of the fees I have just referred to, I think the noble Earl will experience some difficulty in raising the requisite funds. Nevertheless, I think the measure is one which it is very important to carry into effect. It provides an effective remedy for the administration of justice in these matters; and, although it may ultimately be necessary to have recourse to the Exchequer, I do not think the Bill will be entirely frustrated by the difficulties I have mentioned. Considering the financial part of the subject and the state of Business in the other House, there is not much prospect of the Bill being passed this Session; but it is, at all events, desirable that we should endeavour to promote this scheme of reform by assenting to the second reading of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought that, if any three parishioners were to be empowered to institute a prosecution, the profession of a clergyman would be the only one in the country which would be deprived of protection. Moreover, the clergy would be placed in an entirely new position. Their Lordships ought not to lose sight of this very important point.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLErose to call attention to the fact that the noble Earl who had just spoken, and the noble Lord on the Woolsack, referring to the clauses which were withdrawn, had both spoken of three parishioners having the power of initiating proceedings against their clergyman. It should, however, be borne in mind, as had been remarked by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), that the clause in question was nothing of the kind. It proposed, in fact, that any three householders in a diocese should have the opportunity of prosecuting any clergyman they pleased. A power of the kind proposed to be given might affect the peace
  1768
  of half the dioceses in the kingdom. The noble Earl, in moving the second reading of the Bill, pointedly alluded to the diocese of Carlisle; and though the Chancellor of his diocese, his secretary, and the registrar had escaped, the apparitor had not been so fortunate. In explanation he wished to say he had no apparitor at all. When he went to the diocese he found there was none; and, looking forward to possible legislation, he felt some difficulty as to what he should do, and he contented himself by having the work performed without appointing an apparitor at all. A portion of the fees received had been paid to those who had discharged the duty of sending out notices, and the remainder had been paid to himself, and was held by him in a separate account at his banker's until it was ascertained what was the most just and proper mode of distributing the money. There was one important omission from the Bill, and that was that it left untouched the position of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He would not now enter upon the kind of change that ought to be made, but he wished to bear his testimony—so far as he knew the feelings of the clergy and the laity throughout the country—to the conviction that any Bill which altered the rest of the Ecclesiastical Court system and left altogether untouched and unimproved the present condition of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, would not give satisfaction to the country.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, as it seemed well understood that they should not divide on the second reading of the Bill, he would detain their Lordships only a few minutes. In the first place, he wished publicly to recognize the courtesy of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) in consulting his personal convenience by postponing for a short time the second reading; and next, he was thankful to the noble Earl for dealing with the question at all; because he was perfectly convinced that there was need of a measure of reform, and he felt it would be very difficult for anyone occupying a seat on the Episcopal bench to introduce with any nope of success a satisfactory measure, and he was therefore delighted to see a layman making laborious endeavours to remedy the evils that existed. In stating his case, however, the noble Lord in several

  1769
  matters exaggerated to a very great degree the existing amount of evil. He forgot to mention that the case which he cited as illustrating long delay and defeat of justice occurred many years ago—long before that great alteration of the law which allowed in these Courts the receiving of oral testimony and the cross-examination of witnesses—and he was therefore, unawares, discrediting the present system by that which could not have existed under it. It was desirable to correct the impression which might be formed from what the noble Earl said with reference to the duties performed by the Chancellors of dioceses. In a number of instances it was returned that no duties were performed by the Chancellor of a diocese. But the great vise of a Chancellor was to be a local adviser upon a multitude of questions which were continually arising in a diocese, and it was a matter of the utmost possible importance that there should be some one of high character and acquirements who could be consulted privately, not by the Bishop only, but also by others; and by the advice so given in the course of the 26 years that he had held the office of Bishop he had known an amount of evil prevented and of good done quietly which, he was sure, was cheaply purchased by that which his Chancellor had received. With respect to what were called the visitation fees received by the Bishop, properly speaking no Bishop received any fee at all for a visitation; but there were certain procurations and synodals, not at all in the nature of fees, but fixed charges upon different benefices in a diocese, which the holders of those benefices had to pay in the year of the Bishop's visitation, and which came down from old times when the expenses of the visitation were very large; and when the Bishop, instead of going with his followers to the houses of the clergy, received a composition for his travelling expenses, and which formed what was called the visitation fees. In some instances these had been voluntarily given up by the Bishop and were not received at all; but a sort of debtor and creditor account was kept, and he had ascertained that in the case of his own large diocese of Winchester, while the absolute expenses paid by the Bishop's secretary amounted to £4,000, the whole amount of the synodals and procurations paid towards defraying these
  1770
  expenses was £100. Therefore, instead of being a valuable receipt to the Bishop, they were, at the most, only an ancient payment from certain benefices in mitigation of the larger expenses which the Bishop incurred in visitations. This, he thought, was not the impression which would be left upon the House and the country by the language of the noble Earl. There was some exaggeration with reference to the amount of work done by deputy registrars. No doubt in the old times very great abuses existed; but they had been by degrees almost eradicated. These abuses were almost all traceable to individuals holding patent offices, and the Bill of the noble Earl would leave the matter in this respect precisely where it was. The evils would, in the nature of things, as vacancies occurred, remedy themselves. He believed that the term "Secretary to the Bishop" was much more than 20 years old; at all events the office was not created that short time ago, but the duties of it were performed by the registrar, from whose functions they were separated by the Bishop of Lincoln, because he found the work was imperfectly done at a distance; wherefore he instituted the distinct office of secretary. The work of the secretary was not new; but it was part of the work formerly performed by the registrar. The officer was not at all a secretary in the sense in which the word was ordinarily used; he did not write the Bishop's letters nor do ordinary secretarial work; but he was a public officer of the diocese, the main part of whose work was to help the clergy in different forms which they had to go through, and if they had to employ a solicitor for the services rendered by the secretary the expenses would amount to six times as much as the fees received by the secretary, while, without assistance, clergymen not acquainted with the law would continually be involving themselves in trouble. It was important that these matters should be understood and duly considered before the Bill was discussed in Committee. The proposed allotment of revenue between the registrar of a diocese and the Chancellor of a diocese was quite a mistake. The Bill would largely increase the sum received by the registrar of the diocese of London. The office of registrar was very important in one way, and it was necessary that some one should be responsible

  1771
  for rightly registering the acts done; but the office was not one requiring a high degree of professional attainment. On the other hand, it was essential to make the office of Chancellor such that it would attract a man of ability, for the securing of a good Chancellor was a matter of the first importance to diocesan administration. He would venture also to ask the noble Earl to consider another delicate point. One of the great difficulties they had in dealing with those most painful cases of breaches of the moral law among the clergy was the low scale of punishment which they were empowered to award. They were now tied up in the administration of the moral discipline of a diocese by the traditional system of far too lenient sentences. A man might be guilty of repeated acts of adultery with his parishioners; he might be convicted; but the highest penalty it had been held a Bishop could inflict was suspension for a certain number of years. Such a clergyman, he (the Bishop of Winchester) said, should never be allowed to go back to his parish. He complained of the whole system of considering the endowments of the Church as being made for the benefit of the clergy instead of for the benefit of the parishioners. Where repeated acts of licentiousness or drunkenness had been committed, they ought to have a far larger power than they now possessed of delivering a parish from the terrible curse of an immoral clergyman. He hoped the noble Earl, if he dealt with clergymen at all, would really grapple with this question, and introduce some provisions into his Bill upon the subject. He could not, however, agree with the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) who spoke from the bench behind, who recommended the noble Earl to introduce provisions for dealing with criminal Bishops. The article in the Church of England was a singularly rare one. There had no doubt been a great deal of worldliness, self-seeking, idleness, and many other evils; but he thought criminal Bishops had been most rare in the Church of England; and he objected to the extension of jurisprudence, especially criminal jurisprudence, against non-existing evils. Besides, in this matter, there was a stringency applicable to such cases that did not exist with reference to the clergy, and the Archbishop had power to go to the extremest length of deprivation in
  1772
  certain cases. In conclusion, he thanked their Lordships for their patience, asking the noble Earl to consider the points he had raised with a view to legislation.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, that the evident intention of their Lordships to read this Bill a second time must have resulted from a clear conviction in their minds that there were great evils to reform, and that the reform had been from one cause or another too long delayed. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had undertaken this reform, and had pursued it with his usual perseverance and determination. But he (the Marquess of Salisbury) desired to draw their Lordships' attention to what was the real obstacle to legislation on this subject? The removal of 99 evils out of 100 would be effected by making ecclesiastical jurisdiction cheaper, easier, and more certain. The great evil complained of was that in criminal matters ecclesiastical jurisdiction was so tardy and expensive that no Bishop or layman, without exposing themselves to serious loss and almost pecuniary ruin, could cause justice to be done, or remove great scandals from a parish. It was most important, indeed vital, to remove that evil. What hindered legislation was that every legislator persisted in coupling the effort to enable the removal of that difficulty with the facilitating of ecclesiastical suits against persons thought guilty of holding unsound doctrine. They knew what was the state of matters in the Church of England at the present moment. But for the preventive of expense, the two parties in the Church of England would fly at each other's throats. That was a strong expression, but he feared it was too true with respect to the extreme members of the Church, and he was sure he would carry with him the feeling of the right rev. Bench when he said such a measure would be very dangerous to the unity, peace, progress—if not the very existence of the Church. He had a strong feeling upon that point. He would rather go on with any evil—he would rather suffer any scandal they had now to lament, than give such fatal facility of ecclesiastical litigation. The Church of England was in that condition that made it most essential they should loose no power of restraining hostility from breaking out. By merely making

  1773
  litigation cheaper the noble Earl would render his legislative efforts abortive. He would put it to him if facilitating litigation was a great object, yet facility to restrain criminals was a far greater object, and he ought to pursue those two objects separately. One he could attain certainly easily and immediately, the other could only be attained after long and most determined resistance. If he separated the two objects, his belief was he would speedily attain great and important results.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYexplained his object was to effect the important reforms he had indicated in the character and constitution of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and not to mix them up with matters of doctrine and discipline.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
  Then the ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEDURE AND REGISTRY BILL (NO. 85) read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

DOGS BILL—(No. 134.)
(The Earl of Morley.)
DOGS BILL—(No. 134.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the 1st clause authorized the police to take possession of any stray dog, and to detain until claimed, the owner paying the expenses; notice was to be given to the owner, when he could be ascertained by the collar, or was otherwise known; and if the dog was not claimed within three days when the owner was not known, or within five days if he was, the dog might be sold or destroyed. The 2nd clause empowered any Court of summary jurisdiction to take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous, and, if satisfied of the fact, to order the dog to be destroyed. In cases where apprehension arose that that there were mad dogs in a district, the local authority was empowered to place restrictions upon dogs being at large within the district.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought the provisions of the Bill most extraordinary, arbitrary, and despotic in character. The Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament in order to meet complaints proceeding from the North of England, where hydrophobia was stated to be on the increase, and, if the Bill were confined to the object of preventing the spread of hydrophobia, he should not object to its principle; but the Bill provided that any policeman, or other constable, might take possession of any dog straying on the highway, and detain it until claimed by the owner. Now, anyone acquainted with a hunting county knew that nothing was more common than for hound puppies to be straying about the roads in the country; and those dogs were by no means dangerous. In cases where the owner of the dog so taken possession of was known to the police by reason of the dog wearing a collar, or by any other means, information was to be given him; and if, at the expiration of five days, he had not claimed the dog and paid for its keep, the dog might be shot. There could be no reason, if the owner happened to be known to the police, why it should be provided that the dog must be known by wearing a collar, or other means. According to the Bill, a dog was to be taken to be dangerous which had bitten, or which had attempted to bite anybody; but he should be sorry to see any Act having such language in it go out of their Lordships' House. It was also provided that the enactments of the Bill should apply to dogs "at large;" and he wished to know whether a dog walking about in the owner's yard or garden would be considered a dog "at large." By the 2nd clause any Court of summary jurisdiction might order any dog deemed dangerous to be destroyed; and though an appeal was allowed to the Quarter Sessions, and though the Quarter Sessions might decide that the dog ought not to be shot, yet that decision would be of little avail if, during the owner's temporary absence from home, the dog had already been condemned and shot. He mentioned those points to show that the Bill would require considerable alteration in Committee.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he would take these matters into consideration.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, on Monday, the 19th instant.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.