Chapter XLVI: {william IV. 1836—1837} (2)

One of the leading measures of the session, as regarded England, was for the commutation of tithes; a measure which was brought forward for the relief of the dissenters. The ministerial plan for the commutation of tithes was brought before the house of commons by Lord John Russell on the 9th of February. The subject, he said, consisted of two parts: namely, the principles on which the commutation should be made, and the machinery by which it was to be carried into execution. The machinery, he confessed, would be borrowed from Sir Robert Peel’s bill of last year. There would be a central board of commissioners, consisting of three persons, for the purpose of arranging the question of commutation; and this board would have power to appoint assistant-commissioners to a certain extent, and in certain cases, in the same manner as the poor-law commissioners. His lordship admitted that the selection of the principle on which the commutation should proceed was a subject attended with much difficulty. In the plan government proposed, their object had been to produce as little disturbance as possible in existing interests, not to diminish violently or excessively the income now enjoyed by the tithe-owners, and to produce some uniformity in the mode of calculating and valuing tithe throughout England and Wales. As in the bill of last year, any landowner would be allowed to agree with the tithe-owner for a commutation of his tithe; and having made such an agreement, he would stand to the tenant in the relation not only of landlord, but likewise of tithe-owner. He also proposed that it should be competent for the possessor or possessors of one-fourth of the value of the tithe to call a meeting of the owners of land in the parish, at which parties might be represented as they now were under the poor-law act. When three-fourths in value of the owners of tithe agreed with three-fourths in value of the owners of land, they would have power to make an agreement binding on the whole parish, if no person appealed against it within a certain period. If any person appealed, it should still be binding against those who did not appeal. The parties appealing would be compelled to appear before the assistant-commissioners, who, on hearing their statements, would make an award, which award, on the ratification of the central board, would become binding on the parish. If, at the end of a certain period, he would say six months, no such agreement were made between the tithe-owners and the tithe-payers, it would be competent for any landowner, or any tithe-owner, to ask the commissioners to make such a general award on the tithes of the parish. When such a demand was made, an assistant-commissioner would be authorised to examine what had been the amount of tithes, and what had been the expense of collecting the tithes for the last seven years; he would then declare the amount of tithes so paid for the last seven years, and that amount would be represented by a certain quantity of wheat, barley, and oats. If any person should appeal against this declaration, on the ground that the amount fixed for the tithes on the composition did not fairly represent their value, the assistant-commissioner would make an estimate of the value of the tithes for the seven years previous, and ascertain the actual gross value of them for that period. If it should appear that the sum of tithes taken in any parish during a period of seven years exceeded seventy-five per cent, of the gross value, then it would be competent to the commissioners to determine that the commutation should amount to seventy-five per cent. of the gross value, and no more, and they would reduce the sum accordingly; if, on the contrary, it appeared that the amount taken was less than sixty per cent, of the gross value of the tithe, the commissioners would be authorised to raise the sum to sixty per cent., and to declare that that should be the amount of the future charge. If the sum paid was between these two limits, it should be competent to the commissioners to make such an award as they thought the circumstances and the justice of the case required. In some cases tithes had been taken to such an extent as ought not to form the basis of a permanent charge; and, on the other hand, there were instances, as had been satisfactorily established by undoubted evidence, of clergymen who did not receive more than forty or fifty per cent, of the amount to which they were entitled. It appeared just to interfere in these cases; and he thought it right to fix a sum to be taken hereafter, which should not exceed or fall below a certain amount, in proportion to the gross value of the tithe. It was open for consideration, whether sixty or seventy-five pounds were the proper minimum and maximum: he referred to these sums only as illustrating the principle. In certain cases, however, a special regulation would be required, as tithes on hops, orchards, and gardens, on which the tithes were extremely high. He proposed giving the commissioners the power of taking certain hop districts, in order to ascertain the average tithe of the last seven years, and fix the amount in future. They would also have the power of declaring what the tithe of any particular land or property should be, supposing hop cultivation to be abandoned; and it was provided that in cases where land should be brought into hop cultivation anew, it should be subject to an additional payment of fifteen shillings an acre on account of tithe. As regarded orchards and gardens, he had not been able to settle a particular provision on the subject, although he admitted lands thus cultivated were particularly circumstanced. The tithe thus commuted, Lord John Russell continued, would become a rent-charge, payable by the landowner according to the value of grain: thus—the average prices for seven years of wheat, barley, and oats would be published at certain periods by the comptroller of corn returns; this publication would take place every year, and the payment of rent-charge made in lieu of tithe would be varied accordingly. The prices of three different kinds of grain were taken, for the purpose of ascertaining the value and amount of the charge, so that if an individual were chargeable with £300 for tithe, one-third would be estimated by the price of wheat, one-third by that of barley, and the remaining third by the price of oats, which would be giving each a fair proportion in the gross amount. Finally, the intended bill did not deal, his lordship said, with the question of redemption of the rent-charge; that was an important and difficult subject, and would require to be dealt with in a separate measure after the commutations should have been made, and the charge ascertained. Sir Robert Peel said that he would not object to the measure being introduced, since he thought himself entitled to say that it was taken in great part from his bill of last year. The whole of its machinery was, in fact, adopted, and to a certain extent likewise, its principle of voluntary commutation. The bill passed the second reading on the 22nd of February without any division, although various objections were stated, both as to its principles and details; the former being chiefly directed against the compulsory nature of the commutation. When the bill went into committee, ministers made several alterations in its provisions. Thus the period during which voluntary commutations might be entered into was extended from six months to twelve; and the clauses under which a single landholder might compel a commutation in regard to his own property, while there was none for the rest of the parish, were given up; it was now proposed that a fixed proportion of the landowners should have power to enter into a voluntary agreement, which, after a certain time, should become binding on the whole parish. A great deal of hostility, however, was still expressed against the measure, and that even among the ordinary supporters of government. Mr. Hume maintained that no good bill could be enacted till the corn-laws were repealed, since they had given land and its produce an artificial value; and as their repeal was anticipated, this measure would inflict great injury on the landowners, unless the value of the tithe was fixed much lower than was done by the bill. Great opposition was also manifested to the maximum and minimum of seventy-five and sixty pounds, and fixing them merely by the average of the preceding seven years, but the clause was retained. On the bringing up of the report, however, government proposed a modification of the clause, to the effect that the commissioners, on receiving a representation that the sum paid was not a fair composition, should ascertain the gross value of the tithe, and should have power to raise or diminish the sum to be paid in future, but not beyond one-fifth of the sum paid during the preceding seven years. Some amendments of minor importance were moved subsequently, but were rejected; and the bill having gone up to the lords, was read a second time without opposition, and was passed on the 22nd, both sides of the house approving of its general principles. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, he thought the bill would be very beneficial in its effects, relieving the land from the pressure of tithes, and doing justice to the clergy, and as little liable to objection as any measure that could be framed on a subject so difficult and so complicated. With respect to those lands which might be brought into cultivation as agriculture improved, and for which the bill made no provision, he agreed that to give the clergy a tithe on such land would be to prevent the general object of the bill—the expenditure of capital on the land; but when waste lands were enclosed and brought into profitable cultivation, he could see no reason why such steps should not be taken in favour of the clergy as were usual in other cases, and why a portion of the land should not be given to them. His grace accordingly moved, in the committee, an amendment to the effect, that when waste or common lands should be enclosed, the commissioners should assign a certain portion of the land to the tithe-owner instead of his tithe. This was objected to on both sides of the house, and the amendment was negatived without a division. The bill passed, and the few alterations which had been made in the lords were agreed to with one exception. The peers had agreed to an amendment giving tithe on cows fed in stalls and sheds. This was rejected; and the lords, when the bill returned to them, did not insist upon its retention.

BILL FOR REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES, ETC.

On the 12th of February Lord John Russell brought in bills for relieving dissenters from the necessity of celebrating their marriages according to the forms of the church of England, and for establishing a system of registration of marriages, births, and deaths. His lordship stated that the two bills were not connected with each other, but that the establishment of a proper system of registration was, in his opinion, an indispensable pre-requisite to any measure for removing from the dissenters their grievances relative to marriage. It was further, he said, an important object, in a national point of view, to have a general scheme of registration. At present there were no registry of births, but only of baptisms; no registry of marriages, because they were only such marriages as were performed by ministers of the church of England; and no registry of burials, as the only burials registered were those in which the service was performed by clergymen of the establishment. He argued that it was necessary we should have a registration, which should comprehend, indifferently and impartially, all sects of the people. The late change effected in our domestic policy, he continued, seemed to furnish the means of attaining this end without any heavy additional expense. By the poor-law amendment act there were two hundred and twenty-eight unions already in England and Wales; and it might be calculated that, when the whole country was divided into unions, there would be more than eight hundred. In every union there was a relieving-officer, each union consisting of about twenty parishes, and containing from sixteen to twenty thousand inhabitants. There was likewise an auditor appointed by the board of guardians. Now the government proposed that the poor-law commissioners should have the power of appointing the relieving-officer, or any other person whom they might think fit, to keep the register of a certain number of parishes; and the auditor of the union, or his clerk, or any other person appointed by the poor-law commissioners, should superintend the register of that part. There would further be a registry-office in each county, and a chief office in London, subject, however, to the authority of the poor-law commissioners. The superintendent in each union was to send the registers to the county office every two months, and copies would be transmitted thence to the central office in London. As regarded the manner in which the registration was to be made, his lordship said, that the bill would require notice to be given by the occupier of the house in which the child was born within eight days after that event had taken place, and that within fifteen or twenty days the registrar might call upon either the father or mother of the child, or upon the occupier of the house, to give him certain particulars, in order to fill up accurately the register in respect to that child. The person who furnished these particulars would also be required to furnish the name of the child; if that was declined at the time, and withheld to a future period, it would be necessary to postpone it, and the party would be obliged to produce to the registrar a certificate of the baptism of the child, and to pay him a fee of one shilling for making the entry. In cases of death likewise the occupier would have to give an account of the deaths which happened in his house—of the time and circumstances of the event—in the same manner as was provided in the case of birth. The registrar, within a certain time, would also call upon the next of kin, or any person living in the house, to furnish him with further particulars with respect to the death, the age of the deceased, information as to what part of the country the deceased belonged to, and all such other information as was usual and material in such cases. Persons who gave this information would not be required to pay any fees for the entry, or, indeed, for anything; but copies or certificates of the entry at any time afterwards supplied would have to be paid for. Every registrar would receive two shillings and sixpence for each name entered by him within twenty days after birth or death, and one shilling extra after that time, and the superintendent of the registrar would be paid twopence on each entry. It was calculated that altogether there would be about 812,000 entries made in the course of one year, and that the amount paid to the registrars thereon would be somewhat more than £40,000. The total expense, including superintendents and the register-office in London, would amount to about £80,000 per annum. For the present the lords of the treasury would be empowered to pay the expenses of the central register-office in London; the future expenses would be borne by the parishes, according to the number of entries supplied by each. Lord John Russell next proceeded to state the provisions of the registration of marriages. He laid it down as a principle that the state had no interest in the form of the marriage ceremony, beyond that of its being binding on the consciences of the parties. When it was ascertained that due notice of the contract had been given, according to the form requisite to be followed by all parties, that the contract was duly registered, and that the manner in which that contract was entered into was binding upon the consciences of the parties to it, then the state had learned all that it was essential or necessary for it to know. The law of the country, however, as it at present stood, took a very different view. By the marriage law of 1754 it was declared that a marriage, in order to be valid, must be performed—after bans published in the church, or licence granted by authority—in the church, within certain hours, except under a special licence, and in all cases by a clergyman of the church of England. This law he considered as an unnecessary violation of conscience, and he proposed to leave the marriages of the members of the church of England as they were under the present law, and to allow the Protestant dissenters to be married in their own chapels, according to the religious form most acceptable to themselves. Instead of the publication of bans, he proposed that all persons, whether of the church establishment or Protestant dissenters, should give notice of their intention to marry to the registrar, and that their names should be entered by him in a notice-book, open to inspection for twenty-one days prior to the celebration; but that persons intending to marry by licence would be required to give only eight days’ notice; and special licences, issued under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, would still be retained. If the parties were unknown to the registrar, some person known to him would be required to declare that they were the parties they professed themselves to be. After the names had remained twenty-one days on the notice, the registrar would have to give them a notice to that effect, and the marriage might be celebrated within three months from that date. If the parties were members of the church of England, the clergyman, on the production of the certificate within the period, would be empowered to perform the ceremony without the publication of bans; or, if the parties were dissenters, they would be at liberty to go to a dissenting chapel with the certificate of notice, and, on its production, the ceremony would there be solemnized. The chapel, however, must first be duly licensed, on the application of at least twenty householders, who must declare that it was a dissenting chapel, used as a place of worship, and that they desired it to be licensed for the celebration of marriages. It was further proposed that as a dissenting minister was not known so well as a clergyman of the church of England, and that as he might take upon himself the office and lay it down again, the registrar should be present at such marriages, and should afterwards enter the names of the parties on the registry. To those who considered marriage to be altogether a civil contract, he would give something like what had been proposed last year by Sir Robert Peel, with this exception, that the parties, instead of going before a magistrate, would go before the registrar of marriages for the district in which they resided, who would enter the marriage contracted before him in a form of words set out in the bill. In respect to the registration of other marriages, the only difference between members of the establishment and dissenters would be this—that the established clergyman might enter the certificate of marriage in his own register, and send a duplicate copy thereof to the superior registrar of the district, to be forwarded by him to London; while, in the case of dissenters, it would be required that the ceremony should be performed in the presence of the registrar, who would certify that the marriage had taken place after a compliance with all the forms.

The bills were brought in, and were read a second time on the 15th of April without any opposition. The registration bill passed through committee without any important alteration; and the house of lords passed it on the 15th of August, with several amendments, to which the commons agreed. In the committee on the marriage bill, it was proposed to continue the publication of bans in rural districts, as a more effective means of giving notice to families interested in preventing a clandestine marriage than a register, which would require to be daily examined. It was also proposed to allow a dissenting chapel to be licensed for marriage purposes on the application of ten householders belonging to the congregation, instead of twenty, because there were many such chapels which did not contain ten householders. Both these propositions were rejected, as was also a motion for the rejection of the clause which allowed persons who objected to marry in church, or in a registered meeting-house, to marry at the office of the registrar. This clause was objected to on the ground that it altered the whole marriage law of England, and separated the contract of marriage from all religious sanction; but a large majority decided in its favour. On the third reading Mr. Goulburn moved the insertion of a clause requiring, in all cases where marriages were not solemnized in a church or chapel, nor according to the rites of the church of England, that the parties should make the following declaration:—“I do solemnly declare that I have conscientious scruples against the solemnization of marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England.” This motion, however, was rejected by a large majority, and another was carried, which went to reject the eighteenth clause of the bill, which required persons married before the registrar solemnly to declare that their had conscientious scruples against marrying in either church or chapel, or with any religious ceremony. Sir Robert Peel said, that the bill thus altered had assumed an entirely different aspect; while it provided for the relief of the dissenters, it passed a gratuitous and most intolerable insult on the feelings and principles of the members of the church of England. Lord Lincoln, after making similar remarks, moved, as an amendment, that the bill should be read that day six months; but the third reading was carried by one hundred and four against fifty-four. In the lords the second reading encountered no opposition, objections to it being reserved for the committee. In the committee the Bishop of Exeter moved, in order to avoid the desecration of the marriage contract when the ceremony was not performed in church, that the parties should make the following declaration:—“In the presence of Almighty God and these witnesses, I, M., do take thee, N., to be my wedded wife, according to God’s holy ordinance; and I do here, in the presence of God, solemnly promise, before these witnesses, to be to thee a loving and faithful husband during life,” instead of, as it stood in the bill, “I call upon these persons here present to witness that, I, A. B., do take thee, C. D., to be my lawful, wedded wife.” This amendment was carried; but on the bringing up of the report, the bill, on the motion of Lord Melbourne, was restored in this respect to what it had formerly been. The lords, however, struck out that provision of the bill which abolished the proclamation of bans, and they enacted with regard to all marriages of members of the established church, that bans should still be proclaimed. They likewise enacted that the superintendent of each district should send to the clerks of the unions the names of all persons who gave notice of their intention to marry, they being Protestant dissenters, and that their names should be read weekly, for three successive weeks, at the meetings of the guardians of the poor. Finally, in some parts of the bill they introduced an oath in place of a declaration, and required the interference of the superintendent-registrar, instead of the registrar. Some of these amendments were very unfavourably received by the dissenting interest in the commons, and an amendment was carried expunging the enactment that the names of dissenters intending to marry, should be read by the guardians of the poor at their weekly meetings. To all the other amendments of the lords, the commons, on the advice of Lord John Russell, agreed.

BILL TO ALTER THE REVENUES AND TERRITORIES OF THE DIFFERENT SEES, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

During the administration of Sir Robert Peel, a commission had been appointed to inquire what useful changes, if any, could be introduced in the ecclesiastical condition of the church of England, so as to remove anomalies which might still exist in it, and insure more effective pastoral superintendence. This commission had made a first report before Sir Robert Peel had resigned, and on the occurrence of that event his successors continued it, though its official members were changed. The second report was presented to both houses early in the present session, when it appeared that the inquiries of the committee had been threefold: first, their recommendations referred to the ecclesiastical division of territory, and the revenues of the different sees; secondly, to the cathedral and collegiate revenues, which it was desirable should be made more useful for the church establishment; and, lastly, the residence of clergymen on their benefices. During this session Lord John Russell introduced into the lower house a bill founded on those recommendations, which regarded the new modelling of the episcopal sees in relation to territory and income; and at a later period, another measure was brought in, providing for the suppression of cathedral and collegiate preferments, and sinecure benefices. A third measure was likewise brought into the house of lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to carry into effect the recommendations of the commissioners regarding pluralities and non-residence.

The bill concerning the territories and revenues of the diocesses, or the established church bill, recited those parts of the reports of the commissioners which set forth the proposed alterations among the sees, and deductions from their revenues. The first of these reports had recommended a different territorial arrangement of diocesses, with the view of making them more equal; the suppression of two sees; the erection of two others, those of Manchester and Ripon, in their places; and that the revenues of the sees—the two archbishoprics, and the sees of London, Durham, and Winchester excepted, should not exceed £5500, nor fall below £4500. The second report proposed that the diocess of Bristol, which, according to the previous recommendation, was to comprehend part of the diocess of Llandaff, should be united, as far as respected Bristol, with the diocess of Bath and Wells; and, as far as respected the remaining portion of the see, with the bishopric of Gloucester. It was further proposed that the Isle of Man should be united with the bishopric of Carlisle. With regard to the revenues, the second report recommended that the income of the Archbishop of Canterbury should be reduced from £17,000 to £15,000; of the see of London, from £12,200 to £10,000; of Durham, from £17,800 to £8000; of Winchester, from £10,700 to £7000; of Ely, from £11,000 to £7500; and of Worcester, from £6500 to £5000. The excess produced by these deductions was to be divided among thirteen sees, so as to make their respective revenues range between £5500 and £4500 per annum. It was further suggested that some useful measure might be proposed with respect to the mode of granting leases; but this was a subject which the commission had found extremely difficult in treating with, and therefore they had not agreed upon any proposition. After reciting these various parts of the reports of the commissioners, Lord John Russell’s bill incorporated a board of commissioners under the style of “the ecclesiastical commissioners for England,” which board was composed of spiritual and lay peers, of the lord-chancellor, the president of the council, and first lord of the treasury, of the chancellor of the exchequer, and such of the secretaries of state as his majesty might name for the time being, and of the right honourable Henry Hobhouse and Sir Herbert Jenner. The bill further enacted that the commissioners from time to time should lay before the king in council such schemes as should appear to them to be best adapted for carrying into effect the before-cited recommendations, and such measures as should appear to them necessary for the proper execution of these schemes, with a power of making such modifications and variations in matters of detail, as might not be repugnant to the recommendations themselves. When any such scheme had been approved of by his majesty, it was to be ratified by an order of the king in council, published in the _Gazette_, and recorded by the registrars in the diocesses, and was thereafter to be of the same force and effect as if every part of it had been included in this act. A clause was inserted, enacting that in future no bishop should hold _in commendam_ any ecclesiastical office, dignity, or benefice, all such grants being declared null and void; and by another clause the commissioners were directed to prepare a scheme for preventing the appointment of clergymen not fully conversant with the Welsh language, to any benefice in Wales, with the cure of souls, where the majority of the inhabitants of the parish did not understand English. On the motion for going into the committee on tire bill, the second reading of which had encountered no opposition, Lord John Russell entered at considerable length into this measure, and likewise the other two bills which were to accompany it in reforming the church. It would be mere repetition to record his expressions on the first measure; but passing to the recommendation of the commissioners for suppressing collegiate and cathedral charges, and benefices without the cure of souls, he said, that the income which would become available from these sources would be £130,000. In making a new application of this revenue, the first regard would be given to the wants and circumstances of the parishes from which the revenue was derived. The want of church accommodation in many places was lamentable. With respect to patronage, Lord John Russell added, it was proposed that instead of the large number of livings now in the hands of the dean and chapters, for the future they should only have the power either of appointing one of their own body, or one of their minor canons to benefices; but if they were not accepted, they should, after three months, be disposed of by the crown in some cases, and by the bishop of the diocess in others. With respect to the patronage of the crown, by which the church was connected with the state, he thought it would be a great evil to have the church totally independent of the state. Patronage was one of the means by which the church was united to the state, and by which the latter was bound to promote the interest and welfare of the church; and on the other hand the clergy were enlisted in the common cause and general policy of the state. He considered also that the patronage in the hands of bishops and individuals was useful; and the commissioners had proposed that the patronage in the hands of cleans, prebends, and residentiaries, should go into the hands of the bishops. On the motion for going into committee the bill was inveighed against as a mockery of reform, which still left the church too wealthy; merely making a new distribution among the bishops, instead of a reduction; not only not taking sufficient from the richer bishoprics, but giving what it even did take to the other bishops, instead of bestowing it on the poor and working clergy. The bill passed through the committee on the 14th; and on the bringing up of the report, Mr. Hume moved that it should be considered that day three months. This motion was rejected by a majority of more than two to one; and Mr. C. Buller then moved a clause, to the effect that, until due provision should have been made for the adequate payment of the parochial clergy, and for the supply of religious instruction to those parts of the country stated in the report of the commissioners to be destitute thereof, the Archbishop of Canterbury should receive an income of not more than £8000; the Archbishop of York, £7000; the Bishop of London, £4500; and each of the other bishops £4000. This proposition was rejected by a majority of eighty-two against forty-four; but the resistance of ministers seemed only to increase the opposition of their radical opponents. On the motion for the third reading, Mr. Hume moved, as an amendment, that the bill should be read a third time that day six months. It was impossible, he said, that the bill could pass; and if ministers thought it would be passed, they would find themselves mistaken, and do great injury to the liberal cause which they professed to advocate; such a bill was not to be passed while the pledges of the government in regard to the church remained unredeemed. Mr. T. Duncombe bitterly reproached ministers for their supposed dereliction of principle; they might talk as they chose of their Irish tithe-bill and their appropriation clause, but English church reform would be the touchstone by which it would be tried whether they would retain the confidence of the country. On a division, Mr. Hume’s amendment was rejected by a majority of one hundred and seventy-five against forty-four, ministers being supported by the conservatives, and generally by the Irish members. In the meantime the lords had been proceeding with the bill regarding pluralities and non-residence. On the second reading of that bill, the Bishops of Exeter and Hereford expressed strong apprehensions of the consequences of the bill, although, as the house was unanimous in its favour, they would not occasion any vote. The bill was founded on the recommendations of the commissioners previously alluded to. It was proposed that exemptions in favour of non-residence should be granted only to chaplains in attendance on their majesties, or on bishops, the principals of some schools, and in a few other special cases. The law at present allowed incumbents to be absent three months; and it was not proposed to shorten the time, as circumstances did not permit the clergy generally to take advantage of it, and pluralities produced a greater quantity of non-residence than all other causes. In regard to pluralities, therefore, the commissioners proposed, that no clerygyman should hold two livings if the income of one of them exceeded £500, or they were more than ten miles distant from each other; and that, in no case, should any clergyman hold more than two livings. The bill further enacted, that no person should hold more than one benefice, with one cathedral preferment, and that no person should hold preferment in more than one cathedral or collegiate church, except archdeacons, whose office was very laborious, and in general ill-paid. After some remarks made against some of these provisions by the Bishops of Exeter and Hereford, the lords agreed to them; and the bill was passed and sent down to the commons, but it was dropped for the session. Nothing more was heard of the bills which Lord John Russell had successfully carried through the commons, regarding the new modelling of episcopal sees, &c., and the suppression of cathedral and collegiate preferments and sinecure benefices. With reference to the latter subject, however, a short act was passed, in order to prevent the creation of any new vested interests, by providing generally that all future appointments to any ecclesiastical dignity or office referred to in the recommendations of the ecclesiastical commissioners, should be subject to such regulations as might subsequently be enacted regarding them; and that no appointment should be made to any canonry or prebend of cathedrals and collegiate churches, nor to any sinecure benefice not in the patronage of private persons, or of one of the universities, that was now vacant, or might become vacant during the continuance of the act, which was limited to a year, and to the end of the next session of parliament. Various canons and prebends were excepted, principally those which were attached to professorships and dignities of the universities; but the canonries of York, St. Paul, Carlisle, Chichester, and Lincoln, and prebends held by the Bishops of Lincoln, Lichfield. Exeter, and Salisbury, in their respective sees, were likewise excluded.

BILL TO ABOLISH THE SECULAR JURISDICTION OF BISHOPS, ETC.

During this session an act was passed, by which the secular jurisdiction of the county palatine of Durham, with all forfeitures, mines, treasure trove, and other rights belonging to that authority, were transferred from the bishop of the diocess and vested in the crown. The county-court was abolished; and it was likewise declared that the bishop elect, or any bishop for the time being, should take and hold the see, subject to such provisions as parliament might make regarding it within three years from the passing of the act. By another measure, the secular jurisdiction of the Archbishop of York over the liberty of Ripon and other places in Yorkshire, and the stoke of Southwell, in Nottinghamshire; and the secular authority of the Bishop of Ely over the Isle of Ely, were separated from the sees, and transferred to the king. A third act was passed, imposing restrictions on the renewal of leases by ecclesiastical persons. This bill provided, that where a lease had been granted for more than two lives, no renewal of it should be given till one or more of those lives had expired; and that, even then, the renewal should be only for the surviving lives, or for such new lives as, with the survivors, would make up the number of lives, not exceeding three, for which the lease had been originally granted. Where the lease had been granted for forty, thirty, or twenty-one years, it was not to be renewable till fourteen, ten, and seven years respectively of the original term had expired; and where it had merely been for years, no new lease was to be given for a life or lives. It was further required, that all leases should contain a recital, setting forth, in the case of a lease for lives, the names of the persons mentioned in the original lease as those on whose lives it was granted, and specifying such of the lives as were still existing, or had been exchanged for some other life. If the lease had been for a term of years, the recital was to set forth that term, and how much remained unexpired; and every such recital, so far as related to the validity of the lease containing it, was to be deemed and taken as conclusive evidence of the matter so recited.

BILL TO AMEND THE ENGLISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT.

When the bill relative to the reform of municipal corporations came into operation, in the end of 1835, it was soon discovered that some of the details of its machinery would require amendment. A bill for that purpose was brought in early in the present session. In some instances the mayor and other corporate officers had been elected, when the person presiding at the election was not legally entitled to preside; and the bill enacted that, notwithstanding this, all such elections, and all acts done by the officers so elected, should be good and valid. The act passed directed that elections should be held before the mayor and assessors; but, in some instances, there had been elections where there were no assessors: the present bill proposed to declare, both for the past and the future, that elections held before the election of assessors, but with the mayor or council presiding, should be as effectual as if they had been made before the mayor and assessors. The act provided, that the councillors who should go out of office were to be those who had been elected by the smallest number of votes; and if the votes had been equal, the majority of the council was to determine who should first go out. This did not provide for the case when there was no division of votes, in consequence of there being no contest; and the present bill provided for this case, by enacting that the majority of the council should select their outgoing colleagues. The act did not provide for the town-councillors being equally divided in the election of mayor or alderman, and instances had occurred of two parties in the council dividing against each other till midnight, after which no election could take place, as the day named in the act had expired: it was proposed by the present bill that, in such a case, the councillor who had the greatest number of votes at the election should preside, but without any casting vote, and that when the councillors could not agree on a mayor or alderman, the election should be referred to the constituent body. The act had abolished various corporate officers, without observing that, by their charter, their presence was necessary at the sessions. Serious doubts had arisen from this as to the legality of the proceedings at the sessions, before the new officers entered upon their duties under the act of parliament. The present bill declared that any court held since the passing of the act of last session, or before the 1st of May, 1836, in presence of the recorder, or any two persons who, at the date of that act, were entitled to act as justices for the borough, had been well and lawfully held. Many of the municipal elections having been questioned by proceedings in the King’s Bench, as being illegally and invalidly made, it was proposed by the bill that these causes should be decided in favour of one of the parties by act of parliament; that the proceedings should be quashed, and suits prohibited, by enacting that the defendants should have the right of getting them discontinued on making payment of costs. This bill passed the commons; and when it came to be read a second time in the house of lords, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst pointed out the grave consideration and the careful examination which many of its enactments would require. Lord Lyndhurst especially called the attention of the house to the tendency of those provisions which had a retrospective operation. After the bill, therefore, had been read a second time, it was referred, with the acquiescence of ministers, to a select committee, which committee made various amendments upon the bill, all of which were agreed to by the house and adopted into the bill. The commons, on receiving the bill back again, agreed to all the amendments except two. The first of these was an amendment on the provision, that when the town-council was equally divided in the election of mayor or alderman, these officers should be chosen directly by the constituent body. The lords had altered this into a provision that, in case of equality, the town-council should first of all name by lot one of this number to preside at the meeting, and that their presiding councillor should have a casting vote. The second amendment consisted in the insertion of a clause to continue for another year the arrangement contained in the municipal act for the management of charitable trusts. No portion of these new institutions had produced greater jealousy between parties; the popular party were eager to get hold of them, while the other insisted on some arrangement which would prevent the funds of charities from being prostituted to party and political purposes. This jealousy was not set aside by the municipal bill, which left those charitable trusts in the hands of the persons then administering them, till the 1st of August, 1837, unless parliament in the meantime should otherwise provide, and if it did not, then the lord-chancellor was to appoint new trustees. Previous to this Mr. Smith had brought in a bill to administer these trusts by a system of popular election. The town-council of each borough was to fix the number of trustees, and then the trustees were to be chosen by the municipal electors, each elector voting for only half of the number, in the idea that this would give both parties an equal chance. The trustees were to be elected every three years. This bill had not passed when the municipal bill was sent up to the lords; and it proceeded upon a system which their lordships were not likely to approve of. The lords, therefore, had inserted in the municipal bill a clause continuing for another year that administration of these charitable trusts which had been admitted into the original corporation act. The attorney-general moved that the commons should not agree to this amendment, as Mr. Smith’s bill would soon pass; and he further moved that they should not agree to the amendment regarding the election of mayor and aldermen when the town-council were equally divided, on the ground, that it left to chance, and not to the voice of the people, which should be the predominating party in the corporation. This motion was agreed to; and the reasons of the commons for disagreeing with these amendments were communicated to the lords in a conference. The lords, however, still adhered to their amendments, the Duke of Wellington contending that the rejection of them was a departure from the principle on which he and his friends had waived all opposition to the decision of the select committee, and had consented to adopt the amendments as that committee had framed them. The decision of the lords to adhere to their amendments took place on the 1st of July, and on the 28th Mr. Smith’s bill for administering the charities by popular election passed the commons. The second reading was moved in the lords on the 4th of August, when it was opposed by the Duke of Wellington, who deemed it as unreasonable in the circumstances and bad in itself. On a division the second reading of the bill was negatived by a majority of thirty-nine to twenty-two. The commons still refused to agree to the clause which the lords had inserted in the bill on this subject, and there seemed to be no alternative but to drop the bill. The lower house, however, resolved to adopt the only course open to them, namely, that of a free conference, at which the matter in dispute might be debated between the managers _viva voce_. This course was pursued; but the two houses could not come to any agreement on these clauses, and finally Lord John Russell moved that the further consideration of the amendments should be postponed till that day three months, which motion was agreed to. Certain bills were subsequently brought in and passed, to supply those parts of the dropped bill, in which both houses were agreed.

BILL TO ALLOW FELONS’ COUNSEL TO ADDRESS THE JURY, ETC.

Several attempts had been made to obtain an act for allowing prisoners on trial for felony the benefit of counsel to address the jury on their behalf. Hitherto these attempts had been unsuccessful; but notwithstanding this, the subject was again brought before the commons at the commencement of the present session. The bill was introduced by Mr. Ewart, and it passed the commons by a great majority. The second reading of the bill in the house of lords was moved by Lord Lyndhurst, who descanted at large on the justice and reasonableness of the bill in its principle, although he did not approve of all its details. Lords Denman and Wynford also spoke in favour of the principles of the bill, and it was accordingly read a second time without opposition. In the committee, however, several amendments and alterations were made upon the bill, none of which were of great practical importance except one, and all of which, except that one, were agreed to by the commons. It frequently happened that persons were tried for felony where no counsel were present, and by this bill the privileges of the counsel were extended to attornies. The bill, as it came up from the commons, contained a clause entitling the accused to copies of the depositions upon which he had been committed. This clause was struck out, on the ground that the rights of a prisoner in this respect were already settled by law; but, to prevent all doubt upon the subject, a clause declaratory of the right was again introduced, before the bill finally passed the lords. A more important matter, however, regarded the right of the prisoner to have the last word. As the bill passed the commons, this right was established; but the clause enacting that he should possess that right was struck out, and the effect of the alteration was to make the practice the same as in cases of misdemeanour, and in criminal cases, giving the last word to the prisoner, only in the event of his adducing no evidence. The bill now consisted of this simple enactment:—“That all persons tried for felony shall be admitted, after the close of the case for the prosecution, to make full answer and defence thereto by counsel learned in the law, or by attorney in courts, where attornies practise as counsel.” When the bill as amended by the lords came to be taken into consideration by the commons, its supporters argued that, as it now stood, it conferred no real advantage, and that it would be better to leave to prisoners the benefit of the commiseration which the state of the law, such as it was at present, induced, than to deprive them of it without giving them anything substantive in return. It was resolved that the lords’ amendments should be referred to a select committee, and that committee reported in favour of the other amendments; but they decided that any arrangement which would deprive the prisoner of the last word would be injurious to his interests, and to the ends of justice. The attorney-general urged the house to accept the bill as it stood; but the amendment was rejected, and its rejection immediately communicated to the other house. The lords, however, still resolved to adhere to the amendment, and a conference was held, at which their reasons for adhering to it were communicated to the commons. The amendment was finally adopted by the lower house, and the bill passed—Lord John Russell stating that the matter in dispute would form a subject of future deliberation, and Mr. Ewart assuring the house that he would not fail still to press upon it the principle which he now sacrificed, rather than reject the bill, which still retained a great deal of good.

Another act passed during this session had reference to the execution of those convicted of murder. By the existing law a person convicted of murder was directed to be executed the next day but one after that on which he was convicted, unless it should happen on a Sunday, in which case the execution was to take place on the following Monday. The law further required that after conviction such persons should be fed only on bread and water, except in case of sickness, and that no other person than the gaoler, surgeon, and chaplain, should have access to them, unless by the permission of the sheriff or the judge who had presided on the trial. During the present session an act was passed repealing these provisions, enacting that “sentence of death maybe pronounced after conviction for murder in the same manner, and the judge shall have the same power in all respects, as after conviction for other capital offences.”

A third act passed this session related to medical attendance on inquests. This was an act to provide that when medical men were called from their ordinary duties to serve the public by giving evidence on coroners’ inquests, and going through the anatomical and chemical processes which these examinations sometimes required, they should receive a proper remuneration. This bill, which was brought in by Mr. Wakley, enacted that not only the coroner should have power to summon medical witnesses, but “that if the jury were not satisfied with such medical evidence, the coroner should be bound to summon another gentleman of the same profession; and every medical witness so summoned was subjected, in case of non-attendance, to a penalty of £5, to be recovered summarily before the justices.” On the other hand, every medical man attending to give evidence was entitled to the fee of one guinea; and if he had performed a post-mortem examination, his fee was to be two guineas. The fees were made payable out of the poors’-rates.

ABOLITION OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}