noble Friend had then proceeded to notice | Commissioners were responsible, and had the conduct of the Commissioners with been held really responsible, for the conrespect to Mr. Parker and Mr. Day. Now, duct of their subordinates. In imposing he did not stand there as the advocate of that responsibility, Parliament deliberately the Poor Law Commissioners; he stood voted them both the power of appointment there to defend them against imputations and removal; and it would not be fair to and accusations which he believed to be make a man responsible for his subordiill-founded; but he was perfectly prepared nates, unless he had that power. He felt to admit when he thought them wrong;justified in repeating the assertion he had and he thought there was not a more im- already made, that the Committee had not perative duty which a public man was resolved that the Commissioners were not called upon to discharge-however high justified in the removal of Mr. Parker. his position might be, as in the case of the Mr. Parker's conduct in the second inquiry noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), or was one of the reasons which induced the the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey), Commissioners to remove him from his or however humble, as in his own case- office; but it was not their only reason. than to defend against accusations which The Andover Committee picked out only he himself conscientiously believed to be two of the reasons which the Commissionunfounded, any public officer with whom ers had for removing Mr. Parker; and he might have been officially connected. they summed up by saying that the time He said, then, distinctly, that in respect and manner of his dssmissal had been proto the conduct of the Poor Law Commis- ductive of great hardship to him. The sioners in that inquiry, he thought there Poor Law Commissioners were unanimous was one point on which they had shown in censuring Mr. Parker's conduct. They indiscretion; but he did not concur in the were examined separately, but they all resolution of the Committee. He differed came to a similar conclusion, though in from the opinion of the Committee, be- some respects upon different grounds, cause he thought the granting of the ad- namely, that Mr. Parker had lost their journment of the inquiry by Mr. Parker confidence, and that it was not expedient unnecessary; but, being granted, he thought to continue him longer in his office. There the overruling of it by the Commissioners, were, in his opinion, sufficient grounds for indiscreet. With respect to the manner the loss of confidence; but whether there in which Mr. Parker had conducted the were or not, it was unjustifiable to impute inquiry, he maintained that the evidence corrupt motives to public officers unless the submitted to the Andover Committee dis- imputation could be sustained by proof. tinctly showed that he conducted it with Mr. Parker distinctly stated the Commisvery great partiality. He would not trou- sioners required his resignation only for ble the House with an analysis of the the purpose of throwing upon him the evidence on this point; but he would re- odium to which they themselves were justly mind them that there was not merely the obnoxious; not a tittle of evidence was general impression on the minds of the given in support of that imputation. The witnesses, but particular cases were men- case of Mr. Day differed from that of Mr. tioned which were not disproved, in which Parker in this that the Commissioners great partiality was shown. Visitors attributed no improper conduct to Mr. who had dropped in to see the sight-Day. The cause of calling on Mr. Day men of respectable station, clergymen for his resignation was this-it was diswith cure of souls, and others-stated most strongly that great partiality had been shown by Mr. Parker. He now came to the case of Mr. Day; and he at once admitted that the case against Mr. Parker was stronger than the case against Mr. Day. He took the two cases, however, conjointly, because his justification of the Commissioners rested on the same principle, though on somewhat different grounds. In considering this point, he begged to advert for a moment to the position in which the assistant commissioners stood to the Poor Law Commissioners. The Poor Law VOL. XCII. {Third} A Series covered, in the course of an inquiry into the disturbances in Wales, that the Poor Law in Mr. Day's district had been badly administered, and therefore the Commissioners felt it necessary to remove him, although they bore testimony to his ability and integrity. What then was there in the time and manner of the removal of Mr. Parker and Mr. Day to justify complaint? They were removed precisely at the period when the necessity for taking that step became apparent in order to ensure a more efficient administration of the law in their respective districts. Other 2 N charges were made against the Commis- | decided to be in accordance with the law. sioners, to which he would advert only for With respect to the Bill before the House, the purpose of showing the animus which it appeared to him that his hon. Friend suggested them; for, as any one who would the Member for Dorsetshire raised the real read the evidence must perceive, they were objection to it when he referred to the obtotally unsustained by proof. One of jection in the public mind to an Act which these charges was that the Commissioners combined in one board legislative with exdiscouraged their subordinate officers. Mr. ecutive functions. That, he frankly adChadwick came forward and said that Mr. mitted, constituted the great difficulty in Lewis had discouraged him, because, when dealing with the question. If his hon. he presented a report about Bolton in Friend could point out any mode by which 1840, Mr. Lewis did not adopt the sug- the two functions could be separated, he gestion Mr. Chadwick made. On Mr. would gladly concur in its adoption; but Chadwick being cross-examined, it turned the remedy which his hon. Friend proposed out that he never offered any suggestions was worse than the disease. His hon. to Mr. Lewis beyond what might be held Friend's proposition was, that all the orto be contained in his report; and he said ders which might be deemed expedient, that all he meant was, that Mr. Lewis's should at once be enacted. The answer manner was very discouraging. It was to that proposition was, first, that the law fortunate that the Commissioners did not was not generally applied; and, secondly, act upon the recommendation contained in that it was not generally applicable. A Mr. Chadwick's report, which was this, rule suitable to the southern parts of the that in 1842, when Bolton was visited with country could not be acted upon in the severe distress, the Commissioners should northern parts. Another and a more imat once have stopped the system of out-portant objection was, that if the legislative door allowances, which had been uniformly adopted in that town in all seasons of distress. If that had been done, it was impossible to doubt that an outery would have been raised, not against Mr. Chadwick, for it would not have been his act, but against the Commissioners. And the very persons who now blamed the Commissioners for not having adopted Mr. Chadwick's suggestion, would have been the first to declaim upon the cruelty of their proceedings. The Commissioners were stated to have discouraged other of their subordinate officers; and the hon. Member for Weymouth said that no evidence had been offered in disproof of those statements; but surely the onus probandi lay upon the party who made the charge. Mr. Chadwick, however, offered no proof in support of his charge; it rested entirely on his ipse dixit. As Mr. Mott's case had not been brought forward in the debate, he did not feel it necessary to advert to it; and all he would say of that of Mr. Jenkin Jones, which had been referred to, was that strict justice had been observed in the treatment of that gentleman. There was only one other point relating to the conduct of the Commissioners to which he would allude, and that was the mode in which they kept their record. It was a point on which high legal opinions were divided; and laymen like the Commissioners might surely be excused for having followed a practice which two law officers of the Crown had deliberately and executive functions were disjoined, it Debate adjourned to Thursday. SUPPLIES-THE CHURCH. The Order of the Day for the reception. of the Report of the Committee of Supply, on the 16th Resolution (relating to the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commission), read. On the question that the resolution be read a second time, MR. W. WILLIAMS opposed the Motion, on the ground that the amount voted for the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commission (3,4507.), being for the benefit of the Church, ought not to be paid out of the public purse. LORD J. RUSSELL had already, in Committee of Supply, stated his reasons for supporting the vote, and he had nothing to add on the present occasion. Report received. Resolutions agreed to. House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, May 20, 1847. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS. MR. BROTHERTON hoped his hon. Friend would not divide; because if he did, he must as a matter of principle divide with him; and he really did not like thus splitting straws when the amount was so small, and the question was in so equivocal a state. If the public were thus paying 3,000l. for the Ecclesiastical Commission, might not the Church turn round and say they paid 36,000l. for registering births, PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Bristol and Sheffield, for deaths, and marriages-a measure adopted for the benefit of Dissenters? He liked to divide on a great principle, not on a small sum like this, and under such circumstances. The House divided:-Ayes 76; Noes 8: Majority 68. List of the AYES. Hudson, G. 1a Debtor and Creditor. 2a Clergy Offences; Naval Prisons; Naval Service of Boys. Reported-County Buildings. the Enactment of Sanitary Regulations for the Health of Towns.-From Gloucester and Bristol, against the Introduction of a Clause in any future Railway Bills, compelling the Running of Railway Trains on the Sabbath. -From Stourbridge, against the proposed Government Plan of Education.-From Halifax, against the Factories Bill; and from Glasgow and other places, in favour of the same. THE KENTISH RAILWAYS. The DUKE of WELLINGTON rose to Howard, hon. E. G. G. call the attention of their Lordships to three Bills relating to railways, the consideration of which he wished should be referred to the Railway Commission. He was most anxious that every safe and practicable Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. measure should be taken for the purpose Maitland, T. James, Sir W. C. Lockhart, A. E. Martin, C. W. of giving the Government and of giving Parliament the most complete knowledge, as well as all necessary control over those modes of communication now so rapidly extending over every part of the country. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. It appeared to him most important that Neville, R. O'Conor Don Parker, J. Perfect, R. Price, Sir R. Hallyburton, Ld. J. F.G. Ward, H. G. Hamilton, W. J. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. Yorke, H. R. TELLERS. Hill, Lord M. the Government should possess the most entire and complete information of all the transactions which were going forward between the parties concerned in railways, in order that measures should be taken to render those modes of conveyance as useful as possible to the public at large, and as conducive to the public service as circumstances would permit. The object of one of the Bills then before their Lordships was to continue a railway direct from Dover to the metropolis through Canterbury. That continuation, as must be evident to every one, was a great object to the town of Dover, as well as to the whole county of Kent; and he certainly was anxious that the road from Canterbury to Dover should be continued; but he was not free from apprehension that, in consequence of some transactions which had recently taken place between the parties, that object might not be attained. His wish was that the most accurate knowledge possible should be obtained and communicated on the subject; and therefore he proposed that the Bills which then stood for a second reading should be referred to the Commissioners. The three Bills to which he alluded were the South-Eastern Railway (North Kent line), the South-Eastern Railway (Stroud to Maidstone), the South-Eastern Railway (Mid-Kent and Direct Tunbridge). the first place, he wished to state that an attempt was made, and very undeservedly, to cast imputations on the Bill, upon the ground that its provisions were of an arbitrary character. He trusted that when its provisions came to be examined, those imputations would appear wholly unfounded. He wished further to state, that there would not be under this Bill any interference with the clergy upon doctrinal points, except in such cases as should be specially provided for. Another point of alteration was, that parties were to be examined before the diocesan council, with the power of cross-examining witnesses-a power which was not previously possessed; they would be examined by an excellent body of men, the cannons residentiary, or the rural deans. The changes made in the present Bill would also obviate many of the objections which had been urged against LORD BROUGHAM was glad that his noble and gallant Friend had taken this matter into his own hands, because it was a most grievous thing to the public that parties should be allowed to come to an understanding on these matters amongst themselves. He knew that it was the noble Duke's constant recommendation to Parliament, when these railway schemes first began, that much more superintendence and care should be taken of them the former measure, because it would prothan was at the time unfortunately taken; and he was always of opinion that Government ought to exercise greater influence over these raiways than they did. The EARL of RADNOR observed that it was owing to the opposition of the landowners of Kent that the railway was carried round instead of going direct through Canterbury. EARL FITZWILLIAM reiterated the opinion which he had formerly expressed, that the whole question should be taken into the hands of Government. LORD REDESDALE wished to ask the Government whether it was their intention to proceed with the Bill for giving powers to the Railway Commissioners during the present Session of Parliament. Such a measure was absolutely necessary; and if not passed during the present Session, it might not be so easy to pass it in the ensuing Session, when the railway interest might acquire greater strength in the Legislature. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE replied that the attention of the Government was very seriously directed to the subject. Bills to be referred to the Commissioners of Railways. CLERGY OFFENCES BILL. The BISHOP of LONDON, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that considerable alteration had been made in the present measure as compared with the Bill of last year, and he hoped that the changes which had been made would prevent much ill-feeling on the subject. In vide that no parties, except the bishop of the diocese, should be entitled to proceed against a clergyman for an offence not committed within the preceding five years. Under the old law the clergy might be brought before a court consisting of a single individual; but now they might be brought before the bishop, assisted by lawyers of experience and others of their brethren. He should be happy to attend to any alteration that might be suggested for the improvement of the Bill; but he hoped that there was nothing in it contrary to the spirit of the constitution of the Church or of the constitution of the country. The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill. LORD BROUGHAM was not prepared to deny that some measure was necessary to remedy the defects which had been so long complained of in church discipline over the members of that body; and if there had been any doubt upon the point, several recent cases before the courts had completely shown the impotence of the present law to correct the abuses that prevailed. At the same time, he was not prepared to say that the whole of this measure ought to receive the sanction of the House; and in particular there were two points to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention. The first was the revival for certain purposes of the Court of Delegates-a court than which no criminal had gone to his doom with the more unanimous consent of the bystanders; and the second was the constitution of the diocesan council, which he thought would be possessed of too much power, inasmuch through Committee without opposition; it as three out of the five who composed the had been approved by all parties, and it council could not be challenged. But he was introduced with the unanimous conwould leave it to a more convenient oppor- currence of the right rev. Bench, and, but tunity to discuss those points, hoping, that for the unfortunate interference of the right as he had no wish to obstruct the progress rev. Prelate who spoke last, the Bill would of the Bill, the right rev. Prelate might in have become law. It had, however, been the meanwhile be enabled to remove the lost; and the result was, that all parties cause of his objections to it. He might, now agreed that some Act was necessary. however, say that there was one part of In his Bill he had proposed a preliminary the Bill which he most entirely approved inquiry, with an appeal to the Judges of of, and that was the clause which gave the the Court of Arches; and he thought it of power of selecting the diocesan court or importance to provide a court of review, the Court of Arches. That clause-in not only to protect individuals, but because short, the whole measure-had been most the fact of a right to appeal made the party carefully framed, and evidently by a person who pronounced the original judgment who was well acquainted with the subject. more cautious; and he confessed he preferred any respectable and competent body to restoring the Court of Delegates, where the judges would be only selected for each particular question. The great difficulty he had met with was how to defray the expense, and at the same time have a competent tribunal. He was of opinion that the accused party ought to have the right either to submit, if he pleased, to the jurisdiction of the inferior court, or, if he preferred it, to carry the cause at once from the diocesan court to the Court of Arches. The BISHOP of LONDON observed, that it was drawn by his right rev. Friend near him (the Bishop of Exeter). The BISHOP of EXETER was much obliged to his noble and learned Friend for supporting this Bill. That it admitted of improvement, no one could deny; but he was surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord complain of the revival of the Court of Delegates a court that had existed for centuries without having any reflections cast upon it. He was glad of the promised assistance of his noble and learned Friend in modelling this Bill; and he hoped it would become an efficient and perfect measure. On all questions of doctrine, however, he thought there ought to be a numerous court of divines to determine those questions, and he hoped that in Committee such an amendment would be made; and he thought the diocesan council would work well. But he merely threw this out as a suggestion, as he wished, without violating any principle, to make the measure satisfactory to their Lordships, gratifying to the clergy, and bearing on its face the most benignant character. As to the bishops, there was a most efficient discipline; for when they offended against the ecclesiastical law, they were to be tried by the archbishop, who called to his aid six bishops. It was for the clergy at large that further legislation was necessary. The LORD CHANCELLOR assured their Lordships that no one was more sensible of the defects of the law, or was more desirous, while he corrected their faults, of protecting the clergy against accusations which were false. But, at the same time, he could not feel very confident that the happy time was come when this could be effected. He had himself introduced a Bill to apply a remedy, which had passed The BISHOP of LONDON expressed his willingness to make any modification in the Bill that would tend to promote its object, which was to effect speedy and inexpensive justice. LORD CAMPBELL did not like the idea of the Court of Delegates being revived. It had been universally condemned; and he believed it would never again be tolerated. It was always considered a very defective tribunal; and the present measure was not calculated to reform it. The principle upon which the court was constituted was bad, it being made for the particular occasion, and appointed to sit for each case as it arose, toties quoties, which was in itself a great objection. It had been made a matter of complaint that no bishop was allowed to sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He, for one, should be very glad to see some of the right rev. Prelates present and assisting at that tribunal, which he considered a far more preferable course than that of adopting the proposed measure. The BISHOP of OXFORD supported the Bill, and approved of the principle on which the new tribunal was proposed to be constituted. A great deal had been said about protecting the parochial clergy; he was of |