The Sun. — London, England, 1850-06-04 00:00:00

r e ding g stlY Govern - 0 - I I : decided oPP to 03 113° 00,1 do" ro`li f) to ° tw o' l o co', not ic" 4 .l e s botP ol ,o o , bodY (. 1 1 14 1)(1 0 tI rt r ates, 1 11 0 ar.l Og o 0 4 es f . iouiP perish or union of peri-hes might carry out the obi et now desired; hut coon corehlerwien, to Fain' to the multiplicity of iete rests cencernel, be came to the con clusion that it we 'd be physic:ll;y impossible to celery it out it it were left to parishes alone. He beliese d. therefore; although he would not defend ad the provi sienti of this Bi'l, that it would be impossible to abate the nuisance cenaplained of, end to carry on extramural interments without some such holed as was now pro posed. He did net wish to eels-relies—the less of ern tralintion the better—bat there might be pecti!iar cases where self. government was improper. Take Smithfield market—would they leave that entirely in the hands of the Corporation of London? And there were other similar cases. He believed that it would be better far the people to accept this Bill than to run the risk of lasin g it altogether, and have the possibility of the cholera again orcurring.—(Cries of "Oh, chl") The Bill was absolutely neceasery for the welfare of the country—it was loudly called for by the people, end ought to pass into law. • Sir B. HALL slid, the statement of the Right Hen. Gentleman the Home Secretary was most unintisfectory. Ile had stated that in 1854 the - subject might he again considered. They had, however, had such assertions before; for instance, when the income-tax was proposed they were toll they might reconsider it at the end of three years, but they had had it from that time to the Present. Once lot the board in question be established, and it would be difficult to get rid of it. The question at issue was, whether they should take from the metro.' politan parishes the power of interfering in these matters. If they could show that the three large sarishes with • 'which he was connected, S. Marylebone, St. Paneres, and Paddington, had so meledminiatered their affairs that it was necessary to take the control of them out of their bands, he would say, let it be dare at once; but whilst he would go as far as any one where private burial-grounds were concerned, he did object to inter fering with metropolitan boards that showed intelligence and activity, and would, as he believed, conduct their business much better than it would be done by the cen tral board. The CHAIRMAN explained that as the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman was to expunge the clause, and something had been said about amendments being pro- Posed in the clause itself, it was necessary first to dis pose of such amendment. Sir W. CLAY said, the real question was as to the best mode of constituting the central body, for it seemed to be quite admitted that the end they had in view could not be carried out by all the parishes without intercom munication. Now, there were 87 parishes to be com prehended by this Bill, and the question was whether each parish was to have a control in constituting the central body, each sending a representative—than which he could conceive nothing less adapted to the end in View; or whether the body was to consist only of three or four persons chosen by the different parishes. Lord ASHLEY, after complimenting Mr. Chadwick, Who he spoke of as a useful public servant, proc: eled so say that the measure would impose no expanse upon • any of the metropolitan parishes. Power was taken by the Bill to levy a rate of a penny in the pound, but it Would be merely nominal, and in the nature of a security to enable the central authority to raise a sum of Money for the purchase of ground and to defray the expense of the arrangements :which must neces sarily be entered into. The payment of interest and of capi‘al would be provided fur out of the fees to be charged for burials. There could be no doubt upon that point. If the number of interments should amount to the usual averages—namely, 52,000, the fees would be reorethan sufficient to repay the capital with interest. It mai not until after mature deliberation the Board of Ilealth determined against employing the agency of the Parochial system in carrying out this great work. If the parishes should act singly they would he too weak to effect geed; if they should act in combination their ma chinery would prove too unwieldy for efficient operation. Thee, again, if parishes were to act separately the cat . Peuse would be greatly enhanced, for each would have it s Own burying-ground, its own officers, and its oven • establishment charges. At present where the burial . Places ne re of easy access the expense of fanerals Pressed heavily on the humbler clssses; but it was end.- . dent that the expense would be seriously aggravated wh• n • it became accessary to convey corpses six, seven, cr ten mike from London accordingly as the different parishes might select the places of sepulture. The only way in which it was poisible to reduce the expense of extra- Mural interments was by undertaking the business on a large scale. The experience which he had of parochial authorities in Auguet and September last, when the • cholera was sweeping away its hundreds per day, did not incline him te e,oatide to them the administration of such en important measure as that under the consideration of the Committee. It could be carried ict ) complete effect by a strong and independent body. As to responsibility, about which to much was said, it would be greater under • the plan proposed by the Bill than it could possibly be under the parochial system. Could it be seriously reairatained that the responsibility of any parochial officer Was equal to the direct and personal responsibility of a I neteber of the central board having a seat in the House Of Commons, and liable at any time to be questioned ttbout the proceedings of himself and his colleagues? 'rho parochial system which was sought to be upheld had been in existence for many years, and under it had sprung up all those abominations in churchyards which it was the object of the present measure to put an end to. The sYstem of extramural interment was established in the greater pit of the civilized world—in Prussia, Ger many, Italy, France, end even in Turkey; and in every instance it was carried into effect by means of cert7al authority. Mi.. Alderman SIDNEY said it was estimated that ' O O,OOO/. would be required for launching the scheme, and 112.001. annually fsr the working of it. The Roble Lord said, that the money required would be ranted by fees upon interments. Well, if there were 5 2,000 burials annually the fees must amount to 21. on each. burial to cover the expense.—(Hear, hear.) The • c ity of London was prepared to abandon the practice of burying within the wafts ; they were provided with l'aitable ground in the country, and all they desired . Was to be allowed to make their own arrangements. Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND said, that almost every clause in the Bill was objectionable. At the same time 't would be unwise to reject it altogether. Rather let them discard what was bed and retain what was good. Sir LE L. EVANS opposed the clause. Because ex !Mental interment was necessary it did not follow that it 'yes accessary to appoint an irresponsible tribunal with powers of the most extraordinary descriptio n to change the whole system cf our local administrati on . Perhap s the next proposition would be that the Poor ' • "I' Commissioners should put down the boards of guar di. sns end tke parochial vestries. Ho hoped the Gu- V ernment would iispend the passing of the clause, arid give time t o se t eeest a substitute. Lord J. RUSSELL observed that all the opposers of t h,_e clau se s e e m e d ta have fallen into two errors—first, e " .• et our parishes had been for the last 300 years in the Practice of burying the dead; and, secondly, that the: P r oposed board would be irresponsible. He had always 11cderstood that, if a pauper died in a workhouse the Parish had to take care he should be decently interre 4 , b ut as to parishes having any general control over the b urial cf all persons, he tied not say it was a power th5 Y had never exercised, and one which could only be Theref ore on them now by an Act of Parliament. 4.ll erefore the whole of the declarations they had heard • a bout self-government fell to the ground, and the pa ' ls bts had no more claim to exercise that power than th ey had to say to the Admiralty, °'We can build ships e _ r t tter than you, and ought to build them exclusively." was admitted, without a dissentient voice, that , o erita in that great metropolis and in the thickly mallet - h t le 1 suburbs should no ong cause of disease and mortality Il lunte the living.—(Hear. hear.) It being necessary to • li a t et• that system. let the House consider in whose hands leY could best place the power of carrying this alters liont o into effect. If they could obtain a better body than Do lt ßoard of Health they would be wise to give it that , s i , w c•r; but let them not run away with the notion that t u ,l". ll Se they heel parochial bodies already those ,•• e : 1 :e 6 Were the best fitted to exercise that power. Was IseerSperish to find a separate burial ground, and to lde a cemetery according to its requirement.? In 4 4 ' way the Bill could never be carried into effect at all. - th -tt _a. Gentlemen talked of the expense of this Bill, but 3 'expense to which the ratepayers of ihe metropolis ns ,uld be put by such a proposition would b© something 1 1 % ;' 4 :te beyond contemplation, and persons of small means 4 utterly ruined.—(Hea_ ,r hear.) Then as to a e tr 'bietation of parishes, was this a sort oft business a e se r - 4 ,. bination of parishes might to undertake? Let them f r 'dem that in adopting that plan they were departing pr the the parochial constitution and self-government they a 4 .7 t 1 so highly.—(Hear, hear.) If they had 80 or 90 . moldtaking on themselves the burial of all persona, ;t et , l -1 (1 be as groat an innovation as the proposal of Go ; pe4 tu eur. It was, in fact, necessary to create a now because what was proposed was new and their • p as lc ‘ of effecting it must be new also. If 80 or 90 a° 41 es were to combine it would be necessary to have , to ttt Place of meeting which would, of course, be dis is ti, es °us the residence of some of the parish represen • .t. the attendance, consequently, could not always be ~ °us and a board. sa constituted would be 'A z . Y unfit to carry on the business. He came, then, ` t he conclusion that they must have some small ia a web, 3 ), , of Persona—he would not say with the precise th e ,7 1.4 Proposed, but with such powers as would enable 1 ,, I ek e ' u l to t • () Carry out the object es to which all were agreed. to he the irresponsibility of the Commissioner o eah, it was e s 'e a e bout d re tuambered that the chie of that tet i il,'!ato s was also chief Commissioner of the Woods and h ew ei _ t a, and that, in the case of any abuse or complaint, aa ari s u llitl.be responsible for anything done in hisdepart aiih No one had suggested any better body to intrust Wits " 50 powers; and, if they determined to do away !y, . • r q DEr, _ them. esent syst Theem, they hadbetter take the means „ b 1 to Hon. ©M for Finsbury (Mr. e'esas to b c bad declared himself convinced of the ne e, Publicylit f doing something for the preservation of the Stig sot .nealth, and th e n sa id the Government Bill was a 1 6 1 ti s „ liurei le i°b• If it was advisable to indulge in iMpUt2- that kind, it might be easy to make them with t• of r o S t 't to the 0 • ' a ti . oes oOpposition to the Bill, and to the motives tilp 4tati I-Posers, which would be quite as valid as the , t g s , o en s of the Hon. Member.—(]Tear, hear.) He a It 's 4 rv e th s e llon- Gentleman . full creit for wishing to pre tee . ri t4 l 4 Public health, and hoped he (Mr. Duncombe) 1 1 G siatiett stive the same credit to Government. The Hon. , t he te o e_ al l (Mr. Alderman Sidney), who had reminded . shit ss,! i:, would coat 112,000/. to work the Bill, forgot i s . , I :ti t e w l _ l .( t . the estimated saving on the annual inter ,: • .2 1 st es ij . tl . ll he in round numbers 350,0001. Though q, 41 1f!, e V e Lbe exaggerated, it must be admitted the Bill aeil'se I ,; ‘ ,,,M.ssiot;te a great diminution of expense. h _ is ATT thought the Noble Lord went too far 4tty of .. arßued that if all were agreed as to the neees o'4,rt.earszollt e tude', they must adopt the means he offered. hi e p Lord had quite failed in showing the pare tad at4tho s i t i baito ittztres'riSreffi.lld not cerry out the proposed change, necessary to appoint a new and irre- L sts e aka • with powere unknown to the constitution, Would n tl these ef any hoard at present existine ° t oanction any departure from the principle THE 81J N, LON DO N, that the ntoplyers should exercise a control. in the a d. ministration the rate:. He did n( see , vhy ftur or fie , n.ighhouring prialnes rnight no ; unite for the Fur- Rises of the! Bill, and Ile would nit vote for a board with t5: - .ch irre,ponsible and eN.raor.linary powers. Mr. SLANEY denied the Bill was uncons,tiLutional in principle, or*fiat it would bu expensive. •He denied that parochial manager:teat always effective and satisfactory in practice. It did not toliew th;..t the powers nee,ssary to a change would be r..quired when the change had been effected, end he wellu :,up port the clause. As a word of god cheer to the under takers, he might add he had no doubt they would he hkely to get the ct.m:rac!s for burials on account of their long experience nod the capita/ they h.td em barked. • Lord D. STUART opposed the clause. This central board appeased to him to be by no means so good as the old mode of management. Be hoped that the present cynic would receivo from the House a calm and deli ;e -rate consideration, for this clause appeared to him to he the pivot upon which the Bill turned, and he had al ready stated his opinion that it ought to be expunged al tOge',hor_ - - - Mr. wanted to know what the board wool! cost, and ho wan►e ,2 to know what was to ba the income of the present Chief Conareissionqr. Sir G. GREY replied that it was to be settled by Par lie meet. Mr. HligE could not 13?1!eve that it would be pos sible to carry out any principle of self-government by th© establishment of such a board. Mr. WYLD said, what they wanted was an elected and responsible body. They were pfrATtly wiping that tho Government should appoint inisTetors and establish any control that might he necvsiary ; but it was most desirable to preserve the advantages of local govern ment. . . Mr. FITZROY said. that the view of the parishes wa that they should manage their own affAirs, but they were willing to do so under the control and guidance of a Government hoard. It would be very hard upon the parishes if where the funds, owing to thu mismanagt - went of other:, proved insufficient, they were to be fur ther taxed. He should vote in favour of the amendment and for the omission of the clause. The Committee then divhkd upon the amendment which had ben moved by :Mr. T. Duncombe, when there appeared— For the amendment ... ..• ••• 5 7 Against it ... ••• ... 135 Majority ••• ••• —7B The clause was toen agreed to, and Mr. T. I)UNCOMBE said, that the House having thus expres,ed its opinion he should not trouble theta with auy further opposition. Clauses 3,4, and 5, were then agreed to. On cls.use 6, empowering the Board of Health to pro vide burial-grounds and ta purchase lands for burial grounds, Mr. HUME said, that some limit should be fixed within which new ceinet,ries and burial places should not Le opened. The limit established by the Act in schedule A ought to be adopted, and he proposed thut no new burial places should be opened iu the several places nlroed in the schedule. Lord ASHLEY explained that the parishes of Street ham and Tooting were named in the schedule, hut they contained some large, open, and airy places which might be advantageously occupied as burial-places for a time. When the population pressed upon these places toe Fo :.rd might go further. But if the Act compelled them to go further at present it might be necessary to convey bodies a distance of 12 or 13 miles for interment, which would cause expense and loss of time. The moti.m wr.s then withdrawn. WAKLEY wanted to know whether the Noble Lord did noz think it advisable to mention some mini /num diAanea v.ithin which interments should not be permitted? Lord ASIILEY—Fcom what p - lint? Mr. WAKLEY—F:oin Lord ASHLEY—But on some sides there were dis tricts more open than on others. Oa some sides the population was spreading very, gre7:,tly, and 021 others it wfis not. The Act diti not contemplate the construe:4)r. a a single large cemetery, but a great many, and some of those whickt were already established would be talon, As the population pressed upon them they would be shut up, atid.others at a greater distance opened. The clause was then agreed to. On clause 7, giving power to the board to purchase cerneterie , , Mr. I.TOFFATT said, the cemetery companies had been the great pioneers of reform in the matter of ex tramural ii3erment. Property to the amount of half a million sterling had been invested in the metropo litan cemeteries, and it would be unjust to pass this cluuse. He would, therefore, move that the clause be expunged, Sir G. GREY said, the clains .. had been inserted for the protection and at the desire of the cemetery com panies, who would be ruined if the clause were with drawn. Sir B. HALL called upon the Home Secretary not to listen to Vie directors of cemeteries, who wished to sell their property, but to consider the rights of the sur viving relatives of those who were buried in these ceme teries, and who had purchased property there. Mr. HUME—There are seven cemeteries in the neighbourhood of London. Are they all included in the schedule? Sir G. GREY—Yes; all. Mr. MOFFATT wa3 authorised, on Cie part oC one of the largest of the ecmtt , ry companies, to protest vgain6t the clause. Mr. LIUME—WouId there be any power to eloie these cemeteries unlesi they became a nuisance? Sir G. GREY said the cemeteries might be shoat up if prontheial to the puhhe health, under the powers of this Bill, and if not prejudicial they might be taken by the Beard of Health for interments.. The decision upon this point might safely be left to the discretion of the Board of Health. Lord ASHLEY said there had Eoen no representa tions from the friends and 1-datives of persons interred in the cemeteries objecting to the closing of the ceme teries. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no diision took place, and the amendment was withdrawn. The clause vrazi then agreed to. On clause 8, giving the hoard power to lay out burial grounds and build a chapel, Mr. C. LUSUINGTON move 3 to expunge thti latter part of the clause, beginning at line 25, and providing that no funeral service othr than that of the Esta blished Church should he performed in that portion of the burial-ground which had ben consecrated acconiing to the rites of that Church. - He objected to the proviso as a piece of intolerance on the part of the Church, which iirouki perpetuate sectarian differences beyond the grave, by preventing members of different religious sects from lyin side by side in death. Acr. DRUIIIIOND did not think there was such •a' great respect for burial of the dead. in this country as some p c ,,,p!o supposed. It was well known that occa sionally churchyards were levelled when they became too high, and a case had lately occurred where the flesh and bones of dead bodies were spread over the fields. Sir G. GREY opposed the amendmen'. The Bill proceeded on the principle that new cemeteries were to be use - I as substitutes for the old pirochial grounds, and that the rites of the Church should be preserved in these cemeteries, so that no person cJuld be laid in consecrated ground without the rites of the Church. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause agreed to. • On Ow 9th Glance, Mr. LENNARD proposed the omission of certain words, by e hi, h power is riven to the bishop to with draw the licence of any chaplain attached to a cemetery. Sir G. GREY oppoced the proposal, on the ground that whatever right a bishop possessed, such as granting and withdrawing licences, a continuance of that right was implied, and therefore ought to be preserves in the Bill. The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses up to 18 inclusive. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ob tained leave to sit again on Thursday next. Toe other orders were then disposed of. The Borough Court (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. In r,ply to a question from an HON. MEMBER, Lard JOHN RUSSELL said that he propoied to take the next Committee of Supply on. Friday next. The Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. _ The Vestries and Vestry-clerks Bill was read a third time, and passed. The General Board of Health Bill was read a secord timo. COURT OF PREROGATIVE (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. KEOGH proposed as a Select Committee on the Court of Prerogstivo (Ireland) Bill, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Keogh, Mr. Napier. Mr. Scully, Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, Mr. William Fagan, Mr. Grogan, Mr. Sad leir, Lord Nam, Mr. O'Flaherty, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Solicitor-General fir Ireland, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Bellew, and Sir John Young. Major BERESFORD objected to the Committee thet it w 35 n partial one. Thera were nine Members upon it who constantly voted with the Government, and only six ►Members on that side of tie House. Under those cir cumstances, at that hour of the night, he moved that the donate be adjourned till Thursday next. .Mr. KEOGH complained of the objection raised to the number of the Committee as being uncalled for. Mr. MACKENZIE defended the objection to the Committee, as did also Mr. Grogan. Sir G. GREY recommended an arrangement on the subject. Mr. BRIGHT recommended that the two names pro posed to ba substituted should be proposed at once, i❑- stead of the motion made by the Hon. Member (Major Beresford). Mr. NAPIER, who entered the 110113 e at the mo ment, proposed to substitute the names of Mr. Goul•• burn and Mr. Turner for Mr. Badlier and Mr. Bouverie. Mr. KEOGH said that he only named his Committee in accordance with a previous ar:angernent with the Hon. and Lr ax.2ed Member for the University. He had n ob j••crion to Mr. Goulburn's name being substituted for Mr. Sadlier. Mej 3r BERESFORD, with great warmth, comp'ained of lion. Gentlemen com:ng over t) that side of tl - ;o House, and listening to their cenversoton, and then voting for tho Government. .Aft-r a short conversation, a division tcok pleer, when there appeared— For Mr. Sadlier ... ... ... 106 Against it ... 29 Majority ••• -- 77 Mr. KEOGII said he had no objection to the substi tution of Mr. Goulburn f,•r thL. other Gentleman named. After a short conversation, it was resolved that Mr. Bouverie should be named on the C omm itt ee . On the motion that Mr. Moriszll should stand as a Member of the Committee, Mr. GROGAN su-ge.ited tha'; the name of Mr. Goul burn should be t=uhstituted fur Mr. lionsell, and moved in accordance with his suggestion. Mr. MONSELL hoped the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Keogh) would a sent to the proposition. Mr. SHELL said the Hun. Mi.:Tibor was displaying , - a f•ihse dsticacy, and thought the 1.10030 ought not to in sist upon his serving. The Howe divided, and the numbers were— For the motion Against it 3O ITijrwity for the motion --47 The I-leu,Fe then divided on a motion by Sir CH ARLES DOUGLAS to substitute the name of Mr. Gontburn fur thet of Sir John Young. The numbers we: e For Sir John Young 75 For Mr. Gou!burn 36 Majority f" , r Sir J. Young —39 The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thou moved the se cond reading of the Process and Practicm (Ireland) Bill, and gavo notice that to-morrow (this day) ho should more that it pass three ii its rernatning stages. Tl - 1 , 7. other orders of the tlAy wer di3posed of, and the House aljourn, - ,d et II tr-past 0:19 o'clock. ROUSE OF LORDS, June 3. Their Lordships rte: at Five o'clock. PROCESS AND PRACTICE (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill was read a second time. TRUSTEE (1850) BILL. This Bill was re vl a third! tiav, and p4ssed. NAVY PRIZE BALANCE BILL. This Rill cvls road a second time. BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Lord W lIARNCLIFFE preeent,d a petition from the Clerk if the Roils in Bankruptcy, preying for compen sation, in consequence of the diminution of the fees of his office resulting from the operation of the Bank ruptcy Act of last session. The' Bill as it originally p.Lsse . (l their Lordships' House abolished the office, and fkIVQ the holder cornpensaion. The Commons refused to - abolish the office, but they did away with the duties of the office. and cousrquentiy ileprired him of his fees. Lord BROUGHAAI was glad to explain the reason of the postponement of the measure which he had intro duced to amend the bankruptcy law in February last, and in which this case was provided for. It had been delayed in consequence of the illness of the Lord Chancellor, and keowini.; he had no chance of carrying it, he now postponed it to next seesion. He would also postpone for the present the Masters' Jurisdiction in Equity Bill, though he still had hopes to carry it this session: he would postpone the third reading of that Bill to this day fortnight. APPEAL TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL FROM THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS IN MAT TERS OF DOCTRINE BILL. The Bishop of SALISBURY presented several peti tions from the clergy in favour of the Appeal from the Privy Council Bill. _ _ Tfie Bishop of LONDON presented several petitions with a similar prayer. The Right Reverend Pre late then moved the second reading of the Appeal to the Privy C,:uneil from the Ecclesiastical Courts in Matters of Doctrine Bill. It was impossib`e to over rate the importance to the Church of the acceptance or the rejeenoe of this Bill. He proposed it with the con vietiou that the cause which ho advocated was the cause of justice and of truth, and that it must ultimately be successful. He might suffer diseppeintment, but he should not be disheartened or perplexed, and he should not despair. The importance of the subject was se grew; that he might be, induced to trespass upon their Lordships at some length, but ho would endeavour to compress his observations. Ho must, however, throw himself on their Lordships' indulgence, fir he felt himeelt placed in a most embarrassing situati , n. It was his duty to endeavour to engage their Lord. ships' attention in behalf of a measure which, so far at least as he was cencerned, had none of the attract tione of party feeling. He believed it was for the well being. of the State that the Church should be permitted to discharge her functions without let or hind rance. It might be objected to' the measure he was supporting that it had resulted from excite ment arising from a recent decision, but such was not the case: That judgment had forced upon him th,- tTeSsity of devising some measure !teethe removal of the . grave objections to elle constitution of that tribunal; but the necessity for scone such alteration had been felt long before that decision had been given, and indeed ever since the abolition if the Court of Delegates. At the time of the abolition no one had im sgined that such a case es that which had recently been adjudicated on could have arisen. In 1847 be had himself in troduced a B:11 substituting a new court of ecelesiesticel appeal from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; that Bill was referred to a Select Commit , ea of which the Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Campbell) was a member, and had received the unanimous approval of the Committee. The Bill had been postponed in consequence of the lateneqs of the session; it had been re-introduced in 1848 and 1849, and early this session he had introduced the same Bill, with is -clause a`tering the composition of the court of appeal. That Bill had been objected to, and he had taken the advice of his Right Rev. Brethren on the subject of that particular clause. He had submitted it to the Pri mate; they had held meetings, at which 25 bishops had attended, and the presentation of this Bill was the result; not that all the bishops there assembled were unani mous on the subject, but the great majority of them were in favour of submitting some measure to Paha meat, and he should he contented to attend to any sug gestions for amendment, provided they did not interfere with the principles of the Pell. When rightly exercised and properly practised—the Royal supremacy, as seen in the connexion between Church and State, is a posi tive good as a safeguard against foreign supremacy or spirituel tyranny. This jewel of the ancient crown of the realm was once plucked from it by a foreigner, who placed it in his tiara; but it was claimed and restored to the rightful owner at the period of the Reformation. This prerogative is not a personal quality or right of the Sovereign, which she may delegate to any subject. But it is, as stated in the 24th Henry 1V.," tb-st the. King shell render justice siritaally and temporally to all. Causes spiritual, by judyos ' spiritual; and causes tem poral, by judges temperas" One great advantage of the Bill was that it did not create or substitute a new court in matters ece;enastical; but that, in spirit, it only extended and conrerred upon the old court new powers and authority. It only went to direct the proceedings of that court in certain cases where unanimity was re visite, and to bring about a uniform result. The first statute constituting an appeal in such cases was the 24th Henry VIII , passed A.D. 1532. The statute directed appeals in cases of wills, matrimony, and divorce, and other similar matter;, and it enacted that these appeals lay from the archdeacon to the bishops, and from the bishops to the archbishops; but in cases when the ap peal was from a dean, that it should be to the House of Convocation of the clergy. In the first Act con stituting an appeal tribunal, the preamble, while it recog nised the prerogative of the King as the right and power to render justice to all partieS;at the same time recognised !n express terms the sole fitness of the spirituality, or eccle siastical body, to render justice in all cases of doubt on spiritual and divine learning. The next statute on the subject was the 25th Henry VIII., cap. 98, passed the fol lowing year. That statute enacted that an appeal by to the King in Chancery, with the ecclesiastical dale getes, their decision to be final. But the practice was, in cases of doubt aid difficulty, to grant one commission to inquire into, and it requisite, revise the judgment. ['he third Act on the subject was the 27th Henry VIII., which declared the King to be the supreme head of the Church, and directed all appeals to him in that capa city. That statute, however, was repealed by the Ist Elizabeth, c. 1, which while it defined the power of the Crown in ecclesiastical cases, also laid down those cases in which the Stat i had not the right to exercise that power. This statute was repealed ey the 16 h and 17th Charles 1., and the jurisdiction therefore rested, until a late period, in the Court of 1) legates, to whom it re verted. By the 2d and 3d William IV., however, the Court of Delegates was abolished, and the appeal to the King in Privy Council was substituted, with a final de cision. The 4th William IV., passed the year atter, constituted the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, appointing certain persons to that office—giving them the power to nominate two other persons as assessors, and vesting in them the decision of all such cases as came before the former courts for the same purpose. So the law stood at this moment. He (the Bishop of Lon don) would next proceed to point out the principal ob jections to the present Court of Appeal. His objection was to the principle of the court, and not the mode in which that principle was administered; and therefore be hoped that no Noble Lord would take offence at his ob jections. In his mind, there could hardly be a more tea objectionable tribunal in all that required impartiality, acuteness; and firmness in administering the law as it stood, on the part of the judges, in s o far as the dis covery of truth, when facts were in question; and as re garded the enunciation and extraction of law, no tri bunal could be more competent.. It was only when that tribunal came to deal with ecclesiastical questions,that it became objectionable; because it was not `constituted in such cases in accordance with the views of the Church, es expressed and established in her doctrine and practice, and because it was not consequently competent to enter tain those questions, it was that he objected to this tri bine!. Ho apprehended that iu the constitution of eccle siastical tribunals, the State and the Church could only have, these objects in view, the solution of difficulties touching practice and doctrine in'a satisfactory manner. So long as those were the views in respect to their con stitution, there was nothing to appr e h en d ; b at t h ese views, had been departed from in the constitution of the present tribunal, and it was therefore he called upon the House for remedial measuresnot merely a remedial measure, but one to alter and amend that constitution by its restoration to first principles. In so doing, it was of the utmost importance to preserve— first, the original state of the doctrine and discipline of the , Church as it was settled at the Reformation; and, secondly, to keep all purely ec clesiastical questions within strictly ecclesiastical bounds. The first duty of the Church in such cases was to pre- Serve its doctrine and discipline intact; the second was to keep them without revolution, and without danger of collision with the State. Then difficult questions of doctrine became inevitable, he was of opinion that th e Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was wholly incompetent, as a court of appeal, to discharge that duty. In the first place it consisted of laymen, most of whom had been probably wholly disqualified for dealing with such questions by their previous education ; some of whom might not even be members of the Church. This was a primary ground of objection to that tribunal. But he objected to it, also, on the score of their income dole gatedn cv spiritual duties which were te l aw . He had no doubt th a t themscha r g b e y those their Lordships in general, and , indeed , all persons who °l e ' to t o d i had received a gocd education within the pale of the Church, would be at once able to say if any doctrine pro otherwise with that taught by the Church; but questions pounded on tee great pints of faith was consistent or ice on other poiuts, from time to time—points which, as a general rule, never engaged the attention of the laity, and which did not often come even before the clergy, yet which nevertheless involved iu their decision the most important consequences to the Church. How, TUESDAY EVENING, then, could the Judicial Committee of the Privy C,uneil decide on these questions with any show of justice, when thee were incompetent to understand not alone their ritiinaents, but, it might be, even the very terms in which the propositions involving them were eel ? There was aeothsr point to be considered also. Very much of the law in matters ecclesiastical had been formed upon former decisions of the clergy; much of it, therefore, rested upon precedent; hat as every decision of the Judicial Com mittee of the Privy Council in these matters became a precedent, and as precedents modiOerd awl sometinies wholly altered the law; so, in course of time, the ecclesiastical law, of which a great cart was not printed as statutes, might come to be chanted altogether by means of these decisions, and with it the doctrines of the Church. He wati well aware that the eminent and learned persons who composed thatConitnittee disclaimed all authority and power to settle doctrinal points in dis pute, and professed only t decide as to the practice; but it was utterly impossible, in many of those cases, to se parate doctrine from authority, or to decide the one without affecting the other. Though, however, some lay men might be well read in divinity, as he knew a judge himself who was eminently so—still that could not be the case as regarded the gi est body of the Committee; and, therefore, would the decision of those who were mostly ignorant of the subject become in time the legal doctrine of the Church. This brought him to the prin ciple of the Bill, which was that of the Constitution of the country—namely, that the d• - cisien cf spiritual cases should be left to spiritual judges, and that questions of doctrine and discipline in matters ecclesiastical should not be delegated to lay judges. That was the spirit and essence of the B itish Constitution from :he osrliest period down to the preseet time; and he would only re mind the House of the dictum of that great jurist, Lord Coke, on the subject, when he laid it do v u, " teat the kingdom was aleesys bet governed in peace and quiet when justice in the temporal and ecclesiastical courts was kept within the separate jurisdiction of each, and without encrorchinent upon the others, which was always found to lead to trouble and inconvenience." Their Lerdships might smile when they were referred hack to the Saxon times in this matter ; but it was no torious that in those times the bishop and the sheriff sat together for the administration of justice, the one in spiritual cases and the other in temporal. The laws of King Edgar laid down the same rules, and the statute .artieuli Cleri, declaratory of the common law and custom of the realm, said that it was the law: that spiritual persons should sue before an eccle siastical judge for justice in clerical cases. In the reign of Stephen it was decided that the duty of the King's Court was to consult with the divines of the land in cases where there was doubt, whether they were spiritual or not; and if the fast were denied to send it before a jury for decision; otherwise to refer it for decision to the Ecclesiastical Court. That was what he (the Bishop of London) desired in the tribunal proposed to be consti tuted by the Bill. The Noble Lords who sat on the Committee of Privy Council decided questions of fact; but they did not consult learned divines as to whether doctrines involved in those facts were heretical or net. Either the Judicial Committee might put thtequestion to the Bishops as to whether such doctrine was heretical or not—or the question might be solved by a provincial synod, or by a commission of three or four Bishops appointed by the Crown. Then with regard to the Court of Delegates, he (the Bishop of London) be. lieved it had never been contemplated by the Act s we re to consist wholl ) was convinced that it o w f h l i a c ) h oi c e re n a ; te o d o it o t e ha c t o t o h t e rar j ) u ,, dge l,e contemplated a proportion of eccleslaities. Until, end even durin,,a, a are tt part of the reign of Henry VIII., a large number of the julges—indeed the greater proper. tion—were clergymen; and when in earlier legal history of the country it was stated that certain suits we-re re ferred to the ecclesiastical courts, it was meant that they were referred to courts presided over by eltegymen. With respect to convocations, Queen Anne stated, in re ply to the Archbishop, that according to the opinions of eight judges, jurisdiction in spiritual matters was proper to be exercised in convocation of the clergy. This was the principle, therefore, that ran through the entire ee British law on the subject of ecclesiastical matters. He eould next offer one oe two rerestke on the practice of the early Christian Church in this matter. That Church admitted, as he had already saved, the supremely of the Sovereign in practice. The early council s were con many of them were d ates themselves. But the royal decisi on their d d re ud b l by was e t Eo those m b p e e r o boon potentates t ne oi sad many in all proceedings only which were in conformity with the canons and regulations of the Ceurch, ante there was no departure from that line on any occasion. The most celebrated casuist of modern times—himself a Roman Catholic, and a man who had incurred the cen sure of the Church for his liberality—.l a id it down that the Church was the only judge of dortine, and that the Prince had no power to interfere except in promulgating new laws. With regard to the Gallican Church, which brought him down te a latter period, the end of that die cussion in which Bossuet was engag e d with the Doctors of the Sorbonne, was that the King was held to be the court of ultimate appeal in questions of ecclesiastics] authority, but not in matters of doctrine, which should be governed and decided only by canonical rules. One of the most celebrated writers of the Sorbonne, after wards Archbishop of Cambray, and a cardinal, ascribed to the bishops alone an examination into matters of faith, and laid it down that to attempt to take the power of deciding from them would be an act of injustice. This doctrine was in full force in France at the present moment ; and the Sovereign for the time being was incapable of interfering with qutstions of doc trine in the Church, according to the celebrated kris censult Leine's. He (the Bishop of London) would next pass to that part of the 8111 which was drawn from an analogy with the courts of 'common law aed equity in this country, though he at once admitted that the analogy was not rerfect. The maxim of the courts ot law was, calque iri arts sad credenduni est—that is, it ad vised that those persons who were most competent should be consulted in all cases. The practice of the Court of Chancery was to direct parties iu a matter of fact to try the cause by a jury, or to order a special case to bo sent to the judges of the common law courts for their opinion. In question's of foreign law, as the law of England took no judicial notice of foreign laws, wher they arose they were deal: with as a science, to be proved as facts by competent witnesses. The opinions of the late most learned and excellent Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench was to this effect, and so was that of the eminent Learned Judge, Justice Coleridge. The Right Rev. Prelate also read an opinion of the Noble and Learned Lord the Master of the Rolls in sup port of his view of questions of foreign law. He next referred to the course of proceeding in the High Court of Admiralty. When any question arose there which was to be decided by the rules of nautical science, the judge of the High Court of Admiralty called into his assistance certain members of the Eider Brethren of the Trinity House. In the Established Church of Scotland, the final decision of all questions of doctrine rested with the Church Courts. In the Church of Prussia, unfor tunately, matters not merely of ecclesiastical judica• cure, but of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, were in such a state, that it was almost impossible ti say what were the principles and practice of the Church of Prussia; but, according to the general prin ciple of the constitution for the present year 18.50, any questions of false doctrine were de cided definitely by the Church, represented by a mixed assembly. With regard to the Romau Catholic! Church in Silesia and the Rnenish provinces, the state never attempted to interfere in any questions of doctrine, not even with respect to the appointment of a professor. In the view he was now pressing upon their Lordships he was not arguing the question whether or not there should let any modification of the principle he advocated, but the general principle of the Bill could not be decided upon the objections raised against it partly in the public prints and partly in petitions addressed to the Legisla ture. The first of those objections to the measure was, that it would give a power to the Bishops to frame new doctrines. In answer tat that, it was sufficient to sat that no new power was given by this Bill—that if the present Court which decided questions of this kind had an y power of framing new doctrines, there was no other in the matter proposed for the new tribunal. But it was not a question of framing new doctrines, but of de ciding what was the doctrine of the Church of Eng land, and, therefore, whatever obj ec tion now arose again st thep with still proceedings of the C ourt propose d i n t h e B i ll, applied greater force to the Judicial Com mittee of the Pe .. ivy Council. The next objection was, that the Bill excluded the laity from all participation in the consideration of questions of this the ahfunctions,e functionsthe nature. Now, he considered one of the principal merits of the Bill to be , that it- maintained the laity in the pos session o l i e n d te id rp n r o o t ti m og jo ean d t i t; i d ol i ly ss tenets and doctrines of the Church from those w ho were the most fitted to giv e them. With resp ect to the ob jection based upon the' them possibility of placethe rules judges wished of oflaw and administ er i ng j ust i ce, . ; h e only h its m o proper t from heresy on the part of t h e E piscopal Benc h, he should content h imself with saying that if there were a possibility of heresy on the part of the Biihips, that t might form a good reason on the part of' the Legislature to change the mode of electing Bishops, but not of de prising them of their legitimate jurisdiction and inherent. right when they Weis once appointed. H e had already trespassed too long 'eon their Lordships' time,' and he thanked them for• the indulgence they had extended to him. It now remained for their Lordships to decide the question of supreme importance to the Church--with whom was to rest for time to come, at least fur some con siderable time to censer the final adjudication of the ques tion whether any particular doctrine which was alleged to be in contravention of the Christian doctrines of the Church of England was clearly so or not? Putting out of question who were the proper teachers according to the religious principles of Christianity, according to the practice and rules of the early Church, and according to. the theory of our own Church, he would ask who were most likely to bring to the investigstion the qualifica tions which would insure a satisfactory decision— whether laymen, whose thoughts had never been turned to the subject, or the assembled episcopacy of England— ' men who had been trained from their earliest years to the consideration and investigation of theological doe , trines. But ho would not rest his case upon the compas retire fitness of the men merely. He --e would also rest it upon the inherent and indefeasible right of the Church to teach and determine upon points of Church doctrine by means of its miuisters, according to the authority expressly delegated to them by apostolical commission—the right i n h erent „ a indefeasible of the bishops of the Church of Eng land to determine finally upon all questions of doctrine. He now commended the m"asure to their Lordships'' earnest and serious consideration. In the conclusion.. as well as the commencement of his remarks, he felt I overpowered by a sense of the importance of the :welts that might follow from their Lordships' rejection of the'! Bill. But while not without anxiety and apprehension on that score, he was at the same time not witl i out hope. He Trusted at all events that their Lordships would come to the consideration of the question with .more th an llts;13.1 Cat C, an i he would cocclude by the expression of an earnest wish that lie who had committed to his church JUNE 4, the sa'Tel deposit of his dot::rine, would guide and govern their decision. 1 The l'st trquis of LANSDOWNE said that he thought it but fitting that he should take the earliest opportuni . y of explatniee the views he entertained, in common wilts her Majesty's Government, with respect to this most im portant, he might almost say perilous, Bill. In making the statement of his views on the subject ho was con scious not only of the disadvantage under which he la boured in attempting to follew the Right Rev. Prelate, Iwho spoke with a ut hority on an y su bj ec t, h u t more especially upon that to which he had given so much con sideratioe, but also of the great disadvantage of being corneslled to de se in the ebsence of his Noble and Learned Friend whore he might still call his esteemed and revered colleague, who had for yesrs sat ups in the wool sack, and a he, had he been there that day, would, with his usual power and ability, have stated the objections which he (the Marquis of Lansdowne) knew he enter tained to the fullest degree to the Bill which the Right Rev. Prelate had laid upon the table. He was bound, then, frankly, openly, and explicitly to stare the alarm which he felt et, and the objections he entertained to, this measure, and in stating these grounds of alarm and objsetion he trusted no ex psession o f his might be talkie' 1 I to convey an impression that he entertained the slight••st disrespect for that sacred and learnsd body whom 1 the Right Rev. Prolate proposed to constitute into a re ar j tribunal, and for whoin, in their proper functions, be ca -1 tertained—collectively and individually—the most com plete and entire respect. Hewever, he must say that his motive fut troubling the it Lordships thus early on the - r . question was that he objected at that moment to any lc- I aislation at all upon the subject, arid that he thought the o very circumstance of the inevitable misconstruction I which would be put upon any measure for altering that tribunal which was the constitutional tribunal in this country for the t:icl of those cases, and which has for t • centuries exercised those functions, furnithed of it s elf i decisive ground of obiection to the measure. Nay, the ! very haste to proceed with the Bill at the present mo -1 merit—for ho could not conceal from himself that the i anxiety to proceed with the Bill had arisen from the die ! sensfaetion which had been h It, if not expressed, at a recent decision of that august tribunal which was invested ' i by the Crown, by the law. and by the Constitution, with t the administration of her Majesty's prerogatite—he did Inot say, indeed the Right Rev. Prelate would admit that interpretation of the origin of the Bill, but that he would disclaim it in fact, whatever doubts he might have had respecting that decision—but the very haste to proceed with the Bill would pass the highest censure upon that decision, which, after solemn consideration, h a d b ee n I adopted by that body; for would not the public i he led to think that if such a sentence, and such a verdict, had not been delivered by that tribunal, Parlia ment would never have been called upon to interpose for the alteration of the constitution of the tribunal? Fur himself, although, as President of the Council, he was ne cessarily a niensber, that was, had the right of entrance to all those Comer ttees cif the Privy Council, yet upon questions of a judicial nature he had thought it to be his duty never to take any part in their proceedings, and i the only advice which at the commencement of this par ticular proceeding he had thought it his duty to give was that the Right Reverend Prelate the Archbishop of York and the Bishops being Privy Councillors should be specially invited to sit at the tribunal for the purpose if assisting at its decision. Nut speaking, then, as a mem ber of that tribunal, bit; in common with the great body of the community and a large portion of the clergy, he considered tee judgment given by that tribunal to be perh:sps only too setisiactory in the present unhappy—he and almost said distempered—state of men's minds on the subject. It had certainly given as much satisfaction as he nature of the eubject and of the difficulty psrnerted. Fie had again, then, to ask their Lordships whether any attempt tit once, not merely to qualify, but to supersede hat tribunal, would not have rite effect of stripping its decision of all weight and dignity, to which none Of Their Lordships a ho was not prepared to make a great change in the constitution of the country was preyared to as sent? What would be the consequi nee, if, whenever any impiirtant decision of a judicial tribunal were given, it should be followed up by an attempt to alter its con ' stitution? L t them suppose, for insittnee, the case of he C curt of Qmen's Bench, alien it was presided over by Lord natistitild, and when it test's) a decisitin upon a e ebrete i case of libel which then g estiy agitated the eountry; or the case of the Court of Common Pleas vhen, under Lord Camden's presidency, it pronounced a lecithin on the question of general warrants—what stoul ! have been the case if, immediately after their di - tision in those cases, the jurisdiction of the Qiiiten'e Teich in cases of libel had been taken away, or the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas altered? Would it not have been considered as a reflection upon hose judgments? But though there was much dis satisfaction felt at those decisions, no such sugitestion tied been made. For those reasons, then, he was not prepared to give his assent, on the part of the Go /eminent, to proceeding further with this Bill. He sad, besides, the strongest objection to the measure, ss striking a blow at her Majesty's prerogative, in iiroducing as it were a tribunal which, in the lan guage of the Bill, was to be binding and conclu sive on her Majesty's Privy Council, and was to leprive her Majesty of iho power which the Sove reign had exercised, not merely from Protestant times— from the time of the Reformation—but from the very earliest period of the empire. The Right Rev. Prelate, indeed, said he did not consider the exercises of that peeler by the Crown to he an intolerable burden upon he Church; but he (the Marquis of Lansdowne) would ; o a step further, and say that it was essential to the independence and safety of the Church, both of which would btl diminished by the Bill, inasmuch as the jude nent of her Majesty and her advisers would be shackled, snd because the decision under this Bill would be bind ing and conclusive, leaving her Majesty and her advisers to option whatever. It the Privy Council were only to ire required to receive decisions without the power of touching or altering them, their functions might just as well be discharged by Mr. Greville, their clerk. without setting the whole machinery of, ho Privy Council in notion.—(Hear, hear.) It was mportant that their Lordships should keep in view that the power of the 4overnment of the Church was one which, at all times aefere the Reformation, at the Reformation, and since she Reformation, had formed one of the most essential prerogatives of the Crown. From the Reforinetion •here followed a series of examples which established ~his fact beyond a doubt—not only that the Crown toad uniformly exercised the power of control ling the decisions in ecclesiastical affairs, of pre- Jouncing upon them through persons whom it had thought fit to employ, but of choosing the must proper persons, lay or ecclesiastical, to decide upon hose nnetters.—(llear, hear.) 'rise Court of Delegates was constituted not of ecclesiastics only, but of ecclesias tics and civilians. Under that Court a commission was issued, and he had been informed by one of the most , 'minuet civilians of the country, that if there was a ques tion of fact and not of doctrine to be determined, a clause -vas inserted in the commission requiring that no decree should be pronounced without the assent and presence of he head of the Church.—(Hear, hear.) The question to be determined in this case was a question of tact and of law, and not a question of what the law ought to be. —(Hear, hear.) Now, if it a ere a question of doctrine, requiring peculiar habits of education and study, and at tention to theology, to determine whether a certain doctrine ought to be taught or not, his should be inclined to agree with the Right Rev. Prelate that the tribunal in such case ought to consist of spiritual persons. But that was not the case, for they were now dealing with facts, and not seeking to ascertain whether new doctrines were to be decreed.—(Hear, hear.) He was no friend to the revival of convocation. He agreed with the emphatic :verds of one of the greatest statesmen of this country, end one most attached to ecclesiastical esta,blisk inents, Burke, who when stating that the convoca ion and its powers, though dormant, still ex• isted in this country, and might be called forth at any given moment, added, " They might be called forth by those who having the Popish spirit could con jure up that spirit, but who would not dare to defy the consequences which it would produce." If a convoca tion were brought together, he would not exclude from it all those who had not the good fortune to be bishops.— [" Hear, hear," from the Bishop of Exeter.] Ile was glad to hear the Right Rev. Prelate assent to that pro position. If it was intended to raise up new doctrines, or to modify old ones, it could only be done by convoca tion, and it would not be a convocation by the law and the constitution unless it included with the bishops the inferior clergy also. Not only would it be wrong and unconstitutional to exclude them, but it would be in (he highest degree inexpedient to do so,—(Hear, hear.) Now, what was stated to be the object of the Bill? It was said that it would produce peace and concord. But was it quite certain that on getting rid of a tribunal composed of a limited number of persons, and substi tuting another composed of a much greater number, bringing to that tribunal preconceived opinions—he would not say preconceived prejudices—but precon ceived opinions which they could not easily lay aside; he would ask whether they could believe that when all those scattered seeds of doctrine which abound at this moment were driven within the enclosure of this tribunal, a stream of harmony and concord would im mediately arise?—(Hear, hoer.) He doubted whether, within the precincts of the Church itself, there would be much harmony; but if, unfortunately, it should become notorious that there was only a majority —perhaps a bare majority—of the bishops entertaining the view of the doctrine or question submitted to them, and that the minority consisted of perhaps the two archbishops and the persons possessing th e best information on the sub ject, who could expect the majority of the clergy to t ac quiesce in such a decision? Any one expecting such as t result must be very ignorant of human nat ure. ! to be expected that the clergy would give u p their opi nions when out of 3:2 persons 16 or 17 decided a excludedonewa and 15 another, they themselveshaving been decision be e the 1 from any part in the deliberations on which rni,ght be founded? The Right Rev. i relate admitted that the object of the Bill was to take the decision out of the hands of incompetent parties and place it in the hands of competent persons—that it took the reality from the laity, leaving nothing but the form.— (The Bishop of London made some remark which did not reach the gallery.) If the object of the Bill was net in any way to affect the existing doctrine, but strictly to limit and confine the decision of fact, then he would boldly say that laymen were most competent to decide on that matter.—(Llear, hear.) Nuw, what he ;asked the House to maintain was a good decision—a decision from persons not pretending to be connoisseurs in theology, but persons able to distinguish what are fats in theology and what are not--and this has been the uniform course of the law and of the constitution.-- (Hear.) In all the cases whicti hail fallen under his I observation, courts of law, in dealing with difficult cases, Iwith respect to which they did not possess such par ticular knowledge as would enable them to come to a had uniformly done —wh a t? Ab satisfactory decision, diclte their authority? Cull upon the Queen to esta blish another tribunal? No such thing. They called ', before them, as the Privy Council had done on this oc casion, those person, who were b-st able to give them Luthority, learning, and intonation. They had done 1850. Twith regard to theology what had b een w ith regar d to the other sciences. With respect to the science of chemistry, in the case of Mr. Watt's iaveethor, I what was the course tatters by the Court of Chan cery? The Court took time to considor: it ex amined chemist after chemist, who were subject to a variety of interrogatories; and having satified itself, pronounced a decree which became the law of the land, and give the whole country (the chemists included) perfect satisiactien. In that case the parties did not torn round and call upon the Crown to constitute a new tribunal.—(Hear, hear.) From looking to the declara tions of our ancestors—thm] Ineking at the declaretions 01 . eminent divins—from looking to the Articles them selves and the best - writers upon those Articles, he had come to the conclusion that it was the intention_of the founders of the Church to leave certain matters, in :seine degree, open to opinion. To go back from that wise policy, and to narrow the sphere of that opinion, tar from conducing to peace and quietness, would be only as incentive to dissension.—(Hear, hear.) To require ueitet from good and wise, aed holy natie upon every lesaneh of deetrine, would be the surest way of prevent ire; the effieteiont union of [hose good and wise, and holy men, for the purpre,e of advancing those great in terests in which our prosperity and happiuest, now and hereafter, are involved.—(Hear, hear.) It was proposed that the decision should to by a majority. Why the effect of a majority so decided would be to bind the public and the Church for one moment t 3 one opinion, but the other parry would look forward to an other time when other Bishops would give a decision adverse to that of the miti why, and a continual contest would be carried on to procure the abrogation of the deeitioe—(liear ) A worse state of things ha could not imagine.—(Hear.) lie had no objection to stet*, that, while he could not inter Wee the principle of the Judicial Committee as established by the Act of the Noble and Learned Lord—while he could not sacrifice the prero gative of the Crown as it had hitherto existed, he thought it most dssirable for the purpose of showing to the public that these questiene could not be determined without the great eu.thorities of the Church being fully heard upon true sultject —that it should not be left to the Crown, that it sttould not be left to the Presi dent of the Council merely to invite the attendance of the Right Rev. Prelates, but that all those who are Privy Councillors should be members of the Committee. These matters might be worthy of further consideration; but believing that the present measure would tend to keep alive the differences which at present unfortunately prevailed, he should move that the Bill be read a second time this day six mouths.—(Cheers.) Lord BROUGHA.SI said the two speeches which had just been delivered had placed their Lordships in pos session of the whole of the arguments on both sides ; and he had nn hesitation in saying, if he were called upon to say " Aye " or " Nu" to the question whether they should proceed with the Bitl without subjecting it to alteration, ho sh .uld at once vote for its postpone ment.—(Hear.) He stood in a peculiar position on the present occasion, which made him desirous of grappling with the difficulties which surrounded this important question—important for this reason that it trenched upon great constitutional dectrines—imp 'leant for this other reason, that the people of England had their eyes' sedulously and anxiously directed to the con trot ersy—but important, above all, because the venerable feoric of the Church of England was now placed ie ctreurnstaucee that filled all her fr:ends with the greatest - anxiety.— (Hear, heir ) Why was he pertheularly anxious at this moment? Because he had established the pre sent tribunal on the ruins of the Court of Dsbeghtes and the Court of R.yiew.—(Hear, hear.) There were now great differences in the Church. The Church was threatened with a schism. This could not be denied, and therefore they should take great care that no measures rectived their sanction which might afford the least chance of widening the breach, and neither shoull they hastily and without due consideration reject a measure which was proposed for the purpose of heal in„ the breach that now existed —(Hear.) It was upon those grounds that he had come to the conclutien that they ought not at onceand altogether to reject this Bill, hut they should see it they could remove those übjec lions which he fer one entertained against it, and which, if he found to be insuperable, he would certainly give to it his negative.—(deer.) By this B 11 it seas pro posed that the prelate's should decide, eini should answer the question "aye" or " no"—via, "Is this the doctrine of the Church of Eugland," and when a majority of the prelates had so settled thet question, teen the Judicial Committee were to be bound by a decision of the majority. Now he, as a member of the Judicial Committee, had sworn to administer justice according to his conscience, and that he could.. not if he was to b t bound by the decision of another. By the Bill now proposed the Judicial Committee would be bound by the decision ef 14 of the bishops, even though they might be of opinion that the minority of the 13 bishops were great lovers of their flocks, and that the I t were, he would not say less lovers of their flocks, but less brilliant, less distinguished, and less eminent than the minority.—(Laughter.) And then let them see "that would be the consequence of this. The 14 who decided what were the doctrines of the Church declared at the same time that the 13 held doctrines that were not of the Church. The 13 bishops would be pronounced to be heretics by these who decided against them.— (Hear.) The prelates who decided that Mr. Gorham was orthodox, must declare that the prelates opposed to him were heterodox.—(Hear.) But then it had been said to him—how wee he, a mere layman, to reverse the decision of an ecclesiastical court? His answer was that Sir Herbert Futt was as much a layman rs himself.— (Laughter.) Aye, it was answered to him, but he was appointed ey the archbishop. Aye, he replied, put that did not make him a prelate; no, nor as much as a deacon in the Church—(Laughter)—scd if Sir Her bert Fast was appointed by the archbishop, he (Lord Brougham) was appointed by one higher than art archbishop—by the head of the Church—by one who appointed the archbishop himself—(Laughter)— stud his court was, therefore, es much a spiritual court as that of Sir 11. Fast.—(Laughter.) Their judgment might be aided by the opinions of able and learned men; all the faithful, lay and clerical, were interested in ascer taining whether there might not be some mode of obtain ing a satisfactory' decision when differences in theologi cal opinions arose. The means, he thought, should be afforded of obtaining the opinions of prelates who were :roll qualified; but not that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be bound by their opinions. He would net haver convocation of twenty-seven bishops, but he would enable the bishops to select a certain num ber, who would report their opinions to the Judicial Committee, to aid it in coming to a conscientious deci sion. There might be a certain number of bishops to whom a case should he sent, those in whom the Judicial Committee and the Church had the greatest confidence, and if the numbers were four, and they differed, another might be brought in to aid them. He had reason to think that it a Bill with such modifications as he suggested ores sent elsewhere its success would be greatly facili tated. Making these suggestiens, he cordially concurred in the second reading of the Bill. As to a convocation, if it were summoned they would have a schism, and a prelate ut the head of etch little schism. They theuld all labour to sustain a Church which of all Churches was the most pious, the most learned, and the most tolerant. Other Churches might be as learned, might be as pious, still no Church but the An glican Church united so much of all these indispensable qualities—piety first, learning next, and above all charity, meekness, and toleratiou.—(Cheers.) Of all the Dissenters he had ever met whose opinions were ' worth consulting he had always heard them say, God forbid that evil should happen to a Church which we have ever found to be a tolerant neighbour.--(dear.) This, then, was a reason wny they should desire that the breach should be healed and not widened. It would, therefore, be to all but the rabble crew who objected to it on account of its revenue, a source of gratification that the discord should cease, and that the Church might rise up in renewed strength from its temporary obscuration. Such was a prayer in which ho heartily joined with the Right. Rev. Prelate.—(Cheers.) The Bishop of Sr. DAVID'S stated, that until very recently he had entertained the hope that it would be in his power to give his support to the Biil intro duced by the Right Rev. Prelate. It was not without crest pain, and not without anxious and mature consideration, he felt bound to abandon that hope. He could not assent to the dogma that there rested in the body of the bishops in their official character any peculiar or exclusive prerogative, or any pre-eminent and transcendent qualifications, which rendered them the only proper judges upon questions of doctrine arising within the Church. So tar from entertaining that opinion he must say ho thought that the constitution of the proposed court of appeal would have been materially improved if there had been associated with the prelates, or with any number of them, a certain number of per sons drawn not only from the other orders of the Church but also from the laity. He was not prepared to say whether this would have been practicable or not, but it did appear to him that it would have been a great im provement in the constitution of the court, and have re moved a very material objection to the measure; he would observe, however, that if there had been no other question involved than this he should have deemed it at least consistent with his duty to vote for the second reading of the Bill, with a vi ew of afterwards removing its imperfections, and abat ing the disc ivauteges which were likely to result from the proposed constitution of the court. But in his mind there were other and much graver objec tions to the measure as now proposed. That clause of the Bill which rendered the opinion of the assembled bishops , on the points of doctrine submitted to them binding and conclusive on the members of the Judicial Committee had already been objected to on what he considered very strong grounds, but they were not to his judgment the only ones or the strongest. He must say that that clause interfered very considerably with the rights of conscience of the members of the Judicial Corn mittt e, considered not merely as members of the Privy Council, but as members of the Church. It had been censidered that it would be a desirable qualification of the members of that Commit:eel that they should all be members of the Church; but h, did not understand how it could be consistent with the rights of conscience that a lay member of the:Church who might have inquired into and formed a decide I and conscientious opinion aid con viction upon the subjects submitted to him toucnieg ou h r i! religious faith, should be expected to he b hetd and concluded by the opinion of others, so far that_ :l _ l,, must aetnally adopt and act up that opihrtieonu.,_,T, wasi though constituting a grave tejecdon to the mind. He He not the part which weighed might at a was willing to suppose that this measure _ l3l, mo=t upon his differsnt time and under different circumstances ll(a,. l . been admirably adapted to its avowed rn.'d'rerj-c - a; but he held that they had no right to cons' the tom _ sleet in t h , ,t general light, and that they were bound to take existing circum , ts nces in connexion with it,— ( h ie , de ear; i ense hour.) a 5e, . ,1 e l y out of thestate of a lie believed ta at the e prevent emite e 3 measure t which had been produced by recent proceedings well known t o reme dy for som every one—(Hear, hear)—and he most telte t h e lib erty , I w.suming that hs sp chic design ea , to pr.: leek, a .:thing that was regarded a s a recent ex isting evil—that its peculiar design was to restore and re-establish (if possible) peace, tranquilli:y, and har mony in the Church; and he thought that the rosin subject of their Lordships' consideration whether this, as a means, was or was not adapted to such an end.—(Hear, hear.) If it were a measure that was likely te produce peace and hurmany in the Church, he should wish to know what party in the Church it was designed to conciliate?—(Louis cheers.) There was a large party in the Church who consi dered that the recent judgment was substantitilly right, and that it had averted a great and serious evil and danger from the Church. He did not IneSS, to deny (hat there wire, even among these persons, many who in the abstract were very much dissatisfied with the present composition of the court of upped in sptritual matters, because they had objected most strongly to the court below which passed the sentence that had been revered by the existing court of appeal, and he had a right, therefore, to infer that they wet e 4 qually dissatisfied with the constitution of the Judicial Com mitteencil e t o t h hl r e e i as rspatoiornsf,d?yc descript ion,°iun whom t l ' B s se t t i h abb a t i t h :c :i oi s euivi:4 : t mft f e o tt ir. i s t ; h i l d il:e e t c de w ri e nh 'u o g e nn t sl i t edL ut ‘ isoe:tnir:c"ni teas i h si set): they viewed but viewed it at least with a considerable degree of distrust. of jsalousy, and of alarm —(Reneared cheer ing.) Then who else would be saliefiel by the Bill! It tenet be those persons undoubtedly who hads,xpressed feelings of distil:so of alarm, and, even as he hliel wit rlsssel, ef consternation at the recent decision.—(Hear. hear.) But had this measure given satisfaction to them? Why they had publicly declared themselves dissatisfied with it. Bat who wore the others w h o did approve of the miasuce us it stood? He btgged the I.loase to con sider oa what eriends and for what reasons it was that these persons did approve of it. Was it not that they regarded it simply as a stesping stone by ithich they might advance to rnmeihitg beyond i:?—(Haar, hear.) This appeared to him therefore an insurmountable ob jection to the measure.—(Cheers.) He could describe its practical effect as nothing but this—that it would open a new arena for theological controversy—(Heat, hear).--and the ctTect of opening that arena teould and must be to invite neve combatants to try their strength upon it, and to fight there what they would all " The Battle of the Church."--(Cheers.) It was impossible for any one whose attention had been excited ley the circumstances of the times tea say that this was an imaginary or a chimerical danger. For his own part he could not shut his eyes to the scenes that were passing near him, nor his ears to the language which he found used on public occasions by persona who did not scruple to avow that they looked forward to the disrupture of Church and State as a possible contingency, as a calamity indeed, but not at all as the greatest of calamities, but, on the contrary, as the latent of two evil., the other evil being the failure of their own peca bads- favourite scheme for the improvement of the Church.—(Hear, hear.) If there were persons who con sidered this disrupture as the least of two evils, and did not scruple so to express themselves, then he felt strougly inclined to suspect that there were others who viewed it with still more favour and de light, who en-re disposed to c , aisider that catastrop not as an evil, but rather as positive good. Of so much he sties certain. that there were persons who looked for ward to the euthanasia of the Church of England, and con tdered that that Church should finally be merited in the Church of Rome; and if these persons a iehed to ac complish that which they thought so desirable, the step that they would most likely take would be to produce, if possible, such a division and rupture within the Church as should eliminate from it those of its members who were the most firmly attached to the peculiar doctrines of the Protestant Reformation—(Hear, hear)--and they would have reason to suppose that, as soon as that con summation arrived, there would probably be interposed but very feeble obstacles to that which they looked for ward to beyond it.—(He tr.) Divide et impera, he be lieved, continued to be a Roman maxim, and ha was very much afraid that it was becoming an English one—(Cheers)—at least he believed that they who were most eager to promote the division would be the fore most to give in their allegiance to the subsequent opi nior:s.—Hear.) In one way the present measure dirt crly tended to that end, by rendering almost ine viteble a fatal division in one great body of the Church —namely, the Episcopate.—(Hear, hF Cr.) Whilst en tertaining these views, however—and they were his deliberate and settled convict ons—he did not feel him pelt bound to divide against a measure to %hien he be lieved a majority of his Right Rev. Brethren continued to give their support. Still he could nor share in the resp of a measure which, instead of being a remedy, would most likely aggravate and multiply the danger which threatered the Church. Lord REDESDALE regretted the change which had taken place in the opinions of the Right Rev. Prelate who had just spoken in reference t this measure. It was impossible things could go on in their present state. There was a crisis in the Church, and matters could not he kit as they were without serious consequences.— (Hear, hear.) It was time that Right Rev. Prelates stood iorwerd and put them right. He held that too great liberty to the clergy was an injury to the laity. He would ask their Lordships, supposing he lived in a parish to which Mr. Gorham was appointed, and assuming ho objected to Mr. Gorhutu's doctrine, was he not subjected to an injury in having such a man to guile him and his religious opi nions, when the Right Reverend Prelates declared they did not hold the came dectribet? Yet, in such a case, he anti his tarnily would be thread all their lives to submit to Mr. Gorham's teaching. With reference to the recent judgment, be would ask bt- whom was the de cision looked upon with satisfaction ? It was not looked upon with as much satisfaction by any party in our own Church, as by Roman Catholics and the extreme Dis , center , . They saw, by the decision. Churchmen were put in sack a position in the eyes of the world, that it was impossible to remain in connexion with the Church unless they denied one of its Articles. The Right Rev. Prelate proposed to those who advocated episcopal go y. 'ament, that iii such matters they should look to the Bishops for guidance. H e cons id ere d t h ere was less difference o! pioion likely to arise in the court se proposed to be constituted than in the existing court. He accepted the Bill, 'sanitise the tribunal pro posed was the only Church tribunal in which an agree ment was likely to be obtained. He had never ex pressed violent opinions, tra. had he favoured violent opinions iu others. This was a period of great change. it was not unlikely that the next appointment to the bench would be Mr. Gorham himself. Many appoint ments had been made of late to show the subserviency of the Church to the State, and many persons had been forced on the Church who ought never to have found themselves there.—(Hear.) The present Ministry had appointed one Right Reverend Prelate to the bench who had laboured under the censure of his university on ac count of doctrinal questions. To show the feeling by which appouttnents were made, nethieg was more likely than to ate an order issue for the appointment of Mr. Gorham to the bench. It was not proper that any prerogative which it might be thought desirable for the Sovereign to possess should be endangered by an improper appointment to the office of bishop. The supremacy of the Sovereign was imposed and held under awful responsibilities. The Sovereign was the heed of the Church. and bound to see that the Church did not suffer underther reign. By the intervention el Parliament, if persons were forced on the Queen who ought not to be found in the Church. the Queen might be placed in a position in which duty was at war with expediency. The way to t d a e l l e a r to e themselves proud of her alliance. If the Established a h t e r r e n na g e ' i h u e b n e r t s h , e a C ii h d u t r o c h e n w a a b s l e to tho w se ak m e e h m er be r r e s sp t; Church did not compare advantageously with other churches, it was because she did nut enjoy in full purity her Catholic doctrines. Lord CA MPI3ELL considered that as no party matter, but a great constitutional principle was involved in the cp. stion, it was his duty to offer his opinion to the tiouse. It would have given him extreme pleasure if he could conscientiously have supported the Bill. R e had a great respect fir the Right Rev. Prelate, and the ability no had displayed in introducing the measure. No one was a more sincere friend than himself to there Este* Wished Church. He believed the institute was beloved by the great bulk of the people of England, and that it had conferred, and was calculated to confer, the greatest blessings on the kingdom. With the view of securing these benefits, he was forced to con demn the Bill. After the most unprejudiced and impar tial consideration, the Bill appeared to him unconstitu tional, and as likely to bring about that disruption of the Church, which it was so desirable to prevent. The crest objection of the Ri g ht R ev. Prelate appiared to be to the constitution of the Judicial Committee. It seemed to him that this objection arose from not havieg pro perly considered what were the functions of that tri bunal. The functions of the tribunal were the functions of a court of construction to explain documents. In his opinion the existing court, as constituted, as far as the explanation of the written doctrines, articles, and formu laries of the Church of England was concerned, was better framed for such a purpose than the _court e`m2- templated by the Bill of the Right Rev. Prel ate. It it had alread Now, , n a o s tnore a lay triy had been cited as a great offence out of the House that this tribunal was a lay tribunal. N been truly explained, the tribunal a Durham. It was f oun d by experience as these courts west, competent to d ec i s i a bunal than were the Court of Arches and the Court o f the Chancellor of the Bishop of questions, ithce of laymen, who a c t-d as the substitutes of church.. Pre late • that it was advantageou s to call i n the assist. men. The Right Rev. had said that an appeal to and the ir om bishop, ihe r ti c d h b f i r s o h nl o p the Anglo-Saxon bishop to the archbishop, the to This adusitt , d that the Sovereign was the the King. lay from the a rcheic . : h co o n p, times, so it was by the Constitutions of Clarendon, and s, it was by the Reormation. But the archbishop, the head of the Church, and so it was in bishop, and the archdeacon, had each their lay advisers, „I s o had the Sovereign. Ile (Lord Campbell) was therefore of opinion, that offence had been taken roost ennecetsarily that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Was a lay tribunal, in contradis• tinction to the inferior courts from which the appeal was made. The Court propoAcd by the Bill was to consist of the prelates of the two provinces of Canterbury ; but in his (Lord Campbell's) opinion such a court would be mere mockery. Ile should think it far mere respectful to move tee second reaalzig of the Bill that day six months ti . 4n ~gree to the principle prop ..ended in tho mea sure. It %vas proposed that this court should be au mbly of ad tee bishops in England, aid that their h t should he hiiiilitorp not alone on the Judicial Com mittee of the Privy Council, but also on the Queen, whom it sought to make as much ministerial in the matter as possible—if the Bill hall any principle it was t!)a , ; but if it. wai allowed that the title of Read of the Church " was not a mere honorary title or faculty, as st as that of the Sovereigns of France, but involved the poseessiou of substantial power in ecclesiastical matters, whe.!,te.!anie of the Bili, which in point of fact propood to divest the Queen of that power to invest it in the bishops.? The analogy attewpttd to be established r~=~-