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

y ic ling gre sti en t, —Govervai oPP° fo r 11 Oti°° 59 -1 0- 1 io lor°° parish or union of parishes might carry out the object multiplicity but upon consideration, looking to the of interests concerned, ho came to the con clusion that it wesild be physically impossible to carry it out if it were left to parishes alorae. He believed, therefore, although he would net defend all the provi sions of this Bill, that it would be impossible to aba , s , the nuisance c mplained of, end to carry on extramural interments without some such board as was now pro- Posed. He did not wish to cone-alit j—the less of cen tralization the better—but there might he pecu'iar cases where selt-governmeet was improper. Tike Smithfield Market —would they leave that entirely in the hands of the Corporation of Loud an? And there were other Similar cases. He believed that it would be better for the people to accept this Bill than to run the risk of loving it altogether, and have the possibility of the cholera again occurring.—(Cries of " Oh, oh!") The Bill was absolutely necessary for the welfare of the country—it was loudly called for by the people, and ought to pass into law. Sir B. HALL said, the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was most unsaasfictory. lie had stated that in 18.54 the'suhject might be again c onsidered. They had, however, had such assertions before; for instance, when the income-tax was proposed they were told they might reconsid e r it at th e e n d o f three years, but they had had it from that time to the Present. Once let the board in question be established, and it would be difficult to get rid of it. The Tiestion 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 parishes with Which he was connected, St. Maryleb me, St. Pancras, and Paddington, had so maladministered their affairs that it was necessary to take the control of them out of their hands, he would say, let it be done at once; but W hilst 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 sad activity, and would, as ho believed, conduct their business much better than it would be done by the cen tral board. ,The CHAIRMAN explained that as the proposition O ' the Hon. Gentleman was to expunge the clause, and eoraething 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 ba quite admitted that the end they had in view could not be carried out by all the parishes without intercom kunication. Now, there were 87 parishes to be cora- Prehended by this Bill, and the question was whother e ach parish was to have a control in constituting the beeentral body, each sending a repr es ent a ti ve —th an w hi c h Could conceive nothing less adapted to th e end i n t iew; or whether the body was to consist only of three at four persons chosen by the different parishes. Lord ASHLEY, after complimenting Mr. Chadwick, *ll, O he spoke of as a useful public servant, proceeded S ay that the measure would impose no expense upon the of the metropolitan parishes. Power was taken by Lae Bill to levy a rate of a penny in the pound, but it Would be mere)) , nominal, and in the nature of a security money enable the c en t ra l a uth or ity t o ra i se a sum o f ' 44 bey for the purchase of ground and to defray the e Xpence of the arrangements ;which must neces sarily be entered into. The payment of interest and of capital would be provided for out of the fees to be Charged for burials. There could be no d übt upon that Point. If the number of interments should amouet to t he usual averages—namely, 52,000, the fees would be ! n ote than sufficient to repay th e capit a l w ith i n ter es t. 4t was not until after mature deliberation the Board. of tiealth determined against employing the agency of the Parochial system in carrying out this great work. If the parishes should act singly they would be too weak to effect good; if they should act in combination their ma chinery would prove too unwieldy for efficient operation. T hen, again, if parishes were to act separately the ex..' Pense would be greatly enhanced, for each would have its own burying-ground, its own officers, and its own estab:islimeut charges. At present where the burial- Places w. re of easy access the expense of funerals P r essed heavily on the humbler classes; but it was evi dent that the expense would b e seriously aggrav a ted wla n t became recessary to convey corpses six, seven, or ten 'taigas from London accordingly as the different parishes ! ei ght select the pl aces o f se p u l ture . Th e on ly way I n which it was possible to reduce the expense of extra tural interments was by undertaking the business on a 141 4 0 scale. The experience which he had of parochial au thorities in August and September last, when the incline cholera was sweeping away its hundreds per day, did not an him to confide to them the administration of such limportant measure as that under the consideration of s"e Committee. It could be carried int) complete effect ?' a strews. and independent body. As to res p ons ibility, It t rot vvhic% so much was said, it would be greater under l„ e Plan proposed by the Bill than it cou ld p oss ibly b e _ader th e paroc hi a l system. Could i t be seriously " l aintained that the responsibility of any parochial officer . e 4 equal to the direct and personal responsibility of a etaber of th e cen t ra l b oar d h av i ng a seat i n t h e H ouse ebCommons, and liable at any time to be questioned rarest the proceedin gs o f hi mse lf an d hi s co ll eagues ? Ole Parochi a l s y s t em w hi c h was soug h t to b e up h e ld h a d t? h 'eb in ex i stence f or many years, an d un d er i t h a d sprung all those abominations in churchyards which it was object of the present measure to put an end to. The Nee l of extramural interment was established in the I:eater part of the civilized world—in Prussia, Ger ie4nT, Italy, France, and even in Turkey; and in every aitance it was carried into effect by means of central a uthority. ii ., 4 r- Alderman SIDNEY s a id it was est i ma t e d t h at ,Za o oo/. would be required for launching the scheme, N, 1 le,ooo/. annually for the wor ki ng o f it. Th e s (.l ule Lord said, that the money required would be 52,0 by fees upon interments. Well, if there were , 0 0 burials annually the fees must amount to 21. on c a s h burial to cover the expeuse.—(Hear, hear.) The off of London was prepared to abandon the practice ,' : huryi n t, within the walls ; they were provided with w il `tahle g;ound in the country, and all they desired as to he allowed to make their own arrangements. e i ah ir. HENRY DRUMMOND said, that almost every th--te in the Bill was objectionable. At the same time eould be unwise to reject it altogether. Rather let ,a discard what was bad and retain what was good. t ra ' i r DE L. EVANS opposed the clause. Because ex it 'buret interment was necessary it did sot follow that ai, w ,ea necessary to appoint an irresponsible tribunal t h an powers. of the most extraordinary description to P e il „ n ge the whole system of our local administration. 1 4 ;",,, 4 1 1 3 the next proposition would be that the Poor ‘-ocainissioners should put down the boards of guar e,'es and the patocbial vestries. He hoped the Go titnaent would suspend the passing of the clause, and the l e , time to suggest a substitute. ° rd J. RUSSELL observed that all the opposers of th clause seemed to have fallen into two errors—first, Practice Our parishes had been tor the last 300 years in the a re of burying the dead; and, secondly, that the e o - a P°sed board would be irresponsible. He had always pltr".erstood that if a pauper died in a workhouse the b 11 11413 had to take care he should be decently interre l ir .a;' to parishes having any general control over the th o l `" of all person,, he sad not say it was a power s oh ) ; had never exerc i se d, an d one w hi c h cou ld on ly b e I N: e rred on them now by an Act of Parli anent. kh c :::th , r. the whole of the declarations they had heard l'ish,"alf•governnaent fell to the ground, and the pa th had no more claim to exercise that power than 44 ; "ad to say to the Admiralty, " We can build ships w t er tha n you, and ought to build them exclusively." kb Av g admitted, without a dissentient voice, that int , r -1/41 j a in that great metropolis and in the thickly inha in,:.Puhurbs should no deriver take place, because the °f the dead was a cause of disease and mortality te t . 4 :ni?: the living.—(Hear. hear.) It b e ing n e cessar y t o th,t that s y stem , l et t h e H ouse cons id er i n w h ose h an d s 'lia l ) ;• C oold best place the power of carrying the alters , lite A n t° effect. If they could obtain a better body than ' oard of Health they would be wise to give it that lie ol e r t but l e t them not run away with the notion that they had parochial bodies already those %k Qll `a were the best fitted to exercise that power. Was ta „Parish to find a separate burial ground, and to th: t l cie a cemetery according to its requirements? In , I lee * ,,,aY the Bill could never be carried into effect at all. , Ig oe p `-tontlemen talked of the expense of this Bill, but l ee tl iPpente to which the ratepayers of the metropolis ,'cited be put by such a proposition would be something l l u ed'ond contemplation, and persons of small toga meas ` t r aabi n ue . utterly ruined.—(Hear,. hear.) Then as ation of parishes, was this a sort of business a fr o of parishes ought to undertake? Let them h tle t m et that i n a d o pti ng th a t pl a n they were departing Parochial constitution and self-government they ao highly.—(llear, hear.) If they had 80 or 90 Itool ci e ts a taking on themselves the burial of all persons, it as great an innovation as the proposal of Go eale rode It was,in fact, necessary to create a new k et, b ecause,, what was proposed was new, and their effecting it must be new also. If 80 or 90 I titt, were to combine it would be necessary to have taut tr a ce of meeting whi c h would, of course, be clis kts; () tt r i n the residence of some of the parish represen -11:sa e attendance, consequently, could not always be t ;terl y O n , and a board so constituted would be i; neat °dyte carry on the business. He came, then, of , c onclusion that they must have some small N MIK:IDS—he would not say with the precise A pp to Prop ose d , but wilib such powers as would enable e t tO th et ri o the objct as to wich all were geed. 11°,1he ar t , irresp ons ibilit y of the Board of Health a r , it was enleinbered that the chief Commissioner of that h ':le %to " als o chief Commissioner of the Woods and %a: 4 °d that, in the, case of any abuse or complaint, P et. s e ta ° responsible, for anything done in his depart en 4: 0 one had suggested any better body to intrust th -se Powers; ai id, if they determined to do away t: P?e aent systiern, they had better take the means t, el ioorrl, thee,. The Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Nty e ?,e) had dec'aered himself convinced of the ne iibl,o d oing eorbething for the preservation of the O a bti e - 41 th, and then said the Government Bill was a rt , e tis of J; ) h- If it was advisable to indulge in impute ofsPect kind., it might be easy to make them with i to the the oleposition to the Bill, and to the motives bet atio PPosers, which would be quite as valid as the v a th e wpns of the Ho n . M em b er . —(Hear, hear.) He w e 're th e °°- Gentl eman f u ll cre di t f or w i s hi ng to pre - Oat , Public health, and hoped ho (Mr. Duncombe) thegive ,v,_ tt e aes oe , `." Sallie credit to Government. The Hon. t o . Ide ate ".(Mr. Alderman Sidney), who had reminded Iti :t ete tohit would cost 112,0001. to work the Bill, forgot th _tita , 0 „ . 1t . the estimated saving on the annual inter . I‘ , o at e e ia l u t lif Die be i n round num b ers 350,0001. Though eff ect e xaggerated, it must be admitted th e B i ll a l a eat diminution of expense. I t -` 45 0 gr are T thou g ht th e N o bl e L or d went too far T h t y (4 e r sued that if all were agreed as to the neces ehiclotioblee7l,,edYs they must adopt the means he offered. vie e . rd had quite failed in showing the paro tioq,tll.,t'iu: Nlvtie3 Could not carry out the proposed change, e h aalbl e b_ 43 necessary to appoint a new and irre litiater thaa:rd, With Powers unknown to the constitution, ' htll4 ilos , th ose of any board at present existing. ~ttac On leny departure from the principle THE that the ratepayers should exercise a control in the ad• ministration of the rives. He did not see why four or five neighbouring parishes might not unite for the pur poses of the Bill, and he would not vote for a board with such irresponsible and extraordinary powers. Mr. SLANEY denied the Bill was unconstitutional in principle, or that it would be expensive. He denied that parochial management was always effective and satisfactory in practice. It did not follow that the powers necessary to make a change would be require d when the change had been effected, and he would sup port the clause. As a word of good cheer to the under takers, he might add he had no doubt they would be likely to get the contracts for burials on account of their long experience and the capital they had em barked. Lord D. STUART opposed the clause. This central board appeared to him to bo by no means so good as the old mode of management. He hoped that the present clause would receive from the House a calm and delibe rate consideration, for this clause appeared to him to be the pivot upon which the Bill turned, end he had al ready stated his opinion that it ought to be expunged al together. Mr. HUNIE wanted to know what the board would cost, and he wanted to know what was to ba the income of the present Chief Commissioner. Sir G. GREY replied that it was to be settled by Par liament. Mr. HUME could not believe that it would be pos sible to carry out any principle of self-government by the establishment of such a board. Mr. WYLD said, what they wanted was an elected and responsible body. They were perfectly willing that the Government should appoint insp2ctors and establish any control that might he necessary ; but it was most desirable to preserve the advantages of local govern ment. Mr. FITZROY said, that the view of the parishes was that they should manage their own affairs, but they were willing to do so under the control and guidance of a Government board. It would be very hard upon the parishes if where the funds, owing to the mismanage ment of others, proved insufficient, they were to be fur ther taxed. He should vote in favour of the amendment and for the omission of the clause. 'rho Committee then divided upon the amendment which had been moved by Mr. T. Duncombe, when there appeared — For the amendment ... Against it Majority ... The clause was then agreed to, and Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, that the House having thus expressed its opinion he should not trouble them with any further opposition. Clauses 3,4, and 5, were then agreed to. On clatie 6, empowering the Board of Health to pro vide burial-grounds and to purchase lands. for burial grounds, Mr. HUME said, that some limit should be fixed within which new cemeteries and burial places should not be opened. The limit established by the Act in schedule A ought to be adopted, and he proposed that no new burial places should be opened in the several places named in the schedule. Lord ASHLEY explained that the parishes of Streat ham and Tooting were named in the schedule, but 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 the Board might go further. But it' the Act cempelled 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 motion was then withdrawn. Mr. WAKLEY wanted to know whether the Noble Lord did not think it advisable to mention some mini mum distance within which interments should not be permitted? Lord ASHLEY—From what point? Mr. WAKLEY—From St. Paul's. Lord ASHLEY—But on some sides there were dis tricts more open than on others. On some sides the population was spreading very greatly, and on others it was not. The Act did not contemplate the construction of a single large cemetery, but a great many, and some of those which were already established would be taken. As the population pressed upon them they would be shut up, and others at a greater distance opened. The clause was then agreed to. On clause 7, giving power to the board to purchase cemeteries - , Mr. MOFFATT Laid, the cemetery companies had been the great pioneers of reform in the matter of ex tramural interment. 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 clause. He would, therefore, MOTO that the clause be expunged, Sir G. GREY said, the clause had been inserted for the protection and at the desire of the cemetery com panies, who would be ruined if the clause were with- ... 57 ... 135 ... -78 drawn. Sir B. HALL called upon the Home Secretary not to listen to the 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, arid who bad 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. MOFFA.Tr was authorised, on the part of one of the largest of the cemetery companies, to protest against the clause. Mr. HUME—Would there be any power to close these cemeteries unless they became a nuisance? Sir G. GREY said the cemeteries might be shut up if prejudicial to the public health, under the powers of this Bill, arid if not prejudicial they might be taken by the ifiard 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 been no representa tions from the friends and relatives of persons interred in the cemeteries objecting to the closing of the ceme teries. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division took place, and the amendment was withdrawn. The clause was then agreed to. On clause 8, giving the board power to lay out burial grounds and build a chapel, Mr. C. LUSHINGTON moved to expunge the latter part of the clause, beginning at line 25, and providing that no funeral service other than that of the Esta blish( d Church should be performed is that port'on of the burial-ground which had been consecrated accorting to the rites of that Church. tie objected to the proviso as a piece of intolerance on the part of the Church, which ould perpetuate sectarian differences beyond the grave, by preventing members of different religious sects from 13 ing side by side in death. Mr. DRUNIMOND did not think there was such a great respect for burial of the dead in this country as some people supposed. It was well known that oects sionaly churchyards were levelled when they became too high, and a case bud lately occurred where the flesh and h , Ples of dead hodics were spread over the fields. Sir G. GREY opposed the amendmery. The 8.11 proceeded on the principle that new cemeteries were to be we 1 as subsitut. , s for the old parochisl grounds, and that the rites of { he Church should be preserved in these cctneter ies. so that no person c ,uld be laid in consecrated ground without the rites of the Church. Th- amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause agreed to. On this 9th clause, _ . _ Mr. LENNARD proposed the omission of certain words, by rshich power is 4iven to the bishop to with draw the licence or any chaplain attached to a cemetery. Sir G. GREY opposed the proposA, on the ground that whatever right a bishop possessed, such as granting sod withdrawing licences, a continuance of that right was implied, and therefore ought to be preserved in the Bill. The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses up ;o 18 inclusive. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ob tained leave to sit again on Thursday next. The other orders were then disposed of. The Borough Court (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. Ta reply to a question from an HON. MEMBER, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he proposed 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 second time. COURT OF PREROGATIVE (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. KEOGH proposed as a Select Committee on the Court of Prerogative (Ireland) Bill, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Keogh, Mr. Napier, Mr. Scully, Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, Mr. William FAg.rtn, Mr. Grogan, Mr. Sid leir, Lord Nam, Mr. O'Flaherty, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Bellew, and Sir John Young'. Major BERESFORD objected to the Committee that it was a partial one. There were nine Members upon it whu constantly voted with the Government, and only six Members on that side of the House. Under those cir cumstances, at that hour of the night, he moved that the debate 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 un arrangement on the subject. BRIGHT recommended that the two names pro posed to be substituted should be proposed at once, in stead of the motion made by the Hon. Member (Major Beresford). Mr. NAPIER, who entered the House at the mo ment, proposed to substitute the names of Mr. Goul•. burn and Mr. Turner for Mr. Sadlier and Mr. Bouverie. Mr. KEOGII sai 1 that he only named his Committee in accordance with a previous arrangement with the 11,n. and L , arned Membrr for the University. He had no ob j..elion to Mr. Goulburn's name being substituted for Mr. Sadlier. Major BERESFORD, with great warmth, cotep'ained of 800. Gentlemen coming over t. tha., s . de of the House, and listening to their conversation, and Vlcia voting for the Government. After a short conversation, a division tt ok place, when there appeared— For Mr. Sadlier ... 106 Against it ... ... 29 Majority ••• ••• —77 Mr. KEOGH said he had no objecticn to the substi tution of Mr. Goulburn for th i other Gentleman named. After a short conversation, it was resolved that Mr. Bouverie should be named on the Committee. Oa the motion that Mr. Monsell should stand as a Member of the Committee, Mr. GROGAN su,:gested that the name of Mr. Gout burn should be substituted fur Mr. Monsell, and moved in accordance with his suggeition, SUN, LONDON, Mr. MONSELL hoped the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Keogh) would assent to the proposition. Mr. S HEIL said the Hon. Ntember was displaying a fal,e defcaey, and thought the House ought not to in sist upon his serving. The House divided, and the numbers were— For the motion Against it 3O Majority for the motion —47 The House then divided on a motion by Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS to substitute the name of Mr. Goulburn for that of Sir John Young. The numbers wet e For Sir John Young 75 For Mr. Goulburn 36 Majority f it. Sir J. Young —39 The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then moved the se cond reading of the Process and Practice (Ireland) Bill, and gave notice that to-morrow (this day) he should move that it pass through its remaining stages. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Halr-paat One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 3. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. PROCESS AND PRAC LICE (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill was read a second time. TRUSTEE (1850) BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. NAVY PRIZE BALANCE BILL. This Bill was read a second time. BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Lord kV H A RNCLIFFE presented a petition from the Clerk of the Rolls in Bankruptcy, praying 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 sesiion. The Bill as it originally passed their Lordships' House abolished the office, and gave the holder compensation. The Commons refused to abolish the office, but they did away with the duties of the office, and consequently deprived him of his fees. Lord BROUGHAM 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 knowing 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. The Bishop of LONDON presented several petitions with a similar prayer. The Right Reverend Pro• late then moved the second reading of the Appeal to the Privy Council from the Ecclesiastical Courts in Matters of Doctrine Bill. It was impossibe to over rate the importance to the Charch of the acceptance or the rej , ction of this Bill. He proposed it with the con viction that the cause which he advocated was the cause of justice and of truth, and that it must ultimately be successful. He might suffer disappointment, but he should not be disheartened or perplexed, and he should not despair. The importance of the subject was so great that he might b 3 induced to trespass upon their Lordships at some length, but he would endeavour to compress his observations. He must, however, throw himself on their Lordships' indulgence, for ho felt himself placed in a most emb irrassing situation. 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 concerned, had none of the attrac• tiona of party feeling. He believed it was for the well beint 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 f;.om a recent decision, but such was not the case. That judgment had forced upon him the necessity of devising some measure for the removal of the grave objections to the constitution of that tribunal; but the necessity for some such alteration had bee❑ felt long before that decision had been given, and indeed ever since the abolition of the Court of Delegates. At the time of the abolition no ono had imagined that such a case as that which had recently been adjudicated ; on could have arisen. In 1847 ho had himself in i troduced a Bill substituting a -- n;; - ;;;t . of - ecclesiastical appeal from the Judicial Committee ' of the Privy Council ; that Bill was referred to a Select Committee, 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 lateness of the session; it had been re-introduced in 1848 and 1849, and early this session he had introduced the same Bill, with a 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; nut that all the bishops there assembled were unani mous on the subject, but the great majority of them were in favour of submitting same measure to Paha ment, and he should be contented to attend to any sug gestions for amendment, provided they did not interfere with the principles of the 8.11. 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 spiritual 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.," that the king shall render justice spiritsally and temporally to all. Causes spiritual, by judges spiritual; and causes tem poral, by judges temporal." One great advantage of the Bill was that it did not create or substitute a new court in matters ecclesiastical; but that, in spirit, it only extended and conferred 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 quisite, 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 matters, 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 Louse 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 siasttcal 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 is the King in Chancery, with the ecclesiastical dele g rtes, their decision t) be final. But the practice was, to cases of doubt and difficulty, to grant one commission to inquire iuto, and it requisite, revise the judgment. The third Act on the subject was the 27th Henry which declared the King to be the supreme bead of the Church, and directed all appeals to him in that capa city. That statute, however, was repealed by the Ist c. 1, which while it defined the power of the Crown in ecclesiastical cases, also laid down those cases its which the Slats had not the right to exercise that power. This statute was repealed ey the 16th and 17th Charles 1., and the jurisdiction theretoro rested, until a late period, in the Court if I) legates, to whom it re verted. By the 211 and 11 IVilliam IV., however, the Court of Delegates was abolished, and the appeal to the Klieg in Privy Council was substituted, with a final de cision. The 4th ‘V illism IV., passed the year after, 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 (1 tu) would next proceed to point out the principal ob jections to the present Court of Appeal. llis objection was to the principle of the court, and not the mode in which that principle was administered; and therefore he hoped that no Noble Lord would take offence at his ob jections. In his mind, there could hardly be a more un objectionable tribunal in all that required impartiality, acuteness, and firmness in administering the law as it stood, on the part of the judges, in so 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, as 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 bunal. He apprehended that in 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 apprehend; but these views had been departed from in the constitution of the present tribunal, and it was therefore he called upon the House for remedial measures—not 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 withi❑ strictly eccleaiasticr.l 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 cJ)llision with the State. When difficult questions of doctrine became inevitable, he was of opinion that the 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 incom ptency to discharge those spiritual duties which were delegated to them by the law. He had no doubt that their Lordships in general, and, indeed, all persons who had received a good education within the pale of the Church, would be at once able to say if any doctrine pro pounded on the great points of faith was consistent or . otherwise with th a t t aug ht by th e Ch urc h ; but questions arise on other points, 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 neverthel2sa involved in their decision the most important consequences to the Church.. How, TUESDAY EVENING, then, could the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decide on these questions with any show of justice, when they were incowp itent to understand not alone their rudiments, but, it might be, even the very terms in which the propositions involving them were put? There was another 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; but as every decision of the Judicial Com mittee of the Privy Council in these matters became a precedent, and as precedents modiked and sometimes wholly altered the law; so, in course of time, the ecclesiastical law, of which a great part was not printed as statutes, might come to be chanced altogether by means of these decisions, and with it the doctrines of the Church. He was well aware that the eminent and learned persons who composed that Committee disclaimed all authority and power to settle doctrinal points in dis pute, and professed only to 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 great 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 decision of 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 British Constitution from the earliest period down to the present 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 down, " that the kingdom was always best governed in peace and quiet when justice in the temporal and ecclesiastical courts was kept within the separate jurisdiction of each, and without encroachment upon the others, which was always found to lead to trouble and inconvenience." Their Lordships might smile when they were referred back 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 I laws of King Edgar laid down the same rules, and the statute Articuli Ceti, 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 fact were denied to send it before a jury for decision; otherwise to refer it for decision to the Ecclesiastical Court. That was L w o h r a d t s h w e h ( o the sa ß t is o h n op th o e f Loclohny)tdheesirßeidll.in Thethe t N ri e b h un le al propos e d t o b e consti tuted 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 not. Either the Judicial Committee might put the question 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 which created it that the judges were to consist wholly r ea te r a . of laymen; on the contrary, he was convinced that it r contemplated a proportion of ecclesiastics. U n til, an d t e l ievorengn—e numberw during, e re c lae ofrg great ythme e judges—indeed w thereign heni n of t he earlierH enryg legal history of the country it was stated that certain suits were re ferred to the ecclesiastical courts, it was meant that they were referred to courts presided over by clergymen. With respect to convocations, Queen Anne stated, in re ply to the Archbishop, that according to th© opinions of eight judges, jurisdiction in spiritual matters was proper to be exercised in convocation of the clergy. Thi s was the principle, therefore, that ran through the entire of British law on the subject of ecclesiastical matters. He would next offer one or two remarks on the practice of the early Christian Church in this matter. That Church admitted, as he had already stated, the supremely of the Sovereign in practice. The early councils were con voked by the Emperors, and many of them were attended by th ose potentates themselves. But their rule was to be bound by the royal decision in all proceedings only which were in conformity I with the caniins and regulations of the Church, and there was no departure from that line on any occasion. The most celebrated casuist of modern times —himself a Roman Catholic, and a msn who had incurred the cen sure of the Church for his liberality—laid it down that the Church was the only judge of doctrine, and that the Prince had no power to interfere except in promulgating new laws. With regard to the Gallican Church, which brought him down to a latter period, the end of that dis cussion in which Bossuet was engaged with the Doctors of the Sorbonne, was that the King was held to be the court of ultimate appeal in questions of ecclesiastical 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 questions of doc trine in the Church, according to the celebrated juris consult Laine. He (the Bishop of London) would next pass to that part of the Bill which was drawn from an analogy with the courts of common law and equity it, this country, though he at once admitted that the analogy was not perfect. The maxim of the courts of l a w wag, calque in arte sea credendunt ea—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 in a matter of fact to try the cause by a jury, or to order a special case to be sent to the judges of the common law courts for their opinion. In questions of foreign law, as the law of England took no judicial notice of foreign laws, when they arose they were dealt with as a science, to be proved as facts by competent witnesses. The opinions of the late most learned and excellent Lord Chief Justice o. the Queen's Bench was to this eff-et, and so was that of the eminent Learned Judge, Justice Coleridge. The Right Rev. Prelate also read en opinion of the Noble and Learned Lord the Master of the Rolls in sup port of his view of questions of f reign law. lie 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 Howe. 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 te say what wore the principles and practice of the Church of Prussia; but, according to the general prin ciple of the constitution for the present year 1850, any questions of false doctrine were de cided definitely by the Church, represented by a mixed assembly. With regard to the Boman Catholic Church in Silesia and the Rhenish 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 be 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. cure. The first of those objections to the measure was, that it would give a power to the Bishops to frame new doctrines. In answer to that, it was sufficient to say that no new power was given by this Bill—that if the present Court which decided questions of this kind had any power of framing new doctrines, there was no other in the matter proposed fir 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 England, and, therefore, whatever objection now arose against the proceedings of the Court proposed in the Bill, applied with still greater force to the Judicial Com mittee of the Privy Council. The next objection Was, that the Bill excluded the laity from all participation in the consideration of questions of this nature. Now, he considered one of the principal merits of the Bill to be, that it maintained the laity in the pos session of its proper funct ions. He did not mean to dis place judges from the func tions of interpreting judicially ooefcti the Episcop a l B enc h, n based u p on th e the rules of law and a dministeri ng justice ; he only wished them to take the tenets and doctrines of the Church from those who were the most fitted to give them. ho should content himself wi th sa y in g that if there were a possibility of heresy on th e p art of the Biships, that possibility Withef heresy respect on to the part bj might form a good reason on the part of the Legislature to change the mode of electing Bishops, but not of de priving them of their legitimate jurisdiction and inherent right when they wet e once appointed. lie had already trespassed too long on 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 come, the final adjudica'ion 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 th e investigation 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 doc trines. But ho would not rest his ease upon the compa rative fi•ness of the men merely. He would also rest it upon the inherent and Were:Bible right of the Church to teach and determine upon points of Church doctrine by means of its ministers, according to the authority expressly deice:AA to them by apostolical commission—the right inherent and indefeasible of the bishops of the Church of Eng land to determine finally upon all questions of doctrine. He now commended the measure to their Lordships' earnest and serious consideration. In the conclusion, as well as the commencement of his remarks, he felt overpowered by a sense of 'the importance of the results 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 without hope. lie trusted at all events that their Lordships would come to the consideration of the question with more than usual care, and he would conclude by the expression of an earned wish _that He .who had committed to his church JUNE the eacred deposit of his doctrine, would guide and govern their decision. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he thought it but fitting that he should take the earliest opportunity of explaining. the views he entertained, in common with 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 he was con scious not only of the disadvantage under which ho la boured in attempting to follow the Right Rev. Prelate, who spoke with authority on any subject, but more especially upon that to which he had given so much con sideration, but also of the great disadvantage of being compelled to do so in the absence of his Noble and Learned Friend whom he might still call his esteemed and revered colleague, who had for years sat upon the wool sack, and who, 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 state the alarm which he felt at, and the objections he entertained to, this measure, and in stating these grounds of alarm and objection he trusted no expression of his might be taken to convey an impression that he entertained the slightest disrespect for that sacred and learned body whom the Right Rev. Prelate proposed to constitute into a new tribunal, and for whom, in their proper functions, he en tertained—collectively and individually—the most com plete and entire respect. However, he must say that his . motive for troubling their Lordships thus early on the question was that he objected at that moment to any le gislation at all upon the subject, and that he thought the very circumstance of the inevitable misconstruction which would be put upon any measure for altering that tribunal which was the constitutional tribunal in this country for the trial of those cases, and which has for centuries exercised those functions, furnished of itself decisive ground of objection to the measure. Nay, the very haste to proceed with the Bill at the present mo ment—for he could not conceal from himself that the anxiety to proceed with the Bill had arisen from the dis setisiaction which had been felt, if not expressed, at a recent decision of that august tribunal which was invested by the Crown, by the law, and by the Constitution, with the administration of her Majesty's prerogative—he did not 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, had been adopted by that body; for would not the public be 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? For himself, although, as President of the Council, he was ne cessarily a metsber, that was, had the right of entrance to all those Committees of the Privy Council, yet upon questions of a judicial nature he bad thought it to be his duty never to take any part in their proceedings, and 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 of assisting at its decision. Not speaking, then, as a mem ber of that tribunal, but in common with the-great body of the community and a large portion of the clergy, he considered the judgment given by that tribunal to be perhaps only too eatistactory in the present unhappy—he bad almost said distempered—state of men's minds on the subject. It had certainty given as much satisfaction as the nature. of the subject and of the difficulty permitted. Ho had again, then, to ask their Lordships whether any attempt at once, not merely to qualify, but to supersede that tribunal, would not have the effect of stripping its decision of all weight and dignity, to which none of their Lordship who was not prepared to make a great change in the constitution of the country was prepared to as sent? What would be the consequence, if, whenever any important 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 instance, the case of the Court of Queen's Beuch, when it was presided over by Lord Mansfield, and when it gave a decision upon a ceiebrated case of libel which then greatly agitated the country; or the case of the Court of Common Pleas when, under Lord Camden's presidency, it pronounced a decision on the question of general warrants—what would have been the case if, immediately after their de cision in those cases, the jurisdiction of the Queen's Beech 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 suggestion bad been made. For those reasons, then, he was not prepared to give his assent, on the part of the Go• vernment, to proceeding further with this Bill. He had, besides, the strongest objection to the measure, es striking a blow at her Majesty's prerogative, in troducing 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 deprive her Majesty of the power which the Sove reign had exercised, not merely from Protestant times— from the time of the Ref Imation—but from the very earliest period of the empire. The Right Rev. Prelate, indeed, said he did not consider the exercise of that power by the Crown to be an intolerable burden upon the Church; but he (the Marquis of Lansdowne) would go a step further, and say that it was essential to the independence and safety of the Church, [nth of which would be diminished by the Bill, inasmuch as the judg ment of her Majesty and her advisers would be shackled, and because the decision under this Bill would be bind ing and conclusive, leaving her Majesty and her advisers no option whatever. If the Privy Council were only to be required to receive decisions without the power of couching or altering them, their functions might just as well be discharged by Mr. Greville, their clerk, without setting the whole machinery of the Privy Council in notion.—(Hear, hear.) It was important that their Lordships should keep in view that the power of the government of the Church was one which, at all times oefore the Reformation, at the Reformation, and since the Reformation, had formed one of the most essential prerogatives of the Crown. From the Reformation there followed a series of examples which established this fact beyond a doubt —nut only that the Crown had uniformly exercised the power of control ling the decisions in ecclesiastical affairs, of pro nouncing upon them through persons whom it had thought fit to employ, but of choosing the most proper persons, lay or ecclesiastical, to decide upon those matters.—(hear, hear.) The Court of Delegates was constituted not of ecclesiastics only, bat of ecclesias tics and civilians. Under that Court a commission was issued, and he had been informed by ono of the most eminent civilians of the country, that if there was a ques tion of fact and not of doctrine to be determined, a clause was inserted in the commission requiring that no decree should be pronounced without the assent and presence of the 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, were a question of doctrine, requiring peculiar habits of education and study, and at tention to theology, to determine whether a certain •loctrine ought to be taught or not, he should be inclined to agree with the Right Rev. Prelate that the tribunal in inch case ought to consist of spiritual persons. But that was not the case, fur they were now dealing with facts, and not seeking to ascertain whether new doctrines were to be decreed.—(Elear, hear.) He was no friend to the revival of convocation. Ile agreed with the emphatic words of one of the greatest statesmen of this country, and ono most attached to ecclesiastical establish meets, Burke, who when stating that the convoca tion 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.] He 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 &no 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 the 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 preconceiveci 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, hear.) 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 t h e minority consisted of perhaps the two archbishops a nd the persons possessing the best information on the sub ject, who could expect the majority of the clergy t su o ac quiesce in such a decision? Any one expecting such result must be very ignorant of human nature. Was it to be expected that the clergy would give up their opi nions when out of 32 persons 16 or 17 decided one way and 15 another, they themselves ha vin g been excluded from any part in the deliberations on which the decision might be founded? The Right Rev. Prelate 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 not 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.—(Elear, hear.) Now, what he asked the House to maintain was a good decisiou—a decision from persons not pretending to be connoisseurs . in theology, but persons able to distinguish what are facts 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 which had fallen under his observation, courts of law, in dealing with difficult cases, with respect to which they did not possess such par ticular knowledge as would en-able them to come to a satisfactory decision, bad uniformly done—what? Ab dicate their authority? Call upon the Queen to esta blish another tribunal? No such thing. They called before them, as the Privy Council bad done on this oc casion, those persons who were best able to give them authority, learning,. sad information. They h ad dons 4, _ 1850. with regard to theology what had been with regard to the other sciences. With respect to the science of chemistry, in the case of Mr. Watt's invention, what was the course taken by the Court of Chan cery? The Court tOoe: time to consider: 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 gave the whole country (the chemists included) perfect satisfaction. In that case the parties did not turn round and call upon the Crown to constitute a new tritrunal.—(Hear, hear.) From looking to the declare tions of our ancestors—from looking at the declarations of eminent divines—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 some degree, open to opinion. To go back from that wise policy, and to narrow the sphere of that opinion, far from conducing to peace and quietness, would be only an incentive to dissension.—(Hear, hear.) To require union from good and wise, and holy men, upon every branch of doctrine, weuld be the surest way of prevent ing the efficacious union of those good and wise, and holy men, for the purpose of advancing those great in terests in which our prosperity and happiness, now and hereafter, are involved.—(Hear, hear.) It was proposed that the decision should be by a majority. Why the effect of a majority so decided would be to bind the public and the Church for one moment to one opinion, but the other party would look forward to an other time when other Bishops would give a decision adverse to that of the majority, and a continual contest would be carried oa to procure the abrogation of the decision—(Hear.) A worse state of things he could not imagine.—(Hear.) He had no objection to state that, while he could not sacrifice the principle of the Judicial Committee as established by the Act of the Noble and L-arned Lord—while he could not sacrifice the prero gative of the Crown as it had hitherto existed, he thought it most desirable for the purpose of showing to the public that these questions could not be determined without the great authorities of the Church being fully heard upon the subject—that it should not be left to the Crown, that it should 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 months.—(Cheers.) Lord BROUGHAM 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 no herniation in saying, if he were called upon to say " Aye "or " No" to the question whether they should proceed with the Bill without subjecting it to alteration, he should at once vote for it's 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 doctrines—important for this other reason, that the people of England had their eyes sedulously and anxiously directed to the controiersy—but important, above all, because the venerable fabric of the Church of England was now placed is circumstances that filled all her friends with the greatest anxiety.— (Hear, hear.) Why was he particularly anxious at this moment? Because ho had established the pre sent tribunal on the ruins of the Court of Deleg :tes and the Court of Review.—(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 received their sanction which might afford the least chance of widening the breach, and neither should they hastily and without due consideration reject a measure which was proposed for the purpose of heal ing the breach that now existed.—(Hear.) It was upon those grounds that he had ccme to the conclusion that they ought not at once and altogether to reject this Bill, but they should see it they could remove those objec tions which he for one entertained against it, and which, if he found to be insuperable, he would certainly give to it his negative.—(Hear.) By this Bill it was pro posed that the prelates should decide, and should answer the question "aye" or " no"—viz., "Is this the doctrine of the Church of England," and when a majority of the prelates had so settled that question, then 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 be could not do if he was to be bound by the decision of another. By the Bill now proposed the Judicial Committee would be bound by the decision of 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 14 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 what 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 those 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 paid to him—how was he, a mere layman, to reverse the decision of an ecclesiastical court? His answer was that Sir Herbert Fust was as much a layman as himself.— (Laughter.) Aye, it was answered to him, but he was appointed by the archbishop. Aye, he replied, but that did not make him a prelate; no, nor as much as a deacon in the Church—(Laughter)—and if Sir Her bert Fust was appointed by tho archbishop, ho (Lord Brougham) was appointed by one higher than an archbishop—by the head of the Church—by one who appointed the archbishop himself—(Laughter)— and his court was, therefore, as much a spiritual court as that of Sir H. Fust.—(Laughter.) Their judgment might be aided by the opinions of able and learned men; all the faithful, lay arid clerical, were interested in ascer taining whether there might not be some mode of obtain tug a satisfactory decision when differences in theologi cal opinions arose. The mean s , h e th oug h t, should be afforded of obtaining the opinions of prelates who were well qualified; but not that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be bound by their opinions. He would not have a 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 corning 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 was sent elsewhere its success would be greatly facili tated. Making these suggestions, 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 clef' little schism. They should 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 iridispensanle qualities—piety first, learning next, and above all charity, meekness, and toleration.—(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.—(Hear.) This, then, was a reason why they should desire that the breach should be healed and not widened. It would, theref ire, 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 he heartily joined with the Right Rev. Prelate.—(Cheers.) The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S stated, that until very recently be had entertained the hope that it would be in his power to give his support to the Bill intro duced by the Right Rev. Prelate. It was not without great 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 of d o ctrine arising re ndered them the only proper judges upon questions n a g t i o that o a t f w i hi n t h h e e m e u s h t u s r a c y h . he S t o w f u la g r b t f t r b o a m t t e b n e te o r e i opinion l would have been materially the proposed court of app the , other orders of the Church improved if there had b eeb n e ea rb ass a oc c ia er te ta d in wi n th um t b h e e r prelates, or or with any number of t sons drawn not only not prepared to say tic ble or e m b li e e en w p a ra s c a not, but b w u b t e a tb ls r s from e wouldt h h i e m l thataibtfuyr it would have been a great im vo. it did appear to a en v t er l y n t m he at c e o r u ta stitu l on ti objection to the measure ; he of the court, and have pre movedrovem would observe, however, that if there had been no ot h er qu estion involved than this he should have deem e d it at a con sistent with his duty to vote f or t h e least t nd reading of the Bill, with a view of afterwards removing its imperfections, and abat ing the disaivanteges which were likely to result from the proposed constitution of the court. But in his mind there were other and much graver objece 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 wore 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 Com mittee, considered not merely as members of the Privy Council, but as members of the Church. It had been considered that it would be a desirable qualification of the members of that Committee that they should all he members of the Church; but he did not understand how it could be consistent with the rights of conscience th t a o t a lay member of theiChurch who might have inquired d into formed a decided and conscientious opinion his con viction upon the subjects submitted to him o tou b c e touching g ound religious faith, should be expected t to the Bill, was a m n u d concludedaotonily adoptby t the e andopinion act upon n th others,et so . far that This,e though constituting a grave o that this measure was willing to suppose not the part which weighed mo"is(t'cluiPnon his have might mind at il a e different time and under different circumstances general objects; been admirably adapted to its avowedright g to consider the mea surebut he held that they had circumstances connexion with t take existing in that general light, a rl i o id ri t . tiat they ware lai)und .t to believed that the present measure (Hear, hear.) He ts proceedings tate of well kn o which o !leer, had been produced had arisen solely outb fec the by en every one • hear) —and he must take the liberty of miure ieg that its Specific *map was to pro v id e a r irsa touorisithin-thorsi rnirdid > t recent ex. - --....... 10 isting evil—that its peculiar design was to restore sad re-establish (if possible) peace, tranquillity, and har mony in the Church; and he thought that the main subject of their Lordships' consideration was, whether this, as a means, was or was not adapted to such an end.—(Ho r, hear.) If it were a measure that was likely to produce peace and harmony in the Church, be should wish to know what party in the Church it was designed to conciliate?—(Loud cheers.) There was a large party in the Church who consi dered that the recent judgment was substantially right, and that it had averted a great and serious evil and danger from the Church. He did not mean to deny that there were, even among these persons, many who in the abstract were very much dissatisfied with the present composition of the court of appeal in spiritual matters, because they had objected most strongly to the court below which passed the sentence that had bem reversed by the existing court of appeal, and he had a right, therefore, to infer that they were equally dissatisfied with the constitution of the Judicial Com mittee of Council as a court for deciding questions of this description. He believed, however, that it was a clear and incontestible fact that these were not the persons whom this measure would conciliate or satisfy, but that, on the contrary, they viewed it at least Kith a considerable degree of distrust, of jealousy, and of alarm.—(Renewed cheer ing.) Then who else would be satisfied by the Bill? It must be those persons undoubtedly who had expressed feelings of distrust, of alarm, and, even as he had wit nessed, of consternation at the recent decision.—(gear, hear.) But had this measure given satisfaction to them? Why they had publicly declared themselves dissatisfied with it. But who were the others who did approve of the measure as it stood? He begged the House to con sider on what grounds and for what reasons it was that these persons did approve of it. Was it not that they regarded it simply as a stepping stone by which they might advance to something beyond it?—(Hear, hear.) This appeared to him therefore an insurmountable ob jection to the measure.—(Cheers.) Ile could describe its practical effect as nothing but this—that it would open a new arena for theological controversy—(Hear, hear)—and the effect of opening that arena would and must be to invite new combatants to try their strength upon it, and to fight there what they would salt " The Battle of the Church."—(Cheers.) It was impossible for any one whose attention bad been excited by the circumstances of the times to say that this was an imaginary or a chimerical danger. For his own part be 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 persons who did not scruple to avow that they looked forward to the disrupturo of Church and State as a possible contingency, Ai a calamity indeed, but not at all as the greatest of calamities, but, on the contrary, as the least of two evil:, the other evil being the failure of their own pecu liarly 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 strongly inclined to suspect that there were others who viewed it with still more favour and de light, who were disposed to consider that catastrophe, not as an evil, but rather as positive good. (if so much he was certain, that there were persons who looked for ward to the euthanasia of the Church of England, and considered that that Church should finally be merged in the Church of Rome; and if these persons wished 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 ru pt ure w i t hi n t h e C hurch 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.—(Hear.) Divide et impera, he be lieved, continued to be a Roman maxim, and he 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 nioes.—Jlear.) In one way the present measure directly tended to that end, by rendering almost ine vitable a fatal division in one great body of the Church —namely, the Episcopate.—(Hear, hear.) Whilst en tertaining these views, however—and they were his deliberate and settled convictions—he did not feel him self bound to divide against a measure to which he be lieved a majority of his Right Rev. Brethren continued to give their support. Still he could not share in the responsibility of a measure which, instead of being a remedy, would most likely aggravate and multiply the danger which threatened 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 to this measure. It was impossible things could go on in their present state. There was a crisis in the Church, and matters could not be left as they were without serious consequences._ (Hear, hear.) It was time that Right Rev. Prelates stood forward and put them right. He held that too great liberty to the clergy was en injury to tho laity. He would ask their Lordships, supposing he lived in a parish to which Mr. Gotham was appointed, and assuming he objected to Mr. Gorham's doctrine, was he not subjected to an injury in having such a man to guide him and his religious opi nions, when the Right Reverend Prelates declared they did not hold the same doctrines? Yet, in such a case, he and his family would be bound all their lives to submit to Mr. Gorham's teaching. With reference to toe recent judgment, he would ask by whom was the de cision looked upon with satisfaction ? It was not looked upon with as much a itistaction by any party in our own Church, as by Roman Catholics and the extreme Dis ! senters. They saw, by the decision, Churchmen were put in sach 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 ae rnment, that in such matters they should look to the Bishops for guidance. lie considered there was less difference of opinion likely to arise in the court as proposed to be constituted than in the existing court. He accepted the Bill, because 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 opinion', nor had ho favoured violent opinions in 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.) '1 he 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 appointments were made, nothing was more likely than to see 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 respomibilitie s. The Sovereign was th e h ea d o f t h e C h urc h, and bound to see that the Church did not suffer undeeher reign. By the intervention of Parlismei.t, if persons were forced on the Qu een w h o oug ht no t to be found in the Church, the Queen might be placed in_ane w ay pos iti on to in which duty was at war with expediency.h erb respectable T s h t e r r e n nl g t h n e b n e r t s he , a efmer s t o the Established themselves proud of her alliance. I Church to rch enable' was o those mak m e to declare Church did nut cornpire advantageously fullwith other purity her churches, it was because she did not enjoy i n her Catholic doctrines. Lord CAMPBELL considered that as no party matter, but , anon, a great principle was involved i n t h e ti to offer his opinion t o the douse. It would have given him extreme pleasu re if he cou l dit wasn. conscientiously have supported the Bill. Ho e o t h i t i u s tio dutyna l had displayed in introducing th e measure. No had a great respect for the Right Rev. Prelate, and th e ability ne oe was a more sincere friend th an h imse l f to the Estaa blished 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 objection ct d i o o m uu mcr n ico, t hna h : Bi l l. n e idd(far a whicht l i thei consideration, likely a t in e gsteo r hsti itobhri desirableell i itn m eagv p o .ap s b, t , opaurretetdiot; httpaet rt, unprejudiced :avdpheipisnilitri.au view of securing these benefits, he was forced to con rupae The impar tialunconstitu- tional, sr theet ti ; t - the constitution of the Judicial Committee. It seemed to him that this objection arose from not having 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 meting court, as constituted, as far as the explanation of the written doctrines, articles, and formu laries of the Church of England was concerned, w as better fram e d f or suc h a purpose t h an th e ? r o e u la r t t e. n It templa:ed by the Bill of the Right as it had already been truly explained, the tribuna ' this tribu na l was a l a y tribunal. l Now, 'no more a lay tri had been cited as a gre e t offence out of the House that D u rham. It was found by experience as these courts the Chancellor of the Bishop of Durham. competent to decide cats to call in the assist. burial than were the Court of Arches and the Court of ante of laymen, who act-d as the substitutes of church. o y men. The Right Rev. relate had said that an app ea l bishop, and from the the archdeacon to the questions, that it was advantag e lay from that the Sovereign was the head of the Churc h, and so it wast A lint le ng o-Saxow tbiimsheos,pstoo it the w a archb i shop, s b)the But Constitutions f om iohfe Clarendon, the King. This admitted and , so it was by the Re f ormation. t he archbi s h o p , t h e bishop, and the archdeacon, had each th e i r l ay advisers, and so bad the Sovereign. He (Lord Campbell) was therefore of opinion, that offence had been taken most unnecessarily that the Judicial Committee of tne Privy Council was a lay tribunal, in contradis• tinction to the interior courts from which the appeal was made. The Court proposed by the Bill was to consist of the prelates of the two provinces of Canterbury and York ; but in his (Lord Campbell's) opinion such a court would be mere mockery. lie should think it far more respectful to move the second reading of the Bill that day six months than to agree to the principle propounded in the meas. sure. It was proposed that this court should 'be an as.t mbly of all the bishops iu England, and that their fi t should be binding, not alone on the Judicial Com mittee of the Privy Council, but also on the Queen, whom i' sought to make as much ministerial iu the matter as possible—if the Bill had any principle it was that; but if it was allowed that the title of " Head of the Church" was not a mere honorary title or faculty, as was that of the Sovereigns of France, but involved the posseasion of substantial . power in ecclesiastical the Bill, which in point of fact proposed of the of that power to iuvest it fa ted to be established ru th a e tt iz e i s li , o w psto hai m b l e hs e te s t m ahn e ealogy attemp