The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1839

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 4.
At a Quarter before Five o'Clock, the Lord Chan-
cellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Earl Shaftes-
bury, took their seats as Commissioners, when the
Royal Assent was given to Dean of Exeter, &c. Ap-
pointments Bill ; Seditious Societies Act Amendment
Bill ; Purchasers' Protection Bill ; Designs Copyright
Extension Bill ; British Museum Buildings Bill ; Staf-
fordshire Potteries (Stipendiary Justice of the Peace)
Bill ; Great Western Railway Bill ; London and South-
ampton Railway (Portsmouth Branch) Bill ; London
and Greenwich Railway Bill ; London and Croydon
Railway Bill ; Perth Harbour and Navigation Bill ;
Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal Bill; Chelten-
ham Waterworks Bill ; Rochdale Waterworks Bill ;
Wearmouth and Tyne Bridge Road Bill ; Cullompton
Road Bill ; Rugby and Warwick Road Bill ; Berkeley
(Gloucester) Inclosure Bill ; Totley, or Dronfield
(Derby) Inclosure Bill ; Unstone (Derby) Inclosure
Bill ; Ringstead (Northampton) Inclosure Bill ; Na-
pier's Divorce Bill.
The House adjourned during pleasure, and after a
short interval resumed.

Lord TEYN HAM presented a petition from a place
in Ireland, praying for the adoption of a penny post-
age. The Noble Lord slid he would take this oppor-
tunity of saying, that he knew the Right Rev. Bishop,
in respect to whore some observations were made
last night by a Noble Baron opposite, with
regard to something that had appeared in a
newspaper ; and he could assure the House
that her Majesty had not, within her realms, a more
loyal subject than that Rev. Prelate, nor one who would
more unwillingly attempt to interfere improperly with
the laws of the country.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE could only say that if that
Rev. Prelate, and which was all he had said before, had
signed the requisition to which he adverted, it was aleo
in his opinion absolutely necessary that that should be
taken notice of.

The Bishop of EXETER presented several petitions,
as we understood, against the Church Discipline Bill.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented peti-
tions from the Deaneries 3f Bristol, Gloucester, and
other places to the same 4,ffect.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Len-
nox Town, in Stirlingshire, against a farther extension
of the Established Church in Scotland ; also a petition
from the inhabitants of Glasgow for improvement of
prison discipline ; also a number of other petitions, the
effect of which we did not catch.
MALTESE ORDINANCES.

The Nour and LEARNED LORD would take this
opportunity of reminding the House that when he
brought before its notice the Maltese ordinances, a
gentleman, describing himselflas the agent for the Mal-
tese, appeared before the House upon a petition, and
objected to those ordinances being altered or re-
voked. He (the Noble and Learned Lord)
at that time took the liberty of saying he did
not believe that that person was the agent of
any body but himself. It turned out that he was right
in that supposition, because he at that moment held in
his hand two newspapers, the organs of that party
—entirely repudiating and individual, and dis-
claiming his being a Maltese agent. The pa-
pers had published in English and Italian the
debate in their Lordships' House—gave all the argu-
ments in favour of the ordinances, and in the result
strongly supported his (the Noble and Learned Lord's)
view of the subject. Upon the whole, he never remem-
bered to have known anything more audacious than the
conduct of the person to whom he had alluded was in
having put himself forward as he did.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had never
alluded to that individual as the agent of the inhabi-
tants of Malta, or otherwise. He believed that
his Noble Friend had referred to him as a very
active person. As to the reception of the ordinances in
Malta, be could only say that within the last two days he
had received dispatches from the Governor there, which
gave a different character of the view that was taken of
the ordinances to what their Lordships might suppose
from what they had heard the newspapers, which the
Noble and Learned Lord had, gave of them.

Lord BROUGHAM said there could be no doubt
that the Governor would give his own opinion of the
ordinances. The Maltese journals would give theirs,
and the result would show whether the Governor or
the Maltese themselves most truly described their own
feelings.
Lord LYNDHURST wished to know whether the
Noble Lord opposite (Nermanby) would have any ob-
jection to lay on the table of the House the Report of
the Commissioners, presented to the Noble Earl, the
late Governor of Canada.

The Marquis of NORMANBY thought the proper
course would be for the Noble and Learned Lord to
give notice.
Lord LYNDHURST said that the Council of
Upper Canada had published certain resolutions against
the union of the two Canadas. He wished to know
whether the Noble Marquis would have any objection
to lay those resolutions on the table of the House.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said the fact was
that the Legislative Council had negatived the resolu-
tion for a union of the two Canadas, but the House of
Assembly had agreed to it. He could have no objec-
tion, however, to lay the resolutions on the table of the
House.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a po-
tion from Frome, in favour of a uniform penny postage.
The Bishop of RIPON presented a petition from
Leeds against the Church Discipline Bill. The Right
Rev. Prelate felt bound to state that he did not feel
that objection to the Bill which the petitioners had
urged.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, consider-
ing the station he held in the Church, and from the na-
ture of the objections made to the Bill, he did not feel
that it would be consistent with his duty to allow this
opportunity to pass without making a few observations.
On the importance of this subject there could be no
question. For the honour and usefulness of the Church
there ought to be some mode of punishing the Clergy
who degraded themselves, and who injured the Church
by gross immorality in any respect, and if there was to be a
coercive power in that respect there must be an effec-
tive tribunal to exercise it. It was proposed by this
Bill to allow the hearing of causes in the Court of
Atches, with one single appeal to the Judicial Com-
mittee, by which there would be a certain expense
saved, and which would no doubt be productive of be-
nefit. He could not forget the grave charges that
were made in that House on a former occasion when
this subject was discussed. He heard these grave
charges brought forward, and he was utterly astounded
at the hard words used on the occasion by a Right
Rev. Prelate. He never could have supposed before
that such language could have been applied to so slight
a cause. The Right Rev. Prelate to whom he had
alluded had said that he should be a traitor to the
Church if he could be a party to the proceeding then
before the House. The inference from that was that
all the Bishops who were parties to it were traitors to
the Church, or at least partakers of the treason, from not
knowing what they were about. He must take
the liberty of saying
.that that certainly was not lan-
guage befitting the occasion. In the five years preced-
ing the Ecclesiastical Commission there were in all the
dioceses of England only fifteen cases of prosecution.
It could not be an essential power which was so rarely
exercised ; it was very expensive and very inefficient ;
and if the discipline of the Church depended on the
exercise of that power, they might say there was no
discipline in the Church. Every one called for some
remedy for this inefficiency ; and he thought the Bill
of 1836 was not the remedy that should have been
applied. By that Bill it was enacted that the Bishop
should sit in person to try the cause, assisted by asses-
sors. He looked upon the principle of that Bill as
objectionable, although he had supported it, because he
could get no better measure ; and the case of
Dr. Free had raised such a clamour against
the existing state of Church discipline, as made it ne-
cessary- to do something ; but the Members of the Ec-
clesiastical Commission would recollect that he had
always disclaimed it, and urged the adoption of some
better measure. It was, moreover, very offensive to the
1 clergy, who felt that their honour, and all they held
clear, depended on the summary decision of a Bishop,
who, they might imagine, possibly entertained a preju-
dice against them. It was also exceedingly distressing
to the feelings of an aged Bishop to be called on to
decide such a question, amidst all the endeavours which
would be made to work upon his fears and his sympa-
thies, and his natural desire to avoid bringing scandal
on the Church. Taking every thing into consideration,
he thought nothing could be better than the disci-
pline of the Church, and the attention paid by the
clergy to the wishes of their spiritual superiors, but
this arose from kindness on the part of the Bishops,
He had never prosecuted any clergyman, but he had
persuaded many who had been guilty of derelictions of
their duty to resign their livings, and they had taken his
advice ; but he could not expect they would advise with
him on subjects of this sort if he were called on to sit in
judgment on them, or to act as their accuser. It
would be an extinguisher upon episcopal authority in
its best form if a Bishop were converted into a judge
and a prosecutor. He had brought forward that Bill
after consulting with his Right Rev. Brethren who
were in London, and they all appeared to be unani-
mous in supporting it, and it was not until very lately
that he had learned that there would be any opposi-
tion to it. Then, with respect to the clergy, a great
number of petitions had been laid on the table by the
two Right Rev. Prelates to whom he had alluded, and
he should have wondered if there were not. Letters
had been published;in the papers, in which his Right Rev.
Friend the Bishop of Exeter had iesited the clergy of his
diocese to petition against the Bill. All admitted the
eloquence, and talents, and abilities of his Right Rev.
Friend, and he had presided over the diocese of Exeter
long enough to have sufficient influence with the clergy
to induce all of them to follow his advice. His other
Right Rev. Friend, the Bishop of Gloucester, whose
abilities were acknowledged by every one, had also
addressed the clergy of his diocese on the same
subject. He held in his hand a document embodying
the objections of a seat of learning, emanating from men
of the highest respectability and the most unimpeach-
able character ; on one side the objections were stated,
and on the other was the form of a petition, which the
clergy were required to sign, and that document had
been very extensively circulated. Now if the clergy,
by whom these petitions were signed, were no better
informed upon the subject than their learned brethren
of the University of Oxford, very little weight could be
attached to their petitions. The Most Rev. Prelate
then read at some length the allegations in the petitions
presented against the Bill, which
.ended with stating
that if the present measure were carried the constitution
of the Church would be destroyed, and its episcopal
authority infringed, and that the Church had not con-
sented to the measure. Now he (the Archbishop of
Canterbury) hoped that neither would the Church be
destroyed nor its episcopal authority infringed, and the
best way to secure both from being injured was to vote
in favour of the present measure. The Most Rev.
Prelate concluded by apologizing for having trespassed
so long upon their Lordships' time.
The Bishop of EXETER hoped, as he had been
so personally alluded to, that their Lordships would in-
dulge him with a few minutes' attention. He had not
had the good fortune on the previous occasion to hear
the arguments of the Noble and Learned Lord, or the
Most Reverend Prelate, in favour of the measure. He
appealed to their Lordships whether it was quite fair to
impute motives to him which he had never entertained.
When he had, in perfect sincerity of feeling, declared
that he should be a traitor to the Church if he had not
resisted a measure which he conscientiously believed to
be pregnant with great mischief, was it to be said that
he had charged others, who as conscientiously differed
from him, with being traitors to the Church ?—( Hear,
bear.) If he did not know the fairness, the candour,
and kindly feeling, and the justice of the Most Reverend
Prelate, he would say that a more manifestly unjust
charge, a more cruel accusation had never been made.
While he acknowledged the obedience and reverence
which he owed to the Most Rev. Prelate as his Metro-
politan, and which no man was more inclined to pay, he
must take leave to point out some particulars in which
be respectfully differed from that Most Rev. Prelate.
He believed that he had been greatly deceived. One
thing surprised him very much in the Most Rev. Pre-
late's statement of the merits of the case. He con- 1
sidered the present discipline of the Church as being
peculiarly excellent, and he instanced the few trials of ,
clergymen for misconduct in proof of it ; hut he (the
Bishop of Exeter should not certainly urge that as a
ground for altering the system. He came to a very
different conclusion from that premise. if such was
the practical result of the present system, objectionable
and anomalous as it was, he was surprisedpresent tomefiaLlreit.
a little. The Most
A attemptednnoiAnother
t hti on tong
be
usreptr i asidesed h i
nbly
not
the
Rev. Prelate stated, with respect to Bishops sitting on
the trial of clergymen (having done him the honour of
quoting some expressions of his) that he (the Bishop of
Exeter) had said such a step would extinguish epis-
copal authority, and be a fatal blow to the Church.
Now one of the names attached to the report in which
that observation occurred was that of the most Rev.
Prelate himself.—(Hear, hear.) The question was,
whether the episcopal jurisdiction of the Bishop would
be destroyed if the present Bill was passed. He (the
Bishop of Exeter) believed it would, and although he
feared that he would be in a very small minority in his
opposition to the Bill, it was matter of deep and painful
regret that he was compelled to say lie thought he was
right in the view he had taken of the subject. The
Right Rev. Prelate read several questions put to and
answers given by Bishops in the service at consecration
of Bishops, and contended that if there was to be no
exercise of episcopal jurisdiction, the solemn service at
the consecration of Bishops was nothing more than a
solemn mockery. The same might also be said of the
service at the ordination of Priests. If that ju-
risdiction existed, how ought it to be exercised?
There were but two ways in which it could
be exercised—either arbitrarily, or by that pro-
cess which common equity and justice, and the
analogy of every judicial proceeding pointed out. The
episcopal Church in America exercised that jurisdiction
at this moment by process. What was the meaning of
Church and State? What was the meaning of the
State protecting it--of its acknowledging one particular
body of Christians as the Church of Christ ? By ac-
knowledging it as the Church, they acknowledged their
own duty of carrying into effect the essential parts of
the discipline of that Church, and of giving to the
episcopal jurisdiction such civil sanction as would
ensure the effective exercise of it. It might be said that
the judicial process was not extineuished, but %vas merely
given to the Court of Arches, and that the Dean of the
Court of Arches was the representative' of the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. All he (the Bishop of Exeter)
could say was, that the Dean of the Arches bad no
app j such commission from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
All he had was the ellate urisdicticm,
the original jurisdiction of the Bishops ;i recognisingf,
but this Bill
passed, the exercise of the episcopal jurisdiction would
be taken to the Court of Arches by Act of Parliament.
in which the Archbishop of Canterbury, or
There was one way, and one way only, upon Church
principles,
any one who held jurisdiction under him, could have the
jurisdiction which this Bill proposed to give to him, and
that was by declaring that there should be only one diocese
in England. But the Bill was not satisfied with giving
to the Archbishop of Canterbury or his officers juris-
diction over the whole province of Canterbury, because
it extended it over the whole province of York. He
i
(the Right Rev. Prelate) admitted that t was quite
competent for the State to make one whole diocese, and
one whole province of all England, but then it was to be
recollected that the province of York, when it accepted
the canons of England, entered into a condition 1

that it should have all the rights held by the
Archbishop of Canterbury ; therefore this pro-
position would have the effect of excusing
the province of York from all the duties which it owed
to those canons. Again, by this Bill, there was one
diocese—that of the Isle of Man which was to he
excepted from its operations. Neither that Court, nor
any appeal from it was to be affected by the Bill. Now
he did not like to use the word " absurd," which he had
' already heard made use of, but if there was an occasion
on which he felt he might use it, it would be when he
observed that the Court of York was to be kept up for
appellate jurisdiction, when it was to be declared to
have no longer any original jurisdiction. There were
certainly alterations proposed to be admitted
into the Bill, which were undoubtedly necessary,
and which would have the effect of entirely destroying
the character of the Bill. The Bill proposed to give
the power of excommunication, deprivation, degrada-
tion, and spiritual censure to the Court of Arches, but
then it was forgotten that by one of the Canons of the
Church, that power could only he exercised by the
Bishops. All the Kings, all the Queens, and all the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with all the Commons
that ever lived, could not give that power to the Court
of Arches which this Bill presumptuously proposed to
give—namely, to strip the Clergy of their Ministerial
character in the Lord Jesus Christ. No lay tribunal
whatever could be found capable of the power to de-
grade the clergy to the state of laymen. He challenged
the whole or any of his Right Reverend Friends to say
that such a proposition could he sustained. If, then, the
State could not give the power of degradation and
deposition to any Court, there must be some
tribunal left for that purpose—(Hear)—and none
but the Bishops could compose that tribunal. The
House might as well say it could give to the Court of
Arches the power of making a clergyman, as it could
give to that Court the power of depriving a clergyman
of his clerical character. If the Court of Arches could
dream that they could find Bishops to come forward to
be their mouth-pieces, he was quite sure that that Court
would find none of his Right Rev. and Learned Friends
who would make their appearance to be the mere hang-
man of that Court. If this Bill passed, the main pro-
vision of it would be impracticable, because it would not
be able to carry into effect its own provisions. But it
was said that the discipline of the Church must be dif-
ferent, where that Church was protected by the State.
All that was essential for the welfare of the Church, the
State was bound to uphold. The governmen t of the Church
the State was essentially hound to maintain even by a
reference to the Coronation oath. What would be
the state of the Church supposing this Bill were to
pass ? Its legislative power was already extinct, be-
cause the Church was never permitted to meet for
the purposes of legislation ; all legislation was carried
on by the State. Now, whatever evils might result
from the meetings of a Convocation, or of a Synod, he
must say that the evils resulting from the meetings of
the State, when he saw what laws were proposed
to be enacted, were unquestionably much greater. The
passing of this Bill would be the extinction of as far as
it was possible for man to extinguish the true episcopal
character of the Church of England ; the Church
would be stripped at once of its judicial power, practi-
cally of itslegislativecharacter, and mainly of its executive.
If a measure of this nature were proposed to be applied
to the Church of Scotland the whole of Scotland would
rise en masse against it, and the Union would be proved
to be indeed a parchment one. If a similar interference
were to be proposed with the conference of Methodists
they would agitate England from one end to the other,
and they would be right in so doing. He believed that
in such a case even the peaceableness of the Quakers
would be found most formidable. Thus the Church
of England was the only body of Christians in this
country who could be assailed with impunity. He felt
it his duty to avow these sentiments, at whatever hazard
of having improper motives imputed to him, and he did
not think their Lordships would impute such motives
to him because he candidly and manfully avowed his
opinions. He admitted that evils existed, and he would
be willing to state what he would do to meet these
evils. He would adopt the principles laid down in the
Report of 1832. He would increase the power of the
Bishops. That Report had not only the sanction of
the Most Reverend Prelate who now disapproved of
its recommendation, but he observed the signatures of
the Right Reverend Prelates of London and Bangor,
and by one whom he deeply regretted they had not now
among them, he meant the late Bishop of Durham.
He was sure if that good, that excellent man, had been
now cheering them by his presence, and giving strength
and confidence to those around him, he would so have
addressed their Lordships, or rather he would so have ad-
dressed his Right Reverend Brethren out of this House,
that this Bill would never have been proposed. It was
intended to destroy the authority of the Bishops, and
was in direct contradiction to the Report of 1832. He
would say do not shackle the Bishop with asses-
sors, but leave him to the power 41f choosing
his assistants pro re nata. The Deans and Chapters
present a body of assistants, always ready at his call.
He would also suggest that there should be only one
appeal, and that should be to the Court of Arches ; the
Judicial Committtee of the Privy Council, who were to
have the hearing in the last case, consisted of 12 officers,
not one of whom need be a member of the Church of
England, and only two of whom need be Protestants.
Did not common sense declaim against this ? Such
was his opinion of the effects likely to be produced by
this Bill, and he should move as an amendment that it
be committed that day six months.

The Bishop of LONDON said that the reasons
which had induced him to give his support to the pre-
sent measure, had been so ably urged by the Most Rev.
Prelate„that he should not feel himself called on to
trouble their Lordships at any great length. But he
felt it necessary to do away in a few words with the
force of the authority which had been so feelingly urged
by the Right Rev. Prelate against this Bill, the autho-
rity of one of the wisest, most benevolent, and best men
that ever lived—he meant the late Bishop of Durham.
It was true his name was affixed to the Report, but it
was not less true that there was one portion of that
Report to which he strongly objected ; and although he
would not withhold his signature , because he agreed with
the general principles of it, yet he stated his reluc-
tance to do so on account of its containing one por-
tion of which he could not approve, that which gave
the Bishop the power of sitting as a Judge ; from
this he said he shrunk with dismay ; and his own
experience since he had affixed his signature to that
Report had convinced him of the force of this objection.
Having, as a young man, devoted considerable atten-
tion to the study of Ecclesiastical Law, he thought he
could easily give an opinion on any simple case that
might be brought before him, but he was now convinced
of the impossibility of any one performing the functions
of a Judge who had not devoted his whole time and at-
tention to the study of the laws. Even in the Court
over which the Right Reverend Prelate sometimes
presided, and which possessed a Chancellor who
possessed a greater knowledge of the laws and of the de-
cisions then fell to the lot of many, a decision after great
care and attention had been come to, which, when
submitted to the opinion of an eminent Counsel, was at
once discovered to have a flaw in it, showing that it bad
been come to in direct contradiction to the first princi-
ples of adjudication in Ecclesiastical Courts, What, then,
was likely to be the case with Bishops who, from
the variety of their occupations, cannot devote that
attention to the study of the law unless they take
it from those higher and more important duties which
are of the deepest concern ?—(Hear, hear,) Besides, if
the Bishop sat as judge in his own court, in three cases
out of four he would be obliged to sit as accuser and
judge both. He thought his Right Rev. Friend had
unintentionally confounded the different kinds of juris-
diction which belonged to the episcopal office. The
spiritual jurisdiction, confirmation, ordination could not
be transferred, but beyond that he was of opinion that
the case was different. The power of enforcing spiri-
tual censures, although lodged by the Church in the
hands of the Bishops, had for ages been delegated to
lay judges. Sentence of excommunication might be
passed by the civil judge, and could have no effect until
it had been pronounced by the Ecclesiastical Courts.
The Bishop of EXETER—No, no !
The Bishop of LONDON believed excommunication
to be a species of spiritual censure ; but confining himself
to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishops, it was well
established that they never delegated that authority to
others. He regretted to hear one sentiment from the
Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) on account
of the mischief it would produce in other quarters. The
Right Rev. Prelate said that if the present Bill passed,
it would prove the fact which was frequently in the
mouths of Roman Catholics when they objected to the
Established Church as being an Act of Parliament
Church. Now he would ask the Right Rev. Prelate
whether, in any measure with respect to ecclesiastic ju-
risdiction or discipline which he had brought forward,
he had contemplated bringing it into operation in any
other way than by Act of Parliament ? Now he
contended that so long as the present connec-
tion existed between the Church and the State,
11 he hoped he should never hear any doctrine
advanced for the separation of that union, it would
be inferred that the jurisdiction of the Church
must be derived from the Sovereign.—(Hear, hear.)
Bishop Gibson, who was no great advocate for the in-
terference of the State in Church affairs, held that all
authority and supremacy were derived from the Sove-
reign, as the head of the Church. There were various
matters of discipline which it was at once evident could
not be enforced without the interference of the State
and the powers conferred by it. The present Bill was
merely a measure kr the enforcement of certain duties
as regarded laws and morals, by the Church, and that
was a point in which it never was held that the State
might not interfere. The Bishops and Archbishops, in
1743, held that such was a proper subject for the in-
terference of temporal power. He apprehended that
the Right Rev. Prelate did not mean to insist on the
power of the Bishops to pronounce sentence of ex-
communication without the interference of a com-
petent tribunal.--(Hear, hear.) He should be
sorry to see any clergyman, whether Bishop or Priest,
taking upon himself that most dangerous power, too
liable to be abused, as they had seen it abused by the

clergy of other churches, for the worst purposes. It '
was a proof of the wiom of their Reformers that they
did not assert the power of personal, private, and indi-
vidual judgment, but left It to be decided by competent
tribunals, free from all suspicion, and perfectly impartial.
He was glad to hear the small number of trials of
i cler-
gymen for misconduct that had taken place, and f the
present Bill passed, the number would be much dimi-
nished. The clergymen of the present day were a much
more highly educated class of men, but that was not
the sole reason, but because they would have an inex-
pensive, a speedy, and an impartial tribunal for the
trial of criminus Clergymen. A Bishop could send for
a criminus Clergyman, and advise him to reform his
conduct or retire ; and he believed that practice was
carried on under the present system. But nothing could
he more improper than that a Bishop should have a
private communication with a clergyman upon whose
ease he would have to sit as judge, and about which
he ought to know nothing until the evidence came be-
fore him. The difficulty which he felt was that of trans-
ferring the trial of ecclesiastical causes to the Court of
another Bishop. That certainly weighed heavily on his
ntind, and he wished there was some other mode of
getting over it. But he could not see any measure
which, on the whole, was so likely to effect great good,
with so little of concomitant evil. Not seeing any
serious evil —balancing its evils and advantages, and
thinking the balance greatly in favour of the latter, he
should give it his support. He quite agreed, however,
with the Right Reverend Prelate that the word degra-
dation should not be in the Bill at ail. He had no ob-
jection to the word deprivation being introduced, but it
appeared to him that holy orders once conferred were
indelible. A clergyman might be suspended, and
that had been frequently done by the State, but
he doubted whether any ecclesiastical tribunal
was competent to deprive a man of holy orders, and
therefore the word " degradation" might be fairly
omitted from the Bill. He admitted all the difficulties
of the case, but he thought the objections urged
against it much less than the advantages of the mea-
sure. There might be some modifications of the Bill in
Committee, and while regretting any variation from
that ecclesiastical polity which had been so providen-
tially and so wisely established in that country, be
thought the present open to fewer objections
than any other measure that ad been proposed.
Lord WYNFORD said that notwithstanding the
passing of this Act, the criminal jurisdiction over the
clergy would still be retained in the Bishops, and it
was utterly impossible to suppose that any laymen could
he such good judges of clerical offences as the Bishops,
and questions must arise which alone could come under
the jurisdiction of the Right Rev. Prelates. He ob-
jected to this Bill, and his great objection to it was that
it had all the: mischiefs connected with it which the
present law had. He did not mean to say that
some alteration should not be made in the law
as it now existed, but the alterations proposed by
this Bill were not such as the House ought to enter-
tain. He was quite sure that the expensiveness of the
proceedings, as proposed by the Bill, would be much
greater than under the old law—the inconvenience
would be greater, and he could see nothing recommen-
datory in the measure. If the Bill were to pass no one
would be found to become a promoter of its provisions
—it would fall to the ground a dead letter.

The Bishop of GLOUCESTER said, that having
been accused even by name by a Right Reverend
Prelate, of having been engaged in getting
up petitions against this Bill, he could not consent to
give a silent rote on the occasion ; and when the Right
Rev. Prelate came to look at the matter calmly he
would be of opinion that he (the Bishop of Bristol)
came forward as a just opponent to the Bill. He was
of opinion that the Bill that was proposed before was a
better Bill than this. He was not in town last year
when this subject was discussed in their Lordships'
House, but he admitted that he did address a letter to
each of the Archdeacons of his diocese, begging of
them to learn what were the sentiments of the
clergy of his diocese on the question, and he did
think that the petitions which had been sent up from
his diocese against the Bill constituted a very strong
argument against it. The objections urged by the"
Bishop of Exeter had not been answered. All agreed:
that the object was to have some judicature which
would adequately correct the delinquencies of the clergy,
when they occurred, though he was happy to say those
delinquencies were of rare occurrence indeed. The'
only question there was—what would be the fit-
test judicature ? Certainly this Bill did not
propose to bring forward that fittest judicature. The
Bill began by some enactments, which were directly in
the teeth of some of their canons. This Bill would not
tend to screen the real delinquent, while it would tend
very much to injure the innocent. The Right Rev. Pre-
late teconcluded by saying that he was decidedly opposed
to the Bill.

After a few observations from the Archbishop of
CANTERBURY, the Bill went through Committee
pro forma, and the House adjourned till Thursday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 4.

The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
On the motion of Mr. FRESHFIELD, Lardner's
Divorce Bill was read a third time and passed.
Lord SANDON brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on the Liverpool Churches Bill.
CHELTENHAM IMPROVEMENT BILL.
General LYGON brought up the Report on the
Cheltenham Improvement Bill.
On the motion that it be received,
Mr. C. BERKELEY moved as an amendment, that
the Report be received this day six months. He ad-
mitted that a new Bill was required for the town
of Cheltenham, and therefore agreed to the Bill hav-
ing been read a first and second time ; but it was
entirely on the promise of the Parliamentary agent
that the objectionable clauses should be withdrawn, and
alterations made so as to render the Bill palatable to
the rate-payers. A petition signed by 2,500 persons,
however, had been presented against the Bill. On going
into Committee the Parliamentary agent refused to
fulfil his promise, and he was therefore entitled to ob-
ject to the Bill on that ground. But he claimed the
rejection of the Report on higher grounds, because it
introduced the worst feature of Sturges Bourne's Act,
giving a plurality of votes, thus tending to swamp the
body of rate-payers. On these two grounds he moved
that the Report be received this day six months.
Capt. PEC HELL seconded the amendment.

General LYGON said there had been several divi-
sions in the Committee, but in every case the Hon.
Member had stood alone.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL was satisfied the House
would never reject the Bill on the flimsy arguments put
forward by the Hon. Member for Cheltenham.

Sir C. LEMON said a petition had been presented
to the House against the Bill, but no parties appeared
before the Committee to support the allegations con-
tained in it.

Mr. C. BERKELEY said the reason of that was,
that the rate-payers who had signed the petition could
not afford to pay ten or twenty guineas a day in de-
fending the petition.

Sir -DE LACY EVANS believed that a large body
of the rate-payers, for whose benefit the Bill was said to
be intended, were decidedly opposed to it. One clause
of the Bill which enthorised plural and proxy voting,
was decidedly objectionable.
Mr. CODRINGTON supported the Bill.
After a few woods from Mr. G. BERKLEY,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For the Bill
Against it
Majority for the Bill
The Report was then agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. WARD, the Northern and
Eastern Railway Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. LASCELLES, the Leeds
and Harewood Road Bill was read a third time, as
was the West Beckham Alby (Norfolk) Inclosure Bill.
STOCKDALE AND HANSARD.

Mr. Gurney brought up the Report of the judg-
ment in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, which, on
the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, was
ordered to be printed.
Mr. Palmer, the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod,
summoned the House to the House of Peers, for the
purpose of hearing the Royal assent given by Commis-
sion to several Bills, for which see the Lords' report.
Mr. WYNN complained of the interruption of the
private business by the Commissions arriving at such an
hour ; he hoped care would be taken in future to pre-
vent it.

Mr. HARVEY gave notice that, on this day fort-
night, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to
provide for the better administration of public chari-
ties.—(Cheers.)
Mr. SLANEY gave notice that, on the same day, ho
would move a resolution, pledging the House to pro-
vide public walks in the neighbourhood of large towns.
Mr. PAKINGTON postponed the further pro-
ceedings on the Sale of Beer Bill till the 19th of June.
Mr. GODSON gave notice that to-morrow he would
present a petition from the planters and others connected
with Jamaica, praying to be heard by Counsel against
the Jamaica Bill. On Friday he would move in ac-
cordance with the petition.
Mr. HUME gave notice that on the consideration
of the Report on the Supreme Courts of Scotland Bill,
he would move that the number of Judges in the Court
of Session be reduced from thirteen to nine.
Lord DUNGANNON gave notice, that to-morrow
he would move for a copy of all communications received
by the Secretary for the Home. Department from Lords
Lieutenant of Counties in England and Wales, relative
of the assembling together and arming of large bodies
of people, calling themselves Chartists.
Sir STRATFORD CANNING gave notice that
he should tomorrow put a question to the Government
respecting the blockade at Buenos Ayres.
CANADA.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that as reference was
made last night to certain information received from
Canada by the Government, he hoped directions would
be immediately given for the presentation of those
papers to Parliament.
Mr. LABOLTCHERE could assure the Right lion.
Baronet that the reformation to which he had alluded

would be laid on the table of the House at the very
earliest possible period, in a printed form.
Sir C. E. GREY wished to draw the attention of
the Under-Secretary for• the Colonies to some remarks
which had been made by the Hon. Member for Lis-
keard.—(Cries of " Order.")
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member might put
a question, but could not be allowed to argue the matter.
Sir C. GREY again rose, but was assailed with
cries of " Order," and shouts of laughter from the
Tories. What he wished to state he would put in
the form of a question.—(Cries of " Order.") The
ordinance to which the Hon. Member for Liskeard had
referred, was dated the Bth of April, and entitled the
li,t of the 2d Victoria. That was not yet laid before
the House. The House had before it three ordinances
numbered 45, 46, and 47 of the 2d Victoria, dated the
12th and 21st December. The question which be
wished t,-) ask was, whether the Hon. Under-Secretary
could explain the difference between these numbers.
Mr. LADOUCHERE said he could not explain
the circumstance.—(Laughter.) The ordinance re-
ferred to had been just renewed.
COURT OF CHAINCERY (IRELAND) BILL.
In answer to a question from Colonel Percival, Lord
MORPETH said this f7ill was under the consi-
deration of the Treasury ; but whether he should he
able to introduce it this session he could not at pre-
sent say.