The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-26 00:00:00

Y 26, 1839

should make use of his privilege to throw every obstacle in the
*ay of the procelding that evening.
Lord LYNDHURST trUsierl he might be permitted to
mere that the Custody of Infants' Bill go throdgli Ccantreittee
pro forma.
'the Biil was then committed, certain verbal amendments
introduced, and rdered to he reported on Monday.
The Seoteh Prisons Bill was read a third t ime and passed,
after the introduction of some amendments on the motion of
the Earl of GALLOWAY.
The Bishop of EXETER then moved the adjournment of
the Hotise:
Lord HOLLAND said it was a most unusual way of seeking
the discussion of the Bill, to move the adjournment at ten
o'clock, when the House was full and anxious to enter into
the debate.
The Bishop of EXETER would persevere in his motion as
there had been a distinct understanding that the whole of one
evening should be devoted to this discussion, and it was now too
late to enter upon it.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said there must be two parties
to every agreement, and he should like to know what was the
understanding on the part of the other party.
The Earl of DEVON thought the Bill might be proceeded
with that evening ; however lung the Right Rev. Prelate
might speak he should have to reply to him, yet he was perfectly
willing to enter into the discussion.
Lord WYNFORD though, the discussion might proceed.
The Bishop of EXETER would not persist in his motion of
adjournment.
The Order of the Day for the third reading of the above Bill
was that read.
The Bishop of EXETER suggested, as the amendments to
the Bill had not been printed, that before the discussion pro-
ceeded the author of these amendments should explain their
nature to the House.
The Earl of DEVON had no idea that the Right Rev. Pre
late, who had been present at the discussion of many of these
amendments, had been in such a state of ignorance regarding
them. The object of a Bill introduced by the Most Reverend
Prelate on this subject, had been to submit all cases of delin-
quent clerks to the Court of Arches, to this the Right Rev.
Pi elate had objected as interfering with the powers inherent—
the Episcopal Office. He should be sorry to interfere with any
of those powers ; and by the preient Bill it was enacted that
when clerks submitted themselves to the Episcopal jurisdiction
the Bishop might have the authority of suspending privately,
and taking measures regarding the revenues of the benefice; but
when the conduct of the clerk required judicial revision, it was
felt that it would be as well that the Bishop who, in the first
instance, was almost necessarily the accuser, should not also act
as judge, but that function should be exercised by some officer
of the highest authority.
Viscount CANTERBURY had no objection to the second
reading of the Bill. A saving of time and labour seemed to be
.lesirable in those courts. But there was no preventive in the
Bill against malicious slanders against the elegy of the Esta-
blished Church. . The charge, instead of being publicly ex-
pressed, should be communicated to the Bishop of the accused
Aerg) man. A clergyman should not be put in a worse situa-
ion than a iayman. The Bill made two promises in theory,
but it did not make equal practical divisions,; for it hit twenty-
one Secs in Canterbury, while there were but four in Y•irk.
He had a great many objections in detail, but he approved of
the spirit and preamble of the Bill ; but many of its enact-
ments were harsh and severe, amounting almost to injustice.
ite did not think the other House would have time to pets the
Bill this Session.
Lord WYNFORD objected to the Bill, on the ground that
it was totally inconsistent with the preamble. It would be more
expensive than the old law, and it would inflict the great hard-
chin of submitting clergymen to be tried on paper evidence,
without being confronted with their accusers, as men were in
any other class of life. He concluded by moving the third
reading of the Bill that day six months.
The LORD CH A NCELLOR said the present was not
at all his Bill ; it differed altogether from the one he had
introduced, which was to effect real Church discipline, which
could be s6arcely said to exist now. So great was the de-
fects of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which exceeded eighty in
number, that the Commissioners could not define their powers
—for some Of them hail jut isdietion over a single parish. He
objected to that provision in this Bill which proposed to bring
accused clergymen before a secret tribunal. However, he
should be pleased :f the present Bill, though it was much
,deteriorated, compared to his, should effect any of his objects,
even in a minor degree.
The Bishop of EXETER opposed the third reading.
He was astonished to hear the Noble end Learned Lord on the
Woolsack ready to vote for the third reading, thoueh he
had found so many grave faults in the Bill. He wished to
know where suits wi-re to he instituted with a view to obtain
sentences of deprivation. The Court could not be empowered
by their Lordships or any temporal authority to pass these sen-
tences. It was merely a Lay Court, and had authority only by
Act of Parliament. He would contend, that according to
the Canons of the Church of England, sentence of
,-xcommunication should not be pronounced by a lay-
man, and that if it were so pronounced the Church of England
would lose its authority as a Chutch. He trusted he had shown
the absurdities and iniquities (if this Bill were such that it would
not be read a third time and sent down to the other House as
the result of their Lordships' wisdom.
The Duke of WELLING TON would recommend their
Lordships, considering the late hour, to adjourn the debate, as
the subject could not be properly considered to-night.
The Bishop of LONDON would not detain their Lordships,
as he did not think the arguments of the Right Rev. Prelate
required a very elaborate answer, but he trusted he might be
permitted to proceed this evening. The fiscal absurdities, as
his Right Rev. Friend called them, existed in the Bill, which
he had been perfectly willing to pass, provided he could have
introduced his own amendments into it. It was de.
sirable t 3 give a legal validity to an arrangement between
a Bishop and a criminous clergyman, whom it might be desir-
able to get rid of, and this validity was given by one of the
clauses of this Bill. Under the existing law the Bishop had the
power of disposing of the accumulation of sequestered livings,
and this Ei'l gave him no further ower. He was ready to
admit that spiritual jitrisd.ction was inherent in a Bishop,
but for his coercive ju isd.ction he must be indebted to the
State, and these two kinds of jurisdiction had throughout
been confounded by the Right Reverend Prelate. On this
subject he would appeal to the authority of Bishop Jewell,
Bishop Wilson, Bishop Camden. Indeed the appellant juris-
diction which his Right Reverend Friend had entirely over-
looked completely demonstrated the unsoundness of his theory.
He would further quote on this head the authority, of Charles
I. in his answer to the Commisioners at the Isle of Wight,
and to whose great knowledge in ecclesiastical matters justice
had not been dOne. With respect to Consistorial Courts he
knew that great objections existed as to admitting the decisions
of clergymen on questions of law. With regartl to the seve-
rity of the sentence that may be passed on a clergy-
man by a Bishop, it should be recollected that the pro-
ceeding on the part of the clergyman was voluntary, and
that he might demand a trial it he chose. All the
amendments introduced by the Committee had been done so
with a view to mitigating its severity. He felt anxious the Bill
should pass their Lordships' House, and be made known to the
clergy, although he could scarcely hope it should become law
this Session. He begged to return his cordial thanks to the
Noble Earl who had moved the third reading, for the friendly
assistance he had rendered in making the Bill what it was.
After a few words in explanation from the Bishops of Exeter
and London, and from Viscount Canterbury, their Lordships
divided:—