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

CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose for the
purpose of moving that the Church Discipine Bill
be committed. At the close of the last Session a
Bill similar to the present was brought under the con-
ideration of their Lordships. That Bill was read a se-
cond time, but upon the motion for the third reading
it was withdrawn at the suggestion of a Right Rev.
Prelate. The Noble Lord was in hopes that in the
interval some course would have been adopted to put
an end to the evil the Bia was contemplated to remedy,
but such not having been the case he felt
bound to state to their Lordships the nature
of the remedy proposed, and the present law
upon the subject. In making that statement he should
confine himself to the Report of the Ecclesiastical
Commisioners in 1832. That commission was com-
posed of a considerable number of Bishops and Judges
of the greatest eminonco, therefore there was as much
of ecclesiastical and legal authority in that Commission
as could well be collected. The reference to the Com-
missioners was genes ally with respect to the Ecclesias-
tical Courts, and they had to enquire into the power
that existed of enforcing Church discipline. Those
Commissioners stated, that in early times there was an
unlimited power given to the Bishops over the Clergy.
They had the power of removing them, and suspending
them at their pleasure, and that power was increased
by an Act of Heny VII. Such; was the state of the
law up to the period of the Reformation, when great
changes were made upon a demand, that Ecclesiastical
subjects should be administered in Ecclesiastical Courts,
in the same manner as other subjects were adminis-
tered in other courts. The Act of Henry VII. was
now, though still the law, practically repealed. One
of the objects of this Bill was to repeal that Act.
It was impossible that that the law could re-
main longer as it was. The Archbishop's Courts
and the Diocesan Courts were well known. But
their Lordships perhaps did not know that there were
300 other Ecclesiastical Courts, of which it was not
known which had criminal jurisdiction and which had
not—the Judges seldom, if ever, acquainted with the
law ; sometimes with deputies at salaries of 101. 10s.
Were these the kind of Judges to whose discretion was
to be committed the character and property of a class of
men so well entitled to protection as the clergy ?—( Hear,
hear.) Now what was the remedy to be applied? In
1836, a Bill for abolishing all the minor Ecclesiastical
Courts, and concentrating the jurisdiction in the Arch-
bishop's Court, was introduced and approved of by a Se-
lect Committee. The plan of giving the Bishops juris-
diction, with an assessor, he (the Lord Chancellor) con-
sidered absurd and impracticable. The proposition for
a jury of clergymen had excited great opposition among
that body, and in the House of Commons. Their
Lordships must not forget that at the present moment
the jurisdiction of the Bishops was virtually at an end.
If a suit were instituted in the country, the papers
which the Proctors had in the country had to be sent
to the London Proctors for them to ascertain if they
were in that state in which it was proper for the suit
to be proceeded with upon ; and if they were, or when
they were properly settled, they were returned to the
Court or the Proctors in the country, where the suit
was to be prosecuted. Practically, therefore, all the
business was now as much done in London as it would
be if the Bill now before the House was passed into a
law. It was proposed by the Bill to give to the Court
the power of examining witnesses viva vocc upon mat-
ters of fact. That system had been tried in the Court
of Review, and, though that Court had failed in other
respects, yet it had not failed in this. They had the
power in that Court to act on affidavits, also to examine
witnesses viva voce, and to direct issues, which had been
found to answer well. There were many matters of
fact came before the Arches' Court, and the present
Bill proposed giving the power of examining wit-
nesses viva vocc, and also of directing issues.
It was calculated to save expence, and more
certainly insure justice. If their Lordships should
think that not only something was necessary to
be done, but that something should be done speedily,
the question, he apprehended, would be, whether the
measure recommended by the Commissioners or the pre-
sent Bill would be the most eligible. If their Lordships
should think that the objections to be offered to this
Bill were of no weight, he trusted they would give their
sanction to it. If they did, and the House of Commons
passed it into a law, lie should then feel compelled to
call the attention of their Lordships to the former Bill,
which was brought in according to the Commissioners'
Report.