The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-16 00:00:00

CONSULAR CHAPLAINCIES.

Earl NELSON then moved the second read-
ing of the Consular Expenditure Act Amendment
Bill. He said the object of the Bill was to bring the
chaplains of English congregations abroad under epis-
copal authority.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, no Parliamen-
tary ground had been made out for this Bill. The
Foreign Secretary was the proper person in whom the
appointment of foreign chaplains should be vested, and
upon whom the responsibility should rest. He ww,
however, in the habit of consulting the highest ecclesi-
astical authority in the country on the fitness of the
parties nominated to these appointments.
The Bishop of LONDON said, it was a great anomaly
that these chaplains should not be under any episcopal
control. No person lamented more
_sincerely than he
did that this question had arisen. The facts were, that
a very excellent clergymen of the Church of England,
who had officiated in Madeira for twenty years, had
adopted a closer adhesion to the forms of the rubric,
which gave offence to one party of his hearers, although
he gratified another who encouraged him. The discon-
tented party appealed first to him, and not being satis-
fied with his decision they applied to the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, instead of the highest ecclesi-
astical authority. The Foreign-office communicated with
him, but before he could tak the proper steps to termi-
nate these differences a dispatch was sent out from that
office, authorising a meeting to bo called of the sub-
scribers to the church in Madeira, who elected another
clergyman, but he, under these circumstances, thought
that there was no just cause for revoking the license of
the chaplain, and declined to do so.
Earl MINTO considered the Foreign Minister the
proper person to make these appointments. They should
not forget that the Church of England was not the only
church established in this kingdom. There was the
Church of Scotland, and it was to ba observed that pro •
vision for chaplains of that church was provided for by
the Act which this Bill was proposed to amend, and that
they were entitled to receive salaries under it.
The Bishop. of LONDON said he never intended to
extend his jurisdiction to chaplains of the Church of I
Scotland

Lord EDDISBITRY said that according to the Act of
Parliament regulating foreign chaplains, -a certain por-
tion of the chaplain's salary must be paid by the resi-
dents, and • if so the: Foreign-office was authorised to
supply the other portion. In the case under considera-
tion the salary ceased, as the proportion paid by the
British residents was not forthcoming. The appoint-
ment therefore fell to the ground, and there existed a
necessity which rendered it expedient that steps should
be taken to elect another chaplain, which was done under
the authority of the Foreign-office. The Act of Parlia-
ment he had alluded to regulated their proceedings. The
license of the Bishop was to be only co-existent with
the appointment, and the absolute appointment and
dismissal of the chaplain rested with the Secretary of

State for Foreign Affairs. The license was nothing
more in this case than a testimonial, and the Bishop of
London had no more power to dismiss or appoint
chaplains abroad than he had in the army and navy.
He therefore trusted their Lordships would reject this
Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON said he had never attempted
to dispute the prerogative of the Crown of appointing
these chaplains; but until an Act of Parliament passed,
investing her Majesty's Government with the ecclesias-
tical jurisdiction over these chaplains, he should decline
to withdraw his license until a cause was adduced to
justify such an act.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained that the
Bishop of London had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in
the colonies which he could enforce.
The Bishop of SALISBURY hoped that, under the
circumstances, the Noble Earl would not press his mo-
tion to a division.

The Earl of REDESDALE hoped that the Noble
Lord would not press the Bill at the present moment, as
it would be impossible, at this late period of the ses-
sion, that it could receive the sanction of the other
House of Parliament. He thought that at some future
period their Lordships would sanction the principle of
this Bill.

....._ ____.
Earl NELSON said he would withdraw the Bill, as
it seemed to be the wish of the majority of their Lord-
ships.
The Bill was consequently withdrawn.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 15.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
The amendments of the Lords to the Division of the
Living of Richmond and Kingston-upon-Thames Bill
were taken into consideration and agreed to.
THIRD READING.

The Sheffield and Tinsley Road Bill was read a third
time and passed.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Sir C. KNIGHTLEY presented a petition from
Staffordshire, complaininz of agricultural distress.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE presented a similar petition
from Holbeach in Lincolnshire.

SUNDAY TRADING.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from
certain of the inhabitants of Westminster, against Sun-
day trading.