The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-23 00:00:00

MAY 23, 1849,,
1641 igif

I IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN TT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 22.

Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
The Apprehension of Deserters (Portugal) Bil 1 passed
through Committee.
The Small Debts (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from certain
of the clergy of the Established Church against the lay
impropriation of the tithes.
AFFAIRS OF THE RIVER PLATE.

The Eatl of HARROWBY asked whether any ar-
rangement had been entered into with General 11 osas
with regard to the affairs of the River Plate, whf Cher
the account of such arrangement which bad applart d in
the newspapers was true, and whether her Majts sty's
Government had ratified such arrangement?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNEi.aaid that a negt
itie-
tion was pending, and was not yet concluded, bu the
hoped it would lead to a satisfactory -result. (In con-
sequence of the loud ttne in which conver.nution
was carried on by a group of persona at the, foot (.1. the
Throne, the answer of the Noble Marquis was almost
inaudible.)
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that if the arra ave.
ment took place upon the bases which he had proposed
it would be satisfactory. He had.;. heard that Modifica-
tions were to be introduced, but he would state :that no
arrangement
.should, be entertained which did pot at:-
lcnowtedge theindependence of the state of.MernteVideia,
which had been guaranteed by this country.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE made a few observa-
tions which were completely inaudible.
SOUTH-WESTERN AND GREAT WESTERN

[PRICE SD.

I by'when e ye n the " thunders .of the Vatican " had ceased
.to trove Cae terrors and effeets which formerly marked
thew., Tafel ;e, then, were not the days in which excom-
Leonica.tiona were much to be feared; but if there was
one thiw to ore to be feared than another,' it was that
tliaz the I iit hop of one Church should have the power to
exc.-oft:lnm aicate the ministers of another communion.
The, Bi ditop of EXETER thanked the Noble Duke
who :had jikust sat down for the sentiments which he
had g-, von expression to. •He rejoiced in the sentiments
of the No: 6lis Duke on the question of excommunication.
and 11; c: trnestly wished that excommunication could
have no i emporal operation whatever; and he wished
that it wa: abolished as havingsuch effect; but he could,
however, , ell the Noble Duke that excommunication
from the ( church, when resorted to on right grounds,
was to be a pproved of. The mere object of locking up in
gaol was t ttterly beside the question, and he hoped it
would plea se Clod to give the parties. against whom it
might be pi .onounced the grace of penitence before the
consequenc s of the sentence .should reach them. The
Church of . .'dnglaud was, a-branch of the Holy Catholic
Church, bu i had no jurisdiction beyond its own limits.
It was the ( luty of the members of the Church of Eng-
land going Within the jurisdiction of another church, it
it was a sot Ind branch of the Holy Catholic Chureh, are
bound to co mply with the laws of that Church. Now, if
these parti as were not members of the Church of Eng-
land, what . right had they to-call upon their Lordships
to interfere .with the Church of Scotland?
Lord BR GLIGHABI—The Episcdpal Church of Scot
land.

The Bisl. top of EXETER=He would call it what he
pleased.--( Laughter and cheers.) If he spoke contrary
to an Act of Parliament, the Noble Lord might have
his words f alma down.
Lord BF kNJGHAM--Cth, no, no!
The Bis) top of EXFIIER—It was one of those offers
ho knew w hich were seldoin accepted, but he hoped the
Noble Lo; xl would allow him to proceed without inter-
ruption. The Episcopal Church of Scotland was only
tolerated , and 'therefore it would be tyranny to legislate
for it. the times of James the First, the Bishops of
the Scott 0 Lurch rejected certain portions of the liturgy
of the Chun :h of England, claiming the right to adapt
it to the it ,vn use. The liturgy which was so adapted
had obi ,;(1, the preference of some of the greatest
names i n f he Church of England, as more conformable
to prim Lti: re purity,. and more in resemblance with that
of Eli' tau .d the Sixth. It was not only many Bishops of
the CL ch of England that preferred the liturgy of the
of Scotland, but the Church which was esta-
Cbtisuhrt ed in America, only since the declaration of inde•
pent fence, adopted that liturgy. His principle had no-
to do with the law of the land, but with the law of
th( Church, which he contended gave these Bishops in
S,
.40tland power to exercise jurisdiction independent of
t' ae law.

Lord BROUGHAM said the Right Rev. Prelate
had taken exception to the designation of a Roman
Catholic Bishop in Ireland as the Bishop of a diocese,
and intimated he should be designated, not of, but in
Ireland.

The Bishop of CASHEL said he could not admit that
a member of the Church of England was bound to unite
in worship with the Church of Scotland unless it held
the truth, no more than they could with the Roman
Catholic Church ; and in making that declaration he
did not consider that he violated the discipline of the
Church in refusing to commune with the Episcopal
Church of Scotland, when he considered it er-
roneous, no more thsn he would in refusing
to commune with the Episcopal Church of
Rome because it was erroneous. With regard to the
prayer-book of Edward VI., it retained a great deal
of the Roman doctrine.' There was in that book
mention of an altar and a sacrifice. The Church of
Scotland made this prayer-book of prime authority,
and went farther thee it by introducing words more
resembling transubstantiation. He contended that
members of the Church of England in Scotland should
have the right of having the service of the Church of
England for their use. The complaint made against the
Church of England was that it had not gone far enough
from Rome; but the charge against the Episcopal
Church of cotland was that it was going back to Rome.
The Earl of MINTO said ho was. lile the Noble
Duke on the cross benches, quite indifferent to the dis-
pute between the parties. Re was against the Episcopal
Church of Scotland being placed upon any other foot-
ing than that of a sect. He did not mean to say
that the Scotch Episcopalians might not labour under
some grievances which it might be well to remove, and he,
thought they should be placed on the same footing as any
other class of Dissenters.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of EXETER, in explanation, said, that as
long as the Church of Scotland was the Established
Church, be would not deny its lawful right to the sta-
tutes of the Established Church.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said he had no inten-
tion, in the few words he wished to address to their
Lordships, to eater into the details of the question under
discussion. Th4J Episcopalians of Scotland did not as-
sume for their 'Church any light or status us the Esta-
blished Chinmh, but they did seek fur it a status as an
Episcopal Church. When he (the Duke of Buceleuch)
saw persols., who were brought up in the universities—
who were noldiug the cure of souls, and who were men
of high !Ararat:ter and talent, when ho saw these men
accept of, their election to becoe'ne Bishops in the Epis-
copra Gaurch of Scotland, and who were distinguished as
its and sot supporters, he could not believe that there was
anything in the doctrine of that Church to favour the
supposition of error which had been attributed to it.—
(11.;ar, hear.) In conciu.bion, the Noble Duke said he
did, not see in what way their Lordships could interfere
in. the matter. •

Lord BROUGHAM said a few words iuexplenation.
The Bishop of OXFORD said he would not have ad-
dressed their Lordships but for what had fallen from his
Right Rev. Friend (the Bishop of Cashel). His Right
Rev. Friend had complained of the mode of administering
the Lord's Supper by the Episcopal Church of Scotland,
and alleged that it was more of a Popish character than
anything else. They had just had a statement that they
were in communion with that Church, and yet his Right
Rev. Friend had considered himself justified in speaking
of it in terms such as he had adverted to. The opinions
held by Bishop Horsley had been alluded to, and it ap-
peared he said that an appointment to a Bishopric in
Scotland was no better passport to the English Church
than an appointment in Mesopotamia. His Right Rev.
Friend (the Bishop of Cashel) said the Episcopal Chure',l
of Scotland was one with which they should not I'.ave
any communion, and ho concluded by quoting the pas_
sage—" Come out from among them, and be
rate." Now, he would ask, was it right ye seek-
that such
language should be held regisrdieg a 'Church with
which they were in communion? It was charged against
the Episcopal Church of Scot;iand, th`..t the prayer used
in administering the Saeratr.ient was. Roman Catholic in
its character; but he (the :3ishop 'Jr Oxford) would con-
tend, that so far from such being tho case, it was a
prayer that the Roman Catholic Church rejected alto-
gether. The Right Rev. Prelate then entered into an
examination of the doctrines held by the Roman Ca-
tholic Church. with refereneei to the Sacrament, and con-
tended that, as regarded, transubstantiation, the Scotch
Episcopal Church held an entirely different doctrine. If,
then, there was a read'aiess to take up offence where no
offence was intended, be would ask what could be more
dangere,us than to let such statements go forth ?—(Hear,
hear.) He would Also remind their Lordships that Mr. '
Drummond had waited that the Scotch communion office
was not the reas an of his leaving the Scotch Episcopal
Church. He thought their Lordships 8 bould be
cautious how ';hey exercised any interference in such a
matter. The people of Scotland hated the Pope for three
reasons:—'irst, they hated him because he was a
Catholic, second, because they believed him to be the
Scarlet 'Lady, and, third, they hated him because he was
a bishel,-.. Any interference the House could exercise
was e.f a legal character, and ho would ask their Lord-
shira, were they prepared, in the Nee of the union be-
tween the two countries, to endeavour to set up any
eP; scopacy whatever against the ancient Episcopacy of
cotland, and the establi:hed, but, as he thought, mis-
taken religion of the country.
The Earl of HARRO WBy said he must agee with
the Right Rev. Prelate who had just resumed his seat,
that it was very difficult to find any ground whatever for
interference. The Charch of England recognised mem-
bers of the Church of Scotland as members of its own
alreadys
h i
Pneat rtvri;dir,
community. and it would bees absurd to give the Bishop
of London, fur example, jurisdiction over a Scotchver
teheery
man, as it was proposed should be exercised
Theo reason of
ap-
pointment of chaplains at foreign ports.
in Scotland often lay was, that they a
when they
the disadvantages under which many Edrelriesdb
tOO
oleregirseelyn
to the liturgy which they originally accepted,
were ordained.
their Lordships had not beean discussing
man of the Church
Earl POWIS wished to suggest to the Hoautsetowohgetrheeart
length the question whether clergy.
under the Episcopalian Church of that country.
Scotland
of England and Ireland could conscientiously serve in
g the argument within limits,as pr ,_
If their Lordships had contented themselves
itwitsiti. bring-
ibeable that they might by that time have got threiugh. the
Committee on the navigation-laws. lie would •nr.et enter
into the question of the status of the Scotch Ipiseopal
Church, because lie thought that this petition was merely
, fishing petition, intended to prejudice their Lordships'
minds iu the case of Bishop :.e.kiinier and Sir William.
Deubar, which were about to come before their Lcrdshi s
tobhoenentoer
pronounced
: Ifhieicerseetadarbptcaepuerdepatoolofne
xf
ttrhbbop:cm. i
as:
rehwt
L.,
I:hoaiLi
Lordship,'
dehe
sass,[hni be.
poet
std.:
in a judicial capacity. There was no occasion to'
prOuP-
cdaicoesethtehieryLhoardd:
Judgeswla,n)ud i,
would
r .isnhod(f
it,
tihadliyat
beeboeuiel
House.
The Earl of GALLOWAY said he felt sensibly that
the petitioners h......,1 a grievance to complain of. end that
they wire perfectly right in representing to the 116zme.
V e practicul tyranny axtreised over them by the Epis-
copal Church of Scotland. The views of the Right
Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford went to un-
church every denomination of Christians except Epis-
copalians, not only in Scotland but in England. no
felt most warmly on this subject, and be was convinced
that, without doing any violence to the - body' of the
Episcopal Church, or to the opinion of the Right Rev.
Prelate, the wishes of the petitioners might be substan-
tially acced.d to.
Lord BROUGHAM replied he did not think that the
Observation of the Noble Earl behind him_ (Eel T.,,...;...