The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-04 00:00:00

SUN, LONDON,

Mr. MONSELL hoped the Hon. and Learned Member
(Mr. Keogh) would assent to the proposition.
Mr. S HEIL said the Hon. Ntember was displaying a
fal,e defcaey, and thought the House ought not to in-
sist upon his serving.
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it 3O
Majority for the motion —47
The House then divided on a motion by Sir CHARLES
DOUGLAS to substitute the name of Mr. Goulburn for
that of Sir John Young.
The numbers wet e
For Sir John Young 75
For Mr. Goulburn 36
Majority f it. Sir J. Young —39
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then moved the se-
cond reading of the Process and Practice (Ireland) Bill,
and gave notice that to-morrow (this day) he should
move that it pass through its remaining stages.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Halr-paat One o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 3.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
PROCESS AND PRAC LICE (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
TRUSTEE (1850) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
NAVY PRIZE BALANCE BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord kV H A RNCLIFFE presented a petition from the
Clerk of the Rolls in Bankruptcy, praying for compen-
sation, in consequence of the diminution of the fees of
his office resulting from the operation of the Bank-
ruptcy Act of last sesiion. The Bill as it originally
passed their Lordships' House abolished the office, and
gave the holder compensation. The Commons refused to
abolish the office, but they did away with the duties of
the office, and consequently deprived him of his fees.
Lord BROUGHAM was glad to explain the reason of
the postponement of the measure which he had intro-
duced to amend the bankruptcy law in February last,
and in which this case was provided for. It had been
delayed in consequence of the illness of the Lord
Chancellor, and knowing he had no chance of carrying
it, he now postponed it to next seesion. He would also
postpone for the present the Masters' Jurisdiction in
Equity Bill, though he still had hopes to carry it this
session: he would postpone the third reading of that Bill
to this day fortnight.
APPEAL TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL FROM
THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS IN MAT-
TERS OF DOCTRINE BILL.
The Bishop of SALISBURY presented several peti-
tions from the clergy in favour of the Appeal from the
Privy Council Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON presented several petitions
with a similar prayer. The Right Reverend Pro•
late then moved the second reading of the Appeal to
the Privy Council from the Ecclesiastical Courts
in Matters of Doctrine Bill. It was impossibe to over-
rate the importance to the Charch of the acceptance or
the rej,ction of this Bill. He proposed it with the con-
viction that the cause which he advocated was the cause
of justice and of truth, and that it must ultimately be
successful. He might suffer disappointment, but he should
not be disheartened or perplexed, and he should not despair.
The importance of the subject was so great that he
might b 3 induced to trespass upon their Lordships at
some length, but he would endeavour to compress his
observations. He must, however, throw himself on
their Lordships' indulgence, for ho felt himself
placed in a most emb irrassing situation. It
was his duty to endeavour to engage their Lord-
ships' attention in behalf of a measure which, so
far at least as he was concerned, had none of the attrac•
tiona of party feeling. He believed it was for the well-
beint of the State that the Church should be permitted
to discharge her functions without let or hind-
rance. It might be objected to the measure he
was supporting that it had resulted from excite-
ment arising f;.om a recent decision, but such was
not the case. That judgment had forced upon him the
necessity of devising some measure for the removal of
the grave objections to the constitution of that tribunal;
but the necessity for some such alteration had bee❑ felt
long before that decision had been given, and indeed
ever since the abolition of the Court of Delegates. At
the time of the abolition no ono had imagined that such
a case as that which had recently been adjudicated ;
on could have arisen. In 1847 ho had himself in i

troduced a Bill substituting a --n;;- ;;;t. of
-
ecclesiastical appeal from the Judicial Committee
' of the Privy Council ; that Bill was referred
to a Select Committee, of which the Noble and Learned
Lord (Lord Campbell) was a member, and had received
the unanimous approval of the Committee. The Bill
had been postponed in consequence of the lateness of the
session; it had been re-introduced in 1848 and 1849, and
early this session he had introduced the same Bill, with
a clause a:tering the composition of the court of appeal.
That Bill had been objected to, and he had taken the
advice of his Right Rev. Brethren on the subject
,of
that particular clause. He had submitted it to the Pri-
mate; they had held meetings, at which 25 bishops had
attended, and the presentation of this Bill was the result;
nut that all the bishops there assembled were unani-
mous on the subject, but the great majority of them
were in favour of submitting same measure to Paha-
ment, and he should be contented to attend to any sug-
gestions for amendment, provided they did not interfere
with the principles of the 8.11. When rightly exercised
and properly practised—the Royal supremacy, as seen
in the connexion between Church and State, is a posi-
tive good as a safeguard against foreign supremacy or
spiritual tyranny. This jewel of the ancient crown of
the realm was once plucked from it by a foreigner, who
placed it in his tiara; but it was claimed and restored
to the rightful owner at the period of the Reformation.
This prerogative is not a personal quality or right of the
Sovereign, which she may delegate to any subject. But
it is, as stated in the 24th Henry 1V.," that the king
shall render justice spiritsally and temporally to all.
Causes spiritual, by judges spiritual; and causes tem-
poral, by judges temporal." One great advantage of the
Bill was that it did not create or substitute a new court
in matters ecclesiastical; but that, in spirit, it only
extended and conferred upon the old court new powers
and authority. It only went to direct the proceedings
of that court in certain cases where unanimity was re-
quisite, and to bring about a uniform result. The first
statute constituting an appeal in such cases was the 24th
Henry VIII, passed A.D. 1532. The statute directed
appeals in cases of wills, matrimony, and divorce, and
other similar matters, and it enacted that these appeals
lay from the archdeacon to the bishops, and from the
bishops to the archbishops; but in cases when the ap-
peal was from a dean, that it should be to the Louse
of Convocation of the clergy. In the first Act con-
stituting an appeal tribunal, the preamble, while it recog-
nised the prerogative of the King as the right and power
to render justice to all parties, at the same time recognised
n express terms the sole fitness of the spirituality, or eccle-
siasttcal body, to render justice in all cases of doubt on
spiritual and divine learning.. The next statute on the
subject was the 25th Henry VIII., cap. 98, passed the fol-
lowing year. That statute enacted that an appeal by
is the King in Chancery, with the ecclesiastical dele-
g rtes, their decision t) be final. But the practice was,
to cases of doubt and difficulty, to grant one commission
to inquire iuto, and it requisite, revise the judgment.
The third Act on the subject was the 27th Henry
which declared the King to be the supreme bead of the
Church, and directed all appeals to him in that capa-
city. That statute, however, was repealed by the Ist
c. 1, which while it defined the power of the
Crown in ecclesiastical cases, also laid down those cases
its which the Slats had not the right to exercise that
power. This statute was repealed ey the 16th and 17th
Charles 1., and the jurisdiction theretoro rested, until a
late period, in the Court if I) legates, to whom it re-
verted. By the 211 and 11 IVilliam IV., however, the
Court of Delegates was abolished, and the appeal to the
Klieg in Privy Council was substituted, with a final de-
cision. The 4th ‘V illism IV., passed the year after,
constituted the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
appointing certain persons to that office--giving them
the power to nominate two other persons as assessors,
and vesting in them the decision of all such cases as
came before the former courts for the same purpose. So
the law stood at this moment. He (the Bishop of Lon-
(1 tu) would next proceed to point out the principal ob-
jections to the present Court of Appeal. llis objection
was to the principle of the court, and not the mode in
which that principle was administered; and therefore he
hoped that no Noble Lord would take offence at his ob-
jections. In his mind, there could hardly be a more un-
objectionable tribunal in all that required impartiality,
acuteness, and firmness in administering the law as it
stood, on the part of the judges, in so far as the dis-
covery of truth, when facts were in question; and as re-
garded the enunciation and extraction of law, no tri-
bunal could be more competent. It was only when that
tribunal came to deal with ecclesiastical questions that it
became objectionable; because it was not constituted in
such cases in accordance with the views of the Church,
as expressed and established in her doctrine and practice,
and because it was not consequently competent to enter-
tain those questions, it was that he objected to this tri-
bunal. He apprehended that in the constitution of eccle-
siastical tribunals, the State and the Church could only
have these objects in view, the solution of difficulties

touching practice and doctrine in a satisfactory manner.
So long as those were the views in respect to their con-
stitution, there was nothing to apprehend; but these
views had been departed from in the constitution of the
present tribunal, and it was therefore he called upon the
House for remedial measures—not merely a remedial
measure, but one to alter and amend that constitution

by its restoration to first principles. In so doing, it
was of the utmost importance to preserve—
first, the original _ state of the doctrine and

discipline of the Church as it was settled at
the Reformation; and, secondly, to keep all purely ec-
clesiastical questions withi❑ strictly eccleaiasticr.l bounds.
The first duty of the Church in such cases was to pre-
serve its doctrine and discipline intact; the second was to

keep them without revolution, and without danger of
cJ)llision with the State. When difficult questions of
doctrine became inevitable, he was of opinion that the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was wholly
incompetent, as a court of appeal, to discharge that duty.
In the first place it consisted of laymen, most of whom
had been probably wholly disqualified for dealing with
such questions by their previous education ; some of
whom might not even be members of the Church. This
was a primary ground of objection to that tribunal.
But he objected to it, also, on the score of their incom-
ptency to discharge those spiritual duties which were
delegated to them by the law. He had no doubt that
their Lordships in general, and, indeed, all persons who
had received a good education within the pale of the
Church, would be at once able to say if any doctrine pro-
pounded on the great points of faith was consistent or
.otherwise with that taught by the Church; but questions
arise on other points, from time to time—points which,
as a general rule, never engaged the attention of the
laity, and which did not often come even before the
clergy, yet which neverthel2sa involved in their decision
the most important consequences to the Church.. How,