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

ROUSE OF LORDS, June 3.

Their Lordships rte: at Five o'clock.
PROCESS AND PRACTICE (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
TRUSTEE (1850) BILL.
This Bill was re vl a third! tiav, and p4ssed.
NAVY PRIZE BALANCE BILL.
This Rill cvls road a second time.
BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord W lIARNCLIFFE preeent,d a petition from the
Clerk if the Roils in Bankruptcy, preying 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 session. The' Bill as it originally
p.Lsse.(l their Lordships' House abolished the office, and
fkIVQ the holder cornpensaion. The Commons refused to
-abolish the office, but they did away with the duties of
the office. and cousrquentiy ileprired him of his fees.
Lord BROUGHAAI 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 keowini.; 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. _ _

Tfie Bishop of LONDON presented several petitions
with a similar prayer. The Right Reverend Pre-
late then moved the second reading of the Appeal to
the Privy C,:uneil from the Ecclesiastical Courts
in Matters of Doctrine Bill. It was impossib`e to over-
rate the importance to the Church of the acceptance or
the rejeenoe of this Bill. He proposed it with the con-
vietiou that the cause which ho advocated was the cause
of justice and of truth, and that it must ultimately be
successful. He might suffer diseppeintment, but he should
not be disheartened or perplexed, and he should not despair.
The importance of the subject was se grew; that he
might be, induced to trespass upon their Lordships at
some length, but ho would endeavour to compress his
observations. Ho must, however, throw himself on
their Lordships' indulgence, fir he felt himeelt
placed in a most embarrassing situati ,n. 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 cencerned, had none of the attract-
tione of party feeling. He believed it was for the well-
being. 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 from a recent decision, but such was
not the case: That judgment had forced upon him th,-
tTeSsity of devising some measure !teethe removal of
the. grave objections to elle constitution of that tribunal;
but the necessity for scone such alteration had been felt-
long before that decision had been given, and indeed
ever since the abolition if the Court of Delegates. At
the time of the abolition no one had im sgined that such
a case es that which had recently been adjudicated
on could have arisen. In 1847 be had himself in
troduced a B:11 substituting a new court of
ecelesiesticel appeal from the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council ; that Bill was referred
to a Select Commit,ea 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 lateneqs of the
session; it had been re-introduced in 1848 and 1849, and
early this session he had introduced the same Bill, with
is -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;
not that all the bishops there assembled were unani-
mous on the subject, but the great majority of them
were in favour of submitting some measure to Paha-
meat, and he should he contented to attend to any sug-
gestions for amendment, provided they did not interfere
with the principles of the Pell. 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
spirituel 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.," tb-st the. King
shell render justice siritaally and temporally to all.
Causes spiritual, by judyos' spiritual; and causes tem-
poral, by judges temperas" One great advantage of the
Bill was that it did not create or substitute a new court
in matters ece;enastical; but that, in spirit, it only
extended and conrerred 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-
visite, 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 matter;, 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 House
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-
siastical 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
to the King in Chancery, with the ecclesiastical dale-
getes, their decision to be final. But the practice was,
in cases of doubt aid difficulty, to grant one commission
to inquire into, and it requisite, revise the judgment.
['he third Act on the subject was the 27th Henry VIII.,
which declared the King to be the supreme head of the
Church, and directed all appeals to him in that capa-
city. That statute, however, was repealed by the Ist
Elizabeth, c. 1, which while it defined the power of the
Crown in ecclesiastical cases, also laid down those cases
in which the Stat i had not the right to exercise that
power. This statute was repealed ey the 16 h and 17th
Charles 1., and the jurisdiction therefore rested, until a
late period, in the Court of 1) legates, to whom it re-
verted. By the 2d and 3d William IV., however, the
Court of Delegates was abolished, and the appeal to the
King in Privy Council was substituted, with a final de-
cision. The 4th William IV., passed the year atter,
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-
don) would next proceed to point out the principal ob-
jections to the present Court of Appeal. His objection
was to the principle of the court, and not the mode in
which that principle was administered; and therefore be
hoped that no Noble Lord would take offence at his ob-
jections. In his mind, there could hardly be a more tea-
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,
es 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-
bine!. Ho apprehended that iu 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; bat these
views, had been departed from in the constitution of the
present tribunal, and it was therefore he called upon the
House for remedial measuresnot 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 within strictly ecclesiastical 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
collision with the State. Then 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 income
dole gatedn cv
spiritual duties which were
te law. He had no doubt that
themscha r gb e y
those
their Lordships in general, and, indeed, all persons who
°le'to t o d i
had received a gocd education within the pale of the
Church, would be at once able to say if any doctrine pro-
otherwise with that taught by the Church; but questions
pounded on tee great pints of faith was consistent or
ice on other poiuts, 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 nevertheless involved iu their decision
the most important consequences to the Church. How,