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

between the operation of this court and that of the
Court of Chancery was idle; because in the case of the
Chancellor, as admitted by the Right Rev. Prelate,
there was no obligation on him to accept the opinion of
common-law judges, whereas the Committee of Privy
Council, and even the Sovereign, would be bound by
the decisions of this, court. The Right Rev. Prelate was
not consistent with himself in the case ; for in a former
Bill, which he had introduced on the subject, he had
made reference to the bishops in doctrinal cases only,
only voluntary, whereas he now sought to make it com-
pulsory. The Right Rev. Prelate said there could be no
court without a lawyer at the head of it ; but what was
the assemblage of bishops proposed by his Bill but a
court, with all the powers of a court, and in the full
exercise of judicial authority ? The twenty-seven
members of that court, however, were to sit without
a lawyer at their head, to hear counsel, and to examine
witnesses, and to deliberate and to decide upon doctrinal
questions. If it was proposed that the decisions of the
twenty-seven members should be unanimous to be
valid, no man more than he (Lord Campbell) would
bow to their decisions ; but the Bill did not require una-
nimity, it merely required that there should be a majo-
rity, end, as the Bill directed the the names of those in
attendance should be recorded, the minority would be
known as di-senters, and it may be held up to the world
as heretic. Under these circumstances he could not hesi-
tate to oppoee the Bill.
The Bishop o 7 LONDON explained. The Bill re-
ferred cases of false doctrine alone to the tribunal consti-
tuted under it.
Lord LYTTELTON felt it to be his duty, as a lay
Member of that House, to support the Bill. The oppo-
sition to the Bill went very much on the question of con-
sequences; but he could assure the House that the risk
of consequences was not all on the one side. The real
meaning and intent of the supremacy given to the Crown
at the period of the Reformation was expressed in the
preamble of the great Statute of Appeals. In one
statute however—not that of appeals—unreserved
power was conceded to the Sovereign to appoint
whom he cho!e to the Court of Delegates. Nevertheless,
the supremacy of the Crown should be construed
according to the general spirit of the statutes passed
at the period in which it was conceded. He maintained
that the royal prerogative was not given to be exer-
cised arbitrarily; but that it was to be exercised in
temporal matters by the temporal authority, and in
spiritual natters by the spiritual power. What he
(Lord Lyttelton) understood by voting for the Bill
was to declare in the first place that the constitution of
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was bad.
No satisfaction could be given to a large body of mem.
bers of the Church by a recent decision of that tribunal;
and what he desired, therefore, to see was a deliberate
consideration of such questions by the great body ot the
dignitaries of the Church, and a well-considered statement
of doctrine on the subject of that breach and on all other
similar subject a.
The Earl of CHICHESTER would vote in favour of
the amendment. He denied that the opposition to the
Bill ea: a party measure. He opposed it not because
he was a supporter of the Government—though ho re-
hoiced the Government objected to it—but beceuse he
ad come to the conclusion that it was dangerous to the
const'tution, not only of the country, but ot the Church
itself.

Lord STANLEY could not resist, in a few words, ex-
pressing his regret that the Noble Marquis should have
thought it necessary not only to object to the provisions
of the Bill, but, on the part of the Government, to put
his veto upon the introduction of any measure of any
description or character purporting or intending to
obviate tf,e acknowledged difficulty and existing evil.
It was notorious that a great and practical evil
existed. That great evil was this—that at this rno•
went the Church of England was placed in a position
more disadvantageous than uny ether religious body on
the face of the globe.—(Hoar.) She had in herself no
authoritative means of declaring, through her recognised
organs and teachers and heads, her doctrines when cases
of heresy arose, or when doctrines were in dispute.—
(Hear.) Nothing was more certain than that at the
time of the Reformation it was in'ended to confirm to
the Church the !Wiest power of authoritatively declarinc
her own doctrines. it was declared in 1552, by his
Majesty, that " out of our princely care to the Church,
and that Churchmen may do the work that is proper
unto them, the bishops and clergy from time to time, in
convocation, upon their humble desire shall have licence
under the broad seal to deliberate and do all such things
as, being mentinue 1 by them and assented to by us, shall
concern the se t:!ed doctrines and dieciplice of the
Church of England as now established."—(Hear, hear.)
It. was impossible that words could be more clear to
show that it was intendei that spiritual body under
the authority of the Crown should from time to time,
not introduce new innovations or fresh argument?, but
should explain and expound the doctrit e and teaching of
the Church of England, and that such explanation
should be intrusted, not to all, but to spiritual persona
only.—(Hear, hear.) He would not enter into the ques•
tion as to the propriety of summoning a convocation.
He would rest contented with the admission of the Noble
Marquis that the present is not a satisfactory tribunal,
and that by changes of legislation the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council might have to decide on
matters affecting the doctrine of the Church of England
when the majority of them might not be members of
the Church. The Noble Marquis and the Noble Earl
had taken a very high tone in speaking of the proposed
new tribunal—one of them saying that it was unconsti-
tutional, and the other that it was a violation of the con-
stitution of the country. Now what was this uncon-
stitutional tribunal? The Noble Marquis the other
day spoke with extreme reverence of the antiquity of
the constitution of New South Wales, and of the
danger of disturbing that antiquity, which was six
or :even years old—(A laugh)—and now it was
said to be unconstitutional to disturb that tribunal of
which the antiquity dated back no further than 1832.—
(Hear, hear.) But it was said the proposed alteration
would interfere with the supremacy of the Crown. Why
the supremacy of the Crown was exercised through the
courts of the Crown, and the Crown Rai bound by the
decision of its courts of appeal, regularly and legiti-
mately constituted. And how were these tribunals con-
stituted? Not by any act of the prerogative, but by the
will of Parliament.—(Hear.) The Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council was as much the creation of Parlia-
ment as the tribunal now proposed by the Right Rev.
Prelate, the object of which was only to aid and assist
in the deliberations of the Judicial Committee.—(Hear.)
Now what were the cases intended to be tried by this
tribunal? Were they most fit to be tried by laymen or
ecclesiastics? The early Reformers thought they came
properly under the cognizance of ecclesiastical and
spiritual persons.—(Dear.) But, said the Noble Earl,
it you give this power to this tribunal, you are giving
the power of establishing new articles of religion.
If so, the Judicial Committee had that power, because
the power to be vested in the now tribunal was the same
• as that possessed by the present.—(Hear, hear.) With
a knowledge of the dangers now threatening the Church,
he deeply regretted that the Noble Marquis had declined
entering into a consideration of the remedy now sug-
gested. He did not sympathise with those who, when
they found the Church of England hampered and tat-
tered by her connexion with the State, were prepared to
separate from her communion. lle could not conceal
from himself the fact, that it their Lordships, by re-
• jecting the second reading of this Bill, should determine
to apply no remedy—should declare) they would do
nothing to remedy the grievance of which Churchmen
loudly and justly complained—that they would run the
risk of separating from the communion of the Church,
so fettered and controlled by the State, a number of its
ablest and most devoted members.—(Hear.) He be-
longed to no party in the Church—he was not one of
those who advocated extreme opinions—he was not
one of those- who- clesirtd to see points which had
been wisely left brour antestars With a certain latitude
brought forward and dognwicaily laid down, and per-
haps unnecessarily excluoing, on one side or the other,
members who inight*Conicientiously hold opinions which
are not emphatically condemned by the Church—(Bear,
• - hear)—but he =did 'say 'this; that it was right that the
Church should- have the 'power through its authorised
• representativesokith'the-articles and teachings and-writ-
ings of the fathers of the Church in their hands, tode-
eClare that such is now, that such ever has been from the
: " commencement,'the doctrine and teaching of the Church;
or, on the, other hand, to declare that such and such a
tiestion is one up on which many sincere clergymen have
entertaited different opinions—upon which the Church
allows& latitude, and has not declared itself in any for-
. e Mal-and authorised
present
Biu manner.—(Cheers.) It had been said
that the
would teed to multiply dissensions
in the Church. Now,he entertained a very different lie did nuopton: elieve that there was the smallest
possibility that
' - ." Is this or has this partieulyarcploinsetthiie:enstpluyndaoruibsitnegd
• doctrine and teaching of the hbisl.respect for
the episcopal bench prevented him from
on such a question there could arise such aeriffveinregnctehaotf
opinion as that there should be fourteen members on
, one side and thirteen on the other.---(Hear, hear.)
a difference in this asof
inproviding for it
There might bemany other
'cases, and he knew of no other way
-except by the authority of the judges who were called
about the un-
r:
upon to decide. But while he
had no
apprehension
• about the supremacy
a
which the Bill proposed
constitutional nature of the
t hthee rownaed b
alteration
more, while he had no fear of the exercise proposed—nay thesed
in the bishops power—nof the
Church of England, ye ,
in voting for the second read-
• ing, he must say that he should see with satisfaction
• some alteration made in Committee which would not
withdraw from the Judicial Committee of the Council
the power of passing a sentence, if, in point of fact, that
appeared to be an important reservation.—(Fleur.) He
would not constitute the bishops a court for the. purpose
.111
of passing their sentence; but he thought the .11wotild
be a great improvement upon the present state ot
things,
and that it was worthy of consideration whether the
bishops of the Church of England might not, with re-
gard to all matters of dectrine and teaching, be placed
precisely upon the same footing upon which, with regard
to matters of law, the judges of the land are placed
when they are called upon to advise their Lordships as
the highest tribunal on any matter of doubt.—(Hear,
hear.) As he would entrust to the judges the interpre-
tation of the civil law, so he would entrust the bishops
of the Church of England with the interpretation of the
Articles of the Church of England, and would receive
with implicit confidence the judgment and authority of
the bishops. It would not be absolutely necessary for
the Judicial Committee to follow the advice so tendered.
Certainly when the opinions of the judges were so ten-
dered their Lordships were guided by them, although
there had been some memorable exceptions. There was
one in particular in which their Lordships were not
guided by the opinions of the majority of the judges;
but in otter cases their Lordships were always in the
habit of being guided by the opinions of the judges,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE—Not always.
Lord STANLEY—As a general rule their Lordships
were in the habit of being guided by the opinions of the
judges, to whom they constitutionally referred; and he
was convinced that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 the
Judicial Committee would be directed by the opinion of