The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-10-21

y Ia
the point which nxsd on his mind since the Commence
meDt Of the agitationthat it ought to be open TO the
accusedto the diocese he canon proposed does thls
DR. ooLBY suggested that 1t would be better for the
PRESIDENT 70 mold the speakers to the rule of order and
That members should waive all claims to courtesy
Mr. TnArpIKh contnued.-It has been proposed that it
should be competent for number Of bishops equal to
that which imposed the sentence to have tho power Of
power OF relief in majority of the bishops he thinks
the proper remedy lies for ater all that has been said
Bishops. - '-' -'N'' "
hev. Mr. Burr, Of Ohio, hopei members of the con-
venon Will not hereafter be confined to any particular
cussion ~ " 'P " ~
was ihsn read by the secretary.
VT WHARTON enquired how the assent provided for
oe than the number asserting to the sentence
Judge CHAMBERS said he willing to adopt the sug
svsons thus thrown out and he would offer substi
House Of Bishops should have the power Of revoking
sentence passed in this way.
Juuge BURNETT said he was opposed to all amendments
exeept the verbal ones He has yet to know that there
Is or VIII be an exigency which would authorize the
church to depart from the principles followed by
courts ofjustce majority always quorum Various
attempts have been made to substitute different rule,
VI dscdiDg Is tho BEST In all There may be- and
ne thinks there is danger that particular may in
hnsnce our judgments, but he denies that in general e
ssion the house has the right to refer to particular
cass Particular aud particular principles must
come nnder general cases aud general principles No
them which amply provided for by general legislation
surely there Is no danger Of the House of Bishops be-
pg 100 enient In of the kind before the house
Does II within the scope of probability that the
Nsaops would be put to the Inconvenience Of being call
az member o! the house harbor the nputaon that
House OF Bishops would screen guilty person He is
opposed to every measure that would change the princ
pie which prevais in all civilized countries for the regu
lstion OF judicial decisions
Mr.. SEYMOUR of New York. said it is not possible to
lay aside all reference the particular OF this do
eese laying down general principes this he consi
something sintended to apply to the particular be-
fore has led to much diversity Of opinion in this
house He holds bishop Suspended no matter for
what should be restored without the
majority Of the House Of Bishops. He believes, when
the house sh have agreed upon vesng this power in
tribunal, and shall have adopted the rule applicable
to the case, in his judgment the whole difficulty would
be at am end We would then have fixed upon trib nal
to decide on the matter, and fixed upon the number
who shall have the power all difficulty would be
end decision from such number Of such a tribunal
wonid be binding by general consent.
Rsv Mr. MASON of Massachusetts,, thought there were
nsuparable difficulties In the Of the proposed
again the would have to the subscs
tnoroughly and some Of them might be unwilling to de-
eide In fact he thought there were nsupsrable diff
outtes Ia the way and he therefore hoped the house
would direct its attention to the amendment the gen.
tlerlan from North Carolina.
iiev Mr. GALLAGHER eDquired II the canon states
what shall constitute quorum Of the court? On being
informed that majority would constitute q quorum,
ne said hs would bs greved to vote against the
and leave an individual without relief.
Mr. WHARTON said he ought to bear in mind that the
for the trial of bishops authorizes seven to form
quorum majority of the might therefore, try
and sentence brother bishop The canon proposed
qu'res majority Of all the bishops entitled to seat
consent to repeal OF the sentence 1t has been said
meeting might be called in the middle of winter acct
dent may prevent number from attending but the
bishop There another consideration Gentlemen who
are preossessed against coming conclusion can ef
done giving to al to and sps
majority of:those who did attend power to remit the
sentence, IN tue same way as majority OF those who
attend court have the power Of nficting sentence
MIR CoNYSGHAM said that would cali attention to
the canon for The trial OF bishops and they would
that the rights Of all guaranteed by it. The form
Of the presentment is laid downthe manner of taking
evdence-provson is made for the defence of the
cused And how he would ask is the restoration pro-
bishops hal have the power of revokDg the sentence
put DO not word In respect to the in which
tney snail 90 so the evidence they shall take, any
thing elss which is provided for in the for the
trial OF bishops Rumor the policy Of the restoration
OF s court and will question Of restora-
ton We ought to provide that something more should
there snail be majority Of he whole number OF those
entitled to seats empowered to reverse q judgment
Mr. GALLAGHER-The gentleman certainly has pre-
ed this in startling light he would enquire
II not possible under this canon for
0s TSs s 10 Tstsrse sorgmsn hin ,h..
rres OF ether casss majority Of quorum, would be
Rev Mr. You've would ask whether it il not proposed
to alter canon 8, Of lS44?
Mr EVANS said It WAS 40 contemplated
Mr. Yovyo asked II 1t is proposed to alter the third
section and on being Informed that it was said he
opposed to tho amendment Mercy and not justice is
Cases may arise where erroneous deci-
sons may be made, and testimony might be- produced
on which judgment would be reversed immediately, il
we permit three or four members to impose sentence
Wehere require majority OF all entitled q
verse It,
Mr. SEYMOUR said that there no injustice in re-
This Canon gives hs accused right appeal and is
Seversef
Mr. MCFARLAND said the psrdoning power should be
exercised under the sanction that required to
impose Che sentence. The difference Is that dgni-
tary OF the church be convicted without his being
guarded against surprise In every respect in the
Other case the sympathes of those having power
Vsks would be appealed to. The spardoning power
should exist in tie heads Of the church but it should
ing in the sharoh so
feuds iu the church. fa case should that feur
members .u should restore suspended bishop, who
tried and convicted In q solemn There js in
hamsn nature desire to pardon than to convict
aad be would not hesitate to that in any where
she welfare OF the church required it, there would be no
bhhops
Mr. EsrE, Of Ohio said-It Is all important, when
judgment is passed that its reversal should 60 to
the world, that it IL judgment which will give satsfac
oa 70 the church at and can this be done in any
way except by majority Of the body having the power
70 r.vsrss the judgment This is in his opinion the
most diHeuit part OF the subject before the house
The question was then taken the amendment and
1t was carrie The following Is the rs amended:
The bishops composing the House of Bishops may a.
isunal special meeting altogether nate any
Jadc which may have been imposed may here.
or @od So FAX To- designate
period q time other specific contogency
Of which uch shall utterly be of further
force or effect Provided that such smisson
ton % be made except meeting Of the House Bishops
Of The said bishops convened by the presiding bishop
sotios Of the time place aud OBJECT Of the given
pers nally to each bishop or left his place
rToed aIso that said remission modification of sentence
to ey nnmbss of said bishops less h,n
lgrtv 81 the whole number entitled the to seat ia the
Houss 81 eshops Aud provided that nothing this
Ssnoh ~ ~ be to repeal alter the provons of
Mr. rHLLp WILLIAMS, Of Va, proposed an amend
ent that no restored bishop shall be placed over the
docess over which he formerly exercised Jurisdiction
without the consent Of such diocese in other words
that suspension shall not be q rscommendatio
VII WILLIAM spoke at consdsrab BILE length in support
OF his proposition In the OF his remarks he said
he ala not mean to say whether bishop diyiuely
appointed or not whether tho title Of bishop could
be- taken from MIN not, that house had decided
and again that bishop might lose his juris