occupied if directly devoted to the affairs; Verner, Colonel Wood, G. W. TELLERS. Labouchere, H. List of the NoES. Boldero, H. G. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, Sir R. Peel thought that the reasons, Mr. Labouchere hoped, that the House The House divided on the question, Douglas, Sir C. E. Ellis, J. Clause agreed to. Remaining Clauses agreed to. HOUSE OF LORDS, Wednesday, July 25, 1838. MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time:-Recovery of Tene- Petitions presented. By Lord Wharncliffe, from Wes- HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] Wednesday, July 25, 1838. Bills. Read a second time:-Entails (Scot- Petitions presented. By Mr. A. CHAPMAN, from the Wes COMMONS} (Ireland). 532 603 Church Discipline. {LORDS} would be any difficulty in bringing that Lord Ingestrie fully subscribed to the HOUSE OF LORDS, Church Discipline. to deprive the bishops of a power which Petitions presented. By the Duke of HAMILTON, from Lord HATHERTON, from Staffordshire, and by Lord CLIFFE, from a place in Yorkshire, for the Amendment Lords to the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill were taken into of an Amendment in the Schedule, from which the Lords disagreed, and a Committee was appointed to draw up CHURCH DISCIPLINE.] The Lord Chancellor moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Church Discipline Bill. The Bishop of Exeter rose to put a stop, if possible, to the further progress of a bill which, in his conscience, he firmly believed to be the greatest blow that ever was struck against the Church of England, as a church. The bill professed to effect that which, he contended, it was beyond the competency or the power of any Christian Legislature to effect. The bill, in fact, went to put an end to the existence of any ecclesiastical court having the power to decide causes involving the correction of clerks, except the Court of Arches; it went other but th passec of the Churc traitor He pl should clergy self cr gymar on his the c powe ver which respective -mitted to the other Majesty, act, could sumed to risdiction no hu He would his right ted this othem, when Empture habit the 3 de bed? 249 J The "Will you maintain and set for- spiritual point of view, "and," (said the much as shall lie in you, quietness, right rev. Prelate) "before his master and d peace, among all men; and such my master, I will remind this erring clerinquiet, disobedient, and criminous gyman of his folly or his vice, I will repriyour diocese, correct and punish mand him for it; and if he will not obey ng to such authority as you have the remonstrance, I shall proceed to that l's word, and as to you shall be com- sentence, which this bill tells me I shall by the ordinance of this realm?" not pass-I shall proceed to excommuniin independent authority, the autho-cate him. Then, if this be done, your "God's word," was clearly recog- Lordships in Parliament may pass a bill There was, it was true, a further of pains and penalties against me, you committed to the bishop "by the may deprive me of the seat which I now ince of this realm"-a power to en-hold (but of which I shall never make the authority derived from a divine myself unworthy); you may rob me of my 2. The law of the land only gave see, you may take from me my robe, but ional strength and force to the power my integrity to Heaven I shall maintain the bishop originally possessed "by inviolate." The bill, if it passed, would word of God." What, then, was the work a monstrous injustice. It would e of those bishops' courts that were transfer all that power which properly besought to be done away with? They longed to the bishops of this Church to intended to enforce the spiritual one court, the Court of Arches. Now, er of the bishop, and were as old as he had written to the chancellor of his own stianity itself. They were courts diocese as to what was the uniform pracch, formed for such a purpose, and tice in that diocese with respect to cases d on such authority, whatever their brought before the bishops' court, and that an laws might affect to do, could not gentleman stated that the uniform pracextinguished. When the applicant for tice, so far as he knew-was a practice folsecration was solemnly asked the ques-lowed by the best and ablest men. I which he had read to their Lordships, chancellor of the diocese stated-" Within answered" I will so do, by the help my experience, and I believe always, the God;" and, having thus answered, he bishop has himself presided at the hearing ld not be released by any law that man and the giving of sentence. After the pleas ald make from the sacred obligation have been completed, and the evidence ich he had thereby incurred. Human taken, according to the ordinary forms of might deprive a bishop of his see. In the court, the whole is submitted, with at case he, of course, had no place in the observations of the proctors on both pich to exercise his jurisdiction. But sides, to the bishop; or if there has been maintained, that, without depriving him a hearing by counsel, the bishop has f his see, no human law could prevent always himself been present, and the im from the full exercise of his episcopal bishop has always himself given the senurisdiction. He spoke advisedly; but he tence as judge." Now, the bill, if it poke not in a spirit of defiance, when he were passed into a law, prevented the said, that should this bill become law, he bishop from thus proceeding. The third should not feel himself at liberty to obey clause of the bill set forth, "that all suits its main instructions or directions. To now pending in any ecclesiastical court other laws he would cheerfully conform; (other than the Court of Arches) shall be but this would be a law, if the bill were and the same are hereby removed and passed, that would strike at the very root transferred before the Court of Arches; of the essential discipline of our Christian and the same suits, and all suits for the Church; and he felt, that he should be a correction of clerks now pending in the traitor to that Church if he supported it. Court of Arches, shall there be proceeded He plainly and openly, then, declared, in, either according to the law and forms should this bill pass into a law, that if a and in the manner heretofore in force clergyman in his diocese conducted him- and use in the said court, or in the manself criminally, he would call on that cler- ner directed by this act with respect to gyman to answer to him for his actions, suits hereafter to be instituted, according on his oath of canonical obedience. Over to the discretion of the judge of the said the clergyman's civil state he had no court; and the decisions of the court of power; but he had power over him in al Arches in such suits may be appealed Church Discipline. {LORDS} , and such suits proceeded with bethe judicial committee of her May's most hon. Privy Council, as if act had not passed. Now, he would of the most rev. Prelate, was it ever own in the history of the Church, that court of the metropolitan should have isdiction in provincial cases, except ere the bishop himself was the party cused, in cases of laches or dereliction duty. He spoke most confidently hen he said, that no such practice ever revailed; and he asked his right rev. Brethren, if any of them disputed the octrine, to state the grounds upon which hey founded their opinion; and, if they did not dispute it, he called on them to say how they could agree to a bill which introduced an entirely new and hitherto unknown practice. He knew, that the Archbishop in one point differed, with respect to his authority, from the provincial, until this country threw off its connexion with the Church of Rome, and exercised an original jurisdiction. this was not the case since the ReAnd on what was that oriformation. ginal jurisdiction founded? It was founded on the fact, that the Archbishop was the representative of the Pope, as the head of the Church. It so happened, that some centuries ago the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed jurisdiction in the see of Hereford; but that claim rested simply and solely on the fact, that he was the legate of the Pope. And he must argue, that the supremacy of the Pope having long since been put an end to, the Archbishop of Canterbury could not lawfully, according to the essential discipline of the Church, exercise an original jurisdiction in any diocese whereby he interfered with the power of the bishop. But this bill went further. It attempted to do that which he never supposed, that the most presumptuous Legislature would have insisted on. He considered the Archbishopric of York to be as independent of Canterbury as Canterbury was of York, and yet by this measure suits instituted in the archdiocese of York were to be submitted to the Court of Canterbury. He 14 bolad to know, had the bishops of iven their assent Church Discipline. 608 bishops a majority had assented, not to this bill, but to some measure of a similar nature. But he must say, that that House, in dealing with such sacred rights as this bill affected, ought not to be worked upon by any such proceeding, however worthy the individuals who were parties to it might be. It ought to be clearly proved to their Lordships, that the assent and consent of the parties who would be affected by this bill had been unequivocally given before they agreed to it. No such proof had been afforded; and if any right rev. Prelate stood up and stated, that an assent was given at some particular meeting, he must declare, that in his opinion such was not the way in which assent should be given on so important an occasion. He must further say, that an assent given in such a manner was by no means sufficient. He would ask was there one bishop of the archdiocese of York, who heard the observations he had made, who would make an answer, when he asked of him on what principle known to the Church of Christ had he given his consent, if such consent had been given, to a bill that took from the bishops that power which they possessed by divine authority? It was the object of the ancient temporal law of this land to endeavour to prevent the free subjects of this nation from being harassed by ecclesiastical suits instituted far from the diocese in which they resided. With that view, the 23d of Henry 8th, c. 9, was passed. That statute was introduced just before the Reformation, when men's minds were most alive not only to the corruptions, but to the usurpations, of the Church of Rome. At that time, and before Henry had separated from the Church of Rome, a bill was brought in and passed, which prohibited process from being sued out in the Archbishop's Court, with reference to cases originating out of his jurisdiction. The Archbishop was restrained from calling persons before him in cases occurring in different dioceses, unless where the bishop was afraid of proceeding agained party in his diocese, was pou omission, or had With thes Henry & noble and learned Lord who now presided in the Court of Chancery, and who was Speaker of that House, to observe that the bill to which he had referred was passed when Sir T. More was Lord Chancellor. It was passed under the sanction and authority of that most virtuous man, who, though he yielded up his life rather than recede from his conscientious belief in the supremacy of the Pope, yet, on behalf of the King's subjects, opposed the idea that individuals whose cases might be investigated in the provinces, should be called on to answer in the court of the Archbishop of Canterbury. To the 10th and 11th clauses of the present bill, he felt the strongest objections. The 10th clause enacted, "that when all the several pleas in any such suit shall have been made up, and before any witnesses shall have been examined, but not afterwards, it shall be lawful for the bishop of the diocese to whose authority the defendant may be subject, or if he is subject to the authority of more than one bishop, for the archbishop of the province to enter a noli prosequi in such suit, provided the judge of the said court shall have made such bishop or archbishop a special report, that in his judgment the suit is frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise improper to be proceeded with." Now, the prosecutor might be Heaven knew whom; but the bishop, not being the prosecutor, having nothing to do with the matter as prosecutor, was called on by this clause, at the suggestion of a third party, to enter a noli prosequi. Now he would ask the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, whether it was ever known that a noli prosequi was entered at the instance of a party having nothing to do with the suit? The 11th clause enacted, "That when all the several pleas in any such suit shall have been made up, and before witnesses shall have been examined, or afterwards, it shall be lawful for the judge, on motion in open court, on behalf either of the promoter of the suit or of the bishop of the diocese, to whose authority the defendant may be subject, or, if he is subject to more than one bishop, on behalf of the archbishop of the province, to suspend the defendant from performing any spiritual offices during the pendency of such proceedings; and thereupon it shall be lawful for the bishop of the diocese within which such defendant may be beneficed, licensed, or serving, to provide in the mean time VO. XLIV. {Thin} for the performing the duties of the cure, by sequestration or otherwise, as in the case of non-residence." This, he contended, was contrary to a principle of the canon law, both ancient and modern, which provided that the bishop himself should pronounce sentence in case of suspension or other penal visitation. He should unhesitatingly say, that in point of public policy a more unjust and inexpedient measure never had been presented to either House of Parliament. There was nothing that could more tend to dissolve the connexion between the bishop and his clergy, than to take out of the hands of the bishop jurisdiction over the conduct of the clergy of his own diocese. If the bill passed into a law, he should be obliged to send them to the metropolis for every offence of which they might stand accused. But, apart from considerations of this nature, the importance of which could hardly be overrated, he must call their attention to the fact, that the bill involved most important private interests, and involved them in a manner that gave impunity to guilt, and robbed innocence of its best protection. Could anything be so calculated to work injustice, as that an act of the Legislature should declare, that a man was not to be called to account for real or alleged misconduct in the country where he was best known. The man might live, or the offence might be committed in Durham or in Cork, but the legal proceedings must take place in London. In accusations against the clergy, as against other individuals, but especially in cases affecting the clergy, it was of the utmost moment to know what sort of reputation the accused bore in his own immediate neighbourhood. Surely, it was there, that men could best judge of the probability of charges. If the clergy were deprived of the advantages which a local trial gave them, could anything be easier than for any malicious man, having a long purse, to terrify into submission any neighbouring curate, against whom he might think proper to prefer an accusation, for what country curate would attempt a defence in Doctors' Commons? Having said so much on the merits of the bill itself, he should trouble the House with a remark or two on the subject of authority. The noble Duke opposite, one of the greatest and best of reformers, when he was at the head of the Government in the reign of George 4th, had his attention X |