Page images

The House divided on the original motion. Ayes 81 ; Noes 56: Majority 25.

List of the A Y Es.

Adam, Admiral
Aglionby, II. A.
Aid,bold, 11.
Baines, E.
Ball, rt. hon.N.
Bannenuan, A.
Bellew, U. M.
Bernal, R.
Blake, W. J.
Bowes, J.
Bridgeman, H.
Briscoe, J. I.
Brodie, W. B.
Jirotherton, J,
Campbell, Sir J.
Chalmers, P.
Childers, J. W.

Kinnaird, bon. A.
Laboucbere, II.
Lefevre, C. S.
Lemon, Sir C.
Martin, T. B.
Melgund, Viscount
Mild may, P. St. J.
Morpeth, Lord
Morris, D.
Muskelt, G.
O'Brien, W. S.
O'Connell, J.
O'Ferrall, EL M.
Parker, J.
Parnell, Sir H.
Pechell, Captain
Phillpotts, J.

Clayton, Sir W, R. Redington, T. N.

Conyngham, Lord Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Craig, W. G. Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Crompton, Sir S. Salwey, Colonel

Curry, \V. Somerville, Sir W. M.

Dalmeny, Lord Strangways, J.

Divelt, E. Stock, Dr.

Elliott, hon. J. E. Style, Sir C.

Evans, G. Thomson, C. P.

Pinch, F. Thornely, T.

Pitzroy, Lord Tollemache, F. J.

French, F. Townley, R. G.

Gordon, R. Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Grattan, J. Vigors, N. A.

Hawkins, J. II. Wall, C. B.

Hayter, W. O. Wallace, R.

Healhcote, J. Wnrburton, II.

Hector, C. J. Westenra, J. G,

Ilindley, C. Wood, C.

llobhouse, T. B. Wood, Sir M.

Hodges, T. L. Wood, G. W.

Howtck, Lord Visct. Yates, J. A.


James, W. Maule, hon. F.

Jervis, S. Stanley, E. J.

List of the Noes.

Blackbumc, I. Graham, Sir J.

Blennerhassett, A. Grant, F. W.

Boldero, II. G. Herries, J. C.

Bramston, T. W. Hodgson, F.

Broadley, 11. Hog , J. W.

Bruges, W. II. L. Holmes, W.

Canning, Sir S. Hope, hon. C.
Chandos, Marquess of Hope, G. W.

Chute, W. L. W. Kemble, H.

Clivc, Lord Viscount Knightly, Sir C.

Darby, G. E. Lockhart, A. M.

Eastuor, Lord Visct. Lowther, Colonel

Ellis, J. Lowther, J. H.

Eastcourt, T. Lucas, E.

Parnham, E. B. Lygon,bon. Gen.

Gibson, T. Mackinnon, W.

Gladstone, W. E. Mahon, Lord

Gore, O. W. Nceld, J.

Goulburn, H. Palmer, R,

[blocks in formation]

House in Committee, first Clause agreed


On the second Clause, fixing the salaries of the Commissioners,

Colonel Sibthorp said, he saw no reason why the aggregate salaries of the Commissioners should exceed the sum paid at present to the Postmaster-general, and he had resolved to move accordingly, and take the sense of the House upon it.

Mr. Wallace thought the salary of llie Secretary might be added, but if the question came to a division, he should certainly vote with the hon. Member for Lincoln.

Sir R. Peel was ready to take the sense of the House as to whether there should be any commissioners; but if there were to be commissioners, he would maintain that they ought to be sufficiently remunerated; he therefore could not support the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, because, though perfectly ready to determine that the conduct in chief of the Post-office should be vested in an individual, he was unwilling to seek the attainment of that object indirectly. If the House resolved that there should be commissioners, he thought their remuneration ought to equal that of other commissioners placed at the head of public departments; he should therefore recommend that the Chief Commissioner have 2,000/. a-year, and each of the other commissioners 1,200/., of course still adhering to his original opinion that it would be much better to have one efficient chief officer.

Clause 5, as amended, was agreed to.

On Clause 6, enacting that the person first appointed commissioner may sit in the House of Commons as a Member,

Mr. Hume said, that when the Bill was originally introduced, he strongly pressed his objection to this clause. He did not see the utility, much less the necessity of it, feeling as he did, that the time of the commissioner would be much better occupied if directly devoted to the affairs and arrangements of the Post-office, than in answering questions in that House. He should therefore move, that this clause be struck out.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, according to the proposed plan, there was a necessity to have a Member in that House to represent the office.

Colonel Sibthorp agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that there was no necessity of having a gentleman sitting at the elbow of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a representative of a public office, merely to answer questions, to which, judging from past experience, as regarded Her Majesty's present Ministers, they would in all probability get very unsatisfactory answers.

Sir R. Peel thought that the reasons, upon the whole, preponderated in favour of the head-commissioner being a Member of the House of Commons.

Mr. Labouchere hoped, that the House would agree to this clause, which he thought was the most essential part of the bill.

The House divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the bill. Ayes 69; Noes 37: Majority 32.

List of the Ayes.

Acland,SirT. D.
Adam, Admiral
Aglionby, H. A.
Atchbold, R.
Ashley, Lord
Ball, rt. hon. N.
Haines, E.
Blake, W. J.
Brabazoa, Lord
Bramsten, T. W.
Brodie, W. B.
Brotherton, J.
Campbell, Sir J.
Cavendish, C.
Clayton, Sir W. R.
Clements, Lord Vise.
Craig, W. O.
Dick, Q.
Elliot, hon. J. E.
Estcourt, T.
Finch, F.
Fleetwood, II.
French, F.
Gibson, T.
Gordon, R.
Graham, Sir J.
Grant, F. W.
Grattan, J.
llardinge, Sir H.
Hawkins, J. II.
Ileathcoat, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.
Hodges, T. L.
Hodgson, R.
Hogg, J. W.
Holmes, W.
Hope, hon. C.
Hope, G. W.
Howard, P. H.
Howard, Sir R.
James, VV.
Lemon, Sir C.
Lucas, E.
Martin, T. B.
Melgund, Vise.
Morpeth, Vise.
Morris, D.
O'Connell, J.
O'Ferrall, R. M.
Parker, J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir It.
Pinney, W.
Redington, T. N.
Rice, E. R.
Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Sandon, Lord Vise.
Stock, Dr.
Strangways, J.
Strutt, E.
Thomson, C. P.
Townley, R. G.
Troubridge, Sir E.

[blocks in formation]

Lockhart, A. M.
Lowther, Colonel
Mackinnou, W.
Mahon, Visct.
Neeld, J.
O'Brien, W. S.
Parker, R. T.
Pusey, P.
Rose, Sir G.
Rushbroke, Colonel
Salwey, Colonel
Somerville, Sir W. M.
Thorncly, T.
Trench, Sir F.
Vere, Sir C. B.
Wallace, R.


Hume, J.

Blackburne, I.
Boldero, U. G.
Broadley, II.
Bruges, W. II. L.
Canning, Sir S.
Chalmers, P.
Clive, Lord Vise.
Darby, G.
Douglas, Sir C. E.
Dunbar, G.
Ellis, J.

Gladstone, W. E.
Gore, O. W.
Goulburn, II.
Greene, T.
Hayes, Sir E.
Ilenniker, Lord
Hillsborough, Earl
Ingestrie, Viso.
Kemble, H.
Lascelles, W. S.

Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
The House resumed.

Wednesday, July 25, 1838.

Minutes.] Bills. Read a first time:—Recovery of Tenements; Registration of Electors; Arms and Gunpowder (Ireland); Constables on Public Works; Turnpike Acts Continuance; and Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland). —Read a third time ;—Conveyance of Estates; and Dublin Police.

Petitions presented. By Lord Wharnclipfe, from Wesleyan Mctiiodists of Whitby, Rugelcy, Yoxhall, and various other places, and by the Earl of Devon, from Penryn, for the prevention of Idolatry in India. [A Conference was held with the Commons on the subject of the Lords Amendments to the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, to which the Commons had not agreed, and the result reported to the House.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, July 25, 1838.

Minutes.] Bills. Read a second time:—Entails (Scotland).—Read athird time ;—Turnpike Acts Continuance; Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland); Arms and Gunpowder (Ireland); Administration of Justice (New South Wales); Constables on Public Works.

Petitions presented. By Mr. A. Cbapuan, from the WesIcyan Methodists of Whitby, by Mr. Phillpotts, from Gloucester, and by Colonel Sibtbobp, from Lincoln, against Idolatry in India—By Mr. Hums, from the Distillers of Kilkenny, against the present system of Spirit Licences in Scotland.—By Mr. Wallace, from the Chamber of Commerce of Greenock, for an Alteration in the Trading Companies Bill.—By Mr. G. Knight, from Mac* clesfield, against the Sale of Beer Act.


would be any difficulty in bringing that matter under the consideration of the commission appointed at the commencement of the Session, and to which allusion had been made in the course of the discussion of that evening.

Lord Ingestrie fully subscribed to the doctrine, that it was fit and proper that the son of a deserving officer should derive some benefit in consideration of the services of his father. Entertaining that feeling, he could not abstain from expressing his regret, that the son of Commodore Bathurst, who fell at Navarino, had not yet been promoted. He mentioned the subject thus publicly on the present occasion in the hope that it would attract the attention of the Lords of the Admiralty, and induce them not longer to overlook the claims of an officer whose father deserved so well of his country.

House adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, July 26", 1838.

Sums.] Bill Read a third i

Read a second time:—A te:—Revenue Department!; Securities;

Petitions presented. By the Duke of Hamilton, from Limerick, in favour of the principle, but objecting to some of the Clauses of the Prisons (Scotland* Bill—By Lord Hathcbtox. from Staffordshire, arid by Lord Babbam, from Rutlandshire, against Idolatry in India— By the Earl of Kllrsocl, from Perth, against certain parrs of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord Whabv. cum, from a place in Yorkshire, for the Amendment of the New Poor-law.—By the Earl of Haddington, from Lctth, against the Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland) BilL [The Commons' Amendments to the Amendments of the Lords to the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bin were taken into omderatioo, and severally agreed to with the exception of an Amendment in the Schedule, from which the Lords disagreed, and a Committee was appointed to draw up reasons tor the disagreement, and a Conference with the Commons was ordered.}

Cufacn Discipline.] The Lord Chancellor moved the Order of the Dav 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 IM BOlRvtifM of clerks, except the Court of Arches: it went

[ocr errors]

i i i, " Will you maintain and set formuch as shall lie in you, quietness, d peace, among all men; and such inquiet, disobedient, and criminous your diocese, correct and punish tig to such authority as you have I's word, and as to you shall be cornby the ordinance of this realm?" Vn independent authority, the autho'"God's word," was clearly recogThere was, it was true, a further committed to the bishop "by the ince of this realm"—a power to enthe authority derived ffom a divine The law of the land only gave ional strength and force to the power i the bishop originally possessed "by /ord of God." What, then, was the ■e of those bishops' courts that were sought to be done away with? They intended to enforce the spiritual »r of the bishop, and were as old as stianity itself. They were courts ;h, formed for such a purpose, and id on such authority, whatever their lan laws might affect to do, could not •xtinguished. When the applicant for secration was solemnly asked the quesi which he had read to their Lordships, answered—" I will so do, by the help God;" and, having thus answered, he lid not be released by any law that man aid make from the sacred obligation lich he had thereby incurred. Human r might deprive a bishop of his see. In !it case he, of course, had no place in /lich to exercise his jurisdiction. But 3 maintained, that, without depriving him f his see, no human law could prevent im from the full exercise of his episcopal urisdiction. He spoke advisedly; but he .poke not in a spirit of defiance, when he laid, that should this bill become law, he Jiould not feel himself at liberty to obey its main instructions or directions. To other laws he would cheerfully conform; but this would be a law, if the bill were passed, that would strike at the very root of the essential discipline of our Christian Church; and he felt, that he should be a traitor to that Church if he supported it. He plainly and openly, then, declared, should this bill pass into a law, that if a clergyman in his diocese conducted himself criminally, he would call on that clergyman to answer to him for his actions, on his oath of canonical obedience. Over the clergyman's civil state he had no power; but he had power over him in a

spiritual point of view, "and," (said the right rev. Prelate) "before his master and my master, I will remind this erring clergyman of his folly or his vice, I will reprimand him for it; and if he will not obey the remonstrance, 1 shall proceed to that sentence, which this bill tells me I shall not pass—I shall proceed to excommunicate him. Then, if this be done, your Lordships in Parliament may pass a bill of pains and penalties against me, you may deprive me of the seat which I now hold (but of which I shall never make myself unworthy); you may rob me of my see, you may take from me my robe, but my integrity to Heaven I shall maintain inviolate." The bill, if it passed, would work a monstrous injustice. It would transfer all that power which properly belonged to the bishops of this Church to one court, the Court of Arches. Now, he had written to the chancellor of his own diocese as to what was the uniform practice in that diocese with respect to cases brought before the bishops' court, and that gentleman stated that the uniform practice, so far as he knew—was a practice followed by the best and ablest men. The chancellor of the diocese stated—" Within my experience, and I believe always, the bishop has himself presided at the hearing and the giving of sentence. After the pleas have been completed, and the evidence taken, according to the ordinary forms of the court, the whole is submitted, with the observations of the proctors on both sides, to the bishop; or if there has been a hearing by counsel, the bishop has always himself been present, and the bishop has always himself given the sentence as judge." Now, the bill, if it were passed into a law, prevented the bishop from thus proceeding. The third clause of the bill set forth, " that all suits now pending in any ecclesiastical court (other than the Court of Arches) shall be and the same are hereby removed and transferred before the Court of Arches; and the same suits, and all suits for the correction of clerks now pending in the Court of Arches, shall there be proceeded in, either according to the law and forms and in the manner heretofore in force and use in the said court, or in the manner directed by this act with respect to suits hereafter to be instituted, according to the discretion of the judge of the said court; and the decisions of the court of Arches in such suits may be appealed

607 Church Discipline. {LORDS}

from, and such suits proceeded with before the judicial committee of her Majesty's most hon. Privy Council, as if this act had not passed. Now, he would ask of the most rev. Prelate, was it ever known in the history of the Church, that the court of the metropolitan should have jurisdiction in provincial cases, except where the bishop himself was the party accused, in cases of laches or dereliction of duty. He spoke most confidently when he said, that no such practice ever prevailed; and he asked his right rev. Brethren, if any of them disputed the doctrine, to state the grounds upon which they 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. But this was not the case since the Reformation. And on what was that original 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 submilted to the Court of Canterbury. He should be glad to know, had the lishops of the archdiocese of York given their assent With to this bill? He knew not. But he

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 furthersay, 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 m i lie Archbishop's Court, with reference to cases originating out T lie Archbishop was persons before

of his jurisdiction
restrained ffOIB
lim in caida

of pn

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »