§ The Lord Chancellor, in moving the second reading of the Church Discipline Bill expressed a hope that it would reconcile all the differences which had existed upon the subject. His opinion was, that the most desirable course to pursue, was, to bring all subjects in which clerks were accused of im- 74 proper conduct, before the highest ecclesiastical authority in the country—the court of Arches. Difficulties, however, had been raised against the adoption of that course, and a variety of opinions existed upon it. This bill he trusted would reconcile those opinions, and put an end to all differences upon the subject. The scheme of this bill was, that the Bishop should issue a commission, with notice to the party charged, to enter into the charge for the purpose of ascertaining its truth or falsehood. This was important, as it would enable the Bishop to dispose of the question without litigation. The Bishop had, therefore, the opportunity, if the parties concurred, of deciding the charge on his own judgment. If, however, the party accused objected, the Bishop could establish a tribunal under his own immediate controul, a court consisting of three assessors, one of them a barrister, and therefore, presumed to be competent to give an opinion on all matters of law. In that tribunal, the Bishop would have the power to proceed to adjudication on the charge. He would also have the power of remitting it to the Court of Arches, a practice which he thought the Bishops would most generally adopt, to undergo proper investigation before that tribunal. The sentence of the Court of Arches would receive all the attention which that court gave to all questions, and would adjudicate finally between the two parties, unless they thought fit to carry it to the highest court of appeal in this country—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If the Bishop decided on the charge himself, the party accused would have the power of appealing to the court of the Archbishop. He had doubts whether that should stand a part of the bill. It might, however, be considered in Committee. The bill, though not exactly the measure which he would have recommended, approached so near to his views, that he had no hesitation in. giving to it his cordial support.
The Bishop of Exeterentirely and heartily concurred in this measure. He should not have said a word upon it, had not the noble Lord on the woolsack said, that he liked it, because it approached so near the bill of last year. Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) gave his assent to it, 75 because it was in principle quite adverse to that measure. The difference between the two measures, was, that in this measure the Bishops were the source of jurisdiction, whilst in the measure of last year the Court of Arches was. That difference induced him to support the bill.
Lord Ellenboroughapproved of the bill, but suggested that it ought to contain a power to put out of the ministry any clerk for misconduct which would have excluded him from admission into it. Whether Parliament would agree to give that power, he knew not; but till that power was given, it was in vain to talk of Church extension, or of building new Churches, or of providing additional funds for the support of the clergy, for they would not have that laborious and diligent clergy, which would be the best protection to the Church from all the dangers by which it was encompassed. In the bill then before the House, several amendments might be made, but the present was not a convenient time for proposing them. Perhaps the most convenient course to pursue would be for him to communicate in private to the most rev. Prelate, or to the noble Lord on the woolsack, the amendments which he thought ought to be made. If not, he should suggest them to their Lordships when the bill got into Committee.
§ The Lord Chancellorreplied, and observed, that the machinery of this bill was only for improving the administration of the existing law.
§ Bill read a second time.