HL Deb 07 September 1841 vol 59 cc495-6
The Archbishop of Canterbury

moved the third reading of the Foreigners Consecration of Bishop's Bill.

The Earl of Radnor

did not exactly understand the grounds upon which this bill had been introduced, and looked upon it as being quite unnecessary and useless.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

said that the bill had been introduced with a view to the better regulation of the congregations of English persons, who may be settled in foreign countries, and more particularly on the shores of the Mediterranean and in the Turkish empire. The bill, it was to be observed, could be put into operation only upon the concurrence of her Majesty being expressed—and it had been introduced with the perfect support of her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

The Earl of Radnor

said that his objection was that the bill was not called for by necessity. It was an enlargement of the act of George 3d, and it assumed that it was unlawful for any Archbishop to consecrate a Bishop without the license of the Crown. It did not appear to him, however, that this was the case. With respect to the consecration of Bishops in England, no doubt the license of the Crown was requisite, but that was required in reference, net to the spiritual affairs of the Bishops, but to their temporalities. This bill, however, related solely to the spiritual matters of the new Bishops proposed to be appointed, and he conceived that it was quite unnecessary.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

said, that several eminent learned persons had been consulted on the subject, and they were all of opinion that such an act as the present was necessary. The law was liable to great doubts and exposed him and others to a charge of acting illegally. To remove these doubts was the object of the Bill. It was brought forward by the advice and recommendation of the law officers of the Crown.

The Earl of Radnor

thought it was somewhat of an anomaly that Archbishops and Bishops, who claimed the right of ordination by virtue of their spiritual succession from the apostles, and down from our Saviour himself, should still consider themselves not entitled to exercise that power without license from the Crown. He would not oppose the passing of the Bill, but he considered it wholly unnecessary.—Bill read a third time and passed.