§ House in Committee(according to Order).
§ Bill reported without Amendment.
§ On Question that the Report be received,
§ THE BISHOP OF DOWN moved an Amendment to Clause 4, the object of which, was, he said, to correct a serious evil which interfered most materially with the working of the ecclesiastical system in Ireland. Two large districts, one in his diocese of Down and Connor and the other in the archdiocese of Armagh, were exempt from ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the object of his Amendment was to abolish that exemption. Over those districts neither the Bishop in the one case nor the Archbishop in the other could exercise any ecclesiastical authority. They could not 1346 even hold a confirmation within he precincts of the exempt jurisdictions without the concurrence of the incumbent, nor could they require the incumbent to bring the children of his parishioners to a neighbouring parish to be confirmed. They had no authority over the incumbent; such as the canons of the Church gave them in every other case, with respect to purity of morals or orthodoxy of faith. He put it to their Lordships to say whether this was a time when a system so injurious as that to the due working of the Church should be maintained in Ireland. It was said that to disturb this arrangement would be to interfere with vested rights, but he held that there were no inherent rights which authorized an incumbent to exercise his ministry irrespective of episcopal control, and superior to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, such was totally at variance with the constitution of the Church and the canon law of the land. He contended that the exempt jurisdictions in question were analogous to the case of "peculiars" in England. On the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the jurisdiction of the "peculiars," both contentious and voluntary, had been abolished; and that being so, he conceived he had a right to ask their Lordships to assent to an Amendment of the Bill under consideration, which would effect a similar purpose with respect to the exempt jurisdictions to which he had referred. His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, whom he had felt it his duty to consult on this subject, whose authority would have weight with their Lordships from his high position and character, had been pleased to communicate his opinion to him in writing to the effect that he had always considered exempt jurisdictions as an unmixed evil, and one which he thought it would be as easy as it was desirable to abolish. The light rev. Prelate concluded by moving the insertion of words in Clause 4 to effect the object he had indicated—namely, the abolition of exempt jurisdictions which, he said, were nothing but the usurpations of a dark age.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREopposed the Amendment on the ground that the Bill was one affecting procedure, and interfered with no rights, and therefore it could not deal with the question of exempt jurisdictions. The Amendment would incumber the Bill with another question altogether. The Bill was now in its third stage, and it was not competent to any one 1347 to introduce a few words in addition to a clause which would have the effect of doing away with certain ecclesiastical jurisdictions. The proper course was for the right rev. Prelate to introduce a Bill to abolish exempt jurisdictions, and he was not prepared to say that he should oppose it. As it was, he hoped, the House would support him in keeping this Bill as it stood.
THE BISHOP OF DOWNsaid, that the Bill did interfere with certain vested rights, whereas his Amendment only gave the Bishop his legitimate jurisdiction. However, he would not give their Lordships the trouble to divide.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had as strong an objection as the right rev. Prelate to exempt jurisdictions, but he objected to the Amendment, which did not refer to the Report.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendments made.
§ The Report thereof to be received on Friday next.