Lords Sitting of 26 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Tithe Commutation; Inland Bonding.
2a Ecclesiastical Commission.
3a Church Temporalities (Ireland) Acts Amendment; Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland).

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the object of the Bill of which he now moved the second reading was simply to give authority to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in making additional provision for the cure of souls, to give due consideration to the wants and circumstances of the places from which they derived revenues from any lands or hereditaments. The Ecclesiastical Commission Act of 1840 contained a provision similar to this as far as it went, inasmuch as it directed that due provision should be made for local wants out of the tithes arising in the respective localities; and a Select Committee of their Lordships' House had reported in favour of the principle of expending the Revenues received by the Commissioners in the places wherein they had been received, and of attending, as a first duty, to the spiritual wants of the people of such districts. The diocese of Durham, over which he had formerly presided, was very deeply interested in the decision of this question, and, no doubt, other dioceses and parishes in va-
  978
  rious parts of the country were similarly affected. He would, however, illustrate the peculiarities of the case from the circumstances affecting the diocese of Durham, and with which, therefore, he was personally acquainted. The condition of the diocese of Durham was this:—The average population in each benefice or parish in other counties was 1,398, while in the county of Durham the average population was 2,708. The average number of acres in the parishes of other dioceses was 3,277; the average number in the parishes of the diocese of Durham was 7,566. The increase in population in the county of Durham between 1841 and 1851 was 27 per cent; and the increase in Lancashire during the corresponding period was 22 per cent, and in Middlesex 20 per cent. In the five most populous places in the diocese of Durham—namely, Newcastle, Gateshead, Tynemouth, Shields, and Darlington—the population in each parish or district exceeded 7,000; while in Salford, Manchester, and Liverpool, it was in each parish or district not more than 5,400. With these facts before them he thought it was absolutely necessary that something should be done to remedy the great evils which existed in the diocese of Durham. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were abstracting a large sum annually from that diocese—which they applied to the general purposes of the Commission; last year they received no less than £55,000 from it. The consequence was that in those parts of the diocese in which there was Church property, the people were just to that extent deprived of that relief which they would have received if that property had been continued in ecclesiastical hands. The present state of the law was such that it acted very unfavourably indeed against those parts of the kingdom in which there were local claims. This state of things being well ascertained, a large meeting was some time ago held in Newcastle, and a deputation appointed to wait on the Prime Minister. The result was extremely satisfactory. The answer of the noble Lord at the head of the Government was, "It is quite obvious and equitable that a preferential consideration should be given to local claims." To the principle of the Bill now before them their Lordships had already assented. A general Bill had been before Parliament since the 2nd of February in the present year. Five months had elapsed since that date, and it had

  979
  only been read a second time in "another place" last night. The Bill which he now asked their Lordships to read a second time was, in fact, a supplemental measure, to provide a remedy for existing evils, in the event of the Bill now in the Lower House not being passed during the present Session. The promoters thought that those miners and other operatives who, by the sweat of their brow, increased the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, should have their spiritual wants provided for before the money passed into the Common Fund. It might be said that spiritual destitution prevailed in other parts of the country, and that the people in those places would suffer if this Bill passed; but as he still contended that those who provided the revenues had the first right to the benefit of them, and as the passing of the Bill in the other House was a matter of uncertainty, he asked their Lordships to accede to his Motion.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, he felt himself compelled, though reluctantly, to oppose the Motion of the most rev. Prelate, who he knew had strong feelings as to the justice of this measure, but he should be wanting in his duty to the House if he did not frankly but shortly state the reasons which convinced him that the Bill now before the House ought not to be passed into law. The great difference between the Bill before the other House of Parliament and that now before their Lordships was, that the former was a general measure, by which powers were given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to deal more largely and efficiently with Church property, in order to meet the spiritual wants of the whole country; whereas the object of the latter was only to give certain places a claim before all others for assistance from the common fund. He would not venture to say what would be the effect on this fund, but it was clear that to whatever extent certain districts had a preference given to them in the distribution of the funds, other districts which were excluded from that preference must suffer in proportion. Their claims, however urgent, would have to be postponed. The measure of the most rev. Prelate practically created a number of new charges upon the Common Fund without doing anything to increase the resources from which that fund was supplied. The larger measure, contained similar clauses with respect to local claims, but then its other pro-
  980
  visions would tend to increase the value of Church property, and so augment the means at the Commissioners' disposal. He could not approve of these special provisions in favour of local claims being separately enacted, as proposed by the Bill of the most rev. Prelate.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that the Bill should be postponed until their Lordships saw reason to doubt whether the Bill would come up from the other House in time to pass during the present Session.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKwould not object to the suggestion of the noble Earl, provided the present Bill had the precedence.
  EARL GREYsaid, the subject was one which had been discussed on former occasions. Two Select Committees had sat; clauses such as were in the present Bill had passed their Lordships' House, and had only failed to pass the other House through want of time. For some time the diocese of Durham had been suffering grievously from the want of some measure of this kind, because while it remained in abeyance it interfered with the current of private benevolence. In order to prevent the evil from enduring for another year, the right rev. Prelate proposed that this Bill should be read a second time, so that if the larger measure now in the other House failed to come up to their Lordships they might proceed with this Bill. The noble Earl the President of the Council asked his right rev. Friend to postpone the Bill, which the right rev. Prelate was willing to do, upon the understanding that this Bill should be passed if the larger measure should fail. If the noble Earl would give an assurance that the Government would support this Bill in case the other did not come up to that House within a reasonable time, he would heartily concur in requesting the right rev. Prelate to postpone the second reading of this Bill.
  LORD PORTMANobserved that this was a most important measure, and for the first time it was proposed to make it imperative upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to apply the funds exclusively within the districts in which they were raised. The measure before the other House was permissive in this respect. It was decided in 1840 that a Common Fund should be formed, and that the wants of the poorer dioceses should be supplied from the riches of the wealthier dioceses. He strongly objected to

  981
  the imperative principle contained in this measure.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, as the noble Earl the President of the Council had failed to give any assurance in respect to the future treatment of this measure in the event of its being postponed, he (Lord Ravensworth) felt himself called, upon to submit a few observations for their Lordships' consideration. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Chichester) represented the Ecclesiastical Commission there, and appeared to entertain objections to this important Bill, on the ground that it made it imperative upon the Ecclesiastical Commission to give a preference to local claims in certain parts of the kingdom. Now, all that the supporters of the present Bill desired was that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should no longer have the opportunity of making an apology or excuse for not attending to the wants of the local population. The principle of this Bill had been affirmed over and over again by both Houses, not simultaneously but on separate and respective occasions. The terms of the Bill which passed the House of Commons on the 6th April, 1840, were precisely in accordance with the provisions of the present measure. A clause provided that in each case the Commissioners should consider whether the funds raised within a particular diocese ought not to be applied in making exclusive provision for the spiritual wants of that diocese. He saw no reason for refusing to give this Bill a second reading. He did not object to the measure in the House of Commons, but it was one which dealt with a vast amount of property and with complicated interests, and it was doubtful whether it would pass in the present Session. No harm could be done by acceding to the present Bill until the fate of the measure in the other House was ascertained, and he hoped that by assenting to the second reading their Lordships would acknowledge the great principle, that those portions of the kingdom which contributed the largest share to the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have the first claim in the distribution of those funds.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYunderstood that the Bill deprived the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of any discretion in this matter, and made it imperative on them to apply the funds derived from the dioceses of London and Durham in first supplying the wants of those districts. The
  982
  effect of the measure thus would be that not a single sixpence derived from the sale of property in those two dioceses could be applied out of the Common Fund for the relief of destitute places in other parts of the country, at all events until every case of destitution in Durham and London had been first provided for.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, his object was that in a given place, where there was a large population who were earning for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners revenues which now went into the Common Fund, the population there should have their spiritual wants first provided for before the money went into the Common Fund.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that was a principle to which Parliament had repeatedly refused its assent, declaring that the Common Fund should be applicable to the whole country at large. Seeing that a measure on this subject was now before the other House, he thought it would be a work of supererogation to proceed with the present Bill; which he hoped, therefore, would not be pressed.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners received £50,000 a year out of the diocese of Durham, while at the same time he believed that in no county were there more small livings than in Durham or a larger population. The population had enormously increased there, and it seemed but reasonable that the surplus funds derived from the diocese should be applied in providing for the local clergy. The present Bill made it imperative to provide for local wants; and in a diocese like that of Durham, where the local destitution was so great, the population so large, and the livings so small in point of income, it was not unfair that a part at least of the funds derived from the diocese should be applied in relief of its necessities. It was said that in point of practice the Ecclesiastical Commissioners did take the local claims into consideration. But, he was sorry to say, that was not so in his own district. He knew of a case in which application for aid for a population of 5,000 had been made and refused. He should give all the support in his power to the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that as connected by property with the diocese of Durham, he had been asked on a former occasion to give his support to this movement; but he felt incapable of doing so because the measure was a diocesan one,

  983
  and one which he considered too extensive. But in the Bill before the House the measure was a parochial one, and did not assume so extensive a position. It was important that the question should be distinctly understood, and whether the claim was a parochial or a district claim. He thought there was a strong case in favour of a parochial claim; but beyond that he considered that the property of the Church was universal as regarded the whole kingdom, and he did not think that to property arising from one parish a neighbouring parish had any greater claim than a parish in any other part of the kingdom. The parish itself, however, had, in his opinion, a strong and distinct claim. As the Bill was drawn, the word "place" was inserted, and if by that were meant "diocese," he should object to it. If, on the other hand, the Bill was distinctly of a parochial character, and the demand was on the Commissioners for property in the parish itself, then he was prepared to support the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHdrew attention to a discrepancy between Clauses 1 and 2. The first had reference to properties vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and forming part of their property, and was an extension of the principle that was sanctioned by Parliament with regard to tithes. It was also a reaffirmation of the principle laid down in their Lordships' Committee, and embodied in a Bill now in the other House. In Clause 2 there was a very important enlargement and extension, and the property was to be the surplus revenue belonging to ecclesiastical corporations. He thought that the House should be careful not to allow such a nice distinction to exist, for he conceived that by the present measure an endeavour might be made to treat the surplus revenues of ecclesiastical corporations as property not so much belonging to the Common Fund as to the Commissioners. He was afraid, too, that if the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were tied up in the manner proposed the purposes for which the Common Fund was established would be imperilled. Properties would be considered of a local and special character, and the great objects for which the Commission was instituted would be to some extent overlooked. But it was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the Bill, although he thought it would require mature consideration in Committee.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought the noble
  984
  Duke had misapprehended the object and force of these two clauses. He should be as much indisposed as any of their Lordships to place any unnecessary restriction upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with the view of localizing the revenues arising from any particular diocese; but he did not think the Bill as it stood would have that effect. It only rendered it incumbent upon the Commissioners to give a fair and reasonable consideration to local claims. He hoped the Government would pledge themselves, in the event of the larger measure now before the other House being thrown out or unduly delayed, to take up the present Bill. If they agreed to do so, the second reading might be postponed. If not, he hoped the right rev. Prelate who had charge of the Bill would proceed to a division. If he did so, he should vote for it.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there was one great difference between the present Bill and that before the other House—namely, that while the latter was permissive this was imperative as to local claims. The main object of the Bill before the House of Commons was to augment the funds applicable to the whole of England, and he need not state that those funds must suffer if, as proposed by the present measure, favour were shown to particular districts. He was not prepared to give the pledge asked by the noble Earl opposite. The Bill before the other House having been read a second time, he had every reason to believe that it would pass successfully through the remaining stages, and eventually become law; but he did not see how Her Majesty's Government could make themselves answerable for carrying the Bill through the other House, or anticipate what might be the decision of that branch of the Legislature upon this or any Bill. Under these circumstances he trusted that their Lordships would not be forced to a division upon the second reading of the present Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that it was desirable that there should be nothing to prejudice the discussion on the other Bill when it came up to their Lordships; and equally so that there should be no misunderstanding on the subject. As the noble Earl had alluded to the difference between this and the other Bill in respect that the one was permissive and the other imperative, in the recognition of local claims, he had to say that the right rev. Bench had been induced to promise their support to the Bill now before the

  985
  House of Commons upon the distinct understanding that the permissive clause as to local claims should be made imperative. There was another point on which it was important there should be no misunderstanding. He agreed that, in the recognition of local claims, a diocesan division would be too extensive, but he did not think that a parochial division should be adopted. He was prepared to show that in many instances the Church possessed property in one parish, and there was great destitution in another parish in the same place, and he was of opinion that it was proper the destitute parish in the same place should receive due consideration before the funds were carried off to another part of the kingdom. There was some exaggeration as to local claims. It was not proposed to endow the parishes or places which had such claims largely. The utmost that would be done would be to give the clergyman the pittance of £300 a year. It would, therefore, be very unfortunate if it were supposed that the whole of the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission would be dried up because those persons were given £300 a year out of the funds possessed by the Church in their own locality. It was very likely that the Bill in the other House would come to an untimely end, and he should deeply regret if the discontent already raised by the neglect of local claims should grow stronger and stronger. He felt assured that nothing alienated the people so much from the administration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as knowing that they were drawing large revenues from Church property in populous districts in which great spiritual destitution existed, but from which the poor population of the locality was not permitted to derive any benefit. He could not see the difference between tithes and other property in this matter. Where there was large property, and where there was great spiritual destitution, the majority of thoughtful men would concur in the opinion that the Commissioners ought to provide moderately, not exorbitantly, for those localities before the funds were carried off to distant parts of the kingdom.
  LORD BROUGHAMentirely agreed that nothing caused so much discontent as the withdrawing of funds which ought to provide for the spiritual instruction and necessities of the district for the use of other districts. He did not think that the
  986
  provisions of the Bill before their Lordships were compulsory. The parties charged with these duties were not compellable to act—they were only compellable well to consider the question, and to give aid in those cases where urgent necessity could be made out. It was not so much legislative compulsion as legislative sanction and suggestive of such a proceeding. With regard to the Bill now in the other House, he did not share the confident expectation that because it had been read a second time without a division it would therefore pass through all its stages and reach their Lordships' House. He had known in history—he would not say in very ancient history, but in times within the period of legal memory, times since the reign of Richard I., he would not say in whose reign—of a measure of no small importance and of great interest to the community which was read a second time without a division, and by some accident never proceeded a step further. He had looked in their Lordships' Votes and could find no trace of it, and he saw that it somehow or other dropped altogether out of the Votes elsewhere. He could not help thinking that the same fate might attend this measure, and therefore they would do well to be prepared for that event.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEobjected to "place," as an ambiguous term. It might mean a whole district, or the whole country of Durham. The rule ought to be to apply the revenue to the spiritual destitution of the particular parish whence it was derived, and any departure from that rule ought to be mentioned by clear and definite words, such as "or in special cases to an adjoining parish."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, it was very difficult to find a more definite word. If they used the word "parish" it might lead to great injustice, for a mine might be opened on the borders of one parish and the people working it might live in the neighbouring one. The word "place" had been adopted after much consideration.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to ask the most rev. Prelate to postpone the Committee on the Bill for a short time to see what progress was made with the Bill in the other House.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKhad no objection to the postponement of the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEmoved the insertion of a clause to follow Clause 34, as giving to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland power to restore to the parochial clergy of the Diocese of Clonfert and Kilmacduagh a certain portion of the tithe rent charge called the quarta pars episcopalis, and which now formed a portion of the income of the Commissioners. The clergy of every other part of Ireland were in full possession of their tithe rent charges, and it was but just to reinstate the principle in this portion of Ireland. The Bishops of Clonfert had always admitted the right of the clergy to be relieved from this reduction of their incomes under certain circumstances. It might, perhaps, be said that the clergy of Clonfert were not in want of this income so much as those in some other parts of Ireland, but he maintained that that was no good ground for the course that had been taken; and beyond this he was not asking their Lordships to decide that this portion of tithes should be restored, but only that the Commissioners should have power to restore it if they should think fit. His Bill was permissive only, not mandatory. He had heard it said that there was only one clergyman in the diocese whose income was under £200 a year; but this was not the fact; he himself was acquainted with a rector whose income did not exceed £100 a year. He urged upon their Lordships that nothing could be more unwise than to destroy the connection between the parochial tithes and the parochial clergy, and he trusted that the House would adopt the clause.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSreminded their Lordships that the object of this Bill was not to redistribute the revenues which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland administered, or to enable them to deal with any portion of their funds in any new manner; its object being simply to improve the constitution of that Board and its form of procedure. He thought that even admitting for the sake of argument the facts stated by the noble Marquess, this circumstance furnished sufficient grounds for not adopting the clause, and he rested his opposition to it on that ground alone. The tithes of Ireland were originally divided into four parts, one part of which went to
  988
  the rector and one part went to the Bishop. That division had long ceased; but that did not apply to the present case, because this payment had always formed part of the revenues of the successive Bishops of Clonfert.
  THE BISHOP OF DERRYsaid, he felt bound to oppose the clause. These funds were given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the general benefit of the Church. He hoped the noble Marquess would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND REGISTRIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDmoved the omission of the clauses of the Bill relating to Courts of appeal. He had supposed that this was purely an Irish Bill, and had no idea until now that these clauses formed part of it, nor did he think that their Lordships had any notion that such clauses were to be found in the measure. They would alter in a very important way the composition of the ultimate Court of appeal, respecting the doctrines of the Church of England. So important a change ought to have been distinctly notified when the Bill was brought in, and the attention of the House ought to have been called to it. The new proposal might be an improvement or an injury, but, at all events, it effected a considerable change in the present system. As these clauses were worded—and he did not object to propriety of the provision—the Archbishop from whose Court the appeal came could not sit in the Court of appeal. But the consequence would be that there would be a larger representation of the sister Establishment than of the Bishops of the English Establishment. He had another objection to the Bill. If matters of doctrine were now brought before this Court of appeal, the justification of such a proceeding was that the Court was not an ecclesiastical one, exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but simply heard these matters on appeal from the subject to the Sovereign in the last resort, and gave an interpretation of the existing law, which was the proper province of the highest Court of law in the kingdom. But it ought to be clearly understood that this was not an ecclesiastical court, because, if it were such

  989
  a tribunal, its present constitution would be opposed to all the rules of the Church. At present the Court told its own tale. The three English Prelates who now sat there were experts called in to assist the law Lords in these matters, the law Lords deciding the legal points at issue. If, however, the Judicial Committee were reinforced on such occasions by other Prelates of the United Church, as this Bill proposed, there was a danger lest its decisions should be misunderstood, and lest men should suppose that they were called on to accept those decisions as binding on their consciences, instead of being merely an exposition and an interpretation of the law. For these reasons he thought more time should be given for the consideration of these clauses, and therefore moved their omission, in order that they might be made the matter of direct and substantative legislation.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, he must be allowed to express great surprise at the unusual course taken by the right rev. Prelate. Not only was this Bill brought in last year with the sanction of Lord Derby and his colleagues, but the right rev. Prelate on that occasion commented on the very clauses which he now wished should be expunged. The title of the Bill was then precisely the same as now; and these clauses, though not perhaps identical, had the same object in view. The Bill was read a second time on the 11th of June, it had been committed, and the Report had been received; and on each occasion some discussion had taken place upon it. The measure, therefore, had now been five weeks before their Lordships, and had been discussed on three or four occasions. It was a little too much, therefore, to say that due notice had not been given of its provisions; and the demand for further postponement on the 26th of June, when the Bill had to undergo the ordeal of passing through the House of Commons, was rather unreasonable. Then, the clauses which the right rev. Prelate wished to omit, formed the most important part of the Bill, without which it would be almost valueless. There were now four Courts of appeal in ecclesiastical matters—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, sitting with the assistance of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishop of London, in cases which arose under the Church Discipline Act; the Judicial Committee sitting alone in other cases; their Lordships' House, which heard appeals from
  990
  the Queen's Bench, in cases of mandamus, and the like; and lastly, the Court which this Bill purposed to supersede, the Court of Delegates in Ireland, the decisions of which were as final and as binding on the Church, as those of any one of the other tribunals. Now, it had always been deemed advisable that there should be one Court of appeal in all ecclesiastical matters, both for the Churches of England and Ireland, not to mention India and the Colonies, and that was the object of the clauses to which, the right rev. Prelate objected. Why was there on his part this jealousy and distrust of his Irish brethren? No such feelings animated them. They enjoyed the same status as the English Bishops; and he could not at all understand why the right rev. Prelate felt such apprehension at the introduction of one or two Irish Bishops into the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Of course, the Bill did not interfere with the right of the Crown to make Privy Councillors. It only provided that every Archbishop and Bishop, being members of the Privy Council, should, ex-officio, be members of the Judicial Committee. He hoped their Lordships would not agree to this Amendment; because it would be to perpetuate a system, which the object of this Bill was to abolish. He had always believed that it was better to legislate so as to consolidate and cement together the two Churches of England and Ireland, instead of doing aught which might create a distinction between them.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, it was far from the intention of his right rev. Brother to draw any marked distinction between the two Churches; but the objections which he had put forward against those clauses had pressed a good deal upon the right rev. Bench. He (the Bishop of London) however, doubted whether it would be worth while to press the Amendment to a division.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, this Bill in no way affected the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England. Appeals in all ecclesiastical matters under the Church Discipline Act were to the Privy Council, which was on those occasions increased by the presence of every Archbishop and Bishop, being members of the Church of England and Ireland, and also being Members of the Privy Council, and there would be no alteration made in that respect by this Bill. The only alteration proposed was this—that whereas appeals in matters ecclesiastical in Ireland were now made to

  991
  an inconvenient tribunal—namely, to the Court of Delegates in Ireland, under this Bill they would be made to the Privy Council. Therefore, all that was proposed was to abolish the very inconvenient Court of Delegates in Dublin, and enable appeals in ecclesiastical matters in Ireland to be submitted to the Judicial Committee in England, which was the same tribunal to which appeals arising in the Church of England were carried, and thus the united Church of England and Ireland would have, as it ought to have, only one court of ultimate appeal, whereby the decisions in matters of doctrine in the two countries would be uniform. That was a matter which could not create alarm in the mind of any person, and he could not see why there should be any objection raised to this Bill.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he trusted that the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) would not persevere with his Amendment. The course of legislation of late years had been of a character to consolidate together England and Ireland, and he would urge upon their Lordships now not to take a step which would make a distinction between the Churches; for why, he would ask, should the united Churches of England and Ireland be an exception to the general rule? He confessed he could not conceive why the right rev. Prelate should display a feeling of jealousy of the heads of the Church on the other side of the Channel. This Bill merely provided for the abolition of an inconvenient tribunal, and for the substitution of one of a more simple character. He could not resist making those observations in defence of a Church to which he was deeply attached, and expressing the opinion that this measure, if passed, would tend to the advantage of both branches of the united Church of England and Ireland.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned, at a Quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.