THIRD READING. BILL PASSED. (Hansard, 26 June 1860)

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD
moved 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. GERMANS
said, 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 LONDON
said, 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 CRANWORTH
said, 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 BANDON
said, 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.