Lords Sitting of 11 July 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Inclosure (No. 2); Indemnity; Merchandise Marks.
2a Harbours Transfer; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation; Coal Mines.
3a Lunacy (Scotland); Naval and Victualling Stores; Highways.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BROUGHAM, referring to what he had stated yesterday, said, he had done injustice to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Langdale) in not citing his authority for a Department of Justice. He had strongly recommended it more than once, and the last time he spoke in that House, a short time before his lamented decease, was to urge the adoption of this measure, which he pressed as the more requisite since the establishment of county courts. He (Lord Brougham) wished to move for a Return, placing side by side the Resolution and Address of the Commons of the 12th February, 1857, and the Answer of

  215
  Her Majesty to that Address, promising to give directions that the desire of the Commons should be taken into immediate consideration as its importance demanded. Formerly the mode of obtaining knowledge of what passed in the Commons was by the cumbrous process of a Committee to search the Commons' Journals. But of late the courtesy of that House had placed the Minutes of their Proceedings on our table; so that his Motion for the paper would at once be effectual, and it would appear how long there had been an entire neglect of this subject, whose importance the Royal Answer fully admitted.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that as some doubt existed how far the leave of the Commons extended to any matter beyond their own proceedings, such as the Royal Answer to the Address, his noble and learned Friend would, perhaps, leave the Motion in his hands, as he was about to leave town, and he (Earl Granville) would take care, that the necessary forms being complied with, the object of the Motion should be obtained.
  LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his entire concurrence in this course, which ensured the production of the paper.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose, according to notice, to move an Address for—
  "Copy of a Representation of the Inefficiency of the Irish Constables to prevent or detect Crime, in consequence of the Military System by which they are organized and governed, made to the Irish Government by the Grand Jury of the County of Tipperary assembled at the Assizes lately held in Clonmel:
  "And to ask whether Constables are required to communicate with their superior Officers in Dublin, or elsewhere, before executing a Warrant signed by a Justice or Justices of the Peace in Irish Counties?"
  The noble Marquess said that his contention was that the Irish constabulary were, in consequence of their military organization, however suitable it might render them for the defence of the country from a foreign foe or an insurrection, materially detriorated in their efficiency for the prevention and detection of crime, and in that opinion he was supported, not only by the opinions of the Judges, but by those of every one who was connected with Irish affairs, except the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Chief of the Constabulary. No
  216
  men could be better conducted or more meritorious than the members of the force, but the faults of the system prevented their discharging the duties the performance of which was required of them. He did not believe that there was a general Ribbon conspiracy throughout the whole of Ireland, but cases of Ribbonism occurred here and there; yet it was very significant, that if an extensive society of that nature existed, the constabulary had not succeeded in convicting a single man of that crime of late years, and made no mention of it in their returns. It was also a very startling fact that, according to the last returns, out of 324 cases of malicious incendiarism, for which 61 persons were arrested, only 17 were convicted. It was well known that several murders of the most grievous description had lately been committed; the criminals were generally well known, and yet in many cases they escaped apprehension. It was the fault of the police system that justice was thus defeated. Twenty-three gentlemen of the grand jury of Tipperary had deliberately expressed their conviction that since a military character had been given to the constabulary their usefulness as a domestic force had been impaired. They pointed out that military arms and accoutrements deprived the police of the free use of their limbs, and rendered impossible for them to pursue delinquents over a close or hilly country. To equip the men in that way was as absurd as it would be to send a regiment of dragoons to search for a pickpocket in the alleys of St. Giles's. He had to complain also of the manner in which warrants were executed. It was absurd to require warrants to be sent to Dublin to be backed before being executed in an adjoining county, although the magistrate who had signed them held the commission of the peace for that as well as his own county; and he knew an instance in which the two days' delay thus caused had enabled a malefactor to escape. The motive for maintaining the present kind of force was to have a second army in Ireland; but that was not the original object of Parliament, and if they wanted a body as part of the fighting power of the country, they ought to put it under military law. He wanted to see a constabulary in Ireland which would detect crime, and prevent such a disgraceful scene as was asserted to have recently occurred, where a bonfire was lit upon the very spot on

  217
  which M. Thiebault was murdered, in order to celebrate the acquittal of Halloran. It was due to the peoble of Ireland to say that but for their good conduct there would be ten times as much crime in the country as there was, and that in criminal statistics they would bear comparison with any other population. The Irish constabulary were a fine body of men, but they had been spoilt as constables, and hence the evils of which he complained. He trusted the Government would pay some attention to the complaints of the magistracy of Ireland in this matter.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested two or three trifling alterations in the wording of the Motion, and said that if these were assented to, the Government would not object to the Returns asked for. With regard to the charges which had been previously made against the constabulary, information which he had received went to show that they were unfounded; and the opinion of the Crown lawyers was in favour of the efficiency of the constabulary as police. As to the question raised by the noble Marquess whether it was requisite that the constabulary should communicate with their superior in Dublin before executing in one county a warrant signed by the justices of the peace in another, he had to state that this was done not in accordance with any police regulations, but pursuant to an Act of Parliament, and he was informed that this practice effected a great saving both of time and expense.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, the whole system of government in Ireland was dangerous and unconstitutional to the last degree. The Lord Lieutenant was an autocrat, and the police, his servants, were not governed by the laws of the country, but by what is called a police code, which was a sealed book. If the orders contained in that code were to be acted upon, they ought to be published. As it was, the constabulary were now looked upon as Zouaves rather than as police and it had been shown that they would not act against a foreign enemy, for during the Crimean war not one man of the force, when appealed to, would volunteer for the Guards. In point of fact, the police acted as spies upon the magistrates; their whole demeanour was offensive; and if some change were not made, disastrous consequences would ensue. They would report anything they were
  218
  desired to report; and, for his own part, he would not attach any credit either to their statements or their figures. The whole system was a system of falsehood and lying. He begged their Lordships' pardon for the expression, but he did feel that it was a gross and abominable system of corruption—he did not wish to mince matters—and he declared, that if the system was not changed, it would not be his fault, for he would do his best to make these official crimes known, for it was a crime to charge all sorts of evil to the people of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhoped the Government would consider what steps could be taken to improve the police system; but he did not concur in the sweeping condemnation to which they had just listened.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  Address for—
  "Copy of a Resolution agreed upon by the Grand Jury assembled at the late Special Commission held at Clonmel for the County of Tipperary, relative to the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant: And also,
  "Copy of Correspondence relating thereto:"
  —agreed to.

LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL No. 152.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in moving the third reading of this Bill, said, that a notice of Amendment given by a noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Montrose) rendered it necessary to give a description of this Bill. By the present law the Lunacy Board of Scotland, appointed five years ago, would expire in the course of a few weeks. The Board consisted of two medical paid Commissioners, two legal members (who unfortunately were not paid), and of a chairman; and considerable powers—though as he should proceed to show hardly sufficient powers—were conferred upon that Board, analogous to those conferred on the Board of Lunacy in England. At the time the Act was passed it was thought doubtful whether it would be necessary to continue the Board, and it was therefore provided that at the expiration of five years the Board should cease to exist, but the two medical gentlemen were to be continued permanently, no longer as members of the Board, but as Inspectors General of Scotland, communicating with the Home Se-

  219
  cretary. The powers of the Board with regard to the inspection of asylums were continued to the Inspectors; but the larger powers of the Board, as to the inspection of asylums, was no longer to remain in their hands but in the hands of the Secretary of State. The House might ask, why come to Parliament at the end of five years to continue those powers which Parliament had intended should expire? Various difficulties had been found in the wording of the Act, and principally one which it was intended that this Bill should remedy. It was intended by Parliament that the Board should have very large compulsory powers with respect to the erection of asylums, and nothing could be more distinct or emphatic from the clause of the existing law, which provided for the case of counties or boroughs being recalcitrant or obstinate in providing these asylums, than that it was the intention of the Legislature that the Board should have power to enforce the erection. Parliament, however, did not provide the necessary machinery for enforcing their requisition, and this was one reason why it was thought that increased powers should be given to the Board, and that its existence should be prolonged for a short period. There was, however, one other point. It was obvious that no Lunacy Board could be established without running counter to many local interests, and hence it had called forth great opposition. It had been one duty of the Board to report as to pauper lunatics; and though he believed that the Board had fairly performed their duty upon this subject, a considerable feeling of objection had been raised against them, for it was said that the medical Commissioners acted as Inspectors, and they reported to themselves as the Board. It was further objected that in consequence of there being no payment provided for the legal members the Board substantially consisted of the two medical men, so that the Inspectors reported simply to them. It was, however, but just to the legal members to state, that when any legal point arose, those gentlemen had not shown any remissness. He might observe that this state of things also existed in England, where some of the Board were Inspectors likewise. A Bill had been brought in early this Session by the Lord Advocate; and he must say that the composition of the new Board which the learned Lord proposed was not entirely satisfactory. It had been much objected to, and the
  220
  Lord Advocate had therefore announced that he would abandon his first measure, and bring in simply a continuance Bill, with the sole addition of clauses with regard to the erection of asylums. That was the state of the case at the present time; and it was not till this Bill had reached its last stage that the noble Duke opposite had proposed a clause which would sweep away the medical inspection altogether. He saw no objection to the second Amendment, which he now understood was to be proposed by the noble Duke (the Duke of Montrose) as to the continuance of the Board, though he must observe that the Amendment, if carried, would be in violation of the privileges of the House of Commons, and therefore there was no chance of it being agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEintimated, that he should propose his original and not his second Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: That was to the effect that not only the Board, but the office of Inspectors General should cease at the end of two years; and in fact, that the whole system of lunacy in Scotland should at that period come to an end. He was of opinion, that if their Lordships agreed to such an Amendment, it would be injurious to the public interests, and also a breach of public faith; for one of the Inspectors General (Dr. Brown) had given up a more lucrative situation which he held at the head of one of the largest asylums in Scotland, and he had done so on the distinct understanding that his appointment should be a permanent one. If the noble Duke simply wished to have the subject brought forward again at the end of two years, his object would be secured without his Amendment being agreed to, for there was no doubt that they must before long appoint deputy inspectors.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a.
  On the Question, That the Bill do pass,
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, his Amendment was in form that the 22nd and 23rd clauses of the first recited Act should be repealed. It was felt to be a monstrous thing that the whole of the lunacy affairs of Scotland should be left to two medical men, without any appeal except to the Secretary of State, and it was therefore wished that there should be some arrangement which would render it necessary that this matter should be reconsidered within a short time. His second Amendment, that

  221
  the Board should continue until Parliament otherwise determined, would have virtually secured this; but as that Amendment would be in breach of the privileges of the other House, he would propose his other Amendment in lieu of it.
  Amendment moved,
  At the end of the Bill to add the following Clanse:—"Sections 22 and 23 of the first recited Act and such other of the provisions of the recited Acts as are inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed."
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that if these two clauses continued in force, the two Inspectors would, at the end of two years, have all the power possessed by the Board.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, what he feared was lest anything should occur which would throw them back on the parochial boards. Nothing could be more horrible, and he should oppose anything which would have a tendency directly or indirectly to bring about that result. They must have a body altogether independent. The subject must again come under the revision of Parliament, which was the object of the noble Duke who moved the Amendment; but inasmuch as the Bill as it stood would also have that effect, he hoped the noble Duke would withdraw his Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the Lord Advocate had given him the most positive assurance that he had never given it to be understood that he would introduce a clause which would render the appointments of the Inspectors merely temporary.
  On Question, "Whether the said Clause shall be there added?" their Lordships divided:—Contents 40; Not Contents 31: Majority 9.

  CONTENTS.

  Ailsa, M.

  Romney, E.

  Bath, M.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Normanby, M.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Airlie, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Dungannon, V.

  Bantry, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Strathallan, V.

  Cathcart, E.

  Derby, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Desart, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Bagot, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Churston, L.

  Nelson, E.

  222

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Lilford, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Redesdale, L.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.) [Teller.]

  Congleton, L.

  Denman, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Sondes, L.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Crewe, L.

  Dunfermline, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Fortescue, L. (E. Fortescue.)

  Somerset, D.

  Harris, L.

  Ailsbury, M.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Granville, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Grey, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Minto, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Everaley, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Sydney, V. [Teller.]

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Taunton, L.

  London, Bp.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was inclined to think that with that Amendment it would be better that the Bill should not be passed into law. But as it would come again under the consideration of the House of Commons, he would not then oppose its passing.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the noble Duke's argument might be very conclusive, but it was quite incomprehensible. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had paid great attention to these matters, had expressed his belief that a revision of the present system would become necessary before two years were passed, in consequence of the abuses of the system. The noble Duke himself (the Duke of Argyll) had also acknowledged, that as the measure contained no provision for the continuance of the deputy inspectors, its revision would be inevitable in a couple of years.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLbelieved that the Amendment would bring to a termination not only the Bill, but the system of inspection, which would be a most unsatisfactory result.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEhoped th noble Duke would reconsider his opinion, and proceed with the Bill.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BISHOPS FOR HEATHEN COUNTRIES BILL— [BILL No. 129.]

  SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, the Bill which he had now to ask their Lordships to read a second time was a very brief one, consisting of a single enacting paragraph. He would shortly state the circumstances which rendered it desirable in his opinion that they should give their sanction to such a measure. In the 26th year of Henry VIII. an Act was passed requiring that there should be the licence of the Crown to fill the office of bishop, and the mandate of the Crown to enable the Archbishop of Canterbury to proceed to consecrate the bishops so named. The object was to prevent the intrusion into sees within the dominions of the Crown of Bishops named by the Pope; and it seemed perfectly clear that it was not the intention to limit the power of bishops and archbishops of the Established Church to confer the merely spiritual office of bishop, as separate from exercising the office in one of the sees in the United Kingdom. But when it was thought desirable to appoint now bishops for the United States after the severance of their connection with this country, it was found that the terms of the Act of Henry VIII. were so extensive, that a new Act had to be passed for the purpose of enabling the archbishops and bishops in England to proceed to the consecration of the American bishops. The preamble of that latter Act was the immediate cause of the difficulty which he proposed to remove by the present measure. That preamble declared that it would be unlawful for the archbishops and bishops without the licence of the Crown to proceed to consecrate; and the consequence was that, in the opinion of lawyers, that amounted to a Parliamentary declaration that the power of conveying even the purely spiritual authority of a bishop, without holding a see within the dominions of the Sovereign of England was thus limited. It was, consequently, necessary to pass a new Act with respect to the consecration of the Bishop of Jerusalem, which recited the old one, and gave the form of licence to proceed to the consecration. It was a great exception to the ordinary law of nations, and the result of an arrangement between the Government of England and the Mohammedan Govern-
  224
  ment, by which the consent of the latter was obtained. The whole collective legal powers of a bishop, as distinguished from the spiritual powers, were derived from the Crown, and could only be granted within its own dominions. The Crown could not, he apprehended, grant them externally except by arrangement with the governing power of the foreign country. Of late years the desire of the English people had been to favour all attempts of the Church of England to spread the blessed truths which it had itself received among heathen people. At first there was no wish to subject missions to the control of bishops. No bishops were granted to America as long as it was united to this country. But an alteration of opinion had occurred, and it was found that nothing so effective to spread the truth could be devised as placing over the labourers of the vineyard their own proper head, a bishop of their own Church. The result was that colonial bishops had multiplied until they now exceeded in number the bishops at home. The same spirit led Churchmen to desire to place over the missions abroad bishops of the Church of England, who would lend the whole strength of their authority, and the advantage of their direction to the difficult task of converting the heathen. There was nothing in the words or intention of the Act of Henry VIII. which touched the question. The object of the Legislature was to prevent the intrusion into the sees of England and Ireland of bishops to occupy those sees not named by the Crown. It had nothing to do with the spiritual office or authority. But the Act of Uniformity required that no person should be consecrated to the office of bishop in England or Ireland except by the archbishop and bishops using the office of consecration provided in the Common Prayer Book. One part of that office was a rubric which directed that at a certain point the Queen's licence and mandate should be demanded by the officiating archbishop, and should be read; and it was held by lawyers that the rubric was taken up into the Act of Uniformity by the words in the Act referring to the form of consecration wherein the rubric was contained. There was no intention whatever to limit the power possessed by bishops of the Church of England any more than the power of bishops in every country in Europe. But, as an incidental effect, their power was limited, and they were under restrictions to which Wesleyans and Roman Catholics were not

  225
  subject in regard to sending out missions, with a proper head, perfect and complete. By favour of the Government, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been obtained upon the question whether a colonial metropolitan (such as the Bishop of the Cape of Good Hope and the Bishop of New Zealand), with two other colonial bishops, could consecrate missionary bishops without the licence and mandate of the Crown, and their opinion was affirmative. But it was inconvenient to be forced to have recourse to that mode. There must be two bishops present with the metropolitan. They were placed at great distances, sometimes 400 and 500 miles apart. Great expense must be incurred, and often a delay of one or two years before consecration could take place. It was, further, a great safeguard to bring the bishops sent into heathendom as much as possible into connection with the mother Church, and they were far more under influence and control when consecrated by the archbishop and bishops than when sent out from these colonial centres. For these reasons it was desirable that the difficulties in the way of consecration to the purely spiritual office should be removed. Even within the dominions of the Queen recent legislation had set free the colonial bishops themselves from these requirements, and at this moment the Canadian clergy and laity elected their own bishops and proceeded to consecration without the licence or mandate of the Crown. If the Church was thus set free within the Queen's dominions, how much stronger was the case when, as he submitted, no conceivable evil could arise from putting an end to the restriction. His reason for making this proposal was no theoretical setting free of the Church—he had a direct practical object in view. Two years ago a large sum of money was raised in order to establish a mission in Central Africa, follow up the discoveries of Dr. Livingstone, suppress the slave trade, and propagate Christ's Gospel there. A bishop was consecrated, a settlement formed on the high grounds of Central South Africa, with a great gathering of people round; and in a letter which he had recently received Dr. Livingstone stated that all his expectations were being fulfilled; and that if the mission could only be maintained for a short time longer, the slave trade would be stopped, and the whole settlement would become entirely self-supporting. But the bishop died of a fever, not having lived in vain, and Dr.
  226
  Livingstone earnestly urged the importance of losing no time in appointing his successor. There was other testimony to the same effect; but it would not be possible to comply with these wishes unless the existing difficulties in regard to consecration could be surmounted. This matter touched not the supremacy of the Crown. The Church of England was incidentally prevented from exercising a purely spiritual power, which for every reason she ought to be at liberty to use, in order to enable her to discharge her duty as a missionary Church, and set her free for the great work before her. The Bill which he now proposed to their Lordships to read a second time had, for its object, to remove from the Church of England those shackles which at present so much impeded her usefulness.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORfelt it his duty to give the most earnest opposition to this Bill, which was not requisite for the purpose of enabling the Church to perform the great work of piety and charity mentioned by the right rev. Prelate. There was no need of any enactment beyond those already in existence for the purpose of constituting bishoprics in heathen or foreign countries; and he regarded this Bill as one of the first steps taken to assail and remove the supremacy of the Crown, and as a serious attempt to affect the relations between Church and State. He begged their Lordships to oppose the first commencement of any such legislation, which might otherwise be drawn into a most dangerous precedent. The 25 Henry VIII., alluded to by the right rev. Prelate, was one of the most important laws on the statute book—it placed the Crown in the position in which, constitutionally, he hoped it would always remain—as head of the Church. Now, as head of the Church, the Crown arrogated to itself no power of determining matters of faith, further than they were involved in the Articles and in the Liturgy; but the Crown claimed the ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction which was exercised by the ecclesiastical courts. The statute of Henry VIII. had another object, which was not only to place the Crown in that position, but further to enact that no dignitary in the Church should be created within any part of the Queen's dominions without the sanction of the Crown. The object of the present Bill was to do away with that necessity—this, at all events, was its effect;—and it would give what many were

  227
  so desirous of obtaining—an independent action of the Church, as they called it—an emancipation of the Church from the obedience which the constitution required from her to the Crown. This obedience was one of the distinct objects of the statute of Henry VIII., the principle embodied in which had always been adhered to in subsequent legislation. It was perfectly true that the Act was directed to everything which should be done within the realm or any other of the Queen's dominions; and what their Lordships were now asked by this Bill to do was to empower the archbishops, without the authority of the Crown, to consecrate a bishop within the realm, although the mission and the duty of the bishop would lie more particularly in foreign countries. Now, the first occasion on which it became necessary to consider the propriety of appointing bishops to exercise their office not within the realm, was shortly after the separation of the United States from this country. At that time application was made to Parliament to enable the bishops of the English Church to institute persons as bishops to act in that capacity for the benefit of the large congregations of individuals attached to the English Church who were to be found in the United States. But what were the conditions with which the power was accompanied? Power was given to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, with such bishops as they should call to their assistance, to consecrate persons, being subjects or citizens of countries out of Her Majesty's dominions, without the Queen's licence or the Royal mandate under the Great Seal. But, then, it was also enacted that no person could be consecrated a bishop in the manner thus provided until the Archbishop should first have applied for and obtained His Majesty's licence by warrant under his Royal signet authorizing and empowering the performance of such consecration and expressing the name of the person to be consecrated. Thus, although the Royal mandate was dispensed with, the supremacy of the Crown was preserved, and authority from the Crown was required before consecration was permitted within the realm. The next occasion on which this subject was discussed was upon the appointment of the Bishop of Jerusalem. It was then provided that any archbishop or bishop should consecrate any British subject or subject of a foreign state to be a bishop in any foreign country. The Bill now proposed
  228
  to give power to create bishops to act in foreign countries; but the power and authority were already given, and therefore there was no necessity for this Bill. But the present Bill went beyond that. When the general power was given to dispense with the Queen's warrant it was also provided that no person should be consecrated a bishop until the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York should have applied for and obtained Her Majesty's licence to perform such consecration. Those conditions had been required as necessary compliances with the law and the constitution, because it was necessary, to maintain the Constitution of the country in Church and State, that no act should be done by which dignity is conferred, except under special authority emanating from the Sovereign, as the source of all authority, temporal and spiritual. It may be said that the object of the licence was to give spiritual jurisdiction; but if the right rev. Prelate looks to the Act of Parliament to which I have referred, he will find that the second clause provides that any bishop so consecrated might exercise, within such limits as might from time to time be assigned for the purpose in such foreign countries by Her Majesty, spiritual jurisdiction over the ministers of British congregations of the Church of England and Ireland, and over such other Protestant congregations as should be desirous of placing themselves under his authority. The Bill before the House was limited to the object of consecrating bishops to officiate in heathen countries with a view to evangelize the heathen. He sympathized with that, and he thought the right rev. Prelate would receive with satisfaction his assurance that the Bill was unnecessary, although he might regret that he had been induced to delay in responding to the appeals that had been made to him. But to get rid of the necessity for the licence of the Crown, to dispense with the acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Crown, to give independent action to the Church, to lay a foundation for the severance of Church and State, to emancipate the Church from the control of the State—all these objects, although properly disclaimed by the right rev. Prelate, might be effected by this Bill. It would, he believed, lead—no doubt, unconsciously on the part of its proposer—to a putting aside of the Crown in the consecration of bishops by the archbishops. That was opposed to the spirit of the constitution, and opposed to precedent, and he

  229
  hoped the proposition would not receive the sanction of their Lordships. There was no reason to depart from precedent, because there was no difficulty in obtaining the licence of the Crown. Therefore there was no object or necessity for this Bill, which had been introduced under an erroneous belief, and which he hoped would not receive the sanction of the House.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this day six months."
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the Bill as originally laid on the table of the House contained a distinct clause requiring the assent of the Crown to the consecration of a missionary bishop; and so far as he had had an opportunity of discussing the Bill with his right rev. Brother, he believed that the Royal permission for the consecration formed a part of the scheme he desired to see adopted. He did not know why his right rev. Brother had withdrawn that clause. If the Bill were proceeded with, he should think it his duty to move its re-insertion. From the conversation he had had with his right rev. Brother, he did not think he would object to such a proposition; and if it were acceded to, he believed there would be no difference of opinion between Her Majesty's Government and his right rev. Brother on that point. The noble and learned Lord had stated how much could be done under the existing law; but there were difficulties which this Bill was intended to meet which were not provided for by the existing law. As a matter of fact, in December last, a bishop had been consecrated for Honolulu, for a country over which Her Majesty had no dominion. The appointment was made at the request of the independent Sovereign of the country, and the consecration took place under the Jerusalem Bishopric Act. Having taken part in the consecration, he was bound to say that there were serious difficulties in proceeding under that Act. The law was that the bishop to be consecrated under Her Majesty's licence should act as a bishop of the Church of England. The request of the Sovereign of Honolulu was that the Church of England would send out a bishop who should become the founder of a Church of his own in that part of the world, and therefore phrases had to be inserted in the licence which were felt to be out of place. Hence it was felt that some change in the existing law was required. Again, there was another
  230
  reason for the present measure, that persons ordained by the bishops consecrated under the Jerusalem Bishopric Act or the American Act could not exercise their functions within Her Majesty's dominions except for two days. No such restrictions applied to the bishops who, without the Queen's licence, had of late been consecrated at Cape Town and in New Zealand. The missionary bishops consecrated under Her Majesty's licence were, therefore, in a far more disadvantageous position than those consecrated without any reference to the Royal licence. These were the reasons which led him to think that there was a necessity for some alteration of the law; first, that the law, as it at present stood, was not well applicable to cases which actually arose, because incongruities occurred in applying the American Bishops Act and the Bishop of Jerusalem Act; secondly, that the law as now administered put those who were consecrated at home by Her Majesty's licence under these Acts in a more disadvantageous position than those who were consecrated in the Colonies without any referenec to Her Majesty. One thing he was perfectly certain of, that those of his right reverend Brethren who had assented to the introduction of this Bill contemplated nothing whatever that would interfere with the Royal supremacy, and that they valued the blessings which arose to the Church of England from that supremacy. It might, perhaps, be well to ventilate the subject a little longer before legislating, but there was a growing feeling of the necessity of some change, and and he could not but think that his right rev. Brother had only fulfilled a simple duty in bringing the subject under their Lordships' notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down referred to a clause in the first edition of the Bill requiring the assent of the Crown. Now, what was the effect of that clause? It required that before any consecration of a bishop should take place the assent of the Crown thereto should be duly signified to the Archbishop, thus making the Crown a mere assenting party, and the office to emanate from the Archbishop. Now, he would consent to nothing, and he hoped their Lordships would not consent to anything, by which the licence, the authority, and the office would not come directly from the Crown in the manner provided for by the existing statutes.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDhoped their Lordships would permit him to trouble them with a word or two in explanation. The Lord Chancellor spoke with grave authority; but the graveness of his authority should lead to very great exactness. He thought the noble and learned Lord had used high-sounding words of very huge import, but had given no reference to the facts which he had asserted. He would prove that the noble and learned Lord had asserted what was not the fact. For instance, he said that an Act was passed in the reign of Henry VIII. to secure the supremacy of the Crown, by which the Crown was made the head of the Church; and he proceeded to argue from that, that the power to issue a licence for the consecration of a bishop was an inalienable power of the supremacy, and was guaranteed by that Act. What was the fact? It was perfectly true that the 25 Henry VIII., c. 2, enacted that the King's Highness should be head of the Church of England, and that he should have all power of suppressing heresy, and setting right doctrine; but surely the noble and learned Lord should have been aware that that Act was repealed in the reign of Mary; and when at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth the Acts bearing on this matter repealed under the reign of her predecessor were re-enacted, that Act was specially not re-enacted. Therefore the Act which the noble and learned Lord had cited
  in proof of the Queen's supremacy as head of the Church had no bearing on the subject under discussion. The Act that did bear on it was the 20 Henry VIII., which recited that express licence should be necessary for the filling of any bishopric within the King's dominions, That Act expressly stated that the licence should be necessary for filling any bishopric or see within the King's dominions. The whole legislation of Henry the Eighth's reign was very exact, and it did not claim what the noble and learned Lord had claimed for the Crown—namely, that it was the source of the spiritual authority of the Church; on the contrary, it disclaimed it. What it claimed was that the Crown was the source of the jurisdiction appended by law to the exercise of the authority which came from the foundation of the Church. The two things were as different as possible. The supremacy of the Crown was the supremacy of the law. The Act required that all jurisdiction exercised by the ecclesiastical courts should be derived from the Crown.
  232
  It never stated that the spiritual authority of the bishops, the power of conscience governing the souls of those in communion, was derived from the State. This would be to do all that Romanists had put forward in their worst forms of attack against the Church of England.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, those noble Lords who had listened to him attentively must have observed that he entirely disclaimed for the Crown any authority in spiritual matters, except as regarded the Articles and Liturgy. To say that he had sought to invest the Crown with spiritual authority was merely to play on the double meaning of the words "head of the Church," and to attribute to him a claim on behalf of the Crown to a spiritual headship which in the language of Queen Elizabeth's statute was Christ's.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he did not perceive that that explanation made the slightest difference. The whole point turned on the words in the 20 Henry VIII., enacting that the King and his successors might grant a licence, as had been customary of old time. He asked the noble and learned Lord to point out any statute of the realm that contemplated any other licence prior to the Act for consecrating the American bishops and the Bishop of Jerusalem Act. When the noble and learned Lord talked about the danger of the thin end of the wedge, it seemed entirely to have slipped his memory, that so far from this being the beginning, in the case of two bishops within the Queen's dominions this liberty had already been conceded. It was not the jurisdiction, but the authority, of which the noble and learned Lord spoke in relation to the Crown.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said "all spiritual authority exercised by any ecclesiastical courts." There is again an attempt to play on the double meaning of the word "spiritual."
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I am very glad to have drawn from the noble and learned Lord a limitation which was not in his speech. ["Order!"] In what way am I out of order?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The right rev. Prelate asks in what way he is out of order. Why, has not the right rev. Prelate given a direct contradiction to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack?
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYobserved, that he had heard the noble and learned Lord use the words he had just repeated to the

  233
  House, after he had first spoken of the supremacy of the Crown.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he was sitting close to the Lord Chancellor, and he believed he had used the very words he had just repeated.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONwas proceeding to state to their Lordships his recollection of the Lord Chancellor's first statement, when
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose, and expressed a hope that this kind of discussion would not be persevered in. There was a Standing Order of their Lordships' House to the effect that a Peer's own statement as to words which had been used by him should be accepted by the House.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDaccepted the noble and learned Lord's statement—accepted it thankfully. He should be happy to make any additions to the Bill which legal sagacity could point out, in order to avoid those dreadful evils which the noble and learned Lord had foreshadowed, but which he had not shown their Lordships any ground for apprehending. He therefore hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped the right rev. Prelate would not press the second reading of the Bill. He agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) that more time was required for a consideration of the subject; and he thought the argument of the Lord Chancellor, with regard to the constitutional question, remained unweakened by that of the right rev. Prelate who had charge of the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he would not press the Bill to a division, especially as there was so small a representation of the episcopal Bench present.
  THE EARL OF DERBYunderstood that one main object of the Bill was that no time should be lost in filling up two vacancies which had occurred. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had stated that under the existing Act there would be no difficulty in applying immediately for the licence of the Crown, which, under the circumstances, would not be refused. Considering that fact, and seeing great inconvenience in continuing a discussion which might lead to no result, he would recommend the right rev. Prelate not to press the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was contended that he had made a mistake in using the word "spiritual." Now,
  234
  what was the oath of allegiance? It said that—
  "No Foreign Prince, Power, Prelate, or Potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, civil or ecclesiastical, in this realm."
  And another declaration contained an acknowledgment of Her Majesty's supremacy in all spiritual matters—not spiritual with regard to matters of faith or doctrine, but spiritual as to jurisdiction.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, the noble and learned Lord had again been guilty of an inaccuracy. He had said that Her Majesty was supreme over all matters. That was not the case; it was in all causes and over all persons. That Her Majesty was supreme in all causes he allowed, but her supremacy over all matters would greatly alter the case. After what had been said he had no hesitation in withdrawing the Bill.
  Amendment and Original Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Eleven o'clock.