(No. 15.) BILL WITHDRAWN. (Hansard, 6 June 1867)

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) had on Tuesday last given notice of an Amendment to the effect that all after the word "whereas" in the Preamble should be left out and an entirely different set of clauses introduced. Now, that Amendment, in reality, amounted to a new Bill, and it was not, in accordance with the rules of the House, open to the right rev. Prelate to move on going into Committee on a Bill to substitute another for it. What he should under the circumstances propose was that the right rev. Prelate should introduce his Bill that evening, and that further discussion on both measures should be postponed until after the Whitsuntide recess, when, if the House should prefer to adopt the proposal of the right rev. Prelate, he would not press his own.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD
stated that in the course which he had taken in the matter he had acted upon the advice of the next highest authority to the noble Lord himself. Both the noble Lord and himself entirely concurred in the main object which was sought to be effected, and he should be quite ready to adopt any arrangement by which that object could be most satisfactorily carried out. He had prepared a Bill which he would now lay on 1650 the table, and the second reading of which might be taken after the recess.

§ LORD PORTMAN
thought the difference between the two Bills was so great that it would be better to go into Committee on the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale), and make such Amendments in it as might be necessary. If that course were not adopted, it would be advisable, in his opinion, that both Bills should be referred to a Select Committee.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY,
while disposed to look upon the course taken by the right rev. Prelate in proposing an Amendment to the effect that the Preamble and the clauses of his noble Friend's Bill should be struck out—if it was not contrary to the rules and orders of the House, at least — as somewhat unusual, did not think there was between the two Bills any very essential difference. The Bill of his noble Friend proposed that the consecration of the additions to churchyards might be effected by means of writing under the hand of the Bishop; while that of the right rev. Prelate would render the presence of the Bishop within the churchyard necessary. That was the chief difference between the two measures; upon the question of expense they were, he believed, nearly identical. The best plan to adopt under the circumstances was, in his opinion, that the Bill of the right rev. Prelate should be read a first time, and that the further stages of the two Bills should be postponed until after the recess, when it might be determined whether it was better that they should be referred to a Select Committee, or that the whole question should be disposed of by the House itself. He wished, he might add, to lay on the table a clause which he intended to move whenever both Bills or either of them went into Committee, the object of which was to provide that no religious ceremony should be invalid which took place between the making of any alterations which might render re-consecration necessary—for instance, the removal of the communion table in a church, and the re-consecration of that portion of the church. After the alterations were completed a considerable time might elapse before it would suit the convenience of the Bishop to perform the act of re-consecration, and the services would in the meantime be put a stop to unless some such provision as that which he suggested were introduced into the Bill.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD
stated that the Bill which he had introduced had been drawn up by himself after consultation with his right rev. Brethren, and before Convocation knew anything of the matter.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, that he had previously consented to a postponement of the Bill in order that the opinion of Convocation might be taken upon it. He had, however, taken the second reading, because he did not wish it to be supposed that he was desirous of putting off the Bill, and also because he wished to give notice of certain alterations. He was not desirous of forcing his opinions upon others, but he had thought that the question was one which ought to be raised, and he was glad to hear the course which the right rev. Prelate intended to pursue. He would also suggest that attention should be given by Convocation to the expediency of making the fees upon consecration uniform in all dioceses. He would now move that the Order for going into Committee be discharged.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
objected to the doctrine countenanced by the noble Lord, and protested against their Lordships affording any sanction or encouragement to the proceedings of Convocation.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
thought that Convocation had as much right to express an opinion on any matter as the corporation of London, or any other body. Indeed, the House was on many occasions indebted to Convocation for ascertaining the opinion of the clergy. He thought, with reference to the Bill before the House, that the matter was one which might be regulated by the right rev. Prelates themselves without legislative interference. The large expenses which were complained of arose, however, in many instances, not from the fees, but from the charge for conveyance. Deprecating, as he did, the adoption of any general measure to meet a particular case, he should be sorry to see a Bill of this kind passed.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
said, that he proposed to lay on their Lordships' table on the following day a Bill for assimilating the fees payable on consecration throughout the various dioceses.