Lords Sitting of 6 July 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Libraries (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment* (241); Statute Law Revision* (242).
Second Reading—Union of Benefices Acts Amendment (219).
Committee—Burial Grounds (231); Life Assurance Companies Act (1870) Amendment* (195–243): Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation* (162–244); Owens College* (211–245).
Committee—Report—Tramways (Ireland)* (203); Prevention of Crime* (207); Bath City Prison* (80); Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* (201).
Third Reading—Judicial Committee of Privy Council* (233–246), and passed.

UNION OF BENEFICES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 219.)
(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
UNION OF BENEFICES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 219.)

  SECOND READING
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill enacted that where two or more benefices, or parts of benefices, were united and held by one incumbent, and there were more than one church within the limit of the united benefice, it should be lawful for the Bishop of the diocese, upon application and consent in writing of the incumbent and patron, and with the consent of the parishioners in vestry, to direct that one of such churches shall be constituted the parish church; and that the disused church might be either pulled down, or left for use as a chapel of case or as a mortuary chapel. The site, however, of the church and churchyard was to be preserved and kept from desecration. All rights possessed by the parishioners in the church to be taken down would be transferred to the other, and the maintenance of tombstones and monuments was provided for. He had withdrawn the clause inserted at the instance of a right rev. Brother last Session, facilitating the union of parishes which could not at present be united, as this then prevented the passage of the Bill in "another place." The Bill would not warrant the alienation of the churchyard or site of the church, and it would be attended with, great convenience in some cases.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

BURIAL GROUNDS BILL—(Nos. 181–231.)
(The Earl Beauchamp.)
BURIAL GROUNDS BILL—(Nos. 181–231.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Person objecting to burial service entitled to decent interment).
  LORD DYNEVORobjected that Dissenters should be precluded from celebrating
  1198
  any burial service in the churchyard—such a prohibition seemed to him an unjust stigma upon our co-religionists. There were thousands of good and devout Nonconformist ministers who were capable of performing a service reverently and properly; and though the permission to do this would be liable to abuse, it was no more than was the case with every good thing. As a clergyman he felt it to be a sacrifice to allow Dissenters to celebrate a burial service in the churchyard; but he had felt that it was a sacrifice which he ought to make—and having conceded Dissenters the right of burial their Lordships should go a little further, and allow them, under proper safeguards, such as restricting the service to hymns, a portion of Scripture, and prayer, to celebrate a burial service. He thought it would be better to wait until the Bill which was now passing through the other House should come up to their Lordships, when he hoped some satisfactory measure might be devised.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the Bill, as he originally introduced it, had been amended by the Select Committee, in accordance with the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester). As to the noble Lord's proposition for the introduction of safeguards, he (Earl Beauchamp) had found that "safeguards" were usually of an unsubstantial character, and that to leave anything to a person's discretion was to leave it to his indiscretion. Even hymns might be made the vehicle of an unpleasant feeling. The subsequent clauses of the Bill would enable persons to convey not more than an acre of ground for the purpose of a Nonconformist burial-ground, and this facility, coupled with the permission to bury in the churchyard without any service where the deceased person had expressed his wish in writing to that effect, or where his relatives entertained the same objection, would remedy any hardship which at present existed.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought it would be satisfactory to their Lordships to learn from the noble Earl or from the Government whether the Bill was likely to satisfy those whom the House would be anxious to conciliate.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he could not undertake to say whether the Bill would satisfy the Nonconformists, and, seeing the variety of opinions which existed among them, it would be difficult for anyone else to do so. He looked

  1199
  upon the matter in this light—that there was a grievance, and this was an honest and conciliatory attempt to remove it; and therefore he believed the Bill would satisfy the reasonable portion of the Dissenters, and those who had no ulterior designs in raising this question. Their Lordships ought to be anxious, whatever the opinion of the Dissenters might be, to redress a substantial grievance—especially as it was one which had excited a feeling against the Church not warranted by the extent of the grievance.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERremarked, that had his most rev. Friend (the Archbishop of Canterbury) been present on the second reading he would have felt and sympathized with the general desire of their Lordships to remove a real grievance, without attempting to satisfy every dissatisfied person. The noble Baron who spoke first (Lord Dynevor), so far from putting the Dissenter and the Churchman on air equality, would give the former a liberty which no Churchman or clergyman enjoyed. To do more than remedy the actual grievance and go further would be unjust to the Church:—and it was, at all events, worth trying whether this Bill would not gradually heal any irritation which at present existed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he rejoiced to hear the kind feelings expressed by the right rev. Prelate towards the Dissenters; but he thought their Lordships should remember that they were almost to a man Churchmen, and that it was very important to use great care and circumspection when they undertook to legislate on questions affecting Nonconformists. He could not say how far the Bill would be satisfactory to Dissenters; but as it had been settled by a Select Committee, he should not, without compromising himself as to the future, interfere with its present progress.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKremarked, that unless they had some reason to believe that the Bill would be acceptable to those who represented the Nonconformists in the other House, the discussion could at best be a piece of amusement and might possibly be mischievous. Unless it satisfied the Dissenters it would be mischievous, because the effect of the 1st clause was to make the use of the burial service merely optional, and might lead to irreverence and ill-feeling.
  LORD BELPER, as a member of the Select Committee, was convinced that the Bill, in its present form, would not satisfy the great body of the Dissenters.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not look upon the Bill as simply a relief to Dissenters. On the contrary, it was notorious that on the subject of the burial service very unpleasant and acrimonious disputes arose among Churchmen. Therefore, it seemed to him desirable, as some persons, through exaggerated scruples, objected to particular expressions in the burial service, that Churchmen as well as Dissenters should be able to dispense with it. Even, therefore, if it failed to satisfy Dissenters, the Bill would not be useless. Moreover, where there was a grievance partly real and partly fictitious, the House should not wait for the question to be thrust upon them, but should at once lay down the policy which they thought just, both to Churchmen and Dissenters. He hoped that when the Bill went down to the other House the Dissenters and their representatives would consider it in a conciliatory spirit; but in any case their Lordships would not be wasting labour by showing their anxiety to remedy a substantial grievance.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND, as another member of the Select Committee, explained that they had modified the Bill in the sense suggested by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester), which appeared acceptable to many of their Lordships. To attempt to prescribe a form of service acceptable to Dissenters would have been hopeless, and he believed the Bill would satisfy many of the promoters of another measure in the House of Commons—though, of course, it would not satisfy persons of extreme opinions.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, as another member of the Committee, pointed out the abuse to which permission to pronounce any discourse in a churchyard would be open; but he was ready to accept any suitable form of service on which the Dissenters and their representatives in the House of Commons might agree.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYfeared, from the proceedings in "another place," that the Bill was not likely to satisfy any considerable proportion of the Dissenters.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday next.

PRAYER BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PRAYER BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL.

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, be should move that their Lordships do agree to the Commons' Amendments in this Bill. Two only were of importance. One of them permitted the use of the present Lectionary until the 1st of January, 1879—the intention being to give time for the gradual withdrawal of the present Prayer Books from churches; and another specified more distinctly the occasion on which the Bishop might direct a change to be made in the Lessons.
  Earl of CARNARVONIn answer to a Question of the Earl of CARNARVON,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he saw no reason why the old Tables of Lessons and the new Tables should not be printed side by side, if there should be a wish to have both.
  EARL STANHOPEobjected to the Amendments; but seeing the difficulty with which the Bill had escaped the "Massacre of the Innocents" in the House of Commons, he should be unwilling to send it back thither. He understood that the use of the present Lectionary until 1879 was to be optional in deference to the scruples of certain clergymen as to the use of the new Tables. It was strange, however, that those scruples should be respected for seven and a-half years and then cease to be so.
  LORD CAIRNSasked which of the two reasons assigned for the Amendment was the correct one. If the object was to respect scruples, it must be thought that scruples, like vaccination, lost their efficacy in seven years. He had been told that the extension of time was adopted at the suggestion of the right rev. Bench. But he did not see that the people ought to be left in doubt which Lectionary was to be in use during the next seven years. He saw no risk of the loss of the Bill by disagreeing to the Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKexplained that a proposal being made in the House of Commons to make the use of the old Table optional for all time, and that the two Tables should be printed side by side, it was suggested by some right rev. Prelates that the question might be met by leaving it optional for a longer
  1202
  time than had been intended. He thought seven and a-half years a needlessly long period; but a considerable number of the clergy had scruples as to the use of the new Table. The Amendment would give them time to consider how far those scruples were valid, and when they saw the working of the new Table in adjoing churches they would, if reasonable men, abandon their scruples.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it had always been felt that some time must be allowed before the use of the new Tables became compulsory, and how long that period was was of little importance. Seven years might be too long a period; but it was not worth while to imperil the Bill on that account. He trusted, with his most rev. Friend, that the general convenience of the new Tables would secure their general adoption. The more distinct definition of the occasions when the Tables might be departed from would, he believed, be acceptable to the clergy generally. He was thankful that the Bill had reached the present stage, and thought it a good omen that a measure of ecclesiastical reform was likely to become law. He regretted that the Bill had not been made part of a more enlarged scheme of ecclesiastical reform. It was his impression that the recommendations of the Ritual Commissioners should have been embodied in a more enlarged scheme, of which this Bill would have been part. Having while at a distance addressed the clergy on the importance of sundry ecclesiastical reforms, he was thankful to say that four out of the six or seven measures which he then recommended was likely to become law this Session—namely, the Sequestration Bill, the Union of Benefices Bill, the Registration of Benefices Bill, and the present measure. This was a happy omen, for there had been a general impression that all measures of ecclesiastical reform were likely to be thwarted, owing to the feeling existing in the country with regard to an Established Church. He had often heard it stated that a large number of persons being opposed to an Established Church on principle wished the Church to have as many faults as possible, and were determined that it should be in no way improved. Now, he had never believed that the common fairness and common sense of Englishmen, whether Churchmen or not, would allow them to acquiesce in such a mode of opposing the

  1203
  Established Church. He rejoiced, therefore, at the practical refutation of the supposed impossibility of carrying ecclesiastical reforms through the House of Commons, and hailed it as a proof, not only that the members of the Church were anxious to improve it, but that they had the sanction and good feeling of the whole of their fellow-countrymen in making the Church as effective as possible for its great purposes.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he should have rejoiced to see effect given to others of the recommendations of the Ritual Commissioners; but he thought that to have embodied them in a Bill without the concurrence of the Convocations of Canterbury and York would have been disastrous to the Church.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYdisclaimed any such intention in the remarks he had made.
  Motion agreed to.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL BILL—(Nos. 212–233.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL BILL—(Nos. 212–233.)
  REPORT. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

    THIRD READING.
    Adjourned debate on the Amendment moved on Report—[which Amendment was, in Clause 1 (Appointment of additional Members of the Judicial Committee), leave out from ("salary") to ("and") in page 2, line 1]—resumed (according to Order).
    LORD CAIRNSsaid, their Lordships were now proposing very wisely to make a selection from the existing Judges of the Superior Courts, and to offer to them a position of paid members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but in order to demand the services of those whose services it would be most desirable to have, it seemed to him that their Lordships must be enabled to offer to them an appointment equal in respect of duration and salary to that which they now held. It was for that purpose he had moved the Amendment now before their Lordships.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble and learned Lord's Amendment pointed to a difficulty; but he thought that with a slight modification it might be adapted to meet his noble and learned Friend's views. In a Bill of this kind, framed for the purpose of meeting an immediate emergency, it
    1204
    would scarcely be right that it should provide for the assistance of those four learned Judges without their being members of the Privy Council. Position in this case was of much more importance than salary. It would surely not be right to make a disparaging difference between those Judges and the other members of the Privy Council. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord proposed that, although the Judges might be removed from the Privy Council by the Crown, they could not be deprived of the office to which they had been appointed. This would produce an anomaly, for, according to the words of the Amendment, it appeared that, after the removal of one of the Judges from the Privy Council, in which case he could not act, he would receive his salary for nothing, unless it were stopped by a concurrent Vote of the two Houses of Parliament. The Amendment might be altered so as to provide that—
    "Every such person shall, so long as he shall continue to be a Privy Councillor acting under this Act, but no longer, have the same title to continue to receive the salary hereby provided for him as if he were a Judge of one of the Superior Courts holding office during good behaviour, but removable by Her Majesty upon Address of both Houses of Parliament."
    LORD CHELMSFORDpointed out that the Judges to be appointed under this Bill would occupy a totally different position from that held by the other Privy Councillors. The proposal of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if adopted, would place those Judges on a lower footing than that occupied by the Judges of the most inferior Court in the kingdom, because they would then be removable by a mere stroke of the pen.
    LORD ROMILLYsaid, this was professedly a temporary Bill, introduced to meet an emergency until the Legislature should be enabled to pass a measure regulating the whole course of the appellate tribunals, and its object was to leave the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council very much as it stood, but with the addition of certain members to be appointed at certain salaries. It would not be difficult to find qualified persons to accept that position without interfering with the rights of the Crown in respect to Privy Councillors; and he hoped the point now at issue would be arranged without the necessity of going to a division.
    LORD CAIRNSsaid, he had no doubt that if the terms held out were even less advantageous than they were there would be no difficulty in obtaining persons to take these appointments. The only question was whether they would secure the services of the best men. The difference, however, between the words which he himself proposed and those proposed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was not such as to induce him to press for a division.
    Amendment amended, and agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEproposed an Amendment, with a view to render the Irish and Scotch Judges eligible, as well as their English brethren, to hold the appointments contemplated by that Bill. It was an undeserved slight upon those Judges to omit them from the measure. He therefore moved, in page 1, line 10, after ("Westminster") to insert ("or Dublin or Edinburgh.")
    THE LORD CHANCELLORassured the noble Marquess that no slight was intended upon either the Scotch or the Irish Bar. He had only to remind their Lordships that this was but a temporary measure, framed for the removal of the accumulated appeals which now clogged the cars of justice. The noble Marquess's proposition would properly come under consideration when the general measure of law reform was brought forward. The Bill followed, as much as possible, the present formation of the Judicial Committee; but the whole question would remain open for future consideration, when it would be competent for their Lordships to introduce such changes as had been suggested. The Bill was brought in to meet a pressing emergency which would arise in November when the Committee renewed its sittings after the Long Vacation, and consequently it was thought necessary to ask for the assistance of the Judges. He hoped the noble Marquess would not press his Amendment.
    LORD REDESDALErose to call the attention of their Lordships to a point of Order. The Amendment of the noble Marquess could not now be put, as it referred to a part of the clause which had just been amended. It could not now be moved until the third reading.
    THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
    Amendment made, in page 2, line 9, leave out from ("him") to ("a") in line 10.
    Amendment made, in page 2, line 19, after ("determine") insert
    ("it shall be the duty of every person appointed to act as a paid member of the Judicial Committee under this Act to attend the sittings of the said Committee when summoned thereto unless he shall be prevented by reasonable cause; and every such person shall, so long as he shall continue to be a privy councillor, acting under this Act, but no longer, have the same titie to continue to receive the salary hereby provided for him as if he were a judge of one of the superior courts holding office during good behaviour but removable by Her Majesty upon an address of both Houses of Parliament.")
    Clause 2 (Continuous sittings of and attendance of Members of the Judicial Committee).
    LORD CAIRNSsaid, he objected to this clause, and he should take the opinion of the House on it. The Bill was said to be introduced for a temporary purpose, yet if this clause were carried it would alter the whole constitution of the Committee in a manner which in many cases would be most prejudicial. The Lord President derived his position and authority in the Council from the will of the Sovereign, and not from Parliament, and the power therefore proposed to be given to the Lord President resided, in the Crown, and could be exercised by the Crown. It was unnecessary to create a power that existed at the present time. His second objection to the clause was that it would give power to the Lord President to summon not only the paid, but the unpaid members of the Judicial Committee, and to compel their attendance. A third objection was that the existence of such a power would give occasion to a suspicion—which already existed in a certain degree, though without any ground whatever—that in a certain special class of cases those members only might be summoned whose opinions were known to tend in a certain direction—in short, that the Committee would be "packed."
    LORD ROMILLYsaid, he understood the clause proposed to give to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the same power that was enjoyed by every tribunal, of making rules and regulations for the disposal of its own business, and therefore he suggested that it should be done by the Lord President

    1207
    with the consent of the Crown—that was by the Queen in Council affirming them. He admitted that many persons interested in ecclesiastical cases might be under the impression that by the power of issuing summons for the attendance of particular members for a particular class of cases, a Committee holding particular views might be brought together. He had made a suggestion on a former occasion that the Queen in Council should draw up a rota for the attendance of the members, so that no suspicion could arise that particular members were summoned to deal with a particular case. He thought that the clause might be altered on the third reading.
    THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that as he read the clause it was proposed that Parliament should give authority to the Queen in Council to manage the business of her own Council. That would be an unseemly proceeding, and it would be better to let the law remain as it was. The best course would be to omit the clause altogether.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it had not been the practice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to act under any general orders, but to sit in a desultory way, according to the convenience of the members. Now, however, that it was proposed to appoint paid Judges to sit on the Judicial Committee, he thought it would be well that a regular table of sittings should be drawn up, in a manner somewhat similar to that adopted for regulating the sittings of the Superior Courts. Unless some such course were adopted, there would be some risk that the scheme would fail, and that the arrears of business would not be cleared off after all.
    After some further conversation,
    Clause struck out.
    Clause 3 (Salaries to cease on omission of Members to attend sittings of the Judicial Committee without reasonable excuse) struck out.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert a clause repealing the 16th clause of the Church Discipline Act, which had reference to the hearing of ecclesiastical causes before the Judicial Committee. By that section it was required that the Queen should summon to the Judicial Committee, whenever such causes were to be heard, either the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, or the Bishop of London.
    1208
    But, beside the other great and important duties which these eminent persons had to perform, it generally happened that one or more of them was disqualified from sitting from their having been previously engaged in these cases in the Courts below, and those appeals had to be deferred until such time as one of the three could attend who was in no way connected with the case. This was his first reason for desiring to repeal the clause against which his Amendment was directed. Another and a stronger ground was, that for persons not learned in the law to occupy the position of Judges in the last resort was a very anomalous proceeding. It was undoubtedly true that every Member of their Lordships' House had the prerogative right, though a layman, of sitting and deciding questions of law as a Court of final Appeal; but this state of things had been felt to be such an anomaly that for generations none but law Lords, who had received a legal education and training, had ever taken part in appellate Business of the House. The public would think it a very strange thing for the noble Lord (Lord Overstone) to sit on commercial cases because he might know more about mercantile transactions than the lawyers, or that other noble Lords should insist on sitting on land questions because they were possessed of large landed possessions, and he could see no reason why the Bishops, because they were Bishops, should sit in the Committee on ecclesiastical cases any more than those he had mentioned in these particular cases. The ecclesiastical cases that were brought before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were often cases between Bishops and clergymen, and the consequence was, as clergymen were not members of the Judicial Council, that the Church was represented on one side of the question only. A more serious objection was that the Bishop might be deciding on his own case, and it might be that in questions of doctrine and ritual that he was a committed man to certain opinions, having by his previous writing and preaching pledged himself before the world to a particular opinion, and that his views were well known on disputed questions of doctrine which agitated the Church. In fact, those opinions were taken into consideration when he was made a Bishop. It was impossible for such a man to resist the

    1209
    tendency of his thoughts, and of its giving some colour to its judgment; in fact, he could not be an impartial man. It was of the utmost importance that all the Courts of this country should be—as they generally were—above suspicion. The ecclesiastical questions that were brought before the Judicial Committee were frequently of a character which excited men's feelings and passions to the highest degree, and that being so more external precaution should be taken to preserve the impartiality of the tribunal before which they were brought; because, when every precaution was not taken to clear the highest Court in the realm from the faintest suspicion of bias, their decision would not be treated by the excited disputants with that respect which attached to the decisions of other Courts of Law. He had no wish to press his Amendment against the will of the Government, but rather that the Lord President should take the matter into his consideration, with a view to an amendment in that respect; and at the same time he wished it to be understood that in what he had stated he had no wish to throw discredit on the Episcopal Bench.
    Moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following clause:—
    "The sixteenth clause of an Act of the third and fourth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter eighty-six, intituled 'An Act for the better enforcing Church Discipline,' shall be and is hereby repealed."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, there was no doubt that at the present moment there existed in some minds a strong feeling against certain decisions of the Judicial Committee; but it might perhaps happen that when men's minds were cleared of heat and passion, those who entertained the adverse feelings would look upon the decisions in question as the only ones possible under the circumstances. But the objections of the clergy to the Judicial Committee as a tribunal was not so much the presence of the episcopal element as to its deciding ecclesiastical questions as a lay tribunal: and the effect of removing the Bishops would leave the Judicial Committee a mere lay tribunal, without any training as to matters on which they might be called upon to decide. The objections made against this tribunal would not be remedied by the proposal of the noble Marquess. He had then in his possession a Memorial urging in
    1210
    strong and far from courteous language that the clergy would refuse to be bound by the decisions of a lay tribunal. The simple answer to the question—"What would be thought of lay Lords sitting as Judges of Appeal from the Courts of Law?" as applied to the present case, was that the Bishops were already Judges constituted by law for the trial of causes in their own Courts; and that as the causes coming before the Judicial Committee belonged almost entirely to the regions of theology and Church history, a lay tribunal might find itself in a difficulty in dealing with matters relating to doctrine and practice, unless it had the assistance of some persons who by profession and training were acquainted with such subjects. A Court of Appeal in ecclesiastical causes had existed in England ever since the Reformation, and must continue as long as there was an Established Church in this country.
    THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, he could not agree with much of what his right rev. Brother had stated. He believed that the mass of those who were now discontented would be far more satisfied if the decisions given by the Committee were purely legal, and that the discontent with the decisions of the Committee to which he alluded arose from the fact that a pseudo-spiritual character was imparted to a tribunal which was in fact nothing more than the highest Court of Appeal as to the proper legal value of certain words and terms, and these lawyers, in consequence of their legal training, were far better qualified to decide than ecclesiastics. His opinion was that the best means of improving the tribunal, and procuring respect for its decisions, would be to enable its legal members to call in the Bishops as assessors in ecclesiastical causes rather than to have them sitting as permanent members of the Court. If the Church of England were disestablished at once there would still be the appeal to the Privy Council upon questions respecting the holding of its property, just as the Court had jurisdiction at the present time over the endowments of non-established religious bodies in the colonies: and what he desired was that the Privy Council should not undertake to decide on the teaching of the Church as the Established Church, but should deal with matters of the kind in their strictly legal signification.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he thought his right rev. Brother who had just addressed the House was in error with regard to the last branch of the subject on which he touched. There seemed to be some confusion in reference to this matter. A Court of Appeal was one thing, a Court of Review another. A man who conceived he was wronged in law might appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench and have the question of law settled; but there could be no such appeal on a question of theology or doctrine. The Privy Council received ecclesiastical appeals in exercise of the prerogative of the Queen as head of the Church. Before the Reformation these appeals went to Rome; after it, they lay to the Crown. It had been said that because the Privy Council was a Court of Appeal for the colonies, it was a Court of Appeal for the Church "as by law established." But that was not so. The Judicial Committee had jurisdiction over the property of non-established religious communities in the colonies, just as it had over all other matters upon which an appeal from the colonies lay in law. It was, on the other hand, only in virtue of the Church of England being by law established that ecclesiastical appeals went to the Judicial Committee. Disestablish the Church, and the appeal would be to the Court of Queen's Bench or one of the Courts of Common Law. He maintained that there was no analogy between the cases of appeals to their Lordships' House in civil matters and those which were made on matters ecclesiastical to the Privy Council as representing the prerogative of the Crown. In the administration of that prerogative it had always been part of the constitution of this country that there should be both a spiritual and a temporal law, and he should consider it a great evil if, in order to satisfy any theory that might arise, the old constitutional principle should be entirely set aside. At one time it was urged that there ought not to be any lawyers in the Court; but, while the Church could not dispense with the lawyers, no sudden change of public opinion ought to induce a departure from the constitutional principle that the clerical element should also be represented. A number of persons who reverenced the episcopal office were never satisfied with the embodiment of it which they saw; but it should be remembered
    1212
    that a Bishop was a Judge in his own Court, and it was now proposed to abolish those functions. All that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said would apply to those duties as well as to the position of the Bishops in the Judicial Committee. With the deepest respect to the decision of the lawyers in the Privy Council, he must be allowed to say that in some matters that came before them they required ecclesiastical assistance. It had been suggested that there should be clerical assessors; yet they must be judges if their opinion was to be heeded, and if it was not, they would not attend. No three people who could be brought together would be found to be in accord as to an alteration of the present system; but when there was some agreement as to a substantial scheme, he should be glad to support it.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that he was inclined to support the proposal of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), not that he had ever heard any valid reasons to his conviction urged against the present constitution of the Judical Committee of Privy Council in such matters. The objections seemed to be rather theoretical than practical, and the objections seemed to fail in accordance among themselves as to a remedy, even if the grievance were established. But for himself he had never been able to see why the Church should be unwilling to intrust the interpretation of her documents to the same high tribunal to which the interpretation of the documents of every other religious body, where properly was concerned, were confidently intrusted—as well as the final disposal of all our highest temporal interests. It would be impossible to intrust such questions to an ecclesiastical body, or to ecclesiastics, or to Judges chosen by ecclesiastics. The decisions would cease to be interpretations; they would become declarations of opinion. They must become the decisions of partisans. To get rid, therefore, of the very suspicion that such might be the case under the existing system, he was inclined, if a change was to be made, to favour the suggestion that the Judicial Committee of Privy Council should consist solely of laymen, without any mixture of ecclesiastics. It was, however, remarkable to observe the change of opinion upon this matter, which had come over certain parties.

    1213
    Some years ago an attempt was made to get rid of laymen altogether in these matters.
    THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERexplained that the scheme which he then advocated was that in all matters which involved the doctrine of the Church of England an issue should be sent to ecclesiastics, who should return an answer to the lay members of the Privy Council, and they should not be bound to do more than receive that answer and give their judgment.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it would be impossible for those laymen to oppose the decision of such authorities on points of Church doctrine, and therefore all such questions would have been virtually decided by ecclesiastics. The views which were now declared by those who were represented by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) were therefore wholly different from those which were entertained a few years ago. He did not, however, believe that anything would satisfy those members of the Church of England who were now disclaiming all control, and who would equally resist it whether it rested in the hands of clerk or layman, if it were at variance with their own individual views, the decision should rest in clerical hands.
    EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the question had been greatly complicated by the use of inaccurate language. The popular impression was that the Queen was Head of the Church; and even the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), though he carefully qualified the phrase, had not refrained from using it. In fact, however, there had been only three Sovereigns who had been Heads of the Church—namely, Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Mary. In no sense, and by no monarch, with the exception of those three Sovereigns, had the title "Head of the Church" been enjoyed by the Sovereigns of England. Queen Elizabeth expressly repudiated it; and the claim therefore of the Privy Council to spiritual jurisdiction, so far as its maintainers founded it upon this erroneous notion, was without foundation.
    THE ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY: The appeals which before the Reformation went to Rome went after the Reformation to the Crown; that is the sense in which I spoke.
    EARL BEAUCHAMP: The Sovereign
    1214
    was supreme over all causes, civil as well as ecclesiastical; but, having declared that doctrine, as no one could maintain that the Queen was supreme in civil matters except, according to known rules of law; so in ecclesiastical matters her supremacy was limited by the law of this Church and Realm, according to which, as temporal matters were to be decided by the temporal Courts, so spiritual matters were to be dealt with by spiritual persons. It would be absurd to refer to a mixed tribunal composed partly of spiritual persons and partly of lay persons questions purely temporal, and it was equally absurd to refer to a mixed tribunal questions purely spiritual. Spiritual matters were for the clergy, and matters purely temporal were for the temporal Courts. The supremacy of the Crown ever since the Reformation was exercised by the Court of Delegates. In questions affecting the clergy no doubt civilians were called in to aid that Court; but in questions affecting doctrine the matter was decided by the spiritual members of that Court. As regarded the observations of the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), that those persons who formerly advocated the removal of all lay persons from the Court of Final Appeal, were now urging the removal of the spirituality, the reason for the change of position was obvious. Till about 1850 it was supposed that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council enjoyed some spiritual inheritance, if he might say so, from the Court of Delegates; but that had been repudiated by the Judicial Committee, who claimed nothing more than the construction of legal documents—a task for which lawyers were clearly the best fitted. It was therefore not inconsistent on the part of those persons who were dissatisfied with the decisions of the Privy Council in 1850 to abandon, on further investigation, the plan of reform which they previously advocated, and say that the more legitimate and more constitutional method was that suggested by the noble Marquess.
    On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Bill had been fully discussed on two previous occasions, and he thought there was no reason for delaying the third reading; but he would not press for a third reading if any noble Lord had a further Amendment to propose.
    Then Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 246.)

    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 242.)
    House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.