Page images
PDF
EPUB

they were unanimous as to the propriety of presenting it to the House. It was objected, that the Bill interfered with the Sovereign's supremacy; an element of the greatest advantage as a safeguard against foreign supremacy and spiritual despotism. But the Royal supremacy must be exercised by legal and constitutional tribunals; it must be exercised, says the preamble of the 24th Henry VIII., "in causes spiritual by judges of the spirituality, and in causes temporal by the temporal judges." Whatever court was held under the authority of the Royal supremacy could not be considered as infringing on it. When matters of fact and clear enunciation of the law were alone concerned, the present constitution of the Judicial Committee left nothing to be desired; but when faith and doctrine were in question, that court was not competent according to the original constitution of the Church. He could conceive questions so new that members of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council would not even understand the terms in which they were couched, whilst a prelate of the Church would consider them as the mere alphabet of his theology. It was impossible for an ecclesiastical tribunal to give a decision on any point of doctrine without materially affecting the doctrine itself; a succession of such decisions, by a tribunal including members very ignorant of divinity, careless of such matters, or even unsound, would affect the stability of the Church both as a teacher of truth and as a national institution. It was the principle of our constitution, from the earliest to the present time, that such cases should be left not only to ecclesiastical but to spiritual judges; that "it doth not appertain to the

King's Court to determine schisms or heresies," but that "the King's Court is to consult with divines to know whether it be schism or not." When the Court of Chancery started a point of common law, it sought from the Courts of Common Law to know what the common law is; when a point of foreign law was raised, our courts dealt with it as a matter of science, to be proved, like other matters of fact, by the testimony of witnesses practically conversant with the subject; when the Court of Admiralty had to decide by the rules of nautical science, it called in the assistance of some of the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, and by their opinion decided. In the Established Church of Scotland, the final decision of all questions of false doctrine was left with those courts which that Church considers competent to decide those questions. That was exactly the principle it was desired to introduce in this Bill. Opponents objected, that it was proposed to make a new legislative body, with power to frame new doctrine: but no power would be given to the new court not possessed by the old-if it were otherwise, surely the Bishops. would be not less competent to exercise such a power than the present court. They objected that a certain number fourteen or fifteen-should determine the fitness of any man to hold office in the Church: but already every Bishop had the power, not questioned, to prevent any person entering the ministry of the Church at all, at his ordination. A division of opinion among the Bishops would doubtless be a difficulty: that point might be considered in Committee. The Bishop protested against any inference which

might be drawn from his reliance on law and usage, that he meant to put out of view the fundamental and vital principle of the question, the indefeasible inherent right of the Bishops of the Church of England to determine finally all questions of doctrine. Speaking with unusual solemnity of tone and manner, and compelled by his emotion to pause for a few moments, he concluded his speech with the utterance of a devout aspiration, that He who of old committed to the Church the sacred deposit of His truth, might guide them to a right conclusion. ("Hear, hear!" from all sides of the House.)

The Marquess of Lansdowne felt it right to take the earliest opportunity of stating the alarm which he, in common with the rest of Her Majesty's Government, felt at this most important, but most perilous measure. He objected at the present moment to any legislation at all on this subject, because, under the circumstances, it would be impossible to alter in haste the tribunal which had given a certain sentence, without its being practically an imputation on that tribunal, and a manifestation of censure upon it on account of that decision. But the particular measure was objectionable in the strongest degree, as striking a blow at the Queen's prerogative. It introduced a tribunal the decisions of which were, for the first time in this country, to be, in the language of the Bill, binding and conclusive" on Her Majesty's opinions; and it therefore took from Her Majesty that which from the earliest to the present time had been deemed the essential prerogative of the Crown, the government of the Church-the power of controlling decisions in ecclesiasti

66

In like manner,

cal canses, of pronouncing upon such causes through persons whom it might think fit to employ, and of setting aside the decisions of those persons. On a former occasion something had been said respecting the revival of Convocation; but well did he (Lord Lansdowne) remember the emphatic words of one of the most eminent statesmen of modern times, who, admitting that the powers of Convocation were still existent and only dormant, observed, that those who evoked those powers might find that they had conjured up a spirit that would be too strong for them. If he should advise that step, he would not exclude the inferior clergy. But he doubted whether such a step would contribute to peace. did their Lordships believe, that when all the scattered winds of doctrine unfortunately prevailing now in this country should be driven within the walls occupied by the new tribunal, as proposed by this Bill, harmony and peace would be produced either within the precincts of that court or generally without its walls? If, unfortunately, it became notorious that a bare majority of the Bishops entertained a particular doctrinal view, and the minority-including the two Archbishops, and perhaps those prelates believed to possess the greatest amount of learning and information on the subject— held the opposite opinion, would that give stability to the decision? Would the inferior clergy, altogether excluded from the deliberation, abandon their views for the sake of harmony with such a decision? Make points of doctrine depend on the decision of a bare majority of the Bishops, and the ferment in the public mind, so far from being appeased, would

simply resolve itself into the form of agitated speculation as to the time when other Bishops should succeed with different opinions: in such a state of things, the question, on appointing a Bishop, would not be, is he good, wise, pious? but is he for or against the last decree of the Bishops? On the question lately agitated, looking to the declarations of our ancestors, the statements of eminent divines, the Articles of the Church, and the opinions of the best writers on those Articles, he thought it had been the wise intention of the founders of the Church to leave a certain latitude; and he thought that any attempt to go back from that policy would be an incitement to dissension. In fine, however, he had no objection to make a concession, though not prepared to legislate. For the purpose of show ing the public that these questions should not be determined without the great authorities of the Church being fully heard, he was ready to agree to the proposition that it should not be left for the Crown, or the President of the Council, as in the late case, merely to invite the attendance of prelates, but that every Bishop should be de jure a member of the tribunal, and that any member of the Council not a member of the Church of England should not sit in such cases.

Lord Brougham admitted that in such a state of public fermentwhen it was too true that there was a great schism and a wide breach in the Church-to make any constitutional change in the Judicial Committee was a course of so much jeopardy that Lord Lansdowne's arguments were irresistible. But he was anxious to inquire whether the difficulties which seemed to environ the Bill

might not be avoided. He was of opinion that, for the purpose of "informing the conscience" of the Court, there ought to be a Committee of well-qualified prelates, say three in number, who should report their opinions; those opinions, however, not to be binding. That Committee might be appointed by the Crown, or by Parliament, or by the Judicial Committee itself-just as the Chancellor now chooses what court shall inform him about the common law. That no member of the Court should decide unless he were a member of the Established Church, was a principle the propriety of which was very doubtful, inasmuch as fitness ought not to depend so much on orthodoxy as on being accustomed and able to deal with evidence. As to the plans of reviving Convocation, they were all most perilous, as undoubtedly leading to schisms without end.

The Bishop of St. David's abandoned with very great pain, and after mature consideration, the sanguine hope he had entertained of being able to support the Bill. If he had been able to do so, still he could not have concurred in the doctrine stated out of doors, and even declared that evening, that there resides in the body of Bishops in their official character any peculiar and exclusive prerogative, or even any pre-eminent or transcendant qualification, to render them the only proper judges upon questions of doctrine arising in the Church. He should have thought the Court of Appeal would be improved by asso'ciating with the prelates a certain number of members drawn not only from the other orders of the Church but also from the laity. But he objected to the Bill as rendering the

opinion of the assembled Bishops binding on the members of the Privy Council, not merely as Privy Councillors, but as Churchmen; and he must take the Bill in connection with existing circumstances. What party in the Church was it likely to conciliate? Certainly not that large and powerful party who considered the late decision a great blessing, and the means of averting a serious evil from the Church; but a party who, if they approved of that decision, did so only from regarding it as a steppingstone to something beyond. If there was a party, as there was too good reason to suspect, who considered that the euthanasia of the Church of England would be to merge in the Church of Rome, they would be most glad to see eliminated those members who viewed disruption as an evil; for then there would be but a feeble obstacle opposed to what they looked for beyond. "Divide et impera" continued to be a Roman maxim; he feared it was fast becoming English also. This measure would certainly lead to that end, by rendering almost inevitable a fatal division in the great body of the Episcopate.

Lord Redesdale, supporting the Bill, declared himself convinced that many of the recent appointments to the Episcopate had been made with a view of showing the subserviency of the Church to the State. Certainly, persons had been forced upon the Church who ought never to have found a place there; and he believed nothing was more likely than the appointment of Mr. Gorham to the Prelacy.

Lord Stanley acceded to the suggestion thrown out that the Bishops should be placed on the same footing in regard to spiritual docVOL. XCII.

trine with that occupied by the Judges of the land as to law, when they were called on to advise their Lordships on the interpretation of the law. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred that advice was acted on; and, no doubt, as often would the Judicial Committee be guided by the opinion of the Bishops. For himself, he belonged to no party in the Church; and he agreed with Lord Lansdowne, that it was undesirable to see brought to a determination, for purposes of exclusion by one side or the other, points which our ancestors wisely left with a certain latitude.

The Earl of Harrowby thought it difficult for theologians to be good interpreters. He would prefer to leave things as they were.

The Bishop of Oxford earnestly supported the Bill.

He had heard with a feeling of the deepest pain the observations of one of his brethren (the Bishop of St. David's), which seemed to imply that there was no such thing as truth, but that truth is what every man troweth, and that no man has a right to say that another man is wrong: this seemed to cast away altogether the awful responsibility which had been impressed upon him when he was set apart to be one of the governors of the Church and one of the trustees of her doctrines. For himself he belonged to no extreme party, and never had done so; but he could assure their Lordships that, if they refused to give a second reading to this Bill, they would alienate from the Church of England hearts without whose affection that Church would be weakened and emasculated. Referring to the fatal schism brought about in Scotland, he besought them to beware of [L]

rending England by such a separation. He almost feared there was here and there a desire to establish in England a Free Episcopal Church he could sympathize with no such feeling-he would still counsel those in whose way their Lordships' vote might throw temptation, to "be patient, be firm, and truth would still prevail." But the rejection of the measure might tend to such a disseverance; and would drive from the Church, which was one of the chiefest among unnumbered blessings enjoyed by this happy land, the men of tender conscience and of loving spirit, while it would keep in her the men who valued only the rank that attends her offices and the position in society which her ministers possess.

The Earl of Carlisle expressed his regret if the rejection of this Bill should have the effect of shaking off any ornaments of the Church; but he thought that gems so lightly shaken off must be but loosely set in the Church's garment.

"If the Church of England," Isaid the noble Earl," be content to remain in the position she inherits-betray no symptoms of aggression, no grasping at new powers-her condition is one of immense actual power and rapidlyincreasing influence; in quietness and in confidence shall be her strength for ever:' but if she give rise to well-founded suspicions of an intention to encroach on the functions and attributes of the other constituted powers of the State-if she seek pecuniary resources from the national funds, assume privileges and preferences not clearly her own, and grasp at power which the law does not give -those privileges will become her

impotence, and that power her failure."

The Duke of Cambridge briefly declared himself obliged, on religious and conscientious grounds, to give his vote for the Bill, though he voted with reluctance against the Government.

Lord Campbell assured their Lordships that there was no more sincere friend to the Church of England than himself. He believed it to be an institution that was beloved by the great bulk of the people of England, and that had conferred, and was likely to confer, the greatest blessings upon the kingdom; and, with a view to the prosperity of that Church, he must condemn this Bill. After the most unprejudiced and impartial consideration, the Bill appeared to him to be unconstitutional, and calculated to bring about that disruption of the Church which it was its object to prevent. If he could think that by voting for the second reading of this Bill he could give satisfaction to the Church, he should do so with the utmost pleasure, but he must say that, in his opinion, the Bill would be a mere mockery, and that it would be much more respectful to the right rev. Prelate at once to declare that it should be read a second time that day six months. The principle of that Bill was that there should be an assemblage of all the Bishops of the Church, whose decision was to be binding -not for the advice and information of the Judicial Committeebut to be binding not only upon the Judicial Committee, but upon the Queen also. From the most remote period of our history it had been allowed that the Sovereign was the head of the Church, but if this Bill passed, what became of

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »