passage from the ancient Ecclesiastical Constitutions :"But if anything should be so bad [in a clergyman] as to require either deprivation or deposition from the ministry, let the Bishop enforce it, with the assistance of the Dean, the Chancellor, and some of the Prebendaries." If the noble lord (Lord Ellenborough) who is not now in his place, and who complained the other night of the want of some authority to remove unfit persons from the ministry, were now present, I think he would see that this Bill, which I fear he supports, destroys the very machinery for ever by which formerly the object which he wishes to see accomplished was attained in a proper manner. Moreover, I think the fitness of these bodies for these purposes has been recognised to a certain degree even in these days, when they have fallen into comparative inaction, in the Bill for Church Discipline introduced by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack; in which it is provided that some members of the Chapter shall be of the tribunal appointed by the Bishop for the trial of Criminal Clerks. But further, my Lords, I must express my conviction that the ancient and true form of Episcopacy was that in which the power of the Bishop was exercised with far greater co-operation on the part of the Chapters than has been the practice for a long time past. I need hardly remind your Lordships of what importance this question was during the century following the Reformation. This is the sentence of Lord Bacon-"There are two things in the jurisdiction of Bishops which I never can approve : the first is, the sole exercise of their authority;" and, looking a little lower down, to a most important crisis, the time of the Savoy Conference, we shall find that this

was the point on which the dispute between the Puritans and the High Church party hinged so materially, that it seems as if it might have been settled, had some concessions been made in the direction which I allude to. In the address of the Puritans to Charles II., in the year 1661, we find the following:-"We do not renounce the true, ancient, primitive Episcopacy or presidency, as it was balanced with a due commixture of Presbyters." And in the reply of the King:-"No Bishop shall ordain or exercise any part of the jurisdiction which appertains to the censure of the Church without the advice and assistance of the Presbyters." And even in the Bishop's answer, upon which the negotiation was finally broken off, it is said:"We do not find that the Bishops' authority was balanced by any authoritative commixture of Presbyters, though it hath been at all times exercised with the assistance and counsel of Presbyters in subordination to Bishops." So that even the extreme High Church party did not assert the exercise of the Bishop's authority without the regular co-operation of the Presbyters. My Lords, such has not been the case for a long time past, and I do not think it will be well with the Church till that practice is restored. The consequence of this question being unsettled in the seventeenth century was schism in the Church of England, and the separation, which I consider lamentable, between the Churches in England and Scotland. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite connected with Scotland, and particularly the noble Earl (Aberdeen) who has in this session shown such intimate knowledge of the history of the Kirk, take much interest in this view of the subject, or in anything which may seem to give a

hope of future union between the Churches; but, at all events, I will put it to him whether there is not evidence in history to show that the point I have been treating was that on which the controversy very materially turned. The result was in both countries, in the words of a writer to whom I am indebted for the suggestion of this particular view of the subject, that "England lost her Presbyterate, Scotland her Episcopate; and the effects have been evil for both." Nor do I believe that there is a chance of that evil being healed, but by some reorganization of the machinery which this Bill destroys.

So

I will now touch briefly, and abstaining, as I have done throughout, from any reference to details, on the third point, which Mr. Sydney Smith mentions in these terms:"They might be made a sort of council for the general care of education through the Diocese." In this respect, too, he has but proposed what was one of the essential purposes to which these bodies, by their constitution, were applied. One of their members had the particular charge of education through the Diocese entrusted to him; this member was the Chancellor. in Dr. Hacket's speech, to which I before referred: First, our principal Grammar Schools in the kingdom are maintained by the charity of these Churches, the care and discipline of them is set forward by their oversight; fit masters are provided for them, and their method in teaching frequently examined." And for a general testimony to this effect, I refer to the following passage. from the historian of the Council of Trent :"Some proposed to revert to the ancient custom in all Cathedrals, which was even then in use in some, when the * Mr. Selwyn.

monasteries and Chapters were simply schools." My Lords, I say this principle is essential to be revived; and that this too has been indistinctly recognised in the present day, when in all Dioceses, with the general approbation of Churchmen, Diocesan Boards of Education have been established. The central organization which is aimed at in them, is the very same which was secured by the former system, and I believe that, were these institutions and the Church in a healthy state, they would be taken as the groundwork and chief element of the movement for education now in progress.

My Lords-I have now gone through all the points -comprehensive points, as it seems to me-which I proposed. I have taken, throughout, the lower ground of utility, leaving the higher to those who can better handle them. I have not even mentioned that which, nevertheless, I cannot but feel warmly, the subject of daily worship-as it has been beautifully called, "the daily intercession of the Cathedrals." Will this be duly kept up with the diminished numbers proposed by this Bill? Those who must best know-the Chapters themselves— in several of their memorials tell you that it cannot.

My Lords-I am at least confident that I shall not be accused of upholding sinecure offices. I am pleading for the re-imposition on these bodies of important duties and heavy responsibilities. But there is one point which usually is insisted on, but which I do not press, from the view which I have taken, but I will just mention it in reference to a particular subject—namely, the value of these institutions as affording what is called "learned leisure" to studious clergymen. I would only say that I believe they have been of considerable service to the

Universities in this respect; and in the College to which I belong Trinity College, Cambridge-I believe that the anticipation of this measure has had an injurious effect.

My Lords—Looking at the originators of this Bill, I hope I may assume that it is intended as a direct benefit to the Church. I therefore may consider the question, "What are the wants of the Church at this day?" My Lords, I believe that the want most experienced is that the Church should be felt as a living power, and a principle of active beneficence; that there should be a complete and sound organization, and, above all, unity of action, in the Church. And I am convinced that, in this view, these institutions should be revived and put into action, instead of being dealt with as this Bill proposes; and that the Church will never be restored to its true condition till that is done. Will it be said that all I have alleged may be admitted, and yet that it nowise bears on the present question, for that all the functions of Chapters may be equally performed with their numbers as reduced by this Bill? My Lords, I answer that it is impossible seriously to maintain this. Four Canons may, perhaps, perform the duties as they have lately been measured; but assuredly not their full functions, as I contend that, according to their constitution, they should be executed. The Bill itself shows that this could not be intended; because, if it were, the number of Canons in each Diocese, instead of being uniform, would vary according to their different sizes: if four is enough for a large Diocese, it must be too many for a small one. For the same reason, I hope your Lordships will think that I am absolved from the task of attempting to answer the arguments of the Most