PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CLERGY BILL. (Hansard, 15 April 1850)

§ LORD REDESDALE
asked the Bishop of London whether he intended to proceed with the Proceedings against Clergy Bill. He said there was a strong feeling prevalent throughout the country that the right rev. Prelate should proceed, forthwith with that Bill. Nobody could say that the tribunal of the Privy Council gave satisfaction in deciding questions relative to false doctrine and heresy. The general opinion of the Church was that a convocation ought to be assembled. That was the feeling, although the Privy Council on a late occasion had declared that they had decided no point of doctrine. In asserting this they must have taken the words in the same non-natural sense in which they had treated the canons, articles, and catechism of the Church. Unless something satisfactory were done on this subject, great mischief, he was afraid, would ensue both to the Church and to the country.

The BISHOP of LONDON
said, that as the noble Baron had appealed to him and had asked whether he intended to proceed with the Proceedings against Clergy Bill, which in one of its clauses established a new court of appeal in cases of false doctrine, he had no hesitation to declare that I it was his intention to proceed with that Bill. That Bill, however, contained other important clauses not connected with the establishment of a new court of appeal As to the clause which related to the substitution of a new court of appeal, he had not, owing to his other occupations at this time of the year, had an opportunity of consulting his right rev. Brethren and the Clergy at large upon it. As soon as he had that opportunity he hoped to be able; to frame a clause which would be satisfactory to the Church and to the country at large. He was not prepared to say that the clause as printed in the Bill was the clause which he proposed to press upon their Lordships for adoption; probably not; for he wished to reserve to himself full liberty of action until he had consulted the clergy at large.

§ LORD REDESDALE
thought that the answer which the right rev. Prelate had given to his question was, in the main, satisfactory. He (Lord Redesdale) was of opinion that as little discussion as was possible should take place on the clause, 298 and that the subject should not be treated like either a political or a controversial discussion. He regretted that at this period of the Session nothing could be done immediately, for if something were not done speedily it would be of no use; for if such a clause did not pass through their Lordships' House till the close of the Session, it would meet with all suitable obstruction elsewhere, and, in all probability, would be deferred to another Session.

The BISHOP of LONDON
said, it might not be inexpedient to separate the clause substituting the new Court of Appeal from the other clauses in the Bill, for it might stand independently of them. It provided merely a court of appeal in reference to one particular class of cases. He believed there would be no objection to the Court of Appeal in matters of fact, but only in questions of false doctrine. He understood that, as far as regarded the discipline of the clergy, there was no objection to the Bill.