The BISHOP of LONDONmoved the first reading of a Bill to regulate proceedings against clergymen accused of holding heresy and false doctrine. This Bill contained a clause to which he wished to call the attention of all their Lordships, and particularly of the learned Lord on the woolsack, before it underwent a second reading. It related to the erection of a new court of appeal in all suits against clergymen for heresy and false doctrine. The ultimate appeal in such cases was formerly to the High Court of Delegates, but it was found to act inconveniently, as the delay and expense of the proceedings were very great; it was therefore thought fit to substitute for the Court of Delegates the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That tribunal, however, was not a proper one in questions of church discipline, and was evidently not within the contemplation of those who had constituted it. But it had been found that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, of which he desired to speak with the utmost respect, as now constituted, was not a suitable tribunal for the decision of such questions. With regard to appeals under 334 the Clergy Discipline Act, no objection could be taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but with respect to the discussion of questions affecting matters of religion, it was quite clear that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was not the most fitting tribunal. It was not a clergy tribunal; and at this moment a great number both of the clergy and the laity of the Church felt their consciences burdened by the fact of questions of heresy and false doctrine being ultimately referred to such a tribunal. In another Bill it was provided that no court of appeal, formed out of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, should be considered as properly constituted unless one bishop was a member of it. That provision introduced the Church into the tribunal as a member of it. With respect to the cases now brought by appeal from the Court of Arches to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, involving points of heresy and false doctrine, it was not provided that either one or more of the bench of bishops should be members of that tribunal; and not only was it not provided that any member of the episcopal bench should sit as a member of that Committee, but no care was even taken that the members of it should be members of the Church of England. It might happen that the majority of the members of that tribunal might be dissenters from the Church; and in that case, which he admitted was not very likely, they would have to decide whether the teaching of a clergyman was conformable to the doctrines of a church from which they themselves dissented. In the Bill now before their Lordships, and which had already been submitted on several occasions during the last three years, he had introduced a clause which he hoped would remedy all the defects of which he had complained. It provided a new tribunal for heresy and false doctrine, and had been framed, after most careful deliberation, by a Committee of their Lordships which sat last Session on the Clergy Proceedings Bill. He proposed only a slight alteration in the tribunal appointed to try these offences. He had always thought—and he still continued to think—that there should be an appeal to the bishop and archbishop, and that there the appeal should end. That would be a strictly church tribunal, and in such a case the conscience of a clergyman would not be wounded by the construction of the court. As far as the Church was concerned, there 335 would be no objection to see the Court of Delegates restored, as that was originally a church tribunal. That would satisfy the Church; and if Her Majesty would allow the Convocation to assemble, to take this single point into consideration, it would create in the Church great satisfaction. He hoped that their Lordships would consider the clause which he had framed with great attention, for this one question—the constitution of the ultimate tribunal of appeal—involved, in a degree which they could hardly imagine, the safety and prosperity of the Church of England.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYexpressed his concurrence in the observations which had fallen from his right rev. Friend the Bishop of London, and hoped that his proposition for a new tribunal would meet with the support of their Lordships, and trusted that the Bill for its erection would be carried into law during the present Session. The present state of the law on the doctrine and discipline of the Church was acknowledged to be excessively defective; and he must say that it was chiefly owing to the defective constitution of the court of appeal that the Church now stood in a position of some difficulty. It could never be satisfactory that questions relating to the doctrines and discipline of the Church should be submitted to a tribunal of laymen. They ought to be submitted to a tribunal of ecclesiastics, and such would be the constitution of the tribunal proposed by the present Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMapproved of the course which the right rev. Prelate had pursued on this subject. He had not been present at the arguments in the great case of "Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter;" but he had heard the echo of them at a distance. Anything which could relieve the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of such cases would be a great boon to its members, and would be generally beneficial; but whilst the law continued in its present condition, the members of that Committee must perform their duty. Referring to the observations of the right rev. Prelate in favour of the restoration of the High Court of Delegates, he pointed out the great anomalies and absurdities in its constitution, and declared that, in his opinion, it had very properly been abolished in a late reign. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was a great improvement upon it. He would give the proposition of the right rev. Prelate, when he saw it, his best consideration.
The LORD CHANCELLORobserved, that it was contrary to custom to discuss the principle of a Bill upon its first introduction. At present the House knew nothing, and could know nothing, of the Bill. When it was printed, he should pay the greatest attention to its provisions, and give his best assistance for his improvement.
The BISHOP of LONDONreminded their Lordships that he had earnestly implored them to give, every consideration to his clause when it was printed. His Lordship had previously remarked in a sort of "aside," that he had brought in his Bill at this early period of the Session, in order that it should precede the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in a case which had been recently before it.
§ Bill read 1a.