The BISHOP of LONDONsaid: It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that in the Session of 1850 I introduced a Bill into this House for the purpose of regulating the Court of last appeal—that is, the Judicial Committee of Privy Council— in all questions of religious doctrine which may come before them. An important provision of that Bill was, that in all such cases the bishops of the Church should be directed to consult and deliberate upon the points in dispute, and communicate the result of their consultation and deliberation in the form of an opinion to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, who were to be bound by that opinion to decide whether or no the doctrine which formed the subject of the reference was true doctrine, consistent with the doctrine of the Church of England. My Lords, that Bill was not favourably received by your Lordships. I suffered last year to pass by, contenting myself with giving an intimation that I could not altogether allow the subject to drop. I think it is not a subject of a nature that can be suffered long to remain undetermined. All I mean to say on the present occasion is this, that I hope early in the next Session of Parliament, if it pleases God to spare me so long, to introduce another Bill into your Lordships' House, differing in an important point from the former one. I still intend to provide that questions of doctrine shall be referred to the bishops, or to the Upper 428 House of Convocation, for their opinion, that opinion to be communicated to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, but not to be binding, but merely communicated to them in the way of advice, and not of direction. This is obviously a very important difference, for it would at once do away with the objection raised to the former Bill, that it was an invasion of the prerogative of the Crown. That is all that I think it necessary to say on the present occasion, with reference to the nature of the Bill. I mention it now, in order that the Government may have time to consider the question, and to make up their minds as to how far they will sanction the principle I propose to embody in my Bill. I do not think it would be quite right on my part to put a direct question to my noble Friend at the head of the Government. I merely beg to express an anxious hope— which many others share with me—that some proposition of this kind will receive a favourable consideration from those with whom, after all, the decision must mainly rest. I see in the Minutes of your Lordships' House that it is incorrectly stated that I intended to put a question to the noble Earl. I never did intend to do so, but merely to express a hope that he, or whoever else may be charged with the government of the country, will give a favourable consideration to the measure that I have announced.
§ The EARL of DERBYI have to thank the right rev. Prelate for not having addressed a question to me as to the course which the Government may pursue with regard to a Bill which has not been submitted to them. Such a course would have led to much inconvenience; and in the position in which I now stand, I am not prepared to express any opinion as to the course which the Government may take, without having an opportunity of consulting my Colleagues, not only with regard to the details, but with regard to the principle, of the Bill. But if I rightly collected the intention of the right rev. Prelate, he proposes to leave the jurisdiction in the same hands in which it is left at present, and not to interfere in any degree with the ultimate opinion and the final judgment of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council; but he does propose that, as your Lordships may in certain cases call in the Judges to give their advice and opinion to direct your judgment, so the Bishops may be called upon to give their opinion with respect to questions of 429 sound doctrine or of heresy. And although I cannot certainly pledge myself or my Colleagues as to the course we may think it necessary to pursue, yet I think it proper to say that I find myself placed in considerable difficulty in resisting this proposition, because, if I am not mistaken, it is very like the suggestion which I made in a former year as an intermediate step between the Bill introduced in the Session of 1850 by the right rev. Prolate, and the total rejection of that measure. I am still very strongly of opinion that where questions of false doctrine or of heresy arise, the opinion and judgment of the Bishops, although they might not meet to lay down an absolute and binding authority on such questions, yet must be very important— looking at their long and deep study of such momentous subjects—in directing and guiding the minds of those by whom the final decision has to be pronounced. Further than that I cannot now go, and I am sure the right rev. Prelate himself would not wish me to say more.