in fact, neither of them was in any way a party." On this you must permit me to say, that, if such an argument shall suffice, or is intended, to stop the further progress of the Bill, I am not inclined to criticise very rigidly either the accuracy of your statement, or the propriety of the terms in which you express your apprehension of its consequences. I content myself with assuring you, that, if, after your own promise, voluntarily given, for the sake of facilitating the third reading of the Bill-a promise heard by the Archbishop, and heard by him without remark—that the Clergy shall have full opportunity to consider the Bill before the next Session-that their judgment shall be allowed its due weight-and that a new Bill shall be prepared by you, inviting the assistance of those most opposed, on principle, to the present;—if, I say, after all this, the course be ultimately pursued, which the concluding sentence of your letter declares, as by authority, to be intended—and be pursued with your concurrence—that is, if “ a Bill, the same as the present in all its leading provisions," (whatever be the judgment of the Clergy upon it, whether favourable or adverse,) shall be brought into the House of Lords on the very first day of the next Session, and pressed on with all practicable speed,”—I should deem it a very superfluous task to do what you have thought yourself at liberty to tell Dr. Lushington and Lord John Russell that it is probable I shall do. In conclusion, and as the only comment I shall make on this most extraordinary announcement, I must seriously ask youIs it possible, that the Clergy at large are not to be deemed worthy of a voice, in a discussion so immediately interesting to them, both on their own account, and on account of the Church? Can you, or I, or any one else, be blind to the absolute certainty, that there must be in that body many, very many, as capable of forming a sound judgment on this subject, as any, or as all, of the Bishops on the Bench? It is manifestly a matter which ought to be submitted to the deliberations of the Clergy in Convocation, in which their voice would be as powerful as ours; and if, for any reasons, good or not good, Convocation is not permitted to sit, it is, in my unalterable judgment, only just, proper, and even decent, that we Bishops should seek to obtain a knowledge of the sentiments of the Clergy on this great question, and should represent those sen timents to Parliament with all the weight which we can give to them, and to which they are most undeniably entitled. I am, my dear Lord, The Lord Bishop of London. H. EXETER. St. Germans, 17th August. P.S.-Since writing the preceding letter, I have had an opportunity of reading a report of what passed in the House of Commons on Wednesday last. By it, I find that the contingency has occurred, which your last sentence contemplated; the Bill has been "dropped," and the Clergy, I conclude, must be prepared to see the course which you have been authorised to announce actually pursued. By the same report, I find, that the name of Lord John Russell must be added to those of the Lord Chancellor and yourself, as authorities for the incurable badness of the late Bill. I further find, that, whatever may be thought by us Bishops, the judgment of the Clergy is regarded by at least one distinguished member of the other house as necessary to the due consideration of a measure so immediately affecting them and the Church. Any letter addressed to me at Exeter will be forwarded to me, though probably it may be rather tardy in reaching me. (Copy.) MY DEAR LORD, No. 4. London, 16th August, 1839. I HAVE just recollected that your remark to me, as to the smallness of the number who would probably divide with you, was made on the occasion of the Ecclesiastical Preferment Suspension, not of the Church Discipline Bill. It is quite immaterial to the point which I had in view; but I think it right to correct the error. Believe me, my dear Lord, To the Lord Bishop of Exeter. C. J. LONDON. LONDON: Printed by W. CLOWES and SONS, Stamford Street. Lately published, 8vo., 2s. CHARGE DELIVERED TO THE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF EXETER, BY THE RIGHT REV. HENRY, LORD BISHOP OF EXETER, AT HIS TRIENNIAL VISITATION, In the months of August, September, and October, 1836. Also, OF THE BISHOP OF EXETER ON NATIONAL EDUCATION, IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, July 5, 1839. Published and Sold by ROAKE and VARTY, 31, Strand. THE RULE OF FAITH CONSIDERED; IN A CHARGE DELIVERED TO THE CLERGY OF THE ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON, MAY 16, MDCCCXXXIX. BY THE VEN. JOSEPH HOLDEN POTT, M.A. ARCHDEACON OF LONDON; AND CHANCELLOR OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF EXETER. PRINTED BY REQUEST OF THE CLERGY PRESENT. LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. G. & F. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. |