Yesterday week the Lords Justices Bramwell, Baggallay, and Thesiger reversed
the decision of the Queen's Bench in the Clewer case,—the case of the " Queen v. the Bishop of Oxford." The Lords Justices all concurred that the weight of Judicial authority in favour of a real discretion having been reserved to the Bishop under the Church Discipline Act, was overwhelming ; and further, they all concurred that, as previous to that Act, such a discretion had certainly been reserved to the Bishop in relation to enforcing the discipline of the Church, it would require very clear evidence to show that words which prima, fade conferred such a discretion, were intended to exclude it. But on the contrary, the context showed there was no such intention. The extraordinarily loose texture of the Church Discipline Act, which, as it appears, may be set in motion by man, woman, or child, without any guarantee for the serious or bond fide character• of the breach of discipline complained of, appears distinctly to indicate that there must be a discretionary power reserved to the Bishop to ignore complaints which may seem to him trivial. Such were the general grounds on which the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was over-ruled, and the arguments of Dr. Mackarness,—most ably set forth and supplemented by his counsel in the Appeal case, Mr. Charles Bowen,
—were approved. Notice of appeal to the House of Lords was at once given. The Church Association clearly can- not endure the notion of having no stronger machinery at their disposal than that of the Public Worship Act, which expressly reserves a discretion to the Bishop. By the Lord Chief Justice's aid, they hoped that they had furbished up the rusty old Church Discipline Act into an instrument more effectual than the Prime Minister's brand-new patent for sup- pressing Ritualism. And till the House of Lords shall have endorsed the Lords Justices, they will not abandon their last hope.
Previous page
