Page 12 - KBHA BULLETIN 3

9

of a saint, but which he should blush to describe, and was not, indeed, fit for the human eye.

He went on to say that, at the Cape of Good Hope, innovations had been introduced into the
services of the church, and these had been carried to such an extent, even after remonstrance

had been made, that he was informed the congregation was compelled to leave the church. …
the congregation would in all probability be forced to leave the Church of England by the

Tractarian practices which were obtruded upon them.” Several long letters were exchanged
between an increasingly irate bishop and an increasingly conciliatory clergyman (some of

which were published in the English newspapers.) Lamb not yielding sufficiently to Gray’s

will, he was cited to give account of the language he had used “with reference to [his]
brethren of the clergy in this diocese” before a consistorial court. The hearing took place in

the vestry of St. George’s church on Wednesday 22 August, before the bishop, sitting with

two assessors, the Ven. Archdeacon Welby, and the Revd. Canon Judge. Mr Lamb was
represented by Charles Reade, HEICS. The bishop’s motives may be gleaned from some of

his remarks: “The proper tribunal before which a clergyman ought to deliver his testimony,
when it relates to the faithfulness of his brethren in the ministry, is the Bishop of the diocese.

…” And later, “I have proceeded in the course which seems to be laid down by the Queen’s
letters patent, and which appears to be in accordance with the usage in the diocese of

Calcutta.”

Mr Lamb was somewhat uncooperative under the bishop’s questioning. Not surprisingly, he

was admonished and censured. He responded “While submitting to your Lordship’s decision,
I feel called upon respectfully to state, that, in my conscience, I cannot acquiesce in its

justice.”

William Long

In 1856 he resolved “to hold a synod of his diocese, [and] issued summonses to the clergy

and certain delegates of the laity. Mr Long, [the Rector of St. Peter’s, Mowbray], refused to
attend, and repeated the refusal in 1860, when a second was proposed to be held. It was

alleged that Gray had no authority either from the crown or the local legislature to hold any