488

ART. VI.-The Law relating to the Convocations of the Clergy: with Forms of Proceedings in the Provinces of Canterbury and York, &c. By ROBERT R. PEARCE, ESQ. of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. London: S. Sweet. 1848.

NOTHING is further from our purpose than to enter into anything like a discussion of the momentous subject of the future Synodical action of the Church of England. It is a matter which will settle itself. It shapes itself as it grows. It is assuming an orderly and formal guise the more surely, because the more indirectly. All that we are at present concerned with is the immediate step. It is best to confine ourselves to the next and indispensable move. We are not called upon to forecast, or to be prepared with, a great and perfect future for the Church's legislation. Constitutions are capable of paper symmetry and completeness: but somehow one of these literary forms of government never advances beyond its literary perfection. We want no ecclesiastical Siéyes nor Bentham: when Convocation gets to work it will reform itself without doubt. Let the first step be to get it into action. For ourselves, we may own, are no great admirers of its present constitution. There are traces in it, unquestionably, of large, important principles; but there are also evident signs of those principles being overlaid and deteriorated. In some particulars they are inapplicable to the present state of the Church: in others, to an advanced stage of intellectual culture. Convocation being no longer an assembly, one of whose chief functions, if not its chief function, was to tax the Clergy, there seems no reason for restricting the ecclesiastical franchise to the beneficed Clergy. Again, since much of its future business must be concerned with doctrine, some provision ought to be made for the theological faculty of the Universities being represented in it. Since, moreover, the Capitular Clergy are not at present in that supreme advance, moral or intellectual, of the parochial Clergy which they once laid claim to, the disproportion between the proctors for the Cathedral Chapters and the parochial proctors might reasonably be abolished. Neither have we any very decided feelings as to the desirableness of retaining two provincial Synods. Again: the various and discordant customs which prevail in the different dioceses, and under which the parochial proctors are elected, might well be simplified and reduced to uniformity. We specify these matters, not because any of them at present are of paramount importance, but merely to show that our unceremonious dismission of such subjects on the present occa

sion is not to be attributed to any lack of interest in the future constitution of Convocation. Nay, the very interest of such questions may, at this juncture, draw men's minds from that which is their first concern. We have a pressing and engaging work: let all be kept subordinate to it. Before our next number reaches our readers, the Proctors in the new Convocation may have been elected. At present let us pay some attention to the elections.

A new Convocation is, at the present moment, a very important matter. No one knows what may come of it. The stirring of the dry bones of the past, which has already taken place, cannot come to nothing. We by no means say that the future of the Church of England depends on the next Convocation. Very far from it but it is not so improbable that some matter may come before it in which it is desirable that the Church should be fairly represented. Naturally and in the order of events, the next stage in the agitation and movement for recovering Synodical action is the next election of Proctors. To this it is well that the immediate efforts of Churchmen should be concentrated. To get the right candidates-Proctors who will attend at every prorogation, will watch every opening for business, who will work in the temper of those who built the wall of Jerusalem, will spare neither expense nor trouble in the cause-is not easy, but most necessary. When the last Proctors were appointed-or appointed themselves-in the old lazy humdrum way, who could have foreseen what was reserved for them? If the next Parliament, or next Convocation, should survive its normal period of five or six years, can it be reasonably predicted that nothing will depend on the parochial Proctors? They exist, to be sure, but as a small numerical component of even the Lower House but their position, the interests which they represent, and their cohesion, make them the most important section in it. If the elective Proctors do their duty, they will always be enabled at the very least to prevent mischief in Convocation. Were our advice asked, we should urge considerable care in the selection of candidates. Church Unions might profitably take up the details of the next election. Much carelessness, perhaps positive irregularity with respect to the citations to the incumbents to elect, may be prevented. The local customs may be profitably watched. Search into the Diocesan Registers with respect to the existence of customs might be prosecuted, as, for instance, whether Archdeaconries elect conjointly or separately, and, if any, in whom and by what prescription exists the power of reducing the Proctors elected by the several Archdeaconries to two, to represent the whole Diocese. This point we think important, for it is by no means improbable, that, as in our parliamentary history there was a time in which it was considered a burthen to represent a county

or borough, so this reduction of the parochial Proctors might have been originally intended as a relief. Now, however, that a seat in Convocation, like a seat in the House of Commons, has its value, it would be very important to ascertain how the election by an Archdeaconry of two suflicient Procurators' is, without process, set aside. In a word, we think that those interested in the revival of Synodical action, whether by Convocation or by Synods, diocesan or provincial, would do well to turn their thoughts, perhaps exclusively, to the next election of Proctors. The duty which is nearest is dearest.

In a question growing on the mind of the Church, as that of Synodical action is, it is, to say the least, not likely that the next meeting of Convocation will be less important or interesting than the last. And very important that meeting was. It was the first occasion since the collapse of Convocation in Hoadley's case that business has been actually transacted. Gradually the Proctors have been occupying this point: session by session they have crept on: post by post has been won from official irresolution and apathy. The cold obstruction' of the Upper House has at length been kindled: perplexed and baffled, beaten back from subterfuge to subterfuge, even Sir John Dodson was at length carried away. Silenced but not convinced, the Queen's Advocate was compelled to remain a reluctant witness of the ecclesiastical fact of the year, the event which will give the expiring Convocation a name in History, an actual Debate in Convocation. We have been at some pains to acquire an exact account of what occurred at the last Session of Convocation. Its contingent, as well as actual, importance, requires that it should receive at least as permanent a record as our own pages can give and the readers of the Christian Remembrancer may depend on its authenticity.

:

No notice had been given of the intention of the Archbishop of Canterbury to hold a meeting of Convocation on the 3d February. But as much interest was felt among the Clergy, in consequence of what had passed last year, when a petition was received by his Grace and the Upper House, inquiry was made as to the day and time, and Wednesday, the 3d February, at twelve o'clock, having been found to be the time appointed;

The Bishops of London, Winchester, Exeter, Chichester, Oxford, Lichfield, S. Asaph attended at twelve o'clock. The Archbishop had appointed a Meeting of all the Bishops at the Bounty Board at half-past twelve o'clock, in order to consider the provisions of a new Clergy Offences Bill-and the suggestions of certain Clergymen respecting the separation of the Offices in Divine Service.

Petitions were presented' from nineteen of the twenty-one Dioceses of

In the Upper House the Bishop of London presented petitions from the Dioceses of London, Winchester, Ely, Gloucester and Bristol, and Worcester, praying the Convocation to take such steps as should appear to them most effectual to procure from the Crown the necessary licence for the performance

the Province of Canterbury, praying the House to address a Petition to her Majesty to sanction the meeting of Convocation for real synodal action. It could not be said that the matter came by surprise on the Archbishop ; for a Petition had been entrusted to his Grace to present to the Housewhich Petition he had requested some other Bishop to present.

In presenting the Petitions entrusted to himself, the Bishop of Oxford declared his intention of moving that the House consider the prayer of the Petitions. Upon this, the Queen's Advocate (Sir J. Dodson) interposed, saying, that he felt it his duty, as legal adviser of the Archbishop, to declare that such a proceeding was without precedent; that for 135 years the Crown had called Convocation to meet merely as a form, and had not permitted it to perform any business, citing the statute of 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, as forbidding Convocation to do any business whatsoever, without the express permission of the Crown.

Upon this, the Bishop of Exeter said, that, though he had not lately looked into that statute, yet his recollection of its import was clear, that the learned Queen's Advocate had ascribed to it inadvertently much larger words than it really contained. He had cited the word business, as used by the statute; whereas his (the Bishop's) recollection was clear, (speaking with due deference in contradiction to so high a legal authority,) that the prohibition in the 25 Hen. VIII. was not against Convocation doing any business whatever without the Royal Licence, but against making Canons, or conferring together for the making of Canons, when assembled under such Licence. [The Queen's Advocate assented.] The Bishop recognised the right of the Archbishop to prorogue the Convocation at pleasure-to stop him, if he thought fit, while he was speaking. But as to the fitness of his Grace's being advised to do so, on the ground of no precedent having occurred of Convocations doing more than meeting and bowing, and being dismissed, during nearly a century and a half, he must be permitted to express his astonishment at such a reason being given for such advice. Why, the disuse of all action on the part of Convocation, for so long a period, was the very matter of complaint-the grievance which was to be remedied: to make the existence of that very grievance to be a reason for its continuance, was nothing short of mockery. In conclusion, he said, that he must be a bold man, who would advise the Archbishop (contrary to his Grace's own nature and disposition) to reject on such a ground the prayer of the Clergy of almost every Diocese in the Province. If precedent

of their constitutional functions. The Bishop of Exeter presented similar petitions from the Dioceses of Exeter, Hereford, Bangor, Llandaff, and Peterborough. The Bishop of Chichester presented petitions to the same effect from the Dioceses of Chichester, Bath and Wells, Lincoln, and Rochester; a petition in which a wish was expressed for the admission of delegates from the communicant laity to the synodical assemblies of the Church; and a petition from the London Union on Church Matters, praying Convocation to address the Crown for licence to make Canons for the more effectual representation of the Church of England in Convocation or Synod; and until such licence be granted, to make public declaration of their want of confidence in any measures affecting the spiritualities of the Chruch, which may be prepared in Parliament without the previous counsel and concurrence of a Synodical assembly of the Church, and in particular in the proposed additional measure for the enforcement of discipline among the Clergy. The Bishop of Lichfield presented a petition from his own Diocese, praying the Convocation to address the Crown for licence to perform its constitutional functions. The Bishop of Oxford presented similar petitions from the Dioceses of Oxford, Norwich, Salisbury, and S. David's. The Bishop of S. Asaph presented a petition from his own Diocese. A petition from the Diocese of Canterbury was likewise presented at his Grace's request.

was to be cited, let them look to the precedent set by that Sovereign who died a martyr to his fidelity to the Church. His declaration, prefixed to the Articles, and reprinted as often as the Book of Common Prayer was printed, contained a solemn promise that the Sovereign would do, as often as Convocation should ask him to do, that which it was the prayer of all these Petitions that we should beseech her Majesty to do.

The Bishop of Oxford said, that the motion which he intended to make was not of the general nature which might be expected. There was notice of the intention to introduce a new Clergy Discipline Bill-a matter in which the Clergy at large were immediately interested, and on which they (the Bishops) all knew, that the greatest dissatisfaction was felt and expressed by the Clergy, that they were not consulted. He, therefore, deemed it his duty to move, that this House do present an humble Address to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to issue her Royal Licence for Convocation to meet and consult together respecting the fittest provisions to be introduced into the intended Bill.

The Bishops of London, Exeter, and Chichester expressed their warm assent to this motion; after which the Bishops of Winchester, Lichfield, and S. Asaph declared themselves against it. The Bishop of S. Asaph stated, seemingly as his main reason, that the Bishops present were but a small portion of the Episcopate of the Province-that their absent brethren ought to have an opportunity of expressing their judgment on the matterthat their absence could be well accounted for by the ordinary practice of the House meeting for no other purpose than to be prorogued—and, therefore, that no decision ought to be had, without due notice being given to all, in order that all might be enabled to form and declare a judgment on so grave a question.

The fairness of this suggestion was acknowledged by all; and the Bishop of Oxford, with the full concurrence of those Bishops who had supported his motion, pressed on his Grace the fitness of proroguing, for a definite, and not very remote period. He submitted that a month would be a sufficient time, for all to be informed, and to be prepared.

His Grace, declaring that he thought it most unfit that the Church should be placed in opposition to her Majesty's Government, announced his purpose to prorogue to the 19th of August next. Upon this, the Bishop of Oxford gave notice that on that day he should repeat the motion which he had this day made.

The Lower House was then sent for, in order to the prorogation. On their arrival, the Prolocutor, holding a paper in his hand, stated that he had to present an Address to the Upper House, which, with his Grace's permission, he would read. His Grace said, that they had been sent for, in order that the Convocation he prorogued. Sir John Dodson, the Queen's Advocate, declared that it was contrary to all precedent, that, under such circumstances, an Address from the Lower House should be received. The Bishop of Exeter saying, that he much doubted the accuracy of this statement, or at least its relevancy, the Lower House was desired to retire to their chamber, while this question was considered. After they had retired, the Bishop of Exeter, still doubting the accuracy of the Queen's Advocate's statement, said, that whether it was accurate, or not, he ventured to submit to his Grace's consideration, whether he would reject the Address of the other House by the exercise of a power, which did indeed undoubtedly belong to his high office.

His Grace declared his willingness to receive the Address. Accordingly the Lower House was recalled; their Address was read, received, and entered as part of the proceedings of the day. After which, his Grace declared the prorogation to the 19th of August next.