ft4it enuntration.
The Convocation of the Bishops and Clergy of the Province of Canter- bury resumed its sittings at Westminster on Tuesday. There was an unusually large attendance and much business on the paper.
At the opening of the Lower House, the Prolocutor carried a report on the discipline of the clergy, prepared by a Committee of that House, to the Upper House. On receiving it, their Lordships debated whether they should there and then take the matter into consideration. On the motion of the Bishop of Oxford, the report was referred back to the Lower House for reconsideration ; with an intimation that the Upper House could not consent to any provision superseding the appeal to the Archbishop in regard to offences not connected with doctrine. Subse- quently, however, the Prelates reversed this decision, and the report went down for reconsideration without any exception.
In this document two distinct classes of offences are defined, and machinery suggested for dealing with them. The first class consists of offences against the laws ecclesiastical, not involving questions concern- ing the settled doctrine, or the ritual, or the public services of the Church of England ; the second class consists of offences involving such ques- tions. For the first class of offences, the Lower House proposes to do away with the preliminary inquiry under the present law, and convert it into an actual trial before Commissioners, upon whose report the Bishop shall sentence or admonish the offender. With regard to offences in- volving questions of doctrine or ritual, they are to be dealt with by the Bishop sitting with a Council. There should be an appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Province, on a question of law, or amount of punish- ment, but none on questions of facts. With regard to appeal in cases not involving doctrine or ritual, that should be to the judicial Com- mittee of the Privy Council. The Lower House were occupied the greater part of Tuesday and Wednesday in the reconsideration of this report.
In both Houses petitions were presented praying that measures should be taken to bring about a restoration of the Wesleyan Methodists to the communion of the Church of England. In the House of Bishops, the petition was presented by the Bishop of Lichfield. It set forth that certain "impressions prevailed" among the Wesleyans —as, for instance, that the Church is not sufficiently careful in the ordination of ministers or jealous of the holiness of their lives ; that "class meetings" would not be approved; that in promoting union the Church desired to obtain temporal influence ; and that as these impressions were obstacles in the way of union, the petitioners prayed that they might be removed. The Bishop of St. Davids said, it was a most extraordinary petition to proceed from cleigymen. There is not the slightest ground for saying that the English Church is careless about admitting candidates for holy orders into the ministry. He should not oppose, but he certainly should protest against the reception of such a petition. The Bishop of Lichfield said that was an erroneous construction of the petition : the petitioners only stated what were the " impressions " of the Wesleyans. Ultimate- ly the petition was received.
A petition came up from the Lower House submitting, that on the foundation of an English church at Constantinople both Houses should forward some expression of their sentiments of Constantinople, fellowship to
the Bishops and clergy of the Eastern Church. The Bishop of St. Davids and the Bishop of Worcester thought that the present is not a proper time to press the subject with any hope of success.
The greater part of Wednesday was occupied by the Lower House in considering the report on the discipline of the clergy. The chief interest lay in those portions of the report which provided for the trial of offences involving questions of doctrine, ritual, or the services of the Church. Objection was taken to the proposal that these offences should be tried by- the Bishop in whose diocese they might be committed; and the Re- verend Mr. Best moved that they should be tried before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with the addition of an Archbishop, certain Bishops, and Professors. But the proposal was speedily nega- tived. After further discussion it was agreed that the cases in question should be heard and determined by the Bishop of the diocese assisted by a Council of eight clergymen. The question as to the Court of Appeal caused much discussion. The Archdeacon of Maidstone moved two resolutions, to the effect that the principles on which a Court of Appeal should be founded are those embodied in the preamble of the Statute of Appeals, the 24th Henry VIII., c. 12; in which it is declared, that England is governed "by one Head and King; a body politic composed of the spiritually and the temporalty " the body spiritual having power when any cause of Divine law happened to come into question • and, recognizing the proper function of a court of ap- peal to be only 'the application of authoritative decisions to the cause in hand, not the settlement of matters of faith ; that no arrangement would be satisfactory to the House "which did not give full security that all questions involving points of doctrine should be dealt with, under the authority of the Crown, by the spiritually, assisted by such legal persons as might be deemed necessary for the ends of justice." Dr. Grant seconded the resolutions. Dr. Elliott and Chancellor Mar- tin protested against the idea that such a court should be constituted solely of divines. But, on a division, the first resolution was carried by 38 to 8, and the second by 37 to 9.
As the House could not finish the report, they obtained leave from the Upper House to sit another day.
The sitting of Convocation terminated on Thursday, when an adjourn- ment till the 28th August took place. The main proceedings on the last day, as throughout the session, were confined to the Lower House. In framing the recommendations for a Court of Appeal, the Arch- deacon of Berkshire submitted a proposition, to the effect that appeals in questions of doctrine and ritual should be heard by the Privy Council, provided that the Court be composed solely of members of the Church of England ; that the Council should submit any questions as to what is doctrine or ritual to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who in turn should summon the Bishops to determine the point ; and that the point so de- termined should be reported to the Privy Council. On this an amend- ment was moved, that the motion required more consideration than the House could then give it : and that amendment was carried. Finally, the report, as amended, was carried to the Upper House by the Prolocu- tor, and the Archbishop of Canterbury stated that the House would take it into consideration.
Among the notices of motion that did not come on for discussion, was the following, placed on the paper by Dean Milman-
" To propose a petition to the Upper House, praying their Lordships to consider the propriety of presenting an address to her Majesty for the dis- continuance of the order requiring the use of the occasional services for the 5th November, the 30th January, and the 29th May."
Previous page
