Conant= uf tht ettrgti.

The Convocation of the Clergy of the see of Canterbury met on Wed- nesday, at Westminster ; the Upper House in the Bounty Office, the Lower in the Jerusalem Chamber.

The members of the Upper House who assembled were, the Archbishop of Canterbury, president, and the Bishops of London, Winchester, Exe- ter, Rochester, Salisbury, Chichester, Ilandaff, Oxford, Worcester, and Peterborough. The sitting was characterized by calmness, notwithstand- ing the great differences of opinion which the Bishops displayed in their discussions.

At the sitting in November, a Committee was appointed by Convoca- tion to consider of an address to the Queen in favour of a measure for the better enforcing of discipline among the clergy. Since that time, the Committee had met, and agreed to a report; which was now brought up and read by the Bishop of London.

Complaining generally of the state of the law, as expensive, dilatory, and inadequate, the report touches upon the delicate question of the hearing of charges for heresy and schism, and the composition of a Court of AppeaL With regard to the former, a return to the practice existing before the pass- ing of the 2d and 3d William IV. c. 92, is recommended; and the trial of clergymen before the Bishop and a jury of not fewer than four clergymen, not chosen by the Bishop, but selected from a panel. With regard to the Court of Appeal, the report recommends that jurisdiction should be restored to the Queen in Chancery, with power to remit the cause for rehearing to the Court of the Archbishop ; "providing that there should sit, under the authority of the Great Seal, with the Judge of that Court, other Ecclesias- tical and Common Law Judges, to hear and decide finally in the cause."

This report was ordered to lie on the table, and be communicated to the Lower House. A message was sent, and a deputation of the Lower House, headed by the Prolocutor, appeared to receive a copy of the re- Port.

At the last sitting of Convocation, the Bishop of Cape Town had sent in a petition to the Archbishop and Bishops, stating that he had not been

cited by the Dean, and praying that a citation might issue. This raised the question, not only as to the right of the Bishop of Cape Town to sit as a suffragan of the see of Canterbury, but as to the competence of Convo- cation to deal with the question of right. The petition was referred by the Archbishop to his Vicar-General, Dr. Twiss ; and Dr. Twiss made a report, to the effect that the sea of Cape Town is not within the province of Canterbury, so as to found any authority for the Archbishop to direct the citation of the Bishop of Cape Town. In this opinion the Chancellor of the Bishop of London concurred ; and the Archbishop decided, that no

wrong had been done by the Dean of the Province, the Bishop of London, in, not citing the Bishop of Cape Town. Upon this a long and intricate discussion ensued. The Bishop of Salisbury—strenuously supported by the Bishop of Oxford, who disagreed with the Vicar-General as to the law of the case—held that the House was competent to settle the question. The Bishop of London and the Bishop of Exeter held that the House was not competent. But the Archbishop "supposed that the petition was re- ferred to him exclusively," and that he was to give a judicial decision upon it ; and his decision was against the Bishop of Cape Town.

In the midst of their discussion, the appointed time for waiting on the Queen to present the address arrived ; and the Upper House being joined by the Lower, the whole body proceeded to Buckingham Palace. Enter- ing the presence-chamber, the Archbishop and the members of the Upper House took their station to the right hand of the Queen, the Prolocutor and members of the Lower House standing on her Majesty's left hand. The Archbishop then read the address, which he delivered to the Queen; and her Majesty returned the following gracious answer-

" I receive with cordial satisfaction the assurances of your loyal and affec- tionate attachment to my throne and person. It is my earnest desire to pro- mote the welfare and happiness of all classes of my subjects, by continuing • to them the blessings of peace abroad, and by assisting to extend at home the holy influence of religion, which is the only sure foundation on which national prosperity can permanently rest. I thank you for the sympathy -which you have expressed in my sorrow for the recent loss of the most dis- tinguished of my subjects, and I appreciate the value which you attach to

that high sense of duty by which he was invariably inspired. I rely with

confidence on your assurances of your desire to preserve harmony in the Church, and to increase its efficiency, while maintaining its doctrines and my supremacy unimpaired ; and I pray that the blessing of God may attend your endeavours to extend widely throughout all classes of my people the inestimable benefit of pure and deeply-felt religion."

On returning to the chambers, business was recommenced, in the 'Up- per House, by an order that the report on Clergy Discipline should be printed. Then the discussion respecting the Bishop of Cape Town was resumed, and continued at great length. Still there was no approach to unanimity. The Bishop of Oxford, however, at the outset, advanced the matter towards a settlement, by making a distinct motion, to the effect that the prayer of the petitioner involved a question so arduous and so novel, that he should establish his claim to a writ of summons in the

courts of law before the House proceeded in the matter. The Bishop of

Exeter took exception to this—that it seemed to assume that the House had power to deal with the question hereafter; and he moved as an amendment, that Convocation was not competent to comply with the prayer of the petitioner. Here the Bishop of Oxford pointed out, that in requesting the Archbishop to take the opinion of the Vicar-General,

the House had dealt with the petition. The Bishop of Exeter was not shaken by this ; but the opposition to his resolution was nearly general. Finally, after much debating to and fro, the resolution was unanimously passed in this form-

" That this House, having taken into consideration the petition of the Bishop of Cape Town, does not feel itself competent to entertain the prayer of the said petitioner,—namely, either to direct that a proper citation be is- sued to such petitioner, or that he be allowed, without such citation, to take his_place as a Suffragan Bishop in the present Convocation." The House now proceeded to another subject of scarcely less import- ance—the appointment of a Committee to inquire into precedents touch- ing the right of licensed curates, not beneficed, to vote at the election of Proctors. A resolution to that effect was moved by the Bishop of Exeter. Holding the appointment of such a Committee to be illegal, the Bishop of Winchester proposed to remit the inquiry to the Vicar-General. But the Bishop of Oxford, desirous of keeping alive the Provincial Synod of the Church, of taking such steps within the law as have no tendency to alarm the sensitiveness of public men, and which may pave the way for holding discussions at a future time under the licence of the Crown, knew nothing more accordant with the spirit of Convocation than the appointment of such a committee. A division was insisted on, and the amendment was rejected by 6 to 5. There voted for the amendment, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Winchester Rochester, Peterborough, and Worcester ; against it, the Bishops of London, Exeter Salisbury, Chi- chester, Oxford, and Llandaff. Accordingly, as the Archbishop did not refuse his sanction, the Committee was appointed. A petition from the Bishops of Quebec Antigua, and Newfoundland, praying for the appointment of a Committee of Bishops to give them the benefit of their assistance in their respective dioceses, was read, and a con- versation ensued; resulting in the promise of the Archbishop of Canter- bury to appoint a Committee, not of Convocation, but simply to confer with the Colonial Bishops. Some discussion arose on a petition alleging great evils attending mar- riages upon a Registrar's certificate, and on the state of the records of Convocation. Then came the question of prorogation. The Bishop of Oxford endeavoured, without success, to obtain the assent of the Arch- bishop to one of two propositions in order to save the necessity of entering a protest against the prorogation "sine consensu &strum." Might not a Bishop move the adjournment ; or could not some words compromising neither party be inserted in the schedule of adjournment ? As the Arch- bishop held that he could not consent to either course without surrender- ing his claim of right, the Bishops of Exeter, Salisbury, Chichester, and Oxford, tendered a protest. No one objected to the prorogation.

Meanwhile, the proceedings of the Lower House had consisted entirely, if we except the presentation of petitions, of a discussion as to the power of a Committee to sit during the recess. It will be recollected that a Com- mittee was appointed during the November sitting to consider certain representations of " gravamina " which had been presented to the House. The sanction of the Archbishop to the sitting of that Committee, although solicited, was withheld while the Houses sat, because there was not time, and afterwards because the Archbishop had no power to act during a re- cess. Consequently, the Committee had„not assembled. The whole day was occupied in the discussion of the question whether they had the right to sit. Towards the close of the afternoon, it was suggested that a general Committee to search for precedents should be appointed ; but while this was under consideration, the Prolocutor was summoned to the Upper House' and there informed that Convocation was " immediately " pro- rogued until the 18th of August. Consequently, the Lower House was obliged to leave its business unconcluded.