The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-17 00:00:00

the hoese sdionrned for the purpose of proceeding, with the
other hoses, to her Majesty for the presentation of the
addrene.
• Oa their return, a few minutes before 2, the reply of her
M►,jesty tor the eddresswas communicated to the Lower House
Stine reply will be found under our " Court Circular ") :
The Bishop of LONDON then moved that the report with
regard to the discipline of the clergy should be printed
for the use of the rcembers of oonvocauon.

The motion was agreed to.
The Bishop cf CHICHESTER said before the discussion
was resumed, he wished to present two petitions, one from
tout fectonot lds diocese on the Titan of admitting cu-
rates to vote at the election of proctors, another to the same
effect from certain incumbents and curates.
The Bishop of OXFORD then recalled the attention of the
house to the petition of the Lord Bishop of Capetown, and
entered at some length into the merits of the cue.
' The Bishop of LONDON followed.
After many unsuccessful attempts to come to an agree-
ment on the subject,
The Bishop of EXETER moved the following:—" That
this house having taken into its consideration the petition
of Robert Lord Bishop of Capetown, does not deem itself
competent to make any order in the matter to which the
prayer of the petition refers."
The Bishop of OXFOILD said he could not assent to such a
resolution. The house had already made an order by con-
senting to a reference to the Vicar-General, and they were
now asked by the sweeping words proposed, to pledge them-
selves to a confession of impotence, which was certainly
marvellous considering the quarter whence in proceeded.
'the Bishop of LONDON said the house was asked simply
to declare that it could not decide the question under exist-
ing circumstances ; it was nut asked to pledge future meet-
ings of convocation.
The Bishop of EIETtlt said the same turn of mind which
made him resolve to insist on rights where he believed they
existed, made him also resolve to disclaim pretended rights
which he believed had no foundation whatever. It would
be • reproach to the house to have decided the question if
it did atterwards turn out that they had no power to do so.
After some further discussion, a resolution in the follow-
ing terms was adopted unanimously:—" That this house
having taken into consideration the petition of Robert Lord
Bishop of Capotown, does not feel itself competent to en-
tertain the prayer of the said petition, namely, either to
direct a proper cit Won to be issued to such petitioner, or
that he be allowed without such citation to take his place
as a suffragan bishop in the present convocation."
The Bishop of Exrrxn said he had &petition to present
rhe knew nothing about its concoction—respecting the
election of proctors, which he had referred to his diocesan
chancellor for his opinion. The right rev. prelate thee read
the opinion, from which it appeared that the petition
related to a claim of licensed curates in his diocese
to vote at the election of proctors; the chancellor
deciding against the claim, on the ground that
the right of voting was confined (as was understood)
to persona and vicars. The right rev. prelate said be hoped
that before the house prorogued, if it did prorogue that
day, n committee would be appointed to investigate the
matter and prepare a report before the next session. He
would venture, in fact, to move the appointment of a com-
mittee for that purpose.
The Vicut-GeNzau, said, in reading the petition on
the previous day, he found that the petitioner prayed that
they might be allowed to attend and vote at synodal as-
semblies of the church. The petition was not confined to
the question of voting at the election of proctors. His opi-
nion having been requested by his grace, he had to state
that in the Archdeaconry of Sudbury, a claim of the licensed
curates to Tote was rejected, on the ground that it was con-
trary to custom in that archdeaconry.
The Bishop of OXFORD thought • committee should be
appointed to inquire.
The Bishop of WINCHESTER said there was one point to
be considered before they entertained this question, namely,
in what position the house then stood. It was true that a
committee was appointed in the last session, which was
directed to sit after the adjournment, for the purpose of
considering certain circumstances, and that committee had
' reported that morning. But they were now met under
different circumstances. They had presented an address to
the Queen and received her Majesty's reply,. and they were
now asked to enter upon a new course, Which might place
them in a position of great difficulty. He hoped the house
would pause before assenting to such a proposal.
The Bishop of SALISBURY did not see what distinction
there was between the appointment of a committee then
and the appointment of one at the last meeting. No doubt
if the analogies of parliament were strictly applicable to
them, it would not be competent to them to pass the reso-
lution ; but, having looked into the precedents, he had
found it to be the practice of convocation to appoint com-
mittees to sit during periods of adjournment, and under the
present circumstances unless committees sat at such periods
they could not sit at all.
The Bishop of Exists' saw no reason why committees
should not sit in • quiet and private manner during the in-
terval of i rorogation. As regarded the petition, his grace
had given a positive pledge that it should be considered,
and that could not be done without inquiry. The house
must either continue its sittings or refer the matter to a
committee; and they thought it better not to sit lest
the fact of their doing so should lead to apprehensions
of designs on their part which they did not entertain. The
course under which their peaceable intentions were least
likely to be suspected was that of appointing a committee
of inquiry.
The Bishop of WINCHISTIR proposed the following
amendment :—" That this house does not deem it sxpe
dint at this time to enter into the consideration of the
prayer of the petition, but remits it for the consideration
of the Vicar-General for his further report on the question
at issue."

The Bishop of Exwrza said with great respect for the
Vicar-Gener he could not allow him to decide for them ;
nor was he aware of any precedent for such • reference.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER said he for one must protest
against the appointment of any fresh committee, which he
was told on good authority would be illegal.
The Bishop of Lownow thought there could be little
doubt that the inquiry would be legal ; while the sitting
of the committee, if an exercise at all, would certainly be a
most innocent exercise of the powers of convocation. He
felt the more strongly on this subject because there was an-
other petition before the hove—he referred to the petition
from the colonial bishops—which involved no lees a ques-
tion than the maintenance or disruption of the unity of the
church of England. What had been den* in reference to
clergy discipline showed that there was no cause for appre-
hension. Hitherto there had been no disunion, no unplea-
sant discussion, no evil results arising from the appoint-
ment of a committee. Their conferences bad all been con-
ducted with the most perfect amity ; there bad been the
most perfect freedom of debate • and the meetings of their
own session of convocation had been models of temper and
moderation. He hoped to see at an early period a settle-
ment of the difficult question of criminal proceedings for
the correction of clerks offending against laws ecclesias-
bee/.

His GRACE said he was advised that if he were to sanc-
tion the appointment of a committee he would be amenable
for having ventured on an excenivejuriedietion, and going
beyond has province of Canterbury, as the matter refined
to bishoprics in the colonies.
The Bishop of Wvecansnin said that notwithstanding
what had fallen from the Bishop of London, he still thought
that they were asked to enter on a course which was fraught
with serious consequences.
The Bishop of OXFORD said be now felt that it was ne-
cessary for him to do what be had hoped to avoid—namely,
to divide the house. The difference of opinion was such
that he could not content to any compromise. He en-
tirely acquiesced in the wisdom of not prolonging
their sittings by any expedient which might have
that effect, and he considered a prorogation but
for the church, and most likely to lead ultimately to the
restoration of synodal action. Until the mind of the church
was more with them than it was then, it would be very in-
discreet to hurry on immediate action ; but he could not
consent to their returning to a state of complete inaction •,
and nothing could be more accordant with the spirit in
which the house had proceeded that day, than to appoint
the proposed committee to sit during the ream.
After some further disunion, the question was submitted
to a division, when the votes were—for the committee, the
Bishops of London, Exeter, Salisbury, Oxford, Llandaff,
and Chichestev—total, 6; against it, the Archbishop of Can-
terbury, and the Bishops of Winchester, Peterborough,
Worcester, and Rochester—total 6.
The resolution was accordingly carried.
His Gases said he believed no committee could be ap-
pointed without the sanction of the president, but this was
not one of those cases in which he should think it right to
refuse his sanction.

The Bishop of Wmcglavnit said he had two proxies,
but he did not feel justified in using them on a bye-ques-
tion of this kind.
The Bishop of OXFORD said there were three on the other
side, which there was no thought of putting in.
The Bishop of Birrza suggested that it should be com-
municated to the lower house that the upper house had ap-
pointed the committee, leaving them to do the same if they
thought proper. He would like to act with the lower
house.

The Bishop of OXPORD thought such a course would
increase the efficiency of the proceeding.
The Bishop of Ezirria then proposed that hie Grace
should be requested to inform the Prolocutor of what had
been done in the matter in that house, and to direct him to
name a committee of the lower house.

- -
His GRACE said he gave his sanction to the appointment
of the committee because he did not think it his duty under
the circumstances to interpose an objection ; but, as he en-
tertained very great objection to the meeting of the two
houses again at that particular time, ha must certainly de-
cline to give his sanction to a communication.
The Bishop of LONDON said, as the colonial bishops hap-
pened to be in this country at the present time and wished
for their advice, he had intended to move the appointment
of a committee to confer with them, but after what his
grace had just said ho was not disposed to do so.
The Vicaa-GrathuaL said the petition to his grace en-
treated him, at the meeting of convocation, to appoint a
committee of bishops who would give them the benefit of
their counsel.
_ . . .

Ihe Bishop of Ex rift thought that, though the peti-
tioners might have erred in point of form, it would be a
graceful and catholic act to accede to their request.
The Bishop of LONDON doubted whether they would not
thus be touching the Queen's supremacy, which affected
the colonial churches in a greater degree even than their
own church. As a simple committee of bishops they might,
no doubt, give advise.
The Bishop of 0 x roltD thought that house should consider
the conditions on which they consecrated colonial bishops.
lio would I.IIIVJ that a committee be appointed to con.iaer
the heads of an address tu her Maj,sty touching the pre-
sent relation of the el.O of (.'anti rbury to colonial bishops,
with power to invite the attendance of colonial bishops.
His GisaCu said it was no doubt quite right that the