The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-09 00:00:00

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY AND CONVOCATION.

The Times finds it inexcusable that the Archbishop of
Canterbury should have told some memorialists the
other day, he had the satisfaction of informing them
that Convocation would be duly consulted upon
the matters submitted to the Royal Commission, before
parliament should make any enactment touching them,
whereas it now appears that he had not the slightest
authority for any such assertion. As, however, from Lord
Derby's remarks, it seems that the idea is really sustained,
the matter cannot be altogether dismissed with this dis-
avowal. By law and precedent alike, convocation is desti-
tute of the shadow of a claim to be consulted upon ecoleai-
astical legislation. If the clergy should have a voice in
such matters, for what purpose do the bishops sit in the
House of Lords, except to give expression to that voice ?
If the bishops do not discharge this function, it will be
necessary to inquire what is the use of their being present
in that assembly at all. The truth is that by means
of the commission, and through the Episcopal
Bench, the church, so-called, is far better repre-
sented than by that mere pretence of an ecclesi-
astical parliament which is displayed by Convocation.
Besides, both Convocations must be consulted, and the
probability of a satisfactory result may be estimated from
the fact th,„ tocr4ies have been five years disput-
ing cn such a question as to whether fathers may stand
sponsors for their own children, and are no nearer a settle-
ment now than when the question was first originated.
With regard to the corning report of the commission, the
Tunes trusts that this promptitude indicates an opinion
that some measure of repression ought to be immediately
adopted, and meanwhile it expresses its hope that
Lord Shaftesbury will not attempt to press for-
ward his bill on clerical vestments before the re-
port of the commission has been considered by the public.
When that report is presented, it must at once be taken
into consideration by the government, and if its recom-
mendations appear satisfactory, we hope no time will be
lost in giving effect to them. At all events, the country
will lose all patience if any further attempt is made to
daily with this important but simple matter of reference
to so obsolete and so utterly impracticable a body as Con-
vocation.

According to the Standard there is no right more clearly
established by historical and statutory precedents than the
claim of Convocation to be consulted in regard to state
legislation affecting the church. To repudiate that
right, as Lord Shaftesbury and the Bishop of
Carlisle seem to do, is to arouse the suspicion and
alarm of thousands of churchmen, who care very little
for Convocation, except as the abstract representative
of what they deem to be the prerogatives of the church.
It is quite possible, in the opinion of the Standard, that the
commission will pass judgment upon errors of defect as well
as of excess, but it is reasonablycertain that several details
of extreme ritualism will be condemned, and that legislation
will be proposed, with the sanction of convocation, for
giving effect to that condemnation by such an alteration
of the rubrics as aball cut away the ground of legality from
under the feet of the ritualiats.