The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-16 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a thirc time and passed :
Rhymney Railway (Cardiff to Caerphilly)-oswestry and
Newtown, London and North Western, and other Rail-
ways Amalgamation—London (City) Tithes—Bnckfast-
leigh, Totnes, and South Devon Railway—Northfleet Dis-
trict (as Sea Lea Bridge District) Gas—and Bristol Port
Extension Railway.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from
the inhabitants of Finsbury Circus praying that the Metro-
politan Railway Bill (Extension) to Trinity-square might
not be allowed to pass into a law.
CONVOCATION.

Lord HOUGHTON rose to ask her Majesty's Govern-
ment whether they had taken, or were willing to take, the
opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to the powers
of the Convocation of the province of Canterbury to pass
a synodical judgment on books written either by
clergymen or laymen; as to the immunity of the
members of that body from proceedings at com-
mon law consequent on such judgments ; and as
to the forms according to which such judicial power
must be exercised if it belongs to that body. He asked
the question because of the verdict that had been passed
upon the volumes called "Essays and Rev!ews." He
did not wish to enter into any theological discussion in
their lordships' house ; he simply drew their attention
to the subject for the sake of freedom of opinion
and liberty of religion. Having referred to the origin of
" Essays and Reviews," he remarked that it was matter
of regret that a book of that description should have been
selected by the Convocation of
Canterbury. The proceed-
ings of Covocation in earlier times, in respect to censuring
books, were kept in check by the Upper House of Convoca-
tion. In the
year 1700 a work by Tolan, entitled "Chris-
tianity not Mysterious,''was condemned by the Upper
House, but when the Lower House came to consider
the subject they came to the conclusion that without a
licence from the King, which they had not received,
they had no authority to censure any such book,
but, on the contrary, they were advised that by doing so
both Houses of Convocation might incur the penalties
contained in the statute of twenty-fifth of Henry VIII.
Raving remarked upon other and later circumstances, espe-
cially upon Dr Wiston's, he said he thought he had demon-
strated the dubiousness of the law upon the subject, and he
considered himself justified in asking his first question
whether the Government intended to take the opinion of the
law officers of the Crown upon the powers of Convocation.
The result of the censure upon the " Essays and Reviews"
was fraught with the most important considerations, espe-
cially as amongst the authors were Dr Temple, the head
master of Rugby school and Professor Jowett, who
had been treated with much injustice by the Uni-
versity of Oxford. If the system of censuring
books was to exist they must go on and not stop, at
" Essays and Reviews." They must go on and censure
the book of a bishop of a colonial church, which
produced some time ago the greatest excitement. He
wanted to knew under what form or restrictions they
could exercise their power of censuring works. It had
long been understood that they could only exer-
cise the power at the instance of the Crown. To
alter a canonical law they required a license of the
Crown. He considered that no distinction could be
drawn between the censure of a book and the alteration of
a common law. One thing had occurred in connection
with this case which must be most repugnant to
their lordships. Dr. 'Williams made application to be
heard in his defence before judgment was pro-
nounced, but it was refused, and therefore Dr Williams
was condemned. That, he felt certain, their lordships would
think repugnant with justice; and, under such circum-
stances, he begged to ask the question of which he had given
notice.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said there were three
modes of dealing with Convocation since it had been per-
mitted to deliberate actively. One was to take no notice of
its proceedings—another was, if it were likely to be mis-
chievous, to prorogue it—and the third, when it exceeded
its powers, to bring it to the bar of a court of justice. The
supremacy of the Crown was most carefully guarded by the
statutes, and any one who presumed to exercise that autho-
rity directly or indirectly, save under special warrant of the
Crown, was liable to the penalties of prasmunire. More-
over, Parliament had carefully provided that any sentence,
or anything else, pronounced by Convocation had no vali-
dity whatever, and could not be carried into practical effect.
But he was only partially aware of what Convocation had
done, his authority being chiefly by the reports in the news-
papers, and he was most reluctant to interfere, for the case
might prove to be a serious one, and he shrank from
enabling the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sweep into his
net at one haul the whole of the archbishops and bishops,
all the deans and archdeacons—in short the whole of the
Convocation. He warned the right rev. bench, however,
of the peril in which they had put themselves, and advised
the members of Convocation, it any attempt were made to
draw it beyond its proper limits; at once to secede, and
remembering the pillar of salt not to look behind them. In
reply to the question of his noble friend, he had to state
that there was no intention on the part of Government to
take any steps in the matter.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that the object
of Convocation in dealing with the" Essays and Reviews,"
was not persecution, but to vindicate the Church of England
from all complicity in the doctrines propounded in that
work. Desirous of proceeding legally he had applied to
Government for the opinion of the law officers of the
Crown, which they had declined to give. He thereupon
took the opinion of Sir Hugh Cairns and Mr Molt, who
held that Convocation was proceeding legally.
The Bishop of LONDON thought Convocation had a
right to complain of the Government refusing to supply the
opinion of the law officers. It was not a case for ridicule
—and in religious disputes, however trifling, it was desir-
able to settle them before they became really serious.

The Bishop of OXFORD argued that the Convocation
when called together had power to express an opinion on
heretical doctrines, although it was doubtful whether it
could proceed against the authors. The case involved the
religion of the realm and the liberty of the subject—and
when the highest authority under the Crown descended to
ribaldry, he ought, if he did not respect himself, at least to
treat the audience he was addressing with respect. The
right rev. prelate also:complained of the misrepresentations
of the Lord Chancellor, and indignantly repelled the in-
sinuation that Convocation was asserting rights in viola-
ti.n of the Queen's supremacy. . .

The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that he had now
received a useful warning. He had wished to treat the
matter good-naturedly, and without"the slightest idea of
bringing charges or making misrepresentations.
The subject then dropped; and several bills, including
the Street Music Bill, having been forwarded a stage, their
lordships sojourned.