The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

ROUSE OF LORDS, May 10.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
MASTERS IN CHANCERY ABOLITION BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second
reading of this Bill. Having already explained the ob•
jects of this Bill, his Lordship said that he did not
think it necessary to go into its details on the present
occasion.
Lord CRANWORTH said he did not mean to op-
pose the Bill altogether, although he doubted somewhat
of its successful working, inasmuch as he thought suitors
would not always be inclined to rest satisfied with an
inquisition into their affairs carried on by an official bear-
ing no higher rank than that of a judge's clerk. He
thought some measures might be devised by which the
master's duties should be devolved on the registrars.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that this was the
first time that he had heard such a proposition made,
but at first sight it appeared to him that the registrars
were at present too much occupied by their own duties
to be able to hear an additional burden.
Lord LYNDHURST advised their Lordships to ad-
here to the recommendation of the Commission as
embodied in the present Bill.
After a few words from Lard CAMPBELL,
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
referred to a Select Committee.
FURTHER CHANCERY REFORMS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thou moved the first
reading of a Bill, the second Bill on the subject of
Chancery Reform, which he said contained the whole of
the remaining recommendations of the Commission. He
would not now go into the details of the measure, but
he proposed after the second reading, to refer it to a
Select Committee, and ho hoped to get both the Bills
through the Select Committee pari passe, and send
them both down to the other House, in full time for
them to pass into law this session.
After a few words from Lords LYNDHURST and
CRINWoRTH, the Bill was read a first time.
LUNACY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also laid on the table,
a Bill to improve the System of the administration of the
affairs of lunatics, who had nottbeen declared so by Com-
mission, but who had resided a certain time in the
lunatic asylum.
The Bill was read a first time.
CONVOCATION OF THE CLERGY OF YORK.
Lord REDESDALE then rose to bring forward a
motion, of which he had given notice, for copies of the
writs summoning convocation in the province of York.
He said their Lordships would recollect that last session
he had called their attention to the subject of convoca-
tion, and certainly since then the subject bad lost none
of its interest. He believed there was a steady and pro-
gressive desire on the part of those interested in the
Church, that her members should have the same means
of governing her affairs as were enjoyed by the Church
of Scotland and by every other religious community. It
was well known that great exertions were making, on
the part of the Church of Rome, to have synodical
action; and it was of course more important that the
Church of England should possess that power. It was
necessary that some tribunal should exist, before which
questions relating either to doctrine or discipline might
be referred; and all persons must feel that neither
House of Parliament was a fitting body for that pur-
pose, to which petitions or inquiries could be properly
addressed relative to subjects connected with the
Church.—(Hear, hear.) It could not be denied that
the Church of England was deficient in some tribunal
of this kind, to which could be submitted the control
of her internal regulations.—(Hear, hear.) Leaving
now. with these remarks, the general question, he
would refer to the particular matter which formed the
subject cf his motion. It was known to their Lordships,
probably, that the Convocation of Canterbury, though it
did not proceed to discussion, was regularly constituted,
and, to some extent, even might be said to transact
business; for it presented an address to the Crown
though not permitted to enter upon any other matter.
The convocation of the province of York, however,
though it was a body more popularly constituted—i. e.,
having more elected members—had not so regular a
character, and had ceased for a long period to discus&
any business. It never assembled, for instance, in two
houses, but the prelates eat in the same chamber with the
minor clergy—partly, no doubt, from the limited number
of bishops in the province, and partly from the fact that,
as there was no business to draw them together at York
on the assemblingh!of Parliament (the occasion when con-
vocation was summoned), they usually sent proxies.
There had, therefore, been a limited attendance and but
little business. It would be desirable to revive the power
of exercising the proper functions of convocation as
they had of old been exercised ever since the
Reformation. Thus the canons of 1603 had been
considered and sanctioned by the clergy of the
archdiocese of York in 1704, in convocation,
summoned by Archbishop Hutton ; bat in which,
owing to that prelate's death, the dean, by royal
commission, had presided. So, after the Restoration,
there was an assembly and convocation (as we under-
stood) on Church affairs. So, in Queen Anne's reign
there was an address to her Majesty with regard to
Queen Anne's Bounty. Even during the reign of her
present Majesty, in 1847, the clergy of the province of
York desired to address the Crown, and the late Primate
concurred in that wish; bat dying, his successor did not
like to disturb a long-standing system, and so the mat-
ter dropped, and from that time till the present year no
convocation had been summoned. In this year, however,
they were summoned in the usual form. They had ad-
journed to the chapter-house, and stated that it was their
intention to present a petition to the Queen, to which a
courteous reply was sent by his Grace that in the ab-
sence of any licence from the Crown he could only direct
the petition to be sent into the registrar. Under these
circumstances, and supposing that everything had been
regular, they had thought it right to make this state-
ment; but he was sure that he would not be conveying
the wishes of the parties, if he reflected in any way upon
the conduct of the Right Rev. Prelate upon that occa-
sion. Everyone must appreciate the unwillingness of
the Right Rev. Prelate to take any steps except those
which had been sanctioned by former precedent. At the
same time he was sure it would be felt that it was open
to all to canvass the question of whether the not opening
the seasion annually was one which ought to be perse-
vered in, or a course which was justified by precedent.
Hitherto the question had stood thus—that where at-
tendance was given, the session was opened; and it was
a feeling shared in by himself and others, that the clergy
of one province should enjoy the same
privileges as were
enjoyed by the other. He hoped and trusted that in
calling the attention of their Lordships, he had not done
it offensively to any one, and he would suggest that the
example which was about to be set by the Right Rev.
Prelate's lamented predecessor might be more grateful
to the clergy, and with these remarks he beaged to sub-
mit the motion, which was merely of a formal nature, to
their Lordship.
The Archbishop of YORK thanked the Noble Lord
for the temperate manner in which he had alluded to
the mattereand to the Right Rev.
Prelate his predecessor
and himself. True, his lamented predecessor had given
a most unwilling assent to it.
In 1837, on the acces-
sion, of the present Sovereign when it was proposed to
hold a convocation, and meet and forward an address of
congratulation to her Majesty, it had been forbidden
by his predecessor, because it had not been done for the
last 180 years. At his very advanced age, and imme-
diately brfore his death, at the solicitation of certain
parties, he had given a reluctant assent to
present a
petition. When the writ came down to York, ho had
transferred it as quickly as
possible to the registrar,
with orders that whatever had been aforetime done
should in that case be done also. He was not an inex-
perienced man, but had held the office from the earliest
part of the century, and had succeeded his father, who
had held the office for fifty years, commencing in 1779,
so that it had been in the family for nearly 100 years.
He concluded, therefore,
p
that whatever had been the
would be done. It
appeared that no archbishop
had attended in any instance since the time of Henry
except twice—once
after the revolution in 1688,
and again in 1708. There was no single instance ex-
cept those two. There were always some Commissioners
who represented the archbishop, who wore generally the
dean and chapter, and who attended the convocation. It
was true that the convocation met on the 4th of Feb.,
and that one of the members sent to him to say that he
had one or more petitions to present to the convocation.
He presumed that it was the duty of the proper officer
to receive them. On the sth, after they had met—how
many were present
be did not know, but he had a letter
stating that they bad e
met—that they went to the
chapter-house, and that the found nobody in attend-
ance, and adjourned. ler
d written to the deputy
registrar, who had a
stated that all had been done
which was usual and customary. He had never
heard anything m
- —ore of the matter until it had
been brought forward by the Noble Earl, but he had
satisfied himself that what had been done was according
to the usual practice. He had received a letter from
his secretary
on the subject, in which he stated that
" with respect to writs from the Crown, your Grace has
since your translation to the see, done all that was ne-
cessary in such cases." That was in answer to a letter
directing bins to • '
make iuiries into former precedents.
He also had a letter fromcanon residentiary of York,
a
of twenty-six years' standing, who had been domestic
chaplain to the late Archbishop, and who stated that
the former Archbishop had never been present, nor was
any archbishop present in the chapter-house since the
year 1720, when it was opened by Archbishop Sharpe;
and that the prorogation of the writ on the 4th of
February was strictly in accordance with precedent.
Now the writer Mr. Dixon, was an accomplished anti-
quarian, and ho had assured him that there had not
been the slightest departure from ancient custom. He
could not pledge himself to do so on any future occa-
sion, at the same time the address of the Noble Earl
should have his best consideration.
Lord LYTTLETON would be extremely sorry to see
the convocati‘'us of either province brought into ex-
istence for business in their present constitution, and in
an irregular manner, as if by surprise. Still ho thought
that the convocation should bo allowed to petition and
memorialize the Crown, as was done frequently iu the
diocese of Canterbury. It would appear that the Right
Reverend Prelate relied entirely upon the information
he
had received from others, and contended that what he
had done was strictly in accordance with precedent.
But he was informed that on the 19th of November,
1847,. the question of the election of the Archbishop of
York was taken into consideration, as appeared by the
records of the court. On the occasion referred to by the
Noble Earl, notice had been given to the Noble Earl
that a petition would be presented, and that was the
grievance of which those parties complained.
The Earl of REDES DALE replied, observing that he
was sure the address of the Right Rev. Prelate would be
received with as much satisfaction by their Lordships as
himself.

The moan was then agreed to.
COURT OF APPEAL IN MATTERS OF DOC-
TRINE.
Tha g 44124 LONDON Oct tluit it !mid dim ill the