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

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 1853.

CONVOCATION.

The two Houses of Convocation for the provinc6 of
Canterbury assembled in full session at Westminster yes-
terday forenoon, at half-past ten o'clock, to which period
they had been prorogued from, the 17th of November last,
the members of the Upper House, with his Grace the Pre-
sident Archbishop at their head, sitting in the Bounty
Office, and tho members of the Lower House, presided over
by the Prolocutor, Dr. Peacock, Dean of Ely, sitting at the
Jerusalem Chamber.

to answer the petition by telling the Bishop of Cape Town
that the Upper House of Convocation declined to decide
upon a question involving so many difficulties, and •ho
would then be at liberty to seek redress elsewhere. He
did not think that the president had power to decide the
matter sine consensu frcitrum.
The Bishop of WORCESTER moved that the petition do
lie on the table, but, after some conversation, the motion
fell to the ground.
The Bishop of OXFORD announced that after the return
of the house from the presentation of the address to her

Majesty, he should move a resolution, informing the Bishop
of Capo Town that his petition involved se many original
and novel questions, that the house would wish him to test
his right of summons by an appeal to a court of law before
their lordships proceeded to take the matter into further
consideration;
The Bishop of LONDON said he should not be able to
Support the resolution.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the
clergy of the deanery of Powder, in the archdcacom7 of
Cornwall, praying for the revival of the active powers of
Convocation.
The Archbishop then summoned the Prolocutor and
certain members of the Lower House, and they proceeded
to Buckingham Palace, and presented to her Majesty the
address agreed to at the list session of Convocation, and a
copy of which appeared in these columns.
.On the return of their lordships from Buckingham
Palace, his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury read the
Royal reply to the address of the Houses of Convocation,
and which was in the following terms
"I receive with cordial satisfaction the assurances of
your loyal and affectionate attachment to my throne and
person.
"It is my earnest desire to promote the welfartand
happiness of all clasSes of mrsabjects, by continuing to
them peace abroad, and by assisting to extend at home the
holy influence of religion, which; is the only sure founda-
tion on which national prosperity can permanently rest. I
thank you for the sympathy which you have expressed in
and
a of God
my sorrow for the recent loss of the most distinguished of
my subjects; and I appreciate the value which you attach
to that high sense of duty by which he was invariably in- I
spired. I rely with confidence on the assurances of your
desire to preserve harmony in the Church, and tomy itspinsearearsee-
mitsaeeyfficuinenimcyp,abiryedlaainntdainlinpgraythat doctrinesat theblessing
may attend your endeavours to extend throughout all
classes of my people the inestimable benefit of pure and
deeply-felt religion."

The Bishop of CHICHESTER presented several petitions
in favour of allowing curates to vote in the election of
proctors. Ordered to lie on the table.
The Bishop of OXFORD proceeded to draw the attention
of the house to the matter of the Bishop of Cape Town,
and concluded by moving the following resolution :
" That this house having taken into consideration the
prayers of Robert, Lord Bishop of Cape Town, involving
qUestions of law, is of opinion that he should establish the
lawfulness of his claim to a writ of summons before this
house proceeds.to a further consideration of the subjeCt."
After some observations from the Bishop of LONDON
and the Bishop of CHICHESTER, a long discussion ensued,
and it was ultimately agreed "That a resolution should
be agreed to without opposition, to the effect that the
house did not feel itself competent to entertain the Bishop
of Cape Town's prayer."
The Bishop of EXETER having brought before the house
the case of the licensed curates in his diocese who claimed
to vote for the election of proctors, moved that a com-
mittee be appointed to take the matter into consideration.
The Bishop of WINCHESTER moved as an amendment—
" That this house does not deem it expedient to enter at
this time into the consideration of the prayer of the peti-
tion, but remits it to the vicar-general for a further report
on the question at issue."
The Bishop of ROCHESTER protested against the appoint-
ment of the committee, which he had been told on very
good authority would be illegal.
The Bishop of LONDON thought there could bo no doubt
about the legality of the committee if appointed.
After further remarks on the same subject from right
reverend prelates,
The Bishop of WINCHESTER expressed his intention of
pressing his amendment to a division, when there ap-
peared five for the amendment (the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, the Bishops of Winchester, Rochester, Peterborough,
and Worcester), and six against the amendment (the Bishops
of Exeter, London, Llandaff, Chichester, Salisbury, and
Oxford).
The Bishop of Exeter's resolution was declared carried.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said no committee
could be appointed without the sanction of the president,
and this was a case in which he should refuse his sanction
to the appointment of the committee.
It was then suggested that the Archbishop should be re-
quested to inform the Prolocutor of the adoption of the
resolution, in order that a committee of the Lower House
should be appointed to act in conjunction with the com-
mittee of the Upper House, but his grace at once refused
to comply.
The colonial bishops' petition was then brought before
-fre- hong% -and it -was- admitted on -all hands that their
prayer could not by granted. It wa*.-intimated, by the-
Archbishop that ho would invito the "Colonial:bishops to
a conference at Lambeth, or take any other steps that
might be deemed necessary for ascertaining their wishes,
and removing any impediments that might be in their

way.
The Bishop of Exeter presented a petition from the Rev.
George Madan, the recently appointed incumbent of St.
Mary Radcliffe, Bristol, complaining of the present con-
dition of the marriage laws. It was ordered to lie on the
table..
Tho Bishop of OXFORD suggested several modes by which
the necessity of k protest against the archbishop's arbitrary
prorogation of Convocation sine consensu fratrum, might
be avoided. Having been unsuccessful in inducing the
Archbishop to deviate from the course he had pursued on
former occasions, his lordship handed in the following pro-
test :
" We, the undersigned, pray your grace to cause your
reporter to enter upon the records of the Convocation our
humble protest and declaration, that whilst we willingly
assent to your grace's prorogation of this session of Convo-
cation, we do not assent to any claim on behalf of the arch-
bishop to resolve on proroguing this synod sine consensu
fratrum

(Signd) "H. EXETER. E. SARUM.
C. T. CHICHESTER. S. OXON."
Mr. F. H. DYKE, tho registrar, then read the schedule,
virtue of which a prorogation took placo until Thursday,
,he 18th of August next.
Tho Archbishop pronounced the benediction, and the
)rocoedings of the Upper House terminated.

THE LOWER HOUSE.
Tho list of members having been called over, and the
minutes of the last session read, and confirmed, the Appa-

ritor.General (Mr. F. Knyvett) appeared, and summoned
the Prolocutor to the Upper House. On his return,
The PROLOCUTOR said that in obedience to the summons
of his Grace the President, he had attended the Upper
House, and received from his grace the report of the joint
committee of the two houses, appointed in the last session
to consider the subject of the correction of clerks, and
which report he had been instructed to submit to the mem-
bers of the Lower House. The very rev, gentleman then
read the document referred to, which will be found in our
account of the proceedings of the Upper House.

The report was received with very general applause, and
on the motion of the Rev. Dr. SPRY, seconded by the Rev.
Dr. RUSSELL, it was ordered by a unanimous vote to be laid
upon the table for future consideration.
In reply to Archdeacon DENISON,
The PROLOCUTOR said it was highly desirable that the
report should be printed and circulated amongst the mem-
bers of Convocation ; but unfortunately the difficulty at
present experienced was the want of the means necessary
for defraying the charges.
Archdeacon PadyElNisco"n—Surely
every member of Convo-
caantdi,onin would
gurance that they would do so, he begged to
The Dean of BRISTOL doubted if this house could deal
the copy of the report which had boon sent down to
ethbat ers the. report be printed and circulated amongst
by the Archbishop as if they had full authority
move
with
ahmem
' over it.
____ ..... .

Dr. SPRY—The Upper House were anxious that the re-
port should be well considered by the members of this
house, and it certainly could not be considered unless
printed and circulated amongst the members.
Ultimately, on the'suggestion of
Chancellor MARTIN—It was agreed that a request
should be made to the Upper House that the report
be printed and circulated for the use of the members of
Convocation.
The PROLOCUTOR then informed the house of the steps
taken since the last meeting with respect to the committee
appointed for considering certain gravamina that were then
presented to Convocation. It would be in their recollection
Place between
but before
that he was at that time requested, at the earliest practi-
cable opportunity after the answer of his Grace the President
t:orms of the
appointment of
to the application to be made to him had been received, and
in case that answer should be favourable to the application
so to be made to him, to adopt measures for assembling
the members of the committee. He would, therefore, read
thoinitheeerfi
atnhde ctohr:easrpoohnbdieehnocpe wuhipocnh bad taken •
dreoeionlgutsioo,nheadwoopultedd firsbytthire
that committee. The resolution, moved by Archdeacon
f
Harrison, and seconded by Dr. Spry, was in these words
this ihnodu house efmo r tel e the
a p
-" The Lower House of Convocation begs leave respect-
fully to state to your grace and your right rev, brethren,
that an important representation on matters at present
affecting the welfare of the Church has, in conformity with
former precedents, been introduced into this house, and
been referred to a committee, and this house humbly pray
your grace and your rig ht rev. brethren so to order the
prorogations and continuation of the session of this present
Convocation as to allow this house to receive and consider
in due time the report of such committee!' After the
members of the committee had been nominated, a ques-
tion arose as to its right to sit by tho sole authority of this
house, the opinion of some of the members of tho commit-
tee being, that it could, not sit without the sanction of the
Archbishop. He (the Prolocutor) then delivered the
lution to his grace, who said ho would take time to consi-
der it, and return an answer, but, up to the close of the
last sitting of Convocation, no answer had been returned.
Under these circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to
ad-
' dress the following letter to his grace
" Nov. 23, 1852.
ti My Lord Archbishop,—l was requested by the Lower
House of Convocation to take measures for assembling the
members of the committee appointed by them, as soon as
I had received an intimation of your grace's concurrence
' in the resolution which I had the honour to place in your
grace's hands. I trust, therefore, that your grace will par-
; -don me if I venture to ask, in conformity with the duty

thus imposed upon me, whether your grace will object to
my summoning the committee.—l am, &c.,
On the 28th of November he received the following noto
from the Archhishop

"Nov. 27.
"Dear Mr. Dean,—No answer was returned to the reso-
lution of the Lower House, concerning the appointment of
the committee, because the novelty of the case made it
necessary to take counsel upon the subject, for which there
was no sufficient time before the prorogation. lam not
now competent to give my consent to the summoning of
the committee, as proposed in your letter, because I am
unable to . do any presidential act during the recess of the
Convocation.

" I remain, &e."

Copies of this correspondence he (the Prolocutor) had for-
warded to the several membei.s of the committee ; and, of

course, it was not competent for him to take any further
steps upon the subject until ho had the honour of again
meeting Convocation. From the statements which were
made when the matter was discussed there, he found that
considerable misapprension existed with respect to the law
and practice of Convocation. There seemed to be a pretty
general •impression that the law and practice of Convoca-
tion were similar to that of the House of Parliament.
With them it was not-the practice for committees to meet,
and transact business during the recess,—and it was con-
cluded, and not unnaturally concluded, that the same law
which governed the practice of Parliament governed the
practice of Convocation. In one sense the law was the
same ; but it was accompanied by circumstances which
make a fundamental distinction between them. A session
of Parliament lasted from its first assembling until it was
prorogued by the Queen, and their meetings in the inter-
val were continued by adjournments. But in Convocation,
properly speaking, there was no such thing as an " ad-
journmeiat Every meeting of Convocation was s distinct
and complete " session" of itself ; and it would be found,
upon reference to the records of the acts of Convocation, that
every meeting was thus recorded as a distinct session, and
in passing from one session to another there was always
the same formal act of " prorogation." That appeared to
be tho practice from the earliest times ; and so_completely
was the principle adhered to that on referring to the re-
cords it would be seen that in many cases where a sitting
took place in the morning and another in the afternoon of

the same day, the two sittings were counted as two distinct
"sessions." The appointment of Committees had been an
every-day practice of Convocation. Sometimes the Lower
House had appointed committees by the order of the
Upper House. At other times committees had been ap-
pointed by the Lower House itself, simply for the prepa-
ration of their own business, having no power of enact-
ment, but merely that of preparing the business to be
brought under the notice of the house in such a form as i
might be most convenient for the house to consider and
determine upon. Then, if their representations were ap-
proved of, and it was considered necessary by the house
that such representations, or the reports or conclusions
founded upon them, were proper to be submitted to the
consideration of the Upper. House, they became the
articuli deri to be presented to that house. The difficulty
which had been started was, that during the recess of Con-
vocatien no business could be transacted ; but the uniform
practice was the reverse. The Upper House had so timed
the prorogations as to give the committee of the Lower
House the opportunity of meeting for the transaction of
business ; and that very day they had an example of the
sort in the report of the joint committee which had been
sent down to them by the Archbishop, the committee which
made that report, having, in fact, assembled and prepared
it in.the recess; and unless their committees could so meet,
he believed no business would ever be done by Convoca-
tion. Ho would only add that the matter now rested in
their own hands, and that ho had received no further com-
munication from the Archbishop than that which he had
read.

The Dean of BRISTOL—It was quite true that where
there was business before Convocation, time had been
given, and never refused, to the Lower House, to meet in
committee and prepare that business. But here the Pro-
locutor's statement 'required some explanation. The Pro-
locutor said " business," so he (the Dean of Bristol) said
" business." But what " business ?" Why, no other
"business" was formally recognised as before Convocation
than such as the Crown put before them. (Hear, hear,
and no, no.) When the Crown had placed business before
Convocation, he granted that the Lower House ought to
have time to consider it; but where there was none, he did
not think they had the power of sitting on whatever ques-
tion they might choose to introduce.
. _ _

Dr. SPRY -contended that there was an undoubted right
in this house to present gravamina to the Upper House,
and that their right was equally undoubted to appoint a
committee to prepare such gravamina if they thought fit.
Having, therefore, appointed a committee to consider cer-
tain gravamina, his own opinion was that that committee
ought to meet whenever it was most convenient to them
during the recess, in order to prepare their report, and
afterwards to present that report to the Lower House on
the reassembling of Convocation.
The PROLOCUTOR granted that there was a material dis-
tinction between business sent before them from the Upper
House and business which originated with themselves.
But business, such as gravamina et reformand4, originat-
ing in this house, required consideration by a committee
before it could be submitted to the Upper House, not by
virtue of any authority in the Lower House, but simply as
a statement emanating, from them in the shape of recom-
mendations for the consideration of the Upper House.
At this stage of the discussion a messenger appeared, and
summoned th Prolocutor to the Upper House.
On his return, the Very Rev. Gentleman stated that his
Grace the President had prorogued the Convocation until
the .afternoon, to enable them to proceed, to Buckingham
Pal4ce with the address to her Majesty adopted_ at. their
last sitting, -in November.
_ _

About two o'clock the house resumed, and tho Prolocu-
tor read the reply of her- Majesty to the address, which
will bo found in our report of the proceedings of the
Upper House, and was then ordered to bo entered on the
minutes.

Archdeacon THORPE presented a paper of gravamina re-
lating to the necessity under which clergymen found them-
selves placed by the existing law of performing the mar-
riage ceremony between parties who repudiated the faith
of the Church, and lived in open and undisguiged sin. He
himself had known cases where persons had come with a
degree of wantonness to bo married in the church ; and in
one instance, whore a, party was asked what induced him
to require the blessing of the Church on his marriage, the
reply was, " Oh ! a mere whim."
The Dean of BRISTOL contended that the Prolocutor had
no intrinsic authority of his own to present a schedule of
gravamina to the Upper House, being nothing more than
the representative of the Lower House. The Prolocutor
could only go to the Upper House when he was sent by
this, or when he was summoned by the other house ; and
could not leave his seat without their leave. It would be
a most dangerous precedent, therefore, if they allowed
any individual member to place a paper of gravamina
in the hands of the Prolocutor and call upon him to pre-
sent it to the Upper House. No paper was given into the
hands of the Prolocutor except to be laid upon the table,
to be afterwards considered by this house. To bring the
matter to an issue he would move that the paper of
Archdeacon Thorpe be referred to the committee of gra-
vamina.
Canon WORDSWORTII—The Prolocutor was not their
officer, but the officer of his Grace tho President, and he
apprehended it was not an act of presumption on the part
of any member to request the Prolocutor to take his
schedule of grievances to the Upper House, to be dealt
with as they might think proper. That was an inherent
right of every individual proctor there. At the same time
he agreed with the Dean of Bristol that, provided they had
actually existing, in the discharge of its duties, a commit-
tee of gravamina, such schedules ought to be submitted to'
it in the first instance.

Archdeacon THORPE himself then seconded the Dean of
Bristol's motion, which, after some further discussion, was
adopted. . _ .

Canon WORDSWORTH said it was of importance that
they should not separate without knowing what course
they were to pursue with regard to the committee of gra-
vamina. In considering the various papers brought before
them, it was necessary that they should clearly ascertain
what ground they were standing upon, and whether or not
they were to be summoned to deliberate upon those papers
which had been refused by this house to that committee.
He was satisfied that committees of that house, being pro-
perly appointed, might sit during the recess, and present
the result of their deliberations to this house, to be after-
wards communicated by it, through the President, to the
other house. In the present instance a committee had
been appointed, and his grace's sanction and concurrence
had been asked to tho proceeding, but in doing this ho
thought they had taken a false step, which it was their
duty now to retrace. He contended they had a full,
ancient, and prescribed right vesting in primitive practice
to appoint those committees, and that it was an unnecessary
and informal act to communicate with the Upper House

upon the subject. TMs, however, they had done ; and to
meet the difficulty ho would suggest whether they might
not request the Prolocutor to intimate to his Grace the
President, that this Lower House appointed at its session

on the 17th of Nov. last a committee-of gravamina et re.

formandat and apprised his grace and the Upper House of
such appointment, but that on subsequently making inquiry
into former precedents, ithey found that this last step was un-
necessary and informal, and they begged leave, therefore,
to withdraw the application and to intimate their purpose
to proceed in the regular manner, according to ancient
practice, and that the committee so appointed would pro-
ceed to consider the business submitted to it without re-
quiring his grace's concurrence.
Archdeacon GRANT supported this proposition.
Archdeacon DENISON said no one was more anxious than
himself that the committee should proceed to action ; but
the house should bear in mind that the paper referred to
the committee included almost every subject that could be
brought under the notice of Convocation, and he believed
there was no precedent to be found in the history of Par-
liament or of Convocation, of the existence of a committee
of the kind. Let them, therefore, consider well before
they sanctioned the continued action of that committee.
The paper of gravamina had been referred to the commit-
tee when they did not know exactly what they were doing
—(a laugh)—and he thought it better that the paper should
remain as it had been put forth to the Church of England
and the world at large—as a statement of the reasons for
which certain persons thought it desirable that Convoca-
tion should be allowed to meet, and that they should now
proceed to consider great practical questions, one by one,
in detail. It was with that view that he himself had given
notice of certain resolutions which he desired to bring un-
der their notice that day. His belief was, that the com-
mittee of gravamina would be found an absolute unreality;
that it could not work, and that if its members did assem-
ble together, they would never report. Consequently, no
bUsiness whatever would be brought before the house, be-
cause it would always be said, when a subject was intro-
duced for their consideration— " Oh, we cannot deal with
that • it is one of tho questions which have been referred
to the committee." (Hear, hear.)
Archdeacon GRANT considered the proposal of Canon
Wordsworth to be worthy of support on the ground of its
practical character ; for the question now was, how they
best extricate themselves from the false position in
which they had, unfortunately, placed themselves, the
Prolocutor, and above all his Grace the Archbishop. His
friend Archdeacon Denison advised them to let things re-
main as they were ; in short, that they should go before
the world with this blot upon them, that having acted
hastily, and found themselves in a difficulty, they never-
Itook no measures with the view of retracing their
OWN. FcT himself he thought that would be an improper