The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-12 00:00:00

formal and technical difficulties attending the revival of
the powers of convocation, and the Noble Lord has ac-
knowledged that before it, can act it must be remodelled.
Into these I will not enter. I will suppose that all such
technicalities are overcome, all obstacles removed, her
Majesty's advisers satisfied, her Majesty consenting, con-
vocation called together; what would follow'? Great disap-
pointment, or great excitement.—(Hear.) What business is
to be dispatched ? Some would say the Liturgy requires
revision. Some rubrics are inconsistent, and others unintel-
ligible. If the assembling of convocation were to end in
the reconciliation of some conflicting rubrics, or in supplying
the deficiency of others, or in the change of a few obsolete
words or questionable phrases, the result would be little
worth the cost of production.—(Hear, hear.) It would be
justly, " Quid dignem tanto feret hic promissor hiatu."—
(Hear.) Thus far, then, you disappoint; go farther and
you excite. If more were attempted, and the doctrine of
the Prayer Book were touched, even with the slightest hand,
a flame would be lighted up from one end of the country to
the other.—(Hear, hear.) Where we have now a smothered
fire, hotter perhaps than is agreeable, but still manageable,
we should raise a conflagration which it would require all
her Majesty's prerogative to extinguish.—(Hear.) Sup-
pose, then, the Liturgy untouched, and nothing more
attempted than what we know to be desired by many mem-
bers of the Church—the issuing a declaration which should
contradict a recent decision of the Privy Council, and
defining the effect of baptism more clearly than it is defined
in our Articles. Would peace follow? Can we suppose that
this would prove a healing measure? I cannot so interpret
the spirit of the age as to believe that the great body of
Churchmen, laity or clergy, are prepared to restrict the
liberty of opinion in matters hitherto undecided, which our
forefathers have always enjoyed, and under which the Church
has flourished for three hundred years. We may speak here
with confidence, for the experiment has been tried. For
obvious reasons I avoid all allusion to any events which may
have taken place at home. But the experiment has been
tried in Australia.—( Hear, hear.) A declaration such as I
have alluded to was drawn up in October last by the Bishop
of Australia and clergy, assembled in synod; and the same
ship which brought home the particulars of the synod
brought also the account of the effect which it had produced
in one of the cities where it was first promulgated, which, in-
stead of concord, was dissension, where all had been previ-
ously peaceful. It had endangered the popularity of a bishop
who was universally and deservedly esteemed ; and the prin-
cipal laity of the city had met together, and unanimously pro-
tested against a measure which they treated as an infringe-
ment upon their liberty as Churchmen.—(Hear.) If I do
not fear any such result here it is because I do not entertain
any apprehension of the issuing of such a declaration.—
(Hear.) My Lords, the Noble Lord has spoken of the
convocation as part of the Constitution. In point of fact,
the convocation was a very influential body for 100 years
after the Reformation.—(Hear' hear.) But it is a mistake
to suppose that we owe to that assembly the constitution
and fabric of our Church. Convocation had little to do
with the framing of our first Protestant services and articles.
The first Protestant service, which has now been materially
changed, was framed by a committee of bishops and the di-
vines, at the order of King Edward, in the year 1549. It
was submitted to convocation, not to be formed, but to be
approved. The Articles of the Church, three years after-
wards, were drawn up—not in convocation, but by Cranmer
and Ridl -y, and they who assisted them. They were ratified,
not debated, in convocation; and of so little importance was
that authority esteemed, that no record of the transaction
appears in the register of the proceedings; and it has been
even made a question whether they ever did receive that
sanction. Seven years afterwards, at the accession of
Elizabeth, the revision of the Prayer Book was entrusted to
the divines. Their revision was sanctioned by both Houses
of Parliament, and no mention is made of convocation.
The first occasion on which convocation bore an active part,
was in the revision of the Articles and • Liturgy in 1562.
But authority had been the great weight, and whoever reads
the records of those times will perceive that convocation
was entirely governed by the authority of a few leading
persons, and who were much more disposed to receive man-
dates than to issue them. Even the canons of 1603 were
never submitted 'to convocation, bat declared to be binding
upon it by Royal command.—(Hear, hear.) After the re-
volution matters were altered. The history of convocation
during the reign of Queen Anne is a history of altercations
between the upper house and the lower. It soon ap-
peared that a body so constituted was ill suited to the pur-
pose of solemn deliberation or wise legislation. The last
disputes were ended, as former disputes had been, by timely
prorogation ; and since the year 1717 it has never seemed
expedient to the Government for the :time being to advise
the Sovereign to issue a licence for the dispatch of business
in convocation. Now, what can we reason from but from
what we know ? What grounds have we for believing
that more advantage or less injury to the Church would
result from the assembling of convocation now than in the
reign of Queen Anne or George I. (Hear, hear.) But'the
Noble Lord who has brought on this debate has pleaded for
convocation, on the ground .that every religious body has
such meetings ; and the argument at first sight seems rea-
sonable. There may, however, be privileges which are not
advantages. There may be privileges which it is not desir-
able to claim.—(Hear, hear.) Between independent bodies
of religionists and the Church of England no parallel can be
established. They are not involved in the constitution of
the country. They may meet, and deliberate, and resolve,
without constituting that anomaly in governments-an
imperium in imperio. And, after all, is peace or harmony
the result of those meetings? The conferences of the Wes-
leyan body, whenever they have led to a change in the mode
of government, have ended in separations and secessions.—
(Hear, hear.) And I doubt whether the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland, which might be best compared
with ours, though different in a very important particular—
I doubt whether that is always a :source of peace and bar-
mony.—(Hear, hear.) In the diary of the late Dr. Chal-
mers I find these words—" May 8. A meeting of presby-
tery. I dislike its atmosphere, though it is my duty to enter
it, and, if possible to soften and transform it." And again,
e may 9. A most tempestuous day is the presbytery." Cer-
tainly, my Lords, the General Assembly, if it did not con-
tribute to occasion so fatal an event, did not prevent
a disruption of the Church in that country, the most se-
rious which has ever occurred in any church since the
Reformation.—(Hear, hear.) At all events, the benefit which
is expected of self-regulation and independent legislation
would be ddarly purchased if purchased at the cost of
confidence on the part of the people.— (Hear, hear.) And
we must shut our eyes against all experience if we do not
foresee this danger—if we believe that it would not rather
foment than allay dissensions. No one can lament more than
Ido the existence of such divisions. No one would be more
ready to concur in any measure that might seem likely to
remove them. But, in !spite of those divisions, and not-
withstanding. its want of independent action, the Church of
England enjoys the best of all privileges—the means of
certain usefulness.—( Hear, hear.) During the last thirty
years she has founded 1,000 new parishes at home. She has
established 20 new episcopal sees in our colonies abroad. She
is supporting schools—not indeed without assistance—for
which we are most grateful; but still, as the principal in-
strument in every village of the land, she is exerting her-
self, and successfully exerting herself, to supply the spiritual
wants of her increasing population. That she might do
more if all her sons were united together in'the same mind
and in the same judgment, lam not prepared to deny. But
I do not believe that the assembling of convocation would
be the means of promoting such union, and therefore I can-
not agree with the Noble Lord in desiring the assembling of
convocation.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord LYTTELTON observed that it had been reported
that the Noble Lord intended to move an address to the
Queen for the revival of convocation. He was glad the
Noble Lord had not done so, as they were not prepared for
that motion. He could not see any objection to the general
principle of the clergy meeting together, whether in Exeter
or Australia, for the purpose of discussion and mutual coun-
sel, as any other organic body, whether religious or other-
wise.
The Archbishop of DUBLIN had formerly called the at-
tention
of the House to the subject. It was now some 15 or
16 years since he had first mooted it, and he had since fre-
quently returned, but as his opinsons on the subject had been
published, he would not now trouble their Lordships by a
repetition. He had never advocated the restoration of the
active government of convocation, for he was convinced the
government of the Church by the clergy would not be tole-
rated in the present day. But it was a strange anomaly that
the Church of England should be the only body that was
governed by persons who were not necessarily members of it.
He wished to protest against any attempt to govern the
Church now by means of the clergy exclusively, as a matter
that would be both inexpedient and unjust, but, at the same
time, he would not approve of any party taking a share in
that governing body who were not regularly and properly
chosen and appointed for that purpose.—(Hear.)
The Duke of ARGYLL hoped it would not be deemed
presumptuous in him to take a part in that discussion, even
if reference had not been made in the course of it to himself
personally. It was naturally the right of every organised
state of society to meet for the appointment of its own rules,
and in the case of the Church it was more essential still that
she should have the power of self-government. No doubt
there were difficulties in the way of the Church of England
now which had not existed at any other time. With respect,
however, to a comparison between the convocation of the
Church of England and the General Assembly of the Church
to which he had the honour to belong, he could never hear
such a comparison instituted without rising to protest against
such a monstrous confusion of ideas. The old convocation
was entirely a convocation of the Church. It had never
changed its character; and to that might be attributed its loss
of character.—(Hear.) Great complaints had lately been
made against the constitution of some of the courts
of this country to which ecclesiastical matters were re-
ferred, and against tribunals which had been ap-
pointed to try questions connected with the Church.
Some parties asserted that the Arches' Court, in which a
lay judge presided, was an ecclesiastical tribunal, and the
Privy Council a lay tribunal. That was a confusion of
ideas which ought to be cleared up, he thought. Questions
of doctrine seldom or ever came before the General As-
sembly of the Church of Scotland, but questions of dis-
cipline frequently came before them. He would ask those
anxious for a representative system whether it was the
case in the Church of England that questions of doc-
trine were so seldom raised? Unfortunately, great dif-
ferences of opinion existed in the Church of England
amongst those who wished to establish the representative
system of government. He feared if there were a convo-
cation upon the old constitution, questions would be raised
which would lead to great disruption in the Church of Eng-
lees'. He could not see any analogy whatsoever between
' the secession which had taken place in the Scottish Church
and anything which had occurred in the Established Church
of England.
The Bishop of LONDON wished to say a word or two in
reply to the arguments of the Noble Duke who had just sat
down. The Noble Duke thought that those who were
against convocation were actuated by a desire to place power
in the hands of the clergy, and that there was a wish on the
part of the great body of the latter not to admit the laity to
, a share in the power.
The Duke of ARGYLL briefly explained.
The Bishop of LONDON then continued. In the Epis-
copal Church pf America, questions were discussed, but no
final decision could be come to against the opinion of the
bishops, who had a veto upon every subject introduced. No
cue was mere sensible than he waste the great difficulty of