body of the clergy find it impossible to carry out the enactment. I second the amendment.

The REV. J. HORNER-This has not been contradicted, that we did take advantage of the licence being sent down by the Crown to introduce into the canon a clause which was not contemplated when application was made to the Crown for the licence. I think that was wrong. I think it was a great mistake from beginning to end to introduce that matter at all. Those who object to the introduction of the latter part of the canon ought to have objected that we were acting ultra vires, and we ought to have stopped it. Not having stopped it, we have got ourselves into this difficulty. But I rejoice that the difficulty has arisen, because I can now give my consent to the canon, which I could not before. Our position is this with regard to the Crown, that when it is the desire of Convocation to enact a new canon it is the practice of the Crown, and a very reasonable practice, that the Crown should require from us a statement of what the alteration is to be. On the strength of that the licence was given; and I do not think that we can find fault. We took advantage of our position to do more than we had license to do.

The DEAN OF WESTMINSTER-I wish to say one word in explanation of the course I shall pursue. I shall on this occasion decline to vote at all. I do not wish by any act of mine to sanction what has been done with regard to repealing this 29th Canon or making a new one.

The amendment was then put, and upon a show of hands being taken, was lost by 13 to 8, and the original motion was carried.

The concurrence of this house in the resolutions of the Upper House having been communicated to their lordships by the Prolocutor,

REFORM OF CONVOCATION.

On his return from the Upper House,

The PROLOCUTOR said-In our last session we sent up, after a conference with the Upper House, an amended address to the Crown on the subject of a reform of Convocation, but it appears that there was an informality in those proceedings, and as a matter of form I have been directed to request the concurrence of this house in the address as agreed to in the conference between the two houses during the session of Friday, 26th May last. (See Chronicle of Convocation, p. 2351).

The PROLOCUTOR having read the address, DR. LEIGHTON moved, and SIR H. THOMPSON seconded-"That the house do now concur in the address to her Majesty in its present shape."

CANON WOODGATE-It has been said that the license of the Crown in this case is unnecessary, as the Queen's writ to the Archbishop is simply to summon the clergy, and it rests with the Archbishop as to the number of Proctors he summons and the mode of their election. After certain recent speeches in the House of Commons we ought to be careful how we waive any rights we possess. I beg to ask whether it is really understood that the writ of the Crown is all that is necessary? If so I would move an amendment.

Supremacy. S

SIR H. THOMPSON-The address does not state that Convocation is incompetent to reform itself without the license of the Crown; but with the license of the Crown there is no doubt it would have that competency. I trust there will be no opposition to the motion.

ARCHDEACON RANDALL-There is some reason to believe the license of the Crown is unnecessary.

ARCHDEACON DENISON-I do not think it wise to raise this question, which is one of mere theory. We cannot get this reform without the royal license-we shall never get it if it be left to the Archbishop and Bishops to act without the royal license. Convocation will close in a few hours, and I do not see what harm can arise from the course proposed to be taken. I think it is a great thing to say that we do not want an Act of Parliament.

Motion put and carried nemine contradicente.

THE BIRTH OF A PRINCE.

The PROLOCUTOR-I am desired by his Grace the President to ask your concurrence with the Upper House in loyal addresses to the Queen and to the Prince and Princess of Wales on the recent joyful event the birth of a second Prince, the son of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

The addresses having been read (see p. 2356), were, upon the motion of the DEAN OF WESTMINSTER, seconded by DR. JELF, and of ARCHDEACON HALE, seconded by ARCHDEACON SANDFORD, respectively agreed to, and the words "and clergy" inserted in the spaces left for the purpose.

The PROLOCUTOR, accompanied by his Assessors, then proceeded to the Upper House, to communicate to their lordships the concurrence of this House in the foregoing addresses.

On his return,

THE OATH OF SUPREMACY.

The PROLOCUTOR said-I have received from his Grace the proposed form of the new 36th Canon and the other canons as we agreed to them at the recent session, but which are now sent down to us again in order that I may ask your approval of the omission of the declaration with regard to the Royal Supremacy.

ARCHDEACON SANDFORD-Will you state the reasons why we are asked to do that?

The PROLOCUTOR-It is alleged that this declaration is mere surplusage, being already in the Thirty-nine Articles and in the more recent Act of Parliament. Its omission will bring our canon into conformity with the Act of Parliament about to be passed.

ARCHDEACON SANDFORD-It is quite right that the public should know that this oath is omitted only on account of surplusage, and that the clergy are, as they always have been, the devoted and loyal subjects of her Majesty. I move the adoption of the form as now sent down

to us.

CANON HAWKINS-1 second the motion.

Supremacy.

CANON WOODGATE-I do not care whether the declaration be omitted or not, but if it be inserted it ought to be altered. As it stands it is arrant nonsense, for it makes a man swear to that which is untrue. If it means that de facto the Queen is placed over all the people in her dominions, that is well; but to swear that no other person, in certain matters, has or ought to have pre-eminence-we cannot do that because we cannot help seeing that the Pope has pre-eminence. In my opinion the Pope has no jurisdiction that we are bound to obey, but to say he has no jurisdiction is simply false.

ARCHDEACON DENISON-The declaration is expressly directed by the Act of Parliament to be taken from the Ordination Service, and if we agree to this omission I should be glad to know whether the candidates at ordination will or will not have to make that declaration? The PROLOCUTOR-They will not have to make the declaration in the body of the service.

DR. JELF-There have always been differences of opinion as to whether it should be introduced into the Ordination Service or not. ARCHDEACON HALE-Is it proposed to take the oath of allegiance out of the Ordination Service altogether?

The REV. M. W. MAYOW-The Act of Parliament does that expressly; but I apprehend that the oath will have to be taken at another time.

The REV. J. BRAMSTON-Then if we now omit the oath from the canon it will be simply imposed upon us by Act of Parliament.

The PROLOCUTOR-Not so; because in the 37th Article you are pledged to an oath of allegiance which has a binding force.

The DEAN OF WESTMINSTER-It is not in the same terms. What is the clear state of the case? There is an oath in the Ordination Service, and there is one in the canon. That in the Ordination Service is proposed to be transferred to somewhere else, and that in the canon is proposed to be omitted as surplusage. As the Act of Parliament has altered the rubric of the Ordination Service, I do not object to this omission, and I do not think we need trouble our minds about it.

The REV. J. W. JOYCE-But I cannot help troubling my mind exceedingly. The question appears to me to be one of the deepest importance. The rubric has, in fact, been altered by the Parliament alone, whereas the action of Parliament and that of Convocation on such a matter ought at least to go pari passu.

The REV. M. W. MAYOW-It seems to me so serious a matter that the Ordination Service should be altered by Act of Parliament that I think something ought to be done by this house to preserve the integrity of the Book of Common Prayer.

SIR H. THOMPSON-I do not believe that Parliament has had the least idea of infringing the rubric; and it is not right, therefore, to use language as if the Government and Parliament were desirous to ride roughshod over this Convocation. - Government might have done this without consulting us at all; and even now, if it were pointed out to

town and Natal. S

them, I believe they would be willing to give the utmost sanction to any step thought desirable to satisfy the most tender conscience.

ARCHDEACON HALE-This is not yet de facto an Act of Parliament, because it has not yet received the Royal Assent. There is therefore yet time for an expression of our opinion, and as we are now asked to consent to this alteration, we should take the present opportunity of stating our views.

The REV. M. W. MAYOW-It is true our consent to this alteration in the canon is asked, but our assent is not asked at all to the alteration in the Ordination Service. We probably have no difference of opinion about the desirability of omitting the oath from the Ordination Service; but it is done without our being consulted at all. I beg to suggest that some protest should be made to the Upper House against an alteration being made in a rubric without that alteration being submitted to us in the slightest degree.

LORD A. COMPTON-According to the ordinary habit of this house it may be sufficient to inform his Grace of our objections, and pray his attention to the matter; which will be much better than offering any direct opposition.

The REV. J. W. JOYCE-I agree with that suggestion; but I think we ought formally to take the sense of this house upon it.

The PROLOCUTOR-Then you will consent to give your concurrence in the alteration of the canon now and give notice of a motion for to

morrow.

The REV. J. W. JOYCE.-Yes.

The PROLOCUTOR-We are all agreed as to the desirableness of the proposed change, and I think we should try not to have any misunderstanding as to the course we adopt. We do not and cannot in any way restrict the civil power; but we merely desire to maintain our privileges as a Convocation of the Church of England. The removal of this oath from the middle of one of the most beautiful and important services of the Church, where it has always seemed to me to be out of place, must be agreeable to all the members of this house.

The REV. J. HORNER-I quite agree with the Prolocutor that it is a gain to the Ordination Service to have this oath omitted; but the question arises, what will become of the rubric? That will remainat least it is not proposed to remove it; or if not, by what authority will the rubric be altered?

ARCHDEACON DENISON-I do not see any great danger of this being construed into a precedent of which we need be afraid.

The motion, approving the omission of the declaration of supremacy from the canon, was then put and carried unanimously.

The PROLOCUTOR again proceeded to the Upper House, accompanied by his Assessors, to communicate to their lordships the resolution just agreed to by this house. On his return,

THE BISHOPS OF CAPETOWN AND NATAL.

The PROLOCUTOR said-I am desired to communicate, and ask your concurrence in, the following address to his Grace the President, which has been agreed to by their lordships the Bishops. (See p. 2358.)

town and Natal.

ARCHDEACON DENISON-I move that the address be concurred in by this house.

The REV. J. W. JOYCE-I second the motion.

SIR H. THOMPSON-I will take advantage of this motion to express the great doubts that have long been growing up in my mind as to the propriety of the course taken by this Convocation as to many of the subjects brought before us.

The PROLOCUTOR-If there is likely to be a debate on this address it will be proper to defer it for the present.

The ARCHDEACON OF WESTMINSTER-Has this been passed by the Upper House?

The PROLOCUTOR-Yes; and it has been sent down to us for our approval, if we so think fit.

SIR H. THOMPSON-I should be sorry to interrupt the proceedings, and will therefore defer my remarks.

DR. WILLIAMS-It is rather a singular document. Is the Archbishop to address himself?

The PROLOCUTOR-I cannot pretend to say what their lordships ought to do.

SIR H. THOMPSON-The adoption of an address such as this to the Upper House with regard to the Bishop of Capetown I look upon as one of a long series of motions here, of which I am doubtful whether they are not dangerous to our reputation and stability as a Convocation, and not particularly useful to any one. Take, for instance, the case of the Essays and Reviews, which we sat here discussing no end of days, with what result you all know; but when we came to discuss the really important subject brought forward by my rev. friend Mr. Ashton Oxenden, as to the education of the clergy, it was disposed of in an hour and a half. That did not give us, I am afraid, much grace in the eyes of the laity, some of whom are glad to have an opportunity of speaking evil of us. Then I must protest against the language used in this house, and expressions which can lead to no good result or indeed to any result except that of setting the laity against the clergy. Then in the debate on the Court of Final Appeal, one would think that instead of Thirty-nine Articles only, we must have a new one enacted for every new book that comes out which does not happen to please some of my rev. brethren. Again in another direction, I do not know that our course has been more prudent. I listened to the speech of Archdeacon Denison on the Conscience Clause with astonishment and pain. I protest against its language and tone. I thought then that I had never heard a more dangerous speech, and I am still of the same opinion. I attempted then to take the bull by the horns, but I was tossed. (A laugh.) One of the first of our standing orders says that if the Prolocutor shall hear any member say anything dangerous or improper he may interrupt the speaker; and as I do not think I ever heard anything more dangerous, I submit, sir, that in the next Convocation, when you take your seat in that chair, you will not permit any of its members to take such objectionable courses. I have taken great interest in this matter of reform, and I have been willing to give up first one thing and then another lest we