AMil.H'AN CIH KCHES. 



toe* UM Uw. and prorated to gi 

 t< reply to UM memorial. This I 

 mad* on UM 16Ut of June. 



ro a writ- 

 re|>l.r was 

 . followtaf 



UM ti of U arcbbUho|>s 



There eaa be o dobt the* the danger yoaappre- 

 head of aiiBaiiarahli minority, both of ctetfT and 



I* ml, utd il U not tnnatural t ha: 

 ho,ia am*! U> as for eooiwel mod .upport. 

 we ted UM booor of noaMa* your dc|>uu- 

 , ow sUaattnn bu been directed to a petition 

 M^Md ky rwardof few hundred eletgrnien to 

 UM C.aeioanna of the ProTince of Cmiitcrbury In 

 faT<* of what UMT deaiffaal* H MenaMoUl ooofee- 

 efen. W. Mitt t that, throufh the py .t. m 'of the 

 oMlMoaBl, free* MI ha* been wrought In the 

 Okaraa of ROM, sad that oar atefonaera cUd wlse- 

 u hi tUowU* H no pUo* In oar Reformed Church, 

 ad we uk* thi. oortunit of eireeein our en- 



opportunity of eipreeeinf 



of HIT each Innovation, 



in te do all in or power to 



u>d our 



ana 



rk. We fcd jastiaed In appealiac o ! - 



BMB lo eaaaiiW whether the Ttrr existence of 

 or aaUoaal Unttrattoaa for UK mlnUninc of rtli 

 (to* U BOt imprUl by th .Til. of which yo 



, 



iiMlaatlin te do all in or power to dlaoOBT- 

 We fcd jastiaed In appealiac o 



you 



IB yojf rUL yon k m: 1. Whether we ire 

 adr " la intM ll UM MtheritT TK>d in u for 



UM enti 

 djwlod 



nd [ notice* 

 to U ilteol ; >d, in the cTent of tl.t u- 



:. ' "... ' : i 



th do* enforcement of the Uw." 



M 



W* MMWvr. :' t w cn hr no doubt tint it U our 

 boiU0 dty M VJM nor bMt tndmvon to ice tint 

 tfc. Uw U ob.y.4. Mid to afford all neeJful ficilitici 

 (W iu afNVMMOt, when we an duly called upon to 

 



t. To* tffttt to " to takeetpoci.1 care t |rurd 

 aml aeh rehnxtanl arrancnnenta and oma- 

 wau lo nr oharahat a> may (acflitate the iotroduo- 

 to of aimemtttoat prmoUora and erroneoua doo- 

 V e ucwer that, in the adniiniiitraUon of our 



, we haTe erer b*M watchful on thin point. 

 i. Yog a*k . In the admUalon of eandidite* for 

 holy ordvn, and la othf waya, to be careful lent 

 ftnnt W lUMil with the ninUterial office who 

 Uaoh dMtrteM MbtreniTe of tfcoae " tnrtha to which 

 oar rVoieeUnt Church, ta keeper and witneaa of 

 . .. .../.. 



rWy Writ, kaa erwr I 

 We aiwwer that we 



teetimony." 

 ooneUea bound' to 



Wbile, however, we return theae aaawen, we de- 

 alre thai there hall be no miaapprehenaion a to our 

 BMMiaf, aad we wl.h to Mate to r-m that we do 

 ax oaaaUar h to Va UM daty of UM ibbhopa to un- 

 dertake JaJliiel remillan upon eTery eomnlaint 

 of a eUlatlna of ike rubric*, or upon every charge 

 afaaaiaal doeuiaa that mar be Uid bi- 

 ll eaano be de.fr.bl. " 

 <he 



prMching the doctrine 



In tU IloM of Oomaooa, on f 1 ;!, . f 

 JWM. Lord OnuMmr* ud Browne reaO tl 

 IJT of UM (rcbUabopa to the roenioriiil of the 

 ONMTB AaaociaJioa, MM! i D1 ,r,<l tlmt * ,,.,. 



eataa* to appointed to consider what 

 lion we* neroed lo rbei 





to check the tender.. > of the 

 of Eadaod toward Roman Cnlhuli- 

 1U MpMrtad hia moti. M in n 

 .ofwbichhe read 



the jK-tition of the four hundred and eighty- 



:, for the a|ipoiutment of c.'ii- 



feasors, and asked by what casuistry Fnglish 



clergymen holding such doctiin. - retained 



li-hcd Chureh. 

 - rbur\ u]iproved the 

 marks ul Lord Oranmore and 



ne, thought there was cm d cans. 

 alarm, and suggested that the power of the 



-hould he incrc. 



Hishup of Salisbury di-clared the po-i- 

 tiomt taken by Lord Oraumore and ISrowne to 

 be unassailable, but thought that the niui'.un 

 was inopportune, lie regarded tl. 

 sionnl as so contrary to l,riti>h feeling, that 

 the attempt to introduce it could only be con- 

 sidered wild and visionary. 



'I he Archbishop of York opposed the mo- 



iimd that, whatever was < 

 in the matter, should come from the Church 

 rather than from the Legislature; but declared 

 that he would make e\ery exertion to prevent 



:IMI- P.uok from becoming Uomauizid. 

 The motion was lost. 

 The bill which was passed by the I'.mish 



inert in July, in relation to the organiza- 

 tion ul n Supreme Court of Judicature, made n 

 material change in the constitution of the final 

 court of appeal for the hearing of ecclcshisii- 



Ma. l>\ the terms of this bill, the con- 

 sideration of such cases is taken from the Ju- 

 diciary Committee of the Privy Council, with 

 whcm it lias heretofore rested, and is given to 

 the Supreme Court of Appeal, which is wholly 

 composed of lay judges. It is especially pro- 

 vided, however, that, in the hearing of api 

 in ecclesiastical case?, the court may be II 

 cd by archbishops or bishops of the Church 

 of Knglalid. sittii ssors. Such ;i- 



or* are to be appointed or selected from among 

 the archbishops and bishops UIHUT the opera- 

 tion of general rules, w hich are to be pri j 

 by her Maji^ty, the judges of the Court of 

 Appeal, and the archbishops nnd bishops, who 

 arc members of the Privy Council, and ap- 

 proved by the two Houses of Parliament. 



The suhji i -t of appointing and consecrating 

 a bishop for Madagascar was considered in 



.d meetings of the Society for the Prop- 

 agation of the (iospel in Foreign Parts. On 

 the Kith ul' February, the bishops resolved to 

 apply tu Lord (iranxille for a license to conse- 

 crate n bishop fur Madagascar, and further re- 

 solved tlint. if their application was refiisul, 

 they Would tak- ha\c sm-h a bishop 



consecrated in Scotland, Ireland, or South 



i. Lord (irimville formally declined to 

 accdh- tu the rei|ue.-t of the bishops and the 



:v. I 'pun this refusal being communi- 



t" tin in, the Siicirty, on the Ifith of May, 

 the Archbishop of Canterbury to 



nding commit!. 



to the steps which should be adopted for ob- 

 taining >i bishop for the Church in Miidaga-car 

 through the lii-hopi of the Province of South 

 Africa, or otherwise. The archbishop de- 



