ANGLICAN 



23 



Anglican (Council. ITo referred to addresses 

 which li.nl como from Canada, from the West 

 Indian bi.-ho|is, I'nuu tin- 1'mtestant Episcopal 

 Church in the United States, and from the 

 Church in Australia, on the subject; and ex- 



d himself convinced that so general a 

 call for a conference indicated that the time 

 hud come when the Anglican communion 

 sin mid have an acknowledged head. llo 



1 f( >r the appointment of a joint com- . 

 luitteo of both Houses of Convocation to con- 

 sidi T u report as to what was the exact posi- 

 tion that the Archbishop of Canterbury held 

 with regard to the different branches of the 

 Church scattered throughout the world, and 

 that his Grace should be requested to convene 

 a general conference of the Anglican commun- 

 ion in continuation of that of 1867. The 

 archbishop, in speaking upon this motion, re- 

 marked that, with regard to the former con- 

 ference of bishops at Lambeth, his predecessor 

 had distinctly disavowed any claims of author- 

 ity, and that it was still more necessary to do 

 so now, on account of the changes which had 

 taken place in the status of colonial churches. 

 By the act of the home Government each of 

 these churches was now an independent and 

 voluntary communiqn, possessing, as in the 

 act of forming, a definite constitution. They 

 did not recognize their bishops as alone rep- 

 resenting, the Church, and did not give them 

 power to decide upon laws and- doctrines. 

 The motion of the Bishop of Lichfield was 

 amended by the addition of a clause directing 

 that its provisions be communicated to the 

 Primate of the Northern Provinces, and was 

 adopted. The Bishops of London, Winchester, 

 Lichfield, Gloucester and Bristol, and Peterbor- 

 ough, were appointed to act on the committee. 

 The committee made a report in the Upper 

 House on the 10th of July, recommending 

 that a second meeting of the Lambeth Con- 

 ference be convoked by his Grace the arch- 

 bishop, for the year 1876 ; that then the work 

 begun in 1867 be continued, and the reports of 

 ci.Miiuittees be taken into consideration ; also, 

 that the relation of the Archbishop of Canter- 

 bury to the other bishops of the Anglican com- 

 munion be that of primate among archbishops, 

 primates, metropolitans, and bishops. 



On the 28th of April petitions, influentially 

 signed, in relation to the bill introduced in the 

 House of Lords by the Archbishop of Can- 

 terbury for the regulation of public worship, 

 were presented in the Upper House of Con- 

 vocation by the Bishop of Peterborough, and 

 in the Lower House by the Dean of St. Paul's. 

 In offering the memorials, the Bishop of Peter- 

 borough made an address, the tone of which 

 was in favor of restraining lawlessness, hut 

 against permitting infringements of the just 

 rights and liberty of the clergy. The Bishop 

 of Lincoln spoke in favor of toleration. In 

 the Lower House a message was received from 

 the Upper House asking whether it still ad- 

 hered to its action of 1869 on the subject of 



Church discipline, and inviting it to give its 

 opinion regarding the inhibition of pru- 

 aliVcting the ritual of the Church declared un- 

 lawful by the courts (as presented in the new 

 bill), and the relation of such inhibition to the 

 liberty of the clergy. The reply of the Lower 

 House was conveyed in the following declara- 

 tion: 



The Lower House of the Convocation of Canter- 

 Bury, in answer to the two questions submitted to it 

 by his Grace the president, on April 28, 1674, re- . 

 spectfully answers : 



1. (a.) That the Lower House does adhere to all 

 the resolutions on the subject of " clergy disci- 

 pline " passed by the late Lower House, in the ses- 

 sions ot June, 1869 ; but that the Lower House 

 would object to their partial application for the cor- 

 rection of a particular class of offenses ; as the reso- 

 lutions of the late Lower House were intended by 

 the Lower House to be applied to the general ref- 

 ormation of all procedure in all cases tried in eccle- 

 siastical courts. (6.) That the Lower House ' recom- 

 mends, as a particular mode whereby such resolutions 

 can be made effective," the immediate preparation 

 of a plan for the purpose with a view to an applica- 

 tion to the crown for " assent and license " to enact 

 it, and also with a view to obtain such ctatutable aid 

 from Parliament as may be found needful. 



On the 1st day of May, the Lower House re- 

 solved : 



That this House, recognizing the necessity of 

 speedy legislation in the matters involved in the 

 question proposed to this House by his Grace the , 

 President, regrets its inability to approve the pro- 

 visions of the bill recently introduced into the House 

 of Lords for the purpose, and now requests that hia 

 Grace will be pleased to direct the appointment of a 

 committee of this House to consider the provisions 

 of the said bill ; and further to request that his 

 Grace will be pleased to summon Convocation at an 

 early date, to receive such report. 



(a.) And also that his Grace will be pleased to 

 direct that it be an instruction of the committee to 

 inquire whether the particular mode of action for 

 the purposes in question, and especially for facilitat- 

 ing the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts of 

 Appeal, would be the proper " canonical drafts " 

 with a view to application to the crown for " assent 

 and license" to enact them; and (b) further to in- 

 quire into the measure of statutory aid which it may 

 be needful to obtain from Parliament. 



The archbishop replied in behalf of the Up- 

 per House to these resolutions, that the Lower 

 House, by adhering to the resolutions of 1869, 

 appeared to agree in the principles embodied 

 in the proposals which were then before the 

 public for the discipline of the clergy, includ- 

 ing morals and doctrine. Their lordships 

 (the bishops) were quite ready to consider all 

 the matters, but they regarded it as desirable 

 that the various subjects should not be unne- 

 cessarily united together, and were anxious to 

 separate those relating to public worship. 

 The appointment of the committee as asked 

 for was agreed to. The committee appointed 

 under the resolutions cited above made a re- 

 port to the Lower House, May 7th, suggesting 

 that further regulations respecting the conduct 

 of the service according to the use of the 

 Church of England should be by canon rather 

 than by statute, and suggesting a number of ob- 

 jections to the archbishop's bill. They recom- 



