ANGLICAN CHURCHES. 



sentative assembly which shall be coordinated 

 under episcopal authority. This would be a 

 wise reversion not only to old Anglican tradi- 

 tion, but to those primitive Church principles 

 which our national Church always desires to 

 follow." 



The committee therefore present as their first 

 resolution " that it is desirable that a national 

 council should be formed, fully representing the 

 clergy and laity of the Church of England." 



The Case of Bishop Gore. The Kev. Charles 

 A. <;<>iv, 1). I)., Canon of Westminster, was elect- 

 ed by the dean and chapter of the diocese, on the 



n "ination of the Crown, Bishop of Worcester. 



Prior to the continuation of the election, as di- 

 rect .-d under the new procedure adopted for such 

 cases, in protests were filed from societies and 

 individual*, alleging that Dr. Gore's views on in- 

 spiration and the sacraments were such as to 

 disqualify him for the office of bishop in the 

 Church <>f Kngland. The objections stated were 

 based, in part, on the fact of Dr. Gore's having 

 participated in the preparation of the book Lux 

 Mundi. and having used language therein calcu- 

 lated to shake the faith of believers; on his 

 having taught the doctrine of a material pres- 

 ence in the sacrament; and on his having taken 

 part in the founding of the Monastic Celibate 

 Society. On the occasion of the procedure for 

 confirmation of the election at the Church House, 

 Jan. 22, on the calling of opponents by direction 

 of the vicar-general, Mr. John Kensit oiFenng 

 to enter a protest, the vicar-general said that 

 he could take claims to appear only in the order 

 of their presentation. He then read a list of the 

 objectors who had given written notice. They 

 were the Church Association, the Liverpool Lay- 

 men's League, the Imperial Protestant League, 

 the Protestant Alliance, the Protestant Reforma- 

 tion Society, Mr. John Kensit, the Protestant 

 Truth Society, and four individuals. Other per- 

 sons who expressed a desire to speak were told 

 that they had failed to give previous notice. 

 The bishop-elect, through his attorney, expressed 

 readiness to answer to any charge which was 

 legitimately made and relevant, subject to the 

 decision of the vicar-general, but he wished to 

 make it plain that he, for his part, was not ur- 

 ging that the court had no jurisdiction. The 

 \ (ear-genera) explained that all the written ob- 

 jections had raised questions of doctrine, which 

 under no circumstances could be entertained at 

 confirmation ; therefore none of the objectors 

 would be heard, but he wished to add that any 

 objector who could have established a right to 

 appear, in accordance with the terms of the cita- 

 tion, would have been heard. Mr. Kensit and 

 others attempted to protest against this de- 

 cision, but the vicar-general refused to hear 

 them. The proceedings then continued. The 

 vicar-general read the decree of confirmation 

 and the bishop-elect subscribed to the declara- 

 tion and took the oath of office. On Jan. 24, the 

 objectors applied to the King's Bench Division 

 of the High Court of Justice for a mandamus 

 against the Primate and the vicar-general, di- 

 recting them to hear the objections. The Lord 

 Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Darling, while de- 

 clining to express an opinion as to the result in 

 the case, decided to grant a rule nM for a man- 

 damus. The matter appeared to them one that 

 "hould bo discussed; and a further hearing was 

 appointed. The consecration of the bishop-elect 

 had l>een appointed to take place at Westminster 

 Abbey on the following Saturday (Jan. 25), and 

 the Archbishop of Canterbury " had decided to 

 proceed with it, under the Statute of Pnemunire 



and the act of Henry VIII, prescribing penalties 

 for failure to proceed with " speed and celerity "" 

 in the consecration of a bishop. The bishop- 

 elect, however, on legal advice, declined to pre- 

 sent himself for consecration pending the deci- 

 sion of the judges. In the argument on the appli- 

 cation for a mandamus in the Court of King's- 

 Bench, Feb. 3, the Attorney-General undertook 

 to show that the confirmation was a mere form, 

 and was intended to be so; and that it might be 

 dispensed with altogether, and had been. In 

 fact, the elections by the cathedral chapters had 

 been pronounced in an Irish statute of Elizabeth 

 " colors, shadows, and pretenses of election, serv- 

 ing to no purpose, and seeming also derogatory 

 and prejudicial to the King's prerogative royal." 

 The statute had been repealed, but the fact had 

 not; and the Attorney-General insisted that be- 

 yond the points of the validity of the election, 

 and the identity of the person elected, no objec- 

 tion of any kind could be entertained. It was- 

 urged on the side of the opponents of confirma- 

 tion that even if it were shown that the vicar- 

 general's court did not deal with contentious- 

 business, it would still be his duty, when the 

 case became contentious, to refer it to the arch- 

 bishop. If the court refused to grant the man- 

 damus in this case there would be no discretion 

 in anybody to refuse to confirm and consecrate 

 the royal nominee if he could answer the ques- 

 tions in the ordination service. He might even 

 become a member in some other church, and still 

 the archbishop would have no choice. The deci- 

 sion of the court was read by Lord-Chief-Justice 

 Alverstone, Feb. 10, denying the application. The 

 view was sustained that the public citation of 

 objectors to the confirmation of a bishop is not 

 a real proceeding. It was shown, in substance, 

 that never since the statute of Henry VIII had 

 there been any " practise " of hearing objections 

 to the appointment of bishops on the ground of 

 doctrine, and that for two hundred years before 

 that date no such normal practise existed as the- 

 objectors contended for. The court, however, ex- 

 pressly guarded itself against deciding that no- 

 objection could be raised which the archbishop 

 or vicar-general could decline to entertain. Thus, 

 it could not be held that an objection involving- 

 a question of identity, as that the wrong man 

 was put forward as the bishop elected, or one 

 that involved a question of the genuineness of 

 the documents produced should be considered. 

 Thus it might be a good ground of objection 

 that the bishop-elect had done something since- 

 his election that he should not have done. An 

 appeal w r as possible from the decision of the 

 court to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately 

 to the House of Lords, but the Council of the 

 Church Association, after consideration, decided 

 not to make it. The consecration of Dr. Gore 

 as Bishop of Worcester took place Feb. 22. and 

 his enthronement Feb. 24. 



The Second Fulham Conferences. An ac- 

 count was given in the Annual Cyclopaedia for 

 1900, page 25. of a meeting designated familiarly 

 as a " Round Table Conference." which was called 

 by the Bishop of London. Dr. Creighton, at the- 

 suggestion of the London Diocesan Conference, 

 of representative men of both of the great par- 

 ties into which the Church is divided, which met 

 at Fulham Palace in October. 1000, and dis- 

 cussed the subje'ct of The Doctrine of the Holy 

 Communion and its Expression in Ritual. The 

 suggestion of holding a second conference of the 

 same kind was made by the London Diocesan- 

 Conference in 1901 to Bishop Ingram of London, 

 and the conference was called to meet at Ful- 



