Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 6.djvu/358

Rh 328 CONVOCATION Book. the clergy. Onslow says, &quot;Gibson, bishop of London, said to me that it was the greatest alteration in the constitution ever made without an express law.&quot; Revision of The most important and the last work of the Convocation Prayer during this second period of its activity was the revision of the Book of Common Prayer, which was completed in the latter part of 1GG1. The revised book, after it had been sanctioned by the Convocation of the province of York, was presented to the Crown for its approval. The Crown having approved the book, sent it forthwith to the Upper House of Parliament, with a recommendation that the book, as reviewed by the Convocation, should be appointed by an Act of Uniformity ; and accordingly the two Houses of Parliament after a conference accepted the revised book, and enacted that it should be the book which should be appointed to be used in all places of public worship in the realm. It was believed for some considerable time that the original book which had been attached to the Act of Uniformity on this occasion had been lost from the archives of the House of Lords. It was, indeed, missing for some time, but in consequence of a more careful search having been instituted in 1870 by Dr A. P. Stanley, the dean of Westminster, the original book has been discovered detached from the Act of Uniformity iu ths library of the House of Lords, and a fac-sirnile of the book with the MS. revision was made under the authority of the lords of the treasury for the use of the royal commissioners on. ritual in 1871. Third The Revolution in 1688 is the most important epoch period. in the third period of the history of the synodical pro ceedings of the spirituality, when the Convocation of Canterbury, having met in 1 G89 in pursuance of a royal writ, obtained a licence under the great seal, to prepare certain alterations in the liturgy and in the canons, and to deliberate on the reformation of the ecclesiastical courts. A feeling, however, of panic seems to have come over the Lower House, which took up a position of violent antagonism to the Upper House. This circumstance led to the prorogation of the Convocation and to its subsequent discharge without any practical fruit resulting from the king s licence. Ten years elapsed during which the Con vocation was prorogued from time to time without any meeting of its members for business being allowed. The next Convocation which was permitted to meet for business, in 1700, was marked by great turbulence and insubordina tion on the part of the members of the Lower House, who rafused to recognize the authority of the archbishop to prorogue their sessions. This controversy was kept up until the discharg3 of the Convocation took place con currently with the dissolution of the Parliament in the autumn of that year. The proceedings of the Lower House in this Convocation were disfigured by excesses which were clearly violations of the constitutional order of the Convocation. The Lower House refused to take notice of the archbishop s schedule of prorogation, and adjourned itself by its own authority, and upon the demise of the Crown it disputed tbe fact of its sessions having expired, and as Parliament was to continue for a short time, prayed that its sessions might be continued as a part of the Parliament under the praununientes &quot; clause. The next Claim of Convocation was summoned in the first year of Queen Lower Anne, when the Lower House, under the leadership of Dean House to^ Aldrich, its prolocutor, challenged the right of the archbishop pemlontly. to P ror S ue it. an d presented a petition to the queen, praying Her Majesty to call the question into her own presence. The question was thereupon examined by the Queen s Couacil, when the right of the president to prorogue both Houses of Convocation by a schedule of prorogation was hell to be proved, and further, that it could not be altered except by an Act of Parliament. Th s decision of the Queen s Council is of great importance in its bearing upon the constitution of the Convocation as a part of the body politic of the realm, and is in striking contrast to a legal opinion which was circulated in print in 1855 with the names of two eminent lawyers subscribed to it, to the effect that the Convocation has the power of altering its own constitution, provided only that it has the licence of the Crown to make a canon to that effect, and such canon is subsequently approved by the Crown. During the remaining years of the reign of Queen Anne the two Houses of Convocation were engaged either in internecine strife, or in censuring sermons or books, as teaching latitudinarian or heretical doctrines ; and, when it had been assembled concurrently with Parliament on the accession of King George 1., a great breach was before long created between the two Houses by the Bangorian controversy. Dr Hoadly, bishop of Bangor, having preached a sermon before the ] king, in the Royal Chapel at St James s Palace in 1717, against the principles and practice of the non-jurors, which had been printed by the king s command, the Lower House, which was offended by the sermon and had also been offended by a treatise on the same subject published by Dr Hoadly in the previous year, lost no time in representing tha sermon to the Upper House, and in calling for its con demnation. A controversy thereupon arose between tho two Houses which was kept up with untiring energy by tha Lower House, until the Convocation was prorogued in 1717 in pursuance of a royal writ; from which time until 18G1 no licence from the Crown has been granted to Convocation to proceed to business. During this period, which may bo regarded as the fourth distinguishing period in the history ; of the Convocations of the Church of England, it was usual ; for a few members of the Convocation to meet when first summoned with every new Parliament, in pursuance of the royal writ, for the Lower House to elect a prolocutor, and for both Houses to vote an address to the Crown, after which the Convocation was prorogued from time to time, pursuant to royal writs, and ultimately discharged when the Parliament was dissolved. There were, however, several occasions between 1717 and 1741 when the Con vocation of the province of Canterbury transacted certain matters, by way of consultation, which did not require any licence from the Crown, and there was a short period in it3 session of 1711 when there was a probability of its being allowed to resume its deliberative functions, as the Lower Hous3 had consented to obey the president s schedule of prorogation; but the Lower House having declined to receive a communication from the Upper House, the Convocation was forthwith prorogued, from which time until the middle of the present century the Convocation was not per mitted by the Crown to enjoy any opportunity even for consultation. The spirituality at last aroused itself from its long repose in 1852, and on this occasion the Upper House took the lead. The active spirit of the movement was Samuel, bishop of Oxford, but the master mind was J Henry, bishop of Exeter. On the Convocation assembling several petitions were presented to both Houses, praying them to take steps to procure from the Crown the neces sary licence for their meeting for the despatch of business, and an address to the Upper House was brought up from the Lower House, calling the attention of the Upper House to the reasonableness of the prayer of the various petitions. After some discussion the Upper House, influenced mainly by the argument of Henry, bishop of Exeter, consented to receive the address of the Lower House, and the Convocation was thereupon prorogued, shortly after which it was dis charged concurrently with the dissolution of Parliament. On the assembling of the next Convocation of the province of Canterbury, no royal writ of exoneration having been Eont by the Crown to the metropolitan, the sessions of the