§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYI wish, Sir, to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to an observation which fell from him on a former occasion as to the sitting of Convocation not being continued with the sanction of the Government. The question I have to ask is, whether, as we perceive the Convocation is postponed to February next, the sitting is then to be resumed, or whether it is adjourned in the usual way?
§ MR. WALPOLEI am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for asking the question, because I think a misunderstanding has prevailed with reference to the onduct of the Government as regards the 248 Convocation, and the mode of proroguing it. Now I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that the usual course observed with reference to the Convocation is to leave it, not to the Crown, but, according to law, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, either with or without the consent of his brethren (for that is a question that is not yet determined) to prorogue Convocation when the Address is presented. That course the Government has not interfered with, nor could the Government be required to interfere at all unless the licence of the Crown was required, permitting them to meet to make canons or ordinances, or continue their sittings for such a purpose as that. What I said the other night was, that the Archbishop of Canterbury had never made any application with reference to this subject, either to me or the other Members of the Government, and, as far as I am aware, that statement is perfectly correct. Until to-day I never saw the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject. I stated, also, what is perfectly true, that, as far as I am concerned, I was determined never, on the part of the Government, to allow any deviation from the usual course relative to the sittings or powers of Convocation. The Government has strictly and steadily adhered to that determination. I have taken no part whatever in the matter, nor was I likely to be called upon to do so unless the Convocation required the licence of the Crown, or unless I had reason to believe that a different course of conduct was about to be pursued from that which was pursued on previous occasions. The only deviation that has taken place on the present occasion is this—that the Address has been debated upon three days instead of upon one, and that a Committee has been appointed. The Government had nothing to do with the appointment of that Committee. The Government could not interfere. [Sir JAMES GRAHAM intimated dissent.] My right hon. Friend shakes his head. But I think I am right. If I am wrong, it is from some misconception of the power of the Government which the novelty of the subject may have thrown some doubt upon. To the best of my belief, however, the Government has no power to interfere at all until it comes to a question of prorogation. That question could not arise before the Address was answered, and the Address, as yet, has not been presented. Great interest has been manifested on this subject; and, therefore, perhaps I may be permitted to add, that after much thought I have formed a deli- 249 berate opinion upon it, and I can assure the House that, so long as I have the honour to hold the office I now hold, nothing will induce me to advise the Crown to grant a licence to Convocation to make canons. I have never made that declaration before, because I have never been called upon to make it; but I make it now, that there may be no misunderstandings, for I entertain that opinion in the strongest manner, firmly believing that nothing would be so detrimental to the Church of England, or so likely to create divisions in that Church, as to revive Convocation for such a purpose.