due to the laity, and it ends with procurations. Now, procurations are fees payable to ecclesiastical persons for things to be done. We should not act hastily, and I would suggest that if this proposition were to be adopted, it might authorise the Bishop hereafter to receive as his procuration a sum not exceeding ten guineas.

ARCHDEACON ALLEN-I may state that in reference to one case I went to the Bishop and told him that the deed of consecration said one thing and the Act of Parliament another, and his answer was that the deed of consecration had no validity except as evidence of the act of consecration. I took the greatest possible interest in the consecration of a church, and the deed was sent to me to be signed. I wrote back saying that the deed expressed an absolute falsehood, and the reply of the legal agent of the Bishop was that everything must be done in a legal form, and that if I would not sign it somebody else would; and so he sent the deed to a person of very humble condition, who had not given sixpence to the church, and on that signature the Bishop acted in spite of the protest of the gentleman who had taken the chief part in the erection of the church. If the deed of consecration were mere evidence of the act of consecration, which the law left clearly open, the Bishop might, if he chose, go into a church and kneel down, and register that act with a notary public as a consecration of that church that day. The law would accept that act if properly attested, because the law has never stated what consecration is. After making private representations as to a case which I thought a disgraceful case, I made a public appeal through the columns of the Times. I then got advice not to pay the bill, and two years after that advice was tendered the bill has not been paid.

CANON SELWYN-This is no doubt a subject of great importance to the Church, and I think it is one that ought to be carefully considered by the house. I therefore move as an amendment that the gravamen be referred to the committee of gravamina and reformanda.

ARCHDEACON RANDALL-I second the motion.

Amendment put and carried.

CANON WOODGATE read a schedule of gravamina to the effect that the removal of the restriction against the opening of theatres during Lent was an outrage upon the religious feelings of the community and the reverence due to our blessed Lord's name, and requested Mr. Prolocutor to put it to the house whether the house would discuss the gravamer with a view to its adoption as a representation upon the subject from this house to the Upper House, which was carried in the affirmative; and moved that the gravamen just read be adopted by this house as a representation to the Upper House.

ARCHDEACON DENISON-I second that.

Motion put and carried, the representation being as follows:

The Lower House respectfully represent that they have heard with sorrow and alarm that it is proposed to remove the restriction by which the London theatres have hitherto been closed during the solemn week dedicated to the commemoration of our Lord's Passion, and they request his Grace the President and their lordships the Bishops of the Upper House to take such steps, either in conjunction with this house

H

conate.

or otherwise, as their lordships may deem best calculated to prevent this outrage to the religious feelings of the community, and the honour due to our blessed Lord's

name.

REVENUES OF POOR INCUMBENCIES.

The REV. DR. MCCAUL-I beg to move that the Prolocutor be requested to inquire of his Grace the President respecting the joint committee appointed to consider the best means of increasing the revenues of poor incumbencies.

DR. JELF seconded the motion, which was carried.

EXTENSION OF THE DIACONATE.

The discussion on the report of the Diaconate Committee (the Rev. F. C. Massingberd's motion, that the report be adopted and converted into a representation to the Upper House) resumed.

ARCHDEACON HALE-I have drawn up a resolution, which I think puts the case plainly and decidedly, to bring out the points, not shirking the question, but rather taking the words of the original report to bring it out in strong relief.

It is

This house having taken into consideration the report of the Diaconate Committee of February, 1859, has resolved as follows:-"That there is an urgent necessity for additional ministers within the Church of England, which, in the present social condition of this kingdom, it might, with God's blessing, not be difficult to provide, there being reason to believe that many persons in different stations of life are ready to be employed in the work of the ministry if under some defined and authoritative commission, but who are not qualified for, or desirous of, admission into holy orders. 2. That an order of ministers is required which shall be supplemental to the Diaconate, and carry out more effectually the duties of that office. 3. That by whatever name the order be designated, the duties shall be so declared as to invite persons of all ranks and classes."

I shall also make a proposition with regard to those giving up the whole and those giving up a part of their time, those receiving stipends and those working gratuitously, and that those admitted to the office shall not be under a perpetual obligation to remain in it, but that they may be at liberty whenever they think fit to withdraw themselves from it.

DR. JELF then proceeded to read the report paragraph by paragraph. On the paragraph

1. In considering the questions submitted to us, we have assumed

(1) That there is an urgent necessity for additional agencies within the Church of England, adapted to the present circumstances of our country,being read,

ARCHDEACON ALLEN-I wish to substitute for "additional agencies" the word "multiplied." I believe that all we require would be accomplished by two things-first on the part of the Bishop, and second on the part of the law. First, the Bishop should not ordain any one to be Priest except on positive testimonials that the candidate is peculiarly qualified. Secondly, by an act passed repealing the civil disabilities of Deacons.

Amendment negatived.

conate.

DR. JEBB-I propose to omit the words "adapted to the present circumstances of the country." I think we ought not to have new machinery, which would be merely of a temporary character.

ARCHDEACON HALE-I quite concur in Dr. Jebb's remark, and should prefer the omission of the words.

Amendment negatived, and paragraph agreed to.

The two next paragraphs, viz.

(2) That there are many persons in different stations of life who would rejoice to be employed in the work of the Church under some definite and authoritative commission, but who are precluded by various causes from becoming candidates for holy orders.

2. With these facts before us, we have first of all turned our attention to that part of our instructions which directs us to consider the best means of promoting the efficiency of the Diaconate, with a special regard to its distinctive and subordinate character,

were then discussed and agreed to, with some verbal alterations. On the following paragraph being read, viz.—

3. The distinction between the second and third order of the Christian ministry is clearly defined in our Ordinal. This distinction has, however, been very much lost sight of, partly in consequence of the Diaconate being considered merely as a steppingstone to the Priesthood, and partly in consequence of the Deacon baving not unfrequently been placed in the sole charge of a parish. We think that the difference between the Deacon and the Priest would be marked more distinctly, if the Diaconate were encouraged to continue in that order, whenever practicable, for a longer period than is now usual, before they are advanced to the Priesthood; and that it would contribute greatly to the efficiency of their future ministry if they could be placed under the direction of experienced incumbents during their Diaconate;

ARCHDEACON WICKHAM-The church with which I am connected is under peculiar difficulties in this respect, and I know that anything tending to tie the hands of the Bishop would be found most embarrassing. If an inquiry were made I think it would be clearly ascertained that the sole charge of a parish is never committed to a Deacon except under circumstances that renders it inevitable.

SIR H. THOMPSON-The report of the committee is very difficult to understand. It bears upon the face of it evidence that there have been great divisions in the committee with regard to the manner in which the Diaconate should be exercised. I sincerely hope that the latter part of this paragraph will be omitted altogether.

CANON WORDSWORTH-It is frequently of the utmost advantage to obtain the services of a gentleman who will confine himself solely to matters belonging to the Diaconate, and I may instance, as a case in point, the advantages derived by the deanery of Westminster from the services rendered by a Deacon who came from St. Mark's, and remained without taking Priest's orders for five years.

SIR GEORGE PREVOST-I think it would be better to keep the clause as it stands. There may be many reasons-youth and inexperience, for instance-which might induce a man to remain in Deacon's orders longer than the ordinary period.

ARCHDEACON DENISON-I am most unwilling to interfere with the report of the committee, but, with all deference and respect to them, I must confess that I am unable to understand the recommendations they have made, inasmuch as the body of the report entirely disagrees with

the instructions they received. The committee were appointed to consider, first, "whether the Diaconate might not be extended in such a manner as to mark more distinctly the difference between that order and the Priesthood, and thus to give increased efficiency to both, by a better adjustment of their several duties, as defined in the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer;" and secondly, whether it might not be expedient to revive the ancient order of "Readers." They report, however, that, "with these facts before us, we have first of all turned our attention to that part of our instructions which directs us to consider the best means of promoting the efficiency of the Diaconate." Yet that is not the fact. The instructions were to consider the extension of the Diaconate, and not the efficiency of the Diaconate as it already exists. Nor was it their business, in considering how the Diaconate could be extended, to go into abstract questions as to the manner in which it might be best used. They had no power, I appre

hend, to consider the matter upon first principles, but they had two distinct questions before them—namely, how the Diaconate was to be extended, and whether we should revive the ancient order of Readers.

The PROLOCUTOR-The first paragraph of the instructions expressly states that the committee were to consider the best means of giving increased efficiency to the Diaconate.

ARCHDEACON DENISON-The passage is, "Whether the Diaconate might not be extended in such a manner as to mark more distinctly the difference between that order and the Priesthood, and thus to give increased efficiency to both." Consequently the strictly logical point was the extension, and in considering one of the greatest practical questions which can come before the Church, they have no right to go into matters which have nothing to do with the extension. I entreat the house not to place any hindrances in the way of the Bishops by suggesting what things are to be allowed and what not, in reference to the employment of Deacons. No one will suppose for an instant that a Deacon would be placed in the sole charge of a parish except in a grave case of necessity. If a representation were made to the house that such a practice gave rise to grievances, it would then be time enough to consider whether there was a real evil to amend, but as the case now stands, I think it would be most unwise to introduce any such matter. My own opinion is, that paragraphs 2 and 3 had no proper place in the report at all, and it would be worth while to consider whether it would not be better to refer the report back to the committee for their reconsideration. ("No, no.") I do not wish the house to take that course, but it certainly appears to me that we have in the body of the report matters which are not dealt with at all in the instructions.

The REV. J. VINCENT-I agree very much in the remarks which have fallen from Sir George Prevost. I think we should not in any way appear to be stringent with regard to the instructions given by the Bishops. It is a matter that might be left entirely to their discretion, and there is every reason to believe that that discretion will be properly exercised. In Wales it would be productive of great incon

conate. S

venience to say that no Deacon should be left in the sole charge of a parish.

ARCHDEACON WICKHAM-During the time I have been connected with the archdeaconry of St. Asaph, it has upon several occasions been found necessary to place a parish in the sole charge of a Deacon, and I should be sorry if by any act of this house the Bishop were prevented from sanctioning a similar step if necessary hereafter.

The REV. J. V. VINCENT-I know of one case now in the diocese of Bangor, where a Deacon is under the condition of remaining five years before taking Priest's orders.

The REV. C. E. KENNAWAY-Many young men, acting under the encouragement of the Bishops, are desirous of remaining for some years in Deacon's orders.

CANON SELWYN-I do not see how cases of necessity can arise. If a curate is placed as a Deacon in charge of a parish with a clergyman to overlook and assist him, he cannot be said to have the sole charge of a parish.

ARCHDEACON MOORE-I agree with Archdeacon Denison that the report of the committee is not in accordance with the instructions upon which they were to act.

The REV. W. B. THOMAS-I can confirm the remarks of Mr. Vincent as to the extreme inconvenience which would result in Wales if the Bishops were restricted from placing Deacons in the sole charge of parishes. In the diocese of St. David's, in several instances, if such a course had not been adopted the parish must have been without a clergyman altogether. I strongly object to the introduction of any clause which would tie the hands of the Bishop.

The REV. T. STACEY-I beg to confirm the statement made by my rev. friend the Proctor for St. David's, relative to the extended period of the Diaconate required in certain cases in the diocese of Llandaff. There is one instance within my own knowledge, in a parish with which I was myself till lately intimately connected, in which the Deacon was compelled to serve in that office for five years. He was not, of course, in sole charge, as there was a curate there besides in Priest's orders; and, as far as I heard and believe, the appointment was successful, and led to no inconvenience. I think it desirable, especially in Wales, that such ministerial assistants should be largely multiplied.

ARCHDEACON DENISON-I move the omission of this third paragraph altogether.

Amendment negatived.

The REV. J. FENDALL-I move that the word "required" be substituted for the word "encouraged."

CANON SELWYN-To, require a person to continue in the office of Deacon for five years might interfere with the rights of patrons.

ARCHDEACON RANDALL-No patron has a right to appoint a person who is not in Priest's orders, or is not competent to receive Priest's orders. I think the words "retain the order of Deacon" would meet all objections.

The REV. J. FENDALL-I am quite willing to accept the words suggested by Archdeacon Randall.