the Submission "which Convocation is, always has been, and must be assembled only by Your Highness's commandment of writ" (i.e., King Henry VIII personally),—is demonstrably inconsistent with the actual facts.

Parliament always fully recognised Convocation as a coordinate body with itself, and in fact, in 1702 the Commons passed a resolution that it would on all occasions uphold the just rights and privileges of the Lower House of Convocation. Parliament has never interfered with the constitution of Convocation, although, as a result of legislation, its personal composition has been affected, e.g., by the elimination of the abbots, and in one case by the statutory transfer of one bishopric (Sodor and Man) from the Province of Canterbury to that of York. Convocation is the Provincial Synod of Canterbury-to which Wales, in the Upper House, contributes four out of twenty-seven bishops, and in the Lower House, about one-seventh of the whole body-and not a political or civil assembly for the purpose of taxing the clergy. By the Submission of the clergy, the King's writ to the archbishop to summon Convocation was to issue in all cases, and not only-as theretofore-in cases of subsidy: no canon was to pass without the King's licence and a canon, when passed, was not to be effectual until approved by the King after it had been passed. The Crown has, by issuing "letters of business" on rare occasions (three times in the last forty years) directed the discussion of certain subjects by Convocation in order to obtain its advice upon them, but this was not essential to their discussion, nor does it limit discussion to those subjects, and in practice, it is preliminary only to the making of a canon. Parliament has legislated on subjects concerning the Church directly, such as in the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874 and the Burials Act 1880, and indirectly such as in the Divorce Act 1857, and the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Act 1907, without consulting

Convocation, or against its protests. It is also to be remembered that Convocation was not summoned from 1717 to 1850.

The Welsh Church Act in its present form does not appear to state very clearly what position the disestablished Church in Wales is to hold. In many respects it is similar to the Irish Church Act 1869. Briefly, it provides that the Church of England, so far as it extends to or exists in Wales and Monmouthshire (called the Church in Wales) ceases to be established by law. All rights of patronage determine all ecclesiastical corporations in the Church in Wales are dissolved: and no bishop of the Church may be summoned or is qualified to sit or vote as a Lord of Parliament. Ecclesiastical Courts and persons in Wales and Monmouthshire cease to exercise jurisdiction, and the ecclesiastical law of the Church in Wales, as well as the law relating to marriages in churches of the Church of England, ceases to exist as law. The existing ecclesiastical law and articles, doctrines, rites, rules, discipline and ordinances of the Church, subject to modification or alteration made according to the constitution and regulations for the time being of the Church in Wales, are to be binding on the members of it for the time being in the same manner as if they had mutually agreed to be so bound, and shall be capable of being enforced in the temporal Courts in relation to any property held on behalf of the Church or any members of it under this Act as if assured upon trusts to that effect. The constitution and regulations of that Church may, however, provide for the establishment of Ecclesiastical Courts for the Church, and, if the Archbishop of Canterbury consents (which is subject to the approval of the King in Council) for appeals to go from those courts to his Provincial Court; but the Courts have no coercive jurisdiction, and no appeal lies from them to the King in Council. From the date of disestablishment,

the bishops and clergy of the Church in Wales cease to be members of or to be represented in the Houses of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, but the Act does not affect the powers of those Houses so far as they relate to matters outside Wales and Monmouthshire. The Act also provides that the bishops, clergy and laity of the Church in Wales may hold synods and elect representatives thereto, or frame, either by themselves or by their representatives elected as they think fit, constitutions and regulations for the general management and good government of the Church in Wales, and its property and affairs, whether as a whole or according to dioceses, and the future representation of members thereof in a general synod or in diocesan synods or otherwise; and the King in Council, if satisfied that the Bishops, clergy and laity have appointed any person to represent them and hold property for any of their uses and purposes, may by charter incorporate those persons (called the representative body) with power to hold land without licence in mortmain: and the property, buildings, plate, furniture, and other moveable chattels belonging to churches, etc., of the Church is to be transferred to them.

The Act does not in express terms cut the dioceses out of the Province of Canterbury, and the view of the Government has been stated to be that the Welsh Church representatives can still attend Convocation, except when it is meeting to discuss letters of business. By reason of what has been already said, this seems to be based on a misconception as to the effect of letters of business. At any rate, the connection of these dioceses with the judicial organisation of the Province is disturbed as already seen, and the facultative appeal from the Welsh Church Courts to the Provincial Court depends on the approval of the Crown in Council, i.e., the Government in power. The disestablishment of a territorial section of a church must

inevitably modify the organism of the general body to which it belongs, the remainder of which still continues its connection with the State; and there is therefore ground for the objection urged by the Bishop of St. Davids to the Committee that the Act intentionally dismembers the present Province of Canterbury, and through it, the whole Church of England. In his view, this latter intention is borne out by a comparison of the present Act with the Bills of 1895 and 1909, which shows that while all three abolish ecclesiastical law in Wales as law, and substitute for it the existing Church law, upon the basis of an implied contract until the Church should itself alter them, the present Act omits their provisions which reserve the present jurisdiction and authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Courts, and declare that any change made by the Church in Wales after disestablishment in its constitution and regulations should not be binding enforceable against the Archbishop of Canterbury without his consent. He cited as further evidence of this the provision that the Church property, which is to continue such, is only to be transferred to the new representative body, and therefore, unless such a body is organised (which requires the approval of the State), the Church would forfeit the remaining endowments, buildings, churches and parsonages, except the plate, furniture, and other moveable chattels of its churches. similar provision to transfer to the representative body is, however, to be found in the Irish Church Act, but there the whole ecclesiastical body was being dealt with. But, perhaps the strongest point taken by the Bishop against the exclusion of the Welsh dioceses from the Synod (and perhaps the Province) of Canterbury is, that this violates the religious liberty of those dioceses when disestablished, for if disestablishment has its ordinary meaning it means the liberation of the Church from State control; but it is

or

A

meaningless if the State claims the same right to interfere with the Church's religious organisation when it has been disestablished, as it might have claimed if the Church had. not been disestablished. The organisation of the Church in Wales, after disestablishment, is a question for churchmen only; and dismemberment of the Church, or the exclusion of the Welsh bishops and clergy, is not essential to disestablishment. Nor is it a relevant answer to the charge that dismemberment of the Church is unconstitutional, that the Church can still have spiritual unity with the churches of the Anglican Communion in Ireland, Scotland, the British Oversea Dominions, and the United States, for there is no right in the State to destroy the unity of the Church of England.

If this provision of the Act means that the Welsh Church, when disestablished, is not to be allowed to organise itself except subject to the Home Secretary's discretion, and will not be allowed to continue its connection with the Church and the Province to which it has immemorially belonged, it goes beyond what is necessary for disestablishment, and is differentiating between the Church and the voluntary. churches. The policy underlying this seems to be that the principle of nationality is to be extended into the sphere of religion, and Welsh Anglicans are to be obliged to form a separate body from the general Anglican Church with a constitution requiring the approval of the Minister of State. It does not seem more reasonable to enforce a separate local organisation of Church people in Wales than it would be to require the Roman Catholics, or Jews, or Nonconformists of Wales, to form distinct bodies from their general communions. At a time when Nonconformists are endeavouring to promote unity among their different denominations (e.g., the United Methodists) by Parliamentary action, it is hardly reasonable for them to claim that Parliament has a right to separate a territorial section from the general body of