Our space forbids to follow this interesting writer through the rest of his history, which deserves and will repay a very minute investigation. He appears to have explored all accessible sources of information both in French and English records, unless perhaps, in treating of the dawn of the Reformation, he may have neglected the invaluable records given us in the Concilia Anglicana, and we know by experience that Walsingham must always be checked by the Archbishop's registers in regard to the facts of which he speaks. But this subject we are now compelled to postpone for the present, in consequence of the space to which our remarks have already extended. We shall hope to take it up in a future number of this journal.

In the meantime we would mention that there is an accidental oversight at page 214, in describing the battle of Beaugé, in Anjou, where Gloucester is said to have commanded and to have been killed, instead of Clarence, to whom that fate actually befel on that occasion; but it is a mere oversight, for Clarence is correctly mentioned in the same page. This victory of the Dauphin over the whole English army in Henry's absence does not appear to have attracted so much attention from English writers, fondly dwelling on the glories of Agincourt, as it deserves.

The further progress of the war, the history of the Pucelle, the great career of Bedford, the miseries of France in consequence of the invasion, the insolence of the English, alienating, as it still alienates, foreigners whom it is chiefly their interest to conciliate, the inevitable tendency of these unjust aggressions of the English crown to end at last in defeat and disgrace, the popular tumults of Paris, and the bloodthirsty passions of its mob in ancient as in modern times,-all these things are recorded and illustrated in a striking manner. The notes on the rise and progress of the French and English constitutions, and on the States-General, are also full of interest. But there is one lesson which the author draws from the result of the conference at Arras which we cannot forbear to record. After the signal successes of the French subsequent to the siege of Orleans, when the Burgundian alliance, the mainstay of English power in France, was all but come to an end, and when the prestige of conquest had faded from their arms, a congress was appointed at Arras, in 1435, which was attended by ambassadors from the principal sovereigns of Europe to negotiate a peace between the contending parties. It was proposed by the French that the English should retain Normandy and Guienne in absolute sovereignty, with the town of Calais,almost the very terms which Henry V. had enjoined his brothers on his death-bed to contend for, if they should.

encounter adverse circumstances, and which was probably the original limit of his own ambition. Bedford's great career was drawing to a close, and on his sick-bed at Rouen he could take no part in the treaty; and though Cardinal Beaufort and the wiser counsellors saw the advantage of a concession, which, by the surrender of Paris-which they could not hold-would have secured the more important parts of their conquests, the popular clamour at home, aided by the violence of Gloucester, the good Duke Humphrey' as his admirers called him, obliged the more sober party to reject the last opportunity that fortune would ever afford them. Their subsequent conduct was similar. They drove the Burgundian into a war, and his forces being joined with those of Charles, Paris was taken the next year. The French king then changed his policy. He perceived, on the other hand, in the English, once so adverse to 'peace, a sudden and vehement desire for it, produced by the 'loss of Paris, and retreat into Normandy-a change very usual in the popular feeling, sometimes termed opinion, which is apt 'first to drive the country into hostilities, against its best 'interests, and soon to force a negotiation when, perhaps, the 'war ought to be continued for the interests, well understood, 'of peace itself.' The writer illustrates this tendency from two instances in later times, (note, p. 436;) the first, when Walpole was driven into a war with Spain; the second, when 'in 1803, 'the clamour of the country, acted through and excited by the 'press in the attacks upon Napoleon, if it did not occasion, 'certainly hastened the war which raged for eleven years, 'and from the burdens of which we shall not recover for a century to come.'

The consequences were such as might be even then foreseen. Charles determined to bide his time, and in fifteen years from the fall of Paris, Normandy and Guienne were both reunited to his crown; leaving only the memory of great exploits on which blood and treasure had been poured forth like water, and holding up a warning to posterity how little of social happiness, how little of true glory, how much of misery, and how much even of dishonour, results in the end from that

Vaulting ambition which o'erleaps itself,
And falls on the other side.'

458

ART. VII.-1. Convocation. Opinions of SIR FREDERICK THESIGER, SIR W. PAGE WOOD, and DR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE, upon a Case submitted by the Society for the Revival of Convocation, &c. London: Rivingtons. 1853.

2. The Morning Chronicle. Feb. 17th, &c.

3. The Guardian. Feb. 16th, &c.

HAVING, in several past numbers, reviewed the subject of the present movement for Convocation, with some pretence at historical order; and having staked our theological character on its importance; we propose to adopt the same course with reference to the last quarter. The progress which has been made seems not, at first sight, to be very great, for we have only one day's debate to form the nucleus of its history, whereas before we had three; but, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, we trust it will appear that the length of time actually passed in debate on this occasion is no test of the value of the whole movement. We say this, not as a conventional mode of explaining away a disappointing conclusion, but with real confidence in its truth. The immediate cause of so short a time of sitting did not proceed from that kind of interference which we consider to be the most difficult to meet. It did not proceed from the civil power; government had no concern in it; but from the Archbishop, the President himself of the assembly. It was not an external opposition aimed at the Church's right of meeting in synod, but it was the internal power of the Church's own synodical organization, as at present exercised, that confined the discussion within such brief limits. We are not accusing the Archbishop of any violent and arbitrary control over the wishes of the Church, for there was no struggle on this occasion to obtain a longer time; and as the point was not fought, no victory was gained. It was known to all, that the Archbishop's personal inclination would be to shorten the time and confine it to one day, and, therefore, that such would be the issue unless great efforts were made to avert it. But no such efforts were made. Those bishops who have thrown themselves into the cause most warmly, and in whose zeal for the Church's synodical action all Churchmen must have entire confidence, took for granted throughout the day that their meeting would be concluded with that evening. It was only against the arbitrary mode of prorogation that the Bishop of

Oxford protested on their separation, it was not against the prorogation itself. From this we conclude that, after a studied review of the state of the whole question on the part of its firmest advocates, it was thought undesirable at that time to press for other sessions. Some reasons for arriving at this conclusion were stated in the Upper House by the Bishop of Exeter, as we shall presently see; and the silence of other Bishops was suggestive also of many more, which could not be, or were not, expressed. Yet was this a confession of weakness in the cause, or was there any decline of zeal? Enough took place to show that such was by no means the case. A step was gained which has for its object the better efficiency of Convocation for years to come, inasmuch as the benefits of it could not be fully seen in this present Convocation. This step was gained by a division: it was eagerly opposed, but nevertheless carried. We allude to the appointment of a committee of the Upper House to consider the claims of licensed curates to vote for proctors of the parochial clergy. This, as a specific question, shows a real and practical wish to sift the whole powers of Convocation to their very roots, and their most initiatory proceedings; though another and immediate object was also gained by the same act: that of claiming, by a vote of the house, its own right to appoint committees which shall sit between prorogations.

But why could it be thought desirable, by the advocates themselves of Convocation, not to press for its sitting through more than one day? In the first place it must be remembered that that one day was a decided gain over the precedents of late years. If we compare the occasion of this meeting with similar ones, we shall find that no sitting at all has hitherto taken place on the like opportunity, even in that progress of the general movement, which allowed of discussion at other times. The 16th of February is not to be compared with the usual assembling of Convocation at the beginning of each session of Parliament, for the session of Parliament began in November, and the Houses met again in February only by adjournment. The usual meeting of Convocation, which takes place at the commencement of a session of Parliament, was accomplished in November, and in our last number we had the pleasure of recording how great an advance its active functions then made. Under ordinary circumstances, the Convocation would have been prorogued to some day near the probable termination of the parliamentary session, and consequently there would have been no meeting at all in February. This, however, being the meeting of a new Convocation, there was the addition of an Address to the Crown, over and above the business of other years. The occasion, therefore, of the meeting on the 16th of February, was

the presentation of the Address; and on referring to the mode in which that was done in 1848, we find that no other business was transacted at the same time, though much deliberation had been necessary in drawing up the Address. The first meeting of that Convocation was held in November 1847; and after a long sitting, from 11 to 5 o'clock, on the subject of the Address, Convocation was prorogued, first to the 9th of December, but afterwards, by royal writ, to the 17th of May, on which day there was a meeting in the chapter-house of S. Paul, where, after the legal writs had been read, the only subject mentioned was the probable day on which the Address would be presented. That day was ultimately arranged to be the 17th of June, and, in the account we have of what then was done, it would appear that the members of Convocation only assembled at the Jerusalem Chamber immediately before their departure for the palace, and dispersed as soon as the presentation was ended. In order, therefore, to estimate the step gained on the 16th of February last, we must compare the transactions of that day with what took place on the occasion just referred to. In 1848, on the presentation of the Address, there was no real sitting for debate; whereas in 1853, the next occasion of a similar kind, there was a whole day of anxious deliberation, productive of important results, as will presently be seen.

It is satisfactory to observe, with regard to the 16th of February, that the real importance of the day was centered in the Upper House. At an earlier stage of the movement for synodal action, the Lower House exhibited most activity. This is a proof to us that the two Houses are settling into their proper relative positions. Whatever may be the exact province of the Lower House, there is no doubt that the Upper is strictly the initiative one, and ought to take the lead. There is no true analogy between the two Houses of Convocation and those of Parliament, sufficient to justify the Lower House, on the strength of its representative principle, in assuming to itself the chief power. An apparent assumption of its initiative powers may be necessary as a preparatory stimulus to the Upper House, when it declines to act; but the degree of activity now exhibited by the bishops indicates that the stimulating influence from below has been to good purpose, and that they are ready to take their proper office as rulers of the Church in synod. An agitating Lower House, with an immovable Upper one, could never end in permanent good results, and would give no hope of real activity, as we may see from the contests which preceded the silencing of the whole Convocation 140 years ago.

On this occasion there were present of the Upper House,the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of London,