of the privilege, which every other religious body enjoyed, of discussing in her own assembly her own affairs, was surely in itself an evil.  And we must not too hastily assume that she was not then in a condition to discuss them profitably.  The proceedings of the later meetings of Convocation in the eighteenth century which are best known are those which concerned subjects of violent altercation.  But these were by no means the only subjects suggested for discussion.[651] The re-establishing and rendering useful the office of rural deans, the regulating of marriage licences, the encouragement of charity schools, the establishment of parochial libraries, the licentiousness of the stage, protests against duelling, the want of sufficient church accommodation, the work of Christian missions both to the heathen and our own plantations—­these and other thoroughly practical questions are found among the agenda of Convocation during the eighteenth century; and the mention of them suggests some of the very shortcomings with which the Church of the Hanoverian period is charged.

The causes which led to the unhappy disputes between the Upper and Lower Houses were obviously only temporary; it is surely not chimerical to assume that time and a change of circumstances would have brought about a better understanding between the bishops and the inferior clergy, and that Convocation would have seen better days, and have been instrumental in rolling away some at least of the reproaches with which the Church of the day is now loaded.[652] To the action of Convocation in the early part of the eighteenth century the Church was indebted for at least one good work.  The building and endowment of the fifty new churches in London would probably never have been projected had not Convocation stirred itself in the matter, and would probably have never been abandoned if Convocation had continued to meet.[653] There was ample room for similar work, of which every good Christian of every school of thought might have approved.  And there were many occasions on which it would appear, prima facie, that synodal deliberation might have proved of immense benefit to the Church.  For instance, on that very important, but at the time most perplexing, question, ’How should the Church deal with the irregular but most valuable efforts of the Wesleys and Whitefield and their fellow-labourers?’ it would have been most desirable for the clergy to have taken counsel together in their own proper assembly.  As it was, the bishops had to deal with this new phase of spiritual life entirely on their own responsibility.  They had no opportunity of consulting with their brethren on the bench, or even with the clergy in their dioceses; for not only was the voice of Convocation hushed, but diocesan synods and ruridecanal chapters had also fallen into abeyance.  The want of such consultation is conspicuous in the doubt and perplexity which evidently distracted the minds both of the bishops and many of the clergy when they had to face the earlier phenomena of the Methodist movement.