14 MARCH 1868, Page 2

The Archbishop of York has published his correspondence with Bishop

Gray,—two letters of which,—stated by Bishop Gray to have no importance or bearing on the controversy,—are now published for the first time. This curious statement of Bishop Gray's,—made in answer to the Dean of Westminster's charge of unintentional inaccuracy in controversy,—is really amazing. The first suppressed letter is rude in the extreme, containing this sort of thing, for example, "You will allow me to say that I regret to find that your Grace has in this respect [publishing in the Times] shown yourself wanting in the common courtesy due from one gentleman to another. It is clear that you write for the Times, and not for me." He adds to this violent language that there was never anything "to justify your Grace's further imputation that we contemplated the act of consecration within your Grace's jurisdiction without your consent." The Archbishop replies with perfect good temper, and remarks on the Bishop's reassertion of the latter statement, "It is difficult to reconcile this with known facts. On the 14th of January the permission of the Bishop of Manchester was asked for holding the con- secration at Accrington, in the province of York. No notice whatever was sent to the Archbishop." The Dean of West- minster might have said far more than he did* as to Dr. Gray's controversial inaccuracies. That prelate is, from whatever cause, incapable of giving correct evidence on any matter con- nected with the Natal question ; and Dean Stanley has treated him with most marked and generous forbearance in Convocation.