§ House in Committee (according to Order).
§ Clause 1 (Short title).
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmoved to omit the word ("Lectionary") and insert ("Table of Lessons").
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Substitution of Table of Lesson in Schedule for old Tables) agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved an additional clause, suggested by the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York), providing that—
No suit shall be instituted against any clerk for any offence against this Act in following the Topic of Lessons hitherto in legal use, alleged to be committed prior to the 1st of January, 1872.The Act would come into operation on the 1st of January next; but, as in rural districts the Prayer Books might not be altered by that date, it was thought reasonable that no prosecution should be 100 instituted for non-compliance with it during the ensuing year.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Schedule, Part II.,
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to omit from the Schedule the paragraph setting forth the "Order how the rest of Holy Scripture is appointed to beread;" to omit the paragraph relating to alternative Lessons at Evening Service, on the ground that this service was sufficiently explained without it, and that it might, by its ambiguity, lead to the inconvenient practice of reading a later chapter of a particular Book before an earlier one.
§ Amendment agreed to; Paragraph struck out.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKmoved to insert in the paragraph permitting "other Lessons" with the consent of the Ordinary to be substituted for those appointed in the Table, the word "special," with a view to limit the permission by the Ordinary of a deviation from the Table of Lessons to special services, as harvest thanksgivings for instance. It was not desirable to make the choice of lessons entirely an open question between the Ordinary and the clergyman.
§ Amendment agreed to.
THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, that according to the Schedule as it stood at present a clergyman who held three services in his church would be obliged to repeat in the evening the same set of Psalms which had been read in the afternoon. This would become a merely mechanical operation with some clergymen, and, moreover, it might happen that mournful Psalms would have to be read on joyful occasions, and vice versâ. He therefore moved the insertion of words to remedy this inconvenience.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPremarked that the Psalms did not form part of the Lessons, and, consequently, it would be necessary to alter the Preamble of the Bill if the right rev. Prelate's proposal were carried. This might open the door to other alterations, and he therefore trusted their Lordships would not accept the Amendment.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKagreed in the reason of the noble Earl. They were carrying out only a part of the recommendations of the Ritual Commissioners, and were strictly limited to the Table of Lessons.
THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, he would accede to what appeared to be the general opinion of the House. He might, however, bring the subject forward on some future occasion.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ On Question? That the Preamble be agreed to,
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmoved to omit, lines 18, 19, and 20, the words—
And such revised Table of Lessons have been considered and approved of by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury and by a Committee of the Convocation of York.He objected to anything that might seem to imply that the consent of Convocation was a necessary basis of legislation. If the words were intended to be a mere recital of a fact, he denied that the alleged act of Convocation was in any sense a legal act; and if they were intended as the recital of a fact of no importance whatever they were simply surplusage, and surplusage was very injurious in any Act of Parliament. Any Act of Convocation derived its authority from the subject-matter having been submitted to its consideration by the Queen, and from Her Majesty having subsequently approved the decision arrived at. But this question of the Table of Lessons had not been submitted by the Queen to Convocation, nor had Her Majesty in Council given her assent to the decision which was come to. Again, it was a very curious thing to state in an Act of Parliament that the whole of the Southern Province of Convocation, and only a Committee of the Northern Province had signified their approval. Besides, this was contrary to precedent. The Calendar and the Table of Lessons rested on the Act of 24 Geo. II.; but in the Preamble to that statute there was no reference whatever to Convocation. It might, perhaps, be urged that Convocation was not sitting in the year 1751, when that Act was passed; but surely that circumstance only afforded an additional proof that the approval of Convocation was not deemed necessary. He confessed his estimate of the two Houses of Convocation had not been raised by what had lately occurred. The debates on the subject 102 of the Œcumenical Council seemed to imply a complaint that His Holiness had not invited the representatives of the Church of England to sit at Rome with the other Bishops of the East and West. This was a sign of a spirit totally unsuited to a deliberative and independent body, which was, or ought to be, under no other than the control of the Crown and of Parliament. These, even apart from all other causes, gave him so much distrust of Convocation, that he trusted their Lordships would see the necessity of excluding from the Preamble the words of which he moved the omission.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he was not affected by the severe remarks of the noble Earl, inasmuch as he presided over the Northern Province of Convocation. It was, however, a strange argument to say that because a deliberative assembly had erred on one subject its opinion was worth loss in regard to another. He admitted there was no reference to Convocation in the Act of 1751, but for that there was this good reason—that there was nothing on that occasion to take the opinion of Convocation upon, the object of that Act being merely to substitute the New Style for the Old, and on a question of astronomy Convocation had no peculiar claim to be heard. For his own part he did not take a very overweening view of the claims of Convocation; but still he thanked the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for stating in the Preamble to the Bill that Convocation had approved the new Lectionary. There must be many Members of that House who had not paid very great attention to the details of this difficult and elaborate Table, and who would consequently be glad to know that it had received the sanction and approval of the only assembly which represented the Church of England. He agreed that Convocation had no right to alter a canon or the like without a licence from the Crown; but it by no means followed that, as a deliberative assembly, Convocation was not entitled to express its opinion on important subjects. He trusted he should never again hear such an argument advanced in that House. The Convocation of the Northern Province had fully pronounced its opinion on this subject. Several years ago it passed a resolution to the effect that the Lectionary 103 required alteration, and that resolution was sent to the Ritual Commissioners, and formed part of the materials they had to deal with. Whatever titles the Convocations might have to confidence, they were, at all events, the only legal assemblies of the Church in this country, and this was a question which touched every clergyman and layman in the Church, and therefore Convocation had not soon good to be silent. If the Convocations had incurred legal penalties for expressing their opinion on a question which affected every clergyman and layman, those penalties could, of course, be enforced; but he trusted the noble and learned Lord would retain in the Preamble the statement of a fact which in the minds of many persons would carry considerable weight, and which could be offensive to none.
EARL NELSON, as a layman, concurred in the remarks of the most rev. Prelate, and hoped the noble and learned Lord would retain the words in the Preamble. It was a subject for congratulation with him that what was proposed to be done had been carefully considered by a Royal Commission and approved by Convocation. The insertion of these words in the recital of the Act would be strictly in accordance with precedent. All the great statutes giving the force of law to the Reformation were founded upon resolutions agreed to in Convocation, and the sanction of Convocation was quoted in those Acts. The Act renouncing the supremacy of the Pope and asserting the Queen's supremacy, the Act for giving the cup to the laity, and the Act for allowing the marriage of the clergy were all first agreed to in Convocation; and the preface to the Prayer Book distinctly stated that in the first place a Commission was appointed to compile such a book, and that their report having been considered and endorsed by Convocation, the Sovereign asked both Houses of Parliament to give to that Report the force of law. He could not understand why so much jealousy of Convocation should be felt. It did not pretend to make laws, but only to express the views of the clergy. He hoped his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would keep the words under discussion in the Bill, for the satisfaction of those who could not accept the new Table until Convocation had approved it.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not agree with the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) that the insertion of these words in the recital would be in accordance with precedent. On the contrary, he believed that no instance could be found of the recital of an Act of Parliament mentioning the approval of Convocation, unless it also mentioned the fact that the opinion of Convocation had first of all been asked by the Sovereign. It was natural, proper, and desirable that the voice of Convocation should be heard on these subjects; but the constitutional method of ascertaining that opinion was by the Crown communicating to it a desire that it should express its views. He thought, therefore, that there were grave objections to the insertion of those words in the recital. That, he contended, was a constitutional principle which should not be departed from. The Act of Uniformity recited—
And afterwards the Convocations of both the Provinces of Canterbury and York, being by His Majesty called and assembled and now sitting, His Majesty hath been pleased to authorize and require the Presidents of the said Convocations, and other the Bishops and clergy of the same, to review the said Book of Common Prayer, &c. … Since which time, upon full and mature deliberation, the said Presidents, Bishops, and clergy of both Provinces have accordingly reviewed the said Book, and have made some alterations they think proper to be inserted therein, and have presented and exhibited the same unto His Majesty in writing in one Book, the Book of Common Prayer, &c, and His Majesty having duly considered, hath fully approved and allowed the same, and hath recommended to this present Parliament,and so on. He would be sorry to legislate on questions of this kind without having the opinion of Convocation expressed upon them; but the proper and constitutional method of obtaining that opinion was by the Crown communicating to it a desire that it should express its views upon a subject stated, and then the fact that the Act was in accordance with the opinion of Convocation might with propriety be stated in the Preamble.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, stated that the approval of Convocation was cited in the Preamble merely for the sake of peace, and to prevent uneasiness and sensitiveness in the consciences of many. The Bill was founded on the general desire for some changes in the services; and when a body of 20,000 clergymen were required by Parliament to change forms in their services to which they had become 105 accustomed, it was not unreasonable that they should be fortified in their disposition to cheerful obedience by the knowledge that the change enacted had been agreed on by a Royal Commission and approved by Convocation. The time when the Church was supposed to consist of the clergy alone had long passed; but, on the other hand, the clergy, unlike the Nonconformist ministers, were debarred from sitting in the other House of Parliament, and therefore had no voice in either House—because it could scarcely be assumed that the right rev. Prelates in their Lordships' House represented on all occasions the opinions of the entire body of the clergy. Under these circumstances it was fortunate that, to a certain extent, they could make their opinions heard through the Houses of Convocation, which was in a great degree their representative chamber, and it was therefore natural that they should regard with satisfaction the recognition by Parliament of the opinions of that body. The change which it was now proposed to make in the Lectionary had fortunately received the sanction of one House of Convocation and of the Committee of the other. The words had been introduced into the Preamble for the sake of peace, and he hoped that the measure would be received generally with satisfaction.
EARL GREY, while agreeing that this was a matter which ought to be settled in a manner satisfactory to the Church, was not prepared for the retention of the words proposed to be left out. He gladly recognized the right and importance of Convocation expressing its opinion on these subjects, but not that Parliament should be hampered and restricted in its action by words in the recital such as those now proposed. What would be the consequences of the precedent now proposed to be set? On some future and not distant occasion a reform in the Church might be proposed by Parliament to which Convocation objected, and the Legislature would then find itself arrested in its design and limited in its powers of dealing with the national Church by reason of Convocation, which, after all, was not the representative of the whole Church, or even of the whole clerical element of the Church. It was absolutely necessary for the safety of the Church that Parliament should have full power to deal with 106 Church matters as they thought right. Men must, indeed, he blind to the signs of the times who did not perceive that great reforms in the Church were necessary, and that if these reforms were not adopted by the Church from time to time, in order to keep herself in harmony with the wishes of the great bulk of the people, so as to retain their affection and confidence, the national Church could not be preserved. Let Convocation by all means make her voice heard on questions affecting the Church, and let all due regard be paid to that opinion; but he could not consent that she should have the right that would seem to be conferred upon her by the retention of these words in the recital of the Act. For these reasons, though far from regretting that Convocation had expressed an opinion, he felt bound to vote for the Amendment of the noble Earl to omit the reference to Convocation from the Preamble.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not help feeling that the consequences predicted by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), as about to follow from the retention of these words, came within the category of what Sydney Smith termed "hobgoblin arguments." The noble Earl had talked about Parliament giving up its legislative freedom. The danger of such an abnegation might, indeed, be serious; but, surety, the power of exaggeration could hardly be carried farther than when such results were gravely anticipated from the insertion of those few words in the Preamble of this Bill; if so, it might be possible to go further, and say that because it was recited in the Preamble that "the Commissioners" had recommended the revised Table of Lessons, in the same manner as Convocation was recited to have approved of it, Parliament had resigned its future power of dealing with questions of this description, except on the recommendation of Commissioners. Such a line of argument could only spring from the undue importance attached to these words, which really were very harmless, though he regretted that the words of the Act of Uniformity had not been more exactly followed. The object of the Government was to effect the great change proposed by the Bill as quietly as possible. They did not want to drag their coats before such of the clergy as might be inclined to pick a 107 quarrel with Parliament over the Lectionary. The noble and learned Lord having stated that the insertion of these words would secure the peaceful acceptance of the measure by the great body of the clergy, he should vote for their retention.
§ On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Preamble? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 60; Not-Contents 24: Majority 36.
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 202.)