§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ LORD DYNEVOR moved to omit certain words from Clause 4, his object being to remove all doubt as to the legality of the modern practice of evening Communion. If he was assured that as the Bill stood there would be no interference with the practice, he would not press the Amendment.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, it was not intended that the Bill should raise, nor did he think it did raise, any question in regard to evening Communion, and the Amendment was, therefore, unnecessary.
§ LORD EBURYsaid, that as some doubt had been raised as to the legality of the evening Communion, he would vote for the Amendment if the noble Lord pressed it.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYwould repeat the assurance of his most rev. Brother, that it was not meant to interfere with the evening Communion by this Bill. The measure would not make that celebration less legal or more legal than it was at present, and the clause had been very carefully drawn in that view. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had drawn attention to this point on a former occasion, was satisfied with the words of the clause.
§ Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, the "short title" of the Bill did not give an idea of its contents, and was likely to give rise to misapprehension out of doors. The Bill was, in reality, an Amendment of the Act of Uniformity of 1662. The title given to the Bill would put in the hands of the enemies of the Church a stone to throw at her. The object of the Bill was to allow elasticity in respect of the services of the Church; but if the present title were continued, persons would say that the Church had to come to Parliament merely for the purpose of shortening her services. He therefore proposed to alter the short title enacted 1544 by Clause 9 to "The Act of Uniformity Amendment Act, 1872."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made.
§ Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended (No. 80).