CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 30 June 1871)

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, that by an Amendment proposed without Notice by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the new Tables of Lessons would be optional for use up to 1879, instead of 1873, as provided by the Bill when sent down from the House of Lords. He thought the alteration would be productive of great inconvenience, and he would therefore move an Amendment to restore the date originally in the Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that the alteration was not proposed without Notice, and was adopted in Committee after full discussion, and after reference had been made to the heads of the Church.

§ MR. MONK
said, he had learned from very high authority that there was a considerable difference of opinion as to the Amendment of the Prime Minister, and one of the heads of the Church had asked him to move an Amendment to the same effect as that of the right hon. Baronet. Objections were taken to the clause allowing the clergy to use the old Lectionary up to 1879.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had made a declaration in favour of the lengthened term.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he had to propose, as an addition at the end of the 2nd clause, the words— And provided that the occasions whereon power to alter the appointed Psalms and Lessons is, by the Schedule to this Act, committed to the ordinary, shall be all occasions whereon the ordinary shall judge that such alteration will conduce to edification. Of that proposal he would explain the occasion. His hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) had given Notice of several Amendments on the Schedule to that Bill, which, as the House knew, was hereafter to constitute the Calendar, a portion of the Prayer Book of the Church of England. Now, it had been, he believed, the invariable practice of the two Houses of Parliament, from the earliest times, to refrain from interfering as to the details of the Services and Formularies of the Church. There could not be the smallest doubt of the competency of either House to deal in detail with these matters as much as they might think fit; but, practically, they had thought fit to abstain, as he 959 had described. He had, indeed, with the full concurrence of the Episcopal Body, made the addition by way of amendment to the Schedule in the Committee pro formâ—namely, a provision with reference to the Psalter; but that was one which had been recommended by the Ritual Commission, and also, he was assured, approved by Convocation. The usage, then, of the House to waive its privilege of original action in that matter, was one which he thought it plain the House would not be disposed to depart from, except it was for some weighty and important purpose. On looking, then, at the Amendments proposed by his hon. Friend, he found that several of them referred to matters of diction and designation, and he at once assumed, without entering upon their merits, that they could hardly, in the views even of those who approved them, afford a sufficient ground for deviating from the practice of that House. On looking, however, to one of these Amendments, he found that it touched the substance of the services. It was intended to make provision for the use of Lessons from the Canonical Scriptures, in lieu of those from the Apocrypha, in cases where it might seem expedient. Now, that was already provided for, in a more comprehensive form, by the Schedule; for the Ordinary had power to allow an alteration of the appointed Lessons upon special occasions. Such was clearly understood to be the meaning of the Schedule on the occasion when the Bill was in Committee, and when the Committee refused, by a majority, to alter it. He had, however, learned that doubts were entertained as to the scope of the words in the Schedule to which he had referred; and, indeed, his most rev. Friend the Archbishop of Canterbury had told him that he would have interpreted them with reference to such occasions as a harvest-home, or the festival of the dedication of a church. That being so, he now proposed to obviate any such doubts by declaratory words in the body of the Bill, intended to clear the sense of the Schedule, and to show that the terms might be altered pro hâc vice, upon any occasion whatever, where the Ordinary should judge it to be desirable for religious ends. He could not conclude without expressing his own particular thanks, and those of the Government, to his hon. Friend for the 960 considerate and handsome manner in which he had accepted that arrangement, and withdrawn his proposed Amendments, thereby relieving him from a considerable embarrassment, and from the necessity of occupying time by setting out in full detail, for the consideration of the House, the nature of the precedents and principles which seemed to apply to the case.

§ DR. BALL
said, he much preferred the words as they stood in the clause without the proposed addition. Instead of leaving it in legal phraseology, which anybody could understand, it was proposed to add words which, if they had any meaning, would abate the effect of the absolute and unlimited words, and to that he objected.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, it appeared to him that questions of law could never arise. It was what the Ordinary thought best. If he considered it conducive to edification he could do it.

§ MR. MONK
said, he doubted if such words ought to be introduced into the Bill. The words, if it were to be left to the Ordinary, were mere surplusage. The measure would unsettle everything of uniformity in the Church.

§ MR. MACFIE
rose to move an Amendment, the object of which was to substitute the words "the blessed Virgin Mary," for "our Lady" in a Schedule of the Bill. He said the words "our Lady" were found only once in the Prayer Book, and his Amendment would introduce uniformity in the book itself, and harmony with other Churches; and not only that, his objection to the latter term was that it implied power and authority.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he could hardly express the pain and regret with which he heard discussions of that kind. He believed there was an increasing disposition on the part of the House of Commons to abstain from all religious controversy, and to pursue that course, in reference to such questions as this, which would be most conducive to peace and harmony. With regard to the philological part of the hon. Gentleman's 961 argument—for he would entirely eschew the theological part of it—they would get into hopeless confusion, were they to endeavour to trace the root meanings of words. This "cobbling" with the Service Book of the Church he most strongly deprecated, and he hoped the House would not encourage such a proceeding.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
hoped the hon. Member for Leith would not divide the Committee, but would allow the English to enjoy Lady Day as they had done for centuries.

MR. GLADSTONE
then moved, "That the Bill be now read a third time."

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, he must oppose the Motion, of which no Notice had been given: more than that, it was contrary to the usual practice to take two stages of a Bill on the same day.

§ MR. DODSON
said, there was no rule of the House that Notice should be given of a third reading.