HL Deb 22 July 1861 vol 164 cc1278-83
LORD EBURY

rose, pursuant to notice, to present a Petition of Members of the Church of England and Ireland, Praying for an Address to Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the Subject of the Book of Common Prayer, with a view of making alterations therein. The noble Lord said that he had not given notice of his intention to present this petition, which was not numerously but most respectably signed, on account of any special importance he attached to it, but because he wished, with their Lordships' permission, to avail himself of the opportunity to state to the House and the country the reasons which induced him not to proceed with the Motion of which he had given notice at the termination of the last Session of Parliament, to lay this year upon the Table of the House a Bill to alter and amend the Act of Uniformity. In the first place, throughout his connection with this question he had been desirous that the initiative should come from the ecclesiastical element in the legislative body. He had, therefore, waited to see whether the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury would make any move in that direction. It had done so before; it might do so again. That body met this spring under new circumstances, inasmuch as they had asked and obtained a licence from the Crown to enter on the path of Reform. Undoubtedly it was not of a very radical description; still it was a step in the right direction, and he had hoped that they might have considered the propriety of requesting those of their body who had seats in Parliament to propose legislation to ameliorate some of those evils which had been the subject of such frequent complaint. Circumstances, however, occurred which prevented the further consideration of these matters. Their Lordships would recollect that the meeting of that body was twice postponed; once owing to a domestic affliction in the family of the most rev. Prelate, and once on account of his much regretted indisposition. Mean while the opportunity for acting in this House was passing away; and in addition, the storm raised by the discussion of the Essays and Reviews made it im- possible to obtain a fair hearing for anything else. It was, therefore, considered by those who had conduct of this question of liturgical revision to be an inopportune moment for stirring it in this House. Now, before he proceeded to state his intentions as to the future, he wished to draw their Lordships' attention to the altered position in which this question stood, since he made his statement in that House in May last year. Subsequent to his Motion in the House last May a similar one was made in the Lower House of Convocation with great ability by the Dean of Norwich and Mr. Oxenden, one of the elected representatives of the diocese of Canterbury; and, although not successful, yet if any of their Lordships would look into the Ecclesiastical Hansard they would see that their arguments remained unanswered, and that many who would not vote for the Motion at that time begged they might not be considered as pledged against it. Then, although in some episcopal charges a revision of the Liturgy had been somewhat apologetically deprecated, yet the right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Glocester and Bristol had recommended it unhesitatingly, and in words to which he begged their Lordships' attention— The further revision of the Liturgy has been strongly recommended by persons of learning and piety at various times since the last revision of 1802. Indeed, all true friends of the Church must, in the abstract, be in favour of revision. However wedded to those forms which they rightly cherish as one of the greatest blessings which they have inherited from their forefathers, they can hardly deny that there some alterations which would render the Prayer Book more perfect, and they must esteem it a service done to the Church of no little moment if any defect in her ritual were remedied, any acknowledged deficiency supplied, any change made by which, without the sacrifice of what is essential, the prejudices of Separatists might be removed and the peace and unity of the Church secured. He also adds that he sees no reason why that should not be done at once. But the most remarkable circumstance yet remained to be considered, and it emanated from the most rev. the Primate of Ireland, with the approbation of the Archbishop of Dublin. The House was aware that in consequence of the Provincial Synods of York and Canterbury having obtained a licence from the Crown to do so, they proceeded to alter the 29th Canon, which relates to parents becoming sponsors for their own children. When this was done, one of the Irish Bishops and his Clergy called upon the most rev. the Primate to convene a Synod for the purpose of following their example. This, however, the most rev. Primate declined to do, on account of an opinion which he entertained, after consulting with the ablest ecclesiastical lawyers of this country, that the 29th Canon never had any validity whatever, and, therefore, that, whether it were altered or no, the law remained the same; but he had added these remarks, which, coming from so highly respected a source, he was sure would be most interesting to the House— If at any time a well-considered plan for a general revision of the canons and rubrics, or for shortening the accustomed services, or for amending the laws which regulate the discipline of the Church, should be previously framed by the heads of the Church and State, it would seem to me that a National Synod of the united Church is the appropriate body for considering the principles and arranging the details of such a measure before the introduction into Parliament of a Bill to give it legal effect; should an occasion of this kind present itself during the remaining period of my protracted Primacy my best efforts shall be used for the convening of a National Synod. Their Lordships would, therefore, see that there was abundant evidence to show not only that this question was not disposed of by the rejection of the Motion which he had the honor to make last year, but that it was as unsettled and as rife as ever, and as urgently requiring authoritative interposition. He should like to have added some further observations in reference to this part of the subject, but he had already trespassed at some length upon the Patience of the House and would refrain from so doing. He would merely add, that unless some move was made early next year by the ecclesiastical authorities (and this he must again repeat he earnestly desired, because he wished the initiative to proceed from them), it would be his duty to ask their Lordships' assent to a Bill for relaxing the terms of subscription, which had been so severely reprobated by some of the brightest ornaments of our Church, which had done and were doing an amount of mischief which could not be over-stated. Those of their Lordships who did him the honour to listen to him last year would remember that he described the alteration of the terms of subscription to be that without which all other alterations would be wholly incomplete. Their Lordships would, he thought, consider that the Motion would come with peculiar appropriateness next year. The fatal and revengeful Act which compelled these terms was passed in the year 1662; next year would be the 200th anniversary, and he trusted their Lordships would feel sincere pleasure in substituting for it something more in harmony with the conciliatory spirit and Christianity of our age. The noble Lord then presented the Petition; also one from Ashbourne to the same effect.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

said, he was not authorized to state that Convocation would be likely to take up this subject. He was glad, however, to see that the question had become a little more clear than it was originally. It always appeared to him that this subject was greatly complicated by the mixing up of three questions which had very little to do with each other. One was whether the services of the Church could not be made more elastic and shorter; another was whether any alteration should be made in the doctrinal statements of the formularies of the Church; and the third, whether the terms of subscription should or should not be relaxed. He was glad to hear that the noble Lord intended to confine his attention to the third of these questions. He thought the noble Lord would be more likely to attain his object if he had adopted the course pursued on a late occasion by a noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) when an alteration was made in regard to certain services. On that occasion the noble Earl distinctly pointed out what the services were to which his Motion referred, and their Lordships knew the exact question with which they had to deal. The noble Lord, however, had always Pressed the necessity of a general revision of the Liturgy. Now, in former times, such a course as the noble Lord advocated had only been taken after a period of revolution. When the Church recovered form the convulsion into which it was thrown at the time of the Reformation there was, of course, a general revision, When the Royal Family and the Established Church were restored after the Commonwealth, and again when James II. was compelled to leave the Throne, there was a general revision of the Liturgy; but it seemed out of the question to propose a general revision of the whole Liturgy of the Church of England at a time like the present. If the noble Lord would set forth the changes which he wished to effect the country and the church would then be able distinctly to judge whether or not those changes were desirable, or whether they would not cause that general unsettlement of feeling throughout the country which was much to be deprecated, As to the terms of subscription, it was of great importance that the public should not suppose them to be more rigid than they really were. His impression was, that a man who conscientiously believed the Church of England to be the Church in which he wished to live and die, and who was not more attached to any other form of Christianity than that which the Church of England presented, might fairly and safely make the subscriptions which were required of him by the present law. These subscriptions were not so strict as the noble Lord seemed to imagine. They stated that the person who subscribed accepted the Articles of the Church of England; that, if he took orders. he would act according to the formularies of the Church; and that he upheld the Royal supremacy. The subscriptions were required of all clergymen and some laymen; they were required of every one becoming a governing member of the University of Oxford. They had been made by the noble Lord himself as a member of the University of Oxford, and he did not believe they would be found to go beyond what he had just stated. If, however, it should be found that they pressed in any way upon the consciences of scrupulous persons, and if any safe relaxation could be proposed, he was quite sure such a proposal would receive great attention from the right rev. Bench and from Convocation. What he had always deprecated was the general unsettlement in the Church of England which would certainly result from throwing the Prayerbook into the hands of a Commission with general authority to alter a course. As to the services of the Church, he had several times stated that they might, if it were desirable, be shortened. The Litany, for example, might, under the sanction of the diocesan, be used as a separate service; and there were other modes by which the services, if too long, might be abridged. But in the feeling of the laity, and if a clergyman ventured upon such a change it was extremely likely that he would find his position in the parish not particularly pleasant.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH

thought the extreme length of the services was objectionable. In the Morning service the Lord's Prayer was repeated five times. He had been told that the right rev. Prelate himself, on one occasion, in reading the service at a consecration, said, "You have had the Lord's prayer four times, I will not give it you again." [The Bishop of LONDON, by gesture, expressed his denial.] The Litany, it was suggested, might be omitted, and put in the Evening Service; but if there was any part of the service a "miserable sinner" might wish to retain, it was the Litany. Many of the clergy endeavoured to strain the existing law, but any effective movement must come from the Bishops.

VISCOUNT DUNGANNON

could not understand the complaints relative to the repetition of the Lord's Prayer, and he regretted the manner in which it had been alluded to by the noble Marquess. Nothing of human origin could be entirely free from error; but if any composition was or could be perfect, it was the Liturgy of the Church of England. The laity generally disliked any innovation that would affect it, and he deprecated the repeated discussions on the subject of changes that could have no result but to unsettle and disturb men's minds. He did not cast any reflection on the course pursued by the noble Lord, but he regarded with alarm and anxiety any suggestion for altering the incomparable Liturgy of the new Reformed Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table,