SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN. (Hansard, 17 June 1864)

VISCOUNT GAGE
moved the second reading of the Bill, the object of which was to permit clergymen to substitute for the lessons from the Apocrypha, now used on certain days in the Church service, lessons from the canonical books of the Bible. This might seem a slight boon, but slight as it was, it would be no small relief to many clergymen whose consciences revolted at reading the books to which the Bill referred. As to the Books of the Apocrypha, they had never been received in the Church previous to the Council of Trent, and then only because they were found in the Bible.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
was certainly not prepared to accept the Bill his noble Friend proposed to read a second time. He thought it extremely objectionable—unwelcome to the laity and unacceptable to the Church—that it should be left to the option of any clergyman to read what lessons he pleased. He therefore moved as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

§ EARL STANHOPE
said, he would point out to his noble Friend the fact that white the object of the Bill was to take care that no part of the Apocrypha should form part of the service of the Church of England, and while permission was given to substitute canonical lessons for those taken from the Apocrypha, the Bill would not be effectual for its purpose, because there were other portions of the service—the Offertory, for instance—in which portions of the Apocrypha were used.

§ LORD EBURY
observed, that the Bill only proposed that violence should not be done to the consciences of those clergymen who were compelled to read lessons from the Aprocrypha fixed for particular days. There were portions of the Apocrypha—such as the story of Susannah and 1931 the Elders and Bel and the Dragon— which were totally unfit, he would not say to be read in church, but to form any part of Christian worship. A clergyman had informed him that he would as soon read the story of Jack and, the Bean Stalk as that of Bel and the Dragon. Many clergymen, did substitute other lessons, but unless the law was altered clergymen would still be compelled by law to read these unseemly stories. All that the Bill proposed was, that clergymen might be allowed, without violation of the law, to select lessons out of the Canonical Scriptures, instead of reading those taken from the Apocrypha. It was not to be supposed that any layman would object to that. The laity, he was persuaded, would rather hail it with satisfaction. The first thing which Dissenters and unbelievers charged against the Church of: England was, that it sanctioned the public reading of these objectionable lessons; and that practice had done more harm to the Church than almost anything else in her ordinances. If their Lordships were true friends to that Church of which they were almost all members, they would vote unanimously in favour of the noble Viscount's Motion.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
said, he was afraid there was some danger of the right rev. Bench being misunderstood in that matter. By his own vote he would be exceedingly sorry to be supposed to express an opinion either in favour of the use of the Apocrypha or against it, or an opinion either in favour of the abstract proposition of the noble Viscount, that the clergy should have this liberty, or that they should not have it. What he wished to be understood as saying by the vote he meant to give was, that he thought this grievance, if it was a grievance which required to be remedied, had better be remedied, in some other way. The noble Lord (Lord Ebury) had intimated that he -would call their Lordships' attention to the subject of the Burial Service a fortnight hence. Now, even with regard to that subject he was disposed to think it was not the wisest course to have discussions in that House till such time as they were able to, settle other important questions with which they were at present engaged. The Government had issued a Commission of Inquiry into a very important ecclesiastical matter—namely, the subscriptions of-the clergy at their ordination and their institution to benefices; and he thought he should not he guilty of any 1932 breach of confidence in saying that that Commission had been sitting since April last for many hours in each week. And, as the right rev. Prelates who were members of that Commission, and who, he supposed, would also be members of the other Commission, had many important duties to perform, it was perhaps better to take one thing at a time. When the question of clerical subscription had been dealt with, in the proper and constitutional way, they might be able to consider any further improvements which noble Lords had to suggest. As to the Apocrypha, he did not think that everything which might be disliked in the lessons read in Church was contained in the Apocryphal lessons. Some of their greatest divines had prized the Apocrypha. If his memory served him rightly, Bishop Butler's use of the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach showed certainly that the Apocrypha, as a whole, had not been correctly designated by the noble Lord. But however this might be, it was better to adopt such a course as the Church generally, approved for removing any blemishes which might exist in our ecclesiastical system.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD
desired to back up what had been said by his right rev. Brother. Without expressing any opinion on the general proposition of the noble Viscount, he submitted that the Bill ought not to be read the second time, because it was, at all events, a wrong mode of doing what the noble Lord proposed to do. Following all the precedents of the Constitution, the proper mode of attempting such a step as this would be by moving an Address to the Grown, calling on the Crown either by Commission to inquire into it, or by addressing the Crown to bring the matter by its prerogative before the Houses of Convocation; and, the matter having been first considered in a Convocation of the clergy, it might then he proposed that it should be brought before Parliament. That had hitherto been the course adopted, and he thought it would be full of the gravest inconvenience in many ways if that old constitutional method were rudely interfered with by individual Members of the Legislature attempting piecemeal to reform what they might deem little blemishes in the Church services. Another objection to this proposal was, that if this subject were to be considered at all, the question should be, not whether the Apocryphal-lessons could be amended, but whether the lectionary of 1933 the Church service could be amended. He ventured to join his own protest to what had fallen from his right rev. Brother as to the exceeding inappositeness of the general and strong censure pronounced by his noble Friend on the Apocryphal Books. He admitted that there were blemishes to be found in them, and parts that were not the best adapted for reading in our churches; but if, instead of listening to clerical correspondents, who were- occasionally not very clerical in their language, the noble Lord would read The Wise Sayings of Jesus the Son of Sirach, the noble Lord would perhaps not be a sadder, bat, by his own confession, would certainly be a wiser man.

§ LORD EBURY
explained that he had referred to such books as Susannah and the Elders and Bel and the Dragon.

§ LORD LYTTELTON
objected to dealing in the fragmentary manner now proposed with the English Prayer Book without due inquiry, conducted in the regular methods. So far, however, from objecting to the principle in itself of the noble Viscount's Bill, he thougth it might be carried a great deal further. No case could be mentioned of more flagrant faults of omission and commission than that; of the lectionary of the English Church, whether they looked to the Sunday lessons or to the calendar for the weekly services. When the noble Lord spoke of things in the Apocrypha which it was painful to read in the presence of ladies, it should be remembered that a similar objection might be made to some parts of the canonical books of the Old Testament.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
ventured to suggest to the noble Viscount (Viscount Gage) that he should hot divide the House on that occasion. It was quite clear, from what had just taken place, that the House was not prepared to assent to the second reading of the Bill; and he hoped the Motion would not be pressed, as, at the same time, it might be disagreeable to many of their Lordships to vote against it.

VISCOUNT GAGE
said, the discussion had convinced him that the proper mode of dealing with the subject was by the appointment of a Commission, and he would not press the second reading of the Bill.