(NO. 72.) SECOND READING.

HL Deb 14 May 1867 vol 187 cc478-523

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY*

In rising to move the second reading of the Bill which is now before your Lordships, I think there is no occasion for me to remind the House of the necessity that exists for passing some measure on this subject. The question has been so long before the public, and has given rise to so much agitation throughout the country—we have had so many remedies proposed for the evils that exist in connection with this matter by the clergy, the Bishops, and the laity, that I think it must be apparent to every person that some remedy must be adopted to check certain practices that are now prevalent. It has been stated that I have been somewhat hasty in this matter. But, my Lords, this is a matter which has been long considered by the country. I have long had it before me. I propounded this measure to your Lordships in the month of March, and it is now the 14th of May before we come to the second reading. Subsequently to my propounding it, it was proposed that a Commission should issue to take into consideration all matters connected with Ritualistic practices; nevertheless, I thought it my duty to persevere with the measure. I offer no impediment to the Commission; but there happens to be one part of Ritualistic practice which has created so much alarm and dissatisfaction among the community, which has so disturbed men's minds and consciences, that I am of opinion that no delay ought to be allowed to intervene before the matter is discussed, and some remedy, at least, attempted. Now, the remedy I wish to propose is not by introducing any innovation. What I maintain is, that these Ritualistic practices are a great innovation on the system and conduct of the Church. Yet I do not meet innovation by innovation, and so make matters worse. I wish to see the usage and practice of the Church ever since the period of the Reformation, which has been sanctioned by experience, which has given contentment and satisfaction to our forefathers, our fathers, and ourselves—I wish to see that usage embodied in an Act of Parliament, and that statutory effect may be given to the usage of this country which has now subsisted for more than 300 years. To effect this purpose, I take the spirit and, in great measure, the words of the 58th Canon, and engraft them on the Bill now before your Lordships. Although there may be a slight alteration in the words, yet in principle and details the spirit of the canon is preserved.

It will be my duty, I fear, to detain your Lordships by reading a certain amount of documentary evidence, because I am anxious to prove that the law and authorities are on our side, from the Reformation down to the present day—to justify the course I pursue, and show that what I propose to enact has been the law of the Church of England, recognised in past times by all her great prelates and divines, recognised at the present moment by the two Houses of Convocation, and, I believe, by the great body of the clergy. To show that what I propose has been the law of the Church from the earliest period, I must first recite the rubric in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., of 1552— And here it is to be noted that the minister at the time of Communion, and at all other times of his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope; but, being Archbishop or Bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet; and, being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only."—[Liturgies of Edward VI., Parker Society Ed., p. 217.] This was the statute law of the Church, as enacted by Cranmer, Ridley, and other Protestant martyrs. In the time of Queen Mary the statute was repealed; but on the accession of Elizabeth, power was given to Her Majesty to issue advertisements that should have the nature of law. In 1564 Strype says [3 Strype's Parker, p. 65]— The advertisements arose in this way:—The Queen directed her letter this year (1564), in the month of January, to her Archbishop, requiring him, with other Bishops in the Commission for Causes Ecclesiastical, that orders might be taken, whereby all diversities and varieties among the clergy and laity, as breeding nothing but contention and breach of common charity, might be reformed and repressed, and brought to one manner of uniformity throughout the realm. The result was, that in 1565 Queen Elizabeth issued her advertisements in respect of the ornaments of the ministers, one of which [Sparrow's Articles, 124] was as follows:— That every minister saying any public prayers or ministering the Sacrament, or other rites of the Church, shall wear a comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish. Now follows the recognition (and it is worthy of great attention) by the prelates in their injunctions and visitation articles, that the surplice was the only dress of the minister between the time of the issuing of the advertisements of Queen Elizabeth and the passing of the Canons of 1604. Parker, in his Visitation Articles in 1569 [1 Cardwell, Doc. Ann., 356], inquires— Item, whether your priests, curates, or ministers do use in the time of the celebration of Divine service to wear a surplice prescribed by the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, and the Book of Common Prayer, and whether they do celebrate the same Divine service in the chancel or in the Church, and do use all rites and orders prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, &c., and none other. Sandys, Bishop of London, in his Injunctions, 1570, orders the clergy in all Divine service to wear the surplice. Grindal, Archbishop of York, in his Injunctions for the province in 1571, directs [2 Strype's Annals, 6] the clergy— At all times when ye minister the Holy Sacrament…. and other Divine service in your parish churches and chapels, ye shall when ye minister wear a clean and decent surplice with large sleeves. At the same Visitation, Archbishop Grindal orders the churchwardens and ministers to see that— All vestments, albs, tunicles, stoles, phanons, pyxes, paxes, handbells, sacring bolls, censers, chrismatories, crosses, candlesticks, holy water, stocks, fats, images, and all other monuments of superstition and idolatry, be utterly defaced, broken, and destroyed."—[Grindal's Remains, 124.] Again, the Archbishop, in his Metropolitical Visitation in 1576, inquires— Whether you have in your parish churches and chapels all things requisite for the common prayer and administration of the sacraments, specially the Book of Common Prayer with the new calendar…. and a large decent surplice with sleeves. Whether all and every antiphoners, mass books … all vestments, albs, &c., … be utterly defaced, broken, and destroyed. Whether your pastor do wear any cope in any parish church or chapel.—[pp. 157–9.] Now, observe, my Lords, that here another authority interposes—the authority of the University. Dr. Caius, in 1572, was charged at his College with Romanizing.—Strype [1 Strype's Parker, 399] says— For that he had a kindness it appears in his private reservation of abundance of Popish trumpery, which he might think could come in play again; and so that, out of good husbandry, preserved them, to save the College the charge of buying new furniture for the chapel. But, in the year 1572, all came out, for the fame hereof coming to the ears of Sandys, Bishop of London, he wrote earnestly to Dr. Byng, Vice Chancellor, to see those superstitious things abolished. Byng could hardly have been persuaded that such things had been by him reserved; but, causing Caius's own company to make search in that College, he received an inventory of much Popish ware, as vestments, albs, tunicles, stoles, manicles, with other such stuff as might have furnished divers masters at one instant. It was thought good by the whole consent of the heads of the houses to burn the books and such other things as served most for idolatrous abuses, and caused the rest to be defaced, which was accomplished the 13th of December, 1572, with the willing hearts, as it appeared, of the whole company of that house. My Lords, I continue the episcopal testimony. Archbishop Whitgift, in 1584, required— That all preachers and others in ecclesiastical orders do at all times wear and use such kind of apparel as is prescribed unto them by the Book of Advertisements and Her Majesty's Injunction."—[1 Cardwell Doc. Ann., 468.] In the same year, in the Visitation Articles for the diocese of Chichester (sede vacante), he asks— Doth your minister in public prayer wear a surplice, and go abroad apparelled as by Her Majesty's Injunctions and Advertisements is prescribed?"—[Strype's Whitgift, 243.] Piers, Archbishop of York, in 1590, follows, and [Robertson, 97] asks— Whether all copes, vestments, albs, tunicles … and such like reliques of Popish superstition and idolatry be utterly destroyed and defaced? Now, my Lords, I request you to observe the agreement between the Canons of 1571 and the Canons of 1604. The Canons of 1571 and the Canons of 1604 recognise the surplice with the hood as the only dress for the minister during the time of public prayers, being in strict accordance—let not this escape attention—with the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., and the advertisements of Queen Elizabeth. The Canons of 1571 contain the following order:— No dean, nor archdeacon, nor residentiary, nor master, nor warden, nor head of any college or collegiate church, neither president nor rector, nor any of that order, by what name soever they be called, shall hereafter wear the gray amice, or any other garment which hath been defiled with like superstition; but every one of them in his own church shall wear only that linen garment which is as yet retained by the Queen's command, and also his scholar's hood, according to every man's calling and degree in school."—[1 Cardwell, Synodalia, 115, Ed. 1842.] And Canon 58 of Canons of 1604, which is embodied in the Bill, requires— That every minister saying the public prayers or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church shall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish. And if any question arise touching the matter, decency, or comeliness thereof, the same shall be decided by the discretion of the ordinary. Furthermore, such ministers as are graduates shall wear upon their surplices at such times such hoods as by the orders of the Universities are agreeable to their degrees, which no minister shall wear, being no graduate, under pain of suspension. Notwithstanding, it shall be lawful for such ministers as are not graduates to wear upon their surplices, instead of hoods, some decent tippet of black, so it be not silk. This canon, my Lords, is essentially the same as the rubric in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. and the advertisements of Elizabeth, and in strict accordance with the Injunctions and Visitation Articles issued by the Archbishops and Bishops since the passing of the second Act of Uniformity of Edward VI. Let me now draw your attention to the recognition by prelates of the use of the surplice after the Canons of 1604, and before the enactment of the present Prayer Book in 1662. Bishop Cosin, in 1627, inquired, in the articles for the Archidiaconal Visitation of that year, whether— The minister doth observe all the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer in such manner and form only as is there enjoined, without any omission, or addition, or alteration whatsoever? (He was not a Bishop at the time.) Whether in the time of public and Divine service…. and at all other times of his ministration, when any Sacrament be administered, or any other rite or ceremony of the Church solemnized, use and wear the surplice without any excuse or pretence whatever; and doth he never omit the same."—[2 Cosin's Work, 19.] Observe, now, the recognitions by prelates of the use of the surplice, after the enactment of our present Prayer Book. Bishop Cosin, in his Visitation, October 1662—I may here observe that this eminent Bishop is ranked by all as among the very highest authorities of the Anglican Church—the Bishop— Requires the surplice to be worn with the habit by the ministers at the reading or celebrating any Divine office; and asks whether the lecturer read service, and that in a surplice; and whether, in lecturing, he used the ecclesiastical habit appointed for all ministers of the Church. Archdeacon Harrison (on the Rubrics, 175) has the following note upon the word "habit":—"This is obviously the gown." To proceed, Archbishop Frewen, in 1662, in his Visitation Articles for the diocese and Province of York, asks— Have you a decent surplice for your parson, vicar, curate, or lecturer, to wear in the time of public ministration? Doth he read the Book of Common Prayer, &c., and doth he wear the surplice while he performs that office, or other offices mentioned in the Book of Common Prayer? In 1670, Laney, Bishop of Lincoln, in his Visitation Articles, inquires— Doth your minister, at the reading or celebrating any Divine office in your Church or chapel, wear the surplice, together with such scholastic habit as is suitable to his degree? And in 1674, Bishop Fuller, the successor of Bishop Laney, makes the like inquiry as his predecessor. In 1670, Archbishop Sheldon requires of his clergy— An exemplary conformity in their own persons and practice to His Majesty's laws and the rules of the Church…. and that in time of such their officiating they ever make use of, and wear their priestly habit, the surplice and hood."—[2 Cardwell, Loc. Ann., 328.] Dr. Owtram, Archdeacon of Leicester, inquires, in 1676— Have you a large surplice for the use of your minister in his public administrations? And, in 1679, Bishop Barlow, in his Visitation Articles of the diocese of Lincoln, inquires— Have you a fair surplice for the minister to wear at all times of his public ministration provided at the charge of the parish, and doth he make use of the surplice when he reads Divine service or administers the Sacrament?"—[Harrison, 178.] And here, my Lords, I ask you, can we have a more uniform, more connected catena patrum — (catena is the word, I believe—in the present day) than this which I have just concluded?

But I will now call attention to what has taken place in more modern times, in reference to the dress of the ministers. In the Lower House of the Convocation of the Province of York the following resolution, seconded by the Dean of Ripon in a powerful speech, was adopted in March of the present year— Whereas certain vestments and ritual observances have recently been introduced into the services of the Church of England, this House desires to place on record its deliberate opinion that these innovations are to be deprecated, as tending to favour errors rejected by that Church, and as being repugnant to the feelings of a large number of the laity and clergy; and this House is further of opinion that it is desirable that the dress of a minister in public prayer, and the administration of the Sacraments and other rites of the Church, should continue to be the surplice, academical hood (or tippet for non-graduates), and the scarf or stole, these having received the sanction of long-continued usage." [Dean Goode's Speech in Convocation.] This resolution was passed unanimously by the Upper House, and was carried by 23 to 7 in the Lower House.

And here I think it right to bring under your Lordships' notice a declaration of the American Bishops, in March 1867—the testimony of the Episcopal Church in the United States, identical in creed and discipline with our own. Your Lordships will not fail to see the value of it. The declaration of the assembled Bishops is as follows:— And we therefore consider that, in this particular national Church, any attempt to introduce into the public worship of Almighty God usages that have never been known—such as the use of incense, and the burning of lights in the order for the Holy Communion; reverences to the Holy Table or to the elements thereon, such as indicate or imply that the sacrifice of our Divine Lord and Saviour, 'once offered,' was not a 'full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world;' the adoption of clerical habits hitherto unknown, or material alterations of those which have been in use since the establishment of our episcopate—is an innovation which violates the discipline of the Church, 'offendeth against its common order, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.' I will now close this part of the subject by reading to your Lordships the opinion of the Province of Canterbury. The Resolution passed by the Upper House of the Southern Convocation in February last stands thus— Resolved,—That having taken into consideration the Report made to this House by the Lower House, concerning certain ritual observances, we have concluded that, having regard to the dangers (1) of favouring errors deliberately rejected by the Church of England, and fostering a tendency to desert her communion; (2) of offending, even in things indifferent, devout worshippers in our churches, who have been long used to other modes of service, and thus of estranging many of the faithful laity; (3) of unnecessarily departing from uniformity; (4) of increasing the difficulties which prevent the return of separatists to our communion—we convey to the Lower House our unanimous decision that, having respect to the considerations here recorded, and to the rubric concerning the service of the Church in our Book of Common Prayer, to wit,—'Forasmuch as nothing can be so plainly set forth but doubts may arise in the use and practice of the same, to appease all such diversity (if any arise), and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this book, the parties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall always resort to the Bishop of the diocese, who, by his discretion, shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not contrary to anything contained in this book; and if the Bishop of the diocese be in doubt, then he may send for the resolution thereof to the Archbishop'—our judgment is, that no alterations from long-sanctioned and usual ritual ought to be made in our churches until the sanction of the Bishop of the diocese has been obtained thereto."—[Dean Goode's Remarks, &c.] This resolution is quoted to show the opinions entertained by the Prelates of the impropriety and danger of these Ritualistic observances, not by any means in approval of the remedy they propose. And I now come to the Bill, which I ask your Lordships to read a second time. The object of the measure is simply, as I have said before, to give statutory effect to the principle of the Canon of 1604, which has had the effect of governing the system of the Establishment from that time to the present, and of securing peace and harmony among our communion. I do not know what objections are entertained to the Bill, beyond two or three unimportant criticisms. The first is that the Bill touches but one point. That is true, and the reason is because it is the only point on which there is really any legal doubt. There is no doubt about incense, lights, and other points, but there is a doubt about vestments; and therefore it is the subject to which the attention of Parliament should be more immediately drawn. It is the one point which of all others most disturbs and alarms the minds of the laity, which is the most prominent, which strikes the eyes with the greatest force, and goes the deepest into the hearts and convictions of the people. This is the reason why I thought that no time should be lost in submitting a Bill on the subject to your Lordships; and, should your Lordships not think proper to adopt it, some other measure might be proposed more acceptable to the House. The next objection is one taken to the provisions of the Bill. I have received numerous letters in reference to the measure; but I do not think the objections expressed in any of them go beyond mere matters of the smallest detail. Great care has been taken, in preparing the Bill, to make nothing lawful or unlawful which is not so at present. Any alterations as to matters of detail can be made in the Committee; but they would be so small and slight that were they not made it would not be of any importance. I am censured, too, for proceeding by law. Why, my Lords, law, or fancied law, is the cause of the whole mischief, and by law alone it must be removed. Again, the proceeding by way of Commission has also been urged as vastly preferable. But your Lordships are now aware that the promised Commission did not precede the Bill, but that the Bill preceded the Commission; and it was not until the Bill had been some time on the table of the House that a Commission was suggested. I frequently consulted many of the right rev. Prelates in private, and showed them the Bill. Little or no objection was expressed to the course of proceeding I proposed to pursue, and many of them gave me very strong hopes that they would support the measure, considering it a great boon to the Church. If a Commission had been proposed some three years ago it might have been expedient to leave the subject to the investigation of such a body; but to abandon an attempt at legislation now, in consequence of the promise of a Commission, of which we know neither the terms nor the members, and thereby to hang up the question for a considerable time, would cause great dissatisfaction to the country; and in the meanwhile the state of things which has created, and which is still creating, so much discontent would go on increasing without check or hindrance. By such a course you would be doing for the extreme Ritualistic party the very thing they would most heartily desire. I cannot give a better proof of my assertion than by reading an extract from one of their recognised and authorized organs, by which you will see that this is the policy which they most earnestly labour to accomplish. The value which they attach to delay may be gathered from the following passage, which I take from The Church Times:— In the meantime our counsel to our friends is, in homely phrase, to make their hay while the sun yet shines. Every Church that adopts the vestments renders their abolition a great deal more than proportionately difficult. We have no hesitation in saying that if the ornaments Rubric were only carried out in every church where it would be acceptable, our position would be impregnable. And hear, in confirmation of their policy, a book of the highest possible authority among them — a book full of amazing learning, but learning, no doubt, of a most useless character—here is a statement which completely harmonizes with the astute system thus counselled by The Church Times of making their position impregnable. The Directorium Anglicanum assures us that there are already "2,000 churches which have lights on the altars," the result of secret and gradual advancement. His brevibus principiis, via sternitur ad majora.

I think I have now shown your Lordships that some necessity exists for legislation, and that the line which I propose is founded on precedent, tradition, long and unbroken usage, on the contentment and satisfaction of the people, the peace of the Church; in short, on every consideration which tends to maintain unimpaired throughout the kingdom the blessings of civil and religious liberty. I must, however, ask your indulgence while I detain you a little longer. I am anxious, having disposed of the legal aspect of the question, to inquire whether we are not standing on the brink of a system which, if extended, may lead to the subversion of the Church of England itself, and bear along with it political evils tending to shake the existence of the Empire. There are so many points illustrative of that view that it would be unpardonable in me if I did not advert to one or two of them for the purpose of conveying conviction to your Lordships' minds. Here is one point which has, I confess, filled me with considerable alarm. A short time ago a very remarkable book was published, called The Church and the World; or, Essays upon the Questions of the Day, and I observe on referring to an authorized work, called The Chronicle of Convocation, June, 1866—a work analogous, so far as the proceedings of that body are concerned, to Hansard, for Parliamentary debates—that an event took place in the Upper House which I should like to state to your Lordships. The Bishop of Oxford, on the occasion to which I am referring, said— I have now to present to your Grace and this Upper House of Convocation a book which has been forwarded to me under cover, directed to the Upper House of Convocation. I have not read the book myself. I can well believe, my Lords, that the right rev. Prelate had not read it, for if he had done so he would, I am sure, have been one of the first to repudiate its contents. The title of the book was, he added, The Church and the World, and when he had presented it the Bishop of Salisbury rose, and, speaking in more precise language, said— I think we ought to present our thanks to the author of this book. I have read a good many of the essays contained in it, and they are most able. Although persons may differ from its conclusions, I am sure that everybody who takes the trouble of reading the work will find a great deal of matter in it admirably well put together. Now, my Lords, I have read the greater part of this book, and in my humble judgment I never opened a book more disloyal to the Church, to the Bishops, and I may add, to the truth. I will, with your Lordships' permission, give you one or two specimens of the character and purpose of this publication. To begin. We have said, my Lords, that the Ritualistic system adopted in many of our churches has altogether changed their Protestant character and given to them the appearance of Popish places of worship, so as scarcely, and oftentimes not at all, to be distinguishable from those of the Church of Rome. Well, that being so, one of the essays in this book contains the following passage:— Anglicans are reproached by Protestants with their resemblance to Romans; they say a stranger entering into a church where Ritual is carefully attended to might easily mistake it for a Roman service. Of course he might"— Listen to these words, my Lords, "of course" he might— The whole purpose of the great revival has been to eliminate the dreary Protestantism of the Hanoverian period, and restore the glory of Catholic worship; the churches are restored after the mediæval pattern, and our Ritual must accord with the Catholic standard… Ritual, like painting and architecture, is the only visible expression of Divine truth. Without dogma, without any esoteric meaning, Ritual is an illusion and delusion, a lay figure without life or spirit, a vox et præterea nihil."—[p. 212.] The book urges also the celibacy of the clergy. A whole essay, indeed, is devoted to the object of demonstrating that the unmarried state is the highest state of human existence. It urges, moreover, the revival of religious confraternities, while one of the essays proceeds to contend that the Church ought to be assimilated to the theatre. Managers," it says, "have constantly been compelled to make gorgeous spectacle their main attraction; and a splendid transformation scene or a telling stage procession will draw crowds night after night, even in the absence of any theatrical celebrity. Hence a lesson may be learnt by all who are not too proud to learn from the stage. For it is an axiom in lithurgiology that no public worship is really deserving of its name unless it be histrionic. Here, my Lords, we have it declared that the simple worship of the Almighty as hitherto observed in our churches is now to be converted into a histrionic display, and that the house of God is to be turned into a stage, where gorgeous processions are to take the place of spiritual service, and religion is to be turned into a glittering drama. Again, the following passage approaches very close to the adoration of the Virgin:— The veneration of the blessed Virgin I perceived to a certain extent really exalted our Divine Lord, by showing the dignity attached to everything connected with the incarnation, and that Protestants misunderstand it because they practically degrade Him to the level of a saint, and then of course are shocked at any human creature being compared with Him. In another essay we have the value and necessity of the Confessional vigorously asserted. It contains a remarkable statement, which purports to be written by a lady, who gives details of what took place when she, a young girl, went to confession without the sanction of her parents, her confession occupying six hours. She adds— Years have passed since then, days and weeks of severe suffering, mental and bodily, but never anything that can be compared to those hours and the weeks that followed them, and I know that I can never pass through anything worse on the earth side of the grave. She goes on to say how absolutely indispensable confession is, and she assigns this as her reason— Many persons think that their sins confessed in secret to God are fully confessed. I believe it to be a most fatal mistake. Now, was there ever before, my Lords, a doctrine such as this, sanctioned by the approval of a Protestant Bishop? Was there ever a doctrine so calculated to found, and maintain, a system of sacerdotal tyranny? That no intercourse can take place between a man and his Maker, without the intervention of some priest, weak and fallible as himself, is a dogma as false as it is revolting. Yet these are but samples, and those not the most violent and extreme that might be quoted from this book. Surely it is a sign of the times that such avowals have been befriended by Episcopal authority.

And now, my Lords, can we wonder at results such as I will now put before you? Can we wonder at a narrative such as that which is extracted from The Church Review of the 18th of November, 1865, describing the scenes that occurred at the church of St. Lawrence, Norwich, a few days before with reference to the dedication of a cope— The Church of St. Lawrence, Norwich.—On Sunday last an unusual ceremony was witnessed at this church. A cope had been purchased by a Cambridge undergraduate, and, at his wish, was presented and duly dedicated to God's service in a particularly impressive manner. The usual procession of choir and priest entered the church for evensong, headed by the crucifer. At the rear, immediately before the thurifers, the cope was carried by the deputed person who acted for the donor; the priest went to the altar accompanied by the thurifers. At the bottom step of the sacrarium the cope was presented to him with these words:—'Reverend Father, in the name and on behalf of the donor, I present this cope for use by the priest in this Church of St. Lawrence on all fitting occasions.' The priest received it with these words:—'We receive this cope to the glory of God and for use in this church of St. Lawrence in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.' The priest then duly presented it on the altar and incensed it, after which suitable versicles, responses, and a prayer were used. Then the priest was vested in the cope and remained so until after the Magnificat. The cope is of rich gold and white brocatelle, with crimson orphreys and hood. My Lords, I suspect a frugal mind, as well as a devout heart, in this narrative, for it is added— The cope was supplied by Mr. R. L. Bloomfield, and is the same as shown at the Ecclesiastical Art Exhibition at Norwich. The stories of this kind in reference to our churches and chapels might be largely multiplied, and notably I might call your attention to the church of St. Raphael's, Bristol. Now, this cope is, after all, but a very servile imitation of the Holy Coat of Treves; still, that coat, miserable as it was, excited very great commotion throughout many parts of Germany. It is, indeed, our interest, no less than our duty, to mark the extremes to which these things are carried, and the necessity that they should be checked. At this moment there are very many men, of great ability, great zeal and learning, all engaged in an endeavour to promote and fix in the hearts of the people this Ritualistic system. And, to prove my position, I must advert to a book of the highest authority with the Ritualists, which shows the great lengths to which they have gone and, beyond dispute, to which they intend to go. The work which I am about to quote is the Directorium Anglicanum, a work of authority; and it thus lays down the mode of worship which, the writers assert, ought to be observed in the Church of England. It says— Ritual is the expression of doctrine, and a witness to the Sacramental system of the Catholic religion. Very well to begin with—the various vestments are also described, and the times and seasons at which they are to be worn thus pointed out— The order of the many-coloured vestments:—White, from the evening of Christmas Eve to the Octave of the Epiphany, &c.; Red, Vigil of Pentecost, and all other feasts; Violet, from Septuagesima to Easter Eve, &c.; Black, Good Friday and public fasts; Green, all other days. From this your Lordships will be able to see the advanced position of the Sacramental system occupied by a portion of the clergy. Now, follow a few of the orders and injunctions for the administration of the Sacraments— The greatest care should be taken to avoid the sacrilege of allowing the smallest particle to fall from the ciborium or pyx, &c.—It is impossible to communicate persons (who put their faces on the floor or kneel away from the cushion) without the greatest danger to the blessed Sacrament. After the Consecration prayer, it is most desirable that no person passes before the blessed Sacrament, without genuflecting, bowing, or some token of reverence. Is not this, my Lords, an act of adoration? Let the priest test it by his minister, who will taste both the wine and water. But the priest himself ought not to taste it, … (but) pour a drop on his hand, rub it with his fingers and smell it. … If it is too watery, he must not use it unless he knows that the wine exceeds the water. He shall fetch a breath, and with one inspiration shall say, 'Hoc est enim corpus meum,' so that no other train of thought shall intermingle with (the words). Again, he should never take the chalice at one draught, lest, by reason of the impetus, he should unadvisedly cough; but twice or thrice he should take it warily. Before mass the priest is not to wash his month or teeth, but only his lips from without, with his mouth closed, as he has need; lest, perchance, he should intermingle the taste of water with his saliva. If, after having communicated of the body, he shall have the water already in his mouth, and shall then for the first time perceive that it is water. … it is safer for him to swallow than eject it; and for this reason, that no particle of the body may be ejected with the water. If a fly or spider, or such like thing, should fall into the chalice, after consecration, it should be warily taken out, oftentimes diligently washed between the fingers, and then burnt, and the ablution, together with the burnt ashes, must be put into the piscina. [A laugh.] My Lords, I do not quote these things to provoke laughter; far from it. Strange and abhorrent as they may be to our Protestant feelings, there are many earnest, though deluded, minds that hold and teach them, and of such it is far from my wish to speak with contempt. The book then goes on to say— If the consecrated host … slip from the priest's hands into the chalice … he ought not to take it out of the blood, but proceed in making the sign of the cross, and other matters, as if he held it in his hand. If the Eucharist has fallen to the ground, the place where it lay must be scraped, and fire kindled thereon, and the ashes reserved beside the altar. In a similar case we (Ed. D. A.) should put the ashes down the piscina. If any of the blood be spilled upon a table fixed to the floor the priest must take up the drop with his tongue, &c., and he to whom this has befallen must do penance forty days. Observe, my Lords, the constant repetition of the word "blood," showing the identity with the Roman system. If any one, by any accident of the throat, vomit up the Eucharist, the vomit is to be burnt and the ashes reserved near the altar, and if he shall be a cleric he must do penance forty days, if a Bishop I call the attention of the Episcopal Bench to this— seventy days, if a laic thirty days. Well, my Lords, are we then to return to the burdens that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? Are we to be subjected to a system of Ritualism which, if merely for decoration, is childish and irreverent; but which, if symbolical of the deepest mysteries of our faith, amounts to blasphemy? Will your Lordships take the trouble to look at the Preface of the Book of Common Prayer, and read that part of it which explains why certain ceremonies were retained and certain others were rejected? You will see a reference to the fact that there the great St. Augustine complained of the intolerable yoke of ceremonial in his times, and spoke of the condition of Christian people as being worse in that respect than that of the Jews. The paragraph goes on to ask if St. Augustine had lived in those days what would he have said at seeing such a multiplication of observances? Said! why, would he not have said that our Protestant worship is a worship in spirit and in truth, and that it recognises only so much outward observance as is necessary for reverent and decent devotion? This state of things is, beyond denial, tending to Popery, and such is the assertion of many of our Prelates; and unless it be checked it must issue in Romanism. Speaking in Convocation in February, 1866, the Bishop of Llandaff said— This has been called a Romeward movement, while others have denied that it is so. I cannot but consider this a Romeward movement, and a very rapid movement. What says the Bishop of St. David's?— Nothing, in my judgment, can be more mischievous, as well as in more direct contradiction to notorious facts, than to deny or ignore the Romeward movement. And here I cannot hesitate to call your Lordships' attention for a moment to an ancient writer, whose words are curious as showing how identical are the policy and action of those who now seek to bring back Popery with the action of the men who 300 years ago were opposed to the spirit and principles of the Reformation. In Cardwell's History, in reference to the Conference of 1539— Gualter, it states, also the friend and colleague of Bullinger, writing to the Queen's physician early in the year 1559, and alluding to the attempts at comprehension, entreats that they would not harken to the counsels of those men who, when they saw that Popery could not be honestly defended nor entirely retained, would use all artifices to have the outward face of religion to remain mixed, uncertain, and doubtful, so that while an Evangelical Reformation is pretended, those things should be obtruded upon the Church which will make the returning back to Popery, to superstition, and to idolatry very easy. Mark these last words, "The return to Popery, superstition, and idolatry very easy." In 1867, 300 years after, listen to the same designs, the same hopes, the same facilities. The whole scheme is set out in The Church Times of March 30, the acknowledged organ of the Ritualistic party— The address of Dr. Pusey," (says the journal) "to the members of the English Church Union at their last monthly meeting is one of considerable significance, and fraught with most important lessons for the present time. It is, simply, a formal declaration of war—war against unbelief, against coldness, against timidity, against all which goes to make up that form of religionism which dignitaries call safe, and The Times calls English. War then it shall be. But, that point once settled, the question is, What shall be the tactics by which the campaign shall be conducted? The advice of Dr. Pusey is this: Let no further advances be made for the present, but all attention be concentrated in fortifying the position already attained, and in completing the military education of the Church's army. This is the method by which Russia has pushed her way so steadily and permanently into the far East. Observe, my Lords, the dexterity and astuteness with which they press everything into their service. A fort is erected in the enemy's country, with clear lines of communication back to the basis of supply. A village of soldier-colonists gathers round the fort, and civilians follow where a market springs up. When the post has been Russianized it becomes, in its turn, the base line of operation, and another fort is thrown out some score of miles in advance, and the process is repeated, until, as we have seen, Khokan, Bokhara, and the neighbouring territories are in a fair way to be as Sclavonic as Kazan and Perm. But two rules are inexorably maintained. No fort is erected at a dangerous distance from the base line, and no non-combatants are allowed to be the pioneers of colonization. Exactly identical with this should be our policy. Churches like St. Alban's, Holborn, and St. Lawrence's Norwich, (Observe this, my Lords, the Church of the Holy Cope!) books like the Altar Manual, the Priest's Prayer Book, and the Church and the World," (Bear in mind the title of this book) fairly represent the most advanced post yet reached by the Catholic Revival in England. They are not the ultimate goal. What is it then, my Lords? Why, the final aim, which alone will satisfy the Ritualists, is the reunion of Christendom and the absorption of Dissent within the Church. Here, then, my Lords, is the true object avowed—the subjugation of all Christendom—namely, body, soul, and spirit, to sacerdotal dominion. The journal proceeds— This, then, is the thing to do. Let the advanced posts remain as they are. Let each of those which is a little behind, and only a little, gradually take up the same position, and let this process be carried on (only without haste or wavering) down to the last in the chain. Let a gradual change be brought in. I beseech your attention, my Lords, to the quiet and secret progress— A choral service, so far as Psalms and Canticles are concerned, on some week-day evening, will train people to like a moral ornate worship, and that which began as an occasional luxury, will soon be felt a regular want. Where there is monthly communion, let it be fortnightly; where it is fortnightly, let it be weekly; where it is weekly, let a Thursday office be added. Where all this is already existing, candlesticks with unlighted candles may be introduced. Where these are already found, they might be lighted at Evensong. Where so much is attained, the step to lighting them for the Eucharistic Office is not a long one. Where the black gown is in use in the pulpit on Sundays, let it disappear in the week. The surplice will soon be preferred, and will oust its rival. It is easy for each reader to see how some advance, all in the same direction, can be made, and that without any offence taken. The resistance of our forefathers in the days of Queen Elizabeth has given us a Protestantism of 300 years; may the resistance in the present day assure to us one of no less duration!

And now it may be asked why a layman should deal with this question. My Lords, I will tell you at once why I have undertaken the duty of bringing this subject under your notice. For a very long time the laity of the Church of England have been looking for assistance in every direction. They have turned to the clergy—they have turned to the Bishops. They have been answered by charges and exhortations; but nothing effective has been done for their relief—and this is the answer why the laity have resolved to take the matter into their own hands. They think, moreover, that the Bishops require the assistance of the laity; and they have determined, with them, or without them, to make every attempt in their power to remove this abuse from the fair face of the Established Church. In common with many others, I was, I confess, alarmed in no slight degree at what occurred in the early part of this year (in the month of February). The Most Rev. Primate had put out an invitation to the Bishops of both provinces to meet at Lambeth in order to discuss various important subjects connected with the Established Church. In the agenda paper there was, however, no mention of Ritualism, the question of all others most sharply agitating the people of England. I believe I am correct—and if not the Most Rev. Primate will set me right — in saying that some of the Bishops of the Northern Province declined to attend the Conference proposed to be held at Lambeth because Ritualism was not on the list of the agenda. In addition, my Lords, I must say that I myself had been deeply moved, and the laity likewise had been moved, by certain declarations made by the Bishop of the diocese in which I have the honour to reside. In these declarations strange powers were claimed, powers as great and absolute as were ever claimed and exercised by any of the priests of the Eastern and Western Churches. Convinced that matters were approaching a fearful issue, I consulted with many of my lay friends, and we agreed that an effort should be made to test the feeling of the laity on this subject. A large county meeting was accordingly held; and nothing could give a stronger proof of the extent to which the people of England were animated and resolved. I did not know until I had received accounts from many parts of Dorset that the farmers could be so painfully excited as they were by these ritualistic observances. I should not like to repeat the language used on this subject; it was, indeed, of the strongest description, and no one could hear it without feeling that if these practices are continued the farmers of England, instead of being, as they always have been, the friends, will become the bitterest opponents of the Established Church.

Now, in regard to this Bill, I heard on high authority that there was nothing to be objected to it, except on the ground that it had not proceeded from the decisions of Convocation. My Lords, I am bound to express the deep respect I feel for the individual members of Convocation of both Houses. But collectively I do not feel the same respect for their opinions and judgments; and for this reason, that Convocation represents only the clergy, and those only most imperfectly, while of the laity there is not a shadow of representation. I believe that no Convocation is of any value that does not contain the laity as well as the clergy. In the American Episcopal Church of the United States the laity form the majority of their assemblies; and when I was in Paris a few days ago I had the benefit of a conversation with a Bishop of that Church, and learned from him that the laity formed a large part of the governing body. Without them, he added, Convocation would not get on at all; but with their aid the Church in America had been greatly extended, and would continue, he believed, being extended far beyond its present limits. Another objection I urge to the supremacy of Convocation is that the Convocation of Canterbury does not include the Province of York. Yet that Province contains the very pith and marrow of the whole Empire. The Province of York contains the diocese of Chester, which includes the great town of Liverpool. It includes the diocese of Manchester and the whole of Lancashire, the Archbishopric of York and the diocese of Ripon, and the whole of the West Riding of York, the diocese of Durham with the whole of Durham and Northumberland, and the diocese of Carlisle including the whole of Cumberland and Westmoreland. If the Bill had proceeded from the Convocation of Canterbury, which generally assumes to be exclusively Convocation, it would have proceeded from the weaker of the two bodies, and from a body which, as I have said already, does not represent the laity at all, and most imperfectly represents the whole body of the clergy.

My Lords, I hold that this is essentially a question for the laity. I will never cease to proclaim that it is not for the Bishop and the minister to settle between themselves the order of the service, or what vestments are to be worn, but that it is for the great mass of the congregation to determine whether they will go on in those usages which their fathers have practised for 300 years. It is not for the mere majority of the congregation to determine what changes shall be made, but for the congregation at large; and even then it must be done consistently with the law of the land. What are the minority to do? Affected conscientiously, they cannot continue to worship in a church where these Ritualistic practices prevail. And whither can they go? Must they seek in their necessity another place of worship? Doubtless they must, and such has been the smart and ready counsel of a Bishop, who preferred to give such advice to the judicious exercise of influence and authority in the suppression of harassing innovations. I know, my Lords, that a great difference has grown up between the ultra-Ritualists and those denominated the High Church—a greater difference, perhaps, than there is between the High Church and the Low. I am not about to speak with disrespect of those who belong to these two bodies. The High Church, I acknowledge, contains many wise, good, and learned men. I have ever expressed my admiration for the virtues, talents, and learning of the head of that party, Dr. Pusey. The Ritualistic party also, no doubt, contains men of sincerity and learning, who think by what they are doing they are conferring a blessing upon the Church and the country. I admit it all. But we must consider the effect of the system they are introducing. It is alienating many of the devout and faithful members of our communion. In some it is producing a state of complete indifference, and an opinion that there is little or no distinction between the Church of Rome and the Church of England. Others are averted altogether from the Church, and are going over to the Nonconformists. Congregations are broken up in all parts of the country, and numbers are on the point of being added to the ranks of Dissent. There are noble Peers here present who could tell you of three or four churches in their neighbourhood being completely emptied of their former people. See the effect it is producing among many of your best friends—those who have been faithful to the Church in circumstances of difficulty and danger. I will allude to that powerful body the Wesleyan Methodists. I have many friends among them, and I know that they have been accustomed to cherish a warm attachment to the Church of England. I can tell your Lordships, however, that a great change is coming over their hearts and minds. With regret, but conscientiously, they hesitate not to declare that if these observances continue and are allowed to extend in the degree in which they are extending, there must be a complete change of policy leading, as a matter of deep conviction, to help in destroying the Church of England as a rag of Popery. There is at all times a large body of Dissenters who desire, as a question of principle, the abolition of the Establishment, and in a time of difficulty and distress it may go very hard with our ancient system if to this active Society there be added allies drawn from our former friends and supporters. My Lords, it is quite certain that if the present state of things continues, if no vigorous attempt be made to repress these practices and show that the Church of England is yet prominent in all her purity and her truth, another Reformation will begin in this country. But that Reformation will not be like the last; it will not descend from the heads and come down to the people, thus bringing with it Episcopacy and all its orders; but it will ascend from the people to the heads, and may land us perhaps on the platform of Geneva. There is testimony to this among persons of great experience and well acquainted with the present aspect of ecclesiastical affairs. Canon Blakesley, speaking in Convocation, declared his opinion— That if we look the country through, you will find that it has been more Puritanized by those practices than Romanized. I believe that to be true; and that if you beget in the people the spirit of the old Puritans you will also see in them the action of the Puritans; and that the Establishment, if once uprooted by their assaults, will never regain its first position. Hear also an eminent Nonconformist, Dr. Vaughan, the author of one of the ablest treatises upon Ritualism which has yet been published— The success of the Ritualists (says Dr. Vaughan) hitherto has been in corrupting the members of the Church of England, not in making converts from beyond her pale. And so it is, my Lords. They have brought none to the embrace of the Church of England, though they have driven many over its border, and have tarnished the simplicity of the faith of many who remain within it.

Let me close this statement with an extract from the Charge of the Bishop of St. David's, one of the most acute, profound, and exhaustive documents which I have ever read—one remarkable alike for its learning, wit, power, and sound defence of the purity of the Church of England. The right rev. Prelate, taking exactly the same view which I have ventured to take, says, among other things— I believe that in most neighbourhoods the number of those who are attracted by the revived Ritual bears a small proportion to that of those who dislike and disapprove it, even if they are not shocked and disgusted by it. And I strongly suspect that those who take pleasure in it do so mainly, not on account of its superior sensuous attractions, but because it represents a peculiar system of opinions. But listen to these weighty remarks— The Committee of Convocation, in a passage of their Report, remind us that the National Church of England has a holy work to perform towards the Nonconformists of this country. If the innovations which offend many, I believe I may still say most, Churchmen, are peculiarly obnoxious to the Nonconformists of this country, it is not simply as innovations, but because they present the appearance of the closest possible approximation to the Church of Rome. And the danger on this side is far greater than that which is suggested by the language of the Report. It is not merely that we may make fewer converts from the ranks of Dissent, but that we may strengthen them by large secessions, perhaps of whole congregations, from our own. "Perhaps!" why, my Lords, the evil is already in full action. He proceeds— And the danger—if I ought not rather to say the certain and present evil—does not end there. These proceedings both tend to widen the breach between us and Dissenters, and to stimulate them to more active opposition, and furnish their leaders with an instrument which they will not fail to use for the purpose of exciting general ill-will toward the Church, and weakening her position in the country. My Lords, it cannot be denied, nor do I wish to disguise the fact, that, in dealing with these things, we are dealing in a large measure with the symptoms and not with the root of the disease. We may take away the altar, and yet leave the spirit that erected it. We may take away Ritualism and yet leave Sacerdotalism. No doubt this is true. This is the weakness of all repressive laws; but still we must subdue these external abuses, and, while seeking other means to purify the source of the mischief, endeavour to turn to the best account the powers committed to our hands.

And now, my Lords, in concluding, having thanked you most heartily for the courtesy and patience with which you have listened to me, allow me briefly to say a few words in reference to myself on this occasion. I have at various times been called by various appellations. Perhaps your Lordships will hardly believe that I have sometimes been termed a High Church bigot, while at others I have been described as an irreverent Dissenter. I think neither of these appellations can be fairly assigned to me. It has ever been my heartfelt and earnest desire to see the Church of England the Church of the nation, and especially of the very poorest classes of society, that she might dive into the recesses of human misery and bring out the wretched and ignorant sufferers to bask in the light, and life, and liberty of the Gospel. I have ever desired that in a country, such as our own, where, under freedom of thought and freedom of action, Dissent must ever he found, the Church of England should extend the right hand of fellowship to those who, though they differ from her in matters of discipline, agree with her in the grand and fundamental doctrines of the faith, and so advance the great interests of our common Christianity. I have ever desired that the Church of England should in her wisdom, her piety, her strength, and her moderation, be a model to all the nations of the earth. It has ever been my most ardent desire that in all the great dependencies of this vast Empire the Church of England should be powerful and beneficent—that in the East and in the West, in the North and in the South, and in all the regions of the earth, wherever the English name is heard, or English rule is obeyed—in profound gratitude to Almighty God, and in affectionate reverence of their common mother, her children should rise up and call her blessed. This, I know, is the earnest prayer of every one of your Lordships, and may God give it a prosperous issue!

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, that having been directly appealed to by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), he would in a few words answer the questions which had been addressed to him. It was perfectly true that at the meeting of Bishops at Lambeth in February last the subject of Ritualism was not placed on the paper of agenda; but the simple and sole reason for this omission was, that the matter had a short time before been thoroughly discussed, and the views of the Prelates with respect to it had been thoroughly ascertained. As to whether one of the Bishops of the Northern Province had declined to attend the meeting on account of that omission, he did not think that that was the sole reason for his absence. With regard to this subject it must be remembered that Bishops did not possess the almost despotic authority which some persons seemed to imagine. They had not, however, been altogether inactive. In the beginning of last year he publicly stated his own views in the matter, and the next step which was taken, and which involved considerable expense, was to consult certain very distinguished lawyers, whose opinion was that many of the innovations complained of were contrary to law. Opinions, however, had been taken by the Church Union which took a contrary view. At that time, moreover, a suit had been instituted against a clergyman in the diocese of Exeter, and it was thought better to await the issue of those proceedings. He felt bound to state this in vindication of the Episcopal Bench, and in proof that they were not so insensible to the gravity of the case as the noble Earl perhaps supposed. With the greater part of the noble Earl's powerful address—and indeed with all the earlier part of it—he fully agreed, and he sympathized very much in his indignation with reference to the quotations which had been read by him. He did not wonder that the noble Earl felt indignant that persons who called themselves members of the Church of England should ridicule and revile the Reformation, should declare it a great blunder, and should speak of her formularies and articles as pregnant with Protestantism and heresy. He was earnestly desirous of putting an end to the practices which prevailed; but he did not think the Bill of the noble Earl would effect that. He confessed he did not believe that this Bill would become law, and, if not, to try to pass it was so much time wasted. Proceedings by Commission would be much more legitimate, and every reflecting member of the Church of England would say that a measure of such importance should be first considered by a Commission, where the laity as well as the clergy would be represented; and, if so considered, it would come recommended by an authority which would be likely to get it passed. Another objection to the Bill was this, that it dealt only with one point, leaving incense, adoration, and other; matters untouched. Now a great deal more was involved than this single point of vestments. The noble Earl had contended that any delay which might take; place would give time to the parties of whom he complained to make great advances. He differed, however, from the noble Earl on that subject. He did not think that they would make great advances. The Royal Commission which had been promised by the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government (the Earl of Derby) would take into consideration several other points besides that touched by the Bill; and the same noble Earl had expressed his determination to advise that the Commission should be recommended to make their Report as speedily as possible. Now, he firmly believed that by such means they would arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on several important points without any great delay. He would therefore ask the noble Earl whether he would not consent to postpone his Bill for two months while the Commission was sitting, and then he would see whether their Report would not include all the points involved? Now, he did think that a measure sanctioned by a large body of members of the Church of England would be much more likely to set the matter at rest than anything that could be done by the efforts of a single individual. It was natural for one in his position to wish to see the peace of the Church settled upon a solid basis, and he believed that the course which he had recommended would have that effect.

EARL NELSON

said, there were some points which had not been touched by the noble Earl opposite, upon which he wished to make a few remarks. In the first place, he desired to offer his thanks to the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) for the very moderate language in which he had stated his views; but, in the next place, he wished to point out that if the first part of his speech, showing the general consensus of the Church of England against the use of vestments was true, it really went to prove that there was no necessity whatever for the Bill. The fact was, the question was now pending in a Court of Law, and if the law was against the use of vestments, what was the necessity of the present Bill? Now, in their zeal against vestments, they should not forget that the Church of England embraced opinions of very various kinds. His own view was that while holding the entire truth it was wise to allow among them those who might hold different extremes of that one truth; and he should think that a great injury would be done to the Church of England if, by any action taken either by the party represented more or less by the noble Earl or the extreme Ritualists, any persons were carelessly driven out of the Church. Another point which ought not to be lost sight of was this. It was often said that the practice and doctrines complained of were Romanistic. But the use of vestments was no necessarily connected with the errors of the Church of Rome. They ought not to forget that though the Church of England denied transubstantiation as taught by the Church of Rome, and did not allow consubstantiation as taught by the Lutherans she did admit and teach a real presence in the Eucharist, although she had abstained from defining what was the exact meaning of the words of our blessed Lord in instituting the Sacrament, And with regard to vestments, they found that they had been used from a very early date. Vestments were laughed at by many as being really nothing more than the Roman garments worn by laymen in the time of the old Roman Empire. But it would be impossible to show that when the errors—as he believed them to be—of the Church of Rome were introduced, especially in reference to the Sacraments, any change whatever took place in the vestments or ceremonial. He would remind their Lordships that the vestments were retained at the Reformation, and that to this day many of them were worn in the Swedish Protestant Church. Another thing that was to be borne in mind was this — that the people who had gone into the greatest extremes in this matter had professed their willingness to be governed by the law, and they had actually given up some things which they were told were unlawful. The very fact that the noble Earl had brought in this Bill showed that he thought those people had the law on their side, else there would be no necessity for such a measure. If that were so, let them take care that, while removing an acknowledged evil, they did not make matters worse; because there was nothing which created a greater sympathy for people than dealing with them by ex post facto legislation, and driving them out of the Church when they were really acting according to law. Now, confining himself to the question of vestments altogether, he must say that, in his opinion, one great evil of the matter was the patent fact that so many clergymen had acted without authority; and another evil was that there was so great an indefiniteness in their mode of proceeding that no one could see whither it would lead. He did not think that people would mind so much if they knew exactly what the law was, and how far persons might go; but from the manner in which they had acted nobody could say what the end of it might be. It would, on the other; hand, be a bad thing to have an obsolete law put into effect to force these practices on unwilling congregations. Therefore the great advantage of a Royal Commission would be that the distinct law of the Church in the matter might be defined, and a security provided that no innovation be made without the consent of the congregation. The question of vestments could not be separated from the general question of Ritualism in the Church. It was only an offshoot from the growth of Æsthetical taste among the people, like the desire for choral services and a more decorative style of ecclesiastical edifices. The regular growth in the English mind of a love of these things had been further witnessed in our improved street and domestic architecture and decorations. Finding such a feeling in men's minds, the Church sought to meet it, and in many cases had done so effectually. He remembered when many persons used to go to the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St. George's for the purpose of hearing the services. The want which was thus expressed had been met by the introduction of choral services into the Church of England; and the consequence was that many people — especially of the middle classes — were induced to attend our churches who were not in the habit of going before. Æstheticism had extended even to the Dissenters themselves; their chapels were being built and ornamented like churches; in many of them floral decorations were used, and the "Te Deum" was chanted. At the time that the Church Congress was held at York, a conference of Dissenters was sitting at Wolverhampton or Birmingham, which discussed different improvements in modes of worship, and canvassed the propriety of using creeds, introducing chanting, and adopting many of the prayers of the Liturgy. If too rigid a line of uniformity were drawn for the purpose of putting down the extreme views which they all regretted to see adopted by some of the clergy of the Church, they would cripple the influence of the Church in trying, side by side with other bodies, to meet these yearnings of the people; while, on the other hand, if they proceeded as the noble Earl proposed to do by this Bill, those of the High Church party who did not now sympathize with the Ritualists might be induced, by the appearance of persecution on the part of the State, to support the views of that extreme party. The best way to deal with the question was by a Royal Commission, before which the views of both sides could be fairly and freely discussed, If that course were adopted, the Ritualists, who had always declared that they had no wish to break the law of the Church, would have no excuse for violating regulations which were defined as the law after the question had been fully argued. It would also be preferable that any measures regulating the practices in the Church should be approved of by Convocation, and, having been approved by the Convocations of York and Canterbury, should be finally made law by being passed by Parliament. The 20th Article distinctly declared that the Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and the Church is rightly defined by the Houses of Convocation and the Houses of Parliament. No regulation of Convocation could become law without it was approved by Parliament, and thus became the law of the State. The difference between a Royal Commission and direct Parliamentary legislation was very great, since in one case the measure would be the result of the judgment of the Church, and in the other it might be looked on as usurpation, and therefore an act of persecution by the Stale. But, whatever course was adopted, it was necessary to act, as far as possible, according to law, and care must be taken not to attempt to press one set of views upon the Church with the iron hand of Puritanism. He trusted that the matter might be settled upon a proper basis after being fairly referred to Convocation, and that while the requisite alterations in the law were made, care would be taken not to cripple the usefulness of the Church of England in the great work which she had to perform in dealing with indifference and infidelity. In conclusion, he must say that while he did not sympathize with the extreme views of the Ritualists, nor with those expressed in the book alluded to by the noble Earl, yet he could not deny that the St. George's Mission in the East of London, and other works of mercy by the extreme Ritualists, had been productive of immense good.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, he had omitted to move at the conclusion of his speech that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed for two months. He now begged to rectify that omission.

Moved, "That the further debate on the said Motion be adjourned to this Day Two Months."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, he regretted he could not accede to the most rev. Prelate's request. Were he to consent to postpone the second reading of the Bill for two months he might on attempting then to proceed be told, that the period of the Session was too late to proceed successfully with the Bill. Up to that morning no less than 624 petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill, and during the evening that number had been increased by upwards of 200, while not one had been presented against it. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to proceed with the Motion for the second reading.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

My Lords, I should be very sorry were an erroneous impression to prevail in the country as to the feelings of those who sit on this Bench with regard to the noble Earl's Bill. I believe I speak the sentiments of this Bench generally when I say that we are obliged to the noble Earl for the clear and temperate manner in which he has laid this matter before the House to-night. We are all agreed with him in believing that a very great evil indeed exists, and that it is our duty to endeavour to remedy this evil. And, moreover, I believe we are all of opinion that the time has come when this evil must be treated either directly by legislation or in some more effectual manner than it has been dealt with up to the present time. Your Lordships will remember that we used in former days to hear a great deal about "the Church being in danger;"—by which expression was meant that there existed a desire on the part of certain persons to cripple the resources of the Church. The Church has survived that danger; and we were all congratulating ourselves that there never was a time when the Church of England was more active and more devoted to its great work than the present, when suddenly strange phenomena have arisen among us—perhaps not only in the direction to which the noble Earl has pointed, but in other directions also. These are things to make men sad and alarmed; and I am sure that it is the earnest desire of this right rev. Bench and of your Lordships to preserve the Church of England free from all the dangers by which it is threatened from I within, and to enable her to carry on the great work, which, thank God, she has been for some years so assiduously promoting among us. We think that the time has now come for action; but I am not sanguine enough to suppose, after the extracts that have been read by the noble Earl to-night, that either by the carrying of his or of any other Bill, or by the most mature deliberations of any Commission, the evils the noble Earl deplores will suddenly disappear. There are various ways to treat the disease. All that we can do by legislation is to palliate the symptoms we see in existence. But we shall do but little unless we can strike at the root of the evil. I am strongly of opinion that we must extend our views to our Universities. By so doing we shall more effectually remedy the evils complained of than by passing Acts of Parliament. I desire to impress this fact upon those whose duty it is to distribute public patronage in our Universities. I should be the last man to wish that any ban should be placed upon one set of opinions or another; but I should wish that every great post which may become vacant in our Universities should be filled by a man whose talents and power to influence the feelings of the young would give him a real influence over those with whom he has to deal. If by adopting this course and filling such posts with really able and influential men who understand the wants of the times the feelings of the youth at the Universities are influenced on the right side, the evils complained of by the noble Earl will not only be palliated, but in this, as in other cases, men's minds have assumed a healthy tone, the sympathy with these practices will disappear, and such opinions as those contained in the extracts which have been read by the noble Earl will be treated with the contempt they deserve. As things stand, however, I am afraid that these opinions are at the present moment very popular among young men. I am afraid that in the University to which I belong there is some reason for the alarm that exists that these opinions are spreading; and my knowledge of young men leads me to suppose that an Act of Parliament will never control their opinions, and that they will not be influenced by the decision of a Royal Commission. I trust, therefore, that we shall not act upon the idea that we can at once eradicate these opinions by any steps we may take in Parliament. Yet I nevertheless agree with the noble Earl that the time has come when we must act in the matter. Such action may not effect a radical cure, but it may do some good. By passing an Act of Parliament, we can, at all events, remove the temptation which has existed for so many years which is offered by the uncertainty of the law on this subject. We—I do not mean the Bishops merely, but the whole country—are very much to blame for having looked quietly on this uncertainty of the law for so long a period. Men are tempted to lean to extreme opinions by the knowledge that there is no law to restrain them. Therefore, believing, as I do, that the time has now arrived for action, if the noble Earl for perseveres with his Bill I shall be prepared to fulfil my promise and to support it. Still, I do not believe that mere Acts of Parliament, however carefully prepared, can cure the evil:—and one important defect in the present Bill is that it proposes to deal with one branch in the position it occupies. I believe that only of the subject. My impression is we must go thoroughly into the whole matter, and that can only be done by such a Commission as the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government has promised we shall have. That Commission must extend its investigations to a wide range of subjects. I do not wish that it should touch doctrine; but whatever bears on public worship must come within its sphere. One thing, it appears, would be a necessary result of the deliberations of such a Commission — the law must be made clear. I do not mean that liberty should be altogether constrained — that the whole Church of England must be reduced to absolute uniformity, so that there should not be the slightest difference between the mode of performing Divine worship in one church and the mode of performing it in another—but that liberty shall be legally secured, not licence seized by individuals in the hope that they may escape in immunity from the consequences of their licence. There are many things no law can touch in the outward performance of Divine service. There must be a great range of subjects left to discretion, and the Commission should advise a settlement by Act of Parliament as to settle where that discretion is to lie. At present every clergyman uses his discretion. The Bishop has no power of interference, or a merely nominal power; therefore, any legislation which is to be complete, having settled what the law is, must also strengthen the hands of the central authority whatever it is to be — whether we refer to the Bishop called on by appeal from the laity, or the Bishop subject to the Archbishop, the central authority must be strengthened. No doubt, it must take some time before these points can be carefully considered by the Commission; and the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) may think it better to act even in the small matter now before us than to have any delay: still I hope and I believe that the result of the Commission must be the proposal of another Bill which shall deal with the points I have pointed out. My Lords, I repeat we are greatly indebted to the noble Earl for rivetting our attention on the dangerous crisis which has arrived. It is a crisis not only for the Established Church, but for the Church generally — for the nation; and depend upon it if this nation once loses its Protestant character it will suffer very greatly in the position it occupies. I believe that the Church of England has before it at this moment as great a work as ever lay before any Church. It is a time, I think, for anxiety, but not a time for alarm, still less for despondency. Even in these very eccentricities there is some proof of zeal, and zeal is a good thing. No doubt, if we can carefully direct that zeal to proper objects, we have every reason to hope that the great work which lies before the Church of England will be accomplished. This Church more than any other has power to deal with the civilization of this age—to deal with the very dangers civilization causes—it is the Church's duty not to thwart the course of events; but while it follows, at the same time to lead and guide the men of the 19th century, and this I believe our Church can do beyond any other body, either of our Protestant or Roman Catholic brethren.

THE EARL OF DEVON

quite agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) that it would be very desirable if a clear definition of the law on this subject could be placed before the public—not a mere short Act of Parliament, but such an exposition as could be drawn up after a full inquiry by a Commission impartially composed, and representing all shades of opinion; and nothing short of a declaration of opinions and of the law so arrived at would be satisfactory. But he should earnestly deprecate any interference with religious liberty, or the introduction of anything which would interfere with perfect liberty of action within the limits of the law — a liberty, perhaps, degenerating sometimes into licence, but still in regard to usage and discipline analogous to many of the formularies of the Church which combine with advantage within the Church men who might on some points widely differ. He could not regard with much favour any attempt at rigid legislation, unless arrived at in a manner to secure the public confidence, and after a due expression of opinion on the part of the clergy. He was not himself an ultra-Ritualist, and although he would allow the exercise of every proper liberty to the clergy in exercise of their duties, he thought that innovations on the customary services of the Church should only be introduced with the consent of the laity. For instance, he would not sanction the introduction of vestments, except by the well-ascertained desire of a majority of the regular communicants; but he deprecated this Bill as prejudging one of the subjects to be inquired into by the Commission. He could not conceal from himself that the usages complained of had been introduced by deeply pious, learned, and hardworking men, whose self-devoted labours were directed solely to the good of the community who thought they were justified under the existing law; and, unless the law absolutely required it, it was no light thing to check enthusiasm. It had been said by Lord Macaulay that the Church of England did not know how to deal with enthusiasts. Very serious consequences might arise from unduly fettering the expression of the devotional feelings of pious, warm-hearted men. He therefore said until the law was defined after due inquiry, let them not cripple those liberties which were now accorded to the clergy. It was a matter to be dealt with gently and wisely, not by one-sided interference. The Commission would lead to good if conducted by a body of Gentlemen chosen fairly. All opinions, he hoped, would be represented on it, and if from such a body, after due inquiry, a wisely conceived decision should emanate, he trusted and believed that on the part of the great majority of the clergy a ready acquiescence in the law would be given. Their motto as Christians and as legislators should be In necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in omnibus caritas.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, he participated in the feeling of jealousy which had been expressed against having this matter dealt with by Parliament alone; but he observed that Parliament was now only asked to give effect to the decision of the Church. The canons of the Church and Convocation had already spoken on the subject, and there was no reason for jealousy if Parliament stepped in and confirmed what the canons and Convocation had already declared. The canons of the Church were perfectly explicit, and a Commission could have no authority—what was wanted was a declaratory Act of Parliament. The matter to which the Bill referred was one which most struck the public eye and most created indignation. Let them, at all events, remove this scandal from our parish churches. If clergymen chose to introduce the practice complained of in private chapels of their own, then those who chose might go and witness them; but clergymen had no right to flaunt in variously-coloured dresses in the face of parish congregations, and compel them in the parish churches to witness services which, if not illegal, were, at any rate, unknown to the law, as interpreted by the custom of 300 years. If this were a secular case, no difficulty would be opposed to the action of Parliament in the matter. When some one discovered that the wager of battle had never been legally abolished, an Act of Parliament was immediately introduced and an end put by law to that obsolete practice. Why, then, should not an Act of Parliament be passed to put an end to the use of objectionable and obsolete vestments during the ministration of the services of the Church?

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

said, that though he could not, like the right rev. Prelate who presided over the metropolitan diocese, support the Bill now proposed for second reading, it was not because he differed from him, or from any other of his right rev. Brethren, in his estimation of the gravity of the occasion which had called for the proposed remedy. On the contrary, it was because he was most seriously convinced of the most serious gravity of the occasion that he deprecated most earnestly proceeding in Parliament in the manner proposed. The movement at present going on was of a gravity which it was impossible to overrate at the present moment. He knew from his connection with the University of Oxford how great was the danger arising from the tendency of the young mind of England to turn towards the views and usages of that Church which our forefathers had left—the Western branch of the Church—with a new and strange affection. His own attention was being continually called to individual cases in which this strange tendency was to be met with, and a great part of his time was devoted in trying to solve the difficulty of diverting the affections of those who exhibited this tendency from the object to which they were inclined. This feeling was widely spread in the more religious part of the young mind of England; but he did not believe that it was confined to the Church of England alone. He believed that the influence which was passing over the religious mind of England manifested itself greatly among those who dissented from as well as among those who belonged to the Church of England, and was turning the minds of men towards new forms of service, and towards more stimulating and material forms of worship. Therefore it was, he said, that the present was a grave and serious occasion for those who believed with him that a greater misfortune could not befal this happy land than any faltering in adhesion to those true doctrines of the Reformation which our forefathers proclaimed, and that no greater evil could befal the Reformed Faith in Europe than that this mighty pillar of Apostolic truth should be shaken in any manner. But the more he felt apprehensions at the greatness of the evil, the more he dreaded danger from an attempt to meet the disease by insufficient remedies. It seemed to him that if in the case of a grave disease they called in a physician who proposed to try some trifling remedy which it was shown could at the most excite the patient, and perhaps produce irritation with symptoms that might produce serious results, that it would be giving ill advice if they advised that such a man should be allowed to attempt a cure. Now, this appeared to him to be the very character of the Bill before their Lordships. No doubt the present Bill had been introduced with the sincere desire to help the Church of England; but before giving way to a desire, however strong, the reason should be satisfied that the course proposed to be adopted was one that ought to be pursued. If this Bill would have the tendency that he had described upon the minds of men—if it were, as he believed, excited and nourished by the general uncertainty of the law in reference to a multitude of observances, which were really the smallest portion of the error to be dealt with—then he hoped that their Lordships would not sanction the measure. He said that this particular evil was one of the least, because it was one which had spread least in the land; for he did not believe in the correctness of the number of churches where these practices had existed which had been stated that night. It was not spreading at the present moment; but people were awaiting and abiding a declaration of the whole Church of England on the question at issue. Supposing legislation was to come, it was of the utmost moment that it should come in the gravest, most deliberate, and most constitutional manner; and he thought that nothing was more unwise in these matters, which touched things so delicate as the morbid feelings of the minds of men, as to apply a remedy which would be sure to be resisted on account of the mode in which it was administered. He approved the proposition to issue a Royal Commission. What had been the result of the last Commission? All opinions in the Church were fully and fairly represented in it; the Commissioners went through the whole of the questions submitted to them calmly and deliberately. It was long before they could come to an united conclusion; but they did come to such a conclusion, and what was the effect of it? Why, that the Church at large accepted it without any irritation or resistance. If, however, an attempt had been made in the first instance to deal with it by a Bill in Parliament, the whole Church would have been convulsed, and the attempt would probably have led to a great secession. One answer to the objection to proceeding by legislation was, that the mode of proceeding by Bill was the most expeditious; but that he must beg leave to deny—and for this reason:—Let him suppose that their Lordships were that evening to agree to the second reading of the measure before them, it must, after it had gone through the remaining stages, be sent down to the other House. And was it desirable, he would ask, that it should there give rise to discussions such as were likely to be provoked by the statements contained in the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), which, however essential they might be to the establishment of his case, were yet scarcely calculated to help out the reign of truth, and peace, and love, and spiritual power, in this country? He trusted therefore that his noble Friend would not press his Motion to a division, for the result might lead the public out of doors to imagine that their Lordships had come to a conclusion either in favour of or against those novelties of which he complained, whereas the real point at issue was the selection of the safest and most hopeful way of making their common resistance to innovations which they all condemned. He should regret to see the Question put on that account; and he saw, he must confess, the elements not only of delay, but of considerable danger in the mode of proceeding which the noble Earl proposed for adoption. It would, he was afraid, stir up the minds of those against whom it was directed, irritate them, and set them in the posture of opposition, when what was most to be desired was that they should be induced to assume the reasonable posture of listening to what was to be said on the subject. The real question for their Lordships to consider, then, was how they could lead the mind of England as one man without crippling their religious liberty, and keep out the entrance of great religious evils into the Church? To that question the history of all mankind supplied an answer. All history showed that it was not by hasty or sudden legislation upon particular and minor points of a great controversy that the question could be settled. What was the great controversy—was it whether men in a purple dress should preach the Reformation, or whether men in white surplices should preach the doctrines of the Church of Rome? Was it wanted to get a party triumph; and would so doing give aid to preserve the Reformation? Entertaining that view he most earnestly begged of the noble Earl to listen to the suggestion of his most rev. Friend (the Archbishop of Canterbury), and not press the House to divide on that occasion. He fearlessly appealed to the moderation and the calmness of both sides of the House to allow a Commission to prepare the way for legislation. It was the deep conviction of his mind that it was in that way the spread of the evils which they sought to redress would be most effectually prevented. He called upon them to remember that the English people never had borne, and he trusted never would bear, the semblance of persecution; and also to remember that the Church of England was not a church of compromise, but of comprehension, embracing within her fold men of every view, between those who absolutely denied her primary principles and those who held the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, which she had expressly condemned. In that comprehensiveness it was that her strength lay. Let not their Lordships, then, without being aware of what they were doing, by legislation, give a triumph to one party in the Church over another. It was no secret, and nothing could be gained by denying the fact, that there were in the Church of England men who went near to Rome and near to Geneva; but the safety of that Church, which was the greatest bulwark of truth, would, in his opinion, best be consulted by keeping both and expelling neither. That end, he would add, could only be accomplished by great forbearance, and by using every method of repressing the evils whose existence he deplored before having recourse to harsh legislation, He, for one, had no sympathy with the objection to the Bill referred to by the noble Earl, grounded on the fact that it was proposed by a layman. He had no wish to see legislation on the subject confined to the Episcopal Bench. He could not, however, shut his eyes to the circumstance that the noble Earl, in the universal estimation of the country, was connected with one party among the parties of which the Church of England was made up. For that he, for one, did not attribute to the noble Earl the slightest blame. Every earnest man must, he thought, at the present moment connect himself with one or the other of the different sets of opinions which prevailed in the Church. It was the indifferent who stood apart, and he liked the noble Earl all the better because he was heartily in earnest in maintaining his own particular view. But then his identification with one party would inevitably tend to create in the minds of those who differed from him the suspicion that by his measure he sought to bring legislatorial power to the aid of the former to their disadvantage. This was far from being a Bishop's view only; for the Report of a Committee of laymen who were members of a conference on the question of Ritualistic practices, who as a body belonged to the Low Church party who had considered the whole subject in conference after conference, and many of whom he esteemed highly, showed that they had come to the conclusion that hasty and sudden legislation would do infinite mischief to the cause they had at heart, would not tend to prevent excessive Ritualism, and would create a dangerous re-action. Their advice was— That an invitation be sent to the leading members, lay and clerical, of the Church of England, without distinction of parties, requesting them to join a deputation to the Prime Minister for the purpose of urging on the Government the necessity of such legislation as we have described, and inasmuch as the appointment of a Royal Commission is likely to afford a satisfactory solution of the question at issue, with less irritation to the feelings of those who are opposed to any change, we recommend that the Premier be requested to advise Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission which shall enter into the propriety of amending the rubric complained of and rendering the enforcement of Church discipline in such matters prompt and inexpensive. The Report which is signed by Mr. J. B. Smith, chairman of the conference, and Mr. R. Culling Hanbury, the hon. Secretary, who had been snatched away in the midst of a career abounding in good, went on to say— We consider it undesirable that the conference should issue a prosecution, and undesirable to proceed by immediate legislation. In the spirit of that advice his vote should be given that evening. If the Bill were at once pressed to a division, he could not help regarding legislation as being hurried on too hastily by impetuous minds who, overlooking the difficulties which lay in their path, would thus really hinder themselves and others from arriving at the conclusion they desired; and, still more, perhaps occasion divisions in the Church of England, the keeping of which one and undivided was the dearest wish, he believed, of every Member of their Lordships' House: and with this wish he connected the dearest interests of this country.

THE BISHOP OF DURHAM

said, his right rev. Brother who had just spoken seemed altogether to ignore those who were suffering from that development of Ritualism. Their case was a most urgent one; and what made the matter most serious was that they continually read in the newspapers of congregations being in some instances disturbed and in others scattered by the adoption of these practices. The reason assigned for that state of things was that the clergyman of the parish felt himself bound in conscience to follow his own interpretation of the Rubric given at the beginning of the Prayer Book. But not only were these Ritualistic practices scattering and disturbing congregations in different parts of the country, they were also weakening Church movements in every direction. People believed that the Church was drifting into Romanism. A layman in the metropolis who had given much time and labour to objects connected with the Church of England had told him that, for the first time in all his experience, when he invited contributions from merchants and others in the City, he found an unwillingness manifested to respond to his appeal owing to a doubt whether the money subscribed might not be used for Romish purposes in a short time. Ultra-ritualism was alienating many sincere members of the Church, and driving them over to Dissent. He had lately read of a conference of Dissenting ministers held in London to consider whether they should not introduce into their chapels the form of prayer used by the Church of England; and one of the most eminent of them urged the adoption of the course because there were so many young men in his congregation who had left the Church from disgust at its ultra-Ritualism. The evil, then, was a most pressing one; and day by day the Church was suffering from it. How could it best be met? Surely the remedy which was most likely to be prompt was the best. Would a Commission afford an expeditious remedy? If the Commission reported in almost the same language as the terms of that Bill, what would be the use of waiting for it? On the other hand, if it reported differently, its recommendations could not be adopted at once, but must be previously referred to the consideration of the Clergy and of Convocation, and must also, he supposed, obtain by some means the assent of the Church in Ireland. All that would necessarily take a long time—two years at least, he should think. And in the meanwhile they would probably be playing into the hands of the very persons whose novelties they were seeking to check. What was the language of all their organs? Why, give us two years, and in that time we shall have so indoctrinated the upper classes of society—they put aside the middle and lower classes—that Parliament will not dare to adopt any measure which would check our onward progress in Ritualism. Look, then, at the Bill of the noble Earl. It was true it was a very simple one. His right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Oxford) said it touched a very small point; but he (the Bishop of Durham) believed it touched the very essence of the matter. The introduction of these vestments was and ever had been the first step in the downward course which these unwise clergymen were pursuing. In itself it might be a little matter whether a clergyman were a purple or a white vestment; but if the garment was symbolical, and intended to represent that the clergy were a sacerdotal order, fulfilling a priestly and sacrificial office, it was inconsistent with the doctrines of our Reformed Church, and was a close approximation to the Church of Rome. It was not therefore a trifling matter, and he thought the measure before them was a most essential one to meet the real evil which existed. And when his right rev. Brother spoke of its introduction as the movement of a party for contracting the breadth and limiting the liberty of the Church, he maintained that it was not so, but that it simply adopted and made law what had been the practice of the Church of England from time immemorial. There must be laws to guide them in the government of the nation, and those laws contracted the liberty of this individual or that individual, in order to establish the liberty of the whole people. He had no doubt that if a Bill were introduced to forbid the meeting of political bodies in the Parks, their Lordships would not maintain that that was a contraction of the rights of the people of the metropolis, but the establishment and confirmation of the right of the entire community to enjoy the Parks for recreation and amusement. So, in their Church, they needed fixed rules and fixed dogmas. Contract those rules and dogmas too much, and he allowed that they would turn their Church into a sect; but, on the other hand, let them make her limits so wide and her rules so lax that they would include everybody, and the whole of her vitality and essence would expire. Believing that Bill to be a measure calculated to meet an urgent and daily increasing evil; believing it to be a measure to preserve the liberties of the whole of England, and the party of order, the party of uniformity, the party which loved the Church of England, against the small party which was seeking to Romanize her, he should cordially vote for its second reading. And while he sincerely hoped that the Commission would deal with other matters, he strongly deprecated its dealing with so simple a matter as this.

THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE

said, in justification of what had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), that the question of Ritualism had been the subject of discussion at the Episcopal gatherings both in 1865 and 1866. He was not at liberty to say more than that, owing to various causes, no decision had in either case resulted. When, in the spring of 1867, the most rev. Prelate, with his usual courtesy, invited his brethren to meet under his roof, he noticed, with regret, that the subject in question was not on the agenda. He stated to his Grace his reluctance to be present under such circumstances. This elicited a kind note of remonstrance. On this, out of deference to his Grace, he attended the first meeting of the Prelates. But when he found that the decision which he lamented was still in force, he left the assembly, when, after but a few minutes' sitting, the Bishops dispersed to attend upon Her Majesty at the opening of Parliament and did not return. He earnestly hoped their Lordships would give a second reading to the Bill before them, for delay would be fatal to the interests and welfare of the Church. It was too certain that there existed in this country an organized conspiracy which, with a consistency of purpose, a perseverance of action, and a fertility of resource worthy of a far better cause, was carried on in order to restore the system of Popery in this country, and effect what had been called "the subjugation of an Imperial race."

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

was understood to give an explanation of the circumstances alluded to by the Bishop of Durham; but his Grace's remarks were inaudible.

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, I think I should hardly perform my duty in remaining altogether silent on this important question. It is with great regret that I find myself called upon to divide on this subject. I deeply regret that my noble Friend who introduced this question (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has been unable to accede to the very reasonable proposition of the most rev. Prelate to postpone for a short period the second reading of this Bill, until the Commission shall have had time to consider and deliberate. Let it be understood, however, at all events, what is the real subject on which we are going to divide. We are not about to divide on the vindication or condemnation of these Ritualistic practices. If that were the question there would be found very slight differences among your Lordships; because I believe there is hardly a man among us who does not deeply regret the injury done to the Church of England which results from these innovations, and the discordant controversies which they occasion throughout the country, and from the erroneous doctrines and practices of which they have become symbolical, and which have propagated disunion. I hope, therefore, it will be understood that the question we are now discussing is not whether or not these Ritualistic practices ought to be opposed or put down, but what is the best mode of attaining that object, and carrying out the convictions of the country without at the same time embittering the feelings of those whose conduct in this matter is condemned. I cannot but think that such a discussion will be infinitely better conducted by a Commission composed of the clergy and laity, deliberating quietly and giving their opinions calmly, rather than by this and especially the other House of Parliament, where, if, it should go down to them, it is impossible the question should be dealt with in that spirit of calmness necessary for its due consideration; whereas, if it were considered by a Commission, there would be an immunity from that party feeling and polemic discussion which would interfere to prevent the calm and deliberate opinions of the House from being expressed. My noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) said that this was a very plain and simple question, because it was merely giving the sanction of Parliament to the clear and undoubted law of the Church. But my noble Friend is begging the question. This is far from being the case. If the question is so clear and plain, why does the 3rd clause provide that all canons contrary to this Act shall have no force whatever? The Bill proposes to deal with only the narrow fringe of a very important question. Whether you agree to it or not it will settle nothing. It may decide as to the use of the white surplice, but it does not touch the question of incense or the elevation of the sacrificial elements. But these are all substantial parts of the practices which it is desired to put down. These questions might be dealt with fairly and honestly by a Commission where they may be fairly heard and decided by impartial arbiters, and their decision would be attended with infinitely more satisfaction than a decision come to in a Parliamentary atmosphere. For these reasons I deeply regret that my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) should find it necessary to proceed to a second reading of this Bill; because, being fully convinced in my own mind that the safest and most expeditious course of dealing with the question will be by a Commission, preparatory to legislation, I shall, if compelled, vote for the Motion of the most rev. Prelate postponing the further consideration of the Bill for two months. Meanwhile, I pledge myself that the Royal Commission shall be issued with as little delay as possible. If we do come to a division, I trust it will be understood that those who vote on one side or the other will not be taken as sanctioning the practices complained of; but that it will be seen that this is simply a difference of opinion as to the mode of proceeding for the purpose of effecting an object which is alike desired by both sides of the House. I must vote for the Amendment of the most rev. Prelate, and I shall very much regret if in doing so I am supposed to approve the practices complained of.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH

said, the Lord Bishop of Oxford—

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

I rise to order. The noble Marquess has no right, in the presence of any Peer, to call him by name in debate.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH

must apologize for his inadvertence; but as several right rev. Prelates had spoken, he did not know how in any other way to make his meaning clear. He was about to say that the Royal Commission on Subscriptions to the Articles which had been so much extolled by the right rev. Prelate had abrogated an oath which the Sovereign, as head of the Irish Church, and the clergy of that Church were obliged to take against transubstantiation. This led him to feel some distrust as to the possible proceedings of a Commission, should one be appointed.

On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 61; Not-Contents 46: Majority 15.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, Archp.	Chester, Bp.
Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Ely, Bp.
	Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.
Dublin, Archp.
	Llandaff, Bp.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Oxford, Bp.
	St. Asaph, Bp.
Marlborough, D.
Richmond, D.	Bagot, L.
Rutland, D.	Carew, L.
	Clinton, L.
Bath, M. [Teller.]	Colonsay, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Colville of Culross, L.
Belmore, E.	Delamere, L.
Cadogan, E.	De Ros, L.
Cardigan, E.	De Tabley, L.
Carnarvon, E.	Egerton, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Feversham, L.
Derby, E.	Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Devon, E.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
	Heytesbury, L.
Eldon, E.	Hylton, L.
Erne, E.	Lyttelton, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Lyveden, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Lucan, E.
Malmesbury, E.	Penrhyn, L.
Manvers, E.	Redesdale, L. [Teller.]
Nelson, E.	Rollo, L.
Tankerville, E.	Romilly, L.
Verulam, E.	Sherborne, L.
	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Hawarden, V.
Lifford, V.	Southampton, L.
Templetown, V.	Tredegar, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Normanby, M.	Ripon, Bp.
Westmeath, M.	Winchester, Bp.
Albemarle, E.	Belper, L.
Bandon, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)
Chichester, E.
Cowper, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Dartrey, E.
Ellenborough, E.	Castlemaine, L.
Fortescue, E.	Congleton, L.
Grey, E.	Cranworth, L.
Harrowby, E.	De Mauley, L.
Kimberley, E.	Ebury, L.
Macclesfield, E.	Farnham, L.
Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]	Foley, L. [Teller.]
	Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)
Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)
	Inchiquin, L.
	Overstone, L.
Carlisle, Bp.	Poltimore, L.
Cork, &c., Bp.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Down, &c., Bp.
Durham, Bp.	Portman, L.
Lichfield, Bp.	Raleigh, L.
Lincoln, Bp.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
London, Bp.
Ossory, &c., Bp.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Peterborough, Bp.	Wentworth, L.