Lords Sitting of 7 July 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Magistrates, &c. Election (Scotland) * (187); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * (188); East India Contracts * (188); Life Assurance Companies * (190); Settled Estates * (191).
Second Beading—Sale of Poisons (Ireland) * (149); Dividends and Stock * (159); Sligo and Cashel Disfranchisement (167); Prayer Book (Lectionary) (127).
Committee—Report—Magistrates in populous Places (Scotland) * (143); Wages Attachment Abolition * (141); Protection of Inventions * (142).
Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (No. 2) * (174), and passed.
Withdrawn,—Children, &c. Protection (84); Metropolitan Regulations (85).

CHILDREN, &c., PROTECTION BILL.
(No. 84.) (The Marquess Townshend.)
CHILDREN, &c., PROTECTION BILL.

  SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHEND,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, referred, in justification of the course he had taken in introducing these Bills, to his attempts in former Sessions to secure their Lordships' consideration for subjects which otherwise would have passed unnoticed. Among the measures he had introduced on previous occasions was one to repress what was now popularly known as "baby farming." He was not aware that the
  1594
  Government had resolved to take steps to remove this blot on our civilization, but, after the revelations that were taking place day by day in the public journals, it was impossible to deny the extent to which the murder of helpless infants was carried on. He had also endeavoured to provide protection for girls under 16 years of age from an unfortunate course of life, and a Parliamentary Committee had since reported in the same sense. Every day's experience confirmed his opinion of the necessity of legislation on these and kindred subjects. The present Bill enacted by the 1st clause, that the birch-rod only shall be used in punishing persons under 16 years age; the 2nd made it illegal to strike a child on the head or face, a practice on the part of schoolmasters, employers, and parents which sometimes led to fatal results. He was aware that any injury inflicted on a child was punishable as a common assault; but it was desirable that this particular practice should be specially forbidden by law. By the 3rd clause, masters or mistresses were forbidden to strike or to administer corporal punishment to any apprentice, servant, or person in their employ. The penalty for these offences was a fine of £5, and in default of payment two months' imprisonment.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess Townshend.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that as he sympathized with the good intentions of the noble Marquess in bringing forward this Bill and the one which followed it, he regretted that it had fallen to his lot to appear to thwart his object. Last year a precisely similar Bill to the present was brought in, and what then took place certainly afforded no encouragement to bring the matter forward again after so short an interval. The opinion of the Government, and he believed that of their Lordships, was not in favour of legislation upon matters of such a trivial and minute character. He hoped, under the circumstances, that the noble Marquess would not press either of his measures.
  Order for the Second Reading discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

METROPOLITAN REGULATIONS BILL.
(No. 85.) (The Marquess Townshend.)
METROPOLITAN REGULATIONS BILL.

  SECOND BEADING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  THE MARQIESS TOWNSHEND THE MARQIESS TOWNSHEND moved, that the Bill be now read the second time. He admitted that some of the details of this and his previous measure might appear trivial; but they dealt more or less with life or limb, and he hoped that on a future occasion they would have a more favourable reception. The 1st clause of the Bill imposed a penalty on persons throwing or dropping orange-peel, &c., on the footways, and though this might seem absurd and ludicrous as a subject for legislation, it was not many months ago that a young man became a helpless cripple through a fall from this cause. Dr. Lankester, though * he recollected no fatal accident of the kind, informed him that very serious casualties occurred, and that it would be a service to the community to prevent the practice. Some of the hospital returns, moreover, reported a number of accidents yearly from treading on orange-peel, and one of the officials in the Registrar General's Department had lost his life in this manner. The Bill also proposed to check the practice of too rapid, driving through the streets, owing to which many lives were lost in the course of every year; of the dangerous and improper practice of allowing females to go outside for the purpose of window-cleaning; and of placing flower pots in precarious positions. The 2nd clause provided some regulations as to crossing-sweepers; the 3rd forbade the shocking custom of retaining the corpses of deceased persons in rooms occupied by living inmates; and the last, imposed a penalty on persons conveying in public vehicles any person suffering from infectious disease.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEadvised the noble Marquess to withdraw the Bill, as it was hopeless to initiate legislation for the metropolis in this House, since the wishes of the metropolis could only be properly ascertained through its representatives in the other House. If the noble Marquess indulged in the luxury of smoking, he would stand a very good chance of being "hoist with his own petard," for the dropping of the ashes of a cigar would be punishable under the 1st clause, which prohibited the throwing or dropping of peel, or any vegetable
  1596
  production. If everything which had been a cause of death was to be legislated on, he did not see where Parliament could stop.
  Order for the Second Beading discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SLIGO AND CASHEL DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 167.)
(The Lord Dufferin.)
SLIGO AND CASHEL DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 167.)

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD,premising that he had no personal connection with the borough, presented a Petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Sligo against the Bill so far as it sanctioned the disfranchisement of the borough of Sligo, and praying to be heard at the Bar by their counsel, agents, and witnesses, in support of the allegations of their Petition. The case stated by the Petitioners was this—They stated that they deplored the corrupt practices which had prevailed in their borough, but they urged that at the last election only 27 voters were shown to have bribed, 13 of whom were nonresidents; and that though in 1865 the number of corrupt voters was 92, many of these had since died, and others had ceased to reside in the town. They objected to the innocent being punished with the guilty, and they represented that they themselves, and the 427 pure electors, had had no opportunity of a hearing, as the Commissioners, in the event of an application to them, would certainly have ruled that they had no locus standi. They therefore appealed with confidence to the rule of their Lordships' House, that on a Bill of Pains and Penalties, the parties against whom it was directed should be allowed a hearing. This was the ground taken by the late Lord Campbell, and by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, in the case of St. Albans, and, after a debate in which the latter noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) stated that the uniform practice was to hear by counsel Petitioners who presented themselves in a bond fide manner, it was decided that the Petitioners should be heard. This was also done in 1844, in the case of Sudbury. It was true that as regarded

  1597
  Lancaster and Great Yarmouth the Petitioners were not heard; but in those cases the Petitions were presented very late in the Session, when it was necessary that the Representation of the People Bill should be passed with as little delay as possible. Moreover, in those cases no Peer proposed that the Prayer of the Petitioners should be acceded to. Beyond this the present Petitioners contended that the disfranchisement of their borough would be an infringement of the Act of Union. Now, of course it was competent for Parliament to repeal or modify any portion of that Act; but, considering that it was the great legal obstacle to a separation of the two countries, any unnecessary interference with or slight upon it would furnish an argument to those mischievous persons who advocated its repeal. Although 500 freemen of Dublin had been found guilty of corrupt practices there had been no idea of disfranchising the whole body. He hoped that under the circumstances their Lordships would give the Petitioners a hearing before disfranchising one of the few mercantile constituencies of Ireland, a rising town with a large and increasing trade.
  The Petition having been read,
  LORD DUNSANYasked, whether it was not beneath the dignity of Parliament to punish the retail bribery of Sligo and Cashel, while they overlooked the wholesale bribery carried on all over Ireland at the last Election by astute legal gentlemen desirous of promotion to the Judicial Bench. The consideration with which these gentlemen purchased the rural constituencies was not their own money, but their landlords' land, or at least a good slice of it. Parliament ought not to pass over the proceedings at Longford, where the people were steeped in whisky for three weeks by the agents of the candidate, and other flagrant and dangerous cases, in order to punish bribes of a few shillings.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORanswered that it was no valid defence for Sligo and Cashel to say that there were other cases as bad or worse. When the latter came before the House they would doubtless be dealt with as their merits demanded. Parliament had established a tribunal which was supposed to work effectively for the investigation of cor-
  1598
  rupt practices. If the Judge who tried the Petition reported that such practices had extensively prevailed, a Commission might, on an Address to the Crown by both Houses, be appointed to inquire into the details. This had been done in the case of Sligo and Cashel, and would have been done in the case of Dublin, but for the objection that the Judge had only reported corrupt practices to have extensively prevailed among a particular class of voters, in consequence of which Dublin had to be dealt with in another way. Under these circumstances, Parliament ought to act upon the Report of the Commissioners, unless there was reason to believe that the Report was not justified by the evidence. Now, nobody could doubt the prevalence of corruption in these two boroughs. At Sligo in 1860 one of the candidates spent £800 or £900 in bribery, and the successful candidate afterwards distributed £500 a year among the charities of the borough. In 1865, 91 electors out of 372 were bribed; and in 1868 one candidate spent £4,028, the object of which in so small a borough might easily be conjectured. Their Lordships would probably think it both unnecessary and unadvisable, the matter having been fully investigated by a competent Court, to hear counsel at the Bar. What the Petitioners should have done should have been to take steps to repress these disgraceful proceedings.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that counsel might be heard either on the second reading or on going into Committee; he thought it desirable that the Bill should be read a second time, and that then a Motion should be made to hear counsel. It was quite consistent with the practice of the House to hear counsel against a highly penal Bill like this, when petitioned by the parties affected; and he should, therefore, vote in favour of that course. He did not, however, see how the Bill affected the Union, for the principle of that Act was that Ireland should have a minimum number of Members, and he understood that oven if these seats were temporarily vacant, Ireland would have a larger number of Members than was stipulated for in the Act of Union.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEagreed with the noble Lord (the Chairman of Committees) that it was the invariable practice of their Lordships to

  1599
  treat these as Bills of Pains and Penalties, and never to refuse to hear counsel.
  LORD GREVILLEsaid, he could see no similarity between Sligo and Cashel and the county of Longford, which he had had the honour of representing. It was true the Member for that county was unseated for treating; but the fact was that, owing to the intimidation and extreme violence resorted to by the other side—bands of men with firearms going through the country at night, threatening death to anyone who voted for a certain candidate—the friends of that candidate were obliged to organize bodies of non-electors in order to protect the voters at the poll. This, the Judge said, was perfectly legal; but the refreshments given to these men were partaken of by some electors, and he was therefore obliged to unseat the Member, though he refused the Petitioners their costs. At the last election there was a combination of Fenians, Repealers, and Tories, for the purpose of preventing the return of the successful candidate; and had there been the slightest ground for a Petition one would have been presented, but the return had not been petitioned against. Longford could not, therefore, be fairly classed in any respect with these corrupt boroughs.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that at the Sligo election undue influence was exercised on the part of the Roman Catholic Bishop and clergy, as was stated in the Report of the Commissioners, against the Conservative candidate. As regarded the question of justice to Ireland with respect to the number of representatives, he would remark that two years ago a number of small English constituencies were disfranchised for the purpose of giving additional Members to Scotland. It was intended that the small Irish constituencies of Cashel, Mallow, New Ross, and Bandon should be disfranchised also, but the proposition was then abandoned. He hoped that these small places would be disfranchised, and their representatives transferred to larger constituencies.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.
  LORD DUFFERIN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to disfranchise two important boroughs in Ireland; and though their Lordships would naturally
  1600
  feel pain in considering such a proposal, he thought they would be of opinion that the Government could have pursued no other course. To justify the step taken it would be sufficient to refer to the Preamble of the Bill itself, which stated that the Judges appointed to try Petitions under the Parliamentary Elections Act had reported that bribery and corruption had extensively prevailed at the last elections at Sligo, and that there was reason to believe that it had also extensively prevailed at Cashel; that, therefore, Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the existence of such corrupt practices, and that these Commissioners reported, as regarded the borough of Sligo, that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed there at the elections of 1860, 1865, and 1868; and as regarded Cashel, that in 1865 the election was conducted in a corrupt manner on the part of one of the candidates, and, in 1868, on the part of both. The Commissioners were persons who commanded the respect of the people of Ireland, and no person could object to their finding. If, however, any confirmation of their opinion were required, it would be found in the expression of Judge Keogh, who said that the measure of corrupt practices was full at Sligo, and especially so in reference to intimidation.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Dufferin.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  Then it was moved, "That leave be given to the said Petitioners to be then heard as prayed."—(The Earlof Granard.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORtrusted their Lordships would consider the consequences that would ensue if they assented to this Motion. Bridgwater and Beverley had been dealt with without hearing counsel, and the House had decided in the case of Great Yarmouth not to accede to a Motion very similar in character. Their Lordships should consider, too, what enormous expenses the hearing of counsel would entail upon the parties; a matter of little moment, perhaps, to a gentleman who would spend £3,000 or £4,000 among 500 electors, but of great moment to others.
  LORD REDESDALEremarked that no application to be heard by counsel had teen made in the case of Beverley and Bridgwater; but where such an application was made, the practice to grant a hearing had been invariable.
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, that when the whole case had in the first place been amply considered by a Judge specially deputed to the duty, and had since been examined into by a Commission, a third inquiry could hardly be deemed anything but unreasonable. On behalf of the Government, therefore, he opposed the Motion.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he could not agree with the noble Chairman of Committees, who appeared entirely to overlook the fact that the course he recommended applied to a former state of legislation, before a change had been made in the law applicable to the trial of Election Petitions. He had looked into the evidence of the Sligo inquiry, and pronounced it a shameful case. It would be to him a matter for deep regret if the Motion were agreed to. He hoped their Lordships would reject it by a great majority.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked whether it was to follow as a matter of course that the result of an inquiry by a Commission should be ratified by the House? If so, and the Commissioners were to exercise a practical power of disfranchising boroughs, the law had better be altered and their power expressly denned. At the same time he would point out that no one had said one word in behalf of these boroughs—all the authoritative statements had been in the nature of attacks; and he had no doubt that, if counsel were heard, the result would not be altered. The Bill was a Bill of Pains and Penalties, and in all such cases the parties should be heard in their defence if they desired it.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, this was a case which should be decided by precedent, and their Lordships should have time to see what had been done in similar cases before coming to a decision.
  LORD CAIRNSpointed out that the Petitioners in no way controverted the facts of the case as set forth in the Report of the Commissioners—they only reasoned upon the facts as found at the inquiry; and he thought their Lordships were fully as capable of judging of
  1602
  their purport as any learned gentleman that might appear at their Bar.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative,

PRAYER BOOK (LECTIONARY) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PRAYER BOOK (LECTIONARY) BILL.

  (NO. 127.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second said, that the measure was founded upon the Report of a Commission which had been appointed to consider in what manner the Lectionary or Table of Lessons in the Prayer Book might be revised. The Commissioners had recommended that a new Table should be substituted for the Table now in use. From the earliest dawn of the Reformation it had been thought an object of the first importance that the people should be come well acquainted with Holy Writ, and accordingly it was found that in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. passages from the Bible were appointed to be read daily throughout the year, in such a manner as to secure that the greater part of the Holy Scriptures should be heard in the course of the year by those who attended church daily, in accordance with the then custom. The use of the Prayer Book having been suspended in the reign of Philip and Mary, was resumed in the reign of Elizabeth, when the Lectionary was revised by a Commission appointed by that Sovereign. The Lectionary was again revised in the year 1662, at the time of the passing of the Act of Uniformity. Those were the only two occasions in which such a revision had been made, and the course of readings was then appointed as it now appeared in the Prayer Book. It had been objected by many persons to the existing arrangement that many chapters from the Apocrypha were appointed to be read, on the ground that these Books were not part of the Holy Writ, and that however useful for example of life and instruction of manners, they were such as no sort of doctrine could be founded upon. It had further been objected that the Lectionary excluded some Books which ought to be included, and included others which ought to be excluded; that the length of the various

  1603
  Lessons differed very much; that the Lectionary had appointed the Epistles alone to the read at the afternoon service throughout the year, to the exclusion of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, so that those who could only attend the afternoon service never had an opportunity of hearing the two latter portions of the New Testament read. The Commissioners, turning their attention in the first place to the Apocryphal Books, had recommended that the number of chapters taken from that part of the Bible should be reduced from 132 to 44. They further recommended that chapters should be read from the hitherto excluded two Books of Chronicles, which contained most interesting and important matter not to be found elsewhere, showing the Kings—who in the Books of Kings were described as being in the midst of their sins—as deeply repentant of their evil doing, and containing the magnificent description of David's preparation for building the Temple, and the glorious display of national feeling called, forth on that occasion, which had formed the subject of one of the finest anthems in our cathedral service. Chapters were also recommended to be read from Revelation, which Book was not made use of in the Lectionary, and also from Ezekiel, also not read at the present time. The extreme variation in the length of the Lessons had been remedied; and the verses arranged so as to include the whole of one subject, arbitrary division into chapters being disregarded where necessary. By the new Tables the whole of the New Testament would be read through twice in the year by those attending daily service, the Gospels and the Acts being taken in an afternoon through one-half of the year, and the Epistles during the remainder. Proper Lessons were appointed for the Morning and Evening service of each Sunday throughout the year; for the Evening Service alternative Lessons were appointed which might be read at the discretion of the minister. The Table of Lessons revised according to the Report of the Commissioners had received, the approval of the Convocation of Canterbury and of a Committee of the Convocation of York. It had been before the public for some time without any adverse opinion being expressed. He hesitated for some time to propose the second reading, because he
  1604
  understood that the Commissioners were about further to report upon Ritual, which might involve some change in the Rubrics; but he found on consideration that there was no necessity for postponement on that account, as the Calendar could be obtained in a separate form. The object of the work which the Bill would carry into effect was to bring before the minds of the people those parts of Scripture which were the comfort of Christians, and as the result he hoped the Gospel would be continuously preached to the great happiness and contentment of the English Church.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he must admit that this new Table of Lessons was, on the whole, a very considerable improvement on the one at present in use. In the preparation of the new Table a great many portions of the Apocrypha had been left out—he regretted that the sub-Committee Commissioners had not gone a little further and struck out the Apocrypha altogether. Portions of it were still appointed to be read on certain days. He thought they ought to be struck out, because the great mass of the people were not likely to discriminate between what was read as revealed truth and what was read only for example of life and instruction of manners. He thought that, if these passages were not excluded, at any rate discretion might be given to the minister to read some other Lessons. There were some other matters in connection with this work to which he must make objection. In the first place, why was the new-fangled term "Lectionary" given to the Table of Lessons? That term was not to be found in any of our works on theology or divinity, or in any edition of the Prayer Book. In Welder's Dictionary he found this explanation of the word—"Lectionary.—The Roman Catholic service book, containing portions of Scripture or lections." In Walcotfs Sacred Archeology he read—"Lectionary.—The book containing the Epistles and Lessons read at Mass." He thought they had quite enough of Popish matters and expressions in connection with their Church without the introduction of this word "Lectionary." Why should not the old term "Table of Lessons" be retained? This Bill

  1605
  was presented to their Lordships' House "with the approval of Convocation." His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack said that this was merely the recital of a fact. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) did not see why a fact should be recited which was of no importance, and why a Parliamentary status should be given to the act of Convocation by bringing that body and Parliament into conjunction. At best the fact alluded to by his noble and learned Friend was an incomplete one. He was informed by ecclesiastical lawyers that no act of Convocation could be considered valid unless the subject-matter of it had been referred to Convocation by the Crown, and the decision of Convocation thereon had received the approval of the Crown. Then the Act became an integral act of Convocation. But in this case no such course had been pursued, and therefore the "approval" of Convocation was, in itself, an imperfect act. In fact, when this Lectionary or Table of Lessons came down from the Upper Chamber to the Lower Chamber, the numbers were evenly divided, 34 to 34, and the approval was only carried by the casting vote of the Prolocutor. He believed there would be strong objections to the introduction of these words in the country. Now, to examine this Lectionary was a difficult task, and one requiring time of a Committee of the Whole House. There were 15 pages of close and small figures, so that to refer to all the changes would not be easy within the limited time, and they must therefore accept it or reject it bodily. There were, however, many difficulties to be explained—he would just take two. First, he found that the 10th chapter of Joshua, verses 1 to 14, had been taken from the Lessons to be read on Sundays, and placed among those to be read on weekdays. Now, those verses contained the account of the miracle of the sun standing still, hitherto read on Sundays before the whole congregation. This change would prevent hundreds of thousands of people from hearing that portion of the Scripture read in church. He should like to know if there was any good reason for the alteration. Again, in the proper Lesson of St. John the Evangelist's Day, there was the 13th chapter of the Gospel of St. John, from the 23rd to the 36th verse. Of necessity one must go on to the 38th verse; otherwise the sense was
  1606
  incomplete. There was no end of the objections from the clergy, and he had presented a number of Petitions, including the Petition of the Church Association and its branches at Birmingham, Malvern, Clithero, and other places, praying that further time might be taken, and that no further progress might be made with this work until the Ritual Commission had finally reported. He should be sorry to threw any impediment in the way of this work, but one or other of two courses must be adopted by their Lordships when they got into Committee on this Bill. Either they must take the work as a whole, putting such confidence in those who had executed it as he did not like to put in any man or any body of men, or they must discuss it step by step and detail by detail. While admitting the improvement that had been effected, he thought this new Table would require more consideration than it would be possible for their Lordships to give it in its passage through that House.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL, as senior member of the sub-Committee to which this work had been entrusted, wished to assure their Lordships that the greatest pains had been taken with it which it was in the power of earnest men to bestow. Their labours had extended over nearly two years, and he thought they had held between 40 and 50 sittings. The Committee commenced by considering the various schemes submitted to them. They then laid down certain general principles on which they proposed to act; and, owing to their having done so, they had been able, fortunately, to arrive at the conclusions which had been so clearly stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The Committee went carefully into details. These they considered a second time. They then submitted the result of their labours to a General Body, which offered them many suggestions. The substance of what now appeared in the body of the Bill before them was then communicated by the General Body to the Archbishops and Bishops of England, to the Deans of cathedral churches, and to the Professors of Theology in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Dublin, and Durham. From those very learned and distinguished men they received a great many valuable suggestions. The Committee then recommenced a series of sessions, and con-

  1607
  sidered every one of the papers and suggestions placed before them by the learned persons whom they consulted. Having accepted some of these suggestions, and felt it their duty, for reasons which, seemed to them valid, to decline to adopt others, they then finally brought the whole subject before the General Body: several further amendments were made, and the success obtained by their humble efforts was indicated by the fact that the third Report bore the signature of all the Commissioners. Sir Joseph Napier alone appended a note to his signature, stating that he thought the Report should not have been presented until the inquiries into all the other matters referred to in the Commission had been completed. These facts would show the care, at least, with which this important subject had been treated. He had to thank the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) for the very kind spirit in which he had spoken of their labours on a matter which certainly did give rise to great difference of opinion. With regard to the Apocrypha, they knew quite well that there was the greatest possible diversity of opinion with respect to its use; from that cause it would be impossible to obtain perfect unanimity upon any course that could be proposed—it was utterly impossible to yield to the wish of one party, and exclude the Apocrypha altogether, without wounding the feelings of very many serious men. The Apocrypha had been long read in the churches, and its complete removal would, he believed, greatly hurt many consciences. He would frankly own, however, that the Committee had thought it very desirable to reduce the Apocrypha very considerably, and they had done so, retaining only those parts in which instruction in godly life and manners was particularly set forth; while Tobit and Judith and the so-called historical books were omitted. He passed to the use of the word "Lectionary," in behalf of which he really had not a word to say. It was really a very innocent word, and only intended, he believed, to express comprehensively the meaning of the two or three words "Table of Lessons," now used to express the same thing. That he might allay all anxiety on that head in the mind of the noble Earl, he might say that the word "Lectionary" did not appear in the Schedule and would not be incorporated in the Book of Com-
  1608
  mon Prayer. In the Schedule—the part of most importance—they would find the words "Revised Table of Lessons Proper for Sundays and Holydays." With respect to the approval of Convocation, in the presence of the distinguished President of the Northern Convocation it would not become him to say one word as to the course taken by the latter body. But to remove misapprehension, he might say that in the Convocation of Canterbury, when the question was put whether Convocation should enter in detail into the Table now contained in the Schedule, and discuss it part by part and recommendation by recommendation, or whether they should assent to it as a whole, there was some division of opinion on the point; and when the main question was put that the Lectionary should be approved, it was accepted with great heartiness and a large amount of unanimity. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had taken exception to their treatment of the 10th chapter of Joshua. It was true that in that chapter there was the important miracle to which the noble Earl had referred; but the miracle occupied only three isolated verses of a chapter containing about 40 verses. That chapter did not, he thought, tend greatly to the edification of any congregation. Its whole burden turned upon the judgments of God as they were carried out by one of his appointed servants, and from beginning to end it told of slaughter and extermination. The 40th verse, which seemed to be a summary of the entire chapter, ran thus—
  "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their Kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."
  He could not think that a chapter which spoke of that great extermination so fully and copiously, could altogether be so suitable for edification as other chapters. They had, however, introduced from the same Book of Joshua two or three miraculous circumstances which did not find a place in the ordinary Sunday Lessons, including the miraculous overthrow of the walls of Jericho and others. Therefore, the omission of which the noble Earl complained had not been made on account of any supposed difficulty connected with a miracle. With regard to the lesson read on St. John's

  1609
  Day, from the 13th chapter of the Gospel of that Apostle, it began at the 23rd verse of the chapter because that verse brought at once upon the scene the Evangelist who was commemorated on that day. And how did that lesson terminate? Why, with this verse—
  "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another."
  St. John had been regarded as more especially and emphatically the Apostle and preacher of love; so that a more appropriate ending for the lesson than the verse he had just quoted could hardly be chosen. If they turned to the three verses which the noble Earl wished to be added, it would be seen that they dealt with an entirely distinct subject. Those three verses described how Simon Peter said to our Lord, "Whither goest thou?" and they terminated with our Lord's declaration that Simon Peter should deny Him thrice. He repeated that the Commission had earnestly sought all the information and advice they could obtain on this subject; and, having done so, they had acted upon it to the best of their ability and conscience.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKrose merely to say a word with regard to the action of the Convocation of the Northern Province in this matter. The Bill now under discussion contained a great mass of detail drawn from every quarter, and embodied them in a Schedule which was termed a "Lectionary." Now, it was a very important fact, and worthy to be set forth, that the Convocation of Canterbury had accepted this "Lectionary," so called; and it was also a fact worth noting, as far as it went, that the Convocation of York could not properly be said to have accepted the "Lectionary." That Province not having been aware that the subject would be brought forward this year, had appointed a Committee to consider it. The Committee had gone a step further—they had drawn up a Report which, contrary to the usual practice, he had taken upon himself to publish in the newspapers, in order that attention might be called to the subject. He had not received any dissent from a single member of the Convocation. Practically therefore, if not formally, the Convocation of York might be said to have agreed to it. He could not help thinking, therefore, that it was a wise thing to recite in the Preamble that it
  1610
  had, in a certain way, received the sanction of the Church. He accepted the great change proposed, because it had been before the public a sufficient time, and had commanded a great degree of approval. The Act would commence its operation with the First Lesson on the first Sunday of next Advent; but it would be only right that a clause should be introduced providing that there should be no penalty for non-compliance with the Act, for, at least, a year afterwards. They had to deal with a great number a rural parishes into which the Act would not penetrate for, at least, that time. He believed the change proposed would be of very great benefit to the Church, and that it was much to be desired.
  LORD DYNEVORagreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) in regretting that the Apocrypha had not been omitted altogether. On many grounds it was objectionable that it should be bound up with the Bible, as it was no part of God's Word. Its omission would have conciliated the Nonconformists, and would be a great step in advance if ever there was to be an union between Churchmen and their Protestant brethren in England. At the same time he must express his very great gratification at the change that had been made.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, he was persuaded that the recital that this subject had received the sanction of the Convocation of the Province would go far to promote the use of this Table of Lessons in our churches, and to relieve the consciences of the clergy; he was therefore very thankful to their Lordships for having inserted those words in the Preamble of the Bill. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) would have the goodness to refer to the Preface prefixed to the Book of Common Prayer—written by one of his own predecessors in the See of Lincoln, Bishop Sanderson—he would see that in our present Prayer Book a similar deference was paid to the authority of Convocation in settling the Liturgy. As to the Apocrypha, if the noble Earl would refer to the Thirty-nine Articles in the Book of Common Prayer he would find it there stated in the Sixth Article that the Church does read those Books, the Apocrypha, not for the purpose of proving any dogma, but for "example in life

  1611
  and instruction in manners." With regard to a remark which had fallen from the noble Lord who had just spoken, he was persuaded that though by the exclusion of the Apocrypha something might be done to conciliate a small portion of the community, a far greater portion would be alienated if it were made one of the conditions of union that the people should no longer have the Apocrypha in the Bible. Besides, they would find it impossible to disseminate Bibles on the Continent if they excluded the Apocrypha. One of the great objections made by Roman Catholic divines already to the circulation of our Bible without the Apocrypha, was, that our Bible was a mutilated one, and did not contain portions of that which had been accustomed to be read in churches from the earliest times.
  LORD EBURYexpressed his objection to the recital in the Preamble that Convocation had given its consent as a reason for passing an Act of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYaddressed the House shortly; but his observations were not heard.
  THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFdenied that Convocation made any such claim as that which the noble Lord (Lord Ebury) had charged it with having made. It was, no doubt, a source of great satisfaction to many clergymen and laymen to know when ecclesiastical matters had received the approbation of Convocation, and therefore it was impossible not to feel that the reference made in this Bill had been introduced in the kindest possible spirit. Considering the immense number of figures and details in this Schedule, it would, of course, be impossible to expect unanimous approval. He was, however, gratified to find how much of good was felt to be attached to the Bill and how little of evil was attributed to it.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that having been a member of the Ritual Commission, he had taken part in the deliberations which ended in the preparation of the revised Schedule with great anxiety, and certainly with a strong predisposition against change. All objections, however, had been fairly and patiently considered. With regard to the Apocrypha, the Commissioners felt that if it had been removed from the Table of Lessons very great disturbance
  1612
  to the Church would have occurred. The Lessons selected from the Apocrypha were not read on Sundays, though they were formerly read upon holy days in some instances. When, therefore, it was said that their being read in a sacred place where the Bible was read would give rise to misconception in the minds of the poor, he did not think that those of the clergy who objected to its being read were extensively in the habit of engaging in daily service; so that their objection was one rather of theory than of practice. There might be other objections to the reading of the Apocrypha, but this particular one had, he believed, very little weight in it. So much had been said upon the subject-matter of the Apocrypha that he could not help saying it was, in his opinion, admirably qualified for the purpose it was intended to serve. The poor might have some difficulty in drawing conclusions from some of the Lessons out of the Old Testament; but they could have none in understanding the pictures of life and manners as contained in the Apocrypha; while some portions were calculated to be of great benefit to the rich and poor alike. He earnestly hoped that the result of this change in an important branch of the service of the Church of England would fulfil the designs of its promoters and carry out the objects which had been sketched by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDwished to draw the attention of their Lordships to the effect this measure would have on colonial dioceses. It was a fundamental principle of the Church in New Zealand not to assume any power to alter any of the formularies of the Church of England; but it was competent for them to accept any alteration which should be agreed upon by Parliament and Convocation, and he therefore thought that the words objected to had been most judiciously inserted in the Preamble.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished that blame should rest where it was due. He could not tell why he used the word "Lectionary," which did not appear in the Report, and only once in the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.