§ EARL STANHOPEYour Lordships will remember that in the latter part of last Session you had before you a Bill providing a new Table of Lessons in the Church Services. It came before you under the most favourable auspices, for it had the unanimous assent and approval of the Rubrics Commission. It passed this House with very little difficulty, and was sent down to the Commons, where, as I understand, there was every reason to expect it would be supported by a very large majority. At the last moment, however, it was withdrawn by Mr. Bruce the Secretary of State for the Home Department, much to the surprise of those who felt an interest in the question. Now, with the great respect which I sincerely feel for Mr. Bruce, I cannot but think that his decision on that occasion was an unwise one. The abandonment of the Bill was a great disappointment to very many of the clergy, who had been expecting to enjoy the advantage, in common with their congregations, of the new Table of Lessons. It was also a serious inconvenience and even pecuniary loss to the publishers of the Book of Common Prayer, for they knew not whether to retain the old Table, which was likely to be laid aside, or to insert the new, which had not yet received any legal sanction. It has been already announced that Her Majesty's Government have in preparation a Bill for the establishment of the new Table of Lessons, and I desire to ask, whether that Bill will be introduced into this or into the other House, and when it is likely to be brought in? I also wish to know whether it will be confined to the Table of Lessons, or whether it will include other points recommended by the Ritual Commission, several of which are of great importance? There are recommendations for rendering, if I may say so, the Church Services more elastic, by giving the clergy power of dividing the services, postponing certain portions of them, and adapting them to the various circumstances of particular parishes, provided they have the sanction of the diocesan. These recommendations would, I think, provoke very little opposition in either House, and would give general satisfaction. There are other recommendations which would, indeed, cause 1266 great controversy, but which are of the greatest importance. I allude more especially to the recommendation with regard to the Athanasian Creed. As a member of the Commission, I strove on four occasions by various ways to attain the object for which I was anxious—namely, that the Creed, while still retained in the Prayer Book as a profession of our Christian faith, should not be used any longer in the public services of the Church. I found that a great many members of the Commission concurred in the desirability of that object; but, unfortunately, they were notable to agree to any one of the plans which I ventured to propose. The result was that the Commission recommended the insertion of an explanatory note. But, strange to say, no sooner had the note been adopted by the members present at one meeting, than a notice was signed by a band of 17, with the Archbishop of Canterbury at their head, making an actual majority of the whole Commission, protesting against the decision. It was the opinion of the Archbishop and others that, while attaching great value to the Creed as embodying the Christian faith, it was highly desirable it should be no longer used in the public services of the Church. The circumstances I have mentioned render it difficult for the Government to deal with the question; but, though difficult, it is of great importance. We ought not to lose this great opportunity of removing from the Church Services that which has for a long time been regarded as the main stumbling block in the way of many of those separated from our Church who desire to return to it. Looking, above all, to the damnatory clause, it would be a great boon to the Church to discontinue the use of the Creed in the public services without showing any disrespect to it or eliminating it from the Prayer Book. The noble Earl concluded by asking, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to propose in this House a measure to establish a new Table of Lessons in the Church Services; and whether that measure will comprise also other points recommended by the late Ritual Commission?
THE LORD CHANCELLORHer Majesty's Government entirely agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) in the expediency of again, introducing, and of passing as early as pos- 1267 sible, a Bill which was received with such general approbation last Session. Accordingly, just before the noble Earl rose, I placed the Bill of last year in the hands of the Clerk at the Table, with the view of moving the first reading before your Lordships separated. It is, however, limited to the one object of providing a new Table of Lessons for the Church Services. Her Majesty's Government do not feel that it is desirable to enlarge the measure by adding other clauses carrying into effect other recommendations of the Ritual Commission; because, bearing in mind that none of these recommendations were adopted by entire unanimity, it seemed they might give rise to contentions or differences of opinion which might endanger the passing of this approved measure. As regards the Bill of last Session, it is true it passed this House with but slender alterations — alterations rather verbal than substantial — and it reached the other House at a time when, had it been wholly unopposed, it might have passed without difficulty. The period of the Session, however, was one at which it was impossible to carry any measure likely to give rise to discussion or opposition, and in the case of this Bill numerous Amendments were suggested, some of which were calculated to elicit considerable amount of feeling. It was therefore thought advisable to withdraw the Bill, there being at that time no prospect of its unanimous acceptance. The measure I now introduce has no such difficulties to contend with; but even if opposition should arise, it is presented at so early a period of the Session that there will be ample time for discussion. Were we to act upon other recommendations of the Ritual Commission, it would be necessary to meet the question mooted by the noble Earl with respect to the Athanasian Creed. The Government, however, do not think they ought to take upon themselves the responsibility of dealing with a subject which has already called forth an amount of somewhat acrimonious opposition, and which is likely to provoke yet more: they have therefore confined their measure to the new Table of Lessons, as being a subject likely to receive general approbation and speedy enactment.
§ LORD PORTMANexpressed his regret that the Government did not propose to carry out other recommenda- 1268 tions of the Commission—especially one which had received the almost unanimous assent of the Commissioners, and would afford a speedy and inexpensive remedy to the unseemly contests which had arisen in certain parishes, and had necessitated the appointment of a Commission. It was a serious evil that such protracted and expensive litigation should be necessary when the Commission had suggested a very easy remedy. If the clergy defied the law, how could it be enforced against the parishioners? The Government should consider that if speedy and inexpensive justice could not be obtained through the Ecclesiastical Courts, there was another tribunal where it could be obtained, though in a painful and disagreeable manner. The law on the subject having been laid down by the Judicial Committee, there could be no difficulty in enforcing the Act of Uniformity under the common law as a misdemeanour, and if the clergy set the law at defiance they must not be surprised if this step was resorted to.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he had heard with very great regret the declaration made by the noble and learned Lord on the part of the Government. He thought it impossible things could remain as they were. Some of the clergy had declared their intention of using the new Table of Lessons even if it did not receive the force of law, as it had received the approval of a Commission of considerable authority; and persons would be inclined to act upon other recommendations of the Commission in the same way, unless Parliament took action in the matter. It was high time that these questions should be settled. As to the Athanasian Creed, there was almost an unanimous feeling on the part of the Commission that, however valuable as a declaration of faith, it was not in its place in the services of the Church. It should be remembered that in no other Church was it employed in the same way, it being received as a document, but not introduced into the services. He should have agreed with the proposal to remove it from its place in the public services of the Church, had he not felt that it was beyond the scope of the Commission to deal to that extent with so important a question, its function being merely to deal with the rubrics. It was very inconvenient to act on one of the recommendations and leave the 1269 others in suspense, and he hoped that if the Government did not take them up some other Members of the House would do so.
§ LORD EBURYsaid, he entirely concurred with the noble Lord who had preceded him. He would not go over the ground they had traversed; but he must say it was paying a poor compliment to the Commissioners, after they had sat three years and had taken a great deal of trouble—which, however, they did not grudge—to act only on one, comparatively speaking, insignificant portion of their recommendations. Unless remedial measures were introduced the Church would be seriously prejudiced, and increased confusion would prevail. The noble Earl near him (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had just returned from the Continent, had made several attempts to set some of these questions at rest, and it was high time that action should be taken.