Lords Sitting of 13 March 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister* (38).
Second Reading—Prayer Book (Tables of Lessons) (29).

TREATY OF PARIS (1856)—NEUTRALITY OF THE BLACK SEA—THE CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: Seeing the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, I wish to inquire whether he can give the House any information respecting the Conference on the Black Sea Question, which I understand has met to-day, and whether the sittings of the Conference are likely to extend over any lengthened period?
EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to the Question of the noble Duke, I have to state that the Conference met to-day really for the last time, though it will meet again to-morrow for matters of form. It will, no doubt, be satisfactory to your Lordships to know the general character of the conclusions at which it has arrived. A Treaty has been signed to day at the Foreign Office by which, while the clauses of the Treaty of 1856 respecting the neutralization of the Black Sea are abrogated, the restrictions imposed by previously existing treaties upon the Porte in regard to the closing of the Straits of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus when the Porte is at peace, are so far modified as to admit of its opening

1845
of them even in time of peace to the ships of war of friendly and allied Powers, in case the Porte should deem it necessary to do so, in order to insure the execution of the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris of March 30, 1856. The Treaty just signed also provides for the prolongation of the European Commission of the Danube for 12 years; and, further, for the continued neutrality of the works already created or to be created by the Commission; with a saving, however, of the right of the Porte, as a territorial Power, to send ships of war into the Danube. At the first meeting of the Conference, on the 17th of January, a special Protocol was signed, recording that it was an essential principle of the Law of Nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a Treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting Powers by means of an amicable arrangement. The French Plenipotentiary has this day signed the Protocol together with the Treaty. The Protocols of the Conference will be presented to Parliament with as little delay as possible.

EDUCATION—THE NEW CODE (1871).

  RESOLUTIONS.
  EARL NELSONrose to draw attention to the Revised Code of 1871. The noble Earl said that he had put on the Paper a Notice to move the following Resolutions:—

  "1. That the children of families migrating from one parish to another (at Lady-day and Michaelmas), and bringing with them a duly certificated table of attendances from the school they have left, be allowed to reckon such attendances in the school to which they have come:

  "2. That a certificate be given to every child who has passed in the fourth and two higher standards, and in any extra subject:

  "3. That the number of days for which evening schools in agricultural parishes be required to be open be 60, and the number of requisite attendances be 40."

  But that since he had given his Notice one of the chief points contained in his Resolutions—and, in fact, the only one as to which he should have insisted—had been conceded by the Government; it would not therefore be necessary that he should proceed with his Motion. But although the remaining points were comparatively unimportant, he desired to be permitted to state the
  1846
  reasons why he had desired to lay them before their Lordships. In the first place, he desired to say that he regarded the New Code as a bonâ fide fulfilment of the pledge given last year. For many features of it he was very thankful. The arrangement that good teachers of a certain age who had conducted schools well should be admitted without examination, and that pupil-teachers who had passed creditably might take charge of schools of a certain calibre, went far to meet the difficulty experienced by poor parishes in obtaining certificated teachers. He also approved the arrangement as to increased attendance in day schools, and the attempt to raise the standard of the education given there. But perhaps the most important of all its proposals, was the attempt to introduce the half-time system into the agricultural districts. He sincerely hoped the attempt would have a successful issue, by permitting boys over 10 in agricultural districts to reckon only 150 attendances for a grant. His first Resolution related to what he would call "migrating children." It was—
  "That the children of families migrating from one parish to another (at Lady-day and Michaelmas), and bringing with them a duly certificated table of attendances from the school they have left, be allowed to reckon such attendances in the school to which they have come."
  This was intended to meet the case of the children of the better class of labourers—shepherds, carters, &c.—who, in the southern counties at least, were in the habit of changing their situations at those periods of the year. It would otherwise be impossible for them to show the 200 or 250 attendances which were a condition of examination, and there would be a risk of their education being neglected, as it would not be the teacher's interest to induce them to attend if they could get no grant for them. In his own school there were children in this position. In this case a real grievance existed. As, however, a proposal had been made that even in towns, and wherever children moved from one school to another—say from a British School to a National School, and vice versâ—the same power of counting attendances should be given, he would not press his own more limited Resolution, but would yield to Mr. Forster's appeal, that any sensible alteration of the Code at that time would impede the

  1847
  operation of the arrangements made under the recent Education Act, which it was desirable should be put into force as speedily as possible. His second Resolution was—
  "That a certificate be given to every child who has passed in the fourth and two higher standards, and in any extra subject."
  The 4th Standard, requiring the ability to read and write well and the mastery of weights and measures, would prove the best starting point for future education, it could at present rarely be reached by a boy under 11 years of age, and it was desirable to give those on the point of leaving school an inducement to remain a longer time at the day school and to attend in the winter months under the half-time principle, in order to pass this standard and procure a certificate. He believed that employers would see the value of certificates, and that the boys who held them would be benefited by them. The third Resolution—
  "That the number of days for which evening schools in agricultural parishes be required to be open be 60, and the number of requisite attendances be 40"—
  had been accepted by the Government in lieu of 80 days and 50 attendances, on the understanding that next January the original arrangement would probably be reverted to. All who were acquainted with the matter, or had heard the opinions of clergymen and schoolmasters in country districts, were convinced that evening schools could not be kept open more than 20 weeks in the year; for when the evenings lengthened youths found amusements, or attended to their gardens, and could not be induced to attend school. The grant, moreover, under the New Code to evening schools would not permit of the engagement of a special teacher, and the master of a day school, after working all day and attending to a pupil teacher, could not be expected to give up more than three evenings a-week. Indeed, a schoolmaster had assured him that, however great the pecuniary inducement might be, care for his health would preclude his doing more than this. The clergyman and parishioners who usually assisted in the evening school could not be expected to sacrifice more than three nights a-week. One important consideration in regard to the benefit of these night schools should not be lost sight of.
  1848
  If the half-time principle got fairly into operation in the agricultural districts, it was not at all unlikely that boys who had passed to a certain standard in the day school might attain a higher standard at the night school. Hitherto the attempt had been made to retain boys at the day schools until 12 years of age by not admitting them to the night school till that age; but experience clearly showed how impossible it was, in many cases, to prevent boys at, and often below, 10 years of age, from entering upon out-door work. Those boys who were now prevented by this interregnum from continuing their education in the night school from the time they left the day school ought, in common fairness, to be allowed again to pass in the lowest standards of the day schools, for their two or three years work in the fields had left their minds a complete blank. He hoped these points would be considered by the Government.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that as he had given Notice of a Motion for an Address to the Crown with respect to evening schools, he was glad this point had been conceded by the Government. It would, therefore, be sufficient for him—while he had no desire to interpose any difficulty in the working of the New Code—to point out objections to some parts of it, in the hope that the Government would consider them and see their way, either during the present or the next Session, to some modifications. The Government, it would no doubt be said, had been more liberal than had been expected in their grants of money under the New Code; but then the fact must not be lost sight of that, while that was so, the increased grants were subject to more stringent terms than under the former Code; and he doubted, therefore, whether more money would be received under the new than under the old system. As to the grants and attendances at evening schools he concurred with his noble Friend (Earl Nelson), but as to migrating scholars, the change of residence on the part of shepherds and carters was not usual in his own county, though it might be customary in Wiltshire. He feared that 60 was the outside number they could expect night schools to be kept open for in the rural districts, because they could not open them before the 1st of October, or expect to continue them after the 1st of March,

  1849
  when the evenings began to lengthen and the agricultural labourer had to work longer, and had also his little garden, and other matters to attend to. He found that by the New Code attendance was not to be required at any evening school under the age of 12 and above 18; but he submitted that 18 years of age was much too young, and that it should be extended to 25. Young men about, or above the age of 18, were just beginning to appreciate the advantages accruing from education, and if the period of time were extended to 25, much valuable education might be imparted and received in the interval. Under Article 20, he found that 250 attendances, morning or afternoon, were required to qualify a boy above 10 for examination in the rural districts, as he apprehended, with the view of encouraging the half-time system. He should be glad to know whether boys who had that number of attendances would be qualified not only for the examination, but also for the grant? Another point on which he wished to remark was that the Code treated boys and girls exactly alike. This was hardly fair, for while the former devoted their whole time to secular and religious knowledge, the latter devoted a considerable portion of the afternoon to needlework. They would, therefore, be at a considerable disadvantage as compared with boys. A distinction being made between the attainments of male and female pupil-teachers, there should also be a distinction between male and female scholars. The standard of examination appeared to him to be raised too high, the old Standard No. I. being abolished, and all of them being raised a step; so that Standard No. VI. was altogether a new one. This last required the writing of a short theme or letter, or easy paraphrase, and the mastery of vulgar or decimal fractions. Now he did not think boys in agricultural districts would attain such proficiency as to write a theme or paraphrase, or master vulgar or decimal fractions; which last, indeed, was the utmost arithmetical proficiency that was required of the female pupil-teacher in the last three years of her engagement. After the 31st of March, 1873, no day scholar above nine was to be examined in the 1st Standard, nor after the 31st of March, 1874, in the 2nd Standard. Now, the 3rd Standard required the reading of a short paragraph from an advanced reading book, the writing of a sentence
  1850
  from dictation, and a knowledge of the compound rules of money. He doubted whether boys even in the county of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Halifax) would be sufficiently precocious at the age of nine as to reach this standard. There was also a regulation that no scholar might be presented for examination a second time in the same or a lower standard. He presumed the object was to require every scholar to advance a step in every successive examination.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that his noble Friends had put to him several Questions of which they had given no Notice, and which, therefore, he was unable to answer so fully as he could have wished. He was glad to find that the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) approved the attempt to raise the standard, and most other alterations, proposed by the New Code. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) was of opinion that too great a step had been made; but it was highly desirable that the standard of education should be gradually and steadily raised. Every ploughboy could not, of course, be expected to reach Standard VI. and it was probable that in schools in the country the pupils generally would seldom go beyond Standard IV; but if a boy could reach that standard it would show that he was reasonably well educated; and there could be no objection to encouraging the boy who, by talent and assiduity, attained the highest standard. Moreover, the Code was not designed for the rural districts exclusively; and he saw no reason why a fair proportion of scholars in the country, and still more probably in towns, should not reach the advanced standards. Boys above 10 years of age in a rural district, attending 150 times, would not only be qualified for examination, but would be entitled to a grant. As to migrating children, the alteration proposed by the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) would, in 99 cases out of 100, make no appreciable difference in the sum received by the teacher, and it would be attended with considerable trouble and inconvenience. With regard to certificates, he admitted that there was something to be said in their favour; but there were considerations on the other side, and he could only promise that the point should be carefully considered. As to evening schools, the alteration advocated by the noble Earl had been provisionally conceded; and it would be seen in the course

  1851
  of the year whether 60 evenings, and 40 attendances, were the utmost that could reasonably be expected. The noble Duke was correct in supposing that the object in forbidding a second examination in the same standard was simply to require every scholar to advance a step at every successive examination.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he wished for an explanation on this point. As every standard had been raised a step in the New Code, Standard I. of this year was Standard II. of last year. Therefore, a boy examined under Standard II. of last year would be examined the year following under Standard III. But Standard III. of last year became Standard II. this year; and as the rule declared that a boy could not be examined under the same standard a second year, it would necessarily preclude such boy from being examined at all. But, as that would present an obvious difficulty, and be utterly inconsistent with the principle of the Code, he supposed that the examination referred to applied to the subjects comprised under the standards, and not to the particular number of the standards themselves.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Yes; the rule against a boy being examined twice under the same standard simply means that he is expected to advance to a higher standard every year.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that if it was necessary to allow migratory children in the rural districts to reckon their attendance at both schools, it was ten thousand times more necessary among the dense populations of the metropolis and great cities. In London alone there were at least 40,000 persons who never continued in one locality three months, but were perpetually on the move. If, then, their attendances at one school were not reckoned on their going to another, they would not be able to reach the required standard, and they would thus be precluded from the benefit of examination; and would consequently be neglected by the teachers, because the latter would derive no advantage from them. That, he submitted, was a matter for serious consideration. At certain periods of the year, moreover, thousands of children went out hop-picking, &c. and their entire attendances ought in fairness to be taken into account. He quite agreed with the noble Earl and the noble Duke that it was impossible to expect attendance at evening schools in
  1852
  agricultural parishes more than 20 weeks a-year. Rural employment was very various; a great many children left off work at 4 or 5 p.m., and the farmers would in many cases be anxious that there should be an opportunity of attending evening schools; but a great many boys had to attend to horses and cattle, and could not leave off work till 6 or 6.30. They had then, with a drenched skin, to go home, get their supper, and change their clothes. It would be too much, therefore, to expect them to attend the evening school more than three times a-week during 20 weeks in the year. He hoped the Government would do all in their power to encourage night schools, for it was the only way in which the compulsory principle could be carried out. Children 10, 12, or 13 years of age would not be compelled to attend day schools. The value of the labour of children between 9 and 13 became much too great for them to attend day schools, unless the parents were compensated for the value of that labour. The only way to obtain a due attendance of children would be a very large increase in the evening schools. In London there were 33,000 ragged children attending school, of whom 22,000 attended day schools; but a very large proportion of these were under seven years of age, and the remainder were found in night schools, these latter being very often from 10 to 18 or 19 years of age. The age of children in infant schools had been reduced, he observed, from five to four. Their Lordships would recollect the disfavour with which he was met last year when he suggested that the age should be less than five. His object was to prevent an enormous abuse which prevailed in many parts of London, children of even three years of age being kept at labour by their mothers. If all the girls between 7 and 12 years of age were to be fixed in day schools, their mothers would be deprived of the services of the only child who could look after the infants while she was out at work. Unless, therefore, the age at which infants could be taken into schools was reduced, girls 12 or 13 years of age would be taken away, and hundreds of thousands of poor children would be packed in large close rooms under the care of some old woman. It was a great mistake to suppose that children three years of age could not be taught anything. They could not be taught intellectually,

  1853
  but they could be taught order, discipline, and obedience—singing and drill, for instance. He had seen hundreds, nay, thousands of children, many of them not more than two or three years of age, go through the regimental drill in capital style, and to their great enjoyment. He deeply regretted that music was not made an indispensable requisite in the education of children. It was impossible to describe the effect of music on the poorer and wilder sort, or the refining influence exerted on rough and lawless parents by children of the tenderest age being taught to sing hymns in sympathy and simplicity. Effects had thus, as he could testify from personal observation, been produced on parents living in the most degraded condition, such as could not have been effected by the action of the clergyman or the activity of the city missionary. To omit music was to neglect one of the best means of refining and elevating the most degraded portions of the human race.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PRAYER BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL—(No. 29.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PRAYER BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL—(No. 29.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read, the second time, said, that it was identical with that passed by their Lordships in the last Session of Parliament. It was confined to that part of the labours of the Ritual Commissioners which was devoted to the Table of Lessons in our Prayer Book. At the very dawn of the Reformation, by those anxious for its promotion, one of the earliest steps taken was to secure the reading of the Holy Scriptures in a tongue understood by the people. Accordingly, in the first compilation of the Prayer Book, printed by authority, a Table of Lessons was inserted, so that the people might be instructed by hearing the Word of God read in the then existing translation. This Table had only been twice revised—first, in the reign of Elizabeth, and next, at the passing of the Act of Uniformity, in 1662. It had, for some time, been thought very desirable that there should
  1854
  be a further revision. One reason was, that no less than 144 Lessons were taken from the Apocryphal Books; another was, that some books—such as Chronicles—were wholly omitted, which would be both interesting and instructive. There were also chapters read which it was thought, by many (with whom he himself concurred), could be omitted with rather more profit than would attend their continued retention in the Table. The Evening Lessons, moreover, were taken exclusively from the Epistles, no other part of the New Testament being read in the afternoon or evening. Thus domestic servants and others unable to attend morning service never heard the Gospels read. All these points had been alluded to by a Committee of the Ritual Commission, by whom it had been recommended that the number of Lessons from the Apocrypha should be reduced from 144 to 32, those which were retained being chiefly taken from Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom, both of which contained much that was highly instructive and incentive to the improvement of morals. Portions of the Books which hitherto had been omitted altogether had been introduced into the Lectionary, and all chapters which it was thought undesirable to continue to read publicly had been omitted, the length of certain Lessons had been curtailed, and arrangements had been made by which those who attended evening service only would have the opportunity of hearing portions of the Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles read. Were he to state the names of those acting upon the Committee, he was quite sure the House would repose the utmost confidence in their recommendations, and feel satisfied with their labours. The Report of the Committee had been adopted not only by the Convocation of Canterbury, but also by a Committee of the Convocation of the Province of York. The measure had now been before the public for nearly two years, and he had not heard a single objection raised to it as a whole, although, no doubt, objections had been taken to some of its details. The subject was one that must be dealt with once and for all, and therefore it was that the present measure was identical with that which had been introduced into their Lordships' House last year. He had heard it objected against the measure that it did not proceed far

  1855
  enough, inasmuch as it did not carry into effect all the recommendations of the Commissioners. There were, however, many reasons why it would have been undesirable to carry the measure further. Thus a great many of the alterations suggested by the Commissioners had relation to the mode of conducting the service, with the object of introducing a more general uniformity in the outward ceremonials of the Church; but, owing to a recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, such proposed alterations had become unnecessary; because it tended in the direction desired by the Commissioners, and it was far from desirable at present to attempt independent legislation which would probably fail in securing uniformity of opinion. With reference to the Report of the Ritual Commission, he was aware of the great discrimination, the forbearance and care with which that body had proceeded; but, at the same time, their last Report had not been so fortunate as to secure unanimous support. No less than 17 out of the 27 members of which the Commission consisted had protested against the Report—a circumstance that was to be explained by the fact that when the Report was agreed to all the Members of the Commission were not in attendance. Under these circumstances it was thought undesirable, at the present moment, to attempt to carry out by this measure the recommendations contained in that Report, more especially as no less than 26 different objections, each signed by more or less of the Commissioners, had been taken to certain of those recommendations. The measure before the House was one that it was desirable to pass as speedily as possible, because the impending change in the form of the Lectionary had thrown a serious impediment in the way of an important branch of trade by preventing the printing of new Prayer Books.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYdesired to reiterate the opinion he had expressed last year—that this measure, as far as it went, would prove a great boon; but, at the same time, he did not see why it might not have gone further and have altogether excluded the Apocrypha from the Table of Lessons. He
  1856
  regretted the exclusion from the Lessons for the Sunday of the 14th chapter of Joshua, nor had any reason been assigned for the removal of it from the Sunday to the Week-day Lessons. The Commissioners had gone through a great deal of labour, and had shown the utmost impartiality and fairness in framing their Reports, and he thought their recommendations entitled to the highest respect; but, considering the ability of the Commissioners, he thought it a pity that their Report should have had so small a result as the present measure. He wished, for the sake of the peace of the Church, the Commissioners had found some way of settling the question as to the Athanasian Creed. Had the suggestion been adopted of preserving that Creed in the formulary of the Prayer Book, without requiring it to be compulsorily read, a good deal would have been effected towards reconciling those who objected to the service in its present form. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had urged their Lordships to use speed with respect to this measure, on the ground that an important branch of trade was suffering from the uncertainty that existed at present as to the form of Lectionary that would be finally adopted; but he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) must protest against that observation as being capable of being construed into a pledge that no further alterations would for the present at least be proposed in the Prayer Book. He, for one, sincerely hoped that many of the important changes which had been recommended by the Commissioners would become law before long. Had the changes recommended in the Report of the Commissioners been formerly carried into effect, much would have been done to smooth many difficulties that now existed and to secure the safety of the Church, which during every hour of its existence was drifting into greater danger.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, he could assure the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that the recommendations to which he had referred had not received by any means unanimous support from the members of the Commission. In reference to the Athanasian Creed, if the noble Earl had been present at the meetings of the Commissioners, he would have found that it was not thought expedient

  1857
  to make any Report regarding it, although there were many members of the Commission to whose mind this Creed did not commend itself. He did not agree with the optional method suggested by the noble Earl, for he thought that there were other means by which a satisfactory adjustment of the difficult question could be arrived at. He concurred with his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack in urging Parliament to adopt this Bill as soon as possible. He had stated in detail last year, and so would not now repeat the care and pains that had been taken by the Commission to make the Table of Lessons as perfect as possible. More recently, objections had been raised to the general principle on which the Lessons had been drawn up; but directly they were stated fairly, they would be found to result from a mistaken view being taken of the matter. A current objection to the provisions of the Bill was that they proposed to substitute a totally novel Lectionary for one dignified by age, of ancient precedent, and, in outline, very generally adopted both in the East and West. It has been urged, then, that the Church of England, by adopting this new Table, would in this respect separate herself from Continental and other Churches, and so would interpose another obstacle to union. The truth, however, was that any Table of Lessons was, comparatively, a new introduction. In the ancient Church no fixed Lectionary existed until about the 11th or 12th century. The Church of Rome in the 4th century had no Lessons but such as were taken from the Epistles and Gospels. He found that, in the early Christian Church, the privilege was allowed, or at any rate assumed, of altering the Lessons according to the subject to which the sermon was to be addressed. St. Augustine more than once alludes to changes which he had himself prescribed, and for which some excellent discourse of his own was apparently responsible. We know a few leading facts as to the choice of Lessons, but nothing more. For instance, in the ancient Church the custom was that the Book of the Prophet Isaiah should be read before Whitsuntide; after Whitsuntide followed the reading of the Books of Samuel and Kings; later on came the reading of the Books of Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes; towards the latter period of the Church year the Books of Tobit and Judith were
  1858
  read very near the time of Lent. If the reader would turn to the Table of Lessons now before the House, he would see that in these particulars, as also in other details, it is carefully maintained in accord with the usage of the ancient Church, and he thought it would be found that all similar objections, founded on mistaken comparisons of the present with an assumed past, would, if considered fairly, at once disappear. He had alluded to this as objections had been recently urged which it seemed proper now, thus briefly, to notice. He trusted, in conclusion, that the Bill would meet with the reception at their Lordships' hands which it obtained last year.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that with reference to the points of detail pointed out by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) he thought their Lordships would feel that if a reform of the Table of Lessons was to be carried out at all, it must be done by placing a measure of confidence in those who had had the supervision of its details. Such details would never be suitably discussed or decided in that House. The well-chosen Committee of the Commission to whom that matter was referred were unanimous in their recommendations, as the Lord Chancellor had already stated, and it might be added to his statement that the Commission at large were equally unanimous when the question was whether those recommendations should be adopted and confirmed. He (Earl Stanhope) had, the other night expressed a hope that the measure of the Government might comprise not only the new Table of Lessons, but certain other matters in the Prayer Book. He admitted the difficulty that might have been found in attempting that course. Since, however, the measure was before the House, he thought their Lordships were—especially those who had been Members of the Commission—at liberty to express their sentiments; and he certainly shared in the regret expressed by the noble Earl, that the Athanasian Creed had not been dealt with. It was true that to deal with it, though most desirable, was also not a little difficult. The difficulty lay in the divided state of opinion among the Commissioners, and not among the Commissioners only, but among the Churchmen at large; and although it might be open to the House in Committee to move Amendments in the Bill on this and on other points of

  1859
  great importance, yet, thinking the measure as it stood was an undoubted good, and being anxious to secure that good, he did not wish to hazard it by proposing or supporting Amendments on other points, however desirable they might be in themselves. It was wholly repugnant to English feeling, while upholding and affirming one's own religious belief, to declare the eternal condemnation of all who did not accept it in every particular; and it was, he thought, impossible that a formula like the Athanasian Creed, as it now stood, could long retain its place in the public services of the Church. He might add that although much diversity of opinion had been expressed by the Commissioners as to the manner of dealing with this Creed, there was a decided majority in favour of some change from the present practice. The Archbishop of Canterbury — now unfortunately absent from the House on account of his state of health—had expressed a strong opinion to that effect, and when his Grace returned to England he hoped that the subject of the Athanasian Creed would receive from him, and from others of the right rev. Bench, the attention it deserved. He did not, however, wish to risk the defeat of the present Bill by attempting to remove any other grievance than the one it sought to remedy, and he trusted that the measure would speedily become law.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he did not rise to offer any objection to the Lectionary proposed by that Bill. He agreed that if a change was to be made the substituted Lectionary must be accepted as a whole; and as a whole he believed the Lectionary now proposed was a great improvement on the one we at present possessed. But he desired to repeat now the protest he made last year against the manner in which Convocation was connected with the Bill. The recital of the Bill was that those "revised Tables of Lessons have been considered and approved by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury and by a committee of the Convocation of York." He protested, in the first place, on the minor ground, that if it was right to take notice of Convocation and to have its assent, the assent they required was not that of a committee of the Convocation of York, but that of the Convocation of the Province of York itself. But, further, the manner in which Convocation was referred to in the Bill was
  1860
  entirely without precedent. On former occasions, when the assent of Convocation had been noticed, there was a distinct statement that Convocation had received from the Crown that licence without which the assent of Convocation could not be noticed in any Act of Parliament; and now, for the first time in that Bill, they had a recital of the approval of Convocation without any mention of the licence of the Crown to express that approval. They were told last year that no such licence had been given, and that there was such urgency in passing the Bill that any delay would be very injurious. As, however, the measure had stood over for another Session, there was no good reason for departing from the old constitutional practice requiring the assent of Convocation, if it was to be expressed at all, to be duly expressed by both branches of Convocation in pursuance of a licence from the Crown. He did not wish to impede the progress of the measure, but simply to renew his protest on the point he had described; and if no sufficient explanation were given, he hoped that in Committee that part of the recital would be struck out.
  LORD EBURYsaid, he was perfectly astonished when he heard from the Lord Chancellor that the various recommendations made by the Royal Commissioners on other points than the Lectionary would not be included in the Bill. Were the Commissioners to understand that all their recommendations, excepting these, were to be set aside? If so, he was bound to say that was a very unsatisfactory state of things; and although he approved the Table of Lessons as proposed, he could not give his assent to the Bill without entering his protest against the neglect of recommendations of the greatest importance. Reference had been made to the protests made against the last Report; but these so-called protests were scarcely more than qualifying documents, for in only one was the word "protest" used, and out of the 26 remonstrances 11 or 12 related to the Athanasian Creed.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he somewhat sympathized with the noble Lord who had just spoken in regretting that the Bill did not include other important recommendations of the Commission than those relating to the Lectionary; but he presumed the passing of this Bill would not preclude action at

  1861
  some future time with reference to those recommendations. The great advantage of the course adopted was that this Bill having been well canvassed and generally supported, both by clergy and laity, it might be passed without being submitted to minute examination, and so very speedily become law. It could not have been hoped that this would have been the case had the Bill included some other of the recommendations of the Commissioners. He feared there was some possibility of misapprehension from the words used by the Lord Chancellor with reference to the difference of opinion among the Commissioners. Excepting the vexed question of the Athanasian Creed, he believed that, of the 66 recommendations made in the Report, exactly one-half were agreed to unanimously; nine had only one vote recorded against them; 20 passed by majorities varying from 6 to 1 and 2 to 1; and there were only four which were not carried by a majority of at least 2 to 1. The difficulty of the Commissioners was not so much the want of unanimity within the Commission as the want of unanimity without it. It appeared probable that many of the recommendations on which the Commissioners themselves had agreed would excite much disagreement in passing through Parliament; and it was thought that while this Bill, upon which little difference of opinion existed, would pass rapidly through Parliament, public opinion upon other points should have time to consolidate. The real difficulty was the Athanasian Creed. He believed that there were thousands of men, laity as well as clergy, who would not part from the use of that Creed without deep feelings of regret and, he would almost say, indignation. He might be sorry it should be so; but so, no doubt, it was. Besides this, it was doubtful—at least, so it appeared to him—whether the Royal Commissioners, considering they had been appointed to deal with the Rubrics alone, had any power to touch the Athanasian Creed. He, for one, felt strongly that in dealing with the Prayer Book they had no right to remove from the Prayer Book one of the three Creeds which it was declared by the authority of the Thirty-nine Articles ought thoroughly to be received and believed. How far this, the main difficulty, might be removed by time and consideration he did not venture to prophesy; but if
  1862
  in the present Session it had been attempted to carry out the recommendations of the Ritual Commission—especially, if it had been proposed to remove the Athanasian Creed from the Prayer Book — he was convinced that such a measure would not have passed without paining deeply many whose opinions were most highly valued. It would probably have met with strong opposition, and the result might have been that this Bill, which was generally desired, and would meet the wishes which the Church had expressed for many years, would have been lost.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I have no intention of offering any opposition to the passing of the Bill, but like my noble Friend who spoke last but one (Lord Ebury), I acquiesce in its being passed, with much doubt and reluctance, not bebcause I am insensible to the value of the improvement which will be made by substituting the proposed Table of Lessons for that now in use, but because I think that that improvement, great as I admit it to be, would be dearly purchased if it were obtained at the price of throwing a new obstacle in the way of the more extensive improvements which are urgently wanted; and there is some reason to fear that this may prove to be the case. I think, with my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Shaftesbury), that the argument used by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the early passing of the Bill is necessary, in order that the trade in Prayer Books may be relieved from suspense, is open to the interpretation that when this Bill is passed we must look for no farther improvements in the Prayer Book; and that printers and publishers may proceed to bring out new editions without apprehension that it will again be changed. In my opinion, to determine that this is to be the end of improvements in the Prayer Book would be most fatal to the interests of the Church of England. There are many of the improvements suggested by the Commissioners which it would be very desirable to adopt, and there is one which they have not recommended, which I regard as far more important, and more urgently necessary, than any which they have proposed. I refer to some alteration in the Rubric for the purpose of putting an end to the necessity of reading the Athanasian Creed in the regular services of the Church. I heard with great regret what was said on this subject by the right

  1863
  rev. Prelate—my right rev. Friend, if he will allow me to call him so—who spoke last. He told us that this Creed could not be omitted from our services without giving great pain to a large number of excellent clergymen; but surely he must be aware that its retention gives still more pain not only to a larger number of clergymen who are compelled to use it, but also to nine-tenths of the laity. For my own part, I do not hesitate to say that I never hear that Creed read without a feeling of horror and disgust, regarding it, as I do, as being utterly inconsistent with the reverence due to the Supreme Being, and with a sense of devotion. It is now universally admitted that this Creed, which goes by the name of Athanasius, was not written by him, but centuries after his death. It is the barbarous production of a barbarous age; and I can conceive no more shocking presumption, or more gross irreverence to the Creator, than that men should take upon them to define His nature, which is so far above all human comprehension, by words which, as applied to this subject, certainly cannot be understood in their ordinary sense, and convey no real meaning to the mind. I wish the advocates of this Creed would explain what meaning they attach to such words as "begotten," or "proceeding," when applied to the person of the Trinity, and whether they even profess to understand the distinction drawn between them. I would ask those who attach so much value to this Creed how they can justify dealing in this manner with such awful mysteries, and then having the presumption to affirm that all who decline to adopt words and definitions which they do not themselves understand, will, beyond doubt, be condemned to eternal torture? The attempt to maintain this Creed in the services of the Church, in spite of its general condemnation by the reason and feelings of the great body of the people would be as unwise as it certainly would be unsuccessful in the end. If it would otherwise have been possible to retain it, the publication of the proceedings of the Commission has now clearly made this impracticable. It is true that the Commission has not recommended that the use of the Creed should be given up; but as my noble Friend (Earl Stanhope), himself one of the Commissioners, has pointed out to us, it has been unequivocally condemned at different times by so large a
  1864
  majority of the whole body as 17 out of 27; and the minority of the body, who were accidentally a majority of the Commissioners present when the final decision on this subject was come to, only agreed to advise its being retained, with the addition of a note to the Rubric, declaring that the most obnoxious words in the Creed were to be understood in a sense directly opposed to their plain, grammatical meaning. We have heard of "Jesuitical proceedings," and of the want of respect for truth they show; but to my mind nothing in that way could be more shocking than that we should be advised to retain the Creed, but, at the same time put into the Prayer Book a note declaring that it is not to be understood according to the plain meaning of its language. I cannot doubt that, to retain the Creed in this manner, would be most injurious to the Church of England, and would tend to alienate from it a very large number of persons. At the same time I recognize the difficulty in which the Commissioners were placed by the strong opinion in favour of the Creed of many of the clergy; but I think this difficulty might have been overcome by adopting the suggestion of my noble Friend (Earl Stanhope), and substituting the word "may" for "shall" in the Rubric directing the Creed to be used. No violent or sudden change would thus have been made. Those clergymen who think it right to persevere in declaring that all who differ from them on most abstruse metaphysical questions as to the nature of the Deity will, beyond doubt, be condemned to eternal torture, would have been at liberty to go on using the Creed, while those who take what I think a more charitable and a more Christian view of the subject would have been equally at liberty to omit it. Had reading the Creed been thus made optional I am convinced that the common sense and good feeling of congregations would in a few years have caused it to fall into disuse.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he looked with great satisfaction at the Bill now before the House; and he should not have risen to address their Lordships had it not been for the speech of the noble Earl who had just sat down. Their Lordships were not now discussing a Bill for the abolition of the Athanasian Creed, which as the noble Earl had said would perhaps have commanded a very doubtful assent; but after the

  1865
  noble Earl had said that the Commissioners had taken a Jesuitical course, he thought it necessary to speak on behalf of the Report which a majority of the Commissioners had adopted. He would not follow the noble Earl in the interpretation he had put upon the Athanasian Creed further than to say it did not accord with that given by some of the most eminent authorities in the Church of England. The note which it was proposed to append to the Creed was in the very words of the Royal Commissioners who sat in 1689, and were presided over by Archbishop Tillotson—and he left their Lordships to decide whether they were likely to adopt a Jesuitical mode of interpretation. Their Lordships had been told that a majority of the Commissioners were opposed to the retention of the Creed in the services of the Church. If that were so, and the question had been argued three or four times over, how was it that the majority hostile to the Creed had never been able to make itself felt? The fact was that the opponents of the Creed had never been able to define—to themselves even—what it was they wanted, and hence they never had been able to secure harmonious action; accordingly, their various proposals had been defeated in detail. That would show their Lordships the difficulty of bringing forward any proposals as to the Athanasian Creed likely to meet with the approval of the nation at large. It was all very well to talk about nine-tenths of the people of England being opposed to the Creed. He disputed the accuracy of that statement. On the contrary, he believed that the Athanasian Creed had been a source of comfort to thousands who did not put upon its language the exaggerated interpretation which had been placed upon it by the noble Earl. He warned their Lordships against further interference with the formularies and services of the Church of England, as to which, at the present moment, a very strong feeling existed. The Protestantism of the Church had been strained to an alarming extent; and the peace of the Church of England would be best secured and its permanence maintained by abstaining, at present, at all events, from further interference in this direction. Rough handling at the present moment was very likely to bring about danger and disaster, and, instead of leading to those
  1866
  measures of comprehension which everybody desired, might very possibly end in disruption and disestablishment.
  THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERsaid, that, as he understood, the Government by no means intended to throw aside the other recommendations of the Commissioners, but meant to take their time, and feel the pulse of the country, and bring forward remedial measures when they saw that the proper moment had arrived. As to the denunciation of the Athanasian Creed by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), uttered with a vehemence unsuited to the sacred character of the subject, he need only point out that the two expressions "proceeding" and "begotten," on which the noble Earl had laid such stress, were the very words Scripture applied to the Holy Ghost and to the Son of God. Accordingly, if the other criticisms of the noble Earl had no greater weight than this, they might be allowed to pass without further observation. His own opinion was that the Athanasian Creed ought not to be used in congregations without due explanation by the clergy. The Athanasian Creed was an exposition of the true sense of Scripture; but the argument that the Creed was intended only to be recited, not believed, went a great deal further than the noble Earl intended, for it would equally apply to the Nicene Creed and to the Apostles' Creed. As regarded the change in the Table of Lessons, that he believed to be a great improvement, and one which was much needed. He rejoiced, however, that the Committee and the framers of this Bill had been courageous enough to retain the noble chapters from the Apocrypha.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he had only understood the observations of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to apply to the present Session. He trusted that hereafter it would be possible for the Government to give effect to many other of the recommendations of the Commissioners.
  EARL GREYvery much doubted whether the word "proceeding" was to be found in Scripture applied in the sense mentioned by the right rev. Prelate; but what he most objected to was the attempt to define by words what was beyond all human intellect and comprehension.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would not continue the discussion as to whether the Athanasian Creed ought to be

  1867
  retained or done away with in the services of the Church; but he rose to explain the position in which the Government stood in regard to the Bill. The action of the Government had been misunderstood. The Government had been complained of for not going more fully into the recommendations of the Ritual Commissioners, and especially for not having dealt with the Athanasian Creed. There would have been no unwillingness on their part to deal with that question also had there been any reasonable amount of unanimity among the Commissioners themselves with regard to the Athanasian Creed. The declaration of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had been limited simply to this—that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared at present to deal with a question the difficulties of which was shown by the want of union among the Commissioners. As to the point with which the Government did propose to deal by this Bill, there was almost entire unanimity of opinion. As to the mention in the recital that the revised Tables of Lessons had been considered and approved of by Convocation, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was prepared to yield to what appeared to be the very general opinion of their Lordships on that point, and to strike out the recital in Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.