SECOND READING. (Hansard, 19 March 1872)

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,
in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that in 1869, owing to the growth of certain ritual practices in the Church, Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the differences of practice which had arisen from varying interpretations put upon the rubrics, and directions for regulating the course and conduct of public worship, with a view to secure general uniformity of practice in such matters as might be deemed essential. The Commission had made four Reports. The two first had not yet led to any legislative action. They had reference principally to certain matters connected with the ritual which by the time the Reports were published had become the subject of discussion in the courts of law. Since then the courts of law had pronounced decisions on almost all the questions that were treated of in the first two Reports, and that was perhaps sufficient to accomplish the objects in view. Last year a Bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament for the amendment of the Lectionary, the sub- 226 ject to which the third Report referred. The fourth Report, on which the present Bill was founded, had a wider range, and embraced almost the whole of the rubrics of the Prayer Book, and suggested such alterations as the Commissioners thought desirable in order to effect the object for which the Commission was issued. The subjects treated of in this Report naturally divided themselves into two heads; but the Bill dealt with only one of them, and proposed to carry into effect certain alterations proposed by the Commission by means of a few simple alterations in the Act of Uniformity. The Bill, therefore, was very simple in character, and had obtained the consent of almost every person interested in the Church of England. The greatest care had been taken that all persons and opinions should be represented upon the Commission. Farther than this, the Commission sat for a very long time, and lengthened discussions took place; and the conclusions which they arrived at were the more entitled to consideration because of the great care that had been taken to arrive at them, and because of the unanimity displayed at last among the members of the Commission, after there had been the greatest diversity of opinion at first. The Commission having reported, the constitutional practice was followed by the Crown authorizing the representative bodies of the clergy of the Provinces of Canterbury and York to consider the Report, and further to report to Her Majesty thereon. In Convocation, also, it might be anticipated that considerable diversity of opinion would exist; but the Report had received the approval of members of both Houses of Convocation, with very rare exceptions. This was the only constitutional mode in which the voice of the clergy could be heard upon such a matter; and Convocation did, perhaps, fairly enough represent the clergy. He might say also that this Bill had the approbation of the laity, as represented on the Commission. It appeared to the members of the Commission that the first thing that they had to do was to give greater liberty where it was right that liberty should be enjoyed, and that there should be required greater uniformity in matters where it was desirable; and these two things were represented in the provisions of the Bill. There were five 227 provisions in the measure. The first had reference to the ordinary daily services of the Church. It was the conviction of all who had carefully considered the subject that in this busy age there would be great difficulty in securing the presence of anything like a congregation on week days for the ordinary services of the Church. At all events, the conviction of the members of the Commission was that there were many persons who would desire to avail themselves of the benefit of the daily service of the Church if they could do so at a less sacrifice of time, such as would not interfere with their ordinary avocations—if, in fact, they could have an abridged service, and so be able to accommodate their ordinary avocations in life to a daily attendance at church. The first provision in the Bill, therefore, was that a shortened form of Morning and Evening Prayer might be used in churches on any day except Sunday, and the usual great Church festivals. The second provision had reference to special occasions which might arise in any parish—such as a great deliverance from sickness, or a thanksgiving at the close of the harvest season—and it was provided that there might on such occasions be such a special form of service in the church as might be approved by the Ordinary. The third provision had reference to Sunday services. It was provided by law that in all churches there should be certain morning and evening services; but the zeal of the clergy had led them, in populous places, to establish a third service; and for the sake of the clergy and the laity also it had been held to be desirable that there should be power legally of holding a third service, without repetition of the same words. The third provision, therefore, settled that there might be an extra service upon the Sunday differing from the ordinary morning and evening services; but it was also provided that there should be no variation from mere caprice, and therefore that, with the exception of anthems or hymns, the additional service should be taken from the Prayer Book or Bible—and that the whole shall have been approved by the Ordinary. This enactment, it was believed, would be a great advantage to large towns; it seemed to confer a power of setting apart for persons of but little advancement in education a religious 228 service that should have somewhat of a missionary character, and which service it was trusted might greatly add to the influence of the Church among the ignorant and the poor in certain neglected parishes, and greatly conduce to their spiritual and, through their spiritual, to their temporal welfare. The fourth provision had to do with the removal of doubts as to the legality of using the several services of the Church as separate services. He had himself no doubt on the subject; but as doubts did exist, it was desirable to remove them. The fifth provision of the Bill was also one for removing a doubt. There seemed to be question whether a sermon might be preached without the ordinary service having been previously read:—the clause therefore provided that it should be sufficient if the sermon were preceded by any service authorized by this Act, or by the Bidding Prayer, or by one prayer taken from the Prayer Book. It was thought that a sermon without the usual service might, in some instances, attract many auditors who, from various causes, were not otherwise likely to attend. Their Lordships were aware that by a special clause in the Act of Uniformity there might be a sermon in the Universities without a service preceding it—it was thought desirable that the same liberty should be extended to our parish churches. Sermons delivered in cathedrals under such circumstances might be attended with very beneficial results. Those were the provisions of the Bill. He regarded it as no slight matter that, amid the differences of opinion which must always arise in a thoughtful and active age, this measure had received the hearty approval of the clergy and laity of almost every shade of opinion. He believed there were not those serious differences of opinion which some persons represented as existing in the Church of England. On the contrary, he thought that the reception of this Bill showed that there existed a hearty unity among Churchmen in the desire to make the Church of England more useful to all classes of the people. There were differences of opinion among Churchmen; but he, for one, did not desire to see that leaden uniformity which was to be found among a people who had no ardent zeal for religious matters. He would rather see differences of opinion among men who thought for themselves, and who, 229 thinking for themselves, were earnest in the work they had in hand. He believed that nothing would tend more to heal differences among Churchmen than such helps as this Bill provided to enable the clergy to perform their duty.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, he did not intend to place any obstruction in the way of the measure, for he thought that the amendments proposed by the Bill were called for by the opinion of the country, and the most rev. Primate had done well in responding to that opinion. He admitted that some of the changes proposed to be effected would be very beneficial; but he must point out that the course of reform must be deeper and more searching, if they wished to call back into the folds of the Church the hundreds and thousands of people who had wandered from her, and to induce those who had never been within her bosom to avail themselves of her teaching. He thought it possible that, under this Bill, there might at first arise a diversity of service in different dioceses and parishes. Now, if the right rev. Bench desired to conform to the wishes of the people, it might be desirable that he should call attention to the 4th and 5th clauses of the Bill, which he thought were at present extremely ambiguous. If the 4th and 5th clauses were read together, there would be a doubt as to whether it would not be in the power of the Ordinary to prevent evening Communion. The practice of having evening Communion had grown up of late years, and great value was everywhere attached to it. For one working man or woman in these localities who went to noon-day Communion, there would be four, five, or even ten, who went in the evening. If our Church, then, was to be the Church of the people, it was necessary to consider and respect the habits and modes of life of the working population. He should regard such a prohibition as a great evil. There had sprung up, especially in London, a habit among working women of attending the evening services of the Church. From personal observation, he knew that in districts where an attendance at an afternoon service could scarcely be secured, the church was filled to overflowing at the evening services, and working women, who could not at- 230 tend at other times, came carrying their infants at their breasts. He knew that the most rev. Primate was as anxious for the temporal and spiritual welfare of the people as any man in this country, and, therefore, he had every confidence that his Grace would introduce an Amendment to remove the doubt to which he had referred.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
believed be might answer for the most rev. Primate. It was intended to lay before their Lordships an Amendment to clear up any ambiguity on the point referred to by the noble Earl. He was not about to enter on the question of legality or illegality of evening Communion. There was a great difference of opinion as to its legality, and also as to its advisability; but the Bill would leave these questions as they now stood.