66

him, that the means he had pointed out for reaching these poor people were the only means. This move ment was not a public but a private movement, which, as its originators were aware, was not consonant with the feelings of the Church of England to which they belonged. They had done right, he thought, in not consulting the heads of the Church on the subject; and, as it was an experiment, he was glad not to have given his consent before he knew what the results might be. As far as regarded the law of the matter, the thing was not unlawful, and the only way to make it so was by an inhibition" from the Bishop. But would Lord Dungannon say it was his or the Bishop of Winchester's duty to drag any clergyman who had taken part in these meetings from conscientious motives, before a court of law? Considering the state of the classes whom it was sought to amend, neither he nor his brother Bishops felt called on to issue such "inhibition," or to require their clergy to refrain from these services. Personally he did not agree with the promoters of these services in theatres, but that, perhaps, was a matter not of argument but of feeling. He, however, did not hold, that, because this experiment was being made, no other should be tried at the same time, for he believed other buildings could be found for Divine services besides theatres and concert-halls, and that, if funds for parochial endowments were wanting, they would soon be forthcoming.

Lord Dungannon said he never intended to have put the House in an invidious position by pronouncing an opinion on the sub

ject. He merely wished to have the question discussed, and this object being attained, he would withdraw his motion. The discussion then terminated.

66

Another interesting debate upon Church affairs took place in the House of Lords, on the 8th of May, upon a motion introduced by Lord Ebury, which was in these terms:-"That it is the opinion of this House that, whereas the particular forms of divine worship, and the rites and ceremonies appointed to be used therein, are things in their own nature indifferent and alterable, and so acknowledged, it is but reasonable that, upon weighty and important considerations, according to the various exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein as to those that are in place of authority should, from time to time, seem either necessary or expedient." He also moved That, whereas the Book of Canons is fit to be reviewed and made more suitable to the state of the Church, and whereas it is desirable, as far as may be, to remove all unnecessary barriers to a union of the people in the matter of public worship, a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be pleased to appoint a Commission, to prepare such alterations and amendments in the Canons and Book of Common Prayer as to them may appear desirable, and to consider of such other matters as in their judgment may most conduce to the ends above mentioned." In a very long speech, which was an echo of the motion, Lord Ebury stated the reasons why he had brought that motion forward, and the

grounds upon which he considered it worthy of support.

The Archbishop of Canterbury was convinced that the object which Lord Ebury had in view was to benefit the Church, but he was also convinced that the mode by which he proposed to confer that benefit would only result in injury. Although he had met many who desired alterations, he had seldom found any two persons who agreed as to what alterations should be made in the Prayer Book, and he therefore could not help considering that the proposed alterations might seriously damage the peace of the Church. He therefore felt bound to oppose the motion.

Lord Lyttelton also opposed the motion.

The Bishop of London complained of the misrepresentations of Lord Ebury. The question was a practical one, and he should much like to know what was the practical grievance complained of, and what was the practical good to be obtained. He examined briefly the portions of the rubric and the burial service brought forward by Lord Ebury, and argued that the grievances of which he complained either did not arise from those causes, or would not be remedied by the means proposed. Adverting to the Book of Canons, he showed that it was perfectly competent for Convocation, with the consent of the Crown, to alter these canons, and he therefore asked what use could there be in applying for a Commission in order to do that which could be done already without it.

Lord Stanhope said that the large majority of the bench of bishops and of the clergy opposed to Lord Ebury's motion was a

sufficient proof of the great unpopularity and small need of the revision of the Liturgy.

Lord Granville thought it would be desirable, as the expression of opinion had been all on one side, that the motion should be withdrawn.

The Bishop of Oxford wished to understand whether Lord Ebury intended by this motion to alter the doctrinal status of the Church of England or to abbreviate certain prayers which he deemed too long. The only means of judging of the intention of Lord Ebury was, not by his speech, which was most obscure on this point, but by the opinions of those who put him forward. It had been an argument in favour of the motion that a revision of the Liturgy would conciliate the Dissenters. Now, he did not think for a minute that the alterations in the Prayer Book would bring back Dissenters to the Church; and, even if he had any reasons for thinking so, he should grieve, much as he desired to bring them back, to allure them back by any such means. He protested vehemently against the alteration of "only a few words here and there," as it would, in his opinion, be striking at the belief of the great body of the English people. The man who proposed to make alterations in the Prayer Book for any but the greatest results was, in his opinion, rash and unadvised. The objection to the length of the services was a mere bugbear. In his own diocese, the services which had in some instances been shortened, had been subsequently resumed at their full length at the request of those very persons who had begged they might be shortened. In conclusion, he briefly refuted the remarks of Lord Ebury concerning

the burial service, and renewed his strong protest against the motion.

After some remarks from the Bishop of Cashel, Lord Lyttelton, and Lord Ebury, the motion was negatived without a division.

In connection with this class of questions a Bill, which afterwards became law, introduced by the Bishop of London, for removing some of the superfluous Churches in the City of London and consolidating the Benefices, with a view to appropriating the surplus endowments to relieve the spiritual necessities of less-favoured districts, may be briefly noticed here. In moving the second reading of this measure on the 26th of April the Bishop of London explained, that its object was to provide that a wealthy parish with a small population should contribute to the necessities of its poorer neighbours, or rather that the wealthy parish should contribute to the spiritual instruction of its own poor, as there was no doubt that the poor who lived in the immediate neighbourhood, although out of the parish, were its own poor. It was proposed by the Bill that churches in certain instances which were at present useless should be taken down altogether, in such a manner, he trusted, by the safeguards provided in the Bill, as to prevent desecration in the removal of any building consecrated by the reminiscences of the past. Many of the city churches which had neither beauty nor antiquity to recommend them, might, he thought, be removed into districts teeming with population with the greatest benefit. Before any church could be removed, however, it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home De

partment, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of the diocese. When any change was proposed to be made, it was provided in the Bill that a Commission should be previously issued, consisting of three clergymen and two laymen, the latter in the city of London to be appointed by the Corporation.

Lord Carnarvon objected to the Bill on the ground that, although it purported to apply to England and Wales, it was almost entirely confined to the diocese of London. If the Bishop of London only wished to remedy the defaults of his own diocese, it would be better to introduce a Bill for that express purpose.

The Bishop of Oxford had opposed former measures of this character, as he considered they sanctioned an interference with ground consecrated for the burial of the dead. His objections still existed, as he considered it most flagrant for the Church to make a profit by selling the site of churches solemnly consecrated to be kept for ever undisturbed. If the Bill were read a second time he should propose an Amendment, which would prevent the selling of the site of a church wherein the dead had been buried. He also objected to the Bill on the ground that it had been entirely drawn up for the diocese of London, and was altogether inapplicable to any other. Instead of being general, its application, in his opinion, ought to be limited.

Lord Redesdale also thought that the Bill ought to be limited to the diocese of London, as several of the metropolitan churches might no doubt be removed with advantage to the community.

Lord Granville considered that the objections to the Bill would

be best considered in a Select Committee. He concurred in the opinion that the operation of the Bill had better be confined, in the first instance, to the diocese of London.

The Bishop of Exeter disapproved of some of the provisions of the Bill, as they would enable Dissenters to avail themselves of edifices which had been originally consecrated to promote the doctrines of the Church of England alone.

The Bill was then read a second time; and after undergoing some modifications, and being limited in its operation to the Metropolis, became law.

This being the year preceding that of the usual decennial Census, the Government introduced in the latter part of the Session a Bill to authorize that measure. Among the other facts which it was proposed to ascertain for statistical objects, was that of the various religious persuasions of the people. This proposal, however, met with strong objection on the part of some of the Dissenting bodies, and their opposition assumed by degrees a very active form. Numerous petitions were presented to Parliament, and deputations were sent to the Ministers, conveying remonstrances against the proposed inquiry, which was represented as a needless and improper inquisition into matters beyond the scope of Government interference, and consequently to some extent an infraction of religious liberty. On the other hand, the propriety and usefulness of the information sought to be obtained were urged by the advocates of the Established Church, and the Dissenting sects were taunted with their obvious reluctance to expose

the paucity of their own adherents. By degrees the opposition to this clause in the Bill assumed the shape of an organized agitation, and the Ministers, having been much pressed by questions in the House of Commons as to their intention of enforcing or waiving the clause, undertook to announce their decision when the Bill went into Committee. This took place on the 11th of July, when the cause of the Nonconformists was taken up by Mr. Baines, who moved to amend the 4th clause of the Bill by omitting the words "religious profession." He objected to an inquiry into religious opinions or professions, not as a Dissenter, but upon general grounds, in which many Churchmen concurred. The civil government, he contended, went beyond its legitimate province, and infringed upon religious liberty, in instituting such an inquisition, which would, moreover, encounter many impediments. The difficulty of ascertaining the religious profession of children, of inmates, of servants, and of persons of no religious habits at all, would vitiate the returns and render the results of no statistical value.

Sir G. Lewis, being responsible for this proposal, which had been inserted in the Bill deliberately and after full consideration, laid before the Committee the grounds in its favour. In his opinion, the presumption must be that, in a Census of the population, religious professions ought to be comprehended. The principle was generally adopted in the Continental States, and a kind of religious census had been taken in 1834, without objection, in Ireland. He replied to some of the objections urged by Mr. Baines, whose gigantic difficulties were, he