was raised by Earl Stanhope inthe latter part of this Session, who proposed an address to the Crown in favour of the discontinuance of the special services commemorative of political events prescribed in the Prayer Book, for the 5th of November, the 30th of January, and the 29th of May. The service for the anniversary of Her Majesty's accession the noble Earl did not propose to interfere with. In a temperate and instructive speech Lord Stanhope stated, that the services in question were not founded on the votes of Convocation, or on Acts of Parliament, but on the Royal proclamation alone. He asked their removal, because they deserved no part of the admiration the beautiful and majestic Liturgy of the Church commanded, but were rather a blot and a stain upon it. The lapse of a century and a half since the most recent of the events celebrated had taken place rendered it no longer proper or desirable to continue these services; but there were also special objections to the language of the services themselves, which in some passages resembled that of a party pamphlet. Having noticed some of these passages, especially in the service for the 30th of January, and the feeling of the times when they were written, he said he proposed to proceed by way of an address to the Crown, rather than an Act repealing the old statute, because the moment the Crown ceased to provide the services the statute would become obsolete. But after the address had been issued the Sovereign might be advised to propose to Parliament the repeal of the ancient Acts. Even now, The Archbishop of Canterbury said he felt bound by duty to oppose the plan of a revision of the Liturgy, on account of the controversies to which the revision would give rise; but the present proposal was not liable to that objection. Practically, the State services were already obsolete, and their removal from the Prayer Book would be generally sanctioned by public opinion. The feelings excited by the events celebrated had died out, and the services had fallen into desuetude; it was better that they should be regularly abolished than irregularly disregarded. He supported the motion. Lord Ebury fully approved the motion, and hoped it would lead to other amendments required in the ritual of the Church. The Bishop of London approved the abolition of the State services. It was asserted they were very seldom read; but they were read just at the times and in the places where it was least desirable they should be heard,—in all the College chapels, in the great seminaries of education. He asked if these services ought not to cease? He objected to the position in which they placed both the Sovereign and the clergy, and to much of the language to be found in them; they had become empty forms, and no one would regret their abolition. The Duke of Marlborough thought the services might be modified, without removing them from the Prayer Book altogether; in an improved form they might be retained as memorials of past events of the national history. The Bishop of Bangor did not defend all the expressions these services contained; but they might be accepted by any pious man without scruples. Some alterations might be made in them, but they were not obsolete -they were full of vigour and power. The Bishop of Oxford could not accept them as proper exponents of national humiliation or gratitude. They contrasted unfavourably with the prayers of the Liturgy; they were far too political, polemical, and epigrammatical. He strongly objected to any alteration of the Book of Common Prayer; but these services ought not to be annexed to it. The Bishop of Cashel supported the motion. Lord Campbell and Lord Cranworth followed on the same side. Lord Dungannon opposed. The Earl of Malmesbury thought the better course would be at once to move the repeal of the statutes on which the proclamation was founded: the other House would then express its opinion on the subject, which would strengthen the Crown in dealing with it. The motion, with some amendment in its terms, was then agreed to without a division. Another movement, not equally VOL. C. successful, towards a reform of the Church Services was attempted by Lord Ebury, who moved for an Address to the Crown for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the expediency of a revision of the Liturgy of the Church of England. The noble Lord contended that the lapse of nearly 300 years had rendered such a revision necessary; it was desired by a large portion of the community, was desirable in itself, and the means by which the alteration could be effected were safe and constitutional. He pointed out the defects of the present Liturgy, the chief of which were the extreme length of the form of prayer for morning service, and the repetitions it contained. There were two general exhortations and two general confessions; the Sovereign and the clergy were each prayed for three times; the Ministry, the Houses of Parliament, and the magistracy, each twice, and the Lord's Prayer was repeated three times. The service was thus rendered wearisome, especially when the Communion was administered. Similar objections applied to the other services. Notwithstanding the Act of Uniformity, alterations in the Liturgy were, in practice, frequently made. There was not a prelate on the episcopal bench who had not broken the Act of Uniformity over and over again. It was argued that if they attempted any change in the Book of Common Prayer no one knew where they would stop; that great differences would arise, and there might be a disruption of the Church in consequence. But these dangers were not avoided by standing still. They could [N] not be blind to the fact that a great disruption had already occurred; though a revision of the Liturgy might not heal all their differences, yet it would tend to bring back to the Church many pious and estimable Nonconform ists; they should therefore make the attempt. No change could be made before the whole subject had passed under the consideration of the Royal Commission, Convocation, and both Houses of Parliament; the means of effecting the revision would, therefore, be perfectly constitutional. The motion was opposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He argued that the attempt to introduce such changes in the Liturgy would give rise to controversies of which no man could foresee the end. The Bishop of St. David's also opposed the motion. Earl Grey admitted the necessity of some change, but trusted the motion would not be pressed to a division. The Bishop of Cashel disapproved of any change not originated by a perfectly-constituted body. a The Earl of Derby believed the alterations that would be expected from the appointment of Commission would not be limited to the removal of trifling and casual blemishes; it would be anticipated that the Commission would inquire into the merits and demerits of the whole Liturgy; and to create such an impression would be a very serious inconvenience. The alterations Lord Ebury recommended might satisfy the wishes of a few anxious friends of the Church, but it was not to be expected they would satisfy the large body of Dissenters, who differed from the doc A trines of the Establishment. revision of the Liturgy would inevitably become a doctrinal question; the changes would be discussed according to their bearing for or against particular doctrines, and the result would be differences even within the Church itself. He hoped the motion would not be pressed to a division, opposed as it was by nearly the whole of the episcopacy, the great majority of the House, and, he believed, the best friends of the Church throughout the country. Earl Granville thought the discussion might be left to produce its effect on the public mind, but the motion could not now be pressed with any result. The motion was withdrawn. A brief reference to the debate which took place on the motion annually made by Mr. Spooner respecting the grant to Maynooth College will close our account of the questions bearing upon religion which this year occupied the attention of Parliament. On the 29th of April the honourable Member for Warwickshire moved the following resolution: "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Act for the Endowment of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights and interests." He frankly avowed that his motive in bringing forward this motion was a religious motive, believing that the doctrines taught at Maynooth were fraught with serious social evils, and that the endowment by public money of a college where such doctrines were taught was a national sin. He cited, as upon former occasions, what he con sidered to be authoritative expositions of these doctrines, insisting upon their pernicious tendency, and upon the incompatibility of such an education with loyalty to the Crown and social comfort and happiness. Mr. Walpole said, if this were a new question it would be reasonable to allow a Bill to be laid upon the table; but as it was no new question, and as the introduction of the Bill would only afford an opportunity for a revival of agitation, he thought it better that the opinion of the House should be taken at once. He was opposed to the introduction of such a measure upon two grounds: first, that when a great question had been settled by Parliament, it was not wise to disturb such settlement unless it was clearly proved that there were grave objections CHAPTER VII. FOREIGN AFFAIRS-Settlement of the question with the Neapolitan Government respecting the Cagliari-Concession by Naples of a compensation to the English Engineers, and the restoration of the vessel and crew to Sardinia.-THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES-Mr. Gladstone moves an Address to the Crown respecting the fulfilment of the obligations of the Treaty of Paris in reference to these provinces-The Motion is opposed by Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the Government, as well as by Lord Palmerston-It is supported by Mr. Sergeant Deasy, Mr. Roebuck, Lord R. Cecil, and Lord John Russell-On a division the Address is negatived by a majority of 178.-THE SLAVE TRADE-Misunderstanding with the United States in consequences of measures adopted by British naval officers for the repression of the traffic-Debate in the House of Lords on this subject-Speech of the Earl of Clarendon, and explanations of Lord Malmesbury—In the House of Commons Mr. S. Fitzgerald makes a statement in answer to a question on the state of our relations with America-Remarks of Mr. Roebuck, Lord John Russell, and Lord Palmerston-The Bishop of Oxford presents a petition to the House of Lords, complaining of the continued violation by Spain of treaties for the Suppression of the Slave Trade in Cuba -His speech-Speeches of Lord Brougham, the Earl of Malmesbury, the Earls of Carlisle, Hardwicke, and Aberdeen, and other Peers Misunderstanding with the French Government on the same subject— Case of the Regina Coeli-Explanations of the matter by the Earl of Malmesbury Observations of Lord Brougham and Earl Grey-In the House of Commons, Mr. Hutt moves a resolution disapproving of the practice of visiting and searching vessels in order to repress the Slave Trade-His speech-The Motion is opposed by Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, Mr. Buxton, Sir John Pakington, and Lord Palmerston It is supported by Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Roebuck, Lord Clarence Paget, and Mr. Gilpin—It is rejected on a division by 223 to 24-Discussion in the House of Lords respecting the Right of Search -Statement of Lord Lyndhurst of the law on this subject-Observations of the Earls of Malmesbury and Aberdeen.-Colony of British Columbia--Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, Secretary for the Colonies, introduces a Bill for the Administration of Government in this settlement --He describes the situation and features of the territory and the arrangements proposed for its constitution-Remarks of Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Lowe and other Members-The Bill is passed. |