Services. S made that the doctrines expressed in the services of the Church of England should be altered, and many strong and foolish declarations have been made by persons meeting together in large numbers, that the services ought to be revised with a view to doctrinal alterations. It should be remembered that we are called upon to take this step by persons holding two different opinions, who have an object in view somewhat kindred to our own, although distinguished from it. There are those who feel that our services are too long, and wish to address her Majesty for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a Royal Commission of grave divines for the purpose of shortening the services and Lessons. There are others who desire the issuing of a commission to revise those doctrines which they say were not sufficiently corrected at the Reformation, and who wish to have a more Protestant Prayerbook drawn up. Now, looking at the matter as one of plain common sense, it appears to me that it would be totally impossible to take the steps now recommended without these persons being heard also, and I cannot help thinking they will have a somewhat strong ground for their claim. They will say "The Bishops have petitioned her Majesty to issue a commission of divines to consider whether these special services may not be added to the Prayer-book; we also demand that her Majesty shall take into her serious consideration whether she will not unite in that commission the whole of the three questions before the public-the addition of the special services, the alteration of the common service so as to make it more adapted to the wants of the community, and whether certain parts of the Prayerbook do not express doctrines which ought to be omitted." I think it would be a difficult matter to separate the claims of these two other sets of persons from those which are now put forward. Of course, her Majesty's advisers would be able to say, there is a great difference in these demands. But still we must be prepared to see them all put forward with considerable force. With regard to the discussion which took place last year in the House of Lords, I may say that nothing led me so much to join the whole of my right rev. brethren in protesting against Lord Ebury's movement as the thought of the danger that might arise from that movement. Quieta non movere that is a motto I should not always insist upon. My feeling generally would lead me to run the risk of moving, if we were likely to obtain some good. But perhaps as one becomes older one becomes more cautious, and it was from motives of caution that I expressed my full approval of the resolution passed at this board last year, that we should not give any encouragement whatever to the step about to be taken by Lord Ebury; and although I am not prepared to insist that it is so, I wish you seriously to consider whether the course now proposed may not be calculated to encourage such movements. Having stated this preliminary objection, I wish now to ask for some explanation on one or two points from my right rev. brother, who has evidently studied the subject. We are called upon to ask her Majesty to consider the propriety of issuing special services. These special services, I presume, are to depend entirely upon her Majesty's proclamation, or upon that proclamation in accordance with the decision of the Houses of Convo Services. cation. Now, how shall we answer any person who says that we are violating one of the articles of the Thirty-sixth Canon, the obligation to observe which is incorporated in an Act of Parliament? I think we can answer it well enough in the way we are in the habit of answering it with regard to the services on the Queen's accession and on the 5th of November. But I am not clear that we shall convince Parliament of the soundness of our arguments; and I feel confident that a discussion must be raised upon the question as to whether, if you apply for the introduction of these special services, you are not violating one of the three articles of the canon to which I have alluded by the use of them, thereby violating the Act of Uniformity, which insists upon every clergyman subscribing these three articles. I think the very fact of our addressing her Majesty encourages other people to do so. Our address to her Majesty for this particular purpose immediately raises the question whether or no what we require can be done without Parliament being called upon to revise the Act of Uniformity. I am not able to say that the matter may not be settled in the way suggested by my right rev. brother, but I am certain that discussions on the subject cannot be avoided. Another point which I wish your lordships to consider is this. As I understand, these services will be binding by a royal authority. If so, people will ask, why should they have the sanction of Convocation, and we shall be involved in a discussion as to the exact limits of the power of Convocation. At present Convocation is working very amicably, and I dare say very usefully. I hope that is the case. But if it is to meet to go through a number of services, its sittings must be greatly prolonged. To write new prayers is a difficult matter. To criticise them, when written, is very easy: and how long the house might wish to criticise those prayers is a question that will be asked in Parliament. Now, it is as well to avoid disagreeable questions if we can. Then, again, our brethren in the north must be summoned. They must select somebody to unite with us in the consideration of those prayers. It is true the Northern Convocation was a small one compared with ours. But in former days there was no Bishop of Manchester or of Ripon. The growth of such places as Manchester and Newcastle, and various other changes, have placed the Northern Province in a different posi tion from that which it formerly occupied in the State of England and in the Church; and I am mistaken in the temper of the people in that part of the country, and the temper of those who preside over some of the northern dioceses, if they are likely to be reconciled to follow quietly in our wake with unquestioning obedience. The Convocation of the Province of York must come, not only into a formal but into a real and actual existence; and how long it may be necessary for that Convocation to sit and discuss the services, after we have approved of them, it is impossible to foresee. We must also look to the other side of the water. There are harvests in Ireland, and I am glad to say very plentiful ones. An immense amount of ignorance prevails there, and we must have special services for the Irish people as well as for the people in this province. We are told that it is the Queen's part to appoint these services. If so, it will be said, what occasion is there Services. to submit them to Convocation for revision? It is well to understand how far Convocation has anything to do with the matter, and how far it has not. If the Queen's supremacy is sufficient, it would be much better to rest there than to have the Queen's supremacy and something beside it. It is vain for us to attempt to deceive ourselves. Great jealousy exists now with regard to Convocation. It may be very unreasonable, and undoubtedly is so. The clergy are not more difficult to manage than other people. They are a highly instructed class. The subjects they deal with are grave and solemn. They have great interests at stake. I think it is quite a mistaken notion in Parliament that Convocation is such a dangerous sort of body. But that impression exists, and we had better face any difficulty that may arise from an idea getting into the heads of the representatives of the Lower House, and even of the members of the Upper House, that some sort of collision will arise if Convocation be called into active existence in both provinces. Then one more point. I foresee that difficulties will arise with regard to the public in general, and the nation at large. But I also see difficulties that will arise with regard to our own brethren of the clergy. A question arose in a neighbouring diocese with regard to a clergyman who refused to have anything to do with the services which came from the Crown. In fact, he said he would rather sacrifice his position; and his licence was revoked, and he was removed from his office rather than use one of these occasional services sanctioned by the authority of the Crown. I allude to Mr. West's case. I think that gentleman was very much mistaken, and that he took a wrong view of the Queen's supremacy. But I am not quite sure that he stands alone in that view, and I am not certain that some others do not look upon the Queen's supremacy so exercised as is proposed as a mark of Erastianism in the Church; and I am not sure that we shall not get into a collision with some of our clerical as well as our lay brethren. I have thought it right to make these remarks in order that the subject may be fully discussed. The BISHOP OF EXETER-I have a very few words to address to your Grace and my right rev. brethren on the subject now under consideration. I will frankly say that I came to this discussion with a wish to see that the proposition of my right rev. brother could be safely carried out. I was startled, I confess, at the ground put forward by him-no doubt with great accuracy, and probably with the full sanction of the high legal authorities who have been consulted; and I am sure he has not spoken lightly in claiming for the Crown, by virtue of its prerogative, the right of requiring these things to be done by the Church. I should have wished to avoid these considerations, and also to avoid the consideration of what the prerogative is, and what the supremacy is. They are probably two very different things. It may be said that the supremacy is part of the prerogative. That may be true. But I confess, in my ignorance, I am not certain that it is so, and therefore I, for one, should not be willing to concur in a course of action, on the part of this grave body, which might lead us to the consideration of matters based on views which we should afterwards find occasion greatly to question. Now, whether the Services. supremacy is a part of the prerogative or not, I am not prepared to decide. It may be called a part of the prerogative. I think it rests upon some other grounds. But it is impossible for me to be blind to this fact, that the supremacy was recognised by the common law of England as belonging to the Pope when the country acknowledged the Pope, and was under Roman obedience. I state, on an authority which cannot be questioned, what was the common law in this respect in the fourteenth century. Bracton, in his great treatise, ascribes the supremacy to the Pope. Then the Crown obtained the supremacy, because an Act of Parliament transferred to the Crown all those rights that belonged to the head of the Church. If this be so, I come to a consideration a little at variance with the authority of that act of the Crown by which St. George's Day was ordered to be kept. I do not in the smallest degree doubt the fact asserted. But in order to see the value of a precedent of that kind, it is necessary to look all round that precedent. The mere mention of the fact will not give us the character of it as a precedent, whether it was right or wrong. The way in which it was done, the grounds on which it was professed to be done, must be inquired into. I will briefly say that I think the question, as brought before us, involves so many very high, very difficult positions, and such recondite principles, that I am not prepared to join in the address. Neither am I prepared to say that a single syllable that has been uttered by my right rev. brother is incorrect. I only say that to my ignorant mind enough has not been adduced to enlighten me as to the real grounds upon which the proposition is founded. If the question had been simply an address to the Crown to direct the Archbishop and Bishops to do certain things, the case would have been different. I believe that on no occasion has the Crown prescribed one of these occasional services. The direction goes to the Archbishops and Bishops, and this, I believe, has been the uniform course. Even with respect to the service on the Accession, it may by possibility be found to have been an exercise of the prerogative or supremacy which could not stand. I do not like to involve myself in the consideration whether it is actually binding on the Church. I have acquiesced in it without expressing an opinion either for it or against it; but I cannot be blind to the fact that there is a formal canon of the Church requiring the religious observance of that day. There was, I believe, also, at that time a service prepared and passed by Convocation. The period I am speaking of is 1640. I am perfectly ready to say that I do not accede to all the views put forth by the Convocation of 1640. I think some very reprehensible things were passed by that Convocation, and I am glad that Parliament put in the caution which followed. But in that case the Church, by its own act, borne out by royal authority, by a canon declared that the day of the Accession should be kept holy. I am confident that the canons of 1640-which are as much canons of the Church as any that are to be found in the Book of Canons-where they have not been made contrary to Act of Parliament, and where they do not contain matters contrary to the common law, are as much canons of the Church as any that can be made. Therefore I see a very peculiar authority Services. S given to the religious observance of that day. We had the authority of the Church in a canon of the Church, made a canon by royal sanction. It does not come before us as the authority of the Crown merely. Whether that authority flows from the prerogative or the supremacy I do not say; but we are altogether in such a state that I think it would be highly imprudent to take any step founded upon principles which may be questioned. I do not mean to say those principles may not be sound; but I have not heard enough to satisfy me that such views ought to regulate the acts of Convocation. I should be glad to see the motion withdrawn for the present. I do not oppose the motion, but still I feel it impossible to give it my assent. I have abstained from entering into the questions of expediency which have been so powerfully brought before your lordships by my right rev. brother the Bishop of London-not that I do not enter into them; but my ground of resistance is the want of sufficient information to justify us in acting on the supposed power of the Crown as separate from that of Parliament. The BISHOP OF LLANDAFF-I think the remarks of my right reverend brother the Bishop of Oxford went distinctly to show that he wished the matter to be referred entirely to her Majesty to point out the way in which the object is to be accomplished. He then stated that he had considered the subject, and what followed I understood to be merely the expression of his private opinion. The BISHOP OF OXFORD-Quite so. It may, perhaps, save trouble if I point out one other matter. The exceedingly able speech of my right reverend brother the Bishop of Exeter does not really touch the practical question before us. I never mentioned the "supremacy." I used the common word "prerogative" to express the power of the Crown, as separated from Parliament. My argument was, not by what power the Crown may effect this object, but that the Crown may do it without the interference of Parliament. Whether it be done by the power of the Crown by prerogative, or by the power of the Crown by supremacy, makes no difference as to the matter being brought before Parliament. The very able legal adviser of your Grace suggested to me and to my right reverend brother the Bishop of Exeter, that it was by the supremacy rather than by the prerogative that the Crown would act in this matter. But this does not affect the practical conclusion at which I have arrived. He thinks the Crown possesses a certain power in these matters, part of which is its prerogative from the earliest time, and part of which is prerogative limited by statute law, and called supremacy. But whether it is as supremacy or prerogative, it matters not; the question is, can the Crown legally do this without going to Parliament? I am quite ready to admit that this is a difficult question, and I merely, as a layman, stated my opinion respecting it. Your Grace's legal adviser points out that when Edward III. summoned the clergy, the clergy refused to come, because the King had summoned them by prerogative; but when he summoned them through the Archbishop they were bound to come, because he was exercising the supremacy. The only question is, whether the Crown, either by prerogative, or by that legal modifica |