Services. tion of the prerogative which we call supremacy, can with the spiritualty lawfully authorise such occasional services? Whether the supremacy or the prerogative enables the Crown to do this, amounts to the same thing. All that I intended to point out was, that this object might be thus accomplished, and then I stated my own views as to the mode in which the Crown might act. The BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL-I feel very grateful to my right reverend brother the Bishop of Oxford for bringing this important subject before the house, and I think his proposal calculated to meet many of the difficulties which now exist. There is a strong feeling amongst both the clergy and the laity, that we are cramped, and require more elasticity; and in that feeling I participate. I do not think it would be desirable to make certain changes in doctrine. On the contrary, I think that would be very undesirable in the present state of the Church. I believe that the opinions expressed at the last meeting of Convocation have been misunderstood by many persons. It is supposed that the Bishops think the Prayer-book perfect, and that no change would improve it. The conclusion to which I came was, that there was no feeling of that kind, but that, looking at the difficulties that might arise, the time was not now when it was desirable to make any alteration in the Book of Common Prayer. It seems to me, as I have already said, that the present proposition meets many of the difficulties of the case, and that, without touching the Book of Common Prayer, we can meet the practical wants of the Church. With regard to the arguments of my right reverend brother the Bishop of London, it is an answer to Lord Ebury and others, that we do, on particular occasions, meet the practical wants of the Church. With respect to the Book of Common Prayer, we feel the importance of not attempting to make any change, because it would be unadvisable to have doctrinal points pressed upon our attention; yet, if this plan can be carried out, a great objection would be removed on the part of many persons who entertain the same views as Lord Ebury. I feel, with regard to these services, that they hardly come under the class of special services. Special services, of old, had reference to some passing or some political subject. These are more permanent services; and without entering into the question of the Queen's supremacy, I should have felt doubtful as to the expediency of the matter, had it not been for the expression "lawful authority" contained in the address. We here ask her Majesty's legal advisers to determine what course is to be pursued. Then comes the question respecting Convocation. I have a strong feeling against the meeting of Convocation for the discussion of subjects in general. But this seems to me to be one of those cases which the Queen would refer to Convocation. The clergy would then be satisfied that the subject had been fairly considered, not by the Houses of Parliament merely, but by the Bishops and those who are their representatives in the Lower House. A subject like this is one on which Convocation might be requested to meet and consult. Confining themselves to this matter, there would be none of that danger that might arise from the discussion of other subjects, and I confess it appears to me that this would be putting Services. Convocation to its right use. Whether my right rev. brother the Bishop of Oxford will withdraw his motion, I cannot say, but if he presses it, I shall certainly vote in its favour. The BISHOP OF WINCHESTER-I entirely agree with what has just fallen from my right rev. brother the Bishop of Gloucester, so far as regards his earnest wish to see certain services lawfully appointed for such occasions as those which have been pointed out by my right rev. brother the Bishop of Oxford. I think much advantage might accrue from the appointment of such services. But I must confess that my mind is much pressed by a consideration of the danger of the course which might probably be pursued, and which it is probable the advisers of her Majesty might take, on the occasion of such an address being presented. Admitting that it is open to her Majesty to adopt the course pointed out by my right rev. brother the Bishop of Oxford, and which he thinks would be legal, there would be considerable discussion in the country and in Parliament on the subject, and I very much concur with my right rev. brother the Bishop of London in the fear that such a matter, moved by the Houses of Convocation, might pave the way for addresses of the character which he has pointed out, and unquestionably such addresses would acquire considerable force from the precedent set by this house. This is a point which presses very strongly upon my own mind. I am one of those who, from constitutional habits of mind, perhaps, look on these questions with considerable apprehension, not so much with regard to the questions themselves as to the consequences involved in them, and I feel very strongly that great care should be taken by Convocation in moving in matters of this description, and setting an example to other parties. Anxious as I am to see occasional services provided, I have great difficulty in giving my assent to the motion. But then, let us take the other point of view. Supposing, which is possible, the advisers of the Crown should take a different view, and should think that, whether by prerogative or supremacy, it is in the power of the Crown to direct a commission to be appointed in the way proposed, they might advise the Queen to take another course, and not proceed by her own unsupported authority; and then we should have the inconvenience of submitting the question to Parliament, and inconvenient discussions might ensue, which would not only be subversive of the principles of the Church, but might lead to dangerous measures under the authority of Parliament. At the present time there is a great inclination on the part of the Ministers of the Crown not to take the responsibility which belongs to the Ministers of the Crown, but rather to throw the responsibility on the Houses of Parliament in the first instance; and on a question like the present, whatever party may be in power, the probability is that they would take that course. They would be very unlikely to take a responsibility which, exercised the first time for centuries, might involve them in great difficulties. On these grounds I concur with my right rev. brother the Bishop of Exeter, and hope that the motion will be withdrawn. I think we are greatly indebted to my right rev. brother the Bishop of Oxford for bringing the subject before us, and I listened to his speech with considerable interest. He has alluded to many matters which may be dwelt upon with great advantage; but I for one do not wish to commit myself to any course which I may be desirous of taking hereafter. I consider the course now proposed to involve such grave consequences that I cannot be a party to the passing of this address. The BISHOP OF LICHFIELD-I wish to make one remark in reply to the observation of my right rev. brother the Bishop of London, as to the precedent which may be afforded to Lord Ebury and others who wish to make a change in the doctrines of the Prayer-book. There appears to me to be a broad line of distinction between asking for such alterations and the appointment of the additional services referred to in the address. The danger of establishing such a precedent might be avoided by introducing a preamble deprecating all change in the doctrines or body of the Book of Common Prayer, and simply asking for the addition of these services. The insertion of such a preamble would entirely take away all ground for the precedent to which allusion has been made. The BISHOP OF LINCOLN-I wish I could come to a conclusion with the same want of doubt which my right rev. brother the Bishop of Gloucester is blessed with. I feel very deeply the gravity of the question, and the difficulties with which it is surrounded. At the same time, I think some of those difficulties are hardly of sufficient weight to deter us from taking a step which, if it can be taken with safety, will be greatly for the benefit of the Church, and tend to make it more useful to the great mass of the people. With regard to the objections of my right rev. brother the Bishop of London, some of them, I think, are cleared away by drawing two distinctions, one of which is, that all the services but one-that of the Accession, which I was sorry to see introduced into the address-are permissive services, which may be used or may not be used by any individual clergyman. There is not one of those services which can outrage the feelings of those who are not willing to use them; but they would supply an authorised form of prayer for those who feel the need of them. The other distinction, which is very maintainable, is between the Book of Common Prayer as authorised in, and as made compulsory by, the Act of Uniformity, and the additional services provided by the royal supremacy. These two distinctions will meet the objection, that it is doubtful whether the clergy will obey, but it is of no very great importance whether they do or not; and also the difficulty arising from this Convocation not representing the Northern Province. That difficulty might also be met, as in times past, either by the Province of York meeting and I believe the Archbishop would be ready to call Convocation together if anything was really to be submitted to themor by certain members of that body sitting with us, and giving their assent to the opinions expressed by this Convocation. The same observation will apply to the Convocation of Ireland. It is immaterial to the present question whether these services are adopted by the clergy and the Church in Ireland or not. It would rest with them to do so, if they thought proper. These difficulties, I confess, have no very great weight in my mind. But although the distinction between Services. S the Book of Common Prayer, authorised not only by the Church but by the Legislature, and such occasional services as these, is very broad, it is impossible to be blind to the fact that the committee of Convocation coming forward and proposing that certain additions be made, by whatever authority, to the Book of Common Prayer, will, to a great extent, encourage those who are desirous of addressing her Majesty on the subject of altering our Prayer-book. The question we have to determine is, whether the advantages we propose to obtain by adopting the course now recommended are sufficient to counterbalance the foreseen and almost certain hazard of adding force to the attempts of those who are desirous, from whatever cause, to alter the Book of Common Prayer itself. This is a subject on which doubts exist in my own mind. But, on the whole, although not without hesitation, I am prepared to vote for the address, because I think the time has now come when we must run some hazard in order to meet the growing wants of our population, and to see if the Church cannot supply some of those services which are so urgently needed. I wish to guard myself against being supposed to agree to all the services recommended, because to one of them I entertain grave objections. The BISHOP OF SALISBURY-I differ in some respects from my right rev. brother the Bishop of Oxford in his estimate of the great necessity for any change at all. I admit most fully that there are times and occasions when each of us should desire an alteration of the ordinary services of the day. I admit this to such an extent, that I should be willing to provide additional services, if that could be easily done; but I should be sorry to add strength to the objection that our daily Offices are unfitted to the circumstances and the wants of the people. We have lately seen a plan for having sermons without any Offices at all. It has been ascertained that we may divide the Offices. We may have Morning Prayer-then a cessation of ten minutes or a quarter of an hour-then the Litany-and then the sermon. In my Confirmations I have full service at each time, and have never found any difficulty. I know the feeling is so general that we require more elasticity than we now possess, that I should be happy if this could be given without great risk. I am especially led to favour such a change as that suggested, because I believe it would meet the difficulties of such persons as Lord Ebury, although it might not meet the difficulties of others. I think if we provide more services we shall be able to make a further stand, and show a steady determination to abide by the Prayer-book as our common bond of union. Although I am ready to concede thus much, I think it would be so difficult to maintain a clear distinction as to the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown with regard to occasional services and with regard to the daily services of the Church, that I should be anxious to have more time for weighing the measure before assenting to the address. I do not feel able to support the motion; but I most cordially thank my right rev. brother for bringing the subject before us with so much power and ability. If we have further time to consider his arguments, perhaps we may be led to the same conclusions; but I should not discharge my duty if I voted for the address without further consideration. Services. The BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH-I cordially join my right rev. brethren in thanking my right rev. brother for bringing the subject under our notice. I have no doubt as to the necessity of some alteration in the services; but as the matter has now come before us for the first time, I think an opportunity should be given for further discussion, and that we should act wisely in deferring our decision to a future occasion. I therefore trust my right rev. brother will withdraw his motion. The BISHOP OF LLANDAFF-I entirely sympathise with the motion of my right rev. brother, feeling the very great necessity for these special services; and I feel a deep conviction that if they were adopted, they would, to a considerable extent, meet the necessities of the case, give increased strength to the Church of England, and be the means of putting a stop to that agitation-or, at least, a great portion of that agitation-which has been set on foot with regard to an alteration in the Prayer-book; because, as has already been said, all reasonable men, such as Lord Ebury, would see that Convocation had placed itself in its proper province, and had done all that was necessary. With regard to unreasonable men, they will, of course, go on agitating. If the motion is pressed to a vote, I shall certainly give it my support. I cannot agree with the remark, that the subject now comes before us for the first time. If I am not mistaken, some four or five years ago, on my own motion, a committee of Convocation was appointed for the express purpose of considering in what way the Church of England could adapt itself to the necessities of the present day, and one of the things recommended by that committee was special services. Allusion has been made to the jealousy of Parliament with respect to Convocation. We all know that Parliament does entertain a jealousy of Convocation, but that jealousy has very much worn itself out. An anxiety was felt that Convocation would, to a certain extent, resume its action. But that was a mistaken notion. Many persons imagined that the advocates of the restoration of Convocation wished to place it on an improper footing, and were anxious to legislate. Now, we do not profess that it is our function to legislate. We do not wish to legislate, and in proportion as that becomes understood, the jealousy that is now entertained will decrease, and I believe that Parliament will consider that the provision of these special services is completely within our province. The BISHOP OF LONDON-I join with my right reverend brother the Bishop of Winchester in asking that this motion may not be pressed to a division. It is, more or less, a new question to many of us, and I think it would be more satisfactory to adjourn the discussion to a future time. With regard to the new prayers proposed for what are usually called special services, I would remark that these are likely to become habitual services; and as the youngest of us cannot expect to live to see the great masses who are now uninstructed become instructed, probably for centuries to come, if the world should last so long, it will be found necessary, at such seasons as Advent and Lent, and often at other times, to continue these services, and they will thus become habitual, and there will be a difficulty in distinguishing |