The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-15 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Farquharson (of lnvercauld) Estate), and Halifax
and Overden Junction Railway Bills were read a second

time.

THE CLERICAL VE3THENTS (No. 2) BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, iu moving the second
reading of this bill, said that the question had
been so long before the public, and had caused so much
agitation, that it should at once be settled. lie thought it
his duty to adhere to the bill which he had proposed, al-
though he had no objection to a commission being ap-
pointed to investigate the subject. It was necessary
that the matter should be. settled at once. He
wished to be embodied iu an Act of Parliament
what had been the usages as far as vestments were con-
cerned from the period of the Reformation. To know what
satisfied our forefathers, our ancestors, and our fathers,
and had also been approved by the gravest prelates and
divines. He had carefully founded the bill he proposed
upon the 58th Canon, which contained the ancient
practice as to the assumption of robes by the clergy from
the earliest times of the Reformation. He must detain
them for some little time while he traced by documentary
evidence what had been the robes used by the clergy from
that period till the present time. In the time of Elizabeth
it was enacted that the officiating clergyman or curate
should!wear a •' comely surplice," white, and with a black
hood. In 1569 Archbishop Parker inquired into what
kind of vestments were used, and ordered that the white
surplice should be worn, according to the Queen's enact-
ment. During many succeeding years of that period the
question was put by the various archbishops and bishops,
when the clergymen went forth apparelled according
to the Queen's command. It was also further enacted that
no garment should be worn except that which distin-
guished the Master of Arts. He would like to call their
lordships' attention to the great amount of injunctions and
commands which were laid upon the clergy against
any assumption of ritualistic garments. Bishop Cosens,
who held the see of Durham, especially laid such injunc-
tions in 1662. The noble earl quoted the names of several
other prelates during that century. He would like now to
direct the attention of the house to a resolution which was
passed in the House of Convocation at York, held only in
the March of the present year. It was to the effect
that the innovation was entirely inadmissible, and
that this was the opinion of both houses. The American
bishops in synod at New York had been also of the same
opinion, and the Canadian bishops assembled in convoca-
tion at Montreal. They considered that no alteration
should be made, or any innovations introduced, in opposi-
tion to the practice of the Church of England. There
was upon this qeestion a legal doubt, and it was one
which struck the eye and went deep into the hearts of the
English people, and which ought, therefore, to be
settled. If they objected to the bill he trusted that
they would provide some other. There was an
objection that he (the noble lord) proposed
to proceed by bill instead of by commission, but let the
bill precede the commission. It was not till the bill had
been some time upon the table of the house that a commis-
sion had been proposed. By commission it would be doing
exactly what the ritualistic party desired; it would pro-
tract the question, and allow it to be still further intruded
upon the minds of the people, and this would enable the
ritualists to make hay while the sun shone. There were
no less than 2,000 churches in England which had lights
upon the altar, which was quite contrary to the rubric of
the Church of England. He thought that he had shown
their lordships that everything demanded that this bill
should be carried out, inasmuch as it would controvert a
great schism which had arisen in the land, and which
tended to subvert the religion of the country. The noble
lord commented upon a book which ho said was entitled
"The Church and the World," and this book he stigma-
tised as most disloyal to the Church. He then quoted
several passages from that work. It advocated Ritualism
and the celibacy of the clergy, and stated that our worship
must be the system of the theatre. Then the simple wor-
ship of our Church was to degenerate into the gorgeous
machinery used in attracting crowded audiences like the
spectacular scenes of a theatre.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY excused the inac-
tion of the prelates by remarking that their powers were
not so extensive as was sometimes supposed. Agreeing
with Lord Shaftesbury in condemning many of the doc-
trines put forth and practices adopted by the extreme
party, he still thought it would be advisable to postpone
proceeding with this bill, which dealt only with one of the
many points that would come under the consideration of
the ltoyal CommisAion. He therefore moved, adopting a
suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, that the debate be ad-
journed for two months.
Lord SHAFTESBURY having declined to agree to the
amendment,

Lord NELSON observed that if the use of the vest-
ments complained of was illegal there was no use for this
bill, and if they were not illegal then he thought they
should hesitate before submitting to the penalties of au
ex post facto law persons who were acting, as they believed,
conscientiously and lawfully. Urging the impropriety of
enacting a rigid rule of uniformity, he suggested that
direct Parliamentary legislation would give rise to a feel-
ing of persecution, and therefore recommended that Con-
vocation should be left to assume the initiative in any
changes that might be deemed to be necessary.
The Bishop of LONDON admitted that a great evil did
exist, and that immediate action was required, but ho re-
minded the house that legislation could at best only pal-
liate and could not remove the evil. To do so effectually
the influences at the Universities, which exercised so much
power over the minds of young men at the present day,
must be dealt with, and with that object he urged the
necessity of great caution in the appointments to the chief
posts at the great educational centres of the country,
although he disavowed all desire to set a ban upon any
particular mode of thought. He thought the Commission,
not dealing with doctrine, but with all matters pertaining
to public worship, would be useful, but not entirely
effectual for the removal of the existing evils, and he sup-
ported the bill as a means of enabling all persons to know
what was the law upon one particular point.
Lord DEVON warned the house against adopting appa-
rently harsh legislation against zealous and pious persons,
although he regretted the extremes to which they some-
times carried their convictions.

Lora fIARROWBY thought congregations were entitled
to be protected against distasteful innovations, and there-
fore supported the bill.

The Bishop of OXFORD felt the danger of the time, but
objected to the bill as wholly inadequate to deal with an
influence which affected the minds not only of many of the
younger members of the Church of England, but even of
those who belonged to Dissenting bodies. Any legislation
upon such a subject to be beneficial must be calmly consi-
dered and carefully matured. He approved a Royal Com-
mission, and thought the plea of urgency did not warrant
the passing of a bill dealing only with one out of the many
questions involved in the coming inquiry. There would
be danger to the Church from hasty legislation, as it was
well known within her bosom were comprehended men of
widely diverging views, and great forbearance must be
practised if it were not desired to drive them from their
common Church.

The Bishops of DURHAM and CARLISLE supported the
second reading, but
Lord DERBY regretted that the adjournment of the de-
bate had not been acceded to by Lord Shaftesbury, as he
conceived the bill, if passed, would be regarded as hasty
and partial legislation. Ho urged the house to agree to
the postponement, undertaking that the Royal Commission
should be issued without delay.
Upon a division, the motion for adjourning the debate
was carried by 61 to 46.
The sitting was closed at 25 minutes to 9 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Colonel TAYLOR, a new writ was
ordered to be issued for the election of a member for the
University of Oxford, in the place of the Right Hon.
Gathorne Hardy, who, since his election, had received the
appointment of ono of her Majesty's Principal Secretaries
of State.