Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-07-26
ECCLEsIAsTICAL TRIBULArIONs.

The London journals OF July 10th, con-
tain a report Of very long and seeminglg
very animated debate in the House Of
Lords on the previous day, on the second
reading Of what is known as the Uniformity
ofPublic Worship bill, the main object Of
which Is the suppression Of Rilualism,
Lord ShaflesbnTy, one Ofthe leaders Of The
Evangelical party, in explaining the pro-
visions Of the measure, said II did not vary
materially (r0a the recommendations pro-
posed by tie Royal Commission on Ritual
ism, and that where itdid differ there were
good TeasoBs for the deviation. lie then
proceeded 10 explain the clause Of the bill A.,
and pointed ont the dangers that would
ensue 10 The Church from the continuance
Of the present ritualisiic practices, and con-
cluded bis speech by announcing his in
tention TO press the bin 10 second read
ing. The Archbislop Of Canterbury said
lac could not feel justified in supporting the
! bill, and the Lord Chancellor also objected
} 10 il 40 prccipiiate and inexpedient He
! deplOred the practices TO which Lord
/ Shaftesbury had referred, bat thought their
Bordships oughtto be particularly cautious
and forbearing in restrictive legislation
| with regard TO them. The Marquis of
Salisbury utterly condemned the notion of
hasiy legislation on this subject. 1t only
required that Parliament should interfere
and strike TO the ground one of the com
balants in the great contest which had ex'
listed in the Church for the last 200 year.
to add TO that side all who sympathized
with those against whom Parliament legis.
lated all those who took the weaker side
and all those who hated the particular
school from which the legislation emana-
ted He was Determined, he said, TO op
pose the second reading of the bill. The
Bishop Of Carlisleas strongly supported the
bill, and declared that there was an honor
able obligation on the government TO sup
port IL. After a few words from LORI
Stanhope, stating that he should vote
against second reading, in which he wa
followed by Lord Russell, on the grounC
that the time was quite inexpedient, Lore
Derby rose and moved the previous ques
tion, in order to avoid the Inconvenience
of a division on a subject which was no
ripe for legislation at that period Of the
session, nor, at any rate, until after the re
port Of the Royal Commissinn had beer
received. After a few words from LORD
Shaitesbury, the previous question wa
moved, and the second reading Of the bill
was not put The debate has elected
many able articles from the leading Jour.
mails. The Times (strOngly anti-Ritualisl)
says:
"The question will doubtless be resumed
next session under better auspices The
mingled aversion and suspicion 10 which
these Ritualisiic practices give rise, both
within and without the Church, among all
classes who are attached to the traditions
| Professionalism, il becoming very serious
and we do not doubt that, If il shOuld IN.
happily appear that such doctrines and
| practices are to be tolerated among us mol
only would the Church lose all that men,
trail support which she now receives from
large bodies Of Dissenters, but a very large
number Of those who are now her most at
IA ched members would be completely sha-
| ken in their allegiance. We cannot re-
| frain from saying that while we hear great
| deal of the Importance Of not offending the
sensibilities of High Churchmen, we hear
far too little of the susceptibilities of the
opposite and far larger party. We are not
afraid Of disuniOn being introduced by any
mere development of Church ceremonial,
but we are satisfied that in all points OF
| doctrine the Church will not bear unlim-
tied extension. The question in issue with
the Ritualists. freed from disguises, ia
whether our clergy may be Roman CathO-
lies IN all but the name. The controversy
between High Church and Low Church
has long ago been brought TO a friendly
agreement; but the Ritualisls on one side,
and the extreme Nationalist on the other,
must either abandon their claim TO hold
office within our Church, or must utterly
| discredit her in the eyes oflhe nation"