66 INGOLDSBY MAKES HIS BOW, FEBRUARY, 1863. 343 LETTER CXXVIII. RETROSPECT OF REVISION FROM 1858 TO 1863, AND SIR,-It has been truly observed that no one ever did anything, however trifling, for the last time without regret. The Prisoner of Chillon bid good-bye with reluctance to his spiders and his mice. A bishop delivers with tearful eyes his last Charge. A schoolmaster lays by his ferule with as severe a pang as was ever experienced by the breech on which it may have chanced to fall. And so is it with "Ingoldsby" in taking his leave of yourself and the indulgent public who have so long borne with his garrulity. The time has arrived when he must make his bow.† Lord Ebury has once more renewed his notice of motion in the House of Lords for a Revision of the Act of Uniformity -the old tale over again. Let us hope not "the harebrained chatter of irresponsible frivolity." (Lord Beaconsfield, at the Mansion House, Nov. 9, 1878.) + The Author was earnestly solicited from several quarters to continue the Letters; but he was fairly wearied of his five years' fruitless effort to open the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf. The Bill proposed to repeal so much of the Acts of Uniformity as require ecclesiastical functionaries to "declare their unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer." But it left untouched the clause which obliges such persons to declare "that they will conform to the Liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland as is now by law established." It further proposed to declare, that the enactment which requires that -It is clear, therefore, "Ingoldsby" has at least another year's labour before him, or he must strike sail at oncewhich, as the lesser of two evils, he prefers to do. It is due, however, to the cause which he thus resigns into other hands, due to the noble lord who is still in possession of the field, and due lastly to himself, as the Author of these Letters (now for the first time published in a collective form), that he should exhibit somewhat of the progress made by the Revision question in the course of the past five years, during which the agitation has been sustained. Let any dispassionate person take into account the public information, public interest, and public excitement upon this subject in February, 1863, as compared with what they were in February, 1858, when the Bishop of Oxford pronounced his dictum that "it would be well that the Church should know that the desire of the bishops of the Church at this time, quite uninfluenced by their own peculiar views of truth, is to keep, as one of God's special gifts to us, UNTOUCHED and UNALTERED, our Book of Common Prayer."* Is there a Bishop or Archbishop on the bench who would dare to say as much now?—Is there a Bishop or Archbishop that could say as much now with truth? Is it not a convincing proof of the progress made by the agitation, that the Morning or Evening Prayer be read before the preaching a sermon or lecture, and that the lecturer be present at the reading thereof, is to be deemed to extend only to the case of a sermon or lecture preached by a lecturer properly so called, and not to a sermon preached by the incumbent or his curate. The bill was read for the first time in the House of Lords, Feb. 5th, 1863. At the same time the noble lord gave notice that he should move an humble address to Her Majesty, praying for the appointment of a Commission to consider "what steps should be taken to obviate the evils complained of as arising from the present compulsory and indiscriminate use of the burial service of the Church of England." The debate and division on the second reading took place May 19, 1863; see p. 346, Note *. *Bishop of Oxford in Convocation, Feb., 1858. See Vol. I., p. 97. DEAN CLOSE AND A. J. B. HOPE, M.P., IN CONJUNCTION. 345 Bench is at this moment notoriously divided in opinion on the subject? Is there a public journal now to be met with that ventures openly to defend the state of things as they are?Is there an individual that will come forward, and throw down the gage in behalf of the Prayer-book as it is, " untouched and unaltered ?" We stand corrected.-Two individuals have done so within this present year. They are the Very Reverend Dean Close of Carlisle (late of Cheltenham), and Alexander Beresford Hope, Esq., late M.P. for Maidstone. These two gentlemen, a northern cleric and a southern layman, have not feared to come forward in this very year to do battle on behalf of the Act of 1662, and the Prayer-book as it is. We are not about to take up the glove and accept their challenge, though it were no difficult matter to grapple with and fling such feeble combatants. We have had our say; and now they are welcome to theirs-valeat quantum! But if there be any wisdom in the proverb, exceptio probat regulam, we think we may confidently anticipate the verdict of the public upon any possible reply to our arguments at the mouth of the above-named pair of advocates for stagnation in the Church. Then look at the enormous mass of publications that have issued from the press in the course of the last five years, advocating revision in every variety of form. In 1858 they might be counted by tens. In 1863 their number is legion* -the first month of this present year having added seven to the already overflowing list, among them one of a stamp not inferior to anything that has yet appeared on the subject.† Look next at the debates in Parliament. It is true Lord See "Report of the Association for Promoting a Revision of the Prayerbook," 17, Buckingham Street, Adelphi. 1863. + Hebert on Clerical Subscription. See Letter cxxvII., p. 340. Ebury has not yet ventured to divide the House; and has subjected himself in consequence to the boastful taunts of the Bishop of Oxford. But can that obstructive Prelate deny that the noble lord will appear in the ensuing May,* standing on much firmer ground than he ever did before? and that if he is still far from carrying his point, it is not because the House and the public are satisfied with things as they are, but because the way to a remedy is not as yet sufficiently clear? We say nothing of Convocation, because we cannot look upon that body as fairly reflecting the mind of the clergy,† still less of the laity of the Church. But even there, silence may be considered as giving a kind of negative consent in the Upper House; while the late debate in the Lower, on the Dean of Norwich's motion, betrayed an uneasy consciousness His Lordship did divide on May 19, 1863; when he was supported by the following fifty CONTENTS : The NON-CONTENTS, however, amounting to ninety, the Bill was lost. Among these last the following Bishops recorded their votes:-Canterbury, Archbishop; York, Archbishop; Bath and Wells, Cashel, Chichester, Durham (alas for faith in bishops!), Hereford, Lincoln, Oxford (of course), Salisbury, St. Asaph, Winchester, Worcester (alas!)-making thirteen in all -hostile. (Globe Newspaper, May 20th, 1863.) † See Vol. I., Letters XLIII., p. 284; XLVIII., p. 312. Also APPENDIX to Vol. I., pp. 428-32. THE SHOULD-BE AIM OF AN HONEST COMMISSION. 347 that things were not exactly as they should be, and that many were prepared for change, if only they could see their way to the manner of it.* That some crisis is at hand, is all but universally admitted. Meanwhile the Church looks anxiously for a leader who shall steer the vessel calmly and steadily through the surrounding breakers, and land her safely in the haven where she would be. That such a one may be found in the Prelate whom the Providence of God has lately called to the chief place on the Bench,† we are not without hopes. His Grace has the reputation of being unattached to any party; a primary recommendation in one who, from his position, would have to preside over the Commission to whom this delicate and difficult matter must be entrusted. A Revision, to be successful at the present, or at any time, must not be the work of a party. Each party, of course, thinks itself right. The natural and unavoidable result, consequently, of a party revision would be to offend all whose views were not fully carried out. No true lover of his Church should wish for this. Our one aim, after securing TRUTH, should be, to embrace, not to exclude;-to smooth down asperities, not to aggravate them. The aim of a Commission that would give contentment to as many as possible, and remove as much as possible existing grounds for discontent, should be to hear all, to weigh all, to judge all, but to favour none.‡ * The great rock a-head is unquestionably the divided state of the Church itself "at the present time," each party being distrustful of the other as to the result from a Commission sitting on the subject. + Charles Thomas Longley; who died at Addington, Oct. 27, 1868, æt. 74. He did his utmost, I have good reason to believe, but allowed himself to be overpowered by stronger wills than his own, notably that of Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, afterwards of Winchester. ‡ The Ritual Commission, 1867-70, did none of these things. It was notoriously so constituted from the outset as to preclude an impartial Report. |