§ EARL RUSSELLaddressed some remarks to the House in reference to the constitution of the Royal Commission on Ritualistic Practices in the Church of England, but his Lordship was quite inaudible.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYIt is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentle man the late Secretary of State for the Home Department wrote to me to ask whether I would consent to act as a Member of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of Ritualism. I took the liberty to reply to Mr. Walpole that I thought no person who held extreme opinions, or who in the view of the country was regarded as holding extreme opinions, ought to be placed upon the Commission. I said that I was considered to be a man of extreme opinions—and I do not, indeed, deny that I entertain very strong feelings—so strong, indeed, that I am inclined to doubt whether I could act impartially. I went so far as to say that other gentlemen had taken up such a decided attitude that in my opinion they ought not to be on the Commission; and I further ventured to name the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of Oxford. At the time the offer was made to me I knew nothing of the gentlemen who were to serve on the Commission, nor did I know anything of the terms of the Commission; and therefore my decision was given without reference to the persons who were to be appointed, or to any other circumstances connected with it. Since the Commission has been issued I must say that, with all the respect I bear to the name of every gentleman upon it, I am notwithstanding in duty bound to state my opinion that it would have been far better if other names had been put upon the Commission—if certain persons who were so decided in all their views and practices had not been placed there, and if persons in whom the country reposed confidence had been allowed to conduct the examination, I am satisfied that if any adverse decision is come to by the Commission it will be unanimously rejected by the one party or the other.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI entirely dissent from the view which has just been expressed by my noble Friend in reference to the constitution of the Commission. I was so far from thinking it undesirable that persons holding strong opinions should be placed upon it, that I thought it was 122 only by having the fairest and fullest representation of all opinions upon it that the Commission could hope to come to a decision which would be satisfactory to the country, and fair to all the parties concerned. I can assure your Lordships that both the late and the present Home Secretaries considered with me most anxiously the manner of framing that Commission so as to give a fair and full representation to all parties. It was not, however, our intention—as seems to have been the wish of my noble Friend—to frame the Commission, not for the purpose of judging and deciding, but for the purpose of condemning one set of opinions and approving another. [The Earl of SHAFTESBURY: No, no!] What, then, does my noble Friend mean by saying that he is satisfied from the names appointed on the Commission that the Report of the Commission can give no satisfaction to the party which he immediately represents? I say that that party is fully represented on the Commission by able and distinguished men, and men who perhaps hold opinions as strong as those of the noble Earl himself. It was not the intention of the Government, nor did we think it desirable, that the Commission should be so framed as to represent only one set of opinions, but that, as in the case of the previous Commission respecting Clerical Subscription, it should be so constituted that all parties might be fairly heard, and that by the conflict of opinion—and I trust it will be a friendly conflict in the present instance — there might be elicited a fair, a reasonable, and a moderate Report which would be satisfactory to all moderate men.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYIn reference to what has fallen from the noble Earl, allow me to say that all that may be perfectly right, but there is no justice in the charge which the noble, Earl has thought fit to bring against me—namely, that my only view was that the Commission should be so framed as that it should condemn the opinions to which I am opposed. What right has the noble Earl to say that? What have I ever said to lay myself open to such a charge? I venture to say that the noble Earl has made a statement which is not justified by any one consideration. What I said is this—that there were two or three Gentlemen on the Commission who ought not to be on it. I have not the names before me, but I think I am not going too far when I say that it is somewhat extraordinary to 123 find on the Commission the name of the founder and builder of that Church of St. Alban's—which is the head of offence in all this matter—Mr. Hubbard, who at this hour is churchwarden of that church. He is a most respectable and excellent man in every possible sense of the word; but still he is a man who has taken up so decided an attitude in regard to these Ritualistic practices, that he cannot be considered an impartial judge to be placed upon the Commission. I do not for one moment doubt that the Members of the Commission mean to do their duty; but what I argue is that they may be biassed by their very strong feelings, and may not be able to act so impartially as could be desired. I must again protest against the noble Earl rising in his place in this House, and, in the presence of the whole country, charging me with a degree of baseness which would render me unfit to sit in this House.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI shall be extremely sorry if I have done any injustice to the noble Earl, and I am glad to hear that he disclaims what I attributed to him. But certainly when I heard what fell from my noble Friend I thought I was perfectly justified in making the observation I did, in regard to having no persons on the Commission except those of undecided opinions. I would venture to remind my noble Friend that in almost every Commission some persona have been appointed who hold strong and extreme opinions. For example, there sat on the Commission on the Punishment of Death, Mr. Ewart, a Gentleman who, year after year in the House of Commons, had perseveringly advocated the abolition of that punishment. Yet nobody thought of objecting to the appointment of Mr. Ewart on this occasion to serve on the Commission. In the same manner I proposed to my noble Friend himself that he should serve on the Commission, and I should have been glad if he had consented to do so; though, if he had declined, that was a matter for his own discretion. It was our wish that all opinions should be fairly represented on the Commission in order that its decision might not be a one-sided one.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDThe noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has done me the honour to specify my name as one to which he objected, on the ground that I am a person of extreme opinions. This Commission has been appointed mainly to examine, report upon, or, if possible, adjust the difficult questions which have arisen as 124 to the extreme Ritual. Now, I challenge the noble Earl in the face of the House to produce one single element of proof for the assertion that he has just made—that I am, or ever have been, an extreme man in the matter. My actions and words are before the Church. I have done all in my power to repress these extremes, and I have given in my Charges, and have published, the reasons why I endeavour to repress them. I have done more. I have been successful in repressing them; for, whereas in other dioceses they have broken out, in the diocese of Oxford there has been a remarkable absence of them. It is very easy for the noble Earl to attack me because I do not take an extreme view. He himself confesses that he is an extreme man. I am not an extreme man. I am one who holds that middle position of doctrine in the Church of England which Richard Hooker held, and for which, while living, he was beset by the Puritan faction, and for the holding and maintaining of which he has, since his death, been universally esteemed in the Church of England. These are my opinions, and I challenge the noble Earl to make good, if he can, the words he has so rashly thrown out in your Lordships' presence.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI think we must all feel that it is inconvenient to discuss the characters of the Members of this Commission; but I must say that I think the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) has made an attack upon my noble Friend which appears to be not well founded. I did not understand the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) to mean what the noble Earl has imputed to him. I do not wish at this moment to give any opinion myself upon the constitution of the Commission. There are many Members of it with whom I am personally unacquainted; but judging, not only from the tone of the public press, but from all that I have heard on the subject, I must conclude that the composition of the Commission is not generally considered a perfectly fair and judicious one. There can be no doubt that a Commission ought to be composed either upon one principle or the other—either of persons perfectly impartial, or it should be a representative Commission, representing adequately and fairly the different shades of opinion. If I understood the objection of my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) rightly, it is that he does not think that the Commission, taken as a representative Commission, is not so constituted as 125 fairly to represent all opinions. I do not doubt but the noble Earl and Mr. Walpole have most conscientiously desired to come to a proper conclusion on the matter. But I should like to know whether they consulted any other persons before settling it. I know, as a fact, that neither the Archbishop of York nor the Bishop of London were consulted. I believe that there is no doubt that the Archbishop of York refused to serve on the Commission, and I believe the Bishop of Durham did so also.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI am not able to say whether the Bishop of London was consulted in the first instance or not; but I know that the Archbishop of Canterbury was consulted in regard to the names of the Members, and I believe he communicated them to the Bishop of London and other Prelates. The Archbishop of York refused to serve on the Commission—for what reasons it is not for me to say.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYAs my name has been mentioned, I may now state that, at an early stage, the list of the proposed Members of the Commission was presented to me; and among them, at that time, were the names of the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, and Sir Roundell Palmer. I then thought that the Commission was fairly constituted; but I have not seen it since, and I can therefore give no opinion respecting it. At the same time, I must say I believe that all parties are fairly represented, and it only remains to be seen whether the country will be satisfied.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYThough it is not usual in the case of Royal Commissions, I will move an Address to the Crown for a copy of this Commission.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYthen moved an Address for Copy of the Commission of Inquiry into the difference of Practise in the Conduct of Public Worship in Churches of the United Church of England and Ireland.
§ Motion agreed to.