HL Deb 02 July 1928 vol 71 cc794-805

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill which has been committed into my hands, but it must be understood that in this matter I do not represent the Government as their spokesman. Leave has been given to me to take charge of it owing to the interest which I have taken for some years in the question of a stabilised date for Easter. The views of the Government will be in the very capable hands of my noble friend the Secretary of State for India and the responsibility for any remarks which I make on this occasion will be entirely my own. I greatly regret the absence on this occasion of the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is occupied in the Church Assembly at the present time and we shall, I am afraid, miss his contribution to the debate, but on two previous occasions when I have brought this matter forward he has given utterance to his own opinions as representing the Church. I do not think he has in any way gone back from those opinions, and if I quote them briefly at a future stage of the debate I think I shall be entitled to do so even in his absence.

I ought to say a few introductory words on this occasion, though I do not think it is necessary to elaborate the question. I might explain how Easter is fixed at the present time. Easter Sunday is now fixed in accordance with tables which were drawn up by Clavius for Pope Gregory XIII when he reformed the Calendar on February 24, 1582. These tables are founded on the Metonic system. Meton was an Athenian astronomer who lived 432 years before our Lord was born. The tables are drawn up on his system because he found that every nineteen years the moon fell on the same date. These tables are very ingenious, but they do not give the moon of the heavens or the mean moon of the astronomers. They really give an entirely artificial ecclesiastical moon which has been used for the convenience of drawing up the tables and partly also for the purpose of avoiding the Jewish Passover. I think it is rather important to note that Christmas Day was fixed by law in the fourth century. It was fixed by the solar calendar as December 25.

So here we have the date commemorating the birth of our Lord fixed in the solar calendar and the date of the Crucifixion and Resurrection wandering about over a space of thirty-five days—five weeks—in accordance with tables which do not really give the moon of the heavens.

I had an experience myself of this when I was in Rome attending an International Congress of Chambers of Commerce. It so happened that the tables then were absolutely wrong with the moon of the heavens. Easter was then given in accordance with the tables as April 1. On April 1 of that year the real moon of the heavens, the Paschal Moon, the moon of the Crucifixion was at 2.46 in the afternoon, but as that day was given as Easter Sunday Masses were said in the morning. According to the moon, upon which some people lay so much stress, the Resurrection was being celebrated that year in accordance with the real moon of the heavens, before the time of the Crucifixion. I point that out because I think no great sanction can possibly attach to tables which are open to such errors. They really arise from the attempt to reconcile three periods which have no common measure—the week, the lunar month, and the solar year. The experience I had on that occasion shows that these tables are very frequently wrong.

The demand for a fixed or stabilised Easter is a very old one. It was started by business men practically throughout the world a very long time ago. On more than one occasion I have had the opportunity of addressing your Lordships on the subject as the mouthpiece of various chambers of commerce, national, imperial and international. In 1920 the chambers of commerce of the British Empire met in Canada and it so happened that on that occasion I was in the chair. A resolution was unanimously passed representing the considered opinion of the chambers of commerce of the British Empire and of the Dependencies who were represented at that Congress. After that I brought forward two Motions in your Lordships' House. Then there was the very important Congress to which I have alluded, in Rome in 1923. That was a meeting of chambers of commerce of the world. There were thirty-seven nations represented at that Congress and the majority of them were Catholic countries. I proposed a resolution in favour of a fixed date for Easter. It was the only resolution at that Congress which was cheered and it was passed with unanimity.

After that I went to see Cardinal Gasquet, Cardinal Gaspari and other dignitaries. A good deal of correspondence took place between our representative at the Vatican and the Foreign Office and the whole matter was afterwards submitted to the League of Nations. That is a very important point in the history of the movement for this reform. The League of Nations undertook to set up a Committee. On that Committee the Holy See was represented, the Archbishop of Canterbury was represented and also the Œcumenical Patriarch. They held several meetings and sent round to the different Churches and ascertained from the Church of Rome and the other Churches that so far as the question of dogma was concerned there was no religious objection raised on behalf of any of the Churches. That is an important point to have reached. I must say that the representatives of the Church of Rome, in their communications on this subject, said it was not for them to take the initiative in this matter but, although they were not anxious to change the position that had been adopted for centuries, they were quite willing to receive representations from the nations if it was considered in the national interest that an alteration should be made. The Committee which was set up at that time also sent round to some forty countries to find out what their opinions were with regard to a fixed date for Easter. The replies were unanimously in favour of such a fixed date.

The Home Office received in February last a memorial from the British National Committee of the International Chambers of Commerce. This is an important body, because upon it are represented the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the National Association of Building Societies, the Federation of British Industries, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the British Bankers' Association, the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, the Mining Association, the Corporation of Lloyds and numerous other organisations, which all unanimously represented the very great hardships that were endured by so many branches of industry and finance owing to the oscillation in the date of Easter. The Committee of the League of Nations also addressed a communication to all the great railway bodies in Europe. The railway undertakings of Germany, France, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia and Switzerland were all in favour of a fixed date for Easter. Thus there is an almost unanimous body of opinion, commercial and industrial, in favour of a fixed Easter. It is obvious that the oscillation in the date of Easter causes the very greatest inconvenience to all schools, Universities, those concerned with law terms and the great examining bodies, and these authorities combined provide practically a unanimous opinion on the part of the working side of the country.

It is extraordinary to notice what difficulties are created by this oscillation. I have had letters from bodies representing 800,000 cotton operatives, whose great holiday is at Whitsuntide and is absolutely dislocated by the oscillation of Easter. The same may be said of the drapery trade and the shoe-making trade. To the drapery trade a fixed Easter would be more valuable even than a revision of the Income Tax. I understand that the spring fashions come out at Easter, and the different dates of Easter are a very great hindrance in that trade. Then you have the holiday trades all over the country, the seaside towns and so on, where there is unanimity in favour of a fixed date. I have tried to prove very shortly, for I do not want to occupy the time of the House, that there is no religious sanction in these tables and that what this Bill practically does is to put the date of Easter in the solar calendar as the date of Christmas has been put. That is to say, instead of having Christmas in the solar calendar and Easter wandering about in accordance with tables representing a fictitious moon, Easter Sunday will be fixed in the solar calendar.

The next point that comes up for consideration is the choice of a Sunday. The Archbishop of Canterbury, on one of the occasions when I brought this subject forward, said that there were three postulates that he considered absolutely necessary to secure his support for the movement for a fixed Easter. One was that it should be a Sunday. That was settled at the Council of Nicæa, and of course we have chosen a Sunday. There was no question about that. The second postulate was that the Sunday selected must be within the limit of the variations of the present oscillations of Easter; that is to say, it must be between March 22, which is the first Sunday after the vernal equinox, and April 25. The third postulate was that there must be agreement among the Churches. With regard to choosing a Sunday, nobody suggests that Easter should be celebrated on any other day of the week. Sunday is one of the most remarkable facts of the Christian religion. Under the old dispensation the Lord rested the seventh day and hallowed it, but after the Crucifixion and Resurrection the first day of the week became the holy day, and you might say that every Sunday in every week is a commemoration of the Resurrection. No one would venture to fix Easter on any other day. With regard to the second postulate of the most rev. Primate, which was that Easter must be within the limits of the variation, the Sunday suggested in this Bill is as near the central point of the limits of variation as you can get. If you take a hundred Easters, from 1810 to 1910, you will find that the average Easter Sunday works out, so to speak, at April 8.4. Accordingly the date mentioned in the Bill is very nearly the central date, and the Archbishop's second stipulation is satisfied. As regards the third point, agreement between the Christian Churches has got so far that they have all said that no question of dogma is involved but that, before they made any change, it would have to be absolutely proved to their satisfaction that it will be—to use the words of the Holy See—"desirable for the good of mankind." In that case the Holy See would raise no objection.

Your Lordships will see that the date suggested in the Bill is the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April. Why is that date taken? So far as I am concerned, it is taken because I think that many if not most of the great ecclesiastical authorities are agreed—this is a matter which has been studied for centuries and much new light has been thrown upon it lately—that the date of the Crucifixion of Our Lord was April 7 in our calendar. The Sunday after that would be April 9. So Easter Sunday should be April 9 if that day is a Sunday, and if it is not a Sunday then the Sunday following April 9. Then, instead of looking up Easter in the tables, in future, if this Bill passes and is put into operation, you would have an Easter which was as near as can be to the real date of the great event which took place in A.D. 30. That is the reason why this particular date has been chosen. Regard, of course, has to be had to any opinion officially expressed by the various Churches. The Bill will not come into operation without a due interval of time intervening so that all the opinions can be examined. Further, before it comes into operation a Resolution will be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if both Houses do not agree the Order in Council will not become operative.

I venture to submit this Bill to the favourable opinion of your Lordships in the hope that it will be read a second time. It will not only be an enormous boon to almost every industry, trade and to occupation in the country, but, even from the ecclesiastical side, it will enormously simplify the Prayer Book. It will cost nothing. If it is passed the holidays will remain exactly as now. Everybody will know on what day Easter Sunday falls, and there will be no need to use the tables. From the ecclesiastical or liturgical point of view there is another important benefit to be had from the passing of this Bill—namely, that the Christian year will be equally divided. You would not have to go short of Sundays before Easter, and have an enormous and dreary number of Sundays after Easter and before Trinity. There are also a surplus number of Collects in the Prayer Book to provide for this unhappy contingency. Not only would the secular year be properly divided, but also the holy year would be in a more simple condition than at present.

Perhaps I should say one word about the schedule. This Bill does not apply to British India or the self-governing Dominions. As regards them, I imagine that there will be no difficulty. If they do not wish to have a fixed Easter they need not, and will not, but from both sides of the question I think there is every reason to expect that we shall get absolute agreement. On the secular side I have myself presided over many Congresses and Chambers of Commerce, at which various Dominions have been represented, and they have all unanimously expressed their strong desire that Easter should be fixed and fixed soon. As regards the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking on one of the Motions that I have brought forward in this House, said that so far as India and the Dominion of Canada, and America, and the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Dominion of South Africa, Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesia were concerned, he was able to say that there was no objection raised by anybody representing the Anglican Church. It so happened that while one of the Motions which I had raised was before this House there was a meeting of 250 Anglican Bishops from all over the world, and the Archbishop of Canterbury enquired of them personally and by letter what was their opinion about a fixed Easter. Somewhat to his surprise he did not find one single objection raised. On the contrary, there was a unanimous chorus of approval.

This is the Bill which I have attempted to explain as briefly as I can. I feel that the question is a momentous one. It affects the whole world and affects the custom of the ages, certainly since the time of Pope Gregory and perhaps since the Council of Nicæa But I feel that so much work has been done, and so much attention directed, both ecclesiastically and civilly, to the question, that if an Order in Council were promulgated establishing a fixed Easter, with the assent of other countries and Churches, it would be wrong for us to have a different date for Easter to that on the Continent. Sometimes I see it stated to my surprise that Easter should be fixed according to the weather, but it is quite impossible for anybody in this country to say what Sunday is likely to be fine and what is not. This Easter Sunday has to be a Sunday for every country and every climate, and to try to fix it according to the weather would be to take a very limited and wrong view of the situation. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time, and I hope that it will meet with your Lordships' approval.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)

VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT

My Lords, I rise for one short moment only to say a word in support of this Bill. I am not going to follow my noble friend in the very learned disquisition which he has made with regard to it. I am not competent to do so. It is enough for me, and I hope it will be enough for your Lordships, that the proposal is a practical one and a convenient one, and, I believe, a businesslike proposal which will be to the advantage of everyone all round. My noble friend has already alluded to what has taken place with regard to the religious denomination to which it is my privilege to belong, and I do not think I need add anything to that. I do not quite understand what will be the legal effect of the words in the Bill: regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian bodies, but I can assure my noble friend that I believe the authorities of my own Church will certainly acquiesce in and approve of this proposal, provided it is made quite clear that, it is the general wish of other countries as a whole.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD)

My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this Bill spoke, as he told your Lordships, for himself in this matter. I think he exercised a very wise discretion in dissociating himself for the moment from the representative and official character which to our great advantage he bears in this House, in order that he might remind your Lordships, and the public generally, of the great and indeed distinguished part he has played in this long controversy. If the matter is carried through now it will, I think, be impossible to resist the conclusion that the credit is largely due to the pertinacity with which the noble Lord has pursued this topic for so long a period of time. I rise thus early in the debate in order to assure your Lordships that with one slight Amendment, with which I need not at the moment trouble the House, the Government are entirely in favour of the proposals contained in this Bill. Indeed, many of your Lordships who are not enamoured of the legislative proposals which even this Government brings in, may, I think, for once, be satisfied not merely that there is nothing injurious in this Bill, but that there actually is an immense potential advantage in it, both nationally and internationally. Refreshed by this conviction we may reach a conclusion happier and more unanimous perhaps than most of those to which it falls to our lot to come.

It must be long since there has been a consensus of opinion so remarkable, in so many countries and among so many sections of opinion in those countries. I was indeed astonished, although I recollect I once heard the statement made before—it had escaped my memory until the noble Lord reminded us—of that remarkable conclusion of Anglican Bishops all over the Empire, consulted by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. There was not one dissentient voice. It is no exaggeration to say that the demand for this change on the part of the business community and chambers of commerce is equally astonishing. I am not aware of one dissentient view entertained by any representative chamber of commerce in this country. When we discover also that the same view is entertained, with not less vehemence, by official representative bodies in almost every civilised country in the word, we are indeed forced to conclude that we should be resisting a change of the utmost advantage if we were not to do the best that we could to forward these proposals.

Too long, indeed, has this reform been delayed, and yet it is very easy to understand how these delays have arisen. When you have to obtain what is practically universal support from all the countries in the world, when you have to range upon your side all the Churches of the world upon a matter which superficially, at least, though I think quite wrongly, has to some generations appeared to raise an ecclesiastical issue, it is very difficult to accelerate the progress of international legislation. I hope that the period has at last come when, if the noble Lord and other pioneers in this movement continue their exertions, and if they are supported by the Legislatures of the various countries involved, the fruition of the long effort is in sight, and that before long this very beneficial reform will be placed on the Statute Book to commemorate the exertions which they have made and the devotion with which they have addressed themselves to this task.

To prevent any undue optimism in relation to the British climate I only find it necessary to add this, that the head of the Meteorological Office in this country has been consulted and his observations do not entitle me to add to the arguments which the noble Lord has addressed to the House any particular expectation that we shall benefit largely in relation to the weather. He points out that his department has made a comparison between the rainfall on the four Easter holidays—Friday to Monday—in each year during the last hundred years in the London area and the rainfall which would have been experienced if the Bill had been in force. At the same time a similar comparison was made, taking the third instead of the second Saturday in April as fixing Easter Sunday. The result shows that during the hundred years the real Easter had less rain than the Easter fixed by the Bill in thirty-eight years, the reverse was the case in thirty-six years, while in four years there was no difference. In the remaining twenty-two years Easter fell on the same date according to both methods of reckoning. The figures are very similar when the third week, instead of the second, is used in the comparison, namely, 37, 39 and 22 respectively. While there are, therefore, very solid reasons of convenience why we should adopt this change, candour and the experience of the past forbid us to enumerate among those arguments a confident expectation that the nation will enjoy its Easter Holidays in more fortunate weather than we have sometimes experienced.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I desire very heartily to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, on having brought this question to such a point that it is, I hope, near a satisfactory conclusion. We all know that he has made this matter a special study for a large number of years, and he has told us this afternoon not only the various occasions when he has consulted the persons primarily interested, but also what he has done as Chairman of the international commercial body both at Rome and elsewhere. There is no ecclesiastical question involved, and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, has shown that there is no question as regards the weather involved—nor did Lord Desborough, I think, suggest that there was. But on every ground of convenience it is obviously preferable that we should have a fixed Easter. The noble Lord has stated that, so far as the Anglican community is concerned, it is perfectly satisfied with the view expressed by the most rev. Primate, I think on more than one occasion.

Of course Easter must be fixed on a Sunday, I think it ought to be fixed, as it has been fixed, within the dates of variation, March 26 to April 25, and also there should be agreement among the Churches in different countries. From that point of view I think it was extremely advisable that the matter was sent to the League of Nations who, as I understand, obtained information from over thirty different countries and found them all in favour of the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, has brought before us. I have some doubt myself with regard to the meaning of the proviso to which the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, called attention, but that is a matter for consideration on a future occasion. I beg to congratulate the noble Lord both on the Bill and on the speech he made this afternoon.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the success which has attended his efforts in bringing this matter before the public, and in leading it to such a very successful position as it occupies at the present time. The Bill has now passed the House of Commons, and within a few minutes will receive the Second Reading in this House. I envy the noble Lord's mastery of the golden number and of the intricate astronomical calculations by which the date of Easter is decided. He has made out an overwhelming case from the point of view of commerce and business for a fixed Easter. I am not quite convinced whether the case is so overwhelming from the point of view of holidays. There is a certain amount of attraction in the idea of having an Easter holiday at different times of the year, as there is always the hope that through such a variation the weather may be more favourable.

The measure meets the conditions which were expressed by the most rev. Primate, speaking for the Anglican community, that Easter should be on a Sunday and that it should be within the dates of variation. I hope that the proviso Provided further that before making such draft order regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian bodies means that the fixed Easter will not come into force until such agreement has been secured. Of course, I think everyone would recognise that it would be a real disadvantage if some Christian communities were keeping their Easter at a different date from the secular Easter. Those who have been in Jerusalem shortly after Easter know how strange and inconvenient it is to find in some churches the decorations and the festivities for Easter, while in other churches the mourning for Lent and Holy Week is still continued. I hope, therefore, it will be made quite clear that this measure will not be brought into operation until such agreement has been reached between the Christian communities. I hope very much that such an agreement will be reached nod that the fixed Easter will soon become possible.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.