MR. CHARLES MARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the continued resort by a section of the clergy of the Established Church to practices not prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer or ordered by lawful authority, such as. masses, celebration of Holy Communion without the requisite number of communicants, children's Eucharists, ceremonial use of incense, and the inculcation of habitual confession; whether he is aware that the bishops continue to veto legal proceedings intended to check such irregularities; whether the laity in large numbers are thus deprived of their constitutional right to the ministrations of religion in their parish churches in 87 accordance with the rites of the Church of England, and that disturbances in Divine worship have been occasioned in connection with these irregularities; and whether he will consider the desirability of carrying into effect the Resolution of the House of Commons on 10th May, 1899, that if the efforts now being made by the archbishops and bishops to secure the due obedience of the clergy are not speedily effectual, further legislation will be required to maintain the observance of the existing laws of Church and Realm.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAs my hon. friend is aware, I have no official cognisance of the matters referred to in the first three paragraphs of the question. He must therefore take my answer as conveying my own personal views for what they are worth. I hope, and believe, that the efforts of the bishops have had, and are having, a great effect in diminishing practices in the Church of England which are unlawful or inexpedient. I have heard of no employment of the veto by any bishop except in the case of Colonel Porcelli, who was not a parishioner of any of the churches of which he complained, nor did he represent any responsible body or association in the country. I ought to add that my hon friends enumeration of the unlawful practices he desires to see dealt with is somewhat misleading. He enumerates five practices which he implies are contrary to the law. The first of these is Masses. If he means to describe the Communion Service of the Church of England by the word "Mass," it seems to me to be a misleading and foolish expression. But it is not illegal. As to the second point, the celebration of the Holy Communion without the requisite number of communicants is undoubtedly illegal; but I have no ground for thinking it is otherwise than of rare occurrence, and when it happens it is often by accident. The third point is children's Eucharists. If this means, as I suppose it does, the presence of children during the Communion Service, it seems to me to be a very undesirable practice, but it cannot be described as unlawful. I may add that it has been frequently objected to by the bishops. The ceremonial use of incense is undoubt- 88 edly illegal, but I believe the practice has greatly diminished, and is diminishing, through the action of the bishops. As to the fifth point, the inculcation of habitual confession is, wherever it takes place, a most unfortunate practice.
§ MR. DILLONThis is a speech, and a very offensive one. On a point of order I desire to ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury is in order in delivering a long speech giving his opinion on controversial matters to which hon. Members are not at liberty to reply.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI must say I think the fault, if any, is rather of the questioner than the answerer. The question enters into matters of opinion which, if I had seen it, I should not have allowed to appear on the Paper. The first part of the question does refer to these practices as illegal, and I cannot say the right hon. Gentleman is out of order in offering his opinion whether they are illegal or otherwise. He is speaking, not of the merits of the practices, but strictly to the question whether they are in accordance with the law of the Church of England.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf the hon. Gentleman supposes I was making any reflection on observances in the Church of which he is a member he is mistaken. I was referring only to the Church of England, and to practices as they are regarded by the Protestant community. To make confession a condition of receiving Communion is not only repugnant to the whole spirit of the Church of England, but is wholly illegal. I do not think the imposition of such a condition has been attempted, and if it were it would not receive a moment's toleration from any member of the episcopal bench.
MR, CHARLES MARTHURI will take the first opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to this subject.
§ MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)Will the Government give facilities for discussion of the subject during the present session?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI believe there are two Bills on the subject actually on the Orders of the House.
§ MR. SAMUEL SMITHWith no chance of debating them.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDWill the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for discussing the question whether Catholics are or are not idolators?
§ [No answer was returned.]