HC Deb 09 May 1902 vol 107 cc1281-99

[SECOND READING.]

Order for Second Reading read.

(4.15.) COLONEL STOPFORD-SACK-VTLLE (Northampton, N.)

In moving the Second Reading of the Bishopric of Southwark Bill, I do not mean to detain the House long, but as there was a good deal of interest taken in it by the country last year, I desire to make a few observations upon the present measure. The House may remember that a Bill very similar to the present one came down to us from the House of Lords last year. When it came to this House notice of opposition to it was put down on the Paper by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, and it failed from lack of time to discuss it. The present proposal is virtually the result of a conference which in April, 1899, was held between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Winchester and Rochester, the two Bishops who are primarily concerned in this Bill. The proposal is to cut the present diocese of Rochester into two, and to form round the cathedral city of Rochester a homogeneous and riparian diocese, consisting of parishes in the county of Kent, and to add certain parishes in the arch-diocese of Canterbury; and further to constitute certain parishes within the county of London, and others in Surrey, into a new diocese, to be called the diocese of Southwark. The diocese of Rochester would then have a population of something like 400,000 souls. The new diocese of Southwark would also be a homogeneous diocese, consisting of urban, suburban, and rural districts. It is proposed for this purpose to revive the Bishoprics Act of 1878, which was passed under the auspices of Lord Cross, the only departure from the provisions of that Act being that it is proposed to give a slightly larger income to the two Bishops than was proposed in the schedule of that Act. The reason for this will be obvious to the House. The diocese of Southwark would be an exceptionally poor and a very populous diocese, and it is thought only reasonable that an income of £4,000 a year should be given to the new Bishop. The house at Kennington, now the residence of the Bishop of Rochester, would become the residence of the Bishop of Southwark, and certain sums arising out of the sale of Addington are to be applied to the provision and upkeep of a new house for the Bishop of Rochester, whose income will suffer to the extent of £500 a year. There is a power for further re-adjustment of boundaries between Canterbury and Rochester, should it be thought desirable at any future time to diminish the area of the arch-diocese of Canterbury.

This scheme has been rendered necessary, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, by the enormous increase in the population of the diocese of Rochester, and by the inconvenient shape of the present diocese, formed in 1875, which consists of two portions. Anyone who looks at the map will see that South London, and the area round Rochester, are divided into two by Canterbury, the cathedral of Rochester being at the extreme end, and by no means convenient for the county of Surrey. We cannot expect the people of Southwark to have an acute feeling of affection for the cathedral of Rochester, from which they are separated by so great a distance. This scheme owes much to the late Bishop Thorold, who worked so wisely and so strenuously for the restoration of the Collegiate Church of Southwark, which is now, if this Bill obtains the sanction of the House, to be constituted the cathedral of the new See. I should like to read a few words used by Bishop Thorold in regard to the increase of the population in his then diocese. He said—

"In 1891 the population of this diocese was 1,938,787, or a little short of 2,000,000. During the ten years between 1881 and 1891 it increased by about 350,000 souls, that is, at the rate of about 35,000 a year…. Two English dioceses, and two only—London and Manchester—have a larger population, and each of these possesses advantages of wealth with which we cannot in any way compete…. Our single diocese exceeds by 500,000 the total population of Wales…. Of our 2,000,000 people 1,600,000, or about four-fifths of the whole, are South Londoners."

I think that this will be enough to prove that no Bishop, however devoted (and the diocese has been exceptionally fortunate in its Bishops), can cope with such a population as this. The House will remember that one of the most learned and versatile of modern prelates, Bishop Creighton, broke down under the weight of the See of London. The House will wish to guard against a similar calamity again befalling the Church and will, I believe, be ready to carry out the wishes of the inhabitants of South London. I may be asked how can their wishes be shown. I shall not dwell upon the approval of Convocation in January, 1902, and of the House of Laymen for the Province of Canter bury, which has had this question under consideration since 1888, and passed a resolution in May, 1897, stating that of the four proposals then considered by the Committee that in regard to Southwark was the most pressing of all, and also the ripest for action. But I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the Rochester Diocesan Conference, in November, 1901, on a resolution proposed and seconded by two evangelical clergymen, unanimously approved of this scheme. If there are any details in it which do not commend themselves to all they can be discussed in Committee.

It is no new principle that increase of population justifies an increase in the number of Bishops. That principle remained dormant for many years after the Reformation, but during the last reign it received great development. In 1847 Lord John Russell, who was then Prime Minister, was responsible for legislation by which the diocese of Manchester was founded. During the administration of Mr. Disraeli, St. Albans was founded in 1875; Truro in 1876; and Newcastle, Liverpool, Southwell, and Wakefield in 1878. In particular may I call the attention of Gentlemen on the other side of the House to the fact that when the late Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister he took into his own hands the reconstitution of the Bishopric of Bristol. It was under his special auspices that the arrangement which had lasted some time was altered and that Gloucester and Bristol were again divided. All these sees, with the exception of Manchester, were founded by the private munificence of members of the Church of England, and that, of course, will be the case in connection with the proposal I am now making. I should like to ask any of those who are acquainted with the dioceses I have named whether it is not a fact that in each case the formation of a new diocese has been attended with beneficial results, and has led to an increase of energy in all moral and spiritual efforts.

The hon. Member for North Cambridgeshire has an Amendment on the Paper which I think can be called relevant to the Bill only in the Parliamentary sense of the term. He tells us that in certain undefined parts of England disorderly proceedings contrary to ecclesiastical law have occurred; and he says, therefore, that no effect should be given to the wishes of South London. But surely if he looks upon the Bishop of Rochester with suspicion, he should be glad to clip his wings and reduce the area of his activity! The hon. Member looks upon Bishops as little better than spiritual policemen, whose duty it is to haul refractory clergymen to prison. But if the House or a Standing Joint Committee were called upon to increase the number of the police in Surrey, would it be a sound objection to make against such a proposal that widespread disorder continued to take place on Epsom Downs, which the county police had failed to restrain? Surely, if the policemen are not in sufficient numbers to discharge their duties efficiently, that is a good reason why the force should be increased. Objection is also taken to this Bill by the hon. Member for Devonport because of the poverty of the clergy; and a re-adjustment of incomes is suggested—as if that remedy had not been in gradual process of application for many years past by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But even by this Bill something is being done perhaps in that direction, because it takes £500 a year from the income of the See of Rochester towards that of the new Bishopric. On the subject of redistribution of episcopal revenues the House will allow me to quote some words written by Sir Walter Besant, an unprejudiced witness, for although at one time he read for Holy Orders, he did not become a clergyman. He said that— The Anglican Bishops, whose incomes seem to be large, cannot, as a rule, save much from what they receive. They are for the most part elderly when they are appointed; they have to keep an open house all the year round; they have to support every kind of charitable and religions enterprise; they are always contributing to the support of poor clergy, of clergymen's widows and orphans, and schools, and so on; they travel about, and are always obliged to keep up a staff of chaplains and secretaries. The Bishop is paid for the maintenance and leadership of the diocese, and all that his diocese means; he is the figure head, and chairman, and advocate; without a Bishop, the diocese falls to pieces. I associate myself with those words of Sir Walter Besant; and if the hon. Member for Devonport, who is so anxious for an improvement in the incomes of the clergy, will only send a subscription of £5 to the Queen Victoria Clergy fund, he will do more towards his object than he can by moving his Amendment. I appear from the two hon. Members to those who represent the great manufacturing interests of South London and Surrey, to the Members for Southwark, for Lambeth, for Battersea, for Clapham, Croydon, Deptford, Greenwich. Woolwich, and Camberwell. Is there not almost unanimity as to the merits of this Bill among those who are so well qualified to speak for this industrial population, the chimneys of whose workshops and factories we can see from the windows of this House? If that be so, I ask the House to comply with the request made to them, and let the members of the Church of England have the privilege of finding out of their own pockets the funds which will enable the new Bishopric to be founded. The offer of £10,000 by "Ignotus" towards the endowment of a Bishopric of Birmingham, following on the example of the late Lady Rolle in Cornwall, shows how much enthusiasm such proposals still evoke, and may well encourage those who now appeal to the House of Commons for sympathy and support. When I think that the thoughts and the prayers of the whole diocese of Rochester on Sunday last were concentrated on the success of this effort, I can assure the House that it is with a deep feeling of responsibility that I now move the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. Member for North Cambridgeshire is the last man who ought to oppose this Bill, for, but for the efforts of the abbots and the Churchmen of old, that county instead of being famous for the venerable pile of Ely and the illustrious University of Cambridge, would still be a dismal swamp, the home of the coot and the bittern.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

(4.45.) MR. BRAND (Cambridgeshire, Wisbech)

In moving the Amendment standing in my name, I should like to say, in answer to the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, that I fully appreciate all the difficulties which the Bishop of Rochester has had to encounter in the administration of his See. There has been an enormous increase in the population of the district of late, and we could have had no objection to a Bill of this kind unless other matters had arisen. We consider, however, that the vast majority of the Bishops of the Church have not done all that they could do in suppressing disorders in ritual, and seeing that the clergymen perform their duty according to the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman stated that everybody in the diocese was in favour of this Bill, but I have a letter from one of the rectors in the diocese which is certainly antagonistic to the Bill, and which I will read to the House. It is from the Rev. W. J. Sommerville, rector of St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark, and is dated 28th April, 1902. He says— You ask me my views on the Southwark Bishopric Bill now before Parliament. I cannot class myself as a supporter of the measure, for the following reasons—First, it seems to me only a nibbling attempt to deal with a very great and pressing problem. It is high time that the question of episcopal supervision for the whole of London should be dealt with in a broad and statesmanlike way. In the meanwhile, however, all that is necessary in this diocese is the appointment of a new Suffragan Bishop for the district round Rochester and Chatham. We get on exceedingly well under our two present and popular Bishops. The Canons of the Cathedral are not by any means underpaid or overworked, and one or two of them might be made suffragans to relieve the Bishop of the diocese of much routine work. Second:—There is no getting away from the fact that in that portion of the Rochester diocese which it is proposed shall form a part of the new diocese of Southwark ecclesiastical excesses and vagaries are rampant. The law is openly defied. Some of the churches are Roman in everything else but in name. It is high time that Parliament took steps to secure a reasonable compliance with the law of the Church and realm, which the Ritualists, in common with the rest of us, undertook to observe. Third:—My third and very strong objection to the Bill is based upon the ground of clerical poverty. The financial condition of many of the rural clergy is pitiable in the extreme; and is a scandal and disgrace to the wealthiest Church in Christendom. No other Church, as far as I am aware, degrades its ministers by making them the objects of a pitying sort of contempt, and the recipients of doles, gifts of old clothes, charity dinners, &c. During the past year some cases of almost incredible hardship have come to my notice. A beneficed clergyman and his wife in Essex died within six months of each other practically from starvation. Both the Rural Dean and the doctor told me they were unable to supply themselves with medical necessaries and comforts. If the present state of affairs is allowed to go on unchecked, disaster is in store for us. Religion will be brought into contempt, as the English nation will never respect a clergyman out at elbows, and down at the heels. Everywhere nowadays one hears the cry for more curates; but no wonder young men are declining to take orders under present conditions. In this diocese alone, which is not by any means among the poorest, a capital sum of more than £100,000 is necessary to bring the stipends of the incumbents up to the by no means excessive figure of £200 per annum. It seems to me, and to many other incumbents to whom I have spoken on the subject, that the attempt to raise a huge sum of money in order to pay another Bishop £4,000 a year, while many of the hard-working parochial clergy are lacking even the necessaries of life, and are totally without the means of educating their children and making provision for old age and sickness, is not only ludicrous but altogether out of place and wrong. I cannot wish the attempt success. I am at all times reluctant to differ with my Bishop on any point, as I have always received from him the utmost kindness and consideration; but I feel so strongly on this question that I have written to the secretary of the New Diocese Fund to say that until the Church wakes up to remove this gross and crying scandal, I decline to contribute a single sixpence, or to ask my congregation to contribute. You may make what use you please of this letter. Well, that is a very strong and reasonable letter, but when you look at the return of the incomes of the clergy of the diocese of Rochester, you will find some with an income of only £72 a year, and that twenty-four have only an average of £200 a year.

But my main objection to this Bill is not that it proposes to endow a Bishopric with £4,000 per annum, while nothing is being done to raise the salaries of the working clergy; it is that the Bill proposes to add another member to the Bench of Bishops, the great majority of which regard with an indulgent eye the Romanising practices of certain clergy in the Church, while they look with a very severe eye upon evangelical clergymen who desire to conduct the services of the Church according to the reformed Protestant faith. I would ask what practical and effectual effort has been made by the Bishops to put down illegal practices in the Church, and to restore order within the Church, since the debate on the Clergy Discipline Bill three years ago. I should like to see the Bishops condemn the irregularities which are carried on, and which they know to be wrong. I have here a report of the services held on Good Friday last, 28th March, at the church of All Hallows, Southwark—

" A visit was paid to the church at 10.20 on Good Friday morning, when the reserved Sacrament was being carried from the Lady Chapel Altar Tabernacle to the Tabernacle on the High Altar. There were a few worshippers in the church, about a dozen, and these fell on their knees as the priest, vested in surplice and cassock, and accompanied by an acolyte, carried the Pyx containing the Blessed Sacrament and deposited it in the High Altar Tabernacle, beside which a red light was then placed. Shortly after this the choir came in with the Vicar, and took their places; and then the celebrant, one of the curates, entered, accompanied by a server in black cassock. The priest was vested in a large black cape. Distributed throughout the church was a form of the special prayers which were to be used. These were marked 'Not to be taken away'; but as I had both a Missal and a Roman Catholic 'Holy, Holy Week-Book' with me, I was able to compare the special prayers for this service in them with those used by the priest at All Hallows. The differences in most of the prayers were of the slightest possible kind, and were probably due merely to the differences in translation."

Well, I could go on and read the whole of this report, but I need only say that there seems to have been very little difference in the services in this church from those of a Roman Catholic church. What I ask is, why do not the Bishops stop such practices? "The Tourists' Church Guide," a handbook published by the English Church Union, contains lists of churches, with details as to the ritual observed in certain churches in the country. The last edition was published last year, and the previous edition in 1898. An examination of the two editions was published in the Record newspaper of October 18th, 1901, and the result was as follows— In 1898 incense was used in 289 churches; in 1901, 'on certain occasions,' 269—a decrease of twenty. In 1898 illegal vestments were used in 1,528 churches; and in 1901, 1,637—an increase of 109. Now, I find that in the diocese of Rochester incense has been used in one church since 1899, while illegal vestments have been abolished in one church, but introduced into four. Why does not the Bishop of Rochester put down these illegal practices in the Church and restore order within the Church? Since the debate on the Clergy Discipline Bill three years ago, things have remained exactly the same; in fact, if anything they are worse, and in the circumstances I feel that I am fully justified in opposing any increase to the Bench of Bishops until something is done by His Majesty's Government to restore order within the Church.

(4.56.) MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)

I beg to second the Amendment. Avery grave situation exists in the Church of England at the present moment. A concentrated effort is being made on the part of a considerable section of the clergy to revolutionise the Church, to destroy the character it assumed at the time of the Reformation, and to bring it closer to the Church of Rome. It is a movement to sacerdotalise the Church of England, and to substitute clerical government for the law of the land in Church matters. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill likened it to an attempt to bring another policeman into the Church; but when the present police fraternise with the rioters, and not only strive to screen them from justice but encourage them in their malpractices, I fail to see the advantage of having an additional policeman when the chances are that he will be of the same character as those who have gone before. The head and front of the offending of the ritualistic party is that they are seeking to introduce into the Church of England that which my friends and myself are determined at any cost not to have—viz., the Mass and the Confessional. That is what we have to face. This doctrine of the Mass, which the Articles of our Church condemn in the most emphatic manner, is, by these Gentlemen, being brought into our Church again in the most unblushing manner. They have High Mass, Low Mass, Red Mass, Black Mass, and all the other varieties of Mass which are to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. They bring this about by converting the Communion Service of the Church of England into a Mass. The late Bishop of London uttered this remarkable statement on February 23rd, 1900— The object of the Church of England at the Reformation was to turn the Mass into a Communion. That is quite true. But the object of these gentlemen is to turn the Communion into a Mass. We are all familiar with the rubric, which says that there shall be no Communion except four, or three at the least, communicate with the priest. That is one of the safeguards with which the Church of England has fenced round this doctrine of the Holy Communion. But there are hundreds of churches at the present day in which the Holy Communion is celebrated without the necessary number of communicants, and even sometimes without any communicants at all. On a visitation of London Churches, between the 31st of March and the 7th of May, 1900, it was found that out of eighty-three, Holy Communion was celebrated in fifty without the minimum number of communicants, and in twenty-five the priest was the only communicant. I have also another Return of visitations between August 1901, and January 1902, which shows that out of fifty churches in London and its neighbourhood, Holy Communion was celebrated in thirty-five without the minimum number of communicants, and in twenty-four the priest was the only communicant. When I brought this matter forward last year in the form of the Question to the First Lord of the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman remarked that he hoped it was not a fact. But it is a fact. Every effort is made in the ritualistic churches to induce the congregation to communicate. The people are instructed to attend Holy Communion in the morning, and not to be present at the mid-day service, which is regarded as a different kind of service altogether.

There is one way in which, I venture to state to the House, a large number of clergymen are breaking the law in the most unmistakable manner. I do not wish to impute motives, but for some reason or other the bishops are content to leave these gentlemen alone, and not interfere with them. That is wrong. We have a right to demand that the service of the Church should be performed in accordance with the law of the Church. This beautiful service, of which we are so proud, is taken by these gentlemen and mutilated, portions being left out and interpolations put in, with the result that it presents an entirely different complexion to that which its compilers intended it to have. In some churches, I hope not many, we find that the Prayer Book is not the basis of the service, but the Roman Missal. The priests have before them prayers from the Missal on cards placed on the Communion table, and they themselves use these prayers in private and encourage their congregations to also use them in private. The Communion Service, or what is left of it, is simply dovetailed in. I do not know anything more aggravating than such conduct. Then as to children's Eucharists, I ventured to put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury on that subject, and he replied— 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 venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. It is not the service of the Holy Communion, it is a service without communicants, in which the Prayer Book is not used. Moreover, other books are put into the hands of the children. I have here a book written by a clergyman of the Church of England entitled "Hosanna: A Mass Book for Children," in which this service is called the Holy Mass. Then, again, the doctrine of transubstantiation is taught to children in the most clear manner, although it is condemned by the Church of England in the strongest terms. I do not know how to describe this conduct. I do not wish to use improper words, but I know that if a layman were guilty of similar conduct he would be dealt with. At the present day the sacerdotal party in the Church of England is moving heaven and earth to gain the rising generation, and although I voted for the Education Bill last night, I maintain we must be very careful, if we are going to commit, for an unlimited period, the teaching of our children to the clergy, to provide safeguards which will prevent the minds of the children being contaminated and corrupted by the section of the clergy who are unfaithful to the the law of the Church. Another malpractice is the burning of incense. I wish to be perfectly straightforward, and I think the bishops have done something, not to stop, but to lessen the use of incense in the churches. I recognise that they have tried sincerely to put that down, though at the same time I am afraid their efforts have been attended with very little effect. In the return to which I have already referred, I find that of the churches visited, incense was used ceremonially in twenty-five, and other than ceremonially in five. Incense was being burned between the morning service and the service of the Holy Communion, although it has been distinctly laid down that that is contrary to the law. I read lately about a Church Crafts Exhibition having been opened in London, but we need not go to that Exhibition for Church craft. Then, as to confession, which I hope will never be brought back to our Church, the First Lord of the Treasury said he strongly deprecated the practice and hoped it did not obtain to any large extent. The very next week a clergyman wrote, stating that in St. Peters, London Docks, there were 3,057 confessions in 1900, and there is no doubt that the practice is largely increasing in our midst.

I think I have proved to the House, if proof were needed, that there is widespread disorder in the Church of England at the present time. What have the Bishops done to put it down? They have endeavoured to restrain it, but it would be more correct to say that, by their conduct, they have acquiesced and encouraged it. Take the case of the Episcopal veto. When this veto was first given under the Public Worship Regulation Act the Archbishop of Canterbury expressly stated that the veto was only to be used for the purpose of preventing frivolous actions. Having got this power, the Bishop, however, after a short time, began to use it in a wholesale manner. Of twenty-three representations made under the Public Worship Regulation Act, no less than seventeen were vetoed by the Bishops, and then it was recognised that it was impossible to bring any action, and the attempt was given up. What happened a year or two ago! Colonel Porcelli, a member of the Church of England, made complaints in respect of ritualistic practices in five London Churches, but they were vetoed by the late Bishop of London and the present Bishop of Rochester. They were brought under the Church Discipline Act of 1840, which provides that anyone may make a complaint. The Church of England is the National Church; it is not the church of a section, and if there is disease in one part of it it will extend throughout its entire system. On what grounds were these complaints vetoed. It was a very remarkable ground. It was that the Public Worship Regulation Act required that they should be made by a parishioner, but the complaints were not brought under that Act but under the Public Worship Regulation Act. The Public Worship Regulation Act had already been nullified by the Bishops, but was revived for the occasion, and that is the only use it is.

In addition, the Bishops have paid very little attention to the representations made to them. I will give the House two instances of the manner in which the Bishops have dealt with complaints. On the 2nd of May, 1901, Lord Wimborne drew the attention of the Bishop of Salisbury to certain illegalities in two churches in his diocese, in one of which the clergyman was the sole communicant, and in the other a prayer book other than the Prayer Book of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been placed in the hands of the children. How did the Bishop act? He asked Lord Wimborne to produce the evidence of the particular persons who had seen these practices. Lord Wimborne declined, but said that he had made himself responsible for the course which had been taken. He was the leading man in the Diocese, and he was entitled to make these complaints on the evidence of persons for whom he undertook responsibility. If their names were given, they would have been subjected to persecution, and therefore Lord Wimborne declined to communicate them. Here is another case. There is a parish called Carshalton in the Diocese of Rochester, where there has been trouble lately on account of ritualistic practices. A meeting of the parishioners was held, and a list was drawn up of what they considered to be the illegal practices in their church, and they handed it to churchwardens with a request to submit it to the Bishop. Although I strongly deprecate disturbance in church, yet if people obtain no redress from the Bishops, if the Law Courts are shut against them as long as human nature is what it is, it cannot be a matter for surprise that public agitation sometimes takes an improper form. I do not approve of the conduct of a man who is lawless in a church, but what about the man who is lawless in the pulpit. The man who is lawless in a pew is brought before the magistrates, and, although he may have been animated by the highest motives, he is convicted as a brawler; but there is no remedy against the man who is lawless in the pulpit. Let us have justice all round, and while I cannot approve of disorder in a church, I yet regard it as a symptom of a very grave disease. The Bishop of Rochester refused to do anything, and then a parishioner wrote, stating that he had resided in the parish for many years, that he had attended the parish church, and that he wished to know whether the illegal practices were to be permitted to continue. The Bishop replied as follows—

"And now the Vicar's absence from health, and the uncertainty of his tenure, make it impossible for some time to come to do otherwise than let things go quietly on as they are, and have been for years."

That was the attitude that was taken up by the Bishop. Since then that particular vicar has retired, and a new vicar has been appointed who is a member of the English Church Union. There is another point I would wish to mention with reference to the patronage of the Bishops. They have encouraged these practices by preferring clergymen who are members of societies like the English Church Union, a society which was constituted to romanise the Church of England. During 1901 I find that 164 members of the English Church Union, 65 of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, and 14 of the Holy Cross were appointed by the Bishops. We all know what these societies are. Perhaps I might remind the House what a good thing an English Church Union has been to the Roman Catholic Church. Up to the present, 88 of its members have seceded to Rome.

I put these considerations before the House as the grounds on which I second this Resolution. May I respectfully say to the House that Protestant sentiment in this country is not dead. But if this ritualistic movement goes on unchecked, and if the youth of the country are placed under the control of the clergy without proper safeguards, then, I venture to think, that the time will come, perhaps before many generations, when the Protestant sentiment of this country will be extinct, and with its extinction will disappear also that love of civil and religious liberty, and that combination of order and respect for authority, which are so deeply the characteristics of our race. I believe, however, that the time will very shortly come when the indignation of the people of this country, more particularly of the working classes—and I speak as one who knows them—will rise to such an extent that it will overflow and sweep away, not only these abuses, but all those who are endeavouring to protect them. I would, therefore, appeal to the House by their Votes to show that they are prepared to do something to cheek this growing evil. We have had a great many fair speeches, but fair speeches and professions of Protestantism will not go down any longer. The people of this country look to acts, not words, and I, therefore, ask the House on this occasion, perhaps the only occasion that may offer during the present session, to show that they value the interests of the Church of England as a whole more than the interests of any particular diocese, and that they are prepared to do something to vindicate the law and to maintain the Protestantism of our National Church.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in view of the continuance in the Established Church of England and Wales of grave and widespread disorders, which the Archbishops and Bishops have failed to restrain, this House declines to assent to any revival of the provisions of the Bishopric Act of 1878 until satisfactory assurances are obtained that the Archbishops and Bishops will enforce a reasonable conformity by the clergy to the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion, and the Law as determined by the Courts which have statutory jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical.'"—(Mr. Brand.)

(5.23.) Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 168.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Flower, Ernest Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Forster, Henry William O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Anstruther, H. T. Gibbs, Hn A. G. H.(City of Lond. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) O'Malley, William
Bailey, James (Walworth) Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Balcarres, Lord Gretton, John O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Gunter, Sir Robert Parker, Gilbert
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington
Banbury, Frederick George Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Pemberton, John S. G.
Bartley, George C. T. Hay, Hon. Claude George Percy, Earl
Beach, RtHn. Sir Michael Hicks Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Heath, James (Staffords. N. W. Plummer, Walter R.
Bignold, Arthur Helder, Augustus Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bill, Charles Henderson, Alexander Pym, C. Guy
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hoare, Sir Samuel Rankin, Sir James
Boland, John Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hogg, Lindsay Reid, James (Greenock)
Bull, William James Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bullard, Sir Harry Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Renwick, George
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Hudson, George Bickersteth Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire Joyce, Michael Robson, William Snowdon
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Kimber, Henry Schwann, Charles E.
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Knowles, Lees Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chapman, Edward Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Churchill, Winston Spencer Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Clancy, John Joseph Lawson, John Grant Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Clare, Octavius Leigh Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Clive, Captain Percy A. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Tennant, Harold John
Cogan, Denis J. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Thornton, Percy M.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Loyd, Archie Kirkman Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Cranborne, Viscount Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Tuke, Sir John Batty
Crean, Eugene Macdona, John Cumming Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Cust, Henry John C. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Wanklyn, James Leslie
Dairymple, Sir Charles M'Govern, T. Warde, Colonel C. E.
Delany, William Majendie, James A. H. Webb, Colonel William George
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Malcolm, Ian Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n
Doogan, P. C. Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Mildmay, Francis Bingham Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Duke, Henry Edward Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Milvain, Thomas Wilson-Todd, Win. H. (Yorks.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Farquharson, Dr. Robert More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Morrell, George Herbert Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Ffrench, Peter Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Field, William Mount, William Arthur
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fisher, William Hayes Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Colonel Stopford - Sack-Ville and Mr. Causton.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Nicol, Donald Ninian
NOES.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Coddington, Sir William
Asher, Alexander Black, Alexander William Condon, Thomas Joseph
Atherley-Jones, L. Brigg, John Craig, Robert Hunter
Austin, Sir John Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Cremer, William Randal
Bain, Colonel James Robert Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Crombie, John William
Barlow, John Emmott Caldwell, James Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Channing, Francis Allston Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Charrington, Spencer Denny, Colonel
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Layland-Barratt, Francis Randles, John S.
Dillon, John Leigh, Sir Joseph Reddy, M.
Duncan, J. Hastings Leng, Sir John Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Dunn, Sir William Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Roche, John
Fenwick, Charles Lundon, W. Russell, T. W.
Flavin, Michael Joseph MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Rutherford, John
Flynn, James Christopher MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) M'Fadden, Edward Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Furness, Sir Christopher M'Kean, John Shipman, Dr. John G.
Galloway, William Johnson M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Soares, Ernest J.
Gilhooly, James Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Spear, John Ward
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Grant, Corrie Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Strachey, Sir Edward
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) Sullivan, Donal
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Murphy, John Wallace, Robert
Hayden, John Patrick Nannetti, Joseph P. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Norman, Henry Weir, James Galloway
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Higginbottom, S. W. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Horniman, Frederick John O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Hoult, Joseph O'Dowd, John Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Houston, Robert Paterson O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Paulton, James Mellor
Joicey, Sir James Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)
Jones, DavidBrynmor (Swansea Pirie, Duncan V. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Power, Patrick Joseph Mr. Charles M'Arthur and Mr. Brand.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Price, Robert John

Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.