ECCLESIASTICAL DISORDERS—ROYAL COMMISSION.

HC Deb 20 April 1904 vol 133 cc757-81

* MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, E. Toxteth)

on rising to call attention to the composition of, and scope and reference to, the Royal Commission appointed to investigate ecclesiastical disorders in the Church of England, said it was impossible to ignore the fact that the agitation in connection with what were known as Ritualistic practices in the Church of England was no recent thing. It would be five years next month since the House witnessed as excited and hotly-contested a debate as had ever taken place, upon these practices. In the course of that debate on a Church Discipline Bill eman- ating from Liverpool, an Amendment was moved, with the sanction of the Government, and eventually carried by a sub stantial majority, The terms of the Amendment, which had a distinct bearing on the terms in which the appointment of the Royal Commission had been been indicated, were these— That this House, while nut prepared to accept a measure which creates fresh offences and ignores the authority of the. Bishops in maintaining discipline in the Church, is of opinion that if the efforts now being made by the Archbishops and Bishops to secure due discipline are not speedily effectual, further legislation will he required to obtain the observance of the existing laws of the Church and realm. It could not be said that the Government had been unduly hasty in this matter. During the interval of five years between 1899 and now, much had happened to distract the nation's attention from domestic affairs and from the affairs of the National Church. But he did not think he was exaggerating the situation when he said that during the whole of that time these practices had continued, the movement which was their origin and source was strong and flourishing. and the condition of the Church to-day in this respect was more serious than it was when the Amendment was passed by the House. Vet the Government did not now come forward to propose legislation, but to proceed by way of inquiry. From the terms of reference it appeared as if the Government had still very grave doubts upon the prevalence of those practices. Whatever doubts the Government might have, those doubts were not shared by the House of Commons. He was not overstating the case when he said that the House of Commons was of opinion that the time had arrived, not for an inquiry by Royal Commission, but for practical legislation to deal with an intolerable state of things.

* MR. SPEAKER

said that the hon. Gentleman would not be at liberty to discuss the desirability of legislation or any delay on the part of the Government to legislate. He must confine himself, on the assumption that a Royal Commission be appointed, to its composition, and to the scope of the reference to the Commission.

* MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said all he desired to make clear was that the section of opinion he represented took no responsibility for the Commission, and had ideas in a different direction as to the best means of dealing with the situation. The terms of reference to the Commission were worthy of a little definite scrutiny. It was perfectly evident, it appeared to him, that under those terms the Commission was not to inquire at all into the matter of irregularities of doctrine. The Commission was limited apparently to what they might call the exterior observances of the Church rather than to its esoteric doctrines. and to the ornaments and fittings of the churches. It was rather remarkable that the Commission should be appointed in these terms. because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in discussing this matter on 10th May, 1899, fell rather severely upon the Bill which was before the House upon the ground that it did not deal with doctrine. He was very severe upon those extreme men, whom he described as persons of ardent zeal, but very often of defective historical knowledge. The attribute of being an extreme man was one which was rather difficult of definition. He had sometimes attempted to describe an extreme man as "a man who on some particular matter holds exactly the same opinions as you do, but who insists on expressing his opinions at the most inconvenient moment, and, therefore, makes you look not quite so much in evidence as you ought to be." The very thing which the Prime Minister complained of in 1899, namely, that the Bill of that year did not deal with the question of doctrine, was exactly the thing which appeared in the terms of reference to the Commission which had been appointed under his advice. He (Mr. Taylor) thought his right hon. friend might very well tell them why it was that, in the terms of reference to this Commission, the question of those serious variations of teaching in doctrine, which, after all, were the root of the evil of which they complained, were to be outside the purview of this Commission, which was limited by the terms of the reference to dealing only with the exterior symbols which were intended to convey those lessons.

In connection with the wording of the terms of reference, which related to the "alleged prevalence of breaches or neglect of the law," it was not merely the existing prevalence of those breaches of which they complained. He thought it had been urged in that House before, and it might be urged again with advantage, that it was not a case of 100, 200, or 300 extreme samples with which they had to deal, but a well-organised and determined movement, a growing movement, one which had captured a very large portion, if not the major portion, of the Church of England. It was that movement with which they had to deal, and he thought that it would be a very great advantage if, in the terms of reference, the Prime Minister were to incorporate words which would take cognisance of the growing character of that particular evil. He would suggest that in place of saying "alleged prevalence of breaches or neglect of the law," he should insert "the alleged growth and prevalence of these breaches," because he thought the attention of this Commission should be directed to the fact that what they had to examine. was not the eccentricities of a few misguided men, but the whole movement of which a particular church here and there of the most advanced type was, after all, the vanguard, and which was moving as an organised body of opinion, forming the most serious menace to the continued welfare of our national Church. He was not at all sure, though he might be informed on that point, that the terms of reference would cover such matters as the manuals which were used for teaching the children of this country Roman practices in connection with the worship in our national churches. That question of the growing generation was one of the most alarming of the whole features of this movement. There was not the least doubt that it was a conviction that the clergy of the Established Church had in many cases used their high office to proselytise the children from the faith of their fathers to the faith which was rejected at the Reformation, that had led to that agitation in connection with the Education Act, of which they had not yet seen the full result. He hoped the Prime Minister would inform the House whether the Commission under the terms of reference would be able to examine the whole of these practices in connection with the growing generation which, in the form of children's masses and other forms of instruction, had proved one of the most dangerous symptoms of the movement to which they objected.

The Commission, as he understood it, would have no compulsory powers, could take no evidence on oath, and therefore could not in any way protect the witnesses who would appear before it That would not have been the case had a Select Committee of that House been appointed to deal with the matter. He thought there was a general impression that on this particular subject the country was full of people who were willing to play the part of spies, and come forward and give evidence against the clergy of the National Church. His own conviction was the exact opposite of that. He believed that both the Anglican layman and the Nonconformist who attended the parish churches of this country were, as a rule, so unwilling to take anything like hostile action to the clergy of the Church, that when these practices were introduced they preferred rather silently, and reluctantly, to abandon the church to which they were accustomed than to subject themselves to the unpleasantness and criticism which were involved in anything like hostility to the clergy. He was not at all clear that the Commission was in a strong position in the sense that it was able only to rely on voluntary evidence, was not able to compel anyone to appear before it, was not able to take evidence on oath, and was not able to protect those who came before it to give evidence (which must be in many cases of a distasteful character) against that hostile criticism, and possibly persecution, to which they might be exposed.

He would like to say a word or two upon the composition of this Commission. He must at once express his great disappointment that they had not upon the Commission a stronger judicial element than was represented in the list of names before them. He did not know how the Government regarded the matter, but from his own point of view—and he thought he represented a great many outside who simply desired an impartial finding upon the real facts of the case— he would have wished to have seen on this Commission not so much of an ecclesiastical element or of any element which. If not strictly ecclesiastical, represented something to Ins mind even perhaps more dangerous—that was the clerically-minded layman. He thought that in a Commission to inquire whether or not there were breaches or neglect of the law relating to the conduct of divine service in the Church of England, and the ornaments and fittings of churches, what was wanted was a plain common sense, judicial finding, based upon the known law of this country, and he was sure the very last thing that would make for the advantage either of Church or State would be an opening up of inquiries into canon law or pre-Reformation usage, or general and vague inquiries into what was described as the Catholic faith. They were dealing with an Established Church, a Church having a Prayer-book and Articles which the Bishop of Rochester admitted were treaty terms between the Church and State, and what the nation really required, he thought, was that this Commission should ascertain whether those treaty terms were being loyally and faithfully carried out by the clergy who had sworn to do so. For this purpose a stronger judicial element upon the Commission would have been one of the most honourable means of arriving at an impartial decision. There was only one Judge upon the Commission, and against that Judge he had nothing to say, but he wished his presence could have been supplemented by that of others of his colleagues upon the bench As regarded the Episcopal element upon the Commission, he noticed that in addition to the Primate there was only one other Bishop, the Bishop of Oxford, who was, he understood, a prelate of distinctly High Church views, fully in sympathy with the movement which made for the catholicising of the Church of England, and therefore he could not welcome that prelate's presence upon the Commission as calculated to give confidence in its findings. If it were necessary to put the Bishop of Oxford upon the Commission he could not understand why he was the only prelate, apart from the Primate, who was placed upon it. A great deal of the strong Protestant feeling of the country was a feeling that, although occasionally the subject of sarcasm in the House and outside it, would, he hoped, never be dormant or extinct. It was chiefly centred in the northern part of the country, and he would have thought that some Bishop from Lancashire or Yorkshire might have found a place upon the Commission if it were thought necessary that the Bishops should be represented at all. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. who, they were all glad to hear, was to act as chairman of the Commission, he had no exception to take, although he would he extremely chary of saying anything in the right hon. Gentleman's favour, because he was well aware that there were some forms of blessing which were no better than curses. That text of Scripture which speaks of the man who rises early to bless his friends being no better than a curse to them, might perhaps have some application if he were to pass anything like an encomium upon his right hon. friend. As to the other names, the majority appeared to be those of persons far too much associated, far too much saturated with ecelesiasticism— far too much of the clerically-minded type to produce that clear and impartial finding which one might hope for from a Commission of this kind.

In justification of the action which he had taken in moving the adjournment in order to call public attention to this matter, he would say that he considered the connection between Church and State in this country so important that anything. whether they agreed with it or not, which might in the remotest way ultimately affect either the Church or State or the connection between them, was a thing which fully justified any Member of the House in initiating the discussion which he had ventured to start.

MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)

said that in seconding the Motion, while the terms of the re ference and the personnel of the Commission appeared to him unsatisfactory, he wished to recognise the difficulties with which the Government had had to deal, and that they had endeavoured to take steps in advance. When first he heard of the Royal Commission he had very little hope of a satisfactory result, and having learned the personnel of the Commission. and the terms of the reference, that hope was still further removed. In his judgment the Commission was not fairly constituted. It would have been possible to have constituted it fairly, either by making it a neutral body without any party representation upon it. or by making it fairly representative of all the parties in the Church. This Commission answered neither description. In particular he complained that there was no representative of the Church Protestant party upon it, and he was informed that there was no representative of the Broad Church party upon it. High Churchmen, neutral men, and moderate Churchmen were upon it, but he could find no member on it who could be said to be a fair exponent of the views of the Church Protestant party. That party had front the first taken a very grave view of the Ritualistic movement. They and they alone, had forced this question upon public notice, and through their action the Government had been led to move in the matter. Therefore. it seemed unfair that that party should be studiously avoided in the composition of the Commission. He thought that the Church Protestant party, which he represented, ought to have adequate representation on the Commission. It was useless to label the members of that party as extreme men, and to say that they were zealots. Whether they were right or wrong the Protestant party in the country had to be reckoned with, and no settlement could be made without their sanction. Another objection which he took was to the presence of two members of the Episcopal Bench upon the Commission. He objected on the ground that the Bishops themselves were accused parties. He thought the terrible condition of things prevailing in the Church was due to the apathy of the Bishops and their sympathy and concurrence with a great deal of what had been going on. By the wholesale exercise of the veto they had shut the doors of the Courts and taken the responsibility for the settlement of the question in their own hands. And how had they discharged it? To a great extent they had aided and abetted the lawless clergy. They had used their patronage to a very large extent for the promotion of men whom they must have known were breaking the law of the Church. For these reasons the Bishops had lost the confidence of the Church Protestant party. No man should be judge in his own cause, and he ventured to say the Bishops would be on their trial if this Commission were properly constituted.

The terms of the reference constituted a very weak statement of the case. The. House and the country had long ago been convinced that the law of the Church had been systematically broken. It was a notorious fact that in hundreds of churches the law of the land and of the Church was broken. There was no need for an inquiry into the "alleged prevalence of breaches or neglect." They wanted the legislation that was promised four years ago. He failed to see how the Commission would arrive at the facts of the matter beyond calling those who might be willing to come and who would give their own version of the position. Both as regarded composition and terms of reference, the Royal Commission was wholly unsatisfactory, and that being the case what would be the real benefit of it? The last Royal Commission sat for three years, and it was seven years before anything was done. What guarantee had they as to any limit of time? All they knew was that the question would be hung up for a term of years, and there was a very strong feeling on the part of the Protestant party in the country that to a large extent the appointment of this Royal Commission was a political expedient intended to tide over the next general election. This was a matter above Party, and he would rather not have a settlement which was illusory.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Austin Taylor.)

MR. BRYNTMOR JONES (Swansea, District)

said he desired to take this opportunity of thanking the Prime Minister for taking action in this matter in response to the Question he had the honour to present at an early period of the session. He regretted to have to say that he shared the feeling of disappointment expressed by the mover and seconder of the Motion in regard both to the composition of, and the terms of reference to, that Commission. He objected to the whole theory on which this Commission was to be composed. First of all, he objected to any Bishops at all being placed on it. He entirely agreed with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Bishops were persons who were accused in this matter, and if any tribunal to inquire into these disorders in the Church was to be appointed at all, it seemed to him contrary to the elements of justice to make these men judges in their own case. He desired to speak with respect regarding the right reverend Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he made no personal attack on him whatever. But it followed that if they were dealing with the Church founded on the idea of Episcopacy, the Bishops, who were the heads and governors of the Church, ought not to be the judges in a case against themselves or their clergy. If they were to have Bishops on the Commission at all, it was hardly fair to the Episcopal Bench that the Prime Minister had made the choice he had done. There were two provinces in England, Canterbury and York; and if the Archbishop of Canterbury was to be on the Commission, why not also the Archbishop of York? Then there was the Principality of Wales. Why had not the Prime Minister put one of the Welsh Bishops on the Commission? Further, he objected to Members of the House of Commons being on this Commission under the special circumstances. What he had asked for, with the general consent of that side of the House, and with the consent of a great many hon. Members on the other side who shared his views, was a Select Committee. The Prime Minister said he thought the proceedure by Royal Commission was better, but if he did proceed by Royal Commission, it was not right, in his opinion, to appoint any Members of this House on it. It was all very well to say that this was not a Party question; but there was no question that did not tend to become a Party question, and no Prime Minister could possibly nominate gentlemen to a Commission without giving rise to a certain amount of feeling. He recognised that the four hon. Members on the other side of the House nominated to the Commission were most admirable men for the purpose if they had not been Members of this House. But there were four as against only one on his side of the House. He did not think that that was right. If the Prime Minister had consented to the appointment of a Select Committee, then they would have been selected according to the usual practice. He noticed that the hon. Gentlemen who were appointed from this House on the Royal Commission were especially interested in ecclesiastical matters; but, so far from that being in favour of their appointment, it was against it. What was wanted was a Commission of impartial men. he admitted that it was a very difficult thing to get together a body of impartial men for a purpose of this kind; but he thought such a Commission might be described as—"A body of men, scholarly, well versed in ecclesiastical history and law, but not committed either by Holy Orders, or by political action, to any controversy now raging within the Church." What was wanted was a kind of superior special jury-—a body of men well versed in history and ecclesiastical law, but not committed to either political Party in the State by overt action, or to participation in the controversies existing in the Church.

Passing to his second point, he objected to the fact that there were no Nonconformist Members on the Commission. Without labouring the point he would like to remind the Prime Minister, as he had had to remind the Standing Committee upstairs, that the prevailing theory that because a citizen of this country took advantage of the Toleration Act he ceased to be a member of the Church of England, was not well founded. By-Common Law the subjects of the King were divided into the clergy and the laity; there was the status of the clergy and the status of the laity. So long as the Church claimed to be the National Church of England it could not deny the right of any Nonconformist to take part in the deliberations concerning the government of its affairs. He had nothing to say against any individual on the Commission, but he was thoroughly disappointed with its general aspect. He could see by the way it was formed, that it was formed by a kind of balancing of interests and views of the gentlemen composing it. The questions to be considered were partly questions of law and partly of facts, and the matter required to be dealt with by a kind of superior or very special jury. Then with regard to the terms of reference, he did not think the Prime Minister had quite carried out the undertaking that he gave to inquire into alleged breaches of law relating to the conduct of divine service. In a service held last January it St. Jude's, Birmingham—the clergyman of which was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman in January, 1896. on the express understanding that he was not a Ritualist—the children went into pews or seats. It was stated that this service was a children's Eucharist at which special books, not the Book of Common Prayer, were used. and those special books contained the admonition, "Be very still. Jesus is coming." Then at the critical point of the service the Priest elevated the host. the direction was given, "Be still, Jesus is here." There were only three or four communicants at that service, and one or two acolytes were pressed into the service to make it legal. Would it be permissible to bring evidence of this kind before the Commission?

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

Oh yes, that is the intention.]

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

said that removed much of his objection to the phraseology of the reference. He quite understood that an inquiry as to what were the true doctrines of the Church of England would be too broad and too vague for any practical body of men to deal with, but there were many books circulated by Churchmen, which received a kind of clerical sanction, to which exception was taken. Would it be permissible to put in those books before the Commission? He could not quite think that either the composition of the Commission, or the terms of reference, were satisfactory or that it would lead to any real solution of the difficulties in which the country found itself placed.

* MR. DAVID MACIYER (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

said he desired to associate himself with the remarks of the preceding speakers, but he hoped his hon. friend the Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool would not think it necessary to go to a division, because, although he should feel it his duty to support him, he believed the division would be most misleading, inasmuch as they would be largely supported by those who did not wish well to the Church of England and who did not wish well to His Majesty's Government. He could not help feeling that in deciding upon the personnel of this Commission the Government had overlooked somewhat the great Protestant feeling in the North of England. The feeling in every constituency in Liverpool, except the Scotland Division, which was largely an Irish one, would be with the most temperate remarks which fell from his hon. friend who moved the adjournment. The majority of people in the Liverpool constituencies did not think this Commission was necessary at all, and many people believed that it was only intended as I means of shelving that legislation which in Liverpool. Manchester, and other great towns in the North was so greatly desired. He hoped the Prime Minister when he spoke would be able to dispel that view, because it would be generally believed, unless he was able to explain it that night. that the intention of the Commission was to block the way to legislation. It would be invidious to speak in disparaging terms of any member of the Commission. His only complaint was that the Party which was in the vast majority in every constituency in Liverpool was not represented upon the Commission. Sir John Kennaway and Sir Samuel Hoare were the only Members who could in any sense be said to represent the Protestant party, and the former was known in Liverpool simply as one of those who spoke and vote I against the Church Discipline Bill. Liverpool people would not therefore regard him as an exponent of their views. Was it too late for the Prime Minister to modify the composition of the Commission? Would it be possible for him to add to it the name of the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool, who, he thought. might be willing to serve? He had no authority to make the suggestion; but he thought that some such appointment was required to make the Commission in any way acceptable to the constituencies of Liverpool. The Commission would have met with approval if it had been a strong judicial Commission with the clerical element not so largely represented as at present. He hoped the Prime Minister would see his way to place on the Commission some fair representation of the Protestant feeling of the North, which was very real, very honest, and very true, and was not by any means confined to Liverpool or to any particular district.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

said he was exceedingly dissatisfied with the speech of the mover of the Rosolution. It resolved itself practically into an attack upon the Prime Minister, and when some of them were aware that the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool had lost the confidence of his own Party in that Division, they realised that in moving that Resolution that night he was simply seeking to get the support of a certain section in that Division with a view to carrying it, as he had himself explained "against all comers." When it was announced that a Royal Commission was about to be appointed the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division convened a meeting upstairs of certain Members of that House, and he (Mr. Rutherford) was present at that meeting. A Resolution was proposed and seconded to be sent to headquarters, with a view to trying to get certain people appointed upon that Commission. He at once pointed out that he would not be a party to any Resolution which did not condemn the Commission itself in toto. The result was that the Resolution that was going to be proposed was very reluetantly withdrawn, and the Chairman was to see the Prime Minister privately with a view to eliciting certain information. He considered that the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division, in asking leave to move this Resolution without consulting those who were associated with him I this movement, and who were as strong supporters of the Protestant cause as he could claim to be, was simply playing for his own hand, for his own purposes. He was entirely at a loss to know why this Motion had been moved at all, except to give the hon. Member the opportunity of making an electioneering speech. For that reason he strongly objected to it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As my hon. friend who has just sat down observed a a few moments ago, this Motion, although not an attack upon me, is undoubtedly a criticism of the action which the Government have taken, and for which I, in particular am responsible. The House, I suppose, will therefore require me to deal with some of the criticisms which have been offered by my hon. friend who moved this Motion, my hon. friend who seconded it, and the other Gentlemen who have spoken. The criticism resolves itself naturally into two parts. One part deals with the composition of the Commission, and the other part deals with the reference to it. As regards the constitution of the Commission. the main criticism which I have heard is that there are two members of the Episcopal Bench appointed to serve on the Commission. I think that those who support this criticism can ha dly have remembered that the Commission is to deal with a question closely affecting the Church of England. To have a question closely affecting the Church of England, and to exclude from it the Archbishop of Canterbury and any other member of the Episcopal Bench, appears to me to be absolutely absurd. I certainly could never have been responsible for the appointment of any Commission which had to deal with any subject connected with the Church from which the ecclesiastical heads of that Church were to be formally and in terms excluded. If that proposition be rejected, as I am convinced it will be rejected by every Member of the House, whether he be a member of the Church of England or whether he be a Nonconformist, as almost an insult to the Episcopal Bench, I would ask whether it can be alleged for an instant that this Commission has been overloaded by ecclesiastics. There are two Bishops out of a total of thirteen members. I do not think anybody will contend that that proportion is excessive. When I come to the two members of the Episcopal Bench who are appointed, does any one suggest either that we should have excluded the Archbishop of Cauterbury, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury is likely to be otherwise than the sincerest friend which reasonable and orderly Churchmanship could possibly have? There has been an attack made, indeed, upon the Bishop of Oxford on the ground that he is a High Churchman. and I believe he is a High Churchman. But nobody has ever suggested, and nobody in the least acquainted with the action which he has taken in his diocese will for one instant suggest. that he is a sympathiser with what are described as disorders in the Church. or that he has not done his best to maintain among his clergy the observance of the ecclesiastical law to which they have promised obedience. There is only one other criticism made on the Episcopal members of the Commission. It has been said that the Bishops ought not to be put on the Commission because, by the exercise of their veto they have prevented the law from being enforced. I do not know what evidence my hon. friend who seconded the Motion had for that statement.

MR. CHARLES McARTHUR

said he had the evidence of a Report of that House, which showed that of tweaty-three complaints that had been made from 1874 to 1898 seventeen had been vetoed by the bishops.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not going into those statistics, but I will put this plain question to any hon. Gentleman who takes the view of my hon. friend. It is always possible for any man who objects to the proceedings in any church to institute a prosecution. By doing so, he throws upon the Bishop the responsibility of exercising his veto. My hon. friend is of opinion, I hope wrongly, but I have no authentic information on the point. that these illegal practices are of enormous prevalence in all dioceses and all districts. How comes it then that, so far as I know, in the four years which have been in controversy to-night, not a single prosecution has been instituted on which a Bishop has even been asked whether he would or would not exercise his veto?

MR. CHARLES McARTHUR

said that during that interval complaints were mode, and they were vetoed by the late Bishop of London and the present Bishop of Rochester.

MR. V. J. BALFOUR

I am not sure of my dates, but I think that was before 1899.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

No, since 1899.

MR. A J. BALFOUR

I will change my question then. The only case since 1899 in which any Bishop has been asked to exercise his veto is the case in which the complainant was a man who had nothing whatever to do with the parishes, and who wrote, I believe, from a club in London. to suggest that these prosecutions should be instituted. The late Bishop of London was the last man who could be described as a sympathiser with that form of ecclesiasticism to which my hon. friend objects, and if he, after consideration. thought these prosecutions should be vetoed, I doubt not he was right. But in any case there is not a single example of a parishioner in any church in any part of the country having tried whether the Bishops were or were not determined to exercise the veto which the existing law gives them. I never understood how that could be, because I do not doubt that there are a great many practices in various churches which ought to be stopped, but to say that the Bishops should be excluded from the Commission because they have not exercised the veto in any case which has come before them in any reasonable or practicable shape, is to pass a criticism on the Episcopal Bench and upon those who have been responsible for the formation of the Commission which might well have been avoided.

The next criticism I heard on the constitution of the Commission was that there was no representative of the Protestant party. I have always conceived myself for now fifty-six years—perhaps in my very early life I was not able to form an opinion, but ever since I have been able to form an opinion on ecclesiastical views—an ardent Protestant. But I now find the word Protestant used in a manner wholly unknown. I will not say to the centuries in which Protestantism began, I will not say to the age of the Reformation, but to every age of ecclesiastical history down. I believe. to the last ten years; and I do think that we humble but repudiated Protestants have some right to complain of this restricted use of the term and to ask with all respect. and in regard to the historical use of the word, that we may still, if only in the outer court. be regarded as members of the true Protestant body. I am told there is no Protestant upon this Commission. I will not ask whether the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of Oxford is a Protestant. Sir Francis Jeune is the next name I come across. Sir Francis Jeune, I have always understood to be a very- eminent ecclesiastical lawyer of Low Church tendencies. If he were told that he was not a Protestant I do not know what. his emotions would be. I will only say that they would be less poignant than. the emotion felt by my right hon. friend the Member for Honiton if he were told that he was not a Protestant. He would feel that we all have, as we get older. very much to learn. I suppose the Member for Oxford is quite outside the pale. But with my hon. friend the Member for Norwich. it really is hard. after a. long life. in which his fellow-citizens have known his opinions, political and religious, for so long, that my hon. friend should be publicly described in this House as unworthy of the name of Protestant. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bolton regards himself as a Protestant or not. I should imagine he did. But when I find as a culminating case—I cannot go through all the names—that the head of the Evangelical College in Cambridge the denominational college created for the purpose of giving what is called a Low Church training, Ridley Hall, which bears the name of one of our Protestant martyrs. is unworthy to be called a Protestant, then I ask to what limits true Protestantism has shrunk, and how many of us are to be sent to the stake as unworthy of carrying on the great traditions of the sixteenth century. There may be many attacks possibly which may be made upon the constitution of this Commission, but the attack that it has no Protestants upon it is really almost the most grotesque attack I have heard on any subject in this House.

Then another comment was made, that the legal profession was insufficiently represented. I am always anxious that the legal profession should be amply represented, and I made great efforts to have the judicial element strengthened. I cannot, of course—it would be improper for me to go into the details of the matter; but, in fact, no other Judge of the High Court could possibly be spared. It is a question of carrying on the judicial business of the country, and I could not get another Judge to serve without absolutely dislocating the judicial business and putting suitors to the greatest inconvenience. Put I did all I could. I have already mentioned the name of Sir Francis Jeune, and no one will doubt the competence of Sir Lewis Dibdin. Dean of the Court of Arches, who is the most competent ecclesiastical lawyer and will not be accused by anybody who knows him of any leaning towards irregular practices. One other point. The hon. and learned Member for Swansea, who by his Question gave occasion for the original appointment of this Commission, said that he desired not a Commission but a Committee, and he still, I think, would have preferred proceeding by a Committee of this House.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

assented.

MR. A J. BALFOUR

But what is his commentary on the Commission which has been substituted for a Committee? He says that what he would desire was a Commission composed of scholars and historians unconnected with Party.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

said he should have preferred a Select Committee, which, if it had been appointed, would no doubt have been appointed in the ordinary way, by negotiation between both sides of the House. He should not have objected to Members of Parliament investigating in that way. But when once the right hon. Gentleman appointed a Commission, if any Member of that House were nomine ated the question of Party would com-in, and he had tried to define the class of men he should prefer.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes, and I have given his definition—scholars and historians unconnected with Party. But I cannot understand the frame of mind of an hon. Gentleman who insists that we should have appointed either a Committee of the House, on strictly Party lines, by negotiation between the Party Whips, quite irrespective of ecclesiastical considerations, or else a Commission which should have nobody connected with Party on it, but which should consist of scholars and historians.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

That is an alternative.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes. It may be an alternative, but it must be admitted that the alternatives are very wide apart, and if the hon. Gentleman were given his choice, the difference between the Committee which he would have liked and the Commission which, if he could not get the Committee, he would prefer, would have been truly amazing. I do not press the matter further. I venture to say there are scholars and historians on this Commission, and that, though it is quite true that there are Members of this House who are persons connected with Party politics, there are a great number of gentlemen of whom that cannot be said. Certainly I do not think even my hon. friend the principal critic of this Commission, whatever else he may say about it, will say that Party politics, as distinguished from ecclesiastical politics, are likely to pervert the course of its investigations.

I think I have done with the criticisms on the constitution of the Commission and have only to deal with the terms of the reference. As far as I have followed the debate, the complaints made about the reference are, in the first place, that it is to investigate a subject of which all the material facts are already known. I think it is my hon. friend who seconded the Motion who asked who doubts that there are these irregular proceedings in the Church of England, and if nobody doubts it why do we have a Commission to investigate it? Nobody, I am afraid, can doubt that these irregularities exist; what is doubted is not the fact that the irregularities exist, but the degree to which they exist, and the area over which they exist, and on that there are really the most diverse opinions. I have endeavoured, certainly with impartiality, but I admit with inadequate machinery, to arrive at some conclusion on that matter, and I have not succeeded. I think the Commission will succeed, and surely it would be an invaluable factor in our future discussions if we could have some authoritative statement made, based upon evidence, as to the extent to which these unfortunate and regrettable practices occur. Then it has been said by at least two of the speakers that this Commission will not be able to get evidence, that, like other Royal Commissions, they cannot examine on oath, and cannot compel parsons to come before them or require reports to be made. Well, an accusation which is true of all Royal Commissions cannot be very damaging to this one. If Royal Commissions are able, as nobody doubts that they are able, unless in very exceptional circumstances, really to obtain a full account of the facts of any subject they are set to investigate, why is this particular Commission to be less fortunate than its predecessors? I do not believe there is the smallest chance of their failing to obtain evidence. My hon. friend appears to think that the incriminated clergy will refuse to come before them supposing they are summoned. I should doubt that. But in any case, my hon. friends know of the fasts; they have details of all the churches of England; let them come before the Commission and give their evidence. If they gave evidence which was not in accordance with the facts, depend upon it those who felt injured by the evidence would at once take every step towards correcting any false impression that may have been produced.

Then there remains only one further criticism which requires answer, perhaps the most important of all. It was raised by my hon. friend who moved the adjournment, and in substance it amounts to this — that whereas this Commission is a Commission to inquire into irregularities of practice, whether in the shape of extreme ritual or other irregularities, he would like in addition that it should examine into errors of doctrine in the Church of England. Well, I think this House would commit a most deplorable error if it started a Commission to examine the niceties of doctrine preached in all the pulpits of the Church of England, and I do not think my hon. Friend can have seriously considered what floodgates of controversy he would be opening by any procedure of that kind. What my hon. friend is anxious for is to get at what are truly called Romanising doctrines not connected with the Church services. I sympathise with him. But can anybody frame a Resolution of that kind without dealing with doctrines as a whole, and are you seriously going to suggest that there is to be an examination into the errors of doctrine of which any clergyman may have been guilty, or thought to be guilty, in the course of his ministrations? I am not sure how the Protestants would come out of it. It is a difficult and a delicate matter. But I will not guarantee to say that there have not been doctrines preached by those who would call themselves of the extremist and strictest sect of the Protestant denomination which perhaps might not stand a critical examination into their harmony with the formulae of the Church of England. I know there is no Nonconformist sect that would cave to have a judicial examination of the exact relation of its present doctrines with the formulas of its founder. At any rate I do not think such an examination would be in the interest, of true religion, whether taught in Nonconformist chapels or in the Church of England. Those are questions which, I believe, can be brought before the Courts of law under the existing machinery of the Church of England. I hope they will not be brought forward, and, so far as I am concerned, I will not do anything o make it easy to have an endless series of actions for heresy brought against High Churchmen, Low Churchmen, Protestants, Broad Churchmen—men of all the various ecclesiastical divisions which are to be found in the Episcopal as in the non-Episcopal Churches of this country. No good ever came of such discussions; in my opinion no good will ever come of them, and, while I am most anxious to do what I can to secure that the ritual of the Church of England shall be in harmony with the great traditions of that great

Protestant Church, I will not be a party to doing anything to drag in those doctrinal controversies which would go to an extent not contemplated, I believe, by my hon. friend, and which. so far from ministering to the cause of true religion, would only increase differences which are already only too prominent and would further accentuate that most lamentable fact, to which we cannot shut our eyes, that the greatest obstacle to the progress of religion is the divisions between Christians who profess the same faith.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes. 90; Noes, 170. (Division List No. 89.)

AYES.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Russell, T. W.
Asher, Alexander	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Joicey, Sir James	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Kitson, Sir James	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Barlow, John Emmott	Langley, Batty	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Bell, Richard	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Soares, Ernest J.
Black, Alexander William	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Strachey, Sir Edward
Brigg, John	Lloyd-George, David	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Broadhurst, Henry	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Lough, Thomas	Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower
Burns, John	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Toulmin, George
Burt, Thomas	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Ure, Alexander
Caldwell, James	M'Crae, George	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T
Channing, Francis Allston	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Weir, James Galloway
Cremer, William Randal	Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.	White, George (Norfolk)
Dalziel, James Henry	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Dobbie, Joseph	Moss, Samuel	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Duncan, J. Hastings	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Nussey, Thomas Wilians	Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Perks, Robert William	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Pirie, Duncan V.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Fuller, J. M. F.	Price, Robert John	Yoxall, James Henry
Grant, Corrie	Priestley, Arthur
Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale	Rea, Russell	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr Austin Taylor and Mr. Brynmor Jones.
Helme, Nerval Watson	Rickett, J. Compton
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Riga, Richard
Horniman, Frederick John	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Houston, Robert Paterson	Robson, William Snowdon
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds	Campbell, J. H. M. Dublin Univ.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Arrol, Sir William	Beckett, Ernest William	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Bignold, Arthur	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore.
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Bond, Edward	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Chapman, Edward
Balcarres, Lord	Brassey, Albert	Clare, Octavius Leigh
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Clive, Captain Percy A.
Balfour, Captain C. B. (Hornsey	Butcher, John George	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Plummer, Walter R.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Pretyman, Ernest George
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Pym, C. Guy
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Reid, James (Greenock)
Crooks, William	Kerr, John	Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Keswick, William	Ridley, S. Forde (Betlmal Green
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Davenport, William Bromley-	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Denny, Colonel	Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R.	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dickson, Charles Scott	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.	Legge, Col. Hon Heneage	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Shackleton, David James
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Doughty, George	Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lowe, Francis William	Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Duke, Henry Edward	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. (Manc'r	Macdona, John Cnmming	Stock, James Henry
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Maconochie, A. W.	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.
Fison, Frederick William	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Thornton, Percy M.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Majendie, James A. H.	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Tuff, Charles
Forster, Henry William	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Fyler, John Arthur	Milvain, Thomas	Valentia, Viscount
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin Nairn)	Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Walker, Col. William Hall
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow	Webb, Colonel William George
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Morpeth, Viscount	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Gretton, John	Mount, William Arthur	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Groves, James Grimble	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Hambro, Charles Erie	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry	Myers, William Henry	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Hare, Thomas Leigh	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Wylie, Alexander
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Palmer, Waller (Salisbury)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.	Parkes, Ebenezer	Young, Samuel
Heaton, John Henniker	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.	Percy, Earl	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Pierpoint, Robert
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T	Platt-Higgins, Frederick