HC Deb 31 October 1968 vol 772 cc311-34

9.59 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee (Wokingham)

I beg to move, That the Prayer Book (Further Provisions) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament. I should first explain that I am moving this Motion only in the unavoidable absence of the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who is the Second Church Estates Commissioner. I am doing so at comparatively short notice and I regret that the House will, therefore, find that my explanation of the Measure, and, if I am permitted, any answer which I may give to questions raised, will not be of the high standard to which the House is normally accustomed. For that I must apologise in advance, but I hope that the House will be understanding of my personal difficulty.

Since I see the eagle eye of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) upon me, may I briefly say that the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly met on 3rd October. I was myself present and I can, therefore, testify to that fact personally. It was as a result of that meeting that it reaffirmed its willingness that this Measure should be presented to the House. The Measure is before the House, as also is the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee upon it to which, in accordance with normal form, is attached an Explanatory Memorandum by the Legislative Committee.

I need not waste the time of the House at any length on most of the Clauses of the Measure. Clause 1 authorises lay persons in the Church of England to officiate at morning or evening prayer in certain restricted ways and to read the lessons. It may come as a surprise to a number of hon. Members that when, as laymen, they have hitherto read the lessons in Anglican churches they have been breaking the law. This is something which is put right by Clause 1. I trust and believe that it is not a controversial matter.

Clause 2 deals with the administration of the Sacrament and the reading of epistle and gospel by laymen under strictly controlled conditions as laid out in the Measure, with which, once again, I need not detain the House. Clause 3 contains matters which have been commented upon and the House will, therefore, forgive me if I return to it presently.

Clause 4 deals with the problem of bringing up to date the tables and rules regulating services which basically stems from the problem of a moveable Easter. Again, this is not a controversial matter. Clause 5 is a very human provision which deals with those tragic and sad cases when one is undertaking burial service for somebody who has committed suicide and in respect of whom no extenuating circumstances are found by the coroner. I think that this will not cause difficulty in the House.

It is on Clause 3 that there has been comment and I should, therefore, like to take the time of the House, because these are difficult matters, certainly for myself, to understand and there has, possibly, been misunderstanding about what is proposed.

It will be noticed that Clause 3 inserts into the introductory rubric certain words in inverted commas. Perhaps I might read the central words: The godparents shall be persons who have been baptised and confirmed and will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the child committed to their charge and by the example of their own godly living". which, if I may be permitted to say so, is a rather beautiful way of expressing the relationship between godparent and godchild.

It will be noticed that power is vested in the minister to dispense with the requirement of confirmation in any case in which, in his judgment, need so requires. Very proper anxiety has been expressed that this provision—not only baptism, but confirmation—is a requirement, so it is believed, by Canon 29 of the Canons of 1603, which requires that neither shall any person be admitted godfather or godmother to any child at christening or confirmation before the said person so undertaking hath received the Holy Communion. It has been said that one of the anxieties is that the requirement of confirmation discriminates against some of the great Christian denominations which do not practise episcopal confirmation. If that were so, it might be found to be an unhappy provision. Certainly, in the present ecumenical age, with much happier relationships between Churches, it would be one, I feel sure, that the Church of England would wish to avoid, and would certainly wish to avoid giving offence to members of other churches.

I have, therefore, taken careful advice about this matter and I must make it clear that I needfully rely upon advice in a matter of this kind. The legal view is that when the Measure refers to the godparent being confirmed, it does so against the background of an insertion in the Book of Common Prayer—that is, the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church. Therefore, in the view expressed to me, it clearly means confirmation in the Anglican Church.

I want to make that extremely clear, because if that view is correct, as it is believed to be—it is conscientiously given by those who are dealing with this matter—it means that precisely the same rules apply to a member of the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Orthodox Church or one of the great Free Churches of the nation which are one of its great glories. It would certainly be extremely unfortunate if the view got around, or could reasonably be substantiated, that any one of those was being separated out for special treatment.

Of course, there remains vested in the minister the power in any of those cases to dispense with the requirement of confirmation. I hope and believe that in this present day and age, that is a provision that every Member of the House would feel it appropriate to be vested in the minister in question.

I have explained this aspect of the matter because while I realise that those who have been anxious about this have been so for the highest motives, it is naturally a point which has caused some discussion, and I hoped that it might be helpful if I explained what I have been reliabily informed is the correct legal position in the matter. I hoped that if that explanation were given it might enable the House to feel that this is one of the many occasions when, after careful scrutiny by the Church Assembly, this is a Measure which should be presented to Her Majesty.

It is the culminating move in a long, detailed and painstaking process of the revision of the canon law of the Church of England. It is earnestly hoped by those who have worked on it for a very long time indeed that the House will, in accordance with the 1919 Act, feel it appropriate to give its approval to the Measure and for it to be presented for the Royal Assent.

I apologise for the inadequacy of my explanation, which would have been more ably given by the Second Church Estates Commissioner. I hope that what I have said will commend the Measure to the House.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

In opposing the Measure, there are two bases on which I might speak. One may be called the substantive issue and the other may be described as the procedural issue. I wish to make it clear at the outset, as did the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), that the Measure has been passed by the Church of England.

The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the cause of controversy is Clause 3. It is fair to say that in the Report laid before the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament by the Legislative Committee of the Church of England this controversy was fully stated, in the introduction and subsequently, in that Report. I have no complaint, nor has any other hon. Member as far as I know, that the original Report of the Legislative Committee on this Measure was not fully explanatory of the controversy that it has raised. While I will briefly comment on the points made by the hon. Member for Wokingham, there are hon. Members who are Members of the House of Laity of the Church Assembly who are more competent than I to comment on the controversy in that Assembly.

The hon. Member for Wokingham having mentioned the substantive issue in Clause 3, it is relevant that I should say that the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee of the two Houses of Parliament which has been laid before us is, as far as I understand it, somewhat inaccurate in itself. It omits mention of the controversy, which is not wholly surprising because, as a Member of that Ecclesiastical Committee, I went to its meeting for the purpose of discussing this Measure and found this Report in almost exactly the same form as it is before us laid on the table there, with no opportunity for the Members of the Ecclesiastical Committee to consider it.

It seemed to me then that there was some attempt to put an issue of some controversy to the Members of a joint committee of the two Houses without giving them adequate opportunity for considering it in detail. This seems improper in principle, and the results of it are apparent because at one point in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee it says, for example, that the existing law about the qualifications of godparents is in Canon 29 of 1603, as the hon. Gentleman said, which requires them—and I stress "them"—to be communicants. With the assistance of other hon. Members, I have looked up the Report on the Canon Law of the Church of England, published in 1947, and have seen that Canon 29—which, in the course of ages, has become renumbered 31—says nothing of the kind, although this statement was put in the draft Report to us. As I say, although this statement was made to us, it says nothing of the kind.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman can speak for or against the Measure. He cannot amend it.

Mr. English

I am not endeavouring to amend the Measure but to point out that the facts laid before the House in the form of this Report, House of Commons Paper No. 8, are inaccurate in law. That is highly relevant to a debate when the House is expected, on the facts in this Report, to reach a decision. The canon concerned says: No person shall be permitted to answer as godparent who is unbaptized, or who is openly known to live in sin notorious without repentence, or who has maliciously or openly contended with his neighbours without being reconciled. The essential point is that it says: For every child that is to be baptised there shall be at least one godparent of the same sex, who shall have been confirmed… In other words, the statement in the draft Report laid before the Ecclesiastical Committee—which, not having had an opportunity to look up the law, was bound to accept that as being a true statement of fact—is that all the godparents must be confirmed. That is inaccurate.

It was then argued before the Ecclesiastical Committee that the present Measure is a relaxation of the existing law. It would seem that were it the case that every person who is a godparent under the existing law had to be a confirmed member of the Church of England it would undoubtedly be some sort of relaxation, but if it is the case that only one godparent has to be a confirmed member there is no question of any relaxation. In fact, it is a restriction rather than a relaxation. It is fair to say that the law on this point is by no means clear, but I suggest that that emphasises my point that the Committees concerned should have an adequate opportunity to consider what the law might be before being faced with the question of deciding on the Report.

The Report was then quite illegally laid before both Houses of Parliament without, as is required by the Act of 1919, which gives the Church Assembly these powers, being laid once more before the Legislative Committee of the Church of England. This was an entirely illegal act. It has apparently been the practice to act in this way for many years past, but I submit that it does not improve an illegality to prove that one has done it before—

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, I ruled on that point in the hon. Member's favour on 18th July. Since then, I would not have put the Motion to the House tonight if all the statutory obligations had not been carried out.

Mr. English

I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I am not disputing that that is the case. I merely say that there has been an intent which was illustrated by the necessity I felt of asking for your Ruling. As the Ruling you gave illustrated, there has, in my view, been an attempt to steamroller this Measure through the House, and to conceal from the House the degree of controversy it occasioned.

But even were the facts I have suggested with regard to the existing law and the law in this Measure not correct, it seems to me that the argument put by the hon. Member is—not through his own fault; I do not speak personally—somewhat specious. It is somewhat specious in the sense that the requirement of confirmation must mean confirmation in the Church of England. The argument of the opponents of the Measure is that "confirmation" means confirmation in any Church which has confirmation as a rite; in other words, in any Church which is an episcopal Church—meaning, roughly speaking, the Anglican, the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox Churches—and that it therefore discriminates against members of the Nonconformist Churches being godparents.

It seems to me that, to put it no higher, there is doubt about this issue, and that doubt could have been resolved quite easily by using in the Measure the words "confirmed in the Church of England" or in a Church appropriately defined. This statement was not made at any stage in the controversy in the House of Laity, the House of Clergy, or the House of Bishops, or before the Legislative Committee or the Ecclesiastical Committee. At no stage were any such words put in, although the controversy and the cause of the controversy were known.

Mr. van Straubenzee

I apologise for intervening, but I want to be very certain that I understand absolutely clearly from what the hon. Gentleman is quoting when giving details of the canon as he believes it to be at the present time. It is no doubt my inadequacy in handling the matter. Would the hon. Gentleman say clearly and exactly from what he is quoting?

Mr. English

Iwas quoting from "The Canon Law of the Church of England, being the Report of the Archbishop's Commission on the Canon Law together with proposals for a revised Body of Canons; and a memorandum 'Lawful Authority' by the Honourable Mr. Justice Vaizey", published in London by the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge in 1947. I was quoting, of course, not from the report, or from the proposed revised canons, but from the appendix which purports, and, I must assume, correctly, to be the existing constitutions and canons ecclesiastical of the Church of England existing in 1947.

I submit that there was an attempt to steamroller this through the House. There was certainly an attempt to prevent the Ecclesiastical Committee from having time to consider the Measure. There was certainly an attempt to put the matter before the House of Commons contrary to the procedure appropriate under the relevant Act, as you yourself ruled, Mr. Speaker. The result of this is that the reports placed before us are inaccurate as to the facts. Even if they were not so inaccurate, there is a matter of contro-very and possible discrimination against members of Nonconformist Churches and in favour of members of other Churches outside the Church of England, which possibility need not have been raised had the matter been considered with more care, greater time and greater consideration for the feelings of those possibly affected.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash)

I should like to associate myself with the congratulations offered from different parts of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) for stepping in at short notice and handling what is a tricky and, alas, contentious matter. I want to concentrate, as he did, on Clause 3 of the Measure, and I hope that the House will permit me to contrast the form of words proposed in this Measure with that which now prevails as the law governing the Church of England.

The law governing the Church of England as it now stands is Canon 29 of 1603 which provides: neither shall any person be admitted godfather or godmother to any child at Christening or Confirmation before the said person so undertaking hath received the holy Communion. I stress the words "hath received holy Communion". That was the sole criterion governing whether a prospective godparent was admissible as from 1603 to the present time.

In practice, that single criterion was a generous and liberal provision. It applied not only under the canon to communicant members of the Church of England, but it automatically applied to the Scottish Kirk and automatically admitted to the holy communion the Continental Protestants. As the law stands and as the provision of the canon law of 1603 reads, the sole criterion for admission as a godparent was that the godparent was an acknowledged communicant.

It is proposed to substitute for this broad and generous provision much more limiting criteria as set out in the draft and which reads: The godparents shall be persons who have been baptized and confirmed… The crucial issue, of course, is "and confirmed". This is the innovation which it is proposed to introduce and, in practice, it must be regarded as a restricting, delimiting and discriminating innovation. The appearance of the word "confirmed" in a Statute, therefore subject to interpretation by the courts and having a legal meaning, in the present context can mean only confirmed by a bishop, episcopally confirmed. That means that, if we pass the Measure as drafted, the old rather broad and generous provision, that of communicant status, which was a feature of the earlier canon, will end; and the only people able to qualify as godparents without special clerical scrutiny by the Anglican parson will be those who have been episcopally confirmed. That means that godparents who are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church or of the Roman Catholic Church may automatically, as the provision stands, qualify as godparents, however unsuitable they might be in practice.

One must bear in mind here that, at least in the Eastern Orthodox churches, infant episcopal confirmation is practised, and it would be quite feasible for an infant to be proposed as godparent to a child in the Church of England, and for no clerical scrutiny to arise in that case under the new Measure. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), who is a Baptist and has not, therefore, been confirmed—certainly not episcopally confirmed—could be a godparent only if he were able to pass the test of clerical scrutiny by an Anglican parson.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has sought to allay our fears in this matter, but, with great respect to him, to his learning and to the difficult brief which he has been handed, he made confusion worse confounded so far as I am concerned. The difficulty, as I see it, is that my hon. Friend says that the word "confirmed" is to be read, understood and interpreted in the present Measure as "confirmed in the Church of England" and that it applies only to the Church of England. In that case, we want answers to two questions.

Why does not the Measure say "confirmed in the Church of England" if that is what it means? In the absence of such a qualifying definition, it must be open to a legalistic cleric who wishes to discriminate against a Nonconformist proposed godparent to whom he may have an objection, perhaps on grounds of prejudice, to say that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham may have interpreted the Measure in a certain way when presenting it to the House of Commons, the Measure as it stands does not say it.

I come now to the second and more serious defect in my hon. Friend's argument. When the Archbishop of Canterbury originally commended the Measure to the House, he did so in a report in which he said, with reference to the original deletion and disallowance by the Bishops of an amendment by the House of Laity which would have restored the criterion of mere communicant status, that The Canon and the Measure as drafted represent a relaxation of the existing law which requires that all godparents shall be communicant members of the Church of England". We cannot have it both ways. If the insertion of the word "confirmed" is meant to be a relaxation of the law which applied in 1603, it simply does not work that way. As I have already explained, the canon of 1603 had the effect of admitting as godparents members of the Church of England who were communicants—there were no Free Churches at that time—the Scottish Kirk and the continental Protestant Churches. It was a broad, generous provision.

My hon. Friend tells us that he proposes to interpret the Measure by reading the word "confirmed" as restrictive so that the qualification will apply only to those who are in the Church of England. In that case, how can the Archbishop of Canterbury suggest in the report which he made for the edification of the House that the Measure is a liberalising one designed to relax the existing law? If my hon. Friend's argument is correct, the Measure limits and restricts the scope in finding godparents.

Which is right? Is the Archbishop when he says that it is a relaxing Measure to give wider scope than the 1603 canon, or is my right hon. Friend right in saying that it is a delimiting definition and that the criterion to be satisfied is that one must have been baptised and confirmed in the Church of England before one can qualify, without clerical scrutiny, as a godparent?

This is an extremely restrictive Measure, an extremely restrictive innovation. I would like to remind the House of the very moderate Amendment which the House of Laity introduced, in July 1966, into the present Measure as drafted, and passed by 103 votes to 69, a substantial majority. By that large majority the House of Laity substituted the words: communicant members in their own churches for the words: baptised and confirmed in the Church of England. Is not this more in tune with the spirit of ecumenism of our age, that these generous words, interpreting and further defining the original 1603 provision that one should be a communicant member in one's own Church as the only necessary qualification for a god-parent?

Mr. Speaker

Order. If they are words which are sought to be put in the Measure and are not in it, we cannot talk about them. We are only talking tonight about the Measure.

Mr. Alison

I am sorry to have strayed over the bounds of order in this. I cannot but comment that these words will have left an imprint upon the memory of the House, even though they were out of order. Alternatives are available and the House should seriously consider amending the Church Assembly—and here I speak as a loyal member of the House of Laity of the Church Assembly of the Church of England—that it has got us into a proper muddle over this, and we do not know whether this Measure: represents a relaxation, as the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested, in the existing canon law, or a tightening up of it, as the hon. Member for Woking-ham suggests, by saying that "confirmed" means confirmed in the Church of England.

We do not know where we stand on this, and it is proper that the House should suggest to the Church authorities that they should enter more into the spirit of the age and of the laity, which is so much a feature of church life at present, and reconsider the terms which they are asking this House to accept.

10.32 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)

I hope that it will not be thought improper if I do not apologise for occupying the time of the House on this matter. We must recognise our responsibilities. These matters cannot be dealt with, according to law, unless this House does its duty, and in order to allow it to do its duty, as I undersand it, it is provided by Section 4 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, that a report shall be laid before the House.

I would suggest that there is nothing very dreadful about a Member of Parliament, who has no connection with the Church Assembly, reading that Report to see whether it is accurate. It appears to me, and it may have an explanation, that it is seriously inaccurate. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has already indicated this, but he ought to be supported. When I first read Clause 3 of the Measure I was surprised and doubted, in my wicked ignorance, that it was suggested that there must be not fewer than three godparents.

Then I found that they had to have these qualifications. I looked at the Report to see why this was so. I read in Clause 3, and when I first read it I thought that it must be gospel because of its origin, that the existing law about the qualifications of godparents, in the plural in Canon 29 of 1603 requires them to be communicants. With the valuable assistance of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, and a certain amount of ramification in the Library, I eventually came upon a document which, at any rate, I am satisfied at the moment is the document from which one gathers what Canon 29 of 1603, as amended, says. That has already been read to the House, and it is clear from that that the canon does not require there to be godparents in the plural at all. It only requires one. It says that it is desirable that there should be another one, so that it seems, with all due respect to whoever was responsible, that we are in the rather difficult situation—

Mr. van Straubenzee

I regret interrupting my right hon. and learned Friend—I am sure he will understand that in anything legal I question anything that he says with very great anxiety—but I think there is a very serious misunderstanding here. I have before me the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, which I think is the bible in this matter. It gives Canon 29 as amended. I have had the advantage of seeing the paper that my right hon. and learned Friend was kind enough to put along the benches for me, but I truthfully say—I know he will accept that I would not for one moment wish to mislead the House on a point of fact on this point—that the wording is absolutely clear: Neither shall any person be admitted godfather or godmother of a child at the christening or confirmation before the said person so undertaking has received holy communion. I think that what has happened—but here I enter upon the realm of conjecture—is that my right hon. and learned Friend has been—dare I say it?—misled by an appendix to the 1947 Report, which is dealing with the recommendations of that Report. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have intervened too lengthily, but this is genuinely an effort to help the House.

Sir L. Heald

I am not concerned with anything else but seeing that the House proceeds to do its duty. I still say that the provision that there shall be not fewer than three godparents is a surprising one and that I have been unable to find any provision in the Canons requiring that there should be more than one godparent. With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has not read out anything that in any way contravenes what I said. I said that it is stated that there shall be a godparent and it is desirable that there should be another one. It may be that in the document to which he referred something different is said, but it certainly was not what he read out.

Mr. English

I support the right hon. and learned Gentleman in respect of what the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) read out. I think there is some confusion here. I submit that it is caused not by the persons present but by the procedure I mentioned. But is it not a fact that what the hon. Member for Wokingham read out was "who shall have received holy communion"? The point made by the hon. Member for Barkeston Ash (Mr. Alison) is about the difference as between "communicant in any church" and "confirmed", which can only be in a Church which is episcopally organised. I think that the hon. Member for Wokingham needs to explain that point because "to have received holy communion" has a slightly different context in different Churches.

Sir L. Heald

It is rather difficult to carry on a tripartite discussion. Perhaps I might be allowed to say again what I said before. It is stated in our Report, which we ought to be entitled to regard as gospel—if that is not an improper word in the circumstances—that the existing law about the qualification of godparents is Canon 29 of 1603, which requires them to be communicants. The only document that I have been able to find which tells me what Canon 29 of 1603 involves appears to me to show beyond any doubt that there is a requirement that there shall be one godparent and it is desirable that there should be more than one. In those circumstances, when we are asked to accept as a matter of course that there should be three godparents, I should have thought it was important to know whether what we have been told is right or not. That is all I am asking for.

Again I say I am very sorry but I am not going to apologise as a Member of the House of Commons for wanting to be satisfied that a Report put before us is accurate, which is the only basis for our agreeing to the document at all. If somebody will satisfy me—which, with the greatest respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has not done—that I was wrong in what I said about the canon as amended, that there does not have to be more than one godparent, I will apologise and not say any more. But at the moment the satisfaction is not there.

10.40 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon)

Until I came into the Chamber and heard the debate, I thought I understood fairly clearly what this Measure was about, and I had come here as a Free Churchman, on behalf of certain Free Church bodies, to express agreement with what they believe and what I believed until I heard the debate to be the meaning and purpose of the Measure.

I want to say two things about the Measure which are of interest and concern generally to the Free Churches. The Free Churches look with great approval on Clauses 1 and 2 of the Measure, if for no other reason than if they are implemented they bring the Church of England, in the use of the laity in the conduct of services, into line to a much greater extent than at present with the practice that has existed in the Free Churches for many years.

If Clauses 1 and 2 come into practice, it is a relaxation, as far as the Church of England is concerned, in the present law in as much as it would permit authorised lay men and women to take the services of morning and evening prayer and to read the Lessons and distribute the Sacraments and read the Epistle and Gospel at the Holy Communion.

In so far as Free Church people can be said to take an interest in this matter—and I suggest that all Christians have and ought to have an interest in the work of the national Church—they will greatly welcome the purport of Clauses 1 and 2 As I understand the debate so far, there is no controversy among those hon. Members who have spoken as far as these two Clauses are concerned.

Clause 3 seems to be the controversial Clause. A good many Free Churchmen were troubled about this when they read the wording of this Measure in the first instance, because I think their impression was the same as the impression put forward by other hon. Members tonight as to the correct interpretation to be put upon it. My Free Church friends were relieved and satisfied—they may have been right or wrong—when they read the explanation given in regard to this Clause by the Lord Bishop of Worcester when this Measure was quite recently before the other place.

He made a clear statement, which they necessarily accepted as being correct, to this effect: …I am advised that the generally accepted opinion is that it must mean confirmed according to the rites in this Book. Consequently, not only Free Churchmen but also Roman Catholics and members of the Orthodox Church are excluded save in so far as the discretion of the minister permits',".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd Oct., 1968; Vol. 296, c. 1460.] If the correct interpretation of Clause 3 is as stated by the Bishop of Worcester, I have the authority on behalf of certain Free Church organisations to say that this Clause is entirely satisfactory to them. But if, for any reason, it be found that the view propounded by the Bishop is not correct and that the view propounded by other hon. Members tonight is correct, it would certainly be the case that Free Church people would regard Clause 3 as being in the nature of a discrimination against them.

Mr. English

I agree that the law is not clear, and the Lord Bishop of Worcester takes care to say that what he advances is not his own opinion but that which he was advised. But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole problem could have been avoided if the Measure had stated "confirmed in the Church of England", if that is what it meant?

Mr. Alison

May I supplement that intervention? Surely doubt must be cast on the Lord Bishop of Worcester's interpretation by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's explicit affirmation that this is a relaxing and not a restricting provision?

Sir C. Black

I am being asked to enter into rather deep waters, and I do not believe that I am competent to express an opinion on the interpretation of a legal Measure as between the view propounded by the Lord Bishop of Worcester on the one hand and that of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate on the other.

In the limited brief that is mine, I must confine myself to saying that, if the interpretation of the Lord Bishop of Worcester is correct, which would have the effect of putting all these other churches on a basis of parity of esteem in this respect, Clause 3 is acceptable to and welcomed by the Free Churches. I am sure that I can go that far.

It is very difficult for anyone to speak for the Free Churches, as hon. Members who know the facts of the case understand. But I am sure that, overwhelmingly, Free Church opinion would welcome Clause 3, if the interpretation of the Lord Bishop is correct. However, if the other interpretation that we have been invited to accept is correct, Free Church people will regard it as a discrimination against them. It puts them on a different and inferior footing compared with that of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Church. In these ecumenical days, that is a discrimination that they would much regret.

I cannot help the House further as to the attitude of the Free Churches. It all turns on what is the correct legal interpretation of the word "confirmed". Does it mean confirmed in the Church of England only, or does it mean confirmed in the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches?

10.48 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee

By your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, perhaps I might be permitted to reply. I think that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will understand the uncomfortable position in which I find myself. If my right hon. and hon. Friends will allow me to say so, I am tempted to comment, "Heaven save one from one's friends."

May I try, however inadequately, to pick up some of the threads? First, I know that it is understood in the House at the moment, but not always understood outside, that the Church Assembly as such has no responsibility for the Report placed before us by the Ecclesiastical Committee. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) implied that it had, but I want to make the point quite clear.

Second, as soon as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) entered the lists on the legal issue, I felt exceedingly anxious. I do not think that I can help more than this one sentence, in so far as a complicated canon law can reasonably be epitomised in a sentence. The sentence that says that the existing law about the qualifications of godparents requires them to be communicants flows, I should have thought, from the Canon of 1603 from which I ventured to quote and which justifies the accuracy for that statement—for which, I repeat, I am not responsible.

It is one of the few Joint Committees of both Houses which presents a report to us. If, inadvertently, there has been any kind of inaccuracy by that Committee—which I do not accept—I feel sure that those responsible would be the first to wish to apologise. I must gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I have been a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee for only a short while longer than he. Frankly, if I felt that I was being steam-rollered by that Committee I should protest and hold the matter up while the report was considered.

The hon. Gentleman will possibly remember that upon a previous Measure—I must not dilate on this now—the Committee met three times to settle its report. It is open to any one of us to say that we are being hurried—we sit under a very reasonable chairman—and it does not lie in the mouth of any Member to complain of the report as it comes out.

Mr. English

I suggested to the Ecclesiastical Committee that we should have exercised our rights to meet the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly to discuss the issue, but I was informed that there was a limited time before the Summer Recess and that it was better not to do it.

Mr. van Straubenzee

As a member of the Legislative Committee, I am certain that if a meeting had been requested it would have been taken up enthusiastically.

Mr. English

It would have been better.

Mr. van Straubenzee

The Legislative Committee is only too anxious to make itself as fully available as may be for this purpose.

Mr. English

I am not suggesting that the Legislative Committee is not. I am merely stating what the hon. Gentleman knows, because I think he was present. I did make the point that the hon. Gentleman says that I ought to have made to the Ecclesiastical Committee.

Mr. van Straubenzee

I feel that I am on very firm ground on my third point. Clause 3 concerns insertion into the introductory rubric of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. I understand the anxieties expressed so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), but I beg him to note that we are inserting something into that Book. In the light of the discussion, I accept that if, with hindsight, the drafting had been "confirmed in the Church of England", that would have removed the matter from all possible doubt. I freely concede that point. But I still maintain that inserting it into the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England can only be held to apply to confirmation in that Church. However, if it assists the House, I am authorised to say that the Standing Commission on Canon Law, which is rather like our own regular Standing Committees in this House, will undertake to examine this matter promptly.

I will certainly represent this matter strongly to the chairman, who is personally known to me. If it will assist the House, the Standing Commission on Canon Law will at once examine the matter and, if necessary, will undertake to take the necessary steps to remove all possible doubt.

Mr. Alison rose—

Mr. van Straubenzee

But the intention is clear beyond doubt. The intention is that it means confirmation in the Church of England, and it is in that sense that it will certainly operate.

Mr. Alison

Will my hon. Friend explain how it is that this change, in being commended to the Church Assembly, and particularly the House of Laity, as a relaxation in the existing conditions of the Canon of 1603 can be so construed? If the Canon of 1603 restricts godparents to communicants in the Church of England, and the present Measures restricts them to those who were baptised and confirmed in the Church of England, in what sense is it a relaxation, as so eloquently declared by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops?

Mr. English

It is of the greatest importance that we get the exact terms of the hon. Gentleman's assurance right. He used the word "examine", which, I submit, is rather meaningless. Is the hon. Gentleman giving the House an assurance that the canon will say, as it undoubtedly could, "confirmed within the Church of England"? Or is the hon. Gentleman merely giving the House an assurance that the appropriate commission will examine the possibility of doing that?

Mr. van Straubenzee

I am not in a position to give an assurance about what a particular canon will say. I am charged only with dealing with this Measure. I am saying—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept it in all good faith—that the Chairman of the Standing Canon Law Commission, who, for the information of the House, is the Lord Bishop of Chester, which, I am sure, speaks for itself, has given an assurance that he will cause this matter to be examined at once by his Commission if that will be of assistance to the Houses of Parliament, not merely to this House.

Sir L. Heald

Is my hon. Friend saying that he will withdraw this Measure and have it reconsidered? We have a document before us which says: What 'confirmed' means is not altogether clear… I suggest that the House should not give approval to the Measure if the Ecclesiastical Committee of the House of Commons has said that what it means is not clear. I am not prepared to agree to this Measure unless we get something much more satisfactory from my hon. Friend, and even then it would seem to be necessary—and I speak with great caution—to withdraw it, or at any rate not to ask for it to be approved tonight.

Mr. van Straubenzee

I am having difficulty in making progress, but I am anxious to assist. I have been asked two questions. The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) is that the relaxation is contained in the proviso—to which neither of us referred—that the Minister shall have power to dispense with the requirement of confirmation in any particular case. With respect, I think that that is a substantial point of relaxation.

I have done my best to deal with the second point which was raised. There is no legal ruling covering the question of confirmation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) will understand the difficulty. He will also, I am sure, understand the difficulty of dealing with the basic law of 1603 when so many of the usages and practices were very different from those of the present day.

Mr. Alison

My hon. Friend said that the relaxation lay in the introduction of the word "confirmed" and then the possibility of being excused this qualification. The existing canon, that of 1603, makes no reference to confirmation. It is simply not a requirement. It merely refers to communicants of the Church of England and by implication of Kirk, or Continental Protestant Churches. That is not a relaxation.

Mr. van Straubenzee

That is my hon. Friend's view. With respect, it is not necessarily shared by all those who advise us on these matters. I think that my hon. Friend will concede that the relaxation to which I have referred, which does not apply in the 1603 Canon, is of a substantial nature.

Let me state the predicament in which I find myself. I want to make no denial of the problem. The 1919 Act does not permit us to amend Measures. I can only commend them to the House for acceptance or rejection. I find myself moving a Measure which is the final move in a long and careful series of bringing these canons up to date. It is a matter of extreme difficulty for an established Church which is proud of its establishment and yet is encumbered around with the trammels of Parliamentary control in a way which, to this extent, applies to no other Church. It makes it extraordinarily difficult when one is trying to bring the Church of England up to date in the way in which critics so often say it should be.

I am in the difficulty that in one matter, in one Clause, some hon. Members—whose motives I respect and admire—feel that the House should refuse consent, when I have done my best to show what I feel to be a reasonable interpretation of the law and when, in order to try to prove bona fides and good faith, I have shown that action is proposed to be taken by the Church. I have thought about this carefully in the few minutes since this debate has blown up, and the House will know my personal predicament in being involved at short notice.

I understand the risks I run and shall hold no ill-feelings about anybody on either side of the House, but I think that, in the circumstances, the matter having been most carefully gone into at every stage by the Church and reasonable explanations having been given on the one detailed point, I cannot feel that it would be right to withdraw the Measure.

Sir C. Black

I should be greatly influenced by my hon. Friend's answer to one simple question: let us assume that the Bishop of Chester's committee looks into this matter, as my hon. Friend has undertaken it will do, and comes to the conclusion that the view expressed by the Bishop of Worcester is incorrect, or at least doubtful. What action will it then take?

Mr. van Straubenzee

I am anxious to be accurate in this important matter. I have been able to take no advice. I believe that the necessary amendment to the appropriate canon would have to be tabled. I can say that with some assurance, and if those who advise in these constitutionally difficult matters come to that view, as a result of reading the report of this debate and the debate in another place, that is the action that will be taken.

Mr. English

The report refers to the draft canons, B.22, 23 and 24. Because of the action that we have already mentioned the discussion in this House has been delayed for three months. Why is it that no action on the lines mentioned by the hon. Gentleman has been taken in that period?

Mr. van Straubenzee

Because those who advise on these matters, who are not without considerable skill—some are known to the hon. Member—do not accept the interpretation that has been put before them, the matter must be considered again.

I am saying that every hon. Member from time to time has to make up his own mind what is his duty. I do not believe that mine is to withdraw the Measure as a result of the explanations I have given on one detailed point in one Clause. I do not question the sincerity of those who oppose it, but I believe it to be my duty to persevere in placing the Measure before the House, and I do so.

Sir L. Heald

May I be allowed to say that, as a Member of the House of Commons, I—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak on this matter.

Sir L. Heald

By leave of the House, I only want to say that I consider it my duty—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is not the practice of the House to give leave to an hon. or right hon. Gentleman except in special circumstances and to a Minister.

The Question is—

Sir L. Heald

On a point of order. Would that not be a matter for the

Division No. 1.] AYES [11.5 p.m.
Atkins, Humphrey (Merton) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Evans, Ioan L. (B'ham, Yardley) Kershaw, Anthony Weatherill, Bernard
Eyre, Reginald Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Grant, Anthony Peart, Rt. Hon. Fred TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gregory, Arnold Pentland, Norman Mr. Peter Kirk and
Grey, Charles (Durham) Renton, Rt. Hon. Sir David Mr. van Straubenzee.
Harper, Joseph Russell, Sir Ronald
NOES
Booth, Albert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Michael Alison and
Mr. Michael English.
Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Tellers' report shows that fewer than 35 Members have voted. The Motion is, therefore, lost and the House must now be counted.

House, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If I ask permission of the House, with the greatest respect, surely it is for the House to consider whether to grant permission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. It is a matter finally for the House, but it is a matter which Mr. Speaker has put to the House and deprecated on many occasions in the recent past. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman insists, I must put it to the House, but I hope that he would not.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 2.

House counted; and 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned by Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, without Question put, till Tomorrow.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.