§ Viscount Cranborne (Dorset, South)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for parishioners in any parish to require certain forms of service to be used in the parish.It is a sad occasion when any hon. Member should feel impelled to seek leave to introduce a Bill such as this. The Book of Common Prayer is one of the glories of English literature. I am gratified to find that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members have seen fit to give me their support because the Book of Common Prayer and the forms of service contained therein have permeated the English language. They have enriched it and formed the basis of part of the tradition of England. That language was produced many centuries ago. It has matched man's highest aspirations. Those religious aspirations have separated man from the animal kingdom.Until recently the Book of Common Prayer was available to all people who wished to use it. Many hon. Members have ackowledged the beauty of the Book of Common Prayer. They have expressed the hope that its language and form of service would not be lost and would not remain unavailable to those who wished to use it in their worship in the Church of England. I would go so far as to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) in a typically distinguished speech which he made in the debates in December 1974, when the House considered the worship and doctrine measure. He said
I believe in all conscience, as one who would regard it as retrograde beyond measure if this book disappeared from the services of the Church, that those like me would have a power to our elbow which the law does not currently provide if the measure were passed."—[Official Report, 4 December 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1691.]I have heard a strong rumour that after I have spoken my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to oppose this motion. I look forward to his speech. I know that he will address the House with his customary scholarship and eloquence, and that he fully supports the beauties and glories of the Book of Common Prayer.However, I feel a trifle sorry for my hon. Friend because he will be supporting a point of view which, in retrospect, has managed to achieve the slow murder of the Book of Common Prayer since the passing of the 1974 measure. Far be it from me to anticipate what my hon. Friend will say. He will make his speech in his own good time. However, I suspect that when he speaks he will deploy certain arguments, and I shall hazard a guess as to what at least one of them will be.
My hon. Friend will say that I am meddling in matters of great constitutional importance. He will say that as a result of the 1974 measure a concordat was, in effect, put into operation between Parliament and the Synod of the Church of England which clearly provided that the initiative in legislative matters governing the Church should come from the Synod and not from the House. I do not deny for a second that that has been the effect of the 1974 measure. I would not seek to argue with my hon. Friend if that is the basis of his argument. But that concordat was made on two clear conditions, and it is one of those to which I draw the attention of the House.
960 I can do no better than quote a great luminary of the Church of England, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. At the time of the debates on the worship and doctrine measure, he stated in another place:
Again, it is not a Measure for abolishing the Book of Common Prayer. As I shall presently show, it gives to the Book of Common Prayer a secure place which could be altered only by the action of Parliament itself."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 868.]The Archbishop of Canterbury was supported in this House by the then hon. Member for Kingswood, Mr. Terry Walker, who stated:If the Synod should ever wish to alter this so that the 1662 book, or some services in it, were to be abolished, the Church would have to come to Parliament with another measure and thus, the Book of Common Prayer is given a secure place in the future of our worship.My contention is simply that it is not Parliament which is in danger of breaching the concordat; the Church has breached it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope). He is an ornament to the Government Whips' Office. We on the Government Benches have come to value his prescience. In the same debate he stated:In spite of the safeguards referred to by a number of hon. Members, I believe that it will make permanent the decline, to put it no stronger, of the Book of Common Prayer."—[Official Report, 4 December 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1571–1649.]I fear that my hon. Friend's forebodings were correct.What has happened—there is evidence of this in the colossal amount of correspondence that I have received during the regrettable publicity prior to my application this afternoon—is that more and more people throughout the country find it impossible to attend a service in which the Book of Common Prayer is used. The clerics of the Church of England have brought about the beginnings of the slow strangulation of one of the greatest glories that this country enjoys. If the House needs an example, I have it on good authority that in the majority of theological colleges in the provinces of Canterbury and York the 1662 prayer book, or, indeed, the 1928 prayer book, are not in use at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] There is a new generation of Church of England priests who do not know of the prayer book and who are, therefore, all too happy to override the evident rights of parochial church councils, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out in 1974, to decide whether to use the 1662 liturgy or alternative services.
My proposed Bill is moderate. It will merely ensure that if 20 people in a parish so petition an incumbent, that incumbent should hold one service a month—the principal service of the morning—according to the right of 1662. I hope that the House will support me in ensuring that the 1662 prayer book can be enjoyed by everyone who wishes to do so, instead of its being consigned to the muniment rooms, where only scholars and the cognoscenti may appreciate it.
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) wishes to oppose the motion.
§ Mr. William van Straubenzee (Wokingham)I rise to oppose the motion, acknowledging at the outset how difficult that is when it is moved in such a charming and persuasive way. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) for the kindly trailer of my speech. Unlike so many others who 961 pontificate about these matters outside the House, he at least knows what he is talking about and is a regular attender at church services.
However well intentioned towards my hon. Friend, the House should reject his proposition for two reasons. In 1974 it was the Church that asked that the Book of Common Prayer should continue to be enshrined in the laws of this land. It was not a concession wrested from unwilling clerics. It was freely given and willingly offered, because at that time it was inconceivable, as it is today, that so glorious a heritage of the English language should be abolished by either Church or State. However, it must be acknowledged that for many whom the Church seeks to serve—perhaps serves inadequately but seeks to serve—the language of Cranmer and the sixteenth century reformers does not have the same force as it did for our forefathers, and that alternative services—not substitutes but alternatives—need to be provided if their worship is to be relevant.
So it was that in 1974, when giving the Church freedom over its worship and doctrine, this House approved safeguards. It provided that decisions on the form of service in any congregation should be made jointly between the incumbent and the elected parochial church council. It was no dictatorship by the clergy. Lest it be thought that the clergy, by virtue of their office, are more likely to know the law than are their laity, I report that it was the General Synod that issued an explanatory leaflet to every incumbent and the secretaries of every parochial church council in two subsequent editions—some 112,000 simple explanatory leaflets—not only explaining the law but urging that the needs of all potential worshippers should be considered. In the 1980s that is the right way to deal with the infinite variety of situations to be found in the Church, and not through the rigidity of a Bill tied to a number regardless of the size of the congregation.
Furthermore, I can reassure my hon. Friend on one matter of fact upon which he relied. I accept, of course, that he gave his facts in all possible good faith. I have, however, checked the practice at the 14 theological colleges. It is true—I regret this—that in four of them the 1662 Holy Communion service is not in use, but in four others it is used occasionally and in six it is used regularly. That is a very different picture from the one that my hon. Friend painted.
My second reason for opposing the motion is that the House has progressively thought it fitting to entrust to the Church increasing authority over its own affairs. In 1919 it provided for the Assembly of the Church. In 1969 it approved synodical government, which was itself a very significant step forward. In 1974, as my hon. Friend said, it gave freedom to the Church to order its own worship and doctrine within very strict safeguards.
For what fundamental reason did our predecessors so decide? They did so for reasons that I believe remain valid today. They felt that it was no longer fitting for us in this Chamber—constituted not as we once were but as we are now—to concern ourselves with the details of matters domestic to the Church, especially as we ourselves had approved the setting up of representative institutions whereby the voice of clergy and laity could be heard.
As Parliament is sovereign in principle it will, of course, always remain open to Parliament to revoke that measure of independence, although I should greatly regret 962 such an attempt. The Bill, however, does not go to the principle. Instead, it intervenes in one albeit important area in which Parliament has decreed that decisions shall be a matter for the Church and in respect of which Parliament has approved an elaborate system of decision-making and safeguards. In so doing, the Bill goes against the whole trend that I have briefly outlined and that has represented an understanding by both Church and State of their respective roles in the days in which we live.
If, therefore, the motion is pressed to a Division—which I should regret—I shall seek to persuade right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that it should not be approved.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):
§ The House divided:Ayes 152, Noes 130.
964| Division No. 150] | [4.03 am |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Fry, Peter |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
| Alton, David | Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Ancram, Michael | Greenway, Harry |
| Anderson, Donald | Grieve, Percy |
| Ashton, Joe | Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) | Grimond, Rt Hon J. |
| Banks, Robert | Grist, Ian |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Grylls, Michael |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Hamilton, Hon A. |
| Beith, A. J. | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Bell, Sir Ronald | Hardy, Peter |
| Bennett, Andrew(St'Kp't N) | Haynes, Frank |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Best, Keith | Hicks, Robert |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Body, Richard | Hill, James |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Holland, Philip (Carlton) |
| Bowden, Andrew | Hordern, Peter |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Brinton, Tim | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) |
| Brotherton, Michael | Jessel, Toby |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Kilfedder, James A. |
| Budgen, Nick | Kimball, Marcus |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Kinnock, Neil |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Knight, Mrs Jill |
| Churchill, W. S. | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) | Lloyd, lan (Havant & W'loo) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Loveridge, John |
| Cohen, Stanley | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Colvin, Michael | Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson |
| Cormack, Patrick | McCusker, H. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | MacKay, John (Argyll) |
| Dixon, Donald | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
| Dover, Denshore | McQuarrie, Albert |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Mates, Michael |
| Dunlop, John | Mawby, Ray |
| Dykes, Hugh | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Mellor, David |
| Elliott, Sir William | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) | Moate, Roger |
| Emery, Peter | Molyneaux, James |
| English, Michael | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Neale, Gerrard |
| Farr, John | Neubert, Michael |
| Fell, Anthony | Ogden, Eric |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Onslow, Cranley |
| Field, Frank | Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby) |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Palmer, Arthur |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles | Parris, Matthew |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Peyton, Rt Hon John |
| Forrester, John | Porter, Barry |
| Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh | Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down) |
| Freud, Clement | Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Stokes, John |
| Rees-Davies, W. R. | Tapsell, Peter |
| Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW) |
| Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Rost, Peter | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Royle, Sir Anthony | Wainwright, E. (Dearne V) |
| Ryman, John | Wainwright, R.(Colne V) |
| St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D. |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Shepherd, Richard | Whitney, Raymond |
| Skinner, Dennis | Wickenden, Keith |
| Smith, Dudley | Wilkinson, John |
| Speller, Tony | Williams, Sir T.(W'ton) |
| Spence, John | Wolfson, Mark |
| Sproat, Iain | |
| Squire, Robin | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Robert Atkins and Nicholas Baker. |
| Stevens, Martin |
| NOES | |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Dunn, Robert (Dartford) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne) | Durant, Tony |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) |
| Blaker, Peter | Eggar, Tim |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) |
| Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) | Evans, John (Newton) |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Fairgrieve, Russell |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Garrett, John (Norwich S) |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Ginsburg, David |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Burden, Sir Frederick | Graham, Ted |
| Butler, Hon Adam | Grant, George (Morpeth) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Gummer, John Selwyn |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Chalker, Mrs. Lynda | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter |
| Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) | Hawkins, Paul |
| Coleman, Donald | Heddle, John |
| Cope, John | Homewood, William |
| Crouch, David | Howell, Rt Hon D. |
| Cryer, Bob | Howells, Geraint |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L' lli) | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Davis, T. (B' ham, Stechf'd) | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) |
| Dormand, Jack | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Lamond, James |
| Lamont, Norman | Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S) |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
| Le Marchant, Spencer | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Litherland, Robert | Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW) |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) |
| Luce, Richard | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Lyon, Alexander (York) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Sheer man, Barry |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Silvester, Fred |
| MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Sims, Roger |
| McTaggart, Robert | Spearing, Nigel |
| McWilliam, John | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Major, John | Stanley, John |
| Marks, Kenneth | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Marlow, Tony | Stott, Roger |
| Marshall, D(G' gow S'ton) | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Thompson, Donald |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Mayhew, Patrick | Tinn, James |
| Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
| Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Urwin, Rt Hon Tom |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) | Waddington, David |
| Moore, John | Wakeham, John |
| Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) | Wells, Bowen |
| Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | White, Frank R. |
| Nelson, Anthony | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Newton, Tony | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| O'Halloran, Michael | Williams, D.(Montgomery) |
| Patten, John (Oxford) | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Pavitt, Laurie | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Pawsey, James | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) | |
| Prior, Rt Hon James | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Mr. W. van Straubenzee and Mr. Ken Eastham. |
| Race, Reg | |
| Raison, Timothy |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Cranborne, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Michael English and Mr. Robert Atkins.
-
c964
- PRAYER BOOK PROTECTION 51 words