Lords Sitting of 22 November 1867

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Fitzhardinge, after the Death of his Father.
DIOCESE OF SALISBURY—CHARGE OF THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY.

  PETITIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD PORTMANrose to present two Petitions of Members of the Church of England in the Diocese of Salisbury, complaining of a recent Charge of the Bishop of that Diocese, and praying for the Establishment of some Tribunal for the speedy and inexpensive settling of all Cases of controverted Doctrine or Practice. The noble Lord said, he had been requested to present these Petitions, which were signed by more than 3,000 people living in the diocese of Salisbury, and the Petitioners were some of them clergy, some of them the largest owners of property in the diocese; and there were also a great mass of yeomanry and owners of small property, a great body of churchwardens, a large number of justices of the peace, and many of the large and small farmers and tradesmen in that diocese. He would have preferred that any other than he had been charged with the matter, as it placed him in a most painful position; but the importance of the questions involved constrained him to pursue the course which he proposed to adopt. He was told that the Petition was signed by only a few, if any, Dissenters; but that some of those who signed the Petition were called Dissenters by the clergymen who resided in their districts, because they had left the churches when changes had been introduced which were distasteful to them; but he (Lord Portman), for one, did not regard such persons in the light of Dissenters. The Petitioners complained of the Charge which had been delivered by the Bishop of Salisbury, and of the following doctrines taught—namely,
  "That the Bishops of our Established Church inherit from the Apostles an authority to confer on all who are fully ordained certain extraordinary powers. 1. A miraculous sacerdotal power to produce by certain words and actions an external objective presence of Christ's body, and of Christ's blood, in every celebration of the Lord's Supper. 2. A supernatural sacerdotal judicial power either to retain sin by excommunication, or to remit sin by the ordinance of absolution necessitating a previous confession. Your Petitioners, therefore, protesting against these doctrines as contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture of our Protestant Church, and of its great divines, humbly pray that your Lordships may devise such measures as may avert the evil consequences of the doctrines set forth in the aforesaid Charge, by appointing some tribunal which shall afford a speedy and inexpensive means of settling all cases of controverted doctrine or practice."
  He should be failing in his duty to their Lordships' House if he entered for one

  131
  moment into any question of doctrine, or into any theological discussion, and he had only read the words of the Petition in order that their Lordships might be made acquainted with the nature of the complaints. He felt that he had no right to say to their Lordships that the opinions held by the right rev. Prelate were right or wrong. For himself, he believed that what each man thought right that he had a right to hold. But their Lordships would not be surprised to learn that great consternation had been caused in the diocese of Salisbury, because it was generally believed that no Bishop in the Established Church had previously put forth such doctrines as belonging to the Protestant Church of England. He was anxious to avoid saying anything which could be offensive to the right rev. Prelate, because all those who were acquainted with the right rev. Prelate, as a Christian man and apart from his position in the Church, held him in great esteem and regard. His business now, however, was not to enter into anything personal or individual, but simply on behalf of these Petitioners to speak of the right rev. Prelate in his official capacity. And he thought it but fair to the Petitioners that he should read to their Lordships one or two paragraphs in the Charge to show that they were not making statements unadvisedly. The right rev. Prelate, in pages 74 and 75, said—
  "And what, my brethren, is that effect which our Church teaches us to look for from the consecration of the elements in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper? I answer without hesitation, because I think the evidence I can produce is very clear, that our Church witnesses that through consecration the body and blood of Christ become really present, and by this I mean 'present without us,' and not only 'in the soul of the faithful receiver'—objective and not subjective only."
  He (Lord Portman) would now come to another matter—for he was anxious to avoid as much as possible all discussion on matters of doctrine. In pages 108 and 109 were the following passages:—
  "The Church of England may be disestablished, and when she has lost all the manifold blessings (and they are priceless ones) of her present position, she may be driven by her very weakness to throw herself upon other principles of a better strength; and then conscious of the soundness of her ecclesiastical position, and resting her claims both on authority and on her oneness in doctrine with the undivided Church, she may trustfully, tenderly, and yet with the firm authority of one whose Magna Charta is that large and unconditional promise which our Lord added to His commission, employ, and direct, and control the energies of the eager faith and the ardent love of
  132
  her members. The great increase of the devotion and zeal which have, I am told, become one of the characteristic marks of many of her younger members, under even our present circumstances, would make the condition of a free Church a very hopeful one.
  "The remedy for our present ills and the escape from our present danger may, I think, be included under the one large head of changing our past defensive policy into a constructive one—the taking and wielding 'the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left;' not only the shield for defence, but the sword and spear of the spirit wherewith to contend against all who oppose themselves."
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, he was perfectly prepared to discuss the whole matter, paragraph by paragraph; but he thought it scarcely fair that the noble Lord should cull extracts from the Charge, as he had been doing, without alluding to other passages by which they were balanced.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, his only object was to save their Lordships' time. In the 120th page of the Charge the right rev. Prelate warned the clergy not to be afraid of the "offence of priestcraft," or of the ignominy which in the present day attached to the word "sacerdotal." Those were matters they could all understand. A great many who knew very little about matters of doctrine were still scarcely prepared to submit to a constructive system of priestcraft—such a system as would be calculated to bring us back to the dominion of the Church of Rome. He did not know whether the right rev. Prelate desired to inaugurate such a system; but judging from the statements contained in his Charge, it might be inferred that he was about to embark in a constructive policy upon an extended sacerdotal system which was commonly called priestcraft; but as the right rev. Prelate had signed the document which had emanated from the Pan-Anglican Synod, he trusted that he had seen fit with time and reflection to modify some of the views expressed in his Charge. Now, the right rev. Prelate in the autumn of last year did that which to many of them appeared to be scarcely prudent—he answered a letter which was published in The Times, signed "S. G. O.," in which the question arose as to the claims of the clergy, and a comparison was made as to the rights which the clergy of the Eastern and Western Churches claimed for themselves, He claimed the same powers which the Priests of the rest of the Catholic Church, both in the East and West, have ever claimed as their inheri-

  133
  tance. That answer of the right rev. Prelate sounded the first alarm in the diocese of Salisbury, and a meeting was held in the western part of the diocese to protest against the position which their Bishop had taken up, and which had so much alarmed the clergy and the laity of the district. The answer given by the right rev. Prelate was that when the proper time came he meant to explain more fully—and this he had done in his Charge—what he really meant. The next step was the publication of the Charge, and he believed the right rev. Prelate had had the opinion of a great body of clergy expressed to him on the subject. He was not aware that the Bishop had endeavoured on any occasion to force his clergy to accept his views; but there were men who always yielded to one in authority, and who would endeavour to do what was agreeable to the Bishop, even though it might bring into his parish discord and confusion; and therefore it might become absolutely necessary that steps should be taken to ascertain the soundness of the positions which had been put forward by the right rev. Prelate, or else novelties introduced into parishes might lead to discord and strife, without the possibility of obtaining any legal decision to guide the parties. The great grievance of those who entertained views contrary to those held by the Bishop was that there was no tribunal in existence wherein the questions raised might be speedily and inexpensively decided. The process in the existing Ecclesiastical Courts was so ruinously expensive and so slow that no one, except under the most extraordinary pressure, would think of commencing proceedings in them in relation to subjects similar to that he had brought under their Lordships' notice. The right rev. Prelate had furnished his diocese and the country with an example of the working of the Ecclesiastical Courts by instituting proceedings in them against one of the authors of the book which was well known under its title of Essays and Reviews. Probably if less had been said about that work it would have been forgotten much sooner than it had been; and, had it not been for other matters mixed up with it, perhaps it would have been better to have left the right rev. Prelate's Charge without further comment being made upon it; for in his (Lord Portman's) opinion it, in truth, was worth little more than the paper and ink spent upon it. The Charge delivered by the right rev.
  134
  Prelate had caused great grief and sorrow; but it was impossible that the religion of the people of this country, which was founded upon the Rock of Ages, could be affected by such a Charge as that of the right rev. Prelate: the Charge would, in all probability, lead to discord and strife in many parishes, and some persons have already expressed their doubt whether they could conscientiously approach the Holy Table when the right rev. Prelate was officiating, lest it might be supposed that they participated in the opinions he had promulgated. Under these circumstances, the Charge could not be passed over altogether without notice. He would refrain from saying more upon this part of the subject. But there was another point, not affecting the right rev. Prelate, to which he wished to draw the attention of their Lordships, and more particularly that of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack. The Petitioners prayed for the establishment of a tribunal which could do justice speedily and inexpensively. He did not pretend for a moment that any suggestion he could offer to their Lordships would be of the least value; but he thought it right to lay before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his calm consideration his proposition, that the noble and learned Lord might consult with the members of the right rev. Bench as to the possibility of establishing some such tribunal as he was about to indicate. Both the civil and the criminal laws were administered by such tribunals, and facilities had been provided that after a cause had been heard in a lower Court, it might be brought before the supreme tribunal, so that it might be disposed of with promptitude, and he could not see why the same system should not be established in the case of the Ecclesiastical Courts. In civil and in criminal matters the case was first brought before an inferior Court, which ascertained the facts and gave the best judgment it could upon those facts; but if that judgment were called in question, it was reviewed, on a case carefully stated, by the Court above, which decided upon the question of law, and then sent the case down again to the inferior Court to deliver the judgment as directed by the superior tribunal. The whole matter was thus reduced to a nutshell, and the case was decided speedily and inexpensively. If such a system were good in the administration of the civil and the criminal laws, why should not it answer

  135
  in the administration of the ecclesiastical law? The fact was that the rules governing the Ecclesiastical Courts were established some 200 or 300 years ago, and were not fitted for the present time. Men's eyes were beginning to be open to the condition of things, and they were no longer prepared to submit to them. He felt that he had occupied more of their Lordships' time than he was justified in doing; but he hoped that he had said nothing which was personally offensive to the right rev. Prelate, or that was not strictly relevant to the subject he had brought under their Lordships' notice.
  On Question, that the Petition do lie upon the table,
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Portman) had not raised the question whether this was or was not a matter of heresy, and their Lordships' House a fit tribunal for trying it, and he himself should not seek to do so, because he was sure that he should be doing what would be very distasteful to their Lordships; at the same time, although he entirely denied that their Lordships' House was a Spiritual Court of Heresy, he was perfectly prepared, if their Lordships desired it, to enter into a discussion of the whole subject before them. He must say that he felt some pain that during his not very long episcopate their Lordships should have been called upon by the noble Lord on two occasions to investigate charges against him. On the first occasion their Lordships appointed a Committee to investigate the complaints which had been made against him, and the result was that the House had been convinced that they were groundless. And here he could not refrain from reminding the noble Lord opposite that he had not helped him to carry out the resolution come to by that Committee. But, on the other hand, there were reasons which made him glad that this discussion had been brought forward. In the first place, the noble Lord had not mixed up personal matters in the question he had brought before their Lordships' House; and, in the next place, he was glad to have the opportunity of giving some explanation, not on particular points of doctrine which, as he said, he felt would be distasteful to their Lordships, but on several other matters which did not touch doctrine. But before he did so, he must take the opportunity of stating most distinctly that with regard to points of doctrine—such as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, abso-
  136
  lution, confession, the ceremonial or ritual of the Church—he adhered to every syllable he had expressed in his Charge. After the gravest consideration he could give to the subject since the notice of the noble Lord had been given to bring this subject before their Lordships, he most distinctly re-asserted that he adhered, as a strong English Churchman, to the whole exposition he had given in his Charge. He withdrew not one single statement. The noble Lord particularly objected to that part of his Charge which related to the policy of the Church of England—what she ought to do under her present difficulties. And he thought he had reason to complain, that while there were many passages touching that subject, the noble Lord had quoted only a single sentence. He was most anxious that their Lordships should be enabled to form their own opinion on this point; and he therefore purposed sending to each a copy of the Charge, with an earnest request that they would do him the justice to read it and form their own judgment in regard to this particular portion of it. But there were one or two other points to which he desired to call the attention of the House. A Petition had lately been addressed by a number of clergymen and churchwardens in his diocese to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he had informed his Grace, who had just left the House, what remarks he intended to make upon it. One of the complaints there made was that he, as Bishop, had used the opportunity of his Charge of making authoritative declarations of what were called erroneous doctrines. But he had not done so. He entirely denied that a Bishop's Charge was an authoritative declaration like that of a synodal decision pronounced by the Bishop. He always kept distinctly before his clergy and churchwardens, when addressing them, that he was speaking to their consciences; that he was doing what every clergyman did every Sunday of his life—namely, witness what he believed to be the truth of God. Then there was another point—namely, the state of his diocese. Their Lordships might suppose that his diocese was in a constant state of turmoil and of disaffection towards him, instead of which there was not a more peaceable diocese in the kingdom. Nor had he allowed anything to be done in vindication of himself which might disturb this state of quiet and peace. He was quite content to bide his time, persuaded that Englishmen would deal by him honestly, read his Charge, and

  137
  judge for themselves. His Grace, in answer to the address already referred to, used these words—
  "In conclusion, I must express a hope that the novel variations from the established usage of our Church, which you intimate have caused the alienation of many of its attached members in the diocese of Salisbury, will not be continued after the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners."
  Now, he asserted most solemnly that he did not believe that there was another diocese in the kingdom where there was so little Ritualism as in his. He stated most distinctly that in only one small parish, with about 150 people, or not so many, had there been any attempt at what was now generally understood by the word Ritualism. He had lived thirty years in Salisbury, and he had never made one single alteration in established usage in the cathedral, or parish churches in the cathedral city; he had never done anything to disturb the minds of the people on this subject. Yet it was said he had caused the alienation of many of the Church's attached members by these novel variations. A wrong issue had been raised in his diocese. There was less "Ritualism" in his diocese, he repeated, than in any other diocese in the whole kingdom. With regard to his teaching, he honestly professed he was a very High Churchman. He had never disguised it. Any one who regarded him as other than a very High Churchman would thoroughly misrepresent his deepest convictions. But though he was a very High Churchman he appealed to the noble Lord to say whether during his episcopate he had ever shown any want of toleration. Of course, it was very painful to speak of himself; but he was perfectly satisfied that not one single clergyman, not one single layman, in his diocese, could say that he had ever shown any want of tolerance or consideration for the opinions of others. [Lord PORTMAN said, he had not said so.] He believed the noble Lord would give him credit for allowing others to maintain their own principles even as he desired to maintain his own. But he must now give their Lordships some account how any disturbance of the peace of his diocese which had occurred had been brought about. One instance was as follows:—When he became Bishop of the diocese and went to consecrate a new church, or one renovated or re-built, he not unfrequently found everything very carefully arranged for, except the Communion Table. This he considered most
  138
  unseemly, and determined to remove such offence at his own cost. He accordingly wrote to an excellent friend of his—an architect—asking at what rate he could supply a new Communion Table, not a very expensive one, but a solid one—intending to make a present of one to any new or reconstructed church where it might be acceptable. This excellent architect having provided him with plans, he had for many years had the privilege of giving these Communion Tables to church restorers and builders, whether High Churchmen or Low Churchmen. But this year he was charged with attempting to introduce through such offerings new doctrines, and to his very great surprise he found that a pamphlet was being circulated throughout his whole diocese, warning Churchmen against his Communion Tables. Surely that was a very paltry way of carrying on warfare. However, the result was that for the future he should withhold, unless urged to give it, any such aid. Another means used to oppose him had been to organize a Lay Association, and he could supply the House with some remarkable details of the workings of this society, but he would not trouble their Lordships with them. But he protested against parties going into every parish and stirring up every kind of ill-feeling. Many of these persons came to Salisbury; but as he had lived so many years there, and was well known, agitation against him was not countenanced by the inhabitants, and the use of the Council Chamber of the city as a place of meeting was refused to them. Those parties came to the place in order to make his residence as uncomfortable as they could; but he was happy to say that the attempt was an entire failure. He had, on every public occasion, met with every mark of respect and dutiful attention which a Bishop could desire to receive from the residents of his cathedral city and they thought it wrong, after he had acted with the greatest consideration to the feelings of all, that parties should come down and try to disturb him in his home there. The noble Lord had referred to a letter, published in The Times, with the well-known signature of "S.G.O.," and which he had felt bound to notice. Now, if there was one man more than another to whom he was bound by feelings of the deepest affection personally, it was the writer of that letter, who, in the private relations of life, had done him acts of kindness which he never should forget, and had he not been moved by a feeling of

  139
  the highest sense of duty to vindicate the honour of his clergy, whom the writer of the letter had tried to caricature, nothing would have induced him to take the line he did in reference to one he loved. But he did not regret what he had done, for it was done not without consideration and under the influence of honest convictions. Now, all he had to say, in conclusion, was that he intended to persevere in the course he had hitherto adopted, because he was satisfied that the teaching of the High Church party gave what was the most natural and plain and honest exposition of the meaning of the formularies of the Church of England; but the principles on which he intended to administer his diocese he had expressed in a few words in the following passage of his Charge:—
  "I have more faith in another and a simpler remedy, and that is the remedy of patience and charity. I would not question the loyalty of those Churchmen, be they what is called High or be they what is called Low; but I would cling to the belief that continued fatherly kindness on the part of those in authority, and the careful abstinence on all sides from bearing false witness, would do very much to lessen our difficulties, by constraining with the cords of love all, and especially the young, to deal with others, whether above them or below them, with consideration and sympathy, and to temper zeal for God's truth, even when purified of all dross of mere human passion, with the healing waters of charity."
  He had nothing more to say in his defence, and had only to repeat that he would take the earliest opportunity of sending to each of their Lordships a copy of his Charge.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, he did not think that there was more than one single point raised in the course of the discussion with which it could properly be said that their Lordships' House had anything to do. So much was admitted by the noble Lord who presented the petition, and doubtless the noble Lord therein expressed the general opinion of the House. But there was one single point, and one of great importance, with which their Lordships could very properly deal, and therefore he rose to express his earnest hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would not yield to the temptation which had been held out to him of illustrating, as it was termed, his term of office in the way suggested by the noble Lord who presented the Petition, and that he would not apply his great abilities or take counsel with the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), whose absence
  140
  from, the House at the moment he regretted, for the purpose of framing any measure for the establishment of fresh Ecclesiastical Courts, in order that spiritual suits might be multiplied to any extent. The multiplication of such suits might be, in the opinion of those who signed the Petition, and in the opinion of the noble Lord who presented it, advantageous to the Church; but he (the Bishop of St. David's) thought that few of their Lordships would think it an unmixed good. In his humble opinion, it would be an unmixed evil.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that it had pained him very much to hear the right rev. Prelate state that he adhered to every word he had written, and that he intended to persevere in the course he had adopted. This made it the more necessary to improve the procedure in the Courts, as the remedy would be needed. He would warn the right rev. Prelate to beware how he continued to support the plan to consecrate a second Bishop in the diocese of Natal. Bishop Colenso cannot be deposed from his temporalities, and it is believed that Bishop Hamilton cannot be deprived of those of Salisbury; but if he succeeds in his efforts to obtain a second Bishop in Natal, the Petitioners may claim a second Bishop in the diocese of Salisbury—what is good in a colony may be equally good at home; but in the opinion of most men, in which he (Lord Portman) agreed, it would be an unmixed evil. In reply to what had been stated in reference to the establishment of new Courts, he explained that he did not ask for the establishment of any new tribunal. All he asked for was that what was permitted in Criminal and Civil Courts might be done in Ecclesiastical Courts.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he should feel sorry it should be supposed that the right rev. Bench generally were desirous of perpetuating legal processes which were at once cumbrous and expensive. He heartily concurred with his right rev. Friend who spoke last but one (the Bishop of St. David's) in the opinion that it would be a very great misfortune if a number of cases involving questions of doctrine should be continually coming before our Courts; but he could not, at the same time, help thinking that to make such cases cumbrous and expensive was an inconvenient mode of restraining them. While, therefore, he was as anxious as his right rev. Friend could be to prevent the multiplication of those cases, he trusted rather

  141
  to the good feeling and good sense of the clergy throughout the country for the attainment of that object than to the other means which had been suggested. He must express it to be his belief that it would be well if our Ecclesiastical Courts were placed on a footing of greater harmony with the spirit of the other Courts of the kingdom. It had in former times been urged that it was desirable that proceedings in the Civil Courts should be cumbrous and expensive, inasmuch as a check would by that means be placed upon litigation; but upon that point public opinion had since undergone a complete change, and it was now universally held that if the majesty of justice was to be maintained that object could most effectually be gained by having causes tried before a tribunal which was at once cheap and good. He might further observe that it was not the framework of our Ecclesiastical Courts that stood in need of any considerable alteration. What was required was that a more simple mode of procedure should be established in them, and he, for one, could never understand why rules should not be laid down for the transaction of the business in those Courts such as the Judges of the Superior Courts were enabled to lay down for inferior tribunals in civil matters. If such a course were adopted, and rules for the regulation of proceedings were framed by the highest judicial and ecclesiastical authorities, as had to some extent been done already in Ireland, great waste of time would, he thought, be avoided, and much good accomplished, without effecting a revolution or even any great change in the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He hoped he might be allowed to add a few words on the other subject brought before the House. He differed in many important particulars from his right rev. Friend behind him (the Bishop of Salisbury). While, however, he entertained that difference of opinion, he must admit that his right rev. Friend had taken great pains in the formation of his peculiar views, and it was not likely that he would be induced to change those views even by the forcible eloquence of the noble Lord opposite. He understood, indeed, the right rev. Prelate to say that, having formed them maturely, he intended to persevere in holding them; but there was little doubt that he would also persevere in that course which he had hitherto pursued, of dealing with perfect fairness and impartiality with all the
  142
  clergy of his diocese. He had, indeed, good reason to know that persons who differed from his right rev. Friend materially had found in him a kind adviser; while the respect in which he was personally held in his diocese, owing to the deep religious tone of his life, was, he believed, as great as was ever paid to any Prelate in the present or former times.
  Petitions ordered to lie on the table.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.