HL Deb 30 July 1883 vol 282 cc894-906
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

, in rising to inquire of Her Majesty's Government, When the Report of the Royal Commission on Church Courts will be presented; and to call attention to the contempt of legal obligations that now exists among many of the clergy of the Established Church, said: My Lords, some months back the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack stated that the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts would soon present their Report. Two years and three months have elapsed since its appointment. As it had an impossible task to fulfil—namely, to find Courts of Law which would satisfy those who repudiated as unjust all adverse decisions—the time that has been occupied may not be considered too long, were it not that the Press states that the Commissioners have sat only one working day in 10 since their appointment. Delay, also, was an evident object of the recalcitrant Party; and the Prime Minister, with that strong sense of justice and attachment to the law-abiding portion of the community which always distinguishes him, selected three-fourths of the Commissioners from the Party who set the law at defiance. In passing, I may also call attention to the fact that far the larger number of the promotions in the Church made by the Prime Minister have also been conferred on members of the same Party in the Church. I doubt not many of them are able and excellent men; but neither is there any doubt they are, at best, lukewarm supporters of the Church of England as by law established. There is no doubt either that few of the occupants of the right rev. Bench have used the powers they possess to suppress lawlessness in the Church—nay, more, in many instances they have promoted those who openly break the law; so that, taking into consideration these circumstances, your Lordships will hardly be astonished at the large number of the clergy, as I shall show you, who set the law at defiance. I will now ask the attention of the House to the results of this action and inaction, assisted, as it has been, by the stay of proceeding against contumacious clergymen during the sitting of the Royal Commission. I find, from a little book published under the auspices of the English Church Union, called The Tourist's Church Guide, that the following practices, which have been decided to be illegal by the highest Court in the Realm, are in use:—Eucharistic vestments in 359 churches; incense in 16; lights at celebration of the Holy Communion, 663; eastward position, 1,876; in all, 2,901 churches. That is to say, from 6,000 to 8,000 clergy refuse to obey the law under which alone they hold their preferments and position in the Church of England. This evidences a most unfortunate state of lawlessness and disorder; but, large and influential as is this body of the clergy, and rich and powerful as are their supporters, they number only about a quarter of the clergy, and the latter a much smaller proportion of the laity. I would here ask attention to the fact that though there are 8,000 contumacious clergymen, that persecuting Society, the Church Association, have only proceeded in 21 cases. It will be said the Bishops would permit no more. It is so; and, with every respect for the right rev. Bench, it seems to me that had they acted with vigour in enforcing the laws of the Church, those laws by which alone the Church of England holds its property and position as the National Church, this state of things could not have come to pass. Is it not to preserve and, when necessary, enforce order in the Church that Bishops are given such powers? Consider that more than half of these clergy are curates, specially licensed by the Bishops, and removable at pleasure. Should not this power have been exercised to enforce the law against contumacious curates? Do the Bishops do their duty when they neglect to use their authority in repressing lawlessness? One excuse is made for the inaction of the right rev. Bench. It is said—what is the importance of vestments, incense, candles, eastward position? These are only matters of fancy. Those who have read the Judgments given, when these were decided to be illegal, will know that they are emblematic of doctrines not held by the Church of England. They are too lengthy to refer to; but I must read an extract from a High Church publication, edited by Dr. Lee. To this work Dr. Pusey wrote an introductory Essay. He stated in a note he was not responsible for the contents of other Essays. I cannot, therefore, say he was responsible for them; but his name leads many to read them. The publication is called Essays on the Reunion of Christendom. Here is an extract— The marvel is that Roman Catholics do not see the wisdom of aiding us to their uttermost. Admitting that we are but a lay body, with no pretensions to the name of a Church, we yet, in our belief—however mistaken—that we are one, are doing for England what they cannot do. We are teaching men to believe that God is to be worshipped under the form of Bread, and they are learning the lesson from us which they have refused to learn from the Roman teachers that have been among us for the last 300 years. We are teaching men to endure willingly the pain of Confession which is an in- tense trial to the reserved Anglo-Saxon, and to believe that a man's 'I absolve thee' is the voice of God. … On any hypothesis we are doing their work."—(p. 187.) Another plea is — these are educated gentlemen, earnest, good clergymen. I am ready to admit that this is true; but no more nor less so than are the remaining three-fourths of the clergy of England. But I hold that being a devout, good clergyman does not necessarily constitute a good clergyman of the Church of England. I have no doubt there are excellent clergymen, not only in Christian Churches, but in every Church throughout the Universe. But what has a Bishop of the Church of England to do with that? Aye, it is said that there is room enough in the Church of England for large divergence of views. No doubt; but so long as the Church exists under its present contract, that divergence cannot go further than is permitted by that contract as interpreted by the Courts of Law. Again, it is said — "Why interfere with the Service where the clergyman and the congregation are agreed?" Well; but if that is accepted, this is certainly not a National Church, nor the Church of England! Yet, unfortunately, this state of things exists to a lamentable degree; for if a member of the Established Church goes to a strange place, and asks where the parish church is, the answer is—"Oh, that is very High; but St. John's is Low; All Saint's is Broad." While a Roman Catholic, a Wesleyan, a Presbyterian, is at once directed to his church. But, again, suppose in one of these congregations there is a difference of opinion. They must submit it for settlement to a Court of Law. Again, admit that the Church of England is to become a Congregational Church. These congregations, having different beliefs and different forms of worship, on what ground can the property of the Church be confined to them alone; must it not be divided, at least, among all congregations of Christians, if not among all religious communities? And what will become of the Hierarchy of the Church of England? I remember the Bishop of Rochester saying that there were several churches in his diocese into which he never entered, because they set his authority at defiance. Again, I should much like to hear whether it is not true that there are clergymen in the Church of England who claim the power of ordaining other clergymen. I heard of one in the Province of York, who ordained some clergymen; and when the Archbishop of York inquired about it, the clergyman told him to mind his own business, and to get himself ordained by the Bishop of Rome. It is reported that some of these clergymen have been consecrated Bishops, though there is a mystery as to who consecrated them. One word on the desire for Christian unity. Every Christian must desire it; and I hope, in a spiritual sense, it exists—not confined to any particular division of the Christian Church—among all bodies of Christians. It cannot be measured by Church government, by ceremonies, by definitions that are but deductions of the human mind. Far be it from me to define Christian unity; but in the beautiful Liturgy of the Church of England, I find a simple and true definition. It is this— We beseech Thee to inspire continually the Universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord; and grant that all that do confess Thy Holy Name, may agree in the truth of Thy Holy Word, and live in unity and godly love. I dare say many of your Lordships have read the life of a pious and earnest clergyman, lately deceased. He claimed a right, as a clergyman of the Church of England, to communicate in the Greek Church. He went to Russia; he was received by the Heads of their Church, stated his case, explained the 39 Articles according to his interpretation, but acknowledged that this view was not held by the Bishops of the English Church. The Greek Patriarch said he could neither accept him as ordained, nor look on the Church of England but as heretic; but would be glad, on his renouncing the errors of that Church, to receive him into theirs. I fear there is no doubt that this case applies to many of our mistaken clergymen. It shows only that many men have many minds, and that Christian unity will never in this world exist in an outward and visible form of worship. In speaking of lawlessness in the Church, it is impossible to omit the case of Mr. Mackonochie. For more than 15 years his case has been before the Courts. He represents the concentration of contempt and defiance of the law of the land. Condemned many times, he escapes final deprivation only because backed by unlimited funds. Clever lawyers find new technicalities that still enable him, a clergyman of the Church of England, to teach doctrines hostile to that Church. Mr. Mackonochie's Diocesan, though that gentleman has for years paid no attention to his admonitions any more than to legal decisions, yet writes thus— I humbly submit that however exalted a man Mr. Mackonochie may be, yet if he has serious differences with the discipline and doctrines of the Church of England, he is not fit to be a pastor of that Church. This alone concerns his Diocesan, and the very statement shows that the right rev. Prelate felt that he was not doing his duty in instituting him into his new benefice. I think no one can have read the correspondence that took place on this matter, and a similar case that occurred in the diocese of Manchester, without being distressed at the want of courage shown in the one case, and the conscientious manliness that guided the other. Neither can I pass over the false issue that has been raised as to the conduct of the late lamented Archbishop in this case. No one who had the honour of the smallest acquaintance with the most rev. Prelate could but admire his unaffected kindness and courtesy. No one who heard him in this House but must remember with regret and admiration that they will never listen to that easy, fluent, and dignified utterance which at once commanded the attention of the House. In Mr. Mackonochie's case, though weakened by suffering, he acted in the same spirit that always actuated him. He had no wish to punish the man; but he desired that a contumacious clergyman should not longer cause a grievous scandal. He had nothing to do with the unfortunate juggle in the change of livings which has taken place. I will only say that it is an unfortunate and discreditable circumstance. I trust, however, the rev. gentleman has only got a respite, and ere long he will have an opportunity of devoting his energies to some Body with whose opinions he is in accord. I must now ask your Lordships' attention to a debate, as reported in The Guardian of July 4th, which took place in the Upper House of Convocation touching sisterhoods. The length of the discussion showed how deeply the right rev. Bench appreciated the vast importance of the matter; and that while they all agreed in praising the devotion and self-sacrifice of these ladies, they also agreed— That their work should be supervised; that they should be under the control of the Bishops; that they should be brought within the lines of the Church, and thus sustained in the true paths of wisdom and piety. To show the consensus of opinion, I must trouble the House with short extracts from speeches delivered. The Bishop of Lincoln stated— These ladies came to some self-appointed clergyman, who received them with a most solemn consecration, without any regard to whether it was lawful or not. That was the reason he objected to the present sisterhoods, and he considered that the practice led to most disastrous consequences. He said further— That some of these most charming ladies exposed themselves to great temptation.… He was surprised that remonstrances had not been made long ago. Does it not follow, that the clergy who administer these "consecrations" are also in great temptation? The Bishop of Truro, among other things, said— The position of these sisterhoods I consider a most critical one at present. He (the Bishop of Truro) desired a Committee to inquire into the position of these sisterhoods, especially how, without undue interference with their spiritual system, they can be brought practically within the system of the Church of England. He continues— I was forced to face the facts of the inner life of a large number of sisters, and the results of that personal help I have had to give them at all times of their life forced upon me the conviction that the dangers to any Church of any large organizations of devoted women, not properly put under Episcopal supervision, are most serious. And he concludes— I am anxious to say no more; but this fact has been forced upon me. I will follow the example of the right rev. Prelate, save to say that these utterances are very ominous. What is meant by "the spiritual system;" "the personal help;" "the dangers to the Church;" "the want of proper supervision leading to most serious results;" "the fear of saying too much?" These utterances, from an intimate friend, a supporter of these Societies, are, to say the least, ominous and perplexing. The Bishop of St. David's and the Bishop of Lichfield stated— That these sisterhoods had no greater differences and were no more insubordinate than the clergy.'' This, I think, your Lordships will have no difficulty in believing. The Bishop of Chichester stated— That the sisterhoods were doing a great and good work in hospitals and schools; but they refused to let him know their rules or enter their house. It did not seem to occur to the right rev. Prelate that the first work of these ladies might be to undermine the doctrines of his Church; and the second, charity. The Bishop of Lichfield said— That he had been asked to become a Visitor of a sisterhood; but on examining the rules and regulations, he found they were of a character he could not approve. These general expressions of views of the Episcopate must refer to years of experience and a large number of sisterhoods? They can leave no doubt on any fair mind that they are doing a large work of charity; but there is every room to doubt whether their work is conducted in an orderly manner, or whether they are in any wise friends of religion, as viewed in connection with the Reformed Church of England. Now, I must call your Lordships' attention to a most important speech from a most important Dignitary, containing most interesting and important matter. I refer to the speech of the most rev. Prelate (The Archbishop of Canterbury), who fully concurs in the desirability of bringing these sisterhoods into subordination to the right rev. Bench. I will express no opinion on that head. But I fear that he cannot expect great subordination to his views, when he has shown so little respect for the authority of another Bishop; for, subject to correction, I have it that, after receiving information from a brother Bishop that a clergyman in his diocese was acting contumaciously, he, nevertherless, preached in that clergyman's church. I cannot understand the motive of his doing so; but, be it what it may, it could not but tend to encourage insubordination. It seems to me that he was setting an unfortunate example; all the more unfortunate from the exalted position to which he has at present attained. But, my Lords, I will leave the House and the public to form their own opinion on this matter, and will trouble you with a portion of the speech of the most rev. Prelate touching sisterhood. It is thus reported— The President said that he had received long reports of the danger arising from small sisterhoods, and with respect to such bodies there came before him a few days ago a case in which a sister had been admitted to the three Vows in perpetuity at fifteen years of age. He was asked to dispense her from these Vows. She was at present in America, and he found that she had applied again and again to the person who had administered these Vows to relieve her from them; but he had refused. He had tried to find whether that person had obtained any power to give the Vows in question; but he seemed to have none except what resided in his own bosom. It was clear that if, under those circumstances, a person could administer such Vows, he might confirm or ordain. But what could be done? He could not dispense her from the Vow, because that would be recognizing the fact that these Vows were administered; and, in point of fact, they did not exist. At the same time, her conscience was much troubled. She had taken the Vows originally because of the defective organization of the Church so to speak. The three Vows, your Lordships are aware, are Celibacy, Poverty, and Obedience. These were administered to a child of 15. But a short time back we were making laws to protect young girls. There was no dissent as to their necessity. If no law exists to protect young girls from taking Vows of Celibacy, Poverty, and Obedience, does not this case call for their enactment? A poor girl beguiled by a wily priest to sacrifice herself and her property before she is old enough to have any idea what her liberty and property are worth! I think the priest who committed this act was as guilty as any seducer. Is it not as wicked to corrupt the mind as the body? Is it not vile robbery, under pretence of religion, to take her property? The most rev. Prelate is cognizant of the individuality of this priest? Is he a curate in his diocese? Has he withdrawn his licence? Will he not state his name, and so enable all parents and young girls to beware of him? Will he not so prevent his employment as a clergyman in the Church? Will he not expose him to the contumely he merits? This case has come to light. We thank the Archbishop for putting us on our guard. But how many cases similar, aye, perchance, some more disastrous, are hinted at in the speeches of the right rev. Prelates which I have read? These are terrible questions to every father of a family, let him be poor or rich; for who can deny that some of the clergy of our Church are walking about like lions seeking whom they may devour? I am not surprised at the numerous secessions from the ranks of the Ritualists to the Church of Rome. I am no friend of their system; but, accepting their sisterhoods, they are at least surrounded by many safeguards which, if not successful to meet all these evils, at least check many of them. I must say a few words, lest it should be thought that I am so narrow-minded or so ungenerous as not to admire the heroic devotion to good, the abnegation of self, that distinguishes these ladies, whatever communion they belong to, the misery and sorrow they alleviate. While they are governed by their own free will, they bless and are blessed! While it guides them there is no necessity for Vows of any kind. But, if for any reason they desire to return to their families, I think it a great and crying wrong that they should be restrained from so doing, whether it be from loss of property or from the restraint of any Vow they have taken. Here we have, by some fortunate accident, this case brought before the public; but it leads inevitably to the question—How many unfortunate young girls or older women may now be immured, and their happiness for life destroyed? I believe this is the only country in Europe where Conventual Institutions are not visited by Inspectors appointed by Government. I have no wish or intention, by word or thought, to cast a slur on the clergy of my own Church or any other Church; but I believe they are but men with like passions to ourselves, and, therefore, to be protected against too great temptation and refused too great power. My Lords, I fear I have too successfully shown you the disturbed and lawless state of the Church of England. It is true, my Lords, that many of the clergy, supported by many of the laity belonging to that Party who set law at defiance, deliberately remain in the Church with the view of instructing its weaker members in doctrines hostile to the Church of the Reformation, although the clergy hold their emoluments and positions under contracts and promises to defend it. Many openly avow this intention; but they are all honourable men—English gentlemen. How changed their view of right and duty! They have created a Party in the Church, who, though they value that Institution most highly as a centre of simple and true Christianity, yet they would prefer Disestablishment to the continuance of these false and lawless teachings in the Church. This Party have accepted many changes—among others, a musical and most ornate worship; but they will not accept teaching and practices altogether hostile to those of the Church of the Reformation. I will conclude with the words of the Bishop of Manchester—no Low Churchman, no narrow-minded man. He says— If there is to be a truce at all, the only ground upon which it can be reasonably offered or accepted is, that both parties should keep within the limit of defined law as it stands, existing provocations being withdrawn and no new ones introduced. Is it an unnatural or improper thing to ask—'Till the law is altered keep within the limits of the law?'

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he did not propose to go into the general topics raised by the noble Lord, because he spoke in the presence of those who were much better qualified than himself to deal with them. He had, however, to inform the noble Lord that the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission had intimated to the Home Secretary that the Report of that Commission, with Appendices, would probably be sent to the Office of the Secretary of State, for presentation to Her Majesty, in the course of the present week.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, there were a good many points in the noble Lord's allegations which the House would not expect him to touch upon. It appeared to him to be a strange impeachment of the Government to say that the Members of the Commission were selected unfairly; but when the Report came into their Lordships' hands he did not think any want of diligence, either as to the number of sittings, or the pains taken in the investigation, or any mark of partiality, would be found in it. With regard to the churches in which the noble Lord stated that illegal practices prevailed, the number must evidently have been arrived at by counting the churches twice over, in some cases even more than twice. The noble Lord had quoted authority to support his views, and had rebutted imaginary pleas put forward by the Bishops. Neither he nor his right rev. Brethren had heard of the authority quoted, nor had they ever advanced the pleas he mentioned. It was strange, indeed, that while Bishops were being accused of inaction and carelessness, a special charge made against them was that they showed too much anxiety to bring the sisterhoods into some degree of subordination to the Church, and to have some cognizance of what wont on within them. He should have thought that that was a point which might have been placed to the credit of right rev. Prelates. Those sisterhoods were more numerous than the noble Lord imagined —there were in the Southern Province 700 of them of the more important kind, besides smaller ones, of which very little was known. No doubt, the fears of the noble Lord were exaggerated on this subject, yet, at the same time, it was advisable, as matters stood—indeed, it was imperative—that the Bishops should do their best to obtain some means of ascertaining the mode in which these houses were conducted. There was no reason to suppose that the sisterhoods would have any reluctance in making known their regulations; if they were at all inclined to complain, it would be because they were now, for the first time, noticed when they had become prosperous. Those institutions were of many kinds, and they by no means all belonged to one school. The only one he was acquainted with personally was the Mild-may Park Sisterhood, containing over 100 sisters, and the views entertained by them would be called ultra-Protestant. The lady at the head of that institution told him she was not at all unwilling to see the institution placed under Episcopal supervision. The noble Lord had alluded to the eastward position as being illegal; the highest Court of the land, however, had declared it to be legal; its practice, therefore, could hardly be reckoned among ecclesiastical offences. The noble Lord had alluded to his preaching upon a certain occasion. He might say that he had previously written to, and had received a letter from, the Bishop of the diocese approving his so doing, and he was himself ignorant, until three days before the day in question, of the relation between that particular building and the church authorities in the diocese. Many of these matters were such that the noble Lord could hardly know their history; but he might rest assured that no body of men more anxiously debated upon the course they should adopt in any question affecting the Church's welfare than the Bishops, and none were more constant in their endeavours to redress the evils which existed there. The present state of the Church, compared with what it was 40 years ago, would show that they had not laboured without success.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, that the most rev. Prelate had in no wise answered his complaint of the want of will or want of power in the right rev. Bench to repress the constantly unnecessary evil of lawless practices in the Church. The most rev. Prelate had said that the Bishops discussed these illegalities. What was asked was that they should repress them; and he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) believed that if they did not do so, the Church of England would inevitably be Disestablished, not from the attacks from without, but from disunion within.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

suggested that the noble Lord might move the adjournment of the Debate, as they did in the other House.

After a few words from the BISHOP of LONDON,

[Subject dropped.]