HL Deb 08 May 1899 vol 71 cc6-16
* LORD GREVILLE

My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the soldiers stationed at Brighton, who are members of the Church of England, are marched each Sunday to St. Martin's Church, the incumbent of which is a member of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament and of the English Church Union, and at which the law is violated every Sunday by the use of incense, vestments, lights, and other illegal practices, for the performance of which services Mr. Hardy Little now receives from the Government 50l. per annum; and whether such involuntary participation in lawbreaking will continue to be enforced upon the rank and file with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. You, no doubt, my Lords, are aware that all recruits on joining the Service have to inform the authorities, or the authorities ask them, what religious persuasion they belong to, and then they, of course, are marched on Sundays, and perhaps on other days as well, to a church or denomination they say they wish to belong to. I should have thought the Government could have found in Brighton plenty of churches representing the Protestant religion, or the Church of England, instead of which, as my question implies, these men are taken nolens volens to a church which practises a new religion—which I never heard of until the other day, and perhaps your Lordships have not heard much about it—called the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. That is not a religion, surely, which belongs to the Church of England, and if it does not belong to the Church of England why should the Government allow our soldiers to attend services in connection with that religion? And then, again, Mr. Little is paid 50l. a year by Her Majesty's Government for being the Chaplain of this St. Martin's Church, and surely it is not very good for the Army, which has been celebrated for its discipline, to be taken to a church wherein lawlessness exists. I have had letters from all parts of England, from five officers, from 20 non-commissioned officers, and 21 privates and troopers, all saying that they are powerless and can make no complaints of being taken to these Ritualistic churches; they are taken nolens volens either to such churches or to one of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. In adition to that, I have letters from three clergymen who wrote and said that they had themselves acted as chaplains and are perfectly well aware of the state of things that is going on in many churches. One clergyman said that I was at liberty to read his letter to your Lordship's House, but I wrote back to him that I thought it better not to read it, as perhaps some of the Ritualistic Bishops would boycott this clergyman. To convince your Lordships of the sort of service which is held, I will, with your Lordships' permission, read to you exactly what took place on Sunday, May 7th, at Brighton, at this church, where the clergyman is Mr. Hardy Little:—

  1. 1. In the reredos at the back of the Communion Table is an idolatrous image of the Virgin Mary, with the infant Saviour in her arms.
  2. 2. Three large sanctuary lamps are kept burning before the Communion Table.
  3. 3. An illegal brass cross forms part of the Communion Table.
  4. 4. Thirty-six candles are on or over the Communion Table.
  5. 5. A processional cross forms part of the paraphernalia of the church.
  6. 6. There are three confessional places in the church, each supplied with a crucifix.
  7. 7. In the side chapel is a tabernacle for the reserved Sacrament.
  8. 8. A sanctuary lamp is kept burning in the side chapel.
  9. 9. There are a number of framed pictures of saints and angels in various parts of the church.
  10. 10. At the service yesterday morning, when Her Majesty's troops were 8 present, the following prayers were omitted: (a) the Prayer for the Queen's Majesty; (b) the Prayer for the Royal Family; and (c) the Prayer for the High Court of Parliament.
So the House of Lords has been put out into the cold. But next:—
  1. 11. The vicar, in pronouncing the Benediction, unlawfully made the sign of the cross over the people.
  2. 12. At the Communion Service the celebrant were the following illegal vestments:—A chasuble, alb, stole, maniple, and biretta.
  3. 13. A procession marched round the church, consisting of a thurifer, cross-bearer, acolytes carrying lighted candles and banners, accompanied by the vicar in biretta and embroidered cope.
  4. 14. At the Communion thirty-six candles were lighted unlawfully when not required for the purpose of giving light.
  5. 15. Incense was used.
  6. 16. Two acolytes with lighted candles stood at the north end of the Table during the reading of the Gospel.
  7. 17. Immediately before the consecration of the elements the large bell of the church was tolled.
  8. 18. The manual acts were entirely hidden, contrary to law.
  9. 19. At the words, "This is My body," the celebrant elevated the paten, and then knelt, the bell outside being tolled and lighted candles elevated, after which the acolytes prostrated themselves with their faces to the ground.
  10. 20. Wafer bread was unlawfully used.
  11. 21. The celebrant administered the Communion contrary to the Rubric, as there was only one communicant.
That is the service which took place yesterday, and to which Her Majesty's troops were sent. I very much hope to hear that the Government, or the Minister for War, will be able to give some explanation why our soldiers should go to this sort of church, and why the ratepayers should pay their money to Mr. Little, who, I think, cannot call himself a member of the Church of England if these sort of practices exist at his church. Here is a letter which I am at liberty to read to your Lordships; it is a letter from Brighton, which I received this morning:— I have heard complaints of both non-commissioned officers and privates of the different regiments stationed here—the Scots Greys, Lancers, Dragoons, Royal Irish, the Sussex, and the Buffs, the latter of whom are stationed here at present. Many of them complain, and do not care to go to church at all. Some say if is of no use to make any objection, as no notice would be taken of it. I have been in business here for nearly thirty years, and have had numerous transactions with both officers and men of the different regiments, and can fully endorse all that has been said on the subject. I myself am driven away from St. Martin's, which is my parish church, on account of the Romish teaching and practices. The children in both Sunday and day-schools are taught to call themselves 'little Catholics,' and to deny being Protestants. That is signed, and the name of the gentleman who wrote it is Mr. Fisk. There is one other paragraph, from a letter sent to me by an officiating chaplain for Her Majesty's forces, and it gives a case that occurred at Aldershot. A well-known colonel was in command, and a clergyman came down to officiate for the regular chaplain, and introduced some Ritualistic antics into the service. Afterwards the colonel drew up his men and addressed them in the following laconic terms:— Those who play at soldiers are fools; but those who play at religion are blackguards. I shall rectify this. Next morning he reported the matter to the Duke of Cambridge, and the clergyman referred to never again appeared at Aldershot while that officer was in command. There are at the present moment twelve chaplains who are all paid by the Government for—shall we say?—doing their duty. Two are at Aldershot, two at Colchester, one at Dover, five in Egypt, one at Halifax (Nova Scotia), and one in London; and of these twelve, four are members of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, and the others are all members of the English Church Union. I have the names here at the disposal of any noble Lord who desires to know them. I think I have said all that I have really got to say about this matter at Brighton, but I propose in another fortnight or so to bring up this subject again before your Lordships' House with regard to a place at Colchester, for I have got some letters in regard to it which I am at liberty to read to your Lordships, including one from a colonel who has retired from the Army, and is therefore at liberty to have his views expressed. But I think I may read one short sentence from Sir William Harcourt's celebrated book. This is how he winds up:— For the present I confess I feel obliged to adhere to the two very pregnant opinions expressed by Lord Salisbury: first, that there is at present no discipline in the Church of England; and, secondly, that no man is fit for office in that Church who is not resolved to stand by the Prayer Book as it is.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, as the noble Marquess can hardly answer the noble Lord opposite without reference to the Questions which stand in my name, it may be convenient perhaps that I should ask my Questions now—namely, How many regiments have been stationed at Brighton since the incumbency of Mr. Hardy Little; Whether any complaints have ever been made to the authorities previous to the arrival of the present regiment; Whether Colonel Hickson, the present commanding officer, has, in fact, made any complaint; Whether the service at which the regiment attends is not Morning Prayer and a service at which no "ritual" is used; Whether Colonel Hickson has been directed to inquire of every officer, non-commissioned officer, and man, if they object to any portion of the service; and, if so, Whether all other commanding officers will be directed to make a similar inquiry. I am quite certain that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Greville) had no intention of misleading this House by suggesting in his question that the soldiers stationed in Brighton are participating in what he calls law-breaking by their being present at the performance of the acts of which he complained. But I desire to ask the noble Marquess whether it is not a fact that the only service at which the soldiers are called to be present at Brighton is, Morning Prayer with sermon, at which no ritual whatever, so-called, is used? I may add that the only way that service departs from common rule is that "God save the Queen" is played at the end. I am not sorry that the noble Lord opposite has put this question, because it enables a public exposure to be made—not for the first time—of a body calling itself the Church Association, which exists for the purpose of stirring up strife in the Church and for setting ministers against congregations and congregations against ministers. I am informed that there have been six regiments stationed at Brighton during the incumbency of Mr. Hardy Little, as enumerated by the noble Lord, and one of these, the Royal Irish Rifles, is a regiment in which I am interested. When the noble Lord announced his intention of putting this question, it was communicated to Col. Knox, who commanded them when they were stationed at Brighton, and with your Lordships' permission I will read a letter from him, addressed to Mr. Hardy Little and dated April 24th. Col. Knox says:— I have seen in the papers that a question is to be asked in Parliament as to the services conducted in St. Martin's Church for the military—namely, exception has been taken to Ritualistic ceremonies, and the question will be that the military do not in future attend in this church. As you know, I was commanding my regiment, the Royal Irish, for two years in Brighton, from 1894 to 1896. This regiment is largely composed of North of Ireland men from the Belfast district. The military service consisted of Morning Prayer, and the service was of an ordinary character. As Colonel of the regiment I frequently attended the service, and was always struck by the great interest the men took in it, and I never had from anyone, either officer or man, a single complaint as to the way the service was conducted. The band of the regiment, under my sanction, and at the wish of the officers, used to give their services voluntarily to assist the choir. I can only say that, from my experience, the services at St. Martin's were heartily appreciated by myself and all members of the battalion. The fact that the regiment is largely recruited from the Belfast district of the North of Ireland, shows that there was nothing in the service disloyal to the Church to which they belong. I think that letter is sufficiently emphatic. I think it is quite clear from it that no complaint of any description was made, and, further than that, that the soldiers appreciated the service. I believe that the same is the case with the regiment stationed there now; and I think that as it is with the soldiers, so it is with the civil parishioners. It may be within the knowledge of your Lordships that the Church Association sent out circulars shortly before the Easter Vestries, addressed to Churchwardens. That circular fell flat, and it fell nowhere flatter than at Brighton. The meeting there was duly held; the room was filled, and the meeting was unanimously in favour of the Vicar. In fact, my Lords, this trouble at Brighton has been entirely got up by the Church Association. It is like a great deal more in connection with this Church crisis—a got-up affair. I see the noble Lord refers in his question to "the use of incense, vestments, lights, and other illegal practices." This is not the place in which to discuss the right and wrong of these matters. But how does the noble Lord know that they are illegal? The Most Rev. the Archbishop of Canter-bury, speaking in London last week, used these words:— The man who said that incense was idolatrous showed that he did not know the meaning of the word idolatrous. But when he said it was illegal, that was another matter altogether. That was a question which was going to be looked into and settled. With regard to lights, they were expressly allowed by the Lambeth judgment, and confirmed by the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Lights have always been used for other than illumination purposes. I believe they were used at the Coronation of Charles the First. At present they are used in most of our cathedrals, in ten college chapels at Oxford, in eight college chapels at Cambridge. Lights are at present in use in 4,000 parish churches of the Church of England, and in most large cities, such as Manchester, Liver-pool, and London—and also at Hatfield. With regard to vestments, their legality was not even contested in the Lincoln case. I submit, therefore, that to call these things illegal practices is simply begging the question. Mr. Cecil Rhodes, in his speech at the Mansion House a few days ago, said that in his Church they were engaged quarrelling over ritual, while in the Salvation Army a great social and religious work was being done. My Lords, it is no doubt true that the work of the Church is being largely hampered, but it is not by those who use ritual, but by the efforts of those who try to put ritual down. Mr. Hardy Little is popular in his parish, where he has a population of 10,000, mostly poor; he is keeping four curates, he has flourishing schools, Bible Classes for men and women, and in fact all the machinery of a well-ordered parish. Mr. Hardy Little is a poor man; he takes no rent for his pews, and the whole of his assured income is £200 a year, and it is from that man the noble Lord opposite wishes to take the Government pittance of £50 a year. I earnestly trust that in the name of common justice the Government will do nothing of the kind, and that this capitation grant will not be taken from him. I am told that Col. Hickson, commanding the Buffs, stationed at Brighton now, has been directed to inquire individually of the officers and men as to whether they had any objection to the services. I think this is fishing for discontent in an extraordinary manner, and I hope that the answer of the noble Marquess will show that the Government have not been doing anything of the kind. I beg to ask all the questions standing in my name on the paper.

* THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, I cannot help thinking that your Lordships must have been struck by what I am tempted to describe as the forensic ingenuity with which these two sets of questions have been framed. I should have been glad if it had been possible for me to leave the noble Lord who spoke second to dispose of the noble Lord who spoke first, but I suppose I shall be expected to say a few words as to the manner in which this case presents itself to the War Office. I think it will be convenient that I should I first reply to the questions addressed to me by Lord Teynham. In reply to him I have to say that so far as I can discover Mr. Hardy Little came to St. Martin's in the year 1887, and that since that time, I think, four regiments of cavalry and the headquarters of three battalions of infantry, besides sundry detachments, have been stationed at Brighton. No complaints have until now reached the War Office as to the character of the ceremonial followed at St. Martin's during the services which the troops attend. Colonel Hickson did not, in fact, volunteer any complaint in regard to this matter, but when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Greville) put his question upon the paper we desired him to report whether, within his knowledge, there was anything in the ceremonial which was repugnant to the troops under his command. That, I think, was a very fair inquiry to address to him. Of course, it was not as if we had asked him to advise us as to the legality of these practices. I should be very sorry to constitute any military officer, however distinguished, an arbiter of the legality of religious ceremonial. The noble Lord refers to the services attended by the troops. It is quite true that the service is an ordinary morning service—matins—followed by a sermon, and it is attended not only by the troops, but also by a considerable civil congregation. I have endeavoured to find out something as to the character of the ceremonial followed at these morning services. I have seen a letter from the Vicar of Brighton, and I understand the Parish of St. Martin's is an offshoot of the Parish of Brighton. The vicar writes that his information is to the effect that the service is conducted in the simplest possible fashion, and that he has never received any complaints with regard to it, though he has frequently conversed upon the subject with the commanding officers concerned. The incumbent himself—Mr. Hardy Little—states positively that there is no ritual, in the sense of anything unusual, at this service, and the Chaplain-General, whom I have consulted, informs me that the service consists of morning prayer and a sermon, that it is perfectly simple, and that in his belief there is no approach to illegality in it. No vestments are worn other than surplices, and no incense is used. The Chaplain-General says it is the ordinary service of all churches. I thought it due to the right reverend Prelate who presides over this diocese—the Bishop of Chichester—to ask him for any observations which he might desire to make, and I gather from his reply that in his view the complaint which has been made is not a reasonable complaint, and that in the services attended by the troops at St. Martin's there is nothing objectionable either upon legal or upon other grounds. The noble Lord asks me whether all other commanding officers will be directed to make investigation similar to that made by Colonel Hickson. My answer to that is in the negative. We wrote to Colonel Hickson in consequence of the notice put upon your Lordships' paper, and for that reason alone. Colonel Hickson's report certainly went to show that what might be described as the general tone of the church and of the services was what I suppose would be colloquially termed "high." I find nothing in his observations that there was any reason for altering the present arrangements under which the troops attend morning service at this church, and under which the incumbent receives the usual capitation grant. I think I have answered the whole of the questions put to me by the noble Lord on my right (Lord Teynham). The noble Lord opposite (Lord Greville) asks me whether the incumbent is a member of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament and of the English Church Union. I am not able to tell him. I have not asked the incumbent, and I have no intention of asking him. I understand that these are private associations, and if I were to make such an inquiry I should not be surprised were he to tell me in the most polite ecclesiastical language to mind my own business. I have already communicated to your Lordships that we have no reason to doubt the legality of the ceremonial observed at the services attended by the troops, and I wish to make it perfectly clear that it is with those services alone that we are concerned. I do not think it is my business to inquire into the proceedings at the other services. The question of the noble Lord is so framed—I have no doubt unintentionally so framed—that it points, and I think his observations also pointed, not only to the service attended by the troops, but to other services which take place at the same church. And the suggestion of the noble Lord is that the troops are involuntarily participators in law-breaking, because he apprehends that the law is violated at other services at which they do not attend. To stigmatise these soldiers as law-breakers because they attend at one hour a church at which the noble Lord supposes the law to be broken at another hour seems to me a strange interpretation of the words, and I doubt whether any such view of law-breaking can be established from anything to be found in the Statute Book. Upon the whole, then, I see no occasion for altering the present arrangements, and as at present advised I do not propose to do so. Perhaps before I sit down I ought to make clear to your Lordships what is our policy in dealing with this matter. That policy is, I think, very well expressed in the instructions which are issued to the Regular Army chaplains. Those chaplains are expressly warned to be careful not to adopt any custom of doubtful legality, or which is likely to offend really earnest worshippers in the congregation. That seems to me a wise and sensible instruction, and I think that the same rule should apply to those cases in which the troops are ministered to, not by Army chaplains, but by other clergymen, and I can assure the noble Lord opposite that if in any case we have good reason to believe that the services attended by the troops are such as to give offence to really earnest worshippers amongst our soldiers we should think it necessary to take notice of the fact, and to modify our arrangements accordingly.