HL Deb 01 February 1900 vol 78 cc240-4
THE EARL OF DURHAM

My Lords, I beg to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, Whether his attention has been drawn to the utterances of Mr. Justice Grantham on the Bench with reference to a recent sermon of the Dean of Durham.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

My Lords, I apprehend that the question has been put to me because I am head of the Judicial Bench. The utterances of a gentleman like the Dean of Durham, I suppose, would be listened to with respect; but I cannot help saying that, if deans will take advantage of their pulpits to introduce violent political controversy where no one can answer them, and where those whose feelings may be deeply offended go for the purpose of worshipping God and not for the purpose of listening to violent political controversy, I do not think it lies in their mouth to complain that others should take advantage elsewhere of the opportunity of protesting against such language and such observations as those to which my attention has been called. It would, perhaps, be a counsel of perfection if deans and judges kept themselves clear of political controversy. But that is not the question which the noble Lord asks at present. I have, by the courtesy of the noble Lord himself, been afforded an opportunity of reading the sermon in question; and speaking, I hope, with the calmness of one who had not been obliged to listen to it, I am bound to say that a more offensive, and, to my mind, a more mischievous oration has seldom been delivered from the pulpit. I do not propose to read the words of the whole of the sermon, but your Lordships will probably allow me to read one or two extracts. I think when it is remembered how, where, and when, these words were uttered one cannot be surprised that some people should be, at all events, deeply offended at the utterance. One very interesting passage is this— It is about 330 years since such another war broke out. —I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the word "such."— The greatest sea Power in the world, then the only real colonial empire in the world, the land whose soldiers were far above all in repute for hardness and bravery, the land of an inexhaustible supply of wealth, whose trade truly followed its flag—this Power set itself to trample down one of the free small States of Europe. The Church blessed the effort—the little State was independent, heretical, an offence in the nose of the Imperialism of that age. They thought little of such a small country, hardly a country at all; they were the haughty overlords over it; these were the unfortunate Beggars whose resistance could not stand more than a few months before the strongest Power in Europe (which had the men, the guns, and the money too). They treated their ragged enemies with contempt, their free life should go, the Imperial Power must prevail, and the Church again should control the erring people with the grim control of fire and sword. Need I carry on the parallel? It is writ full large for anyone who has grace to read it, in the pages of history. With reference to the parallel, I think that if there is one period of the world's history and one military expedition which has been stamped by the reprobation of all civilised beings it is the great crime of the military expedition of the Duke of Alva in the Netherlands; and that is the parallel which the Dean of Durham thinks it right to mention. But the passage to which the learned Judge called attention was of a more modern character; and this sermon which was preached, as I understand, with the object of inculcating Christian charity and love towards one another, proceeds thus— What, then, do we find around us? With what spirit do we send out our fighting men? The drunken revels which form the music-hall ideals of good-fellowship—the excitement of the gin palace and the London streets—as if the bottle was the best prelude for the battle; the cries to the poor lads to avenge this or that, the greedy newspapers spreading unfounded slanders against our opponents, the insistence by which prejudice and angry ignorance have persuaded us that the enemy was but a horde of savages, who would run away at once. The whole temper of our times is so utterly anti-Christian that it appals me when, from the quietude of this home, I look out upon it all, and note the intolerance with which men hate opinions opposed to the momentary enthusiasm. Now, my Lords, with reference to this language, I daresay it is true that in some of the enthusiastic demonstrations which took place in the London streets, the idea of fellowship, in some classes of life, was to offer drink; and I have seen it stated that in some instances some of those poor fellows, taking leave of their nearest and dearest, did take too much drink. It is very likely to be true; but I ask is this the language, is this the mode in which the enthusiastic loyalty and bravery of those who are going out to fight the battles of their couutry ought to be denounced by a Christian clergyman in a Christian church? And now, my Lords, I come to the Judge's offence. When I first saw the controversy in the newspapers I am bound to say that I thought an easy answer could be given, because I thought that if one gentleman misunderstood what another gentleman had said he would apologise by saying that he was sorry for the language he had used. But I have the language here printed by the authority of the Dean, and for the life of me I cannot understand the difference between what Mr. Justice Grantham referred to and the Dean's printed words. The suggestion therefore that the learned Judge was in error in taking a newspaper report as evidence appears to be extraordinary in face of the fact that the report was perfectly accurate. Now I come to the more immediate question, whether my attention has been drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice Grantham. Yes. The noble Lord thinks that I have some control over the judges. I am not certain whether I might not ask my most rev. friend the Archbishop of York what he will do with the Dean. I have a strong suspicion that he has a greater control over the Dean than I have over the Judge. For the benefit of the people of this country it has long been a regular and ascertained rule, and established by statute, that the judges are perfectly independent of all control, except that an Address may be moved in the Houses of Parliament. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to take that course. I do not promise him much support; but that is the only constitutional course. Although I may say that the counsel of perfection is one which I would myself prefer, I do not at all wonder at Mr. Justice Grantham, who has taken a deep and most useful interest in the Volunteers, and has been able to assist them in their efforts to act for their country, being deeply grieved at reading what I think is a most unjust and improper observation, characterising our conduct in sending out men because two or three of their fellows, in bidding good-bye to their friends, had taken too much to drink on their way to the station. The Dean says he has not sacrificed his right of free speech as an Englishman. Neither has Mr. Justice Grantham. Mr. Justice Grantham is entitled to have his opinion. But there is this difference between them. The learned Judge addressed the grand jury, and the grand jury could, if it pleased, reply to him. In more than one instance a grand jury has replied to a judge with whom they did not agree. The Dean spoke where no one could reply, and, apart from any other question, I should have thought that that fact would induce a more modest reticence on the part of the Dean than he appears to have observed. The Judge is perfectly independent, and he exercised his rights as an Englishman in speaking as he did. As far as I myself am concerned, although I have no control over the Dean, I express my opinion as an Englishman that it was a great outrage to preach such a sermon in a church.

LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, may I, with the indulgence of the House, say a word with regard to pulpit utterances, and relate an experience of my father when a member of Mr. Gladstone's Government? My father went to a church and heard the clergyman say, in the course of his sermon, that Mr. Gladstone's Government was "a wave of iniquity howling in the unutterable depths."