Lords Sitting of 9 March 1900

VISCOUNT GORT.
Petition of John Gage Prendergast, Viscount Gort, claiming a right to vote at the elections of representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report there upon to the House.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GWYRFAI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESin formed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 27th of February last discharged, and Bill committed.
  SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESinformed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 2nd instant discharged, and Bill committed.
  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  EDINBURGH DISTRICT LUNACY BOARD BILL [H.L.]
    EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

      ROTHERHITHE AND RATCLIFF TUNNEL BILL [H.L.]
      LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [H.L.].
      SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
      NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.].
      NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Falmouth be proposed to the House as a member of
      466
      the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Muncaster; read, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2387. Havre and District.

  BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
  Forty fifth Annual Report by the Registrar-General in Scotland, for the year 1899; and Thirty-fifth Annual Report on Vaccination.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return of all sums received by the visitors of lunatics for travelling expenses or upon any other account from the 1st January to the 31st December, 1899.

  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Regulations for certified inebriate reformatories in Scotland.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.
*LORD KINNAIRD: I rise to ask the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury whether any precedent can be found since the Reformation Settlement was enacted by the passing of the 1st Elizabeth, Chapters 1 and 2, in which Prayers for the Dead have ever been introduced "by authority" into any special services put forth by any of the Archbishops of Canterbury. I do not propose to enter into any historical or theological discussion, but there are many people throughout the country, including Church dignitaries, whose minds have been somewhat excited by the words put into the form of intercession. Within a week of the time when the Bishops asked that this year might not be one in which any controversy should arise, these words appeared which some of us regard as an innovation, and possibly his Grace the Archbishop may say something to calm the fears of some who have been surprised and pained by the words used.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I cannot answer

467
the noble Lord's question in detail; I have not been able to look through all the precedents, and the number of prayers that have been issued by the authority of the Crown is too great to make it possible without a very great deal of labour to find out exactly whether any forms of prayer have been previously issued in which the words used express precisely the same thing as the words to be found in the prayer recently put forth. I hold in my hand, however, two documents of the same character—that is to say, forms of this kind. One of them is a "form of prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God to be used in all churches and chapels for general thanksgiving for many and signal victories which Divine Providence has vouchsafed to his Majesty in the course of the war." The date of this is 1797, and in that form I find words that come very near indeed to the language—it would be impossible to draw a distinction between them—inthe prayer which has been lately issued. I will just read the words that your Lordships may know what the words are to which I refer. In the form of prayer set forth for use on December 19, 1797, those words occur—
"And for those whom in this righteous cause Thy Providence permits to fall, receive we pray Thee their souls to Thy mercy."
That prayer was issued in the usual way on the date I have mentioned, and again in the same manner a year later—on 29th November, 1798. These words come as near as anything can well come, when the words are not identical, to the prayer lately issued, though the words take a somewhat different form—
"And for all those who have fallen, that they with us may enter into that rest which Thou hast prepared for those who believe in Thee."
If you take this to pieces, the "rest" which is here spoken of is that rest to which all those who fall in the faith of Christ will be brought at the final change which is to pass over every one of us at the Resurrection Day. What is to happen after our death and before resurrection is not known distinctly; it is not anywhere told us in the New Testament. We really do not know, but we do receive some idea that those who have followed the true faith are during that interval to have happiness so far that they are in the presence of God, but are still waiting for that great change which will come to all. The prayer looks forward to that time,
468
praying that those who have fallen in the true faith may "enter with us into that rest which Thou hast prepared for those who believe in Thee." The only objection I have ever heard made to this is that when they have entered into that rest, when once they have passed into the hands of God, it is impossible that they can have any addition to their happiness. Well, there is nothing in the New Testament that implies that the happiness is always exactly the same, and that there is no possibility of increase; but there is in the New Testament sufficient to lead us to the belief that, at any rate, there is one thing that can increase their happiness—that is, that they should be reunited with those whom they loved on earth, and so the prayer is not simply that they may enter into rest, but that they with us may enter into rest, and the idea of reunion with those whom they loved here is the very essence of the petition. I do not suppose there is any Christian who will hesitate to say that happiness will certainly be increased by the reunion of those who really loved one another. The idea which is very often expressed that those who are happy need no addition at all would imply that it is a matter of indifference to them whether the loved ones left behind did or did not join them. This prayer expresses no such idea, but a precisely opposite idea—that they with us may have that great blessing in common. Of course, I am aware that prayers for the dead are not common in the Church of England, and that such prayers have been struck out altogether from the ordinary services, but, nevertheless, it is quite certain that the law has decided that such prayers are not outside the limits of the law. We have had the question settled before the regular Court, and that settlement has been acquiesced in ever since it was arrived at, now more than sixty years ago. Moreover, that settlement is based on the same principle as that which underlies the well-known decision in the case of Mr. Bennett. There the judges refused to condemn Mr. Bennett on the ground that the doctrine he taught was not prohibited by the Church of England. The principle of the law is, therefore, accepted. The law itself and the rule of the law which is laid down by the Court of Arches in regard to prayers for the dead leave the matter in this position—that there is no

469
prohibition, and that it is quite open to members of the Church of England to pray for the dead. Of course, those who are under the canons have made a promise that they will keep within the limits of the Prayer-book, and therefore they cannot without further authority offer any such prayer, because the Prayer-book does not contain any prayer directly praying for the dead, and only contains prayers which pray for the dead indirectly. The reason why the Church of England struck out direct prayers for the dead is clear from the circumstances of the Reformation. At that time prayers for the dead were almost entirely taken up with prayers for souls in purgatory, and these prayers for souls in purgatory were the source of very scandalous abuses, abuses which first caused Luther to protest against the doctrines of the Church of Rome. The Church of England has directly declared that the doctrine of purgatory, of pardons, of adoration and invocation of saints is vain and fond and contrary to the law of God, and in so far as any prayer indicates approach to anything of that kind, that prayer is unquestionably inconsistent with the teaching of the Church of England. At that time it was very difficult to draw any line, and the Church took the course of striking out all prayers that could possibly be abused without any reference to the question whether or not they would be abused. But the Church did not in any way whatever forbid the use of prayers for the dead, which it could very easily have done, and in the 22nd Article the Church could have excluded prayers for the dead altogether. But the Church did not do that, and when the judges had to decide whether or not such prayers were excluded, they decided distinctly that they were not excluded. At this time there is great and special occasion; it is a time when there are hundreds of sorrowing souls very anxious about relations engaged in the war in South Africa. They have been praying for their loved ones out there, and they feel it is hard that they may not have the comfort of praying for those who have fallen when they know, as a great many of them do know, that prayers for the dead are not forbidden. At such a time as this it is right that we should practise toleration, and where the Church has said there shall be liberty, there should be liberty for those who wish to use it. As no doubt
470
your Lordships know, five different forms of prayer are appointed for use, and no clergyman is tied down to the use of any particular one. He may choose any one of the five, and this particular prayer is only one of the five. Therefore it is in no way whatever a burden on the conscience of the clergy, and it gives that great consolation to very many who are feeling deeply at this time, that, without any hindrance from rules of the Church, they are allowed to pray, and join others in praying, for those whom they have lost; at any rate, to pray that the day of their final rest shall be in participation and renewal of their old affections. If it is said that, having got to their final rest, they want nothing more, I think that only shows the want of serious reflection. We are not told anywhere that the blessedness of Heaven is exactly the same for everyone, or that when once it has been given it cannot be increased. We are distinctly led to believe that those who are gone away do not lose their affection for us who have yet to follow. For that reason I think it was right to give them an opportunity of expressing their feelings in public worship. The prayer has been issued in the ordinary way. The question has been raised whether the Privy Council has any right to issue such prayers at all. But that is a matter with which I have nothing to do. The power has been used for a considerable time, and it has always been treated as a power that resided in the Crown and the Privy Council. I am not at all concerned in that question, which could only be decided by the courts of law. I am not concerned with the question whether such prayers are issued by lawful authority or not. At present they are issued as having lawful authority, and therefore, they are taken as lawfully issued, and I do not see how else we can treat them. There is one more thing I should say, and that is that we have lately spoken decidedly on this matter, and told the clergy in various ways that they must not use such prayers. Why must they not? Not because they are not lawful, for the law has decided that they are, but because they have promised to use the prayers of the prayer-book, and having made that promise they are not allowed to go outside it unless they have lawful authority, and that lawful authority is given for this occasion. I cannot help

471
feeling that of all things we need at this time we most need absolute toleration of all that comes within the law of the Church, and we ought to show in dealing with the Church that we have no intention whatever of narrowing its limits or shutting out from any liberty which the Church has granted the desires of those who feel the need of using such liberty.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I cannot refrain from making some comment on the language the most reverend Prelate has been using. He has not been able to bring before your Lordships any precedent since the Reformation Settlement in which prayers for the dead have ever been introduced "by authority." The most reverend Prelate constantly spoke of what he was pleased to describe as the law of the Church. I entirely dissent from him in that phrase. There is no law of the Church distinct from the law of the land, and the reason there is a strong feeling upon this question is not that this particular form of prayer is in itself so very objectionable, but that it admits a principle which is of a very far-reaching character. The most reverend Prelate says the clergy are bound to use no prayers except those permitted and retained in the Book of Common Prayer, except that other prayers from time to time may be agreed to by authority. At the same time he admits that it is not at all clear as to the legal authority upon which this prayer was issued. The authorities practically who issued this prayer were the two Archbishops and my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. It would be a very serious matter if the principles of the Church of England could be, from time to time, undermined by a process by which practically the two Archbishops, at any time, could introduce any special forms of prayer they desired. The objection to this particular prayer in the minds of people in the country is precisely that which existed at the time of the Reformation. "Black Masses" now take place in a great number of Churches of the Church of England, and the Bishops either cannot or will not exercise any authority at all in these matters over the clergy; and it is perfectly clear that when a prayer of this kind is introduced it will be used by clergymen who are opposed to the principles of the Reformation as an extenuation and defence of
472
the practices they are carrying on. This is not merely an academicals question, because, unfortunately, there are in many dioceses principles being introduced which are antagonistic to the Reformation. In one diocese, for instance—the diocese of St. Albans—the study of a book called "Wake man's History of the Church of England" is made obligatory on candidates for holy orders. What is the teaching of this book? I do not wish to trespass long upon your Lordships' time, but I will read a few extracts from it to show what is going on in the Church of England under the sanction and control of certain Bishops—
"The vast majority of those who suffered (in Mary's reign) were not people even of religious influence; they were illiterate fanatics."
Again—
"That the State should send the clergy to prison for refusing to acknowledge its right to enforce the decisions of its own courts upon them in matters of faith and worship, which no one believed to be good law, soon became an unbearable scandal."
Their again—
"The training of souls in confession has taken a recognised place among the duties of the priesthood."
"From the point of view of history the Church revival of the present century is seen to be nothing more than the complete reaction against the Protestant movement of the sixteenth century."
The point which has been raised by my noble friend (Lord Kinnaird) is not a large one in itself, but it is an important one as relating to what is going on and being taught in the Church of England. It is a matter of great regret when there is a feeling, which it is impossible to exaggerate, in the north of England, that prayers should have been introduced under the moral authority of the two Archbishops which, even supposing they are within the law, are certainly novel in principle, and give rise to grave suspicions, and will, I fear, be made use of by the very men who are endeavouring to undermine the Protestant character of the Reformation settlement.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD WINDSOR: In asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time

  473
  I need only make one or two explanatory observations. The Bill is introduced this year in exactly the same form as it left the House last session.* The Bill was read a third time by your Lordships, but, owing to the late period at which it got through the Committee stage, I withdrew it, as it was absolutely impossible to get the Bill through the House of Commons. Certain alterations were made in the Bill at the instance of the Local Government Board, and I trust that, in re-introducing it again in the same form as it left the House last session, the opposition entertained by the Local Government Board will no longer exist. The object of the Bill is really not to widen the operation of the Public Libraries Acts, but to make the Acts of 1892 and 1893 more workable and more efficient. It is said that these Bills are only a method of raising the rates for the purpose of enabling idle people to read novels and light literature, but I venture to submit that an objection of that sort is not valid as against this Bill, and ought to have been made when the Public Libraries Acts were passed. As the law at present stands, there is no qualification or disqualification mentioned for a library commissioner, and Clause 2 of this Bill proposes to supply that deficiency by providing that the qualification of a library commissioner shall be the same as the qualification of a parish councillor. At present two urban authorities may agree together to build and keep up a public library, and two or more parish authorities may agree together to do the same thing; but there is no provision to enable a parish authority to agree with an urban authority to build and maintain a public library, Clause 4 will remedy this deficiency, and enable a parish authority and an urban authority to act together. This will tend rather to economy than to an increase in the rates. Clause 11 relieves the library authorities from the danger of an action in the event of a book being left on their shelves which contains libellous matter, provided that reasonable diligence is exercised. I trust that no objection will be raised by the Local Government Board to the Second Reading of this Bill, even if certain small
  *See The Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series: First Reading, March 23, 1899, Vol. lxix., page 65; Second Reading, July 25, Vol. lxxv., page 192; Committee, July 31, page 872; Report, August 3, page 1,232.
  474
  alterations have to be made in Committee.
  LORD HARRIS: The Local Government Board have no objection to the Bill being read a second time. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill made certain alterations in it last year which met the views of the Local Government Board. That authority, however, have objections to make to some of the details of the Bill, but these can be made in Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALEBURY): Clause 11 contains one of those problems to which I have a strong objection. It leaves to the discretion of the learned judge the question whether the action shall be allowed to proceed or not, but it does not indicate the principle that is to guide him. I do not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I mention this matter so that the noble Lord can consider it between now and the Committee stage, as it appears to me to be the principal objection to the Bill.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY ARBITRATION.
LORD WENLOCK: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the fact that the International arbitration in relation to the Delagoa Bay Railway undertaken by the Berne Tribunal has now been proceeding for upwards of nine years, and, if so, what steps they have taken to impress upon the court the obligation of giving their decision, seeing that the case was finally closed as long ago as April last, and that judgment was promised in October, 1899, again in January, 1900, and has not yet been issued; and if Her Majesty's Government will state whether they are prepared to join with the Government of the United States of America in pressing for an immediate award. In putting this question to the Government I do not propose to go at any length into the complicated proceedings which led up to the appointment of the international tribunal, but I cannot help thinking that this is a matter of sufficient public importance to bring before the notice of your Lordships'

475
House. I think your Lordships will agree that those whose interests are at stake have every cause to complain of the delay which has taken place in regard to the decision of their case. I am given to understand that they have—and not without reason—denounced the delay which has taken place as a grave public scandal. We have heard a great deal of the advantages and benefits to be derived from international arbitration, but I think the most ardent advocates of that system will have reason to pause in their bestowal of praise on this mode of procedure after witnessing what has occurred in this particular case. The matter referred to the Berne tribunal was not very difficult of solution. It was a question of what the Portuguese Government should be called upon to pay for the cancellation of a concession of a railway and certain other advantages given to a certain body of people, and it was simplified by the fact that the Portuguese Government themselves admitted the liability which was imposed upon them by their own action, and they went so far as to hand over a sum of about £28,000 to the British Government, on account, to help the unfortunate British investors to meet their more immediate and pressing requirements. In these circumstances I think we may well ask Her Majesty's Government to assure us that they will do their best to press for an immediate award in this particular case.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I entirely concur with the noble Lord that the delay of the Delagoa Bay arbitration is a most lamentable matter, and that we should be very glad if this litigation could be brought to an end. But the noble Lord suggests that we ought to move in the matter. I wish he had continued his speech a little longer, in order to tell us what precise kind of movement he wished us to initiate. The tribunal is not subject to us in any way whatever. We are litigants before it. If the British counsel were to get up and address a vigorous denunciation, such as the noble Lord would address to them, I am afraid they would simply tell him to hold his tongue. An official remonstrance from one of the litigants before a tribunal is not within the ordinary experience of judicial affairs. It is quite
476
true that we have in years past, again and again, under various Governments, tried what unofficial representation could do to induce greater rapidity of action. I am informed that the tribunal entirely declines to admit that it is responsible for this delay. The president says, I am told, that if there is undue delay it is the fault, not of the tribunal, but of the parties. That being the state of the case, I frankly admit that our chance of taking any action which would effect the object the noble Lord has in view is very small. I quite concur with him that it is unfortunate, not only in its bearing on the fortunes of the litigants, but also in the discredit that it reflects on the value of the principle of arbitration, from which we had hoped great things. There is no doubt that the Powers will be less willing to refer any differences they may have to arbitration if they are told that the proceedings will take nine years before a result is obtained. I can only join with the noble Lord in lamenting this result, and I can assure him that, while we should be glad to do anything we can do in this case, it is entirely outside our power to coerce the action of the tribunal.

MILITIA BALLOT BILL [H.L.]

  INTRODUCTION.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Before your Lordships separate I wish to present a Bill, entitled "An Act to amend the Law relating to Ballot for the Militia in England and Wales." This is not my own Bill; it is a foundling which I picked up inanimate and comatose on the steps of the War Office. I have made no change in it except to substitute my own name on the back of it for that of the Marquess of Lansdowne. In Committee I shall endeavour to make the Bill much less harsh and onerous to the people of the country than it is as it stands now. I believe by law a man is bound to support, his own child, and in the circumstances I do not see how my noble friend the Secretary of State for War or the noble Marquess at the head of the Government can oppose the Bill, in spite of the statement of the Prime Minister on a former occasion that in his view the adoption of ballot for the Militia would cause wholesale emigration of the young men of the country. I hope your Lordships will give a favourable consideration to the Bill, and that when we get

  477
  into Committee we shall endeavour to make it not only a useful and permanent measure, but one which will not weigh heavily on the people of this country. I beg to move the First Reading of the Bill.
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the ballot for the Militia in England and Wales—Was presented by the Lord Wemyss (E. Wemyss); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 23.)

MIDWIVES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to secure the better training of midwives, and to regulate their practice—Was presented by the Lord Glenesk; read 1a; to be printed; and to read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 24.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five of the Clock, to Monday next a quarter before Eleven of the Clock.