HL Deb 16 December 1902 vol 116 cc1318-9
*LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty 's Government whether they are aware that there has been erected in Westminster Abbey a stone altar and a crucifix, together with two figures of saints, at the shrine of Edward the Confessor; and to ask who is responsible for their erection; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared, if such erection is illegal, to correct this abuse of authority.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR)

As regards the first part of the Question, I can only give the answer which has been given in another place, and that is that the stone altar and the sculptured group, consisting of a crucifix and figures, were removed to their present position at the shrine of Edward the Confessor on the sole authority and on the responsibility of the Dean and Chapter. It is not a matter with which His Majesty's Government have anything to do. The latter part of the Question touches a legal point which I have the Lord Chancellor's permission to leave to him.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

As to the legal side of the Question, the noble Lord must be aware that in the present state of the law any three male persons of full age living in a diocese who have any reason to complain of any new ornament being placed in a church or cathedral, have the right to appeal to the Bishop of the diocese. It is certainly not part of the duty of His Majesty's Government to inquire whether each ornament introduced into a church is illegal. I do not know whether this ornament is illegal or not. It is a delicate matter which may come before me judicially to determine. Speaking generally, it is not illegal to have ornamentation of this kind. I would remind the noble Lord of the decision in the case of Allcroft v. the Bishop of London. In that case the allegation was that—

The Dean and Chapter of the Cathedra1 Church of St. Paul have introduced into the said Cathedral Church and set up upon the altarpiece or reredos therein an image or sculptured subject, representing our Lord upon the Cross, in a conspicuous position, immediately above the Communion Table, the figure of Our Lord being of the height of 5 ft, or thereabouts. The said image or sculptured subject is constructed so as to have the appearance of such an altar crucifix as was used in the Church of England immediately before the Reformation, and so far as to answer the purposes for which such a crucifix was intended. The said Dean and Chapter have introduced into the said Cathedral Church and set up upon the said altarpiece or reredos therein an image or sculptured subject representing the Blessed Virgin Mary with the Child in her arms, in a conspicuous position, a few feet above the image or sculptured subject, the figure of the Blessed Virgin being of the height of 5 feet 6 inches.

In that case it was held that the Bishop had acted within his jurisdiction and exercised the discretion vested in him; that whether the reasons he gave were good or bad the Bishop, having considered all the circumstances which appeared to him, honestly exercising his judgment, to bear upon the particular case, his reasons could not be reviewed; and there was no ground for a mandamus. The noble Lord who has asked this question seems to assume that such sculptured subjects are illegal. No such proposition can be maintained for a moment. A matter of this kind requires careful examination; the noble Lord, however, has said nothing on such a point as to whether the group is made the subject of idolatrous worship. The Government have no reason to suppose the group is illegal, and if it were illegal it could properly be made the subject of complaint by three persons, as I have pointed out, under the Public Worship Act, and the question would then be determined in due course of law.

House adjourned at Seveno'clock, till Tomorrow, Six o'clock.