HL Deb 30 April 1903 vol 121 cc929-30
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

had the following notice on the Paper: "To ask the Lord Bishop of London whether his attention has been called to a service proposed to be celebrated at St. Paul's Cathedral on 6th May 'In commemoration of those members of the Guild of the Holy Standard and St. Helena and all soldiers who died in the war in South Africa'; whether the right rev. Prelate holds himself responsible for special services in St. Paul's Cathedral; whether he has had submitted to him any such service; whether it has received his sanction; and what deviations, alterations, or additions he has sanctioned to the Office of Holy Communion on such occasion."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think I ought to explain that on arriving in London yesterday evening I wrote to the Bishop of London telling him that, as I had been informed that this proposed service had been definitely abandoned, I did not intend to put him to the inconvenience of leaving his diocesan conference and coming down to the House this afternoon. However, a letter from the right rev. Prelate crossed my letter, and I am sure it would only be justice to the right rev. Prelate to read an extract from it to the House. The Bishop writes— The service, as you probably know, has fallen through. The service to which you all de was not submitted to me, but no doubt would have been on my return from abroad. It was, however, withdrawn before the necessity arose. I thought it was only fair to the right rev. Prelate to state those facts and to explain his absence, and to make it quite clear that the right rev. Prelate, while as visitor accepting responsibility for any special services, was not in any way responsible for this proposed service at St. Paul's. A great deal of nonsense has been written in the papers on the question of prayers for the dead. Speaking for myself, I cannot see that there can be any objection, either from the Church of England point of view or from the Christian point of view, to private prayers for the dead. We pray for those we have with us here, and there can be no reason why we should not pray for those in another world. But what was felt by a very large number of persons to be the really serious point in this matter was that it was not a question of private prayers for the dead, but a question of a public service which implied a very serious alteration in and addition to the Office of Holy Communion. There is naturally a very strong feeling that the service of Holy Communion should not be altered in any way. The moment you do that, very grave questions of principle are at once raised. It was felt, as I think wisely, by a very large number of persons that, if any such service were celebrated in St. Paul's Cathedral which met with the serious suspicion of a large portion of the community, which also was condemned by several members of the Chapter itself, and which would have been taken by a certain section, and openly explained to be a requiem mass, great offence would have been given. Further, what would have been much more serious in regard to the discipline of the Church of England, the service would have been taken as a precedent and largely amplified in a number of other churches not themselves in so responsible and important a position as St. Paul's. I am very grateful to know that no such service is to take place. Although it is quite clear that the Bishop of London must be exonerated from any responsibility for the proposed service, I very much regret hat it should be in the power of certain members of the Chapter of St. Paul's to start services of this kind without full and complete consideration and without consulting the best and highest authority. In that view I am only reiterating the sentiments of the late Archbishop Benson. After the Lincoln judgment had been pronounced, that distinguished man wrote of a visit to St. Paul's— Alas! those minor canons, who are allowed their own way in everything, have introduced ablution since the Lincoln Judgment, and have turned the order on openness in consecration into a new bit of ritualism, lifting the cup high and breaking the bread and drawing the arms apart with the two pieces of broken bread. Thus, what was meant to give plainness is by these perverse folk turned to a far more ceremonious mode. Full tilt we go to alienate all the laity we can. If they were not so much wiser than the clergy, they would be all gone to Dissent before this. In the circumstances I shall not put my question.