HL Deb 27 April 1921 vol 45 cc45-67

Order of the day for the Second Reading read.

LORD DESBOROLIGH

My Lords, in moving the. Second Reading of this Bill I venture to draw your Lordships' attention, in the first place, to a debate which took place in this House on July 21 last. On that occasion I moved a 'Motion to the effect that His Majesty's, Government be requested to summon a Conference at the earliest possible opportunity to consider the advisability of the establishment of a fixed date for the celebration of Easter and the reform of the Calendar. A very interesting debate took place, in which my noble friend, Lord Onslow, represented the Government. The answer received from him to the request that the Government should summon a Conference was a sympathetic negative.

The right rev. Primate, in that, debate, made use of language which, with due provisos, I should like to recall to the attention of the House, for at the time it gave me very considerable encouragement. The most rev. Primate then said— No one is blind to the inconvenience of the changes (and apparently unmeaning changes from year to year) in the date of Easter, and the necessity of looking into ecclesiastical books in order to find out on what date Easter will fall in the following year. That statement was made just after the great Lambeth Conference, when the most rev. Primate had the pleasure of entertaining some 250 Bishops. I think lie had made certain inquiries of them, and I understood that he found no opposition on the part of those Bishops to the establishment of a fixed date for Easter. He went on to say— I may say at once so far as the ecclesiastics with whom I have been in conference are concerned, that there is no objection at all on their part to the change suggested provided certain conditions are satisfied. I am speaking now not on behalf of the Greek Church but on behalf of the Anglican Church in England, America, Australia, India and elsewhere. We all feel. strongly that the holidays should not be divorced from the period of ecclesiastical celebrations. I myself laid very great stress upon that. I am the last to wish to see the great holiday of the people divorced from the holy associations which have grown up round it during the centuries.

The most rev. Primate, continued— We believe that there are gains in the association which we shall be sorry to lose, and we think it is most important that that should not be ignored in any settlement if a new settlement be made. He then introduced an important proviso by saying— We should expect concurrence on the part of the Roman Catholic authorities in any settlement that may be made, and failing that concurrence we should have to consider our position. He then spoke words which to me were highly encouraging, for he said— Given those conditions, so far as the Anglican Church is concerned have every reason to believe that it would be entirely acceptable to us that Easter Sunday should be a fixed Sunday and not a variable one That there would be some men with ecclesiastical and archaeological interests who might object to it I do not doubt, but I think they are negligible in number, and not the most authoritative in status or weight of opinion. Therefore, so far as the Church for which I have any right to speak is concerned, either at home or across the seas, I do not think that any opposition should be anticipated to any proposal, if any be made. The most rev. Primate proceeded to say that he hardly thought it was the business of the Church to start the matter and to arrange that it should be promoted, but thought it ought to be brought up by those who desired it on the practical and business grounds, such as were mentioned. If that were done, he said, he was sure that we would find the sort of response to which I had alluded.

I acted upon that expression of opinion. Shortly after the debate took place in this House I had the honour of presiding at a congress of the Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire, which was held at Toronto, and, following the example of the International Chambers of Commerce on many occasions, and of the London Chamber and the Association of Chambers of Commerce, and many other commercial bodies, the Congress at Toronto, representing, as it did, the Chambers of Commerce in the British Empire, unanimously agreed upon the necessity of pressing for a fixed date for Easter, including, of course, both Easter and the Whitsuntide holiday. The Congress asked me to proceed with a Bill, which accordingly I sent forthwith to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, and also to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and to the Home Office.

I have been often told that the Holy See is opposed to any change of this character, but on the last occasion I quoted the Bishop of Salford, who made use of these very strong words— I am delighted to see that theTablethas taken up, and with approval, the idea of a fixed Easter. That is a reform that has long been needed. I quoted the rest of the letter last July. No alteration of the calendar would be necessary; in fact, everything would be normal. Of course, for the Catholic Church, the Holy See could make the change with a stroke of the pen, but I did not anticipate that there would be any difficulty in negotiations to induce the Governments of the various nations to agree, for the advantages are so very obvious. Since that date the Bishop of Salford has contributed more than one letter to the Roman Catholic journals, which I have had the pleasure of reading. The Tabletalso has discussed the matter with approval and great learning, and the Church Timeshas done the same. TheGuardian, too, has printed excellent articles with the same object. I believe that Dom F. Cabrol, who is supposed to be a most learned authority on this matter, has also written a very illuminating article in the Tablet

I frankly acknowledge that I began these somewhat abstruse studies merely from the point of view of a business man, and because Chambers of Commerce were having the question forced upon them, but, as time went on, I confess that I got more and more interested in the historical and ecclesiastical aspects of the matter. When I look at the benches opposite, however, I rather tremble to speak in the presence of so many learned and competent authorities. I have received on this matter a very large number of letters from clergymen of the Church of England, and not one expresses antagonism to the idea of having a fixed Easter. On the contrary, their letters have been most helpful. The only letter I have received in opposition to the idea of a fixed Easter came from a lady who expressed extreme repugnance at being deprived of the excitement of a changeable Easter. I believe her real grievance was expressed in the postscript, in which she said that sometimes her birthday occurred on Easter Sunday and asked me to assure her that she would not be deprived of this somewhat peculiar excitement. I looked up the Sunday Letter and the Golden Number and found her birthday, and had to reply that if Easter Sunday was fixed at the date proposed by the Bill this happy juncture of important events would no longer take place.

After the Congress at Toronto, which unanimously approved of the proposal, I introduced the Bill, which, though very short and very simple, deals with matters of the highest import. Clause 1 is practically the Bill. It fixes Easter for the second Sunday in April. At present Easter can vary over a period of no fewer than 35 days. The whole trouble arises from the fact that an attempt is made to reconcile three periods which have no common measure; that is to say, the week, the lunar month, and the solar year, and that necessitates the use of the Golden Number, the Sunday Letter, and the epact. This is made rather more confusing by leap year.

The Golden Number is very simple to find. You merely add one to the Year of Our Lord and then divide by nineteen, and the remainder, if there is any remainder, is the Golden Number of the Romans. If there is no remainder then nineteen is the Golden Number. The reason you add one to the Year of Our Lord is on account of the epact; that is, the age of the moon on January 1. They found that in the year one B.C. the new moon fell on January 1, and, therefore, these various lunations, which were adopted for the use of the Gregorian Calendar, were to date from that. You divide by nineteen because nineteen is the lunar cycle, worked out by Meton, who was a philosopher and lived 435 years before Our Lord was born.

The Sunday Letter is more complicated. To find the Sunday Letter you add to the year of Our Lord its fourth part, omitting fractions, and also the number six, and divide by seven. The remainder, if any, you look up in the small table on the right-hand side of the Prayer Book, A, B, C, etc., and the corresponding letter to that number is the Sunday Letter. If there is no remainder then A is the Sunday Letter. All this is necessary, because you are trying to reconcile three absolutely irreconcilable things— namely, the sun, the moon, and the day of the week. You cannot do it, and, therefore, you have this variation of 35 days in regard to the date of Easter. One of the reasons is that the lunar year is eleven days shorter than the solar year. You are eleven days wrong the first year. and twenty-two days wrong the second year; and then you have to take refuge in the epact.

This great variation in the date of Easter leads to endless confusion in everyday life, and also in the services of. the Church. It upsets the Law terms, the school terms, the college terms, and the great holidays of the people at Easter and at Whitsuntide. I have received innumerable letters and resolutions on the matter; in fact, I was hardly prepared for the correspondence in which I have involved myself. They come from vastly different bodies. I have a communication here from the Royal College of Music and the Royal Academy of Music, stating that the various dates of Easter upset their 30,000 students in quite an unnecessary manner. I received one yesterday from the cotton operatives of Lancashire, signed on behalf of 700 firms employing about 200,000 people. It approved of a fixed Easter and hoped that the Bill would soon become law. These instances could be enormously multiplied, but that is hardly necessary after the admissions made last year on the subject by the most rev. Primate. There is no doubt that monster petitions would be signed by every class of people in the country, including the heads of colleges and universities, new and old, in favour of putting an end to an inconvenience and disturbance which, in their opinion, is absolutely unnecessary.

Let me now turn for a moment to the Bill which is before your Lordships. In Clause 1 Easter Sunday is suggested for the second Sunday in April. It may very naturally be asked Why the second Sunday in April is selected. There are three principal considerations, I think, to be taken into account. In the first place Easter should be as near as possible to the actual date it commemorates; secondly, it should be as convenient as possible for the proper celebration of the various Fasts, Feasts and Festivals of the Church; and, thirdly, it should as far as possible be convenient to the mass of the people.

As regards the first consideration, the general body of opinion of those who have studied the matter, unless I am mistaken, fixes A.D. 30, April 7, as the date of the Crucifixion, so that Easter Sunday would be April 9. That is one reason for fixing Easter Sunday as the second Sunday in April. A learned clergyman, not unknown to the most rev. Primate, sent me the mean date of a hundred Easters, from 1810 to 1910, and the mean date for that period was April 8. 3. Therefore it falls well within the second of the postulates of the most rev. Primate when he said that it must fall within the prescribed limits of the present variation. I do not think you can get a nearer Sunday to the actual mean date than the second Sunday in April. Of course, so long as Sunday is to be the day— that is, until you can get a perpetual calendar— you cannot have an actual fixed date. I am very far from being a Quartodeciman heretic myself, and therefore there is no question about Easter Day being any other day than Sunday.

As regards the second postulate, "the working of' the Christian year," which perhaps is not altogether in my province, there is with the present varying Easter the very greatest difficulty, as many clergymen have written to me to point out, in duly ordering the movable Feasts and Days of Fasting and Abstinence, depending, as they do at present, upon the date of Easter. This year Lady Day came in Easter week; indeed, it fell on Good Friday, causing the greatest possible inconvenience to a very large number of the clergy. In fact, Lady Day was postponed for eleven days to April 5; and last year the Bishop of Salford, in a letter which I had the honour of reading to the House, said that he had to celebrate the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany on Saturday, January 31. My point is that a movable Easter is not merely an inconvenience to the people, but also a dislocation to the Church. Our Collects are printed as they are in order to have a. sufficient number in hand to allow for the variation of Easter. A fixed Easter would obviate most of these difficulties.

As regards the third consideration, I will venture to suggest that, given the first two conditions, these great Festivals and holidays should be on dates as convenient as possible to the people. The second Sunday in April would secure the holidays of Easter and Whitsuntide at. an acceptable time of the year. I think I pointed out on the previous occasion that the present varying Easters are a very great dislocation to everybody in their relation to the financial year from April 6 to April 5. I said that if you take time last twenty years, you find that six years had one Easter, seven years had two Easters, and seven had no Easter at. all.

I received a communication from a clergyman yesterday to say that the same thing happened with regard to Easter offerings. In one year he had received two Easter offerings— it is a matter of rather bitter complaint— and next year he received none. if a clergyman changes incumbencies in the meantime it gives rise to a certain amount of inconvenience. Churchwardens have written to inform me that it is most upsetting to their finances, though I admit these do not compare in importance with those of the country. One churchwarden told me that sometimes he had to account for forty-seven weeks and sometimes for fifty-two. I am not sure he did not some times have more, but I cannot quite work that out. I venture to make these remarks about Clause 1 which is obviously the important clause. I am quite aware that there are other methods of fixing Easter. It could be done by fixing Good Friday, which would come to very nearly the same thing, but these are matters which, if I his Bill is read a second time, could be discussed in detail when the opportunity arises.

Clause 2 gives power to the King in Council not to alter the Prayer Book but to revise it in view of a fixed date, when certain Collects would be unnecessary. Clause 3 is perhaps unnecessary but it is put in as a safeguard. Clause 4 is merely formal. It is perhaps unnecessary for me to say anything more about this Bill. The advisability of fixing Easter seems to me to he admitted both by the vast majority of representatives of the Anglican Church and also by writers on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church.

The whole question is, what is the best way to proceed? Last year I proposed to His Majesty's Government that they should summon a conference as indeed the Swiss Government had agreed to do some years ago, before the war. The Government remarked, no doubt justly, that the state of Europe was so disturbed that it would be impossible to summon a conference on that question. They also gave other reasons. I do not think I am divulging any confidence when I say that I had approached the highest dignitaries in the hope that they would take up the matter themselves. In this matter I do not represent myself. I represent officially the Chambers of Commerce not only of the United Kingdom but, I might say, of the world, the last meeting being attended by representatives of thirty-seven different nations, most of there Roman Catholic nations. I put the agreed proposal in a Bill which is practically an amendment to the Act of 1750. If I can get your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill I am quite willing to postpone the Committee stage as long as may be thought necessary, and not to press it, but to await the convenience of the, dignitaries of the Church. This is really a Church matter, and I have no desire to move in any direction that might be considered in the least hostile to the views of the Church.

I cannot help feeling that if the Bill is passed something will have been done It becomes a stepping-stone to negotiations. After all, people take little notice of Resolutions, but a Bill which has received the approval of this House is a thing which cannot be ignored. I have received a great deal of encouragement from the United States, where a similar movement is going on, and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the British Empire, the United States and the British Dominions form one-half of the white population of the world, and any reform of this sort upon which they agreed would be a great example which would, no doubt, be very shortly followed by other nations.

It should be remembered that when the Gregorian Calendar was promulgated by Pope Gregory in 1582 only Spain and Portugal adopted it at once. We in this country took some time to think it over, and we did not adopt it until 1752. If now a great lead was given, as was given then by Pope Gregory, I think it is shown by the Resolutions passed by Chambers of Commerce, who are all anxious for this reform, that other countries would very soon follow suit. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill as the surest means of getting a common agreement on the subject.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—

(Lord Desborough.)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move to resolve—

That this House recognises the desirability of a fixed date for Easter, is of opinion that steps should forthwith be taken by His Majesty's Government to ascertain the views of Christian Churches in Europe with respect to the matter, together with the views of civil authorities and of the representatives of commercial arid educational interests. and this House is further of opinion that the Fixed Easter Bill should not be proceeded with until such information has been procured."

His Grace said

My Lords, I am sure I carry the whole House with me in thanking the noble Lord for the speech which he has just delivered. He has given evidence of the care that he has bestowed upon this subject, and of the perseverance with which he again and again returns to a task in which I think he has received quite unfair discouragement, or lack of adequate encouragement. He has also given evidence of a power of exposition in an exceedingly technical, and rather learned and far-off controversy, and in a series of calculations on which I congratulate him most heartily. I suppose most of your Lordships have had the experience, common to myself and others, of haying at times in early youth, when one's attention was not as closely directed as it ought to be to what is happening in church, devoted some little time to a study of these Tables, but I do not think any of us, without the exposition which the noble Lord has given to us to-night, would have found it so easy as we should do now to see our way through' them, and see to what. they really lead us.

I have sometimes felt that there is an interesting point that is overlooked in the extraordinarily sanguine character of those who drew up those Tables as they stand. They apparently believed that our English Prayer Book was going to have a very long life indeed, for your Lordships will realise' that in the Tables which are there given you are shown how the Prayer Book may be used for finding the date of Easter down to the year 8000. The noble Lord flag courteously stated— what is absolutely true— that I have tried to co-operate with him in this matter to the very best of my power. I all' as keen as he is to bring about-the change which he desires to see effected, and I believe that the establishment of a. fixed Easter would be. a gain in the civil life, and the ecclesiastical and educational life, and— I take it from hint— in the commercial and business life of the community as a whole. I am entirely with him, and for Inc it needs no labouring to show us. that the demand is widespread for a fixed Easter, and that it is a desirable thing to bring about.

But, having said that, I am obliged, I am afraid, to part company with the noble Lord as regards the manner of procedure I should have liked to go with him and to have said that passing this Bill was the best way of doing things, but I do not think so at all. I believe that to pass this Bill as, it stands would be unfortunate in a great many different ways. If you look at the' Bill you will find how it not only alters dates for popular use and for the ordinary affairs of life, but that it takes the Prayer. Book itself and necessarily alters very considerably its contents. There are many questions relating to the use of particular Collects, the observance of particular Sundays, and so on, which would have to be changed very drastically indeed if the Bill, as now drafted, or indeed in any form in which it could be drafted, were to. become law.

Those Prayer Book alterations are very. grave matters indeed in our country They affect not only religious interests and sentiments; they affect ordinary usages of very varied kinds and— what is a minor, but not an unimportant matter— they affect enormous trade interests. Probably no one who has not looked into it realises the extent to which the publication of the Book of Common Prayer by millions of copies every year, is affected by changes which are suddenly made in it, and, as some of us have had reason to know in the last few years when we have been dealing with it elsewhere, these are matters which the publishing world, at any rate, on its official side, feels to be of the very gravest and most serious importance, requiring the utmost deliberation and care. That is only a minor matter, but it is not unimportant, as an incident in what is being done.

A mode does exist for effecting changes in the Prayer Book. We have been following it during recent years. Letters of Business are issued by the Crown, Convocations consider the matter, discussions there take place— they have been very unduly prolonged in recent years— and then legislation can duly follow both in the Church and in the secular Legislature. This Bill would ignore all this, and simply say that by an Act of Parliament, for the first time in English history, you would take the Prayer Book, change its order of proceedings and a great many of its contents, and, by a simple fiatof Parliament, without the concurrence of the ecclesiastical authorities put in motion in the normal and constitutional way, you would effect this change with a view to bringing about the new date for Easter. That is an important matter, and it would be a change in which I certainly could not readily concur by giving it any support.

In the next place the noble Lord has already reminded us that in making this change we of the Anglican Church make it an absolute condition that we must be acting for Western Christendom as a whole. We cannot possibly take the Anglican Church by itself, without looking upon the other Churches of Western Christendom. There is primarily, of course, the Roman Catholic Church, but there are also the Scandinavian Churches; and it is quite certain that we should be unprepared to go forward unless we were quite assured, and assured after the most careful discussion and inquiry, that we were carrying with us those whose concurrence would be quite essential in what we were doing in an exceedingly complicated and difficult matter. It is exceedingly complicated, because— though I do not want to go into the details to which the noble Lord has referred to-night— there are details with regard to the date of the Passover and so on, which require very careful investigation, if we are to be ecclesiastically, theologically and historically correct in the matter, and I have no doubt that those details could be satisfactorily settled after proper debate.

We should want to carry Western Christendom with us. The noble Lord has mentioned what happened in July of last year. I stated in the House then, and I repeat it now, that on the occasion of that great gathering of Bishops from all parts of the world I took occasion to mention to them in our Lambeth Conference the fact that this proposal was afoot, and to ask whether there were any Bishops who would take exception to the suggested change of bringing about a fixed Easter, and I asked such Bishops to communicate with me in order that I might weigh, and if need be, answer the objection which they had to bring. I had sonic communications. They were all favourable. Not one single Bishop wrote to me that there were objections to the matter, although many said that it would require very careful consideration as regards the technical details of variations of the Prayer Book and other things which are referred to in the noble Lord's Bill.

We pass from the Western to the Eastern Church, and it is not an unhopeful thing that by bringing about this change we might do something for which Christendom has waited for a very long time. Occasion might be taken for harmonising the East with the West with regard to the date of Easter. During the last year we have had two opportunities of knowing something about that. During the Lambeth Conference a delegate of great learning and weight, the Metropolitan of Demotika, was sent to England by the Eastern Church to confer with a Committee of the Lambeth Conference on matters ecclesiastical, and he states in the clearest way that it was the desire of the prelates and clergy, and, I have no doubt, of the people of the Eastern Church that, if possible, there should be a harmonious arrangement as to Easter, and he thought it not only desirable but quite possible of attainment; and the fact that the matter might be under consideration afresh afforded, in his view, an admirable opportunity for bringing about that co-operation in a way that, perhaps, would have been thought unlikely a few years ago.

Then, during this last year, we have had in England the ecclesiastical head of the whole Orthodox Church of the East, the locum tenens, as he was called, of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a venerable and learned prelate who, most unhappily, died in London after a very short stay. Before his passing away I had the opportunity of constant communication with him and, among other subjects, we spoke of t his. He also told me that he believed the Eastern Church would be quite ready to co-operate with us in arriving at a new arrangement in regard to Easter which would suit both Churches and added, again, that it was a matter needing the utmost technical care, but that they would be prepared at once to kelp us in giving that care and consideration to it.

With regard to the action of the Church of Rome itself, the noble Lord has referred to the published letter of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, which he quoted last year and which is of very great importance on the subject. But during the present year, after discussing it with the noble Lord, 1 have been in communication with Cardinal Bourne, as the spokesman of the Roman. Catholic Church in this country, and have received from hint a most cordial and friendly reply, in the course of which there are these words which I do not think I an I doing wrong in quoting:— Our position with regard to the fixed Easter may be described Os billows. There are no strung ecclesiastical reasons for making such a. change, and in England our Bishops and people are by no means unanimous in desiring it. It is understood that there are grave civil reasons, affecting especially schools and certain kinds of business, which would render change desirable. The initiative therefore— and this is the point to which I want to call attention— rests with the civil Governments rather than with the ecclesiastical authorities. Without speaking in any way officially I have reason to believe that the attitude of the Holy See is one of willingness to sanction the proposed change, provided there be a practically unanimous request to that effect from the principal Governments of the world. I do not think that there is any likelihood of the Holy See taking any initiative in the matter. That is the position with regard to the Church of Rome.

I have stated with regard to our Anglican Church throughout the world that I have no reason to anticipate any practical opposition to the bringing about of the change to a fixed Easter, awl if any one cares to look into it, he will find that the matter was discussed in the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury two years before the war, and that no objection was raised to the idea of such a change. They were acting with regard to certain Bills which had been introduced at that time with the object of altering the calendar as a whole in an exceedingly drastic manner, and they took the strongest possible exception to some of the suggested changes. Your Lordships will remember that a Bill, which had a backing both in England and outside, had been introduced to alter Sunday to the seventh day of the week (and I was going to say not always then), and to make certain other rather strange changes in the calendar. To all of those a fundamental objection was taken, but there was no objection to the idea of the change to a fixed Easter.

But the question is a very technical one in its ecclesiastical bearing, and I think if we are to anticipate concurrence on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities in bringing this thing about, they must be set in motion by the civil authorities at large— not by a Bill in this House which has already gone into the details, professedly prescribed what the changes are to be, and virtually settled the matter, but by something larger and more general, expressing approval of the change, calling upon the civil Governments of the different countries to set us in motion, giving us the kind of guidance that we want, and giving effect (as they are truly the right people to give effect) to the widespread wish of the national Chamber of Commerce whose case the noble Lord has so powerfully represented, as well as of the other bodies, educational and commercial, for whom he has spoken.

Such civil action, such action on the part, of the Government, presumably through its diplomatic or other representatives meeting in conference in some way, is not only not an insuperable task, but not even a difficult one. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, speaking last year on the subject, referred to the fact that our Government had actually consented to take part in a Conference to be held at Geneva between the authorities of different countries as to the alteration of the calendar, of which this was part, and that the Conference had not been pushed forward owing to the pressure of other matters. Then the war came and the whole thing, like everything else, was necessarily suspended. Obviously nothing was felt to be wrong in principle in such international action, such conference of representatives of the different Governments taking place, and I believe if that were to be brought about again we should have started the thing in exactly the right way.

With a view to bringing it about, nothing is more helpful at the present than a Resolution of this House, such as I have put on the Paper to-day as an Amendment to the proposal that this Bill be read a second time. If it were once agreed that steps should forthwith be taken by His Majesty's Government to ascertain the views of the Christian Churches in Europe with respect to the matter, together with the views of civil authorities and of the representatives of commercial and educational interests, we should have committed ourselves to the principle; we should have given a start to the endeavour; we should have placed a document in the hands of the authorities who would meet showing what this House of the Legislature desires to bring about, and it would be possible for those who produced that document to state that the ecclesiastical authorities of this country gave support to the idea of the change and were prepared to take part in giving effect to it. With that document we could invite Roman Catholic authority, Greek authority and Anglican authority to confer together about it, and I believe we should then be proceeding in by far the most likely way to bring about a result which I agree with the noble Lord in desiring.

It may be said that I am suggesting something which would simply cause further delay in an extremely urgent matter. I believe exactly the contrary to be the case. I want to support that for which Lord Desborough asks, and I believe that the way I can best support it is by securing the passing of such a Resolution as I have here moved. It is perfectly certain that by passing this Bill you would not be pushing the matter forward in an effective way at all. To have had the matter settled and laid down in such a Bill as this, before they had even considered it, would act as an irritant to those outside our own Church. We should be asking them to give concurrence to something we had already gone into, and almost prejudged as regards the details of the management of it. It would undoubtedly be bewildering to the Eastern Church to find that the matter had been taken out of their hands by an actual Act or Bill of the British Parliament, suggesting, not ecclesiastically but purely civilly, the details of the proposed new arrangement.

And there are a very large number of people in England to whom it would be intensely distasteful that the matter, for the first time in history, should be taken out of the hands of the authorities to whom it would naturally be entrusted, and carried through by Parliament of its own accord. Instead of saying, "Come and confer as to how to give effect to a principle which we here lay down," which is what I want us to do, we should be saying "Come and accept what Parliament has laid down and decided upon as to the details of a new arrangement that is desired." In that way I believe we should hinder, and not promote, what we want to do, and what I desire to have done. I believe that I am suggesting what is the right course. I want to commit the House to the principle which we desire to see adopted, and I believe that we should then arm the noble Lord and his friends with the best weapon for moving the ecclesiastical and civil authorities in other countries. I believe that it would be a weightier, more important and more effective document than a Bill which dealt with the whole matter to start with, and it is because I believe that I shall be promoting progress, and not delaying it, that I move the Resolution which I have placed on the Paper.

Amendment moved— To leave out all words after (" That ") and add (" this House recognises the desirability of a fixed date for Easter, is of opinion that steps should forthwith be taken by His Majesty's Government to ascertain the views of Christian Churches in Europe with respect to the matter, together with the views of civil authorities and of the representatives of commercial and educational interests, and this House is further of opinion that the Fixed Easter Bill should not be proceeded with until such information has been procured"). —(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

my Lords, since the last time when this question was raised by my noble friend, Lord Desborough, in your Lordships' House, considerable progress has been made in familiarising the public with the reform which the noble Lord's Bill advocates. We have heard this evening, first from the noble Lord, who gave us many instances of communications received from various people and various sources, of the sympathy and support which is given to the course which he desires to see followed. Then, in the interesting speech which was made by the most rev. Primate, we have heard a great deal more in regard to the view of the various ecclesiastical authorities. The most rev. Primate has told us of the discussions which he had with the Bishops who were assembled last year in London at the Lambeth Conference, and of the view which they took of the matter; also of the conversation which he held with the late Patriarch of Constantinople, and he has read to your. Lordships a private letter, I understand, expressing the view of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster.

On the last occasion on which I addressed your Lordships on this subject I stated that His Majesty's Government were prepared to view the proposal of the noble Lord with sympathy. I should add that. they still hold the same view, and that they consider that, the principle involved in this Bill. would effect a useful reform. The powerful sympathy of the Anglican Church, as voiced by the most rev. Primate, has been accorded to the proposal, and we have heard from Lord Desborough, and from other sources, how wide is the sympathy With which it is regarded in the business community not only in this country but in all other countries, and, as he has pointed out, In' has had opportunities of consulting with business communities all over the world.

But, powerful as is the support accorded to the noble Lord's Bill, I cannot undertake, on behalf of the Government, to promise to give the Bill facilities in another place, or to find time there for its passage into law. Before the Government could take such a course it would require to ascertain the official view of the Roman Catholic Church and of all other Churches, and, until those views are made known to us, it is impossible for the Government to take the matter up, or for me to say more than I am saying at present. We think that the noble Lord has taken a useful step forward in introducing this Bill, and that the result will be that the question will be further ventilated. That may bring official expressions of opinion from the Roman Catholic Church and other religious bodies. I trust that the noble Lord will not think that His Majesty's Government are treating his proposal with any want of sympathy in finding themselves unable to afford facilities for its passage. We are ready to help forward the noble Lord's proposal, provided we are sure that it meets with the same measure of approval from other Churches as from the Anglican Church.

Now I come to the Resolution which has been placed on the Paper by the most rev. Primate. The most rev. Primate wishes the Government to take the initiative, as I understand it, in ascertaining the views of the Christian Churches of Europe, and the views of the civil authorities and of the representatives of commercial and educational interests. The Resolution which the most rev. Primate has placed before your Lordships somewhat resembles the Resolution which Lord Desborough proposed on July 21 last. The noble Lord— he has already alluded to the fact— then moved that His Majesty's Government should be requested to summon a Conference to consider the matter. When I replied to the noble Lord on that occasion I informed him that the Government were unable to accept his Motion, not from any want of sympathy with the idea, but rather because they regarded the method as one which would, in present circumstances, be scarcely possible. I think I also mentioned, in regard to the invitation by the Swiss Government to a Conference in 1911, the extreme slowness with which the proposal had been taken up by other Governments and other authorities, and that when the war broke out in 1914 no further progress had been made. I would venture to reply in somewhat similar terms to-day to the Motion of the most rev. Primate.

In the opinion of the Government this matter is one which should be advocated through non-official, or perhaps I should say through non-Governmental, channels. We think that the initiative should proceed from the Churches, from the Associated Chambers of Commerce and from all the other interests concerned. The Government do not feel that they should accept the responsibility of ascertaining the views of all those concerned in-the matter, and in these circumstances we venture to think that the best course for the noble Lord arid all those interested in the matter to follow is to press forward on their own lines and then, when His Majesty's Government can be satisfied that general opinion is distinctly and unanimously in favour of reform, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to accord the proposal official support. I am afraid that I cannot say more than that in support of the Bill and the proposal, except that His Majesty's Government view the Bill with sympathy, although they cannot assist it further.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I am afraid that neither my noble friend behind me nor the most rev. Primate opposite will be filled with especial gratitude for the substance of the reply of the noble Earl. I think it can hardly be disputed that it amounts to something like a further shelving of the whole question, so far as His Majesty's Government is concerned. I do not quite comprehend what it is that the noble Earl expects that either my noble friend and the Chambers of Commerce, or the most rev. Primate, in conjunction with the authorities of the sister Churches, has further to do. My noble friend has, with his accustomed industry and force, collected a vast number of opinions from all quarters, and, in the main, as I understand, they are entirely favourable to the proposition. The most rev. Primate has informed us that, so far as the great Church of Rome is concerned, there is at any rate no obstacle to be expected, and, what is even more striking, that the Eastern Church, working as they do by a different calendar altogether, are prepared on this particular point to join with the other ecclesiastical authorities in fixing the date of Easter.

That being so, I confess that I do not understand how it is that His Majesty's Government feel themselves debarred from taking some official step to obtain the official concurrence of other Governments. So far as I can judge from what has fallen from both my noble friend and the most rev. Primate, the moment has arrived when that is the only further step that can be taken, and it occasions some disappointment, when there is a proposition upon which everybody seems to be agreed in the abstract, and the only question is not what to do, or even when to do it, but how to do it, that His Majesty's Government should retire into their shell and refuse to take any part in the matter.

There is, of course, the further complication arising not out of a difference of view but a different opinion on procedure entertained by my noble friend, Lord Desborough, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. My noble friend is desirous that his Bill should be read a second time. The most rev. Primate would prefer that that course should not be taken, because it appears to put this matter, which is fundamentally ecclesiastical, upon a purely civil basis in the first instance, and, therefore, rather to take out of the hands of the Church, or the Churches, what is presumed to belong specially to them. The most rev. Primate, therefore, would prefer that his Resolution should be passed. I cannot help thinking, so far as my noble friend is concerned, that he would be well advised to agree to the adjournment of the debate on the Second Reading rather than press for a Second Reading on this occasion, because, if he does so press, I take it that the most rev. Primate and the episcopal bench will not feel able to support him. If, therefore, in the first instance the debate on the Second Reading could be adjourned— which would be done without prejudice— and then the most rev. Primate's Resolution became the substantive Motion before the House, it would, I cannot help thinking, receive the support of a great number of your Lordships. I do not know, of course, what view the House may take, but it seems to me that is the course which might most reasonably be taken by my noble friend, if he finds himself able to agree to it.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My Lords, I represent a wide community scattered all over the British Empire and I cannot consult them, but I should be willing to take the advice given to me by my noble friend, Lord Crewe, and, without prejudice, and not saying I will never do anything more, I consent to this debate being adjourned.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am not sure that your Lordships quite understand the procedure that is proposed. The actual Question before your Lordships is the Amendment of the most rev. Primate in substitution of the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. My noble friend, Lord Desborough, has just said that lie would agree to the adjournment of the debate. I am not sure whether he means to move a specific Motion that the debate be now adjourned. For my own part, if that was the wish of the House, I should be quite willing to support the adjournment, but, failing that, I should wish to support the Amendment of the most rev. Primate.

Before I do so, however, I would like to suggest very respectfully to the Government that they might consent to say that what the noble Earl has stated on their behalf is not their last word. I think a refusal to take any steps in the matter is hardly open to them. After all, the weight of authority which has been put before the House this afternoon is very great indeed. We have the views, more or less complete, of the great bodies of the Christian Church. We have the views of the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire. We have also the views of other countries. That is an enormous body of opinion, and surely the Government cannot refuse to take any action at all. I quite appreciate, of course, that in the mass of material which has to conic under the notice of the Government in these days even this matter may not have received at the hands of the Cabinet full attention. That would not be surprising, considering the great urgency of public affairs. Your Lordships would wish to give every consideration to that view.

At the same time we can hardly think that the Government would, if they put their mind to it, wish to give it purely negative answer to the Motion. All we ask is that the Government should do what would be very easy for them to do— for I speak with a little experience in this matter -and that is to consult foreign Governments, and the various authorities concerned upon it. That is not difficult for the Government to undertake. It does not commit them to any course ultimately, and I am sure it would gratify your Lordships, and also the very large body of opinion to which I have referred. As the question will now be put from the Woolsack, I should feel it my duty to vote with the most rev. Primate, but I should feel much happier if we had the support of His Majesty's Government, and I think we might have it. If they prefer to have the adjournment of the debate so that they might consider the matter a little further, I would most respectfully suggest, to the rev. Primate and my noble friend, that they might agree to an adjournment so that the Government; might consider the matter further.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL CRAWFORD)

My Lords, personally I am a very strong advocate of this Bill; and I should be very sorry to consent to an adjournment if I thought it was going to interfere with the chances of the measure passing into law. None the less, after what has fallen from Lord Salisbury, I think an adjournment— a short adjournment— subject to Lord Desborough's consent, might be made without prejudice to his Bill. Perhaps it was not quite clear to all your Lordships what my noble friend beside me said just now. He made a very carefully considered statement. lie said that he thought the best course for Lord Desborough to follow would be to press the matter forward in his Own wayߞ in short to pursue his Bill- and then, having shown that there is a strong, and indeed overwhelming, support in his favour, the Government could be properly called upon, so far as circumstances permit, to provide him with facilities for passing it into law. There is very little between us. What my noble friend meant was that the Home Office does not think that at the present juncture it is the duty of the Government to undertake propaganda on behalf of the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It is an inquiry, not propaganda.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

There is a great difference between the two. So long as that is clear I have no doubt that Lord Onslow would be very happy to review the position, in conjunction with the Home Secretary and with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Under those conditions, speaking as a private member of the House, I do not think an adjournment of the debate would injure the prospects of the Bill If it is understood that the Government is not expected to take an active part in promoting tile measure until it is clear that it is one which commands general assent I, on behalf of the Government, would agree to the adjournment of the debate.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Does the noble Earl mean the adjournment of the debate, passing neither the Resolution nor the Second Reading of the Bill?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

The adjournment of the debate. The noble, Marquess suggested that the question now before your Lordships should be adjourned — namely, the. Amendment moved by the most rev. Primate. To that we are prepared to agree, so far as we are concerned, in order to put the question again before the Home Secretary, who is directly concerned, and before Earl Curzon of Kedleston, who is indirectly concerned. How long the conversations will take place I do not know If it could he put down at a reasonable interval from now, I will communicate with the most rev. Primate and Lord Desborough as to the date on which the Government will be in a position to make a further statement.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

That is entirely satisfactory to me.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Motion for the adjournment of debate agreed to.