§ THE DUKE OF ATHOLL had given Notice that he would draw attention to Orders issued recently to His Majesty's Army, Navy and Air Force Services, "That it is undesirable that intercessory prayers for Russian subjects should be read at religious services;" ask His Majesty's Government to state on what grounds they justify the abrogation of religious freedom for British subjects; and move for Papers.
§ The noble Duke said: My Lords, I understand that since I put this Question upon the Paper there has been, at the request of the Prime Minister to the Leaders of all Parties, a meeting on the subject of the extraordinary Order recently issued by the Cabinet to the three Services of National Defence with regard to taking part in intercessory prayer for Russian subjects. The result of this, I understand, has been that a supplementary Order has been issued, and, as noble Lords here probably have not yet heard of this supplementary Order, I will read it. It is in these terms:—
§ "To all General Officers Commanding.
§ "Sirs,
§ "With reference to my letter of the 27th February, I am commanded by the Army Council to inform you that His Majesty's 807 Government, in order to remove any possible misunderstanding, wish it to be generally understood that officers and other ranks may not be compulsorily paraded to the intercessory services, but they are free to attend voluntary services of an intercessory character.
§ "In cases whore troops attend parade services at places of worship other than garrison churches, officers and other ranks will not be compulsorily paraded to any service where intercessory prayers for Russian subjects are to be made.
§ "(Signed) H. J. CREEDY."
§ That is the Order to the Army, and I presume the same Order was issued to the other Forces. To my mind, this supplementary Order makes confusion still worse confounded, and instead of being an intelligible Order its phraseology is more like a test for drunkenness. The wretched non-commissioned officer who will have to read out the Order to troops will have my sincerest sympathy.
§ I am not, however, moved from putting my Question as it originally stood, because we are aware—or we understand at all events—that the original Order was issued direct by the Cabinet over the heads of those controlling these Services. Although, of course, perfectly lawful—I do not suggest it is not lawful and within their right—that, in my opinion, was taking a monstrous advantage of the powers they possess. We are quite well aware that the alteration of the Order has been entirely due to the indignation expressed throughout the whole country and to pressure outside, and is not due to any personal afterthought of the Government themselves. When the question of the brutal treatment of Christians and others in Russia was raised in your Lordships' House a fortnight ago, a general understanding was arrived at by request of the Government that the matter should not be pressed pending investigations by the Government as to how far these atrocities were being con. tinned, and the opinion was expressed by noble Lords opposite that if the question was pressed unduly it might make worse than at the present moment the condition of Christians and others who belong to definite religions in Russia. The fear was also expressed by noble Lords opposite that the matter was in danger of becoming a political question rather than what I may term a question of mere murder. How it could be anything but 808 a political question and why anyone should prefer mere murder, I could not at the moment understand.
§
The whole question, however, has now been definitely pushed into the political arena in this country by what I can only term the crass stupidity of a very stupid Government in issuing an Order that was absolutely unnecessary. The Foreign Secretary has stated that he has received the report of His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow, but has decided not to publish it. To that, of course, I cannot object—it is probably right—but I would point out that one reason advanced to the House for calling for that report was to ensure that there had been no exaggeration. Lord Ponsonby said:
Before we have another debate on what is called the religious side of the question I hope I shall be able to have some authentic information, because the atrocities I am very suspicious of.
That was the statement made. He said also:—
After all, these Governments are here to-day and gone to-morrow … whereas the people are there all the time …
I could not ask for a better text. As any extract from the report has been refused, we must assume that there has been no exaggeration. The question of the report has been raised in another place and any information with regard to it has been refused. We may, therefore, assume that there has been no exaggeration, that the charges made against the Soviet have been proved up to the hilt, and that the massacres are not denied. Of course, it is quite open to the noble Lord opposite, who no doubt knows what is in the report, to deny that there have been massacres. Otherwise there would be no reason for withholding the substance of the Ambassador's report on facts that are matters of public knowledge.
§
The original Order to the Army read as follows:—
I am commanded by the Army Council to inform you that His Majesty's Government have decided, in view of the political character the controversy has assumed, that it is undesirable that intercessory prayers for Russian subjects should be read at religious services in the Army.
I understand that the Orders issued to the other Services were similar. I would, therefore, ask your Lordships to examine rather carefully the wording of this Order, because it will be noted that the Army Council are not giving their own
809
opinion, as is usual in such cases, but are conveying the instructions of the Cabinet about a matter on which it is obvious they have not been consulted. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply—and I hope he will answer this question—whether the Army Council (and when I say Army Council I include the heads of the other Services) were ever consulted, or whether they merely received instructions direct from, the Cabinet over their heads. Secondly, I would like to ask whether any attempt was made to consult the Board of Chaplains before this Order was issued. If so, or if not, I would like to know if there has been any complaint or protest from the Board of Chaplains or from any individual forming part of it. I would particularly ask the noble Lord to give a reply to this question.
§ If, as I believe, the Order was issued direct without consultation with what I may term the proper authority, I can only say that it was a very foolish proceeding, for I am quite certain that any desire of the Government put before any properly-constituted authority for the purpose, as I have mentioned, would have been dealt with as a matter of public policy and in a way which would have avoided all this very undesirable controversy. When I say "undesirable" I would like to explain that I am not speaking from the side of the Russians, but from the side of the Army. As it is, the Army and the other Services, Who were not in the least interested I may say in the main question at issue—because politics is not their game—have now no alternative but to believe that the intention of the Government is political; and that at the same time it was seeking to restrain the freedom of thought of the individual in matters of religion. Personally, I can hardly imagine what the Government were afraid of, for, no matter how strong his private views may be, I can hardly believe that any chaplain would deal with the Russian question from a political point of view at a military service, or would make propaganda against the Soviets in his official capacity. If he did so, he would put himself entirely in the wrong. Even if one or two chaplains committed verbal indiscretions, they could easily have been dealt with afterwards and it would have had very little effect on the services. To think that any chaplain would go further than to intercede with Almighty God for His help at 810 a moment of great stress and tribulation is, in my opinion, absolutely fantastic.
§ The third question which I should like to put to the noble Lord is: How and why do His Majesty's Government wish to distinguish between the murder and torture of women and children in Russia and, say, in China? Why should soldiers be permitted to join in intercessory prayer for Chinese pagans when they are forbidden to do so for Russian Christians? I should have thought that prayers of this sort were really entirely catholic in their scope. At first everyone who read the Order was very much incensed, but now, if it were not for the seriousness of the matter, it is really almost ludicrous, and the Government and the political Departmental chiefs of the three Services are the laughing stock of every man in the Army, the Navy and, if I may say so without offence, the Air Force. This was not merely an order to chaplains to abstain from a particular action, but it equally bound every officer and every rank and rating in the Services. It was presumably for the sake of earning a good mark from their Soviet friends and to make a gesture, that the Cabinet issued these extraordinary instructions. The result was that if, by accident or otherwise, any man had joined in intercessory prayer for Russian subjects—let us say with a recalcitrant chaplain—he would have been guilty of a n offence against an Order the legality of which, owing to its nature, is, to my mind, extremely doubtful, and I am speaking as a soldier.
§ I will put it in this way. It is well known that possibly some foolish officer might give a command to a man to do what I may call a disgraceful act. This places rather a burden on the man. He has either to obey or to disobey the order and to take a chance by not doing what he is told. His disobedience would be a technical crime. The officer of course would be dealt with otherwise. The Order did not specify parade services, but religious services in general, and therefore, if any man took part in religious services at which there were intercessory prayers, then, if he were by himself, alone in his group, he would be guilty of insubordination, and if with others, it would be an act of mutiny, the extreme penalty for which, of course, is death. We therefore see the Government taking advantage of their immense authority over the rank 811 and file to forbid the rank and file to pray—the voluntary question does not come in here—that kindness may take the place of brutality and that love and peace may be brought about between those who are suffering in Russia and those who are torturing them. That is the effect of the Order. It seems to me a strange thing that the Labour Party—or should I say the Socialist Party? I do not know which the noble Lord prefers—who are never backward in appealing for funds to be sent out to Russia for starving children, or in taking relief from Russians for British children, who, incidentally are much better off than Russian children, should forbid British subjects to pray that the parents of those children should not be tortured and murdered. I cannot understand it.
§ I come back to the Order. There are many cases in which soldiers attend a local church where the minister is not an actual chaplain. The Order thus extended to clergy over whom the Cabinet have absolutely no control in spiritual matters. This would have been pointed out to them at once if they had gone through the proper channels. I should like to ask what in such cases would have been the punishment for the clergyman who carried on his ordinary intercessory prayers, and what would have been the penalty incurred by the soldier for such an offence? I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can tell me what was the idea of the Government in the original Order, and what part of the congregation was to go away? Was the civil congregation to be turned out of its own church and to have to go elsewhere for intercessory prayers; or, on the other hand, when the words "Let us pray for those who are suffering and in sore distress" were uttered, was the officer commanding to call his troops to attention and to say: "Right and left turn, out of the door, quick march"? It must have been one or the other. The Government do not issue an order lightly, and I should like to know what their idea was at that time with regard to those cases. The noble Lord opposite may say that this is now ancient history, because of the later Order. But it is not ancient history to the extent that they issued the Order. We can come to the new Order later, but this is an Order 812 which the Government did issue, and an alteration has been made only under pressure.
§ A religious service does not necessitate the presence of a chaplain or a priest or any other minister of the Gospel. A group of soldiers or sailors might hold a prayer meeting, perhaps, in a Y.M.C.A. Each of the soldiers of such a group would then have been guilty of the new offence of disobeying the order: "Thou shalt not pray." When the absolute stupidity of the Order became patent, the First Lord of the Admiralty thought that he had found a clever way out of it, and that was that the Order should be made to apply only to regular parade services conducted by a chaplain, at which men were ordered to attend whether they wished to do so or not. The obvious answer to this is that on His Majesty's ships there are not many other opportunities of public worship; but, in any case, it could have been made utterly farcical, because all that a chaplain would have to do to keep within the law would be to hold his ordinary parade service at 10.30 and a voluntary service at 11.30 with intercessory prayers. I cannot see what difference it would have made.
§ The new Order, I am credibly informed—though personally I find it rather difficult to understand—means that soldiers may still be compelled to attend regular parade services at which there will be no intercessory prayers, and that they are permitted to attend voluntary services where there are intercessory prayers. The whole thing is rather stupid. But in no circumstances is any man to be compelled to go to church if he disapproves of intercessory prayers for suffering Russian subjects. I think that is the point. I think the noble Lord nodded his head.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLThe noble Lord agrees that in no circumstances is any man to be compelled to go to church if he disapproves of intercessory prayers for suffering Russian subjects. I will come to that in a moment. One almost comic effect of the new Order will be that, as during Lent there will be prayers for Russian Christians in practically every church, there will be no compulsory parades services for six weeks. It is a rather comic outcome of the new Order. 813 The new Order makes it infinitely worse in every way, for it departs from the original command that soldiers in no circumstances were to attend services in which intercessory prayers were said. It is now left to them to do so if they like. Therefore it presupposes the idea, which underlies the whole proceeding, that certain soldiers were going to be forced against their will to go to church who objected to intercessory prayers for those who are down and out. To carry this argument to its logical conclusion we must presume that the Government really believe that there are certain soldiers who actually approve of practices in Russia, which incidentally have the political sanction of the Government, but of which no man or woman in this country can possibly approve.
Thus we see that the religious feeling of good soldiers, as I should call them, is to be sacrificed for the benefit of what I may term bad soldiers in this respect—bad soldiers whom I do not personally believe exist in our Army; at least I hope not. It seems to me, if I may use the term, pretty thick to put the soldier in this position, and the inevitable result will be that every soldier who possibly can will go to some intercessory service or another—exactly the reverse of what the Government wanted. I would like to add this, that they have been given leave to go to intercessory services voluntarily, and I take it that they may do so in uniform. I hope that they will do so. It is not against the Regulations, and it will certainly be a very great protest.
So far as evading the Order is concerned, it will be perfectly possible at a parade service—I do not suggest that it will happen, but it shows how silly and loosely drafted the Order is—after the National Anthem has been played, for the command to be given "Those who now wish to pray for those who are suffering torture and death, stand fast; the remainder, dismiss!" I wonder how many would march off parade. If the Army, Navy and Air Forces, why not also the Civil Services? Why not the postmen, and all the people whom the Government control? As most of the police are in the Army Reserve, why should not the Order apply to them? Why is it to be illegal for chaplains to make intercessory prayers for Russian subjects, and for soldiers to join in them, 814 while it is lawful for any one else in the land to do so?
If such intercessory prayers are going to lead to some terrible unexplained result, why do not the Government boldly come forth and issue an edict to the effect that it is against the safety of the Realm, and that to pray on behalf of those who are suffering for their faith is a reprehensible act and not to be tolerated in a civilised country? It is now forty-two years since I first donned what is commonly known as the King's uniform. I have served in every variety of unit, and I have raised thirteen units myself, some of them containing some pretty tough propositions, but I must say that if such an Order had been issued to any of these units it would have been broken by every one in the ranks, and the actual effect of it would have been to have put every man on his knees, no matter how irreligious he might appear to be at other times.
Talking of my own countrymen, and of the country of the noble Lord opposite, I can only say that if you scratch this Government you find a Russian; if you scratch a Russian you find a Tartar; and if you scratch a Scottish soldier you will find a Covenanter. May I remind the Government that while we ask that our soldiers may be permitted to pray to God for intervention in every way that is happy and peaceful, the Russian soldier is being taught to deny God and to insult the religious convictions of the whole world. When the Russian soldier is not employed in murdering his own countrymen, as I am informed, his chief duty seems to be to carry on an anti-God campaign. If praying to God is political propaganda on this side, what can the Soviet campaign be called? Gladly will I agree that if the anti-God campaign in the Russian Army is stopped, intercessory prayers in our Army should be forbidden.
I would like to ask what steps the Government have taken—because it would stop all these intercessory prayers —to show their abhorrence of what is going on in Russia, and to stop it. For the sake, apparently, of getting the shekels of a merchant trade which does not exist and to get the support of the most undesirable elements in this country at the hustings, they have preferred to shake the red hand of Moscow rather than try to bring the whole thing to an end by expressing their utter detestation 815 of what is probably the greatest orgy of bestiality and brutality that has ever darkened the history of the world. The idealism of the average Socialist mind is about the most materialistic thing I know. By its idea of the equality of all mankind it postulates that man is superior to the work and intentions of the Creator. It places, therefore, the prosecution of an anti-God campaign on exactly the same basis as Christian intercessory prayer for those who are broken in mind and in body.
In anything as spiritual as prayer it can only see the outward and visible sign of soldiers standing on parade, in front of four drums and a chaplain. On the other hand, the private thoughts of Christian men, and the hidden force of private prayer, are as a sealed book to Socialist comprehension. If the Socialist Government realised the strength of these latter forces they would know how utterly foolish and futile is the attempt to alter man's belief in the efficacy of prayer by stiffing his public expression of it. In conclusion, in their own best interests I world ask His Majesty's Government to acknowledge their error and rescind the Order entirely. It may mean giving way, but it would be a wise proceeding and a right one. In this way they would not only save ridicule to themselves, but would prevent the inevitable insubordinate thoughts against the constituted authority in this country which are bound to tear through the Services at this interference with what the people of this country have fought for before and will be ready to fight for again, and which they value more than anything else in the world, and that is their religious freedom. The Order shows little faith in the loyalty of all ranks, and is an insult to their intelligence.
§ LORD THOMSONMy Lords, it was my intention to make a speech as far as possible conciliatory on this very serious matter this afternoon, and I propose to persist in that intention. With regard to the speech which has just been made by the noble Duke, I can only say that it was perhaps an unsuccessful attempt to make political capital out of a religious issue; and the noble Duke, having failed completely to make any valid political point, fell back on mere abuse. He talked as an old soldier. He forgets that in this House there are a great many old soldiers who have a far 816 closer knowledge of the habits and customs of the Army than he appears to have from the speech which he has just made. I always regarded the noble Duke as an old soldier; I shall have to change my opinion in the future. He has also inflicted upon me a perfect hail of questions. It is perfectly true that we enjoy, and very properly enjoy, a good deal of elasticity in this House. It is one of the most agreeable features of our debates. But I do submit that at least 90 per cent of the questions which he has put to me are entirely irrelevant to the Motion on the Paper.
But I wish to treat the noble Duke with all possible courtesy, and, according to my capacity, I will answer the questions that he has put. I want, however, to do more than that. I want, as far as I can, to explain to your Lordships the true nature of this question, to explain the attitude of the Government, and the issues that, in the view of the Government, are involved. I will reply first to the question put by the noble Duke as regards consultation with the Army Council, the Air Council, and the Board of Admiralty. It is probably unnecessary to say in this House that Cabinet authority in such matters is supreme. Cabinet instructions were conveyed to the three Fighting Services through their representatives in the Cabinet, the two Secretaries of State and the First Lord of the Admiralty. Those instructions were conveyed in the ordinary manner. As far as the Council over which I have the honour to preside was concerned, I did not consult; I issued an order emanating from the Cabinet. I will go further: I did not actually myself consult the Chaplain-in-Chief, but I did convey the order, and certain explanations were given. The noble Duke has read us out two Orders, those issued by the Army Council. He also said—for what reason I cannot quite understand—that the second Army Council Order was issued as the result of a meeting of the heads of the three political Parties.
§ LORD THOMSONI certainly understood the noble Duke to say that, and I have a fairly retentive memory. So, in quoting this Order he has not even taken the trouble to read the date, which 817 was the 4th, whereas yesterday was the 5th; and that was the day upon which the three Party Leaders met. With regard to these Orders, I will read first the first Order issued by the Admiralty. It was in these terms:—
The arrangements being made by the Archbishop of Canterbury for a special intercessory service in connection with the Russian Church, to be held on Sunday, 16th March, do not apply to His Majesty's ships and establishments.
§ LORD THOMSONThe date of that was February 20, 1930. The Order issued by the Air Ministry on March 1, 1930, was:—
I am commanded by the Air Council to inform you that His Majesty's Government have decided, in view of political implications, that it is undesirable that intercessory prayers for Russian subjects should be read at religious services in the Force, and to request that all units may be informed accordingly.The noble Duke will notice that the authority of His Majesty's Government was quoted. Later on, in view of the confusion that arose in regard to these Orders, subsequent Orders were issued—Orders, if I may so describe them, of an elucidatory character. Take this Order from the Admiralty:—In order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding, it should be made clear that Admiralty General Message of—I am afraid the date is vacant in my copy, but it is immaterial—refers only to divine service and morning prayers as ordered by Article 494 of the King's Regulations.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYWhat was the date of that Order?
§ LORD THOMSONI am afraid I have not got it.
§ LORD THOMSONThis is the last sentence of that Order:
It does not prevent the chaplain from using special prayers at any other service held in accordance with the wishes of the congregation.The King's Regulation Order referred to is as follows:—Divine service is performed every Sunday according to the Liturgy of the Church 818 of England and a sermon preached, unless otherwise directed by the senior officer present, and if the duties of the ship and the state of the weather do not absolutely prevent it. The captain and all officers and men not on duty are expected to attend this service unless permission to be absent has been formally obtained on the ground of religious scruples.I have read the Admiralty order because I think it will be apparent that sailors on board ship are in a special position. Any service that they do attend is a parade service. They do not have access to other places of worship.Now, as regards the Air Force. I have read to you the first Order issued by the Air Ministry, and subsequently this message was conveyed from me personally to the Chaplain-in-Chief:—
The Secretary of State wishes it to be made quite clear, if this is not already the case, that the instructions that intercessory prayers shall not be read at religious services is not intended to prohibit any voluntary action by members of the Fighting Services. It is intended to apply only to official services which personnel attend under Orders.That message was conveyed to the Chaplain-in-Chief.
§ LORD THOMSONThe date of that is the 1st of this month. Now let me go to the general aspects of this question, first of all on the religious side. That is not my particular personal affair, but there are many of your Lordships who do feel very strongly on this subject: and, speaking as the political head of one of the Services at this moment, my thought on that matter has been amply expressed by a very famous Nonconformist divine, Dr. J. H. Rushbrooke. His letter in The Times expressed exactly what I believe my colleagues feel on this subject. He said this:
Prayer, to be worthy of the name, should express the spontaneous feeling of the worshippers. In the churches participation is voluntary. At parade services attendance is compulsory. It would be paradoxical if prayer for religious freedom were prescribed by authority at such services.Dr. Rushbrooke is a very great man, a great religious authority, whose name is indeed a household word. He must be well known to most of the Bench of Bishops, and I am perfectly certain that anybody who knows him esteems him. 819 That was his opinion. There was an expression of that opinion also in a letter in The Times yesterday by Dr. Glover, another eminent divine. I can say for certain that practically every member of the Cabinet found his views expressed in that letter, certainly everyone to whom I have spoken about the subject.That is the religious side and I wish that it was possible to segregate the religious side. I personally have not, and not one of my colleagues has, the slightest desire to mix up politics and religion; but I would ask your Lordships to consider the further implications of this matter. We as a Government, admittedly against the wishes of a majority of your Lordships' House but in accordance with the wishes of a considerable majority in another place, have restored diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia. We have done so with the object, it may be mistaken in the view of many noble Lords opposite, of restoring normal trade conditions with that country and of recovering our trade which, pre-War, was a great deal more important and valuable to this country than it is at present. We also were trying to get rid of a state of affairs which was certainly inimical to the peace of Europe and the world—a state of affairs, namely, in which a great country with 150,000,000 inhabitants was treated as actually a pariah by this country. We may have been mistaken in our ideas. I am not questioning the opinion of your Lordships' House upon this matter because it was expressed emphatically in a debate; but I think your Lordships as a whole will admit that we are now in the presence of an accomplished fact commercially and that not one of you will deny that our action has received the endorsement of a large majority in another place.
Those being the facts, what right have we at parade services attended compulsorily by the troops to prescribe a form of prayer which, however graciously and properly put, is in fact a condemnation of the present system of government and the conduct of that Government in Russia? There is just as high a proportion of foolish people in Russia as there is in this or any other country, people who would seize upon that and say: "The British are indulging, through religion, in propaganda." If you recall the fact that the kind of Government to which the Soviet Republic most objects 820 is the Labour Government, that it is this Government which propagandists over there attack most frequently, you will realise that they would say: "Ah, these hypocrites, these Imperialists! Under the cloak of religion they are preaching war against Russia. They will even call it a holy war. They are inflaming the minds of soldiers, sailors and airmen through religious services against our institutions here in Russia." Foolish, no doubt, and utterly untrue; but can any noble Lord deny that in this world, where folly abounds and calm common sense is only too rare, that sort of accusation would be made? I sincerely hope that they do not read the speech of the noble Duke in Russia, because they would be justified in making such an accusation. I can only hope that it will be forgotten.
That is the political aspect of the question, and it was for that reason, and that reason alone, that His Majesty's Government issued the Order they did issue. This is not a Party question though the noble Duke has tried to make it one. It is, I believe, a line of conduct that we have taken which would have been taken by any Government finding itself in diplomatic relations with Russia. I do not believe there is a single noble Lord in this House—on the opposite side certainly not—who would have advocated that form of prayer with regard to any other country except Russia; naming the country by name, describing, as the noble Duke described, those who are torturing the people, the Russian Government wire are torturing Christians. That is what the noble Duke said.
§ LORD THOMSONTorturing.
§ LORD THOMSONThis is a direct. accusation under the guise of a religious protest, so far as the noble Duke is concerned, against the Government in Russia—a Government, I repeat, with which we have just renewed diplomatic relations and with which we are trying to establish workable and friendly relations. Could anything be more disastrous than to leave such an impression as must be left by saying official prayers in denunciation of that Government or, rather, in accusation of it? There are certain exceptions, I may say, to this religious rule about services and one exception 821 applies more particularly to the Royal Air Force. Considerable publicity has been given to a recent case, that of Dr. Carlile of Folkestone, who complained of the Order issued by the Air Ministry, defied the Air Ministry to do its worse, said that the Air Ministry could deprive him of his wings and, generally speaking, took up a challenge which had never been thrown down. There are many Air stations in this country in the vicinity of towns where there are a small percentage, or even a large percentage, of airmen who belong either to the Baptist or Wesleyan Churches and for whom no services can be held in barracks. They are marched to the nearest Baptist or Wesleyan chapel and there they form part of the general Congregation. Such chapels and such ministers are entirely unaffected by these decisions. Dr. Carlile has received no instructions, and will receive no instructions, from the Air Ministry. His wings are in no danger whatsoever. He is not a chaplain of the Royal Air Forte. He merely is an officiating clergyman who performs the service that I have mentioned.
§ LORD THOMSONThey are parade services, but the men are marched to a church which is not a Government establishment and where they are merged in the general congregation.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLMay I ask the noble Lord this? I understand that under the original Order he would have come in, but probably he did not read the second Order. It may be a charitable way of putting it. I do not agree with his action, of course. I mean the Order as originally issued did apply to him.
§ LORD THOMSONI think not. My information is that in no circumstances would Dr. Carlile have received any instructions at all.
§ LORD THOMSONI agree that in the confusion that has grown up around this subject a great deal has been said and done which is regrettable, but it has been a confusion between form and substance, as I understand the matter. It may be that Orders were issued which did not 822 make the situation perfectly clear to begin with. Immediate steps were taken, as soon as that confusion became apparent, to put the matter right, to make it abundantly clear that the Regulations affecting the Forces of the Crown apply to compulsorily-attended services—parade services of an official character. There was nothing whatsoever to prevent any member of the Forces praying in public or in private in an unofficial manner for Christians in Russia. I speak for myself, but I speak for a great many others also I am sure, when I say that I would be the last person in the world to presume to encroach upon the prerogatives of the most rev. Primate as the spiritual leader of the Church of England. He is obviously the spiritual leader of all soldiers, sailors and airmen who are members of the Established Church. The Government in no way wish to impinge upon his spiritual authority but we had to take into account the political implications of this matter, and make the reservations that we did.
I can best sum up the instructions of the Government and the outcome of the conversations that took place yesterday as follows. Restrictions are to apply only to parade services on ships, in barracks or garrison churches provided for the special use of troops out of public funds. They do not apply to services where the men are merged in a civilian congregation. That is the substance of our wish and of our instructions as a Government, and from that position it is of course impossible for His Majesty's Government to recede. I trust that as regards the form of the Orders issued I have made it clear to your Lordships what are the distinctions drawn.
In conclusion all I have to say to the noble Duke is this. He seems to me to have completely misconceived the situation when he says we are infringing the religious liberty, abrogating the religious liberty of the soldier. On the contrary we are giving him the most perfect religious liberty, and the only occasion on which we interfere with his religion in the least is by not insisting that he shall pray a prayer at a service which he attends under order as a member of the Forces of the Crown. We safeguard his religious liberty; we give him every chance. If he chooses to apply for a private service for the purposes of these 823 intercessory prayers, there is nothing in the world to stop him. There is nothing in the world to stop any chaplain or member of the religious bodies which minister to the Forces of the Crown from making any prayer he likes provided that that prayer is not prayed at a service where the men are not consulted as to their attendance. I trust I have made this matter clear. It has been a difficult and rather painful task. We have no desire to do half, or any, of the things the noble Duke suggested. We merely did what we are going to adhere to, and that is as far as possible to harmonise political and religious considerations in a matter into which a good deal of unnecessary confusion and heat have been imported.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, the noble Duke who introduced this matter spoke at considerable length and with considerable vigour. He was able to relieve his feelings with a very enviable freedom from responsibility. I hope he will not think me lacking in appreciation of the strength of his feelings if I say that I cannot make my own the terms in which he expressed them, and, indeed, I hope he will forgive me if I say that he has not made my task, a somewhat responsible and difficult one, any easier by the use of some of the irrelevancies with which his speech was, I think, both encumbered and spoiled. But having said this, and therefore reluctantly being compelled to decline the speech of the noble Duke as a preface to my own, I am bound to say that it seems to me the action of the Government in this matter has been both unfortunate and unnecessary, and I regret that I must say so in spite of the very conciliatory speech which has just been delivered by the noble Lord.
Evidently, from what he said, the action of the Government was based upon the belief that these prayers were undesirable "because of the political character which the controversy has assumed." These are the words which the Army Council was directed by the Secretary of State to use in its first Order. Of course, in a wider sense, it is difficult in this matter wholly to dissociate religious feeling and conviction from political considerations, because the tragedy of the whole position is that a vehement anti-religious propaganda, and, I still venture to say, oppression, is part of the settled and declared 824 policy of the Government of Russia, but it is wholly unjustified and unjustifiable to say that this call for the prayer of people in this country has any sort of connection with any political controversy within it.
In the very speech delivered in the Convocation of Canterbury in which I called for the observance of this day of prayer I used deliberately these words:—
I have carefully waited before making the protest I have made to-day until it could be clearly dissociated from any political issue in this country.And I went further, whether rightly or wrongly, in saying:—I have kept apart from any movements which might be regarded as propaganda against the present political régime in Russia.I must say that I think that the person who asks for the observance of this day of prayer might be believed when he says, and said before the Government took action, that it had no sort of connection with any political agitation in this country. But this request for prayer does not come from the Archbishops and the Bishops only: it comes from the leaders of the Free Churches, and though they may very legitimately have expressed opinions as to the character of prayer at compulsory services as distinguished from the character of prayer at voluntary services, as far as I know they have one and all associated themselves with the request that these prayers should be offered in all parts of the country on or about that Sunday. I think it would be very strange to suggest that any of these eminent Free Church leaders were in any way engaged in a political controversy on this matter.May I say with great respect that your Lordships are aware that on March 19—the Wednesday of the week following March 16—His Holiness the Pope has asked all those who owe allegiance to him to join with him in these intercessions for those who are suffering oppression in Russia. It will not, I think, be supposed that His Holiness is actuated in this matter by political motives. No, my Lords, this call for prayer has not arisen, and never did arise, out of political controversies. It has arisen from the instinct which impels men, in the stress of great 825 sympathy with suffering and anxiety for the sufferers, to pray; and this instinct in our country and elsewhere on the Continent of Europe and in the United States of America is so deep and widespread that it has demanded this expression in common prayer.
I wonder if your Lordships would allow me to read the words which I have ventured to suggest to my own diocese for the calling for this prayer, because they express what these prayers mean. The noble Lord who replied asked with a good deal of rhetorical force whether it was right for His Majesty's Government to encourage prayers where the Soviet Government would be directly attacked, and where they might be described in these prayers in the language used by the noble Duke. So far as I know the noble Duke has not been invited to compile the prayers which are to be used on March 16, and I certainly think that probably most of us would have shrunk from the use of these particular terms. Is there anything that suggests political propaganda or political controversy in such a summons as this?—
Let us, in common with multitudes of our fellow Christians throughout the world, make remembrance in our prayers of those in Russia who are suffering oppression for their faith.I do not think there can be the slightest doubt about that: they are suffering from oppression.Let us commend them to the mercy and protection of Almighty God our Heavenly Father. Let us pray that the power of His Spirit may uphold them in their sufferings, strengthen their faith, and give them fortitude and hope. Let us pray that the hearts of their oppressors may be changed"—I wonder whether even the noble Lord would hesitate to express such a prayer as that,that they may be delivered from fear and peril, and that the Church in Russia, purified by its affliction, may arise to fulfil its mission to the people with new zeal and power.Is there anything political in such a request for prayer, or is there anything in which the officers and men of His Majesty's Forces might not have been permitted to join?It is perfectly true that His Majesty's Government were not called upon to 826 prescribe the prayers, even of that sort, but what I still venture to ask is why His Majesty's Government thought it necessary in the case of officers and men of His Majesty's Forces to prohibit their attendance when these prayers were offered. I am bound to say I think it is most unfortunate that the Government by its own language should have attached a political character to prayers which were never intended to have such an association at all. It is they who have said that in view of political agitation these prayers must be regarded, I suppose, as in some sort partaking of that character. I am bound to say that I think the Soviet Government would not be averse from making use of the language which His Majesty's Government have used. They will be perhaps entitled to say in their characteristic manner: "All this business about prayers from these English people, what is it but politics? Why, their own Government have said that it is so."
Moreover, apart from that, there is another aspect of the question which I think cannot be wholly dismissed from our minds. The relations between the secular and the spiritual authorities in regard to religious services in the Army and the Navy are always of course necessarily most delicate. Hitherto they have always been conducted with perfect smoothness and goodwill. Difficulties sometimes arise, but they have always been quietly and sensibly met. So far as I know this is the first instance, certainly within recent years, in which the Government directly and not through the proper spiritual authorities have issued orders about the prayers which it is or it is not desirable should be offered in the presence of His Majesty's Forces. I must say I was a little concerned when I heard even the noble Lord, who has tried to show so much considerateness in the matter, saying that he had issued his Orders without even consulting the Chaplain-in-Chief of the Air Force. I venture to say that proceedings of that kind, the issue of instructions from the Government not based in all cases upon consultation with the proper spiritual authorities concerned with matters of worship and prayer, are very apt to raise difficult questions. It is very difficult in that context to defend.
But at any rate I have to ask whether it was really worth while at this time to 827 strain relations which have their difficulties and which have always, by consultation between the Government authorities and the spiritual authorities, been happily and easily arranged? If there were any danger that these prayers might acquire by the use of certain terms some political association, there are ways in which that danger might have been avoided. I believe that if intimation had been made to the Chaplain-General, or the Chaplain of the Fleet, or the Chief Chaplain of the Air Force, or the Board of Chaplains dealing with the chaplains of other denominations, that in regard to the observance of this particular Sunday, it would be desirable to point out to chaplains that they should take every care to see that the prayers issued could not be reasonably regarded as having any political application—if such a request had been made, I am perfectly certain that the proper spiritual authorities in the Navy, Army and Air Force would have obeyed, and these instructions would have been loyally followed throughout the country. I think I ought to say, especially in view of what the noble Lord has just said about my own position in this matter, that if the Government had seen fit to confer with the religious authorities, of whom I might have been regarded as one, before and not after the issue of these Orders, a very different solution might have been found to the difficulties of the case.
I have felt bound to say this, and I do not think that I could have said less, but the decision of the Government has been taken and, in its main outlines, they cannot be expected to withdraw it without giving rise to fresh misunderstanding in a matter already quite sufficiently complicated; and the last thing that I wish is to put them in any embarrassment. It is at least satisfactory that, with great difficulty and not without attempts to elucidate expressions which I think need never have been used, an intelligible principle has been reached that a clear distinction can be drawn between parade services at which attendance is compulsory and voluntary services, and that there is no sort of desire to interfere in any way with voluntary services which may be arranged for in the Navy, Army or Air Force. If, in the case of the Air Force and in the case of the Army, that distinction which had already been made plain by the First 828 Lord of the Admiralty on February 19 had been made clear, many subsequent difficulties and confusions would never have arisen.
The words of the Army Council Order, published on March 1, conveyed quite a different impression. They were—
It is undesirable that intercessory prayers for Russian subjects should be read at religious services in the Army.There was no distinction between compulsory and voluntary services. I think I ought to say that, as soon as I saw these words, when they were published on March 1, I felt bound to communicate with the Prime Minister, and he at once saw—I think I may be allowed to say this—that the words of the Army Council Order went a great deal beyond what had been laid down on February 19 as governing the conduct of the Admiralty. I wish to acknowledge with much gratitude the promptitude with which he took steps to see that such misunderstanding should not arise, and I will add that I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for the very conciliatory way in which he has met these difficulties, which I think need never have been created, in another place. There is now a distinction which is intelligible and which, if it is adhered to, may remove many of the difficulties that have occurred.But I still remain uncertain and puzzled about another case, and that is the case where troops are paraded and attend other churches than ships and garrison churches. The noble Lord said—and I noted his words with some satisfaction—that there was no sort of desire to interfere with the troops attending in these circumstances churches where they would be "merged (these were his words) in the general congregation." But what he has just said remains inconsistent with the second Army Order, which was issued, I think, on March 4. It says:—
In cases where troops attend parade services at places of worship other than garrison churches, officers and other ranks will not be compulsorily paraded to any services where intercessory prayers for Russian subjects are to be used.The noble Lord said, in the case of Dr. Carlile, who made his protest, that no instructions will be issued to him as regards services in his church. Yes, but, unless they are withdrawn, instructions are given to the troops who would be attending his church that they are not 829 to attend upon parade unless he forgoes any intercessory prayers for the rest of his congregation. This is a matter which really must be cleared up, because you will see that it puts officiating chaplains in an exceedingly difficult position. They are faced with the alternative of either depriving their congregation of the opportunity of joining in the prayers of their fellow-countrymen at that time because there happen to be some soldiers on parade within the congregation, or else they are to say that the troops whom they have been accustomed eagerly and hospitably to welcome must not attend on parade. Until the second form of the Army Council's Order is modified or withdrawn, it cannot be said, as the noble Lord has just said, that no interference whatever will be made with the troops attending services where they are merged in the general congregation.I therefore press that point, because I think it must be made clear. I hope very much that the Government will have the courage and resoluteness to accept the interpretation that has just been put upon their conduct by the noble Lord. I ask again: Is it really worth while to create all this inevitable friction and trouble, not only among the Church of England officiating clergy but among Roman Catholic, Presbyterian and Nonconformist ministers in this country, merely in order to carry out in its logical precision the decision which has been come to and the distinction between voluntary and compulsory services? I think I have made it clear that, in my judgment, the whole of the action of the Government has really been superfluous, and that it has been extremely confused and unfortunate in the way in which it has been carried out. Still it is there, and, so long as the principle is clearly held regarding this distinction between compulsory and voluntary services, and no attempt of any sort is made to interfere with officers and men saying their prayers at other times within ships or garrison churches, and if the Government will make it plain that it is not going to embark on a futile and difficult attempt to prevent troops attending services where they are merged in the general congregation, there will at least be some sort of way out of this difficulty. I wish it had never occurred; I think it need never have occurred; but, as things are, I hope an end will be made 830 to the matter in the way that I have suggested, and that the people of this country will now be enabled, including within their number multitudes of soldiers and sailors, to offer those prayers which arise from the deepest instincts and convictions of their hearts.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy Lords, I think I should be lacking in respect for the House if, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, I did not say a few words from the Front Opposition Bench on the subject which we are now discussing. I feel also that it is almost superfluous, after the weighty and solemn words that have fallen from the most rev. Primate, that I should venture to say anything at all. I think your Lordships will agree that the Government have been guilty of an error of judgment in the manner in which they have handled this very unfortunate business, as it has now turned out. I can only say that the noble Lord opposite, in his very eloquent and very conciliatory defence, has made the best case that he possibly could; but this is not an occasion on which I should be entitled to enter into a discussion, which has taken place already in this House, on our present relations with Russia, and I have no intention of doing so.
I am, however, bound to say that I regret most sincerely that the Government omitted what I may term the customary procedure, and have involved this country as a whole in a very unfortunate position. We have heard from the most rev. Primate that negotiations could have been effected between the Army, Navy and Air Force authorities and himself, or with the chaplains who are responsible to him, in relation to the suggestion which he made as to intercessory prayers, and it does seem to me singularly unfortunate that the Government should, for some reason or other which is not yet forthcoming, have found themselves unable to follow that suggestion. Speaking entirely for myself, I am really at a loss to know why the Government should have thought fit to make any comment whatsoever. The suggestion which emanated from the most rev. Primate was one which I think was received with satisfaction by, I might say, the whole of the population of this country, and certainly by what we may term—and it applies to the vast majority—the religious-minded 831 people of this country. One would have thought that when it was proposed to use the solemn phraseology which the most rev. Primate read out to your Lordships, it would have been wholly unnecessary, and was really out of place, for the Government by an Order to suggest that those solemn words could in any sense indicate any political proclivities.
As I have said, I am speaking entirely for myself on this occasion, but I am sure that I am voicing the opinion of a great many of your Lordships here today, when I say that we welcomed the most rev. Primate's suggestion, and we welcome the prayers which it is proposed to make use of on March 16. We certainly hoped, and felt quite convinced, that those prayers would be accepted and fervently endorsed by the great majority of the people of this country. The noble Lord who has answered for the Government has made a very sincere speech, but I rather think that his colleagues and himself are inclined to be too ingenuous. They see dangers to our relations with Russia in every action which is taken, and it seems to me a wide exaggeration of the fears which are in their minds, if they can think that any of the relations which now exist between the Russian people and our people can be endangered by the solemn words which will be used on March 16. This is an action by the nation. It will be taken as a gesture, and I am quite sure that by our making this gesture we are much more likely to influence what may be good in Russia than by introducing, as the noble Lord and his colleagues have done, politics into this question.
The noble Lord spoke to us about the relations between this country and Russia, and he based all his considerations on material matters. I am not saying this in a provocative spirit, but it seems to me that if we are proposing to help the Russian nation material considerations are quite the last line on which we should proceed, and that we are more likely to assist Russia, and the world as a whole, if we show that as a nation we are opposed to, and repudiate, their actions in connection with persecutions in that great country. I have nothing further to add, except that it seems to me a matter of great misfortune that this question has ever 832 been raised; but it has been raised and I think our thanks are due to the noble Duke for having brought the matter before us. If it gives the noble Lord an opportunity of further clearing up the misunderstanding which the words of the Government have already created, I think we can say that the debate has done good.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I feel that the total and complete silence in which the noble Duke who raised the question sat down was a most significant indication of the feelings with which most of us listened to his unfortunate remarks, and I am glad to think that the noble Marquess who has just sat down very carefully abstained from importing the same kind of political observations into the discussion of this question as were introduced by the noble Duke. I had been ready to imagine that there was something to be said for the point on which the noble Duke wished us to have some discussion, but I must confess that having listened to his speech I was thrown into the opposite camp. It led me to think that there was nothing to be said for the Motion except the political capital which was sought to be made from it. It is always unfortunate to introduce prejudice into your Lordships' House, and to introduce religious prejudice is to my mind doubly unfortunate, and cannot lead to any good. For my own part I do not think I ever heard a speech which made me more inclined to move that the Standing Order be applied and the noble Duke no longer heard. I associate myself much more with what was said by the most rev. Primate, and the position which he himself made, rather than with the position made by the noble Duke. The speech of the noble Duke was a speech to which I listened with great discomfort almost from the beginning to the end.
I do not think the position is really very difficult. There are three kinds of services. There are parade services, attendance at which is compulsory on the part of the men, and which are conducted generally by chaplains paid by the State, and His Majesty's Government, if they wish to do so, seem to me to have a right on this occasion to say that no prayers which seem to them to have a, political import should be used. Nor do I think that there is any criticism with regard to that point. Then there comes a second 833 class of services, these in which, there not being a sufficient number of soldiers to make up a complete congregation, they go to some neighbouring church or chapel in the town. I am sure your Lordships have very often seen on a Sunday morning parties of soldiers going off to some church to which they themselves belong, and not being able themselves to attend the parade service. Now I do not understand, whatever may be, or may have been, the actual terms of this Army Order, that His Majesty's Government have any intention to interfere in any way with what might be said by the clergy at these particular services. It may be that the first Order was not clearly put, and that the second Order has not been clearly understood. It does not seem to be impossible that even a third Order might be issued by the Secretary of State for War, which would make that question perfectly clear, and if he does do that it seems to me that that will entirely clear up and explain the position. That was the point, as I understood, to which the most rev. Primate directed most of his attention—that of the services at which there would be only a small proportion of soldiers, and I think he said, and with perfect justice, that it would be intolerable if the clergy were not allowed to use their usual Prayer Book. And that, as I understood, is the intention of His Majesty's Government—to interfere in no way with what would be used by the clergy on that occasion.
There is a third class of service, the purely voluntary class of service, to which soldiers go by no compulsion at different hours of the day, and with which again there is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to interfere. The noble Duke, indeed, if I may say so, seemed to think that prayers from a soldier to the Almighty would not be sufficiently regarded unless the soldier were wearing uniform at the time of those prayers.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe noble Duke has his chance of speaking after me; he has the right of reply. There has been no difficulty in regard to the Navy. We have not heard any kind or sort of complaint with regard to the Navy. That 834 seems to have been quite satisfactorily arranged. There has been some difficulty with regard to the Army, and in regard to that His Majesty's Government, from what we have heard to-night, seem perfectly ready to explain their position which, as I understand it, will be completely satisfactory to the Episcopal Bench. There is, further, the Air Force, of which we have heard very little indeed, but which I think stands on the same footing as the Army. Therefore, there is no real difficulty with regard to them. I think we all of us dislike airing religious difficulties in this House. I regret that it should have seemed necessary upon this occasion, but I think I may say that it is altogether fortunate that, from the speeches we have heard, there seems every prospect that on this occasion the matters will be smoothed over, and that all the wishes legitimately expressed by the most rev. Primate will be met by His Majesty's Government.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)My Lords, I agree very strongly with what has been said by the last speaker, and I hope that the result of this discussion, and particularly of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and the most rev. Primate, will be to disperse the fog of prejudice introduced by the noble Duke who started the debate. I presume that what he wanted to maintain was that something had been done, in the words of his Question, in "abrogation of religious freedom for British subjects." Of course, the purpose of what has been done was not to abrogate religious freedom but to assure that religious freedom by not introducing this subject into the compulsory parade services. I should have thought that was perfectly right from the point of view of preserving the religious freedom which ought to be preserved, in my opinion, to the maximum extent possible. I agree with the attitude taken by the noble Marquess opposite. I do not think anyone will accuse me of being desirous of abrogating religious freedom or of having any other attitude in a matter of this sort than that of being desirous to protect to the utmost religious freedom in the wider and larger sense of real tolerance and real freedom. I think that what the most rev. Primate says ought to relieve us now of any difficulty in dealing with 835 what, no doubt, is essentially a difficult question. When you are dealing with matters which are both religious and political, questions of tolerance and freedom and persecution almost inevitably arise—unfortunately, but almost inevitably. And, of course, you can stir a flame, as I understood was the desire of the noble Duke opposite, but I think what he said has been entirely dealt with by the most rev. Primate.
I want to say a few words to show how closely I think the Government agree with what the most rev. Primate said. At the outset of his speech he recognised that there was a political implication in this discussion of Soviet persecution in Russia. No one, of course, can doubt that, and that is the origin and basis of all the subsequent difficulty. What do we desire when we are confronted by a matter of that sort? We desire, I think, to express in the strongest manner, as has been expressed, our disapprobation of what has been called the religious persecution in Russia, with the limitation emphasised by the most rev. Primate, that, in doing that, we must take care that we do not increase the persecution against which we desire to raise our protest. That is the limitation which we must all bear in mind and in reference to which we ought to be careful lest we use language likely to stir up the difficulties which we all deplore. The point raised by the most rev. Primate was one which one can well understand. He says that in the first instance the first Army Order left room for doubt. Having formed that opinion, he entered at once into telephonic communication with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister realised the difficulty which had affected the most rev. Primate, and at once set to work in order to make clear the point which the most rev. Primate thought was obscure in the original Order. And what was that? He wanted it to be made perfectly clear that this Order did not apply to any voluntary service, but only to compulsory parade services; that is to say, services which the soldiers, subject to any special reservations, were under compulsion to attend.
I want to know this. I agree with what the most rev. Primate has said, and I agreed very fully the other day—but is it right, when we are talking about religious liberty and dealing with a matter 836 which, though religious, necessitates political implications, that you should enforce compulsory attendance in those circumstances? That is a very wide-reaching principle. And in that I have been indoctrinated in southern views and not in northern or even Scottish views, of what we mean by religious freedom, I say it is the very essence, the very first principle of religious freedom that in a case of this kind no compulsion of any kind should be used in order that attendance should be enforced. I think that is a first principle of the utmost importance. On the other hand, I think an equally important matter to which the most rev. Primate very properly referred, is that there should be no interference whatever as regards the voluntary attendance by a soldier or an airman at any service at which the special prayers regarding the religious persecution in Russia are to be said under the instructions of the most rev. Primate. Of course, so far as such action is voluntary every one should be entitled to attend those services. It does not need emphasising for one moment to my mind that it would be an abrogation of religious freedom to say that soldiers should be ordered not to attend services of that character. I understand also, those two points being made clear, that the most rev. Primate is, I will not say satisfied with what has been done, but regards it—
§ LORD PARMOORAs matters stand the most rev. Primate says that the arrangement made is the best way out, to use his own expression. I must go a little further than that. I think as matters stand now that it is the right way out. I presume that "best way out" means that there is some doubt about it.
§ LORD PARMOORThere, of course, we come to a difference of opinion, undoubtedly; there is no question about that. But taking our view, where services imply a political implication attendance should not be made compulsory on the military forces. Assuming 837 that which I think is right, then the best solution is that which I understand, in the view of the most rev. Primate, has now been adopted. There were other matters raised, but it is too late to deal with them to-night. Nor do I think it is right to deal with them at this time. It may be that in matters of form a better system might have been adopted. I think that the form adopted originally by the two Archbishops and discussed very fully in this House was undoubtedly justified. I expressed at the time both my own agreement and the agreement of the Government with what had happened in that regard.
Let me, therefore, say only this in conclusion. I believe that we have done all that could be done to preserve religious freedom in the true sense under difficult circumstances. I can see nothing but harm, nothing but the creation of real difficulties in pursuing this question as though there was any real antagonism between, for instance, the Government and the most rev Primate. We may have made mistakes—I do not think we have—but no one would be so foolish as to assume infallibility. Certainly I will not. We may have made mistakes, but as matters stand I think the true distinction has been drawn, and that those who really love Christian freedom, who detest and abominate Christian persecution will do their best to help the position and not to suggest unnecessary difficulties.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if, before the noble Duke replies, I ask a definite question which is of some importance. Will the noble and learned Lord give the assurance that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, will be carried out, and that in cases where troops are paraded in other than garrison churches no interference will be made, on the ground that they are then merged in the general congregation?
§ LORD PARMOORI will give that assurance in the strongest possible way, not as my own assurance, though it is an assurance I should like to give, but as the assurance which, I understand, my noble friend, Lard Thomson, gave definitely.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYPerhaps the noble and learned Lord will see that any necessary changes are made in the existing Army Order?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLMy Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for more than a moment. The most rev. Primate spoke, of course, from a position of very great responsibility and difficulty in a matter of this sort. Perhaps the mild castigation he gave me was due to the fact that he felt relieved, or was sorry that he was not in my position at the moment. As for the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, he was able to rise above responsibility. I will not say that I was in a position of irresponsibility, but if I spoke a little more strongly, perhaps, than I ought, I ask noble Lords to realise that I am in the position of one of the suppressed. When you are suppressed you are inclined to think that the cork is pressing too hardly on your head, more strongly, perhaps, than it ought to press. I can assure noble Lords that I had no wish to be rude to anybody, but this has been a very real question with many people in this country. I think it would have been more simple if the Government, instead of doing what they did—I am not querying their right to do it—had said that no man during the time in question need attend any parade if he did not wish to attend, and had not tried to control what the prayers should or should not be. I think that would have been the simplest way out of the difficulty. It would have been more sensible and it might still be possible.
I do not want to make suggestions at this time. The only point I want to raise which is slightly controversial is that I think it was a very great pity—and, if I may say so with respect, it may be a lesson to Governments in future—they did not go through the proper channels. If the Cabinet or those responsible had gone through the proper channels they would never have been landed in any of these difficulties, which I hope are now at an end. The most rev, Primate put a question to the noble and learned Lord just now and he gave an answer which I think he was perfectly entitled to give, and a very wise one, because I am sure that it can be arranged—that it was really the intention of the 839 Government that what the most rev. Primate had asked for should happen. I do not think it is necessary to have an Army Order on the subject, but what is wanted is an instruction really as to the interpretation of the Order.
With good will all round I sincerely hope this question may now be dropped, but I did feel bound to raise it. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, who also spoke, mentioned, if I heard him rightly, that I thought a soldier only prayed when he was in uniform. I think that perhaps in his indignation with regard to other things that I said he did not hear the end of what I did say. What I said was that 840 probably the strongest force in this world was private prayer, and not prayer of privates. I must apologise to noble Lords for having kept them so very long. I spoke longer than I had intended, but I hope that the result has been beneficial all round.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORDoes the noble Duke press his Motion?
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.