HL Deb 13 July 1964 vol 260 cc26-54

3.45 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD TANGLEY

My Lords, we must all be indebted, I believe, to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, for the clarity with which he introduced this Measure, and I do not believe that any Member of the House could possibly listen to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, without being moved by its evident sincerity. I confess that in approaching this Measure I have to say that some of the practices it proposes to legalise, and, perhaps even more, other practices which commonly go with them and of which we may hear more in the subsequent Measures to be brought before Parliament, are to me impediments and not aids. Moreover, I am bound to admit that I cannot accept some of the modes of thought from which some of these practices, as it seems to me, spring.

I like to think that my outlook and attitude is the fruit of long years of thought and reading; and so in part it is. But I strongly suspect that tradition and temperament and upbringing have much more to do with it. On my mother's side I come of Huguenot ancestry, and on both sides of the family there is a long tradition of Non-conformity into which I was born and under which I have lived for almost exactly the first half of my life. I suspose that if I had to declare my hand I should say, like the noble Earl, that I am a Protestant. I must have Protestantism in my blood and, indeed, if I were forced to choose between the position of those whom it is intended to aid by this Measure, and those who prefer to call themselves Protestants, I think I should find myself very much nearer the latter than the former; that is to say, if I were forced to choose between those two positions. But, my Lords, is it not the strength and glory of the Church of England that it does not force its members to any such absolute choices?

I have disclosed to your Lordships, as I thought I ought, my own thoughts and feelings about these practices. But during the 30-odd years that I have been an active member of the Church of England, as I have, I have learned that I have many fellow members who think and feel quite differently from the way in which I think and feel. I know some—and I know them to be better men and far better Christians than I am—to whom the things which to me are an impediment are real aids and helps and, indeed, in some cases, necessities. I know some clergy, whom I revere, who could not do their work so well but for these aids and practices, and whose work is undoubtedly impeded by the thought that they may be tainted by some impropriety or even illegality.

I could not hold as fast as I do to my own position unless I were willing to respect that of my friends and brethren whose position is so different from mine, and the wonderful thing is that the Church finds room for all of us. This amplitude is not, I believe, just an easy acquiescence. It is not just a shutting of the eyes to incompatibilities. I believe it to be something far more positive than that. We are all of us fallible mortals. We all of us have finite minds. None of us can comprehend the whole truth. In consequence, while I believe that we all have our eyes set on the same goal, each of us tends to see a different way of getting there. Each of us must hold to his own way and each of us must recognise that for others another way is the right one. We know in part and we prophesy in part, and therefore the greatest need of all is charity; and may I remind the noble Earl that there is the Second Epistle to the Corinthians as well as Hebrews in the New Testament.

My Lords, in submitting this Measure—and probably other Measures to come—the Church is, in my belief, putting charity in its rightful place: at the head of the list of Christian virtues. When one considers the majorities by which these Measures have been adopted, is it not plain that many who dislike them must have voted for them? This, surely, is a wonderful display of charity. In seeking the approval of Parliament to these Measures, the Church is not forcing any absolute choice upon us. Is it not the fact that she is just asking the State to set the seal of State approval upon a notable act of charity that has taken place within the Church? If one looks at this Measure in that light, my Lords, what answer dare we give but the answer, "Yes"? May I just make this observation in closing? When Christians show such evident signs of loving one another, surely they deserve some encouragement.

3.51 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, I rise to oppose this Motion, but I do so in all sincerity and with the deepest and utmost regret. I listened most attentively to the right reverend Prelate and to the very persuasive way in which he moved this Motion; nevertheless, he did not shake the sincerity of my own conviction of the wrongness of this Measure. He appealed to us upon the grounds of the comprehensiveness of the Church, which it would encourage; but I do not believe that to be so at all. Upon the other hand, I feel that this Measure, if passed, would have a divisive influence in the Church, and would to a very great degree exacerbate feelings which have been dormant for a long time and which, one hoped, had gone to sleep for ever.

I believe that the underlying basis of this Measure is contrary to the reformed and Protestant character of our Church, and that its introduction is really due solely to the fact that, over the years, the Bishops have been unable to enforce the legal position upon the ministers in their dioceses. If, as I believe, this is true, it is really comparable to a situation such as this: that the Government of the day come down to Parliament and say, "We are all appalled at the outrage which is being committed by bank robbers. This situation has got so completely out of hand, and we, the Government, are so completely unable to preserve the law, that we have arrived at a brilliant solution of this problem. We are about to propose to Parliament an Act which will legalise bank robberies up to a limit of, say, £10,000 per annum—the proceeds of which, of course, can be retained by the robbers tax free". The justification on the Government's part for such a proceeding would be that they do not make it mandatory upon us all to rob banks, but that the provision would be purely permissive. That, my Lords, is really analogous to the situation that we are asked to consider here to-day. What we are being asked to do is to give approval to the greatest act of appeasement which has taken place since Munich. In fact, so far as the influence upon our Church and our people is directly concerned, it may well be the greatest act of appeasement since before Munich.

Another point to which reference was made in that splendid speech by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition is that this is but one of a series of Measures. We are not being given the opportunity of considering; all these proposals together in one Measure, which would enable us to make a better judgment as to the direction in which our Church is being led. Each Measure, as it comes along, nibbles away a little bit more of the foundations of our Church and of our Faith, although each one, of itself, may well be considered as not being of sufficiently vital importance to warrant the Measure's being thrown out. Nevertheless, if we do regard this merely as one of a series of Measures, the others being the ones referred to by the right reverend Prelate in his opening speech—The Holy Table Measure, the Miscellaneous Provisions Measure, the Alternative Services Measure and so forth—if we take them as one and look at them collectively, there can be no possible shadow of doubt at all that they establish a trend which will direct the policy of our Church far more towards a sympathetic outlook with regard to reunion with Rome.

If the Church really contemplates this as a possible course of action, it can be only upon the terms of the supremacy of the Pope as Primate. That would involve directly the elimination of our own Sovereign as the Head of our own Church; and, whatsoever alleged safeguards might be introduced into the arrangement, ultimately it could result only in the complete domination of our Church by Rome. My Lords, we in this country have fought this battle before, some 400 years ago, and I am quite certain that it would not be the wish of any one of us to have to see our country fight it again.

I might be asked why it is that I take my stand against this particular Measure. My answer would be: because I believe that, fundamentally, it is anti-scriptural, and also that it is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. I know and fully appreciate the content of the Preamble to the Measure, which was so well explained to us by the right reverend Prelate in his opening remarks, but that provides that the Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture which may be worn, as set out in the Measure. But who is going to wear these vestures unless he himself attaches doctrinal significance to them? I myself exonerate our clergy entirely from any idea of their wearing vestures simply for the sake of dressing up, or, indeed, simply because they believe that they can attract more people into their churches if they wear vestures than by preaching the Word of God. It can be due only to the doctrinal significance which they import into this particular process of wearing vestures.

Another point which comes out in regard to this Preamble is the age-old question of, "Who is the Church of England?" which, it states, adopts this attitude of elimination of any feeling of doctrinal responsibility. The Assembly may well declare it to be so, but the Assembly cannot bind the minds and consciences of the ministers of the Church. And I believe there is a very strong amount of confirmation of the doctrinal importance which the people of this country attach to the wearing of these vestures. I would claim as confirmation of this no less an authority—and I am sorry that he is not present here to-day—than the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

According to the report which I have here, and which I believe to be correct, the right reverend Prelate, in delivering the Thirty-fifth Hale Memorial Sermon in 1960, used the following words: Strong opposition to this Canon"— that is to the Canon which is substantially reproduced in the measure that we have before us— comes from those who hold that what they call Mass Vestments necessarily imply a 'Romish' doctrine of the Mass. Consequently they hold that this Canon involves a covert alteration of Church of England doctrine about the Sacrament of Holy Communion. In an attempt to alleviate any such fear, a clause has been inserted into the Canon which says that, 'The Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture permitted in this Canon, nor sanctions thereby any doctrines other than those contained in its formularies'. The phraseology has been slightly altered during the passage of the years, but the content and intent of the quotation of the preamble are just the same to-day as they were then.

The Bishop went on: This olive branch has proved unsuccessful. Perhaps that is not altogether surprising. For although the statement in the Canon is perfectly true, it nevertheless remains the fact that vestments do imply a 'high' doctrine of the Sacrament. This is true not only of the chasuble, but also of the coloured stole. It is of course true that the wearing of the vestments by an individual priest does not of itself necessarily imply that the wearer holds a high doctrine of the Sacrament. He may wear them only because he is a visiting priest and wishes to conform with the tradition of the parish. But I think it is true to say that the Canon, by authorising the wearing of the Eucharistic vestments, does imply that the Church of England permits the holding of such a high doctrine of the Sacraments. It is precisely this that the opponents of the Canon deny. That is to say, they deny that the Church of England by its formularies does in fact permit the holding of any such doctrine. My Lords, I have quoted these words in full because they put the view of the situation, which I myself hold, so very admirably and with so much more authority and clarity than I could put it before your Lordships.

But there is another confirmation, too, of the feeling of the doctrinal significance of these vestments. This comes from a very distinguished member of the Anglo-Catholics, Dr. H. S. Box. Writing in the Church of England Newspaper at the beginning of this year, he used the following words: On the other hand, I am quite sure that it is only fair at this quasi-final stage of a discussion to make it quite clear to Evangelicals (if it is not clear already) that the vast majority of us Anglo-Catholics value the vestments because we hold them to have a very definite significance. Their purpose is to indicate what (rightly or wrongly) we believe to be true: that the Eucharist which is celebrated at Anglican altars today (Evangelical as well as Anglo-Catholic) is essentially the same service as the pre-Reformation Mass, and not some different kind of service invested or revived at the Reformation. These quotations do, in my submission, absolutely establish that the effect of this Measure is to change the Reformed doctrine and Protestant position of our Church, and it is for that reason that I cannot agree with it.

Reference has been made once or twice to the voting in the Assembly. It may be that I have said—I hope with courtesy—some harsh things about some of our Episcopal Benches, but I would pay them a compliment. I would say that the House of Bishops in the Assembly is by far the most outstanding body of educated brains that we can find not only in the Church of England but in any professional body in this country. In fact they are selected for their education, erudition and ability, and any one of them, in the matter of debate, can run rings around any dozen members of the Assembly. Therefore when, as in this case, they "gang up together", if I may use the expression, the miracle is that there is any opposition in the Assembly at all.

So far as the House of Clergy is concerned, as your Lordships know that is not an elected body, and there must be a certain element of subordination between the clergy and their bishops.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER

My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to interrupt, I might say that there is a non-elected element in the House of Clergy; but a very large part of it is, of course, elected.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for the correction; but I do not think it affects the substance of my argument. In so far as the House of Clergy is concerned—with the notable exception of the representatives who also sit in your Lordships' House—I would say that a great proportion of the representatives are retired and elderly people; because the majority of the active members of our Church cannot spare the time to devote three individual weeks throughout the year to attend the debates of the Assembly. And that is one of the very real problems from which the Church suffers in connection with its representation in its own Parliament. Nevertheless, despite these facts, there was about one-quarter of the House of Laity, as there represented, who did, in fact, vote against this Measure. This, to my mind, was a very surprising attitude indeed to find taken up there.

There is one other point I should like to make. That is that there is a very grave anxiety indeed in the minds of a great many of us lest the passing of this Measure leads to an element of compulsion on the part of ordinands, contrary to their consciences, that before being ordained they should be required to adopt vestments such as are authorised by this Measure. I know that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester gave a very firm assurance to the contrary when he made his final address to the Assembly on the passing of this Measure, but I wonder how the right reverend Prelate can afford to give such an assurance. I know he gave it in all good faith and in all sincerity, but it is only just over a decade since the then Lord Bishop of London was specifically declining to ordain men, who otherwise were acceptable to the ministry, because, on grounds of conscience, they declined to wear the vestures which he required. If it could happen then—

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

My Lords, if I may interrupt, I would make a small point of correction. I believe it is true that my predecessor in the See of London did not refuse to ordain the men in question. He ordained them in his own chapel, but did not wish to ordain them at St. Paul's, in order that there should be no evidence of disunity at that part of the ordination.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his intervention, but I am afraid I cannot accept it. I have the evidence of three specific cases, in one of which the priest, under protest and contrary to his true beliefs, accepted the direction that he was to wear vestures. In two other cases the prospective ministers did not accept, and they were not ordained. I mention this solely because of the anxiety we have that the introduction of this Measure may lead to similar situations in future. I hope sincerely that it will not do so.

A further point is that this Measure comes up at a time when consideration is being given to conversations between our Church and the Nonconformist Churches. Surely it must be a matter of frustration to those who are conducting the conversations that a Measure such as this should be put forward by our Church at the present time, because it can only be interpreted as a departure from the Protestant and Reformed stand of our Church towards a greater elasticity towards Rome.

In moving this Motion, the right reverend Prelate claimed that the Measure legalises what is the practice of the vast majority of our churches. I challenge that statement. I cannot find it in myself to believe that illegal practices are carried on in the vast majority of our churches. They are carried on, as we know full well, in certain churches; but when I think of the strength of evangelical opinion up and down the country, it passes my comprehension and stretches my imagination beyond the bounds to believe that these practices are carried on in the vast majority of our churches.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER

My Lords, we do not like to interrupt, but it is important that the actual facts should be as closely as possibly agreed upon between us. If I understood the right reverend Prelate correctly, he referred to the coloured stole as being worn in the majority of churches. We do not claim that eucharistic vestments, in the technical sense, are worn, but the stole is worn throughout the whole of the Army Chaplain's Department, if I may give this as an example of the kind of thing that was intended.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, I would say to the right reverend Prelate that he has only to come down to my own church and he will not see even a stole there.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER

My Lords, till I was a Bishop, I wore the black scarf of a communicant, too.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

I hope that the right reverend Prelate will continue to do so. I should like to return to two small points. One is the vagueness of this Measure. I do not consider that the Preamble is drafted with any certainty of expression, and in the Measure there is a reference to "customary vestments". In moving this Motion, the right reverend Prelate explained to us what customary vestments are. Would it not have been more advisable, if they are known to be what they are, to have inserted them in the Measure, rather than leave it to the ultimate discretion of a court to decide, in the event of there being any question or doubt as to what "customary vestments" are? The other point is that I understand that, owing to the method of drafting this Measure, it will bind the Bishops themselves, when they are officiating as ministers in churches. Therefore, it may well be that the right reverend Prelates will find themselves having to conform on occasion.

All in all, I feel convinced that this Measure will not achieve peace in our Church. It will not strengthen the Reformation Settlement. It will not enhance the Protestant position of the Church of England. I believe that it will be divisive and will add to the trend towards Rome. And I believe that it will be repugnant to a vast number, possibly a majority, of Church people in this country. Therefore I ask your Lordships to vote against the Measure.

4.18 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that my noble friend Lord Brentford has given a detailed and sincere interpretation of the opinions held by that section of the Anglican opinion for which he speaks and which I believe is sometimes represented by an organisation called the United Protestant Council. But he will not expect me to agree with very much of what he has said, if only because in our two families, while we agree on so many other things, this particular difference of opinion is now in its second generation.

I am going to try to give a lay opinion from my own angle, which is that of a churchwarden in his twenty-sixth year of service—not a churchwarden of any specialised Anglo-Catholic place of worship, because I do not belong to that opinion, but of a churchwarden of a village church on the Welsh border, where vestments have been used on occasions for many years and where we still say the Office of Holy Communion as we have always said it. We are in a part of the world where Methodism is strong and our power of approach towards Methodists has certainly not weakened.

After listening to what the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London and my noble friend Lord Tangley have said, I feel that there is no need to repeat their arguments. They are perfectly clear to your Lordships and I should like to associate myself entirely with them. But I think perhaps the time has come to say this. We are here not in the same position as the Church Assembly was when it was debating the Measure. We are here in the Houses of Parliament, and, as I see it (I may be wrong), we have certain duties which are not by any means the same as those of the Church Assembly when it was approving the Measure, or of the Legislative Committee who wrote the Report on the Measure, signed by the most reverend Primate.

The Church Assembly was constituted by Act of Parliament in about 1920. That Act laid down the constitution, and I think I am right in saying that it laid down the required majorities in the various Houses of the Church Assembly which were necessary before a Measure could be submitted to Parliament. The Church Assembly has passed this Measure by the majorities which were laid down by Parliament. When one believes; as I do, that the Church Assembly is the last body to go in for wild-cat decisions, or to advocate any change at all without careful thought, then those majorities are very significant indeed. Unless we in this House want to advocate minority government; unless we in this House—I am saying this advisedly—want to make ourselves a stamping ground for the exponents of those views which did not find favour in the Church Assembly, then I think we have to be most careful and decide whether there is any really sound principle—principle, not the practice of the Church—that would cause us to reject this Measure, to which the Church Assembly has given so much time and so much thought.

If we follow this line of thought, I think it brings us directly into collision with the Preamble to the Measure, in which it is laid down perfectly clearly, and signed by the most reverend Primate, that the Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture"'. Either that is a true statement, or it is not; and whatever the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, or my noble friend Lord Brentford may say (and I respect their sincerity in everything they said), it is impossible to get round that statement. If this House takes the view—as I profoundly hope it will not—that this Measure ought to be rejected, it can reject it only on the ground that the House does not accept that proposition in the Measure. I think one must say that absolutely clearly before going further.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the noble Viscount, but he will perhaps remember that I pointed out that the Church Union, in its booklets, pays great attention to the value of the vestments in the Sacrament, in the Holy Communion. I also quoted the late Lord Halifax to show that he believed it to be true that the Lord's Supper, or the Holy Communion in the Church of England was the Mass in English. I cannot understand how you can have such a Preamble as is given to us in this Measure and claim that in dealing with these particular garments you are not dealing with doctrinal matters.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I know that the noble Earl holds that view. What I am saying—and I will repeat it—is that if you do hold that view, you give the lie to the Preamble. That is the point which sticks strongly in my mind, and which I wish to make to your Lordships.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

That does not make us wrong.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

We then come to the permissive nature of the Measure: whether we are legalising some practice which is new, or whether, as my noble friend Lord Tangley put it, we are regularising something which has been in use in certain parts of the Church of England for over a hundred years. This, I feel, brings one to the thought of what is the duty of Parliament in making laws or approving Measures. Surely, whether we are dealing with Church prac- tice, motor offences, betting, or whatever it may be, it is an important part of the business of Parliament to see that legislation is not passed—or indeed left on the Statute Book—which causes ordinary, decent, quiet people, decent quiet Churchmen, to be committing offences. There again, I think this is something we should all feel strongly about, and it is part of the duty of Parliament not to allow it. For this reason, if for no other, I think this Measure is doing a service of value, not merely to the Church, but to the country as a whole.

One could add a lot more, but there are many other speakers to follow. I feel that the proposals in this Measure should be taken as they have been presented to us by the Church Assembly and by the right reverend Prelate. I do not share the views which have been expressed here, that the Preamble does not mean what it says, and that this regularising of something which has been done in many sections of the Church is going to open the door to a great many Measures which, it is said, will take us further to Rome. Nor do I accept the contention put forward by my noble friend Lord Brentford, that there is any comparison between condoning a criminal offence, like bank robbery, and a Church practice like the wearing of vestments. Therefore, I give my support to this measure.

4.26 p.m.

LORD HOBSON

My Lords, I rise to oppose this Measure, and I do so because I believe it is just one more step in undermining our Protestant faith. Consequently, I find myself entirely in agreement with what my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, have said. This Measure is brought forward to legalise High Church and Anglo Catholic practices which have been carried on for a considerable period and are now probably at their zenith. But the fact of the matter remains whether the right reverend Prelates like it or not, that these practices have been illegal since 1662. It seems rather late in the day to bring forward a Measure of this sort in order to legalise what is unlawful practice. The position is even worse, because 60 per cent. of the Anglican clergy use these vestments, and I am told their use and significance are taught in 60 per cent. of the Anglican theological colleges. Frankly, I cannot reconcile my views as to why the Church has found it necessary to carry on practices which are illegal. But there are indications that other Measures will be forthcoming. I believe there is one coming with regard to legalising the use of the wafer. As I see it, these are practices which are being brought forward to bring the Church of England more into line with the Church of Rome. It is because of this that I strongly object to it.

There is a circular pamphlet available which says that these Measures have to be introduced piecemeal. I do not know whether that is so. I should find myself able to support the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, if a lot of these Measures which have been passed by the Church Assembly found themselves in one single Measure. Then we should know the real intention. At the moment we do not, and we must judge the Church of England, and the utterances of certain right reverend Prelates, by their actions. We find that the doctrine of Confession, which is a Roman practice, is taking place in the Church of England. There is the doctrine of transubstantiation, so far as the Communion service is concerned, which is also accepted. Therefore I cannot do anything else but oppose this Measure.

There is the difficulty that we cannot amend a Measure of this sort, which is rather unfortunate, because, whilst the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London praised Clause 2 and said that there had to be the consent of the parish council in dealing with these matters and that no clergyman save a Low Churchman could change the High practice without the approval of the church council, in that case the approval of the church council has been obtained by the incumbent; but if there is a change of the incumbent there can indeed be no reversal of those practices unless it is approved by the Bishop. So the fact of the matter is that the Bishop is in full control of what practices should be used in that particular church.

As I have said, I will be brief, but I feel very strongly indeed about this. I am a Nonconformist and I believe that, so long as we have a State Church, it is entirely wrong to approve of these Measures which, it can be proved beyond peradventure, are seeking merely to bring us more in line with the Church of Rome. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who asked how on earth Church unity is to be effected (and approaches have been made to the Methodist Church) if, at the same time, you are supporting Measures of this sort which are seeking only to bring Roman practices into our Protestant country.

4.32 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, my principal reason for making a brief intervention in this debate is that, as a lay member of the Church, I was for some time vicar's warden of a parish church in the West country where there was a strong Methodist tradition. My feeling in the matter is very much in agreement with that expressed by the right reverend Prelate who opened the debate: that this is a relatively unimportant matter.

I propose to confine my remarks to what is in the Measure, and to some extent, therefore, will be making a new departure in the debate, because so much of what we have heard, so far as I can see, has no reference to the Measure at all. Like every Member of your Lordships' House, I was, as always when he speaks on this subject, deeply moved by what my noble Leader had to say. If I did not think that this was an issue on which a member of the Church had to stand up and be counted, then, since I disagree with my noble friend's view, I would much rather not have said anything at all. I respect the fact, which is so self-evident, that on this and parallel matters my noble friend feels deeply and passionately, with conviction, through study and knowledge. He makes it apparent that on such issues he is of the stuff which, a few hundred years ago, would have made a marty[...] of him. For that we all respect him, but I know he will forgive me if I say why on this I cannot go by any means all the way with him, and why I support this Measure. I would, however, say that so far as my own personal preferences are concerned, I am, I believe, not a very good one, but what is called a Low Churchman. I do not like vestments. I hate incense almost as much as my noble Leader, and when I had the ability to influence these matters at all they were influenced in that direction, and certainly not without success.

That is one of the strong things about this Bill. It gives the parochial church council virtually a veto, and anyone who has had experience of some unhappy occasions, as I have, of knowing how strongly members of a parochial church council can express their views on all sorts of subjects, will know that this is a very real and important safeguard. To me, this is one of the greatest attractions in the Measure, because this is not a restrictive Measure. This, as I see it, is a Measure of freedom, and I most certainly agree with the right reverend Prelate that this has been put forward—and it has not been challenged during the debate—as a Measure of mutual charity and toleration, and to provide greater elasticity which the comprehensiveness of the Church of England requires and demands. I most certainly believe that that is the case.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, also gave us a speech which, from his deep convictions and knowledge, was at times very moving. But I thought his analogy that this Measure was giving licence to rob a bank up to an upper limit of £7,500, with the proviso that the powers were not mandatory but permissive, was not a very happy one. He seemed to think that that was a perfect analogy. I would point out two minor flaws. When you grant that kind of licence to do bank robbery you do not first have a meeting of the parish council to see whether a licence should be issued or not. Secondly—and this is a point the noble Viscount did not deal with—in this country, so far as bank robbers are concerned, if they are caught they are sent to prison. I shall be glad to give way if the noble Viscount wishes to interrupt me. Is the noble Viscount saying that we should prosecute or unfrock the 90 per cent.—as we were told—of the clergy in parish churches who wear a coloured stole, or is he suggesting that we should prosecute or unfrock the lesser, but very substantial, number of clergy in the Church of England who wear at different times other more elaborate vestments than a stole? Really, I feel that in this the opposition to this Measure, however keenly they feel, however strongly they feel, and however deeply they have gone into the matter, have not answered any of the points which were made by the right reverend Prelate in moving the Motion. They have been avoided.

I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, or if not, my noble Leader, who said that scholarship must come second to faith. That is something with which I would not disagree. But is there anything in this Measure which alters anyone's faith? Is it seriously argued that, because in one church, by agreement with the parish church council, the clergy should be allowed to wear more elaborate vestments than another, that will affect anyone's faith? It may well mean that they will worship in another church if they are not able to persuade the church council that these vestments should not be worn. But it is asking too much to expect me to believe that this Measure need disturb the faith of any member of the Church of England, or any gradation of that faith.

My noble friend Lord Hobson, who told me that he would have to leave immediately after his speech, mentioned that he was a Methodist. As the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark will know, when I lived in Taunton not only was I on extremely friendly terms with members of the Methodist church, but, to his knowledge on many occasions, I took a prominent part in their services, which I know differ from those in my own Church. But, with the greatest respect, it would have been impossible for me to criticise to the Methodists any part of their service or even to discuss it with them.

This is one of the fundamental difficulties with which members of the Church of England, particularly if they happen to be Members of either House of Parliament, have to deal, in that, because it is the Established Church, everyone of any Church or of none has the legal right, I might even say the legal duty, whether they are believers or unbelievers, to discuss the business of the Church. I make no complaint whatever about that because it is the Established Church and that is the responsibility that has to be accepted. But I quite firmly feel that, whatever their legal rights and even legal duties may be in this matter, they perhaps have a moral duty not to discuss this matter, because it seems to me that it is an intimate matter for the Church itself.

My Lords, if we did not know before we do now, that in the Church of England there is an almost infinite gradation of opinion. There is room for all of them and I hope there will always continue to be room for all of them, and that we shall never knowingly do anything which would drive any member, I will not say from left to right, but of any gradation away from the Church. If I thought that this Measure would do that I would not support it, but we have not had a single word advanced to prove that it would, and I would submit that the Measure deserves the support of your Lordships.

4.42 p.m.

LORD ILFORD

My Lords, your Lordships are invited this afternoon to take a further step—a modest step certainly, but a further step—in the process of bringing up to date the law under which the Church of England lives and has its being. I think that few people who have not made personal contact with the law of the Church can appreciate the complicated obscurity which at present characterises much of the law under which the Church lives. I have myself been engaged for nearly ten years as the Chairman of a Commission appointed by the Church Assembly which is endeavouring to consolidate another branch of the law which affects the Church. I can assure your Lordships that the Measure before us this afternoon illustrates very clearly how necessary and urgent that process of modernisation has become.

I am not going to invite your Lordships to consider the rather complicated legal aspects under which this Measure comes before you, but I should like to say just a few words about it because I think that the legal position is sometimes not fully understood. The matter begins with what is called the Ornaments Rubric, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out in his speech. The Ornaments Rubric provides that the ornaments of the Church and of the ministers shall be retained and shall be in use as they were in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI, that is, the year of the first Prayer Book. I suppose that every one of the ornaments with which this Measure deals, with the possible exception of the stole, was an ornament which was in common use in the churches of this country at the time of the first Prayer Book. If the matter rested there, I think that it would present very little difficulty. It would be quite clear that all these vestures with which we are dealing this afternoon were in use at the material date and that the Ornaments Rubric, which was given force of law by the Act of Uniformity, 1662, has made them lawful in the Church of England. But, unhappily, that is not the full story.

Between the years 1549 and 1662, when the Act of Uniformity was passed, a great many other things happened. There was the second Prayer Book; there were what were called the Advertisements of Archbishop Parker, to which the right reverend Prelate referred in his speech; and there were a number of other things done, with which I need not trouble your Lordships this afternoon. But the result of it all was that the legalisation of the ornaments originally in use in the Church at the time of the first Prayer Book became obscured, and eventually were further obscured, I regret to say, by a succession of judgments in the Privy Council. Surely that is a state of things which ought not to be allowed to go on. The law on a matter of this sort ought to be made plain for an ordinary clergyman or layman to understand. That is really all that this Measure is seeking to do.

One or two of your Lordships seem to assume that without this Measure these vestures would be unlawful. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, in his speech referred to these vestures as unlawful. I do not think that is the case. They are not necessarily unlawful. The opinion is very strongly held in influential quarters that these vestures are perfectly lawful by reason of the fact, as I say, that they were in common use in the Church at the time of the first Prayer Book and are legalised by the Ornaments Rubric. But if the matter remains in doubt, as indeed it does, then surely the right thing is that this Measure should be passed, to clear away any doubts, and that this important and, in some ways, vital question may be made less obscure.

I should like, if I may, to say something about two points which were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in his speech, to which I am sure all your Lordships listened with admiration for the sincerity and conviction with which it was delivered. The first point which I should like to put to the noble Earl is a very simple one. He asked, "Ought there not to be Biblical authority for the use of these vestments?". There are many things in our churches for which there is no Biblical authority. There is no Biblical authority for the organ; there is no Biblical authority for the choir, or for the use of a hymn book. There is no Biblical authority for any of these things; but they are not necessarily for that reason unlawful.

Now I come to another point which the noble Earl made—

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, if I may intervene, I would say on the noble Lord's point with regard to the organ that I could find ample justification in the Scriptures for using it. They may not have had a pipe organ as to-day, but they did have music.

LORD ILFORD

I did not say that there would be no Biblical authority for the use of music, but the noble Earl would not claim that he could find Biblical authority for the use of a pipe organ.

Towards the end of his speech, the noble Earl asked this question: why is this Measure essential? He suggested—and I regret that he did so—that it was desired by persons who were doing something which was unlawful, and that they hoped to be put on this right side of the law. I am sure that is not the reason why this measure is being brought forward. We are living to-day, in the nation and in the Church, in a new generation. It is a generation which demands a richer ritual in the Church. It looks to the vestments of the clergy, to the use of music, to the decoration of the church itself; all those are adjuncts to the worship of the Church. It is because the Church desires to have the benefit of these things that this measure has been brought forward. If this measure were to be rejected by your Lordships, it must, I think, inevitably arouse a further sense of disappointment and of frustration among many earnest young clergymen, and laymen, too, who look upon these vestures as a means to appeal, not to appeal on doctrinal grounds, but to appeal to the love of richer ritual in a youthful generation to whom they seek to bring the message of the Church. It is for that reason that I hope your Lordships will adopt this Measure.

4.53 p.m.

LORD GRENFELL

My Lords, I rise for a very few moments to support the Measure moved by the right reverend Prelate. In the first place, may I say how deeply moved I was by the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition and how much we respect his views, and those of my noble friend Lord Brentford? But, without being presumptuous, I have also a certain respect for my own views. It seems to me to be right that we should all worship as we like within the Christian community. I was brought up in a country church and I have been churchwarden of two other country churches where we did not wear vestments; but now I worship in a church in London where we do wear vestments for family Communion which, to my mind, is a very moving ceremony, as all the children come up to the altar and are blessed while the mothers and fathers take Communion. I have no objection whatever to the wearing of vestments, and if I had objection I should use the right of everybody who has objection to anything: I should merely go elsewhere, as I did from one church where too liberal use of incense was not to my liking. Any vicar who has the cause of his parishioners at heart will so far as possible do as they wish. If he did not, he would not have any parishioners.

Use of vestments has been going on in the Church of England for many years, although I understand in the strict sense it is illegal. It would appear to me nonsensical to throw out this Measure. Let us bring within the law what has been made generally lawful through usage, and avoid at all costs a clash at this time when we are calling for unity between the Church and State, which I believe would cause great dissension throughout the country. I hope your Lordships will support this Measure.

4.55 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I rise only to say a very few brief words in support of this Measure. We all honour, as many others have said before me, the manifest sincerity with which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition speaks on the question of religion, and like the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, I found the passionate conviction which informed his words this afternoon deeply moving. But I hope that he and his friends will not press the matter to a Division on this occasion. For not only would a difference between Protestants on a matter of this kind be a sad business indeed, but the fears which have been expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, are really, I believe, quite groundless.

The very great majority of us here, I imagine, are just as keen to keep this country Protestant as noble Lords opposite can possibly be. But Protestantism is not such a delicate plant that it could possibly be threatened by limited proposals of this kind. For one thing, as we all know, this measure is not mandatory; it does not force anyone to do anything; it is purely permissive. Nor does it go further than definitely to legalise, if they are not already legal, things which are already the practice in half the churches of the Church of England.

The United Protestant Council, of which I believe the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is a shining light, sent me a paper which takes credit for the fact that, for reasons of Christian charity, they have not sought to enforce the law against illegal vestments. What, however, they do seek to do, apparently, is to force at least 50 per cent. of the clergy of the Church of England to continue to break the law of the land simply because they do not see exactly eye to eye with the United Protestant League. I cannot help feeling that that is not very good morality, and that the League might profitably carry Christian charity just a little bit further and allow these clergy the liberty of conscience which the law allows themselves.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, if I understood him aright, believes that this Measure is due to the fact that the Church can no longer control its members and therefore it is obliged to legalise their illegalities. With very real deference to him, I do not believe that is the reason. The real reason, I believe, goes much deeper than that. It is that the people of this country, or the great majority of them, no longer regard such things as wearing of stoles as having any fundamental significance at all. Such causes of disputation in the Church belong for most of us to a past that is long dead, and in my view happily dead. We believe a man can be just as good a servant of his Protestant faith and his country whether he wears a stole or not. It is not what he wears, but what he is that really matters to-day. We are to that extent more tolerant than we used to be.

No doubt if the wearing of this or that vestment gives offence to his parishioners, that would be a matter to which any minister must give most serious consideration. But the Measure, as we know, makes provision for that. Such a situation, which, after all, is not a very common one, is covered by subsection (1) of Clause 2, which requires a minister before changing the form of vesture in use to ascertain from the parochial church council whether it would be acceptable to his parishioners. Surely most of us would regard that as sufficient safeguard against abuse.

We live in a time and age when the whole basis of Christianity has been threatened as probably not for many centuries past. This, I submit with great deference, is a time to concern ourselves not with matters of this kind, but with the fundamentals of the Christian religion and the teaching of Christ. This is surely not a time for good Christians to quibble and squabble over matters so comparatively minor as this. For these reasons, while I am sure that no one in this House would in the least criticise the noble Earl and his friends for raising a matter which they regard as so important, I hope, if it is not disrespectful to him to say so, that he will not give way to the temptation to see the Pope of Rome behind every bush—certainly he is not behind this one—but will allow the passage into law of this most moderate Measure which has already received the support of all three Houses of the national Assembly of the Church of England, and now comes to this House for our approval.

5.2 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I have only a few words to add to this long debate. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hills-borough, put to me personally a direct question: he asked whether I am a Protestant. He will have an absolutely plain answer. I am a Protestant, precisely in the way in which the Prayer Book and the Anglican formularies use that term; and when I say that in the sense of our formularies I am a Protestant, I say it without any qualification whatever. I am always, for the purposes of Christian teaching, anxious to add also that with our Anglican formularies, I believe in what those formularies call the Holy Catholic Church, and I believe in that precisely in the sense in which our formularies do, again with no qualification at all.

Let me put the matter in terms of the personal experience of an Anglican clergyman, one who, though now an Archbishop, was for many years previously an ordinary clergyman. Throughout my time as a clergyman I have noticed a greatly growing feeling amongst clergy and laity that matters of clerical vesture are really small matters. My own personal practice is to adapt myself to the vesture used in various parishes. In some churches it is no more than a black scarf, and throughout my ministry I, like many clergymen, have varied the uses I have employed out of concern for the feelings and consciences of congregations and of lay people.

If I may say just a word more about my own practice, I served as a curate in a parish where the vestments were worn. I served in a second parish as a curate where the vestments were worn. I served as a vicar in a parish where the vestments were worn. I served for a good many years on the staff of a cathedral church where there was variety of usage: at some services the vestments were worn, and at others they were not. I want wholly and entirely to repudiate any allegation that in this practice which I have described I have been teaching or encouraging doctrines contrary to those of the Church of England; and I believe that what I can say of myself is true of thousands upon thousands of our clergy. I repudiate the suggestion as being either scandalous or silly—and perhaps the latter adjective is the more charitable of the two.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, cited instances of clergy and one Bishop who said that they attached doctrinal significance to the vesture. I would say that for some of us the vesture has no doctrinal significance, but, when used, has a certain religious value which some people feel, though others do not. Let me explain what I mean. I would say that when I value them—and I do; and other clergy, also, value them—it is for two reasons. The first is that the vestments are a symbol of the continuity of the Christian Church all down the ages, going back to primitive times. For that reason there are Lutheran Churches which use these vestments and value them. Some of the Lutheran Churches, through their desire to emphasise continuity, retained more of the ornaments of the Middle Ages, including the vestments, but were not for that reason one whit less reformed in their position than other Protestant Churches there. I have seen Methodist ministers wearing stoles, without any surprise or alarm to them or to myself.

A second reason why I believe that vestments are valued is that there is something in colour and colourfulness. To some people changes of colour—for example, the sombre purple in the sombre seasons of Lent and Advent; white at great Festivals such as Christmas and Easter; or red on the days of martyrs—are not a matter of doctrine but something of half-conscious religious significance. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, referred to instances of clergy and a particular Bishop who said that the vesture had doctrinal significance. The point is that if they said that, this Measure is emphatically against them; and if they say that in future they will not be able to quote the law of the Church of England concerning vesture on their side. That seems to me to be a fact of great significance.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, also referred to stoles; and he was anxious lest the passing of this Measure should lead to certain ordination candidates who were troubled in conscience about stoles being compelled by the Bishop to wear them at their ordination. I can only say that from my knowledge of the Bench of Bishops, which is considerable, I think it is inconceivable that any of the Bishops would press an ordination candidate, contrary to his conscience, to wear a stole at his ordination. I believe it to be inconceivable. I can say no more than that. Because the purpose of this Measure is toleration, when it is passed I believe that Bishops and clergy and laity will be all the more anxious to put into practice the toleration which it enacts not only in the law but in the spirit as well; and that will be a tremendous gain for our Church.

The noble Earl opposite made a highly controversial speech, but I want to acknowledge some kindly things he said about some of us on the Bench of Bishops, and particularly his most kindly reference to our mutual friend, the Lord Bishop of Chester. With one passage in the noble Earl's speech I am utterly in agreement; that our great concern must be about the state of religion in the country. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, had similar thoughts in his mind when he urged us to give our attention to the things which really matter.

To the noble Earl and to the House, I would say this. The ardent desire of the Church of England is not to spend its time on relatively unimportant matters of controversy, but to devote its energies to the spiritual task of the presentation of the Christian religion in this country with power and with human understanding. In order, however, to fulfil its rôle in that process the Church of England needs to set its own house in order in the matter of order and discipline, in the matter of the reform of its worship, and in the matter of bringing a host of obsolete laws up to date. That process is one process, inevitably complicated, and it is just, constitutionally necessary, and cannot be avoided. The Church Measures come to Parliament not all at once but in a series at different periods of time.

I want to repudiate and deny, from my heart and my conscience, that behind our Church legislation there is some kind of subtle plot to assimilate the Church of England into some other Church in Christendom. That is not the intention; that is not true. It is, again, either scandalous or silly. When there comes to Parliament the Measure concerning the revision of the Prayer Book, which was passed in the Church Assembly last week by an overwhelming majority, it will be seen that it is an extraordinarily modest Measure enabling certain alternative services to those of the Prayer Book to be enacted with authority for limited terms of years, but so hedged about with conditions that even if the intentions were revolutionary and subversive nothing revolutionary and subversive would be likely to happen.

No, my Lords, the position, as I see it, is this. This Measure is in a way an extraordinarily small one. It deals with a matter on which there is far less controversy and far more toleration now than there used to be in the past. So far as the Church of England is concerned, it is not a matter of securing toleration; I believe that in over nine-tenths of our Church we really have it on this matter. Rather is it a matter of getting embodied in the law a state of toleration that already exists and is growing. That, in effect, is what the Church is saying to Parliament, and it would be rather heart-breaking if the answer of Parliament was, "No, we want you to go on with this controversy about yourselves and impede your attention in relation to matters of greater importance".

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, before the most reverend Primate and Metropolitan finishes, may I say that I did not seem to get an answer to my question. I think he mistook me. I asked the question as to whether, as Lord Fisher had said to me, there were 100 qualifications to the declaration to be made by Her Majesty as the head of the Church. Lord Fisher said that he could not then tell us what the qualifications were. Could the Church now tell us?

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, if we started with the definition of "Protestantism" understood by the National Union of Protestants, I dare say I should want to make a couple of hundred qualifications; but if we start with the definition of "Protestant" as embodied in the Book of Common Prayer and the whole of that Book of Common Prayer, I want to make no qualifications at all.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, I hope that the most reverend Primate will not mind my listening to what he said with great thought, and I shall read it very carefully, especially the appeal which he made to us. But I do not hold this view on spiritual controversy. I have never forgotten Galatians, chapter II, verse 11: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. That is very spiritual. That does not mean to say we should refuse to respect those with whom we disagree.

5.16 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

My Lords, very few words are required from me after the very serious and responsible debate which we have had. I would add my own appreciation of what has been said already of the earnestness with which the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, put forward his own point of view. We appreciate the sincerity of his objections very much indeed, even if we do not share them altogether. I would go with him a long way in his interpretation of certain passages of the Epistles to the Hebrews;

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

we would not quarrel on those; but perhaps it is not the time of the evening when we should start exchanging scriptural quotations, for we could go on a long time. If it is any consolation to the noble Earl, I, too, am a Protestant in the sense that the most reverend Primate has described him.

The issues have been made clear. The speakers have, in a sense, answered some of the difficulties which have been expressed. We believe, from the side of the Church Assembly, that this is a Measure which will contribute to the work of the Church, to its ultimate unity, to its efficiency, in charity and in love, in expressing the tolerance, as the most reverend Primate has said, which already exists within the Church, and we hope that this will be endorsed by your Lordships on this occasion.

5.19 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents 86; Not-contents, 15.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Fraser of North Cape, L. Monsell, V.
Alport, L. Galloway, E. Morrison, L.
Amulree, L. Gardiner, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L.
Atholl, D. Goschen, V. Newton, L.
Attlee, E. Grantchester, L. Ormonde, M.
Bossom, L. Grenfell, L. Powis, E.
Boston, L. Guest, L. Rea, L.
Boyd of Merton, V. Hanworth, V. Robertson of Oakridge, L.
Bridgeman, V. Harris, L. Russell of Liverpool, L.
Brocket, L. Hastings, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Burden, L. Hawke, L. St. Davids, V.
Burton of Coventry, B. Hodson, L. Salisbury, M.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Horsbrugh, B. Sandford, L.
Carnock, L. Ilford, L. Sandys, L.
Carrington, L. Ingleby, V. Sandwich, E.
Chelmsford, V. Inglewood, L. Silkin, L.
Chester, L. Bp. Lambert, V. Simonds, V.
Chichester, L. Bp. [Teller.] Lansdowne, M. Sinha, L.
Colyton, L. Leicester, L. Bp. [Teller.] Somers, L.
Conesford, L. Listowel, E. Soulbury, V.
Cork and Orrery, E. London, L. Bp. Southwark, L. Bp.
Coutanche, L. Longford, E. Spens, L.
Cowley, E. Luke, L. Stonham, L.
Denham, L. MacAndrew, L. Swanborough, B.
Derwent, L. McCorquodale of Newton, L. Tangley, L.
Ebbisham, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V. Teynham, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Merrivale, L. Thurlow, L.
Ferrers, E. Meston, L. Twining, L.
Forster of Harraby, L. Milverton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Henderson, L. Moynihan, L.
Brentford, V. [Teller.] Hobson, L. Shannon, E.
Douglas of Barloch, L. Latham, L. Shepherd, L.
Faringdon, L. Lawson, L. Stamp, L.
Harvey of Tasburgh, L. Lindgren, L. [Teller.] Summerskill, B.

House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.