DIOCESE IN EUROPE MEASURE (Hansard, 14 May 1980)

§ Lord SOAMES
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Diocese in Europe Measure, has consented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Measure at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Diocese in Europe Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, after the stormy seas in which we have been sailing in considering the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Bill, I am glad to be able to steer the House into the calmer waters of the Diocese in Europe Measure. In inviting your Lordships to give an affirmative assent to the Measure, I must ask you to bear with me for a short time while I describe the background to the Measure and the reasons that have led up to its preparation and approval by the General Synod.
In the year 1633 by an Order of the King in Council, King Charles I granted to the Bishop of London, then Bishop Laud, jurisdiction over congregations resident in foreign countries without a local bishop. This jurisdiction was granted to the See of London and not to the diocese, and therefore belongs to the freehold of the person occupying the See of London. At first, the duties cannot have been very burdensome, but with the extension of British influence throughout the world they became increasingly demanding. They were especially so in the 13 American colonies, where Bishops of London exercised considerable authority in matters such as the licensing of clergy and schoolmasters, and other issues concerning ecclesiastical law.
My predecessors were kept exceedingly busy exercising this authority in America 345 from Fulham Palace, for none of them ever crossed the Atlantic, and their correspondence is now in the Lambeth Palace library, under the title of the Fulham Papers; and as such is one of the most important sources of the early history of the American colonies. Perhaps the most lasting memorial to this work is William and Mary College in Williamsburg, the second oldest institute of higher education in the United States, founded by my eminent predecessor, Henry Compton, who was the first chancellor of that university.
Gradually, for one reason or another, the Bishop of London's overseas authority was eroded as new provinces of the Anglican communion were created in different parts of the world. In recent history, the last vestige of this once worldwide authority is to be seen in the Bishop of London's jurisdiction over the chaplaincies in North and Central Europe.
Even this continental authority had been further diminished, since in 1842 the See of Gibraltar was founded by letters patent and a separate See, responsible directly to the metropolitical authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, was created to provide spiritual oversight of the chaplaincies around the Mediterranean. There have, therefore, since that date been two Anglican authorities in Europe: the Bishop of Gibraltar, responsible for the area around the Mediterranean; and the Bishop of London exercising his jurisdiction in North and Central Europe.
Increasingly, it has been felt that this division of authority is, in these days, undesirable. My predecessor, Bishop Robert Stopford, had himself been Bishop of Fulham; that is to say, he occupied the office of the Suffragan Bishop of the Bishop of London, responsible immediately for the affairs of the chaplaincies in North and Central Europe. It was largely due to his inspiration and initiative that the vision of one Anglican diocese in Europe was created, and the two areas agreed to come together. One of the first steps that were taken was that the then Bishop of Fulham was also made bishop in charge of the Diocese of Gibraltar by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and so it is that the right reverend John Satterthwaite is at present Bishop of Fulham and Gibraltar.
346 There remained, however, many problems to be worked out and progress was slow. In November 1975 the Archbishop of Canterbury called a conference to which he invited myself, the Bishop of Fulham and Gibraltar, the Assistant Bishop of Gibraltar and Bishop Howe, the Secretary-General of the Anglican Consultative Council and representatives from the continental chaplaincies. We met him and the members of the policy sub-committee of the Standing Committee of the General Synod. We produced an agreed statement and it is upon that statement that plans have gone forward.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the creation of one diocese, comprising the Diocese of Gibraltar and the jurisdiction of North and Central Europe, is an administrative matter and does not require the authority of Parliament. The constitution of such a diocese has been prepared and a copy of it has been placed in the Library of this House.
But should the Diocese in Europe thus conceived come into existence, it needs also to be given synodical status. It is conceivable that this diocese could assume the same status as the Diocese of Gibraltar has at the present time; that is, to be a diocese on its own, subject only to the metropolitical authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such status, however, would be unacceptable for a number of reasons. The main one is that, in these days, it is rightly thought inappropriate and undesirable that there should be single dioceses attached only to the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and unrelated to any provincial government. Such dioceses are lonely and are deprived of the opportunities of consultation and fellowship, such as are provided by being members of a province and taking part in its synodical government. The process has been to unite them with a province with other dioceses, wherever it is possible to do so.
The obvious solution, therefore, is that the Diocese in Europe, which will consist of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London and the present Diocese of Gibraltar, should be related to the Province of Canterbury in every possible way, and be able to take its part in the synodical government of the Church of England through its membership of the 347 General Synod. It is this action that requires parliamentary sanction, since the Synodical Government Measure of 1969 does not make provision for the integration of such a diocese into the General Synod. The Measure which is before your Lordships' House will, therefore, make it possible for the Diocese in Europe, should it come into existence, to be integrated into the General Synod and thus become one of the dioceses of the Church of England.
The issues which are involved in doing this are very clearly and fully set out in the comments and explanations provided by the Legislative Committee of the General Synod, for the consideration of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary for me to go into the minutiae of these very careful arguments and the reply which they have received in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, which is available to your Lordships. I would, however, want to say, on behalf of the General Synod, that we are extremely grateful to the Ecclesiastical Committee for the great care with which they have examined the more controversial issues, and for the decision which they have reached, which is that whatever objections these points may raise, they are not sufficient to justify refusing an Affirmative Resolution for the Measure.
I would only comment that it is recognised that the Diocese in Europe will be an unusual diocese, so far as the Church of England is concerned. For the most part, it will not be concerned with the work of the Church in places which are within the United Kingdom. It will be a diocese of chaplaincies and not parishes. It will be extremely large, stretching from Oslo to Ankara and from Moscow to Gibraltar. For that reason, although it will have a fully representative machinery, it will not, for practical reasons, have a diocesan synod, such as is required in the dioceses of the Church of England at present. The Crown will not appoint the bishop and this, as has been indicated to your Lordships, has been readily agreed to.
I am glad to observe that the Ecclesiastical Committee does not consider these unusual features of the diocese to be 348 sufficient to disqualify it from taking its part in the synodical government of the Church of England. I do, however, want to set this issue on a rather wider stage, and hope that your Lordships will appreciate the significance of the changes that have taken place in Europe in recent years, which make this step so desirable.
There are 38 chaplaincies in the jurisdiction of North and Central Europe, and 37 in the Diocese of Gibraltar. To these must be added other congregations which are attached to the chaplaincies, which make in all 180 chaplaincies of one kind or another. These are served by about 100 clergy working on the Continent. For the most part, these chaplaincies came into existence when expatriate English people settled on the Continent for one reason or another and desired to have the ministrations of their own church. The picture which many people still have of Church of England chaplaincies in Europe is that of small expatriate English people, inward-looking, providing for their spiritual ministrations through the churches and chaplaincies which were established by their forefathers.
But this picture today is very different from the truth. Our relationships with Europe have developed in a number of ways, and this has had an impact on the work and organisation of the Church. Our commercial connections with the Continent have expanded. Our relationships through the EEC and NATO have brought many British people to the Continent. There are Anglicans from all parts of the world of different colours and tongues, who are working on the Continent and who look to our chaplaincies for their spiritual ministrations and take their part in the worship. The chaplains are for the most part thriving and energetic. The work of the chaplains is highly responsible and they use to the full the opportunities which are provided not only for the ministry that they exercise towards Anglicans and others who seek their help, but also ecumenically in their relationships with other Churches. They are doing excellent work and it is highly responsible.
Your Lordships will therefore appreciate the desire of the chaplains and the congregations to be closely related to the life and work of their parent Church of England. Although they are so close to 349 this country and communications are so quick and easy, yet they have no voice in the consultations of the Church of England and they have no opportunity to bring the experience and wisdom they have accumulated from their work on the Continent to the benefit of the Church of England in this country. Moreover, it is right that such questions as their pension rights should be adequately safeguarded. It will therefore be of the greatest advantage, both to the Church of England and to the clergy and people working in the chaplaincies on the Continent of Europe, that this new relationship should be created between the Diocese in Europe and the General Synod.
Here perhaps I should say something about the work of the American Episcopal Church on the Continent of Europe. The church known as ECUSA— that is the Episcopal Church of the United States of America— is of course a province of the Anglican Communion. There are five ECUSA congregations on the Continent served by seven clergy. They come under the authority of the presiding bishop of the American Church. They are all part of the American Church. The clergy working in Europe remain canonically related to their home Church. What we are hoping to achieve by this Measure is to give to the Church of England clergy the same status and relationship to their home Church as already exists for the American Episcopal clergy in relationship to their home Church. We expect, of course, that there will be the closest possible working together between our chaplaincies and the American congregations. It is not thought wise or possible at this juncture to seek to merge the two into one jurisdiction, but we hope and pray that the two branches of the Anglican Communion will work together in the closest possible cooperation with one another.
I do not think it is necessary for me to go further into the details of the Measure since, as I have said, these are so clearly set out in the documents which are before your Lordships. These matters are better studied in those documents than in a speech from myself. I would only add a personal word: when the time comes, it will be necessary for me to execute a deed renouncing my freehold of the jurisdiction over the chaplaincies of North and Central Europe. I shall do so with 350 I some regret since I do not like bringing to ! an end something that has lasted for 350 years. I am glad, however, to note that the Bishop of London will continue to have a special formal relationship with the new diocese since he will be the visitor of the diocese. It should be borne in mind that in theory at any rate there are still large territories which could come under his jurisdiction, so my surrender does not mean that the Order in Council of King Charles I will be entirely spent.
I hope this Measure will commend itself to your Lordships. I have no doubt that the creation of this diocese and of its integration into the synodical government of the Church of England will be of benefit to all concerned, and I hope therefore that your Lordships will give it the necessary approval.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Diocese in Europe Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.— (The Lord Bishop of London?)

§ Lord SUDELEY
My Lords, I have no doubt that the principal benefits and the effects of this Measure will be considerable, and I shall not be concerned with that. I have no doubt, furthermore, that from a liturgical point of view, as the Bishop of Fulham and Gibraltar wrote to me in his letter of 17th April, the diocese is in most of those parts much more conservative than in any diocese here in the Church of England. I will not be concerned with that either. My purpose is merely to create a storm in a teacup, and therefore to intervene very briefly by drawing attention to a statement which was also given to me by the Bishop of Fulham and Gibraltar in his letter of 17th April, that in one or two isolated places in the diocese the clergy have the bit between their teeth over liturgical revision and have gone much further even than the bishop himself would have wished.
As vice-president of the Prayer Book Society, which seeks to reserve worship according to the Prayer Book for any who require it, I have received complaints from the Algarve in Portugal. The chairman of the Prayer Book Society has 351 written up a memorandum concerning complaints he has received from St Paul's Anglican Cathedral in Valletta. It is on the contents of this memorandum that I would like to concentrate for a few moments.
The first page of the memorandum describes how the secretary of the Church Council, Mr. Charles Carnes, who prefers to worship according to the Prayer Book, was invited by the chancellor and people's warden to attend a special meeting of the standing committee of which he was a member and asked to resign his office.
Further on, the memorandum describes how the chancellor, Canon Strangeways, conducted a filibustering exercise at the AGM. To defeat the supporters of the Prayer Book the chancellor ensured that no voting should take place until nine supporters of the Prayer Book had had to go away for the sake of other engagements. Only then was the voting allowed. Even then the voting was in favour of retaining the Prayer Book for morning prayer on one Sunday in the month. So a second count was decided on, and the result of this was a tie. The result being a tie, the chancellor did not concede that the Prayer Book should be used even for morning prayer on one Sunday in the month.
According to my understanding of the letter which the Secretary-General of the Synod wrote to a member of the Synod, Mr. Ian Thompson, on the 17th October, about the constitution of the new diocese, as soon as the Measure before your Lordships' House today becomes law the essential provisions of the Worship and Doctrine Measure will apply throughout the diocese unless the bishop objects. This should bring some comfort to lovers of the Prayer Book because under the Worship in Doctrine Measure the decision whether to use the Prayer Book for all except the occasional services lies with the members of church council. According to the Church representation rules, no one can be ejected from a church council in the way Mr. Carnes was ejected from his church council out in Valletta. However, I am afraid there is nothing under the Worship and Doctrine Measure to prevent clergy who wish to impose the new services from conducting filibustering exercises in their church councils. This is a problem 352 well known to the Prayer Book Society. Some of its aspects have been examined by Roger Homan in his article "Noli me Tangere" which appeared last autumn in the issue of Poetry Nation Review edited by Professor David Martin, who has done such magnificent work to provoke the renaissance of the Prayer Book. In the next few years the future of the Prayer Book must depend in some degree on the resistance which members of church councils up and down the land, and indeed in Valletta, are minded to oppose to the filibustering exercises of clergy like the chancellor out in Valletta.

The Lord Bishop of LONDON
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, for taking this opportunity of addressing your Lordships' House and for giving me notice of the points he wanted to make. I was greatly relieved to hear that the two instances which the noble Lord gave are in the Diocese of Gibraltar and not within the jurisdiction of North and Central Europe, so I hope that I may be held to be guiltless of any of the charges which he has raised. But the fact that the two cases he has mentioned are in the Diocese of Gibraltar places upon me the responsibility of being very careful what I say, because at the moment the Diocese of Gibraltar is a separate, independent diocese responsible only to the metropolitical authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and has nothing to do with the Church of England or the General Synod. Therefore, I must not comment too forcefully upon what he has said, lest I should be trespassing on an area which is beyond my jurisdiction or my powers.
I have, however, made some inquiries about one of the cases which he mentioned, that of St. Paul's, Valletta. I am told that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is used on certain Sundays in the month, that the cathedral is flourishing with a very lively congregation and that the bishop responsible does require that the conditions of the Worship and Doctrine Measure are observed. If this is not the case, then undoubtedly this should be drawn to his attention. I hope, however, that it will be a source of confidence to the noble Lord to appreciate that if and when this diocese does come under the authority of the General Synod, then of course the whole power of the Worship 353 and Doctrine Measure will be applicable to the Diocese in Europe, and all the congregations and the laity will be under the safeguards which are provided in that measure. And they can use the whole legal set-up of the Church of England to ensure that their rights are protected.
I am afraid one can never protect everybody from the sort of clergymen whom the noble Lord has mentioned, because there are always some who will perhaps defy authority. But that is a very rare occasion in my experience. I believe that the noble Lord can take some confidence from the fact that if and when the Diocese in Europe becomes a part of the Church of England, subject to the General Synod and subject to the Canons of the Church of England, then there will be a considerable safeguard for those who may feel aggrieved. I hope that your Lordships will accept this Measure.