Other material variations in the Measure as passed by the Houses of Clergy and Laity are alleged to have been made by the House of Bishops.

21. This point is stated with great elaboration in the Memorandum of Bell and Others (14) and is also included in (Church Association) (15), (Inskip) (16), (Haynes-Smith) (17), and (Hazlerigg) (20). Sir T. Inskip writes as follows:

"The legal question as to whether the present Measure satisfies the conditions of the Enabling Act and the Constitution of the Church Assembly is a difficult one, and I understand different opinions have been expressed by ecclesiastical lawyers, but the point of substance is whether the House of Bishops are free to 'tack' new proposals to the Measure originally introduced and claim the benefit of the procedure by which a Measure in the form finally proposed by the Bishops may be submitted to the Assembly and to Parliament for acceptance or rejection as a whole.

"In reference to the present Measure, this question is not one which personally I regard as worth pressing by the opponents of the Measure, as the effect of a negative decision would probably only be to delay the Measure, but from the point of view of those who have to consider constitutional rights and the precedent which this Measure may afford, it is, I think, of great importance."

22. A further point affecting the vires of the proposed Measure is made in the Memorandum of Bell and Others (14) :

"Under the Constitution the Church Assembly is to consist of three Houses, Bishops, Clergy and Laity, and is required to meet in session at least once a year.

"The House of Bishops is permanent (i.e., not subject to reelection); the House of Clergy is re-elected after each Parliamentary election; and the House of Laity is re-elected quinquennially, the last election taking place in March, 1925.

"The duration of the 'life' of the Church Assembly is undefined and opinions differ whether it never dies' owing to the permanence of the House of Bishops, or whether a new Assembly emerges after each new election of the House of Clergy or House of Laity.

"The Constitution is also silent as to the period over which a Measure (in its successive stages) may extend, and also leaves undefined the precise relation, in continuity of function and constitution, to each other of the three Houses when dealing with a Measure involving prolonged deliberations; but, following analogy of Parliamentary practice under which no Bill can be carried forward from one session to another, it is submitted that no procedure should be sanctioned which admits the possibility of the final stage of a Measure being submitted for acceptance or rejection in the terms in which it is finally proposed by the House of Bishops,' to a House of Clergy or House of Laity (or both) which has had no opportunity during its own current existence to debate or to amend the Measure in any of its earlier stages.

"With this condition precedent, if approved, the Prayer Book Measure, 192, has failed to comply."

F.-Provisions of Clause 9 as to "Declaration of Assent" an Injustice to Existing Clergy.

23. Strong objection is taken in several papers to Clause 9 of the Measure, which is to the following effect:

:

9. All orders and forms authorised to be used by, or lawfully issued under the provisions of this Measure, shall be deemed to be ordered by lawful authority within the meaning of the Declaration of Assent contained in section one of the Clerical Subscription Act, 1865."

24. This point also is sometimes represented as an invasion of constitutional rights. It is thus put in the Memorandum of the Church Association (15):

"The law will read into the Declaration of Assent, made by the clergy, assent to the twelve before-mentioned items [i.e., the twelve specified alterations in the Book of Common Prayer] as if the same were contained in the Prayer Book.' Thousands of the clergy have made this Declaration of Assent, knowing it to exclude the Romish usages to which reference has been made, and many of them would never have made the Declaration unless they had known this was its true intent and meaning. It is obviously unjust to such men that their Declaration should now be tampered with so as to read in law as approving Romish usages which, as it stands, it distinctly repudiates."

See also the following passage from the Memorandum of the League of Loyal Churchmen (7):

"The gravest injustice is perpetrated under Section 9 of the Measure whereby the Declaration of Assent, made with reference solely to the Present Prayer Book, is to be interpreted as including subscription to certain alterations specified in section three and to the new Ordinal, which were not in existence when the clergy made their Declaration.

"Now it will be possible to read into the Declaration made by all clergymen at the most solemn period of their lives, that they assent to the above-mentioned alterations which authorise uses contradictory to those in the present Prayer Book, to which they have pledged themselves."

And the following from Lea (23):-
:-

"The vows of Ordination taken by a number of clergy on the understanding that a Prayer Book of a certain type would be the standard of doctrine, are rendered void by the drastic changes involved."

G.-Majorities in Church Assembly Illusory.

25. In answer to the contention that the large majorities in the Church Assembly in favour of the Measure indicate a great preponderance of opinion amongst members of the Church in support of the new Book, it is alleged in several papers that these majorities are illusory. As one instance of many in which this point of view is expressed the following extracts are taken from the statement of Archdeacon Paige Cox (5):—

"The Church Assembly has expressed its approval of the Book by a majority which, taking the total membership into account, is in the proportion of 5 to 2.* This would seem to give decisive evidence of the merits of the Book, as judged by the Church's

The assumption here is that all those (61 in number) who for one reason or another did not vote, were opposed to the measure. The actual voting was as follows:

For.

Against.

4

253

37

230

92

On the reference to the convocations the voting was as follows:

For. Against.

:

accredited representatives. But there are one or two facts which demand notice if the significance of the vote in the Assembly is to be rightly estimated.

"The 34 Bishops who voted for the Book were by no means unanimous in their approval of every part of it. Some of them avowed in Convocation that they had had serious misgivings about certain provisions in the Book. Some who voted for the Book finally had previously spoken out strongly against an alternative Communion Office, and changed their minds almost at the last moment. "The same opinion with regard to the Book as a whole was avowed by a certain number of the clergy who voted for it. They acknowledged that they gave their support to the Book only in compliance with the urgent plea of the Bishops, and in the hope that the acceptance of the Book would make for loyalty and order.'

"The pressure brought to bear upon the clergy by the Bishops in Convocation was almost without precedent and was found irresistible by a great many who disapproved of some sections of the Book. It should be borne in mind that the Bishops stand in such a peculiar relation to the clergy that the suasion they can exercise over them is unique. Apart from all personal considerations, the clergy have the strongest possible inclination to yield to the wishes of their superior officers, and all their training and discipline tend that way. Those of them, too, who are rather parish priests than students find themselves very readily able to defer to their Bishops in matters where points of doctrine and scholarship are involved.

"The laity in the Church Assembly had no effective opportunity of discussing the alternative Prayer of Consecration. It was new to them at the last session, and they were told that they must either accept the Deposited Book as a whole or reject it. They had to complain, moreover, that they found it difficult to discuss the controversial sections of the Book owing to the interruptions of some of the clergy. This sort of thing, of course, detracts from the weight and value of the clergy vote.

"In ordinary assemblies, when matters of business are dealt with, the weight to be attached to majorities is very fairly to be measured by the proportionate numbers. The case before us is an exception to the rule. I would submit that peculiar weight is to be attached to the objections of the clergy who voted against the Book. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain by placing themselves in opposition to their Bishops, and they took that course most reluctantly."

26. It will be noted that this point is also taken in the letter (representing the Anglo-Catholic point of view) from Dr. Darwell Stone (2). See also (11) (Palmer) and (28) (Joynson-Hicks).

H.-Rights of Parishioners Insufficiently Safeguarded.

27. In many of the papers submitted it is pointed out (1) that it is misleading to argue (as is frequently done) that the alterations proposed are merely "permissible deviations from the present Book, and (2) that the rights of parishioners, in cases where it is proposed to use the alternative forms, are insufficiently safeguarded. The following quotation from (5) (Paige-Cox) illustrates this contention :

:

"It is to be pointed out further that the rubrics on page 63 do not sufficiently safeguard the parishioners against arbitrary changes in the services. It was recommended by the Lower House of the Convocation of York that it should be declared to be the duty of the Minister of the parish to consult the Parochial Church Council before making changes in the services, this language being suggested

by some words of the Archbishop of York in introducing the Book to Convocation. This recommendation, however, was not adopted by the Bishops. As the rubric runs, the Parochial Church Council has no legal voice except by way of complaint to the Bishops after the changes have been made. It is quite possible that, if the Bishop shares the views of the Incumbent, he will decide in his favour, being of the opinion that the changes may be good for the parishioners in the long run. This sort of thing has been happening where there have been differences between Incumbents and their parishioners in present circumstances."

The same point is made in Nos. (16), (18), (22), (24) and (28).

as

28. In various memoranda it is pointed out that whatever rights may be conferred by the Measure on the parishioners of a parish these rights do not extend to "extra-parochial" institutions such Cathedrals, College Chapels, Chapels of public institutions, and other places where there is no Parish Church Council. Particular attention is drawn to the case of Naval, Military and Air Force Chaplains (see (10)), and the Chaplains of Poor Law Institutions (see (24)). these places," Sir Thomas Inskip writes, "and other places where there is no Parish Church Council, there is not any check of any kind upon the arbitrary judgment of the Minister."

"In

29. The point that the proposed alterations are not merely permissible deviations" is thus put in the memorandum of the Church Association (15):

Throughout the course of the deliberations on revision the undertaking has always been that the Prayer Book would remain absolutely unchanged, for those who desire to retain it, and that revision would only provide permissive deviations from the Book for the benefit of those who dislike the Church's form of worship. But now s. 3 of the Measure provides that 12 specified alterations are 'to have effect as if the same were contained in the Book of Common Prayer.''

I.-Power of Archbishops and Bishops to make Rules.

30. Objection is taken in several papers to the rule-making powers which the Measure proposes to confer on the Archbishop and Bishop of each Province. The objections are to Clause 4 (under which the Archbishop and Bishops of each Province have power to make and, at their discretion, rescind "such rules as are required or authorised to be made under any rubric of the Deposited Book "), and to Clause 7 (under which they have power to issue "orders and forms of public prayer supplementary to the orders and forms contained in the Book of Common Prayer and the Deposited Book "). These proposals, it is alleged, confer wide and unprecedented powers on the Archbishop and Bishops which should more properly be exercised by the Church Assembly (subject to the assent of Parliament), or, at any rate, by Convocation, so that the rules may have the approval of the Lower House. "The Measure," it is said, "confers on the Bishops the 'jus liturgicum which is denied to them in the report of the Royal Commission, 1906, ss. 43 and 44."

31. The following passage is taken from the letter of Sir Thomas Inskip (16):

"The absolute powers of the Bishops to make rules (s. 4) without any discussion by the Assembly or by Parliament would enable the Bishops to change the whole character of the Church of England in relation to the doctrine contained in the service of Holy Communion. The Bishops have deliberately conferred upon themselves the power to make rubrics concerning Reservation, instead of submitting the rubrics to the Assembly and Parliament for final decision. In the case of the National Church this is a fundamental change."

And the following from the memorandum of Sir William JoynsonHicks (28):

"It will be seen that in both these Clauses (4 and 7) it is provided that the Archbishop and Bishops of each Province may take the action authorised, and there is no suggestion that the two Provinces shall act together, which seems to be the more desirable course. This arrangement multiplies opportunities for further divisions and differences.

"But a more important matter is the absence of any effective safeguards against the misuse of these powers. At first sight, the provision that the Archbishop and Bishops of the Province shall act together would seem to place a distinct check upon such misuse; but there is no guarantee that individual Bishops will not in the future ignore legal restrictions, as they have been accustomed to do for many years past. Vague assurances have been offered, but these are very indefinite, and, in any case, could only affect those who make them. Their successors would not be bound by them.

"There are other restrictions expressed in the clauses of the Measure cited above which are equally unsubstantial. In clause 4 the rules to be made must be such as are required or authorised under any of the Deposited Book.' But the Bishops alone are to be the judges as to whether any Rules are required or authorised to be made under any particular rubric and their rules will have all the force of an Act of Parliament. There can be no finality, for they are to be made or rescinded at discretion

"It is, moreover, provided that the supplementary orders and forms of public prayer which may be issued by the Bishops collectively for the Province, or by the individual Bishop for the Diocese, shall be in conformity with the Doctrine of the Church of England as set forth in the XXXIX Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. Here again the Bishops, collectively or individually, are to be the judges. Suppose that they, or any one of them, should approve a supplementary form of service for Corpus Christi Day, it is difficult to see how this could be objected to as being contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, when the Deposited Book already contains the Collect, Epistle and Gospel used in the Roman Church on Corpus Christi Day

K.-Uniformity.

32. The objection is urged in several cases that the effect of the Measure will be to abolish the uniformity of the Liturgy of the Church of England, which was one of the most important products of the Reformation.

It is pointed out that the prefatory chapter ("Concerning the Service of the Church ") which was contained in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI, and in all Prayer Books since, and is retained in the new book, coutains the following paragraph:

"And whereas heretofore there hath been great diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm; some following the Salisbury use, some the Hereford use, and some the use of Bangor, some of York, some of Lincoln; now from henceforth all the whole Realm shall have but one use."

And it is contended that the multiplicity of the forms of worship permitted in the Deposited Book is in flat contradiction to the proposition just quoted. According to the statement received from the World's Evangelical Alliance (22) there are under the new proposals "at least 384 different ways in which Morning Prayer may be said," and "if it is immediately followed by another service, the varieties," it is stated, "amount to 2,080."