CHAPTER VII

HOW WE HAVE PERFORMED OUR ROMAN RITES"

THE regulation of public worship in the Church of England began now to be once again a subject of vehement controversy. The introduction of what were called Ritualistic practices into the Church of England— practices which those who condemned them declared to have been borrowed from the Church of Rome-had long been imputed to a certain class of clergymen in the State Church. These practices had been condemned in several episcopal charges, in reports of a commission appointed to inquire into the subject, and by the judicial committee of the Privy Council. In August, 1874, a measure was carried through Parliament called the "Public Worship Regulation Act," with the direct object of repressing Ritualism in the Church of England. On the other hand, it is almost needless to say that the ceremonials, usages, and emblems denounced as Ritualistic were maintained, supported, and revered by many clergymen of the English Church on the ground that they were in full accord with the teaching of that Church and were animated by its true spirit. Volumes of argument were poured forth on this subject from either side of the dispute; conferences and congresses were held in Great Britain and in the United States, with the hope of securing a settlement of the controversy; the peace of neighborhoods and of families was often disturbed by the quarrels between the Ritualists and the anti-Ritualists.

It might have seemed, indeed, as if, when the country had nothing else to dispute about, it must always go to work in warm discussion over the manner in which the English State Church conducted its forms of worship.

In the closing years of the Queen's reign the controversy which Parliament had vainly endeavored to settle came up all over again. Perhaps we ought to say that it hardly ever disappeared altogether from public sight for a long interval; but just before the time with which we are now dealing it had fallen back a little from public observation until a measure introduced into the House of Commons gave a convenient opportunity for its revival. The Government had brought in, early in March, 1898, a measure on the subject of benefices, which had been already discussed very carefully by the Standing Committee on Law; but when this Bill and Mr. Lyttelton's, which had come from the Standing Committee as one Bill, came up for discussion in June, it was expected that the measure would pass through the House of Commons without much opposition. But the very fact that the proposed measure did not deal directly with what may be called the Ritualistic question was dwelt upon by some speakers in the course of the debate as an especial reason for opposing the scheme of the Government. A motion was made on June 20th for the rejection of the Bill on the ground that, while professing to be a measure of Church reform, it did not undertake to deal with any of the reforms which many members of the House regarded as most needful. During the debate several speakers raised the whole subject of Ritualism, and contended that the growth of practices strictly belonging to the Church of Rome was one of the evils from which the English Church ought to be rescued, and that no measure of so-called reform which did not deal with those practices was worthy of attention. One speaker actually insisted that the

object of those who were introducing such practices into Protestant churches was to destroy the character of the English Church altogether, and to prepare the way for its absorption into the Church of Rome.

The debate received a peculiar significance and importance from the part which was taken in it by so powerful a debater and so influential a statesman as Sir William Vernon Harcourt. Sir William Harcourt went so far as to declare that there was just then something amounting to a conspiracy in the English State Church to overthrow the principles of the Reformation, and he cited in support of his view a statement made by one of the Bishops in convocation a few days before. The Bishop was reported to have expressed his conviction that secret societies existed in the Church of England with the object of overthrowing the principles of the Protestant Reformation. Sir William Harcourt appears to have accepted to the full the declaration made by this Bishop, and in language of almost impassioned eloquence he denounced those who, while actually within the Church, were developing plans for its restoration to the principles and practices of Rome. He complained that the Bishops and Clergy in general had not been active and steadfast enough in their efforts to restrain or punish those members of the English Church who were endeavoring to work out this conspiracy, and he contended that it had become all the more the duty of the House of Commons to interpose on behalf of the country, and protect it against the threatened evil.

There could be no doubt that a speech of this kind, delivered by a statesman of Sir William Harcourt's position, must lend an incalculable importance to the subject then under discussion. Sir William Harcourt was well known to be a man of strong opinions on many or most subjects. He was certainly a man who, if he thought a

question worth studying at all, was sure to study it very carefully, and to make up his mind to a definite conclusion concerning it. But he never had been known as a fanatical sectarian in any sense of the words, and he never could have been regarded as an enemy to the fullest development of religious liberty. He explained in the course of his speech that while condemning certain clergymen of the English Church, he was not condemning them for any opinions they might have sincerely and deliberately formed, but that he found fault with them because, while enjoying the benefices of the State Church, they were endeavoring to introduce into its Ritual the practices of the Church of Rome. The speech provoked at the time, as was but natural, much hostile criticism, and some of the criticism took the form of sarcastic allusions to the zeal which, according to the critics, Sir William Harcourt had so suddenly developed for the cause of true religion. No doubt Sir William Harcourt was generally associated in the public mind with questions of a purely secular nature, with measures of finance, with reforms of the law, and with great international controversies involving the issues of freedom and of servitude, of war and peace. The fact, therefore, of his showing such earnestness and even passion in his opposition to Ritualistic practices gave to the revived controversy an additional interest and importance.

Mr. Arthur Balfour replied on behalf of the Government. He began his speech with an effort to bring back the House to the consideration of the actual measure then before it, and to prevail upon members to consider it on its own merits, to judge of it by what it proposed to do, and to decide whether or not its clauses were effective for this particular purpose. This would have been all very well if the Government were introducing a Bill embodying certain definite alterations in existing law,

and if the House had been satisfied that such a measure covered all the ground of reform which Parliamentary parties were demanding. But when a measure was brought forward to introduce a reform in the practices of the Church of England, it was only natural and fair for any member to insist that if Her Majesty's Ministers proposed to introduce any measure of Church reform they ought to deal with the questions of greatest importance, and not deliberately to confine their legislation to subjects of minor public interest. Mr. Balfour then went on to reply to the speech of Sir William Harcourt, whom he described sarcastically as revelling in popular excitement, and he fell foul of several of Sir William's arguments, and insisted that the dangers to the faith of the children of Nonconformists and Churchmen were utterly exaggerated. At the same time he admitted that the Ritualistic practices of many clergymen were actually illegal, and that he had himself always been anxious for some clear and decisive definition of the law which should absolutely disallow the introduction of such a ritual into the State Church. But he contended that the present was not the fitting occasion for a discussion of that large subject, and he strongly appealed to the House not to be led away from the quiet discussion of the limited measure before it into a heated debate on the whole subject of Ritualism. The appeal appears to have had a great effect upon the House. The debate had arisen on an amendment proposed by a member who avowed himself an anti-Ritualist, but when the division came to be taken only seventy-five votes, besides those of the proposer and Sir William Harcourt, were given in its favor.

Next day the storm broke out again with additional fierceness. An amendment was proposed which affirmed that power ought to be given to every Bishop to refuse to institute any clergyman who "taught doctrines