[To UK Editor of the SPECTATOR.] , Sin,—" A Regular
Reader" has taken me to task for my account of the debate on the Prayer -Book in the House- of Commons. I can only, say that the impression I gathered of the proceedings, throughout which I was present, differs very widely from ,that which a perusal of "criticisms in various papers" conveyed to your correspondent, , . In my article I expressed the opinion, which I still hold; that the arguments against the measure were adequately marshalled and brilliantly presented to a House whichi untrammelled by the Party Whips, allowed itself to be convinc'ed by them.
Admittedly the supporters of the New Book failed to make the best of their case in the House of Commons. But I submit that the speeches of the Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, and Sir Thomas Inskip contained arguments no less solid or convincing, and certainly no more rhetoric, than those of the ' Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of Durham. And I heard all six. I believe that the debate enhanced the prestige of the House for two reasons : firstly, because in rejecting the measure as it stood, I think it correctly interpreted the views of a large majority of the citizens of this country ; and secondly, because it afforded an opportunity for a spectacular vindication of the rights of the Commons of England as against the House of Bishops and the House of Lords. Recent contact with my constituency has fortified me in these beliefs.—! am, Sir, &c., WATCHMAN.