THE PRAYER BOOK VOTING

[To. the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]

SIR,—Now that the voting on Prayer Book revisicn has reached its last stage before the subject comes again before Parliament, Spectator readers may care to have the complete figures before them :— 1927 Tax DEPOSITED Boon.

Convocations— .

Canterbury, Upper House ..

Lower House ..

York : Upper House Lower House For. 21 168 11 68 Against.

4 22

- 0

10 Total . . 268 36

-National Church Assembly—

House of Bishops 34 4 House of Clergy • • 253 37 House of Laity 230 92 Total • . 517 133

Parliament—

House of Lords .. 241 88 House of Commons .. 205 233 1928 THE NEW MEASURE.

Church Assembly (general approval)—

Bishops

35

5 Clergy 247 35 Laity .. 196 80 Total .. . 478 120

Convocations (final form)— Canterbury, Upper ..

20 6 Lower .. 126 48 York : Upper .. 10 0 Lower .. 50 19 Total 206 73

Church Assembly (final form)—

Bishops .. • • • • 32 2 • Clergy • • 183 59

Laity .. • •

181 92 Total 396 153

The smallest attendance was at the intermediate -stage; the largest when the whole book was approved last year. The decrease in the majorities in the last two tables (Con- vocations, March 30th and Assembly, April 27th) is mainly due to the united pressure against the new rubrics by the Anglo-Catholic party agencies. It is interesting to note that this pressure had very little effect on the lay vote, though it caused many abstentions and changes among the blew.' It is-worth noting that the votes of the Lbrds and Commons together give a majority in both Houses. of Parliament of 446vOtes against 321 ; and also that in the House of Commons

a majority of Members for English constituencies voted for the Measure. It was rejected by 88 with the help of Scottish and North Irish Members, whose constituents have prayer books of their own,' and of Members for Wales, which is also unaffected by the Prayer Book Measure.

The Church in Australia, which apparently intends to profit by the revision, has sent a declaration to the Primate in favour of the revised Book, signed by two archbishops, 17 diocesan bishops, and 800 clergy.

To many minds the fact that thirty-six head-masters of great public schools (including the head-masters of Eton, Westminster, Winchester, and Shrewsbury) have issued a joint letter in favour of the revised Book will carry as much weight as much of the regular voting.

The Diocesan Conferences are also interesting, since they represent a wider stratum of electors and give a good idea of lay as well as clerical opinion in very different parts of the country. Their votes last year were as follows :—

Diocese For Against Diocese For Against Winchester .. 218 17 .Oxford .. 303 55 St. Edmundsbury 150 18 Peterborough . 100 8 Southwell .. 234 23 Leicester .. 223 56 Manchester .. 500 181 Rochester .. 350 121 Blackburn .. 218 105 Birmingham .. 236 147 Salisbury .. 233 17 Norwich .. 199 114 Coventry .. .. 327 16 Worcester .. 162 31 Sheffield .. .. 303 58 Ely .. 268 54 Southwark .. 211 61 Truro .-. 246 83 Lincoln .. .. 202 19 Chelmsford .. 161 11 Bradford .. .. 197 37 Hereford .. 227 20 Canterbury .. 382 52 Gloucester .. 423 51 York — .. 221 19 Carlisle .. 163 13 Bath and Wells .. 315 22 St. Albans .. 213 71 Durham .. 248 30 Exeter No vote London .. 324 261 Chichester .. No vote Chester 386 152

Ripon,MassMeet-

Lichfield .. 218 44 Mg on evening

Newcastle .. .213 23 of Conference 1500 23 —I am, Sir, &c.,

PERCY DEARMER: King's College, University of London.