THE CHURCH BOARDS BILL.
THE Church Boards Bill, the second reading of which was talked out on Wednesday, has been brought in With the best intentions, and aims at an object which in theory is most excellent. But it is spoiled, for all practical purposes, by the refusal of its authors to look at facts as they are. It professes to deal with the Church of England as it is, but it really deals with a Church of England which only exists in memory. Mr. Grey moved the second reading in a speech the tone and temper of which were just what they ought to have been, and he had no difficulty in making out a very good ease for legisla- tion. His only desire, he said, was to make it impossible for the Clergy to thrust arbitrary changes upon the parishioners against their wishes. As the law stands, an incumbent has almost unlimited power of introducing changes in every feature of the Church services. Mr. Grey wishes to limit this autocracy by an extension of the principle of local self-government, and his 'Bill aims at doing this by giving the laity, acting through a Church Board, a share in the management of the church and parish. This Board is to have power, with the concurrence of the In- cumbent, to make such changes as may appear desirable in the conduct of the services and in the management of parish affairs. Where the Board and the Incumbent are unable to agree, the matter is to be referred to the Bishop, and his decision is to be binding, under pain, in the case of the Incumbent, of :sequestration and deprivation. Parishes in which these Boards are set up would be excluded from the operation of the Public Worship Regulation Act. The aggrieved parishioner would have to convince his fellow-parishioners on the Board, instead of convincing Lord Penzance, In all these respects, the Bill goes on lines which have often been defended in the Spectator. In places where there is only one church, the absolute power of the Clergy to prescribe what services their parishioners shall have, and what they shall not have, comes very near to tyranny. So long as ceremonial differences in the Church did not touch on matters of real moment, the mischiefs of this state of things were not ap- parent. But with the immense gulf that has lately opened between Ritualists and Low Churchmen, they have become very apparent indeed. Some kind of Church Board seems to be the only machinery by which this arbitrary power on the part of the Clergy can be tempered. The object of reasonable and Liberal men in both parties is neither to prescribe nor to proscribe any particular ceremonial. This is proclaimed by Mr. Grey, when he suspends the Public Worship Regulation Act in parishes where there is a Church Board. If the incum- bent and the parishioners are agreed upon the kind of service that is to be celebrated, only the Bishop can interfere, and we may be sure that where this condition was satisfied, the inter- ventions of the Bishop would be exceedingly few.
Unfortunately, what might be a very useful measure is com- pletely spoiled by the constitution of the proposed Church Board. The condition of the real parishioners—the parishioners regarded in their spiritual as distinct from their civil capacity—would in many cases be made worse instead of better by the substitution of the Board for the Incumbent, as the final authority upon the nature of the services. As things stand, the decision at least rests with a man who has some interest in coming to the same conclusion as the congregation. He may in the end be drawn to a different conclusion by other considerations,—by a sense of conscientious obligation, or by simple self-will ; but there will always be some inducements operating in the direction in which his congregation wish him to move. But as Mr. Grey has drawn Isis Bill, there need be no inducements operating in this direction in the case of a Church Board. The Church Board and the congregation may be absolutely differant bodies. This is the result of Mr. Grey's unfortunate identification of the ratepayers and the congregation. In many places, no doubt, this plan might work no hardship ; but in many others, and these often the places in which some mediating agency between an incumbent and his congregation is most wanted, it would work very great hardship, In towns, the Church of England has for many years been becoming a congregational rather than a parochial church, and if she is to retain and develope the comprehensive character which can alone enable her to continue the Established Church of the country, she must more and more become a Congre- gational Church. But a Congregational system is altogether incompatible with a Church Parish Board elected by the rate- payers. Theoretically, of course, such a Board might honestly set itself to ascertain the wishes of the congregation actually attending the parish church, and give its decision upon ques- tions of ritual in accordance with these wishes, when ascer- tained. But in practice, how often would such a Board act in this way ? Mr. Fremantle, who is an ardent supporter of Mr. Grey's Bill, says that a Board or Council similar to those proposed by it has been at work for ten yeas in the parish of St. Mary's, Bryanston Square, with almost complete success. Probably Mr. Fremantle's ritual raises no question in which the ratepayers of the parish, as distinct from his congregation, take any interest ; and in that case, we can very well believe that "persons really alienated from our Church system would hold altogether aloof, and that those who do not attend the Church services, if they took part, would do so to promote the good-working of the Church as they understand it." Let us suppose, however, that instead of being the services of St. Mary's, Bryanston Square, it is the service of All Saints', Margaret Street, or St. Alban's, Holborn, that is in question. One-half of Mr. Fremantle's assurance would not be true, while the other half would not be appli- cable. There are a considerable number of persons "really alienated from our Church system," who conscientiously believe that so long as the Church remains established, it
is their duty to put down Ritualism within it. Some time ago there was a letter to this effect in the Man- chester Examiner, from Mr. Dunckley, better known as " Verax." He has no ill-feeling towards Ritualists, but, as a matter of fact, he thinks them wrong ; and thinking this, he feels bound to use his power as a citizen to keep Ritualism out of the Established Church. People are welcome to have as much ceremonial as they please in a church of their own, but not in one which is controlled by the nation, and for whose services the nation is consequently responsible. In our judgment this view is altogether incorrect, and the nation is committed to nothing as regards the Established Church, beyond a general belief that its existence is, on the whole, beneficial. The questior, however, is not what we think, but what Mr. Dunckley thinks, and it is plain that however really alienated he may be from the Church system, this alienation would not prevent him from using his influence with the Church Board to impose a non- Ritualistic service upon congregations which desired a Ritualist service. 'We believe that where Ritualism is concerned, there would be a good many Mr. Dunckleys. Nor does the matter stand differently where there is no question of Ritualism, properly so called, but simply of more or less choral service. There is many a rural parish where the Dissenters are deeply convinced that they ought to put down as " Romish " any practices in the parish church which to them seem ceremonial, and where such Dissenters would interfere, if they could, to prevent the actual attendants upon the Church service from conducting the service in their own way. As regards the parishioners who, though not alienated from the Church system, prefer to attend a coldly-ordered church, we have the greatest possible doubt whether they could be trusted to con- sult the wishes of the real congregation, in such cases as those we have named. It is true that if they did so, they would undoubtedly "promote the good- working of the Church." But then Mr. Fremantle wisely
does not say that they will promote the good-working of the Church absolutely. He only predicts that they will pro- mote the good-working of the Church, " as they understand it." But what guarantee is there that the way in which they understand it will in any way resemble the way in which the real congregation understand it ? To recognise that it may be good to allow people to have what you do not think it good that they should wish, is a height of toleration which is by no means universally attained. We do not deny the difficulty of devising a constituency for Church Boards, but to evade the difficulty as Mr. Grey has done, would be to make Church Boards a simple addition to those inconsistencies between theory and fact of which the Church of England has already so rich a store.
Previous page
