Page:The Annual Register 1899.djvu/108

 ^%

100] ENGLISH HISTOEY. [may

Gorst defended his position in the department, observing that as to all-important questions his views and those of the Lord President were entirely in accord. No doubt the department had been sometimes overruled by the Government, as happened in the case of other departments under Administrations chosen from either side of the House ; but the duke, who was the embodiment of political honour, had not therefore thought it necessary to resign, and it seemed to Sir J. Gorst that it would be a presumption on his part to do so. Formerly a charge had been brought against him of speaking against his chief at the India Office on the Manipur question ; but during the whole time he was Under Secretary he retained the full confidence of Lord Cross, as he now enjoyed the confidence of the Duke of Devonshire. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said his quarrel was not so much with Sir J. Gorst, whose great ability he admired, as with the Government for allowing the affairs of the Education Department to be conducted as they did. He gave instances of the Vice-President's inopportune irony and his ostentatious silence, and ended by inviting the Government to find him a more congenial post.

The second reading of the Church Discipline Bill unexpectedly coincided with the sitting of the court of the archbishops, which met at Lambeth to hear cases of disputed ritual. The court did not assume to be a court of law, but was held in accordance with the directions contained in the preface to the Prayer-book for cases in which the clergyman and his bishop were not in agreement as to ceremonial matters. The points argued before the metropolitan regarded the ceremonial use of incense in the English Church and the use of processional lights. The pro- ceedings were very lengthy, and much evidence was tendered in support of the traditional custom.

In the House of Lords the interest in the ritual question had apparently expended itself before Easter ; but in the Commons Mr. C. M' Arthur (Exchange, Liverpool) was anxious to create new offences, a new tribunal and new punishments by means of a Church Discipline Bill, which affirmed the royal supremacy, did away with the episcopal veto, and substituted deprivation for imprisonment in the case of clerical disobedience. The Attorney-General met the bill by an amendment declaring that while the House was not prepared to accept a measure which made fresh offences and ignored the authority of the bishops, it was of opinion " that if the efforts now being made by the archbishops and bishops to secure the due obedience of the clergy are not speedily effectual, further legislation will be required to maintain the observance of the existing laws of Church and realm." Lord Hugh Cecil (Greenvrich) did not like the amendment, nor did he think the course taken by Govern- ment either very wise or very dignified. Whenever legislation might be brought forward of the same kind as the present bill, which aimed at removing the disciplinary authority from the