Durham E-Theses The prayer book controversy 1927-28 Martell, J. D. How to cite: Martell, J. D. (1974) The prayer book controversy 1927-28, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9913/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk J. D. MARTELL THE PRAYER BOOK CONTROVERSY 1927-28 Thesis presented for the degree of Master of Arts in the University of Durham 1974 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. J.D. MARTELL; THE PRAYER BOOK CONTROVERSY, 1927-28 M.A. THESIS, UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM, 1974 . ABSTRACT This historical study focuses upon the sixteen months between February 1927, when the revised Prayer Book was presented to the Convocations, and June 1923, when for a second time it was rejected by the. House of Commons. The emphasis throughout is upon the narrative of events and upon the societies and persons most closely concerned in those events. Consideration is given to both the ecclesiastical and the secular aspects of the controversy. The study is based upon the papers of Archbishop Randall Davidson, made available at Lambeth Palace Library in the late 1960s, under the Library's forty-year rule for Archbishops' papers. The papers relating to the Prayer Book controversy are as yet unsorted and unindexed and consist of a wide variety of documentary material: significant manuscript material as well as printed material of lesser importance. Further private papers of Davidson, made available in 1974, have tended to confirm and illustrate opinions already formed. Manuscript material in the possession of the Church Society and the General Synod of the Church of England has also been examined. The official reports of debates in Convocation, the National Assembly of the Church of England and Parliament, the reports and opinions in the ecclesiastical and secular press and contemporary literature - in both book and pamphlet form - have helped towards a clarification of the main issues in the controversy. The revision was handicapped by the brief that it was expected to fulfil: the restoration of discipline within the Church of England. Strongly held views were evoked from many different protagonists and the issue became one of the most intense with which the Church has been confronted in the twentieth century. The Book's rejection by .parliament enabled the controversy in the Church to subside. But it emphasised the underlying dependence of the Church of England upon the State and the difficulty of seeking satisfactory solution at that time to the problems which were implicit in such dependence. 1 CONTENTS •Acknowledgements 2 Note on references and abbreviations 5 1. The progress of Prayer Book revision to 1927 6 2. The Prayer Book Measure 192- and the Book, presented to the Convocations, February 1927 41 3. Anglo-Catholic opinion of the 1927 Book 61 4. Protestant opinion of the 1927 Book 80 5. The laity and the 1927 Book 131 6. Roman Catholic and Nonconformist opinion of the 1927 Book 148 7. Opposition in the scholarly press, in parliament and in the courts 167 8. Anglican attempts to secure parliamentary approval 179 9. The parliamentary debates, December 1927 200 10. The amended Measure and Book, January 1923 239 11. The controversy in the early months of 1928 261 12. The parliamentary debates, June 1928 285 Appendices I Diocesan Archbishops and bishops most closely concerned with Prayer Book revision, 1927-28 311 II The Memorandum of Bishop Strong 312 III Archive material, relevant to this studyy but to which scholars are at present denied access 314 IV A Song of the Deposited Book 316 Bibliography 318 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Though it is difficult to conceive that the issues involved in the Prayer Book controversy could today engender the intensity of feeling that was displayed in 1927/28, there exists in the subject strong interest and desire to understand better both the controversy and the place that it occupies in history. My researches have been considerably assisted by generous help from many people interested in the subject. Though it is not possible to mention all who have helped me in different ways, it would be inappropriate and discourteous not to mention those whose assistance has been particularly valuable. I have throughout benefitted by the encouragement and insight of my supervisor, Professor W. R. Ward, Professor of Modern History in the University of Durham. The bulk of the research has been undertaken in Lambeth Palace Library, Mr. E. G. W. Bill and his staff were always most helpful to me; Miss Melanie Barber gave me particularly valuable assistance in making known to me material that related to the controversy and in answering many of my enquiries. Others made freely available to me valuable archive material that is in their possession and I thank especially for so doing Mr. K. M. L. Benson (Secretary, Church Society), Mr. A. L. Kensit (Secretary, Protestant Truth Society), Miss K. Lewis (Administrative Assistant, General Synod of the Church of England), the Reverend Canon A. S. Neech (General Secretary, Bible Churchmen's Missionary Society), 3 the Reverend Dr. K. W. Noakes (Custodian of the Library, Pusey House, Oxford), Mr. B. H. M. Palmer (Editor, The Church Times), Mrs. Bertram Pollock (widow of the late Bishop Pollock of Norwich). The value of membership of the London Library has once more been fully demonstrated; access to the secondary sources - and to some primary sources - would otherwise have lacked the immediacy that is thereby provided. Where it failed, the British Museum filled the gap. New material and different approaches have been suggested to me by conversation or correspondence with the following people, whose help has been considerable: the Reverend R. T. Beckwith (Librarian, Latimer House, Oxford), the Viscount Brentford, the Reverend Father P. D. G. Campbell, S.3.J.E. (Prior, St Edward's House, Westminster), the Reverend Canon A. H. Couratin, Professor H. Martyn Cundy (Professor of Mathematics, University of Malawi), the Reverend D. B. Harris (Vicar, St Paul's, Knightsbridge), the Reverend D. R. Hill (Headmaster, The Preparatory School, Twickenham), the Reverend Canon R. C. D. Jasper, the Reverend Canon T. L. Livermore (President, Church Society), the Reverend Father T. L. Manson, S.S.J.E., the Reverend Canon T. G. Mohan, the Most Reverend and Right Honourable A. M. Ramsey (Archbishop of Canterbury), the Venerable P. D. Robb (Archdeacon of Kingston-upon-Thames), the Right Reverend E. J. K. Roberts (Bishop of Ely), the Reverend A. J. M. Saint (Vicar, St Philip and St James, Oxford), the Reverend 4 W. J. Waker (Secretary and Treasurer of the Fellowship of Catholic Priests), the Right Reverend K. J. Woolcombe (Bishop of Oxford), the Very Reverend J. H. S. Wild (sometime Dean of Durham). The structure and content of the narrative and such conclusions as are reached in this study are my responsibility alone. To none of those who have assisted me in different ways are to be attributed any misconceptions which may be observed herfiih. June 1974. J. D. Martell NOTE ON REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS Unless stated otherwise, all documentary sources are located at Lambeth Palace Library.' The following abbreviations are used in footnotes CSA Church Society Archives FCTP File of letters and papers relating to the Committee for the Maintenance of Truth and Faith GSA General Synod Archives LPL Lambeth Palace Library PHL Pusey House Library 6 CHAPTER 1. THE PROGRESS OP PRAYER BOOK REVISION TO 1927 The early twentieth-century controversy surrounding Prayer Book revision, which had its most acute expression in the double rejection of the proposed Book by the House of Commons in December 1927 and June 1928, is traceable to the long-term effects of the Oxford Movement upon the Church of England. The early Tractarians laid stress upon their loyalty to the 1662 Book. Many of the Tracts for the Times were concerned with the view that the Prayer Book provided for the expression of the Catholic traditions of the Church of England; the Book was the very bed-rock on which their claims were founded.*^ But a later generation of Tractarians viewed the Book in a different light and contended that the 1662 Book was too narrow for the expression of their faith. Demand was made for revision along lines that would incorporate liturgical practices on which the Tractarians were increasingly laying value, and manuals of devotion were produced in the seventies and eighties that catered for these demands; the most significant of a number of publications of this type was Catholic Prayers for Church of England People compiled by the 2 Reverend A. H. Stanton in 1880 and which contained features from current Roman Catholic liturgical and extra-liturgical 1. R.C.D. Jasper: Prayer Book Revision in England, 1800-1900, London, 1954, Chapter 5, passim. 2. Ibid., p.