means satisfactory on either side. It was | tained, more especially as my noble Friend not satisfactory, because neither my noble only quoted one or two out of 25,000 cases Friend nor the right rev. Prelate who within his own knowledge. When the law followed him (the Bishop of Oxford) satis- stands at variance with the fact, it is a fied me as to what the state of the law on practical and real grievance certainly; but the subject actually is at this moment. Nor, we ought assuredly to inquire into the though my noble Friend launched into a wide good the existing law effects, the evils it discussion as to the practical grievances prevents, and the facts to which it is apand the intolerable hardship of that law, did plicable, before we proceed to adopt the he inform us at least, to my satisfaction summary course proposed by my noble -in what those practical grievances and Friend and do away with it altogether, that intolerable hardship consist. My no- and leave no protection for that which it is ble Friend said that the law was violated undoubtedly the intention of the law to with impunity every hour in the day by defend. I speak, my Lords, as a member Dissenters, by Churchmen, and even by of the Church of England, and I say that the Sovereign; but the right rev. Prelate it is not the doctrine or principle of that proved to him that this was an error, inas- Church that any of her members, in any much as the cases pointed out by him did place, with or without authority, should not come under the definition of public use the services of the Church, should religious worship-because it is clear that publicly pray, should publicly preach, the law only applies to meetings held for should conduct the devotions of the public, the purpose of religious worship exclu- and usurp to themselves that which the sively, and not to meetings at which reli- whole of England has, with the sanction gious worship may be incidentally intro- of the State, confided to authorised interduced. My noble Friend even referred to preters who hold a higher commission as one of the Ministers of the Crown, the the messengers of the word of God. The Minister at War, who, he said, violated Church of England, moreover, is an instithe law by having public prayer in his tution of the State, and her public serown house. I have family prayer in my vices are confided to a body of men who own house, but I do not think I violate are set aside for that purpose by virtue of the law, for I do not go to the corner the highest authority. I can never give of St. James's-square and ring an oppo- my sanction, therefore, to the doctrine sition bell to invite the parish; though, at that in the Church of England every man the same time, I must say, with all due-be he lay or be he clerical-who chooses respect to the noble Lord the Secretary of State, or any other noble Lord, that I think the practice would be more seemly if prayer was confined to his own household. I should like to know, therefore, how the statute stands in this respect. This is a law, whatever the law may be, to which all parties are amenable through a common informer; but I will venture to say that no common informer has ever yet appeared to interfere with meetings of the description alluded to by my noble Friend. What they may hereafter attempt, encouraged by my noble Friend, I will not pretend to say. The noble Duke on the other side (the Duke of Argyll) said, "How can you defend the maintenance of a law on your statute book which you cannot enforce?" I must say, I think this is rather bagging the question; because the law is on the statute book, and there are cases in which it may act as a preventive check to practices which ought not to be encouraged, and in which it would be very desirable to bring it into operation; and therefore it may be beneficially re to do so, has a right to take on himself that authority which a Divine institution in the first instance, and the will of the State in the second, has confided to men specially set apart for that purpose. I am well aware that in this metropolis, and in large towns, and in manufacturing towns more especially, and in places where the population has largely increased, the functions of the clergy cannot be exercised to the full and proper extent; that the clergy cannot have a personal acquaintance, or even that complete superintendence over their parishioners which is so desirable; that they cannot bring them to their parish church, or visit them in the exercise of their duty as ministers of the gospel; and undoubtedly it is most desirable that in such places the clergy should have the assistance and co-operation of pious laymen-a co-operation which I am sure they will always thankfully accept. But, on the other hand, I maintain that it is most important that laymen should be really assistants of the clergy, and that they should not be in a position to set them the Church. These things must follow if selves up as rivals to the clergy; and that further, to ascertain the extent of the grievance, if any exists, and to probe the evil, should evil there be-to send the Bill before a Select Committee, who will hear both Churchman and Dissenter that may have a right to complain, and who will carefully seek a remedy for the wrong that may be proved, without sweeping away the distinction that exists between laymen and clergymen, and overturning along with it the whole parochial system of the country. Under these circumstances, I move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the existing state of the law with regard to the liberty of religious worship, and the expediency of relaxing or dipensing with the provisions of an Act passed in the first year of King William | most religious persons in the community and Queen Mary, c. 18. are daily in the habit of breaking. Such a state of things brings disrepute upon our statute book, and encourages a notion among more ignorant persons, that it is not so very important a matter to observe the laws of the country. Amendment moved, to leave out from "that," to the end of the Motion, and insert," this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. EARL GRANVILLE My Lords, the noble Earl has complained that this Bill passed through the other House without any discussion. I do not think that is otherwise than a favourable feature, considering the persons there whose attention was likely to be drawn to it. It is impossible, however, that any measure bearing upon religious worship or the position of the Church of England can be unworthy of the deepest attention of your Lordships, and especially of the right rev. Bench; but it appears to me that, as regards this Bill, almost too high a tone has been given to the debate. I do not think the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) is quite borne out in arguing that it is inexpedient that an Act which has no operation whatever should be repealed, or that the impression conveyed in some able speeches, that the repeal of this Act would place the Church of England itself, its Liturgy, and Prayer Book in danger, is correct. On the other hand, I think my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) is hardly correct in stating that it is necessary to our religious liberties that the existing statute should be repealed. I think my noble Friend is mistaken in some of the effects which he ascribes to the present law, under which I believe that it is quite clear that a person being a member of the Church of England might for half a crown, without subjecting himself to the suspicion of being a Dissenter, open a room for religious worship, not necessarily to go through the whole of the Liturgy, but for prayers. With respect to the proposition of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, I should be very glad if my noble Friend would concur in that course, under the assurance that the Select Committee is not meant as an obstruction or delay in the way of the measure, but for the purpose of a boná fide investigation of the tendency and ef fect of the present law. If, on the other hand, my noble Friend thinks it more judicious to persevere in now pressing the Bill forward, I shall vote with him, on the simple ground that, though no very great question of religious liberty is involved in the question, yet the existing law is one which some of the most respectable and LORD CONGLETON supported the Bill. He was surprised that the whole bench of Bishops had not long before that taken up the question, instead of leaving it in the hands of laymen. LORD BERNERS said, that though it was painful to him to differ from those whose opinions he so much respected as the noble Earl who had brought forward the Bill; still, when the right rev. Bench had unanimously come to the conclusion that they must oppose the Bill because it interfered with the discipline of the Church and with the parochial arrangements of the country, he considered it was a bounden duty to pause before he assented to such a measure. In voting for the Amendment of his noble Friend, there fore, he was actuated by no party or personal feeling; and he did so, because he believed it to be a solemn duty not to pass any measure against which those who were the legitimate guardians of religion in that House had so strongly pronounced. THE BISHOP OF OXFORD, in reply to what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Congleton), explained that, in voting to refer the subject to a Select Committee, he did so without the least idea of defeating the Bill, but with the bona fide intention of ascertaining how far relief might be afforded for certain things in respect to which he thought relief was wanted. He pledged himself to give the fairest and most candid consideration to the question, and he had not the least wish to stop any of the present religious meetings now held. What he wished was, that whenever not occasional but regular religious worship was conducted, it should be notified whe ther it was conducted in opposition to, or in communion with, the Established Church. THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in reply, said, he would first answer the question how he knew that these 25,000 meetings he had spoken of were illegal. He found these meetings to be all of one and the same character, and with regard to the London City Missions, he knew the character of them to be devotional from beginning to end. Until he brought this question forward he was not aware how or clergyman, than he had at this moment. frequently the existing law had been used He begged their Lordships to bear in mind. for the purpose of intimidating, not only that the Bill was simply and solely designpersons who had no great standing in so- ed to give power to Nonconformists and ciety, and were easily frightened, but to the laity of the Church of England to even some of the parochial clergy them- meet in greater numbers than twenty over selves. It was but the previous morning and above the household of the person that he received a letter from one of the who received them under his roof. When most active and useful parochial clergy- his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) demen in London, to the effect that he per-clared that nothing should be said or done formed his duties in constant fear and in the way of worship except by the ortrembling. He must appeal to the com- dained clergy of the Church of England, mon justice of the Peers who had heard it struck him (the Earl of Shaftesbury) his (the Earl of Shaftesbury's) speech the that his noble Friend pushed his argument other night, or who had looked into the so far that the next step he ought to take Bill, and he would put it to his noble was to call for a revival of the Conventicle Friend (the Earl of Derby), as a Peer Act. No man more desired than he did of this House and an honourable man, to see everything pertaining to Divine whether, in moving the Amendment, his worship done in decency and in order. noble Friend was justified in the declara- He had laboured as much as any man tion he had made that night, that the to advance the interests of the Church of object he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had England, and he believed that no one in view was to supersede the parochial would say that he was not advancing those clergy, and give the laity the power of interests by untying the hands of the laity, performing the service of the Church of and permitting them to go, without let England, administering the sacraments, or hindrance, as evangelists amongst the taking upon them all sacerdotal rights, and enormous mass of ignorance and heathenplacing themselves in the position of the ism which existed around us. The more clergy of the Church of England? How, we evangelised the people the stronger he asked, did his Bill in any way, nearly or would be their feeling in favour of the remotely, affect the position of the laity in Church; for we might rest assured that that matter? In what way did it give the people of this country, from the highto any layman the power of taking upon est to the lowest, had the strongest athimself the right to administer the Sacra- tachment to what they called their mother ment of Baptism or the Lord's Supper? Church, and it would be the fault of In what way did it give him the slightest that Church if she proved herself a steppower of coming into rivalry with the pa- mother instead of a parent, who would rochial clergyman? Why, the utmost that feed her people with her life-blood and the Bill did was to repeal the section in train them in the faith and nurture of the the existing Act which stated that no con- Lord. He objected, then, to this Comgregation or assembly for religious worship mittee, and would resist it even if he in a private house should consist of more stood alone. He thought the subject was than twenty persons over and above the one which their Lordships were fully comhousehold. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) petent to discuss in an open House, and had said nothing whatever about preach- he saw no necessity for referring such a ers or officiating ministers; he merely said question to a Select Committee. In the that the section to which the Bill referred age in which we lived, and the circumought to be repealed, and that people stances by which we were surrounded, in should have full power, if they pleased, to the absolute necessity now existing for deconvene within their houses as many per- claring full religious liberty and free action sons as they liked for the purpose of sing- to all who wished to carry the Gospel into ing hymns, reading the Bible, and offering the forgotten recesses and miserable purprayer to Almighty God. Nothing in the lieus of our great cities, he must say that Bill would enable the laity to do that which this was not the time to inquire whether they were not fully able to do now. No the Nonconformists of this realm, or the layman, after the passing of the Bill, laity of the Church of England, should be would have a tithe more, or, indeed, a allowed to congregate under their roofs shadow more, of power to trespass on the more than twenty persons over and above ecclesiastical functions of the clergy, or their families, and belonging to their own to place himself in the position of minister Church. He had no apprehension what List of the CONTENT. Lord Chancellor MARQUESSES. Breadalbane EARLS. Bessborough ever of such a result as that which his THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Earl said, he did not propose to give to any layman a right of which he was not already in possession. But, if he were not mistaken, one of the cases of grievance which had been brought forward by the noble Earl on a former evening was, that the clergyman living remote from a gentleman's house, and a large population residing in the neighbourhood, this gentleman had, from the best of motives, undertaken to read a chapter in the Bible, and to deliver lectures to the people who chose to attend; but, upon being told that the existing law subjected him to a penalty for so doing, he was obliged to abandon the practice altogether. If that were put forward as a case of grievance under the present law, and the present Bill would remove that illegality, it appeared to him (the Earl of Derby) that the noble Earl clearly desired that the service of the Church should be conducted, in the absence of a clergyman, by a lay man. THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Surely his noble Friend did not mean to assert that by reading a chapter in the Bible, delivering a lecture, and offering a prayer to the Almighty, a man was taking upon himself the functions of a clergyman of the Church of England, or was setting himself up as a rival to the minister of the parish, or interfered in any respect with his official duties? On Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:-Content 30; Not Content 47: Majority 17. Minto Suffolk Spencer Waldegrave VISCOUNTS. Canning Sydney BARONS. Camoys Congleton Saye and Sele Stanley of Alderley said Motion, as amended, was agreed to; Resolved in the negative; then the and Bill referred to a Select Committee. House adjourned to Monday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, June 15, 1855. CADETS AT SANDHURST AND ADDIS COMBE-QUESTION. re CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNON, ferring to the statement of the Clerk of the Ordnance (Mr. Monsell) in reply to a question put on Monday, the 11th inst., that" cadets at Sandhurst would of course be able to compete on the 8th of July for commissions in the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers,' wished to ask the Under-Secretary for War whether any cadets so competing, in the event of failure, would be deprived of their prosspect of obtaining commissions in the line, from Sandhurst, in due course? |