§ Lord Suffield moved the second reading of the religious Assemblies Bill, which, he thought, would be an advantage, not to the Dissenters, but to the Church. As the law at present stood, no one could legally assemble in his House more than twenty persons, to perform divine worship; a restriction which operated more against Churchmen than Dissenters. He hoped their Lordships would allow this Bill to go into Committee, for to its principle he thought there would be no objection. In the Committee he should propose to introduce a clause applying the Bill to the colonies, where it would be particularly useful in the new condition to which the 28 slaves were now about to be placed. To promote that part of the measure he relied with some confidence on the assistance of the right reverend Bench.
The Bishop of Exeter,in consequence of being called on by the noble Baron, felt himself bound to make a few observations upon the Bill. It was in direct opposition to one of the most important doctrines of the Church of England. The noble Baron had confined himself to topics not in the Bill, and had told their Lordships, if they would only allow it to be read a second time, he would introduce a clause which would make it applicable to the Colonies. The Bill, as it at present stood, was applicable to the state of religious worship in Great Britain and Ireland. If, therefore, their Lordships consented to read the Bill a second time because the noble Lord had promised to introduce a clause that would make it applicable to the colonies, they would be consenting to its second reading, without an atom of argument adduced in its favour. As it at present stood, it affected entirely the mode of religious worship in this country; it applied only to the realm of England and Ireland. The clause to which he now wished particularly to direct their Lordships' attention was this: it declared that in future it should be lawful for any persons to hold religious meetings, consisting of more than twenty persons, at their houses; "and also for any person to teach or preach at any such meeting, without taking any oath, subscribing any declaration, or being otherwise licensed so to do." He was fully convinced, that this Bill had been introduced into the other House of Parliament, and was now brought here, by those who entertained the best intentions towards the Established Church, and who wished to do their utmost to procure it every advantage in teaching its doctrines; and this Bill, so introduced, went to enable any person whatever to set up as a religious teacher. He was quite ready to admit, that there was wanting some Bill to give facilities that did not now exist for the teaching of the doctrines of the Church within the realm of England; but he must say, that he did not think this Bill calculated to effect that object. It could hardly be said, that the Dissenters looked to this Bill as a relief of any of the grievances of which they complained, for among all these grievances he had never heard 29 that of the difficulty of obtaining a license. In fact, for the sum of 1s. any Dissenter might obtain a license to preach to as many persons as pleased to assemble in his house, and for the sum of 2s. 6d. any preacher of a dissenting congregation might have his license continued. He objected to this Bill because it was directly opposed to the 23rd article of the Church of England, which declared that it was not lawful for any man to take upon himself the public teaching of the doctrines of the Church, unless he was lawfully called and sent thereto, by which it was meant the being chosen and sent by men who were lawfully authorized for that purpose—namely, the Bishops of the realm. That was one of the fundamental articles of the Church, as united with the State, and had always been so considered, and he believed that when (as, for instance, at the Union with Scotland) the constitution of the country in Church and State was declared to be preserved "unalterable," these articles of the Church were considered to form part of that Constitution. He would most anxiously lend his aid to any measure calculated to advance the cause of religious freedom. The present Bill, however, was incapable of Amendment. It was thoughtlessly drawn up, and passed through its stages in the other House at a late hour of the night, considerably after midnight. It was now too late a period of the Session to introduce a new Bill or amend the present, and he therefore felt himself compelled to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that he should support this Bill, because, on looking to Ireland, where the funds of the Church were daily diminishing, and the support of the Church was less and less provided for, he did think that the time was fast approaching when, if it was meant to have religious worship there at all, they must look to have that worship performed in private houses. At the same time, he thought the clause adverted to by the right reverend Prelate was more objectionable; but if the Bill went into a Committee, he would move to omit that clause.
The Bishop of Derrythought, it was his duty to sustain the authority of the Church in Ireland, which, by the enactments of this Bill, would be rendered altogether a nullity. If this Bill were passed, any man might conduct himself as he 30 pleased in preaching to his congregation; if called to account by the Bishop, he might set the Bishop at defiance, by establishing, without control or check, a congregation of his own in any House that he might hire for the purpose. He could not consent to have the proper control of a diocesan over his clergy reduced to nothing.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that whatever might be the opinions of their Lordships as to this Bill, there could be but one opinion as to the temper of the observations of the right reverend Prelate who had just addressed the House, and of the right reverend Prelate who spoke first. He must, for himself, confess that he felt great difficulty in the situation in which he was now placed, as he was perfectly sensible of the grievances complained of, and which this Bill sought to remedy, as he was aware of the great respectability of those by whom the Bill had been introduced; so that on the one hand there was almost enough to lead him to sanction the call made on their Lordships to pass this Bill, while, on the other hand, there were difficulties by which he was compelled, though with great reluctance, to say, that he could not concur in the Motion of the noble Baron. It did, at first sight, appear anomalous that where there was a wish to patronize efforts in favour of the Established Church, and to give facilities to those who desired to extend the knowledge of its forms of worship, it did appear anomalous that a disability should be continued by the persons feeling this wish, a disability which affected the members of the Church principally, so that they could not have a prayer-meeting, according to the forms of their Church, in their own houses. But a little reflection would show, that that anomaly was more apparent than real. Because if it were allowed to Churchmen to have as many meeting-houses as they pleased, according to the rites of their own Church, the consequence would be a defalcation from the service of the Established Church. In fact, Church going, which it was the object of all to encourage, would be reduced; for if men could remain at home instead of going to Church, and yet enjoy the same form of worship, they would of course prefer it to the trouble of walking some distance to Church, and would lose the Church-going habit, which was in itself 31 good; good for the labourer, as it took him once a week into a place where he met in common society the classes superior in life to himself; and good to the higher classes, as it made them come weekly into contact with their fellow-Christians in the same Church, and kneel with them in the same form of worship, a matter which those who had best considered the subject had always deemed a public advantage. He knew, too, that was the opinion of those from whom the Bill proceeded, for they were sticklers for public worship, though they did not go so far as Johnson did in speaking of one of the greatest of our poets that a man in neglecting public worship, neglected all religion. As this Bill would tend to diminish public worship, he objected to it, and on the whole must declare himself adverse to the second reading; but he hoped and trusted the next Session would not be allowed to pass without some measure of relief to Churchmen, free from the objections which, in the present Bill, he considered insuperable. He should be heartily glad to give his support to such a measure. He hoped, that the reasons he had advanced against now passing the measure would be deemed satisfactory, particularly as to the colonies.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that the clause he had proposed to introduce, was suggested by a letter from a Church missionary in Jamaica, who found himself in a worse situation there in consequence of the present law than were the Dissenting missionaries.
The Earl of Mulgravesaid, that that letter was a singular instance of the defect of the law, in consequence of which Church missionaries laboured under much disadvantage in Jamaica. Had he remained there, it was his intention to propose to the Assembly some change of the law on the subject.
The Second Reading was negatived without a division.