THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that he had intended to ask the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury whether the Church of England Special Services Bill, which was introduced by him into that House, and passed on the 22nd of March, had been withdrawn from the House of Commons with his approbation, and whether such withdrawal was in consequence of his having found that the law was such as not to require the passing of this Bill. He had in writing informed the most rev. Prelate of his intention to put these questions to him, and had received an answer from his Grace, telling him that having left town it would be most inconvenient for him to return, but giving specific answers to his inquiries. His Grace informed him that it was with his concurrence that the Bill was withdrawn, and explaining that that course had been adopted because the hon. Member to whose care it was intrusted found upon inquiry that the House of Commons would not pass the Bill, because it gave to the Bishops a power which that House would never sanction. That power was a power to prevent vicars and rectors from interfering with special services introduced into their own parishes without their license. In the course of last year a committee of pious gentlemen, wishing to open religious services for the working classes in Exeter Hall, applied to the Rev. Mr. Edouart, the rector of the parish, for his permission. That rev. gentleman, apprehending that more evil than good might arise from such a system, expressed his doubts of the wisdom and propriety of the proceeding; and, after some time, conceiving big anticipations to have been unfortunately realized, he announced his determination to withdraw his sanction 2094 of these services in Exeter Hall. The committee who had originated the movement fully acquiesced in his right, and entirely admitted Mr. Edouart's power to take such a course. The consequence, however, was that the object of the parties in seeking to establish special services for the working classes was completely attained, because Westminster Abbey and other churches in that city were opened for that purpose, though Exeter Hall was closed. Early in the present Session a noble Earl who was at the head of the religious society in question (the Earl of Shaftesbury), brought in a Bill to deprive Mr. Edouart and other clergymen in the same position of the rights which the law gave them. The form of that Bill was objected to by members of the Episcopal Bench, and the most rev. Prelate introduced a modified measure on the same subject, which superseded the first, and having been ultimately agreed to by their Lordships, went down to the other House. In the other House, however, the Bill had since been withdrawn, and the committee of gentlemen to whom he had referred then determined, in spite of Mr. Edouart's remonstrance, and in violation of the existing law, to reopen Exeter Hall for religious services to be performed by clergymen of the Church of England, and which were announced to have received the sanction of the Bishop of the diocese. Mr. Edouart, thereupon, wrote to the Bishop, calling upon the right rev. Prelate to protect his rights and those of the Church from invasion. In his reply the Bishop declined in any way to interfere, but signified his intention to wait and see what legal decision was given in the case in the event of the question being tried in a court of law. Surely it was most unjust towards Mr. Edouart, whose rights were invaded, thus to refuse him any aid, and to stand idly by while the whole burden and brunt of a legal contest were cast upon him. True, this committee of gentlemen declared that they were acting under an Act of the 18 & 19 Vict., and it appeared that the right rev. Prelate had allowed himself to be persuaded that under the authority of this statute these services might be carried on. The Act of the 18 & 19 Vict., however, was merely an Act for the opening of conventicles, and was exclusively intended to authorize Roman Catholics, Jews, and other Dissenters to open places of worship, and had no reference to Church of England services. These gentlemen, therefore, stood 2095 in this position, that they were either acting as Dissenters or were violating the law. The right rev. Prelate, indeed, might say that he was no party to this proceeding; but there could be no doubt that nine-tenths of the persons who attended Exeter Hall supposed that the services there had his sanction as Bishop of the diocese. The closing of Exeter Hall last year was followed by the opening of Westminster Abbey, and it seemed that this year the opening of Exeter Hall would be followed by the closing of Westminster Abbey. He trusted the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) would afford some explanation of his conduct, and state why he had not taken measures to disabuse the public of the impression that these services had been commenced under his sanction.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he felt some difficulty in replying to the question of the noble Earl. He really did not feel himself capable of stating what took place in the other House of Parliament; he knew nothing about it except that a Bill, to which he, together with their Lordships, gave a most cordial assent, had disappeared from the House of Commons because it was believed that it would not receive the sanction of that House. Before the noble Earl applied the words "unjust and unfair" to the conduct of any Member of their Lordships' House, he ought to be extremely sure of the facts. He believed that the only fact that bore any very distinct reference to his conduct in this matter was the statement that these services were commenced with his sanction. Now, as he believed the noble Earl held in his hands the printed correspondence to which he referred, which was very short so far as he (the Bishop of London) was concerned, and which contained distinctly these words—"these services are not with my sanction"—it would have been as well if he had read that before he stated that they were with his sanction. It was the first time he had heard it stated anywhere that these services were with his sanction. He had in the most public manner stated that they had not his sanction. He understood that the Bill referred to was opposed in the other House and by many out of the House, on the ground that it was unnecessary, because it was already lawful to do that in another form which that Bill gave an opportunity of doing in the particular form in which it passed their Lordships' House. As soon as the services to which the noble Earl alluded were, he believed, intended to be reopened, 2096 he received an intimation from certain gentlemen that they had satisfied themselves that they had the law on their side, and were determined to open these services. His answer to those gentlemen was, that he would not pretend to pronounce an opinion on the question of law. He then received an intimation from some other gentlemen that they felt that the law was equally certain on the other side. He simply referred them to another tribunal. When there was a disputed point of law, a Bishop, he thought, ought not to use private influence to prevent it from being settled. If the law was as stated by the noble Earl, the question was capable of being settled in the Bishop's court. He was convinced that any private interference of his in this matter would have merely done harm. Any one who was acquainted with this diocese knew that there was great room for such services. Their Lordships had, by a considerable majority, affirmed that there was room for such services; and if it should turn out that they were lawful, he for one should not object.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONthought the noble Earl was perfectly justified in advocating the cause of a greatly oppressed and persecuted clergyman, who lie believed had acted entirely within the law. It might be perfectly right in Dissenting ministers to perform these services in Exeter Hall, but he thought it highly irregular that clergymen of the Church of England should be brought, in defiance of the positive injunction of the incumbent, to perform these; and to perform them, moreover, in a wholly irregular manner, No use whatever was made of the Liturgy; there was extempore prayer, a hymn was sung, and then a discourse was delivered. Some of these clergymen, he believed, were incumbents in the diocese of the right rev. Prelate. He wished to know whether this was a regular mode of proceeding on the part of clergymen of the Established Church. Was it a regular course of proceeding for one clergyman to force his way into the parish of another against his positive injunction, to interfere with his spiritual influence over his flock, and to perform an irregular mode of service? [Cries of Order!] The noble Earl had put a question of very great importance, to which he thought a very unsatisfactory answer had been given, and he considered he had a right to offer some remarks upon the question, but if he were out of order, he would, of course, desist.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he had asked a question to which he had not received an answer. He wished to know whether it was true that Westminster Abbey was about to be closed.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON—Westminster Abbey is not within my jurisdiction, although locally situate in my diocese. The Dean and Chapter act entirely on their own responsibility. These services close about this time of the year, and will commence again, with my most hearty wishes for their success, when the season again arrives. There is no connection whatsoever between them and Exeter Hall.