HC Deb 14 May 1834 vol 23 cc1002-6

Mr. Hardy moved, that the Religious Assemblies Bill be committed.

On the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair,

Mr. Secretary Stanley

said, that the second reading of this Bill had passed in a very thin House; and as the principle of it was most important, he hoped that the hon. Member would not proceed with it at so late an hour of the night. It tended, as far as he understood the Bill, to make a very serious alteration in the law, inasmuch as it would enable any person whatever to pray and preach without either license or regulation. There had been little or no debate or discussion upon the Bill, which was of such importance that it ought not to pass without attracting more attention. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would consent to its postponement until a more convenient opportunity.

Mr. Finch

said, that the question was certainly one of great importance, and if further time were desired he hoped the hon. Member would not press the matter forward at that time. It appeared to him, however, that the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies was mistaken as to the extent of the alteration which this Bill would produce, for, in point of fact, any person might preach already as the law now stood, but the moment he indulged in prayer he became liable to heavy penalties. The law, as it stood, was most absurd; for a man might pray as well as preach to nineteen persons, but the moment one or two more joined the party, his prayer-book was instantly converted into gunpowder to blow up the Church. Surely such a state of the law required alteration.

Mr. Baines

was a friend to toleration in the most liberal sense. He thought Churchmen and Dissenters should be put upon a par, without any distinction whatever as to their right to pray in places not consecrated. He had voted for the se- cond reading of the Bill, and would now vote for the Committee.

Mr. Hardy

remarked, that the Church of England was tolerant of every thing but itself. Before the Act of Charles 2nd, each man had a Common Law right to have religious worship performed in his own house, without any limit as to the number of persons present. It was right this privilege should be restored to families who happened to be distant from a consecrated place of worship.

Mr. Warburton

contended, that the question as to whether the Church was in danger was so very microscopic, that the Bill ought to be proceeded with. Churchmen, at least, ought to be put on a footing with Dissenters.

Mr. Shaw

said, that the hon. member for Bridport was the first who had talked of the Church being in danger. The question as to discipline, however, was an important one, and ought not, he thought, to be pressed at so late an hour.

Sir Matthew White Ridley

considered the Bill as the first step towards sapping the foundation of the Established Church, and, therefore, he would oppose its further progress. The hon. Baronet moved, that the Bill be committed that day six months.

Lord Howick

said, the existing laws occasioned an evil that was seriously felt, especially by Presbyterians. They were in the habit of meeting for the purposes of prayer previous to burials; and, according to the present laws, penalties might be inflicted on them for doing so. The grievance was one that ought to be got rid of.

Mr. Heathcote

was anxious to have the Bill delayed. It was, on all hands, admitted, that it was not free from objection; and he would put it to the good sense of the House, whether it was right to enter upon the discussion of so important a measure at that late hour of the night. He did not desire to throw the Bill out altogether, but he thought that it should be delayed for a week or a fortnight to enable them to know exactly what its provisions were.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

said, that if the Bill was as harmless as hon. Gentlemen would have them believe, no objection should be raised against the delay that was sought for. That was not an hour to commence the consideration of an important measure, especially as the late hour at which the second reading took place, precluded them from discussing the principle of the Bill. It was inconsistent with the principles of the Church of England, that persons should assemble at private houses for the purposes of prayer, and he thought that no such meetings (there being more than twenty persons present besides the family) should be allowed, without the permission either of the Ordinary or of the Bishop of the diocese. He should not, however, vote for the amendment, but he did hope, that they should have an opportunity of discussing the Bill before it proceeded further.

Mr. Secretary Stanley

considered the Bill as entrenching on the principles of the Established Church, and he therefore should vote against its going into Committee.

Mr. Aglionby

thought hon. Gentlemen had no reason to complain of want of notice, or to make that a pretext for alleging that they were unacquainted with the provisions of the Bill. He hoped they would allow it to pass that stage, knowing they could have any discussion they pleased on the bringing up of the Report.

Mr. Hughes Hughes

would be the last person to support a Bill which would destroy the discipline of the Church of England; but it was in order to remove a defect in that discipline that the Bill had been brought in, and numerous communications he had received from different parts of the country, proved to him that the Church desired that defect to be removed. He would state to the House a fact which he had before mentioned. The clergyman of a parish in the neighbourhood of London was in the habit, every Thursday evening, of assembling the parishioners at the workhouse, to the amount of one hundred, perhaps, or more, for the purposes of worship. For years, those who chose, attended; but an information being threatened, the clergyman was obliged to direct that the first nineteen who arrived should be admitted, and the rest turned away. Was it fit, that such a state of things should continue? On behalf of the clergy, and on behalf of the Church, he begged, that this Bill might be passed.

Mr. Frankland Lewis

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press them to go into Committee at such an hour.

Mr. Hardy

said, that if they would ensure him a day for bringing the Bill for- ward at an earlier hour, he would gladly comply with their request, but not otherwise.

The House divided on the Question, that the Speaker leave the Chair—Ayes 60; Noes 37: Majority 23.

The House went into Committee.

The several Clauses of the Bill were agreed to, and the House resumed.

List of the AYES.
Attwood, T. Lennard, T. B.
Baines, E. Lloyd, J. H.
Baring, F. T. Maberly, Colonel
Bennett, J. Martin, J.
Berkeley, C. Morpeth, Lord
Bernal, R. O'Dwyer, A. C.
Blackstone, W. S. Parker, J.
Blake, M. J. Parrott, J.
Brotherton, J. Pease, J.
Browne, D. Pelham, Hon. C. A. W.
Callander, J. H Plumptre, J. P.
Guilders, W. Poulter, J. S.
Curteis, H. Pryme, G.
Dashwood, G. H. Rolfe, R. M.
Ewart, W. Ross, H.
Finch, G. Rotch, B.
Fleetwood, H. Ruthven, E. S.
Forster, C.S. Sheil, R. L.
Grant, R. Sinclair, G.
Grant, C. Stewart, P. M.
Greene, T. Strickland, Sir G.
Greg, Colonel Verney, Sir H.
Hawes, B. Vigors, N. A.
Heathcote, J. Wallace, R.
Howard, Captain Walter, J.
Howick, Viscount Warburton, H.
Hughes, H. Wood, G. W.
Hutt, W. TELLERS.
Hyett, W. H. Aglionby, H. A.
Ingham, R. Hardy, J.
Jervis, J.