THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH—PUSEYISM. (Hansard, 4 April 1851)

§ SIR B. HALL
Mr. Speaker, I now take the opportunity of putting the question of which I have given notice, to my noble Friend at the head of the Government. I understand that the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London has stated in another place that, in consequence of the extreme pressure of public business, it is not his intention to bring on any measure during this Session for the correction and control of clerks in certain cases, but that it is his intention to bring in the Bill which was rejected by Parliament in the last Session. Now, before proceeding to put the question 1031 of which I have given notice, I beg to ask my noble Friend if he has seen a letter in the Times of this morning which has reference to the inquiry I am about to make? It appears that a noble Lord who was formerly a Member of this House desired to have his child baptised at a church in Brighton on Saturday last; that he took that child to be baptised; and that the officiating clergyman, the Rev. Arthur Wagner, desired immersion, notwithstanding—[Cries of "Order!"]—I believe that I am perfectly in order, and I shall certainly insist upon my right to be heard. What I stated was this—that the noble Lord desired to have his child baptised; that the clergyman about to perform the ceremony insisted upon immersion; that the noble Lord and the mother of the child said that the child was in too delicate a state of health—

§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE
I rise to order. I wish to ask if the hon. Baronet is at liberty to enter into the circumstances of this case?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I understand the hon. Baronet to be only stating facts upon which he might found a question. He is, therefore, in order.

§ SIR B. HALL
I merely stated a fact on which I intend to base my question. The clergyman refused to baptise the child without immersion; and notwithstanding the statement of the father, the mother, and the nurse, that immersion would be dangerous to the existence of the child, he persevered in refusing to baptise it in any other way. The noble Lord added that his child had been refused admission into the Protestant Church unless at the risk of its life, that risk having been declared by a competent person. Now I will put the question of which I have given notice. The question I have to ask my noble Friend is, if he can tell us whether, during the last six weeks, he has had any communications with the Archbishops and Bishops of the Established Church in reference to the continuance of certain forms introduced into our churches by different clergymen, and against which certain of the bishops have charged their clergy; and whether it is the intention of the Archbishops and Bishops to take any effectual steps for the purpose of suppressing such practices, which the Bishop of London in a recent charge has denounced as histrionic performances? I wish to ask the noble Lord if he can tell us whether the archbishops and bishops intend to take any steps 1032 for the suppression of Puseyism in the Church of England?

§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
said, he hoped he might be permitted to take that opportunity of moving that the House on its rising do adjourn to Monday next. He did so with the view of enabling hon. Members to take part in the very important question which had been introduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone. He apprehended that it was competent for him to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice at that time, and thus to acquire the right of saying a few words upon the question. Knowing nothing of the case which the hon. Baronet had mentioned, except the statement to which he had referred, namely, a letter in the Times, he could not help thinking that the utmost extent of liberty had been already adopted by the party principally interested. The noble Lord, whose child had been refused the rite of baptism, had appealed to the public, and by the decision of that public he might be satisfied to abide. But he (Sir R. Inglis) protested against that House being made the scene of such discussions—he protested against such questions being brought before a tribunal consisting of all persuasions, there being no person recognised as competent to defend any person connected with such questions. The House was incompetent to pronounce an opinion upon them.

§ SIR B. HALL
Sir, as the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford has made a Motion for the purpose of giving Members an opportunity of saying something upon this subject, I wish to make a few observations on what has fallen from my hon. Friend. He says, most justly and truly, and I entirely acquiesce in the remark, that this House is not the proper arena for discussions of this nature. But, Sir, there may be times and circumstances when matters are to be brought under the consideration of this Assembly, which are forced upon our notice because we have no other place where the representatives of the people can call in question the conduct of high functionaries, who, so long as they are the ministers of a Church in connection with the State, must be subject to the cognisance of the House of Commons. I do not wish to enter at all into my hon. Friend's opinions, but I have no hesitation in declaring my own; and when he says that this matter is put forward for public opinion and discussion, I say he is under a great mistake, because, although 1033 the public, from one end of the kingdom to another, have pronounced their decided opinion, there is not one of the right rev. Prelates who have denounced the practices to which I allude, who has had the boldness and the courage to come forward and remove them. But these right rev. Prelates go further than merely denouncing those practices. They say—"We believe the Papal aggression is owing very much to the practices which are adopted in our own Church;" and they have taken no steps to remove them. This makes it the more necessary for the House to take notice of these proceedings, for what has been stated by a right rev. Prelate elsewhere? Why, that in that place, where there is no public business at all, and where a noble Lord stated that a debate could not be continued after a quarter to eight o'clock, the pressure of public business was so great that he could not bring forward a certain measure, but that a Bill must be introduced of so objectionable a nature that it was scouted in that Assembly when it was proposed on a former occasion. And I say it is perfectly idle for persons holding that high position, and responsible to the Church and to the laity, to make evasions and promises, to give opinions and to put forward trumpery letters, and to say to the laity—"Be content with us, and if there is any dispute go to your diocesan." But to which or what bishop are they to go? For if they go to two different bishops, they will be brought to entirely opposite conclusions. And is this the way we are to be served? I say it is a disgrace and gross dereliction of duty that they should behave in this way, instead of coming forward and saying—"These practices should not be permitted to exist in the Church, and they shall be suppressed." I will not trouble the House further, but will merely thank my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of stating my opinions; and when the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) brings forward his Motion of which he has given notice, the right rev. Prelates may depend upon it we will go into the whole case, from the time when those extraordinary proceedings took place with which Mr. Bennett's name was connected, down to the case of the church in Wells-street.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
I am exceedingly sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone has thought it necessary to bring before the notice of the House the case which he has stated. With 1034 regard to the proceedings which have taken place in connexion with the sacred rite of baptism, we have no further information than the statement of a noble Lord in a newspaper, and no statement on the other side from the clergyman respecting the particular circumstances of the case, and the sense of duty under which he was acting. I certainly regret that my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, not being a Secretary of the Treasury, has taken the unusual course of moving the adjournment of the House, and thereby given rise to a discussion upon this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone had given notice of a question to me, which is certainly a fair and proper question to be brought before this House, namely, as to the continuance of certain forms against which the bishops of our Church have pronounced an opinion. I stated some time ago, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend, that I had communicated with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject. I have not had any communication since that time with the most rev. Prelate; and I thought it was far better, as a Member of the Government and as a Minister of the Crown, that I should leave that matter in the hands of the Archbishops and Bishops, rather than be constantly interfering and asking the nature of their proceedings—what they had done, or what they intended to do. My hon. Friend knows that an address has very lately been published (signed by twenty-four archbishops and bishops of our Church, in which they declare their opinion as to certain usages which have not been hitherto generally practised. I will say nothing of that address but that it must have attracted the attention of every hon. Member of this House. I may also state that an address having been presented to the Crown through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, signed by 320,000 persons, many of them being Members of this and the other House of Parliament, praying that certain usages which have been recently practised may be discontinued, my right hon. Friend laid that address before Her Majesty, by whom it was very graciously received; and my right hon. Friend received Her Majesty's commands to make a communication to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject. That communication was to this effect. My right hon. Friend was commanded to refer the address to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 1035 with the view of its being communicated to the Archbishop of York and the other bishops of England and Wales, and to state that Her Majesty wishes to discourage any innovations which are not in conformity with the law, and which are not in conformity with the established usages of the Church. My right hon. Friend was further directed to state that Her Majesty places full confidence in the discretion of the Archbishop, and in his desire to discountenance practices of this unusual nature. That communication has been made to the Archbishop, and will no doubt appear before the public shortly; and if it does not, I certainly shall have no difficulty in producing it if required to do so. I have only further to observe, that I do not think it desirable—differing from my hon. Friend in this respect—to bring on a discussion of this nature before the House of Commons. For my part, entertaining very strong opinions upon this subject, I am of opinion that it had better be left in the hands in which it is placed at present; and, seeing the unfortunate consequences that arose in Scotland in the disruption of the Established Church in that country, nothing will induce me to take any step which might tend to any disruption in our Church.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he fully participated in the approbation expressed by many hon. Members of the expressions of the noble Lord; but he thought it was quite evident that the noble Lord did not restrain his followers from bringing the subject before the House, and they had a distinct pledge by two hon. Members that the whole question of the discipline of the Church was to be discussed within these walls very soon. Now, he wished to ask the noble Lord when it was his intention to bring on the second reading of the Bill for the admission of Jews into that House, because he (Mr. Newdegate) intended to move on that occasion that the Bill should be read a second time on that day six months; and, if anything could prove the absolute impropriety of admitting into that House those who so fundamentally differed from the creed of hon. Members who now sat in that House, the discussion they had just had, and the discussion which they were promised, were evidence of the fact.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred did not affect any religious question; it only concerned civil and political liberties. As 1036 soon as he could bring in the Bill without disturbing the financial business before the House, he should do so; but of that he would give due notice.