HC Deb 21 February 1851 vol 114 cc875-84
SIR B. HALL

Sir, I now rise to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question of very great importance as to the state of discipline in the Established Church. It is necessary for me before I put the question to state the circumstances of the case to the House, which I shall do in as few sentences as I possibly can. I will confine myself exclusively to the facts of the case, and shall refrain from making any comment upon them, or offering any observations to the House which may lead to discussion. ["Order, order!"] I think I am perfectly in order, and as I have given notice of my question nearly a fortnight, I think it is only fair I should be heard. The parish of Marylebone, con- taining a population of about 160,000 souls, has for many years been divided into districts for ecclesiastical purposes. One of those districts is called "All Souls," and is bounded on the east by Tottenham-court-road, and on the south by Oxford-street, and extends a large way northward and westward. It was considered advisable, three years ago, that this district should be again subdivided, and a new district created, called St. Andrew's, Wells-street, which is the subject of the question I am about to ask the noble Lord. It was determined that that district should be separate, and that there should be a new incumbent appointed to it. It contains about 5,000 inhabitants, and about 450 rated householders. A new church was built, the inhabitants of the district subscribed largely towards the erection of that church, which was consecrated on the 28th of January, 1847. The presentation is alternately between, I believe, the Bishop and the Crown, or the Rector of All Souls. The Rev. Mr. Fallow was appointed in the first instance, and during the time of his incumbency the inhabitants were satisfied with the manner in which that excellent man performed his duty; but three months after his appointment he died, and the presentation being in the hands of the Bishop of London, he appointed the Rev. Mr. Murray to the district, who is now the incumbent. I hold in my hand a memorial which has been presented to the Bishop of London, signed by rather more than one-third of the inhabitant householders of the district to which I have referred, and I gave notice to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and to the House, and I have also communicated my intention to the bishop of the diocese, that I would call the attention of the House to the subject of this memorial and to the conduct of the Bishop of London in reference to the matter contained in this memorial. They say— That, unhappily, immediately on the appointment of Mr. Murray, he began to make alterations in the church and services; and, although remonstrated with from time to time, and after promising, as he has done, not to make further innovations or changes, either in the church or the services, he has persisted in doing so, until at length he has brought the building—that is, the chancel—and the services to what is boastfully stated to be models of Puseyite worship. That, among other the innovations and alterations made by Mr. Murray are the following:—The communion-table, or as it is now termed, the altar, has been on two several occasions raised, so that it is now approached by steps; it is covered with a richly ornamented cloth; candlesticks, with candles in them (but not lighted, except at the evening service), are placed on it, and on saints' days and high festivals it is decorated with wreaths of flowers. The communion plate is placed on a credence table, and not placed on the altar until the reading of the offertory. The altar railing has been removed, and the whole of the chancel is now treated as a spot peculiarly sacred, and, as such, not to be intruded on by the laity, except at the time of communion. In addition to these alterations and innovations, the introduction of public processions, midnight service on Christmas-eve, and the refusal, on the part of Mr. Murray, to obey the direction of your Lordship in the form of prayer on the Day of General Thanksgiving, have all been much objected to and lamented by your memorialists. That the tables of the commandments, which had been temporarily put up, had been removed from over the altar, and have never been replaced, although it was promised that this should be done. That an expensive choir has been established; that the whole of the service, including the litany, is intoned; by the minister kneeling with his face to the altar, and thus with his back to the congregation; that the sermon is preached in a surplice; that neither a collect or the Lord's Prayer are used before the sermon, the only invocation being, 'In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the Sacrament service is intoned and sung; and that the boy choristers remain during the administration of the sacrament; that the mode in which the sacrament is so administered has prevented several from partaking of it. That the church is now filled, not with parishioners (of whom but few attend), but by strangers; and that the seats have been specially appropriated to those persons in the body of and throughout the church. This document is signed by 160 out of 450 inhabitant householders in the district; and it is a curious fact that, although it is signed by every inhabitant householder in Berners-street, who was called upon, with the exception of one, that one was a Roman Catholic. This memorial was transmitted to the Bishop of London on the 21st of December, 1850; and the gentlemen who sent it accompanied it with a letter to his Lordship, stating that if his Lordship would appoint a time they would attend upon him, and give any further information upon the memorial that might be required. The information that they desired to give to the Bishop of London was, that the incumbent of this district attended the Roman Catholic worship at the Roman Catholic chapel, King William-street, Strand. This statement was made to me, and I considered it so grave and serious a charge to make against any gentleman professing to be a minister in the Church of England, that I declined making that statement unless the person so making it to me would put it in writing, and authenticate it with his signature. The gentleman con- sequently sent me the following letter, a copy of which I have communicated to my noble Friend at the head of the Government, and which was written by a gentleman whose respectability I will answer for, though I am not at liberty to disclose his name:— Mr.——begs to inform Sir Benjamin Hall that, in a conversation he had with Mr. Murray, he declared distinctly that he had only been three times to the Catholic chapel, in King William-street, Strand. The letter I have received from the Bishop of London, in reply to the memorial, is to this effect:— Fulham, Jan. 1. Sir—I am sorry to have so long delayed my answer to the memorial addressed to me by you and others, parishioners of St. Andrew's, Wells-street. I am quite aware of the grounds of complaint stated in that memorial, and I have long ago remonstrated with the Rev. James Murray on the matters to which they relate, but without success. The memorialists may be assured that I will pay due attention to the subject, and that I will do all in my power to make their parish church answer the purposes for which it was built.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, E. S. Bailey, Esq." "C.J.LONDON. That letter was written on the 1st of January, 1851. The memorialists, finding that everything went on in precisely the same way, and that the congregation were fast leaving the church, addressed another letter to the bishop of the diocese, complaining that his Lordship had not taken any steps for the purpose of remedying those grievances. The Bishop of London answered that letter in this way:— London House, Feb. 6. Sir—I am not surprised to find that some degree of impatience is felt by those members of the congregation of St. Andrew's, Wells-street, who are dissatisfied with the present mode of celebrating Divine service in that church. But as the measures which I propose to adopt will be general, and not with reference to that church only, and as several questions of difficulty are involved in them, some time must of necessity elapse before they can be carried into effect.—I remain, Sir, your faithful servant, John Howard, Esq." C. J. LONDON. In consequence of this letter I was requested to take the step that I have done this evening; and I am anxious, in bringing forward this subject, to avoid as much as possible giving offence to any one. The Archbishop of Canterbury has also written on the same subject to this effect:— Ten years have elapsed since I thought it necessary to warn the clergy of another diocese against the danger of adopting principles which, when carried out, tend naturally to those Romish errors against which our forefathers protested, and which were renounced by the Anglican Church—the result has proved the judgment was not harsh, or the warning premature; on the contrary, certain of our clergy, professing to follow up those principles, have proceeded onward from one Romish tenet and one Romish practice to another, till in some congregations all that is distinctive in Protestant doctrine or Protestant worship has disappeared. Now, the question I have to put to the noble Lord is this—These memorialists have complained for more than three years. The Archbishop of Canterbury says that he has protested against these practices for more than ten years. I don't wish to give an opinion whether or not these practices are in accordance with the simple purity of our Church; but I wish to know this:—Are the archbishops and bishops of our Church about to take any steps for the purpose of suppressing those practices against which they say they have preached for ten years; or are they to leave it to the laity to take such steps as they may think proper for the purpose of compelling the episcopal heads of the Church to perform that duty which, according to their own showing, they have so long neglected?

LORD J. RUSSELL

Mr. Speaker, I will answer, as well as I am able, the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone. I have been in communication with the Bishop of London, with respect to the subject to which he has referred, and also with the Archbishop of Canterbury, in respect to the modes of worship to which the Archbishop referred in that extract which has been read to the House by the hon. Baronet. With respect to the Bishop of London, I have been informed that his attention had been called for some time to the mode of worship in Wells-street chapel, which he thought was not in conformity with the customary forms of worship in the Church of England; that the inhabitants of that district had complained to him; and that he had been anxious to attend to their complaint. His Lordship also informed me that where a clergyman is willing to attend to the admonition of his bishop, such practices as the bishop objects to may be amended, and such grievances as affect the inhabitants may be duly redressed; but that where a clergyman altogether refuses to attend to the admonition of his bishop, there is then very considerable difficulty, delay, and expense in enforcing that which appears to the bishop to be the right performance of public worship on the clergyman so resisting. I happen to know perfectly well that the Bishop of London has taken the best legal advice he could obtain, and that his attention has been for some time turned to this matter; and he has informed me that he will do everything in his power in order to obtain the removal of those practices which he thinks are not consonant to the mode of worship prescribed by the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury has informed me that he has had his attention called to the extract which has been read to the House by the hon. Baronet on this subject, and that he believes the memorialists are very desirous to put an end to those practices mentioned in that extract; but he states there is some uncertainty and very considerable expense in enforcing the law. The terms of the Rubric are such, that it is not always very easy, on complaints being made of departures from it on the part of clergymen, to discover when there appears to the Archbishop to be reasonable grounds for interfering. The Archbishop stated to me, that he did not think, in the present state of affairs, that any interposition of the Legislature was necessary, but that if he should find the uncertainty of the law was such that in the general opinion of the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England the performance of their Protestant worship could not be maintained without some alteration of the law, that then an application would be made to the Crown on this subject. I hope my hon. Friend and the House will understand me that I am not now alluding to any alteration in the Rubric or the Liturgy, but to the mode and means of carrying the existing law into effect; but from the statement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury on this important subject, I think it is most desirable that the matter should remain in his hands, with such counsel as he is able to obtain; and I have not thought it at all right or becoming me to ask him to do more than to turn his earliest attention to the subject, assured that he is perfectly well capable, as far as the law will allow him, of carrying into effect his wishes for the performance of Divine worship according to the Protestant services of the Church. I will not, therefore, say anything more on this subject. I may state, however, that in one or two cases where clergymen had resisted the admonitions of the bishop, very considerable expense has been incurred in endeavours to compel their obedience. In one such case no less than 3,000l. had been expended; and therefore at present the mode of obtaining redress is an exceedingly expensive one; but as the matter at present stands, there is no other mode of redress.

MR. A. B. HOPE

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House, particularly on an evening like this, when an important financial measure is about to be brought under its consideration, that I will not detain them a single minute more than is absolutely necessary, whilst I offer a few observations on this subject. I am as sorry as any one can possibly be that such a discussion as this has been brought before Parliament. It seems to me as if we had suddenly gone two centuries back—to the time of the Long Parliament—and that if we go on in this way, we shall ere long become a Barebones Parliament. I say, if individual clergymen are to be dragged before this House in this manner, and if the noble Lord at the head of the Government is to condescend to step from his high position to humble accusations of this nature, touching the conduct of a private gentleman, this House will assume a character which will go far to lower its dignity, and to lessen the respect with which its proceedings are regarded by the country. I only rise, Sir, to vindicate the character of a private gentleman with whom I am personally acquainted, and whoso ease, I regret to say, has not been fully or fairly brought before the House, in that memorial which my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone has read to the House. In the first place, he has enlogised the character of the late incumbent, Mr. Fallow, as a man who, whilst living, possessed the confidence of the parishioners. Now, the truth is, that most of those arrangements on which so much blame is attempted to be thrown, as the exclusion of laity from the chancel, were the work of Mr. Fallow, and not of Mr. Murray, the present incumbent. With respect to the charge of Mr. Murray having attended a Roman Catholic chapel in King William-street, Strand, that charge was made by a gentleman who, when Mr. Murray made his acquaintance in his pastoral visitation, told the reverend gentleman that he never gave charity to anything whatever. In answer to that charge, I have to state to the House that Mr. Murray did twice attend a Roman Catholic chapel, but that was only to hear a contro- versial lecture delivered by a Roman Catholic clergyman; and I may add, that among the persons present at that lecture were the Rev. Mr. Binney, and one for whom the noble Lord must have great respect, Dr. Gumming. I may also state, that Mr. Murray has only been five times within a Roman Catholic place of worship in England in the course of his life, and on none of those occasions was worship being performed. The tenor also of the charges brought against Mr. Murray, in the memorial and in the speech of the noble Lord, is, that he had been disobedient to the directions of his bishop. Now, in the course of last year, the Bishop of London wrote to Mr. Murray, suggesting certain alterations in the mode of worship in his church. Mr. Murray wrote a long and elaborate answer to the letter of the bishop, stating reasons why he could not comply with certain of the alterations suggested by his lordship. The Bishop of London wrote to this effect, in reply to that letter of Mr. Murray;— Sir—I have been too much occupied since I received your last letter to pay proper attention to it, but there are some points in it on which I consider you to be in the wrong; but I will write you so soon as I have a little leisure.—I am, my dear sir, your faithful servant, C. J. LONDON. Now, that letter was dated on the 16th of February, 1850, and from that time until this present 21st of February, 1851, Mr. Murray has been waiting in vain for that answer to his letter, stating on what points he was wrong.

MR. REYNOLDS

rose for the purpose of entering his protest against certain phrases used by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, who introduced this subject to the House. In speaking of matters of belief in the Roman Catholic Church, he spoke of "Romish practices," and "Romish errors." Now, since he (Mr. Reynolds) had the honour of a seat in that House, he had made it his particular study never to record a vote upon any Motion involving the practices or discipline of the Protestant Church. When his hon. Friend the Member for Cocker-mouth submitted his Motion to the House, he (Mr. Reynolds) thought it right, as a Roman Catholic, not to interfere in such matters. He did not vote himself on that Motion, and he advised many of his Roman Catholic Friends in the House to do the same. He protested against the introduc- tion of this subject into the House at all. He wanted to know from the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, if he wished to convert the House of Commons into a polemical debating club? Was he not satisfied, as a Protestant, to leave Protestant doctrine and discipline to be watched and protected by 2 archbishops, 24 bishops, and 15,000 ecclesiastics, with the guarantee of the Crown for maintaining the integrity of the three? He protested against the introduction of such a subject into that House, and against the Church phrases, which the hon. Baronet used at least a dozen times, when speaking of the Protestant bishops and Church, "our bishops," and "our Church." Had the hon. Baronet forgotten that in that House there were Roman Catholics as well as high Protestants, and Presbyterians as well as Independents? And was he right in using the plural number? The hon. Baronet might so speak of the Protestant Church outside, but he ought not to do so within the walls of that House. That was not his (Mr. Reynolds') Church. Again, was it fair, or reasonable, or just, to drag the Protestant Bishop of London or a clergyman before that House, and to prevent them from doing what the humblest man in the country had a right to do, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience? He hoped that by meddling in such matters they would not verify the prediction of the hon. Member for Maidstone, and become a Barebones Parliament, and that they would not become a byword and a scorn to the whole country.

MR. HUME

would remind the House that the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone had made a complaint on the part of the laity of the parish, and he (Mr. Hume) feared that was not the only one among the many remonstrances on such a subject that the House would have to discuss. They paid annually a very heavy rate to maintain their churches, and those of them who belonged to the Anglican Church expected to have the services performed agreeably to the doctrines of that Church. He felt himself compelled to allude to a recent case in Marylebone, where a clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Baring, had refused to attend a parishioner's wife who was at the point of death. The rev. gentleman said he could not go out of his parish, and it was an hour and a half before a clergyman could be got to attend the dying woman. Was that the conduct of a Christian divine? Something must be done to alter that state of things, and place the Church in a proper state of discipline.

SIR R. H. INGLIS

willingly acknowledged the delicacy with which the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone had treated a subject confessedly of so delicate a nature as that under discussion; but the whole tone of that discussion only confirmed his (Sir R. Inglis's) previous impression, that that House was not the proper tribunal before which to review the discipline of the Church, the conduct of individual clergymen in that Church, or the proceedings of vestry meetings. He denied the competency of the whole Legislature to decide such subjects as those; at all events, he was satisfied that the House would best consult its secular duty—and he said it with all respect—if they did not press forward a discussion on such a matter. He could not but regret that the time and attention of the House had that evening been diverted from the financial state of the country, which properly came within their consideration.

MR. PLOWDEN

had no desire to protract the present discussion, but he rose for the purpose of correcting the statement made by the hon. Member for Montrose, who had stated, he must think inadvertently, that the Rev. Mr. Baring had answered, when applied to by a sick person desirous of spiritual consolation, that "he would not go to her." Now, he (Mr. Plowden) was present at the Marylebone vestry on Saturday last, when this subject was discussed; and he was sure the hon. Member for Montrose would, upon reflection, remember that when the Rev. Mr. Baring explained the matter at the vestry, he stated in the reply to the application from the sick lady, that he deeply sympathised with her situation, and if he had it in his power he would at once attend her in his spiritual capacity; but the state of the law and the ecclesiastical district arrangement of parishes precluded the possibility of his visiting the sick out of his own immediate parish, and that therefore he was, he regretted, unable to comply with her request; and fearing that some misapprehension might exist as to the Rev. Mr. Baring's motives, from the statements just made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, he (Mr. Plowden) thought it only fair and due to the character of the Rev. Mr. Baring to make the statements he had addressed to the House.

Subject dropped.