§ MR. BYNGcalled the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the outrages which had taken place on the previous day in the parish church of St. George's-in-the-East, and asked, Whether it was the right hon. Baronet's intention, either by legislative enactment or by giving more explicit directions to the police, to prevent, if possible, the repetition of such scenes in future?
SIR GEORGE LEWISBefore I answer the question of my hon. Friend, I must demur to the phraseology which he employs in designating the scandalous scenes which occur on the Sundays in the church of St. George' sin-the-East by the name of outrages. There is nothing, so far as the matter has been reported to me—and I have received to-day reports of what took place at the several services yesterday—which amounts to what is ordinarily understood as an "outrage," that is to say, a forcible breach of the peace. There is certainly one sense of the word "outrage," which may be applied to what is undoubtedly an offence against the decorum and propriety of public worship. But the House is aware that the law does not arm the police with a power of summary interference in case of a noisy disturbance, or an interruption of silence and order during public worship. I have taken the steps which appeared to me necessary for maintaining the public peace; and as far as I could collect the feeling of the House upon a former evening, there appeared to be many Members who thought I had gone even further than I was justified in going for the purpose of preventing disturbances. The steps which I have taken and which have been taken by Sir Richard Mayne, the Chief Commissioner of Police, appear 560 to me adequate for the purpose of preserving public order and preventing breaches of the public peace. Further than that I am not prepared to go; and I can only express my regret that the mode of performing Divine worship at St. George's-in-the-East, which the incumbent thinks fit to adopt, should he such as to create so much popular excitement.