RELIGIOUS WORSHIP BILL. (Hansard, 23 July 1855)

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, he must take notice of the doubtful meaning of some of its clauses. His noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), in drawing them up, had rather stretched a point beyond what the intention of the Bill was understood to be, when he put after the word "dwelling-house," the words "or premises there to belonging." Chapels night be attached to private dwelling houses, and so evade the existing law. There was a provision also to except from the existing prohibitions "any congregation or assembly for religious purposes meeting occasionally in any place not usually appropriated to religious worship." But what was the meaning of the word "occasionally?" The object was to pro- 1277 tect the meetings of societies and bodies of people who did not assemble regularly and systematically in a certain place for public worship. But under this clause, supposing a number of persons, desirous of establishing a system of religious worship in a parish contrary to the will of the incumbent, should hire, week by week, a large ball-room in some inn, or any other place of that description, and meet there every Sunday for public worship according to the forms of the Church of England, would not they be exempted from the existing prohibitions, upon the ground that meeting only upon one day in seven was an occasional meeting?

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
replied, that the words "dwelling-house or premises belonging to it" were recited from the Act of 1812, in order that the repeal might be as large as the restriction had been. The object of the other provision was to give as much latitude as possible to the London City Mission and other such societies, which held many meetings in the course of the year, and not always in the same spot, not only in Exeter-hall, or the Freemasons'-hall, but went from place to place, taking rooms in various private houses or in halls, which they hired for the occasion, throughout the district. Whether it might be strained so far as to enable persons to take a theatre in which plays were acted during six days of the week, and to hold religious worship there on the seventh day, he did not know, and that question might be left to those who would have to interpret the law; but he did not think that was the way in which the word "occasionally" should be taken.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
hoped that some noble and learned Lord would favour the House with his opinion upon the point.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
thought what the House had meant by this Bill was, that the restrictions of the present law should not apply to meetings for religious purposes in unlicensed places which were not held habitually, but only occasionally. An occasional meeting was one which only took place now and then. Of course difficulties might occur in applying that expression to particular cases, but he did not see that any better one could have been used.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
observed that the object of the clergy was that they should not be exposed to have rival services set up by members of the Church of England in their own parishes; and he did not 1278 think it was likely that with an occasional system of worship, dodging about from one house to another, any man would be able to deceive himself or to deceive others, into the notion that they were going through a regular course of Church of England worship.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD
wished to say a word upon a matter which affected his own honour. The first time this Bill was discussed he stated that a meeting of Bishops had been summoned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, every single member of which agreed that he could not support the Bill in its original form. In a debate which subsequently took place, at which he was not present, his right rev. Friend near him (the Bishop of London) corrected an extremely malevolent and slanderous statement which had appeared in a newspaper, purporting to be a religious newspaper, to the effect that he had asserted an entire falsehood, as no such meeting as that to which he had alluded ever took place. Notwithstanding the statement of his right rev. Friend, however, this print, pertinacious in its falsehood, returned to the charge, and stated that he had made an entire and wilful misrepresentation. He had referred to the report in the Morning Post of what he said at the time, and he found that his statement was that the Bill was considered yesterday at a meeting held under the presidency of the Archbishop of the province, at which it was unanimously agreed that the Bill could not be supported. That statement was strictly and entirely the truth. The Archbishop had assembled the English Bishops to consider with him a matter affecting the interests of the Church. At that meeting his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London) introduced the subject of this Bill, and it was agreed, nem. con., that no one present could support it. He wished to set himself right with their Lordships upon this subject, as he should be unworthy of their attention upon any subject whatever if he could have deigned to make such a misrepresentation as that which had been imputed to him.