Lords Sitting of 4 December 1857

THE MUTINY AT MEERUT.

  EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that on the 29th of June last, when speaking of the disturbances at Meerut, he stated in that House, on information which he had received from the newspapers, that Her Majesty's Carbineers were unable to move until nightfall, although the outbreak took place at six p.m. Since then he had received a letter from Colonel Custance, commander of the Carbineers, in which that officer stated that in "Half-an-hour after the first intimation of the mutiny, though totally unprepared, and labouring under the disadvantage that the horses had only recently arrived, and were totally unknown to the men, chiefly consisting of recruits and volunteers, I marched with three squadrons. We were unfortunately led in the wrong direction by Major Waterfield, the assistant adjutant general, and did not arrive on the proper ground until
  132
  dark; but, for this, I think neither myself nor the regiment were to blame. We were strangers in India and to the station, and I did not know that we were wanted there. As it was, we arrived on the ground only a few minutes after the rifles and artillery. I trust to your Lordship's sense of justice to give the true version of the case the same publicity as your previous statement."

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, seeing the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) who last night introduced this Bill, which was read a first time, and who gave notice of the second reading for Monday next, in his place, I wish to ask him whether, after the sort of understanding come to last evening that this short Session before Christmas was to be limited to considering the matter for which it was specially called together, he had any idea of pressing forward a measure of such very great importance, without any notice to the persons interested, in this brief preliminary Session?
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I am not aware that any such un-standing was come to last night, and if there was, I cannot by any means be a party to it. When I laid the Bill on the table I intimated that I would move the second reading on Monday; thus giving, I think, a very sufficient notice for the matter to be considered. It is a short Bill of two clauses, and gives a very small remedy for a great evil, and I think I shall be able to show, when I make my statement to the House, that there are very good and special reasons indeed for the course I have taken in proposing to proceed with the Bill in this brief Session. It is my intention to make a statement, on Monday, in moving that the Bill be read a second time, and your Lordships will then deal with it as you think proper.
THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S: If, my Lords, the sentiments of the right reverend Bench with regard to this Bill do not deserve to be taken into account in the least, and if, when we were all absent, it would be proper to bring it forward, then, no doubt, there would be no reason to complain of the course which the noble Earl has taken, and which he seems determined to pursue; but on a measure so intimately affecting the interests and organization of the Church of England, I think

133
the opinions of those who occupy this bench are entitled to a degree of weight; and if the noble Earl admits that they are entitled to weight, and yet thinks it natural and reasonable to expect that in the interval between Thursday night and Monday morning a sufficient number of my right rev. Brethren will assemble to discuss the measure, notwithstanding all their engagements in the country, then, I can hardly refrain from treating the attempt of the noble Earl to precipitate such a measure into a law as one which, in my opinion, is scarcely consistent not only with reason but with decency.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I must say it appears to me that the notice given by the noble Earl for the second reading of the Bill is rather short, and does not afford sufficient time to the right rev. Prelates to be present in this House when the Bill comes on; but at the same time, I must observe that I do not feel bound by such an understanding as that alluded to, and that I think any noble Lord is perfectly at liberty to introduce any measure this Session.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I understand the noble Earl opposite to say, he thinks he has given abundant time, and that he shall be able to show, on moving the second reading, sufficient reasons for the course he has adopted. Now the Bill which was introduced last night, has not yet been printed and placed in our hands, and we are at present ignorant of its contents. The noble Earl no doubt communicated privately to the Archbishop of Canterbury the heads of the Bill, and met with a most earnest solicitation to defer it. His Grace undertook, on behalf of the Bishops of England, to press on the noble Earl the indecency [Laughter]—the indecency—I repeat it; and the laughter of the noble Earl, however potent he may think it, does not shake one word of what I say. The matter was discussed yesterday at a meeting of the Bishops, and the Archbishop undertook to explain to the noble Earl the indecency of his endeavouring to steal a march upon us by having the Bill read a first time last night, when no one was here who knew what it was—a Bill which, if the noble Earl rightly explained it to the Archbishop, I believe will entirely set aside the fundamental principle of the parochial system of the Church of England. That is the way in which the noble Earl thinks it perfectly decent, fitting, and becoming to deal with
134
such a subject, and in his own infinite autocratic wisdom he will still have the Bill proceeded with on the day he has fixed; and then, without giving the Bishops a chance of even knowing what is the new régime under which the whole Church is to be conducted, he will be abundantly satisfied if, when he makes a statement on the second reading, the principle of the Bill be affirmed. But the whole thing turns on the principle of the Bill. I am not prepared now to say whether I will admit or not the principle, but it is a principle which ought to be thoroughly considered before it is adopted. As the noble Earl has explained the Bill, it goes this length—that whereas Parliament has enabled new cures of souls to be created in populous parishes, without consulting the incumbent of those parishes, it is now proposed not to create new cures of souls, but to enable the Bishop of the diocese to introduce into any parish a new clergyman of the Church of England, in spite of the incumbent of that parish. That is a measure which would introduce every kind of division into the Church. Supposing a Bishop does not approve of a particular doctrine enunciated by a parish clergyman, he may send another clergyman into his parish to preach a doctrine contrary to that which was preached in the parish church. All that may be necessary. I do not now wish to enter into the question whether it is right or wrong; but I say it is a great and important change, and that, even as a matter of decency, time and opportunity ought to be given to enable the Bishops to make up their minds upon such a principle before they are called upon to say "aye" or "no," and especially as, at this season of the year, my right rev. Brethren have diocesan engagements which they cannot put aside. I repeat, then, that the noble Earl is stealing a inarch upon them in pressing forward a Bill, in which they are so deeply interested, in this sudden and indecent manner. I am not now expressing any opinion of my own upon the Bill. All I ask for is—that the noble Earl will give a longer notice of the second reading of the Bill, and I trust that noble Lords will so express their opinion on this point as will induce the noble Earl to acquiesce in granting more time for the consideration of the measure.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will be amenable to the wishes of the House; but at the same time I must say that he has been most unjustly

135
attacked by the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down, and that, too, in a manner most likely to cause him to persevere in his intention as to Monday than otherwise. The right rev. Prelate has been guilty of another irregularity. He has gone into the discussion of the merits of the Bill of which we as yet know nothing. The noble Earl was perfectly justified in reading his Bill for the first time last night, and has a perfect right, if he thinks proper to exercise it, to persevere in raising a discussion upon the second reading on Monday next. Why was it that I myself read an old musty Bill for the regulation of Select Vestries before the Queen's Speech was read from the woolsack? It was to vindicate the right of the House to transact their business without having to wait for the Royal Speech.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I beg your pardon; it is in exercise of a high constitutional privilege.
THE BISHOP of OXFORD: I must claim the noble Earl's attention for a moment. I did not discuss the merits of any Bill, but I endeavoured to point out that it was a matter of importance that we should not proceed to discuss the principle of the Bill on Monday next. We require more than to consider it. My mind is not made up upon it. When the noble Earl said I expressed myself strongly with regard to the conduct of the noble Earl opposite, he should have recollected that it was not until after I met with a refusal to a courteous request, and that my right rev. Brother was similarly treated, and I saw that the noble Earl was determined on carrying on the Bill to a second reading on Monday next. My sole object is to get the House to postpone the consideration of the principle of the Bill until the Bishops of the Church have time to form an opinion with respect to it; and I do still think that the determination to read it a second time, after the repeated and gentle requests to the contrary which have been made to the noble Earl, is an indecency.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsubmitted to his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) whether, under the circumstances, he ought not to postpone the consideration of his Bill to a longer day. Many noble Lords who felt strongly on the subject would not be able to be in their places on Monday. No doubt it was a measure of the greatest importance relating to the Church, inasmuch as, if passed, it would materially alter
136
the parochial system, and. would introduce clergymen into certain parishes without the approbation of the incumbents.
LORD CAMPBELLdeeply deplored that any feeling of irritation should have arisen upon a question so important. The noble Earl certainly was not to blame in getting his Bill read a second time at the hour he had done; but he (Lord Campbell), while he revered the object which his noble Friend had in view, yet feared that he was too precipitate in his zeal, and he would therefore suggest to him, especially as the Bishops of the Church would not be present, that he should not proceed with the second reading upon Monday evening next.
THE EARL OF SHAETESBURY: My Lords, I confess I did laugh when I heard the reference made to the conversation which I yesterday had with the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Canterbury; but it was because I saw him misrepresented here by those who have undertaken to represent him. It is perfectly true I yesterday had a conversation with that most rev. Primate; but in that conversation, which was conducted in terms of the greatest courtesy and kindness, there was no approach to any such terms as 'indecency' and 'stealing a march.' [The BISHOP of OXFORD: Hear, hear!] I certainly did understand from the right rev. Prelate that the most rev. Archbishop was instructed by the other Bishops to express to me the ' indecency' of proceeding with the second reading of the Bill on Monday next. [The BISHOP of OXFORD: Hear, hear!] If that be so, all I can say is, that he did not fulfil his mission. He did not say one word about my 'stealing a march.' [The BISHOP of OXFORD: Hear, hear!] I am glad that that expression did not come from the most rev. the Archbishop. When I heard it, I assigned it to that quarter to which any one who knows the temper of the right rev. Prelate opposite would assign it. As I see that it is the general feeling of the House that I should not ask the House to read the Bill a second time upon Monday, I shall tell you what I will do. It is necessary for my own justification that I should explain the principles of the Bill as early as possible. That course I will take on Monday evening next, but I shall postpone the second reading to some other day. Subject dropped.
House adjourned at a Quarter past Nine o'clock, till to-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.