Lords Sitting of 8 December 1857

THE DEBATE OF THE ADDRESS.

  FURTHER EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in reference to the conversation which took place in your Lordships' House yesterday between my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) and myself, permit me to say that even at this moment I am quite at a loss to clear up the contradiction between his statement and mine touching the communication alleged to have passed between the President of the Board of Control and the Peninsular and Oriental Company. I have ascertained to-day that the Managing Director of that Company, on whose authority I made that statement, is still absent in Paris. He has, however, been written to to-day, and I hope by Thursday or Friday, at the latest, I shall be able to throw further light on the matter. I shall then, I trust, either be able to satisfy the House and my noble Friend opposite that the President of the Board of Control labours under some defect of memory on this subject, or I shall be in a position, if it turn out that I have been misinformed, to offer an apology, which I shall do most cheerfully, and which I hope will be satisfactory to the House.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I disclaim the slightest wish, my Lords, to impute to the noble Earl any intentional misstatement of the facts in the matter in dispute; but there is some extraordinary misunderstanding on the part of some of the parties concerned, which it would be most satisfactory to have cleared up.

PENSION TO SIR HENRY HAVELOCK.

  THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE.
  THE QUEEN'S Message of yesterday read.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have upon the present occasion a peculiarly agreeable duty to perform, in which I am sure I shall meet with the

  315
  support of every one in this House; for, after the manner in which General Have-lock's name has been received wherever it has been mentioned, there can be no doubt that the House will cordially welcome any reward which Her Majesty may please to confer upon that gallant officer. I am sure also that every one of your Lordships will join with me in regretting that the circumstance of General Wilson being an officer in the East India Company's service precludes this House from marking its admiration of his noble services in the same way as those of General Havelock; for General Wilson has greatly contributed, under Divine Providence, to the successes which we have obtained. With respect to General Havelock, his claims upon the gratitude of the country are great and of long standing. He entered the army some considerable time ago—in 1815—so that he is not now a young man. Shortly afterwards he went to India, and served, I believe, in every campaign, and has been engaged in every principal action in India from 1824 down to the close of the late Persian war. It would be tedious, as it is unnecessary, to enumerate the number of stars and medals which that gallant officer bears upon his breast. Upon his return from the late Persian expedition he reached India almost simultaneously with the fearful outbreak of the Native soldiery which we so much deplore. He was immediately sent to join General Neill, with a very weak column of four regiments, partly Sikhs, and a small body of artillery, commanded by Captain Maude. He marched from Allahabad to relieve Cawnpore, but, as we all know, arrived too late to prevent one of the darkest pages being added to our Indian history. He effected one of the most extraordinary marches to be found in military annals. With his force decimated by fever and cholera, exposed to the effects of the heat at a season during which hitherto it had been considered impossible to move troops in India, he met and defeated the enemy no less than four times, inflicting great losses upon them on each occasion, between the 5th and the 16th of the same month. After leaving Cawnpore he marched to relieve Lucknow, and, after crossing the Ganges, he fought two battles on the 29th of July, one early in the morning and the other late in the evening, and in both again was victorious. However, being encumbered with sick and wounded, and his force very much reduced
  316
  in numbers, he was compelled to retrace his steps, to recross the river, and to await at Cawnpore the arrival of reinforcements. These reinforcements he received under the command of General Outram, who, I must remind the House, following the distinguished example of the late Commander in Chief, Lord Hardinge, in the Sikh campaign, most chivalrously and honourably to himself confined himself to his civil office, and accompanied General Havelock as a volunteer, in order that that gallant officer might have the credit which so properly belonged to him of having conducted the victorious troops under his command to the relief of the besieged city of Lucknow. His force then consisted of 2,700 men; they again crossed the Ganges, attacked and carried the enemy's position at Alumbagh on the 21st of September, and afterwards fought another battle under the walls of Lucknow. They ultimately arrived at Lucknow, but I am sorry to say that at present we have no information that their efforts have been crowned with that complete success which we all so earnestly desire, the expedition having been chiefly undertaken to rescue some of our helpless countrywomen and their children, who were surrounded by enormous bodies of Sepoys in arms. It must be the first wish of every one that God in His divine providence will permit these gallant heroes to effect their purpose, and that we may receive that information ere long. Our present duty, as your Lordships, I am sure, will unanimously agree, is by every means in our power to testify that we entirely concur with Her Majesty in wishing to do honour to one of her bravest and most distinguished soldiers. I beg, therefore, to move the following Address to Her Majesty:—
  "That this House returns Her Majesty the Thanks of this House for Her Majesty's most gracious Message, informing this House, ' That Her Majesty being desirous of conferring a signal Mark of Her Favour and Approbation on Major-General Sir Henry Havelock, Baronet, K.C.B., for the eminent and distinguished Services rendered by him in command of a Body of British and Native Troops in India, and particularly in the gallant and suc-

  317
  cessful Operations undertaken for the Relief of the Garrison of Lucknow, recommends it to the House of Lords to concur in enabling Her Majesty to make Provision for securing to Sir Henry Havelock a Pension of One Thousand Pounds per Annum for the Term of his natural Life; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in enabling Her Majesty to make such Provision."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it would be impertinent in me to attempt to follow the noble Earl in the statement which he has just made, especially as upon a former occasion I expressed my high sense of the services of General Havelock. I am happy, however, to have an opportunity of expressing my entire concurrence with the noble Earl in the eulogium which he has so justly pronounced upon General Wilson, whose name I inadvertently omitted to mention when I addressed your Lordships on a former occasion. I should be sorry if, in mentioning the names of distinguished officers, it should be thought that I had intentionally passed over one to whom we are so deeply indebted. I can only say for myself, and I believe I may say on behalf of every one of your Lordships, that we cordially concur in the Address which the noble Earl has moved. If there is one other name which I may venture to mention upon this occasion, it is one to which I adverted upon a former evening—the name of one who I trust still survives, and to whom the thanks of this country are eminently due—I refer to the gallant officer who so long commanded at Luck-now, Colonel Inglis, who, with all the anxieties attendant upon the presence of his wife and children, has nevertheless so nobly fulfilled the duties of his perilous position as commandant of the garrison. I am quite sure my noble Friend will feel that it is only right we should do justice to persevering gallantry under such trying circumstances.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I most heartily thank the noble Earl for the cordial manner in which he has seconded the Address. I would only wish to point out, in respect to what has just fallen from the noble Earl, that this is not the proper occasion or place to discuss the
  318
  distribution of honours, which is the prerogative of the Crown. It will be sufficient for me to remind the House that, although it would be most gratifying to confer honours on the spot where they are earned, yet that when they have to be conferred at home it is necessary for the Government to await complete official information.
  At a later period of the evening,
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE,who had been absent when the Address was moved, rose and said: I wish, my Lords, to set myself right with your Lordships with respect to my absence from the House in the early part of the evening, when Her Majesty's gracious Message in reference to General Havelock was under consideration. I am perfectly aware that I am out of order in adverting to that subject now, but I am extremely desirous that my absence should not be supposed to be intentional, and I am sure your Lordships will give me credit for speaking with sincerity when I say that there is not a single Member of your Lordships' House who is more anxious to do honour to so gallant and distinguished a soldier as General Havelock than myself. Many greater campaigns, no doubt, than that in which he has been engaged can be found recorded in history; but I very much question whether an arduous service has ever been performed with greater zeal, devotion, judgment, or discretion by any officer in command of troops than has been within the last few months displayed by the distinguished General whom your Lordships have this evening honoured. Not only have the troops under his command been opposed to very large bodies of Native soldiers, who have surrounded them on all sides, but they have had to contend against one of the severest of climates—a foe equally formidable. It has, indeed, been often stated, so trying is that climate, that European troops could neither march nor fight during the summer months in India. In encountering its severity our troops have had to endure great suffering, but they have, nevertheless, performed their duty nobly. As has been stated to your Lordships, all troops, beyond doubt, look up to their leader; and Sir Henry Havelock possesses, I believe, among other distinguished qualities, that which enables him to induce his men cheerfully to follow him in carrying out any undertaking in which he may desire to embark.

  319
  He is beloved by his troops, and therefore the duties which he requires at their hands they zealously discharge. I trust, my Lords, that the service in which he is now engaged will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. We cannot but look with anxiety for the results which we expect daily to hear; but I doubt not that if that service is possible it will be performed by this distinguished officer. It is also but right that, while honouring General Havelock, we should also concede due honour to Sir James Outram, who upon this occasion waived his claim as a general officer of higher rank and allowed to Sir Henry Havelock the distinguished honour of relieving Lucknow. It is gratifying also on such an occasion to be able to allude to officers of both services—that of the East India Company as well as that of Her Majesty. In doing honour, as we have done this evening, to an officer of the Queen's service, I am glad to think that an officer of the East India Company's service—I mean Sir Archdale Wilson—has not been forgotten. It is gratifying to find both these services so zealous and acting so entirely in harmony; for so alone, my Lords, can the interests of the country be properly attended to. I understand that in the course of this evening a noble Friend of mine (the Earl of Derby) alluded to another gallant officer whom he thought deserving of honour (Colonel Inglis). I believe my noble Friend behind me (Earl Granville) replied, that although this was not the place in which these things could be decided upon, inasmuch as it concerned the prerogative of the Crown, yet, at the same time, he was quite ready to state that a considerable difficulty existed in conferring these distinctions off-hand, because the information we received from the seat of war was so scanty, and came at such long intervals. My Lords, that is precisely the view which I take of this case. I can assure you on my own part, and in conjunction with my noble Friend behind me (the Secretary for War), that we have the greatest desire at once to meet the cases as they arise, and to award distinctions as soon as possible after the actions which call for them, knowing full well that half the value of those rewards and distinctions lies in the fact of the services being acknowledged on the spot. But your Lordships must at the same time be aware that the great events which have
  320
  taken place in India are so peculiar, the distances between the several scenes of action are so enormous, the cases are so isolated, that we have had great difficulty in procuring information on which we can safely and speedily act in the distribution of public honours; and though in General Havelock's instance there can be no question that he deserves the honours bestowed upon him, and my noble Friend has been able to advise Her Majesty to act at once, there are many other cases which will probably have to be met respecting which we are not yet in a position to determine without information. I am happy to have an opportunity of making this statement, because I have seen it declared in some quarters that there has been a remissness or a slackness in conferring these honours. As far as I am concerned, I am sure there is every disposition to bestow honours on all those to whom they are due; and I am sure that no honour which your Lordships can pay, or which Her Majesty in the exercise of Her prerogative can confer, is too great for the services rendered not alone by those who led our troops in India, but by those gallant troops themselves. I can only, my Lords, conclude by expressing my entire and cordial concurrence in the vote to which your Lordships have come this evening.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: As the Royal Duke has done me the honour to refer to something which fell from me this evening, I hope both he and your Lordships will believe that in introducing the name of Colonel Inglis into this discussion I had not the slightest intention to be guilty of the presumption of even suggesting the bestowal of any honour upon that or any other officer. I quite agree with the Royal Duke in the difficulty which must be experienced in procuring proper information in these matters, and I think that the fewer recommendations of individual officers for rewards and distinctions which are made by Members either of this or the other House, or from any private quarter, the better. These, however, ought to be derived directly and spontaneously from the Crown, for unless that is so they lose a great deal of their value, while, at the same time, the Crown loses a great part of that which is its proper prerogative. I do think, however, that in discussing the services of General Havelock, and the rewards bestowed upon him in con-

  321
  sequence of those services, relating too, as they did, to the relief of Lucknow—the occasion was not an inappropriate one to introduce some mention of the services, the perseverance, the exertions under great difficulties which have characterised Colonel Inglis as commanding the regiment principally concerned in the defence of Lucknow.
  LORD PANMUREwas happy to think that while Parliament would confer upon General Havelock, a Queen's officer, a substantial mark of the favour of the Crown and the nation, a similarly substantial mark of the favour of the East India Company would be recommended by the Directors and would no doubt be conferred upon his gallant companion in arms, Sir Archdale Wilson. With respect to all the other brave officers with whose names and exploits in India the country was familiar, he perfectly concurred with what had fallen from the Royal Duke, and thought that any suggestions respecting the bestowal of honours upon them would be an interference with the prerogative of the Crown, while it would lower the value of those honours even in the eyes of the officers who were to receive them.
  Address ordered, Nemine Dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING—DEBATE ADJOURNED.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, although I do not intend to press the second reading of this Bill upon the present occasion, yet I think it is incumbent upon me to make some statement of the reasons which have induced me to bring forward this measure. Your Lordships will remember that in 1855 a Bill was passed by this House and ultimately became law, entitled, "An Act for securing the Liberty of Religious Worship." That Act left the ecclesiastical law untouched, and did not alter in any way the authority of the diocesans, or interfere with the obligations of the clergy. It only relieved laymen and clergymen of the Church of England from penalties for having services or prayers in unlicensed places. The object of the Act was one of great importance,
  322
  in consequence of the state of the population in large towns, and especially in this metropolis. The population has so increased that it has gone completely beyond the control of what is called the parochial system—so much so that the existing number of churches is insufficient for the wants of the population, and unless we could obtain a large vote of public money or procure enormous contributions from private sources to build churches adequate to those wants, and to endow a sufficient number of clergymen to officiate in them, it became necessary to resort to other means of making known to large classes of the people the first principles of Christianity, its doctrines, and the duties they inculcate. It was with the view of enabling us to open places of worship at little expense and practically adapted for affording such instruction that the Act was passed; and as soon as that Act became law I and other gentlemen considered in what way we could make use of the facilities it afforded. We determined to open Exeter Hall; and if in time we should find the end we sought was obtained, to open other places for divine worship in which we could have a certain form of prayer and sermons delivered by clergymen selected from all parts of the kingdom. Those services were instituted last year under the sanction of the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of London, and with the sanction of the incumbent of the district within which Exeter Hall is situated. When we asked the clergyman's sanction it was as a matter of courtesy, not admitting nor denying the power which is now supposed by law to reside in him to inhibit these services. But the permission of the incumbent was solicited and given; and the services were instituted, as I have already said, under his sanction. Now, my Lords, let us bear in mind that vast masses of people exist in this great metropolis and in our great towns who are almost entirely deprived of religious instruction of any description. I have alluded to the paucity of churches and to the inadequacy of the number of the clergy to the discharge of their duties, and I can assure your Lordships that even in those parishes in which the staff of clergymen is greatest—and I shall be borne out in that statement by the clergy themselves—a very large proportion of

  323
  the working-classes have the utmost difficulty in obtaining the advantage of spiritual teaching. I will content my self with stating the fact without entering into the causes to which it is to be attributed, but that the fact is what I have described it to be nobody can gainsay. The habits and mode of life of the lower orders, the extent to which their religious training has hitherto been neglected, and the great distrust of the clergy of the Church of England by which they are influenced—looking upon them, as I am sorry to say they do, only in the light of gentlemen who wear black coats and receive large salaries—have caused the obstacles to gaining access to those classes upon the part of the clergy to be so overwhelming that some of the clergymen in London—those most active and painstaking in the discharge of the duties of their sacred calling—have found that at the close of a long life they have been unable to make any advance in becoming acquainted with a large proportion of the people within their care. We, therefore, my Lords, found it necessary to accommodate ourselves to that peculiar state of things, and to see what we could do without departing from those principles of propriety which it was most important that we should preserve. Under these circumstances, then, we resolved to invite the classes to which I have referred to attend at services at which they might, at all events, be enabled to hear evangelical prayers and be instructed in the doctrine of the Gospel by some approved minister who would be found ready to undertake the performance of that duty. An invitation in accordance with that resolution was accordingly issued, and Exeter Hall was thrown open to the working-classes upon the following conditions,—namely, that those who came first should be first served; that there should be no distinction of persons, no reserved seats, no collection, and, in short, that every one who came, no matter how humble he might be, should be dealt with upon precisely the same footing as if he were the first man in the land. The result answered, I am happy to say—nay, it exceeded—our most sanguine expectations, not only so far as relates to the number of those who attended at the services, but also so far as their position in life is concerned. Their earnestness, and the amount of attention and
  324
  deep feeling which they evinced, was something which I dared not even imagine would be exhibited. I, as a matter of duty and of principle, was present at the whole twelve services. I watched their progress from beginning to end, and I can bear testimony to the fact that towards their close the earnestness and attention to which I have alluded had greatly increased, even in comparison with the first occasion when those qualities were displayed upon the part of a large congregation of working people, assembled together suddenly and without any restraint, to a degree which created surprise and satisfaction in the breast of everybody who took an interest in the movement. Four or five thousand people were assembled in the hall on each occasion—no restraint whatever was imposed upon them—and the result was far different from what some anticipated if large masses should be collected together. Well, my Lords, I have mixed with the working-classes since that period. I have corresponded with them; and I can assure your Lordships that the effect which these services has produced upon their minds has been of a character at once deep and lasting. They spoke during the progress of the services, as they speak now, with the utmost gratitude of the Church of England. They expressed their astonishment at finding that the clergy of that Church should have shown themselves so eager to promote their welfare. I saw my right rev. Friend the Bishop of Carlisle in his canonical robes officiating to a vast mass of those poor and hitherto forgotten people, and it is, I can assure your Lordships, with tears in their eyes that they speak of this instance of the interest which has been exhibited in their regard—they say they could not have believed it possible, unless they had lived to see it themselves. Now, my Lords, I am convinced that it is only by such means that the Church of England can arrive at a full sense of its duties: and I am convinced that if these services had been continued, every human being who has attended them—with very few exceptions indeed—would have become a firm and true adherent of the Established Church. The Exeter Hall services are, however, now at an end. They have been stopped by the authority of the incumbent of that district in which Exeter Hall is situated; and, with-

  325
  out entering into any inquiry whether the law justified him in taking that course or not, I may state to your Lordships that the reason which induced us to acquiesce in the inhibition was simply that which I am about to mention. The services were to have been recommenced in the month of October under the sanction of the Bishop of the diocese. Shortly before the day upon which they were to have been recommenced, however—I believe only one day before that time—an inhibition was issued by the incumbent of the district to the minister who was to have officiated, and who lives at Ramsgate. That gentleman at once wrote up to say that he did not understand the meaning of the doctrine upon which the inhibition was founded; but as his preaching might be a breach of the law, and he did not wish to appear before the public as a breaker of the law, he must decline to officiate. That announcement took us by surprise. Several members of the committee were in different parts of the country, and but a very few of its number were to be found in London. Those who were here deemed it to be the wisest course to take—being ignorant of the law upon the subject—to declare that as the minister who was to perform the services did not wish to expose himself to the consequences of entering upon the duty, the services should be closed, and should not be renewed until further inquiries had been made. If my own individual opinion had been acted upon at the time, the services would have been persevered in, because I have very great doubt as to whether the power of inhibition upon the part of the incumbent legally exists. Assuming, however, that such a power does exist, I think it is highly expedient that some step should be taken either to do away with it altogether, or, at all events, to qualify its exercise to some extent. Now, my Lords, let me for one moment direct your attention to the grounds upon which the inhibition in question was issued. The first ground which is set forth by the rev. incumbent is that the Exeter Hall services did not answer the purpose for which they were instituted, inasmuch as they were not attended by persons belonging to that class whose benefit, it was sought to promote; and the second ground which was advanced was, that those services had the effect of emptying the ordinary churches
  326
  Now, the latter charge I believe to be altogether unfounded. The services were held at half-past six o'clock, while the canonical services of the church are invariably held at eleven o'clock in the morning and at three o'clock in the afternoon. I must also express my belief that very few of the ordinary attendants of our churches were habitual frequenters of these services; some persons belonging to the better classes did, no doubt, attend upon some occasions at Exeter Hall; but it was our particular request that none but the working-classes should come there, to the exclusion of those who were ordinary attendants at church. I do not, however, mean to say that we were not upon the whole glad that there were present a mixture of classes, inasmuch as it was likely to be agreeable to the working-classes themselves that there should appear to be a community of worship, and that there should be no exclusiveness in places of worship as regarded different classes. But, be that as it may, to say that the members of the working-classes did not constitute the vast majority of those who attended those services is to make an assertion which must either be the result of malignity and a desire to misrepresent the truth, or of a total ignorance of the facts of the case. Several Members of both Houses of Parliament went to Exeter Hall upon those occasions, and I appeal to them whether those whom they saw assembled there were not essentially members of the working-classes? To the young men connected with the Sunday schools who were placed at the entrances to the hall to prevent any persons but those connected with the working-classes from going in, and to ascertain that the services had been effective of the object which the promoters of them had in view, I would make a similar appeal. I feel assured that by them the accuracy of my testimony will be corroborated, and that they will one and all be ready to bear witness to the order and the decorum which pervaded the whole of the vast multitude which at those services was congregated in Exeter Hall. Well, my Lords, the services have been stopped, notwithstanding that the rev, incumbent had been earnestly solicited not to persevere in his inhibition; and what has been the result? The Dissenters have taken up the position which the Church of England is not allowed to oc-

  327
  cupy. The services thus inhibited were opened under the sanction of the Bishop of the diocese, and closed against his entreaty—nay, his supplication. The Nonconformist body have stepped into our places, and I say here, as I have said everywhere, and as I shall continue to maintain, that to the members of that body we owe a debt of gratitude for the manner in which our places have been supplied. They have in this instance acted with a delicacy and a forbearance which redounds infinitely to their credit. They declined to engage Exeter Hall until they had ascertained that it would be quite impossible for us to renew our services, and having taken the hall they offered to give it up at any moment the inhibition should be removed. They also, that they might not seem to do anything by way of foil or contrast to us, adopted most minutely forms of the service which we had instituted. They selected the hymns which we used to have sung, and the officiating minister read a lesson and a portion of the Litany of the Church of England from the Book of Common Prayer; while in his discourses he never either directly or indirectly alluded to the difficulties under which the Church of England was placed in the attempt to preach the Gospel to the masses, or to the freedom of the party to which he belonged, or to the manner in which that body had come forward to follow in our footsteps. Now, my Lords, let us just observe the position in which the Church of England is placed in reference to this question. When Exeter Hall was shut against us, we applied for the use of St. Martin's, another fine hall in its vicinity. The incumbent of the district in which that hall is situated, however, although he approved the services which were held at Exeter Hall, yet considering that the services had been inhibited in the manner he had mentioned, announced it to be his intention to issue his inhibition against our holding services within his parish. We are therefore in this position, that while in the hall which I have just mentioned, members of every persuasion—infidels—nay, even the Mormonites themselves—may arise and preach to the people, to the ministers of the Church of England alone is that privilege denied. But then, my Lords, when we were shut out from these great halls, was any substitute offered us? Were any means placed
  328
  within our reach by which to instruct the tens of thousands who came Sunday after Sunday to hear the Word of God? For I should mention that, though Exeter Hall held but 5,000, half as many more were sent away every week for want of room, and the doors were thronged an hour or an hour and a half before they were opened, so that people might be sure of finding admission. Was any substitute offered us? None. We have indeed been told very indistinctly that in the course of time Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's may be opened for short services and extemporaneous preaching. Now, no one would rejoice more than I should to see these edifices opened for service several times a day, and every evening also. I should greatly rejoice if five St. Pauls' and five Westminster Abbeys could thus be open to the public. But, if that were so, even they—vast us they be—would not be enough to take in the hundreds of thousands who are within this vast metropolis, who are now in spiritual destitution. Besides this, another consideration presents itself in the peculiar habits, manners, and tastes of a great portion of our population. There are large numbers of people who never will go to any recognised place of worship at all. What may be their motives it is not for me now to state; what may be the feelings which guide them I should be rather afraid to mention. Yet these people are not unwilling to be taught if you will teach them in their own way; and, considering their numbers—considering that they have immortal souls like ourselves—I think we are bound to do everything we can consistently with principle and with truth to engage these persons to come and hear the Word of God as preached by the ordained and authorised ministers of the Church of England. The class of which I am speaking will not now enter Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's; but my firm belief is, that if they be got into the habit of attending the occasional services in Exeter Hall and the buildings to which we sought to attract them, they will end by going to the Abbey, to St. Paul's, and at last to their parochial churches, if they are but treated with propriety and respect when they enter those places. I use the words "propriety and respect," because I consider it a great defect in our churches—a defect which has not grown up of late years; on the contrary, we are now learn-

  329
  ing to avoid it—that the working-classes, when they attend the services of the Establishment, generally find the churches pewed up in the very aisles—that they are shut out from places where they can hear and be well accommodated, and not placed on a footing of equality with the rest of the congregation. They see many nooks and corners reserved for the working-classes; they find free seats set apart for them; but they will not occupy these places; they think they are looked upon as a distinct order of beings, and that they are looked down upon and despised. Unless, therefore, you show them proper respect, and in the House of God admit that there at least there is equality, depend upon it the vast proportion of the labouring population in London, will never be brought to attend the worship of the Establishment. Now, they went to Exeter Hall because, as they over and over again assured us, they found themselves treated there with respect, had the opportunity of getting the best places, were not driven into the nooks and corners of the building, and were in all respects recognised as human beings equally with ourselves. It appears, then, to me that, considering the vast numbers at present unprovided with religious instruction, the great necessity which exists for bringing this mighty mass within the influence of Gospel ministration—considering, moreover, that this can be done if we accommodate ourselves to the peculiar habits of the people—the power of inhibition which stands in the way of an object so desirable, must either be altogether removed or greatly modified. This power is a very great one to be exercised by persons of a subordinate station, and from their position irresponsible. I think it ought to be vested in individuals occupying a higher station in the Church—those who are directly responsible to your Lordships' House and to the people of England. I wish to speak with respect of the parochial system, and also of the parochial clergy; but we must bear in mind in considering this system that it has to be regarded in two aspects—namely, as it affects the incumbent and as it affects the people. Now, any one conversant with the parochial system knows that in the rural districts it can be carried completely into effect; there the people have a personal knowledge of the clergyman, and the clergy can attend to the especial wants
  330
  of their flock, and need neglect none. When, however, we come to such large districts and parishes as are to be found within this metropolis, where 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000 persons have to look up to one incumbent for spiritual assistance and guidance, how is it possible that any portion of the system can be properly carried out? In such a case is it not something tantamount to a mockery? Nugatory as it is, however, in these districts, the parochial system is constantly brought forward as an argument against any improvement which may be contemplated. I repeat that the system must be regarded under two aspects—as it affects the incumbent and as it affects the people. We know the rights of the incumbent; but what are the rights of the people where it is in force? Every man, woman, and child may claim a seat in the parish church, and also the personal and direct ministration of the clergy. Is that right respected and allowed in our larger towns? Can the system in that aspect of it be carried out? Why, when you go to the east end of London and look at those swarming parishes, where, thank God! there are some of the most devout, active, and pious men who ever ministered to the Church of Christ, these clergymen will tell you, with tears in their eyes, that they cannot discharge one-tenth of their duties, and the people therefore must be left without that superintendence and deprived of the enjoyment of those rights which properly belong to them. If, then, the people possess these rights, and if it is manifestly impossible that they can enjoy them—if we have to relax the parochial system in our inability to afford the people their full rights—if it is impossible for the minister to extend to them his pastoral superintendence, and if the parish church cannot receive them, where are they to go? Where, except to places like Exeter Hall, the doors of which are thrown open, to invite these neglected wanderers from other parts of London to enter and listen to the Word of God? You shut them out from their rights in their own parishes; you tell them that here the parochial system cannot be maintained; they then come down to Exeter Hall, and are suddenly met with the declaration that there the system must be observed with all its rigours. You tell them—"No! The incumbent here is determined to exert his full au-

  331
  thority, and will allow no human being but himself to preach the Word of God within his district." Thus, the persons who come from those distant parishes, where they cannot enjoy their rights, find that no regard is paid anywhere to those rights; that their civil liberties are not respected, and their spiritual instruction remains uncared for. Now, it seems to me that you must do one of two things—either make the parochial system, with the attendant rights conferred by it, rigidly observed in every parish throughout the country, due provision being everywhere made for the spiritual instruction of the people and their accommodation in the churches; or else you must make such relaxations in the system as are demanded by the necessities of the time and the wants of the population. As to saying that you will maintain the present state of things—that you will allow the parochial system to be entirely broken through in one district and yet preserve it in all its rigour in another district—I think this is an outrage upon the people of this country—a declaration that the Church of England is not to instruct, but to deny instruction, and coerce those who attempt to impart it. I hold in my hand a letter I have just received from a dignitary of the Church, who by no means agrees with me in all things, and from this letter I cannot help quoting one short passage:—
  "I entreat you (he says) to persevere in any measure which may prevent a parochial charge for the health of men's souls from being turned into a territorial dominion to impede their being taught."
  This appears to me to contain the whole sum and substance of the case, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that some relaxation must take place in the present system, and that we cannot leave these mighty masses uncared for. At present the Bishops of the Church are placed in a very peculiar position. In this instance the Bishop of the diocese gave his sanction to the services at Exeter Hall. Having surveyed the condition of the people, being deeply touched with their spiritual destitution, he entered most warmly into our scheme, himself attended the services, and closed one of them by pronouncing the benediction. When the inhibition was issued the Bishop of the diocese had a long interview with the incumbent, and implored him (using not episcopal authority, but
  332
  episcopal entreaty) that he would desist from his opposition, and allow the services to go on. But in vain. Now, the Bishop is in a great measure responsible for the spiritual condition of his diocese, and if, when he sees that its wants are crying and grievous, and sanctions the means used for the purpose of supplying those wants, he is to be set at naught by the incumbent of a district, who declares that the Word of God shall not be preached there except by himself, I must say it appears to me that this Bishop has little more to do except to retire from the field altogether, and leave the subordinate clergyman in quiet possession. I think it is necessary that something should be done either to remove or to alter the power of inhibition. I am most anxious for the preservation of parochial rights, and therefore in the proposition I am about to submit to your Lordships I shall be very careful not to infringe upon those rights further than I conceive to be absolutely necessary. I wish to legislate upon the immediate point to which I have called your Lordships' attention, and not to go beyond it; but at the same time I must tell your Lordships that I am constantly receiving oral communications and written communications, both with and without signatures, charging me with pusillanimity for not going further—declaring that the measure I have proposed is most unsatisfactory—that it will be attended with little, if any, advantage—that a great deal more must be conceded, and that the members of the Church of England will have larger concessions. I think I am bound in candour to say to those of the bench of Bishops—because the whole body are not agreed—who resist any alteration on this essential subject, that the terms demanded will become year by year far more extensive, and I have not the slightest doubt that the perseverance of the laity of the Church, supported by the great body of the clergy, will eventually succeed in effecting the great object described by the Apostle, that "the Word of the Lord may have free course and be glorified." I will now tell your Lordships what is the nature of my proposition. Without affirming or denying the power of inhibition, I assume that it exists; and I propose that this power of inhibition shall not extend to parishes or districts the population of which by the last preceding census exceeded 2,000. In pa-

  333
  rishes with a population of less than 2,000 the clergyman may say—"We are perfectly competent to manage our own parishes; we don't want any sort of assistance; the whole thing is entirely within our grasp;" and in those cases I think the parochial system may be continued. This provision will exclude from the operation of the Bill a great number of country parishes where the clergymen are capable of discharging their parochial duties, and really do perform them. I think the power of inhibition should not, however, extend to parishes where the population exceeds 2,000 souls. I then propose that this power of inhibition, which may in some instances be wise and necessary, should be exercised under prominent responsibility, and the Bill provides that such inhibition shall not be valid unless it be sanctioned by the Bishop of the diocese, who will be the judge of the necessity either of admitting or rejecting any clergyman of the Church of England who may come into a parish. The responsibility ought, in my opinion, to rest upon the Bishop, because he can take a large view of the necessities of his diocese, and will not be influenced by motives of interest in regarding the condition of its various districts. I further propose to limit the Bill entirely to the occasional services held under the Act commonly called the "Liberty of Religious Worship Act" I provide that the power of inhibition shall be limited to "any congregation or assembly occasionally meeting for religious worship in any building or buildings not usually appropriated to purposes of religious worship." I think your Lordships will see, therefore, that I have asked no more than is absolutely necessary. I propose to legislate only for an evil that has arisen, and to leave the parochial system untouched wherever it is unnecessary to interfere with it. I have only proposed such a measure as will enable hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands to meet in places not ordinarily appropriated to religious worship, where they may receive the teachings of ordained clergymen. On Sunday last I attended one of the services conducted by Nonconformists, and the hall was thronged, principally by members of the working-classes, who were most devout and attentive. I confess that as I walked away I wag almost overwhelmed with shame
  334
  to think that the Church of England alone was excluded from holding such services; that the Church of England alone, which is constituted the Church of the realm, and to which such a duty is peculiarly assigned, should be the only body, among believers or unbelievers, which is not allowed to open a hall with the view of giving instruction to the people. In consequence of the representations of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), who stated that it was the wish of a large majority of the Bishops, I promised to postpone the second reading of this Bill; but in urging this postponement—which is no doubt intended to lead to the ultimate rejection of the measure—I must say I think the right rev. Prelates make the fatal announcement that the Established Church, as she now stands, is not capable of performing those duties the discharge of which was the object of her foundation, and that she is altogether unable, unless with the aid of the Nonconformists, to instruct and evangelize the people of this country. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill, with the view of adjourning the debate on the Motion to the 8th February.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I should be sorry to interfere between the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of St. David's, who had risen to address the House) and your Lordships, but I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the measure which has been submitted to us by the noble Earl. I rise rather for the purpose of expressing my satisfaction at his determination to postpone the consideration of this question; but I must at the same time express my regret at the terms in which he has signified his intention of doing so. I can assure the noble Earl that he does a great injustice to many of those who desire that the consideration of the subject should be postponed, if he interprets that desire as an intimation of hostility to the measure; for he will find among them many who are warm advocates for some change in the law as relating to religious worship. I am sure, also, it is an injustice to the right rev. Prelates to suppose that in pressing the postponement of this Bill, which is certainly one of very considerable importance, they were influenced by a determination to reject the

  335
  measure. I must remind the noble Earl that some degree of suspicion always attaches to legislative propositions which bear upon individual cases. In a great deal of what has been said by the noble Earl as to the defects and shortcomings of the parochial system, I fully and entirely concur; and I am quite aware of the necessity of adopting some measures in order to remedy those defects. I will not attempt to enter into any discussion upon the topics to which the noble Earl has referred. All I wish to say is, that according to the declaration of my noble Friend himself, this Bill is brought in for the purpose of dealing with a case which has arisen with reference to the Exeter Hall services. Now, my Lords, I pronounce no opinion—indeed I am not competent to do so—as to the amount of good which those services may have produced; but because a clergyman of the Church of England has exercised those rights which undoubtedly belong to him according to the existing law of the Church, my noble Friend steps in, and, without a moment's hesitation, without discussing the question whether the law of the Church is on the whole right or wrong, asks us by the authority of Parliament to interfere for the purpose of meeting this individual case. I contend that that is not the fitting mode of dealing with a question of this great importance. I do not mean to say that my noble Friend is debarred from bringing forward any particular question which he may think of urgency and importance during this short Session; but it must be recollected that an announcement has been made on the part of Her Majesty's Government that it was not their intention that any other business should be transacted than that for which Parliament was specially summoned, and hon. Members on the opposite side of the House expressed their willingness to acquiesce in such an arrangement, and intimated that they would not interfere with the progress of the one measure to which the Government desired to confine the attention of Parliament by the interposition of other business. After that announcement was made it was quite clear that there would be a very small attendance of Members of either House during the short Session before Christmas; and if any proof were required of the inconvenience of passing a measure of this nature at the present
  336
  time, I need only direct attention to the bench of Bishops, where I find that that body are at this moment represented by three only of their number. Many right rev. Prelates are performing various duties in different parts of the country, without any expectation that your Lordships would be called upon at this time to discuss a question affecting the interests and welfare of the Established Church. On the first day of the Session, however, just before the House broke up, my noble Friend, without a single word, laid this Bill upon the table, and moved that it be read a second time and taken into consideration on the following Monday, it being then understood that the next day—Friday—the House would only meet pro formâ, and that no business would be transacted. It happened, however, that a conversation on the subject of this Bill took place on Friday, in consequence of which my noble Friend has postponed his measure. The Bill is one which, in my opinion, involves a principle of great importance. I will not say my noble Friend's proposition may not he a good one, or that it may not be advisable to adopt this or some analogous measure; but great objections may and must arise to a total alteration, in many important respects, of the parochial system throughout the country. I rose, however, merely for the purpose of saying that those who desire the postponement of this measure are not to be regarded as its opponents, and to express a hope that, as my noble Friend has had the opportunity of stating fully and ably his own views and arguments, and of thereby placing his Bill in the most favourable position before the public, your Lordships will not think it necessary on this occasion to enter upon the partial and imperfect discussion of a question the further consideration of which is, by consent, adjourned. I am most anxious that the subject should be fully and fairly discussed. I do not pretend to have made up my mind as to the course which should be adopted. The question is one which was very fully considered when my noble Friend introduced his former Bill; and it was then understood to be the prevailing opinion that the parochial system should not be interfered with. Therefore what was then done is in opposition to the principle which the noble Earl now calls on the House to assent

  337
  to. I hope, as this debate is to be continued on a future occasion, the House will not now enter into an irregular and unnecessary discussion of the question.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, he was exceedingly thankful to the noble Earl who last spoke for his interruption, to which the House was indebted for a speech which, he for one, had heard with great satisfaction, and which must have great influence on their Lordships and the public out of doors. He assured the House that in the few remarks he was about to make he should be careful to keep within the range pointed out by the noble Earl, and not to anticipate any discussion which the measure might undergo on a future occasion; but as he was one of those who deprecated what he considered to be the undue haste with which this measure was pressed on by the noble Earl who proposed it, he desired to make a few remarks partly in explanation of his own motives, and partly in reference to the statement which that noble Earl had just made. He desired it to be most distinctly understood that his motive for wishing the postponement of the measure was not because he did not attribute to the noble Earl the purest, best, and most honourable motives, or because he felt less deeply and strongly even than the noble Earl himself the great and pressing importance of the object which the noble Earl had in view; it was solely because he thought the subject was one of too much importance to be dealt with so hastily. As far as his knowledge went, the noble Earl laboured under an entire misconception if he supposed that any member of the Episcopal bench was opposed to that object. At all events, if the noble Earl had come to that conclusion in consequence of anything said the other night, the noble Earl might be assured that he for his part would give him no opposition, if he could reconcile the proposed measure, which had his sympathy, with the general interests of the Church, and with the maintenance of the parochial system. He had formed no final judgment on this subject, and had not committed himself in any way to an opinion on either side. He was prepared to listen to the arguments for this measure at any future period, not only with the most perfect impartiality, but
  338
  really with the hearty desire to carry it into effect:—in fact, he could hardly conceive why the noble Earl should suppose that any members of the Episcopal bench could be opposed à priori to such a proposition, because, when its nature and tendency were considered, it seemed calculated in a most important degree to increase the power and authority they now possessed. He assured their Lordships that he should have been exceedingly gratified by such a mark of confidence towards the Episcopal body coming from the noble Earl, had he not been aware that, after the most rev. Prelate (the Primate) had failed to induce the noble Earl to depart from his original intention of pressing on the measure, the noble Earl had given way to the authority of the Lord Chief Justice. Now, he thought that, on a subject of this peculiar nature, the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury might have been considered as great as that of the Lord Chief Justice. In the greater part of the noble Earl's statements he fully concurred, and had heard with great satisfaction almost everything that fell from him. He gave the noble Earl credit for a desire neither to misstate nor exaggerate any fact in the slightest degree; but there were one or two points on which the noble Earl appeared to him to labour under some misapprehension. In the first place, he thought there was much greater reason than the noble Earl was aware of to doubt the success of the experiment which the noble Earl had made. There might be, he allowed, great difficulty in ascertaining how far it had succeeded or not, but if the object was such as he had understood it to be, then he must say that the reports which had come to his hearing led him, very reluctantly, to question the success of the experiment. This movement was intended, as he had fancied, to make some impression on the heathenism of that vast mass of the population of this great city which was never in any way brought within the sound of the Gospel, or ever partook in the ordinances of the Christian religion. On that essentially rested the great interest of the movement; and when it was first made public he entertained the strongest wishes for its success; but facts had come, he would not say to his actual knowledge, but had reached him, so attested that he was disposed to believe

  339
  them, which led him to doubt whether that object which he had just described had been in any degree attained, and whether the persons who had formed the great bulk of the congregations at these occasional services did belong to that unhappy class for whose benefit he had sincerely hoped those services were designed. On the contrary, he believed they belonged to a very different class of persons—persons to whom the Word of God was not entirely new or strange, who were in the habit of attending occasionally religious worship, and who could not, therefore, be considered in the light of heathens or outcasts from the blessings of Christianity. He would not say for a moment that there might not be present also persons of a different description, for whom it might he exceedingly desirable to provide church accommodation. He fully admitted that such was the case; but, nevertheless, he could not consider the urgency of the case so pressing if these occasional services, instead of being attended by persons now for the first time enjoying the opportunity of having the Gospel propounded to them, were attended by a class of persons who, if not there, might be receiving, it might be, some inferior kind of instruction, and attending a less edifying kind of service, but still would be listening to instruction and attending Divine worship in some other way. He knew that such was the impression actually made at least on one person not unfavourable to the noble Earl's plan, but, on the contrary, one of its warmest approvers, who had watched its progress with friendly interest, but who, for the sake of truth, had done all in his power to ascertain the actual working of this experiment. That person declared that, as far as his experience and observation went, the experiment appeared to have failed. That might be open to doubt, as a matter of fact, but still, where there was so much doubt hanging over that which was the foundation of the measure, the noble Earl did not appear to have made out a sufficient case for the urgency with which he had intended to press the Bill on their Lordships. He now came to a point, perhaps more important. He thought the noble Earl had mistaken the immediate cause of the obstruction which had taken place in the progress of this experiment, and in so doing had placed in a light not exactly
  340
  true—and, if not true, in a light very invidious and injurious to the person concerned—the conduct of the clergyman whose inhibition had given occasion for the present measure. It must be very painful to a clergyman of the Church of England to be held up in their Lordships' House and before the eyes of the country as a person who refused to let the Word of God be preached in his parish, and he was sure their Lordships would favour him with their attention while he pointed out that there was very great reason to question the correctness of that imputation. As for one part of that clergyman's conduct he thought he could speak with entire confidence, because he had heard from him a statement so clear and distinct that it was impossible to be misunderstood, and he was sure that that person would not misrepresent the case. He had been informed by this gentleman that when his consent was first applied for to these occasional services, though he himself considered it a very questionable and doubtful experiment, though he clearly foresaw that it might be attended—as it had been—with a great deal of personal inconvenience to himself, still he gave way to the authority of his Bishop in some degree against his own convictions, and the only condition which he made on giving his consent was that these services should not be, as was originally designed, formed entirely on the model of a dissenting place of worship.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: As far as my memory serves me that condition was made by myself.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sdid not mean to deny that the condition was first suggested by his right rev. Friend; but it was insisted upon by the incumbent. It was, he believed, at first intended that neither the Evening Service nor the Litany should be read; and when it was proposed that the sermon should be preceded by the Litany a very strong objection was made, which was overruled by his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London), who suggested that the Litany, as being a medium between the Evening Service and the mere reading of a collect or two, should be used. It appeared to him, that the incumbent in the first part of the business, at all events, had acted with the greatest consideration both for the object in view and for the authority of his Bishop, Was it

  341
  then very natural that a person who had so conducted himself in the first stage of the transaction, at the interval of a few months should have undergone such an entire change in his views and character as to act as one who wilfully and obstinately prevented the preaching of the Word of God in his parish? He believed that the conduct of this gentleman in the latter part of the business had been also most conscientious, and that he had been driven to the line of conduct which he had adopted by the injudicious proceedings of other parties towards him. If that consent which had been requested from him at the beginning, and which he gave under the simple condition already mentioned, had been afterwards applied for in like manner, he would probably again have accorded it. But an opportunity to do that was never given to him. He was informed that he had no longer any voice in the matter, that either he must be supposed once for all to have given a consent which he could never retract, or else that those who applied for it in the first instance had been in error, and that his consent was not necessary. Thereupon he felt bound for the assertion of his right as a minister of the Church of England, to refuse his consent until the principle should be decided, until it should be ascertained whether he had a right to withhold his consent or not. Nor would he have been justified in acting in any other manner, and if any evil consequences had ensued from his inhibition, he was not the person who was responsible for them. That responsibility lay with those who, refusing to recognise that right which he conceived he possessed, by their denial drove him to try the question in a manner which had issued in the interruption of this experiment. He would not enter into any discussion upon this measure. He did not mean to say that the statement of the noble Earl might not be sufficient to show that there were good grounds for the introduction of such a measure, but where he conceived his statement entirely and signally to have failed was to show that there was any need for the urgency with which he had introduced it. He could not conceive that any serious injury to the interests of the Church of England could result from the postponement of the consideration of a measure which, whether it was a
  342
  right or wrong one, was on all hands admitted to introduce a very grave and important innovation into our parochial system. He most fully sympathized with the noble Earl in the desire which he had expressed to see the naves of Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's thrown open in the freest manner for the accommodation of the population of this great city. He hoped that the time might come when we should see those large spaces filled with large and devout congregations, composed, he would venture to say, of a class a little lower in the social scale than that which filled the area of Exeter Hall last summer. He further hoped that when these places should be crowded to overflow, and should be found insufficient to receive the multitudes who flocked to them, the Church of England might not be so utterly destitute either of spiritual or of temporal resources as to be unable to provide in this great city more than one building entirely devoted to such a purpose, and not one which was open on other occasions for purposes of a different, if not of a totally opposite nature. But he conceived that might and he hoped would be done without any important innovation on the parochial system; and until he found that he had been entirely misinformed about the most material circumstances of this case, he should continue to believe that they at all events did not afford a sufficient ground or reason for any such measure as that now before their Lordships.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he should be sorry indeed if any impression went abroad that any charge had been advanced by him against the gentleman referred to with respect to the first part of his conduct. In his estimation his conduct at first had been very praiseworthy. Nothing could be more proper than that a gentleman entertaining great doubts as to the wisdom of opening Exeter Hall for this object should communicate these doubts to his diocesan, take his opinion, and, finding his opinion adverse to his own, waive his objections, and permit the services to continue. As to his conduct afterwards, he should be sorry indeed if any expression which fell from his lips should be construed into a charge against the clergyman in question. He acted, as it was to be hoped every clergyman of the Church of England would act, most conscientiously. That the statement of his

  343
  right rev. Friend (the Bishop of St. David's) was perfectly correct as respected the other part of the business he could hardly allow, because he could state that an assurance had been given to this gentleman, that if any want of respect had been evinced by those who felt anxious for the continuance of these services, they were quite willing to make an acknowledgment of the right of the incumbent, and therefore, as his diocesan, he (the Bishop of London) besought this gentleman not to persist in withholding his consent. The incumbent was not to blame for having exercised the rights which he possessed. He acted conscientiously, and he (the Bishop of London) should deeply regret that he should be held up to opprobrium for what he had done. At the same time he should not be doing justice to those who were engaged in this movement if he did not add that he thought this gentleman had acted most mistakenly. When so great a movement as this, which he, as the Bishop of the diocese, esteemed to be one of the best works that had been undertaken since he entered upon his office, was stopped by a single incumbent, he did feel that the gentleman who had put his veto upon it did not exercise a sound discretion. No doubt he acted perfectly conscientiously, but he certainly acted very indiscreetly. One other explanation he must be allowed to make. The noble Earl had said something about the majority of the Bishops being opposed to this measure. His right rev. Friend had shown that this statement could not apply to all the members of the Episcopal bench, because when this Bill came to be discussed it would have, we might trust, his support, and he hoped also that of the right rev. Prelate who made some important observations a few nights ago. He wished to say a word about what passed on that evening. The most rev. Prelate (the Primate) usually took the opportunity of stating in that House his own sentiments and those of the bench, without leaving it to any other person to represent him. The most rev. Prelate was certainly present at the meeting of Bishops which had been held; but as he (the Bishop of London) was not in the House when this subject was last discussed, he could not say whether or not the terms in which that meeting was described were exaggerated; probably they were
  344
  not. At the same time he thought it would be no breach of confidence—indeed he thought it was his plain duty—to state what that meeting was. The Bishops met at certain times to discuss questions requiring a common decision. On this occasion there were six of them present, and as one went away there remained but five. The most rev. Prelate was strongly urged by one of the number to oppose the further proceeding with the noble Earl's Bill, on the ground that delay was desirable. He undertook to speak to the noble Earl; but, having failed in the object of his private representation, when he spoke to the noble Earl in the most friendly manner, he did not feel himself called upon to oppose the measure, even on the ground of delay being desirable; and he (the Bishop of London) was not quite certain whether, if the noble Earl had pressed his measure, the most rev. Prelate himself, as well as other members of the Episcopal bench, would not have felt bound to support it. Of this he was quite certain, that nothing like a majority of the Bishops was opposed to the proceedings of the noble Earl and his friends. He (the Bishop of London) had thanked him and those who acted with him in his own name, and he knew that many of his right rev. Friends were prepared to record their thanks for the good work which had been done; and he was happy to think that there was a prospect, a near prospect, that the example which had been so worthily set by these gentlemen would be followed by our great cathedrals. He rejoiced to be able to announce that Westminster Abbey would be open for Divine service on the evening of the 3rd of January, and he could express no better wish for the services to be conducted there and in St. Paul's Cathedral than that they might be attended by as great and hearty a body of worshippers as were found at the services in Exeter Hall. He agreed with his right rev. Friend that, even although the cathedrals should be thrown open, there would still be room for other services; and he hoped that so long as he occupied a position of responsibility he should encourage every good work, whether it was carried on in a cathedral or elsewhere. He did think that when Parliament met again they ought to legislate upon this subject. The parochial system must, of course, be maintained; but the law

  345
  did not maintain that system in all cases. Wherever it was proved that the parochial system was used to give the clergy a monopoly rather than to secure the rights of the laity, the law of the land had overridden the parochial system. He would refer to only two Acts of Parliament. One of them authorised the diocesan, without consulting the incumbent at all, to sever a large portion of his parish and make it into a new district parish. That, of course, was a more complete interference with the parochial system than anything which was proposed to be done by this Bill. An Act of Parliament, passed in the reign of George III., provided that if it should appear to the Bishop that the services performed in any parish church were not sufficient for the people, and that the system of pews, which had been referred to, excluded the parishioners from attending those services, the Bishop might, however obstinately opposed to such a step the incumbent might be, insist upon the performance of a third service; might order the incumbent to appoint a curate to discharge that duty; and, in the event of his refusing to do so, might himself appoint a curate, who should go into the church and officiate for the incumbent. That was the parochial system properly enforced. It was to be maintained, but it was to be maintained by the Bishop who was made the judge as to whether or not the incumbent was duly carrying it, out. He had referred to these cases, in order that when this measure was discussed their Lordships might really know that it was never the intention of the law to give to the incumbents a monopoly which should stand in the way of the teaching of the Gospel.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sstated in explanation that, as he was informed, the incumbent of the parish in which Exeter Hall was situated received, after his last interview with the right rev. Prelate, a letter from one of the persons interested in this movement in which his claims were positively and distinctly denied.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONsaid, that having preached at one of these special services in Exeter Hall it was his decided conviction, founded upon many years' experience as a minister in different churches in the Metropolis, that the congregation which he witnessed in Exeter Hall was to a very considerable extent composed of a class of persons whom he had never
  346
  seen assembled in any church whatever. He thought it impossible that any one who had been present at one of these services could for a moment doubt that the congregation was largely composed of the working classes, and he most deeply deplored that a stop should have been put to a movement which was, he believed, more calculated than any which had been commenced for many years past to augment the influence of the Church of England, and to advance the best interests of true religion.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that the great objection raised to the proposal of the noble Earl seemed to be that it was inconsistent with the parochial system, but he thought that was a difficulty which might be got rid of in a manner which would be satisfactory both to the Church and the people. No one had a higher veneration than himself for the parochial system, which was one of the most ancient forms of Christian Church government, extended through the whole Western Church, and existed in England long before the Reformation, and, having on two occasions had to study the old canon law, he rather thought, although he would not give a positive opinion, that according to that law the diocesan was considered to be the pastor of the whole of his diocese. He had the care of the souls of all who lived within his jurisdiction and had aright to be present in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duties in any part of it. The incumbent under him had the peculiar—the cure, but still the diocesan had concurrently and above, even above the incumbent, the cure of the souls of all within his diocese. He might mention that in the evidence given by Cardinal Wiseman on one occasion in a celebrated marriage case at the bar of their Lordships' House his Eminence stated that the law in Roman Catholic countries was that there could not be a valid marriage unless the parish priest was present or the Bishop. That doctrine, he (Lord Campbell) believed, proceeded on the ground that the Bishop, according to ancient law, had a right to jurisdiction within a parish concurrently with the incumbent. If that were the case, could he not, concurrently with the incumbent, license another to preach in aid as it were of the incumbent in his parish, addressing a different class, and one which never enter the walls of the church. He did not think that that would be in the

  347
  slightest degree uncanonical; the suggestion might perhaps he worthy of notice, effecting the object, as he thought it would, without interfering in any manner with the parochial system.
  LORD PANMURE: My Lords, the question before the House has been pretty nearly disposed of for the present, inasmuch as my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has agreed to postpone this measure until the meeting of Parliament after the Christmas recess; but I cannot help expressing my regret that the services which it is its object to legalize in future have been arrested in the manner with which your Lordships are familiar. Having been present on more than one occasion at the Sunday evening services in Exeter Hall, I should be wanting in my duty, my Lords, if I did not, in contradiction to the assertion which I have seen made more than once, and which I have heard repeated by my right rev. Friend below me (the Bishop of St. David's), that the object for which those services were instituted has entirely failed, state my impressions on that point. It was my privilege on three occasions to attend the services in Exeter Hall. On the first of those occasions I was requested to occupy a seat on the platform. [The Earl of DERBY: There is no distinction in the seats.] I was requested to occupy a seat on the platform, which was open to all as well as to me, and I went there. But I did not fully satisfy myself on that occasion as to the nature of the congregation of which I formed part, and upon the two subsequent occasions I took my seat in the body of the hall, in the very midst of (he people for whose benefit the services were instituted. I was surrounded on all sides by men evidently in the position of operatives and mechanics. I could distinguish them by their dress, by their posture, and by every sign by which men can be known in society. I could also distinguish the effect of the services, in the attention with which they were received, and in the piety which appeared to me to surround me on all sides; and I am as convinced as that I now stand here and make this statement to your Lordships that the great body of these people did consist of operatives who were not provided with opportunities of attending other churches—though I will not say that they might not have attended them. But there was another remarkable fact in
  348
  those vast assemblies with which I was no less struck on the first than on the last two occasions on which I was present; that was, the enormous proportion of males present in comparison with women. I say it without hesitation that of those great assemblies, consisting each time of between four thousand and five thousand people, unlike all other assemblies of that character at which I have been present there—for example, the May meetings—the proportion of men to women was at least twenty to one, whereas at the May meetings which I have attended the case was almost precisely the reverse. I will also say that the services instituted in Exeter Hall not only succeeded in drawing to them the population for whom they were intended, but that class on whose moral and religious habits it was the interest of this country to make the deepest and earliest impression. As a sincere friend of the Church of England, I must say that if you want to build up her fabric and extend her influence over the population, you cannot more surely attain that end than by attracting to her ordinances such congregations as I have seen assembled in Exeter Hall, whether these Sunday evening services are held there, or in St. Martin's Hall, or, what I should like to see still better, in Westminster Abbey.
  The EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, in answer to the right rev. Prelate who first addressed their Lordships (the Bishop of St. David's), he would state that he had received a letter yesterday morning from a gentleman who informed him that he totally disapproved of the Exeter Hall services, until he met with a manufacturer in Lambeth who told him that about seventy of his workmen regularly attended those services, not one of whom, he believed, was ever before in the habit of attending a place of worship. That he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) thought was a sufficient proof, not only that a large majority of the working-classes attended the services in question, but that portion of them for whom they were expressly intended.
  Further debate on the said Motion adjourned to Monday, the 8th day of February next.

CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS—THE "AUSTRIA."
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE,in rising to move, That there be laid before this House Copy of the Contract made with

349
the Owners of the Steam Ship Austria, for the Conveyance of the 94th Regiment to India, said, that the conveyance of troops was a question which at all times interested the public, and it was a question relating not only to the economy of time and money, but regarding also the safety of brave men. In the month of August last the 94th Regiment was ordered to proceed to India. That regiment, he might say, having been sixteen years in that country, though it had been but one year at home, was selected as one peculiarly fitted for the service. The Government naturally wished to despatch the regiment with all speed, and the East India Company, with the sanction of the Government, engaged a vessel named the Austria to transport the troops. That vessel was not the property of an English subject or an English company. She was to sail from Cork upon the 5 th of October. The troops were prepared to embark upon three separate occasions, but were prevented by delays. At length they sailed, but very soon the vessel was obliged to put back to Plymouth. Again they sailed, but again they put back, and eventually the Government were obliged to send the troops by the overland route, and to engage an Irish steamer to convey them to Alexandria for that purpose. The Austria was taken up from a Dutch company as he understood. It was now a thoroughly established principle that the Government were to accept the lowest tender for conveyance, where good securities were given. That principle should be carried out, but there were occasions on which it was right to make exceptions, and it was a question whether those exceptions were not fitly made where shipping was employed on important objects, considering that the shipping of the British nation was far better adapted for British purposes than the shipping of foreign nations. With respect to this particular ship he understood that she was a fine looking ship, but she was pronounced by the surveyor to be unfitted in her then condition for the conveyance of troops to India. It was then proposed that she should have a spar deck put over her main body, so as to make her more commodious. After a time, that deck not being finished, she put to sea with the regiment, having partly completed her deck, but starting probably to avoid the penalties of demurrage which a continued delay would
350
have entailed. She, therefore, went to sea in this condition, contrary to the directions of the surveyors. When she got into the Bay of Biscay, she shipped so much water that she was compelled to put back. The surveyor then ordered the deck to be put on; which detained her six weeks; after which, on the 4th of October, she put to sea. On the 25th of November a portion of her machinery broke down, and she put back to Plymouth. When deprived of the use of her engines she was found to be a most difficult vessel under sail, and she had to be towed into Plymouth by two steamers. The crew were all foreigners but two, and there was no possibility of communication with them. This fact in a great degree augmented the anxiety of the passengers. From the 5th of October, when that vessel sailed from Cork for the East Indies, she had only arrived at Plymouth. On the point of economy of time and money, therefore, this vessel had completely broken down. While this system was going on, there were in the ports of England a steam navy boasted of as numbering 270 ships of various sizes, and a reserve of 10,000 men substituted for the coast-guard, instead of pressing men for the sudden manning of ships. It had been observed that the manning of the navy had been very much lost sight, and that there was a large list of officers doing nothing but receiving the public half-pay. It was a subject of astonishment that these officers were not otherwise made use of. The St. Jean d'Acre was lying at Plymouth, and of all the ships in the world there was nothing like a British man-of-war for carrying troops. Take out the lower guns, and there was the most perfect transport that existed in the world. The contract cost of conveyance of each man on board the Austria was £45, or nearly £30,000 on the whole, so that in point of money the employment of the Royal steamers would be a great gain to the country. With the experience of the Russian war before us, in which the transport service had cost the country no less than £9,000,000, he was justified in asking the House to consider whether it would not be advantageous to avail ourselves of the resources in the Royal harbours and dockyards. Now that we should have to maintain nearly 100,000 European troops in the East Indies, it was probable that there would be a re-

351
gular demand for vessels to convey troops to that country, and he would suggest that the Government should organize a system of transports, which should be entirely under their control, in order that they might, with facility and at a moderate expense, send troops to any quarter of the globe at a moment's notice. The noble Earl then moved for the Paper.
LORD PANMUREsaid, that his noble Friend, in making the Motion which he had just submitted to the House, seemed to have altogether lost sight of the fact that the transport of troops to India was contracted for by the East India Company, and that the vessels which were employed upon that service were surveyed by a surveyor, specially employed by the Company for the purpose. He might also inform the noble Earl that the system was one which had not been adopted of late years, but one which had been in existence ever since the troops of the Sovereign began to be conveyed to India. The Company was responsible for the expense of the conveyance of our troops from this country to India, but when they were about to return home, and were consequently no longer to be regarded as in the service of the Company, we were obliged to bear the cost of their transport. Now, out of the large number of vessels which had been employed by the Company in the conveyance of nearly fifty thousand soldiers who had left these shores for India, the Austria was, he believed, the only one in whose case a casualty had occurred, and the only one in reference to which he had heard any complaint made against the Company for not having paid due attention to the comfort and safety of the regiments which were embarked under their auspices. It was quite true that they had been accused, and perhaps not without some degree of justice, of selecting, in the first instance, ships of too small a calibre, and of distributing the troops in too many vessels; but, be that as it might, nobody could deny that the Court of Directors had latterly shown the greatest anxiety to secure for the transport of the troops the best vessels. With respect to the Austria, he would only say that the facts in relation to her had been correctly stated by his noble Friend opposite. She had been in the first instance found not to be sufficiently well adapted for the conveyance of troops
352
upon a long voyage, and after considerable delay on the part of the Company in chartering her—for he must say in justification of the illustrious Duke at the head of the army, that he was not responsible for any delay which might have taken place in the embarkation of the 94th Regiment, inasmuch as when it had been notified to him that the regiment had been ordered on foreign service, he had made every endeavour to send it at once down to the port of embarkation—a still further loss of time had been occasioned in fitting her with those decks and cabins which had been considered to be essential to the comfort of the troops upon along voyage. When, after those alterations had been effected, the Austria had set out upon her voyage, she met with an accident, but it was one of a nature which, he must contend, might happen to any vessel, and no sooner had the occurrence of the accident been ascertained than the determination had been come to to send the 94th Regiment viâ Alexandria, so that it might be expected to arrive in India not long after the period at which it would have reached that country had it been conveyed by the vessel in which it had embarked in the first instance. With reference to transport service generally, to which the noble Earl had called their Lordships' attention, and which was entirely under the control of the Admiralty, he could only say that he entirely concurred with his noble Friend in thinking that there could be no valid objection to the employment of the large class of vessels at the disposal of the Admiralty. Indeed, to prove to his noble Friend that Her Majesty's Ministers were not disinclined to use those vessels, he might state that in bringing home our troops from the Mediterranean one of Her Majesty's ships had been engaged. The noble Earl must, however, bear in mind that the officers in the navy were extremely adverse to having their ships employed as transports. Indeed, there was nothing which the captain of one of these vessels would in all probability like less than to be obliged to take out his lower-deck guns for the purpose of conveying a regiment of troops, and that such was the case his noble Friend must from his own experience be aware. A circumstance of that nature, however, was not one which ought to preclude the use of those vessels, when necessary, in

353
the transport service, and he should only add that upon no occasion on which it had been found necessary to send troops to any part of the world on the responsibility of the Government had the Board of Admiralty shown any indisposition to devote to the transport service the best vessels at their command. He should, of course, if his noble Friend wished for its production, have the copy of the contract which had been entered into with the owners of the Austria laid upon their Lordships' table; but as that document had nothing to do with the general question of the conveyance of troops upon the responsibility of Government, he trusted his noble Friend would deem it unnecessary to press his Motion.
In reply to Lord MELVILLE,
LORD PANMUREstated, that the officer by whom the Austria had been surveyed was a gentleman who was employed by the East India Directors exclusively for the purpose of surveying their transports
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock till To-morrow, Three o'clock.