§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, I should be very sorry if it were supposed that I am about, for more than a few mo- 566 ments, by the question which I am about to put to my noble Friend opposite, to take up your Lordships' time, or delay you from the consideration of the important and interesting question which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) is about to bring before you; and it is the less necessary that I should do so because the circumstances to which I am about to call your attention have unhappily attained so great a degree of notoriety and scandal that there is no need for me to enter upon them in any detail. But I am sure that my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville), will be glad to have the earliest possible opportunity to correct in his place in Parliament what I am satisfied must be a misrepresentation of what is reported to have lately fallen from one of his colleagues, while referring to this subject elsewhere, when a similar question was put to him. I may say at the outset, that I have no feeling whatever in common with those clergymen who are bent on introducing into the ancient, simple, and commonly received forms of public worship of the Church of England novelties that are unpalatable to the great bulk of their congregations, or who persist in forcing on their unwilling parishioners forms of worship which may perhaps not be illegal in themselves, and which, if they were ever in former times sanctioned by the Church, have long since fallen into disuse—forms which they may consider to add to the solemnities of public worship, but which, I am sure, none of them can consider essential in the eyes of Almighty God. I cannot, my Lords, imagine how any right-feeling and right-minded clergyman can persist, for such an object as this, to incur the fearful responsibility of driving from the Church of their fathers,—perhaps to a Dissenting chapel but perhaps worse, driving away from any place of religious worship—a large proportion of those of whose spiritual welfare he, as their pastor, must one day give account. I must also say that I can make great allowance for the feelings of those congregations who, finding themselves debarred by the introduction of these rash novelties in services and forms—be they right or be they wrong is not the question here—I say I can make great allowance for the feelings of those who, finding themselves thus debarred from the church where they have been accustomed to worship, feel themselves aggrieved and irritated. But, whatever may be the course pursued in St. George's-in-the- East and elsewhere, I feel 567 sure your Lordships will agree with me that this affords no palliation—I will not say no excuse, but no palliation even—for the scandalous and disgraceful scenes which, Sunday after Sunday, take place in the parish church of St. George's. I have been assured, my Lords, since I gave notice of this question, by two of the clergymen of this church, that whatever may have been the objections of the parishioners to the services on former occasions, there have been, during the last few Sunday evening services, when the most disgraceful rioting has prevailed, no deviation whatever in any one respect from that which is universally practised in our cathedral services—that full choral service which passes unblamed in Westminster and St. Paul's. Now, my Lords, I go further than I have yet gone, and I say I do not think the full choral service as practised in our cathedrals is fitted for our ordinary parochial services; and if the chants and anthems which are practised in our cathedrals were introduced into every parish church I should prefer to attend in some other place where the services were conducted in a simpler and what appears to me in a more devotional form. But I know that, on the other hand, to some persons the services performed in this manner are eminently attractive, and that they are regarded by them as helps to devotion. I have further been informed that in this parish of St. George's the service was introduced at the desire of a considerable number of the parishioners; that they have been conducted for fifteen years without the slightest remonstrance, until unfortunately in the month of May last, a difference of opinion arose—of the merits of which I wish to say nothing—with respect to the introduction of a clergyman into the parish as a lecturer, who held opinions belonging to a very different section of the Church from that to which the rector belonged. From that time the parish has been in continuous conflict. I should have thought myself, that in a parish church, where there are two services conducted according to the usual form, and the third only is conducted according to the full choral or cathedral service, there was ample room for a compromise if the parties could be brought to join in a course so desirable. But whether the services be or be not as I have described them, or whether these forms be more or less offensive to the congregation, I say again, that the proceedings which have lately 568 taken place reflect the utmost disgrace on all concerned in them. Your Lordships have all seen in the daily papers accounts of the disgraceful riots which take place there Sunday after Sunday—how the service of God is interrupted by whistling, by singing, by banging of doors, by loud coughing, by catcalls, by throwing hassocks and other articles of church furniture at the altar, by the singing of songs and by other scandalous proceedings, by which the congregation seek to testify their objection to the religious forms and ceremonies observed in the worship. But, my Lords, to say for a single moment that this objection is any palliation for these disgraceful proceedings, or that they are in the slightest degree connected with religious feeling, is to express what to me appears little short of blasphemy. It is, perhaps, true that these parties are encouraged by others who themselves shrink from taking a prominent part in the riots; but it is certain that the congregations for the last few Sundays have for the most part been composed of a mob of the lowest character, who have no reverence for a place of worship, or for the Being who is adored there; who are actuated by a pure love of mischief, and who carry out their wishes in the most disgraceful manner. I need not enter further into a description of those scenes, as your Lordships have seen the accounts of them that have been published in the newspapers. I have only to add further that one of the clergymen who performed the services, and with whom I had no previous acquaintance, called on me and stated that, in addition to the statements which had been given in the newspapers on Monday morning, he had himself been assaulted and severely struck; and that during the performance of the services he was struck in the face with peas discharged from peashooters from different parts of the church. I am certain—at least I am all but certain—that my noble Friend will not say that these riots cannot be put down; I think he will not say—as must have been an erroneous report of what was said elsewhere—that these proceedings are not to be characterized as "outrages"—that the Secretary of State has done all that was in his power to put down these riots; that he has even gone farther than some persons thought he ought to go, and that he is not disposed to take any ulterior steps in the matter; I shall not be told that Sir Richard Mayne had done all he could to preserve order, 569 and I shall not be told, in conclusion, that my noble Friend regrets that the proceedings of the clergy connected with the church have led to this unhappy state of things. That was said to he the substance of an answer given to a question on the same subject "elsewhere." I think we may be sure that that answer will not be given here. My Lords, my Question is whether the Government have taken into their serious consideration the scandalous outrages that have taken place in the church of St. George's-in-the-East. Next, I wish to know if they have inquired into the state of the law, and have ascertained whether the law is sufficient as it stands to put an end to scenes so disgraceful? If the law is sufficient to put an end to them I am sure my noble Friend will not dispute that it is the duty of the Executive Government to put that law in force. If, on the one hand, their inquiries satisfy them that there is no power of restraining a clergyman from a mode of conducting the service offensive to the parishioners; or if, on the other hand, the law is not sufficiently powerful to prevent or control an outburst of popular feeling such as has been manifested in the parish in question, then I submit it is the duty of the Government to consider in what manner the law can be strengthened so as to give the Executive sufficient power to deal with such cases. But, if those proceedings are allowed to go on with impunity, they may be expected to become more scandalous day after day. Magistrates before whom offenders are brought are compelled, in the present state of the law, to discharge them, and the police apparently take no adequate part in the preservation of order, though they would undoubtedly act if such scenes occurred in a theatre, in a Mormon chapel, or in Hyde Park. I do not understand that the police have not the power to act in such cases; and if they have the power, I want to know why they have not been ordered to take such steps as appeared necessary to prevent a recurrence of such scandalous outrages. I submit it is the duty of the Government to interpose their authority with the view to put an end to these disgraceful brawls; and I hope my noble Friends will state on their part that they arc prepared to exercise their authority for that purpose, or, if that power he unequal to the emergency, that they are prepared to invoke the assistance and sanction of Parliament in devising some adequate remedy. The noble Earl then put the Question of which he had 570 given notice, What course Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt with respect to the proceedings in the Church of St. George's-in-the-East?
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I agree in great part with the observations made by the noble Earl, especially as to the extreme indiscretion of introducing novel ceremonials into the mode of conducting Divine worship in parochial churches. Those observations appear to me so pertinent that I have great hope that the manner in which he has put the matter to your Lordships will have the proper effect on the few clergymen to whom they apply. I quite concur with the noble Earl as to the great scandal attaching to the proceedings which have taken place in the church of St. George's-in-the-East. There is no doubt that the opposition to these novelties originated with parishioners; but many of the persons who go there for the purpose of making a disturbance do not reside in the parish, but would seem, nevertheless, to a certain degree, to be encouraged by the sympathy of the parishioners. With regard to the police, it is extremely difficult to define their duty under such circumstances, not only in a legal point of view, but as to the mode in which they should discharge it. The information I have is, that they have attended at the church several weeks running in order to keep the peace, and strict injunctions were issued to them to prevent any disturbance, and where they could not interfere they were to take down the names of persons, and so on. But the result is not satisfactory. When the disturbances consisted of shuffling of feet, slamming of doors, and making various other noises, it was impossible for the police to act. I should be sorry to take upon myself to lay down the exact state of the law. On the last two Sundays the disturbances have been of a different character, and the police were called upon to interfere; but when they went to the door the churchwarden told them it was not necessary for them to enter. Your Lordships will have seen from the detailed reports in the newspapers that persons implicated in the disturbances on the evening of Sunday last have been discharged from the want of tangible evidence. The magistrate (Mr. Yardley) on that occasion laid down the law in a very clear and lucid manner, and said if the authorities could point out the persons who had created a disturbance he could deal with them, and would punish them most severely. The 571 police will have, as they hitherto have had, orders to give every assistance in their power to prevent a repetition of the disturbances, and, failing in that, to bring the offenders before a magistrate.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYThe noble Earl has not stated whether in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the state of the law is sufficient to effectually repress such disturbances.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, according to the law laid down by the magistrate yesterday, if the authorities could point out the offender the law was sufficient to punish him.
LORD BROUGHAMThe real difficulty is, that what has taken place in this church does not amount to a breach of the peace. Certain cries were uttered that were most reprehensible and disgusting, undoubtedly; these tended to interrupt the service, and are an ecclesiastical offence—that is to say, "brawling"—and may be visited with ecclesiastical censure. But that is not enough—there has been something more than these cries and brawlings in the church. My noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) has stated that a distinct breach of the peace has been committed and a clergyman been assaulted. There is another difficulty. The persons who promote these disturbances have selected boys and children, and made them their tools in creating a noise, and the magistrate has a difficulty in visiting those children who have not committed an assault or riot with the necessary punishment. We are told by my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) that the police, when they offered to enter the church, were informed by the churchwarden that their presence was unnecessary. I strongly recommend that, without asking the opinion of the churchwarden, and without asking his leave—for he has no right to refuse entrance—the police should enter the church, take their position in different parts of it, and if there were riots at once interfere. They might, moreover, discover who were the real agitators who made the children their tools; for although the churchwarden might not be able to detect the instigators of the disorders, the more practised eye of the policeman will probably be more successful. I will only repeat what my noble Friend has said so much better than I said yesterday, as to the utter abhorrence and disgust which I feel with regard to these proceedings. A great outrage has been committed in this church. There may be a difference of 572 opinion, as my noble Friend described it, as to the conduct of the clergyman. He may have been well advised, or he may have been ill-advised, in the manner in which the service is performed. We have no right to visit with our censure conscientious differences of opinion from ourselves, whether those differences relate to matters of doctrine, or to mere matters of discipline, or to mere ceremonials. Although I may hold an opinion upon the subject myself I have no right to say that my brother is wrong who thinks that the performance of Divine service should he accompanied by certain changes of posture, by certain genuflections, or by certain turnings towards the altar. That may, for aught I know, be a ground for conscientious differences of opinion between one clergyman and another, or between a clergyman and his parishioners; but of this I am perfectly clear, that those differences of opinion, whether as to dogma or discipline, or mere ceremonial, are not to be decided by a mob—perhaps an infuriated mob—administering no law, but creating riots and disorders simply because they favour one party rather than the other. I hope and trust that we shall speedily see an end put to these proceedings, and if it should be found that there is a difficulty in obtaining the effectual assistance of the police that my right rev. Friend opposite (the Bishop of London) will see the propriety of shutting up the church of St. George's altogether—at least, for a time.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONThe noble and learned Lord has stated that unless there be a breach of the peace the law has no power in this case. I think your Lordships ought not to adopt that view of the matter, because there are undoubtedly two distinct laws which have been violated here, and according to which the offenders may be punished. One of these is the statute of the 1 William & Mary, cap. 18, sec. 18, whereby a person disturbing any minister in the discharge of his duty in a church may be taken before the nearest justice of the peace, to whom he must produce sureties of £50 that he will stand his trial before the next quarter sessions. The other law is that of the I Queen Mary, cap. 3, sec. 2 and 6, whereby a person so interrupting the service may immediately be taken before the nearest magistrate, and I believe the penalty which may be inflicted in that case is three months' imprisonment. There are these plain modes of dealing with such offenders, besides the 573 one which the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, of their being prosecuted in the Ecclesiastical Court for brawling. But the difficulty in this case has not arisen from the want of law, but from the impossibility as it would appear—though I cannot understand where the impossibility lies—in distinctly identifying the offenders. I was surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord state that the churchwarden requested the police not to enter the church. I presume, if he did so in this instance, that it was simply for the reason that he himself had captured several offenders whom he handed over to the police at the door of the church to be taken before the magistrate next morning. But when they came before the magistrate there was no evidence that they were the particular offenders who ought to have been arrested. I do earnestly trust, then, that steps will be taken to place somewhere such persons as will be able to see who are the real offenders, and bring them to justice under the existing law, when, I feel confident, the magistrates will not hesitate to make a very severe example of them. My noble and learned Friend has requested me, in the event of other measures failing, at once to close the church. Your Lordships are aware that that is a course which has already been taken by me, and I was greatly in hopes that the period for reflection which the closing of the church gave to all parties would have resulted in a cessation of those disgraceful proceedings. I have no hesitation in expressing my belief that if both parties had been willing at that time to place the matter in my hands that would have been the result. I do not desire to magnify my office; but I do not even now despair, and if the clergy of that church will do—what I feel confident I would do, if I were in their place, request me, their superior officer, to take the whole matter into my hands, and declare that they are willing to abide by my decision with regard to what ought to be the services in that church, I believe that we could easily put an end to these distressing scenes.