Lords Sitting of 24 February 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Charitable Uses. 3a Indictable Offences (Metropolitan District); Endowed Schools.
SPAIN AND MOROCCO.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he wished to put a Question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Their Lordships were aware that the Spanish troops had obtained considerable advantages over the Moors, and that in consequence of their recent victory and the capture of Tetuan the aspect of affairs in Africa had undergone a considerable change. He understood that negotiations had been going on between the Moorish authorities and the Spanish commander; and he saw it stated in the newspapers of that morning that Marshal O'Donnell had made proposals for a peace between the two countries. The terms which he offered to the Moors were stated to be, that an indemnity should be paid to Spain for the war, that the Roman

  1661
  Catholic religion should henceforth be respected in Morocco, that commercial stipulations should be entered into between the two nations, and that the territory which the Spaniards had occupied by force of arms should be made over to them as a permanent cession. With the first two conditions England was not particularly concerned; but he conceived that she had a material interest in the other two. The Spaniards were, no doubt, perfectly entitled to enter into any commercial or financial arrangements with Morocco, but this country was obviously interested in seeing that they did not, whilst securing advantages for themselves, impose indirectly restrictions upon the commercial privileges which other nations already possessed. He wished, therefore, on this head to ask the noble Lord whether he was in possession of any information as to the commercial stipulations under negotiation between Spain and Morocco, and whether he had any objection to produce the papers on the subject. The last condition of the proposed agreement—having reference to the cession of territory—was of still greater moment to this country. It appeared from the printed correspondence that on the 22nd of September the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, alarmed at the reports which prevailed as to the intentions of Spain in regard to the retention of territory she might have acquired by arms, wrote to Mr. Buchanan our Minister in Spain for information on the subject. The noble Lord stated that the British Government had no intention whatever of placing any obstacles in the way of the Spaniards, so long as they limited their operations to the reparation of the injuries they had suffered from the Moors, and the vindication of national honour; but that if the outrages of wild Moorish tribes were to be made a ground for the cession of territory, Her Majesty's Government were bound to look to the security of Gibraltar; and he therefore instructed Mr. Buchanan to ask for a written declaration of the intentions of the Spanish Government on that point. Mr. Buchanan accordingly applied to the Spanish Government for information on the subject; and the Spanish Minister replied by a rather wordy communication, which furnished little definite indication of the intentions of his Government. Mr. Buchanan was thereupon desired to renew the subject of which, Lord John Russell stated, the importance could not be overrated. He received
  1662
  for answer that the Spanish Government felt it difficult to state the exact nature of the guarantees they might find it necessary to demand, but that at all events they would not vary the intentions they had formed from the beginning of the question, not to occupy any point on the Straits, whose position would afford to Spain a superiority dangerous to the navigation. Now, it was clear that what constituted a position dangerous to navigation was one thing in an English and another in a Spanish point of view. He wished, therefore, to ask whether the Government were in possession of any reliable information on the subject, and if so, whether they would have any objection to lay it on the table? The correspondence closed at a point which left the intentions of both Governments in doubt, and the impression to be derived from the communications on both sides was far from satisfactory. If the Spanish Government determined to hold permanent possession of this territory, they would hold the ground from Ceuta southeast to Tetuan, and it was not quite clear that they did not intend to occupy ground in a westerly direction from Tangier. Such an occupation might easily become dangerous to our navigation and the security of Gibraltar, and was a question which could not fail to be regarded with interest and solicitude by the Government of this country.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that as the noble Earl had only given him notice that he intended to ask him whether the information published in The Times of that day was correct, relative to the terms of peace offered by Marshal O'Donnell to the Moors, he should confine himself to answering that question, and should not enter into the other matters to which the noble Earl had referred. The intelligence received by the Government was that—besides the demands specified in The Times, for the cession of the territory conquered by Spain, including Tetuan, the payment of a large indemnity, and concessions as to commerce—Marshal O'Donnell had demanded that a port on the Atlantic coast, near the Canary Islands, should be ceded by Morocco to Spain, and that Spain should have the right to establish a diplomatic agent and a Roman Catholic Mission at Fez.

DIVINE SERVICE IN THEATRES.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, in rising, pursuant to notice, "to call attention to

1663
the performance of Divine Service at Sadler's Wells and other theatres by clergymen of the Church of England on Sunday evenings; and to move a Resolution, that such Services, being highly irregular and inconsistent with order, are calculated to injure rather than advance the progress of sound Religious Principles in the Metropolis and throughout the Country," said, that if, from the first, he felt a hesitation in bringing the matter before their Lordships, that difficulty was enhanced by the conversation which took place in their Lordships' House a few evenings ago. He, however, considered the question of so much importance, as affecting the true interests of religion and the stability of the Church, that he could not shrink from the duty he had undertaken. He ventured to say that neither in the memory of the oldest Member of their Lordships' House, nor of the oldest person living, had the fact of a clergyman appearing upon the boards of a playhouse been paralleled, or even heard of before, nor had he found any record of such an event. The Puritanical sect at the time of the Great Rebellion, great as was their disregard of the sacred ordinances of the Church, never dreamed of conducting Divine worship in a theatre, nor had the generation succeeding them, with all their levity and careless recklessness, ever associated the idea of the Church of God with the theatre. He might, perhaps, be referred to the numbers of persons who, Sunday after Sunday, attended what was called Divine service in these theatres. But he believed it could scarcely be called a devotional feeling at all. Curiosity was a natural ingredient in the human mind, and it was easily aroused by anything at variance with customary ordinances, and contrary to usual rule. It was quite as extraordinary to see a clergyman in full canonicals preaching in a playhouse, as it would be to see a comedian, fresh from the pantomime, and tricked out in all his finery, ascend the pulpit of a parish church on Sunday morning. He would yield to no man in a desire to see Gospel truth promulgated far and wide; but there was a place for all things, a time for all things; and two ways of doing everything; and, however righteous the end in view might be, the means adopted to bring it about ought not to be of so questionable a nature. By what motives did their Lordships suppose the persons who attended these theatres were actuated? Were they really attracted by a desire to hear the
1664
Word of God and a feeling of devotion, or did they not rather go out of idle curiosity, and could the impressions they brought away with them be of such a nature as to tend to their lasting and permanent benefit? Could these persons, on entering a theatre, divest their minds of the associations that naturally belonged to such a place; and could they forget that on those very boards where the clergyman was preaching the Word of God, clown and harlequin had a few hours before been performing their antics, and would be repeating them in a few hours afterwards? Could services conducted in such a place tend to ameliorate the condition, or to advance the spiritual interests of the persons who resorted to them? What, he would ask, was to be the end of this state of things, and whither was it eventually to lead them? What possible benefits could be derived from such extraordinary and novel proceedings? Let him call their attention to what had occurred before these occasions, according to the reports in the public papers, at the Sadler's Wells and Victoria theatres. It was stated that on the curtain being drawn up at Sadler's Wells, the clergyman appeared in a garden scene; the boxes were filled with ladies and gentlemen in white kid gloves, just as at an ordinary theatrical performance; and during the delivery of the sermon cheers were heard from the gallery, while oranges and ginger beer bottles were going their ordinary rounds. At the Victoria Theatre placards were put up announcing that refreshments were provided; and the noise from corks flying about, and the sale of apples and provisions was such, that the clergyman had to pause, and take a show of hands whether the audience wished to hear him, or to allow these things to proceed. Now, he thought such a state of things deserved the public attention, and, above all, the serious attention of the right rev. Bench. He asked—and the right rev. Bench would correct him if he was wrong—whether a few years ago a clergyman who took part in such proceedings would not have been suspended or subjected to some other severe ecclesiastical censure? They were told that great numbers of persons who were anxious to hear the Word of God could get no place of worship to go to. Were the churches of the metropolis crowded to overflowing? If they were so, he hoped the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), or the most rev. Prelate, or the right rev. Prelate who presided over

1665
the see of London, would tell them whether no other means could he found of providing accommodation for the poorer classes before resorting to this, the very lowest that could be conceived. Were there not throughout the metropolis an immense number of large buildings that might be appropriated to this object? Did not every parish contain large schoolrooms, mechanics' institutes, or places of that kind in which the people might more appropriately be convened for the performance of Divine worship? The moral effect of these proceedings could not but be injurious. If they degraded the Church, they to that extent impaired its usefulness; and he could not help thinking that a clergyman who preached in a theatre showed himself forgetful of his proper functions, and injured his power of doing good. It perhaps might be said that there was a certain class of persons who could not be induced to attend worship at all, unless it was provided for them in places of this kind, and unless something was done to tempt them by pandering to their fancies and their appetites. But it appeared to him that if they had to make people religious by pandering to their fancies, rather than by appealing to their consciences, the religious feelings of the community must be at a low ebb; and he very much feared that the Church which resorted to expedients of that kind could not be a very enduring one. The objects he had in view in bringing this matter before their Lordships was to call the attention of people out of doors to what was going on. He wished every man in the country, be he layman or clergyman, Churchman or Dissenter, Protestant or Roman Catholic, seriously to reflect on this state of things, and ask himself where it would all end. These proceedings could not but be offensive to the feelings of many pious persons—offensive to a large number of the middle and trading classes who had been brought up to reverence their Church and respect its worship. No two things could be more incongruous than the church and the theatre, the one being set apart for the worship of God and the other for mere pastime; and their Lordships knew that licentiousness, more or less, prevailed in connection with the theatres of the metropolis. They often heard that there had of late years been a great improvement among the labouring and working classes in respect to religious subjects. He could perfectly remember that two years ago, when the
1666
question of the services in Exeter-hall was before the House, the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) drew a vivid picture of the effect those services had on the working classes. The noble Earl then anticipated the greatest advantages to the cause of religion from the practice of performing Divine service at Exeter-hall; and he should like to hear from the noble Earl how far he considered that these anticipations had been realized. Everybody knew the great efforts made by the noble Earl to improve the condition of the working classes—to raise them in the social scale, to give them better dwellings, and the like—efforts which entitled him to the gratitude of the public. But he (Viscount Dungannon) was convinced that the inevitable effect of conducting religious services in theatres would be to produce in the minds of the lower orders of the community for whom those services were designed, a feeling of indifference for the solemn ordinances of religion. The Established Church of this country seemed to him to have arrived at this time at a period of considerable difficulty and trial. At present there were two extreme parties in the Established Church, both, in his opinion, equally straying from a true and straightforward course. They had on one side a body of clergymen who under the plea of a strict accordance with the rubrics and formularies of the Church used vestments and adopted ceremonies which, while they involved no sort of principle, were opposed to the general feeling of the country. A striking instance of the consequences of a departure in one direction from that happy medium had been seen in the unhappy riots which had occurred at the east end of the metropolis. Although nothing could possibly extenuate the conduct of the persons who took part in those flagrant acts of violence, he thought the extremely injudicious course adopted by the Incumbent of the church in question and the rest of the clergy associated with him there had really and essentially given rise to the disturbances which there was so much reason to deplore. There was another party in the Church to whom it seemed to be a matter of indifference, provided the Word of God was preached, where and under what circumstances religious services were conducted, regardless of the command which especially applied to the worship of God, that all things were to be done "decently and in order." He might be told that in the services in

1667
question the Liturgy of the Church was not used, and that there was merely an extempore prayer and a sermon. But he thought that would be begging the question. To him it seemed wholly unimportant whether the clergymen preached an extempore or a written sermon, or whether he used one form of prayer or another. It was enough to know that he was ministering in a theatre. But these parties were, he was persuaded, the cause of great and serious evil. In both the services in question an example had been set which, by and by, might have a dangerous tendency. He would never hesitate to enter his protest against a practice which, though adopted on the plea of promoting the spiritual welfare of the humbler orders of the community, he believed was injurious to true religion, and would end in materially undermining the foundations of the national Church. If there existed such a great desire among the working classes in the metropolis to hear the Word of God, would not all the churches be filled to overflowing? And yet it was a notorious fact that the services in most of the City churches were attended by not more than fifty or sixty people. Besides, if there was really a need for providing services for the poorer classes, why not make an appeal to the country? He was certain that such an appeal would not be made in vain, and it would surely be better than establishing a precedent of this description. He had a sincere love and veneration for his own Church, and would yield to no man living in the desire to see the Word of God propagated; but, however much he might honour the motives of those who promoted the services in question, he entirely dissented from the mode in which they sought to give effect to them. The present state of things was worthy of the careful consideration of the right rev. Bench. Had they or had they not the power of directing or of checking these proceedings, if found injurious to religion? Had they the power of checking the practices complained of at St. George's-in-the-East? If not, he thought it was high time that such a power should be placed in their hands. For himself he looked upon this state of things with great regret, because he feared it would be productive of unmixed evil—of a total disregard for religious forms—and that, far from producing the good effects which its promoters anticipated, it would lead to utter
1668
confusion in religious questions in the minds of the people. Believing that these services would neither convert the unbeliever, reform the scoffer, or convert the waverer, and that they would end in utterly disappointing the hopes of those who had originated them, he should move the Resolution of which he had given notice, leaving it to their Lordships to deal with it as they thought fit:—
"That the Performance of Divine Service at Sadler's Wells and other Theatres by Clergymen of the Church of England on Sunday Evenings is calculated to injure rather than advance the Progress of sound religious Principles in the Metropolis and throughout the Country."
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that he gave the noble Viscount who had brought forward this subject the fullest credit for the purity of his motives, and for his sincere desire to promote the interests and dignity of the Church of England. With regard to the questions of law which the noble Viscount had put to the Episcopal Bench it was true, as the noble Viscount had represented, that some years ago the course of which he complained would have been open to ecclesiastical censure; but since the period to which the noble Viscount referred an Act had been passed for extending the liberty of religious worship; and, having regard to the provisions of that Act, the course complained of could not be said to be illegal. With regard to the question whether that course was one of which the Bench of Bishops approved, he (the Archbishop) would say, and he believed his reverend Brethren would concur with him, that, had they been asked before the course of proceeding was adopted of which the noble Viscount complained, whether they considered its introduction would be proper and expedient, their answer would have been in the negative, inasmuch as our associations are altogether opposed to the idea of making use of a theatre as a church. But the matter had not been so brought before them, and the question now before their Lordships was, not whether these services should be introduced, but whether, having been already so introduced, their Lordships were prepared to interfere with a view to their suppression. He (the Archbishop)—and he believed many of his Brethren would concur with him—must say that he was not. Their Lordships must not forget that in this crowded metropolis there were great numbers of persons whose feelings and associations are entirely different from

1669
their own: who are not loss opposed to regular religious services, and regular places of worship, than the feelings of others are opposed to the connection of religion with the scene of theatrical representations. Neither could he subscribe to the statements of the noble Viscount as to there being such ample accommodation for religious worship in the consecrated buildings of the metropolis. It was too well known to him (the Archbishop) that for the poor and outcast there was not such accommodation; and it must be borne in mind that it was not for the upper or for the middle classes, but for the outcast and poor, who had no other accommodation provided for them, that this attempt was made of which their Lordships were called upon to express their disapprobation. If persons, of whom there are too many, who close the doors of the church against themselves, or if others against whom the doors of the church are practically closed for want of room,—if some of those can be induced, either from curiosity, or any other motive, to attend Divine service even in a theatre,—if some could be induced to hear the Word of Truth, perhaps for the first time, in those unhallowed places—if some of those who came, possibly to scoff, remained to pray—he (the Archbishop) could not find it in his heart, even if he had the power, to shut the gate against them, or to take upon himself the responsibility of discouraging those who had provided them with means of hearing the word of God, which otherwise might never have reached their ears. His counsel was to leave these services to find their natural level—they had not originated them—why should they interfere to prevent them?
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: *My Lords, however unwilling I may be to address your Lordships on this or any other subject, I believe that, as I am certainly the only culprit in this House, and as I have been one of the principal movers in originating these services, your Lordships will naturally expect me to give you some information on this subject. I rise, therefore, not to justify but to explain; although I should have thought that even the superficial knowledge which everybody must have of the condition of this metropolis, and the difficulties and dangers which beset society here, would have been quite enough to have carried conviction, and have satisfied any reasonable mind. But if your Lordships desire it, and will bear with me, I
1670
will state the motives which have actuated myself and others in this movement, the mode in which it has been conducted, and the results which we have attained.
Now, the first argument urged against these services is, that between them and the associations connected with a theatre there is an utter incongruity. Well, I admit that the case is an abnormal one, and I am not going to find fault with those who feel startled by the proposal to hold religious services within the walls of a playhouse. It is natural that such a feeling should be entertained; and, indeed, I myself have shared it to a certain extent. In deference to this feeling we have done everything in our power to procure other buildings in which these services might be performed. The necessity to do something for the vast multitudes in the east and south of London was overwhelming; and minute inquiries were made for any large rooms or open spaces in which Divine worship could be celebrated. Nothing of the sort, however, could be found, and we were therefore compelled to hire theatres as being the only places fit for the reception of any large body of people. My Lords, among the masses to whom religious services are altogether unknown, who are rarely or never visited, the greatest possible repugnance is found either to church or chapel—to anything, in short, which bears the least appearance of a registered place of worship. I have heard many of these people say over and over again that they never had been inside any place of worship, and that they never would enter one so long as they breathed. Possibly such a prejudice may in time be overcome, but meanwhile we have to deal with it. Now, there are music-halls which might Lave been hired, although not so capacious as the theatres; but these places were rejected because, in almost every instance, they are connected with taverns; and it was apprehended that great mischief would follow if those who were expected to attend were brought into any such connection. But before going further I will notice one of the most monstrous assertions I have ever heard. Surely that may be called monstrous which is quite inconsistent with truth. The noble Viscount (Viscount Dungannon) said that ginger-beer bottles were opened and oranges cried during Divine worship just as during the theatrical performances. Now, having myself attended some of these services, I can solemnly deny any such statement. What might have been going on outside

1671
the walls of course I do not know; but I can quote statements made by clergymen and Nonconformist Ministers who have attended these ministrations from the first of January down to the present time, in order to show that nothing could have surpassed the order, decency, and attention of the persons present. I have myself attended three of these places, in each of which there were 3,200 people of the lowest description; and daring the whole of my experience I have never seen a body of men so attentive to the great truths that the preacher addressed to them.
I do not deny that the associations of a theatre are, to a certain extent, incongruous with such services; but is it more incongruous than for a Christian Missionary to enter a heathen temple, defiled, as it may be, by every impure and cruel rite, and there announce to the listeners the truths of the Gospel? Many a Minister of the Church of England is compelled, during his ministrations, to go into the worst places, and exercise his sacred functions even at the death-bed of a prostitute in a brothel; but, as he is engaged in his duty, the place becomes sanctified by the duly he performs. Surely, the noble Lord is passing the most complete condemnation—it is he, not I—on all those that go to a theatre on a week day, when he says that a theatre is so foul that it is impossible to entertain in it a high and holy thought; that the Word of God cannot be preached there even on a Sunday without desecration, and without casting a stain on the character of a Minister of the Church of England. If then, theatres be such foul places, even on a Sunday, and with religious services, what must be the condition of those who enter them on a week day, when they must be at the very depth of foulness and secularity!
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONdenied that he had stated what the noble Lord attributed to him. What he had said was, that there was a class of persons of a serious character who objected to what passed in theatres, extending even to immorality, and he had asked whether those persons could approve public worship in those places on Sundays. He had never said it was impossible for well-disposed persons to go to theatres, nor had he found fault with those who went to them.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, I understood the noble Lord to say that a theatre was a place where even on Sundays no holy sentiment could be felt, and I justly inferred that if that be the case
1672
on Sundays, it must à fortiori be far more so on week days. Now, let me point out what is the true history of this movement. Those who are really acquainted with the state of a great portion of the people of this country, and particularly of the metropolis, have long beheld it with dismay and apprehension. I believe I may state, without fear of contradiction, as the statement is founded on minute inquiry, that not two per cent of the working men in London attend any place of worship whatever. In the inquiry before their Lordships' Committee on Church Rates, Dr. Hume, of Liverpool, gave the following evidence, which, bad as it is, gives a result more favourable than for London.
"Do you think, he is asked, that the active progress of irreligion is one of the phenomena that now surround us?—If your Lordship will allow me to read a few numbers, I think those will speak for themselves. In Southwark there are OS per cent who attend no place of worship; in Sheffield there are 62; in Oldham, 61½ in Lambeth, 60½; in Gateshead, 60; in Preston, 59; in Brighton, 54; Tower Hamlets, 53½ Finsbury, 53; Salford 52; South Shields, 52; Manchester, 61½; Bolton, 51½ Stoke, 51½ Westminster, 50; Coventry, 50. I have taken 34 of the great towns of England, embracing a population of 3,993,467; and 2,197,388, or 52 per cent of the population of those towns, attend no place of worship whatever. The population is growing very rapidly in our large towns, and religion ought to grow with at least equal rapidity, but is not doing so. Our population in England is rapidly increasing; but it is still more rapidly becoming a town population. In 1851 we had 9,000,000 in towns of 10,000 people and upwards, and only 8,000,000 in smaller towns, in villages, and in rural districts; and at the close of the present century I believe that 70 per cent of the gross population will be seated in large towns. Therefore, if our large towns are left to themselves, practical heathenism must inevitably soon outgrow Christianity."
Listen to the statement of a City missionary in Lambeth. These are mere representative instances, samples of what is generally prevalent:—
"At 1 o'clock the public-houses open, when it is no uncommon thing to see more than 100 men waiting for the opening of the three gin-palaces at the Marsh Gate, and in the evening to find these places full of men and women, who feel themselves more at home here than they do in their wretched apartments. The New Cut is as notorious for its places of amusement as for its Sabbath-breaking or its drunkenness. The penny gaff, or Olympic Circus, still exists, and there is reason to fear it is doing a world of mischief. No respectable person goes, so they have it all their own way, and corrupt the minds of youths without rebuke. The Victoria Theatre is well attended. The company may be seen standing at the doors about four o'clock, They are almost exclusively the

1673
dirty poor,—the working people such as we visit. Astley's, the Surrey Theatre, and the Bower Saloon are all very near the district, as well as many concert-rooms of a low character. The district is notorious for vice. Granby Street, Waterloo Road, is the chief place for fallen women in this neighbourhood. In this street and the next there are supposed to be more than 100 women who live on the wages of iniquity. They are not so wretched in their appearance or their homes as are those at Westminster, nor are they so accessible. The women who keep the houses do all they can to keep me from speaking to the inmates. It is at the doors of the houses that I have my interview with them. In describing the state of the district the depravity of the juvenile population must not be overlooked. It is at the Sunday evening ragged school that much of this is seen. The conduct of many of the youths is abominable; their language is outrageous, and cannot be repeated. Human nature is seen here in some of its darkest shades. But for the ragged school things would be worse with this class than it is."
Evidence may be multiplied without end. Here is the opinion of the rev. Mr. Weeks, whose testimony no one could gainsay:—
"The late incumbent of this district, the rev. Mr. Weeks, has been recently appointed Bishop of Sierra Leone, where he was before for many years a missionary of the Church Missionary Society. He was for years incumbent of the district, and, after gaining much knowledge of its condition and the habits of its population, he remarked in a printed statement which was issued by him, 'I can testify that the moral and religious condition of St. Thomas's, Lambeth, will bear no comparison to that of Sierra Leone, on the west coast of Africa, with which I was connected as missionary for twenty years.' We mentioned in our introductory remarks, that St. Thomas's district had at present no church. Contributions have been for many years collected for the erection of one. And it is a remarkable fact, as illustrative of the heathenish condition of parts of London, even as compared with the distant parts of the globe to which foreign missionary societies send labourers from England, that £29 14 s. 6d. has been contributed from native congregations in Sierra Leone towards the proposed new church for this part of Lambeth."
My Lords, I maintain that, in order to know what is the condition of the people, it is necessary to go among them, not only by day, but by night, and to visit them early and late in their dens and recesses. It is necessary to see them under all their conditions and in all their phases if we desire to become acquainted with their precise character, to examine their peculiar habits, and, as it were, their natural history; and I defy any one who has penetrated into their retreats, not to come back in terror, dismay, and shame at finding that among a great number of people in this country there should exist a state of things so perilous and so disgraceful.
1674
Not but that the special religious services of the last two years have produced good fruit; and when the noble Viscount taunts me with my early prediction, and says, that great benefit has not arisen from those services, I reply that, regard being had to the means which the promoters of the movement have had at their disposal, they have come up to and even exceeded our expectations. By a letter to myself from the incumbent of one of the largest parishes in South wark it appears that nearly 100 artisans from that parish had gone to Exeter Hall because they liked the style of the service there, and what was the result? why that, instead of being absentees from the parish church a large proportion had become habitual attenders on Divine worship. This is the way the leaven works; and if a taste for God's Word is thus excited in men's minds, they will settle down by degrees either as members of the Church of England or of some one of the Nonconformist bodies.
Another and very material fact to be borne in mind is the peculiar character of a large portion of the people of London. Considerable numbers are nomad in their habits: not less, perhaps, than 50,000 or 60,000 persons in the metropolis are in an almost constant state of motion, seldom being stationary for more than two or three months. The statement in my hand proves the migratory life, either from taste or necessity, of the population:—
"The missionary," says one witness, "has been for the long period of fifteen years labouring in the district, and certainly not without result, although that result would doubtless have been more apparent but for the migratory character of the people. He estimates that of the 600 families visited by him, about 300 annually remove."
Again, the books of a school in—district showed that, with an average attendance of 380 scholars, there has been an average of 340 new scholars every year.
"I have to deplore," says another, "constant changes of residence on the part of the people. Often the missionary had no sooner obtained a footing in a house than its occupiers removed. In one street, on going round, he had found all gone."
And yet, let it be remembered, that the City missionary must revisit the whole of his district once every five weeks. But the most remarkable evidence received on this point came from a most amiable and efficient minister, the Rev. Albert Rogers. That gentleman stated—

1675
"As the late incumbent of Regent Square Church, the district attached to which contained about 10,000 souls, of whom some 6,000 or 7,000 were poor, and having laboured among them during a period of nearly seven years, I am capable of forming a very decided opinion respecting the habits of the lower classes. I had labouring with me between thirty and forty district visitors, one or two curates, and three lay agents, and their unanimous testimony was to the effect that our united efforts for the good of the poor, and especially of the poorest, were almost paralyzed in consequence of their roving character. Repeatedly whole streets in the lower parts of the district have been cleaned out of their inhabitants, and a new colony has arisen in it in the course of a few weeks. Some houses were occupied by thieves and prostitutes, who generally have no certain dwelling-place. Our schools suffer in proportion to the roving habits of the parents of the children, and it would not be difficult, from the statistics of the schools in London, to prove the migratory character of the poor."
Now, these migratory habits of the people render it impossible to bring to bear upon them the ordinary parochial machinery of the Church. Moving, as they do, from one point to another, it stands to reason that, in this manner at least, they can never be reached. But something must be done, and that speedily; for, although matters have greatly improved within the last twenty years, and are still improving, yet the state of things is of the most fearful description. I am speaking correctly when I say that, although the regular depredators and thieves of London—those who live by perpetual breach of the law and nothing else—may not, according to the inquiries I have made, exceed the number of 3,000, yet there is a large floating class of the most dangerous description in the metropolis, who get their daily sustenance by jobs of all kinds, small trades, and by picking up money here and there, not in a violent or fraudulent way, but of whom it may certainly be predicted, that if there should be, from any cause, but a momentary suspension of order and authority, they would, to the number of 100,000, be let loose upon the property and lives of the inhabitants; and sure I am that their terrible excesses would throw the riots of Nottingham and Bristol into the shade. A moment's sight of the populace when aggregated in Houndsditch, Petticoat Lane, Rag Fair, the New Cut, and other such places, would be better for proof than whole volumes of Reports, and endless speeches founded upon them. No evidence, however full, no language, however strong, is adequate to the truth. It must be seen, and felt, and tested, by
1676
personal contact with the people themselves.
Such are the classes whom I and my friends desire to soften and to render amenable to order and civilization. They must be won, and for that purpose resort must be had to everything that is true and legitimate. For this purpose I rejoice to say that many Churchmen and Nonconformists have joined together in a common effort. The question now is, shall these vast masses be left in ignorance, or shall they be brought in this way to a knowledge of the truth? Is the evil of thus opening the theatres comparable to the evil of abandoning the people to total darkness? I may be told that a Committee of your Lordships' House, appointed at the instance of the Bishop of Exeter, has produced a very admirable Report, recommending a variety of measures for the diffusion of religion. Very true; but, in the first place, I doubt whether that project will ever be carried into effect; and, in the next, I am not quite certain that, if carried into effect, it will be in any degree successful. The old prejudices will still continue against church and chapel. But your Lordships have been told by the noble Viscount that there is church and chapel room in many parts of London sufficient to contain the largest congregations. It is not so in fact, but let it be so for the sake of argument. How will that overcome existing prejudices? In the first place, the preacher may not be attractive; yet these wild and irregular people must be conciliated; and, in the next, the church or chapel may be at too great a distance from the abodes of the poor. Reference has also been made by the noble Viscount to the City churches; but the City is entirely denuded of its population on Sunday, and, in many parts, even on the week days; the churches are surrounded by tenements converted into warehouses, and even if the clergymen could compel the people to attend Divine Service, their congregations would never exceed forty or fifty persons each. The City churches are altogether useless for missionary work.
My Lords, I must maintain that in an endeavour to bring these poor people to a knowledge of sacred things, we must have no little regard to their habits, their feelings, and even their prejudices. They are men of like passions with ourselves, of the same capacities for virtue and vice, for time and for eternity. It is by our

1677
neglect, and by the neglect of those who preceded us, that they have been reduced to their present condition. We have given them no help in matters where it was impossible that they should help themselves; we have permitted every physical and moral mi-chief to grow up around them, tainting both body and mind by their poisonous influences; and it is not for us to censure or ignore the weaknesses that our own misconduct has created. We may not treat them with indifference, and say that, unless they conform at once to our rules and systems, they shall receive nothing at our hands. Why, consider, there are many who dislike to show their faces during the day. It is a fact, that the afternoon services are never so well attended as those in the evening; and for this reason, that many of these unhappy beings are so filthy and so ill-clad that they are ashamed to come out in the light and expose themselves to the public gaze. They creep forth under the shadow and shelter of night, and thus occasionally attend the evening service.
But there is a lower stratum of humanity still; and this, too, must be reached. We cannot stop in what we have begun; and we are resolved to go deeper and deeper, and use every legitimate and every available appliance for the purpose of spreading a knowledge of God's truth among the destitute and outcast population of London. My Lords, I assert that it is not the locality that can desecrate the word of God, but it is the word of God that consecrates the locality; and here is a proof. The noble Viscount has spoken of disorderly scenes in one of the theatres. There has never been any disorder. When the people, unaccustomed to such things, entered for the first time, and took their seats, there may have been a great deal of bustling about; but I defy the noble Viscount to produce a single human being who will venture to say that he was present during the time the services were going on, and saw or heard anything that would have been objectionable in the most devout and pious congregation ever assembled within the Avails of a church. Now for the proof of what I have asserted. At the opening of Sadler's Wells on the just of January, a most indefatigable and admirable clergyman of the Church of England, officiated—the Rev. Mr. Owen—well known during the fury of the cholera at Bilston. What was his description of the conduct of the people? The adults,
1678
he said, entered the building quietly enough; but about 500 or 600 boys in the upper gallery made considerable disturbance by shuffling their feet and calling out to one another. Before the services began Mr. Owen rose, and addressing the boys, told them he had come to do them good here and hereafter; that if they would be quiet and listen to what he had to say, he should thank God for their presence; but if their object was to create a disturbance he entreated them to leave the place. From that moment to the close of the services, which lasted an hour and a half, "you might," to use the words of Mr. Owen, "have heard a pin drop." Was that no triumph? Was there here no moral discipline?—no hope for good and lasting effects? The services began with a plain hymn, then a chapter of the Bible was read, then an extempore prayer was put up by the minister, then another hymn, and then a sermon. Must we not regard it as a great moral victory, that a minister of religion, by simply announcing to a motley crew that he had come to preach to them the Word of everlasting life, had persuaded 2,500 persons—the mass of them unaccustomed to any religious services whatever—to sit quietly for an hour and a half, and listen to the glad tidings of the gospel? At the Victoria Theatre there occurred a remarkable scene. A well-known man was going in. One of the policemen present said to a City missionary, "You should not admit that person; be is one of the most dangerous men in the district, and will make a terrible disturbance; it will take four of us to carry him to the station-house." The missionary allowed the man to pass. His conduct throughout was admirable; and next morning the missionary called upon him at his own house, and the man suffered him to read the Bible and offer up a prayer. Was that no triumph? Was there here no prospect of better things? Had not clergymen and Nonconformist ministers described in touching language the good impressions they had seen produced? The experiment, in fact, has been attended with wonderful and encouraging success. This letter, dated the 6th of February, which I have received from Sir Richard Mayne, will show how the people have behaved themselves in circumstances so trying and so novel:—
"Before answering the inquiry in your letter I thought it best to make special inquiry on the subject. I have now the satisfaction to acquaint

1679
you that the people attending religious worship in the theatres and public places mentioned in the memorandum have conducted themselves with great propriety. There has not been cause for the police interference on any occasion."
On the 23rd (for I was desirous of having the latest information), Sir R. Mayne again wrote:—
"The conduct of the people continues to he most decorous. I have been able to reduce the number of police on duty at each of the places since my letter to you of the 6th of February."
He had reduced the number of constables at our theatres; and yet at that very time he had sent, of necessity, sixty policemen in full uniform to attend the services and keep order at St. George's-in-the-East!
Again, I say, was that no triumph—was nothing gained there? Was the contrast, though painful, not instructive? Is it nothing to find that if we only speak to the people in a kind, straightforward, sincere, open, and earnest manner, we may govern their affections, and keep them in obedience and good order? My Lords, what the people of England want is, not patronage, but sympathy; the bringing of heart to heart, the acknowledgment on the part of persons of all conditions, of all degrees of wealth, that they are men of like passions with themselves, with the same hopes, the same aspirations, the same fears, and the same destinies. If any Prime Minister of England, and those associated with him in the Government, will only show that sympathy, especially in its highest and most solemn form, the people might be led like a flock of sheep.
The question will naturally be asked, What are the numbers of those who have engaged in these services, and upon whom so happy an influence has been exerted? Observe, my Lords, it is not in a single instance only that good effects have been produced, nor have audiences been attracted by the mere novelty of the thing. These services have been going on since the 1st of January, at five different theatres during the first five weeks, and at seven since last week. The total number of people who attended at the seven houses which were open on Sunday last was 20,700; and allowing, for the sake of argument, a deduction of 10 per cent for people coming from mere curiosity, there would still remain 18,630 persons who had come to hear the word of God, and who had never before frequented any places of public worship. I am aware of the assertion that these people do not be-
1680
long to the lowest class, which has never yet been reached, and that these services only servo to withdraw good folks from the churches and chapels they ordinarily attend. But this has been disproved in the most emphatic manner by the experience of all those who have been present at any of these celebrations. I do not deny that there is a still lower class than that which has hitherto come to these services, a class which we shall have much difficulty in reaching; hut we have, I maintain, most certainly got at a very low class indeed by means of this movement. A City missionary writes:—
"I have been really astonished at the multitude of persons who are attending these services out of very low neighbourhoods, and who previously altogether neglected public worship."
The incumbent of St. Matthew's, St. George's-in-the-East, a young minister, who has been very zealous in going about among the poorer classes, and has acquired much experience of their character, states:
"I have preached at the Obelisk in Southwark, in Ratcliff-highway; I have preached for two seasons on the steps of the Royal Exchange; and last Sunday I preached at the Garrick Theatre. The place was densely crowded by persons of a class I never before got at."
Mark these words, my Lords, "never before got at," from a person so conversant with these classes.
"I have carefully inquired," he adds, "from the City missionaries, and I find that their meetings are better attended, a deeper religious feeling pervades them, and their access to the homes of the people is much more easy."
Another experienced clergyman says—
"These characters, and such as they, do not, and will not, attend the ordinary ministrations of the Word of God in church or chapel. They have an aversion to cross the threshold of a place of worship, where they think their appearance would be a subject of remark."
The same testimony is borne by the Rev. Newman Hall, the distinguished minister of Surrey Chapel, who states that the class of people who attend the Special Services are just those whom Ave are most anxious to improve. But let me read to your Lordships, in illustration, two short letters, giving an account of these celebrations. They are well worthy of attention. The first is from a very eminent Nonconformist Minister, the Rev. Mr. Graham:—
"In connection with the united committee," he writes, "I preached in the Victoria Theatre last Sunday evening to a great concourse of people. The assembly was of the most heterogeneous

1681
character, but the great body of the hearers were evidently such as never enter a house of worship, and never would, except the Gospel sought them in such places as those in which it now can get them to assemble. When we entered the theatre, the assembly, especially in the galleries, was noisy and confused, and cries of 'Tom' and 'Bill' and 'Jack' were frequent and loud; but before the service had proceeded ten minutes, all were as orderly and attentive as in most religious assemblies. Indeed, before the close of the sermon, all was deeply solemn and still. I mingled with the multitude as they issued from the service, and had an opportunity of more closely observing their bearing and grades. They appeared to be drawn from the lowest stratum of London population, such as the Great Master would have had compassion on as sheep scattered and without a shepherd. Nowhere in the three kingdoms, during a ministry of nearly twenty years, have I ever preached to an assembly of my fellow men that seemed more deeply to need the preaching of the Gospel of holiness and peace. In none of the Special Services have I felt myself so much in place as an evangelist as preaching to those who are in every sense 'the poor.' The spirit of Christian union in these services makes them, I think, especially telling."
What can be more descriptive, what more touching than this narrative? The other is from the Rev. Mr. Acworth, the Vicar of Plumstead, and is of equal value:—
"When I officiated," he says, "at the Victoria Theatre, the theatre was so crowded that it was found necessary by the police to shut the door before the time of service. The congregation consisted almost entirely of working men. The hubbub that existed ceased the moment I asked the dense congregation to unite in prayer; but from the few voices that joined in repeating the Lord's Prayer, I judged that the larger portion of them had little or no acquaintance with it. After singing a hymn, I preached, for nearly three-quarters of an hour, upon Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness. On giving a narrative of the life and miracles of Moses, and of the lifting up of the serpent as typical of what our Saviour had suffered to obtain for us eternal life, I was listened to with the most extraordinary attention, as if the subject had never been heard of before. I had had a considerable prejudice against going into a theatre; and it was only the strongly-expressed opinion of laymen who had studied the character of our London population that induced me to undertake the service. The best answer to my prejudice was the appearance of my auditory. During a ministry of thirty years, I never entered so much into the feelings of the Author of our religion, who when He beheld the city wept over it."
These statements I can confirm by my own personal experience, having myself attended at the Victoria Theatre on three successive occasions. The audience each time numbered no less than 3,200 persons, so closely crowded that a straw could not have been placed between them. From the beginning to the end of the service no assembly could have been more orderly,
1682
more attentive, more apparently devout, and more anxious to catch every word that fell from the preacher's lips. On one of the occasions, so solemn and touching was the discourse of the preacher, and so moved wore many even of the wildest and roughest present, that when, after the "Benediction," they rose to leave the building, they went so quietly and solemnly that you could hardly hear the sound of a foot-fall. Surely no one can deny that a deep and solemn impression is made on the minds of those people: it is found that many come to the services week after week; and can it be doubted that we are by degrees spreading a leaven throughout the whole population? We only want, I am confident, more extended machinery, and more numerous opportunities, to produce a really living and lasting effect upon those large masses.
Now there can be no mistake as to the character of the assembly. At one celebration of the service, the men mustered in proportion to the women as nine to one, and on another occasion as seven to three. I asked a person who happened to be present, and who is conversant with the character of the people in the neighbourhood, and knows most of them, both by calling and by name, to give me some idea of the sort of people who were gathered together. The man replied that there were 3,200 present he was certain, because he was expert at such calculations, from having to count the people in the theatre; and of that number 2,000 belonged to the class called "roughs"—the most violent, disorderly, and dangerous of all the men in that very quarter. This man lifted up his hands in amazement when he saw how quiet was their demeanour. He had expected uproar, and even danger, and he frankly said he could not comprehend how those two thousand wild, unruly fellows behaved themselves so well. And certainly it is a very remarkable thing, and a great moral result, that so many men of such turbulent character and disorderly habits should have been got to listen patiently and quietly for an hour and a half to a religious service, an occupation so unusual, and, as we might have supposed, so distasteful to them. Do you inquire as to the fruits? A report is weekly made to the committee for conducting these services as to the character of the audiences on these occasions, and the effect produced. These reports are one theme of congratulation and

1683
expression of thankfulness from those who have taken part in them, that they had been permitted to enjoy an opportunity of making known religious truth to thousands and tens of thousands, who, except for this instrumentality, would have gone to their graves without a knowledge of the God that made them, and of the Saviour who died for them.
But it is said that the issue of holding these religious services in theatres is to draw away the congregations from other places of worship. Happily, the fact is just the reverse. I hold in my hand the testimony of several clergymen and Dissenting ministers of the districts around these theatres, who unite in saying that there has been no abatement, but rather an increase, in the numbers of their congregations. They state, and it is reasonable that it should be so, that many of those who had attended these services had been so impressed by what they had heard, that they had become regular attendants at the churches or chapels of the neighbourhood. Now, if there is a human being who is well acquainted with the working people of the metropolis it is the Rev. Joseph Brown, rector of Christ Church, Blackfriars. Mr. Brown's parish is included within one of the most awful localities in the world. I wish that your Lordships would go there and spend a little time in that and similar neighbourhoods. You would thus do a great service. It would be time well spent. Proofs such as this, of interest in the welfare of the people, of a desire to know, and, if possible, improve their condition, tend to harmony and good-will among all classes, the preservation of order, and loyalty to the Crown. I remember, in one of my walks in the east of London, an intelligent working man said to me,
"I hear that there are very fine folks at t'other end, with such fine carriages and horses; why don't they come here, and see what we are a-doing on? We are worth thinking on, for we are many."
He spoke the truth: they are "worth thinking on;" and it is to recover a treasure so valuable, and bring them back to the Communion of Christian life, that the present labour is bestowed. Now, Mr. Brown, whose church is near the New Cut, says that his afternoon service is not affected by the services in the Victoria Theatre; and he even recommends a morning service therein for the benefit of the ens of thousands who are to be found in
1684
the New Cut on Sunday morning. In the New Cut, like Petticoat Lane and Bag Fair, on Sunday, are thousands of persons, many of whom pass the day playing at skittles, at pitch-farthing, and in almost every crime; and it is hoped that some of these, at least, may be enticed into the playhouse to listen to the Word of God. However abnormal these services may be, good cannot but follow the collection of 20,700 of these persons to hear the Gospel, many of whom would otherwise be in the highways and the streets, having no other occupation than to break the Ten Commandments from first to last. The Rev. Newman Hall, minister of Surrey Chapel, says:
"My church was quite full with an attendance of 2,500 prior to the services. There has been no diminution since."
The Rev. R. Robinson, of York-road Chapel, states:
"I am happy to say that the attendance at the chapel has suffered no diminution whatever since the opening of the Victoria; even the young have not been drawn away."
The Rev. Hugh Allen, the rector of St. George's, Southwark, writes:
"None of my church services have been at all diminished, either in number or interest; and I have no hesitation in saying that these special services at the theatres, so far as they have come under my notice, were attended principally by the class of persons for whom they were instituted; and the attention given to my preaching there was as solemn and as marked as ever I witnessed in any church."
Of the services at Sadler's Wells, the Rev. Daniel Wilson, of Islington (a well-known name), says:
"I am not aware that the congregations attending any of our churches in this locality have been affected by the special services."
The Rev. Robert Maguire, of Clerkenwell, observes:
"My congregation in Clerkenwell church has not been in the slightest degree affected by the theatre services."
The Rev. A. M. Henderson, of Claremont Chapel, testifies:
"My congregation has not been lessened."
The Rev. H. Ingram, of Pentonville Chapel, also:
"My evening congregation has improved, rather than diminished, since the opening of Sadler's Wells. On the evening of the special services we were crowded."
With respect to the services at the Garrick

1685
Theatre, Whitechapel, the Rev. T. Richardson, incumbent of St. Matthew's, Pell Street, to whom I have already alluded, says:—
"My evening congregation has increased ever since I preached at the Garrick, and the increase has been from the lowest orders."
The Rev. R. H. Baynes, incumbent of St. Paul's, adds:—
"These services have in no way affected my evening congregation, though my church is not more than three hundred or four hundred yards from the theatre."
This is an important fact. The Rev. W. Tyler, Mile-end Chapel, says:—
"We are still always full."
The Rev. C. Stovel, Commercial-road Chapel, says:—
"If anything, the evening attendance has improved."
The Rev. J. Markwell alone writes:—
"I must say that the congregations of an evening at St. James's, Curtain Road, have, since the service at the Britannia Theatre, Hoxton, fallen off greatly; still would fondly hope that God will own and bless these extraordinary efforts for the conversion of sinners."
But here I may remark that the congregations, assembled at the Britannia Theatre, are of a somewhat superior class, and though consisting of persons who are not frequenters of places of worship, are not composed altogether of the wild and destitute beings who flocked to the other theatres. Who can entertain a doubt that these services are producing a considerable benefit by small means—an enormous church and chapel-extension at a small cost? The argument against them, and it is the only one, is, that there is something unpleasant in the association. I do not deny there is something abnormal in these services, something that is unpleasant. But the Right Rev. Archbishop has put the case truly and well when he says, that, "while on the one side there is a natural and legitimate sentiment, on the other there is principle." It is so; for what do those who object to these services give in exchange, what do they offer in the present most awful necessity for doing something? Suppose that an appeal be made to the country for church accommodation, and that the country should in time respond to the appeal, would the response be equal to the demand? I was told by the late Bishop of London that, when an appeal was made to the public for twenty additional churches
1686
for the metropolis, by the time the money was collected, and the churches were built, the population had increased in a far greater proportion than the churches would contain, and the arrear remained the same as before. Now, suppose the House should adopt the Resolution, and suppose the services should in consequence be discontinued, what is to be done meanwhile? Years must elapse before this great scheme of church accommodation, even if adopted, could be carried into effect, and hundreds of thousands would go to their graves in utter ignorance of all saving truth, and contributing while they live to the disgrace, dishonour, and insecurity of the country.
My Lords, hard things have been said of the ministers of religion who have taken a part in these services. I have a totally different view; I cannot too much commend them. I feel bound and rejoice to bear my testimony to the conduct of the Nonconformist ministers in this matter. Some of their most eminent men have joined this movement with hearty zeal. The noble Viscount says that we are endangering the Church. Just the reverse. I believe that the movement of which this is a part has done more to strengthen and perpetuate the Church than any other cause; and the clergy of the Church who have participated in these services have gone far to rivet the hearts of the people to the Establishment. But there has been some talk of an inhibition to stop these services. Now, first I doubt the legality of such an inhibition; and I, for one, am prepared, if an inhibition be issued, to test its legality. I question whether any human being or any law has the power of preventing a clergyman in his capacity of a Christian citizen from performing that great duty, the salvation of souls, in season and out of season, at all times and in all places, to any who may be disposed to hearken. I hold in my hand a short letter from a clergyman of the Church of England; and here I may remark that many other clergymen of the Church are coming forward to join in this work—it speaks the sentiments of a large body who feel that principle in such a work is paramount to every other consideration. The writer says:—
"I presume the right of Christian men to exhort an ungodly multitude, wherever found, ought not to he interfered with; and it was only as a Christian man that I addressed the multitude in the Garrick Theatre. I were no ecclesiastical dress, and used no part of the Church service."

1687
He well asserts the right of the clergy, and shows that it is exercised with moderation and judgment.
My Lords, you must perceive the rising struggle to preach the Gospel among this mighty mass of human beings. Can you be indifferent to it? I ask whether you are prepared, as members of the Church of England, to see the Church stand aloof, and the whole of this movement given up exclusively to the Dissenters? Will you say to these destitute and hungering men, "We can do you no sort of good. Come, if you like, to Episcopal churches and chapels, and there you shall be preached to in a stiff, steady, buckram style. We will have you within walls, consecrated in due and official form; otherwise you shall never hear, from us at least, one word of Gospel truth." Are you prepared to admit that the Church of England, despite the pressing necessity, is bound so tightly by-rule, and rubric, and law, and custom, that she can do none of the work? Will you say, "We have not a sufficient force of clergymen; we have not churches or chapels; we have no money to ordain and support the ministers of religion?" In that case the people, who are benefited by these services, will reply, "Let the Nonconformists, then, do the work, but let the Church of England take up her real position as the Church of a sect and not that of the nation; she has been applied to and found wanting, and let us follow those who have called us to the knowledge of the truth." My Lords, I believe it will be found that those who have been awakened to religious impressions by ministers of the Church of England will connect themselves with the Church, and that those who owe those impressions to Nonconformist ministers will join Nonconformists. But whatever may be the case in this respect, I trust your Lordships will not be heard to declare that no minister of the Church ought to take part in this great movement, and fatal would it be, if, for any reason, our clergy were to withdraw from it. I have great respect for the Nonconformist body. Among them I have many affectionate and valued friends; but I have a sincere attachment to the Church of England. I dread to see that Church lose one particle of its influence or power, or shrink from what I believe to be its sacred duty. I rejoice to see the friendly rivalry that exists between the clergy of the Church, and Nonconformists, in relation to this great work;
1688
but I, for one, will not surrender to them the right, the comforts, the privilege, and the joy, of evangelizing the masses of the people. My Lords, you are asked to pass a Resolution. The Resolution, if passed, cannot have the force of law in reference to this movement: it would be just so much waste paper, and no more; and not being backed by public opinion could have no influence out of doors in checking or impeding us; the only effect it could produce would be to rouse a strong feeling of indignation or sorrow. I hope the noble Viscount will not go away with the notion that this is a movement in which the middle classes take no interest. The middle classes of the present day are much better informed than those of a former generation. They know that the safety of their lives and property, and the preservation of public order, depend on their having around them a peaceful, happy, and moral population; and they feel that the course now being pursued, is one which, by the communication of Christian truth, will mainly conduce to that issue. I implore your Lordships not to adopt this Resolution; but whatever may be the decision of the House, I feel myself bound to say—and I am speaking, I know, the sentiments of those with whom I am associated—that, by the blessing of God, we will persevere in the course which we have begun, as long as we have breath to speak and material to work upon.
EARL GRANVILLEhoped, after the turn the conversation had taken, that he was not going beyond his province in making an earnest appeal to the noble Viscount to withdraw the Resolution which he had brought before the House. Their Lordships would remember that the noble Viscount, in bringing forward his Motion, based it on certain circumstances which were very obvious at first sight, that these special services in theatres were contrary to our ordinary associations and feelings, and then stated certain facts which he alleged had taken place in connection with the performance of Divine service at the theatres. He denounced in strong terms certain things which he believed to have taken place on the information of an anonymous report in a newspaper, the name of which he did not mention. Some part of these facts had been contradicted by the most rev. Prelate, who at the same time informed their Lordships that, while these services were in the first instance repugnant to his feelings and convictions, yet,

1689
after full examination of the whole state of the case, he could not find it in his heart, even if he had the power by law, to prohibit those who availed themselves of the only earthly means in their power of bringing the Divine truths of the Gospel to the knowledge of many who in no other way could find it. They had heard also in the very remarkable speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury)—a speech temperate, eloquent, and impressive, and delivered under the advantage of a full knowledge of the circumstances—information of very great interest and importance. The noble Earl had stated many important facts which every one who had heard them must have listened to with the deepest interest; but he concluded that the noble Viscount would not be inclined to admit statements coming from one who was to a certain degree bound up with this movement. It was impossible for the House to entertain a question on which it did not possess full information; and besides, they must bear in mind that this was a subject with which the House ought not to deal in its single capacity. If this movement was a good one, if it justified the hopes and expectations entertained of it by the noble Earl, if it should prove a blessing to any portion of their fellow-creatures, their Lordships would only make themselves a laughing-stock by attempting to oppose it. If, on the other hand, it was found calculated to produce mischief to society, and to injure rather than advance the interests of religion, public opinion would, he believed, speak out in such a way as to put an end to it. More than that; in such a case it would be the duty of Parliament to interfere by an Act, but it was not for that House to pass a Resolution, which, as the noble Earl observed, would only be so much waste paper. He thought, therefore, that for the sake of the House itself it was important that they should not—even if it were regular to do so—pass Resolutions on subjects as to which they could have no practical effect whatever, and so accustom the public to treat their Resolutions with indifference, which he flattered himself was far from being the case at present. He was sure, therefore, that he only spoke the feeling of the House when he asked the noble Viscount to withdraw his Motion.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that whatever might be the opinion entertained as to the services to which their attention had been directed, it was obvious
1690
from the very remarkable speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that there was a great spiritual need, which it was their duty to supply. The noble Viscount seemed to think that sacred things belonged to sacred places only, and that the Gospel of Christ should only be preached within consecrated walls. But an abnormal state of things called for an abnormal remedy. He thought the noble Viscount had not sufficiently considered the spiritual exigencies of the country, which required peculiar and extraordinary efforts to meet them. They must endeavour, by all legitimate appliance to meet the wants of the great mass of the community, and especially of those of the poorest and most neglected class. Whether the theatres were or were not proper places for meeting the wants of these classes so far as Divine service went they were only taken possession of because no other suitable places could be found. What the spiritual necessities of the people were had been more fully laid open by the Reports of recent Parliamentary Committees, and it behoved all Christian men to grapple earnestly and speedily with a declared necessity. There could be no measure better than the introduction of Sir Robert Peel's system, which provided for the formation of parishes without churches in the first instance; and the proper source from whom endowments for those parishes was to be derived, was an improved administration of the Church property. He hoped some measure would speedily be taken by the sale of a portion of livings under Crown patronage to increase the number of churches—a scheme which had been recommended in the Report of the Royal Commissioners. He was glad that the Motion of the noble Viscount had brought forth the interesting statement of the noble Earl, which would, he thought, be attended with the best effect.
THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFsaid, the population of his diocese had increased in a greater ratio than in any other part of the kingdom, not even excepting Lancashire; but not so the church accommodation. At the beginning of the present century the population of his diocese was 107,000; at the census of 1851 it had increased to 347,000, having much more than trebled itself. He was acquainted with a gentleman who knew Cardiff fifty years ago; its population, which was then 1,800, was now nearer 40,000 than 30,000. He believed the late Sir John Nicholl re-

1691
membered Merthyr when there were only seven houses in it, but at the last census the population had risen to 15,000. The clergy in his diocese were all anxious to do their duty; but how could they he expected to cope with the spiritual wants of such an enormous population? They were told there was a great number of Dissenters in the diocese. They admitted it, and were thankful that it was so. Dissent in Wales originated in a great degree in the apathy of the Church of England, but it had been augmented a thousand fold by the inability of the clergy to supply the wants of the church while the population had been increasing to so great an extent. The Prelates of the Church were conscious of the evil associations of a theatre to which the noble Viscount (Viscount Dungannon) had alluded. But what were they to do? If he (the Bishop of Llandaff) was called on to elect between allowing Divine worship in theatres, and seeing thousands of the population perishing in their sins, he could not but remember his Saviour's command, to go into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in. He hoped the debate might result in calling the attention of the Government to the great and pressing want of spiritual accommodation which prevailed, not only in the metropolis, but in many parts of the country. As for appeals to the public, the noble Viscount must have read the Report published last year of the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Lords on the subject of church rates. The subject of appeals to the public was over and over again referred to in that Report, and clergymen said that they were completely secularized by having to make constant appeals in order to obtain the necessary funds for the Church.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, it was desirable that no misapprehension should go abroad with reference to the position assumed by the right rev. Bench on this question. The discussion had been of so extremely interesting a character, and had elicited so many facts with which their Lordships could scarcely have been expected to be acquainted, that he trusted it might stir up a desire to remedy the evils which had been so forcibly pointed out. But they must not allow themselves to be so far carried away by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) as to conceive that the plan he had so eloquently and feelingly set forth was the only one by which those
1692
evils could be met. He (the Bishop of London) believed they were really indebted to the noble Viscount for having brought this subject before the House. He had done so in the most temperate and quiet manner. Nothing but the conviction that he was conscientiously discharging a duty could have induced him to bring the question under their Lordships' notice; and he (the Bishop of London) for one did. not regret that he had done so, even though he should eventually consent to withdraw his Motion, which he (the Bishop of London) trusted he would do. But it would be said, if the evils were so great, and the remedy proposed by the noble Earl was so efficacious, it was surely the duty of the heads of the Church to put themselves distinctly in the front of this movement. It had been said that neutrality appeared to be a wrong position for a Bishop to assume in this matter. A few nights ago he stated that the position which he himself had assumed was, more or less, one of neutrality. He would now state why he had assumed that position. The noble Viscount, in his opening address, would have had their Lordships to suppose that this was a public movement which the heads of the Church sanctioned. But it was obvious to all now that it was a private movement—a movement of certain private individuals, who, feeling deeply the responsibility cast on them as Christian men, living in a community which was in a very abnormal state, determined to try an experiment, not perhaps consonant with the general feeling of the Church, but yet one which they thought might result in great good. He (the Bishop of London) thought they had acted wisely in not consulting the heads of the Church in entering on an experiment which might not, after all, have been successful. He was glad in not having been invited to take public part in this matter, but rather that the right rev. Bench should be asked to allow it to take its course, and then, when they saw that it was really attended with good, say whether or not they could give it their sanction. The noble Viscount argued that a few years ago a clergyman would have been suspended for taking part in the services in question. He (the Bishop of London) did not know that that would have been the case. He could hardly think that it would. At all events, the most rev. Prelate had pointed out the change that had taken place in the law within the last few years. It was not illegal,

1693
and nothing could make it so but an inhibition from the Bishop. The noble Earl did not speak with very much respect of an episcopal inhibition, but had intimated that the question might be tried in a court of law. Supposing, however, that an inhibition were legal, would the noble Viscount, after hearing the statements which had been made that evening, say that it was his (the Bishop of London's) duty or that of the Bishop of Winchester, in whose diocese some of those theatres were situated, to drag before a court of law any clergyman who, from conscientious motives, took part in these services? Surely no one would wish that if this were not illegal now, he should take steps to make it so. He was aware that a Bishop's power was not altogether dependent on inhibitions. One word from the most rev. Prelate of his entire disapproval of this movement would, no doubt, have at once induced the clergy to bow to his revered authority and cease to take part in these services. But the right rev. Bench felt that they would be taking upon themselves a very grave responsibility indeed in expressing any such opinion in the face of a mass of human beings whom either they or their forefathers had hitherto sorely neglected. Could they, dare they, call upon the clergy, either by inhibitions or by other means, to refrain from ministering to these persons? The right rev. Bench did not feel called upon to prevent the clergy from engaging in this work. At the same time, he was not prepared to say that he went entirely with the movement. There were several things in it which he did not like. The associations connected with a theatre created a certain dislike to the use of such a building for religious purposes; but on mature reflection, he did not know whether this was not an objection founded on feeling alone, and whether, therefore, the conflict was not one between mere feeling and the deeper call of duty and of principle. With regard to the effects of theatrical entertainments, to which allusion had been made, he did not know whether one result of this movement might not be that theatres would become something better than they had ever been before. No doubt it was a great evil that there should be so much mixed up with a theatre which rendered it impossible for Christian people to avail themselves of it as affording a highly innocent and improving amusement; but it was, nevertheless, a popular amusement, and, per-
1694
haps, a better state of things in connection with it would result from the present movement. They might be thankful if this were so. He begged that their Lordships would not go away with the impression that, because this great experiment was being tried, no other efforts should be made in the same direction. Other buildings more suitable for Christian worship might no doubt be found; and, above all, he did not doubt that if an appeal were made to the country to consider how great was the mass of irreligion and indifference which required to be grappled with, funds would be forthcoming, if it depended on funds, for the extension of our parochial system. True, they must wait long before churches could be built; but they need not despair on that account, and meanwhile it would be well if those who felt strongly against this movement would see that the churches we had already were thrown open to the poor as freely as possible. It might be very difficult to lure them in, but at present they were not lured in but locked out. No idea seemed more deeply ingrained in the minds of many officials in our parishes than that the abject poor had no right to be accommodated in our churches. In this and other ways, perhaps, important results might flow from this movement. They were not to accept it as the best which could be originated; but that it had been productive of good few could doubt, and he hoped that many other efforts of a kindred nature might be made to promote the same ends.
VISCOUNT- DUNGANNONsaid, that what had passed left him still uncouvinced that evil might not arise from turning places of public amusement into places of public worship. Throughout the country there was a strong feeling that such practices involved a desecration of God's holy ordinances. But he should not regret having brought this subject before their Lordships if it had the effect of inducing the community at large to consider these things, and see how a remedy could be best applied to those crying wants which the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had so forcibly described. It had never, however, been his intention to put the House in, perhaps, the invidious position of having to express an opinion upon this subject. He was satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, and should now withdraw the Motion.
THE LORD CHANCELLORhad been forcibly reminded by this discussion of a

1695
line written by Dr. Johnson. On one occasion, when far removed from cathedrals and sacred edifices, this great moralist joined in a worship which was no doubt most acceptable to Heaven; and he then expressed this sentiment:—
"Legitimas faciunt pectora pura preces."
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PERFORMANCE OF DIVINE SERVICE.

  PETITION.
  LORD EBURY presented a Petition from Charles John Bosanquet, R.N., a magistrate of the County of Essex, and Churchwarden of Enfield, complaining of the present state of the Law respecting the Performance of Divine Service, and that more Power may be given to the Bishops to enforce their legal orders. The noble Lord stated that the Petitioner complained of the manner of performance of Divine Service by the Vicar of Enfield in a church in that parish, and prayed that the law with regard to the celebration of Divine Service might be made so plain and simple that such practices as these and such as had taken place at St. George's-in-the-East, might be put an end to in a complete and summary manner. He ought to state that, in reply to an inquiry upon this subject, he had received a communication from the Vicar of Enfield, stating that, according to law, he was perfectly right in the course he had pursued. He would, therefore, make no observations on the present Petition beyond remarking how well founded were the objections which he had himself brought under the notice of the House on this subject.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that his noble Friend seemed to consider that this was a case similar to that of St. George's-in-the-East. But there were in reality several differences between the two cases. The present case was not that of a parish church, but of a private building licensed as a chapel, and one of the points relied on by the vicar was that it was his own private property. Now, the difference between a parish church and a private building was very great indeed; and it did not follow that because certain practices were inadmissible according to the common rules of good sense in a parish church, they should not therefore be allowed in a private chapel. The vicar also alleged that that chapel bad been built almost entirely by the subscriptions of persons who wished
  1696
  that particular form of service which was observed there; so that he was only carrying out the desire of those who had caused the edifice to be constructed. There was this further great difference between the two cases, that the authorities could only judge of the feeling of the parishioners through the representations of the churchwardens, and two out of the three churchwardens were opposed to the views of the petitioner, and were anxious to have Divine worship conducted in the mode adopted by the vicar. So that this was not a petition by the churchwardens in their united capacity, but that of a single gentleman. Moreover, there was this essential difference between the two cases, that the vicar, in conformity with the opinion expressed by himself (the Bishop of London) and the Archdeacon, had, as he (the Bishop of London) understood, discontinued in the parish church every practice to which the parishioners had objected, while he maintained his right in the private chapel built by private persons to adopt the forms which they desired. At the same time he stated that if he (the Bishop of London), his diocesan, intimated to him that he had better close the chapel he would close it immediately, but that having received the money of the persons who wished for that peculiar service he could not adopt any other. He did not know that the vicar was right in that view of the matter, but this was what he had stated. He regretted to say that that case had been brought in another form before the magistrates in petty session; but the magistrates, exercising, as he thought, a very wise discretion, had dismissed it. There was one point of great importance involved in the case. The petitioner prayed that the law with regard to all these matters should be altered, or should, at least, be thoroughly investigated. He (the Bishop of London) could not conceal from himself that that evil was every day extending and that in various parts of the country the people were becoming irritated against individual members of the clergy who chose to set themselves against the wishes of their parishioners in respect of the form of worship. It was no wonder, that the law upon the subject should be uncertain. The very idea of a national Church was that it was a Church rooted in the affections of the people, and it was not likely that there should be found in the statute-book a distinct law to force clergymen not to introduce practices which

  1697
  were alien to the feelings of their parishioners. He, therefore, earnestly trusted that the presentation of that and of other petitions would lead, if not to an alteration of the existing law, at least, to a thorough examination of the law. It was the opinion of persons of great authority—and that opinion was, he thought, deserving of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government—that many of those difficulties might be got rid of by a certain clause in the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth, whereby there resided in the Crown, acting on the advice of the Metropolitan (the Arch-bishop of Canterbury), a power to settle those questions, and that the decision so come to would have the force of law. If that were the case it would relieve Parliament from the necessity of further legislation. Such a power, he was sure, ought to be vested in some constituted authority, and he believed that, without it, great danger would result to the Church.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that the case might be met by the introduction of a new canon. There was a strong feeling among a large class of persons that the question should be settled by Parliament; but unquestionably Parliament was not at the present moment a fit body to undertake the solution of the difficulty. Every one, however, must feel that if there was a doubt as to the law of the case it was desirable that that doubt should be cleared up, for the sake alike of the Bishops, of the clergy, and of the people. His belief was that if the question were fairly taken up by Convocation, it might be settled by the introduction of a canon, in a manner which would give satisfaction to everybody except the most extreme party, who, however, would feel themselves specially bound by any decision emanating from such an authority.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his notion was that a canon of Convocation could not change the law of the land; it could only bind the clergy of the province in which it was enacted. The Act of Uniformity which was enacted by Parliament could not be altered without the authority of Parliament.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that a canon would not in the slightest degree interfere with the Act of Uniformity.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that all these matters were settled by various Acts of Parliament known as the Acts of Uniformity, all of which were founded on and referred to the Act of King Edward VI.
  LORD EBURYsaid, he had the greatest desire to see the question settled in a peaceful manner. He should be happy to see the question taken up by the members of the right rev. Bench. He wished to ask the right rev. Prelate whether a Commission had not inquired into this subject, and reported against the conduct of the vicar.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the word "commission" had two meanings. This Commission was only a private inquiry, at which the Archdeacon presided, and his (the Bishop of London's) advice was, that these practices should be discontinued.
  Petition to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at a Quarter past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.