PETITION. (Hansard, 24 February 1860)

§ 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 LONDON
said, 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 REDESDALE
thought 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 CHANCELLOR
said, 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 REDESDALE
thought that a canon would not in the slightest degree interfere with the Act of Uniformity.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, 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 EBURY
said, 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 LONDON
said, 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.