Lords Sitting of 6 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Augmentation of Small Benefices (Ireland).
2a Jews Act Amendment.

ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONin rising
  "To call Attention to the continued and serious Riots occurring on each successive Sunday in the Parish of St. George's-in-the-East, more especially to those which took place on Sundays the 17th and 24th of June; and to inquire whether any or what more effective measures of prevention were to he adopted by Her Majesty's Government,"
  said that after the very unsatisfactory reply that had been given on a previous evening in "another place," he feared he should not obtain any better information from the noble Lord who represented the Government in that House. But these riots, under the very prostituted name of religious dissensions, had now assumed a more serious character. They were no longer limited to hissing and hooting, but personal assaults were committed upon individuals. On the 24th of June a ruffianly rabble pursued and assaulted the evening preacher, who was obliged to take refuge in a public-house, whence he was ejected at the command of the mob, but, fortunately, succeeded in jumping into a cab and effecting his escape. On the 17th of June some choristers were pursued in like manner, and ill-treated. They also took refuge in a public-house, and were turned out to the fury of their assailants. Who were the persons who were promoting these successive weekly riots? They were not Mr. Bryan King's congregation, because some of them abstained from attending the church, in consequence of their disapproval of Mr. King's extraordinary proceedings, and others on account of these disturbances. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he was in no way taking up
  1508
  the cause of Mr. King, whose conduct was, in his opinion, characterized by the most culpable want of judgment and perverse obstinacy. Mr. King had adopted proceedings distasteful to his congregation, he adhered to those proceedings, notwithstanding that he must have foreseen how fearful would be the consequences. When their Lordships remembered that these riots had been going on for nearly ten months, and that the short days of the winter season were approaching, they could not doubt that, unless decisive means were taken to put them down, serious affrays, and perhaps loss of life, would ensue. The answer of the Home Secretary a few days since informed them that the authorities had reported that nothing amounting to a breach of the peace had occurred which would justify interference; but if the occurrences of the two Sundays which he had mentioned did not amount to a breach of the peace, he was at a loss to know what constituted a breach of the peace. He had always thought that the law took cognizance of anything calculated to disturb the public peace, but he might be mistaken. The question was, what was to be done? They could not interfere with Mr. Bryan King, who, however culpable, maintained that he was adhering strictly to the rubric. Technically speaking, it might be so, but Mr. King was adhering to a course which was thoroughly distasteful to his parishioners, and he could not help regarding him as the indirect promoter of the evils which were so much to be deplored. They could not close the church. The right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of London had tried, but discovered that the law would not warrant that course;—still, in a case of emergency such as this, he should like to know whether it could not be closed by an Order in Council. He did not say whether it could or could not, but it would be far preferable to close the church, if it were for twelve months, rather than suffer these outrageous proceedings. The right rev. Prelate had given his advice, but his monitions appeared to have been disregarded, and he had no power to put an end to that which was not only a scandal to religion, but a positive disgrace to a civilized country. He thought the churchwardens had been deficient in their duty, because they admitted into the church persons whom they knew very well to be the leaders of these disturbances. It might be said that

  1509
  the church was open to all; but persons who resorted there merely to create disorder should be refused admittance. He could not but believe that if the police had executed their duty, as it was intended they should, that the present state of things would not have continued. It was clear that the mob were solely urged on by a sheer love of mischief; and it must not be forgotten that they were establishing a precedent of a most dangerous description. What occurred in St. George's-in-the-East might equally happen elsewhere, and the consequences of an extension of those disturbances become exceedingly serious. An Act had been passed to confer greater powers to check such disturbances on the churchwardens; but judging from past experience it was hardly to be expected that, in this instance, there would be any change in the conduct of these officials. The right rev. Prelate had no doubt done his best to put an end to the riots, and would probably have succeeded had his advice been attended to. He much regretted that the right rev. Prelate had not the power to carry his views into effect. He wished to ask the noble Earl opposite whether the Government were prepared to adopt some decisive measures for repressing these outrages.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONhoped the noble Earl (Earl Granville) would allow him to interpose for a moment before he gave an answer to the question put to him by the noble Viscount. He wished to point out to their Lordships and to the Government strongly that this was not a question to be trifled with, but one which was every day becoming more and more important. He could not quite agree with the account which the noble Viscount had given of recent occurrences in St. George's—namely, that the disturbances were each week becoming worse. From the information which he (the Bishop of London) received weekly, he believed, on the contrary, that the disturbances were not so bad as they had formerly been. But the improved state of affairs was simply and entirely owing to the presence of the police. The riots would be as bad at this moment as when the attention of their Lordships was first called to them, only for the presence of the police. What he wished to call the attention of the noble Earl to at present was, that while Parliament was sitting there would be some check on the riotous violence of the mob; but they were rapidly approaching the
  1510
  time when Parliament would be prorogued, and when it could no longer be possible to ask Her Majesty's Government questions on the subject; and the noble Earl had to consider whether it would be possible to go on until February next with the present system of keeping down the disturbances by the presence of a body of police. It was painful for him. (the Bishop of London) to have thus to speak of any church in the Metropolis, or anywhere else; but he could not avoid saying that there must be great fault somewhere when a clergyman required the presence of a large body of police to enable him to continue his ministrations. Neither their Lordships nor the other House of Parliament had been inattentive in the matter, for a Bill had passed both Houses which would give churchwardens greater power than they had hitherto possessed, and the difficulty which had been experienced in enforcing the statute of Queen Mary would not be felt under the new law. The statute provided that any person disturbing a congregation, or guilty of brawling in a church, might be taken before a justice of the peace and fined £5, or committed for two calendar months. He hoped that no long time would be suffered to elapse before the statute was put in force in respect to those misguided people who were ringleaders in these disturbances in St. George's. Reference had been made to the Churchwardens of St. George's. He had endeavoured to see that they did their duty, and he believed they had done so; but, no doubt, they had done it unwillingly, as any men would under similar circumstances; but he need not point out the difficulties which there were in the way of two churchwardens, aided only by four sides men, coping with a mob of a thousand people. He wished to put it to the Government whether, as a law had been passed to punish the persons who had committed these outrages, some legislation was not also required to prevent the cause of them. So far as he had been able to ascertain it, the law of the Church of England, as at present administered, allowed to every parochial clergyman the undivided responsibility of settling the form of his services within certain limits prescribed by the Act of Uniformity, without any consultation with his congregation or with any one else; and there was no check on his arbitrary will except the power of the congregation to leave the church when the services were distasteful to them. The

  1511
  parishioners, of course, had it in their power to leave the parish church, and he believed there were very few parish clergymen so utterly dead to all right feeling as to persist in maintaining a service which could only have the effect of making his parishioners leave their church. The good sense and feeling of the clergy generally prevented them from thus trifling with those whose souls were committed to their charge; but experience now showed that this undivided responsibility of the clergy required to be looked into. It had been supposed that, as the clergy generally had shown such good sense in those matters, it might be left to them to settle what changes should be made in the ornaments and fittings of the church as such changes became necessary; but, unfortunately, examples had occurred in which some clergymen had not shown the good sense and feeling which might have been expected from them. He had had the matter investigated by his own lawyers, and he had come to the conclusion that the clergy had no such power in respect of ornaments and fittings. He had gone into the matter and issued a circular to his clergy informing them that no change whatever should be made in the chancels without the permission of the faculty of the Bishop's Court. But with regard to whether there should be musical services or read services, as at present advised, he believed the responsibility of deciding did rest with the clergyman of the parish. What he wished to put to Her Majesty's Government was this:—why was it that one single man was to have it placed in his power to set at nought the feeling of the whole parish to which he was appointed? It had been frequently suggested that the Bishop should have the decision in such cases. No doubt that would cause a great increase of anxiety to the Bishop; but he was sure that experience had already shown that the undivided responsibility ought not to be left in the hands of whatever clergyman might happen to be placed in a parish. The present case, it might be said, was an isolated one, and it certainly was unlike any other; but still there were other cases in which the feelings of the parishioners had been greatly trifled with by innovations. He thought, therefore, that the time was come when some check ought to be put to an individual proceeding in this way in spite of the feelings of the parishioners. He had himself, several months back, submitted a measure to the Govern-
  1512
  ment, but it had not obtained their approval. He should now be glad to hear, first, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take such vigorous steps under the recent Act as would deter those who took part in these out rages; and, secondly, that it was their intention seriously to consider, with the assistance of the ecclesiastical lawyers of the Crown, whether a new system could not be devised by which the root of the evil might be reached, and individual clergymen prevented from giving rise to these disturbances by outraging the feelings of their parishioners.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Viscount was not quite accurate in his statement of what had taken place, for nothing had occurred which amounted to a breach of the peace, though there had been serious interruptions to the performance of divine service.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he referred to what took place outside the church.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would read the reports of the police which had been sent to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and which reports showed that the reports in the newspaper were not correct [which the noble Earl then read.] Every Sunday for some time past there had been, inside and outside the church, seventy-three policemen—a force larger by far than was ever employed in one place except in cases of danger from the assembling together of great numbers of persons. So far as putting the law as it stood into action, he did not think the Government could take any further steps in the matter. He did not wish to say anything which might appear to sanction these disturbances, but it certainly was a matter for comment that a clergyman should require the assistance of seventy-three policemen to protect him in his parish church, and especially after an offer had been made to him by the Bishop of his diocese to arrange the dispute and. bring back peace and quietness to the parish. He thought the Bishop of the diocese should have been vested with power to put a stop to these disturbances, but under any circumstances all must reprobate the proceedings of the mob. The right rev. Prelate had been good enough to communicate a scheme for stopping such proceedings by putting more power in the hands of the Bishops to deal with clergymen, but Her Majesty's Government, after giving it their careful consideration, found it would be attended with

  1513
  such disadvantages that they could not agree to adopt it. They would, however, carefully consider the question during the recess with a view to see whether some remedy could not be devised for putting an end to such scandalous scenes.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, this was really a matter which was becoming more serious every week, and he did not think that the Government had paid very great attention to the subject. It was said that this was an isolated case; but whether that were so or not, it was a gross violation of the law, and it was monstrous that the law should give greater protection against a riot in the house of a private individual than it afforded against the desecration of the house of God. He believed that the root of the evil was a want of power in the Bishops to control their clergy. He had heard the parochial system praised over and over again, as if it were perfection. But parishes were independent states, subject only to the suzerainty of the Bishop, and the incumbents were practically as independent of the Bishops as the Danubian provinces of their suzerain the Sultan. It would not do to trifle with a question of this kind, or else it would affect all other churches and be fatal to the peace of the Establishment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it appeared to be supposed by a number of persons that the Government or the Queen in Council had power to make an Order to shut up the church; but neither the Queen in Council nor the Government had any authority to do that. The Bishop of the diocese was the only authority who could make such an order, and he could not do it without the consent of the incumbent. There must be a change in the law before such a power as that supposed to be in the Government could be exercised.

  EDUCATION (INDIA)—PETITION.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) had given notice of his intention to call their Lordships' attention to the introduction of the Bible in the schools and colleges of India. The right rev. Prelate had heard the appeal that had been made to the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) a few nights ago to postpone his speech on this subject, and therefore it was not likely that anything he could say would alter the right rev. Prelate's intention. Still, it was only respectful to the noble Duke to make an appeal also to the right rev. Pre-
  1514
  late not to discuss the matter, and to assure him that it was not desirable that he should enter upon the discussion at present.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD presented a Petition from Inhabitants of Ham, praying that the Holy Scriptures may not be excluded by Authority from the Government Schools in India. He said he did not intend to enter at length upon the great question to which the petition referred. Their Lordships had recently had an opportunity of hearing all that could be said upon the subject stated ably, completely, and temperately by the noble Duke on the cross-benches (the Duke of Marlborough), and he felt it would be improper for him to attempt to repeat the arguments and statements which had been already submitted to the House. He was, however, anxious, in the first place, to do away with an impression which might probably prevail in the public mind from the mode in which the discussion on a previous evening had terminated. It might appear to the country that the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) stood alone in that House in the opinions which he had expressed. Now, that was very far from being the case. He (the Bishop of Oxford) had been ready and desirous of stating how entirely he concurred in the sentiments expressed by the noble Duke, but the mode in which the discussion terminated prevented his doing so. He was also anxious to suggest two grave considerations to the Government in connection with the subject. He had laid upon the table fifty petitions from various parts of the country with the same prayer as that of the petition he now held in his hand, that the Bible might be introduced into the schools in India; but he was fully persuaded they were not a tithe of the petitions which would pour in upon both Houses of Parliament upon this grave subject, and he would venture to predict that in a matter like this, upon which the religious mind of the people of this country was to a remarkable degree unanimous—when those who differed upon many points of Church government were united in opinion that the Bible ought not to be excluded from the Government schools in India, but that it should be accessible in school hours to all those who desired to study it—that at no distant day that question would be brought to a practical and a successful issue. If there was any danger at all to be apprehended, it would arise from a belief being raised in India that

  1515
  the Government resisted the demand that was made because they thought it would be an infraction of the fair dealing which had been guaranteed to those who differed from us in religion, and that if the demand were carried it would be carried by the religious mind of this country in spite of the wishes of the Government. Such a belief would lead to an impression, untrue, indeed, that the admission of the Bible into schools was something at which they had ground to be alarmed, and which constituted a violation of religious liberty. For his own part he believed that sooner or later the Bible would have to be introduced into these schools, and he was of opinion that it would be much safer to introduce it now, than to postpone it to a later period. It would be a danger in its worst form if the question was left as a subject for agitation in this country. He thought, also, that the introduction of the Bible taking place after an interval would be an evil, because the Native mind would form an opinion that we feared to do so as long as the recollection of the late mutiny remained in our minds, but that only when the memory of that event had passed away did we venture to take the step. There was another consideration he would urge upon the Government. He did not undervalue the dangers of our Indian Empire, but he was convinced that those dangers did not rest upon our simply giving fair play to Christianity, while we cautiously abstained from attempting to inflict Christianity by force, and from entrapping the Natives into Christianity by fraud. Our security would he greater if the Native mind could be taught that we abstained from those courses, not from fear, but because our consciences forbade them. The great danger was that in turning our attention to a false danger, we might overlook the real source of danger. The mode in which the question of Native adoption had been treated was, he believed, full of danger, as also was the annexation policy, and he believed also the proposed change in our army system in India. He was therefore most anxious, without reopening this great subject, to urge as earnestly as he could upon the Government a reconsideration of the position they had taken upon this grave question.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsincerely hoped the Government would give their earnest attention to the appeal of the right rev. Prelate. It was highly inconsistent with our promise to elevate and improve
  1516
  the condition of the Natives of India if we excluded from our schools in that country the Bible, which was the only standard of right and wrong. It was said that the fear of exciting distrust among the Natives and of weakening our hold upon. India was a necessity for excluding the Bible; but that would imply that we valued the material welfare of England more than we cared for the moral condition of India. In a speech lately delivered by Sir Herbert Edwardes on the propagation of Christianity among the Natives that distinguished officer had expressed opinions which he commended to the consideration of the Government, and which he earnestly hoped would have their due influence.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought that the spectacle which their Lordships presented the other evening when he had the fortitude, or perhaps the hardihood, to bring this question before them was one of the most extraordinary ever witnessed in this House. A subject of the highest importance as affecting the material and the moral interests of the people of India was submitted to their consideration. He was appealed to at a time when he was unable to accede to the request not to proceed with the Motion; he felt the greatest regret that he could not comply with the appeal; but until the last moment he had not supposed that any impediment existed to the consideration of the question, and he was taken by surprise by the remonstrances addressed to him. He rose now for the purpose of vindicating their Lordships' House. [A laugh.] He was willing to accept any derision with which he might be met; but he repeated that he rose to vindicate their Lordships' House, for when a subject of such sacredness and importance was brought forward, it might be expected to receive some attention and some expression of opinion—especially from Her Majesty's Government. He was, however, convinced that the silence observed on that occasion did not indicate any want of interest in their Lordships' minds in regard to the subject. In this House and in the country strong convictions prevailed, which would, he believed, make themselves felt; and so deeply was he impressed with the injurious effects and the dangerous consequences of the present system of education in India, by which the Bible was utterly excluded from the knowledge of the Natives, that he should lose no opportunity of bringing the matter under the notice of their Lordships.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it must have been by inadvertence that the noble Duke had declared that he was taken by surprise at the objection raised to his bringing on the Motion. On that occasion the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) appealed to him, though, as he remarked, without much hopes of success, because he had already privately urged the noble Duke not to proceed with the Motion. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) made a similarly ineffectual appeal; and he himself wrote to the noble Duke urging postponement, on the ground that the health of the Lord Privy Seal made it unadvisable that his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) should attend. The noble Duke declined compliance, though in general an appeal made on such grounds was at once acceded to. Afterwards, in privately discussing the subject with the noble Duke, he represented, what was the almost universal feeling of the House, that it would be most desirable on public grounds altogether to withdraw for the present a Motion relating to this most delicate question. The noble Duke was therefore not justified in stating that he was taken so complelely by surprise.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHadmitted that his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) expressed an opinion that it was unadvisable to bring on the Motion; but his noble Friend certainly made no strong remonstrance. He had also received a private communication from the Earl of Shaftesbury to the same effect. But the noble Earl had for months past held peculiar views on this subject, views not shared in by many with whom he was in the habit of acting. The letter from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) stated that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) could not attend in his place, and requested, on that ground alone, that the Motion should be postponed. But he (the Duke of Marlborough) did not conceive that that was a sufficient ground for postponing a Motion on a subject of such importance. In the absence of any reason of a public nature which would have justified such postponement, he was, on coming down to the House, taken by surprise by a proposal for the postponement of the Motion on public grounds proceeding from an official quarter.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that when he found the noble Duke declined to postpone the Motion on account of the illness of the Lord Privy Seal, he added another reason in conversation for postponement—namely,
  1518
  that he found it was the general opinion of their Lordships that it would be inconvenient to bring the matter forward.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the noble Duke would be entirely mistaken if he supposed that the House was disposed in the slightest degree to treat this important question with levity; and it should be remembered that a noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), in appealing to the noble Duke to postpone the Motion, stated that he did so because he entirely agreed with the noble Duke on the subject. The effect of the decision on the Previous Question was only to prevent the Motion being put at that particular time, and in proposing it he believed he gave vent to the almost unanimous feeling of the House.
  Petition to lie on the table.

  NEW ZEALAND BILL—COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he hoped that before this Bill was sent down to the other House fuller means would be given for coming to a conclusion on the question by the production of the Correspondence which had passed between the Colony and the Government at home upon the subject.
  THE EARL OF DERBYconfessed that the measure appeared to him of very doubtful policy, and he hoped that the noble Duke would enable them by means of the Correspondence to ascertain what specific grounds might be shown for this exceptional legislation. It was a point worthy of consideration how far advantage might be taken of the services of Natives in the proposed Council. He understood that a Bill had been sent over from the colony to this country for the purpose of carrying into effect something analogous to the present proposal, and that that Bill hid been disallowed by the Government. He thought it would be desirable that papers should be laid before Parliament showing what the colonists themselves proposed, and the reasons for which the Crown was advised to disallow the Bill he had referred to. As far as he could understand the Government of New Zealand was without any knowledge that this Bill was to be introduced. He hoped that before the Bill reached its final stage the noble Duke would give them further information as to what had taken place between the inhabitants of the colony and

  1519
  the Government, and as to what were the critical circumstances which rendered necessary a piece of legislation which the noble Lord himself must admit to be of a very exceptional character.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEacknowledged that the legislation now proposed was of an exceptional character. He quite admitted that their Lordships were entitled to ask for the production of the despatches which had passed between the Governor of the Colony and the home Government; but he had abstained from laying any papers on the subject on the table, because the communications contained the names of persons and statements of a private character which it would have been inexpedient to publish. As, however, he had been requested to produce the papers by the noble Earl opposite and the noble Lord who had preceded him, he could only say that the House had a right to them, and that he would endeavour to furnish their Lordships with such papers as would acquaint them with the full reasons why this Bill had been introduced. He was confident that when their Lordships saw these papers and considered the whole circumstances of the case they would admit that this Bill, though exceptional, was justifiable. He believed that the body which was constituted by the Act would act in harmony with the Colonial Legislature; and that the colonists would appreciate the advantage of having Borne body interposed between them and the Natives which would enable them to extend the advances of civilization without exciting that antagonism and hostility which now prevailed among a considerable portion of the Natives of New Zealand. There was nothing to prevent Natives being on the Council, but he was not sure that he would encourage their appointment. Whatever might be his opinion of individual Members of the Legislature of the colony, he had nothing to say against it collectively, but at the same time there was no disguising the fact that the Natives did not repost in it the same confidence as they would do in a body appointed by the Crown. The Bill, as a whole, he believed, met with the approval of many of the most intelligent and experienced colonists. Without being too sanguine as to the result of this attempt at mediation, he felt that it was only right that the experiment should be made, and hoped their Lordships would not retard the progress of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly. Bill reported without Amendment; an Amendment made, and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.