Lords Sitting of 11 May 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction.
3a Pawnbrokers Act Amendment.

CENTRAL AMERICA.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he wished to put a Question to his noble

1063
Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of which he had given him private notice—namely, Whether his noble Friend had any objection to inform their Lordships in what state of progress the important negotiations with the Central States of America were at present? These negotiations were not of so much importance as regarded the relations between those States themselves and Great Britain as they were in respect of the settlement of the long-vexed question of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, which would probably be affected by them. These negotiations were commenced by the late Government and continued by the present. When the late Government went out of office there were three questions under consideration. First, the settlement of the boundary; secondly, the cession of the Mosquito Protectorate to Nicaragua; and, thirdly, the cession of the Bay Islands to the Honduras, on conditions which would ensure the safety of the subjects of Her Majesty resident in those islands. He should like to know the progress which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had made in settling these questions—for he had seen in a newspaper a statement to the effect that the Bay Islands had been ceded to the Honduras. If that were so, and if the cession had taken place on the conditions first laid down by Lord Clarendon, and afterwards by himself (the Earl of Malmesbury), he thought it would be a subject of great congratulation; those conditions being a complete and entire recognition of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty by the United States, and the entire security of Her Majesty's Government in those islands from any interference on the part of the United States or any other Power whatever. He should like to know whether the negotiations were in such a position as that the Government were able to produce the correspondence relating to them.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that the questions which his noble Friend had asked related to matters of very great importance, not only as affecting our relations with the States of Central America, but also with respect to the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. He would remind the noble Earl, as he had alluded to the negotiations under the late Government, that before that Government left office, the Clarendon-Dallas Treaty had fallen to the ground in consequence of a difficulty raised by the Secretary of the United States. After-
1064
wards negotiations were resumed and Sir William Ouseley was sent out to Central America. In reply to another Question asked by his noble Friend he had to state that his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had continued the negotiations; and a Treaty had been concluded by which the Bay Islands were ceded to the Honduras. That treaty had been received in this country and ratified by Her Majesty. His noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) had adverted to the conditions on which the negotiations for that cession had formerly been conducted, and which had been laid down by Lord Clarendon. These conditions had been considerably modified; but stipulations had been made which would, he thought, secure the safety of Her Majesty's subjects in the Bay Islands: and, moreover, a condition had been inserted that those islands should not be ceded by the Honduras to any other Power. The stipulations Treaty with Nicaragua had also been agreed upon, but, so far as Her Majesty's Government knew, it had not yet been ratified by the Congress of Nicaragua, nor had it been ratified by Her Majesty. When it should have been so ratified the ratifications would be exchanged; but until the entire matter was completed he could not produce the correspondence.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that the answer of his noble Friend was satisfactory so far as it went; but as regarded the Treaty for the Cession of the Bay Islands to the Honduras, everything must depend on the terms upon which the Cession had taken place. His noble Friend had not answered one of the questions which he had put to him. He wished to know whether the United States recognized completely, fully, and fairly the spirit of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty?
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that the Clarendon-Dallas Treaty was at an end, and there was no other treaty between this country and the United States but the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYobserved, that Her Majesty's late Government had declared to the Government of the United States that an indispensable condition of the cesssion of the Bay Islands to the Honduras, was the recognition by the United States, without further dispute, of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. If that condition had not been preserved, the object of the late Government had not been obtained.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (OTTOMAN EMPIRE).—PETITION.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: The paper, my Lords, I now have with me is the Petition of which I gave notice several days ago. It was placed in my hands by persons of high respectability, animated by the best intentions, and having in view a most laudable object. On this account I readily undertook to present it to your Lordships. The gentlemen, with whose request I have thus complied, are the committee of an association formed in the general interest of Christianity, taken in its purest acceptation, with the hope of softening religious asperities and promoting the great ends of Christian benevolence. This Society is known by the name of the Evangelical Alliance. The immediate object of their petition is not so much to bring forward any special complaints as to draw your Lordships' attention to the state of Protestantism in some parts of the Sultan's dominions, and to obtain, with your Lordships' countenance, a more effectual security for those who have exposed themselves to danger by an open profession of its principles.
With your Lordships' permission, I propose to offer a brief statement of some leading circumstances, which relate to the growth and present condition of Protestantism in Turkey. The Protestants in that country may be divided into two principal classes—namely, those who are the subjects of Powers in amity with the Sultan, and those who owe allegiance to the Sultan himself. The former, with few exceptions, are natives of Germany, Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, and Her Majesty's dominions. They reside in Turkey under the acknowledged authority of their respective Sovereigns, represented in most cases by Ministers accredited to the Porte. They are protected by treaties actually in force, and they have no reason to fear molestation on account of their religious faith. The latter are natives of Turkey, subjects of the Porte, converted to Protestantism from other forms of worship, which have the misfortune to be tinctured with error either in whole or in part, It is for this class of Protestants that I have to solicit the attention and sympathy of the House.
If we look, in the first instance, to their origin and progress, we shall not greatly err if we assign a considerable share of both to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures. Some thirty or forty years have elapsed since the Bible Society, as it is
1066
popularly called, succeeded in first introducing into the Sultan's dominions those translations of the sacred volume which have since been diffused through many parts of Turkey, both in Europe and Asia. The light was not offered in vain, and many, no doubt, have found their way, by its aid, to the fountain-head of truth.
In proportion as knowledge was obtained, the superstitious errors and gross abuses which had crept into the established form of worship throughout the East, became apparent, to reflecting and conscientious minds. That smallest of seeds, which is capable of a mighty growth, began to take root and spread; nor has it ceased to work its way through all the obstacles opposed to it by an alarmed priesthood and a fanatic population. The persecution which often attended that progress served only to stimulate the zeal of the converts. Their cry of distress was heard in other countries, and missionaries, summoned by its appeal, hastened from distant lands to their relief. Whatever merit may be due to those devoted auxiliaries, the greater share of it belongs to the United States. Whether we look to the funds, which their religious societies have so liberally supplied, or to the agents by whom those funds have been administered, it is impossible not to recognize in the amount of the former and in the conduct and character of the latter, what is calculated to do the highest honour to our transatlantic descendants. Other nations, and our own in particular, have laboured in the same cause, but the American missionaries stand almost alone in the extent of their personal exertions and the results which they have obtained. In the union of zeal, perseverance, and discretion they are unrivalled.
Your Lordships may possibly listen with interest to some particulars illustrative of their success, and affording a summary view of the present condition of Protestantism in Turkey. I have found them in a printed report, bearing the date of 1859, and published under the sanction of a respectable society. It appears from this statement that 45 churches have been founded; that above 1,500 members are in full communion; that those who attend public worship on the Sabbath may be averaged at more than 4,000; and that the Protestant community, as legally enrolled, comprises from 6,000 to 7,000 souls. Sixty-three ordained American missionaries, 67 female missionaries, 74 native preachers, and 178 native assistants, la-

1067
bour in the same field. Their stations and out-stations, scattered principally through Syria, Asia Minor, Armenia, and Bulgaria, amount to more than 100. The free schools attached to them exceed the number of 150, and 4,000 scholars, 900 of whom are females, avail themselves of the instruction they afford. In addition to these schools, there are seven higher seminaries, having 150 male and female students. The expenditure of the American Board for the collective missions amounted in the year to more than £28,000, and the aid from England to upwards of 2,300. Nearly 70,000 volumes and 20,000 tracts proceeded from the Protestant press at Constantinople in the same year.
It cannot be denied that, considering the shortness of the time, these facts are indications of no small zeal and of no small progress in that good work to which the missionaries have devoted their labours and their lives; but justice requires that, while assigning to them the praise which they have so fully earned, we should not withhold the expression of our gratitude from the Sultan, whose powerful authority has impressed a character of strength and permanency on the results of their exertion. If your Lordships will bear in mind the peculiar circumstances which surround a Turkish Sovereign, and limit the range of his ideas, you cannot fail to admire that soundness of judgment and generosity of feeling which has been so remarkably displayed by the reigning Sultan in all his dealings with the Christians. To him the Protestants, in particular, are indebted for the great Charter which recognizes them as a separate religious community, and gives them the enjoyment of privileges equal to those conceded in earlier times to the Greek, the Latin, the Armenian, and the Jew. From him they derive that free exercise of their religious creed, that security from molestation on the score of religion, which the Imperial Proclamation of 1856, the celebrated Hatti-Humayoun, has solemnly and permanently assured to every class of his subjects, without exception. I was myself a witness of the difficulties which His Majesty had to encounter in yielding to the entreaties of this country; and of all the incidents in my long diplomatic career, there is not one to which I look back with so much pleasure and surprise as to his gracious approval of that concession which, in carrying out the views of our Government, I had so long and so earnestly recommended.
1068
My Lords, I willingly believe that the Turkish ministers have fairly accepted their Sovereign's injunctions to give effect to the great principle of religious freedom. It can hardly, indeed, be otherwise, when we bear in mind that the Sultan's Proclamation was solemnly recorded in the same treaty of peace which guaranteed the independence and integrity of his dominions. But the Forte is not remarkable for the vigour and constancy of its proceedings. Though the Sultan's authority is irresistible, his Government has all the weakness which belongs to the individuals who compose it. The remains of religious prejudice with some, indifference or personal interest with others, impede the course of justice, and, but too often, produce those delays which amount to a denial of it. In the provinces, at more or less distance from Constantinople, seceders, whether from the Greek or the Latin Church, or from any other established form of worship, are exposed to insult and ill-treatment from the populace, and to acts of persecution emanating from ecclesiastical authority. Converts to Protestantism have less to apprehend from the Turkish Governor than from the Christian Bishop, except when the Pasha or the Cadi, acting under the influence of the Prelate, or swayed by some foreign Consul of kindred orthodoxy, neglects the instructions of his Government, and connives at illegalities which he ought to repress and punish. It may also happen, more particularly in the case of any conversion from Islamism, that the fear of local troubles—of a riot or a murder—may induce the magistrate to temporise at the expense of the convert, and deter even the Porte itself from redeeming its pledges in his favour with a prompt and determined hand.
My Lords, it is the more important on this very account that the influence of a Government like that of Great Britain, friendly to the Sultan, and sympathetic with the objects of his enlightened policy, should be steadily and vigorously exerted on behalf of the Protestants in Turkey. The natural tendencies to a lax application of that policy require to be counteracted by a vigilant impulsion of a friendly Power. Every act of persecution left without redress, every infringement of the Sultan's charter allowed to pass with impunity, must necessarily have the effect of encouraging persecution and deterring those, who are awake to the love of truth, from

1069
avowing that purer doctrine which in their consciences they believe.
I do not, my Lords, intend to insinuate any reproach against Her Majesty's Government for remissness in this respect. I have no reason to suppose that the head of the Foreign Office, either under the present or under the late Administration, has shown any want of vigour in supporting the cause of religious freedom in Turkey. The difficulty of supporting it with equal effect at all times is, no doubt, considerable. Individuals who secede from long-established forms of worship and modes of faith are unavoidably exposed to the malice of those whom their new profession condemns, and their own inconsiderate zeal may possibly at times betray them into acts of provocation and offence. Tour Lordships will, however, remember that, while it may be said of these Eastern converts to Protestantism that "suffering is the badge of their tribe," they are legally entitled to the full benefit of the Sultan's charter, and that it is the bounden duty of a Government which has placed them by solemn enactments on a level with other Churches, to enforce on all its subjects, and more particularly on its official agents, the execution of every measure required for their protection. The right and the obligation may both be admitted, nor, indeed, are they open to dispute; but it may still be asked, on what ground we can justly interfere on behalf of converts who are subject to the Sultan's laws, and resident in countries which acknowledge his rule. My Lords, it is not necessary for me to affirm that we have any express right by treaty to interfere on their behalf; but I appeal with confidence to the admitted practice of other Powers, to the solemn obligations incurred by the Sultan in presence of all Europe, and to the vast debt of gratitude which his whole empire has contracted towards this country, whose sympathies operate so powerfully in favour of Protestantism. In calling upon him to carry out his promises, we manifest the sincerity of our friendship and a becoming regard for his honour and authority; we encourage his perseverance in a course of enlightened humanity, which accords with his own interests; and, at the same time, we not only satisfy the requirements of a great moral duty, but strengthen the foundations a policy which virtually ministers to our own advantage, identified, as it is, with the general advantage of Europe.
Such being the case, my Lords, I lay this
1070
Petition on your Lordships' table without further explanation, and confidently hope that its value will not be determined in your Lordships' judgment by the weakness of its advocate, but rather by the intrinsic importance of the object to which its prayer is more immediately addressed. The terms of that prayer are:—"That your Right Honourable House will be pleased to sustain Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to cause Religious Liberty to be maintained, and the Protestant Churches to be really and fully protected in the exercise of their just rights, throughout the whole of the Ottoman Empire."
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had at first thought that this Petition had emanated from certain subjects of the Sultan in reference to disputes between themselves and the Turkish Government, in which case it would have been a serious question whether their Lordships could receive the document. It now however appeared that it was a Petition from British subjects, praying that the good offices of Her Majesty's Government might be exercised in making representations to the Government of Turkey for the protection of Protestants generally in the Sultan's dominions: and that being so there would be no impropriety in entertaining it.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYexpressed his thanks to the noble Viscount for the great interest he had taken in this question of religious toleration in Turkey, and thought, whether they considered the interests of religion generally or the unexampled triumphs of which they had proof that Christianity had achieved in Turkey, the noble Viscount was entitled to the deep gratitude of every friend of religious liberty throughout the world. It was impossible not to sympathize with the noble Viscount in the high terms with which he had spoken of the liberality of the Sultan, or to over-estimate tire labours of those Societies to which the noble Viscount had alluded. Notwithstanding the immense difficulties that existed in Turkey it was most gratifying to observe the progress which Christianity had made in the dominions of the Sultan. But the noble Viscount had omitted all mention of the most effectual means to which this progress must be attributed—namely, his own unceasing exertions in the cause, which have been crowned by a degree of success which could hardly have been otherwise attained.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that although he had no reason to offer anything on be-

1071
half of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Petition just presented, because the noble Viscount had been kind enough to state—what was, indeed, perfectly just—that the Foreign Office had never been slack where its exertions could be usefully employed in aid of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, yet he could not refrain from making one or two remarks. Certainly no one was better qualified than the noble Viscount to bring this subject under their Lordships' consideration. Everbody who had paid the least attention to foreign affairs was well aware that during the whole time the noble Viscount represented this country at Constantinople his great influence was continuously and unsparingly used on behalf of all classes of Christians throughout the Turkish dominions. He might also add that everybody knew the exertions of the noble Viscount to that end had been happily attended with considerable success. The noble Viscount had paid a just tribute to the benevolent intentions of the present Sultan. Persons in this country could scarcely understand to what an extent the Sultan had to contend against the prejudices of his people in the measures he had recently taken. Those measures had announced complete religious liberty to Christians all over the Sultan's dominions—a proceeding that was regarded by many of the most highly-placed Turks as inconsistent with their creed and position. Under such circumstances to have proclaimed, and to some extent also carried out, those principles, reflected great honour upon the Sovereign of Turkey. But, unfortunately, in that country, more, perhaps, than any other, the measures that were formally announced were not always put fully into operation or completely carried out. The Christians might, indeed, have been placed almost on a footing of nominal equality with the rest of their fellow subjects; yet, undoubtedly, they were exposed to oppression in various parts of the Sultan's dominions. Some cases of persecution had been brought under the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and the complaints had been accordingly brought to the knowledge of the Ottoman Government. They had received satisfactory assurances that orders would be given by the Porte to its different governors in the Pachalics where these grievances had occurred; and he trusted that those orders would be carried with effect. Indeed they had every reason to
1072
believe that it would be so, since an officer of high rank had been appointed to see that they were carried into effect. But what was most deserving of remark was that these complaints were made in a very great number of cases, not against the Mussulmans, but against other Christian subjects of the Sultan. So great a jealousy existed among the different Christian Churches throughout the East that scenes constantly occurred which did very little credit to the Christian profession of those who took part in them. The most lamentable religious feuds had not only prevailed at Jerusalem, but at present there existed among the Greeks and Latins very great jealousy respecting conversions to Protestantism. In one instance a Greek priest, and also some Armenians who had embraced Protestantism, were persecuted to such a degree that even in spite of the assistance of the authorities they were obliged to leave their native part of the country altogether. Similar cases had occurred in other places. All this exemplified the great difficulties of a very peculiar kind which the Turkish Government had to encounter in enforcing the principles of religious liberty and toleration which they had announced, and which he believed they were honestly desirous of giving effect to. He could, however, assure his noble Friend that Her Majesty's Government, without wishing to interfere with the internal affairs of Turkey—because they ought to make some allowance for the difficult position of the Sultan, and not press hard on that Sovereign, except in cases of absolute necessity—were disposed to give such advice to his Government as they hoped might secure to Protestants as much safety and freedom as were extended to other Christian denominations throughout the East. Her Majesty's Government had been invariably assured of the good intentions of the Turkish Government in respect to the carrying out of internal refrrms, but beset as the Porte was by the frequent representations of all the States of Europe, it had the hardest conceivable task to carry out any efficient plans of reform. They ought to take care that in any course they took they did not trench on the independence of the Sultan, lest while endeavouring to improve the condition of his empire they should add to its weakness, and prevent by the measures they employed the realization of their best wishes for its prosperity.
LORD BROUGHAMhoped he should receive from his noble Friend some satisfactory information as to the steps which had been taken to put down, as far as we had authority to put down, but at all events to make our Consuls aid the Turkish Government in punishing, instead of interfering to protect, the British subjects guilty of those outrages which lately were committed so scandalously in one of the mosques in Egypt, in a spirit of mere wantonness. If these outrages had been committed in consequence of a perverted religious enthusiasm, that would have offered no sort of defence, but it would have been comparatively an extenuation of the offence. But according to the information he had on the subject, the outrage in question arose from the mere wantonness of English travellers in that country he hoped and trusted, therefore, not only that our Consul did not interfere to protect the offenders from the law and the police of the country to which they had rendered themselves amenable, but that he had rather encouraged the authorities in executing the laws against them. Nothing could possibly tend more entirely to frustrate all the good that had been done by religious societies here, and by his noble Friend the noble Viscount when he filled that office, which he filled—and which by common consent he most ably filled—in the East, for the promotion of the Christian religion, and the propagation of the Gospel in those parts—nothing could tend more completely to render inoperative all that had been done, and to make progress, so to speak, retrograde, than such outrages committed, he was sorry and ashamed to say, by British subjects. The only course that should be taken in such cases was to instruct our Consul, not only not to interpose, which he was not likely to do, in favour of those who were guilty of these outrages, but show his zeal to bring them to justice, and encourage the Ottoman Government in executing their own laws against them.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend that it was the duty of the British Consuls not merely not to give encouragement to those who were guilty of outrages so gross as that to which reference had been made, but that they should do all in their power to bring such persons to condign punishment. The circumstances of that most disgraceful proceeding—for it could be characterised by no other term—were per-
1074
fectly well known; but, in justification of our Consul, he might state that he was entirely ignorant of the transaction until the parties were beyond the reach of justice; and he would say that the conduct of the Viceroy of Egypt and of the Egyptian authorities, did them the highest credit, and it was satisfactory to find that the progress of religious toleration in that country had rendered such an occurrence comparatively harmless. The individuals in question had interrupted in a most unseemly manner religious ceremonies which were proceeding in one of the principal mosques on a solemn occasion; but instead of tearing them to pieces on the spot, which would have been the case a few years ago, the people allowed the officers of police to quietly remove the offenders. Her Majesty's Government had taken measures to discover the perpetrators of this outrage, and they had given directions to the Consuls, that on the future occurrence of any such cases, they should take immediate measures to bring the offenders to justice.
LORD BROUGHAMhoped his noble Friend (Lord Wodehouse) would not be charged, in consequence of adopting such steps, with favouring the Mahomedan religion, as he himself and others had been charged with favouring the Popish religion because they objected in the East London case to decide a question of ecclesiastical discipline by the mob in the streets, which they had protested against, without saying one word as to which party was right or which was wrong.
LORD CRANWORTHthought, while pressing on the Porte the protection of our own countrymen, entertaining religious opinions totally at variance with those of the Sultan, it was extremely important his Government should understand that the blame imputed was not attributed so much to the Mahomedan as to the Christian subjects of His Majesty.
Petition to lie on the Table.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS JURISDICTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRANWORTH, in moving the Second reading of the Bill, stated that it was founded on the Report of a Commission issued in the year 1832, when his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) occupied the woolsack. That

1075
Commission recommended the abolition of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction on two subjects—defamation and brawling, and to render persons charged with those offences amenable to the common law courts; and his noble and learned Friend five years ago introduced a Bill to carry the recommendations of the Commission into effect, so far as regarded defamation. That Bill, however, was confined to England; it did not extend to Ireland; and one object of the present Bill was to extend the provisions of that very useful Act to the sister kingdom. With regard to brawling there was no very exact definition of that offence that satisfied his own mind. According to the 6th of Edward VI. it consisted in making a riotous disturbance in any church or churchyard; and the punishment to be inflicted for the first offence was, that the party guilty was to be prohihibited ingressu ecclesiœ—a punishment, he feared, not very likely to deter those who were guilty of such an offence from its repetition—the punishment for the second offence was that the party guilty should lose one of his ears; but there might be those who had lost both ears, having been punished in this way more than once, and then they were to be branded in the face. This Bill, which had been introduced in the Commons and by them sent up to their Lordships, made the offence a civil one, and enabled the civil authorities to deal with it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the Bill to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded, was the production of his hon. and learned Friend, Dr. Phillimore, than whom no one could be better fitted to legislate on this subject, from great experience in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and who had most ably performed his duty by carrying the Bill through the other House of Parliament. His noble and learned Friend had done perfectly right in extending its provisions to Ireland.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, he rose to oppose the Bill, and in the first place to complain that it had been introduced into the other House without the slightest explanation of its provisions or its grounds. He understood the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth) to say that the object of the Bill was to carry out the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission of 1832; and it was true that that Commission recommended the extinction of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts
1076
over laymen; but he wished his noble and learned Friend had stated more fully and more satisfactorily the recommendation of the Commissioners. It might be inferred from the statement of the noble and learned Lord that the recommendation, of the Commissioners was simpliciter to get rid of the jurisdiction over the laity on these subjects of the Ecclesiastical Courts; but his noble and learned Friend must forgive him for reminding him that this recommendation was accompanied with a condition that with respect to the laity there should be given, in lieu of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court, an indictment by which a person found guilty was to be liable to imprisonment; and he thought it would have been more satisfactory if that recommendation or some equivalent had been adopted in the present Bill—they ought not to remove the present remedy without some substitute. But he must frankly say that it had been his misfortune never to be able to see the reason for the recommendation so far as concerned the laity. It ought not to be expected, and could not be expected, that the Church would forego her right and her duty to tell the laity what was their duty; and, although it was a very disagreeable thing, when they departed from that duty in any important particular, to visit them with the censure of that Church. He was not desirous that these censures should be backed by any temporal penalties. The censures of the Church were intended pro salute anima—were intended to operate not on the body but on the soul. He did not coincide with the definition given by the noble Lord of "brawling." Violent and indecent behaviour did not constitute "brawling." Brawling was the interruption by words only of Divine service, and acts of irreverence in the course of the prayers of the Church. That was a very grave offence—it was a sin of a very high nature when wilfully and especially if pre-meditatedly done. The State at present gave the Church the power of pronouncing its own censure, which, in the first instance, was an admonition not to repeat the offence. If that was not effectual, and the party was contumacious, then they went on even to excommunication. It was true that that sentence of excommunication was followed up by an act of the temporal Legislature, which imposed grave punishment. He for one deeply regretted that any such punishment attended such excommunication—it weakened rather than

1077
strengthened the Church's authority. The punishment was six months' imprisonment. They ought, indeed, to be glad that the Legislature in the time of George III. had introduced a change and an amelioration in the term of imprisonment as formerly carried out; and he could wish that the Legislature of Queen Victoria would go further and relieve the Church altogether from the scandal of being practically prevented, in the present state of society, from exercising its proper spiritual powers by having the temporal penalty of imprisonment appointed to enforce them. They did not wish to be assisted in their jurisdiction by any penalties imposed by the State; they wished only to tell sinners that they were sinners, and to exhort them to repentance; and if they refused to repent, then to tell them further that they cease to be members of the Church of Christ, and must not be permitted to join in the communion of the faithful. He was astonished that the Commission of 1832 should have gravely proposed to give up that jurisdiction, though he wished it were totally freed from all temporal penalties. He had said that the sentence had been actually inflicted by the Ecclesiastical Courts in one recent instance, and that it had had a beneficial effect; and he must remind their Lordships that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which was to be removed if this Bill passed was the only means by which it had hitherto been found possible to reach any one of the offenders connected with the riots in St. George's-in-the-East. That offender was not of the lowest class. He was known and summoned, and proceedings having been taken in the Ecclesiastical Court, the sentence was that he should be admonished not to offend again, and should pay a sum nomine expensarum—the costs of the proceedings. This sentence was passed on the 17th April, and by a coincidence which it is difficult to believe merely accidental, on the 19th the present Bill, abolishing all such jurisdiction for the future, was laid en the table of the House of Commons, but with absolute silence as to any of its objects, and it had been now introduced into their Lordships' House without any statement of the provisions of the Bill, or of the reasons which had made it necessary. He doubted, indeed, whether the noble and learned Lord had even once read the Bill he now wished their Lordships to read a second time. When he considered that the existing law to which he had adverted was the only one
1078
that could reach these and similar riots in St. Georgo's-in-the-East in a spirit of law, justice, and religion, it was monstrous to be now told that such a remedy was to be removed. He did not agree that the Church should be relieved of the duty of visiting sin with censure; and if the offender said, "I do not care for that," of telling him that he should no longer be allowed to be a member of the Church. They had no right to say that the Church should not proceed in her own courts to exercise purely spiritual jurisdiction. It had been stated that this Bill provided that the offender might be brought before the magistrate; but in truth there was no such provision.
LORD CRAWORTH: Before a justice of the peace.
THE BISHOP OF EXETER: That statement made him the more confident that the noble and learned Lord had not read his Bill; and he wished that he would do them the kindness of looking at it. Such a provision was just what he wanted. The statute of Mary enabled any one to bring such an offender before a justice of the peace, having first apprehended him upon the spot; and why this statute had not been had recourse to in reference to the scandalous proceedings in St. George's-in-the-East it was not for him to say. To him this was utterly unintelligible, particularly as they had heard that the Government functionaries were desirous to use all their means to put an end to such proceedings. By the present Bill the offender might be "convicted before two justices of the peace;" but how could they proceed under such a clause against the persons who were committing these riots? for they were of such a class that it was not known who they were, and therefore they could not be summoned. There were hundreds—he believed thousands—of children who were employed every Sunday night, in all sorts of riot, and insult, and outrage. The summoning of such parties was a mockery. Some few persons, indeed, who were supposed to be known, had been summoned, and then it turned out that they wore not known. Why had the statute to which he had referred not been brought into operation? and why had not the police been told that they had authority and power, and therefore the duty to apprehend those who were guilty of those disturbances of Divine service? This was distinctly the law of the land, but that law had not been once, as he believed,

1079
called into action. They were told that nothing could be done, and certainly for ten months nothing had been done; the consequence was that atheism and riot was the normal condition of a large district of the Metropolis. Could this go on with impunity, and would not the principle be enlarged so as to extend beyond religion, to law, to justice, and possibly to Parliament itself? The tendency of such a state of things was to destroy all law; they ought to put down these riots, and they must do it unless they would have the law in this country become a mockery. But those who from their official position were bound to endeavour to suppress these disturbances had found it consistent with their duty to decline doing so. He thought that it was very unfortunate that there should be any attempt to frame new laws until the effect of the old ones had been fairly tried; and he lamented that the law of the Church had not been put in force in reference to ornaments placed in this church—a question with which he believed the law was perfectly able to deal. The clergyman was not bound to provide vestments—they were to be provided for him by the churchwardens. But the main thing which seemed to attach to this individual was the introducing of strange ornaments into the church; a cross was placed on the altar, and flowers and other things were introduced in various parts of the church. Whether these things were right or not he would not himself undertake to say, but the law of the Church was clear that the clergyman had no right to put the ornaments there. He spoke not lightly upon this subject, for he had not only had a legal opinion upon the matter, which fully justified his own, but he had written to that distinguished man the Judge of the Court of Arches, and therefore the highest appellate authority before whom the question could go, and that very learned person fully confirmed the view which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had taken. Some things were prescribed, and some things were used without prescription; but a clergyman had no right to introduce any new ornaments; the ornaments as he had said, were entirely under the control of the churchwardens, and that control carried with it a duty. There were special ornaments which it was the duty of the churchwardens to place in the church, and to see that they were used even on the Lord's table. It was not, however, for
1080
them to introduce any novelty—and much less had any one else the power to do it—without the authority of the Consistorial Court, given by means of a faculty. That faculty costs a sum of £7 or £10 to obtain it, and, therefore, the practice was where all parties agreed, such as in the having a curtain, or any other trifling matters, to dispense with a faculty; but when the peace and comfort and decency and religion itself, of a district were at stake, he must say that the persons who obtruded these things ought to be told that they wore exceeding their legal powers. It was, indeed, very possible that when these things had been once placed in the church they could not be removed without a faculty, however illegal they may have been in the beginning; but upon that he gave no opinion, though, as to the right of the churchwardens to have charge of the ornaments in the first instance, he had, as he had said, the sanction of the highest authority. If the clergyman in question had been called to an account, and threatened with an ecclesiastical commission against him in the first instance—he was sure his right reverend Brother would forgive him for the suggestion—he would have been brought to his senses, and the country would have been spared a great deal of the scandal which had arisen. On the other hand he must repeat that he lamented deeply that nothing had been done to stop the parties who had been guilty of those riots. He would refrain from entering further into this painful subject, but he could not express in too strong terms his sense of the duty which existed of putting down these enormities of which all were so much ashamed. Under these circumstances he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months.")
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, their Lordships would, perhaps, excuse him for making a few remarks upon this question. He had not been in the slightest degree aware that this Bill had any connection with those unfortunate outrages which had disgraced a portion of his diocese; whether there was or not the slightest connection between the introduction of this measure into the other House of Parliament and those outrages he was not prepared to say. He thought, however, that it would have been well if the heads of the Church had been made

1081
aware that this Bill was passing through the other House of Parliament, as they would then have had time to examine it. He, and he believed his right rev. Brethren, had not seen the Bill until that day, and therefore he had no doubt, that the noble and learned Lord would have no objection to let several matters in the Bill stand over for consideration until they went into Committee. What his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Exeter) had said in reference to the Ecclesiastical Courts generally was so important that it could not be discussed without consideration. He hoped that he should be allowed to say a few words in reference to those unfortutunate circumstances which had been referred to. He thanked his right rev. Brother for having pointed out the real state of the law on the matter, and he would only say that the words which his right rev. Brother had used were well worthy of attention, and from his known knowledge of the law and his experience in carrying it out, he hoped that those words would have the desired effect with those whom they wished to bring under obedience to the law. His right rev. Brother had pointed out that no change could be made in the arrangements of the church except with the sanction of the Ordinary. In times of peace, however, the Ordinary was generally willing to allow innocent changes to take place; and no doubt in many churches of this Metropolis, no evil being anticipated, during the time of his revered predecessor, many such changes were allowed. For his own part he did not think it would have been becoming in him to introduce a new state of things at once, and to insist that every one of the clergy of his diocese should return to the exact arrangement in their churches which existed at the time of consecration unless it could be proved that every alteration had been made by virtue of a faculty. Among other churches in which alterations had been made was this unfortunate church of St. George's-in-the-East, and until it became absolutely necessary to regard it as an exceptional case he was willing that this church should be treated like any other of the diocese, and that the changes should be allowed to continue. But when he perceived that there was a disposition to carry these changes further, then, as his right rev. Brother had pointed out, it was his duty, and he did, in fact, send his officer to inspect the church and report to him as to certain changes which had
1082
taken place within the week preceding his visit; and finding that these changes had been made without the authority of any faculty, lie gave orders, under his hand and seal, that those things that had been put up should be summarily removed by the proper officers. That order was carried into effect. Unfortunately, the execution of the law in the Ecclesiastical Courts was a slow process. His right rev. Brother had pointed out that his duty was to take some proceedings as regarded what occurred on last Easter Sunday, when certain flowers and other decorations were placed upon the Communion table. He was glad to tell his right rev. Brother that he had taken such proceedings. Owing, however, to the ecclesiastical law being so slow, an offence might be committed in August, and every one might be aware of it by reports in the public newspapers, and it might even undergo investigation in other courts of justice; yet, though no effort might be omitted and the proceedings carried on with all possible rapidity and with no inconsiderable expense to bring the offenders to justice, August might be succeeded by Christmas, Christmas by May, and May might be verging into June, without the public being in possession of the fact that any proceedings whatever had been instituted. Now, he could illustrate this by stating what had taken place in reference to St. Georges-in-the-East in the Ecclesiastical Court. Proceedings had been taken against a person, who, he believed, was one of the first of the offenders in point of time; the offence was committed not later than September; and yet it was not until very recently that this case had been adjudicated. But slow as these Courts were, slow as venerable, he had no doubt that when their vengeance did come down on a victim, it was a matter not to be trifled with. People were in the habit of thinking that these Courts might be trifled with, but the most hardened offender would not feel indifferent when he came to pay his lawyer's bill. As to their spiritual power, all right-minded men would be ashamed to be put in the position of not being allowed to enter their church: but the enormous expenses wore perhaps more regarded in this day, the costs of the lawyers, the pecuniary penalties which might be imposed nomine expensarum, and the imprisonment which would follow unless the fine were paid, constituted a very heavy punishment. On the contrary the 40 s. penalty imposed by this Bill would be

1083
nothing to a rich man in case he were foolish and weak enough to take part in these disturbances, and he thought it absolutely necessary to consider in Committee whether the proposed penalty was sufficiently severe. One other matter to which his right rev. Brother had called attention was of the deepest importance, namely, that this Bill, professing to embody the recommendations of the Report of the Commissioners omitted this most important point, that it should apply only to lay persons; and he thought that it would therefore be necessary to insert the words, "any person not being a clerk in holy orders." Brawling embraced a variety of offences, and it often happened that the only mode of bringing a clergyman to justice was to charge him with the offence of brawling; and in some instances of brawling the sentence might be a suspension for three years. It therefore followed that it would be ridiculous that for such an offence a clergyman should be brought before a magistrate, instead of before an Ecclesiastical Court, and that he should be fined 40 s., instead of being suspended for three years; in addition to inserting the words he had mentioned, in reference to clergymen, he thought it would also be necessary to consider whether the penalty proposed was sufficiently severe as regarded laymen.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, the last thing he could have apprehended was that the Bill would be charged with giving rise to the riotous and disgraceful proceedings in St. George's-in-the-East; he could likewise assure his right rev. Friends that the measure had not been framed with any intention of screening the low rabble who were guilty of such misconduct. He had been informed that the Bill was, in fact, framed at the end of last Session, but that it was too late then to introduce it. He might further add that his hon. Friend who had brought the Bill forward in the other House had communicated with leading men on both sides of the House, who expressed their entire approbation; and therefore, though his hon. Friend stated fairly and candidly what the Bill was, as there was no opposition it' did not lie in his power to create a discussion. Whether the penalty proposed by the Bill was or was not sufficient was not a matter affecting the principle of the Bill; that was a detail to be discussed and settled in Committee. The principle of the Bill raised this question, whether the Ecclesiastical Courts, possessed as they were in some
1084
cases, and frightfully powerful in others, by punishing persons incidentally by enormous costs—whether the Ecclesiastical Courts maintained a satisfactory jurisdiction and mode of operation; or whether a more simple course was not desirable of dealing with what was really a civil offence before civil tribunals. The right rev. Prelate who had moved that the second reading of the Bill be deferred for six months could not feel more strongly than himself the necessity of preventing offences caused by the introduction of practices at variance with the ancient usages of the Church; and he remembered being associated with the right rev. Prelate on a memorable occasion, and going with him in opinion as to what were the ornamenta—he used the Latin word, because it expressed not merely "ornaments," but "furniture"—what were the ornamenta of the church—and they were agreed that no ornamenta were allowable, or at all events advisable, but those which were sanctioned by Act of Parliament or the canons. What he now asked of their Lordships was that they should give the Bill a second reading; and he would, in that case, engage not to move the Committee till Tuesday week, in order to give the right rev. Prelates a full opportunity of considering the measure, and he would be ready to listen to any suggestion from them with the most respectful attention.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that after the explanation of the noble and learned Lord, he would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD EBURYremarked that if, as had been observed, the Ecclesiastical Courts were slow in their operation there was one thing that was much slower, and that was the amendment of the law. This matter had been under discussion in Parliament as long as he could remember. The riots had been carried on in St. George's-in-the-East a long time, and no remedy had been applied. In presenting some petitions on the subject a short time ago, he suggested that the law should be looked into, and he hoped that means would be discovered for removing the scandal which was now doing immeasurable injury to the Church.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as it seemed to be understood that the Bill was to be read a second time he refrained from saying a single word on its merits; but he could not refrain from directing attention to the state of the administration of the ecclesiastical law. According to the

1085
law, as it stood at present, it was a great hardship that the whole costs of a prosecution, instituted by a Bishop for the good of the Church, should fall upon the Prelate, who acted in the matter only in obedience to the law.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn. Original Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday, the 22 nd inst.
House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.