Lords Sitting of 12 June 1866

MINUTES.
Several Lords took the Oath.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision (154).
Second Reading—Labouring Classes' Dwellings (Ireland)*(128); Fishery Piers and Harbours (Ireland)*(130); Belfast Constabulary*(133); Indian Prize Money*(140).
Committee—Prosecution Expenses*(155); Charitable Trusts Deeds Enrolment*(156); Lunacy Acts (Scotland) Amendment*(138).
Report—Drainage Maintenance (Ireland)*(151).

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, their Lordships and the public would recollect that in 1861 his noble Friend the late Lord Campbell had introduced to Parliament a Bill which afterwards became law, revising the Statutes from the year 1770 to the year 1858; and that his noble Friend and predecessor (Lord Westbury) afterwards introduced a Bill which revised the Statutes from the time of Magna Charta to the Revolution. That also became law; and he (the Lord Chancellor) now desired to lay upon the table a Bill for continuing Lord Westbury's revision of the Statutes from the time of the Revolution to the time when Lord Campbell's revision commenced. The measure had been prepared last year, but its introduction had been delayed from various circumstances over which he had no control. He trusted their Lordships would give it a first reading.
  Bill for promoting the Revision of the Statute Law, by repealing certain Enactments which have ceased to be in force, or which have become unnecessary, presented; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 154.)

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.

  ROMISH CEREMONIALS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
  PETITION.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH,who had given notice—
  "To present Petitions complaining of Romish Ceremonials in the Church of England; and to call Attention to certain novel and superstitious Ceremonials in the Dioceses of London, Durham, Winchester, Oxford, Exeter, Chichester, Salisbury, Worcester, Norwich, and Gloucester and Bristol; and to inquire of the Right Reverend the Bishops of these Dioceses, why these unauthorized Ceremonials have been permitted to take place contrary to the solemn Declarations of the Clergy

  211
  not to use any other Forms than those prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer in the public Services of the Church; and to call the Attention of The Lord Chancellor to an Advertisement in certain Papers, that on Thursday Morning next the Offertories in St. Alban's, Holborn, and Twenty other Churches in London, are to be devoted to what is called "The English Church Union Defence Fund;" that is, a Fund for defending Clergymen if cited before the Courts of Law on account of adopting Practices considered by the Ecclesiastical Authorities to be illegal; and to inquire of his Lordship, whether such an Application of the Offerings contributed according to the Rubric before the Communion Service as "Alms for the Poor and other Devotions of the People," and which the Rubric at the Close of the Communion Service prescribes to be for "pious and charitable Uses," would not be a Misappropriation of Church Funds, and a Fraud on the Poor in the several Parishes where the Offertories are made;"
  having accordingly presented Petitions from members and friends of National Protestant Institute of Bath, from members of Reading Protestant Institute, and from certain Places, against any Innovation in the customary Ceremonial of the Church of England, proceeded to say, that 300 petitions had been presented this Session against these ritualistic practices, and he regretted that they should have altogether failed to call up any Member of the right rev. Bench to denounce these practices, or to show any sympathy with the great body of the Established Church, and that they should have waited until within these few days to officially take notice of their illegality. These practices had been going on for the last twenty years, increasing in intensity and number to such a degree as to be intolerable in this country, and calling for relief. It was nothing more than the re-introduction of the Romish Mass into the Church of England as it was previous to the glorious Reformation, by the daring attempt of unprincipled and unscrupulous men, to overturn the Protestant religion of this country. As he had himself brought under their Lordships' notice the fact that these practices had been going on in nine or ten dioceses, he should have expected, if not out of respect to himself, that at least out of respect to their Lordships' House, that the right rev. Prelates, to whom he had given notice of his intention to bring the subject before Parliament, would have been in their places, ready to answer what he had alleged against them, and not have absented themselves upon that occasion. He should have thought they would have been anxious to answer to their country, their Queen, and their God, for their neglect of duty,
  212
  and also to have offered such a defence as each and all could have offered—which, no doubt, would have been listened to by their Lordships with that respect which their Lordships always had, and would be disposed to pay to statements from the right rev. Bench. He would now state to their Lordships what was going on in this matter. He would first refer to the diocese of London, and he very much regretted, now that the right rev. Prelate who presided over that diocese had so far recovered as to attend in the House, that after what occurred last Session he should have been absent that night. He would first refer to an advertisement of the Annual Commemoration of 1866, to be held in St. Alban's, Holborn, and in twenty other Churches in London; and it was stated that the offertory was to be devoted to what was called the English Church Defence Fund, which was a fund for defending clergymen if cited before the Courts of Law on account of adopting practices considered by the Ecclesiastical authorities to be illegal, and it was stated that the proceeds of the offertory would be devoted to the Church Defence Fund. Now, according to the Rubric, the money given at the offertory was to be devoted to charitable purposes; but in these Churches, on the occasion in question, the money was to be applied to the defence of persons prosecuted for following these ritualistic practices. He understood that on these occasions there was great excitement, and that sometimes as much as £2,000 was collected. He would next refer to the Services carried on at St. Alban's on Palm Sunday and Good Friday (passages from which the noble Marquess read at length), showing, amongst other things, how the "celebrant," as the incumbent chose to call himself, accompanied by a deacon and sub-deacon and acolytes, carrying censers, and all habited in eucharistic vestments, walked in procession to the altar. This service was taken literally from the Roman Missal. It was stated by Mr. Maconochy that handbills on the subject of the Good Friday service had been sent to every family in the parish. The next case to which he would refer was that of the funeral service performed at St. Paul's, Lorrimer Square, on the 11th May, over the remains of Mrs. Naylor. The service was performed by the Rev. J. Going, the incumbent, and Mr. Going was the gentleman who had stated that both he and his curates had taken an

  213
  oath not to reveal what was told to them in the confessional. The case of the funeral was a very remarkable one. The noble Marquess then quoted from The Church Union an account of the proceedings which had taken place on the occasion. It appeared that there was a large congregation present; the officiating minister wore a magnificently embroidered black cope; censers were used by thurifers dressed in surplices, who incensed the remains at different times during the service; the pall was covered with white crosses—it belonged to the Guild of St. Alban's, one of the modern monkish institutions; the coffin was placed on tressels in front of the altar—three lights were burning on each side of it. Service was read at the altar by the clergymen, who were robed in splendid black vestments for what was stated to be the funeral celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The Rev. H. Maconochy, who was the chief celebrant, wore a chasuble, and the Rev. B. Abbot, wore a black dalmatic as deacon, and the Rev. J. Going, in a black tunic, acted as sub-deacon; watchers knelt in white surplices beside the coffin. The service closed by a procession with the body down the church, at the head of which walked the watchers and the priest. It was painful to him to refer to the observations which had been made last evening by a right rev. Prelate who was now absent (the Bishop of Ripon). That right rev. Prelate had stated that it was not the intention of the Bishops at present to institute any legal proceedings against persons who had offended in those matters, as they thought it was better to rely on the good sense of the offending parties. If the Bishop of London were present he (the Marquess of Westmeath) would have called his attention to the remarks which had been indulged in by one of the clergy of his diocese respecting that right rev. Prelate. In those remarks the clergyman referred to had spoken of his diocesan as "an awful despot," and "a Pope en posse," who was ready "to cut off the heads" of those who opposed him, and who was inclined to "run-a-muck" at the Catholic faith and Catholic worship in the Church of England. The absence of several of the right rev. Prelates, whom he had expected to see in their places, he was afraid he must attribute to the fact that the Lord Mayor was that evening giving a sumptuous banquet at the Mansion House. The noble Marquess then
  214
  described certain religious services performed at Christ Church, Clapham, in which the Rev. Mr. Going and the Rev. Mr. Abbot again appeared as the principal actors, and a religious ceremony which took place at a church in the diocese of Gloucester and Bristol on the occasion of "the dedication of a Protestant and unwashed boy" to the service of the Church. The noble Marquess likewise read a description of the service performed in Bampton Church on the occasion of "the dedication of a bell." It appeared that a circular had been previously issued announcing that the time appointed for that service—namely, the 2nd December, 1865, had been fixed by the Bishop of Oxford, and inviting the clergy to attend in their surplices. The Bishop of Oxford was present and preached a sermon. The service sanctioned by the right rev. Prelate on that occasion was the same as that sanctioned by the Bishop of Salisbury on a similar occasion in January, 1866. On another occasion an old cracked bell was drawn from the church, accompanied by a procession, the band playing, "Oh dear, what can the matter be?" and afterwards the new bell was solemnly dedicated to the glory of God. He wanted to know whether anything in the Prayer Book justified these proceedings. In the diocese of Chichester a pastoral staff was presented to the Bishop by a body of the clergy, and there was a special service on that occasion in the cathedral, and in the address it was said that the crook was to draw on the obedient and the point to push on the rebellious. Now, in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. a pastoral staff was mentioned as part of the insignia of a Bishop, but since then there was nothing to show that anything of the kind was allowed. The Bishop, too, had been over thirty years in his diocese, and it was not until he was eighty years of age that they had thought fit to present him with the staff. In another instance a chalice and paten had been solemnly dedicated to the service of the Church. On the 20th September, 1865, a set of vestments was presented for use in the service of the Church of St. Stephen, Devonport, in the diocese of Exeter, and they were received to the honour of God, and there was a prayer that they might be blessed, sanctified, and consecrated. The noble Marquess having described similar practices in the diocese of Worcester, and also in that of Norwich, added that he was now glad that

  215
  he had arrived at the conclusion of the detail of these criminal proceedings, which were disgusting to himself, and were no doubt tedious to their Lordships. He regretted that those right rev. Prelates, who might have given their Lordships a better understanding of the merits or demerits of this question, were not present. If the head of the Government had been present he should have asked him whether he thought that this matter ought not to be taken up by the Government, and even whether the question of Reform in the Constitution might not have been well postponed until next Session, if necessary, in order that the critical state of the Church in these matters might be considered by Parliament. He would have asked him whether he did not consider it his duty to advise that there should be a Message from Her Majesty asking Parliament to take into consideration the critical state of the Church of England; and he gave notice that on a subsequent occasion he would ask the noble Earl this question.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, he did not mean to follow the noble Marquess in his narrative of the circumstances which had caused him so much scandal; but he rose to express, on his own behalf, and, he believed, on behalf of others of their Lordships, his regret that when a discussion of that nature took place in that House the Benches usually assigned to the most rev. and right rev. Prelates should be so thinly occupied. The noble Marquess had placed on their Lordships' Minutes for a considerable time a notice of his intention to refer to what he termed gross abuses in the conduct of certain incumbents of the Established Church in no fewer than ten different dioceses. Now, without inquiring then into the full extent of the merits or the demerits, or into the sinfulness, of such practices, he (Lord Ravensworth) did say that when no fewer than ten different dioceses were enumerated in the notice of the noble Marquess it was naturally to have been expected that at least some of the right rev. Prelates connected with those dioceses should have been in their places. Thirty years ago the Member returned to the Reformed Parliament for the borough of Gateshead was in the habit of annually bringing forward a Motion which proposed to declare that it was inexpedient that the Bishops should any longer sit in Parliament. It had fallen to his lot upon those occasions, being then in
  216
  the House of Commons as Member for North Durham, to stand up in defence of the right rev. Prelates in respect to the position they occupied in their Lordships' House. He argued that since Her Majesty was Head of the Church, and as the Church had no representative in the House of Commons, it was necessary that the Episcopal Bench should be maintained in at least one branch of the Legislature, in order that those best acquainted with the Church of England should have opportunity afforded them of expressing their opinions upon ecclesiastical questions for the information of the House and the benefit of the people. They were now more than threatened with another Reform of the House of Commons; and if it happened that the Member returned by the reformed constituency of Gateshead should follow the example of his predecessor of thirty years ago and submit an annual Motion for unseating the Bishops, he feared he should experience some difficulty, after the appearance of that Bench this evening, in repeating the arguments he had offered upon the occasion to which he referred. The noble Marquess had referred to what he called "superstitious ceremonies," but, much as he might have been scandalized by those exhibitions, one thing, it must be confessed, was equally scandalous in the eyes of the Christian community—he referred to the manner in which that most sacred day, Good Friday, was desecrated. Although it was the day set apart by the Christian Church for the commemoration of the great sacrifice, it was observed in London not as a day of fast, humiliation, and repentance, but as a day of revelry, and a complete holiday. Such a desecration he thought was equally deserving reprobation as the practices referred to by the noble Marquess.
  THE BISHOP of CASHELsaid, the noble Marquess had no claim to a response from him, because in his diocese there was not a single church where the practices were carried on to which the noble Marquess alluded. It was only in Roman Catholic chapels that they had what were called the corporeal presence, altars, and oblations. He was most happy that there were no such exhibitions in the Protestant churches of his diocese, and he hoped that in this country, where they had been declared on good authority to be illegal, the good sense and good feeling of pious but mistaken men would induce them to give up such practices.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDventured to express the opinion that the right rev. Prelates whose absence had been commented upon had exercised a very sound discretion in staying away. He heartily wished he was with them. They had heard a long statement introductory to the Motion from the noble Marquess, who had no doubt been prompted by the very best motives; but he questioned whether the discussion raised would result in the least advantage either to the Church, their Lordships' House or the country.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he would offer no opinion, not feeling called upon to do so, as to the absence of his right rev. Brethren on that occasion. It was impossible, however, for any one who knew what was going on in some churches not to be of opinion that endeavours were being made not only to introduce the Church of Rome into this country, but also to import the Church of Rome into the Church of England. He sympathized with every well-considered attempt to put a stop to the practices complained of, and as evidence of the extent to which they existed he would read, with their Lordships' permission, a most trustworthy letter which he had received from one who, though formerly a not undistinguished member of the Church of Rome, had since become a beneficed clergyman of the Church of England. Their Lordships must, if they observed any singularity in the language employed, bear in mind that the writer was by birth a foreigner. Giving an account of the ceremony at which he had been present, he wrote—
  "I was present at the Holy Communion at—, and you may imagine my astonishment at witnessing the biggest piece of profanation I ever saw, when I tell you that the whole of the service was a mockery, and a forced imitation of the Roman Catholic High Mass. From beginning to end the celebrant intoned, or rather spun out, every portion of the service, so as to make the whole appear as annoying as possible. The choristers were present at the consecration and the Communion in their stalls. The celebrant knelt before the Communion table in adoration, and at the end the choir began to chant 'Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace,' &c., and to complete the scene the celebrant carried the chalice covered with a green napkin and the corporal case, just like a Roman Catholic priest! I have been myself a priest in the Church of Rome; but I believe I would rather assist at a Mass than at a Communion service such as I have described. The one has antiquity and ceremonial adapted to it; the latter is a downright profanation of the sacred rite, tortured by whimsical and private observances, and utterly deprived of the
  218
  gravity and devotion so essential to our Scriptural Supper of the Lord."
  Although fully appreciating the motive which had induced the noble Marquess to bring forward this subject, he thought it would have been better, after the announcement made by his right rev. Friend on the previous day, if the noble Marquess had postponed his Motion until he had seen what the Bench of Bishops intended to do.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, I cannot concur with the noble Earl, who spoke last but one, in exonerating from a grave responsibility, still less in commending those Members of the right rev. Bench, who were specially referred to by the noble Marquess, for absenting themselves from the House on an occasion when due notice had been given that statements affecting the character of the clergy of their dioceses would be brought forward; although I feel assured that the Bishops of our Church generally must sympathize with my noble Friend in reprobating the practices so offensive to the Protestant feelings of this country of which he has given to the House so painful an exposition, it is much to be regretted, that by their absence this evening they should appear to have regarded the matter with indifference. Such, however, can hardly be the case with the right rev. Diocesan of London, who it is well known has been at much pains in endeavouring to repress the introduction into his diocese of the novel and superstitious practices that have been so justly objected to, and I may add that the right rev. Prelate in addressing the House yesterday evening appeared to have anticipated the statements of my noble Friend by informing your Lordships of the steps he was taking to ascertain what power the law gives to the Bishop for dealing with such cases; but, however, the law may be determined in that respect, though it should be found quite sufficient to enforce a conformity with the established ritual of the Church, and to maintain in our Protestant churches the simple forms of public worship that properly belong to them, it could not provide a remedy for the corruption actually within the Church. That for which the Bishops have the heaviest responsibility is not their acquiescence in the practices the noble Marquess has described, the distortions of our services to a seeming conformity with those of the Church of Rome, but their having admitted to holy orders men whose edu-

  219
  cation, habits, and inclinations altogether unfitted them for the sacred trust of the ministry of the gospel in the Reformed Church. Such men, commonly called Puseyites, have for the most part received their education at Oxford, some at Cambridge, but I am thankful to believe that few, if any, of that sect have been educated at the University of Dublin. Having noticed the term Puseyite as applied to the novel doctrines and practices that have of late crept into the Anglican Church, I wish to say that I believe that the rev. Divine whose name is so unfortunately connected with that movement is personally most respectable and well meaning; but to his teaching has undoubtedly been attributed much of that Romanizing tendency in the ministry of the Church, which after imitating the forms and ceremonial of the Roman Catholic Church has so often resulted in the minister showing to his flock the example of a total apostacy from the reformed faith. Vain, my Lords, will be the endeavour of the Bishops to maintain among their clergy a proper conformity with the principles of the Reformation, if from his previous education and training the ordained minister has not his heart really in the work of the ministry. No law, however stringent, and no Episcopal influence however earnest, will avail to render him a safe teacher or a faithful pastor to the Protestant flock committed to his charge. I therefore repeat it that the Bishops are for nothing so greatly responsible as for the character and previous education of the men whom they admit to Holy orders.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he would have preferred to leave the reputation of the members of the right rev. Bench with others; but he felt strongly that they had shown a very proper sense of what was fitting to their high office by not appearing in their Lordships' House on this particular occasion. The Bishops did not hold their seats in that House for the purpose of expressing their private opinion, they filled a high office which they were bound to administer according to law. It had been said that the right rev. Bishops had obtained an opinion from eminent lawyers which they were about to put in motion; and it would have placed them in a difficult position if they were to answer questions put to them in their Lordships' House, and thereby find themselves committed to a particular view by a hastily-formed opinion, which, upon mature deliberation, and after receiv-
  220
  ing the highest legal opinions, they could not carry out. He might remind their Lordships of a speech delivered last year by a Member of the right rev. Bench, in which his Lordship expressed his want of sympathy with those who followed such practices, but at the same time bore testimony that many of those who had adopted them, were among the most hard-working self-denying of our clergy, thoroughly devoted to the welfare of the poor. It seemed to be assumed that their practices were illegal; but one story was good until another was told; and that it was one of the first principles of the English law that no man was to be held guilty until he was proved to be so; and it would be a bad precedent for any of the right rev. Bishops to pass an opinion upon a matter which had not been fully argued and decided.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he believed the right rev. Bench had taken the opinion of eminent lawyers, for the purpose of testing the law: it was better, therefore, that they should be absent on the present occasion. The laity had a right to have these questions legally investigated, and to have it determined what the Church of England was and what it was not. They had a right to know whether it was legal to introduce ceremonies unknown to our Prayer Book, and unknown to our congregations. No one who now entered a church could feel assured that the service would not partake more of the ceremonial worship of the Church of Rome than of the Church of England, and that he would not have forced upon him some unknown form of worship. The Church was in danger of becoming anything but Episcopal—it was fast degenerating into a Church of independents; save that, instead of each congregation having a right to determine what its customs should be, every clergyman claimed the right of determining on his own course without reference either to his Bishop or to his congregation. He hoped that the time would never come when young men fresh from the Universities, full of the insolence of youth and of imperfect knowledge, would be allowed, in defiance of the feeling of their neighbourhoods and the authority of their Bishops, to set up a Church which was neither Anglican nor Protestant. He should rejoice if the law were so altered that no alteration could be introduced into the service of any church without the fullest notice alike to the ordinary and to the congregation.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, it was perfectly true that, in a certain sense, no one could object to the questions in dispute being put in issue before a legal tribunal. The Church of England was a church established by law, and to the law therefore there must always be an appeal. At the same time, it was well to remember that those who appealed to the law must themselves be prepared to have the law put in force against themselves. There were in this matter two parties, two distinct sides, neither of which could perhaps justify itself by the strict letter of the rubric. If, on the one side, censers, lights, and vestments were really illegal, it was not less illegal to close churches from Sunday to Sunday in the face of the Rubric which prescribed daily service; to introduce before or after sermons hymns or prayers which had no sanction from the Prayer Book; to omit the Offertory and the prayer for the Church Militant; to perform public baptism after the service instead of after the second lesson; to administer the other Holy Sacraments to the people collectively, instead of separately to each communicant; or to mutilate the marriage service till it could hardly be identified. If one party was wrong, so apparently was the other; and those who appealed to the law must expect to have it enforced against themselves. While he admitted that strict law was the standard which ought to be recognized, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that a wise, liberal, and statesmanlike comprehension was a great element of safety to the Church. However much they might, as individuals, incline to one or the other party, they must see that the existence of both, so far from being a source of weakness, was a source of strength. There might, no doubt, be a spurious liberality and a spurious comprehension; but he had always admired the prudence of our early Reformers in avoiding, as far as possible, unnecessary changes and overnice definitions. In that way they had, as far as might be, comprehended within the pale of the Church different parties and different principles—the principle of Catholicism and the principle of Protestantism; and they had thus given a strength to the whole which neither could have imparted to it if it had stood alone. He trusted that whatever changes might be in store, nothing would be done to weaken or diminish that wise spirit of tolerance and comprehension.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he had omitted formally to ask from the Lord Chancellor an answer to the Question
  222
  of which he had given notice—namely, the legality of appropriating the offertories to be collected in some twenty churches at the approaching anniversary to the purposes of the English Church Union, the rulers of which appeared to him in the light of thieves. [The LORD CHANCELLOR: What is your Question?] It was, Whether the devotion of the offertory to the Defence Fund of what was called the English Church Union—that was, a fund for defending clergymen if cited before the Courts of Law on account of adopting practices considered by the ecclesiastical authorities to be illegal—whether such an application of the offerings contributed according to the rubric before the Communion Service as "alms for the poor and other devotions of the people," and which the rubric at the close of the Communion Service prescribed to be for "pious and charitable uses," would not be a misappropriation of church funds and a fraud on the poor in the several parishes where the offertories were to be made?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not help remarking that it was a very inexpedient thing to put a person in the situation in which he had the honour to stand, and who might be called upon to exercise judicial functions and decide between conflicting parties what was or was not the law, into a position in which he might be committed, as it were, if the matter should hereafter come before him judicially. On this account he hesitated very much to give any answer to the Question. All he could say was this—that if the alms collected at the Communion Service were by law directed to be applied to pious and charitable uses, at the discretion of the minister and churchwardens, it did not require the acuteness of a lawyer to say that the appropriation of those funds not to what would ordinarily be understood to be pious and charitable uses, but to enabling persons charged with offences to defend themselves, without reference to the question whether they were guilty or innocent could hardly come within such a description. At the same time, he must guard himself even in what seemed so very plain a case, by adding that he could not commit himself even to that extent, unless the matter came before him in the course of his judicial duties.
  Petitions read, and ordered to lie on the table.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.