§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYinquired, Whether it was the fact that the Reverend Mr. Edwards, Vicar of Prestbury, who has been suspended from his ministrations by the Provincial Court of Canterbury, has been selected to preach in the Metropolitan Church of St. Paul's, London; and, if so, by whom so selected? It had been stated, in plain words, that a certain gentleman notorious for his 127 contempt of the law of this country had been invited to preach in the Metropolitan Church of St. Paul's. At the present time, that gentleman refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the highest Tribunal of the Church in the Province of Canterbury, and was under suspension for contumacy. Whatever might be the difficulty of getting certain gentlemen to submit to the judgment of the legally constituted authorities, it did seem strange that a clergyman under sentence for contumacy by the highest Tribunal in the Church should be selected to preach in the Cathedral of the Metropolis. Surely, the Church was not reduced so low, as to be obliged to invite such clergymen to preach in the cathedrals? Whether or not it was a fact that Mr. Edwards had been selected to preach at St. Paul's, he could not say. The statement had been circulated in the newspapers for some days, and, as he believed that St. Paul's was under the control of the Dean and Chapter, who enjoyed their high position by the laws of this country, he thought it strange they should have selected to preach in the Church under their charge a clergyman who had earnt his distinction by wilfully breaking and setting at nought those laws. Therefore, he thought it right to ask the right rev. Prelate, who presided over the Diocese of London, whether there was any truth in the report?
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he would give their Lordships the best explanation he could; but it must be borne in mind that it was only that morning that he saw the notice of this Question in the newspapers. In the middle of the day he received a note from the noble Earl; but it was quite impossible since to make such inquiries as to give him a definite answer. The appointment of preachers in St. Paul's stood thus. The morning preachers were appointed by the Bishop, and the afternoon preachers were the Canons in residence, who took the duty in turn. The evening preaching was a comparatively late institution. It commenced 11 or 12 years ago. For a few years, evening sermons were preached only in the first three months of the year. The preachers for those three months were appointed by the Bishop; but the evening preachers for the nine other months were now appointed by the Canons on some arrangement among themselves. The appointment 128 was supposed theoretically to be made by the whole Chapter. As soon as he saw in the newspapers the announcement referred to by the noble Earl, he wrote to Canon Lightfoot, the Canon in residence, to know if there was any truth in the statement? In reply, he stated that he had no knowledge at all of such a selection, nor could he obtain any information on the subject from any other member of the Chapter. Canon Light-foot added, that neither the Dean nor Canon Gregory was at home. Since the receipt of Canon Lightfoot's letter he had seen Bishop Claughton, the Archdeacon of London, and the Archdeacon had stated to him that neither he nor Canon Gregory knew anything about the matter, and that the Dean and Canon Liddon were absent. The letter of Canon Lightfoot went on to say that he had heard the rumour a few days ago, but attached no importance to it, and that a large proportion of the rumours relating to St. Paul's were without foundation. He could assure their Lordships that if he took the trouble of contradicting the rumours which he saw in the newspapers respecting himself, he would have very little time left for the work of his Diocese.
§ House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.