The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-23 00:00:00

which he (the Earl of Wicklow), speaking in their lordships' I
house, could mention. It was alleged that Mr. Allen had
been obliged to leave another church is consequence of the
intention of the authorities of that church to bri g him be-
fore a court of justice for his improper condu t. He was
afterwards elected by the vestry of St. G orge's-in-the
East. Mr. King protested against his electio and informed
the bishop that he was a notorious drun:: ,rd, and totally
and entirely unfit for the office; yet notw Thstanding this,
that man obtained his license from the bishop of the diocese
—and what was the consequence ? He came into the church
with the bishop's license, took possession of the pulpit,
and was followed by a large crowd ; and Mr.
King stated that all the disturbances had arisen in con-
sequence of the conduct of this Mr. Allen. He (the Earl of
Wicklow) was glad to give the right rev, prelate an oppor •
tunity of contradicting these statements, for either they

were true, and then Mr. King was justified in his proceed-
ings, or else they were not true, and then he would be

stamped as a libeller, and unfit to retain the position he held.
The Bishop of LONDON said he was rather surprised to
hear the speech of the noble earl. He had read, with due at-
tention, the letter to which the noble earl directed his no-
tice. The noble earl alluded to a statement that a clergyman
who, in a neighbouring diocese, had lately been appointed

to a most important living, and who on that occasion of

course produced testimonials signed by three beneficed
clergymen, upon which he was instituted by that bishop to
the charge of that living, was a notorious drunkard. He (the

Bishop of London) really must say that he did not find such
a statement in the letter of Mr. King, though he now heard
it in the speech of the noble lord. He must request the noble
lo d to read the words of Mr. King's letter, so that if there
was a libel in the statement their lordships might know whe-
ther Mr. King was the libeller, or the noble lord himself.
The Earl of WICKLOW said thereasonassigned by Mr.
King was not in the letter ; and why ? Because Mr. King
believed he could not publish it without being guilty of
libel. But did the right rev, prelate mean to tell him that
Mr. King did not inform him of that reason when he re.•
quested him to withhold the license from Mr. Allen ? If the
right rev, prelate would say that Mr. King never informed
him of those circumstances, he (Earl of Wicklow) would at
once admit that he had been wrong in going so far into the
case. But Mr. King's statement was that Mr. Allen was
guilty of those charges, and was obliged to abandon the
church.
The Bishop of LONDON again asked the noble lord to
read the words of Mr. King's letter.
Earl GRANVILLE rose to order—He hoped the house
would agree with him that it was not desirable that this
conversation should go on, impugning the character of a
clergyman without any notice whatever.
Lord CHELMSFORD quite agreed that this irregular
discussion should not go on, since it was painful in itself,
and had nothing to do with the subject brought before the
house by the noble viscount, though the right rev. prelate
might naturally desire to enter into some explanations with
the noble earl on this point. He thought his noble friend
(Viscount Dungannon) had been perfectly justified in bring-
ing his motion before the house, and he would now say a
few words upon it.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE rose to order—The noble
and learned lord opposite had a right to address the house
on the point of order, but not to speak to the motion of the
noble viscount until that point was settled. He thought it
would be unfair to allow such a charge against the charac-
ter of a clergyman to be brought before them and then to
stop the discussion so as to preclude the matter from being
set right, and prevent the right rev. prelate from offering
his observations upon it.
The Bishop of LONDON said nothing could be more
painful to him than such a discussion as this. He believed,
however, that the noble lord (Wicklow) had looked through
a magnifying medium at the statements which he had read,
and had seen in them more than there really was. He be-
lieved Mr. Bryan King was totally incapable of saying that
the clergyman referred to was a notorious drunkard. If the
house would allow him, he would now state what the noble
lord evidently knew nothing about, viz., the legal steps by
which the Rev. Hugh Allen was appointed to the lecture-
ship of St, George's-in-the-East. That was a matter which
had riot any great connection with the subject at present be-
fore their lordships; but as the disturbances began about
the time that gentleman was appointed, it was well for the
public to know in what way he was appointed. They were
perhaps aware that no lecturer could be appointed in a parish
church without the consent of the rector. But there was
hardly a parish in London that had not its local act. The
peculiar circumstances of this parish arose from
the act of Parliament belonging to the parish
itself. As the noble and learned lord on the
woolsack, who had been consulted in this case, was
aware, the Act of Parliament which regulated the affairs of
St. George's-in-the-East made it imperative on the bishop,
without any consent of the rector whatever, to appoint the
person who was nominated by the bishop to fill the office.
If, therefore, he (the Bishop of London) had refused to in-
stitute to the office of lecturer the person who was nominated
by the vestry, he would be liable to be called before a court of
law. But, of course, if an improper person were nomi-
nated, it would be his duty, at whatever peril, to resist the
appointment of such a person. The gentleman who had
been, as he thought, so unfortunately named in this dis-
cussion, was nominated by the vestry. He (the Bishop of
London) received from Mr. King a letter, which informed
him that in his opinion that gentleman was an unfit person
to be appointed to this lectuteship, because he believed he
had been at a tea-party at which Mr. Spurgeon had been
present, and also because it was supposed that there were
certain reflections as to his moral character which required
investigation. Immediately on the receipt of this commu-
nication, he (the Bishop of London) informed the gentleman
nominated of the charges brought against him, and told
him that he would require most satisfactory evidence that
they were without foundation. On the next day that evi-
dence was produced in the usual shape of testimonials
signed by three beneficed clergymen of the diocese, testify-
ing that, to their certain knowledge, he was a pious and
good man, and a perfectly fit person to be appointed to this
lectureship. (Cheers.) Then, what other course was left to
him (the Bishop of London) than that which he Pursued ?
This gentleman, whatever faults might be attributed to him
in any particular instance, was a person who had a wonder-
ful faculty of attracting large crowds of persons to hear his
preachings. It must be said that of all the churches in the
east-end of London, his own parish church of which at
that time he was incumbent was the one that was most
filled. It was perfectly true that the deserted parish church
of St. George's became immediately filled when he was ap-
pointed. He (the Bishop of London) did not know whether
that was to be attributed to this clergyman as any blame,
but on the contrary he believed that the persons who went
to hear him as lecturer, went simply from their admiration
of his character as a preacher of the gospel, and because
they expected now to hear what they thought they had not
heard for a long time, such preaching as was likely to do
them good. He believed, therefore, that the thousand per-
sons who frequented the church at that afternoon lecture
went there with no intention of any disturbance, but as they
had been in the habit of frequenting every church where
this gentleman preached—it might be from mistaken ideas
of the truth, or it might not, for he (the Bishop of London)
would not enter into that—only because he was what they
felt to be a preacher who did them good. It was quite true
that on the occ sion of the preacher taking possession of
his office, to which he had been legally appointed, an at-
tempt was made—and he (the Bishop) did not blame the
inexperienced curate who performed that act for the absent
rector—an attempt was made to put in a prote.t, which
caused some little disturbance. But all that admitted of
an easy solution. The noble and learned lord then Chief
Justice of the Queen's Bench decided the case, and settled
that the lecturer was properly appointed, and settled by
implication that he (the Bishop) had no alternative but to
appoint him, and that he was entitled to the use of the
church on certain occasions. That was all, so far
as the part he (the Bishop of London) had
taken with reference to Mr. Allen was concerned. If the
most rev. prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) were
now present in the house, he would have spoken of the cha-
racter Mr. Ailed bore when in his diocese. The most rev.
prelate had spoken to him (the Bishop of London) of Mr.
Allen, as believing him to be a zealous and good clergyman,
exercising a wide influence over the poor when in the dio-
cese of Chester. He believed there were others of his right
rev. brethren who would say the same. But really all that
had nothing to do with the question now before the house,
and he regretted that it had been brought forward in a way
which he was sure Mr. King, the writer of that letter, would
regret. He might say in that house what he (the Bishop
of London) had often said in private—that Mr. Bryan
King was a person who would never allow himself, if he
possibly could avoid it, to transgress the rules of propriety
in speaking of a brother clergyman. As for the miserable
state of things in St. George's-in-the-East, he (the Bishop
of London) regretted as much, or more, than any man, for
he had more cause to regret it. The only point on which he
was now particularly concerned to eve any explanation was
that which the noble viscount had raised, as to whether the
churchwardens had done their duty. He had continually
charged them, by word and by letter, to see that they did it;
and he had taken steps to find them such assistance, by
means of sidesmen, as the law enabled hire to provide them
with. He had even called upon the clergy belonging to the
parish to meet the churchwardens and suggest some course
by which the churchwardens might execute their duty. If
any complaint against the churchwardens were made, he
would be ready either to carry it into the proper court, o: to
do what in him lay to induce them to do their duty; but
although, of course, much abuse had been bandied about on
every side, and everything that was done by anybody was
wrong in the estimation of everybody else, yet no charge
of which he could take cognisance had been brought before
him. He believed this was simply one of those miser-
able cases to be found in all parts of society, in which,
if men would stand on their legal rights, there was no
amount of disturbance they might no cause. In the do •
mestic relations of people, for instance, suppose two sets
of peNsons determined each to make themselves as d isagree-
a.ble'an they could to the other, without infringing the law,
What a state of things would result from it. He believed it
was the same thing with those most sacred relations be-
tween the pastor and his flock; it was possible for a pastor
to make himself very disagreeable to his flock, and for the
flock to make themselves very disagreeable to the pastor;
and it was very difficult for those who wished to set them
right to find by what means they could put an end to that