The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-YESTERDAY.
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP BILL.

Mr. LOCKE KING moved the second reading of this
bill, the object of which was to enable clergymen to conduct
religious ceremonies in other places than their own parish
churches. The law at present forbade any such persons
officiating, and many of 'thiaimerabers of the house must
recollect the stato of excitemer.hat was occasioned a short
time ago by a clergyman of a parish in the Strand, who
refused to give his sanction to certain- eminent divines of
the Church of England performing divine worship in
Exeter-hall. The bill sought to go back to the practices
which prevailed at the Reformation, and which he believed
prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church at the present
period. It was often complained that they had no sufficient
expression of opinion from the Government on these
Wednesday questions; but in this case there would

be no such objection, because the bill was dravtit
up in accordance with the expressed opinions of the
right hon. gentleman who presided at the Home-office. Ha
iherefore anticipated the support of the Government, as he
one,
the measure was a thoroughly Church of England.
lie concluded by moving the second reading of the

Mr. S. ESTCOURT had great otjection to the bill, so
much so that he should move that the bill be read a second
time that day six months. Ho could not but regret that
the present formed another of those now very frequent
occurrences of the 'Wednesdays being entirely consumed
by religious discussions. He looked upon this bill as one
to give mote power to the archbishop and bishop, who, by
its
provision, might grant a licence •to any clergy.
man of the Established Church to Perform Divine
service in any parish whatsoever without the.
consent of the incumbent. The giving such a power wan
most objectionable, as it would lead to heartburnings and
other bad feelings where there was not the slightest occa-
sion. He did not think that it was desirable or proper that
a bishop should have the power of planting in any particu-
lar parish a rival or competitor to the resident incumbent.
Sunday after Sunday, if this bill was passed, would witness
scenes that would be productive of the greatest evil. There
would be High Church and Low Church in active opposi-
tion in the same parish, and perhaps within a very short
distance of one another. If they took the trouble to look at
the old chronicles about the period of 1230 the hon. mem-
bers would there find] what was the effect of contests
between what at that time was called the "regulars and
the seculars." He did not mean to say that those disturb.
ances would again revive to the same extent if this bill
passed, but disturbances on the same principle might natu-
rally be expected. The bill was a very meagre and unsa-
tisfactory one, and he hoped the house would not agree to
suddenly alter a law which had existed for the last 300 or
400 years.
Sir G. C. LE tVIS said he should give his vote for the

second reading of the bill, provided the provisions of it
were more clearly defined. He did not think the results
expected by the hon. gentleman who had opposed
the measure would arise if the bill were agreed to;
but before he could give his unqualified consent to the
bill, there were certain amendments which must be made,
because it interfered unnecessarily with the rights of the
bishop. By the bill he saw it was proposed not to inter-
fere with the rights of the parochial clergy, because, as he
understood, it was not sought. to put another officiating
clergyman into the church of any particular parish or other
consecrated building. The bill did not provide for any en-
dowment, and the licence to officiate did not confer the,
power of peaforming the ceremony of marriage or of admi-
nistering the sacrament. He did not believe the strife and
rivalry that had been spoken of would arise, neither did he see
any cause of danger to the Church from this bill. If the bill
reached committee, and the hon. gentleman who had.
brought it forward would then introduce the safeguards he
thought necessary, viz., for rendering the consent of the
bishop necessary previous to the officiating clergyman
entering on his new duties, and also clauses to remove all
doubt about the bishops' jurisdiction, he should vote for tha
second reading.

Lord J. MANNERS opposed the bill, which he thought
most mischievous, and one which would act in a way very
detrimental to the rights of many of the clergymen
of the Church of England. He was not surprised that the
hon. gentleman who had just sat down had expressed his
intention of voting for the second reading of the bill, pro-
vided the rights of bishops were not interfered with. It
appeared to him that the hon. gentleman did not at all care
about the rights of the incumbents, as they were unimpor-
tant people, but bishops were not so. They had seats
in the other house, and were not the sort of persons to be
treated with slight. They were persons who now exercised
great power, so it was necessary their rights should be pre-
served. It was said the bill did not interfere with the
rights of the incumbent, but he was of opinion that it
would work most dangerously, and ultimately lead to a
total breaking up of the parochial system.

Mr. BASS said he should support the bill, because he
thought it would give great relief where there was no church
either high or low, or where the parish church was situated
at so great a distance as to preclude all possibility of many
of the residents from attending divine worship at all. He
thought it a measure that would tend to the elevation of
the Church of England, and certainly not one to inflict any
injury on the establieinient. They did not wish to intro-
duce any Nonconformist preacher into the parish of a
clergyman of the Church of England. Nothing of the sort
was, he thought, ;intended. All that was sought was to
enlarge the sphere of preaching the gospel.

Mr. SPOONER should vote for the second reading of
the bill, in order flat certain amendments might be made
in committee.

Mr. G. HARDY said the hon. member for Derby (Mr.
Bass) was mistaken when he said, he could not, without
going a considerable distance attend divine service at all,
and therefore he should vote for the bill. Why, the hon.
gentleman, in accordance with the act called Lord Shaftes-
buryli act, could if he felt so disposed have any
place in his own house, hid drawing-room, if he choose,
licensed for the purpose of divine worship, provided it was in
consonance with the principles of the Church of England.
He objected to the title, as it gave greater power to the
archbishop than to the other bishops ; and he also objected
to the principle of giving licenses to go and preach in the
various parishes in the dioceses within their provinces.
He looked upon the bill as one that threatened to upset the
discipline of the Church of England for the mere sake of
fancy. He had a very strong feeling with respect to the
conduct of both clergymen in the late unfortunate and =-
I seemly riots that prevailed for so long a period in the
parish of St. George's-in-the-East, and if the present bill
was sanctioned that unfortunate state of things would be-
come common in parishes which were now united and happy.
The principal object of the bill was to flatter those who
were more fond of preaching than in performing their Faro •
chial duties—of giving power without discipline, and if the
measure passed the house would have to carry legislation
much further. It would greatly injure the parochial sys-
tem that had conferred so much benefit, and degrade the
members of the Church of England by treating them as a
mere sect.

Mr. BUXTON denied that the object of the bill was to
lower and degrade the Church of England.
Mr. NEW DEGATE objected to the bill, as it was calcu-
lated to give force and substance to the excess on both sides
of the Church. Those who were verging towards Rome
would have their leanings confirmed, while there would be
a fostering and an increase of the Calvanistic ten-
dencies of some of the members of the Church
of England. The principle of the bill was pre-
cisely that which had done more than anything else
to promote the growth of impurity in the Church of Rome.
As a Protestant and a member of the Church of England
he protested against the invasion that was now proposed
to be made on the rights and privileges of the Protestant
church. He thought the bill was fraught with the most
dangerous principles, and he should accordingly vote
against it. (Cries of " divide, divide.")
Mr. LOCKE KING said he should have great pleasure
in adopting the suggestion of the right hon. baronet the
Home Secretary. At the same time, he must say the arch-
bishops and bishops now had the power of recalling a li
i 0 'dß t :r
o.p.
drtig;tEoc i
thisN pb) i
un.
they might have issued.
The house then divided, when there appeared— _
01
For the second reading
191
Against it
..... --46
announcement was
Majority
The bill was consequent];
received with loud cheers by the
ILL.I
PRESENTMENT SESSIONS
Mr. BUTT moved the sewn
the • •
moved previous question. He
said LONGFIELD ev
at all for legislatio .
u on the subject
said there was no reasont.
He thought
at the present meme f a well-considered
for the arnendm t
en o the grand jury system of
measure
der the infi
Ireland, brought in
tuninfluence of the Government,
was what was wan ed. The present bill was one full of
Unworkable enactments, and therefore totally useless.
The report of the Royal Commission, upon which the bill
was founded, had lain dormant for the last 20 yearsj end
that being the case there could be no harm in postponing
the consideration of the subject at the present time. The
petitions presented in favour of legislationon the subjecthad
been very small, so much so, that in the session 1859-60
Only one petition signed by two persons had been laid on the
table of the house. •
Mr. DAWSON seconded the motion for postponement.
After a few observations from Mr. M‘MATION, who
supported the bill,

Mr. CARDWELL said the bill would require great alte-
ration in committee, but as he had advised his hon. friend
to bring forward the present bill, he should give his vote
for the second reading, reserving to himself the right to
make any alteration he felt disposed when the measure was
in committee.

The houtie then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it , B6
Majority against the bill
The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the
house adjourned at five minutes to six o'clock;

A new undertaking, with a proposed capital of
£200,000, is in course of formation, to be called (I the Oda
Ewer Stew lit4Tig'Ati9u Company"