Paul's, Lorrimore Square, Walworth, and signed also by his two curates, Mr. Helder and Mr. Abbot, these gentlemen recommended confession, one of the inducements being that "your clergy are bound by a most solemn oath never to betray your confidence." He should like to know from the highest authority whether such an oath was authorized by the Church of England or allowed by law. In judicial proceedings in England, whether a question was a pertinent one or not, was it possible that a witness could be allowed to turn round and say, "I will not answer it because what I know was disclosed to me under the seal of confession?" Such a reply made one doubt whether one was living in Rome or in England; and he should, therefore, be glad of an answer to the questions he had asked upon this subject.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I understand the notice of the noble Marquess, the first Question he desires me to answer is, whether the newspaper report of the proceedings before the magistrates is correct.

thing which had passed at the confes- I was not privileged. In an address issued sional. The Chairman of the Board of in 1862 by the Rev. J. Going, incumbent Magistrates reminded him that he had to the parishioners and congregation of St. sworn before God to speak the truth; upon which the rev. gentleman replied that his duty to God forbade him to divulge anything which had been said in the confessional, and under the seal of confession. Under these circumstances, the refusal of the Rev. Mr. Wagner to answer certain questions suggested an inquiry as to what the law of England was on the subject, and he would quote two cases bearing on the subject. One was the case of a Roman Catholic priest in Scotland who, on refusing to give evidence, was committed for contempt of court. An application was made to the Home Secretary for his release before his term of imprisonment had expired, and Sir George Grey replied by Mr. Waddington, the Under Secretary of State, that if he were to remit the sentence without an admission of error on the part of the Catholic priest, and without an assurance that he would not again adopt in a similar case the same course, he (Sir George Grey) would be giving a sanction to the assumption of a privilege by ministers of every denomination which, he was advised, they could not claim, and which would tend, even in the most serious cases, to defeat the ends of justice. Another case was that of the Rev. John Kelly, a Roman Catholic priest, who at the trial of a prisoner at Durham for robbery in March, 1860, refused to reveal the name of the person who had given him a watch which had been stolen, for the purpose of restoring it to the owner, the reason assigned for his refusal to give evidence being that he had received the information in confession. The Judge, thereupon, committed him. A Question was then asked in the House of Commons by Mr., now Sir George Bowyer, when the late Sir George Lewis, then Secretary of State, said, that no privilege existed in this country with respect to the clergy of any denomination enabling them to decline answering a question on the ground that they would thereby disclose something confided to them in confession; and Sir George Lewis added that, in his opinion, the Judge in this case had acted with perfect legality and had no option but to commit the witness. The law had also been laid down by high legal authorities that confession to a priest, whether a Roman Catholic or Protestant,

The Marquess of Westmeath

That is quite beyond my power to answer, for I have very little time to read the newspapers. With regard to the remaining Questions-for whether they are one or more than one I cannot very well discover-I must congratulate the noble Marquess on the industry and success with which he has accomplished the understanding of the law of England upon this subject; an understanding so complete that it was quite supererogatory to put any question to the Lord Chancellor. The noble Marquess has very correctly stated the law, and with a much greater profusion of authorities than it would have been in the power of the Lord Chancellor to furnish. There can be no doubt that in a suit or criminal proceeding a clergyman of the Church of England is not privileged so as to decline to answer a question which is put to him for the purposes of justice, on the ground that his answer would reveal something that has been made known to him in confession. A witness is compelled to answer every such question, and the law of England does not extend the privilege of refusing to answer to Roman Catholic clergymen who have obtained the information in confession from a person their own religious persuasion. There can be no doubt, therefore, that Mr. Wagner

of

was under an obligation to answer the question put to him if it had been insisted on. I think it is a matter of regret that the magistrates did not insist upon an answer to the question, because an evil precedent may be set by the refusal to answer in such a case. It is quite clear, however, that in a matter so well settled as this is, the refusal by the witness to answer the question must have been known to be really a refusal on his part to submit himself to the law. Fortunately, the magistrates appear to have had ample material without the information which Mr. Wagner declined to give, and, therefore, I must assume that they acted upon good grounds in not visiting him with the consequences with which he might have been visited. An order seems to have been made for the commitment of the prisoner, and therefore there has been no failure of justice. It is unnecessary, then, to take any notice of what has taken place, because I am confident if it had been necessary for the purposes of justice the magistrates would not have failed to insist that this gentleman should answer the question put to him.

to him, then the magistrate may commit him to prison for seven days, there to remain unless in the meantime he shall proceed to answer the question. But Mr. Wagner voluntarily attended before the magistrates, and so the magistrates had no power to commit him when he refused to answer the question; they had no power to act as I think they ought to have acted supposing Mr. Wagner had come before them on a summons or a warrant.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been told that in one of the morning papers there is a letter from Mr. Wagner, who, in answer to some complaint of his conduct, is made to say, or says, that he had received a subpoena to appear.

LORD CHELMSFORD: The words of the Act are

"If on the appearance of such person so summoned either in obedience to such summons, or on being brought before him by virtue of a warrant, such person shall refuse to be sworn, or questions concerning the premisses as shall be having been sworn shall refuse to answer such then put to him, the justices of the peace may commit him to gaol for any time not exceeding seven days, unless he shall, in the meantime, proceed to answer the question which has been put to him."

LORD CHELMSFORD: I do not know whether the law on this subject is quite clear to your Lordships. Mr. Wagner So that the Act only applies to cases in had no privilege at all to withhold facts which the witness appears on a summons which came under his knowledge in conor a warrant. If the fact was as stated fession; but the question is, what power by his noble and learned Friend, he rethe magistrates have to deal with witnesses gretted that the magistrates did not act who are before them and who withhold upon the law and commit Mr. Wagner. evidence under similar circumstances. THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH conNow Mr. Wagner, as I understand, ap-gratulated himself on the fact that the law peared voluntarily with Miss Kent before could no longer be misunderstood. It had a magistrate; and it is rather extraordi- been explained very clearly by the highest nary that, under these circumstances, Mr. authority, and he hoped that all those who Wagner should have refused to answer had been meditating how to trade on the the question. But Mr. Wagner having delusions they had been promoting in the refused to answer a question, it appeared country would be disappointed in the result. to him (Lord Chelmsford) the magistrates He would now proceed to ask another had no power to make him answer it. question, which was simply this-whether We may, perhaps, find a reason for this in Her Majesty's Government, assuming that what is called the Justices' Act, 11 & 12 they knew, as they ought to have known, Vict., where it is provided that if the what had been lately going on in many magistrate has reason to believe that a parish churches of the metropolis and elseperson will not voluntarily attend before where-he could not say surreptitiously, for him to give evidence, he may issue a sum- everything had been done openly; assummons, and if the witness still absents him- ing that the audacious attempts which had self, a warrant may be issued to compel been lately made by several ministers his attendance. But the words of the Act holding preferments in the Established in the case of a witness refusing to answer Church to warp the services of the Church are extraordinary. The Act goes on to of England to their own Romanizing views say that if a witness so summoned or were known to the Government, whether brought before the magistrates upon a war- they intended to take any steps to prevent rant refuses to be sworn, or to affirm, or the continuation or recurrence of such practo answer any question that may be put tices? He should not be justified in bring

be; and next, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any measures to put an end to such proceedings. Now, I am not in a condition to affirm, and certainly I am not in a condition to deny, the truth of the statements he has made, still less can I say that, in my opinion, these innovations are such as ought to be made. Neither am I prepared to deny the statement that the right rev. Prelates have no remedy except by putting their hands in their pockets. With regard to the question of the noble Marquess as to the intentions of the Government, I have to inform him that no measure on the subject is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers.

the so-called altar was vested in black, | Notices, and I should like to know wheand contained a large engraving of the ther the question the noble Marquess crucifixion. There were fourteen services, wishes me to answer is the question he one being held every hour. At the church has put upon the Notices or the question of St. James' the Less, Liverpool, the he has just asked. The Government are "Three Hours' Agony service was gone not prepared to deny the existence of certhrough on Good Friday. On Easter tain innovations in the mode of conducting Saturday there was a procession, headed Divine worship by certain clergymen. The by a cross-bearer, and incense was used. noble Marquess asks whether I am preOn Palm Sunday there had been a pro-pared to state that such things ought to cession headed by the cross, which was veiled, boys and men carrying palm branches, which were elevated during the reading of the Gospel. At the church of SS. Saviour and Cross, St. George's Mission (St. George's-in-the-East), there was, on Thursday, April 27, a procession with cross and banners, and the hymn Tantum Ergo (the Transubstantiation hymn of the Roman Catholic Missal) was sung. He wished to ask Her Majesty's Ministers whether they thought this was a state of things which ought to be allowed to go on in the Kingdom of a Protestant Sove reign? They could not pretend to be ignorant of these abominable proceedings. Considering that they could not be ac. ceptable to the Prelates of the Established Church, he should be glad to know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to put a stop to them. He knew what was the power of the Ecclesiastical Courts. They only existed since the reign of Henry VIII. until a better state of things could be devised. As for the power which they had formerly exercised over probate and divorce cases, the Legislature had abolished their jurisdiction. The right rev. Bench knew that if they took proceedings they would be in the position of a person attacked by a nest of hornets, and would be stung to death. He very well knew that from this quarter they would meet with no redress. But the right rev. Prelates ought not to be called upon to put their hands in their pockets to put an end to such proceedings. He thought that Her Majesty's Government, if they were a Government at all, ought either to deny this state of things, or knowing them, devise some remedy to assist the right rev. Bench to redress these evils. He claimed for the Church of England that protection which he was sure that the head of the Church would extend to it. He hoped the noble Earl (Earl Granville) understood his question.

EARL GRANVILLE: I certainly do not quite understand the question of the noble Marquess as it appears upon the

THE BISHOP OF LONDON: As the noble Marquess has referred to my diocese, I ought to explain the course which I have thought it right to pursue. I can assure the noble Marquess, both for my right rev. Brethren and myself, that if we were acquainted with any distinct violation of the law we should not be deterred by the consideration of any expense, however ruinous from bringing the offenders to punishment. There is, however, very great difficulty in knowing what exactly the law is, and my rule is not to interfere unless I am sure that I have the law on my side. There is, moreover, considerable doubt in most of these cases as to the facts. The noble Marquess read a document-I do not know on what authority-of a kind which is very often sent to me-either an extract from a newspaper, or a statement sometimes anonymous, and sometimes_signed by a feigned name; and although I might be induced in certain cases to make inquiry, yet it would be out of the question to take proceedings on such grounds. The answer I immediately give when I have any means of communication with the complainant is, that I should be glad to know whether the person who sends this information knows the matter to be true of his own knowledge, and, if so, whether he will be ready to come for

of London to visit that church, and his report is at present in the hands of the chancellor of the diocese. What the result of those inquiries may be I cannot, of course, say; but I am not confident that any distinct violation of the law in its present state will be proved. I trust, however, that what I have stated will be enough to show that, for my own part, and I am sure I may speak for my right rev. Brethren, we are not unaware of the dangers alluded to, and that we shall not be deterred from maintaining the law by any fear of the expense or trouble which this may involve.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH protested against an interpretation which had been put upon his words. He never said, or intended to convey, that anything in which the right rev. Bench took part must end in a bubble. What he had said, and he repeated it, was that the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court was such that it would lead to no satisfactory results. He did not suppose that the right rev. Prelates would shrink from any necessary expense or trouble in the performance of their duty; what he meant was that the right rev. Prelates should be relieved by an amendment of the law from such contingencies. With regard to the circumstances which he had put forward, it was true, as the right rev. Prelate stated, that there was always great difficulty in proving anything; but the facts themselves were in the knowledge of the public, and he was quite content to refer the matter to their judgment.

ward and substantiate the facts. There is, I have found, a good deal of zeal in writing anonymous letters, but not so much in coming forward to bring the matter to a test; so that there is first a difficulty in ascertaining the facts, and next in knowing the exact state of the law in these cases. The noble Marquess alluded to three of my churches. He said that in one of them something that he called a Tractarian Prayer Book was used, instead of the Prayer Book of the Church of England. There can be no doubt that any clergyman who might do such a thing would be suspended by the Courts immediately, and I do not think that any expense would be incurred in proceeding against any clergyman who should violate the law, either by using a Tractarian Prayer Book, or any other Prayer Book except that recognized by Act of Parliament. I very much doubt, however, whether such a thing has been done. I remember an instance in which I was told that such a case had occurred; but I found that what really took place was that a certain hymn had been used which was used by the ancient Church, and also, no doubt, by the Church of Rome. We know that great liberty is conceded as to the hymns sung in our churches; but if any well-authenticated case came before me in which another Prayer Book had been used I should immediately put the matter in the hands of my chancellor. It is stated in another document that three clergymen, two of whom are in my diocese, have taken an oath not to reveal what they heard in confession. All I can say is that they have not made such an oath to me, or, I believe, to any bishop who has ordained or instituted them. I will further say that any person whatever who should administer such an oath would be guilty of an offence against the law, and that to administer any oath except by a notary public or under an Act of Parliament is a misdemeanor, and punishable before a magistrate; and whether that oath was taken not to divulge anything heard in confession, or for any similar purpose, would make no difference. With regard to another matter to which the noble Marquess has referred-the service at St. Alban's-I have no means of know-ready solemnized in such Churches and Chapels ing at this moment whether what occurred has been accurately stated; but I believe there is no impropriety in saying that, in consequence of information given to me lately, I did request the Archdeacon The Bishop of London

MARRIAGES (LAMBOURNE) BILL.
(No. 83.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to
Order).

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD proposed to insert in the Bill the following clause:

"And whereas by Error Banns have been published and Marriages have been solemnized in which Churches or Chapels Banns cannot be leChurches and Chapels duly consecrated, but in gally published nor Marriages by Law be solemnized; and it is expedient to remove all Doubt arising from the Circumstances aforesaid touching the Publication of such Banns and the Validity of Banns already published and all Marriages alsuch Marriages: Be it therefore enacted, That all

as aforesaid shall not hereafter be questioned on account of the said Banns having been published Chapel not legally authorized for the Publication or the said Marriages solemnized in a Church or of Banns and Solemnization of Marriages, and the Minister or Ministers who solemnized the