to which he had been attached some tion. He should deeply regret to see sect, differing from the Church of Eng- the Bill become law, because the Church land, perhaps labouring for its sub- of England was interwoven with the version, they would have instances in best parts of the history of the countoo many cases of confusion in the try. Its roots lay deep in the foundaparishes of this country, such as he was tions of our social fabric, and his fear was quite sure it was not the intention of the that the House, in its generous sympathy House to create. He hoped the House for individuals, might strike a blow at would excuse his having pointed out this the very foundation of an establishment danger, because it was no imaginary one. which, as far as it was possible for human He pledged himself, if any Member of the intellect to ascertain, had not only proved House wished for information, to furnish a safeguard, but had conferred the greatest instances in which parishes had been pre- blessings upon the country for generations. served from malpractices of this nature Of course they could not expect that the solely by the provisions of the existing law, clergy generally should be very earnest which retained every clergyman subject to upon matters of this nature. Every man the law ecclesiastical for life, although he thought himself virtuous enough to be a might have declared his separation and law unto himself; but the very existence of dissent from the Church. There was no the law which the Bill proposed to abrogate penalty on the clergyman personally for afforded a proof, to his mind, that evil declaring that he was no longer willing to might arise. He trusted that the House, submit to the discipline, or that he rejected before they consented to abolish one of the doctrine of the Church. But the penal- the fundamental rules of the Church, would ties of the law went to this, that they deeply consider the great danger which protected the congregation against prac- he had pointed out as likely to ensue to tices such as he had alluded to, by which the congregation of the Church. the faith of many might be endangered, the danger being aggravated by the circumstance that the congregation would be led away by those who had been appointed to teach faithfully, and whom the congregation believed to have been teaching faithfully the doctrines of the Church. The value of the Church of England to the country had been and was this: that she was a branch of the Catholic Church, and that, as he believed, she was the purest branch of the Catholic Church because she was Protestant. He would ask any hon. Member who entertained liberal opinions to consider the power and condition of the human mind. They, themselves, might be free from all respect for tradition; but if they looked around the world, they would By the Bill itself all power of see that the majority of Christendom was enforcing discipline and control over the governed by tradition, could they counter- clergy was entirely taken away from the act that power? He lamented to say that bishops. Any person who quarrelled with the Protestants were in a minority in his bishop, or preached any doctrine which Christendom, and that the majority were left him open to ecclesiastical censure, had those who adhered to the traditions of the nothing to do but to declare that he conChurch of Rome. Such was the strength scientiously dissented from the opinions of of these traditions that men even of the bishops, and he was at once, ipso facto, powerful and cultivated intellects could relieved from any censure, or from any not break their bonds, and the Church of proceedings which might be taken against Rome continued united under a religious him for preaching heresics. Still further, system which, he regretted to say, had a clergyman of the Church of England degenerated into superstition, while so far might commit any immorality, and would as the government of the Church of yet only have to plead that he dissented Rome was concerned it consisted of from the doctrine of the Church, in order little more than a political organiza- to relieve himself from all proceedings. VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] SIR LAWRENCE PALK said, he had listened with great attention to the solemn warning which the House had just received from his hon. Friend, and he only trusted that the gloomy anticipations of his hon. Friend would not be entirely fulfilled. At the same time, he must confess that he viewed some portion of the Bill with great dissatisfaction. He was aware that the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by the House, and therefore that it was unusual to oppose the Motion for going into Committee; but he could not avoid expressing the surprise he felt that a Bill of such a nature should ever have come out of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. 2 A In short, a clergyman might one day exercise all the most solemn ordinances of the Church, and the next day throw off his ecclesiastical garments, and appear in a red coat and top-boots upon a racecourse. He must confess that of all the Bills ever introduced into the House of Commons since he had the honour of a seat in it, he believed that under consideration was the most destructive to the interests of the Church, and the most dangerous that could possibly be passed. He felt confident that if it succeeded in getting through the House of Commons, it would never be allowed to become the law of the land. "I desire to be relieved from any civil disabilities, disqualifications, restrictions, and prohibitions to which I may be subject as being in holy orders." If they undertook to legislate on a subject of this great importance, they were bound to do so upon some clear and definite principle. But this Bill, while endeavouring to remedy a practical difficulty, confused every principle at issue, and consulted only the convenience of an empirical expediency. To require a declaration of dissent from any one seeking to avail himself of the provisions of the Bill was to hold out a premium for dissent, Going through the wide range of doctrine and discipline, he did not believe that there was any hon. Gentleman in that House, or out of it, who would find any difficulty in naming some slight point on which he might have differed from the practices of the Church of England, or from the doctrine laid down in the Thirty-nine Articles. A declaration of dissent might, therefore, be made by almost any person, although the person making it might not dissent from the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England on any matter of importance. The Bill, as it now stood, might induce persons to make that declaration, who would afterwards be found professing themselves members of the Church. It was impossible that they could thus trim between two opinions either they must provide means for liberating, from civil penalties at least, every person who might wish to retire from the clerical functions of the Church, or they must remain as they were; they could not perpetrate so glaring an anomaly as to let loose one portion of the profession and to retain another in bondage. Under these circumstances, he begged to move his Amendment. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, no one who did not hold that the Church of England was infallible could doubt that after their ordination some of the clergy of that Church might conscientiously arrive at convictions inconsistent with their position. Those gentlemen were at present unable to abandon a ministry which they had entered under a totally different conception of doctrine from that which they now felt compelled to adopt. Were the House to insist on their remaining in the Church to teach what they believed to be false, or were those clergymen to teach from the pulpits of the Church of England doctrines opposed to those held by that Church? That was the difficulty which the hon. Member for Warwickshire would put them in. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes, what that hon. Member proposed was, that whether a clergyman dissented from the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England or not, he should be allowed to abandon his profession on a declaration that he desired to do so. He did not now say whether he himself agreed with the hon. Member for Devizes or not; but he did say that the principle laid down by the Amendment was a very different one from that sought to be established by the Bill. The hon. Member wished to make the Bill one of a much more extensive character than it was; and as he thought it would be not nearly so acceptable to many persons in that House and the country if it were so altered, whatever his private opinion might be, he must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. MR. HENLEY said, that without saying anything on the principle of the Bill itself, he would merely remark that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes would lay down a totally different principle. That Amendment would confer the benefit of the proposed Act on any clergyman of the Church of England who wished to walk out of the profession, whether he dissented from the doctrines of the Church or not. If it was as easy to find a point of dissent as the hon. Member for Devizes seemed to suppose, any clergyman might make the declaration required by the clause, and therefore there was no necessity for the Amendment. Being one of those who thought the Bill went too far already, he very much objected to make it go further on the reasons assigned by the hon. Member for Devizes. MR. VANCE said, he did not think the Amendment would make the measure more extensive. As the Bill stood, it would enable persons to take advantage of a very small point of dissent, and in that way would hold out a very objectionable premium to hypocrisy. Another point required remark. A clergyman of the Church of Rome could say he dissented from the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England-the Bill did not require him to say that he dissented from those of the Church of Rome; and in that way he might get into the House of Commons. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE observed that the very persons who were exempt from the penalties of the law were those clergymen who became Roman Catholic priests. He did not think the Committee ought to object to extend to Protestants those exemptions which were given to Roman Catholics. MR. HALIBURTON said, he did not agree with the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, that the Bill went too far, or that it did not go far enough; on the contrary, it went about half-way. Judas departed from the church, and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock wanted to give the clergy the same privilege which Judas exercised. Nobody would object to that if the right hon. Gentleman would also extend another privilege exercised by Judas, that they should all go and hang themselves. they should, in the first place, go through Clause 2 was also agreed to, Clause 3 (Bishops to record Declaration as Sentence of Deprivation and Deposition). 9 MR. DILLWYN said, that in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord Henley), he rose to move to leave out all the words after the word "Church" to the end of the clause. By the clause as it stood the Bishop would be enabled not only to proceed to sentence of deprivation, but, by the canon law, he would retain the power of passing the penalty of excommunication upon the seceding clergyman. Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from the word "Church," to the end of the Clause. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, that the latter portion of the clause was introduced by the Select Committee. As the clausé formerly stood, it simply declared that the registry of the declaration was equivalent to a sentence of deposition against the minister. He should have preferred the original proposal, but the matter was fully discussed. The addition to the clause was carried by a majority, and having charge of the Bill, and feeling that no measure embodying extreme opinions would have a chance of passing the other House, his wish was to support the decision of the Select Committee. He felt bound to take that opportunity of acknowledging the great fairness and candour with which the SeSIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, lect Committee had considered the Bill. he thought there was something in the The grievance created by the clause was point raised by the hon. Member for De- a mere featherweight, because pains were vizes. If the hon. Member was right in taken by the Bill to exempt seceding clerthinking that persons would avail them-gymen from all civil pains and penalties; selves of the Bill, on the ground that there were some slight differences, such as those which he (Mr. D. Griffith) had pointed out between them and the Church of England, and not differences of that grave and fun- THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, damental character which the Committee he did not apprehend that any inconve had been asked to consider, the Committee nience would result from the clause as ought to try whether they could not pre- it stood, and he hoped the decision of vent such an application of the measure; the Select Committee would remain unand if they could not, it would be for them disturbed. The object of the promoters to consider whether they should not reject of the Bill was to exempt persons who the Bill altogether. He thought, however, conscientiously dissented from the Church and if the authorities of the Church thought it their duty to visit him with spiritual cen sures, they would carry with them no temporal disqualification or disability. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:-Ayes 173; Noes 75: Majority 98. from civil disabilities and penalties, and allow you to withdraw; but we will drum they desired to do that in such manner you out." The power was one a bishop as not to leave the Bill open to objec- would seldom use, and as it might emtions in an ecclesiastical point of view barrass bishops, it would be better to as interfering with the discipline or the disembarrass the Bill. doctrines of the Church. On that prinIciple it was left to the bishop, in the exercise of his discretion, to do that which the laws of the Church permitted him to do now. By the statute law, excommunication had been practically abolished. It was not at all probable that any bishop would proceed to any such kind of censure; but, if he did, it would be only because the law at present enabled him to do so; and, as no civil consequences were involved, any sentence pronounced by bishop would amount only to a declaration on the part of the Church of the character of the Act to which he had given legal effect. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 and 5 were also agreed to. Clause 6 (Office or Place to be ipso facto vacant after Entry in the Registry of the Bishop). MR. DILLWYN said, it was no doubt proper that a minister on wishing to leave the Church should be required to vacate any office which he might have held as LORD JOHN MANNERS said, it was such; but he held it was neither right nor possible that some of the seceding clergy-fair that a person who, having become a men might desire to remain lay members of the Church of England; and it might happen, that if the bishop exercised his rights under the canon law, these persons might find themselves debarred from remaining members of the Church of England. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, that if he were asked whether such an event was possible, he must answer in the affirmative; but if he were asked whether it was probable, he must doubt whether there would be one such case in a hundred years. He should be sorry to be the bishop to enforce the spiritual powers in question. Those who remembered the case of the Rev. Mr. Shore would agree with him that no prudent bishop was likely again to raise such a storm. MR. BAINES said, he hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea would be acceded to in a willing spirit, for the concession asked for was a very small one. The Committee in recognising the rights of conscience ought to do so in a gracious manner. SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE said, that the only principle involved in the addition to the clause as it stood was that those who sought to relieve persons who dissented from the Church of England were not to go out of their way to infringe and insult the ecclesiastical law of the Church which those persons had left. MR. SERJEANT PIGOTT said, that he could not see the value of the addition made to the clause in the Select Committee. It was like saying, "We will clergyman of the Church of England, afterwards thought fit to leave its ministry, should be required to vacate any office which he might have previously held as a member of that Church. Take the case of a member of the Established Church who was a trustee of a school. He becomes a minister of the Established Church, he afterwards desires to retire from its ministry, and was he to be required to vacate his office of trustee to that school? If a clergyman differed from certain doctrines of the Church, he should not necessarily be declared to be no longer a member of the Establishment. He therefore would move the omission of the words " or member" from the clause. Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 18, to leave out the words " or member." MR. COLLINS said, he should oppose the Amendment. It was not right that persons who had made a declaration of their conscientious dissent from the doctrines of the Church of England should continue to be trustees of Church of England schools. The Amendment was an attempt to introduce by a side wind a most obnoxious principle. SIR JOHN TRELAWNY said, he would remind the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins) that the enactment was penal in its character. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, his hon. Friend had brought the same question before the Select Committee, and was seeking to reverse the decision at which that Committee had arrived. The difficulty in the present case arose from an ambiguity in the words "member of the said United Church." In one sense Dissenters were held to be members of the United Church, inasmuch as they were subject to the imposition of church rates, and had a right to be buried in the parish churchyard; but in another sense, the sense of the Bill, Dissenters could not be held to be members of the Church. Taking the case of fellowships in colleges, for instance--though he was anxious to see those restrictions removed yet there was no doubt that in many colleges membership of the Church of England was an essential condition to the holding of a fellowship. But his hon. Friend would hardly think it reasonable that a man who had left the Established Church should continue a fellow of one of those colleges. Again, taking the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; they had to make a declaration that they were members of the Church of England; but, according to the principle involved in the Amendment, if his hon. Friend (Mr. Deedes) or himself, who were Commissioners, seceded from the Church, they might still continue to administer its revenues. He could not think that the Select Committee had come to an unreasonable decision. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:-Ayes 203; Noes 24 Majority 179. MR. AYRTON said, he wished to ask if provision were made in the Bill to preserve the rights of patrons. If they did not present within six months after a vacancy, the right of presentation lapsed; and if provision were not made for giving them ample notice, their rights might be affected. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said. the resignation would be to the bishop. It would be a public act, and public notice would necessarily be given. There were the same safeguards as then existed in the case of resignations. Clause agreed to. Clause 7 (Clerical Rights and Obligations of Person declaring to determine). MR. DILLWYN said, he objected to the proviso at the end of the clause, which provided that nothing contained in the Bill should enable a clergyman, who had ceased to be a member of the Established Church, to sit in the House of Commons. It was another of the penalties which were imposed upon clergymen who resigned their livings. He thought it was not for the House to say who should or should not be Members of the House, but for the constituencies to say who should be their representatives. Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 31, to leave out the words "Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall qualify any such person to sit in the House of Commons." MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, he must again appeal to the Committee to support the decision of the Select Committee. That decision was not in accordance with his own opinion; but, the subject having been very fully discussed by the Committee, he felt bound to say that there was a larger majority in favour of the proviso than upon any other division. He had been very much surprised at the strong feeling upon the subject which was manifested by hon. Members on both sides of the House. What influenced them was the argument that persons who seceded ought not to be placed in a better position than those who continued clergymen of the Church of England. By law all ordained clergymen of the Church of England were excluded from seats in that House, whether they had benefices or not; but if those who seceded were to be admitted to the privi lege of sitting in the House, they would certainly be placed in a better position than those who had not seceded. He was great willingness on the part of the Select bound to say also that there was not any Committee to admit within the House gentlemen who in their capacity of ministunity of acquiring great influence over ters of religion might have had an opporthe minds of those with whom they had been brought into contact. Although have prevailed with him, yet he felt bound those arguments would not in the abstract to yield on the point, because he believed that the opinion of the House was in favour of the decision of the Committee, and because, having received the consent of the House to the principle of a measure so difficult and delicate in itself, he believed he should be wanting in his duty if he did not yield his opinion. MR. COLLINS said, he thought it a mistake that clergymen, whether of the Church of England or the Church of Rome, should be excluded from the House; but, as he could not consent to put those |