to establish at the very gate of defended not two years ago by the Chan- | man cellor of the Exchequer. IIe himself tried his former parish church, where he had hard to discover its exact meaning, but could not arrive at anything beyond a general idea that it was a constantly diminishing quantity. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, he thought the term "reputed quart " preferable to "reputed quart bottle," otherwise the word "bottle" might be regarded as a measure of quantity. MR. P. W. MARTIN moved the omission of all the words after the word "shall," and to insert the words "be and the same is hereby repealed, so far only as relates to spirituous liquors sold to be consumed elsewhere than on the premises where sold, and sent to and delivered at the residence of the purchaser thereof in quantities not less at any one time than a reputed quart." Amendment agreed to. House resumed. gained influence over the minds of the people, a separate edifice for the teaching of opinions alien to, and subversive of, the Church of England. The old law of the Catholic Church, which declared, that when a man of his own free will entered the priesthood of the Church, the obligations thrown upon the priesthood should abide in him for ever, was, in his opinion, a very wise law. He could not forget that the clergy of the Church of England had acquired an influence in this country in proportion to the obligations which they had undertaken; and under the Bill now before the House a man, having first acquired the influence which attached to him as a clergyman, and having, perhaps, led his congregation away from the doctrine and discipline of the Church, could at once provide for their final separation from the Bill reported; as amended, to be con- Church, and establish them in some sepasidered To-morrow. CLERGY RELIEF BILL.-COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. rate communion and some separate place of worship close to the church which they had left. That was no imaginary case; there had been instances of that danger in the county which he had the honour to represent, attempts having been made by clergymen who had abandoned the doctrines of the Church to establish dissenting congregations in the immediate sphere of their former action as clergymen of the Church. They were warned in a book MR. NEWDEGATE said, that notwithstanding the proposal that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he could not help viewing its provisions with considerable apprehension. It would enable any clergyman, of his own motion, to declare that he dissented from the doc-which all of them venerated of the power trines and discipline of the Church of England; and having made that declaration, he would be at once relieved from the liabilities which were now imposed upon him by the ecclesiastical law. He trusted the House would seriously consider the effect which the granting of that privilege to the clergy would have upon the congregations of the Church of England and the parochial system generally. He had personal knowledge upon the subject, which he had submitted to members of the Government, and which he was willing to submit to any other Member of the House. The point which he then wished to bring before the House was this: By the proposals of the Bill, by a mere declaration of dissent from the doctrines of the Church, a clergyman could call upon his bishop to relieve him from all his clerical privileges and liabilities. Having shaken off the doctrines which he had voluntarily embraced, and the discipline to which he had voluntarily subjected himself, it would be open to that clergy of false brethren; and even in that House the hon. Member for Birmingham, to whom he was generally opposed in political opinion, and who was not supposed to be very friendly to the Church, had warned them that the danger to the Church was from within. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not help viewing with alarm and apprehension any measure which left the Church of England open to the insidious arts of those who, appearing for a time to be members of that Church, and having, perhaps, remained in it for months, or it might be for years, taught and preached in that church with the covert purpose of leading away the congregations, whom they had sworn to teach according to the doctrines of the Church of England, into some other communion. Unless some provision were introduced, by which at least some interval should be secured between the period that any clergyman should declare his dissent, and claim his liberation from the restrictions of the law, and his having it in his power to establish in the parish Its roots lay deep in the foundations of our social fabric, and his fear was that the House, in its generous sympathy for individuals, might strike a blow at the very foundation of an establishment which, as far as it was possible for human intellect to ascertain, had not only proved a safeguard, but had conferred the greatest blessings upon the country for generations. Of course they could not expect that the clergy generally should be very earnest upon matters of this nature. Every man thought himself virtuous enough to be a law unto himself; but the very existence of the law which the Bill proposed to abrogate afforded a proof, to his mind, that evil might arise. He trusted that the House, before they consented to abolish one of the fundamental rules of the Church, would deeply consider the great danger which he had pointed out as likely to ensue to the congregation of the Church. to which he had been attached some tion. He should deeply regret to sec 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. parishes of this country, such as he was quite sure it was not the intention of the House to create. He hoped the House would excuse his having pointed out this danger, because it was no imaginary one. He pledged himself, if any Member of the House wished for information, to furnish instances in which parishes had been preserved from malpractices of this nature solely by the provisions of the existing law, which retained every clergyman subject to the law ecclesiastical for life, although he might have declared his separation and dissent from the Church. There was no penalty on the clergyman personally for declaring that he was no longer willing to submit to the discipline, or that he rejected the doctrine of the Church. But the penalties of the law went to this, that they protected the congregation against practices such as he had alluded to, by which the faith of many might be endangered, SIR LAWRENCE PALK said, he had the danger being aggravated by the cir- listened with great attention to the socumstance that the congregation would lemn warning which the House had just be led away by those who had been ap- received from his hon. Friend, and he pointed to teach faithfully, and whom the only trusted that the gloomy anticipations congregation believed to have been teach- of his hon. Friend would not be entirely ing faithfully the doctrines of the Church. fulfilled. At the same time, he must The value of the Church of England to the confess that he viewed some portion of country had been and was this: that she the Bill with great dissatisfaction. was a branch of the Catholic Church, and was aware that the principle of the Bill that, as he believed, she was the purest had been affirmed by the House, and branch of the Catholic Church because she therefore that it was unusual to oppose was Protestant. He would ask any hon. the Motion for going into Committee; Member who entertained liberal opinions but he could not avoid expressing the to consider the power and condition of the surprise he felt that a Bill of such a human mind. They, themselves, might nature should ever have come out of a be free from all respect for tradition; but if Select Committee of the House of Comthey looked around the world, they would mons. 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 heresies. 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 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.] as 2 A Не 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 they should, in the first place, go through declaration required by the clause, and the clauses with a view of seeing how the therefore there was no necessity for the matter really stood; that they ought to Amendment. Being one of those who revise the work of the Select Committee thought the Bill went too far already, he in the first instance; and he must therevery much objected to make it go further fore oppose the Amendment. on the reasons assigned by the hon. MemAmendment negatived. ber for Devizes. Clause agreed to. 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. Clause 2 was also agreed to. Clause 3 (Bishops to record Declaration as Sentence of Deprivation and Deposition). 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. 23, to leave out from the word Church," Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 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 clause 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 inconvehad 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 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 principle 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 a 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. LORD JOHN MANNERS said, it was possible that some of the seceding clergymen 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 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 such; but he held it was neither right nor fair that a person who, having become a 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 |