Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 unrcasonable decision.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.'

[blocks in formation]

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

The Committee divided:-Ayes 203;lege of sitting in the House, they would Noes 24 Majority 179.

certainly be placed in a better position MR. AYRTON said, he wished to ask than those who had not seceded. He was if provision were made in the Bill to pre-great willingness on the part of the Select bound to say also that there was not any serve 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

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 those arguments would not in the abstract been brought into contact. Although have prevailed with him, yet he felt bound to yield on the point, because he believed that the opinion of the House was in fa

vour 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

who had seceded from the Established | MR. DILLWYN said, he objected to Church in a better position than those who remained in it, he should vote for expunging the proviso.

[blocks in formation]

"When any priest or deacon whose declaration of conscientious dissent shall have been registered by the bishop as herein before provided, shall apply to the bishop of the diocese for restoration to his ccclesiastical functions, the bishop may, after due examination of the applicant, issue a licence under his episcopal seal to revoke the declaration recorded in his registry, either immediately or after any period of probation he may think fit; and cancel the sentence pronounced against the applicant; and the applicant shall thenceforth be discharged from all incapacity under this Act to execute his ecclesiastical functions, shall cease to

be entitled to the benefit of this Act, and at the expiration of twelve calendar months after the date of the episcopal licence may be presented to any ecclesiastical preferment."

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, that the proposal had already been submitted to the Select Committee, who discussed and rejected it. He did not think it was a reasonable demand that a person, after deliberately declaring his conscientious dissent to the doctrines of the Church of England, should be allowed, on changing his mind again, to go back to the Church and resume his original position.

MR. HUBBARD said, he thought there would be no inconsistency in disagreeing with the Select Committee on the subject under consideration. He knew of a case in which within the last few weeks a clergyman had, unfortunately for himself, left the Church, and when he had had time for reflection he desired to return to it, and the bishop re-admitted him. By the Bill, however, unless this clause were inserted, if a clergyman left the Church he could not be re-admitted. It seemed to him that they ought not to shut the door. The whole object of the Bill was declared to be one of mercy, and the Committee should consider the merciful side of the proposal.

the proposition. He had no indisposition to see clergymen who might leave the Church of England go back to it again but in such case they should be made minisand resume their functions as clergymen; ters of the Church in the ordinary way in which men were made clergymen. The Committee ought not to be merciful to clergymen at the expense of parishioners.

LORD HENLEY said, he should also oppose the clause, which, if passed, would cause the House to appear as holding certain doctrines on the question of the indelibility of priests' orders. The theory of once a priest always a priest, was only known in the Church of Rome, and was not recognised in the Eastern Churches. In Stanley's Eastern Church, it was stated that a man might lay down his orders and leave the Church when he would.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE maintained that the clause only assumed that which was well known, namely, that in the eyes of the Church of England these orders were indelible. The observations of the hon. Member for Swansea, to the effect that a seceding clergyman, if he desired to return to his position in the Church, should go to the bishop and be ordained again might well induce persons to doubt the propriety of passing the Bill, unless guarded by such a clause as that proposed. Nevertheless, as the point was considered in the Select Committee, he advised the hon. Member (Mr. Lygen) not to raise the question again, but to let the Bill go as it was to the House of Lords with the incubus upon it of speeches which showed that some Members voted for the measure in opposition to the doctrine of the Church of England in reference to orders. Under the circumstances the Bill was not so likely to pass into a law as it otherwise might have been.

MR. LONGFIELD said, that as a Member of the Select Committee on the Bill, he had heard with reluctance the discussion of the theory of indelibility of Church orders. But he could never consent to a clergyman wavering between two churches, merely lest a dogma of that kind should be in danger. The whole discussion was of the same nature as if a question were started whether twelve angels instead of ten could stand upon a point in vacuo.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, there was no special Roman Catholic doctrine as to the indelibility of orders. It was a doc

trine of the whole Church, in which he | Bill he now proposed, if passed by Parliawas not ashamed to profess his belief. ment, would not become a dead letter; He was convinced that the tendency of and before the following Session he should the Bill was to bring that doctrine into be in a position to mention several parishes disrepute; and that the tendency of the which had acted on it. clause was to make it absolutely ridiculous. LORD JOHN MANNERS said, he could not but express his regret that religious topics had been introduced into the discussion on the Bill. He would strongly recommend his hon. Friend not to persevere with his clause.

MR. LYGON said, he thought that matters of such consequence should not be withdrawn from the consideration of the House, and referred to a Select Committee. The arguments against the clause told against the Bill itself. Talk of the indelibility of orders being absurd. Why, it was much more absurd to make such a declaration as that required by the Bill indelible. However, after the discussion which had taken place, and after the advice given to him by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford and the noble Lord (Lord J. Mauners), he should withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Preamble agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3° To-morrow.

CHURCH RATES VOLUNTARY COMMU-
TATION BILL-[BILL NO. 16.]

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. ALCOCK said, he rose to ask the House to consent to the second reading of the Bill. He had placed a notice of it on the paper for the past five or six years in succession; but he had taken no further steps, owing to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) having a more important Bill on the same subject before the House. In the absence of such, however, at that time, he ventured to ask the House to give his Bill a second reading. It contained no compromise at all, no concession being made either to the Church or to Dissent. The object of the Bill simply was to afford facilities for raising by voluntary means permanent funds, so as to render parishes independent of any compulsory church rates. Such an object must be effected through the means of Commissioners, and he had selected the Charity Commissioners for the purpose. He felt confident that the

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. EVANS said, he would second the Motion. He believed, that if means were provided to parishes to commute their church rates, they would be taken advantage of, and in the end the present difficulties in regard to church rates would be avoided.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, he wished he could induce the hon. Member for Surrey to join him in referring this Bill to a Select Committee. He (Mr. Newdegate), as well as the hon. Member for Surrey, sought to effect a commutation of church rates. He had a Bill before the House on that subject, but in deference to his right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Estcourt), he had postponed pressing it forward. He was convinced that the Bill of the hon. Member for Surrey did not provide the requisite machinery to effect its object. The result of passing such a measure would be to empower the Charity Commissioners to act as bankers in the matter; but the Bill took no means to provide any funds whereby its principle was to be carried out. The existing law was contradictory; and the question must be settled by a measure worthy of that House. He did not believe that Parliament would intrust any Conmission with the power of going down to every parish to promote agitation, in the hope of obtaining money by creating annoyance; yet such, he feared, would be the effect of the scheme proposed by the Bill, if adopted.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, he had no objection to the principle of the Bill, so far as it enabled parishes to effect voluntary commutation of church rates; but the measure provided no substitute whatever. If it were understood that the Bill would undergo thorough revision in Committce, he should not oppose the second reading of the measure.

MR. PACKE said, he thought the measure would prove so utterly inoperative that it would be a waste of time to discuss it in its then shape. He would therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN said, he would suggest an adjournment of the debate to that day week.

MR. ALCOCK said, he would consent to

that course.

Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.

BALLOT AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
BILL-[BILL No. 141.]

MEXICO-THE ALLIED FORCES.

ment.

STATEMENT.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, he quite concurred in the objections of the right hon. Baronet opposite to the defective machinery of the Bill, and he hardly knew EARL RUSSELL, on presenting a Pehow the House could affirm its principle tition, said: I beg to take this opportu under such circumstances. He had a Re-nity of making a statement to your Lordsolution on the subject which he proposed ships as to matters of considerable imto move on Tuesday. If the House should portance upon which it is desirable no affirm that Resolution, the ground would be misapprehension should exist. It has been cleared for the hon. Gentleman's Bill or stated in the public prints that a Conventhe Bill of any other hon. Member on the tion has been entered into by Sir Charles subject. Wyke and Commodore Dunlop on one side, and the Mexican Government on the other, by which the British claims on Mexico will be satisfied, and that the Convention has been ratified by Her Majesty's GovernThe first part of that statement is A Convention has been certainly correct. signed by Sir Charles Wyke and Commodore Dunlop, and it has been sent home for ratification. The arrangement contemplated for the satisfaction of British claims was fair and liberal; but we found that the Convention referred to another Convention between Mexico and the United States, by which the former gave security on its lands for the repayment of a loan to be advanced by the latter; and finding that this might give occasion to considerable difficulties, Her Majesty's Government determined not to ratify the Convention. There is another point upon which I wish to make a statement to the House. It is generally believed in France, and much circulated here, that Her Majesty's troops, together with the Spanish troops, were withdrawn from Mexico, leaving the French troops alone to contend with the difficulties of the situation. Now, after the temporary check which the French received, no one can be surprised that the French Government have resolved to send large reinforcements to Mexico; but it is not fair or just to ascribe that movement

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read. MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, he would move the second reading of the Bill. He proposed to take the discussion on going into Committee.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. HOPWOOD said, he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided.:-Ayes 45; Noes 83: Majority 38.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and to any course taken by the British Governagreed to.

Bill put off for three months.

before Six o'clock.

ment.

The

In the original Convention of October last there was no specific engagement as to the number of troops to be sent by House adjourned at a Quarter the different Governments that were partics to it, but communications were made separately by cach Government. Spaniards declared that they meant to send 6,000 or 7,000 troops. The French Government said at first that they would send 2,000, which was afterwards increased to 2,500 men. The British Government proposed to send a squadron with 700 Marines, to be landed, if necessary, for

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Thursday, June 19, 1862.

MINUTES. PUBLIC BILLS.-2 Public Works and the occupation of forts, it being the opi

Harbours Act Amendment; Ilighways.

nion of the Admiralty that the operation

of marching troops through Mexico would probably be attended with great loss of life. The Marines were landed, and for a short time occupied some forts. It seemed that the land forces met with difficulties, and Commodore Dunlop, in order not to have the appearance in any way of leaving the allies in the lurch, said he would provide, by his own activity and resources, camp equipage and conveyance. That, however, was not approved by the Home Government, and orders were sent out that the Marines should be re-embarked. Commodore Dunlop, on his side, very soon found that there was no immediate danger of collision with the Mexicans, and he determined to send away the Marines, who were never intended to march up the country. They were accordingly removed from Vera Cruz. After this came the Convention, and the allied Commissioners agreed to a procès verbal, with regard to which I will now say nothing, as I do not wish to enter into the great question involved in it. But it should be known that at that time there were only 150 Marines in occupation of the various forts; and when the rupture took place between the French Commissioners on the one side, and the English and Spanish Commissioners on the other, it was determined by Commodore Dunlop to haul down the British flag in the ports of Mexico, and to withdraw this small force. There was thus no question of withdrawing troops from Mexico, for there never were any land troops there; the only force we ever sent in the naval squadron was a force of 700 Marines, the greater number of whom had been withdrawn some time previously. I thought it necessary to make this statement, as I believe that great misapprehension has arisen on the subject. I am informed that considerable indignation has been expressed in France as to the presumed withdrawal of troops by this country at a very critical moment. That supposition, as I have shown, has no foundation in fact, as there were no British troops to be withdrawn from Mexico.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said, he was extremely glad that the noble Earl had taken the initiative in this matter, and had given so satisfactory an explanation upon the subject, which had certainly occasioned considerable anxiety both in France and in this country, and an impression that something like an unfriendly feeling had been manifested by England towards France. He (the Earl of Malmes

bury) had therefore intended to give notice to the noble Earl of his intention to ask him a question on this subject on to-morrow or Monday. In respect to the first part of the noble Earl's explanation, he must say he entirely agreed with the noble Earl as to the modification of the Convention which he proposed. He thought that the noble Earl had made a prudent arrangement, and that the danger which he anticipated would have very likely occurred if he had not provided against it. But he (the Earl of Malmesbury) did not think the noble Earl spoke strongly enough as to the indignation felt in France as to the supposed desertion of their allies by the British army. It was not only a common rumour it was not only a national misunderstanding; for if the noble Earl would read the Address sent to the French Chambers by the French Government, he would see that that feeling was likely to be prolonged. He read that Address this morning; but as he had come down to the House only for the purpose of giving notice of his intention to ask a question in respect to it, he was not prepared to give the exact words. But, undoubtedly, the meaning of it was, that there had been some common understanding between the two Powers with respect to a military advance into Mexico, and that the British Government had not carried out their part of the agreement, but, on the contrary, at a most critical moment had deserted the French troops and left them exposed to serious dangers, which with the assistance of the British troops they would have been able overcome. He thought it most important, as regarded the honour of this country, that the true facts of the case should be made known to the French people as speedily as possible. He was very glad that the attention of the noble Earl had been drawn to this subject, and he trusted the noble Earl would point out the real facts to the French Government, which he believed to be of precisely the cha racter stated by the noble Earl, as soon as possible. He did not think that the noble Earl had used language strong enough in regard to this misapprehension of the public press and the French public on this subject, seeing that that misapprehension must have been very much strengthened by the language of the French Government.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON wished to ask a question of the noble Earl with

« PreviousContinue »