The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAHLIAME NT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—This DAY.
The SPEALER took the chair at 10 minutes past twelve
o'clock.
ppdVATE BUSINESS.

The Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax Junction Railway Bill
was read a third time and passed.
The following bills were considered and ordered for third
reading : —DublinCattle Market,Metropolitan Railway, and
Mid Sussex and Midhurst Junction.
The following bilis were read a second time :—Bradford,
Wakefield, and Leeds Railway; British, Piste Glass Com-
pany ; Dublin and Meath Railway ; and Newcastle
(County Down) Railway.
PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented in favour of an altera-
tion in the present law of licensing public-houses, and in
support of the Metropolitan Local Management Act.
THE OYSTER FISIIERY•
Mr. CA VE asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether the recent decree of the Emperor of the French,
which permits sea fishing at all seasons of the year, is in-
tended to apply to the deep sea oyster fishery ; and, if not,
whether he can assign any cause for the exception?
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the article in question, which
appeared in the lifiniteur, did not apply to the deep sea
fishing. That decree merely extended to the French cer-
tain privileges of which they had been deprived by their
own law, and in no way trenched on the convention between
France and this country.

CLERGY RELIEF BILL.
Mr. BOUVERIE, on moving the order of the day for
the second reading of this bill, said that the object of the
bill was to remedy what was admitted on all hands as an
evil. During late years a great number of those who had
entered orders in the Church of England had changed their
religious opinions, and had thought it their duty to resign
their benefices. He referred to the case of such men as
Archdeacon Manning, Baptist Noel, and Archdeacon
Woodhouse. There was considerable ignorance in the
public mind in reference to this subject, and it was
not generally known that persons entering holy
orders for the Church of England were saturated
with oaths of subscription. They were compelled by the
Statute of Elizabeth to subscribe to the 39 articles, the oath
of supremacy, and the oath of allegiance. It had happened
frequently that an alteration took place in the minds of
ecclesiastics as well as other persons, and in reference to the
Book of Common Prayer they might cease to believe that
it contained all that was true, though they had originally,
subscribed to that dogma of the Church. He drew atten-
tion to the fact that the Book of Common Prayer was
formed with a view of excluding from the ministry of the
Church of England some of the worthiest men of the time.
lie contended that clergymen who were desirous of
seceding from the Church of England were placed under
circumstances of great hardship, because they were not at
liberty to become dissenting ministers, as was laid down
in the case of Barnes v. Shore. This act of William and
Mary was intended to relieve clergymen under such cir-
cumstances, but it was rendered imperative by other enact-
ments. A clergyman was prevented from becoming a
barrister by the 6th canon of 1603, and in the case of a
clergyman whose petition he had presented to the house,
the benchers of the Middle Temple had refused him admis-
sion to their body in accordance with the provisions of that
canon. A clergyman could not embrace any other lay
occupation without being liable to prosecution in the
Ecclesiastical Court, and, on conviction, being sentenced
to six months' imprisonment by the act of George 111.,
passed in 1794. It appeared, however, that clergymen of
the Church of England might become priests of the Roman
Catholic Church with impunity, which he asserted was a
more anomalous state of things. Having adverted to the
publication of the "Essays and Reviews," which he con-
sidered a work of no great ability, but which had the effect
of introducing difference of opinion in the minds of members
of the Church of England, be said it was a great hardship
to compel persons to remain in the ministry of that Church
when they desired to bo released from their sacred func-
tions. The object of this bill was to facilitate the release
of persons from such functions, when it was according to
their wish to be exempted from them, which, he contended,
would promote the purity and prosperity of the Church of
England. He was aware that the object which ho proposed
by this measure was one of great difficulty and delicacy,
and, as he was only desiroi:s of securing proper legislation
on this important subject, be aceuld not, if agreable to the
house, refuse to refer the bill to a seit:ct committee. (Hear,
hear.) He concluded by moving the second reading of
the bill.
Sir H. HEATHCOTE—who had an amendment on the
paper, to the effect that in the event of the bill being read
a second time he could move its being referred to a select.
committee—said that he would not press that amendment
after the concession that had been made the hon. member
(Mr. Bouverie). lie contended that the house ought
to proceed with great caution before they con-
sented to an alteration in the Existing law,
which affected the inner life of an important religious
community. He denied that the hon. member (Mr.
Bouverie) had made out any case in support of his argu-
ment by reference to the writers of the "Essays and he-
%iews," because these per: ons did not want to be released
from their functions, but assumed to themselves to be the
Church itself. He considered that the bill would have to
undergo great modifications in committee before it satisfied
the public mind, or effected the object which it proposed.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. MILNES considered that an alteration in the
existing law was requisite, but that the present bill would
net meet the case. He thought that the Church should be
empowered to release clergymen from their functions with-
out branding them with degradation.
Lord STANLEY supported the principle of the bill, and
and quoted a pamphlet by the Bishop of Exeter, published
in 1849, commenting on the hardships of clergymen
being coerced to remain in sacred orders in the Church of
England, when their opinions had undergone an alteration.
He thought it was most desirable, both on the ground of
conscience and for the benefit of the Church itself, that such
persons should not be retained in the ministry against their
inclinations. As the bill was to be referred to a select com-
mittee, he would not offer it any opposition in its present
stage, but he thought it required alteration before it could
be efficient in obtaining the object for which it was
intended.
Mr. WALTER also supported the principle of the bill,
on the ground that it was for the benefit of the Church
itself. Mon entered holy orders at an early age, and before
they had opportunities of mixing with the world and test-
ing the soundness of their views on religious doctrines, and
he considered it would be desirable if the Church en-
couraged persons to enter the ministry later in life than they
did at present.

Mr. HUBBARD and Mr. NRIVDEGATE opposed the
bill.

Sir G, GREY said as it was agreed that the!bill should
be referrAl to a select committee, he would not offer it any
opposition at present,

- The bill was then read a second time, and referred to a
select committee.
METROPOLITAN LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTS

AMENDMENT BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive were agreed to.

On clause 6,
Mr. A.YRTON complained that the provisions of the bill
gave too much judicial authority to the Metropolitan Board
of Works in respect to the assessment of taxes, that board
being invested with the same power in this respect as jus-
tices of the peace. He hoped that in regard to this matter
the committee would adhere to the principle adopted by the
house last session, in conformity with the recommendation
of the select committee to whom it had been referred. Ho
moved the omission of certain words of the clause.
Mr. BRISTOW defended the clause and said that its
only object was to simplify the existing law by enabling
the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out their opera-
tions.

After some desultory conversation, in the course of which

Mr. BRISTOW stated that a clause similar to this had
been fully considered by the select committee before whom
all the parties interested were represented by counsel, and
which had examined a number of witnesses,
The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 7, _

Mr. AYRTON moved, as an amendment, the introduc-
tion of words to the effect that the basis of assessment of the
City of London should be the sewers rate.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 14 inclusive were agreed to,
On clause 15,

Sir J. SHELLEY moved an amendment to the effect
that certain words should be introduced in order to secure
a more effectual audit on the part of the Board of Works,
which was agreed to.
The other clauses to 23 were agreed to with some verbal
amendments.

On clause 24,
Mr. A YRTON objected to the powers it conferred in
the Board of Works of voting large sums of money at a
single sitting, and moved an amendment.
The clause as amended was agreed to.
The clauses to 37 were agred to, ani clause 38 was
omitted.
Clauses to 42 wero also agreed to.
calo which
of
On clause 43,
Mr. LOCKE moved the following addition
Mr.
lo ,
agreed to, as well as some other amendment :—ic At e
n;
other
clause add, and any business which by an
Act of Parliament or custom should be done by any such
such certain day as afore-
vestry on a certain day may be done at any meeting of
convened for the pttrpose
such vestry duly and held within
seven days neat before or after
FERMOY, the following was
said."
The clauses to 67 were agreed to.
On the motion of Lord
was added to CS, "and such
nuisances
shall,
and
each
~ _ surveyor and inspector of
1 them shall have all the powers