The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 2.
CATTLE STEALING (IRELAND) BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
`Mr. S. CRAWFORD should oppose the Bill, believing
that it would rather increase and perpetuate than dimi-
nish the evil complained of, because, in Ireland at least,
persons convicted of the offence did not care for the in-
fliction of the utmost punishment which the law awarded
for the offence. In support of this view he read the report
of the trial of 4 young men for sheepstealing, who pleaded
guilty, and besought the assistant-barrister who tried
them to transport them, as if they were liberated after a
short imprisonment they must commit some other crime,
in order to provide the means of existence, for they were
starving. He acceded to their prayer, and they were all
transported for seven years, which seemed to gratify
them exceedingly. This Bill provided that a suspected
person might be brought before a magistrate, and if he
could not show how the property came into his posses-
sion, and there was reason to think he had not come by
it honestly, that he might be committed for not less than
three months, or until a fine was paid. Why this would
induce persons to commit the offence in order that
they might obtain a comfortable asylum in
prison. He opposed the Bill, and recommended
its withdrawal, because he believed it would be alto-
gether inoperative. Arbitrary laws might be necessary,
and he for one would support such laws if they were likely
to do good, but this measure was not of that class. From
the facts quoted by the Hon. Gentleman who had in-
troduced the Bill it appeared that the great cause of
crime was absolute famine. Was it right, therefore, he
asked, to pass a law like this against such a people as
the Irish? The law as it stood was, in his mind, sufficient
for the punishment of the persons with whom this Bill
proposed to deal. Such palliatives would not do for
Ireland. Great and sweeping measures would alone
save that country from absolute ruin.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GROGAN replied to the arguments of the
Honourable Gentleman. Because a few persons, who
found that their ill-repute prevented them from
subsisting at home, wished to be transported
when they were convicted, was property to
be left at their mercy?—for his argument amounted to
this. Was, therefore, no remedy to be applied to a glar-
ing and monstrous evil? He denied that the increase of
sheepstealing had arisen from the state of the country.
It was true poverty had increased, but he attributed
the increase of this particular crime rather to the
laity of the law. (Cries of " Hear, hear.")
kffe maintained that the crime of sheepstealing had been
gradually rowing and increasing, and he thought it
was the ditty of the House to take measures to sup-
press it. Many private Members had ineffectually taken
up the subject, but in his opinion its importance de-
manded that it should be looked into by Government.
The criminal returns of Ireland proved beyond all doubt
that the farmers suffered terribly from the depredations
of thieves, and he should cordially support the Bill.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL would also support the Bill if he
thought it would have the effect of suppressing crime, but
in his opinion it would rather act as an incentive.
The present law was by no means so inoperative as
some Honourable Members supposed, but if an addi-
tional measure were wanted for the protection of cattle
and sheep, let some well digested and permanent mea-
sure be introduced. Meanwhile he should oppose this
Bill and support the amendment.
Lord BERNARD said it was the bounden duty of
the Executive Government of Ireland to see that the
property of her Majesty's subjects were properly pro-
tected. It was quite clear, however, from the returns
that it was not, and in default of a better measure, he
felt bound to support the Bill.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to say a few words. If this
Bill passed, every Irishman who had any mutton, or
other animal food in his house, it was to be suspected
that it had beea come by dishonestly. The principle
of the Bill was most absurd, and of course unjust. It
threw the onus probandi upon the accused, who was to
prove, on going before a magistrate, that the meat he had
in his house he had come by honestly, and in default
of such proof, the property was to go to the informer.
The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home De-
partment had very properly dealt with this Bill, and
after what had fallen from him, it was hardly necessary
for him to speak in opposition to the Bill.—(Hear.)
He confessed, after what had fallen from the Right
Hon. Baronet and from the Noble lord, to the effect
that they wished that the Bill had been altogether
abolished.—(Cries of " No, no," especially from Lord
Bernard, who exclaimed " Not abolished, but modified.")
Certainly he understood such to be the case.—(Renewed
cries of " No, no.") Order being restored the Hon.
Member proceeded to say that this Bill was so similar
I. a Bill brought in lately for the protection of pro-
perty in Ireland, that it appeared to be quite unnecessary.
He wondered, under the circumstances, and after they
had given such an opposition to this Bill, that the Go-
vernment allowed this Bill to be entertained for a mo-
ment.
Sir H. W. BARRON entirely differed from the
Hon. Gentleman on his right (Mr. Bright). He was
quite sure that that Hon. Member was too honest a man
to wish for a protection to thieves.—(Loud cries of
" Hear.") This Bill was intended to promote the very
object for which the Bill of the Right Hon. Baronet had
been introduced. This was the beat protection for pro-
perty that had yet been devised for the yeomanry and the
peasantry of Ireland, and it would be seen by their votes
this day whether they were sincere or not in their profes-
sions of regard for the welfare of the peasantry of Ireland.
This Bill would remedy a crying evil. He bad himself
imported a superior breed of sheep from England for the
purpose of giving employment and improvement to his
own tenantry. Among these were several fine tups,
which he had divided among the small farmers, in the
expectation that the women an I girls of the family by
attending to them, by the cleansiug, carding, and spin-
ning of their wool would obtain for themselves clothing
and other necessaries.—(Hear, hear.) Would the
Govsrnmeqt this day take any at( ps to deprive
the poor tenantry of this advantage?—(Hear, hear.)
But unless this Bill were passed they would do so.
The sheep to which he had alluded had all been returned
upon his hands. His tenantry bad told him that they
were obliged to keep them in their houses at night, and
could scarcely allow them to remain in their open pas-
tures during the day.—(hear, hear.) What evil did it
do to a man if, when he was taken before a magistrate,
he was obliged to say where he bought his leg of mut-
ton?—(Hear, hear.) The practice of the thieves who
stole the sheep was to kill them on the spot, and leave
the skin and all the offsltin the next ditch. In Galway
the peasantry and farmers had felt this to be
an intolerable evil, and they had consequently
taken the law into their own hands.—(Hear.)
When a sheep had been taken from any of the fields in
Galway, the farmers assembled and went round the
houses of the neighbourhood, and when they found any
portions of a carcass which appeared to have been sus-
piciously come by, and the source whence it was derived
not clearly explained, they brought out the owner and
first gave him a right good beating—(Hear, hear, and
laughter)—and then pulled his house down.—(Cries of
"Hear, heir," and laughter.) This was a wild justice, and
the question was, whether they would give regular law
or Lynch law to the southern counties of Ireland.
—(Hear.) This was essentially a poor man's law.
They had a law to protect the property of the rich, and
let them now pass another for defending that of the
poor.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAk'IER eonceived, that although the Bill was
not calculated to remedy the evils complained of, yet it
was calculated to be of great benefit to Ireland.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered that if the
Bill were permitted to pass it would abrogate the whole
law in connexion with sheep-stealing which only a short
time back was a capital offence. If they sanctioned
the principle of summary convictions by magistrates for
sheep-stealing, it would also have to be applied to horse-
stealing and other higher offences of that kind, punish-
able by transportation.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he did not wonder at the
sympathy of the Hon. Member for Manchester for
rogues and vagabonds, but what would he have said
if some one had stolen his turkey-cock?—(Laughter.)
The sheep that were stolen were so skinned and cat up,
that it was impossible afterwards to identify them ;
and the railways facilitated the thieves in carrying them
away and avoiding deteotion.—(Hear.) The poor
farmers ought to have and would have protection.
Mr. REYNOLDS said the Bill, which was
one of pains and penalties, had been brought
forward at a most extraordinary crisis, at a
time when the Hon. Member who introduced it and
those who supported him voted against a rate in
aid, against granting any kind of relief to the people of
Ireland—(Cries of "No, no")—and also against
the imposition of an income-tax. He was not
at all surprised at the increase of sheep-
stealing, and he was only astonished to see a sheep alive
and 'in good health.—(Hear, hear.) If he were in the
position of some of his cduntrymen, viz., in a starving
date, and saw a sheep on the other side of the hedge,
be would say to him, " I'll take care and live longer than
you." There was a venerable Father Front who presided
over a certain parish in the county of Cork.—(Laughter.)
When he tool' possession of his living in the parish,
every man in it was infested by sheep stealers. The
whole of his parishioners sought him to apply a remedy.
Father Front said he saw no remedy but pro-
secuting the offenders. His parishioners replied that
they did not like to be called common informers.
" Then," s'id Fatlaer-Prout, " I will tell you what you do;
whenever you meet with any one at a fair or a wake
whom you suspect of purloining your sheep, put your
hp up tug his ear and cry Ma-a, ma-a."—(Roars of
laughter.) The venerable Father Front's instruc-

tions were acted upon by his parishioners, and
• from thenceforth there was no more sheep-stealing
in their parish.—(Renewed laughter.) He (Ms. Rey-
nolds) would advise the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Waterford to take a leaf out of Father Prout's book.—

(Laughter.) He (Mr. Reynolds) deeply regretted that
such a Bill had been introduced into that House, which
went to curtail the social privileges of the people
of Ireland. It was a calumny on the people
of Ireland for any Member iu that HOuso
to get up and designate them by wholesale as sheep-
stealers. He regretted that the time of the House had
been taken up by such a Bill, and he sincerely hoped the
Souse would not take the advice of the Hon. Member for
Waterford.—(Cheers.)
Mr. KEOGH said, whether this Bill passed
into a law or not, he did not think it at
Jail deserving of the criticism:which his Hon. Friend the
'Member for Dublin had lavished upon it. The Bill of
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke) had been supported by
-petitions from almost every grand jury in Ireland; and
~from what he knew of his lion. Freud, he (Mr. Keogh)
thought he was the last man in the world to seek
to restrict" the. social liberties of the people of Ireland.
.--(Hear, hear.) • It was not a Bill to restrict the soniga
liberties of the people of Ireland, but it was a Bill tb
restrict the felonious propensities of certain people who
were engaged in committing depredations on a very de-
serving and a:verya)oor class of their fellow-countrymen.
,die w Mho; disposed to concur in the obserrotioa of

his Hon. Friend, that this might be called a poor man's
Bill. The wealthy man, who had immense flocks of
sheep, could very well afford to employ a number of
herds, to see that depredators, who availed them-
selves of the general poverty of the count. y to fix
an imputation of theft on the poorer classes, did
not purloin the sheep of their wealthy cmploprs.
But the poorer class of farmers had no such protection.
The object of the Bill was not to deal with steep-steal-
ing, but for the punishment of those who had mutton
in their possession. The principle was not new. He
saw no reason why the poor farmer should not have his
property as much protected as the large landowner in Eng-
land, whose property was protected by stringent "venison
laws." The principle had been admitted with respect to
venison and timber, and persons having property of that
kind, or such as lead, copper, &c., improperly in their
possession, rendered themselves liable to be fined or
imprisoned.—(Hear.) The conviction of but 500 per-
sons out of 1,080 committed last year for trial showed
that there was some difficulty in the way of getting a
conviction. He appealed to the House to support a
necessary measure of this kind. He trusted the Bill
would be read a second time, as in Committee it could be
modified if found necessary.—(Hear.)
Mr. SCULLY would not support the measure if he
believed it would interfere with the rights and liberties
of his poor fellow-countrymen who, he regretted, were
so inadequately represented in that House. He sup-
ported the Bill because many poor farmers had been
materially injured by the want of such a law, and read
an extract from a petition presented from a grand jury in
support of his views.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HENLEY opposed the second reading of the
Bill, and suggested its withdrawal, in order that it might
be remodelled.

After a few words from Mr. NAPIER in explanation,
Colonel DUNNE said it was notorious that sheep
stealing had increased to an enormout extent in Ireland,
and he thought this Bill ought to be allowed to go into
Committee in the hope of securing a remedy.
Mr O'FLAHERTY could also assure the House that
in his part of the country the crime of sheep stealing had
of late greatly increased.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE differed with many of the
details of the Bill; but if it was understood that this
alteration would be made in Committee, he would sup-
port the second reading of the Bill.
After a few words of explanation from Mr. KEOGH,
Mr. V. SMITH suggested that the best way of meet-
ing this case was to withdraw the Bill and introduce a
new one.
Mr. SPOONER agreed with this suggestion, and
should vote against the Bill.
Mr. STAFFORD said the course proposed by the
Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland was a very fair and just
course, and he hoped it would be adopted by the sup-
porters of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY, _ .

Mr. BOURKE said that the changes made in the
Bill were not so extensive as many Members imagined,
and the principle of the Bill was allowed to be
good by both sides of the House. The ehanges were
not greater than those which had frequently been made
in other Bills which had afterwards passed the Legisla-
ture; yet if the Government world promise that they
would themselves bring in a Bill upon the subject he
would withdraw this, but unless he could obtain that
pledge, feeling that the matter of the Bill was one of
great importance to the welfare of Ireland, and that not
less than eleven grand juries had petitioned in its favour,
he should certainly go to a division.
Mr. W. PATTEN suggested to the Hon. Mover of
the Bill that he should withdraw it and introduce another,
as upon principle he should vote against its second
reading solely on the ground that it was against the
practice of the House to pass a Bill which had been sub-
jected to such extensive alterations.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL reminded the Hon.
Gentleman of his observations on the introduetioa of
the Bill, and declined to give the required pledge.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... ... 67
Against it ... 86
Majority ... --19
The Bill was consequently thrown out.
CLERGY RELIEF BILL.

Upon the motion for going into Committee upon this
Bill,

Mr. LACY moved that it be an instruction to the
Committee to make provision for persons in holy orders
being relieved by the said Bill, without such persons
being obliged to declare themselves dissenters from the
United Church of England and Ireland.
Mr. M. MILNES seconded the motion, considering
that the principle it involved was a correct one, espe-
cially with regard to the interests of the Established
Church. The Bill placed a man in the baneful position of
making a public declaration of a change in his religious
opinions, and he thought tempted him to mix up temporal
with religious motives. By taking the declaration, a man
was not only divested of his ministerial character, but
was considered afterwards to be an unfit member of the
Church. He did not see that any difficulty could arise
from the proposition of his Hon. Friend ; on the con-
trary, he thought that the clergy and the Church would
be more efficiently served by its insertion in the Bill.

Mr. BOUVERIE was op-posed to such an instruction
being given to the Committee. The object of the Bill
was t•) apply a specific remedy to a specific grievance—
viz., of allowing a clergyman who had taken ordination
vows, and had subsequently changed his opinions, to re-
lease himself from the discipline of the Church. His (Mr.
Bouverie's) remedy was a simple one, that a person
under those circumstances, delaring that he was a dis-
senter, should be relieved from that liability. The pro-
posal of the Hon. Gentleman was, not to apply a specific
remedy to a specific grievance, but to enact a
general law by which to enable all clergy-
men of the Church of England, when they saw
.fit, to
retire from the ministry of the Church of England.—
(Hear.) That was a very wide proposition, and he (Mr.
Bouverie) would not enter upon its discussion further
than to say that it should be the object of a definite
measure, but it ought not to be effected in a bye-way in
a Bill of this kind.—(Hear, hear.) He should oppose
the instruction. _

Mr. SPOONER would beg to remind the House that
there were men in the Church of England who, feeling
that they could not exercise its duties in a way consistent
with their own consciences, sought to be delivered from
the obligation to remain in that Church.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought that that was a grievance
well worthy of the consideration of the House, and
the House ought not to set any obstacle in the way of
such men seceding from the Church. He should sup-
port the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman behind him.
Sir G. GREY would ask the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Spooner) if he knew an instance of any legal proceed-
ings being taken against a clergyman for abstaining from
doing duty in the Church ?—(Hear' hear.) He meant
abstaining from taking duty in the Church of England
who had a conscientious objection to do so?
Mr. SPOONER said he knew an instance of a clergy-
man, who, feeling that he could not conscientiously re-
main in the Church had left it; but afterwards thinking
he was wrong in leaving the Church, and his conscientious
scruples being removed, he had returned to the Church,
and had become one of the useful members in it.
Mr. FOX said the case of John Wesley was
precisely in point. He ceased from his ministry in
the Church, yet he retained his membership of that
Church, and his attachment to it ; and not only the
founder but the entire body of the Wesleyan denomina-
tion during the lifetime of its founder was precisely in
the same condition. Holding certain opinions different
from that Church, it was yet their practice to repair to
their parish church to receive the sacrament, indi-
cating by that custom that whatever might be
the original cause of their secession from
the Church of England, it was not such a one as alto-
gether to dissolve their connexion with its communion.
—(Hear, hear.) John Milton, too, was prevented in his
youth from entering into the Church of England
as a minister, because he could not, as he,
says in his writings, sign himself " slave.'
Those and kindred scruples were very much entitled to
the respect of the House. He saw the following adver-
tisement in the Times a short time ago:—" Provision for
a son in the Church.—The next presentation to a living,
the incumbent aged 76, population of 150, glebe 50 acres,
value 3001.," and so on. It was in this way that many
a young man was led into the Church, and if
afterwards he found he was unfit for it—if it
required duties which he had not the moral energy to
discharge, what m•re honourable thing than for him to
retire ?—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY said the proceedings against the Rev.
John Wesley were not to compel him to, officiate_ in the
Church, but to prevent his officiating in it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY said it had always appeared to him
degrading to the Church the having men in its pale
wholly unfit to officiate in its communion. He had seen
men in the Church who were actually a disgrace to it;
'he meant professed hunters and shooters, and men of
that kind.
Mr. G. THOMPSON said he would most cordially
support the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, and he
hoped, if the Bill were passed at all, that it would give
a full measure of relief to all who entertained conscien-
tious scruples on the subject of remaining in the Church
as ministers. But if the motion were lost he, for one,
would be disposed to throw out the Bill altogether, as
unfit for the consideration of the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Sergeant TALFOURD said he differed altogether from
the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. If the
instruction to the Committee were carried, it would im-
pose upon him great difficulty as to supporting the Bill,
which involved considerations of a very serious descrip-
tion. If the House permitted every young man, as was
suggested, to take upon himself holy orders as a mere
experiment—(Hear)—not with regard to his ultimate fit-
ness for the office, but as an experiment with regard to his
success in that or any secular employment, he thought
it would commit a most serious change in the law.
Mr. R. PALMER said he cordially agreed with the
observations of his Hon. Friend, and he could not refrain
from entering his protest against the manner
in which the motion proposed to interfere with
the constitution of the Church of England.—(Hear,
hear.) The Church was a religious society, and its in-
herent principle was, that those who took the solemn
vows at ordination should be subject to them as long as
they continued members of the Church. It would be a
gross outrage to the feelings of all who regarded the
Church, not as a mere State institution, but as a society
having certain' doctrines and certain discipline, to inter-
fere in an arbitrary way, and say that those who de-
sired to leave the Church, but not to become Dissen-
-1
ters, should remain members of it, and exempt from al
the vows they had made.—(Hear, hear.) The practical
grievance suggested by the Hon. Member for Oldham
was not of a person desiring to relinquish his minis-
terial office, but of one' who continued his ;ministerial
labours, but not according to, the doetaine of the Church
of England. He trusted that the House would never
allow in a Bill which had been read a first or a second
time a principle to be incidentally introduced entirely
opposed to that which was intended when the Bill was
first brought in.—(Hear.)
Mr. CLAY nig that without &aging himself to

either the Bill or the amendment he was quite dissatis-
fied with the present state of the law.
Mr. BRIGHT said that this Bill was intended to
remedy a great grievance. It was very true that many
persons entered into the orders of the Church of Eng-
land, as others did also into Dissenting congregations,
without either a due consideration of the duties to which
they were binding themselves, or they did so from im•
pulses to which all young persons were liable. Yet, if in
after times, when, either from perceiving that they were
incompetent to the discharge of functions to which they
had been promoted either from the possession of Church
patronage in their families, or from some other cause,
they were unable to enter into any trade or into any
other profession—(Hear, hear)--what this Bill pro-
vided was, that those who had once entered into the
orders of the Church should thence and for ever be
precluded from the privileges which were enjoyed
by every lay subject of the realm.—(Hear, hear.)
This was a matter which much more intimately con.
cerned members of the Church than it did him,
who was a Dissenter; but he did think that they ought
to be relieved from that difficulty which the Church in-
terposed to her clerical members from entering into any
other profession, and that was an evil which in his opi-
nion ought to be removed.
Mr. GLADSTONE was anxious to prevent the im-
pression that any case of persecution had taken place
under any authority of the Church. The law, let it be
what it might, was one passed for social and political,
and not any exclusively ecclesiastical purposes.(Hear.)
It was true that greater obstacles were presented to the
transference of those who had once entered into holy
orders from that profession to any other; and when he
looked at the solemn duties which they had deliberately
undertaken to fulfil he did conceive that some check
should be placed upon a frivolous abrogation of their
claims.—(Hear, hear.) Many pointed and
.pertinent
observations had been made upon the levity with which
these duties were in many instances assumed, and he did
think that those observations were the best arguments
that could be adduced in support of those rules which
had been adopted for the proper regulation of the Church.
After a few words from Mr. Evans and Mr. Hope, and
from Mr. Lacy, in explanation, the House divided,
when there appeared—
For the instruction ...
Against it ...
Majority against it ...
The instruction was consequently lost.
The Ist, 2d, and 3d clauses were then agreed to with
some verbal amendments.

... ... 65

132
-67

Clauses 4 and 5 were also agreed to.
On clause 6 being proposed,
Mr. HENLEY suggested that the clause should be
divided into two as it embraced two, distinct parts of the
subject.
Mr. BOUVERIE agreed with the suggestion and
consented to the clause being so divided.
Mr. LACY moved that all the words after the
words " may be" in line 33 of clause 6 be omitted.
The CHAIRMAN said, before they could entertain
the amendment, they must consent to the division.
The division was accordingly agreed to, and the first
part was agreed to as clause 4.
On the other part of the clause being put,
Mr. LACY renewed his amendment, which is given
above.
Mr. FOX said, under the present state of the law a
seceding clergyman was pursued to the very grave for
seceding from the Church.—(Hear, hear.) The House
would seem to pursue a seceding clergyman in a vindic-
tive spirit simply because he was a seceding clergyman.
Mr. WALPOLE said the proposition merely left a
discretion in a clergyman of the Church of England to
administer the rites and ceremonies of the Church in the
same way as he would do to any other person who was a
Dissenter from the Church.—(" No, no.")
After a few words from Mr. BOUVERIE,

Mr. GLADSTONE could not understand, when they
dispensed with all penalty and formality, that the Bill
would convey a stigma upon Dissenters. Dissenters
were not excluded from taking holy orders in connexion
with the Church—indeed, there were hundreds of
clergymen of the Church who were formerly Dissenters.
On these grounds he did hope that the House would
take a view in conformity with this suggestion, so that
as the consciences of all men were entitled to respect,
the clause might pass without any obstacle to its
effective operation.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY said that he was certainly impressed
with the necessity of treating with respect a clause
which bad come recommended by the unanimous
approval of the Committee, but the question was
what was the meaning put upon the clause
by the Committee. The Hon. and Learned Member
who had just stated his conviction with respect to the
Bill, and than whom there was no one to whose opinions
he was inclined to pay more respect, had stated
that his object was to place all Dissenters in the
same position—(Hear, hear)—but yet he made a
considerable difference between those who bad first been

members of the ecclesiastical body, and those who had
not. Now he thought that all Dissenters ought to be
placed in the same position by this Bill, and it did seem
a hard case that because any one happened
to have been in holy orders that they were not en-
titled as much as others to have their marriages cele-
brated or their burials conducted according to the rites
of the Church of England.—(Hear, hear.) lie
was not sufficiently learned in ecclesiastical law as
to be able to speak positively, but he did believe
that the law of the land and the law of the Church was
this, that any clergyman couli be compelled to adminster
the rites of burial to the corpse of any person not pro-
scribed by the law. At any rate, such was the decision
of the Court of Queen's Bench, and the clause was com-
petent to all the purposes which it was intended to ac-
complish.
Mr. TURNER said that, looking at the constitution of
the clause as it stood, there appeared to be no proba-
bility of its answering the purpose for which it was
framed. _ _ .

Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER said that, as a Member
of the Select Committee, he felt it to be his duty to as-
sist the House as far as he was able from
the experience be had attained in the Select Committee.
It was his impression that the views of his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole),
and of his Right Hon. and Learned Friend the Member
for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) were quite
reconcileable with each other.
Mr. R. PALMER said he must say that he had most
acute sympathy with those clergymen who scrupled to
administer the rites of the Church, and who, whether
in. morals or doctrine, were decidedly opposed to its

principles.
Colonel THOMPSON suggested that the fair thing
would be to let the House know exactly what was meant
by the clause, and then to see if something could not be
introduced to meet with general satisfaction.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON said the Select Committee
had passed the clause unanimously, but ho did not
believe that any of the Committee knew of the harsh
and unchristian way in which it would operate.
After a few words from Mr. GLADSTONE,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought it highly in-
expedient that the clause should be introduced in its
present form. His objection to it was of a twofold cha-
racter—first, because it put a particular class of dissent
under certain penalties; and second, because the canon
law was set up against the civil law.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SPOONER asked the Attorney-General whether,
if a clergyman seceded from the Church, a minister of
the Establishment could refuse afterwards to marry him?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that would be
the effect of the clause in its present form.
After a short discussion,
Mr. P. WOOD suggested that the clause should be
withdrawn.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause 57
Against it
_ _

Majority against --61
The clause was consequently rejected.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the House
resumed.
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
The second reading of this Bill was postponed.
BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
SEQUESTRATORS' REMEDIES BILL.
This Bill was read a third time.
SUPPLY.

The report of the Committee of Supply was ordered
to be brought up on Friday.
The Exchequer-bills Bill (17,786,7000 was read a
third time and passed.
The House adjourned at Six o'clock.