The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-21 00:00:00

CLERGY RELIEF BILL.

Mr. BOUVERIE moved that this Bill should be re-
ferred 'to a Select Committee, and in doing so referred
to a statement which had lately appeared in one of the
morning papers, stating that the object of the proceed.
ings against Nlr. Shore, whose case was the immediate
cause of the Bill being introduced, was not to imprison him,
but to depose him, and to divest him of his office as a
clergyman of the Church of England. He observed
that that statement was not only not the fact but directly
contrary to it.
Mr. HENLEY said he was glad that the Hon. Mem-
ber had determined to move that the Bill be referred
to a Select Committee, and he hoped, if it went
there that a provisi v► would be introduced into it, by
which a clergyman might be divested of his office by the
same authority who had invested him with it. The Bill
as it at present stood, almost enabled a clergyma❑ to
divest himself of his office with as little trouble
as he would take to blow his nose.—(Loud laughter.)
and he thought that was far too summary a proceeding
for so serious a business. A military officer was obliged
to resign his office through the hands of the same autho-
rities who had appointed him to it, and that principle
might very properly be extended to ecclesiastical matters,
After a few observations from Mr. R. PALMER,
Mr. lIUME 'said he did not concur in the observa-
tions of the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He could
see no similarity between the rules of war, for the regu-
lation of the army, and the rules for the regulation of the
clergy.—(Hear, hear.) If they put any obstacle in the
way of a man leaving the Church, who conscientiously
differed from its principles, they forced him to become a
hypocrite.

Mr. GL ADSTONE said, in order that be might not
be supposed by theiHouse to concur in the sentiments of
the Honourable Member for Montrose—(Laughter)—
he wished to observe that it would not be well to discuss
the provisions of the Bill at that stage, but the propriety
of sending the Bill to a Committee up stairs.—(Cheers.)
Mr. LACY explained that the course he had pur-
sued was in order to induce discussion, and that he was
satisfied _ with the course recommended by the Hon.
Member.

Mr. ITORSMAN drew attention to the fact that
clergyman who had recently been appointed one of the
inspectors of schools was Gazetted an " Esquire." If
such a person were elected aplember of that House. the
House would be placed in an awkward position.—(No,
no.) After the passing of the Bill a clergyman might be
elected to sit in that House.

Mr. STAFFORD thanked the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
(Bouverie),for bringing forward his motion, which was
similar to one he had on the paper. All the clergymen
with whom he had communicated perfectly assented to
the justice of the provisions of the Bill—the only ques-
tion with him and them was as to the mode of carrying
it out—:(Hear)—which they were perfectly satisfied to
leave to the judgment of Parliament.
Sir W. CLAY said ho understood the Hon. Member
(Mr. Horsman) to say that the Committee was to be in-
structed to restrict seceding clergymen from sitting in
the House. Now, he hoped the Committee
would -do nothing of the sort, since it was
essential to the carrying out of the princi-
ples of civil and religious liberty which he advo-
cated, that a person leaving the Church should be placed
in the same position as if he were not ordained.—(Hear,
hear.) He had a petition to present on the subject,
signed by 5,000 persons, which he was anxious to re-
fer to the Committee. When, he should like to know,
would be the proper time to make a motion of that kind?
The SPEAKER replied, that the usual course to adopt
was not to refer a petition to a Committee until a Com-
mittee was appointed.— (Laugh ter.)
Mr. S. HERBERT presented a petition from the
clergy or the 'diocese of Gloucester and Bristol, in-
cluding all the rural deans who had been able to attend,
praying the House to remedy the state of the law with
respect to seceding clergymen.
Sir W. CLAY presented the petition to which he had
referred,.and to the same effect as the last.
Mr. HEADLAM presented a petition from the Dis-
senters of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in favour of the Bill.
LIFE POLICIES OF ASSURANCE BILL.
The second reading of this Bill was postponed for a
week.
THE RECOVERY OF WAGES (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee with some amend-
meats.

INSOLVENT MEMBERS BILL.
Mr. CARD WELL presented a petition from the Liver-
pool Society for the Protection of Trade in favour of
this Bill.

The House then went into Committee.
Mr. HENLEY regretted that the Committee had
been taken to-day, as the Select Committee had but
recently reported to:the" House. In consequence of this,
and the belief that it would not be proceeded with to-
day, many Hon. Members had absented themselves.
It was a most important measure, and it had been carried
through the House with a great degree of energy. He
confessed that, with none of her Majesty's Ministers in
the House, he thought that the House was going on at a
pace which was hardly discreet or convenient.
Mr. MOFFATT said, the Committee up stairs had
not made the slightest alteration in the principle or the
clauses of the Bill.
Clauses 1,2, 3, and 4, were agreed to without any dis-
cussion.

On Clause 5 being read,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to know, in order that
the committee should understand the effect- of- this Bill,
whether it was not the fact that if any Hon. Member
was engaged in a suit at law, or at equity, and W 11,3
called on for payment of costs which he could not pay,
the effect of this Bili would be that that Hon. Member
would cease to be a Member of that House?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that in the case ,
put by the Honourable Baronet, the Member would have
twenty-one days allowed to pay the costs; then, if he
did not pay, an application to the Insolvent Debtor's
Court, he would be declared insolvent; then, on that
fact being certified to the Speaker, seat of the Member
in question would be vacated.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER could see no justice for
a different rule in insolvent and bankruptcy matters.
The law should be, at all events, consistent. He
could not help feeling strongly the propriety of
Placing the Members of both branches of the Legis-
lature on the same footing in respect to this matter.—
(Heat) It the House were to pass a Bill of this nature,
disqualifying—and most properly so—from legislating in
that House-in cases of insolvency, it would be but justice
to prevent other persons similarly situated from legislat-
ing in tho- other House of Parliament.—(Hear.) He
thought it was not too much to hope that the Govern-
ment would institute a similar measure in the other
House.—(Hear.)
Sir WILLIAM CLAY thought the House was
proceeding on a principle wholly Laic in this Bill. It
was
perfectly clear, Iron. the Solicitor-General's exP la-
natit,n, that any ifonuurahle Member might be de-
prived of his seat in that House, for uo moral offence
whatever except not paying the costs in a suit at law.
A constituency did not elect a man for his wealth, but
for his talents ar,d his knowledge of their local wants.
If this Bill had been in existence 50 years ago, Charles
Fox, Sheridan, and evon Pitt himself, could not have
retained their seats in that House.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained that the
Bill merely gave nst.. co ;
tuencies another oppor-
tunity of electing a man, it they thought fit, who
had been declared an insolvent. (Hear, hear.)
Now one word with respect to the Bankruptcy Act. It
appeared to him that the law ought to be more severe
against insolvents than against traders. And for this
reason, that whereas the person in trade could not get

0