The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-14 00:00:00

the many dissenting bodies, placed in the same position
as those who left the Church and entered the Roman
Catholic.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND wished to know if they could
carry on the army and navy effectually if they repealed
the Mutiny Act? He thought not. He believed that.
the ecclesiastical authorities had, in the same way, a
right to use the civil sword to enforce ecclesiastical cen-
sures. He did not, however, think that right. That,
however, was not the question; but so long as that was
the law, no bishop did his duty who neglected to enforce
them. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down did not
seem to understand the question in the least as it ap-
plied to Roman Catholics and to Dissenters. In one
case the man was in holy orders, and in the other was not.
—(" No, no," and laughter.) The Hon. Member might
sneer as much as he pleased. He believed, doubtless,
that he might if he thought proper change his Chris •
tianity and become a Jew, but he could not.—(Cries
of " Hear, hear.") Let the House bear in mind
that, in fact, by this Act, they were about to separate
the Church from the State. He did not say that it was
wrong to do so; but this he would say, let them know
what they were about, and let them recollect that the
Church was not the gainer, but the State, by
the connexion that at present existed. The State
was a gainer by that union, and if the clergy
and the Church found it was impossible to
continue the connexion between it and the State,
he was going to say under the monstrous incubus of that
House—(Laughter)—he thought' (as we understood)
they would do well to break them asunder.
Sir G. GREY said, when a clergyman took holy
orders in early life, and in after life saw reason to
alter his opinions, entertaining a conscientious con-
viction that he could no longer continue a clergyman,
ministering the ritual of that Church, which the Hon.
Gentleman would admit he had a perfect right to do, and
joined some other Protestant sect, as the law now stood,
he was amenable to punishment. Again, a minister of that
Establishment might leave the Church and embrace the
Roman Catholic faith, celebrating, though in orders, mass,
but on that he would not express any opinion. He confessed
he thought it a great practical inconvenience that a person
leaving the Church and joining another, on account of
conscientious scruples, should not be out of the jurisdic-
tion of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and be liable to
punishment for acts done at an early period of
his life, and prior to his seceding from the Church
—punishable, let it be borne in mind, for
irregularities not committed in connexion with the
Church, but as a member of a Dissenting community.
Was there anything unreasonable in exempting such per-
sons, under proper limitations, from proceedings being
taken against them at any future period of their lives,
no matter how remote, if they were pleased to exer-
cise the talents which God had given them in
the instruction,:e,of their fellow-creatures? (Hear,
bear.) The Hon. Gentleman who had proposed the
amendment complained that the measure did not go far
enough, because it did not enable clergymen of the
Established Church to become Church laymen. He was
not aware that clergymen could not resign and enter into
eprivate fifth* laymen of that Church; whilst the Hon.
Gentleman opposite contended that the Bill did that
which the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lacy) said it did not
accomplish. He did not think that clergymen
who were guilty of irregularity and impropriety
ought to be exempted from this Act, if com-
mitted previous to making the declarations re-
quired by the Church, but he thought it was monstrous
that he should be punished for acts committed before
he left the Church. He never heard of the persons
who had been in either the army or the navy pro-
ceeded against for what they had done before
leaving the service.—(Hear, hear.) With respect
to whether persons so leaving being exempted
from the provisions of the 10th George IV., he would
merely observe that it would become a serious question
in Committee whether it would not be well to repeal
those restrictions which prevented persons in holy orders
from sitting in that House, and from performing other
duties which the law now prevented them from doing.
He trusted that the mejority would support the second
reading of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. KERSH A W contended that a member of the
Church of England had a right to leave its bosom, and
to join the Roman Catholic or any other persuasion,
without being subjected to persecetion.
Mr. HENLEY doubted much whether it was correct
that a minister of the Church, leaving the Establish-
ment, and joining the Roman Catholic Church, was flee
from all penalty or hindrance, and appealed to the Attor-
ney. General to set him right in the matter. If he was not
punishable, he considered that both
_offences should
be put upon a similar footing.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declined to reply to
the question until he had had an opportnity of further
considering it.

Mr. LACY explained.
Mr. BRIGHT appealed to the Hon. Member not to
divide upon a minor point, when so many agreed with
him on the main principle involved in it.
Mr. LACY drew the Hon. Gentleman's attention to
the title of the Bill.

Mr. BRIGHT said there was often a great difference
between the title and the clauses of a Bill.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no divi-
sion took place, Mr. LACY having withdrawn his
amendment.
LIFE POLICIES ASSURANCE BILL.

This Bill passed through Committee without any dis
cussion.

LOCAL TAXATION—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day for the adjourned debate
being read,
Mr. DISRAELI rose and presented a petition
from a numerous body of holders and occupiers
of land in different parts of England, agreed to
at a meeting held in St. George's, Westminster, and
which petition was signed by the Duke of Richmond as
chairman of the meeting. The petitioners stated that
they perceived with deep regret an apparent indifference
in the House of Commons to the interests of the tenant-
farmers to whom they had been accustomed to look up
as their natural protectors; they also attributed their
present condition to the recent legislative changes
in the country, and although they did not con-
sider there was anything equivalent for the
protection of which they had been deprived,
they isought some mitigation in the remission of the
local and, general taxation of the:country, and in the re-
peal of the malt tax.—(" Hear," from the Protectionists.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
when the House adjourned on Thursday last, they had
before them two counter-propositions, namely, that of the
Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and the other came

from the Hon. Member for Montrose. It would now be-
come his duty to state the course which the Government in-
tended to pursue, and which they recommended the
House to adopt. In the first place, he was quite ready
to do justice to the Hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr.
Hume), and he admitted his claim for candour both with
respec; to the ultra views which he entertained and to
the proposition which he had submitted to the House.
The Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was a great
master in the art of oratory, and he used it to much pur-
pose, and it seemed there were Hon. Members who were
prepared to follow him in adopting a proposition which
they did not understand, but from which they expected
some undefined good. He told the House when they
got into Committee that he would propose some
mighty scheme, and he referred to a proposition
which a Noble Lord had devised with respect to
Ireland—(Hear, hear)—and that it would have been
more beneficial to that country than any measure which
had been passed for her relief during half a century ;
but he did not give the House the slightest intimation
what that scheme would be. His Hon. Friend behind
him (Mr. Hume) was clear and plain-spoken. He knew
that his Honourable Friend near him intended that
the Honourable Member for the West Riding should
commit political suicide, fur his Honourable Friend (Mr.
Hume) had it in contemplation to do away with
counties.

Mr. HUME said his proposition was to do away with
the Excise and not counties.—(Roars of laughter.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was perfectly true his Hon. Friend proposed to do away
with the Excise ; but in a much more general
scheme of instruction the Honourable Gentleman said
he was justified in claiming to be the most
candid Member of the House. He said he proposed to
do away with counties.—(Hear, hear, and cries of
" No, no" from Mr. Hume.) At any rate he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it would some-
what impugn the new character in which his Hon. Friend
(Mr. Hume) came forward in being the farmers' friend.
—(" Hear, hear" from the Opposition.) In the amend-
ment which the Honourable Gentleman proposed,
although the two duties on malt and hops
were those which he proposed to reduce, he
referrid to certain other duties to the amount altogether
of nine millions and a half.—(Hear.) He begged to call
the attention of the House to this fact, that the proposal
of his Hon. Friend was based on a previous reduction of
expenditure, to the amount of ten millions.—(Hear,
hear.) The total expense for the army and navy was
eleven millions and a quarter ; and his Hon.
Friend proposed to do away with ten-eleventbs
of that expenditure, which was necessary
for the defence of the country.—(" No, no," from Mr.
Hume.) That was the position in which his Hon.
Friend proposed to leave the House, and that was the
essential preliminary to the reduction in the taxation
which his Hon. Friend proposed. He (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) thought this question was fairly dis-
cussed on the previous occasion, on the motion of the
Honourable Member for the West Riding; and he did
not think he should be justified in occupying the atten-
tion of the House in further discussing a matter which
he thought had already been fully discussed and de-
cided; and in calling on the House to negative the
amendment of his Hon. Friend he believed he simply
called on them to re-affirm that decision which a few
weeks ago they came to by
a large majority. He
therefore should propose to the House to negative the
amendment of his lion. Friend the Member for Mon-
trose, and to leave to the decision of the House the pro-
posal of the Honourable Member for Bucking •
hamshire. Now, turning to the proposal of the
Honourable Member opposite (Mr. Disraeli), he
must bear testimony to the calm and temperate tone in
4 hich he brought it before the House.—(Cheers from
the Protectionists.) It had been asource of the greatest
satisfaction to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer).
not only on the former occasion but on this, that those
great questions had been brought before the House
in such a manner as to avoid any heat, or
any party spirit, or any. angry feeling. He
could also perfectly agree with the lion. Gentieman
in the eulogies which he had bestowed on the farmers of
this country. He perfectly concurred with him in
declaring his full confidence in the attachment of that
body to the institutions of their native land., He also
perfectly concurred with him in the truth of the state-
ment of the distress in which they were many of them
labouring, in consequence partly of the recent changes
which had been effected in the laws respecting
agricultural produce.—(Hear, hear.) And in saying
thus much he would beg to impress upon him, and upon