The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-02 00:00:00

fourtt Ebstion

SiN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
PETITIONS.
Mr. MASTERMAN presented petitions against the
removal of Smithfield-market.
Mr. FORDYCE presented petitions from the county
of Fife against the Marriage and Registration Bills.
Mr. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from the
Noncontormist clergy against the Bill legalising mar-
riage with a deceased wite's sister.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented petitions from a place
in Devonshire in favour of the Clergy Relief Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented petitions praying for
the suppression of beer-shops.
Mr. B. HUGHES presented petitions from Carnalfon
in favour of international arbitration.
Mr. H. BERKELEY presented two petitions from
Bristol against beer-houses.
Mr. BERNAL presented a petition in favour of inter-
national arbitration.

Mr. K. SEYMER presented petitions from places
in Devonshire against the Bill for legalising marriage
with a deceased wife's sister.

Mr. GLADSTONE presented petitions to the same
effect from the Archdesconry of St. Albans.
Mr. SOTHERON presented a petition from places in
Wiltshire to the same effect.

Mr. BOURKE presented petitions from Kilkenny
and the counties of Cork and Dublin, and other places
in Ireland, in favour of the Cattle and Sheep Bill.
CANADA.

On the motion for proceeding to the order of the day,
Mr. HERRIES rose to inquire whether the Govern-
ment had received any communication from the Gover-
nor-General of Canada, stating that there was a Bill
before the Legislative Assemblies of Canada providing
that recompense should be given to those who had suf-
fered losses during the rebellion; and, secondly, whether
it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to
give, or whether they had given, their sanction to any
such Bill?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, in 'reply to the first
part of the question of the Right Hon. Gentleman he
had to state, that although no public dispatches had been
received, the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial
Department had received several private letters upon the
subject from the Governor-General of Canada, extracts
of which would at the proper time be laid upon the table
of the House. With regard to the second part of the
question of the Right Bon. Gentleman, he could only
remark, that when the matter came officially before him,
Lord Elgin would be in possession of the feelings of the
Government at home, and would be prepared to exercise
his discretion respecting the Bill, and would, no doubt,
exercise that discretion beneficially for the empire, and
with advantage to his own reputation. When dispatches
were received, such parts of them as were necessary for
promotingi the public service would be presented to the
House.

Mr. HERRIES inquired whether the Government did
not intend to publish the whole of the dispatches.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it had frequently
been found very inconvenient to publish the whole of the
dispatches received from the colonies. In some in-
stances—he might cite that of Jamaica especially—the
publication of the dispatches had produced great irrita-
tion in the dependencies.
Mr. GLADSTONE wished to know whether it was
necessary for the Governor-General of Canada to send to
the Home Government before he gave his sanction to a
Bill of the Colonial Legislature.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that certainly it was not ne-
cessary; speaking from his own recollection, he should
say, not usual, for the Governor-General of Canada to
communicate with the Home authorities before giving
his sanction to a Bill of the Colonial Legislature,
although he thought that it was advisable to communi-
cate with the Home authorities on matters of peculiar
importance, so that all might work together in har-
mony.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether he heard the
Noble Lord aright when he understood him to state
that it was customary for the communications between
the Colonial authorities and the Home Government to
take place rather by private letter than by public dis-
patches.

Lord J. RUSSELL—Certainly not. Private matters
were usually communicated by private letters; commu-
nications respecting public affairs came in the form of
public dispatches.—(Hear, hear.)

CATTLE STEALING (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. BOURKE then rose to move the second reading
of the Cattle Stealing Bill, and in doing so, he said it was
only necessary to state some facts briefly for the necessity
of the Bill, and to show how fearfully this crime had
increased. In 1345 the number of offences under this
head reported by the constabulary was 620, in 1846 the
number reported was 3,025, and in 1847 they had risen
to the startling number of 10,044, out of which only
about 1,500 convictions occurred. It was not owing
entirely to distress that an increase had arisen in that
particular class of crime, but the fact was that evil-dis-
posed persons who were to be found in every community
had availed themselves of the distress to commit de-
predations. The evil, he regretted to say, had materially
increased during the last year. Mr. Baron Lefruy, in
his address to the jury at the Galway Assizes, stated
that the number of cases on the calendar was 764, of
which there were 115 for sheep and cattle stealing, and
.57 for cow stealing; and added that, although it might
in a great degree be attributed to the failure of the
potato crop, it could not be longer endured, now
that efforts had been made to alleviate distress in Ireland.
Mr. Baron Richards had also stated to the grand jury
of the county of Kerry that cattle and sheep stealing was
on the increase, and that some effort should be made to
put a stop to it. The Honourable Member called the
attention of the House to several letters which he
had received from magistrates and others not only from
places where distress existed, but from the county of
Wicklow, which was peculiarly exempted in that res-
pect, and which was remarkable for its good order, stat-
ing that scarcely a night passed without de-
predations being committed; and that, although
the guilts parties were in most cases known, a con-
viction could not be obtained under the law as it
now stood. The usual practice after stealing the
animal was to skin it and cut it up, and to destroy
or dispose of the skin in crder to prevent identification
The present Bill was merely the revival of an old one,
which was repealed by the 9th of Geo. IV., c. 55, and
which was in operation in Ireland for many years. It
was generally regretted by all parties that it had ever
been repealed. The Bill was introduced in 1839, by
Lord Morpeth and Mr. Pigott, and although there were
only 272 cases of cattle and sheep stealing reported by
the constabulary in the previous year, the Government
deemed that a sufficient cause to recommend the passing
of the measure. He, therefore, thought when he
showed by returns that there were now as many as
10,000 cases, that ho was entitled to ask
the Government to support the present Bill.
A statute similar to this was to he tound in the 7th and
Bth of Geo. IV., which enacts, among other things, that
every one to whose possession meat suspected of being
stolen was to be traced should be made to account for
it in the same way as the present Bill provided. An
enactment of a similar nature was to be found in force
in Ireland as regarded timber. Now, he thought he
b. shown that it was not asking too much of legislas
tion to endeavour to mitigate the dreadful evil which
was so ruinous to the farmers in Ireland. It was the
general wish of the inhabitants of Ireland at large, both
of proprietors and small farmers—more particularly
those very small farmers whose sheep were so
few, and whose flocks were so small that
they could not afford to pay for watchmen to
protect them during the night against nocturnal depre-
dators, that this Bill should pass into a law. In corro-
boration of that he had a resolution passed at the quarter
sessions of Waterford, signed by the lord-lieutenant of
the county, and by every magistrate there assembled.
A number of petitions had been presented in favour
of the Bill, including not less than twelve grand
juries of Ireland. It had attracted very considerable
attention in this country, and all with whom he had com-
municated on the subject had concurred with
him iu opinion that the Bill should pass into a law.
He hoped that the House would permit the principle of
the Bill at least to pass into a law, which placed the
onus probandi on the person in whose possession meat
suspected to have been stolen was found of showing that
he lawfully and honestly cane by the same.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, notwithstanding the con-
cluding sentences of the Honourable Member's speech,
he (Sir George Grey) felt that it would be still his
duty to oppose the Bill in its present shape.
The objections which he entertained towards the
Bill would be very much removed if very considerable
modifications were made in it, without affecting its prin-
ciple. • He had given the Hon. Gentleman an intimation
to that effect the other day. The first clause appeared
objectionable, because it proposed to enact what was the
law already. It empowered magistrates to grant search
warrants against any person who was suspected of hav-
ing stolen goods in his possession. He did not know
how this Bill passed through the House on the former
occasion ; but, at all events, he felt it to
be hi
hs
the House in its present shape.
He thought that the Hon. Gentleman from whom the
Bill had emanated had rather overstated the ec
ofessity of
it.—([dear, hear.) He said that the offenceri
and sheep stealing in Ireland had greatly increasecadttot
le
late years. From a Parliamentary return which he (Sir
G. Grey) held in his hand, it appeared that the number
of commitments in 1844 was 315. In Ireland the losses
from sheep stealing had been greater that in this
country. In 1848 the number of commitals were 2,830,
and the convictions 1,574, which he thought showed
that the difficulty of convicting persons was not so great
as he had stated to the House. He said that
there existed gangs of sheep stealers who
resided together in certain neighbourhoods, and
whose footsteps would be traced from the places
where they killed the animal and flayed it to the houses
in which they lived ; and that further the remains
of slaughtered animals were found in their houses. In
one case that occurred to his (Sir George Grey's) me-
mory, blood was found on the knee of a suspected in-
dividual. Under such circumstances it would not be
difficult to induce a jury to believe that a person traced,
and in whose house there was fresh meat, which did not
appear to have been cut by a butcher, was an offending
party. In such a case sufficient evidence could, he
thought, be adduced to show that there was moral
evidence of guilt, though, perhaps, the person
to whom it belonged could not swear to it. The con-
victions in 1848 showed thatthere was not much difficulty.
He was told. that Irish juries often declined to convict
except in cases of absolute identity. He advised the
Ben. Gentleman to withdraw the Bill in order to amend

it as he had pointed out; otherwise he should feel it his
duty to oppose it.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD should oppose the Bill, believing
that it would rather increase and perpetuate th .n 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 it 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 night 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 bad 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 ho 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 d , 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 bad 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
laxity of the law. (Cries of " Hear, hear.")
He maintained that the crime of sheepstealing had been
gradually growing and increasing, and he thought it
was the duty 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 ho should oppose this
Bid 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 been 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 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 coifessed, 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
to 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 U. 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 best protection for pro-
perty that had yet beets 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 had 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 dirided among the small harmers, in the

expectation that the women and girls of the family by
attending to them, by the cleansing, carding, and spin-
ning of their wool would obtain for themselves clothing
and other necessaries.—(Hear, hear.) Would the
Government this day take any steps 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 had 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.—(llesr, 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 ?—(lleasi, hear.) The practice of the thieves who
stole the sheep was to kill them on the spot, and leave
the skin and all the offals in 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, hear," 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 defendiog;that of the
poor.—(Hear. hear.)
Mr. NAi'IER conceived, 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 fur
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 cut up,
that it was impossible afterwards to identify them ;
and the railways facilitated the thieves in carrying them
away and avoiding detection.—(Hear.) The poor
farmers ought to have and would hare 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 is
aid, against granting any kind of relief to the people of
Ireland—(Cries ot "No, :no")—and also against
the imposition of an income-tax. Ile was not
at all surprised at the increase of sheep-
stealing, and he was only astonished to see a sheep alive
and is good health.—(Hear, hear.) It he were in the
position of some ot his countrymen, viz., in a starving
state, and saw a sheep on the other side of the hedge,
he would say to him, " I'll take care and live longer than
you." There was a venerable Father Prout who presided
over a:certain parish in the county of Cork.—(Laughter.)
When he took possession of his living in the parish,
every man in it was infested by sheep stealers. The
whole ot 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," said Father 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
lip up to his ear and cry Ma-a, ma-a.' —(Roars of
laughter.) The venerable Father Prunes instruc•
tions were acted upon by his parishioners, and
from thenceforth there was no more sheep-stealing
in their parish.—(Renewed laughter.) He (Mr. Rey-
nolds) would advise the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Waterford to take a leaf out of Father Front'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 in that House
to get up and designate them by wholesale as sheep-
stealers. Ile regretted that the time of the House had
been taken np by such a Bill, and he sincerely hoped the
House would not take the advice of the Hon. Member for
Waterford.—(Cheers.)
Mr. KEOGH said, whether this Bill passed
into a law or net, he did not think it at
all 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; arid
from what he knew of his Hon. Frend, 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 social
liberties of the people of Ireland, but it was a Bill to
restrict the felonious propensities of certain people who
were engaged in committing depredations on a very de-
serving and a very:poor class of their fellow-countrymen.
He was rather disposed to concur in the observation 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 country to fix
an imputation of theft on the poorer classes, did
not purloin the sheep of their wealthy employers.
But the poorer class of farmers had no such protection.
The object of the Bill was not to deal with sheep-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-
sonsoout 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.—(Elear.)
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
he remodelled.

After a few words from Mr. NAPIER in explanation,
Colonel DUNNE said it was notorious that sheep
stealing had increased to an enormour extent in Ireland,
and he thought this Bill ought to be allowed to go into
Committee in the hope of securing a remedy.
Mr 0 FLAHER LY 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. BOURNE 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 changes were
not greater than those which had frequently been made
in other Bills which had afterwards passed the Legisla-
ture; yet if the Government woald 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 introduction 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. LACEY 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 opposed to such an instruction
being given to the Committee. The object of the Bill
was to apply a specific remedy to a specific grievance—
viz., of allowing a clergyman who had taken ordination
♦ows, 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, bear.) 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-
Lica 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 seccession from
the Church of England, it was not such a one as alto-
gether 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 sou 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 more 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.)
Bereettnt TALFOURD said he differed alt "ether from
the lion. Gentleman who had just sat do. n. 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-
ters, should remain members of it, aad exempt from all
the vows they had made.—(Hear, hear.) The practical
grievance suggested by the lion. 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 doctrine of the Church
of England. He trusted that the House would never
allow ins Bill which had been read for a first or a:second
time to be introduced incidentally a principle entirely
opposed to that which was intended when the Bill was
first brought in.—(Hear.)
Mr. CLAY said that without pledging 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