The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-24 00:00:00

EXETER.

Lord BROUGHAM then presented a petition from the Rev.
Mr. Shore, who had been for ten years in- orders. After that
time he was conscientiously convinced that it was his duty to
leave the church. Previously, however. ‘o his leaving the
church, he had been licensed to a certain chapel, which was
afterwards et dowed by the Duke of Somerset ; having ob-
tained that iteenie from the Bishop of Exeter, wrier the autho-
rity of a certain incumbent, where he performed the service
according to the rules of the Church of Eng'and. After-
wards, however, the living under which he was
licensed passed into other hands, and Mr. Shore was deprived
of that license, but the chapel had then passed
cut of connexion with the church of England. Mr. Shore,
who had in the meantime been converted to the principles of
the Protestant Dissenters, and under the impression that his
connexion with the church had ceased, administered the
Sacrament, under the authority of the Toleration Act. Yet
he had, nevertheless, been dealt with in the spiritual court as if
he were still under the "cognizance of the ecclesiastical law.
This petition was from the Lf arced Sergeant, who conducted
the case for Mr. Shore, an.i it complain -cl that there was a
defect in the law, which ought to be remedied.
The Bishop of EXETER said that he must preface the few
remarks which he hal to offer to their Lordships, with the
statement that nothing could have been more fair and straight-
forward, or liberal. than the conduct of his Noble and Learned
Friend. The facts were these :—Previous to the endowment
of the chapel, he had received a c.mmunieation from the Duke
of Somerset, inquiring what was the smallest sum that would
be necessary to endow the chapel. He had replied that 1,C0,7.
or 1,50 W. wouid be a sufficient sum to justify him in consecrat-
ing the chapel though, of course, his Grace would not think
of attaching so small a stipend to a chapel of that kind.
The Noble Duke had departed from his engagements, from what
reasons were best known to himself, and he hed no doubt they
were satisfactory to,his own mind. At the time the applica.
firm was made to him he licensed Mr. Shore, when he found
that that gentleman had received the leave of the incumbent;
and their Lordships need not be infoaned what were the
rights of incumbents or of petrons. One clergyman could not
go into a parish and officiate there without the leave of the
incumbent, and when the incumbent of the perish refused to
grant leave to Mr. Shore. he did not feel himself at liberty to
sanction his officiating. Mr. Shore then said he would officiate
in spite of the refusal, and so he did. He remonstrated in
the mildest manner, and called upon him by the oath which
he had taken to pay obedience to the church, but he had not
chosen so to do.

Lord BROUGHAM said that his object in commenting
upon the matter at all wee, to draw attention to the defective
state of the law, with the view to have it amended. Theophilug
Lindsay, who had been twenty-five years a rector in the English
Church, and who afterwards became an Unitarian minist-T,
and founded the Essex-street chapel, had never been proceeded
against ; neither was Dr. Lardner, nor eny of those who had
recently lot the Church and become Roman Catholics, the
Hon. and Rev. Mr. Spencer, Mr. • Faber, and Mr. Newman.
He thought, therefore, that their Lordships should pause before
they turned a deaf ear to the comrlaint, of petitioners.
The bishop of EXETER explained that Mr. Shore was a
Dissenter irons the discipline, not from the doctrine of the
Church of England, and thus, repudiating the authority of the
diocesan, still continued the service of the Church of England.
He stood in a very different pYition to tho:e gentlemen who
had seceded from the Church of England for that of Rums.
Mr. Shore might have escaped this prosecution if he had con.
sented to depo-itirin ; but this, by his counsel, he had expressly
refused to do. The only relief the H.,use could afford wai that
from costs, and if this gentleman still coninu-d obstinate, he
soul i not conceide that this was the right way to obtain the re-
lief which he sought.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he could cite the venerable
with the character, a priest could never be deposed, but
could only be suspended.
The Bishop of EXEHER could M., an equally high autho•
namely, that ot Lord Stowell himseit, in the case of
some one against Stone, in which the decision had been that
after the sentence ot the Ecclesiastical Court, the Bishop
could pronounce the additional sentence, and depose an offender
from the ministry.
The bishop o' LONDON thought that an interminable confu-
sion would arise if a party, after years of study and prayer, were
to be Permitted at once to act in contravention of the oath which
he had deliberately taken, and resume the civil position which
he had forfeited when he entered into holy orders. The proper
course to adopt under such circumstances would be the deposi-
tion from the ministry, but care shoughe taken not to confound
deprivation with deposition.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL,
CASE OF THE REV. ROBERT KYLE.
_ _

The Earl of RODEN. pre'ented a petition from the inha-
bitaLts of Donnybrook, near Dublin, complaining of the dis-
missal of the Rev. Robert Kyle from his ministerial duties by
the Bishop- of Dublin. The complaint of the petitioners was
so earnest, that he thought it his duty to acquaint the Right
Rev. Prelate with the contents or that ptition. He could not
but think it most harsh to depri ,e this gentleman of the office
which he had so long filled with grea cralit, for no other
fault than joining the Evangelical society. The petitioners
prayed their Loroshipa to take such steps as will prevent a mi-
nister being deprived by his dioce-an of his living, without it
could 'be shown that he was guilty of heresy, immorality, or
impiety.
The Archbishop of ARMAGH hoped their Lordships would
suspend their judgment till he had an opp-irtunity of writing to
the Archbishop of Dublin reap-cting the complaint of the p.-ti-
tioners. The Archbishop of Dublin stated that he should nave
been manifestly guilty of a dereliction of duty if he had not
acted in the way he did, however respectable the retitioner
might be. The Right f+ev. Prelate here read a communica-
tion from the Right Rev. Prelate justifying the course he had
taken. It was in sub-tance to the eff -et that the Rev. Mr.
Kyle bed acted in oppreAtion to the discipline of the Church,
and adopted a course which he (the Archbishop of Dublin) did
not approve of ; hence, in virtue of the authority vested in him,
he had caused the petitioner to be removed. He acted in the
matter with the best wish - far the interests and prosperity of
the Church. He could not, with a st:fe con cience, have given
his consent to the movement which was going forward, and in
which the Rev. Gentleman to ik an active part. Such were
the sentiments of the Right Rev. Prelate, which he had now
placed before the House.
The Earl of GALLOWAY entirely agreed with the senti-
ments of the Noble Earl tato had introduced the retition, and
if the allegations of the petition were true, he must conclude
that the conduct of the Archbishop of Dublin had been most
opinion
atunionamong w thewere
e t
o bestbe
friends
reprehensible. The sub;ect of evangelical alliance was one in
whichtohfertebewcasbugrrcelia.t Off
ethreenseceatotferop
put down, it would lead to very serious results. In a free
country like this, such attempts toput down freedom of opinion
should net be elicouraged.—( Hear, herr.)
Lord REDESDALr: should be sorry if the House should
be of opinion that the Right Rev. Prelate had not acted pro-
perly in the matter. He, for one, thought, that the Right
Rev. Prelate had acted with great discretion, and ought to be
supported in such a course. It was said, that with regard to
all essent.al points of &reline, there was no difference between
the members of this even ;elical alliance ; but to that he re-
pi:ed. that many of these parties we-e avowedly against an es-
tablished Church. It was not prudent for young meintees o
the Church of England to be allied with them. 'there was in
many respects a greater similarity between the Church of Eng-
e yet
oV
the
the
priestsll d
Cn oh tu
,rttch,
htehoeilf
Cshhoui
Englandr. sehi aovfeu
Rna gdeh.f
for
rt or
ei
lni
lane and the Church of Rome than between the former and
many
raofnueysr epp !of'
:spteohn::r clergyoyh
those
fadi el;
etcuhtdhu
ter h,
hes t 'apt
nt
oimttrehsnettacnt
rihn
shtsheoenfrdetßrmsot
mrd i
ens.ee sr
differed
themore
eC)rthdhuairin2t hpo of'
After a few words from the Duke of LEINSTER, in vin-
dication of the conduct of the Archbishop of Dublin, and
from several other Noble Lords, the subject dropped.
CUSTOMS' DUTIES BILL.
The Boise then resolved itself into Committee on this Bill.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY proceeded to read the
schedule attached to the Bill.
On the articles butter and cheese being read,
The Earl of H A RDWICKE moved that they be struck
out. He moved this as an act of justice to many of the
poorer classes. Butter and cheese were agricultural produce,
raised in many instances by persons holding small plots of
land, and by the removal of the duty they would suffer se-
verely. This was especially the case in Ireland, where very
many depended—if not altogether—at least in a great
measure on the production of these articles.—( Hear,
hear.) By the course they were taking they would not
lose a great deal of revenue, but those pony people wi,uld be
made to suffer very much. In 1844, the duty on butter was
186,6661 ; in 1845, it was 247,6041. Yet this amount of
duty they wete about to sacrifice. They were also proposing
to give up the duty on cheese, which in 1844, was 117.272/. ;
and in 1845, 141,818/. The effects would be very mischievous,
and therefore he would propose that they be struck out.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said the only object in all the
reductions in the tariff was to supply the poorer classes with a
full supply of the necessaries of life. He believed the price
of butter and cheese would be reduci d to the consumers, but
not to such an extent as toprove seriously injurious to Inc home
producer, whsle
Ithe price would be reduced, and thus a go..d
le effected in as far as the poorer classes were concerned. He
would take • place when the home
thought the importation
least degree He considered
k twould elected the •
mar
e
that a duty of 20s. per cent. was too much to be leviad on an
article of so great a consamrtton as butter, and of so much
importance to the lower classes, and thereforeproposed to re-
'
duce the amount of duty to ten shillings per cent.
Lord STANLEY considered that eitherE
the Noblearl was
right or he was not. This reduction in duty would either re-
duce the price of butter or it would keep up the price, and the
revenue would lose the amount they now receive • d for that
ar-
ticle, which would have ofplacing 127 000/ a year is
the effect
the pockets of foreigners; and would not bestow a propor-
tionate benefit in the classes at home.
Earl DALHOUSIE—The Noble Earl who spoke before,
and to whose statements he alluded, said the reduction in duty
would not affect the price of the • I
ante e to the amount of one
farthing per cwt.
Earl sTANLIOPE—It was a fartkirg a pgwad.