The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-26 00:00:00

NPERIAL PAILIAIEN r.

HOUSE OF COMMONS- .. w EDNESDAY.

The Speaker took the chair at twenty minutes past
twelve.

CLERICAL DISABILITIES BILL.
HIBBERT moved the second reading of this bill, and
fo 1 •
°to; so said he must disclaim any desire on his part to
Posh forward the subject. He would much rather the
°l-overnment had taken it in hand, but probably, seeing
;tile great business which the Government had
41 hand, it was perhaps excusable that a pri-
vate member should introduce the question ;
The bill proposed to deal with a grievance not affecting a
large class, but still a very considerable class of her
Majesty's subjects. The grievance was one which had
existed for a great number of years, and although efforts
had hem made to alleviate it to some extent no success
ha 1 been achieved. In 1862 the member for Kilmarnock
brought in a bill to relieve the clergy from the disabi-
'Was Which weigned upon them. Thatbill, although it only
dealt in a more limited manner with the subject than
his bill did not pass through the House. The measure
t° which he referred only allowed a clergyman to relin-
quish his calling when he professed dissent from the Esta-
d Church. Now, in the bill which he had intro-
aiced it was thought better to allow a clergyman to
he did
his calling " without giving any reasons why
oe did so relinquish his calling." He believed that the
sictions of a man should be looked to, not his motives.
It had been stated that these disabilities weighed upon a
very few people. Still, if they were few in number, when
Parliament had removed the grievances complained of by
!tiler classes, he did not think the House would refuse
to take away the disabilities under which the clerical
bcklY laboured. He referred to the disabilities imposed
4)°n a clergyman who wished to retire from his calling by
M76th Canon. by an Act passed in 1801, and by the
unicipal Corporation Act. The hon. member called
attention to the fact that the canon said nothing
ab
ti °-- a man being in holy orders, because at the
it was passed the feeling of the Reformed Church
ih dine
-"gland was contrary to the doctrine that Holy Orders
Were indelible. He did not intend to go into the question
44 t° whether Holy Orders were indelible or not. By one
of the clauses it was provided that if a clergyman, after
114ving left the Church, wished to return to it, he could
'11)ou certain conditions, with the consent of the Bishop
4,141 Archbishop. Having commented upon the
tosabilities which clergymen suffered under in
tel)oet of not being able to sit in Parlia-
ke4t, he remarked that he should not object to
unattached clergymen being allowed to take seats in the
'4,°llse. The hon. gentleman said when they considered
the
~., early age at which persons were admitted into the
Church, and that there were 20,000 clergy in the country,
lAt illight be assumed that some who were ordained at an
early age, might, either through unfitness for their calling,
e-l'htilrough dissenting from some of the formularies of the
Clirch, or from change of circumstances, wish to
econae laymen.
kr. JOHN LEWIS seconded the motion. He said it
might be argued that the bill would admit an inferior class
sf Ineo into the House, but he believed that the present
42tero in consequence of the irrevocable character of the
engagement,b tended to keep out many men who would
borne admirable clergymen.
/1,4 r. WALPOLE stated two broad objections to the bill.
the first place it was extremely undesirable that
b.‘
;4'B°°ll who took holy orders should enter the sacred
tefession lightly or unadvisedly with an experimental
mindtho He thought the mind of a person should be
rollghly made up before he took the step. In the next
tce he did not think that when a person had served in
ith'a e Church he should chop and change about. He thought
WaS undesirable that the services of a minister of reli-
-41 should become more or less of a merely professional
Wcharacter ; and that, according to profit or advantage, he
°lll4 change from this side to that. He saw no reason
onbeneficed clergymen should not occupy seats in that
°use and Corporation.
14 L. PALK said that the bill would but add to the in-
ducements to young men to enter the Church when they
e:111414 that they could retire when they pleased from their
gng• Besides, it was a new matter to him that the
118 e had any right to release men who had taken
meliberatelv and of their own accord, the most solemn
oatj, ~ I
tio 'is, and bound themselves by the most solemn obliga-
d„lis• There never was a more objectionable bill intro-
Lieed.

r •-. io• J. HOPE said the bill f
a measure of relief
c''"so who had the moralcourage to dEclare their un-
fitness for the Ministry, whilt those who still remained
4L, the Church were denied the rights of citizenship. He
.Inuch rather that the bill had only dealt with civil
t abilities. A distinction should have been drawn be-
tween the clergy in the actual discharge of their duties
k-a"; the clergy who had no immediate cure of souls either
t,,,'lleckbents or curates. There were good reasons for
~—Nos holding the cure of souls not to be involved in
-jeolar
Occupations. He approved of the provisions as
°ice readmittance of the retired clergy.
krjr. 130IIVERIE could not agree to the plan suggested by
the Ilcpe as to relieving unbeneficed clergymen from
i„ restrictions imposed upon the clerical body. In speak-
h;!v°f the proposition that unbeneficed clergymen should
Iva: the oPportunity
factknown that the Crown had the largest
ahre •
th, °f Church patronage, and it might be that one of
Ice gentlemen might, by becoming the favourite of the
Chi :ei Minister obtain livings and high position in the
It was really a question of the
of the constituencies to elect whom
hands Pleased. He thought it was a most cruel
ha4"lllP that a young man who on entering the Church
kat° subscribe to a vast number of theological and dog-
tiervice teaching should be compelled to remain in the
felt 4.,e of the Church, if he afterwards conscientiously
A 'cut he could not believe in them.
11I\IEwDEGATE argued that if they admitted the clergy
e4tl-01a.rliaraent, they would have to admit the Roman
,• Priests. He complained that step by step,
elich CheetlY the house was being persuaded to disregard and
1.46711 every one of the restrictions, which at the
gtla-lition and subsequently were found necessary to
guar the freedom of this country.
r
• HENLEY objected to the bilL
the
41% BRUCE, on the part of the Government, supported
ee°cd reading of the bill.
Th
liouse divided.
Noes AYes
JG

The ~ ' Majority
lull Was read a second time.
4,, GAME LAWS ABOLITION BILL.
bill. He
ape:. TAYLOR moved the second reading of this
I've of the universal condemnation of the game laawnsd.
tc, everer farmers met together there was discontent.t
°Pi t
111,,, i h about them, and there was not. a public mee -
4idiallilt4ll! great centres of the country without the utmost
Dliiia
,s,l°ll being expressed. Judicial statesmen and
game -11;nr°Pic authority had long since condemned the
4", i laws, and it was now a case of the upper classes
e
game'l',t the benefit and interest of the general order.
arl 'Laws Were a curse to farmers, as was universally
4441(1 itthed(4o, no). At any rate the farmers thought so,
44eintal-e laws placed them in the most ridiculous and
tah,e, °us position. It had been said that farmers ob-
kko' of for injury, but he had accumulatedtio a
Iva,: of evidence which proved to him that compensation
ton
Nnki:e,id°lll asked for, and that it was impossible
hot --"'` the damage. The game laws werehe
4grie,4°114.1!
_n curse to the farmer but to t
e°llll4;ural labourer, who was constantly tempted to
',. erit,
number e• He alluded to the greatincrease in the
(Note: of convictions under the Game Laws,and then
the ' figures to shew the loss of food to the people aned.
lie 44e°48equent rise of prices by the preservation
fofvag
:carfare
betweseerted that there was a regular system o
the 4,11 gahiekeepers and poachers, and remarked' that
hunted
do
feature was that the latter were
ertieth, '443wn by dogs like slaves. One
make
Ratoe ' which had been proposed was
ktredi)rivate Property, but he contended thattoit. wouldlw
Ili lice an indefensible principle into the English a .
131 e bin he
. .
141)1e 1,, proposed, in his earnest conviction, was a
°I
inevitable--'eaSe of justice, and was in his opinion a matter
(1,1, necessity. It was only a question of time, taol-
Witi,ol;ite'ronrrow, and he appealed to the House to de
Dealer question in a comprehensive spirit, and he ap-
\vith ; t° the landed gentry to do what could be done
4 Eitt,;-°ll:te remains of graciousness rather than to prolong
the ggle. the continuance of which would tend to increase
ill
eraelread
t ,t -45' sufaciently lamentable indifference to the
,:Nir. --,!,'ld sYmpathies of various classes.
the '-'IOKENSON seconded the motion. He condemned
heorigeaMe law
Wye great public evil, and he thought the
bette: theY er
exPunged from' the statute book the
teeth., Jle was quite aware that there were certain pro-
''WS with respect to the preservation of salmon