The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-30 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUESDAY

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Rev.
James Shore, of Bridgetown, in the parish of Bury Po-
meroy, Devonshire, complaining of the effect of a recent
Aleciaion in the Arches' Court, and praying their lordships
for a remedy to his case. He (Lord Brougham) under-
stood it had been argued, that Mr. Shore having been re-
gularly ordained as a minister of the church, he could not
of his own power secede from it, or release himself from
his orders as a clergyman. The result was, that a deci-
sion was given against him in the Ecclesiastical Court ;
and, as there was no remedy in law, the highest court in
the kingdom (the Court of Chancery) having decided
against him, be prayed their lordships to take his case
into consideration, and grant him such relief as they
should think fit.

The Bishop of EXETER s d.tl that he had originally
granted a license to Mr. Shore, upon receiving the assu-
rance of the Duke of Somerset, first, that he would en-
dow the chapel referred to, and secondly, that the building
should only be used for divine worship according to the
rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. He (the
Bishop of Exeter) was grieved to say that his grace had
departed from both engagements. He had done so very
probably for reasons satisfactory to his own mind; but he
(the Bishop of Exeter) was incapable of guessing what
those reasons were. With respect to the endowment, his
grace had offered to carry out his enzagement, provided
the nomination were vested in himself, a proposition
which he (the Bishop of Exeter) could not agree to. On
the contrary, he had insisted that the nomination should
remain with the rector or vicar of the parish (he did not
at that moment remember which). The rector who had
ree.-ntly succeeded to the parish of Bury Pomeroy having
refused to nominate Mr. Shore, he (the Bishop of Exeter)
had accordingly revoked the license, upon which the rev.
gentleman had resolved to officiate in spite of him, and had
got his chapel vesinstcred -n-tnatirutuzw-cnilpFt.
circumstances he had felt it to be his duty to proceed
against the rev. gentleman for this breach of ecclesiastical
discipline. • . - . .

)Cl'ier some further remarks from Lord Brougham, the
Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of London, and Lord Camp.
bell, the subject dropped.

The Earl of RODEN presented a petition from the pa-
ri&oners of Donnybrook, near Dublin, complaining of
the Archbishop of Dublin, for having removed the Rev.
Air. Kyle from the office of minister of that pa, ish, be-
cause he had joined the " Evangelical Alliance."
The Archbishop of ARMAGH defended the conduct of the
Archbishop of Dublin, and read a long letter from his Grace
explanatory of the circumstances.

After some remarks from Earl GALLOWAY, in defence of
the alliance, Lord REDESDALE protested against its going
forth that the opinion of the house was against the con-
duct pursued by the Archbishop of Dublin :
•' Fle ha‘l acted with great di-cretion in the matter ; if
the clergy were to set themselves up as judges of all they
were to do in matters involving church di-cipline, the
function of the bishop was gone. A man who took orders
was very much in the situation of a person enlisting, and
he must obey, though he might have some little doubt as
to the wisdom of the directions he received. It was very
well to talk about promoting Christian union, but were
there no members'of the Evangelical Alliance who were
ot heart and soul against the Established Church? In
most of the essential points of doctrine, the members of
the" establi‘hment were nearer to the Homan Catholics
than to many Protestant Dissenters; it was so with re-
gard to the doctrine of the atonement, and other points;
but what would be said, if a number of the clergy pro-
posed a union with the Catholic priests, for promoting the
principles they held in common, and dropping all upon
which they differed ?"

The Duke cf LEINSTER also defended the Archbishop
of Dublin, and the matter dropped.
Their lordships then went into committee on the Cus-
toms DailPs Bill, and a proposi,ion to omit butter and
cheese from the operation of the act was rejected by a
majority of fifty to thirty-three. In a division regarding
silk, the government had also a majority, the numbers
being seventy-five to fifty. The bill was then repored
without amendments, and ordered to be read a third time
on Thursday.