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

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNvAx

Sir G. GREY brought in the bid which he last week ob-
taiqed leave .to introduce, for establishing public baths
and washhouaes in large and populous towns. The bill
was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second
time on Wednesday, the Ist of July.
A resolution of the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER
for continuing the Sugar Duties fora month atter the sth
of July, when they expire, for the purpose of allowing time
for the discussion and settlement of the question, was
agreed to.—lt appears that Lord George Bentinck at
seven o'clock on Sunday evening intimated that he should
oppose the motion with the view of passing a vote of cen-
sure on the government for delaying the renewal of the
Sugar Duties till the last moment. but he did not do so.
In reply to Mr. C. Buller, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated that
it was the intention of• Government to bring forward in
the present session a measure for the better adwinistration
of public affairs in New Zealand.

The haute then proceeded with the adjourned debate
ott the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill, Mr. Lahouchere,
in reply to Sir James Graham, being the last speaker,
aft& which the debate Was adjourned,

TIOVSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY. •
Lord BRODOHAM presented a petition from the Rev.
James Shore, of Bridgetown, the parish of Bury Po-
znerov, Devonshire, compliining of the effect of a recent
decision in the Arches' Court, and playing their lordships
fora remedy to his else. He (Lord Broug.harn) 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, he prayed their lordships to take his case
into consideration, and grant him such relief as they
should think•fit.

The Bisnnfr of EXETER said 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 rea-ons satiafactory to his own mind; but he
(the Bishop of Exeter) was incapable of guessing what
those reasons were. W►th respect to the endowment, his
grace had “ffered to carry out his engagement, provided
the nomination were vested in himself, a proposition
which he (the 13i4Inp of Exeter) could not agree to. On
the-contrary, he bad inaiated 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
recflitly succeeded to the parish of Bury Pomeroy having
refused to nominate Mr. Shore, he (the Bishop. at Exeter)
bad accordingly revoked the license, upon which the rev.
gentleman had resolved to officiate in spite of him, and had
got his chapel ►egistered as a dissenting chapel. In those
circumstances he had felt it to be his duty to proceed
against the rev. gentleman for tbis breach of ecclesiastical
discipline. _ _

After 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-
risioners of Donnybrook, near Dublin, complaining of
the Archbishop of Dublin, for having removed the Rev.
Mr. Kyle from the office of minister of that pa. lab, 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 RartEsnALE protested against its going
forth that the opinion of the house was against the con-
duct pursued by the Archbishop of Dublin :
" He ha I acted with great di,eretion in the matter; if
the clergy were to set themselves up as judges of all they
were to do in matters involving church discipline, 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 shout promoting Christian union, but were
there no rnembers'of the Evangelical Alliance who were
not 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 Roman Catholics
than to many Protestant Dissenters; it was so with re-
gard to tne 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 of LEINSTER also defended the Archbishop
of Dublin, and the matter dropped.
Their lordships then went into dommittee on the Cus-
toms Duti..s Bill, and a proposition 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 repor ed
without amendments, and ordered to be read a third time
on Thursday.