begged to put two questions to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, of which he had given him notice. He must preface them by stating, that he viewed with pain and anxiety the present condition of Canada; and he hoped he should not subject himself to the charge of having acted with precipitancy in asking the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to communicate to the House extracts from the votes and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Canada on the Bill for granting an indemnity for the losses sustained during the rebellion in Canada, and also any extracts or copies of the correspondence between the Governor General of Canada and Her Majesty's Government relating to that Bill? The next question which he had to put was, whether the sanction of the Crown had yet been given or refused by Her Majesty's Government to the Indemnity Bill?

Sir, no extracts of the votes and proceedings of the Legislative Assemblies of Canada have been received by Her Majesty's Ministry. Nor has there been any correspondence on the subject which it is in my power to lay on the table of the House. I must state, however, that the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department has received several private communications from the Governor General of Canada, in which it is stated, that the Governor General did not think it expedient to write any public despatches, as he conceived, that, by their being laid before Parliament, and thus being made public in Canada, the result would only be to increase the excitement already existing in those provinces. But I may be allowed to add, that the latest information from Canada authorises me to state, that the irritation and excitement are fast being allayed in those provinces. In answer to the second question of the right hon. Gentleman, as to whether the sanction of the Crown had been given or refused by the Governor General to the Indemnity Bill, I can only state, that when the period arrives at which the Bill passed by the Legislative Assemblies of Canada comes under his observation, the Governor General of Canada will be prepared and ready to exercise those discretionary powers which are vested in him. I may add, that the noble Earl the Governor General of Canada possesses the entire confidence of the Crown, and that, in the exercise of his discretionary powers as Governor General of the province of Canada, he will be deemed to have acted in a manner to protect the interests and prerogative of the Crown, and also to conciliate the interests of the British empire.

Do I distinctly understand the noble Lord to say that the Bill of Indemnity has not been referred to Her Majesty's Government for an ultimate decision?

No, it has not.

May I ask whether Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly of Canada are reserved and held back for a certain period previously to being sent up for the approval or otherwise of the Governor General?

I by no means wish it to be understood that I stated Bills were not sent up to the Governor General immediately after they are passed; but what I intended to convey was, that it was not usual for the Governor General to signify his decision with respect to such Bills until the Session was somewhat advanced, and that the various measures agreed to by the Assembly had come under his observation. I may also add, that there is no doubt to be entertained that when the Indemnity Bill comes under the observa- tion of the Earl of Elgin, and that he is called upon to give his decision upon that measure, he will address a public despatch to the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Office on that particular subject.

Do I rightly apprehend the noble Lord in supposing that the Governor General of Canada prefers addressing private letters to the Colonial Secretary in lieu of public despatches?

No; I said no such thing. But when a public servant, stationed, as the Earl of Elgin is, in a distant colony, does not think it expedient to address a public despatch to the Colonial Secretary, I conceive that he is not deprived of the liberty of stating in a private letter what he thinks of the position of affairs in the colony over which he presides. I may add, in illustration of this subject, that very serious mischief is sometimes produced by the publication of despatches in this country; and I refer particularly to an instance which occurred when I had the honour to hold the office of Colonial Secretary, when the Governor of Jamaica complained very seriously of the angry feelings which had been raised in that island by my having made public, by command, a despatch addressed by him to me as Colonial Secretary.

, having presented several petitions in favour of the Cattle and Sheep (Ireland) Bill, moved the second reading of the Bill. He considered that, in doing so, it would be only necessary to state some facts briefly for the necessity of the Bill, and to show how fearfully this crime had increased. In 1845, 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-disposed persons, who were to be found in every community, had availed themselves of the distress to commit depredations. The evil, he regretted to say, had materially increased during the last year. Mr. Baron Lefroy, 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, he 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. He begged to call 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 respect, and which was remarkable for its good order, stating that scarcely a night passed without depredations being committed; and that, although the guilty parties were in most cases known, a conviction 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 order to prevent identification. One letter, dated the 13th of April, 1849, from a gentleman resident in the county of Clare, stated that, within half a mile of him, one farmer, in the course of last year, had lost 80 sheep by night depredators; and another, living five miles off, had lost 140 sheep in the same way. Another letter, from a magistrate in Kilkenny, expressed his approbation of the Bill, and his opinion that it was required by the present circumstances of the country, and the loss sustained by the small farmers, who generally concurred in its becoming the law of the land. 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 he was entitled to ask the Government to support the present Bill. A statute similar to this was to be found in the 7th and 8th 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 had shown that it was not asking too much of legislation 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 depredators—that this Bill should pass into a law. In corroboration of that he had a resolution, passed at the quarter-sessions of Water-ford, signed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and by every magistrate there present. A number of petitions had been also 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 communicated on the subject had concurred with him in 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 came by the same.

said, he was afraid, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kildare at the conclusion of his speech, he should still feel it necessary to give his opposition to the Bill. He certainly did intend on the part of the Government to have given the Bill, it its present shape, his most decided opposition; but, even with modifications, he did not see that the principles involved ought to enter into the legislation of the country. The hon. Gentleman had stated the extent to which the crime of sheep and cattle stealing had increased, and the number of cases which had been prosecuted, leaving a considerable number still behind, which could not be prosecuted for want of suffi- cient evidence to convict. But on that part of the question he (Sir G. Grey) had not a single observation to offer at present. What he did remark in the hon. Gentleman's speech was, that he had not stated what was the nature and provisions of the Bill, further than merely telling the House that it would throw the onus probandi on the party accused. He did certainly state that the Bill was a transcript of one introduced by his noble Friend the Earl of Carlisle, and the present Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer; but whether it was so or not, that could have but little weight with him if he thought the Bill objectionable, and that he ought to oppose it. He thought the first clause was objectionable as re-enacting what was at that moment the law of the land, that justices of the peace, or magistrates, on being informed that stolen property was suspected to be in a certain place, should be empowered to issue a search warrant. That was already the law of the land, and he should certainly object to re-enacting it, as though there existed any doubt upon the point. But then the Bill proceeded to enact, that the search warrant being issued, and search made, the individual in whose possession any piece of fat beef or veal was found, should be dragged before the justice or sitting magistrate, who, without any discretion whatever as to the evidence that might be offered on the occasion, was bound to commit him to the common gaol for safe keeping till the beginning of the ensuing sessions. With such a clause as that, and with such another as threw the burden of evidence on the accused party, he did not see how the House could pass this Bill. When he had read it through, he intimated to the hon. Gentleman and his friends the objections which he entertained against the Bill, and that he could not consent to it in its present state; but the hon. Gentleman himself admitted the objections which he then named to him, and his recommendation therefore now was, that the hon. Member should withdraw this Bill, in order to introduce another for the same purpose, but with provisions of a different character. If a Bill were introduced on this subject, awarding to those convicted on proper evidence a limited amount of imprisonment, he was not disposed to object to it. He saw no reason to doubt that jurisdiction might advantageously be given to magistrates when parties were called upon to give an account of the mode in which property came into their possession. He could not help thinking, however, that the hon. Gentleman, in the facts which he had stated, had rather overlaid his case. He had stated that this offence had very greatly increased. Now, it certainly did appear that the commitments for sheepstealing, which in 1844 were 352, had increased to 2,830 in 1848; and there was no doubt that a very considerable loss had been sustained by the farmers of Ireland. But he must remind the hon. Gentleman, that out of these 2,830 commitments, 1,574 persons had been convicted, which showed that the difficulty of procuring a conviction was not so great as had been represented. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of an organised gang of sheepstealers, who were perfectly well known in the country, and who committed nightly depredations. He had stated that footsteps had been traced from the places where the sheep were killed to the houses where these persons resided, and that the remains of the sheep found in these houses had been proved to correspond with the fleece which had been left behind, In a case that occurred in his (Sir G. Grey's) recollection, blood had been found on the knees of parties, and on other parts of their dress; and he did not mean to say that under these circumstances there would be much difficulty in inducing a jury in England to believe that such persons were guilty of the offence of sheepstealing, although it was impossible for the plundered party to swear that a particular piece of mutton was his own property. If, however, the hon. Gentleman would analyse the 1,574 cases in which convictions were obtained, he believed that he would find many instances in which the owner could not swear to the identity of the mutton, and he thought that if greater care were taken in conducting the prosecution and getting up the evidence, the difficulties of a conviction would be much lessened. At the same time, he was aware that there might be cases in which it would be impossible to effect that object, as he was told that Irish juries were more indisposed to convict upon moral proof than English juries were. Under these circumstances, he was not prepared to say that, if a Bill were brought forward as a temporary measure, and limited to sheepstealing only, because no case had been made out for including cattle within its provisions, he should be indisposed to assent to the introduction of such a measure. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw this Bill, and bring in another limited to sheep, or if he would consent to go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of striking out those parts of the Bill which related to cattle, he should be sorry to offer the hon. Gentleman's views any obstruction. In assenting to this course, however, it must be distinctly understood that he should feel it to be his duty to object to the other provisions of the Bill.

should oppose the second reading of the Bill, believing that it would rather increase and perpetuate than diminish the evil complained of, and because that in Ireland, at least, persons convicted of this offence did not care for the infliction of the utmost punishment which the law awarded. In support of this view, he would mention the case of the trial of four young men for sheepstealing, who pleaded guilty, and besought an assistant barrister who tried them to transport them, as, if they were liberated after a short imprisonment, they must commit some other crime, in order to provide the means of subsistence, 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 might be brought before a magistrate, and if he could not show how the property came into his possession, and there was reason to think he had not come by it honestly, that he might be committed for not less than three months, or until a fine of 5l. 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 he believed it would be altogether 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 introduced the Bill, it appeared that the great cause of crime was absolute famine. Was it right, therefore, he (Mr. S. Crawford) 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 do for Ireland. Great and sweeping measures would alone save that country from absolute ruin.

agreed with some of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Rochdale; but he did not agree with him in his conclusions. 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 glaring and monstrous evil? He denied that the increase of sheepstealing had 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. 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 suppress it. Many private Members had ineffectually taken up the subject; but, in his opinion, its importance demanded 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.

believed that this Bill would operate rather as an incentive to crime than as a prevention. After what the hon. Member for Rochdale had said, it was clear that if the House held out a prospect of a competent provision in gaol for three months, the offences against which this Bill was intended to guard, would not be diminished. If a measure of repression were necessary, let some well-digested permanent measure be introduced instead of the present Bill, which was confessedly of a temporary character. As he believed that the Bill would defeat its own object, he, for one, would vote for the Amendment.

supported the Bill, and referred to a memorial which had been sent up in its favour from the grand jury of Cork.

said, the House seemed to argue upon the presumption that no Irishman could have any mutton in his house; because, according to the Bill, if any Irishman had any animal food therein, it was immediately to be suspected that it was dishonestly come by. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had pointed out many defects in the Bill; and he (Mr. Bright) was at a loss to understand why, under such circumstances, the right hon. Baronet should consent even to a second reading. It was evidently a Bill that was quite intolerable, and one that could not be assented to for a single moment. The principle of the Bill was most absurd and unjust; there were also clauses in the Bill, and, looking on it in the most favourable light of which it was capable, he must say, that it appeared to be of such a nature as the House could never assent to. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had shown no great necessity for any alteration in the law; for he said that out of upwards of 2,000 cases, more than 1,500 convictions had been obtained. The evil arose from the extraordinary distress which prevailed in certain parts of Ireland at this moment; and his opinion was, that, if they were to pass a law like the one proposed, they would lay open the population to informers, and to all the evil consequences of informers, to a degree that would produce an amount of irritation, and, probably, according to the custom which had prevailed in some parts of Ireland, of vindictive retaliation, which would only be worse than the evil which they attempted to remedy. He confessed that he could not support the Bill after what had been said against it by the right hon. the Home Secretary. It appeared to him that the Bill was exceedingly like one introduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for the city of Water-ford some time ago as to summary convictions; and he was only sorry that the hon. Member, in bringing forward a measure for the preservation of property in Ireland, should have brought forward a Bill which the House could not entertain, and which would aggravate the evils he was intending to remedy.

said, that it was the small class of farmers in Ireland who were particularly affected by this systematic sheepstealing which had taken place in almost every county in the south of Ireland. He was himself obliged to keep two men as night-watchers, with arms licensed, to protect his sheep. Was that state of things to be admitted in a civilised country professing protection to life and property? The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government had lately said, that the first duty of the House was to protect property in Ireland; he said that that was the paramount object of his Government. Let them prove that by their acts this day. He said, in bringing in a measure for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, that peace and security were ever the first things essential to civilise any country, and to place her in a proper state to receive improvement. This was one of the questions brought forward by Irish Members for the purpose of the protection of property. He wanted to know whether Government would support a measure of that description for the country. There was not one of his own farmers in Water-ford that had not told him, within the last twelve months, that year after year he had been obliged to give up keeping sheep. He (Sir H. Barron) had procured an improved breed, and had given some of them tups to improve the breed. They brought them back again, and said that they were obliged to keep them in their houses at night, and that they were not safe during that time. If the farmers clothed themselves and their families with the produce of the sheep, would the House deprive them of that? Would they force them to go into the market to buy what was manufactured by their wives and daughters, without cost to themselves, at spare hours by night and day, promoting industry amongst the peasantry of the country, and giving them real and substantial advantages? Were they about to deprive the poorer classes of the peasantry of Ireland of these resources? Were they, from some absurd, unfounded, and ignorant assumption, to say that the people of Ireland were to be deprived of these means of clothing themselves, and giving profitable employment to their wives and children? And for what? On the absurd pretence that the least injury could possibly be inflicted on a man when he was brought before a magistrate to tell where he had got his leg of mutton. There was protection for the property of the rich; he asked for protection for the property of the poor. It was essentially the poor man's Bill, and if you rejected it, you would tell the poorer classes of holders in Ireland that they were no longer to have any sheep on their lands. He defied the Attorney General to find out any way of identifying a sheep when its skin was destroyed, and when the only marks by which it could be found out were carefully laid aside. What was done in parts of the counties of Galway and Roscommon? When a man had lost a sheep, he immediately collected some twenty or thirty of his neighbours, without a magistrate, without any legal threat, and went round from house to house to the suspected per- sons, and when he found a piece of mutton or a sheep in any of these houses, they brought out the man in whose house it was found, and gave him a right good beating, and in the next place they pulled down his house. This had been found a most effectual remedy in Galway; did hon. Members want to extend it to his country, and to give them the benefit of Lynch law? He hoped the Bill would be read a second time.

said, that if he thought the Bill such as it had been represented to be, he should not give it his support. It was complained that if a man had mutton in his house he might be brought before a magistrate; but there must be witnesses to prove that it was stolen mutton, on the premises with the knowledge of the party. The magistrate was bound to issue his search warrant, and bring the party before him; and a party so circumstanced, either in England or Ireland, having a charge against him on the oath of a credible witness that he had stolen property, would be committed for trial. It was plain that this crime had very much increased. It was of the greatest advantage that the guilt or innocence of the party should be ascertained at the earliest possible period, and he should support the Bill.

observed that the Bill gave summary jurisdiction to a magistrate to convict a person in whose possession mutton was found, and who could not satisfactorily account for it. He understood his hon. Friend to object to that principle, and say that it was hard and unjust to make him account for the possession of what he had honestly obtained. If this was a proper measure for Ireland, it was proper for England. Only the other day sheepstealing was a capital felony. If you could convict summarily for a sheep, why not do the same for a horse? Summary convictions had been only allowed in cases where there was no necessity for any publicity of investigation; and which were not attended with any serious consequence.

did not approve of sympathising with rogues and vagabonds. He was sorry to say that in many cases in this country where sheep had been stolen, they had been cut up and carried to town by railroads and by express trains. It had been found that the skin had been taken off evidently by some master workman with great care, so as to prevent the possibility of identification. Farmers' pro- perty ought to be protected in Ireland. They should have protection both in England and Ireland; they were determined to have it. He lamented to see the sympathy with rogues and vagabonds, and was sure that if the question had been the stealing of three yards of calico, transportation for seven years would have been considered too light a punishment.

said, that the hon. Member for Waterford had ended his speech by expressing a hope that this Bill would be read a second time; he (Mr. Reynolds) would commence by expressing a hope that it might not be read a second time. The hon. Baronet, in asking the House to road this Bill a second time, placed his claim on these grounds; it is a Bill for the protection of the poor man; it is a Bill for the protection of my farmers in Waterford—those farmers to whom he had lent tups. He was not surprised that the hon. Baronet should call on the House to support this Bill. There was a very strong analogy between this Bill and the Bill of Pains and Penalties which had recently been introduced into the House. The hon. Baronet said that this was a Bill of mercy towards the small farmers of the county of Waterford; he forgot to inform the House that the present law against sheepstealing was a very severe law, that it provided seven years' transportation for the offence; but he wished that the possession of a neck of mutton and a leg of mutton should be punished by a fine of 5l., and in the event of the pauper delinquent not being able to pay, he was to be sent to gaol for five months. Who were to be his judges? Probably the very persons from whom the sheep was stolen. The hon. Member for Waterford took the hon. Member for Manchester to task with his usual mildness, and said that he wanted to outrage property and to protect delinquents. Let him be reminded of this fact, that this Bill of Pains and Penalties was brought forward at a most extraordinary crisis—at a time when the hon. Baronet voted against the rate in aid—voted against any kind of relief to the people—voted for nothing except for the protection of the income tax. He (Mr. Reynolds) was not surprised that sheepstealing should have increased; the only thing which surprised him was that there was a sheep alive and in good health. He was astonished that the whole tribe had not disappeared, and some of the bullocks too. He knew that if he was in the position of some of his fellow-countrymen, and saw a fat sheep on the other side of the "wearing," he would say, "I will take care I will live longer than you." If any of his countrymen, not being a sheep-stealer, should visit the city of Waterford and purchase a neck of mutton and take it to where he lived, although he bought the neck of mutton honestly, to protect himself he must get a bill and receipt from the butcher. Certainly he might get the bill, but not always the receipt. And yet this was a measure, which, with a sober face, the hon. Baronet asked the House to pass. He might be asked, have you anything to suggest? He had something to suggest. The greater part of the House had heard of the celebrated Catholic clergyman of Ireland named Father Prout. He presided over a very extensive parish in Cork. When he took possession he found it infested by sheepstealers. His parishioners suffered severely, both aristocracy and democracy, and called upon him to apply a remedy. He said, "I see no remedy but to prosecute." "We do not like to be called informers." "Do you know the fellows who steal the sheep?" "We do." "Whenever you meet one of them at fair, put your lips to his ear and cry out 'Ma! Ma!' and every one will know who is a sheepstealer." His instructions were acted upon, and in less than six months there was not a sheepstealer in Waterford. He regretted that this Bill was introduced by hon. Members who were sent into the House by the very parties who would be oppressed by them. It was a calumny on the people of Ireland for any one to get up in the House and designate them as sheepstealers. He believed that no portion of the population of the empire could bear a comparison with the population of Ireland for the observance of the rules of integrity, particularly after the suffering which had been going on for the last five years.

did not think that the measure was so objectionable as it had been represented to be by the criticisms of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin. This Bill had been introduced with the approbation of a large number of the Irish representatives, and of a vast number of the grand juries of Ireland. The hon. Member for the city of Dublin had expressed it to be a measure to restrict the liberties of the Irish people. Now, it was no such thing. It merely aimed at the restrictions of the felonious propensities of certain parties, who gained their livelihood by committing depredations on the property of the poorer classes of their fellow-countrymen. Indeed, this might be called a poor man's Bill—for the rich man could pay for the hire of men to guard his property, whereas the two or three unguarded sheep of a poor man (perhaps the greater portion of all the property he possessed) were an easy prey to the felon. He (Mr. Keogh) thought that the hon. and learned Attorney General had misunderstood the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin. His hon. and learned Friend had not said that he disapproved of the principle of this Bill, but merely of some of its details. He (Mr. Keogh) did not see why the deer and timber of the rich man should be specially protected, and the sheep of the poor farmer denied a similar protection. He (Mr. Keogh) would give this Bill his support, because he wished, if possible, to diminish an evil which prevailed to an alarming extent. The difficulty of convicting under the present law was evidenced by the fact that in 1847 the number of commitments in Ireland for sheepstealing was 10,000, whereas the number of convictions was only 1,500; so that 8,500 escaped conviction. The objections which were entertained to the details of the Bill by the hon. and learned Attorney General and other hon. Members, might be easily removed in Committee. He hoped, therefore, that the House would consent to its second reading.

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 supported the Bill because many poor farmers had been materially injured by the want of such a law.

said, it was admitted on all hands that this was exceptional legislation, and he therefore thought it was but fair that such a measure ought to be presented to the House in a definite shape as regarded its details, without leaving their adjustment to the next stage (the Committee), because the very essence and justice of such measures of exceptional legislation depended upon the frame of the details. With the view, then, of compelling the withdrawal of the Bill for the present, in order that it might be introduced in an amended shape, he should vote the second reading.

explained that he was in favour of the principle of the Bill. The changes which he had recommended in the Bill were in favour of the party accused.

, in consequence of the increase of sheepstealing in Ireland, felt himself compelled to approve of a measure calculated to diminish the evil. The increase of this crime during the last few years in Ireland had been forced on the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and he was therefore surprised at the tone which the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had adopted with regard to this measure. It was high time that the Government had introduced some measure for the protection of the small farmers of Ireland against this increasing evil of sheepstealing. It appeared that the Government did not object to the principle, but merely to the details of this measure; he hoped, therefore, that the House would allow it to go into Committee, as in that stage its objectionable portions could be removed.

, as coming from a part of the country which suffered much from these depredations, felt bound to support the proposition for sending the Bill to a Committee. He knew one case of a poor farmer in his neighbourhood, who, in one week, had lost forty sheep.

rose, in consequence of a remark made by the hon. Member for Athlone, to the effect that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had stated, that if that clause in the Bill was removed which extended its provisions beyond sheepstealing, he would give his assent to it. What his right hon. Friend really said was, that he objected not only to that clause but to some others, which he had pointed out to the hon. Member for Kildare, at a private interview with him, and which the hon. Member for Kildare expressed his willingness to alter. For his own part he should vote for the Bill going into Committee.

explained that that was his understanding of the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and what he intended to convey to the House.

said, if this measure were pressed to a second reading, he should vote against it on the ground that this short Bill, consisting almost entirely of details, was to be altered in Committee in almost all its details, and in some of its principles. The fair course, and that which had been adopted with other Bills under similar circumstances, was to withdraw the Bill and introduce another.

suggested to the hon. Member for Kildare to withdraw the Bill, and bring in another embodying the required alterations.

hoped, on the other hand, that the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee, after the distinct pledge of his hon. Friend the Member for Kildare, that he would then introduce the desired alterations. It should be recollected that this Bill was almost word for word the same measure as was introduced by the late Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Pigott, and Viscount Morpeth, in 1839, and which passed through that House. Many of the objectionable portions of the present measure were introduced in deference to the high authority of the framers of the Bill of 1839. His hon. Friend the Member for Kildare had ventured to make the present measure less objectionable than that of Mr. Pigott's, by empowering magistrates in petty sessions to entertain an offence of the description in question; whereas the Bill of Mr. Pigott empowered a single magistrate to do so. Those who were acquainted with the present condition of Ireland must acknowledge that the growing crime of sheepstealing required an immediate remedy, and he therefore hoped that the House would not delay the adoption of such a remedy by compelling his hon. Friend to withdraw this measure, with the hope of being allowed to introduce another at some future period.

would put it to the promoters, whether they ought not to adopt the course which was taken with regard to the Insolvent Members Bill, namely, to withdraw the measure, and bring in a new Bill?

hoped the Bill would be withdrawn. No inconvenience would arise from this course, as a new one could be immediately introduced.

in reply, said, as the principle of the Bill was agreed to on all sides of the House, he hoped they would allow the Bill to be committed, in which stage he should be happy to alter it, so as to meet the objection of hon. Members. The changes required to be made in the Bill were not greater than the House was in the habit of permitting to be effected in Committee. If the Government promised to introduce a measure of their own on this subject, he would at once consent to withdraw the Bill, but otherwise he should feel it his duty to press the second reading to a division.

wished to observe that the Insolvent Members Bill was withdrawn on account of the extensive changes introduced into it; and though in the present case the principle of the Bill might be retained, yet the changes were also so great that he thought the same course should be adopted.

would remind the hon. Member for Kildare that those parties in Ireland who approved of the Bill as it stood, might not approve of the alterations, so that that was no reason for persisting with a Bill which he meant to alter.

moved that the House go into Committee on this Bill.

begged to move the instruction to the Committee, of which he had given notice. He was anxious not to offer a premium for insincerity, which this Bill, if passed in its present shape, was calculated to do. The Bill, as it now stood, allowed every priest in England to go out of the Church by merely saying that he was a Dissenter. It might often happen that clergymen of the Church of England might wish, for secular purposes, to retire from the ministry of the Church, though they might not be willing to declare themselves dissenters from the forms and doctrines of that Church. Why, then, should these persons be compelled to make such a declaration? It was converting them into hypocrites, inasmuch as, for the sake of consistency, they would no doubt ever after keep up an appearance of dissent. If the Motion he now submitted, were agreed to, he would propose an Amendment in Committee to carry out his views.

seconded the Motion, concurring as he did cordially in its principle. A person once invested with holy orders could only he deprived of them by the Church itself; therefore as regarded the Church, the question was the same whether they called on this party to declare himself a Dissenter, or whether he merely stated that he was desirous of being relieved from orders. As regarded the relations of the party with the Church, they had nothing to do; but in relation to his position as a civilian, the Bill placed him 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. Suppose a man differed from his diocesan in respect to doctrinal points not interfering with the general discipline of the Church, or from any other cause, as, for instance, a feeling of unfitness or unworthiness, and entertained conscientious scruples which induced him to desire to he relieved from the ministry, but yet not to separate himself from communion with his Church, you call upon him, as the only condition on which the relief he asked should be conceded, to make a declaration that he was a dissenter from the Church altogether. It was in accordance with the spirit of the times that the Church should be served by none but willing ministers, and he was confident that she would be more efficiently served by permitting such as conscientiously believed themselves to be incompetent or unfit to perform the duties, to retire, rather than to force them to remain in the ministry.

observed that the Bill proposed to apply a specific remedy to a specific grievance, viz., that a clergyman having once taken ordination vows and becoming a minister of the Church of England, afterwards changing his opinions, entertaining doctrines and opinions inconsistent with those of the Church, and being desirous of leaving the Church, and escaping from its discipline, was unable to do so, but was liable, if he exercised clerical duty not strictly in accordance with the forms of the Church, to fine and imprisonment. That was the grievance. His (Mr. Bouverie's) remedy for this grievance was a simple one, that a person under those circumstances, declaring that he was a Dissenter, should be relieved from that liability. The proposal 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 clergymen of the Church of England, when they saw fit, to retire from the ministry of that Church. That was a very wide proposition, and he (Mr. Bouverie) would not enter upon its discussion, or express any opinion upon it, further than to say that it should be the object of a definite measure, and not be effected in a by-way in a Bill of this kind. The only argument in favour of the proposition was, that it would operate as a temptation to clergymen to declare themselves Dissenters. He did not believe such a motive would have influence in any case; but this he would say, that if any clergyman who did not dissent from the Church, did, for the purpose of relieving himself from the responsibility of his office, declare himself to be a Dissenter, he would be a liar and a knave. He wished only further to remark that a measure might sometimes be defeated by attempts at amendment as well as by direct opposition, and should the hon. Member who had at a previous stage opposed the Bill altogether, succeed in in-cumbering it with this provision, he believed he would effectually overthrow it.

reminded the House that there were men in the Church of England who, feeling that they could not exercise their duties as clergymen in a way consistent with their own consciences, sought to be delivered from the obligation to remain in that Church. He thought that that was a grievance well worthy of consideration, and that the House ought not to set any obstacle in the way of such men seceding from the Church. He should support the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin.

would ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwickshire if he could cite an instance of any legal proceedings being taken against a clergyman for abstaining from officiating? He meant abstaining from taking duty in the Church of England, if he entertained a conscientious objection to do so? Of course, if he retained any preferment or living, he must perform the duties attaching to it; but it was open for any man to abstain from taking any active part in the ministry without being compelled to separate from the Church altogether.

said, he knew an instance of a clergyman who, feeling that he could not conscientiously remain in the Church, had loft 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 most useful members in it.

could supply the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary with a case precisely in point—that of John Wesley. Though he might not have been exactly prosecuted, he was precisely in the position in which the right hon. Baronet thought no clergyman had been placed. He ceased from his ministry in the Church, yet retaining his membership of that Church, and his attachment to it; and not only the founder, but the entire body of the Wesleyan denomination 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, once a year, to their parish church, to receive the sacrament—indicating by that custom that, whatever might be the original cause of their secession from the Church of England, it was not such a one as altogether to dissolve their connexion with its communion. Some confusion arose, he thought, in consequence of describing Churchmen and Dissenters as bodies between which it was possible to draw a distinct line of demarcation. The Church allowed a largo latitude to its members which it did not allow to its ministers. But there were many who might desire from the most conscientious motives to retain one character, but not to continue the other. Take the case of John Milton. He was prevented in his youth from entering the Church of England as a minister, because he could not, as he says in his writings, sign himself "slave." Yet he had no desire to break off his connexion with the Church as one of its members. These and kindred scruples were entitled to respect, and he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, in his own estimate of the grievance, had not shown that the remedy he proposed was commensurate with it. Men might desire to retire from the ministry on other than doctrinal grounds. A person taking holy orders early in life might afterwards feel that he was not qualified or suited for the ministry. Various motives influenced the minds of parents in choosing professions for their sons; and it often happened that the profession selected was that to which the party was least adapted, and that it became necessary for him afterwards to alter his views. It was but the other day that he read the following advertisement:—

"Provision for a son in the Church, the next presentation to a living, the incumbent aged 76, population of 150, glebe 50 acres, value 300l."—

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? But unless this instruction were agreed to, relief in such a case could not be granted, though he was in every respect as much entitled to it as those the Bill sought to relieve. By keeping individuals against their will in a profession which more than any other required the devotion of the whole heart and soul of the party embracing it to his duty, the character of the Church was degraded, and those feelings which it was the object of religious observances to promote were obliterated, if not entirely destroyed.

observed that if he rightly understood it, the proceedings against John Wesley were not to compel him to officiate in the Church, but to prevent his officiating elsewhere than in it.

wished it not to be inferred that he was opposed to granting relief in such cases, but to the engrafting upon this Bill a provision which he felt would defeat it altogether.

had always regarded it as a disgrace to the Church to permit members who were found to be totally unfit for the discharge of its functions, to retain their office in it; and he hailed a proposal which would relieve the Church of England of such persons. But he could find nothing in the spirit of the religion of the Church of England which should disqualify one who had ceased to be of its clergy from representing his fellow-subjects in Parliament, and yet that disqualification existed at the present moment.

observed, that he agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham as to the difficulty of legislating on such a subject. He was of opinion that this instruction, if carried, would go much further than was anticipated by its Mover, and that it would have the effect of legal- ising a breach in that Church discipline which he thought it was essential to preserve. As, also, he thought the instruction would involve many other considerations, he thought it important that the Bill should be allowed to stand in its present shape.

thought it would be unwise to circumscribe the relief proposed to be extended to persons in holy orders, by making it conditional that those persons should declare their dissent from the Church. He could imagine thousands of cases in which the reasons inducing ministers of the Church to retire from holy orders were altogether separate and distinct from reasons growing out of dissent from the forms or doctrines of that Church. A person might find himself uncomfortable in his ministration, and therefore might desire to leave it. He should support the instruction, in the hope that it would make the Bill a perfect measure of relief.

differed altogether from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. If the instruction to the Committee were carried, it would impose upon him great difficulty as to supporting the Bill, inasmuch as that instruction involved considerations of a very serious description. If they permitted every young man, as had been suggested, to take upon himself holy orders as a mere experiment—not with regard to his ultimate fitness for the office, but as to his success in that as in any secular employment, they would withdraw from the entering on holy orders that check which required the gravest consideration upon the part of those who were candidates for them not to take a step from which they could not draw back without weighing all the consequences; and this Bill, which was intended to relieve those who desired to pass from conscientious Churchmen to conscientious Dissenters, would effect alterations of a much more serious and important character in the law.

agreed with the observations of his hon. and learned Friend (the Member for Reading), and could not refrain from entering his protest against the manner in which it was proposed to interfere with the constitution of the Church of England. The Church was a religious society, and its inherent principle was, that those who took the solemn vows of ordination should be subject to them as long as they continued members of the Church. It would be a gross out- rage 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 interfere in an arbitrary way, and say that those who desired to leave the Church, but not to become Dissenters, should remain members of it, and exempt from all the vows they had made. The practical grievance suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham was not of a person desiring to relinquish his ministerial 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 in a Bill which had been read for a first and a second time, to be introduced incidentally, a principle entirely opposed to that which was intended when the Bill was first brought in.

was not prepared to give any opinion on the principle involved in the Amendment, but should vote against it, because he believed it would interfere with the granting of a specific remedy to a specific grievance.

said, the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth would entail a very great hardship upon the members of the Church of England, because it stated that the Established Church was a power in some degree opposed to the civil subjects of the realm. Now, if a member of the Established Church became a minister of that Church, and wished to retire, he might have some good reasons for that wish; and Parliament should not permit any power to prevent his retirement. He believed that a great many persons entered the Church in the same manner as others entered dissenting bodies, without that solemn consideration to which reference had been made. Many entered because their families held preferments, and these persons might afterwards have the most solid grounds for wishing to retire. A man, for instance, might be unfit to discharge his duties, or he might have an income insufficiently small; and, therefore, he might desire to retire, and to enter some trade or profession; and the House ought not to allow the man who had made his election to be prevented by any power from following those useful and honourable occupations which are open to all classes of the Queen's subjects. Now, it was on this common ground of not denying to any man the civil right to make such change in their profession as they pleased, that he would support the instruction of the hon. Member for Bodmin. He confessed, that as a Dissenter he had not the slightest feeling in the matter. He believed that all the members of the Church were infinitely more interested in it than Dissenters; and that if the truth could be come to it would be found that the clergy themselves were most anxious that the proposed alterations should be carried. The Bill was not for a specific object. If it were for a specific object, the House should carry out that object consistently with civil liberty, and thereby promote the greatest amount of good.

said, he apprehended that something had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken which he (Mr. Gladstone) conceived might give rise to some misapprehension. He had understood the hon. Gentleman to say, that when a clergyman had once taken on him ministerial vows, but became desirous of ceasing to be a minister, the Church interposed some power by which that person was prevented from following any other pursuit or career in life. The hon. Gentleman, he apprehended, was mistaken in that assumption. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had asked a question, which still remained unanswered. He had asked to be shown a case in which any person desiring to desist from the exercise of ministerial functions, had been subjected to prosecution on that account in the courts of the Church? No such cases of prosecution had occurred; and he apprehended that he was not trenching upon any abstract question of law in venturing to say, that there was no power, on the part of the Church, to compel any unbeneficed clergyman to continue in the active exercise of the ministry. But it was perfectly true, as had been asserted, that a person who had taken holy orders remained a clergyman in the sense of the Church of England, and that, in virtue of those holy orders, he was subjected to certain civil disqualifications. It should be understood, however, that those disqualifications did not arise out of the laws of the Church, but from laws passed by the State for civil and political purposes. He did not wish to prejudge this civil question, which was one of extreme delicacy and difficulty. Pointed allusions had been made to the levity with which young men of former times—he trusted the charge need not be applied to the young men of the present day—assumed the sacred responsibilities of the clerical profession. But just consider how those charges would be aggravated and multiplied by sanctioning this experiment, as it had been truly characterised by the hon. and learned Member for Reading. An eminent man had well said that the Church was a lottery, in which there were a certain number of blanks and prizes; but were they to invite a young man to take a chance, and, after he had drawn a blank, to permit him to retire without inquiry, without the allegation of a reason, but merely upon the expression of his wish so to do. That was an argument upon which he would not at this moment dwell further. It was a question distinct from the present Bill, which referred to a matter of conscience. As far as a clergyman's conscientious scruples were concerned, he was free to forego the exercise of the ministry; but the clergyman was not in the same position with respect to his communion with the Church as the layman. Scruples might arise, and a man might lawfully desire to abstain from the performance of the functions of a clergyman, and still remain a layman in that community. And the question might then arise, after he had been permitted to go into lay communion, as to his qualifications to undertake a civil office, or to enter Parliament. But such a question was distinct from the purpose of the present Bill. The subject was most important, as it affected the internal discipline of the Church; but these were matters always difficult of being debated in large assemblies of that nature. He thought the House would only be embarking upon a hopeless and inextricable course, if, deliberately, and with their eyes open, they attempted to mix up questions of internal discipline affecting members of the Church, with questions of religious liberty.

replied, disclaiming any intention of attempting to effect by a sidewind what was not openly attempted by the Bill.

considered, that with regard to clergymen having incumbrances on their livings, the clause would have the effect of placing the creditors in a much worse position than they otherwise would be.

defended the clause, and it was agreed to without alteration.

rose and said: Supposing the clergyman had gone great lengths in his renunciation—supposing he had gone even to the disownment of the Christian faith, was it for this House to say that upon his penitence afterwards he should not have the right of readmission to the communion which he had once aban- doned? It was well known that there were many men, who, although in various points they had been led to dissent from the Church, had nevertheless shown their Christian feeling from time to time by keeping up their communion with it. Instances of this sort were very numerous; but he need only cite the case of the patron of Dr. Watts, who was in the habit of attending the sacrament of the Church upon a principle of Christian charity.

said, the clause under consideration would not act as a prohibition; it merely laid down that where a person had become a nonconformist, the clergyman should be put into the same relative situation with regard to that person so becoming a nonconformist as he now was with regard to any other person who was a nonconformist. ["No, no!"] In principle, it was the same thing. If he understood the meaning of the clause, it merely meant to leave with the clergyman of the Church of England, in administering the rites and sacraments of that Church to a person taking the benefit of this Bill, the same discretion as he now had with regard to any other person who was a dissenter from the Church.

thought the question at issue was, whether the clause formed a new class of Dissenters, or left a discretionary power to the minister. Every Dissenter, unless under excommunication, had a right to church burial and to the performance of the church funeral service; and it was questionable whether at common law the courts could not compel the clergyman to perform the services of baptism and marriage. There was surely no reason why the seceding clergyman should be treated with greater severity in these respects than other Dissenters.

expressed his regret that the Bill should make a distinction between clergymen seceding and the other nonconformists of the country. He should move that the words "and that no clergyman," &c, to the end should be omitted.

said, that the clause had been adopted in its present form with the unanimous consent of the Committee, not so much because it carried out the precise views of any individual Member, but because it established a point at which, by concession on both sides, the different Members might combine, and afforded a reasonable prospect that the measure, with respect to which every one felt that success was desirable, might be passed; it being felt that its passing would be rendered hazardous if it were so framed as to embody the extreme and unmitigated views of any one person. It was difficult for him to understand how any stigma could be cast on the seceding clergyman in a case where all publicity and formal proceedings by which a stigma could be conveyed were dispensed with. He had consented to the clause, for, in his anxiety to give full effect to what he believed to be the civil rights of his countrymen, he had not hesitated to run the risk of offending some persons, and of forfeiting the confidence of many among his constituents. Let them consider the question calmly, and see what they were about to do. It was neither more nor less than to give rise to a fresh class of dissent, and to create a new position. They could not place the clergyman in the same position as he would have been in had he not been a clergyman, because the hon. Member for Kilmarnock himself in one most essential particular refused to place the seceding clergymen in the position of other Dissenters, and that was in respect to readmission to holy orders. By this Bill it was provided that a clergyman, having once seceded from the Church, should remain for ever excluded, and no power on earth could restore to him the powers and privileges of holy orders. But was that the case with the Dissenters? Was the Dissenter for ever excluded from holy orders? Certainly not—to his certain knowledge there were, if not hundreds, scores of clergymen of the Established Church, who had once been Dissenters. The law of this country had not yet proceeded to found dissent on any formal declaration; it merely protected certain formal acts of nonconformists from the penalties which would otherwise attach to them. The position of the clergyman was entirely different from that of the Dissenter, and the condition of the latter was sufficiently clear, under the terms of the Bill, to make it their duty not to make it applicable to the seceding clergymen. Let them give every freedom of conscience they pleased to the Dissenter; but let them not forget that others had consciences too, and that there were men who held office in the Church whose consciences would be hurt by such an amendment as that proposed by the hon. Member for Norwich. It Would be a serious offence to those men that they should be called upon, nay, compelled, to administer the rites of the Church and her religious ordinances to the champions of dissent. It was to be apprehended that there were persons who would proceed too far in their dissent—who might, as the hon. Member for Oldham had observed, renounce the name of Christian, or might, like a large part of the learned men of Germany at the present day, regard the name of Christian as a convenient appendage only, while they looked upon our Saviour as one among a long series of great men, entitled to rank perhaps with Socrates, or even beyond him, but still belonging to the same class. It had been very truly remarked by the hon. Member for Oldham, that there were many persons with regard to whom the term Dissenters was used so loosely that it defied definition. But this was not so in the case of a man whose dissent was so defined that it obliged him to renounce the fulfilment of his own most solemn vows. Dissent in that case was sufficiently tangible and clear, and assumed a legal character sufficiently formed under this Bill to make it their duty not to leave the position of that man uncertain, but to define it with regard to rights and privileges as justice required. If such a gentleman were now liable to excommunication, and that excommunication entailed the absolute loss of all the ordinances of the Church, then he (Mr. Gladstone) would say, "By all means give freedom to the conscience of the man; but do not, in giving him that freedom of conscience, forget that others have their consciences too; and that there are many persons now exercising and bearing sacred office in the Church, and conforming to her laws, to whose consciences it would be a grievous and serious offence if they were compelled by civil penalties to administer religious rites and ordinances to the champions it might be of religious dissent." If there were such a thing as civil and religious liberty, surely it was a mockery to use the term in connexion with legislation like that. He did not mean to say that any hon. Member desired to violate the principles of civil and religious liberty; but then these principles were to be observed in reference to all classes, and not only was the seceding clergyman entitled to the full benefit of them, but likewise the conforming clergyman. It was in vain to contend, therefore, that the clause dealt with seceding clergymen in a manner different from other Dissenters. On those grounds he hoped the House would take the same view as the Committee did of the clause, as it drew a fair line of distinction between, the various interests concerned.

was prepared at once to admit that a clause, which had been carefully considered in the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred, and which came to the House recommended by the unanimous opinion of that Committee, was entitled to be treated with respect, and not to be lightly set aside. Before, however, the discussion proceeded further, he thought it would be well to understand what was the intention of the Committee in inserting that clause. The hon. and learned Member for Midhurst had stated that the effect of the clause would be to place seceders from the Church upon the same footing with other Dissenters. If that were the meaning of the clause, he should have no objection whatever to it, as it would be perfectly unreasonable to place upon those persons any disabilities not borne by the general body of Dissenters of which they formed a part. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had, however, stated that this was not the opinion of the Committee. He said that there was something peculiar in the case of these persons, and that they ought to be subject to peculiar disabilities, which did not affect Dissenters generally. He (Sir G. Grey) did not concur in that opinion. He thought that there was nothing peculiar in the case of this class of Dissenters, on the ground of their having once been Churchmen and having seceded from the Church. He could see no reason why such persons should not be entitled to the rites and offices of the Church in the same manner as other Dissenters were. The law of the land, as well as of the Church, was that the rites of burial, according to the Church of England, must be administered to all parties, not excommunicate, and the Court of Queen's Bench enforced the right of parties to that service by mandamus. There was nothing in the case of a seceder from the Church which would make a mandamus not apply in the case of a clergyman who refused burial to a person of that class. He did not think that the sentence of deprivation would prevent any bishop, at his discretion, from reordaining the party so deprived at any future period of his life, if he so desired; even if that were so, he did not see why it should follow that a person so deprived, wishing to have the marriage service performed by a clergymen of the Church of England, or his friends desiring his remains to be placed with other members of his family, should be deprived of the privilege afforded to all Dissenters. If that were the construction of the clause, he certainly thought that it would be better not to agree to it, and to leave this class of persons to merge in the general body of Dissenters, without subjecting them to any special disability.

suggested, that before they proceeded any further with the clause, they should ascertain the exact effect of a sentence of deprivation or of deposition.

observed, that excommunication was nothing but exclusion from the Church, and the canons said that schismatics were to be held excommunicate. With respect to those who were commonly called Dissenters, it was not for any one to say how far they were persons desirous of separating from the Church. But the case of a clergyman in the present instance was quite different; because here was a person who had in a solemn manner entered the Church, and who by a solemn act separated himself from the Church, for the purpose of disentitling the authorities of the Church to enforce against him ecclesiastical discipline. The measure afforded a short method by which he might exclude himself; and the question was, whether, having ascertained in his case what was not ascertained in the case of ordinary Dissenters, the existence of a definite intention to separate from the Church, the opinion of those clergymen of the Church who thought such a person a notorious scandal to the Church should be disregarded, whether clergymen were to be compelled to administer to him those rights and offices of the Church which they could not be compelled to administer if the law were allowed to take its course, and sentence of excommunication were pronounced. Many clergymen would feel great violence done to their consciences were they required to administer the sacraments to persons who, having taken the solemn vows of ordination, departed therefrom afterwards. It must not be forgotten what were the sacraments and ceremonies to be administered and performed. The exclusion of persons not connected with the Church from marriage or burial according to the rites of the Church was to be regretted; but when a clergyman entertained a bonâ fide conscientious objection with respect to the administration of those rites to persons separate from the Church, his conscience was as deserving of toleration as the conscience of the clergyman who was desirous to secede from the Church.

wished to know with precision what were the rites and sacraments the Established Church could refuse to any ordinary Dissenter, and what it was intended to give the power of refusing to a seceded clergyman under this Bill; and then the House might act upon the knowledge of the difference. He was afraid, from what he heard, that there was a hidden arrow with which somebody was to be pierced. The openheartedness of hon. Gentlemen opposite had let out, that the intention was to treat the seceded clergyman as a "person excommunicate." This was the next thing to putting him into a white sheet. Till he heard this, he was disposed to think the Bill a favourable specimen of the moderation of the ecclesiastical party in power.

remarked that the Committee were unanimous in passing this clause; but it did not occur to them how harshly, severely, and un-Christianly it would operate.

observed, that to a person excommunicate the sacraments would be denied; but a person taking advantage of the present Bill would not necessarily be thereby deprived of the sacraments. The question was, whether a clergyman should be required to administer the sacraments to persons so situated, irrespective of his own knowledge and his own convictions.

rose chiefly to correct a misconception which appeared to exist on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst. As the law stood, a clergyman was hound to bury and marry Dissenters. It had been decided that a clergyman ought to bury; and the 6th and 7th of William IV. enacted, that he should, on production of a registered certificate, perform the ceremony of marriage. It was true, that on evidence that the parties were schismatics the clergyman was exempted from any liability. But it was a mistake to suppose that excommunication followed a sentence of deprivation from a living, or deposition from the ministry. There was no recent instance in which such sentence of excommunication had been carried into effect. The clause, in reality, proposed to put clergymen seceding from the Church under peculiar penalties. It was unjust that those Gentlemen should suffer from penalties from which ordinary Dissenters were exempt. He know clergymen who thought they were entitled to set up the canon law against the civil law; and as the canon law prohibited clergymen to marry or bury Dissenters, they were justified in so doing, contrary to the civil law: the enactment of the clause would encourage them to proceed in that course, which was certainly not a desirable result to bring about.

had concurred in the clause in Committee from the feeling that it was not right to require the parish clergyman to administer the rites of the Church when his conscience told him they ought not to be administered.

thought that a seceding clergyman ought to he placed in the same position as one of the class with whom he was to be identified. The law was wrong which compelled a clergyman of the Church of England, or any clergyman, to do anything contrary to his conscience; but the point was too difficult to enter on it at that moment.

differed from the noble Earl, for he thought that in the cases in question grounds might be assigned for administering the rites of burial, and perhaps of marriage.

would put a case. Supposing one of those seceding clergymen should demand afterwards to be married according to the rites of the Church of England, could a clergyman of the Church of England refuse to marry him without becoming liable to a penalty?

replied that, according to the clause under consideration, a clergyman of the Church of England might refuse both to marry and to bury one who had seceded.

thought the real distinction was that, in the case of a seceding clergyman, the party had gone to a competent court of record, and there registered a certain fact, which was thereby brought judicially to the knowledge of every clergyman of the Church of England. It was not so in the case of an ordinary Dissenter.

stated that the dissent of the Dissenting minister was also legally known; for one of the Toleration Acts required that he should register a declaration that he was a Dissenter.

said, that the real object of the clause was that which had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, namely, to save the consciences of Dissenters, as well as of seceding clergymen. There might be such persons who did not think that they were acting wrong in using the services of the Church. He would suggest that there was some inconsistency in obliging clergymen to perform these solemn services for persons who had no accord with the views held by Churchmen. Formerly, when a Unitarian was married, he used to protest against the doctrines of the Church of England; but now that there was no impediment to his being married before a registrar, he did not understand why a Dissenter should be anxious to have the Church services. He was very glad, however, that there existed on the part of the Dissenters this lingering feeling of respect towards the Church of England, which he did not wish to see displaced. He should recommend, therefore, the withdrawal of the clause, as he could hardly conceive a case in which a Dissenter or a seceding clergyman could act so monstrous a part as to insist upon being married or buried according to the rites of the Church.