said, that before the House went into Committee he wished to move—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to extend the operation of the Bill and of the Act thereby amended, to the Sale of Beer, Wine, and Cider."

He had opposed the second reading of the Bill, as he thought it better that the subject should remain as it was until it was dealt with by a general measure on the subject of licensing public-houses which could not long be delayed. As, however, the House had decided that the time had arrived when an alteration of the law as regarded the Tippling Act was necessary, he was desirous of making that alteration as widely useful as possible, and therefore he proposed to extend the operation of the Bill to beer and all other intoxicating drinks. As it stood, the Bill was limited to spirits and to licensed victuallers. He proposed to extend it to the keepers of beer-houses as well as to licensed victuallers. There was, he believed, a general feeling in favour of such an extension, and there could be no question of its necessity. The original object of the law was not, he apprehended, to make men sober by Act of Parliament, but to remove as far as possible the temptation to get drunk to which men were subjected. He would remind the House that a new class of public-houses had arisen since the Tippling Act passed—namely, the beer-houses—to which, had they existed at the time the Tippling Act passed, no doubt the provisions of that Act would have been made applicable. There could be no question that drunkenness was promoted by these beer-houses as well as by the public-houses, and experience showed that they ought to be placed under restrictions at least equally strict. In many instances, in the country, the working man was encouraged to run up scores at these beer-houses, and, being unable to pay, became, as it were, the slave of the beer-shop keeper, who obliged him to go on taking beer (payment being made by a shilling or two at a time) under the threat of taking proceedings against him for the recovery of the debt if he did not do so. The county court judges had testified to the evils of beer-houses, and instances were stated in which, by the system alluded to, the earnings of working men were forestalled by weeks for beer scores, while their families were reduced to the greatest suffering and distress. That view was taken by Mr. Marshall of Leeds, Mr. Harden of Salford; and, in fact, the opinion was almost general, amongst all who had opportunities of examining the subject, that the principle of the Tippling Act should be extended to these houses. Not being a total abstainer himself, he was no advocate for the Maine liquor law, but it was obvious that some means should be adopted to lessen the temptations now held out to the lower classes to waste their earnings in intoxicating drinks. There was, however, no subject which had taken such hold of the public mind as the licensing system; and it was obvious that ere long some general Bill on the subject of licensing all these houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors must be introduced by the Government.

said, he rose to second the Motion. It might be objected that such a provision could not be introduced into a measure the title of which was the Sale of Spirits Bill; but he thought, if that objection were urged, that the title could be altered in Committee. There could be no doubt, however, but that it was a great evil that the working classes should have such great facilities for obtaining intoxicating liquors on credit. Many a poor man had a large score run up against him when half drunk, and went on calling for more beer at a time when he had no control over himself, and when his memory was in such a state that he was not capable of checking the score which was put up against him.

said, the Tippling Act was passed during the last century, with a view of putting down drunkenness by Act of Parliament. It applied exclusively to the sale of spirits in small quantities; and though it had been generally admitted that the provisions of the Tippling Act were absurd, yet the hon. Member for Bradford proposed to extend those provisions to articles which they had never embraced before, and he hoped the hon. Member would explain why he had excluded perry from his Motion. His chief objection, however, to the proposal related to the time and manner in which it was brought forward. The House had carefully provided by a multiplicity of forms against anything like a surprise in the course of legislation. But the hon. Member for Bradford had violated the spirit, if not the letter of those rules, by bringing forward suddenly, and on very short notice, a Resolution which would seriously affect a trade in which 150,000 persons were engaged. In a Bill to remove restrictions from the sale of spirits, one would certainly not expect to find novel restrictions placed on the sale of beer. It was not right that the scope and object of the Act should thus be altered at the last moment.

said, he would admit that great evil arose from allowing scores to be run up for supplies of beer as well as of spirits; but at the same time he thought that the objection taken by his hon. Friend who had just sat down to the instruction was insuperable. It was only fair that when the interests of an extensive trade would be affected by a change in the law, the persons engaged in that trade should have due warning of it. That warning had not been given in the present instance, for the hon. Member for Bradford only put his notice on the paper which was issued on Saturday morning. He was not sure that there was not a positive objection in point of form to the course taken by the hon. Member, because the rules of the House required that any legislation affecting trade should originate in a Committee of the Whole House. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill (Mr. P. W. Martin) complied with that order; and it was a question whether the hon. Member for Bradford, in introducing matter so completely new and different from the scope of the Bill, should not have done so also. If these reasons should prevail against the acceptance of his hon. Friend's proposal, he should be sorry to say anything upon its merits.

said, he was of opinion that the Motion of the hon. Member ought to be at once rejected, as having nothing whatever to do with the subject before the House, namely, the sale of spirits. He might refer to an instance when he had been prevented introducing a clause into a similar Bill, on the ground that it was not germane to the subject of the Bill.

said, that with regard to the merits of the question, no substantial difference could be drawn between one intoxicating drink and another. The question was a moral question, and if the instruction could not be given according to the form of Parliament, he thought it would be much better that the Bill should be withdrawn, and be brought in again in the next year with the proposed provision in it. With regard to the alteration of the Tippling]Act, he could only say that that Act had been in operation for a hundred years, and he had never heard any valid objection to it, and yet it was proposed to be repealed upon the motion and authority of an unofficial Member. If such an alteration were necessary, it ought to be proposed upon official authority. He would therefore suggest that after the House had gone into Committee progress should at once be reported, in order that an arrangement might be come to as to the course which was to be adopted.

said, that with reference to the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, the necessity for an instruction arose from the Acts relating to spirits being considered to be quite a distinct class by themselves; and therefore dealing with beer, cider, and wine would be dealing with different trades. As the House could not deal with these trades without a pre- liminary Committee, if they proposed to deal with them by an instruction, they would pass by a stage which in due order and course ought first to have been gone through; and the instruction would deal with matters which, by the rules of the House, ought first to have been dealt with in Committee of the Whole House. For these reasons the objection to the proposed mode of proceeding would, if pressed, hold good.

said, that after the intimation of the right hon. Gentleman, he should, of course, withdraw his Motion.

said, he would move that the Chairman report progress. If the Tippling Act were to be amended at all, it ought to be effectually amended. He thought with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that it would be better to withdraw the Bill, and see if the Government would in the next year bring forward the consideration of the whole question of licensing and the sale of spirits.

said, he hoped the Committee would not support the hon. Member in his proposition. He agreed with the hon. Member that the instruction he had suggested was a good one; but as it was not in form, and, above all, as it would have come on the parties interested by means of a side-wind, and in surprise, he thought they ought not to jeopardize the Bill, which contained some good provisions, by adopting such a course as that suggested by the hon. Member.

said, he could not understand what was the object sought to be obtained in reporting progress. If it was intended to bring in another Bill, the proper course would be to move that the Chairman leave the chair. Moving to report progress would be merely to move that the Bill be postponed for a day or two.

said, that he had been informed by the highest authority that it would be more in accordance with order to move that the Chairman should report progress.

said, the Tippling Act was used as a means of defrauding wine merchants, and he had been that morning informed that the wine merchants of the country had held a meeting, and they had come to the resolution that they could, under the present state of the law, only protect themselves by requir- ing that none of their small customers, farmers and others, should take less than two gallons of spirits. Such was the present uncertain state of the law that they were compelled to adopt this course. The little Bill before the Committee was simply an act of justice in no way affecting the general question of temperance or the licensing system, which could be dealt with in a general measure next year.

said, he had no wish to get rid of the Bill by a side-wind. If the Committee consented to report progress, the hon. Member for Bradford might then move a Resolution in Committee of the Whole House, and introduce a Bill which might be combined with that under consideration. If, however, they passed the latter measure through Committee, that course could not be taken. The Bill, being but a partial measure, would not give satisfaction to the country.

said, the Tippling Act was, in point of fact, a part and parcel of the licensing system, and therefore the subject ought to be treated as a whole. The measure before them was not asked for by the public, but by a trade for their own benefit. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford.

said, the Motion to report progress was tantamount to moving the rejection of the Bill. He hoped therefore that the Motion would be rejected.

could not understand what object was to be gained by reporting progress. If it was to alter the Bill, that alteration could only have been effected at a former stage of the Bill. The Motion was simply by a side-wind to defeat the Bill.

said, he was opposed to the Amendment. The Tippling Act sanctioned the grossest injustice, and ought to be repealed.

said, nobody disputed the merits of the Bill of the hon. Member for Rochester. The question was, whether the matter, which formed a part of the licensing system, should be dealt with separately. The object in moving to report progress was in order to see if they could not embody the principle adopted by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. W. Martin), and that of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in the same Bill. He had no desire whatever to postpone the passing of the Bill, but, with the undestanding just announced, he should support the Motion for reporting progress.

said, it appeared from the speech of the right hon. Baronet that the whole Committee was of accord with respect to the provisions of the Bill. Well, if that were so, what objection could there be to pass it as it stood? It was obvious, that if the provisions advocated by the hon. Member for Bradford were tacked on to the Bill, they would he adding something to it about which considerable difference of opinion existed. They were arrived at the 18th of June, and the hon. Member for Rochester was exceedingly fortunate in having pushed on his Bill to that stage already; but he should like to know what chance the hon. Member would have of again bringing on the Bill for discussion if he were to consent to the Motion for reporting progress.

observed that it was rendered incumbent on the seller to prove that the spirits were actually delivered at the house of the purchaser, and he wished to ask what was to be proof of delivery?

said, the intention was to prevent spirits from being sold in small quantities except under exceptional circumstances, such as in case of illness. Delivery might be either by the servant of the seller or of the purchaser.

said, he thought there would be great difficulty in proving—first, that the person gave the order; and, next, that the spirits were actually delivered.

said, he objected to the word "residence," which, in legal acceptation, meant the place where the person slept. A man might live out of town, and have occasion to get the spirits sent to his place of business.

said, he wished to ask what was meant by a "reputed quart."

said, a "reputed quart bottle" was a term perfectly well understood in trade.

said, the phrase was well known, and had been employed and defended not two years ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He himself tried hard to discover its exact meaning, but could not arrive at anything beyond a general idea that it was a constantly diminishing quantity.

said, he thought the term "reputed quart" preferable to "reputed quart bottle," otherwise the word "bottle" might be regarded as a measure of quantity.

moved the omission of all the words after the word "shall," and to insert the words—

"be and the same is hereby repealed, so far only as relates to spirituous liquors sold to be consumed elsewhere than on the premises where sold, and sent to and delivered at the residence of the purchaser thereof in quantities not less at any one time than a reputed quart."

said, that notwithstanding the proposal that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he could not help viewing its provisions with considerable apprehension. It would enable any clergyman, of his own motion, to declare that he dissented from the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England; and having made that declaration, he would be at once relieved from the liabilities which were now imposed upon him by the ecclesiastical law. He trusted the House would seriously consider the effect which the granting of that privilege to the clergy would have upon the congregations of the Church of England and the parochial system generally. He had personal knowledge upon the subject, which he had submitted to members of the Government, and which he was willing to submit to any other Member of the House. The point which he then wished to bring before the House was this:— By the proposals of the Bill, by a mere declaration of dissent from the doctrines of the Church, a clergyman could call upon his bishop to relieve him from all his clerical privileges and liabilities. Having shaken off the doctrines which he had voluntarily embraced, and the discipline to which he had voluntarily subjected himself, it would be open to that clergy- man to establish at the very gate of his former parish church, where he had gained influence over the minds of the people, a separate edifice for the teaching of opinions alien to, and subversive of, the Church of England. The old law of the Catholic Church, which declared, that when a man of his own free will entered the priesthood of the Church, the obligations thrown upon the priesthood should abide in him for ever, was, in his opinion, a very wise law. He could not forget that the clergy of the Church of England had acquired an influence in this country in proportion to the obligations which they had undertaken; and under the Bill now before the House a man, having first acquired the influence which attached to him as a clergyman, and having, perhaps, led his congregation away from the doctrine and discipline of the Church, could at once provide for their final separation from the Church, and establish them in some separate communion and some separate place of worship close to the church which they had left. That was no imaginary case; there had been instances of that danger in the county which he had the honour to represent, attempts having been made by clergymen who had abandoned the doctrines of the Church to establish dissenting congregations in the immediate sphere of their former action as clergymen of the Church. They were warned in a book which all of them venerated of the power of false brethren; and even in that House the hon. Member for Birmingham, to whom he was generally opposed in political opinion, and who was riot supposed to be very friendly to the Church, had warned them that the danger to the Church was from within. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not help viewing with alarm and apprehension any measure which left the Church of England open to the insidious arts of those who, appearing for a time to be members of that Church, and having, perhaps, remained in it for months, or it might be for years, taught and preached in that church with the covert purpose of leading away the congregations, whom they had sworn to teach according to the doctrines of the Church of England, into some other communion. Unless some provision were introduced, by which at least some interval should be secured between the period that any clergyman should declare his dissent, and claim his liberation from the restrictions of the law, and his having it in his power to establish in the parish to which he had been attached some sect, differing from the Church of England, perhaps labouring for its subversion, they would have instances in too many cases of confusion in the parishes of this country, such as he was quite sure it was not the intention of the House to create. He hoped the House would excuse his having pointed out this danger, because it was no imaginary one. He pledged himself, if any Member of the House wished for information, to furnish instances in which parishes had been preserved from malpractices of this nature solely by the provisions of the existing law, which retained every clergyman subject to the law ecclesiastical for life, although he might have declared his separation and dissent from the Church. There was no penalty on the clergyman personally for declaring that he was no longer willing to submit to the discipline, or that he rejected the doctrine of the Church. But the penalties of the law went to this, that they protected the congregation against practices such as he had alluded to, by which the faith of many might be endangered, the danger being aggravated by the circumstance that the congregation would be led away by those who had been appointed to teach faithfully, and whom the congregation believed to have been teaching faithfully the doctrines of the Church. The value of the Church of England to the country had been and was this: that she was a branch of the Catholic Church, and that, as he believed, she was the purest branch of the Catholic Church because she was Protestant. He would ask any hon. Member who entertained liberal opinions to consider the power and condition of the human mind. They, themselves, might be free from all respect for tradition; but if they looked around the world, they would see that the majority of Christendom was governed by tradition, could they counter, act that power? He lamented to say that the Protestants were in a minority in Christendom, and that the majority were those who adhered to the traditions of the Church of Rome. Such was the strength of these traditions that men even of powerful and cultivated intellects could not break their bonds, and the Church of Rome continued united under a religious system which, he regretted to say, had degenerated into superstition, while so far as the government of the Church of Rome was concerned it consisted of little more than a political organiza- Tion. He should deeply regret to see the Bill become law, because the Church of England was interwoven with the best parts of the history of the country. Its roots lay deep in the foundations of our social fabric, and his fear was that the House, in its generous sympathy for individuals, might strike a blow at the very foundation of an establishment which, as far as it was possible for human intellect to ascertain, had not only proved a safeguard, but had conferred the greatest blessings upon the country for generations. Of course they could not expect that the clergy generally should be very earnest upon matters of this nature. Every man thought himself virtuous enough to be a law unto himself; but the very existence of the law which the Bill proposed to abrogate afforded a proof, to his mind, that evil might arise. He trusted that the House, before they consented to abolish one of the fundamental rules of the Church, would deeply consider the great danger which he had pointed out as likely to ensue to the congregation of the Church.

said, he had listened with great attention to the solemn warning which the House had just received from his hon. Friend, and he only trusted that the gloomy anticipations of his hon. Friend would not be entirely fulfilled. At the same time, he must confess that he viewed some portion of the Bill with great dissatisfaction. He was aware that the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by the House, and therefore that it was unusual to oppose the Motion for going into Committee; but he could not avoid expressing the surprise he felt that a Bill of such a nature should ever have come out of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. By the Bill itself all power of enforcing discipline and control over the clergy was entirely taken away from the bishops. Any person who quarrelled with his bishop, or preached any doctrine which left him open to ecclesiastical censure, had nothing to do but to declare that he conscientiously dissented from the opinions of the bishops, and he was at once, ipso facto, relieved from any censure, or from any proceedings which might be taken against him for preaching heresies. Still further, a clergyman of the Church of England might commit any immorality, and would yet only have to plead that he dissented from the doctrine of the Church, in order to relieve himself from all proceedings. In short, a clergyman might one day exercise all the most solemn ordinances of the Church, and the next day throw off his ecclesiastical garments, and appear in a red coat and top-boots upon a racecourse. He must confess that of all the Bills ever introduced into the House of Commons since he had the honour of a seat in it, he believed that under consideration was the most destructive to the interests of the Church, and the most dangerous that could possibly be passed. He felt confident that if it succeeded in getting through the House of Commons, it would never be allowed to become the law of the land.

said, he rose to move an Amendment having for its object to substitute for the declaration required by the clause one to the following effect:—

"I desire to be relieved from any civil disabilities, disqualifications, restrictions, and prohibitions to which I may be subject as being in holy orders."

If they undertook to legislate on a subject of this great importance, they were bound to do so upon some clear and definite principle. But this Bill, while endeavouring to remedy a practical difficulty, confused every principle at issue, and consulted only the convenience of an empirical expediency. To require a declaration of dissent from any one seeking to avail himself of the provisions of the Bill was to hold out a premium for dissent. Going through the wide range of doctrine and discipline, he did not believe that there was any hon. Gentleman in that House, or out of it, who would find any difficulty in naming some slight point on which he might have differed from the practices of the Church of England, or from the doctrine laid down in the Thirty-nine Articles. A declaration 6f dissent might, therefore, be made by almost any person, although the person making it might not dissent from the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England on any matter of importance. The Bill, as it now stood, might induce persons to make that declaration, who would afterwards be found professing themselves members of the Church. It was impossible that they could thus trim between two opinions—either they must provide means for liberating, from civil penalties at least, every person who might wish to retire from the clerical functions of the Church, or they must remain as they were; they could not perpetrate so glaring an anomaly as to let loose one portion of the profession and to retain another in bondage. Under these circumstances, he begged to move his Amendment.

said, no one who did not hold that the Church of England was infallible could doubt that after their ordination some of the clergy of that Church might conscientiously arrive at convictions inconsistent with their position. Those gentlemen were at present unable to abandon a ministry which they had entered under a totally different conception of doctrine from that which they now felt compelled to adopt. Were the House to insist on their remaining in the Church to teach what they believed to be false, or were those clergymen to teach from the pulpits of the Church of England doctrines opposed to those held by that Church? That was the difficulty which the hon. Member for Warwickshire would put them in. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes, what that hon. Member proposed was, that whether a clergyman dissented from the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England or not, he should be allowed to abandon his profession on a declaration that he desired to do so. He did not now say whether he himself agreed with the hon. Member for Devizes or not; but he did say that the principle laid down by the Amendment was a very different one from that sought to be established by the Bill. The hon. Member wished to make the Bill one of a much more extensive character than it was; and as he thought it would be not nearly so acceptable to many persons in that House and the country if it were so altered, whatever his private opinion might be, he must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

said, that without saying anything on the principle of the Bill itself, he would merely remark that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes would lay down a totally different principle. That Amendment would confer the benefit of the proposed Act on any clergyman of the Church of England who wished to walk out of the profession, whether he dissented from the doctrines of the Church or not. If it was as easy to find a point of dissent as the hon. Member for Devizes seemed to suppose, any clergyman might make the declaration required by the clause, and therefore there was no necessity for the Amendment. Being one of those who thought the Bill went too far already, he very much objected to make it go further on the reasons assigned by the hon. Member for Devizes.

said, he did not think the Amendment would make the measure more extensive. As the Bill stood, it would enable persons to take advantage of a very small point of dissent, and in that way would hold out a very objectionable premium to hypocrisy. Another point required remark. A clergyman of the Church of Rome could say he dissented from the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England—the Bill did not require him to say that he dissented from those of the Church of Rome; and in that way he might get into the House of Commons.

observed that the very persons who were exempt from the penalties of the law were those clergymen who became Roman Catholic priests. He did not think the Committee ought to object to extend to Protestants those exemptions which were given to Roman Catholics.

said, he did not agree with the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, that the Bill went too far, or that it did not go far enough; on the contrary, it went about half-way. Judas departed from the church, and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock wanted to give the clergy the same privilege which Judas exercised. Nobody would object to that if the right hon. Gentleman would also extend another privilege exercised by Judas, that they should all go and hang themselves.

said, he thought there was something in the point raised by the hon. Member for Devizes. If the hon. Member was right in thinking that persons would avail themselves of the Bill, on the ground that there were some slight differences, such as those which he (Mr. D. Griffith) had pointed out between them and the Church of England, and not differences of that grave and fundamental character which the Committee had been asked to consider, the Committee ought to try whether they could not prevent such an application of the measure; and if they could not, it would be for them to consider whether they should not reject the Bill altogether. He thought, however, they should, in the first place, go through the clauses with a view of seeing how the matter really stood; that they ought to revise the work of the Select Committee in the first instance; and he must therefore oppose the Amendment.

said, that in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord Henley), he rose to move to leave out all the words after the word "Church" to the end of the clause. By the clause as it stood the Bishop would be enabled not only to proceed to sentence of deprivation, but, by the canon law, he would retain the power of passing the penalty of excommunication upon the seceding clergyman.

said, that the latter portion of the clause was introduced by the Select Committee. As the clause formerly stood, it simply declared that the registry of the declaration was equivalent to a sentence of deposition against the minister. He should have preferred the original proposal, but the matter was fully discussed. The addition to the clause was carried by a majority, and having charge of the Bill, and feeling that no measure embodying extreme opinions would have a chance of passing the other House, his wish was to support the decision of the Select Committee. He felt bound to take that opportunity of acknowledging the great fairness and candour with which the Select Committee had considered the Bill. The grievance created by the clause was a mere featherweight, because pains were taken by the Bill to exempt seceding clergymen from all civil pains and penalties; and if the authorities of the Church thought it their duty to visit him with spiritual censures, they would carry with them no temporal disqualification or disability.

said, he did not apprehend that any inconvenience would result from the clause as it stood, and he hoped the decision of the Select Committee would remain undisturbed. The object of the promoters of the Bill was to exempt persons who conscientiously dissented from the Church from civil disabilities and penalties, and they desired to do that in such manner as not to leave the Bill open to objections in an ecclesiastical point of view as interfering with the discipline or the doctrines of the Church. On that principle it was left to the bishop, in the exercise of his discretion, to do that which the laws of the Church permitted him to do now. By the statute law, excommunication had been practically abolished. It was not at all probable that any bishop would proceed to any such kind of censure; but, if he did, it would be only because the law at present enabled him to do so; and, as no civil consequences were involved, any sentence pronounced by a bishop would amount only to a declaration on the part of the Church of the character of the Act to which he had given legal effect.

said, it was possible that some of the seceding clergymen might desire to remain lay members of the Church of England; and it might happen, that if the bishop exercised his rights under the canon law, these persons might find themselves debarred from remaining members of the Church of England.

said, that if he were asked whether such an event was possible, he must answer in the affirmative; but if he were asked whether it was probable, he must doubt whether there would be one such case in a hundred years. He should be sorry to be the bishop to enforce the spiritual powers in question. Those who remembered the case of the Rev. Mr. Shore would agree with him that no prudent bishop was likely again to raise such a storm.

said, he hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea would be acceded to in a willing spirit, for the concession asked for was a very small one. The Committee in recognising the rights of conscience ought to do so in a gracious manner.

said, that the only principle involved in the addition to the clause as it stood was that those who sought to relieve persons who dissented from the Church of England were not to go out of their way to infringe and insult the ecclesiastical law of the Church which those persons had left.

said, that he could not see the value of the addition made to the clause in the Select Committee. It was like saying, "We will allow you to withdraw; but we will drum you out." The power was one a bishop would seldom use, and as it might embarrass bishops, it would be better to disembarrass the Bill.

said, it was no doubt proper that a minister on wishing to leave the Church should be required to vacate any office which he might have held as such; but he held it was neither right nor fair that a person who, having become a clergyman of the Church of England, afterwards thought fit to leave its ministry, should be required to vacate any office which he might have previously held as a member of that Church. Take the case of a member of the Established Church who was a trustee of a school. He becomes a minister of the Established Church, he afterwards desires to retire from its ministry, and was he to be required to vacate his office of trustee to that school? If a clergyman differed from certain doctrines of the Church, he should not necessarily be declared to be no longer a member of the Establishment. He therefore would move the omission of the words "or member" from the clause.

said, he should oppose the Amendment. It was not right that persons who had made a declaration of their conscientious dissent from the doctrines of the Church of England should continue to be trustees of Church of England schools. The Amendment was an attempt to introduce by a side wind a most obnoxious principle.

said, he would remind the hon. Member for Knares-borough (Mr. Collins) that the enactment was penal in its character.

said, his hon. Friend had brought the same question before the Select Committee, and was seeking to reverse the decision at which that Committee had arrived. The difficulty in the present case arose from an ambiguity in the words "member of the said United Church." In one sense Dissenters were held to be members of the United Church, inasmuch as they were subject to the imposition of church rates, and had a right to be buried in the parish churchyard; but in another sense, the sense of the Bill, Dissenters could not be held to be members of the Church. Taking the case of fellowships in colleges, for instance—though he was anxious to see those restrictions removed—yet there was no doubt that in many colleges membership of the Church of England was an essential condition to the holding of a fellowship. But his hon. Friend would hardly think it reasonable that a man who had left the Established Church should continue a fellow of one of those colleges. Again, taking the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; they had to make a declaration that they were members of the Church of England; but, according to the principle involved in the Amendment, if his hon. Friend (Mr. Deedes) or himself, who were Commissioners, seceded from the Church, they might still continue to administer its revenues. He could not think that the Select Committee had come to an unreasonable decision.

said, he wished to ask if provision were made in the Bill to preserve the rights of patrons. If they did not present within six months after a vacancy, the right of presentation lapsed; and if provision were not made for giving them ample notice, their rights might be affected.

said, the resignation would be to the bishop. It would be a public act, and public notice would necessarily be given. There were the same safeguards as then existed in the case of resignations.

said, he objected to the proviso at the end of the clause, which provided that nothing contained in the Bill should enable a clergyman, who had ceased to be a member of the Established Church, to sit in the House of Commons. It was another of the penalties which were imposed upon clergymen who resigned their livings. He thought it was not for the House to say who should or should not be Members of the House, but for the constituencies to say who should be their representatives.

said, he must again appeal to the Committee to support the decision of the Select Committee. That decision was not in accordance with his own opinion; but, the subject having been very fully discussed by the Committee, he felt bound to say that there was a larger majority in favour of the proviso than upon any other division. He had been very much surprised at the strong feeling upon the subject which was manifested by hon. Members on both sides of the House. What influenced them was the argument that persons who seceded ought not to be placed in a better position than those who continued clergymen of the Church of England. By law all ordained clergymen of the Church of England were excluded from seats in that House, whether they had benefices or not; but if those who seceded were to be admitted to the privilege of sitting in the House, they would certainly be placed in a better position than those who had not seceded. He was bound to say also that there was not any great willingness on the part of the Select Committee to admit within the House gentlemen who in their capacity of ministers of religion might have had an opportunity of acquiring great influence over the minds of those with whom they had been brought into contact. Although those arguments would not in the abstract have prevailed with him, yet he felt bound to yield on the point, because he believed that the opinion of the House was in favour of the decision of the Committee, and because, having received the consent of the House to the principle of a measure so difficult and delicate in itself, he believed he should be wanting in his duty if he did not yield his opinion.

said, he thought it a mistake that clergymen, whether of the Church of England or the Church of Rome, should be excluded from the House; but, as he could not consent to put those who had seceded from the Established Church in a hotter position than those who remained in it, he should vote for expunging the proviso.

said, he thought it would be unwise, if any persons who had been led to make the declaration under the Bill should afterwards see the errors of their ways, to forbid them the opportunity of returning to their position in the Church of England. With that view, he would propose the following new clause: —

"When any priest or deacon whose declaration of conscientious dissent shall have been registered by the bishop as hereinbefore provided, shall apply to the bishop of the diocese for restoration to his ecclesiastical functions, the bishop may, after due examination of the applicant, issue a licence under his episcopal seal to revoke the declaration recorded in his registry, either immediately or after any period of probation he may think fit; and cancel the sentence pronounced against the applicant; and the applicant shall thenceforth be discharged from all incapacity under this Act to execute his ecclesiastical functions, shall cease to be entitled to the benefit of this Act, and at the expiration of twelve calendar months after the date of the episcopal licence may be presented to any ecclesiastical preferment,"

said, that the proposal had already been submitted to the Select Committee, who discussed and rejected it. He did not think it was a reasonable demand that a person, after deliberately declaring his conscientious dissent to the doctrines of the Church of England, should be allowed, on changing his mind again, to go back to the Church and resume his original position.

said, he thought there would be no inconsistency in disagreeing with the Select Committee on the subject under consideration. He knew of a case in which within the last few weeks a clergyman had, unfortunately for himself, left the Church, and when he had had time for reflection he desired to return to it, and the bishop re-admitted him. By the Bill, however, unless this clause were inserted, if a clergyman left the Church he could not be re-admitted. It seemed to him that they ought not to shut the door. The whole object of the Bill was declared to be one of mercy, and the Committee should consider the merciful side of the proposal.

said, he objected to the proposition. He had no indisposition to see clergymen who might leave the Church of England go back to it again and resume their functions as clergymen; but in such case they should be made ministers of the Church in the ordinary way in which men were made clergymen. The Committee ought not to be merciful to clergymen at the expense of parishioners.

said, he should also oppose the clause, which, if passed, would cause the House to appear as holding certain doctrines on the question of the indelibility of priests' orders. The theory of once a priest always a priest, was only known in the Church of Rome, and was not recognised in the Eastern Churches. In Stanley's Eastern Church, it was stated that a man might lay down his orders and leave the Church when he would.

maintained that the clause only assumed that which was well known, namely, that in the eyes of the Church of England these orders were indelible. The observations of the hon. Member for Swansea, to the effect that a seceding clergyman, if he desired to return to his position in the Church, should go to the bishop and be ordained again might well induce persons to doubt the propriety of passing the Bill, unless guarded by such a clause as that proposed. Nevertheless, as the point was considered in the Select Committee, he advised the hon. Member (Mr. Lygon) not to raise the question again, but to let the Bill go as it was to the House of Lords with the incubus upon it of speeches which showed that some Members voted for the measure in opposition to the doctrine of the Church of England in reference to orders. Under the circumstances the Bill was not so likely to pass into a law as it otherwise might have been.

said, that as a Member of the Select Committee on the Bill, he had heard with reluctance the discussion of the theory of indelibility of Church orders. But he could never consent to a clergyman wavering between two churches, merely lest a dogma of that kind should be in danger. The whole discussion was of the same nature as if a question were started whether twelve angels instead of ten could stand upon a point in vacuo.

said, there was no special Roman Catholic doctrine as to the indelibility of orders. It was a doc- trine of the whole Church, in which he was not ashamed to profess his belief. He was convinced that the tendency of the Bill was to bring that doctrine into disrepute; and that the tendency of the clause was to make it absolutely ridiculous.

said, he could not but express his regret that religious topics had been introduced into the discussion on the Bill. He would strongly recommend his hon. Friend not to persevere with his clause.

said, he thought that matters of such consequence should not be withdrawn from the consideration of the House, and referred to a Select Committee. The arguments against the clause told against the Bill itself. Talk of the indelibility of orders being absurd. Why, it was much more absurd to make such a declaration as that required by the Bill indelible. However, after the discussion which had taken place, and after the advice given to him by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford and the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners), he should withdraw the clause.