SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 May 1857)

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
objected, as he did not know what the Bill was, none of their Lordships having seen it.

§ LORD REDESDALE
was understood to state that the Bill was intended to enable the Rev. Mr. Shepherd, who had been ordained in the American Episcopal Church, to hold an English benefice.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, that by the Act of 1792 a minister ordained by the Episcopal Church of Scotland could not hold any benefice in England. He believed the same provision applied to clergymen ordained in America. The reason for that prohibition was, that clergymen ordained by the Episcopal Church of Scotland did not subscribe to the three Articles set forth in the 36th Canon, one of which was the admission of the Royal supremacy in matters ecclesiastical. If a privilegium were granted to Mr. Shepherd he would hold a benefice in England without being required to recognize the Royal supremacy.

THE BISHOP OF BANGOR
remarked that that could not be so, as any clergyman appointed to a benefice must subscribe to all the oaths required by the canon.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, what he wished was that all clergymen who held benefices in England should subscribe to the same Articles. He believed that the present Bill proposed to admit a gentleman to hold a benefice in England without these conditions, and therefore he would oppose the Second Reading.

LORD CAMPBELL
suggested that if it were right to allow clergymen belonging to the Episcopal Church of Scotland in America to hold a benefice in England, a 906 general law should be passed on the subject.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, that the present Bill only empowered the person to hold a benefice; if he should be presented to one, he would, on admission, be subject to the same requirements as a clergyman in English Orders.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
observed that the particular person ought to hold his benefice at least upon the same footing as an Anglican clergyman.

THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTER
believed that the object was secured in this Bill by another way—by taking the oath of supremacy.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
said, that every case of this kind ought to be very carefully considered, and not governed by precedents. But having been informed of the particulars of the case to which the Bill related, he did not think that in that instance there could be any objection to doing what was desired.

LORD KINNAIRD
said, he considered it almost impossible for ministers ordained in the Episcopal Church of Scotland conscientiously to accept a living in England. Having paid attention to the subject, he thought that permission to do so should only be granted in very exceptional cases.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
begged to give notice that he should move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, who should consider whether or not it was desirable that some general measure on the subject should be introduced.