FIRST READING. (Hansard, 5 July 1859)

§ MR. STEUART
said, he would explain the reasons which induced him to take the unusual course of moving that the first reading of this Bill be postponed. He had less difficulty in doing so, because an objection of the same kind had been taken to Bills of this kind by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests (Mr. FitzRoy). The right hon. Gentleman, however, took that objection at the second reading, and it was then said that he should have taken the objection earlier. This Bill was for the purpose of enabling a clergyman of the Episcopal Church in Scotland to hold a benefice and officiate as a clergyman of the Church of England, and he objected to it because it was doing away by a private Bill with the public statutes for the regulation of these matters. A private Bill of this character was exceptionable in itself, but in the present instance there were peculiar circumstances why this mode of obtaining relief from disabilities ought not to be resorted to. The relief had been generally granted on the belief that the doctrines of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and the United Church of England and Ireland were the same. Whether that were so or not he would not attempt to discuss, but circumstances of a very painful character occurred last year, in which the promoter of the present Bill was to some extent concerned. A case was raised against the Rev. Patrick R. Cheyne, a clergyman of the Scottish Episcopal Church, for erroneous doctrines, and in the course of that case it came out that there was a party in that Church which held doctrines widely different from those of the Church of England. 651 The Rev. Patrick Cheyne held doctrines which were condemned by all the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, except one, he believed, who took a modified view of the subject. It was true Mr. Greives, who promoted this Bill, was not Mr. Cheyne, but he had publicly and distinctly by his acts countenanced the erroneous doctrines held by that gentleman; and now he came to that House, and hoped per incuriam to be allowed to slip into the Church of England, as the House generally could not be aware of the circumstances. He believed Mr. Greives was of an excellent private character, but it was notorious that his congregation in Scotland had been scandalized by his introducing rites and ceremonies of a very extraordinary kind. He (Mr. Steuart) had himself been in his church, and had witnessed the burning of incense, the decoration of the pulpit with flags and banners, and ceremonies of a nature such as he had never before witnessed, and hoped he never should witness again, in a Protestant place of worship. He would, therefore, move that the first reading of the Bill be now postponed, and he also wished to give notice that before the first reading he would move for a Select Committee to consider the general question of the admission of Scottish Episcopalian clergymen to the Church of England, and that this particular case should be referred to that Committee.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, there were certainly great objections to Bills of this kind, enabling individuals who could afford the expense to avail themselves of exceptions to the general rule. He thought that in all such cases as these admission should be given to the Church under a general law, and not by private Bill. But he would beg leave to suggest to the hon. Member for Cambridge that he should allow the Bill to be a read a first time, pro formâ, as was usual with Bills that came down from the Lords, and take the course he now proposed as to a Committee of inquiry on the second reading, when the House would have full notice of his intentions.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, it was high time that all the distinctions which rendered Bills of this kind necessary should cease. It was but another evidence of the evils arising from a State establishment of religion.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
expressed a hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Steuart) would withdraw his Motion and take the subject up again on the second reading.

MR. FITZROY
said, he had some years ago expressed the views now stated by the hon. Member for Cambridge on this subject, and still held that relief should in all these cases be given by a general Act.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he also concurred in recommending the withdrawal of the Motion on the terms stated by the right hon. Baronet.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
observed, that there appeared to be no father to this Bill. He could not discover who had the charge of it in the House of Lords. He would only consent to the first reading on the understanding that it was merely pro formâ, and must protest against it being supposed that by so doing he was precluded from opposing a general measure having the same object as this private Bill.

§ MR. STEUART
said, that he would withdraw his Motion, and gave notice that on the second reading he would move for a Select Committee on the subject.