HC Deb 12 July 1859 vol 154 cc1042-51

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

wished to point out that in this Bill Dr. Skinner was called a "bishop of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and Bishop of Aberdeen." Now, there was no objection to the former designation, but to describe him as the "Bishop of Aberdeen" was a highly objectionable innovation.

MR. STEUART

said, the general law on this subject was that no priest, unless he was ordained as a minister of the Church of England, should be allowed to hold a benefice or to officiate in any church in England, but a Scottish or an American episcopal clergyman might be allowed to officiate for two Sundays in any diocese. He believed that some four or five private Bills had been passed taking individual cases out of the general law, but he thought the House ought to regard with great suspicion any Bill which superseded the general law of the land. He agreed with the hon. Baronet that the title "Bishop of Aberdeen" was an invasion of the spirit of the statute. With regard to this particular case, Mr. Greive did not come into Court with clean hands. He held in his hand a letter from a distinguished dignitary of the Scottish Episcopal Church, whose name he was not at liberty to mention, and who spoke of this application of Mr. Greive's to be admitted into the English Church, without the sanction of his bishop, as an act of great presumption. Mr. Grieve belonged to a party in the Scottish Episcopal Church who wished to subvert its doctrines and formula, whose Romanizing tendencies had been condemned by its dignitaries. Mr. Greive himself incurred the censure of his bishop. The Rev. Mr. Cheyne had been summoned before him to answer a charge concerning the doctrine taught by him in six sermons which he had published. The bishop put the matter to the presbyters, and twelve of them honestly gave their opinion, but the other nine, of whom Mr. Greive was one of the most prominent, refused to give an opinion, and endeavoured to obstruct the bishop in the exercise of his duties, for which he censured them. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, he was not a promoter of the Bill, nor had he any acquaintance with the Rev. Mr. Greive, but he thought the course recommended by the hon. Member was at variance with all precedent, and unjust to an individual. After a person had gone to the expense of promoting a Bill of this nature in Parliament, in accordance with the practice which had heretofore prevailed, it was hard to suddenly turn round and say, "We will shut the door against you because we now think these cases ought to be dealt with by a general Act applicable to all cases." That might be a good propo- sition, but it was hard to make Mr. Greive the victim of a change of opinion on the part of the House. As to Mr. Greive being under the censure of his bishop, he wished to clear himself of the charges against him, and if the Bill were now read a second time, it would be referred to a Select Committee, which would, of course, inquire into the whole circumstances.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, that speaking on the part of the Church of England, he thought the result proposed to be attained by this measure ought to be effected by a public Bill. If Mr. Greive was to be permitted to hold a living or officiate in the Church of England the opposition of the House would not necessarily prevent him, for he would be relieved by the provisions of the general measure if it were passed. He thought the House ought to resist this request of Mr. Greive.

Mr. STIRLING

said, that Mr. Greive's case was not that of a Scotchman seeking entrance into the Church of England. He was an Englishman born, but he happened to receive the close of his education in Scotland, and there he was ordained in order to enable him to hold a living near Aberdeen in the year 1850, and there he had remained ever since until now. Very lately his circumstances had changed. He (Mr. Stirling) believed that within a few months past his father had died leaving him to take charge of an infirm relative, who was a ward in Chancery, and to whom he had been appointed guardian. This compelled him to live in England. Then what was he to do? As regarded the circumstances under which he left Scotland, it appeared that he had been severely reprimanded by the bishop. And why? A certain gentleman was arraigned by the bishop for holding opinions supposed to be erroneous; and Mr. Greive, with eight other gentlemen, refused to give an opinion on the subject, because the gentleman arraigned had taken a technical objection to the charge, and refused to plead. He fully admitted that the bishop did make remarks on what was called Mr. Greive's contumacy; but in the letters of dismissal the bishop and others testified that for the space of three years, during which they had known him, Mr. Greive had lived piously, soberly, and honestly, and had written and taught nothing against the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, or of England. Therefore the ecclesiastical censure passed by the bishop had been washed away. There was only one other portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech to which he (Mr. Stirling) would refer, and that was the letter from the Bishop of Winchester. Now, the Bishop of Winchester was a Member of the House of Lords. Then why did not the right rev. Prelate oppose this measure whilst it was passing through the House of Lords?

MR. BRIGHT

said, the House had not been able very clearly to understand the merits of the case either from the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Steuart), or from his right hon. Friend who sat on the front Opposition bench (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt). It had been proposed to send this Bill to a Committee, who were to decide, he supposed, whether or not this gentleman held sound opinions, and whether he ought or ought not to be under the ban of his bishop. Now he (Mr. Bright) protested against the House of Commons being made the tribunal of any such controversy. This Bill did not profess to go to the Committee upon any principle. He (Mr. Blight) believed there was no principle in it, hut rather upon the practice of not allowing a gentleman ordained north of the Tweed to officiate south of that river. The Bill certainly tended to produce a free trade in clergymen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed spirits to pass across the Tweed free of duty, and he did not know why spiritual teachers should not be equally exempt from interference. The English Church was not so particular as to refuse the priests ordained by the Roman Catholic Church without further qualification; unless this gentleman were much deeper dyed than a Roman Catholic priest, there is no reason why a refusal should be extended to him. This subject, no doubt, should be dealt with by a general measure. At the same time it seemed that this opposition was not the fault of this gentleman. He (Mr. Bright) had very little sympathy with any of them, but he thought that the House ought to pass this Bill, no objection having been raised to any previous measure of the same kind; and then if a grievance were established, it might be removed by a general measure, and thus the House be spared the pain of a somewhat humiliating discussion.

MR. HUNT

pointed out that there was no legislative inability in the Bishop of Aberdeen holding his present title, inasmuch as the Scotch bishops were expressly excepted out of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

MR. NEWDEGATE

quite agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham that this House was not the proper tribunal for ecclesiastical discussion. But the hon. Member was mistaken, if he thought that the House could legislate on this subject without practically expressing an opinion. But he thought there was no reason why they should not express their opinion on this particular case, because he doubted very much whether the House ought to pass any Private Bill of this kind. This Gentleman could not come before the House except by virtue of his connection with the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and the Episcopal Church of Scotland had passed him under its censure—he had been condemned by the authority, in virtue of which he appeared before the House—and yet this gentleman asked the House to grant him a special privilege to which the House generally objected. The House therefore could not fail to express its opinion with respect to this claim. The Episcopal Church of Scotland was not the Established Church, and in many important respects its formularies and its doctrines and acceptance of the Thirty-nine Articles were not those of the Church of England. This gentleman was condemned by the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and he (Mr. Newdegate) did not see how they could admit him to the benefits of the Church of England with which he still more widely differed. He must oppose the second reading of the Bill.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

said, that the general question before the House was much more important than the personal merits or demerits of this gentleman, with which the House had nothing to do. The real question was, were they prepared to make an exception to a general law? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wilts (Mr. S. Estcourt) had said that the question was not fairly raised by this Bill. But it was raised; for if the existing law was a good law, some reason ought to be shown for departing from it.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, he had observed that many Bills of the same description had been passed already.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

This was far from being an old or an effete law. It was passed at the end of the last century, and had been recognized as an Act passed in the course of the present reign. This proceeding was, as the hon. Member for Birmingham said, introducing free trade into the Church of England, and the House should bear in mind that the Church of England had no control over the Scotch bishops, whose particular opinions were not sympathized in by a large number of Episcopalians in this country. Was it reasonable that an individual, who was a member of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, should be permitted to officiate and hold benefices in the Church of an adjoining country?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) seemed to think that Mr. Greive had been censured by his Episcopal superior in Scotland. Now that was not the case. The whole complaint against him was that he declined to pronounce an opinion in a case in which only one side had been heard. Although there was no doubt that the Bishop in question did write the letter of censure, it was also true that the same Bishop had afterwards written a letter in which he spoke of Mr. Greive in the highest possible terms. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke asked the House to reject this private Bill on the ground that it infringed what he regarded as a sound general principle. The subject was one in which, in his (Lord J. Manners') opinion, deserved mature consideration; but the question now to be determined was whether, on statements made on one side and rebutted on the other, they would refuse to an individual who had already incurred great expense in passing this Bill through the House of Lords, the same licence and liberty which Parliament had in numerous instances accorded to persons in analogous circumstances. He thought that it would be in the highest degree unfair, upon mere ex parte statements, to withhold the relief asked for in this instance; and he would therefore support the second reading of the Bill.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, it appeared to him that a fair statement of this case had not yet been made. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) objected to any deviation from a general law which was a good law. He agreed with him in the objection. But what was the fact? There were two classes of men to whom he would direct the attention of the House—Catholic priests and Episcopalian clergymen. They acknowledge the ordination of the Catholic priest, and the moment he called himself a member of the Church of England, his ordination being admitted, he could at once take a benefice. But, when a Protestant Episcopalian clergyman of Scotland declared himself a member of the Church of England, he was obliged to go to a Bishop of the Church of England for ordination before he could hold a benefice. Now, he wished to know why they objected to the sham, while they did not object to the real thing? What was the real objection to the clergyman to whom this Bill referred? Everybody knew what it was—that he was too much like a Catholic priest. If he were actually a Catholic priest he would not have to come to that House; but being, as he said he was, a conscientious member of the Church of England, — having been ordained, not by a Catholic Bishop, but by an Episcopalian Protestant Bishop—they refused to admit him into the Church of England. They did admit Catholic priests, but they did not admit Episcopalian clergymen of Scotland. Now, it appeared to him that this was unfair towards our Protestant Episcopalian Brethren in Scotland. He put the case simply upon that ground. A rule was established with regard to the ordination of Catholic Bishops, and if that ordination gave admission to the Church of England, what man would say that ordination by a Protestant Episcopalian Bishop of the Church of Scotland should not have the same effect? As he (Mr. Roebuck) was a thorough-going Protestant, and believed in the benefit of free trade in religion as well as in everything else, he was in favour of the Bill, because he thought that the same rule which applied to Catholic priests ought to apply to Protestant Episcopalian clergymen of Scotland.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that in stating his views upon this question, he must be understood as expressing merely his own opinions. The state of the law had been, no doubt, accurately laid down by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. By an Act of the 32nd of Geo. III. clergymen ordained by Bishops in Scotland were not only prohibited from holding curacies or benefices in England, but from officiating at all in the Established Church in this country. That Act was revised in 1840, when its provisions were, with great caution, so far relaxed as to allow that a Scotch Episcopalian clergyman might receive permission from the bishop of a diocese to officiate for two days, only to be named in such permission, within that diocese, and that the permission might be renewed from time to time. Clergymen ordained by the Colonial Bishops, or in the East Indies, might, by another Act under certain conditions and restrictions, be admitted to the status and privileges of clergymen ordained by the Bishops of the Established Church in England and Ireland; but clergymen ordained by Bishops in Scotland were expressly excepted from the operation of this Act by the special statutes applicable to them. A good deal had been said about the relaxation of the general law, and he was not prepared to say that it should not be revised; but he thought it would be acting hastily to declare that a law which had been under the consideration of Parliament so recently as 1840 should be repealed without very careful inquiry into the status and position of the Bishops in Scotland, and of the clergymen ordained by them, as well as into the circumstances which led to the prohibition that had been imposed. In his opinion such an inquiry ought to precede any pledge given on the part of the House with regard to a Bill repealing or relaxing the existing law. Then the question arose whether, so long as the law remained in its present form, they should deal with these exceptional cases by private legislation. During recent years the House had sanctioned this practice by passing five Bills similar to that under consideration, exempting clergymen from the prohibitions imposed by the general law. If this were the first instance in which such a Bill had been submitted to the House, he would have no hesitation in saying that it ought not to be sanctioned. He would not say that under no circumstances ought the House to grant an exemption from the general law; but so long as the general law was maintained he thought its' operation would be most partial and unfair if exemptions from it were granted to a few individuals who could afford to pay the expenses of private Bills, without any very special circumstances. In his opinion the House was incompetent to decide that there was anything in the doctrine held by Mr. Greive to disentitle him to their indulgence, but they were justified in inquiring what were the peculiar circumstances under which they were asked to sanction a departure from the general law. Mr. Greive was ordained only about eight years ago; and the only ground he alleged for his Bill was that he had some aged relations in England, near whom he wished to live; and he, therefore, asked the House to give him the status of an English clergyman, subject to the consent of the Bishop of the diocese in which he might obtain a curacy or living. Were these circumstances such as should take the case of this gentleman out of the general category? He thought the House had acted incautiously in allowing Bills of this nature to pass without careful investigation; and, although he regretted that this gentleman should be put to any inconvenience, he was of opinion that some check should be put upon applications of this kind, and he thought the best course would be not to allow the Bill to proceed until inquiry had been made on the subject. What had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) with regard to Roman Catholic priests was quite true, except that the hon. and learned Member forgot to state that before a Roman Catholic priest was admitted into the Church of England he must sign the Thirty-nine Articles, which amounted to a renunciation of his connection with the Church of Rome. There was no question of re-ordination in the present instance. The ordination by a Scotch bishop was good, but the law had attached a condition to it which incapacitated the clergyman so ordained from holding a permanent cure of souls in England. He (Sir G. Grey) admitted that the state of the law in this respect was an anomaly, but an inquiry into the whole case should precede any alteration of it.

MR. HADFIELD

said, that the recognition of the ordination of the Church of Rome by the Church of England, while she refused to recognize the ordination of Protestant Dissenters, indicated a greater affinity between the Established Church and Romanism than existed between her and Nonconformity. The Vicar of Sheffield, a large minded and exalted clergyman of the Established Church, was prohibited from preaching in any Nonconformist pulpit, although he was allowed to preach in the open air. He hoped the day was not far distant when all religious denominations would be placed on a footing of perfect equality, and when the time of the House would not he wasted with these unseemly discussions.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

wished to state, in a few words, the grounds upon which he should give his vote against this Bill. The discussion, as far as the legal argument had gone, had been a discussion on the merits of the law as it now stood, and no doubt on that point inquiry might be advisable. It might be a fit subject for the House to entertain, whether the present law should or should not be continued; and if not, in what degree it should be modified. But in principle there was a great objection to all Bills establishing exceptions to the general law of the land, and though he might regret that the rev. gentleman interested in this question should be put to unnecessary expense, it was nevertheless time to put a stop to private Bills of this description. If, however, it was deemed right that the law should be reconsidered on its own grounds, he was quite ready to assent to any such inquiry.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

House divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes, 232: Majority, 148.

Words added: — Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill put off for three months.