LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 29 February 1860)

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to enforce uniformity in the use of ecclesiastical vestments by priests and deacons of the United Church of England and Ireland.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he wished to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was competent for the hon. Gentleman to bring in a Bill of this sort? He thought Bills of this kind ought to emanate from a Committee of the whole Rouse.

§ MR. SPEAKER
stated that the Standing Order which required that Bills relating to religion should he introduced in a Committee of the whole House had been held to refer to religion in its spiritual relations, doctrines, professions, and observances, and not to the temporalities and government of the Church. Accordingly, the Church (Ireland) Temporalities Bill, and many others of a similar kind, had been brought forward for the first time in the House itself, and not in a Committee. The question, however, might certainly be open to some doubt. If the Bill proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member for Poole should be regarded as a measure relating to religious observances, it ought undoubtedly to be originated in a Committee; but on the other hand, if it should be held to be a matter of church government, designed for the purpose of enforcing decency and order, then, in his opinion, a preliminary Committee would not be necessary. That was a question for the consideration of the House, but for the reasons he had stated he should not think himself that the hon. Member for Poole was out of order in proposing to introduce his Bill in the House itself.

§ MR. A. MILLS
said, he hoped the hon. Member would be permitted to lay his Bill on the table. Nobody could be injured by the House being allowed to see it.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, he would oppose the introduction of the Bill.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, if it were opposed it could not be brought in after a quarter to six o'clock.