COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 16 March 1859)

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
moved, that the House should go into Committee upon the Bill.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
said, that the hon. Gentleman who bad conduct of this Bill proposed to rectify the Act passed last year. It was said that the Act of last year unintentionally made an 219 alteration in the declaration which theretofore had been taken by Quakers, and the object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to restore the declaration to its original form. So far as the Quakers were concerned he had no objection; but when a proposition was made for the exemption of a particular class of Her Majesty's subjects, he thought it was only fair that the hon. Member who proposed it should say whether it was designed to destroy the regulation made many years back. No one doubted the loyalty of the Members of the Society of Friends; but the words "I promise to the utmost of my power to defend Her Majesty and the succession to the Crown" were not unimportant, and, if he consented to let the Bill pass a second reading, it must be explained that no objection existed on the part of those who sought relief to defend Her Majesty and the settled succession to the Crown.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, that the House needed not to be assured that the Quakers were most loyal and devoted subjects of Her Majesty; and it must be understood that the Quakers, in desiring to stand in the same position which they occupied previous to the Act of last year, which was passed to admit the Jews, asked for nothing new. Ever since 1717 the Quakers had been authorized by statute to take the oaths in the way of affirmation, and in a form peculiar to themselves. That form was repealed per incuriam by the Oaths Act of last year; and the consequence was that Quakers were now required on becoming barristers, magistrates, or Members of Parliament to make an affirmation in language to which they objected.

§ MR. BENTINCK
was glad that his right hon. Friend had called the attention of the House to this subject. No one could doubt the loyalty of the Quakers, and he also agreed that it was the intention of the House that no men should take an oath with respect to which he had any religious scruples. But in his view the observations which had been made in that respect did not apply to the present case. The hon. Gentleman said that it was an accidental omission last year; but it seemed to him that the alteration was an intentional one to correct an obvious omission. Assuming that the Quakers were loyal persons, which no one could doubt, it was the duty of every loyal citizen in the realm to defend Her Majesty and the Throne, if circumstances should arise. He could not understand the right of any one to a seat 220 in that House, who did not make an oath, or affirmation to that effect; nor did it appear to him to be a question of scruple, because the words were perfectly distinct, "I will defend to the utmost of my power." Could any man, whatever his position, decline to take such an oath or make such a declaration. They had heard no explanation from the hon. Gentleman opposite why the words should be omitted, and it did not appear to be a case of conscientious difficulty unless the parties opposed to it objected to the sense and spirit of the words. If, therefore, they disqualified themselves for any office, they did so in consequence of their own omission, and were not either eligible to a seat in the House or any post of responsibility in the country.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
begged to ask the hon. Member for Northampton whether he could give an explanation of the particular grievance which the Quakers were to be relieved from?

MR. GILPIN
said, he should be most happy to do so, but he was not aware that the Bill would have been brought on for discussion that day, and he had not yet finished the reading of the Bill.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, that after that statement he should move that the Chairman leave the chair and report progress, as it was evident that such a course was one which was necessary in order to allow those most interested in the matter to inform themselves upon it.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, that the only object of the Bill was to put Quakers into the position in which they had been for the last 130 years. Every one who knew them testified to the loyalty and respectability of that excellent body of men, and he knew of no reason why they should be shut out from exercising the offices of magistrate or justice of the peace because they objected to affirm something contrary to their religious principles.

§ MR. SPOONER
could assure his hon. Friend that he was quite willing to make every concession to religious scruples, but the hon. Gentleman had given no reason why the words were inserted last year. The words were binding on the person who took the oath or made the affirmation to defend the Queen. Did the hon. Member mean that Quakers were the only men who would not undertake to defend the Queen? That portion of the Bill seemed to him to 221 be perfectly unintelligible, and, therefore, he should be obliged if the hon. Member for Northampton would give an explanation of it. He moved the Chairman do report progress.

MR. GILPIN
expressed his surprise that the hon. Gentleman, acquainted as he was with so many leading members of the Society of Friends, should be so ignorant of the principles which led them to object to the terms employed as to defending Her Majesty as he appeared to be. He ought to know as well as any person that the principles of that sect were opposed to what was usually called the principles of defence; and there were many other ways in which they conceived that they might defend her Majesty than by the actual taking up of arms. As had been stated, the object of the present measure was nothing more than to put them in the position they had occupied for a very long period of time. His right hon. Friend beside him was acting on behalf of the whole Society of Friends who preferred the form of declaration previously in use, and he certainly thought that after the character that had been given of them by the hon. Member for Norfolk, no one would object to replace them in the position they had been in for 130 years.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
said, it was perfectly plain that the objection the Society of Friends entertained was merely the ordinary conscientious objection by which the Quakers were distinguished; that they were loyal people could not be doubted, and there were many modes of defence in which they could see they were better able to defend the Queen than by force. He therefore hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. HENLEY
coincided in the course which had just been recommended. It was evident that so far as the Quakers were concerned they did not entertain any conscientious objection to making the affirmation further than the conscientious objection they entertained against the use of force.

§ MR. SPOONER
withdrew his Motion.