§ The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving that the House go into a Committee on this Bill, presented a petition from certain persons connected with the Society of Friends in England and Wales, and describing themselves as the representatives of that Society, stating that this Bill had not been brought into Parliament at their instance or request—for the objection of members of their society went not only to the oath or declaration which parties were called upon to take on entering upon corporate office, but also the jurisdiction which, as members of a corporation, they might be called to exercise over tithes and other ecclesiastical matters. The petitioners further stated that this Bill would not reach their case—they required not to be subjected to the making of any declaration to which they objected on conscientious grounds, and they expressed a hope that the House would relieve them from the penalties to which they were now exposed for declining to take upon themselves offices which they could not take without violating their conscience.
§ The House resolved itself into a Committee.
§ Lord Brougham moved the amendment of which he had given notice on a former evening. This Bill ought not to be confined to three sects of Christians—it ought to extend beyond the Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, and to apply to all classes of her Majesty's subjects who entertained similar seruples. The Jews could not take the declaration contained in this Bill. But it was said why not bring in a separate Bill for the Jews? In his opinion, it would be infinitely better to tell them canidly at once, "Here we draw a line; we admit Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, but we positively exclude all Jews and Scotch Cameronians from participating in the benefits of our 1212 toleration." He could not believe such had been the intention of those who brought in this Bill; nor could he at all comprehend the reason of that unintelligible feverish anxiety which seemed to be felt in some quarters with respect to the admission of the Jews. He hoped their Lordships would consult their own dignity, and, disregarding the crotchets of particular individuals, give generously and at once that relief to all classes of her Majesty's subjects, to which he maintained al were entitled. He should therefore, with this view, move after the words, "Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists," in the preamble, the introduction of these words, "and others," for the purpose of extending the provisions of the Bill to "every person entertaining conscientious scruples against taking an oath, or making a declaration in the nature of an oath."
The Earl of Shaftesburyvery much doubted whether under the title of the Bill, as it had come up from the Commons, it was competent for them to make such a complete change in the form and substance of the Bill. It was a Bill only for the relief of certain persons. He did not think they could so alter the whole measure as to make that relief general.
Lord Hollandthought it was quite competent for the House to entertain the amendment of his noble and learned Friend, although at the same time they must retain enough in the Bill to answer its general scope and intention as expressed in the preamble. As far as the Bill went it proceeded on a very benevolent and just principle, and that which was benevolent and just in legislation must always be politic and wise. But, although he was disposed to accept the Bill as it was, he confessed he did not think it went far enough. At the same time, there was something in the Bill to which he could not without great difficulty reconcile his mind. He had the greatest objection to call upon any man to declare what was his personal faith in religion, especially in reference to a particular religion of which the law took no cognizance. It looked very much like an attempt to establish a 1213 court of inquisition, which was altogether foreign to every principle of the British constitution. They called upon a man to declare himself a Quaker; on what grounds was any man to be called a Quaker? Was it because he might consider himself so, or because he was recognised as a Quaker by the Society of Friends? Suppose they repudiated him as one of the body; were they to examine his particular opinions, or turn him out of his office to incur the penalties of the law? He did not think this was necessary to the object of the Bill. The object of the Bill was at once to relieve tender consciences of this kind, and furnish to the establishment of the country that which at the lime of the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was considered a sufficient protection and security. The whole of that security and protection was contained in the latter part of the declaration. There was nothing in a man's declaring himself to be a Quaker, Moravian, or Separatist, that could afford any security to the establishment. The security did not consist in that, but in his affirming publicly, solemnly, and in the face of the world that he will not make use of the authority conferred on him by the office to work any injury to the establishment. Was that a sufficient security, or was it not? If not, would it be improved by designating him a Quaker, Moravian, or Separatist? A Jew might come in under the description of a "Separatist," but it was not necessary to make any nice distinctions. In his opinion, it would be better; and if his noble and learned Friend had not moved his amendment, he (Lord Holland) would have proposed to leave out all the words at the beginning of the declaration about Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, so as to make it apply "generally to all having conscientious scruples."
The Bishop of Londondid not think the actual state of the case was exactly as the noble Lord (Holland) had represented it. The noble Lord seemed to think that the real force of the declaration consisted in the pledge given by an individual, that he will not use any power, authority, or influence he may acquire by virtue of a municipal office to the overthrow or prejudice of the Church of England. That was a very important part of the declaration no doubt, but not the only part, nor 1214 that on which the great stress was laid, when, with considerable difficulty, the same parties now pressing forward this Bill induced their Lordships to consent to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. It had hitherto been the policy of this country, that the Government, whether general or local, should be a Christian Government; and when the Test and Corporations Acts were repealed, it was strongly insisted that, at all events, they would not give up the security that those called on to administer office in the great council of the nation, or in the municipal corporations throughout the country, should be at least ostensibly Christians. And hence the words in the first part of the declaration of the Act of George 4th were, "I declare, on the faith of a Christian," &c. The difficulty which the Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists felt was not any difficulty as to making professions of security to the Established Church, but as to making any declaration which on the face of it was equivalent to an oath. They would not sacrifice the principle, if in place of an oath they permitted persons professedly Christians to make a declaration instead; but if the present amendment were adopted, they would at once abandon the principle. Without stating any decided opinion on this question, he did most strongly object to interposing by a side wind so important a change in the municipal government of the country as that advocated by the noble and learned Lord. Considering that the most important body, for whose relief it was intended, the Quakers, had to-night, in the petition presented by the noble Marquess, repudiated the relief proposed by the Bill—considering, also, that one of the other two classes comprised in the preamble, the Separatists, comparatively of recent date, and very inconsiderable in number, were almost wholly confined to Ireland, to which part of the United Kingdom the Bill did not apply, he thought it would be much better to postpone the Bill till a later period of the Session. At all events, he hoped their Lordships would not consent to either of the propositions made by the noble Lords.
The Marquess of Butedid not think the Bill in its present state creditable to the other House of Parliament. The amendment, however, of the noble and learned Lord would considerably improve it, and, if pressed to a division, be would vote for it.
§ The Marquess of Lansdowneadmitted the justice of the principle advocated by the noble and learned Lord. He was not indisposed to the extension of the provision of this Bill to Jews. If their Lordships thought as he did, that the tolerant character of the measure then before them ought to be extended, they ought not to be deterred from carrying out the bill, or rather the principle of the bill, to a still greater length. He did not object to the doctrines respecting the measure which had that night been advocated in their Lordships' House, but what he contended for was this, that the bill was not originaly so framed as to meet those views. So far he agreed with the noble Lords who had spoken; he agreed likewise with some of them in thinking that there was, and always must be, great difficulty in legislating upon subjects of this nature, where definitions respecting religious belief and opinions were required, for it was not easy to imagine how courts of law could enter upon such inquiries without assuming to themselves inquisitorial powers inconsistent with the principles of the British Constitution. He professed himself favourable to acting upon broad principles; but until a measure of that nature was introduced with full notice, he thought the most advisable course would be to pass this Bill at all events; for, as far as it went, it would be a positive gain, extending, as its enactments did, to the three denominations. Gradual relief had always been the practice of the Legislature, and an instance of it occurred only two years ago, when certain disabilities affecting the Separatists were unmoved. Then, further, he wished to observe, that in passing this Bill, which was confessedly good so far as it went, they did not preclude themselves from acting at a future time upon more extended principles. As he had before, in effect, said, he was perfectly willing hereafter, to support a measure for restoring rights enjoyed by religious sects, but he did not see how the present Bill could be extended, especially without previous notice. For these reasons he should feel bound to resist the amendment.
Lord Broughamobserved, that the arguments which had just fallen from the noble Marquess convinced him that in the speech just finished he ought to have arrived at a totally different conclusion. His noble Friend had told them that their arguments were unanswerable — that it 1216 would be vain to attempt any reply to their reasonings—that their data were beyond all possibility of dispute; but still his noble Friend declared that he should vote against them; and why? Simply because he agreed with them. He told them that they were likely to be defeated, and in the same breath he told them that he was resolved to deprive them of the least chance of escaping that defeat by declaring that he should vote against them. He doubted not that their Lordships must have felt no small astonishment at the process of reasoning by which the noble Marquess convinced himself that he ought to say to so many noble Lords in that House, "You desire to carry an extended measure, and so do I, but I will not support you." Could any man hesitate for a single moment to admit that a Jew or a Cameronian must feel himself stigmatised by the present Bill? Every religious sect not included in the description must feel it to be an invidious distinction, and to that extent must feel that he had been ill-treated —nay, placed in a worse situation than before as to any eventual chance of relief. The Bill professed mainly to let in the Quakers—they were the great body whom the promoters of the measure undertook to relieve; but what was the fact with regard to that numerous, important, and highly respectable class of men? They declared that they could not conscientiously avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill. He highly esteemed the Quakers as individuals, he venerated their principles, and admired their practice; he was, therefore unable to feel otherwise than grievously disappointed that a measure professing to be for their advantage should prove to them no advantage at all. In the petition which had been presented to their Lordships it was most distinctly stated by the committee of that body that the Bill would afford them no relief; and he begged it to be understood that this committee did represent the whole body, as much as the commission of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland represented the whole body of the General Assembly. This relation, his noble Friend, from his early education, would readily understand. It had been observed that the sects not admitted by the Bill comprised each no great number of individuals; but let it be recollected that the sects themselves were numerous, and that the aggregate of individuals was by no means inconsiderable— 1217 that they were scattered through every portion of the United Kingdom, and that the stigma cast upon the excluded would carry a sense of ill-treatment into every part of the country.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownebegged it to be understood, that though admitting the force of argument by which the amendment was supported, he yet considered such an amendment inadmissible in deliberating on such a Bill with such a notice; so large a principle as the mover of the amendment contemplated was inconsistent with a Bill so framed. The measure as it stood would let in the Separatists, Moravians, and Quakers. Let a larger measure be properly and regularly introduced, and it should have his support.
Lord Hollandagreed, that the course which his noble Friend proposed to take —namely, that of going on with the Bill in its present shape, was better calculated to secure success now, and to extend that success hereafter, than the other course which he, and those who thought with him, felt bound to take in supporting the amendment. No doubt, any noble Lord might support the Bill without being a jot less friendly to the more extended principle. His more immediate purpose, however, in rising, was to notice a remark which fell from a right rev. Lord near him. That right rev. Prelate appeared to him to contend that the purpose of the declaration was to ascertain the Christianity of the person chosen to fill an official situation. Now to him (Lord Holland) it did seem that that was not a matter within the province of human authority. It was contrary to that freedom which formed one of the foundations of Protestantism; and to admit such a principle into British legislation would be a step towards the establishment of an inquisition. It was directly the reverse of the principles upon which Parliament had always acted, with the exception of that blot upon our legislation, the sacramental test—English laws and Protestant and English Government were adverse to inquisitorial legislation. The Constitution recognised no power to inquire into men's thoughts on religious subjects. It was on the principle of the right to ascertain men's thoughts that the inquisition was founded, and every thing like an inquisition he was prepared to resist.
The Bishop of Londonhad purposely avoided putting forth any speculative 1218 principles, intending to reserve himself on those points to a future occasion. The declaration merely went to ascertain whether the party made a profession of Christianity or not, nothing more; and he must be allowed to say, that so long as any union subsisted between the Church and the State in this country, it could hardly fail to be thought necessary that persons holding office should at least come within the denomination of Christians.
§ Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. House resumed.