SECOND BEADING.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 19 July 1859)

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
said, the object of the measure was to remove from the Statute-book certain declarations now required to be made by Nonconformists, Jews, and Quakers, and which were said to prevent them from accepting certain municipal offices. Some of the statutes it proposed to repeal were of very ancient date, and he could not consent to that course except after mature consideration. He thought that, as the question was one of religious disabilities, it would be better that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed, and that the subject should be referred to a Select Committee. If that course should not be adopted he should feel himself compelled to oppose the Bill from want of sufficient information in the House to consider the subject. He would therefore move that the whole subject of declarations required as qualifications for the exercise of municipal offices he referred to a Select Committee.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, that it would be a disgrace for the House to pass a Bill which had only been printed seven days, for the repeal of numerous Acts of Parliament, and with respect to the introduction of which the promoters dare not state their reasons. The real effect of the Bill would be to lower the honour and dignity of the Church, and he was surprised that it was proposed to pass it in such a summary manner.

MR. M. SMITH
said, that the disqualifications in question were only galling restraints and not useful tests, and ought therefore to be removed. If he thought it was an attack upon the Church of England he should not vote for it, but he believed it would in no way injure the Established Church.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, it appeared to him that the present short Session was to be chiefly used for a general attack upon the Church of England. Surely no Dissenter would wish to relieve himself of an obligation by which he was bound not to take advantage of the influence his office gave him to injure the Church of England. Power was granted to them on certain conditions, and what was now asked was that the power of the State should be used by those who held such office to attack the Church of England. If a man were chosen as a municipal officer by his fellow-countrymen he ought not to be permitted to use the powers which the State conferred upon him for the purpose of destroying the Church which the State maintained. The introduction of this Bill was, in effect, the laying the foundation of an internecine war, for he could not understand its object if it was not to attack the Church. The declarations having been accepted they were the conditions of the relation between the Church and the State, and the House was now asked to alter the law in that respect. For what purpose were they asked to do so, if it was not to enable those who had become vested with that power to attack the Church? They had already conflict enough upon these subjects, and he should, therefore, only say that he should vote against the second reading of the Bill, and should take every opportunity, at all events, of deferring these painful subjects until Her Majesty's Government had had an opportunity of considering them in 28 conjunction with the questions that had arisen under the Roman Catholic Relief Act.

§ MR. BAXTER
remarked, that the declarations were useless; and that in Scotland they did not exist, although the Scotch corporations had what the English had not —namely, ecclesiastical buildings.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
said, that no more righteous measure could be proposed. It was a general measure to do away with a declaration, which was generally distasteful to Nonconformists of all kinds, and he cordially supported the second reading.

MR. HENLEY
said, he had heard no reason assigned for the Bill. No grievance had been pointed out, no injury had been shown to be inflicted upon any one. Some persons desired to destroy the Church of England and to reduce it to the level of a mere sect in the country, and if it was desired to pass this Bill to enable persons in corporate offices to carry out that wish, the existence of the restraints complained of was undoubtedly an inconvenience, but whether it should be abolished was another matter. He thought some Members of the Government ought to state their opinions upon the subject.