FIRST NIGHT. (Hansard, 1 February 1860)

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, that as he understood there was no objection to the second reading of this Bill, he would not ask the House to go into a discussion of this Bill at that hour; he proposed, therefore, that it be read a second time, only to fix the Committee for the 29th of February, and to take the discussion on that day.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, that many hon. Members on his side of the House had strong objections to the measure that cancelled some of the provisions of the Test and Corporation Act, and was an invasion on a great measure. The House ought not to be called on to assent to such a Bill at the close of a long debate on another subject.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
, if the House wished it, would not object to the postponement of the discussion: but he believed that the measure was not of the importance with which it seemed it had been regarded. It was true that the Bill proposed to interfere with the settlement of so important a measure introduced by the noble Lord who now represented the City of London, relative to the Test and Corporation Acts. When the Bill for settling the great question of the Test and Corporation Acts was before the House, the declaration now proposed to he repealed was suggested on 442 the part of the then Government as the condition on which they would accede to that measure. Regarded, therefore, in the nature of a compact between the different parties in the State and as a security for the Established Church, he admitted that the view taken by the noble Lord opposite was a sound and correct view. But the question, nevertheless, arose whether the declaration had any really substantial effect, and was any security for the Established Church; or rather, whether it was not to some extent capricious and vexatious in its operation? The declaration—which was, in substance, a pledge taken by persons holding offices, never upon the true faith of Christians to exercise any power or authority which the situation which they held might confer upon them to injure or weaken the Protestant Church, as by law established—had to be subscribed before magistrates by persons filling municipal offices and all offices under the Crown, the holders of which had previously been in the habit of taking the Sacrament as a qualification. He could not say how many officers were included in the Act; but his impression was, that the great majority of the officers under the Crown were included in it, As a matter of fact, the declaration was not made by the great majority of persons holding office under the Crown, and the omission was cured by the annual Indemnity Act. On the other hand, with regard to municipal officers, it had been held that it was competent for the town council or other municipal body to require persons to make the declaration before taking office; and in these cases persons might be subjected to disqualification, and the Indemnity Act did not apply. The question, therefore, was, if by an Indemnity Act they virtually repealed the law with respect to a largo class of officers, was it worth while to maintain it with respect to another class of officers with regard to whom it did not operate for the protection of the Established Church, and when enforced was enforced capriciously and vexatiously. Upon these considerations, he was prepared to give his vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
was of opinion, that the measure would have the effect of destroying the analogy which at present subsisted between the Members of this House and the members of municipal bodies; but the question was of too important a nature to be disposed of within the half hour before the adjournment of the House, He 443 begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, that if the hon. Gentleman persisted in his Motion, he had no alternative but to consent to the adjournment. He would, therefore, name Wednesday, the 29th instant, for the resumption of the debate.