MR. ADFIELD, in moving for a return of those persons who have subscribed the Declaration required by the 9 Geo. IV., c. 17, on admission to any office or employment since the year 1850, said he wanted to know the names of those who had complied with the law, and not of 528 those whose non-compliance had been covered by the annual Acts of Indemnity. He believed that those who alone had the power to exercise their office to the detriment of the Church of England invariably failed to make the declaration required by the Act, and that it was imposed upon the humbler class of persons who accepted corporate offices, more as an acknowledgment of the predominance of the Church of England than through fear of any aggression which Dissenters might promote against the establishment. If he was correctly informed, it was never subscribed by the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, or the Home Secretary. The opinion of the House that the test ought to be abolished had been expressed by their three times passing a Bill for the purpose, and three times the Bill had been rejected in "another place." In order to know whether he was correct in supposing that the law was trifled with, and as a guide for future proceedings, he begged to move—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the name of every person who, in and since the year 1850, has made and subscribed the Declaration specified and required in the Act 9 Geo. 4, c. 17, on his having been admitted into any office or employment, or who has accepted from Her Majesty any Patent, Grant, or Commission, and who, by his admittance into such office or employment or place of trust, or by his acceptance of such Patent, Grant, or Commission, or by the receipt of any pay, salary, fee, or wages by reason thereof, would, by the Laws in force immediately before the passing of said Act, have been required to take the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the rites or usage of the Church of England, except as in the seventh section of the said Act is mentioned, and exclusive also of the persons who are required by section two of the said Act to make and subscribe the said Declaration; and the date on which every such person made the said Declaration, and the office or employment to which he was admitted as aforesaid; and the date of the Patent, Grant, or Commission which was accepted by any such person.
§ Motion made and Question proposed.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that when the Act was passed in the year 1828 for repealing the sacramental test imposed on persons taking office by the Statute of Charles II. there was substituted by agreement between the two principal parties in the House a declaration which was embodied in that Act. His hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), had on more than one occasion brought in a Bill to 529 repeal that declaration, and he had voted in its favour, believing that the declaration was introduced rather for saving the honour of those who were, at the passing of the Act, opposed to the repeal of the sacramental test than for any substantial purpose, and that, as it was quite nugatory, it had better be removed from the statute-book. He gave his vote quite deliberately, and if his hon. Friend should ever again obtain leave to renew his Bill he should be prepared to repeat it. Therefore, the House would see that he was quite favourable to the repeal of the declaration. But the return moved for was of a different character. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman wished to lay ground for the repetition of his proposal in some future Session. According to the present law persons taking office under the Crown were bound to make the declaration within six months after entering on their offices; and if they failed to make that declaration their failure was remedied by an annual Act of Indemnity. The Act of Indemnity had been passed now for many years, and it indemnified persons liable to take oaths or make declarations upon the acceptance of office from penalties in the event of their neglecting to do so. His hon. Friend wished to have a Return of those who had taken the oath within the last ten years. Now, of course, if the names of any persons who had held office within that period did not appear in the Return, there was a strong inference that they had not taken the oath. Did his hon. Friend wish to learn the names of those who had omitted to take the declaration in order to lay the foundation of a criminal prosecution? He believed, however, that the Act of Indemnity would prevent that. [Mr. HADFIELD: No; it would not.] Then, if it would not, the argument he had just used was perfectly irresistible, because his hon. Friend was availing himself of the compulsory powers of the House to procure information on which a criminal prosecution might be founded. He did not think that that was a desirable exercise of the powers of the House, and he held, therefore, that the Return ought not to be granted. It was sufficient to establish a case for legislation that his hon. Friend should be able to state his belief that many persons who had held office had not taken the declaration as required by the Act. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was sorry to hear the right hon. Baronet treat the 530 feelings of members of the Church of England on this subject so lightly, and wished he would extend to that body the same toleration as to other denominations. The declaration was believed to be an important safeguard of the Church, and it could not be shown that it was injurious to any section of the community. He urged the hon. Member for Sheffield not to press for a Return which might be employed for a malicious purpose.
§ MR. HADFIELDassured the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department, that he had no intention to prosecute the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, or any of the Cabinet Ministers which the country had had for ten years past. But since it was apprehended that such consequences might arise, he would withdraw his Motion in tender mercy to the offenders. That House had declared three times in favour of his Bill for the repeal of that declaration, and as the majority was increasing he believed in another year or two this insult to the feelings of millions of Her Majesty's subjects would be removed from the statute book.
§ Motion by leave withdrawn.