HC Deb 22 June 1865 vol 180 cc684-6

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." (Mr. Peel.)

MR. HADFIELD moved that it be read a second time that day three months. He said it had been declared by a noble Lord for whom hon. Members at the other side of the House had great respect (Earl Derby), that the particular declaration pointed at by this Bill, as a protection to the Established Church, was not worth the paper on which it was written so far as it professed to accomplish that object. It was kept up merely as a badge of predominance, and for the purpose of insulting and marking off millions of Englishmen as serfs. The indemnity was sought upon the assumption that persons were ignorant of the law requiring them to take it, were absent from the country, or for other reasons of that sort. Among the persons, however, supposed to be ignorant of the law were officials no less exalted than the Attorney General and Commander of the Forces. He had introduced a Bill to obviate the necessity of taking the oath to which this Bill referred, and that Bill had been agreed to by that House six times; and after all that, to his great surprise the Bill had been rejected by the other House. The great Conservative leader in the other House had summoned the Peers to reject the measure. By this Indemnity Bill the Ministers passed a measure for themselves which they refused to their fellow-subjects. That was a miserable exhibition of legislation. It was quite time to put an end to this system of things. If the other House would not repeal the Oath's Act they ought to insist on the oath being taken by all to whom the Act applied, and the House ought to reject this Indemnity Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Hadfield.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. PEEL

said, that if the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had become law—as he wished it had—it would still have been necessary to pass the annual Indemnity Bill, which was applicable not only to the declaration substituted for the old sacramental test, hut also to the consolidated oath which had taken the place of the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy. The only difference, if the Bill of the hon. Member had passed, would have been that there would have been no reference in the Indemnity Bill to the subject of the declaration referred to. If they could not repeal the law as the hon. Member wished, the next best thing was to suspend its operation. He therefore hoped the House would allow the Bill to pass into law. With regard to the clauses of which the hon. Member for Sheffield had given notice, he could offer no opinion till he had an opportunity of seeing them.

MR. HENNESSY

said, he thought the House instead of passing an Indemnity Bill ought honestly to repeal some of the Acts to which the Indemnity Bill related, and which rendered it necessary. One, in particular, an extraordinary one, the 2nd of Anne, c. 6, was entitled "An Act to prevent the further growth of Popery;" and stated that "some of Her Majesty's subjects in extreme sickness and decay of their reason and senses are persuaded and perverted from the Protestant religion;" and it provided, that all persons so persuaded should suffer very severe penalties unless they made declarations in accordance with that Act. Without doing anything invidious, he might say that there were hon. Gentlemen in the House who would be exposed to all the penalties of that Act, the severest of which, no doubt, would be the taking of the declaration. Another clause of the Act provided, that no "Popish" tenant should hold land, except at a certain exceptionally high rental. As he did not believe that any one would venture to enforce that Act, if this Bill was not passed he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield.

MR. BRIGHT

said, that the effect of the clanses, of which his hon. Friend (M. Hadfield) had given notice, would be to render an annual Indemnity Bill unnecessary, by abolishing the declaration which the law now required to be made. If the Government would take charge of a measure containing such clauses perhaps certain people in another place would allow it to pass. There was a great terror in that place of giving a triumph to the Dissenters represented by his hon. Friend. Whether that feeling was worthy of a great House, or was a very mean one, he would leave the public to determine; but if the Government would take up the measure it would go into the other House under auspices which would render it in the eyes of some people more respectable, and possibly it might pass. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Peel) would give a pledge that the Government would adopt that course—and probably he would do so, as many things could be done just before a general election—his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the House. As it was, he was anxious to carry a reform, which he said was desired by millions of his fellow-countrymen, and he was, therefore, fairly at liberty to take every opportunity of insisting upon that being done in favour of which they decided in six successive Sessions.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 18: Majority 14.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed, for To-morrow,