§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, that no statement had been made as to the scope or origin of this Bill. It seemed to be the co-relative measure of the Bill respecting the Roman Catholic oath. That measure was called a Bill for unmuzzling Roman Catholics, whilst the present Bill might be 2008 called one for muzzling Protestants. The effect of the Bill would be to relieve persons from taking a declaration against the doctrine of transubstantiation at the offering up of the Mass. He should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell them what he meant by transubstantiation. Whatever was meant by it, it had always been considered as that particular feature of the Romish faith to which persons might object without being open to the charge of religious bigotry. Transubstantiation was not merely a matter of faith with Roman Catholics but was with the mass that particular ceremony of the Church which derived all its efficacy from a power conferred on priests by the Pope, and though it was the policy of this country to allow every man to worship God as he pleased, they never, on any pretence of religious liberty, had allowed a Foreign Power to interfere in that House.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, there had been some misunderstanding as to whether this Bill would be brought on to-night, and therefore he begged to withdraw his Motion for the second reading.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, there certainly had been some misunderstanding upon the subject, and therefore it would be better to postpone the second reading for a fortnight.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 8th May.