Commons Sitting of 13 February 1866

MINUTES.
Select Committee—On Standing Orders, Mr. Hastings Russell added; on Education appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Tests (University of Oxford); Parliamentary Oaths.
Ordered— Church Rates Abolition*; County Infirmaries (Ireland) *; Church Rates Commutation *; Tests (University of Oxford) *; Juries in Criminal Cases *; Parliamentary Oaths.
First Reading—Church Rates Abolition * [11]; County Infirmaries (Ireland) * [14]; Church Rates Commutation * [12]; Tests (University of Oxford) * [15]; Juries in Criminal Cases * [16]; Parliamentary Oaths * [13].

COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS).—QUESTION.
MR. DOULTONasked the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, early this Session, a Bill having for its object the preservation of Commons and Open Spaces in and around the Metropolis?
MR. COWPERreplied, that it was his intention to propose a Bill on the subject. He had it in preparation, and he hoped that he should be able to introduce it very shortly.

THE BANK CHARTER ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUELSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he intends, during the present Session, to introduce an Amendment of the Bank Charter Act of 1844, enabling the Bank of England to increase its issues against securities, beyond the amount to which they were at present limited by that Act?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that considering the state and prospects of public business, he was more than doubtful whether it would be in the power of the Government, during the present Session, to make any proposal relating to the difficult subject of the issue of bank notes. As regarded the particular Question put by the hon. Member, if it implied that the Government might have an intention of enabling the Bank of England to resume the discretionary system which prevailed prior to the passing of the Act of 1844, he was bound not to limit his answer to the present Session; and he would, therefore, say that the Government would not be disposed to enable the Bank of England to resume that system either in the present Session or in any other.

EDUCATION OF CHILDREN IN MANUFACTURING TOWNS.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, viewing the deplorable condition of the Children employed in many of the Trades in Sheffield and other towns, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for regulating the Employment and securing the Education of those Children.
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department intended to give notice on an early day of his intention to ask leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to some further recommendations, beyond those which had already formed the subject of legislation, made by the Commission on the employment of women and children.

THE SMOKE NUISANCE.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT PEELasked, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during the present Session, a measure for the purpose of abating nuisances arising from the smoke

449
of chimneys in towns and country districts in the vicinity of towns similar to the Bill passed in 1853 for the Metropolis?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that the Act which applied to the metropolis had had a most beneficial effect, and it was desirable to extend it to the whole country. No Bill had been at present prepared with that object, but he felt the importance of the subject. He hoped it might be possible to extend the provisions of that Act.

CATTLE DISEASES BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. TOLLEMACHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, when the House is in Committee on the Cattle Diseases Bill, he will consent to separate the compensation clauses from the other portions of the Bill, and to embody such clauses in a separate Bill? Cheshire would be greatly affected by the compensation clauses; but he had had no opportunity of consulting with any persons connected with that county respecting those clauses, as he had not yet received a copy of the Bill.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it would be impossible for him to accede to such a request. The payment of compensation for animals slaughtered, by order of the local authorities, and the power to cause such animals to be slaughtered, were essentially connected. The power to slaughter could not be given without a power to award compensation. At all events, he thought it would be better to postpone, to a future occasion, any consideration of the question of separating the Bill into two parts.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought it would be more convenient to leave all details as to the mode of raising the money for compensation, in order that they might be dealt with in a separate Bill.
MR. TOLLEMACHEasked, if he was to understand that the right hon. Gentleman definitively declined to accede to the request which he had just made?
SIR GEORGE GREYrepeated that he thought it would be impossible to separate those two provisions of the Bill.

ASH WEDNESDAY—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, it was ordered, "That the House at its rising do adjourn till tomorrow at Two of the clock"—(the morrow being Ash Wednesday.)
LEEDS BANKRUPTCY COURT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOWESasked the Attorney General, Whether any steps have been taken to prosecute the Reverend George Rogers Harding, Patrick Robert Welch, and the Hon. Richard Bethell, or any of them, for corrupt practices in obtaining, or attempting to obtain, a judicial appointment, as suggested by the Report of the Select Committee on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court; and, if no such steps have yet been taken, what is the cause of the delay?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee appointed by the last Parliament, and with the engagement which the Government gave at that time, criminal informations were filed last Michaelmas Term against Mr. Welch and the Hon. Richard Bethell, and they now stood on the list for trial at the present sittings; and as far as the Crown was concerned, they were ready to proceed to trial. As to the Rev. Mr. Harding, I think that the hon. Gentleman will feel that if the Crown had prosecuted him it would have thrown delay and difficulty in the way of a proper investigation of the matter; because Mr. Hording will be a most necessary witness, and it would indeed be impossible to proceed with the prosecution without his evidence.

JAMAICA.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he intends to bring on his measure for the Government of Jamaica on Thursday next? He suggested that neither the Jamaica Bill nor any other business ought to impede the progress of the Cattle Diseases Bill, and he trusted the Government would proceed with that Bill de die in diem.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was entirely in the hands of the House in regard to this matter. It was certainly important that early provision should be made for the Government of the colony; but the Cattle Diseases Bill would have the precedence of other business on Thursday, and if the Bill relating to Jamaica should be called on at so late an hour that the House would be unwilling to hear his statement, he should not of course press it. He was, however, anxious that the Government of the colony should receive early legislation in that House.

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION.

  SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in moving that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Committee of Council on Education, &c, said, that the Motion was, in fact, for the renewal of a Committee which sat during the whole of last Session, and which was engaged in the investigation of the two Questions stated. The scope of the inquiry proved to be so extended, and the evidence so voluminous, that the Committee were unable to conclude their labours and present their Report; and, under these circumstances, he contented himself by merely moving for the re-appointment of the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the constitution of the Committee of Council on Education, and the system under which the business of the office is conducted; and also into the best mode of extending the benefits of Government Inspection and the Parliamentary Grant to schools at present unassisted by the State."—(Sir John Pakington.)
  And on February 20 Select Committee nominated as follows:—
  Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. BRUCE, Viscount CRAN-BOURNE, Mr. BUXTON, Mr. HOWES, Mr. CLAY, MR. ADDERLEY, Mr. HENRY COWPER, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. MORRISON, and Mr. STIRLING:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

CATTLE PLAGUE (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD NAAS, in rising to move for "Copy of the Report of the Committee convened by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to consider the measures that might be adopted for arresting the progress of the Cattle Plague, in case of its appearance in Ireland," and to ask when the Bill promised by the Secretary of State will be laid upon the table, said, he hoped the great importance of the matter would excuse the few remarks he proposed to address to the House. Ireland was now placed in presence of one of the greatest dangers that ever menaced a country. The destructive effects of the cattle plague in England had been very great; but if, unfortunately, the plague should extend to Ireland, the misfortune would be fifty times as disastrous to that country. He could not help, therefore,
  452
  expressing his regret that the Government had not, on the first night of the Session, laid a Bill on this subject on the table of the House. The committee which was convened by the Lord Lieutenant agreed to certain specific resolutions, which proposed to deal with this disease, should it arise, in that country in a manner different from the mode in which it had been dealt with in this country. The Irish Government had adopted those recommendations, in so far as it was in its power to do so, by Order in Council. They had agreed that, in case an outbreak of the disease took place, the best thing to do would be to draw a cordon at once around the infected district, to adopt the most stringent measures against the ingress and the egress of cattle, and to enforce the compulsory slaughter of infected cattle. But here a difficulty arose, for the committee recommended that the compulsory slaughter of cattle should be accompanied by compensation up to two-thirds of the value of the animals destroyed. In this country he believed that one of the greatest misfortunes incidental to the cattle plague had been the unfortunate Order in Council which gave powers of compulsory slaughter without offering compensation. The system suggested by the committee which had now been for some weeks before the country, and had received very general approbation on all hands, would really be inoperative and come to nothing unless it were supplemented by sufficient compensation for slaughtered animals. Though, happily, the measures which had been taken had been, under Providence, the means of diverting this terrible disaster from the shores of Ireland, yet the country ran daily risk of an outbreak of the disease. It was liable to happen at any moment, and if such an outbreak should occur, the Government were without the power to carry out the measures which all in Ireland admitted to be necessary. Not a moment was to be lost in introducing and passing a Bill, and he believed that Government would find very little difficulty in the matter. A question might, perhaps, arise as to the mode in which the compensation was to be levied, but that would be easily settled. He hoped that, before another day elapsed, they might have an opportunity of seeing the measure of the Government, and that, if possible, it would be made law within a week. He must, however, warn the Government that they would make a mistake if they intrusted the enforce-

  453
  ment of their measures to local authorities, who could not carry out the system recommended by the committee. It must be carried out by Government officers alone, and its operations must be uniform throughout the country. No board of guardians, or magistrates in petty or quarter sessions, or committee of a grand jury, could carry out the system recommended with any chance or hope of success. He hoped, therefore, that a Bill embodying the recommendations of the committee would be introduced immediately by the Government, and that the Government would take on themselves the responsibility of carrying out all its provisions.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that there was no objection to the production of the Report. The Government had been in communication with the Lord Lieutenant on the subject of the measures that it was desirable should be adopted in the event of the cattle plague appearing in Ireland, and the Attorney General and the Solicitor General had been instructed to draw up a Bill founded on the report of the committee and on the views of the Lord Lieutenant. It was, however, quite necessary that the Bill should be seen by Lord Wodehouse and the Irish Government, and he could not therefore fix the day when it would be brought in; but it would be introduced on an early day. There was this difference between Ireland and this country, that in Ireland there was an army of police directly responsible to the central Government and not to the local authorities, and therefore that could be done in Ireland which there was no means of doing here.
  Motion agreed to: Return ordered.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

  RESOLUTION IN COMMITTEE. BILL READ THE FIRST TIME.
  Acts read;—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the subject he was about to introduce was one which, like several others that had been adverted to that evening, had been frequently brought under the notice of the House. A considerable discussion had taken place on it only so recently as last Session. He did not propose, therefore, to trouble the House at any length, but should reserve a fuller statement of the objects of the Bill for the second reading, provided as he hoped that the House allowed him to bring it in. But he would state shortly
  454
  the purposes of the Bill. There were now two distinct oaths taken by Members of the House; one by Protestants and the other by Roman Catholics. The Protestant oath was framed in 1858, when an Act was passed consolidating the three oaths, which, previous to that period, were taken separately, of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy. With regard to the part of the oath which relates to allegiance to the Crown, which was common to both Protestants and Roman Catholics, no one could refuse for a moment to admit that it was a very proper oath to be taken by every Member of the House. He did not think there was a Member of the House who would not take that oath willingly. But, with reference to the second part of the oath taken alike by Protestants and Roman Catholics—the oath of abjuration—he thought they would all agree that the time had come when it could and ought to be dispensed with. It was first required to be taken in the reign of William III., on the death of James H., and the assumption by the son of James II. of the title of King of England, when in fact a real danger menaced the Throne of this kingdom. Rather, however, than give his own opinion of this part of the oath, he would quote the words of a most eminent authority—Lord Lyndhurst—and which were spoken in 1858. He said—
  "The object of this oath had long ceased. The descendants of the Pretender had long been extinct. What, then, was the course which every man of common sense would consider ought, under those circumstances, to be pursued? Simply to repeal the oath framed for a particular purpose, and the utility of which was now at an end."
  The latter part of the oath taken by Protestants, embodying the negative part of the oath of supremacy in which the jurisdiction of the Pope, or of any other foreign prince in this country is denied, appeared to him to be entirely useless. He could not see the necessity of any Protestant Member of the House being called upon for a declaration that the Pope had no spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this country. It was really an absurdity in the case of Protestant Members, none of whom can be suspected of holding such an opinion. As it respects, therefore, a Protestant Member, the oath of allegiance seems to be quite sufficient. As to the oath taken by Roman Catholics, the same reasons which he had given in the case of the Protestants, as to that part of it which required the abjuration of the Pretender,

  455
  applied equally to them. There were other portions of the Roman Catholic oath framed in 1829 as a security against any danger arising from the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, which formed the subject of a great deal of discussion last Session—into these he did not wish now to enter or to invite debate. He concurred at that time with the right hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. Monsell), who introduced a Bill on that subject, that portions of the oath were needlessly offensive to Roman Catholics, and that there was not the slightest use in retaining them, and that other parts were ambiguous, and open to doubtful and complicating construction; and, therefore, he supported the proposal made by his right hon. Friend last Session for their omission from the oath. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) acquiesced in those omissions, so far as they embraced those words which were obviously offensive. I do not, therefore, anticipate any difference of opinion as to them. Other parts of the oath related to the settlement of property and the maintenance of the Established Church, and of the Protestant religion. With regard to these he had only to say that in his opinion no real security for the Established Church or the Protestant religion was given by their retention, and he thought that we ought not, needlessly, to place our Roman Catholic fellow subjects, as Members of the Legislature, on a footing different from that we ourselves occupy. As to the denial of the jurisdiction or authority of any foreign prince or prelate, Roman Catholics were, for obvious reasons, exempted from the denial of spiritual authority, and while it seemed absurd to require this denial only from those who have no concern in it, the necessity for denying civil or temporal authority is obviated by the oath of allegiance, and he (Sir George Grey) was not aware that any Roman Catholic would hold that the Pope exercised any civil or temporal jurisdiction within this country. In fact, the person who would assert this would fail in his allegiance, and might bring himself within the penalties of treason. The opinion which he (Sir George Grey) had expressed last Session was very generally concurred in—namely, that there should be one uniform oath for all. If there was one general oath, they might limit it to the first part of the oath taken without hesitation both by Protestants and Roman Catholics, which would be substan-
  456
  tially the oath of allegiance to the Crown. The Members professing the Jewish religion sat now in that House not by absolute right but by sufferance, the result of a compromise adopted to terminate a long struggle, but it was impossible not to see that that arrangement must be temporary. Those Gentlemen had sat there for some years, and it would be absurd to ask if any danger had arisen to the Crown, the Church, or the Constitution, from Jews sitting in that House. They had taken part, with credit to themselves, in the discussions in the House, and had performed their duty with integrity and ability. He (Sir George Grey) thought the time was come when the Members professing the Jewish religion should be admitted to all the privileges which were enjoyed by the Members of other religious denominations. By the adoption of the measure he proposed Members would be relieved from the necessity, on coming to the table after a general election, of ranging themselves in three divisions when taking the oaths. Let no man be asked any question as to his religion, but let him take his seat in the House if qualified to sit there, in the opinion of those who sent him there, on taking the oath of allegiance as a loyal subject of the Crown. The Bill which he proposed to introduce would be a short one, repealing the present oaths, and providing that the oath to be taken shall be as follows:—
  "I A. B., do swear that I will bear faithful and true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and defend her to the utmost of my power against all attempts and conspiracies whatever that shall be made against her crown, power, and dignity."
  The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving—
  "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Parliamentary oaths."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that considering the nature of the Bill which the right hon. Baronet had proposed, the tone of his speech was singularly smooth. He seemed to treat his proposal as though it dealt with matters of but slight importance—matters almost of indifference. No one who heard the right hon. Gentleman could, from his tone or his manner, have believed that he was proposing the disturbance of a great constitutional settlement. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not intend to take the sense of the House at present on the subject-matter of the intended Bill, though

  457
  divisions bad often been taken at the outset of proposals, which, as in the present case, would destroy a settlement that had been adopted, after a controversy upon this subject which had lasted eleven years. It was eight years since the Oaths Consolidation Act was passed, and Parliament was now asked, after so short an interval, to disturb the settlement then made with respect to Parliamentary oaths. He held in his hand a pamphlet which had been circulated among the Members of the House. It was entitled Brief Suggestions as to the Oaths taken by Members of Parliament and Others—Her Majesty's Subjects. The tone of the pamphlet was similar to that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The substance was much the same as that of the right hon. Baronet's speech. There was no author's name appended to the pamphlet, and it was printed for private circulation. He (Mr. Newdegate) almost came to the conclusion that it emanated from the right hon. Gentleman. If the pamphlet did not emanate from the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps he had picked out such portions as he thought might be used in inducing Members of the House to accede to his proposal. He (Mr. Newdegate) would ask the attention of the House to the few observations he was about to offer on the subject of the Oaths Bill. It was quite true that the primary object of the oath taken by Members was to obtain from them a declaration of allegiance. No one had as yet been bold enough to propose the abolition of the oath of allegiance. The allegiance of Englishmen, however, was not simply the allegiance of subjects to an absolute Sovereign, but the allegiance of citizens to a Sovereign who was bound by certain conditions as to the administration and exercise of her power. The right hon. Gentleman asked, "Why not sweep away the oath of abjuration, now that the Pretender and his lineal descendants are no more?" But the right hon. Gentleman took care never to touch upon the fact that that oath limits the succession to the Crown to the descendants of the Princess Sophie of Hanover, being Protestants. Now, one condition of our allegiance is that the Sovereign shall be a Protestant. He might be told that that great advantage is secured by the Act of Settlement. But if it was thought necessary still to retain the declaration of allegiance, why was it now
  458
  sought to deprive the Protestant subjects of Her Majesty of the advantage enjoyed and the security conferred by the public recognition of the fact that the Sovereign must be a Protestant? Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to the oath of supremacy, and proposed to sweep away the negative portions of it. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen were not aware of what was contained in those negative portions. The man who took the oath condemned and rejected the pretensions of any foreign Power whatsoever, by whomsoever pretended rightfully to exercise any authority, ecclesiastical or temporal, spiritual or civil, within these realms. That was no slight security to abandon. The concession of the right hon. Gentleman was no slight concession to propose. He would not detain the House by going into the provisions of the Roman Catholic oath which it was proposed to repeal, since that subject had been not long since debated. Let it suffice to remind the House that it contained declarations to be made on the part of Roman Catholics that they would not use the power or privileges to which they might become entitled by virtue of the functions or offices to which they were admitted for the disturbance of the rights of property or the rights of the Church of England within these realms. He would ask whether, at the present time, when the Fenian conspiracy was at work in Ireland, when they all rejoiced to see many Roman Catholics proving by their conduct that they abide by the declaration contained in their oath that they will not sanction the disturbance of the settlement of property—he would ask whether this was a fitting and appropriate opportunity for absolving them from this public recognition of the sanctity of property? Hon. Members should remember that their oaths included and recognized, not merely the sovereignty of the Queen, but the rights of the subject, the sanctity of property, and the rights and privileges of the Established Church. If there were Members of that House who would disturb these sacred portions of our law and constitution, were they men in whose favour the House would abrogate the provisions of those oaths which had been taken willingly, cordially, and ex animo by every Member of that House within the last ten days, and for so many years past? He might ask whether the attitude of the Papacy and its agents in this country at present was such as would

  459
  commend this proposal to the approbation of the House? Why, it was but last week that Dr. Manning preached a sermon at the Oratory hard by in laudation of St. Thomas, as they styled him. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed; perhaps they did not know whom Dr. Manning meant by St. Thomas. Why, it was no other than Thomas A' Becket—an Archbishop of Canterbury who resisted the laws of this country, and who lost his life in consequence of his rebelling against the constitutions of Clarendon—constitutions passed 700 years ago by our Roman Catholic ancestors, to guard the freedom and independence of this country against the intrusion of a foreign jurisdiction—that of the Papaoy—laws passed for the very same object and purpose for which the negative declarations in the oath of supremacy were now retained, and against which, in the very sermon to which he had alluded, Dr. Manning protested, and urged all whom he could influence to rebel. He would not pursue the subject further. He would only say that the oaths—great part of which the Government now sought to destroy—represented a settlement established by Parliament only eight years ago, after a struggle of eleven years. Under existing circumstances, it was not becoming in Her Majesty's Ministers to propose to disturb that settlement; indeed, it was scarcely decent.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to more the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Oaths.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 13.]

SUPPLY.
Motion for Supply,—Committee on Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Queen's Speech referred:—Motion considered.
(In the Committee.)
Queen's Speech read.
Resolved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

CHURCH BATES ABOLITION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. HARDCASTLE, Bill for the Abolition of Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARDCASTLE, Mr. DILLWYN, and Mr. BAINES.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 11.]

COUNTY INFIRMARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART, Bill for the better regulation of County Infirmaries in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART and Mr. O'REILLY.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 14.]

CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. NEWDEGATE, Bill for the commutation of Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NEWDEGATE and Lord ROBERT MONTAGU.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 12.]

TESTS (UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD).
Acts read;—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish certain Tests in the University of Oxford.
Resolution reported.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COLERIDGE and Mr. GRANT DUFF.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 15.]

JURIES IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to codify and amend the Law in relation to the keeping together and discharge of Juries on the trial of Criminal Cases, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN and Colonel FRENCH.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 16.]
House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.