SECOND READING. (Hansard, 27 February 1867)

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, that as he had been informed that no opposition was to be offered to the second reading of this Bill, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) having given notice of an Amendment in the next stage of the Bill, he would not detain the House by any lengthened remarks. The object of the Bill was to get rid of an offensive and insulting Declaration on the Statute Book, dating as far back as the reign of Charles II. The terms of the Declaration he would not read. It stigmatised some of the most sacred doctrines and ceremonies of the Catholic Church as superstitious and idolatrous; and he did not think that there was one hon. Member in the House who would advocate the retention of that Declaration. In 1829 the Declaration was abandoned in respect to every office open to Roman Catholics; but it was to the present time required to be taken by the Lord Chancellor of England, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant 1092 of Ireland, the Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, and by every office-holder under the Crown who by law could not be a Roman Catholic. The object of the Bill was to do away with this Declaration. It did not touch the qualification for any office. It left the law as it was, but abolished the Declaration. He introduced this Bill last Session when it was sanctioned by this House, and was sent up to the Lords; but the noble Earl, now the First Lord of the Treasury, thought it necessary to stop the further progress of the measure, on the ground that a Royal Commission had been appointed to inquire into the general subject of oaths, and was then sitting. That Commission had not yet made their Report; and he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) felt it to be his duty on the first night of the Session to bring the subject before the House, as he thought it disgraceful that the Declaration should longer remain on the Statute Book. It was true, as was remarked last year by a venerable Peer, who assumed the guardianship of Protestant interests in the other House, that the Declaration was one which the Sovereign was obliged to make at her coronation; but this Bill did not interfere with the Sovereign. Whether the obligation to take this Declaration ought to be retained for the Sovereign was a matter for consideration; but this Bill did not apply at all to the Sovereign, but only to certain office-holders under the Crown.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he wished to take this opportunity of stating that he had given notice of an Amendment to this Bill in Committee to the effect that the substance of the Declaration should be retained, but that its offensive terms should be avoided by the substitution of new ones. He must observe that this Declaration had existed since the time of Charles II., and that the terms of it had never till now been stigmatised. It seemed that Roman Catholic gentlemen in the present day had become more sensitive than their forefathers. It was not for him to complain of the change of feeling that had taken place. His only object was to alter the Declaration in such a manner as to get rid of what was offensive in its phraseology. There was a strong feeling out of doors against the Offices and Oaths Bill, which 1093 stood next on the paper, and the object of which was nearly the same as that of the present Bill, and with regard to which he held a petition in his hand.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member cannot present a petition at this stage of the Bill.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
Not at the second reading?

§ MR. SPEAKER
Not after the second reading has been moved.