COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 27 August 1880)

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
appealed to hon. Members to accede to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair in order that the House might resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. The substance of the Amendments on the Motion for going into Committee that had been placed upon the Paper could very well be considered in Committee; and as the end of the Session was now within a measurable distance it was a matter of importance to expedite Business when it was possible to do so. Once in Committee, he would consent to Progress being reported, and the measure could then be proceeded with tomorrow.

§ MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON
said, he could not agree to the request of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Had the Bill been left as it was when it came down to them from "another place," he 395 should have accepted it as a compromise on the long vexed question dealt with by the measure. But, as the Bill which they would discuss in Committee, with the Amendments proposed by the Go-ment, would be quite a different Bill from that which left the House of Lords, he must protest against it on behalf of the clergy of the Church of England. He had the honour of presenting to the Archbishop of Canterbury a Memorial against the measure from 15,000 of the clergy, and he could not treat it with indifference. It was, however, one of those occasions when nothing remained to be done but to enter a protest against the course proposed [to be taken by the Government, and to take a division upon going into Committee The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

MR. JESSE CODLINGS
said, that he had an Amendment upon the Paper affirming— That no Burials Bill can be satisfactory which deprives any section of the community of their civil rights on account of their religious opinions. The 6th clause limited the Services in churchyards to such as should be Christian and orderly. The supporters of the Government wished that the limitation which was now in the 6th clause should be abolished, because it excluded from the relief afforded by the Bill, Jews, Deists, Positivists, Secularists, and all who could not, or did not, choose to call themselves by the name of Christian. In the face of the speech of the Judge Advocate General on the second reading of the Bill, a clause was introduced which 396 violated what he declared to be the principle of the Bill; and, on the face of his arguments, it deprived a section of the community of the right which he declared to belong to all. Would not the Government pay some respect to the wishes of their followers? They were citizens before they were Nonconformists. If there were one principle more than another underlying Nonconformity it was the principle of religious equality; and this Bill now asked them to accept what was almost a bribe in the shape of relief from disabilities which weighed upon them on condition that they would assist in depriving a section of their fellow-citizens of the liberty which they claimed for themselves. He had placed his Amendment on the Paper with great reluctance. The Bill was a brand new Religious Tests Act passed in 1880, but with the spirit of 1828. If the 6th clause was right, then the law as it stood was right. As Nonconformists who had not forgotten their own trials, they objected to co-operate with their former persecutors in the prosecution of classes not included in the scope of the Bill. The Advanced Liberals and Nonconformists, to a man, were against this limitation in the Bill; and they now asked for some assurance from the Government that it should be removed.