§
Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (for Committee to consider of amending the Law relating to Parliamentary Oaths).
§ The House divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 70: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 3.)
§ MATTER considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman he directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Oaths."—(Mr. Attorney General)
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to explain that, although he could not blame himself for voting against every stage of this Bill, so far as it was at present understood, before giving his vote on the last question, he had risen for the purpose of putting some questions to Her Majesty's Government, when Mr. Speaker ruled that he was too late, and he had therefore voted in the minority. He was now aware of the fact that a number of hon. Members had left on the understanding that as the introduction of the Bill had come upon the House by surprise, if anything were done in their absence, an adjournment should be asked for. Surely such a Bill as this, involving matter that had been in contest in the House, a Bill for attaining an object which the House had always refused, especially as it affected the constitution of the House in its fundamental principles, was a measure that might have been deemed worthy of notice in the Queen's Speech. But what had happened? On the first day of the Session, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) rose in his place, and put a question to the noble Marquess who at present directed the Ministerialists in that House, asking him whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for the alteration of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866? The noble Marquess replied in the affirmative, and upon hon. Members occupying those Benches, as well as upon the great majority of the House, the announcement that such was the 252 intention of Her Majesty's Ministers came as a complete surprise. He (Mr. Newdegate) had been in communication with the leading Members on that side of the House, and, with their consent, he intended to ask for the adjournment of this question. When Her Majesty's Ministers had an opportunity of making some explanation of the provisions of the Bill, and of the circumstances under which it was introduced by them, he trusted they would succeed in exonerating themselves from the imputation of having introduced it under terror of what had proved to be Mr. Bradlaugh's very weak mob; and, having done so, that they would condescend to give to the House the further explanation asked for with regard to the Bill itself. He would remind hon. Members that they were, for the first time, about to consider and debate this Bill under the New Rules of Procedure, which were framed with the intention of curtailing debate; audit was, therefore, doubly incumbent on the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to give all possible information, and afford every opportunity of obtaining information, on introducing to the House so important a measure.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he did not share the curiosity felt by his hon. Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Newdegate) as to the details of the proposed measure. He was perfectly well aware, and he believed the House was also aware, of the nature of the Bill, the object of which was simply to admit to that House a man who had avowed his disbelief in a Supreme Being. The Bill, if it became law, would, he believed, amount to a national renunciation of God; and he, therefore, felt it his duty to give it upon every occasion his most strenuous opposition.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he could scarcely find words to express his opinion upon this proposal. He thought nothing in the history of this country was more disgraceful than this yielding to mob law. Nothing could be more despicable than that, because some man threatened to force his way into the House of Commons, contrary to the Rules and wishes of the House, the Government should immediately bow their heads before him, and prefer Bradlaugh to God. Every day the Members of that House opened their solemn deliberations by prayer, 253 and in their prayers they recognized the sanctity of religion, and acknowledged a God by Whom alone Kings could reign. That was the Constitutional theory upon which their laws were based; and the day on which they set aside that principle would be the most unhappy day England had ever seen. Englishmen were patriotic and loyal; and the reason why this country had been so blessed beyond all others was that we had always recognized the providence of God. The country could have no more short-sighted policy, were there Atheists or not on the Treasury Bench, than a policy abolishing the national recognition of God. He had never heard anything in the speeches of the Prime Minister that horrified him more than the charge he made against those who opposed the admission of Atheists, that they stood on too narrow a platform. Such a statement showed that the power and authority of God were thought nothing of by this Liberal Ministry. The House ought to have an explanation from the hon. and learned Attorney General of what the Bill was to be, and of the motives of the Government for producing it. In the absence of such an explanation, he believed that the Government were merely yielding to Democratic and Socialistic and Atheistic principles. Such principles prevailed during the French Revolution; and if we wished to reduce England to the position of France in its worst stages, we could not adopt a better method than the introduction of a Bill to ignore God and bring in Mr. Bradlaugh. Nothing could be more irreligious than this Bill; and he felt sure it would arouse the feeling of the country against the Government. A more silly and wicked thing the Liberal Government could not do.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was very unwilling that the House should think there was any want of consideration on his part towards them through the absence of an explanation of this Bill. He had two principal reasons for not thinking it necessary to give any further explanation of the Bill, which hon. Members would be able easily to master when it was in their hands. The first reason was that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) stated, on the previous day, the general nature of the measure, in 254 answer to a Question. He stated that it was a Bill which would afford an opportunity to those who desired to make an Affirmation in preference to taking the Oath to take that course. That statement explained the general nature of the Bill. His (the Attorney General's) second reason was that when Notice was given of the introduction of this Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), speaking on the part of the Opposition, said he should offer opposition to the Bill when it reached the second reading. [Mr. CHAPLIN: If ever it reached.] He would challenge the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) on the point. The statement was—"When the Bill reached the second reading." The words "if ever" were not used, as suggested by the hon. Member. If the right hon. Gentleman, and those with whom he immediately acted, had intended to oppose the Bill at that stage, where were they then? The right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire were simply following the usual habit of Parliamentary courtesy in allowing hon. Members to see the contents of a Bill before opposing it. For those reasons, he thought it was considerate to the House not to make a lengthened statement. He was sure the Committee would excuse him; and he did not think he need gratify the curiosity on the part of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler), or that the House would wish him to answer the personal observations or theological views of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton).
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he should not have risen, except for the observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He was distinctly under the impression, although of course it was a matter of memory and hearing, that what the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said was either "if ever" or "whenever" the Bill reached the second reading, he would oppose it by every possible means. But whatever the right hon. Gentleman might have said, as Leader of the Opposition on that occasion, he (Mr. Chaplin) ventured to say that that 255 question above all others was one which concerned every independent and individual Member, and was one upon which those hon. Members were perfectly competent to express opinions for themselves. The hon. and learned Attorney General had urged some complaints against hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, on the ground that their action was a departure from the usual courtesy of the House, by which, on almost every occasion, Bills were allowed to be introduced without opposition; but he must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that that was a totally unusual occasion, and was absolutely without precedent. It was true that the Leader of the Opposition was absent on the present occasion; but he (Mr. Chaplin), for one, could not admit that fact as any ground or reason why independent Members, who were totally opposed to the introduction of a measure which they regarded as one of the most fatal measures ever introduced into that House, were to hold their mouths and not offer such opposition as they deemed it their duty and their right to offer. When he considered the opinions expressed on that side of the House, and the enormous importance of the question—which was being raised, he believed, for the first time in the history of this country—ho did not think that was an hour at which this debate ought to proceed. It was out of all reason that the House should be called upon at 1 o'clock in the morning to debate the introduction of a Bill which involved consequences of the most enormous magnitude and importance to this country—a Bill which the great majority of hon. Members on that side of the House, and many on the other side, regarded, as they were obliged to regard it, as a Bill for only one purpose—namely, to facilitate the entrance of Atheists into the Parliament of England. It was the most mischievous and pernicious measure ever introduced into that Assembly; and, under the circumstances, he had not the slightest doubt as to the course he ought to pursue, and that was to move that the debate be adjourned by Progress being reported.
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), for he considered this a Bill which ought, at its initiative stage, to 256 occupy the attention of the House. Seeing that on the first night of the Session, a Member of the Government announced the introduction of a measure which was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, the House ought to have some further assurance from Her Majesty's Government that this measure would not be pressed upon the House with any undue haste. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) certainly stated, on the previous day, the object of the Bill; but he did not say whether it was regarded as a measure of the first importance, or whether it was to take precedence of every other measure to be introduced by the Government. The Committee ought to have some assurance from the noble Marquess upon those points. If they allowed the Bill to be introduced that night, they ought to have some statement as to whether it was to be proceeded with before any other Bill. That was a measure which occupied the attention of every constituency; and he could assure the Government that it would meet with the moat violent opposition from that side of the House. He himself should feel perfectly justified in saying—and he believed he expressed the feeling of that side of the House—that he should oppose this Bill in every possible way, and at every possible stage. It was the duty of the Conservative Party to show to the country that they wore determined, as long as they had breath in their bodies, to use every Form of the House to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, or any other Atheist, coming into the House of Commons.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he quite agreed that it was unusual to oppose a Bill at this stage; but the Committee ought to remember the extraordinary position in which the House and the country were placed by the course taken by the Government. It should not be forgotten that this was not the first time that this question had been before the House and the country. For three years it had been before the House, and until yesterday hon. Members were under the impression that the Government would take the same course as they had 257 adopted on all preceding occasions—that they would render no special assistance to the hon. Member for Northampton to obtain full admission to the House; but in consequence of the threats of Mr. Bradlaugh, and the fear of his mobs, the Government had made the compact they heard yesterday between Mr. Bradlaugh's Judus Achates, Mr. Labouchere, and themselves—["Order!"]
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. and learned Member that, under the New Rules, a Motion to report Progress must be strictly confined to reasons why Progress is moved.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he was extremely obliged to the Chairman for calling him to Order and reminding him that the House was under the New Rules, as it was well the country should see the way they were to be enforced; but it seemed to him that the observations he was making were pertinent to the question why Progress should be reported, because it was in consequence of the extraordinary position in which hon. Members found themselves placed by the Government, that he thought it desirable Progress should be reported. Therefore, with the permission of the Chairman, he would continue his reasons why Progress should be reported.
THE CHAIRMANThe subject-matter of the Motion is not now before the Committee. The Question is, whether Progress shall be reported, in order that the Motion shall be taken up on another occasion.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he was at a loss to understand why he was not entitled to give his reasons for wishing to report Progress, as that was all he intended to do; but he was determined to make this protest, in order to call the attention of the country to the extraordinary position in which they were placed at the eleventh hour, as it were, by the Government, who had carefully abstained from mentioning this Bill in the Queen's Speech, and had not even now fully explained its character. On the previous day, when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) asked what the intentions of the Government were, he stated in distinct terms that if the Government would yield to the threats of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), then the latter would keep quiet, as he had lately done; otherwise he would try to force himself 258 into the House; he would enter into a "Treaty," in fact, with the Government, and take no steps to force his way into the House. The position of the House was so extraordinary that he should not only protest, but vote against the Bill being introduced.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he also thought that the Motion should be agreed to. The reason why he thought Progress should be reported, and they should wait for another occasion, was this—that on Thursday Mr. Bradlaugh attended at Trafalgar Square with a brawling mob, and that at the end of Friday's Sitting—after half-past 12 o'clock—the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, clutching at the advantage of the New Rules, got up and, without assigning any reason, called on the House to vitally alter the Constitution of the country. The House and the country were clearly led to infer that the first step towards the alteration of the Constitution was taken by Mr. Bradlaugh and his mob on Thursday. He could not do otherwise than consider that to introduce this Bill was to humiliate the Parliament of England before Bradlaugh and his mob.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 69 j Noes 156: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 4.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, this Bill was of such an unusual character that for once he must step out of the paths which he had held in the House of Commons for many years, and do his little to obstruct a most obnoxious measure, which he believed to be the result of mob law terrorism upon Her Majesty's Government. He must move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—[Lord Henry Lennox.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 151: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 5.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he should like to make an appeal to the 259 noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). He thought the time had arrived when, under the ordinary rules of courtesy, which he trusted they might be able to revert to under the clâture, the noble Marquess might be able to see his way to conceding what had been asked for for some time by a large minority in the House. This Bill had been flashed upon the House in a most extraordinary manner by Her Majesty's Government; and he, therefore, was of opinion, considering the peculiar circumstances attending its introduction, and the very great importance Ministers evidently attached to it, and which was felt with regard to it throughout the country, that the noble Marquess would do well to agree to an adjournment.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONIn reply to what has fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Cland Hamilton), I, in my turn, should like to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite. I would appeal to them to consider the character of the opposition in which they are at present engaged. The nature of that opposition was very candidly admitted by the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) who just now moved that the Speaker do leave the Chair, for he informed us that he would do all he could to obstruct this Bill. [Lord HENRY LENNOX: Hear, hear!] Very well. I see sitting on the opposite side of the House, and taking part in these proceedings, many hon. Members who have been as loud in their denunciation of Obstruction as any Member of the Government. In spite of the attitude these hon. Members took up in the past, on the very first occasion when leave is asked to introduce a Bill which happens to be particularly distasteful to them, they obstruct almost without using the slightest argument in support of their position.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWe cannot now—the New Rules prevent our discussing the Motions.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI say, that almost without using the slightest argument, hon. Members opposite appear to consider themselves justified in resorting, without the slightest concealment, to what they themselves are compelled to admit is wilful and deliberate Obstruction.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThe noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) made a Motion, as he said himself, for the purpose of Obstruction.
LORD HENRY LENNOXPerhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to correct him. I am sure he does not wish to misrepresent what I said. What I said was that I was determined to obstruct the progress of the Bill at this hour of the morning. [Several hon. MEMBERS: No, no!]
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI beg the noble Lord's pardon; but I cannot admit the accuracy of the correction. No doubt he is right as to what he meant to say; but what I heard him say was that he intended to do his little to obstruct every stage of this most objectionable Bill. I was going to say, when interrupted, that I feel convinced that every hon. Member opposite who has taken part in these proceedings thinks this is a Bill the character of which amply warrants Obstruction. But, unfortunately, that may be the position of some section or other of the House in regard to any Bill which could be brought forward. Hon. Members who obstruct always say that the peculiar character of the Bill they object to warrants their obstruction; therefore, although I am willing to admit the sincerity of the opposition, I must reply to the appeal made to me by asking hon. Members opposite to consider whether, on this occasion, they are not setting an evil example, or establishing an evil precedent, by the course they are following?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he wished to know what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would say if a Member of the Opposition applied the same criticism to hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Government Benches?
§ An hon. MEMBER wished to ask the Chairman whether there was any Question before the Committee?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the noble Marquess then went on to appeal to the Opposition, and to say that Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were now engaged in that which they had so often condemned—namely, obstructing the progress of Business. His (Mr. Balfour's) answer to that was—"You 261 have provided a remedy against Obstruction." What were hon. Members occupied with during the whole of the latter part of last Session? Why, he recollected thinking, whilst they were passing the New Rules, that one of the most fatal results of their work would be that in the future they would never be able to accuse anyone of Obstruction. If they should disapprove of the proceedings of hon. Members—if they thought hon. Members unduly prolonged debates—their remedy was simple. They could apply their Rule. He did not, however, wish to enter into any contentious matter, and he would make another appeal to the noble Marquess. It was not to be credited that the solid phalanx the noble Marquess had behind him had remained in the House to this late hour, on the second night of the Session (1.50 A.M.), through any abstract admiration for Mr. Bradlaugh. They all had their little Bills, and they were kept here waiting because the Government would persist in bringing in this particular Bill at this particular moment. It would be just as easy for the Government to bring in the Bill to-morrow—[Laughter]—well, on Monday night. They would lose no time by it, and would evidently afford a great convenience not only to hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, but to the vast majority of their supporters who had come down to-night, each with the object of furthering his own particular crotchet. He would ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, at least, out of sympathy for hon. Friends behind him, to allow a postponement.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to repudiate the charge of Obstruction made against Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House. It was obviously unfair, as had just been pointed out by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), to charge all those who were fighting on this occasion with the statement of the noble Lord who had spoken from that side t Lord Henry Lennox). Why did hon. Members oppose the introduction of this Bill? Why, because it was proposed at a quarter to I in the morning. It was, no doubt, legitimate to do that, but, at the same time, it was unusual. Hon. Members opposed the introduction, and asked the Government to give them an opportunity of 262 considering the question on account of the very exceptional character of the measure. There was, he was sure, no precedent for the introduction by the Government of a religious Bill which had not been mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and that was another reason for giving hon. Members a further opportunity of considering the Bill. There was the still further reason given by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope); and then there was to be considered the intrinsic opposition of Members to any Bill which did not commend itself to the House and the country. He thought that, considering all these points, this was a matter in which the Government might very well be expected to yield to the wishes of a very large section of the House.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) always seemed to be actuated by the best motives. The hon. Member's great object just now appeared to be to forward the Business of the House—to facilitate the introduction of the Bills of hon. Members sitting opposite to him. The hon. Member seemed more anxious that hon. Members opposed to him in general politics should introduce their Bills than those hon. Members were themselves. This, no doubt, belonged to the general amiability of the hon. Member's nature; but, while giving him credit for sincerity in the professions he had made, let him apply a simple test. The hon. Member said—"You should bring in your Bill on Saturday night;" but there were difficulties in the way of such a course which it was singular the hon. Member's Parliamentary experience had not made him acquainted with. Hon. Members behind him, however, had reminded him of them. He (Sir William Harcourt) would ask the hon. Member whether he was disposed to say that in the event of the Bill being put down for Monday night he and his Friends would not make dilatory Motions? He (Sir William Harcourt) was quite sure, after the hon. Member's professions, and the indications they had had of his desire not to be obstructive, that if he would rise in his place, and give that sort of assurance, the Government would accept it. He would ask the hon. Member for an answer on this point, because from his 263 answer the House would gather the real reason why the hon. Member and his Friends wished to have the Bill postponed until Monday, and would learn whether those hon. Members would follow the lead of the Heads of their Party, who thought it would be entirely contrary to the proper manner of conducting the proceedings of the House, to refuse consent to the Government to bring in a Bill. If the hon. Member would say that no dilatory Motions would be brought forward, the Government would probably meet them on the point raised.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURin reply, said, that the remark he had made was not for the purpose of facilitating the progress of this Bill, but of all the other Bills which hon. Members were seeking leave to introduce to-night.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was very sorry the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) found himself unable to respond to the very reasonable appeals of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. The noble Marquess had charged them with a deliberate intention of obstructing this Bill. Well, at such an hour as this—between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning—it was somewhat difficult to draw a distinction between what was Obstruction and what was legitimate opposition to a Bill. Considering the importance of this Bill, and the manner in which it was being pressed on by the Government against the manifest wish of a large number of hon. Members on one side of the House and, no doubt, many on the other side, he must say that a more legitimate opposition than that being offered to the progress of this Bill would be difficult to imagine. The noble Marquess had said they had offered no arguments whatever against the progress of the measure; but the noble Marquess was hardly accurate. They had stated over and over again, and the noble Marquess did not deny it, that this Bill was one of the most important and exceptional measures that had ever been submitted to an English House of Commons; and it was at nearly 2 o'clock in the morning that, with the assistance of the noisy and mechanical majority behind him, the noble Marquess sought to force it on a reluctant Assembly. The mere fact of the hour at which the Bill was being proceeded with, the importance of the measure and its exceptional 264 character—which was not denied by the Government—was as strong an argument as it was possible to adduce in support of the present opposition. All he and his Friends were asking was that such an important measure should be introduced at a time when it could receive an adequate and fitting discussion at the hands of the House. If the Government would consent to introduce the Bill at a proper time they would find that hon. Members had no desire to offer anything but a legitimate opposition; but all he could say was that if the Government persisted in their endeavour to force this Bill on at an hour in the morning like the present, hon. Members would resist as long as they were allowed to do so by the Rules now in force—they would offer all the opposition they believed it to be their duty to offer.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, that as he was one of those who had a Bill to introduce that night, and as he did not wish to stop there all night listening to a discussion between the Members of the Ministerial and Opposition Benches, and as he considered that neither the speech of the noble Marquess nor that of the Home (Secretary was satisfactory, he would venture to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Molloy.)
§ MR. NEWDEGATEasked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, upon what day he intended to take the second reading of this Bill, as he had evidently made up his mind to force the Bill through the House?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that it was impossible to name a day for the second reading until the Bill had been introduced; but, if it would be any consolation to the hon. Member, he thought he could assure him that a considerable time must elapse before the second reading could be taken. The first Business which the Government had to take was the second reading of those Bills which it was intended to refer to the Standing Committees; and, until those had been dealt with, the Government would not ask the House to proceed with this Bill.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORobserved that the Government must see that there were sufficient Members in the House to prevent this Bill being taken to-night, and the Government had not sufficient votes at their command to put the New Rules in force. What, then, could be gained by dragging the House of Commons into the position in which it was now placed? In the very first week of the Session the House was being dealt with in a manner which was ominous of what would follow. He would ask the Government to consider whether they could possibly gain anything by persisting in the course they had chosen to enter upon on such an occasion as this? There had never been a Bill of the importance or character of this Bill, which had not been heralded long beforehand by public notices; and this Bill was one of such importance that, according to the Rules of the House, it was necessary that leave should be given in Committee before it could be introduced at all. Yet it had been sprung on the House at a day's notice, and the Committee was to be asked to allow this Bill to be introduced at 2 o'clock in the morning. And what was the character of this Bill, and by whom was it proposed? Not by the Prime Minister. He appeared to be anxious to keep out of the way. He had expressed his own opinion on this Bill, and had declared that the introduction of Atheists into the House was but a step downwards—
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member that the only Question before the Committee is that of reporting Progress.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, be was perfectly aware of that; but he was not under the impression that he was out of Order in putting forward what appeared to him to be an argument for deferring this matter until the return of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had said the introduction of Atheists into this House would be but a preliminary to a decision which would be fatal to the recognition of Christianity. If that was the character of this proposal, was it not, at any rate, decent to let the Prime Minister have an opportunity, on the first occasion when this Bill was introduced, of explaining the extraordinary volié face which he must have performed before he could be induced to support this Bill?
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 145: Majority 81.—(Div. List No. 6.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. CHAPLINrose to renew the appeal to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) made at an earlier period by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton). On that side of the House hon. Members had already defended their views; but they had no desire to offer illegitimate obstruction to this measure. All they asked was that it should be introduced at some hour in the evening when they could have the legitimate discussion which they thought necessary. It seemed to him that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, this was a reasonable opposition to this measure; and he thought the noble Marquess must see that there was a very unusual degree of practical opposition to the measure. Under the circumstances, he hoped the noble Marquess might be persuaded to entertain the appeal.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, there was nothing approaching a reasonable compromise to which he should not be very happy to agree, for the purpose of getting through the first stage of this measure. During the progress of the debate on the Address, it was not possible for the Government to make arrangements to bring in a Bill at what might seem to be a reasonable hour in the minds of hon. Members opposite. But such Bills as this were usually introduced at about half-past 12 o'clock; and if it would meet the views of hon. Members opposite, who wished that more time should be given for the consideration of this Bill, he would do his best, if the discussion were now adjourned, to bring the Bill on again on Monday night as soon after 12 o'clock as possible, though it was impossible to say when the debate on the Address would be closed or adjourned. He would be glad to agree to that course, on the understanding that hon. Members opposite would then not object to the Bill being taken.
§ Mr. BERESFORD HOPEtrusted that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would accept that proposition, and would move that Progress be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—{Mr. Beresford Hope,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.