Lords Sitting of 1 May 1865

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Common Law Courts (Fees)* (25); Metropolitan Main Drainage Extension* (40); Qualification for Offices Abolition (46), negatived.
Report—Courts of Justice Concentration (Site)* (59).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA—ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN.

  ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords I rise to ask your Lordships to address Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that in any communications She may make to the Government of the United States expressing her abhorrence and regret at the great crime which has been committed in the murder of the President of that country, Her Majesty will at the same time express the sorrow and indignation felt by this House at that atrocious deed. In this case I am sure your Lordships will feel entire sympathy with Her Majesty, who has instructed me already to express to the Government of the United States the shock which She felt when the intelligence
  1220
  reached this country, and her abhorrence of the deep and horrible crime which has been perpetrated, and her sympathy with the Government and people of the United States. Her Majesty has also been pleased to write a private letter to Mrs. Lincoln, expressive of sympathy with that lady in her great and sudden bereavement. I think that your Lordships will agree with me that in modern times there has hardly been a crime committed so abhorrent to the feelings of every civilized person as the one I am now referring to. Mr. Lincoln had been first elected President of that great and united Republic; and after the secession of a part of the States, he was re-elected to the same high position by the large majority of the people remaining faithful to the Government of the United States. He was in the discharge of the duties of his office, having home his faculties meekly, at the moment when, an assassin attacked him at the theatre, whither he had gone to please the people of Washington. My Lords, there are circumstances connected with this crime which, I think, aggravate its atrocity. President Lincoln was a man who, though not conspicuous before his election, had since displayed a character of so much integrity, so much sincerity and straightforwardness, and at the same time of so much kindness, that if any one could have been able to alleviate the pain and animosities which prevailed during the period of civil war, I believe that President Lincoln was that person. It was remarked of President Lincoln that he always felt disinclined to adopt harsh measures; and I am told that the commanders of his armies often complained that when they had passed a sentence which they thought no more than just the President was always disposed to temper its severity. Such a man this particular epoch required. The conduct of the armies of the United States was intrusted to other hands, and on the commanders fell the responsibility of leading the armies in the field to victory. They had been successful against those they had had to contend with; and the moment had come when, undoubtedly, the responsibilities of President Lincoln were greatly increased by their success. But, though it was not for him to lead the armies, it would have been his to temper the pride of victory, to assuage the misfortunes of his adversaries, and especially to show, as he was well qualified to show, that high respect for that valour on the opposite side which has been so

  1221
  conspicuously displayed. It was to be hoped that by such qualities, when the conflict of arms was over, the task of conciliation might have been begun, and President Lincoln would have an authority which no one else could have had to temper that exasperation which always arises in the course of civil strife. Upon another question the United States and the Confederates who have lately been in arms will have a most difficult task to perform. I allude to the question of slavery, which some have always maintained to have been the cause of the civil war. At the beginning the House will remember that President Lincoln declared that he had no right by the Constitution to interfere with slavery. At a later period he made a communication to the Commander-in-Chief of the United States forces in which he proposed that in certain States the slaves should be entirely freed. But at a later period he proposed—what he was constitutionally qualified to propose—that there should be an alteration in the Constitution of the United States, by which compulsory labour should hereafter be forbidden. Many persons were eager for the immediate abolition of slavery. I remember that Lord Macaulay once declared that it would have been a great blessing if the penal laws against the Roman Catholics had been abolished from the time of Sir Robert Walpole, though Sir Robert Walpole would have been mad to propose a measure for that purpose. So it was with regard to President Lincoln. Whatever may be the horror of slavery, I believe he was perfectly justified in delaying the time when that great alteration of the United States law should take place. But, whatever we may think on these subjects, we must all deeply deplore that the death of President Lincoln has deprived the United States of a man, a leader on this subject, who by his temper was qualified to propose such a measure as might have made this great change acceptable to those before opposed to it, and might have preserved the peace of the great Republic of America while undergoing that entire new organization which would be necessary under such circumstances. My Lords, I think we must all feel both sympathy with the United States in this great affliction, and also a hope that he who now, according to the American Constitution, succeeds to the power of the late President, may be able both on the one subject and on the other—both in respect to mercy and leni-
  1222
  ency towards the conquered, and also with regard to the measures to be adopted for the new organization which the abolition of slavery will render requisite—we must all hope that the new President may succeed in overcoming all difficulties, and in restoring the Republic to its pristine tranquillity. I had some time ago, at the commencement of this contest, occasion to say that I did not believe that the great Republic of America would perish in this war, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had lately occasion to disclaim on the part of the Government of this country any feeling of envy at the greatness and prosperity of the United States. The course which Her Majesty's Government have had to pursue during this civil war has been one of great anxiety. Difficulties have occurred to us, and difficulties have also occurred to the Government of the United States, in maintaining the peaceful relations between the two countries; but those difficulties have always been treated with temper and moderation both on this side and the other side of the Atlantic, I trust that that temper and moderation may continue; and I can assure this House that, as we have always been guided by the wish that the American Government and the American people should settle for themselves the conflict of arms without any interference of ours, so likewise during the attempt that will now be made to restore peace and tranquillity to America, we shall equally refrain from any kind of interference or intervention, though we trust that the efforts to be made for that purpose will be successful, and that the great Republic of America will always flourish and enjoy the freedom it has hitherto enjoyed. I have nothing, of course, to say with regard to the successor of Mr. Lincoln. Time must show how far he is able to conduct the difficult matters which will come under his consideration with the requisite wisdom. All I can say is that, in the presence of the great crime which has just been committed, and of the great calamity which has fallen on the American nation, the Crown, the Parliament, and the people of this country do feel the deepest sympathy for the Government and people of the United States; for, owing to the nature of the relations between the two nations, the misfortunes of the United States affect us more than the misfortunes of any other country on the face of the globe. The noble Earl concluded by moving—

  1223
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to convey to Her Majesty the expression of the deep Sorrow and Indignation with which this House has learned the Assassination of The President of the United States of America, and to pray Her Majesty that in communicating Her own Sentiments on this deplorable Event to the Government of the United States, Her Majesty will also be graciously pleased to express on the part of this House their Abhorrence of the Crime and their sympathy with the Government and People of the United States."—(The Earl Russell.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, when, upon the last occasion of our meeting, the noble Earl opposite announced his intention of bringing forward the Motion he has now submitted to the House, I ventured to express my hope that the Government had well considered the form of the Motion they were going to make, so that there might be nothing in the form which would in the slightest degree interfere with the unanimity with which it was desirable the House should accept it. I confess, my Lords, it would have been more satisfactory to me if the noble Earl had entered somewhat upon the consideration of the question, and had informed your Lordships upon what grounds he proposed so unusual a course—though arising, I admit, out of unusual, if not unprecedented, circumstances—as that of addressing the Crown, and praying Her Majesty to convey to a foreign Government the sentiments of Parliament with regard to the event which has taken place. For myself, I confess that I am rather of the opinion that the more convenient and—I will not say the more usual hut—the more regular course would have been to have simply to move a Resolution of this, in conjunction with the other House of Parliament, expressing those feelings which it is proposed by the Motion to place in the form of an Address to the Crown. But I am so extremely desirous that there should not appear to he the slightest difference of opinion at this moment that I cannot hesitate to give my assent to the form of Motion proposed by the Government, whatever doubt I may entertain that the form is the most convenient which might have been adopted. In joining in this Address—that is to say, in expressing our sorrow and indignation at the atrocious crime by which the United States have been deprived of their Chief Magistrate—your Lordships will only follow, though the event has been known so short a time, the universal feeling of sympathy which has been expressed from one end of this kingdom to the other. And if there be in the United States any persons who, misled
  1224
  by our having abstained from expressing any opinion as to the conflict now going on, or even from expressing the opinion we may have formed upon the merits of the two great contending parties—if there be any persons who believe that there is a generally unfriendly feeling in this country towards the citizens of the United States, I think they could hardly have had a more complete refutation of that opinion, conveyed in what I hope will be the unanimous declaration of Parliament, following the declarations which Her Majesty has been pleased to make both publicly and privately to the American Minister as well as to the widow of President Lincoln, and, again, following the voluntary and spontaneous expression of opinion which has already proceeded from almost all the great towns and communities of this country. Whatever other misfortunes may have attended this atrocious crime, I hope that, at least, one good effect may have resulted from it—namely, that the manner in which the news has been received in this country will satisfy the people of the United States that Her Majesty's subjects, one and all, deeply condemn the crime which has been committed, and deeply sympathize with the people of the United States in their feelings of horror at the assassination of their Chief Magistrate. My Lords, for the crime itself there is no palliation whatever to be offered. There may be differences of opinion as to the merits of the two parties who are contending, the one for empire and the other for independence, in the United States—I follow the words of the noble Earl opposite—but there is, there can be, no difference of opinion upon this point—that the holiest and the purest of all causes is desecrated and disgraced when an attempt is made to promote it by measures so infamous as this. If it were possible to believe that the Confederate authorities encouraged, sympathized with, or even did not express their abhorrence of this crime, I should say they had committed that which was worse than a crime—a gross blunder; because, in the face of the civilized world, a cause which required or submitted to be promoted by the crime of assassination, would alienate all sympathy and kindly feeling on the part of those who might otherwise be well disposed towards it. But I am perfectly satisfied—I am as well satisfied as I can be of anything—that this detestable act of assassination is so entirely alien to the whole spirit in which the South have conducted this war,

  1225
  is so alien to the courageous, manly, and at the same time forbearing course which they have adopted in the struggle for everything that is dear to them—that I am convinced that, apart from the error of judgment which would be involved in sanctioning such a crime, they cannot have been guilty of so great a blunder, and cannot fail to express for it their detestation and to feel at the same time that no step could have been taken which could have inflicted so great an injury on their own cause. I will not venture to follow the noble Earl even into the slight discussion which he has originated with regard to the internal politics of the United States. I will not discuss the difficulty which at the present moment is felt in the United States—the difficulty caused by slavery. I will not express any opinion as to the question whether the late defeats, serious as they are, and apparently fatal to the cause of the South, have produced, or are likely to lead to, an early termination of the war. In whatever way the war may be terminated, it must be the desire of every friend of humanity that it should be terminated soon and without further and unnecessary effusion of blood. But I join entirely with the noble Earl not only in lamenting the loss of a man, who certainly had conducted the affairs of a great nation, under circumstances of great difficulty, with singular moderation and prudence, and who, I believe, was bent upon trying to the utmost a system as conciliatory as was consistent with the prosecution of the war in which the country was engaged; but also, I agree that the death of such a man, in such a manner, and at such a time, is a subject not only for deep regret and for abhorrence of the crime by which he was deprived of life, but that it is also a serious misfortune in the present condition of affairs, for the State over which he exercised authority and for the prospects of an amicable settlement. I can only hope that, notwithstanding some ominous expressions which have already fallen from him, the successor who has so unexpectedly been elevated to the high position filled by Mr. Lincoln may be disposed and enabled to follow the wise and conciliatory course which, I believe, in the prospect of success, Mr. Lincoln had decided upon adopting. I am not insensible to the danger that public exasperation arising out of this act may force upon the Government a less conciliatory and more violent course than that which Mr. Lincoln seemed to have
  1226
  marked out for himself; but I am satisfied that the adoption of such a course can only further protract the horrors of this civil war, adding to the other motives of the South the most powerful of all motives, the motive of despair—leading the South to fight out this question to the bitter end—so that while the one side is exasperated into desire to exterminate its opponents, they, in their despair, will be ready to submit to extermination rather than accept the unreasonable terms of the North. Thus in the act itself—in the fact that the President of so great a country being so suddenly deprived of life, and in the circumstances under which this crime has been committed, and in the fatal influences which it may exercise upon the returning prospects of peace in the United States—upon all these grounds, I say, we must find the deepest cause for lamenting the occurrence which has taken place; and I am quite sure that, independently of all political motives, but not saying that political motives do not enter into our views, I am expressing the universal feeling of this House and of the country when I say that we view with horror, with detestation, and with indignation the atrocious crime by which the President of the United States has been deprived of life.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: My Lords, in consideration of my residence in the United States of America, at a somewhat distant period it is true, but, nevertheless, in the character of a British Representative, I hope I may be allowed to offer a few words in addition to those which have been so ably and justly expressed on both sides of the House. I cannot pretend to make any addition of real importance to what has been said already with so much effect, and it is therefore only for the gratification of a private feeling and for the discharge, as it were, of a personal debt that I venture to claim your Lordships' indulgence for a very few moments. The crime of assassination is so utterly revolting to the hearts and feelings of Englishmen that we cannot wonder at the cry of horror and indignation with which the death of President Lincoln has been received in this country throughout the breadth and length of the land. The circumstances under which that atrocious crime was perpetrated could not but heighten the abhorrence with which the act itself is to be viewed. Whether we look to the private affliction caused by its commission, or to the public consequences which may flow from the catas-

  1227
  trophe, our compassion on the one side, and our anxiety on the other, is naturally roused to the highest degree. It is not in my province to pronounce any kind of judgment on the qualities, the conduct, or the intentions of the late President of the United States. It would be unkind and unworthy not to give him credit for the best claims on our esteem and regret. But when I figure to myself the Chief Magistrate, the temporary Sovereign of a great nation, struck down by a sudden and dastardly blow in the presence of his astounded family, in the first moments of relaxation from the toils and severe anxieties of a great civil contest, and in the midst of those who gave him their admiring acclamations, every thought is lost in one overpowering sentiment of horror and disgust. At the time of my personal acquaintance with America the relations between the different portions of the Union were such as to promise a long series of peaceful and prosperous years. The dreadful rupture which took place on the election of the late lamented President could hardly have been foreseen at that early period by the most sagacious and far-sighted politician. This country, as we all know, was seized with unfeigned astonishment and deep concern at the unexpected event; and I must do Her Majesty's Government the justice to say that during the whole course of the war the balance of a strict neutrality has been maintained with the most evenhanded and resolute sense of duty. I am slow to believe that the people of the United States entertain towards this country the sentiments of mistrust and animosity which have been sometimes attributed to them. Of this I feel sure, that no such hostile sentiments are entertained by the people of this country towards them; and, were it otherwise, I am persuaded that while on this side every unpleasant feeling unaffectedly merges in sympathy for the late bereavement at Washington, so, on the other, the expression of that sympathy, pure and deep as it is, cannot fail to obliterate any impressions unfavourable to us which may have arisen in any portion of the American population. The expression of our sympathy is not confined to numerous associations in every part of the country. It now assumes the more solemn character of a Parliamentary condolence, confirmed by the unanimous consent of both Houses and crowned by the gracious participation of a Sovereign whose sad acquaintance with sorrow is the strong-
  1228
  est pledge of her sincerity. It is not for me to hazard any conjecture as to the cause of that atrocious crime which we all concur in lamenting, or the quarter whence it proceeded. But it is next to impossible that the gallant and highminded leaders of the one conflicting party could have descended so low as to support their imperilled cause by an assassination as base as it is execrable, and equally hard to conceive that those of the triumphant Union should entertain a suspicion at once so improbable and so unlike the magnanimity they are called upon to display. It is rather to be hoped and expected that the terrible calamity, which has occurred with such awful suddenness, will sober the agitated passions on both sides, and render acceptable to all the expressions of sympathy about to be transmitted from this country to our kindred beyond the Atlantic.
  Motion agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION BILL—(No. 46.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Petitions of Committee of Deputies of Protestant Dissenters &c of London and Neighbourhood; of Committee of Congregational Union of England and Wales; of Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland—in favour of the Bill, presented.
  LORD HOUGHTON,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that in taking the liberty of moving the second reading of a measure which had been several times under their Lordships' notice, he could assure them that he did so with the fullest confidence that the Bill was an important one, and with a certain degree of hope that their Lordships would pass it. He should be always unwilling to trouble their Lordships by introducing a measure in which he did not feel sincerely interested, or one which it was certain their Lordships would reject—he was far from desirous at any time to lead a forlorn hope in that House, or to bring before their Lordships any measure in regard to which he had reason to believe that they entertained any distinct and decided difference of opinion with the other House of Par-

  1229
  liament. But although this Bill on several previous occasions had been before their Lordships, it was a measure of such simple justice and common sense that he thought the time must come when it would force itself upon their Lordships' approval. It was the object of the Bill to abolish a certain declaration which was adopted in the place of the former oaths when the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed in 1828. It was very intelligible that when those Acts were repealed a desire should be expressed for the substitution of some declaration on the part of those who then became eligible to certain offices of a determination not to injure or weaken the Protestant Church by law established, and that this declaration should be assented to by those who, although they had separated from the Church, had yet no wish to injure that great Establishment; but he thought their Lordships would, upon consideration, be of opinion that the retention of this declaration was nothing less than a continuation of the same spirit which was condemned by the abolition of the Test and Corporation Acts. It was natural that such a declaration should recognize that theory of the absolute coordination of Church and State which had so long held possession of the minds of Englishmen, and by which no one except a member of the Established Church was held worthy of holding any office under the Crown. That prejudice survived the scaffold of Strafford and of Laud; it was protested against at the Revolution of 1688; and it still found an occasional echo in the toast of "Church and King." The declaration now sought to be abolished was placed in the hands of all persons holding municipal office or offices under the Crown. It was a declaration which some of their Lordships, many of whom had held high office under the Crown, must have taken; but it was notorious that many of their Lordships who had thus held office, and very many persons throughout the country, had not made, and never were required to make, this declaration. The difficulty was got rid of by the Indemnity Bill, passed at the end of every Session, by which persons who had failed to take the declaration were relieved from all the pains and penalties which they had thereby incurred. The system, although 100years old could not he thought claim any merit for its antiquity; and it was a bungling piece of legislation such as did not exist with regard to any other institution of the
  1230
  country. He now asked their Lordships to abolish this declaration, because it was of no use; because it did not carry out a single object which their Lordships desired, and because it was of no benefit whatever to the Church of England. It required that persons should declare that they would not in any degree injure the Church of England as established by law. That was nothing else than requiring these persons to declare that they would not break the law of their country. It was presented equally to Churchmen and to Dissenters. To Churchmen it meant nothing. Of Dissenters there was a large body who had no wish to injure an institution so intimately connected with the history of the country; and if this declaration was presented to them, what could it be but an insult and an irritant? Other Dissenters there were who thought the Church of England was not advantageous to the country, and who would gladly see its legal and regular abolition. To such persons what did the declaration mean? It could not make them feel more friendly towards the Church, nor could it add anything to the protection which the Church enjoyed by law. He remembered hearing a Dissenter to whom the declaration was presented say, "No, I have no love for the Church. But I see no objection to this document, for it only obliges me not to ride down a parson or strike down a Bishop; I will therefore sign it, though I think it is an insult." Their Lordships might, perhaps, object to read the Bill a second time because it came from a source which they disliked; but surely it was inconsistent with that spirit of independence which was the very genius of that House to refuse a reasonable request because they disapproved of those by whom it was preferred. Surely it mattered nothing to their Lordships from whom the Bill came provided their Lordships thought it politic and just. There was very little difference between the present Bill, he might add, and those which had on former occasions been under their Lordships' consideration, except so far as it was affected by the circumstance that it had been subjected to the ordeal of a Select Committee, and that its provisions might therefore be looked upon as having been duly weighed. He saw before him a noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) who had frequently opposed the change which it was intended by the Bill to introduce, inasmuch as he regarded the declaration in question as constituting a record of the predominance of the Church

  1231
  of England. But what, he should like to know, was the meaning of that argument? The Church of England, as regarded its property, was secured by precisely the same laws as secured the property of the smallest Dissenting chapel. And as to moral predominance, of course that could have no existence in the mind of any person who was a Dissenter. The fact was that the real source of the predominance of the Church lay not in such a declaration, but in the circumstance that she was day by day doing more to conciliate the mass of Dissenters and becoming more deeply rooted in the affections of the people. Finding its endowments utterly inadequate to keep pace with the wants of the population, it had called for the voluntary donations of her members, and it had become the largest voluntary body in the country. On account of the scarcity of clergy, it had been found necessary to admit into holy orders persons who were not so highly educated as used to be the case, and this again had tended to assimilate the Church to dissent in a degree that had never before been known. Their Lordships were now approaching a general election. It would be very difficult to find subjects for discussion at the hustings. All questions regarding freedom of food had been settled, and as to freedom of drink, at least as regarded the malt tax, the position of parties was reversed. Although there remained no questions of any great importance, it was essential to the political well-being of the country that on an appeal to the people the issues taken should be clearly and definitely taken. He would, therefore, ask noble Lords opposite whether they were prepared to go to the hustings with such a miserable link of the old chain of ecclesiastical tyranny hanging round their necks as that with which he now invited them to dispense. He hoped not, and that they would adopt a prudent as well as just course by allowing the Bill to be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Houghton.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has moved the second reading of this Bill will not look upon it on the one hand as a mark of disrespect to him, or upon the other hand as a proof that his arguments are invincible, that none of your Lordships have shown a disposition to take part in the discussion. As, however, your Lordships will not, I
  1232
  believe, be found on the present occasion prepared to reverse the decision at which you have upon several previous occasions arrived, I think it will be hardly necessary, before proceeding to a division, to give many reasons why we should not accede to the Motion of the noble Lord. The noble Lord approached the subject as if it had all the charms of novelty, and with a zest which must have been refreshing to those among your Lordships who are somewhat older Members of the House than himself. When he asks whether the maintenance of the declaration which it is proposed to abolish is essential to the protection of the Church of England—or rather of the Establishment—I, for one, candidly admit that to my mind it is not, for that purpose, worth the paper it is written on. Why, therefore, am I opposed to a measure which is introduced for the purpose of doing away with the declaration? I wish the noble Lord to consider under what circumstances, and under whose auspices, this declaration was first introduced. It was introduced at the repeal of the Test and Corporations Act—that great measure of civil and religious liberty, the mention of which is so familiar in the month of the noble Lord opposite the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and who considers himself, if not the father, at least the godfather of that measure. The noble Lord takes an especial pride in that measure, as having set the Crown on the civil and religious liberties of this country, as far as the Protestant Dissenters are concerned. I am old enough to recollect the passing of that Bill, to which I also gave my concurrence, though being somewhat junior to the noble Earl, I had not so prominent a position in the party to which we both belonged as he had. But I recollect that the noble Earl, then Lord John Russell, expressed his strong conviction of the importance of passing that measure, and also his conviction, after the most deliberate consideration, that the declaration which it was proposed to introduce was one which no conscientious Dissenter could possibly have the slightest objection to take. He added that he should have considered it inexcusable—or words to that effect—if, upon any such objection, he had attempted to stand in the way of the measure. And Sir Robert Peel, who introduced and carried the Bill, insisted that it would have been impossible to accomplish this object had not that declaration been inserted for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of

  1233
  conscientious Churchmen. The noble Lord says, "You get rid of the declaration every year by the Act of Indemnity;" but he thinks the yearly Act of Indemnity a very clumsy mode of getting out of the difficulty. Well, if these cases are all covered by the Act of Indemnity, there is no practical grievance of which he can complain; and if they are not all covered—and it is plain that all cannot be, because there are some offices with regard to which the declaration is required to be taken before entering upon their duties—there is a definite declaration on the part of the Legislature and the Parliament of the country that the Church of England is a national Church, and is not to be placed on exactly the same footing and level as all the various other sects which divide the people of this country. The noble Lord has reminded I us that we are approaching a general election; and forgetting, I suppose, the audience which he was addressing, asked how we should like to go to the hustings, having rejected this measure? My answer is, that we are not going to the hustings, and that, fortunately, we are independent of that popularis aura of which he is so fond. I venture to believe that the question of whether this Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill passes or not, will not make a difference of twenty votes in favour of or against any single candidate in any constituency of the United Kingdom. But it is, I think, important to remember—and the noble Lord himself will do well to bear it in mind—that, at the approaching election, a very serious question will be raised—namely, how far it is the intention of future Parliaments to maintain the position and status of the Established Church? For I believe there are those who, by the advocacy of a measure like this, are eager to gain credit with the opponents of that Church, and to take advantage of the event of a general election, of which the noble Lord kindly reminds us, for the purpose of acquiring among their future constituents a certain amount of popularity by saying, "See how ardently and eagerly we supported and pressed forward a Bill which is the first step towards the accomplishment of that end" for which the enemies of the Church are striving. The noble Lord has stated that, in his opinion, the Dissenters are daily becoming more reconciled and more friendly to the Church. I heartily wish that such may be the case; and I fully believe that a very large majority of
  1234
  the respectable Dissenters of this country not only feel no objection to take this declaration, although believing it in their consciences to be unnecessary as far as they are concerned, but would be extremely sorry to see the Establishment brought down from the position which it occupies and from the pre-eminence secured to it by law and still more by the affections of the people. On the other hand, I cannot conceal from myself that there is, if not a numerous, a very busy and energetic body ardently desirous of pulling down the Church piecemeal, and every step which the Legislature adopts in the direction to which their wishes point is hailed as a victory. So far from conciliating them for the future, it only makes them eager for further advances. Every instalment granted will be regarded as extorted by force, not yielded from a wish to conciliate, and it will only be made the stepping-stone to further demands. Not, therefore, because I see in the declaration itself any protection to the Established Church, but because a very significant blow would be struck at the Church by the withdrawal of the authoritative declaration on the part of the Legislature contained in this document as to the pre-eminence of the Church, I take the course—and I believe your Lordships will take the course—on the present occasion which has been taken for several Sessions past. I confess I was surprised at hearing the noble Lord say that he was not disposed to bring before your Lordships' House any measure which he thought opposed itself to the fixed opinions or objections of your Lordships. If there be any indication of fixed opinions or objections it might certainly be found in the fact that for five successive Sessions this identical measure has been rejected in this House by considerable majorities. He says it is a matter of grave importance if on any question the two Houses are hopelessly at variance. Well, I cannot see that the variance on this subject, prominent as it has been for several Sessions, appears to have interfered with the friendly relations between the two Houses. It is one of those measures that the House of Commons habitually passes from sheer indifference or weariness, and which the House of Lords would be very glad to see disposed of likewise from sheer weariness; and I do not see that any material inconvenience arises from their mutual difference of action. But if the noble Lord is so anxious that there should be a cordial agreement on

  1235
  every subject between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, would it not be wise to wait and see what the next House of Commons will do upon this subject? He has reminded us himself of the general election, and if the country should return a House of Commons very friendly to the Church, very adverse to those desiring to overthrow it, and therefore very desirous for the retention of this declaration—in that case, if you now pass this Bill, you will be putting yourselves in opposition to, and not in conformity with, the feeling of the House of Commons. In the very last year of a Parliament which has already sat for more than the usual time, I think it would be a matter of extreme imprudence on slight grounds for your Lordships to act upon an opinion, no doubt conscientiously entertained by the present House of Commons, but which may be in direct opposition to the opinion of their successors. My main reason, however, for opposing the Bill is shortly that, although the declaration in itself may be valueless for the protection of the Church, its abolition by the Legislature will be the strongest hint to the Dissenters that they may expect encouragement—which I hope they will never find in your Lordships' House—for making further aggressions on the integrity of the Established Church. I will, in conclusion, move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")
  LORD EBURYsaid, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) seemed to regard the Bill as part of a great scheme of aggression upon the Established Church, although he declared in the same breath that the declaration he was so anxious to retain was not worth the paper it was written on.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Not worth the paper on which it is written for the sake of protecting the Establishment.
  LORD EBURYwould adopt the correction willingly, though he thought it made little difference in the meaning. As regarded the Test and Corporation Act, the noble Earl had designated the noble Earl (Earl Russell) as the godfather of that Bill; but, in point of fact, he was the person by whom it had been introduced, and therefore he was not only entitled to the credit of being considered its godfather, but to the credit of the absolute paternity of the Bill. He himself was also in the
  1236
  House of Commons at the time, and what occurred was that the Bill having been introduced by Lord John Russell, and the House having declared in its favour by a considerable majority, Sir Robert Peel, always a keen judge of the feeling of Parliament, took the Bill out of the hands of the noble Earl. [Earl RUSSELL here communicated with the noble Lord—who proceeded.] He found that this was not so, and that Earl Russell was entitled to the credit of having carried the measure through. It was rather hard upon his noble Friend and himself—at that time Members of a small minority, and obliged to dress their dishes as best they could so as to make them acceptable to the majority of the House—that any observations with regard to the declaration in question should now be quoted against his noble Friend. And although in some cases Dissenters might not object to the declaration, they had a right, if they thought proper, to regard it as a remnant of the old days of persecution. The noble Earl opposite had said very truly that their Lordships were not going to the hustings. He was sorry they were not, for obviously those who were obliged to present themselves to their constituents were better representatives of the feeling of the country; and the Bill would certainly be passed, because the branch of the Legislature that was elective always passed it. He should be ashamed if the Church to which he belonged rested her claims and privileges on such miserable remnants of protection as the declaration which the Bill sought to remove. He should be ashamed of belonging to that Church if she had no higher title to the position which she occupied; and, on the other hand, he considered the Church bound to show the greatest possible generosity towards the Non-Conformist body of this country.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 49; Not-Contents 72: Majority 23:—Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on ("this Day Six Months.")

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Albermarle, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Cottenham, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  De Grey, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Ducie, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Granville, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Minto, E.

  1237

  Russell, E.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Saint Germans, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Llanover, L,

  Lyveden, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Methuen, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Monson, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Mostyn, L.

  Abercromby, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Belper, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Rivers, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Camoys, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Seaton, L.

  Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.)

  Cranworth, L.

  Dacre, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Harris, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Houghton, L. [Teller.]

  Wenlock, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  York, Archp.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Dublin, Archp,

  Rochester, Bp.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Abinger, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Bagot, L.

  Berners, L.

  Bath, M.

  Bolton, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Tweeddale M

  Westmeath, M.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Bantry, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Belmore, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Derby, E.

  Devon, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Erne, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Morton, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Pomfret, E.

  Romney, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Vane, E.

  Rollo, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Hood, V.

  Sondes, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Tenterden, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Thurlow, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Hereford, Bp.

  Kilmore, &c, Bp.

  Wynford, L.

  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow-half past Ten o'clock.