HL Deb 31 May 1867 vol 187 cc1380-2

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill was brought in in the other House last Session, and had come up to their Lordships' House at so late a period that it was not then proceeded with. It proposed to abolish the declaration against transubstantiation, which he thought their Lordships would be of opinion was one which it was not now reasonable or desh—able to retain. He would not then trouble their Lordships by reading the declaration in question, although to do so would perhaps be better than the strongest argument which he could use in favour of the second reading of this Bill; but the declaration asserted that particular doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome were superstitious and idolatrous. He had himself been called upon to make that declaration before the Irish Privy Council in the presence of a large number of persons of the Roman Catholic faith, and he must say he had never in his life made a declaration with more pain than when he was required, before men holding high office, and for whom he had the greatest respect, to declare the tenets of their religion to be superstitious and idolatrous. Being a sincere Protestant himself he, of course, had no personal difficulty in expressing his agreement with what was intended as one of the Articles of the Reformed Church; but he thought that such a declaration, under the circumstances which he had stated, was both offensive and unnecessary, and ought to be done away with. The Bill therefore proposed that that declaration should be dispensed with in future; but its provisions expressly guarded against the supposition that it was meant to remove the exclusion of persons from certain offices because they were Roman Catholics. He had a strong confidence that this proposal to repeal a declaration which was offensive to a portion of Her Majesty's loyal subjects, would not meet with any opposition from their Lordships; and he begged, in conclusion, to move that the Bill be now read the second time.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH

protested against the Bill being now read the second time. There was precisely the same reason for not proceeding with this Bill as existed with reference to the preceding—namely, that they ought to wait for the Report of the Oaths Commissioners. He maintained that the declaration which it was proposed to abolish was the basis of the Protestant faith in this country, and also one of the greatest securities of the Throne of Her Majesty; and he earnestly implored their Lordships not to have any hand in the crime of attempting to tamper with that declaration on the ground of expediency.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, he believed that the declaration in question had not only been referred to the Oaths Commission, but that their Report would contain, a paragraph relating to it; and he suggested that with regard to this Bill the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) would adopt the same course as he had done with respect to the previous one—namely, that the second reading should be taken sub silentio, and that it should be open to any noble Lord who thought fit to oppose it to do so on going into Committee, by which time they would probably have seen the Report of the Commissioners.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was willing to accept this suggestion.

On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.