Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

fore could not have given notice of the Amendment, and that that was therefore the only manner in which he could raise the question.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that the hon. Gentleman might have adopted the very obvious course of giving private notice on the subject to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who might then have postponed the Committee on the Bill.

MR. S. B. MILLER said, he scarcely felt himself authorized in taking any step in the matter without communicating with his noble Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), whom he had only seen a short time before, and to whose exertions he repeated it was, under Providence, due that Ireland was free from the cattle plague at the present moment.

MR. BAGWELL said, that the Bill had been brought forward at the request of the Irish Members generally, and it was scarcely reasonable when the House went into Committee upon it that such a proposition as that of the hon. Gentleman should be made. It was advisable, in his opinion, that the people of Ireland should themselves pay what the Bill proposed, and that the Government should take the responsibility in the event of an outbreak of the disease. The action of the Government in the matter under consideration was, in his opinion, an unmixed good, and he did not think it becoming in representatives of Irish constituencies to appear at the eleventh hour in opposition to the Bill.

LORD NAAS said, he considered the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been a little too hard, under the circumstances, on his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. S. B. Miller). Although the latter might have made an unusual Motion, it was by no means unparliamentary. He should be sorry to delay the progress of the Bill, even if they obtained the object his hon. and learned Friend had in view. He hoped, as the opinion of the Committee was against him, that he would consent to withdraw his Amendment. The proposi tion, it was but right he should say, had been well considered in Ireland, and he did not see that his hon. and learned Friend was to blame in bringing the subject before the Committee. It was thought in Ireland that the extra duties which the constabulary and others (who were paid out of the Consolidated Fund) would have to perform under this Bill might be paid by the country.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, he would recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman not to divide the Committee, as in the then state of the House it might become a dropped Order.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.

LORD NAAS said, he would suggest that a larger sum than 2d. in the pound should be levied upon the occurrence of the event contemplated by the clause, and suggested that 4d. should be substituted for 2d. Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

Mr. WALPOLE reported from the General Committee of Elections; That they had selected the following twelve Members to be the Chairinen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of Election Committees for the present Session:-Hugh Edward Adair, esquire; The Right honourable Edward Pleydell Bouverie; Stephen Cave, esquire, New Shoreham; Edward C. Egerton, esquire, Macclesfield; Edward Ellice, esquire; Thomas William Evans, esquire; William Henry Gregory, esquire; The Right honourable John Robert Mowbray; The Right honourable Lord Naas; George SclaterBooth, esquire; Henry Hussey Vivian, esquire, Glamorganshire; Charles Watkin Williams Wynn, esquire, Montgomeryshire.

Report to lie upon the Table.

PRINCESS HELENA'S ANNUITY BILL.

Bill" to enable Her Majesty to settle an Annuity on Her Royal Highness the Princess Helena Augusta Victoria," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 42.]

PRINCE ALFRED'S ANNUITY BILL.

Bill "to enable Her Majesty to provide for the Support and Maintenance of His Royal Highness Prince Alfred Ernest Albert, on his coming of Age," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.] House adjourned at Nine o'clock.

[blocks in formation]

QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLI-
TION BILL-[BILL 1.]

(Mr. Hadfield, Sir Morton Peto, Mr. Baines.)

SECOND READING.

to the Church of England the clause in question was not worth the paper upon which it was printed. In both Houses Government Members had supported the present Bill. Well, thirty-eight years had passed since the repeal of the Test Acts, and since then that particular clause had never been enforced, except partially in corporations. The Act required two classes of persons to make the declaration-first, the great officers of State, civil, military, and naval, who never made it; and next, the officers and servants of corporate bodies. Mayors, aldermen, councillors, town clerks, and other corporate officers, must of necessity make the declaration before taking office, because, if they did not, their offices would be void; but the servants of the cor

Order for Second Reading read. MR. HADFIELD moved the second reading of this Bill. He said that he regretted in some degree the necessity of introducing this measure for the seventh time to the House of Commons. Two years ago a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), who was much respected on both sides of that House, pro. posed to him in the House that if he (Mr. Hadfield) would assent to referring the Bill to a Select Committee he would give it his support and the support of the party whom he undertook to represent on that occasion.porations-the policemen, the lamplighters, The Government also recommended that course to be adopted. He assented to the proposition, and a Select Committee, fairly chosen from Members on both sides of the House, was last year appointed. The Bill which he now submitted to the House was that adopted by the Committee in question. The Members of the Committee were two to one in favour of the present Bill, and as this House had so frequently expressed a favourable opinion of it, he trusted the other House would now allow it to become the law of the land, and so remove one of the last rags of intolerance that remained on the statute-book. The reasons for the measure were these:About thirty-eight years ago, when the Bill for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was introduced by Lord John Russell into the House, it was found necessary, in order to secure the passing of the measure, to introduce a clause into the Bill to satisfy the demands of a certain party who required a declaration to be substituted for the repeal of the Sacramental Test. The late Sir George Lewis stated in that House that the clause was introduced into the Bill of 1828, not because it was a thoroughly substantial measure, but because it seemed to be one containing a declaration that would satisfy the honour of certain parties who would be otherwise unwilling to give up the sacramental test. The Duke of Marlborough, however, stated in another place that if that declaration were to be proposed over again it would probably never be adopted. And a still higher authority than even the noble Duke-namely, the leader of the great Conservative party (the Earl of Derby), stated that as regarded protection

the scavengers, and so forth-never did. He had investigated the circumstances of five corporations, and he found that while the declaration was made and subscribed by 511 principal officers, it had not been made or subscribed by 5,300 subordinate officers and servants. Practically, therefore, it was disregarded, not only by the great officers of State, but by most of the second class to which it referred. In order to save Ministers and other great officers of the State from the penalty attached to their disobedience to the law it was neces sary to pass a Bill of indemnity through Parliament every year. Surely, if any one ought to make the declaration, it would be the chief officers of State, but they were allowed to disobey a positive enactment. No less than thirty-seven Bills of Indemnity had been passed in relation to this matter since the measure for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. As those who did make the declaration could not contravene the substance of it without breaking the law, they might as well be asked to subscribe to a declaration that they would not commit felony. Hoping that the other House would at last assent to the repeal of a declaration, subscription to which would annoy, insult, and offend thousands who were most loyal and respectable, and occupied positions of usefulness, he moved the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Hadfield.)

MR. NEWDEGATE: Mr. Speaker, I have to thank the hon. Member for Sheffield for having placed this Bill for a second reading on a Wednesday afternoon, the

day allotted for the consideration of Bills upon the true faith of a Christian, that I will introduced by independent Members, in never exercise any power, authority, or influence" compliance with the customs and regula-(now mark these words)" which I may possess in virtue of the office of

to in

jure or weaken the Protestant Church, as it is by law established in England, to disturb the said Church, or the bishops and clergy of the said Church, in the possession of any rights or privileges to which the said Church or the said bishops and clergy are or may be by law en

But before

tions of the House; for, during the last Session he was in the habit of placing the Bill after the Government Orders on Government nights, when there was no op portunity, from the late hour at which it came on sometimes at half past two intitled." the morning of properly discussing it. The House would observe that the declaSir, as there are many hon. Members present who have not heard the question dis-ration defends only that which is estabcussed before, I may perhaps be permitted lished by law. Now, Sir, it was appreto state some of my objections to the Bill.hended by the Legislature that there might be certain Nonconformists-persons disThat they are light objections I think no man will presume to say, when the House senting from the Church of England-who of Lords has rejected the measure six might be inclined to make use of corporatimes, and when the last time it was sub- tions as the arena for political agitation mitted to this House, legitimately and against the Church of England; and I will fairly, on a Wednesday, the second read- show the House before I sit down that in ing was carried only by a majority of two. Ireland, where this law and restriction are Now, Sir, the object of this Bill is to re- not in force, such use has been made of peal the declaration which was introduced corporations. I allude to the proceedings into the Test and Corporation Acts in the of the corporation of Dublin. year 1828, as a substitute for the sacra- I proceed to that point I wish to notice mental test which was then repealed. I, one or two of the observations made by the for one, rejoice that the sacramental test hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield). was abandoned. I think it was an affir- He has said that Lord Derby stated that mation accompanied by a desecration of this declaration is not worth more than the one of the holiest offices of the Church. paper on which it is written. Now that But, Sir, because that solemn ceremony One of is true in a very limited sense. ceased to be required, neither House of the bolts of a ship, if displaced, may be Parliament in 1828 saw any reason for de- of very small intrinsic value; but the bolts parting from the restrictions which this of a ship are of essential value whilst they declaration contained the declaration in are kept in their proper places; and therethe Municipal Corporations Act 9 Gev. fore this declaration, which prevents the IV. c. 17. I think, Sir, I cannot do better municipal corporations of this country from than at once to read to the House this being abused-which prevents the cordeclaration, the repeal of which is the real porate power granted by the State for the object of this Bill. It was thought neces- regulation of municipal affairs from being sary by the Legislature in 1828, and has directed against the Church of England, ever since that time been thought neces- which is in union with the State, is one of sary by the House of Lords, that some those securities which have combined to rule should be laid down which should in- maintain the Constitution of this country violably limit corporations to the transac-in its present state of detailed, but very tion of that multifarious and highly impor- complete organization. I will cite an inHon. Members opposite- many tant business which is by law allotted to stance. them-namely, the regulation of the local of them, at all events-are familiar with One roller, affairs of cities or boroughs of which they steam-looms in cotton mills. formed the councils, and over which coun-if taken from a loom, is of very small cils the mayors presided. I will presently value; but if one of the rollers or one of show the House the effect of departing the wires is taken from the loom, the loom from that salutary and constitutional rule is spoilt. Take one bolt out of a ship, of law. Now this declaration was not and where will be its safety? So with carelessly drawn. The House will see, this declaration. It is one, and no infrom the terms of it, that it was drawn by sufficient security that the municipal corearnest men, with a clear and distinct pur-porations of this country shall not be conpose. It runs thus

"I (A. B.) do solemnly and sincerely, and in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare,

verted into arenas for political discussion, and that the corporate power of municipalities granted by law shall not be directed

against the Church of England, which is which must, in all probability, arise from maintained and established by law. That the repeal of this declaration, and a deis no insignificant security. But the hon. parture from the legal restrictions by which Member went on to say that the great the corporations of this country are preofficers of State, although formerly bound cluded from using the corporate power in to make this declaration, do not now make commencing an internecine war against the it, and are indemnified for not doing so Church of England, which, like the corunder an annual Act; and I see that the porations, is also established by law as hon. Member who so often assails the Act forming an element in the State. То of Indemnity has had the grace to intro- abandon all these restrictions would be to duce a clause in the Bill renewing that allow any corporation to establish a sysvery indemnity which he has so often con- tem of warfare against the Church of Engdemned. Now, why is that indemnity land, and to use for that purpose the corgranted? It is granted for two reasons. porate power granted by the State itself, The great officers of State are selected which State, as I before observed, is in from the representatives of the people union with the Church as by law estabowing to their special qualifications to deal lished. I hope, Sir, that I have made this with those questions of high politics, parti- position clear, and, having done so, I will cularly questions involving religious con- now proceed to consider the arguments siderations, and in their oaths they give a that have been used on various occasions security equivalent to this declaration. on this subject. It has been said, "Oh. And, therefore, for two reasons-first, be- what is the use of this declaration, and of cause they are especially selected for the others of a similar nature?" A certain treatment of these subjects; and secondly, class of objectors to all declarations and to because their oaths cover the subject all oaths say, "It is nonsense to attempt matter of this declaration, the Houses of to bind men's consciences; they have no Parliament are satisfied that they shall be consciences to bind. Don't fancy you can permitted sometimes to neglect the ac- reach the consciences of men who are enceptance of this declaration, which, in their gaged in political affairs." Well, I must case, is really unnecessary. But how stands say that is not a very high compliment to the case with respect to municipal officers, public men, or any class of politicians ; with town councillors, and the mayor? but, Sir, they always omit one circumstance They are not selected for the consideration connected with the taking of an oath or a of high politics in their corporate capacity. declaration, and the public acceptance of They are selected for a totally different this declaration. If a man publicly makes object the regulation of the local muni- such a declaration as that which we are cipalities, of cities, and towns and boroughs now considering, or publicly takes an oath in their different localities; and therefore, at the table of the House, or declares in very reasonably, they are required to de- the presence of some municipality that he clare that they will not interfere in this will not do certain things, or use the power one important matter; that is to say, they conferred upon him for certain objects forwill not exceed their privileges and their bidden by the terms of that oath, and then functions by using the corporate power-openly violates that oath, he is exposed to mind you, by using the power and influence they obtain through their corporate offices, to attack the Church of England - the Protestant Church of England-which is in union with and established by the State. Is there anything unreasonable in such a regulation? Is it not a regulation which no sane Legislature could wish to depart from if they desired to establish afresh the Constitution of the country as it at present exists in Church and State. It is surprising to me that hon. Members on the other side of the House should have been so often led to vote in favour of this Bill; and I will show, before I conclude, by citing a recent illustration of the case in the Dublin corporation, the confusion

Mr. Newdegate

reproach, he loses caste in public estimation, credibility, and credit; and one great strength of these declarations and oaths is that, however little conscience a man may have on any subject, he fears exposure and the loss of caste consequent on that exposure, if he violates his declaration or oath. This is one great strength gained by requiring such engagements. But it is this very strength which sometimes forms a union between those whom I may call no-conscience objectors to all declarations and those who take the opposite view, and say, "These declarations and oaths are too stringent they interfere too much with the conscience; you have no right to appeal to any man's conscience to observe the

laws, however salutary." So there are the Bill consists entirely of principle, and two classes of objectors. One class says, that the Committee could do nothing with "It is no force on conscience." Another it- that they could make no effectual says, "These declarations have too much modification or alteration of its details; power." Well, but what is the upshot? and the hon. Member for Sheffield will That the common and unanimous consent excuse me for saying that the Committee of mankind, almost, ay, I may say from so reported to the House. They made a time immemorial, is, that solemn engage- formal alteration of three words in the ments should be required by declaration, preamble, to save appearances, and comand on oath, from those who are intrusted ply with the usual custom of the House, with the political regulations of the State, and did nothing in the sense of altering its whether in minor or in major matters, and terms and details. Let hon. Members conthat those declarations and those oaths sider that they are dealing with a grave form a security stronger than that of any question of principle, although on a subject mere enactment, in order to secure the which in itself appears to be of minor imfundamental constitution of any State portance. It is all very well to laugh at which may require their imposition. Why, this declaration. But has it no effect? Sir, it is the very strength of these decla- If it had no effect we should not have had rations and these oaths which constitutes six proposals for its repeal in the House the real objection to them. What did the of Commons, to be six times rejected by late Mr. O'Connell say on another subject? the House of Lords. The truth is, that In the year 1828 he was elected for the this declaration, although of minor importcounty of Clare, and he boasted-being an ance, forms part of one of those securities able lawyer, and understanding the use of of the Constitution which, although they agitation better perhaps than any man that may sometimes appear anomalous, and ever lived that he could drive a coach taken by themselves be as valueless as a and six through any Act of Parliament. bolt taken out of a ship, which, when disWhen he appeared at the table of this placed, is only a piece of waste iron, yet House, and was required to take an oath, combined they form a category of securities which on account of his religion he was for the Constitution, an organization, the incapable of taking, he declined doing so. result of which, thank God, has been for He went back to the county of Clare, and centuries the enjoyment of the temperate what did he tell the people there? He freedom of this country. Depend upon it, told them this:-"True, I can drive a you will not enlarge freedom, you will not coach and six through an Act of Parlia- increase personal liberty by what is called ment; but I cannot ride on horseback, or the simplification of such regulations and even walk through an oath." It is not laws as this. Nothing can be so simple the weakness, but the strength of these as the organization of the United States. oaths that is objected to; and they are I have been in the United States, and I objected to only by those who have some know that a great many other Members ulterior object to serve, and who desire to of this House have been there also, and if break through the rules of law of which they happened to be there during any these declarations and oaths-take that of period of political excitement, I appeal to 1828, for instance-is the exemplification them whether personal liberty is not much and embodiment; and it is for this reason better secured in this country than in the that the House of Lords has so long ob- United States. Those who went before jected to the removal of this declaration. us were not all fools. There is a party The hon. Member for Sheffield, in moving in the present day who invite each man the second reading of this Bill, has told us to declare that his father was a fool. I that at the close of the last Parliament the cannot consider that as a personal complisubject was referred to a Select Committee, ment. Depend upon it that the organizaand on a previous occasion he accused me tion of the Constitution, which has been of contumacy, because, although assenting the fruit of years, and carefully compiled in to the appointment of that Committee, I all its details, was not the work of fools, refused to serve upon it. But why did I but has been handed down to us for our refuse to do so? I had no objection to the security, and ought not to be tampered subject being considered by the Committee. with by piecemeal innovators. Take, for The more it is considered, the better. But the sake of comparison, such a machine as I objected to serve for this reason, which that to which I have alluded before-the I stated to the House at the time-that steam-loom. If some portions of it, al

« AnteriorContinuar »