a meeting of the Conservative party in this house | to the harmony of the council. I am bound, at held, and-[Cries of "Order !"] the same time, to rule the point of order, and to say I will hear Sir John Gray.

"Sir John Gray-We don't want to have anything to do with meetings held outside this house. If the Alderman will be good enough to wait, he can tell us all about it in any observations he may hereafter make.

"Alderman Bonsall-Then we will leave the

room.

"Here the Conservative Members rose from their seats, and left the house in a body, amidst hisses from the gallery."

[Laughter from some hon. Members.] I wish hon. Members to hear the sort of confusion which was introduced. You have not heard it all yet.

"The Lord Mayor-I will direct the gallery to be cleared if there is not silence.

"Sir John Gray-This proceeding shows how cautious the Lord Mayor, occupying the chair of this assembly, and selected by the unanimous decision of this house-how cautious he ought to be not to allow the influence of any party to induce him to deviate from the rules of order.

"The Lord Mayor-I don't know what you mean. If you refer to me, I don't think I have

"Alderman Bonsall-The point of order is, that Sir John Gray's motion is one not suitable to this course, but is one calculated to excite political and religious rancour between the mem-left myself open to these observations. I ruled bers of this corporation. We are here to promote public interests, and not to discuss questions of that character. If gentlemen at the other side feel aggrieved by these oaths, let them meet as a party and petition to have them repealed. But to introduce the subject here will inevitably have the result of giving offence to gentlemen we do not wish to offend, but to live on terms of harmony with. I appeal to Sir John Gray to withdraw his motion."

This is the reply of the Lord Mayor, who occupied in that corporation the position which you, Sir, so worthily fill in this

House

"The Lord Mayor-As this corporation is constituted at present

Remember that the law now under discussion does not apply to Ireland.

the point of order with you. I gave my own private opinion that I thought it was a pity to introduce it. I said it was in your power to introduce it if you chose. I will not state what my own opinions are on the subject. They may be with you exactly, but in this chair I am bound to act impartially. That duty I will discharge to the best of my power. I am sure Sir John Gray does not wish to attack me.”

Sir, I feel that I should not be justified in trespassing further on the indulgence of the House by quotation; but I may state that the most violent and exciting language was subsequently used, and that these oaths and declarations were described by Sir John Gray as "impious." He did not say heretical, but saved himself by declaring that he was a Protestant. A "I feel it is in the power of any member to in-violent discussion took place. There was troduce any matter whatever he pleases. If Sir John Gray puts a motion on the paper, if he wants to establish a company, or to get up anything at all that may be connected with places beyond the city, Sligo for instance, I am bound to hear him upon the point. It is for you to rule poration is at present constituted, it is in the power of any member to introduce any matter he

whether he is to be heard or not. As the cor

chooses."

These are very important words, for I believe that the speaker is a very liberal politician. He went on to say—

"In that view I think Sir John Gray is in order, so far as this corporation is concerned, in bringing this matter before the council. But I must say I regret that he has introduced it, for this reason, that I think the discussion of such

subjects is not desirable. You all know my opinion upon religious and political matters, and that, as far as I can, in my line, I keep myself clear of them. On several occasions I stated I would do my best to prevent their introduction into the council, but I am powerless in this case. I will hear whatever is said about it, but I must say I believe the introduction of it will not tend VOL. CLXXXI. [THIRD SERIES.]

evidence of the utmost discord—perhaps I ought not to say discord in that meeting, because the whole of one section of the corporation had retired from the room; but they were pursued by every kind of invective, and—[A cry of "Oh, oh !”]— I will just read, or, not to trespass upon the House, I will say that I may have occasion to read hereafter the expressions which were used. The councillors who had retired were pursued as men who had deserted their duty, and as the cowardly supporters of impious oaths. One expression used was impious as applied to these oaths and this declaration, and if that was not strong language, I know not what hon. Members will consider strong language. I have referred to these proceedings for the purpose of showing the manner in which corporate power may be applied to purposes which are not intended by the law, if no restriction be imposed upon it. I 28

wish to show how some of the most useful members of a corporation may be driven to retire from it. Now, what is the object of these corporations? It is, that all the leading and most trustworthy inhabitants of cities and corporate towns should be combined for the regulation of the local affairs of the cities and boroughs; and if, by removing these restrictions, you enable and cause questions irritating to the political and religious feelings of many of the inhabitants to be discussed in these corporations, the consequence will be that many of the leading and most trustworthy inhabitants of cities and boroughs will not serve as members of these corporations, and the effect will probably be the destruction of the corporations themselves. It is all very well, in a superficial sense, to view the retirement of one large section of the leading inhabitants from a corporation, but such retirement lays the foundation of its destruction, for if any corporation becomes the representative of only a section of the inhabitants of the city or borough it will cease to command respect, and there will be but one alternative-to supersede that sectional representation by some central authority. Therefore, one of my chief objections to the passing of the Bill is, that it would probably cause such dissension in corporations as to be fatal to their usefulness, and ultimately lead to their destruction; and this is one of the chief reasons, Sir, for my thinking it necessary to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

had been stated elsewhere, of the pre-eminence of the Church of England and a badge of dissenting inferiority. He could conceive nothing more calculated to injure the Church of England, and to weaken its influence with the people of this country, than keeping up the miserable, absurd, and irritating tests of this kind, which were unworthy of the Church, and which served but to perpetuate sectarian animosity. The hon. Gentleman, in his arguments in favour of the declaration, had never once alluded to the fact that that declaration was not taken by one-twelfth of the people who ought to take it, and that every year a Bill of Indemnity was brought into that House to relieve hon. Gentlemen sitting upon the Treasury Benches, and town councillors and other officials, from the consequences of having broken the law. How could the declaration produce any effect, seeing that as a rule it was not taken. The hon. Gentleman had referred to Ireland; he (Mr. Baxter) would refer, for a moment, to Scotland. They had no such declaration there and never had. They had never required it, although most of the town councils in Scotland had ecclesiastical patronage and the appointment of Church ministers. He thought the Church of England must be in a very bad way if it required to be propped up in this way; but with all respect for the hon. Member North Warwickshire, although not a member of the Church of England, he had more faith in her and in her influence than the hon. Gentleman had. He believed that the less they fenced it about with laws which were totally at variance with the would be established in the affections of spirit of the age, the more thoroughly she the people. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not aware that though the great body of the Dissenters of this country were anxMR. BAXTER said, he must express ious to remove grievances of this sort, there his regret that any Member of that House was a body whom he might call the exshould rise to defend an obsolete Act of treme Dissenters, who rejoiced that there Parliament which never was of the slightest were laws of this kind, and that there were use, and which had long ago fallen into dis- church rates. In their opinion the removal repute. Making every allowance for the of these grievances would make the Church sincerity of the hon. Member for North of England stronger, and if it was any conWarwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), he thought solation to the hon. Member to know it, he he was pursuing a course calculated to would tell him that, in the opinion of that weaken rather than to strengthen the extreme party, he was at that moment playChurch of England. The declaration, Lording their game. This was a consideration Derby had stated in another place, was not worth the paper upon which it was written; but it was defended by hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords, not because it was of the slightest use, but because it was a mark, as

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months."-(Mr. Newdegate.)

Mr. Newdegate

which ought to weigh with the hon. Member, and ought to facilitate the passing of a measure which he (Mr. Baxter) was ashamed of hearing discussed in the 19th century.

MR. DUNLOP said, he regretted that he | Bill, and he had seen since then no reason was not in his place when his hon. Friend to change his opinion. Now, if this House concluded his speech, as he had intended to should assent to the principle of the Gosecond the Motion for the second reading. vernment Bill, it would follow that they He hoped his hon. Friend opposite would must accept the principle of the Bill under acquit him of seeking to join in any con- discussion. Well, then, was it worth while spiracy against the Church of England, to fight to-day about this small part of the but he had a strong traditional hatred, as question, which would stand or fall by the they all had in Scotland, to the maintenance decision which the House would come to on of oaths useless and offensive, which in the larger question? He had hoped that their country had been made the means of the hon. Gentleman who had charge of inflicting grievous injury. In Scotland the Bill would have consented to postpone they had, in order to maintain the Episcopal the second reading till after the decision Church, multiplied oaths, and they had not on the Oaths Bill. But he had informed passed over the non-taking of them. On him that out of regard to hon. Members the contrary, the refusal to take them was who came down to support him it was not made a point of criminal indictment, and possible to do so. It was to be regretted many had lost their lives on the scaffold on that the hon. Gentleman had come to that that account. Nay, more, they made even determination; but, nevertheless, he would an explanation of the oaths a ground of ask his hon. Friend to let the second readprosecution. An ancestor of the present ing pass to-day without a division, and proDuke of Argyll, taking the oath as Privy vided he could persuade the House to reject Councillor, statedthe Government Bill he would then be in a stronger position to oppose this Bill at a later stage than he was to-day. From the

"I take it so far as it is consistent with itself and the Protestant religion, and I do declare that I mean not to bind myself in my station in a law-state of these (the Opposition) Benches, his ful way to wish and endeavour any alteration I hon. Friend must be very well aware that think of advantage to the Church or State not hon. Members who had a strong feeling repugnant to the Protestant religion and my with regard to Church matters were not loyalty, and this I understand as a part of my disposed to support him in his present

oath."

For making that explanation he was tried, condemned to death, and beheaded. And now would hon. Members seek to maintain this utterly contemptible shadow of defence, which the Earl of Derby justly said was no better security to the Church of England than the paper on which it was printed?

MR. HUNT said, he would appeal to his hon. Friend not to divide the House. Having been engaged in a Committee upstairs he had not had the advantage of hearing his hon. Friend's arguments, but as the Bill had been before the House several times, and as his hon. Friend had often expressed his views on the matter, he had probably only missed hearing the same arguments over again. If any additional arguments had been employed, he should have an opportunity of reading them before the Bill reached another stage. But what he wanted to point out to his hon. Friend was that this was but a very small portion of a great question which was to be discussed when they came to the second reading of the Government Bill on Parliamentary Oaths. It might be in the recollection of hon. Members that he spoke last Session in favour of the principle of the Oaths

course. He would therefore ask whether his hon. Friend would put himself in the unenviable position of leading a very small party into the lobby on this occasion? Out of respect to his hon. Friend he would not vote against him-he would quit the House before the question was put; but he appealed to his hon. Friend not to compel the House to go to a division.

SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I rise merely to say that, having frequently expressed my opinion on the principle of the Bill, it is unnecessary for me to repeat what I have said upon former occasions. There is the less necessity for doing so as the hon. Gentleman opposite has advanced no new arguments against the Bill to-day. He has reminded us that the Bill has been six times already passed by the House of Commons, and I hope this House will follow the example of its predecessors, and affirm the second reading. I think it is generally admitted, if we were dealing with this subject afresh, we should not think for a moment of imposing any such declaration; and I will go further and say that Parliament itself has decided year after year that this declaration ought not to be enforced by unanimously passing the Act of Indemnity, and thus relieving

Question put, "That the word 'now' Lefevre, G. J. S.

stand part of the Question."

The House divided:-Ayes 176; Noes Lowe, rt. hon. R.

Gladstone, rt. hn.W. E. Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. Holmesdale, Viscount