The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS-LAST EVENING.

The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION BILL
Dir. HADFIELD moved the second reading of this bill,
the object of which was to abolish the oath required to be
taken by persons taking office. Every person who
assumed municipal office, like those called to some of the
higher offices of the State, were required to subscribe an
oath on the true faith of a Christian that he would not
exercise any power of which he might become possessed
of by virtue of the office he was about to take to injure the
Protestant Church of England as by law established.
There were many persons amongst the Non-Conformist
body who felt that such a declaration was highly objec-
tionable, and one great reason why the declaration should
be abolished was that it was not taken by those
of the very highest offices in the state, but that an
annual bill of indemnification was brought in to relieve
them of the consequences of not subscribing tho declara-
tion. This was the sixth time he had brought the matter
forward, and he did hope he should succeed in getting his
bill made law.

v.
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the motion. He looked
upon the bill as an attempt to abolish the declaration in-
serted in the Test and Corporation Act in place of the
sacramental test. He greatly preferred the declaration to
the test which was removed, because that was objec-
tionably used as was then required. He knew that
the declaration now sought to be removed was of
itself not of very great importance, but ho looked
upon it like the bolt in a ship. Remove one of these bolts,
and where was the safety of the crew ? He objected to the
bill, because it might be one of those small causes which
would lead to great and important political changes, and
therefore moved as an amendment that the bill be read a
second time that day six months.
Mr. BAXTER was surprised that a gentleman should
get up in his place in Parliament and defend an obsolete
Act of Parliament; which was not of the slightest use to
the Church of England. The keeping up such miserable,
absurd, and irritating tests as that now proposed to be got
rid of, only tended to keep up sectarian animosities, which
it was of the last importance should be avoided. He should
vote for the second reading of the bill.
Mr. HUNT said, having been engaged in a. committee
up stairs, ho had not had the advantage of hearing the
arguments of his hon. friend on that occasion, but he sup--
posed they were the same as he had favoured the house
with on several occasions against his bill, notwithstanding
that he hoped his hon. friend would not divide the house
on his amendment.

Sir G. GREY said ho had on former occasions expressed
his approval of the bill, and therefore he did not think there
was any necessity for him to repeat his views. The oppo-
sition benches showed that there was no desire to reject
the bill, and therefore he hoped the hon. gentleman would
not press his motion to a division.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he felt it his duty to press his
amendment to a division.

The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 176
Against it
Majority --121
The bill was then read a second time and ordered to be
committed on Friday.
FELLOWS OF COLLEGES DECLARATION BILL.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved the second reading of this bill,
the object of which was to relieve graduates who were
oligible_for fellowships from the necessity of making a de-
claration that they would adhere in all particulars to the
Liturgy of the Church of England. The list was found in
an out-of-the-way corner in the Act of Uniformity, and he
therefore proposed the present bill for the purpose of get-
ting rid of it.

Mr. NEATE suggested that the hon. gentleman should
confer with the hon. membar for Exeter, who had a bill of
a similar nature, in order that a good general bill might
be proposed applicable to both Oxford and Cambridge.

Mr. SELWYN intimated that his hon. friend (Mr. Wal-
pole) would, on the motion for going into committee,
move that the bill be committed that day six months. Ho
should not, under those circumstances, disturb the armnge-
ment that had been come to relative to the discussion of
this bill by objecting to its passing a second reading.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on the 18th of April.