The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-20 00:00:00

QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES BILL.

Mr. HADFIELD, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said that the qualification which he proposed to aboiish
was a relic of the barbarism of former times, when the
sacramental test of 1662 was introduced in the case of al
persons employed in the military and civil services of the
country. So distasteful was this test that 2,000 clergy-
men resigned their ministry rather than conform to it.
In 1828 that test was repealed, but the qualification clause
was introduced. By this qualification the party taking
office declared, on the faith of a true Christian, that he
would not use any power, authority, or influence he might
possess to weaken the influence of the Established Church,
as by law established in England, or to deprive the prelates
and clergy of such Church of the privileges they at present
enjoyed. Now this qualification declaration was required
to be taken by magistrates, which was a practical griev-
ance, as it tended to exclude Dissenters who might be
desirous to servo their country as magistrates, and
referred to certain cases which had come under his
observation to illustrate this position. None of the
members of any Government in this country made this
declaration, and they got rid of it by pleading ignorance of
the law which required such declaration to be made within
six months after the acceptance of office, for which an act
of indemnity specially provided. He contended that this
was most unjust, for there was no reason shown why the
exemption should not be extended to those who occupied
humbler stations than that of Ministers of the Crown. Such
difference in respect to a statutory requirement was a dis-
grace ; and so far from the members of the Church of
England endeavouring to perpetuate such an absurdity,
they should turn their attention to the heresies and dis-
sensions that prevailed amongst their own clergy, some of
whom were accused of not having any belief in revelation.
Having referred to the course of legislation in respect to
this bill, which had been passed by this house but rejected
by the House of Lords, he concluded with his motion.'
Mr. BAZLEY seconded the motion.

Mr. NE WDEtATE opposed the bill. The alleged
grievance which this bill proposes to abolish related to the
case of persons accepting corporate offices who were merely
required not to use their powers against the Church: of
England which was a constitutional element. Now, he
considered, there was no hardship in such a declaration,
and was the ground on which they had acted for the last
32 years in admitting to official persons:whofwere not mem-
bers of the State Church. He appealed strongly to the
house to follow the example of the House of Lords, and
reject the present measure merely for the sake of what was
called religious equality. He concluded by moving that
the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that this declaration was a mere
fanciful and ideal security to the established Church. It
was a mere declaration that was not enforced by any secular
penalty, and which was capriciously administered. No man
could Le indicted for per jury, for a violation of this decla-
ration and the stability of the Established Church rested
upon far different securities to that which the declaration
afforded. He would therefore vote for the second reading
of the bill, but at the same time he must state t hat the ex-
isting law did not inflict the practical grievances
which the hon. member for Sheffield supposed.
Mr. SOTHERTON ESTCOURT said he concurred in
what the last speaker said, but ho considered that it was
one of the first steps towards destroying the bulwarks of
the Established Church, and by sapping and mining to
effect the separation of the Church and State—an object
which Dissenters did not hesitate to avow. He considered
the declaration quite useless, but for the reason he assigned
he felt bound to oppose this bill and support the amend-
ment.

The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the second reading
Against
Majority
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed this day fortnight.
TRUSTEES OF CHARITIES BILL.
Mr. DILLWYN moved the second reading of the bill.
He said that this measure had been so often before the
house and so much ventilated, that ho would have wished
to have avoided making many observations on the subject
on the present occasion. However, in consequence of the
measure introduced last session it would be necessary to
trespass on the attention of the house at some length.
The state of the law which, up to last session, required al-
teration, related to the trusteeship of unendowed schools,
and to the quality of the education given. By the bill
passed last session the latter subject was only dealt with,
for it merely provided that the trustees should afford in-
creased facilities for the admission of children into
the endowed schools of the country. However,
the question of the administration of the trusts was
not touched, and no provision was made relative to the
question of the trustees. According to the decision
of the Court of Chancery and the House of Lords
in the Leominster case, Dissenters were declared by the
existing law ineligible to act as trustees of endowed schools.
The effect of that decision would be to impede the operation
of the act of last session.

[LEFT SPEAKING.]