New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-02-05
REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS DISABILITY.
Mr.. GLADSTONE'S ARGUMENT-HIS MOTION FOR
SI.-.S =. n..-

MR.. GLADSTONES ARGUMENT-HIS MOTION FOR
SECOND READING OF THE ELL LOST.
London. Feb. 4.-In the House of Commons today
Mr. Gladstone moved the second reading Of the bill to
remove religious disability In the course Oi hi re-
marks he said When We undertook by thi, bill to
remove from the statutes injustice and an anomaly
which are discred 10 lis (chcersl we hoped that IL
would be necessary to spend only a few minutes in
introducing the bill. Now that We needed to trc-pass
al greater length upon Parliament. there were mat
tcrings and murmurinss. As Chancellor OF the En-
cleoucr in 1oGo. / pleaded for the opening Of The
most difficult Offices to which the most objection was
tal1cn II is seriously doubtful now whether Roman
Catholic, are legally disabled from holding the Offices
Of VicerOy Of Ireland and Lord Chancellor OF England
The Catholic Belief Act did not impose in many
words disability hold these Offices 1t provided that
no Catholic should be entitled to hold them otherwise
than as now legally entitled
What" Mr. Gladstone asked, is the Catholics
legal position? Before the act Of 1o29 every sub
icct was entitled, presumably, 20 hold any Crown
Office. but Catholics dcLarred B.; the Test Act
Mr.. Gladstone added that lie and number OF good
lawyers including the Chief Justice, were not aware
that there any disability except the Test Actwh'h
Vas repealed in 1868 1t contested whether 'hat
rupeal efectualy qualified Catholics. Parliament
when it repealed the Test Act had no specific int'n
ton to open these Offices; and it therefore his
duty not 20 be deferred from prosecuting TINS b!I'
the object of which was simply 10 remove an aHohal!
which was supposed 10 exclude. and perhaps did
exclude certain of the Quccn's subjects from h"ld
ing certain Offices. If the bill read a second
time he proposed TO move that II be passed through
committee pro forma, Icserving that the substantial
committee be taken after the report OF the bill from
that committee.
The bil. Mr. Gladstone continued, dd not aiect
the succession the Crown. because the Crown wa
rot open to competition. The Home secretary JIG
added. was himself IA Catholic, and he stood - near
the Sovereign a. the Chancellor Of the ENcheIn'f
and nearer than the Vice;Oy OF Ireland Yet noi"d!
disputed his r,ht to hold his ohcc, and Mr. Cad "Ho
knew Of 10 obstacle against a jew, Mahomctah' Hih
doc or non-rcgious person being Chancellor OF 'ho
EXchequcr.
william Henry smith, First Lord Of the Treasury
asked why MIR. Gadstone's speech was made now
instead of during the many years he had held ohoc.
Mr. Gladstone rctOrtcd that he iad delivered 'i'''i
speeches in 1885,. n . I'm
Mr. smith replied that Mr.. Gladstone tLen wa I'D
oupn.itiou and 1ia moreover in Isl. MI hlid ,tpc
i'm answering question the same subject. -dld ld'
thc Government did not intend To- adVWWc the dOo
lition OF al the remaining religious checks -u'u a.
urcVcucd tn. Chancellor sovereign beng tatH"'s
tIolic, did not demand the lii. Nr ~mih opposed
Inc bill because il applied to two persons oiN ana
he moved that ii be read f-r the second umc sA
months hence ,,- T.. .t.
NCer farther debate Mr.. GladstOnc's motion for tle
second reading Of the iii now wd~ rejected the N"o
Icing 30 in the affirmative and 21G~1n the negative