EARL STANHOPE regretted that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had expressed a strong opinion against the recommendation of the Committee. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY explained that he had simply said it was the cause of many wrangles. himself on a former occasion put himself, as I thought, out of Order by asking a Question. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) on that occasion thought I was complaining of his answer, whereas I thought it was the noble Lord's Question which was out of order. I do not wish to prolong this discussion; but I will take the opportunity of putting another EARL STANHOPE said, that occaQuestion, which, I hope, will lead to no sions had arisen when great embarrassdiscussion-namely, when the noble Earl ment had been caused by putting Ques. proposes to recommend that we should tions without notice. He remembered adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess? an important Question on the Alabama LORD LYVEDEN remarked that, on claims being brought forward without the occasion referred to by the noble the slightest notice; and the Committee, Duke, he put his question without a in view of cases of this kind, recomsingle word of preface-which he con-mended that Questions should not be put tended was strictly in accordance with without notice, except in cases of urthe recommendation of the Committee. gency. The recommendation of the ComTHE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Imittee excluded Questions of urgency, cannot speak as to the ancient practice of the House; but during the time I have been a Member of it this recommendation has been the cause of more wrangling than anything else, and if the interpretation of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) is to be put upon it, the sooner it is wiped out from our records the better. I believe the Committee was appointed with the somewhat futile object of bringing our proceedings more into conformity with those of the House of Commons. Now, if we are not able at any moment, in cases of urgency, to bring up any subject we think fit, we are in a position very inferior to that of the other House, where, by moving the adjournment, a Member may bring forward any matter deemed urgent. I, for one, do not intend to observe the rule laid down by the noble Earl. THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Having, I am sorry to say, been a Member of the House longer than many on this Bench, and longer than almost anyone on the Bench opposite, I have not for the last 30 years observed any of the inconveniences stated by the noble Earl (Earl Grey). I think the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), who has as much tact and knowledge of the world as any man I know, will agree with me that this is entirely a question of discretion. The House could not expect that my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) should curtly ask whether the troops in Canada would be withdrawn. Questions frequently cannot be put properly and courteously without some preliminary remarks. The Duke of Richmond and he did not think the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had at all exceeded the proper limits on this occasion. THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved that the debate be adjourned. Quite enough had been said, and it was time to proceed with the Orders of the Day. PUBLIC BUSINESS-THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS. THE IRISH LAND BILL. EARL GRANVILLE: Before we proceed with the Orders of the Day, perhaps the House will allow me to give an answer to the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), on a subject on which I trust there will be more unanimity and not so warm and exciting a discussion as there has been on what appears a simple and excellent rule. I have great hopes that the Irish Land Bill will reach your Lordships at the beginning of next week, and in that case I shall propose that we adjourn on Tuesday evening, and meet again on the Monday week following-the 13th of June. Considering that your Lordships will have had the Bill before you for nearly a fortnight, I propose-unless the noble Duke sees great objection to it-to fix the second reading for Monday, the 13th. ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read. only to persons assuming the titles, the Act has not prevented the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, whether in England or Ireland, from being generally, and I may add ostentatiously, called by the sees of which they profess to be Bishops. The Bishops themselves THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in have, in this country, generally observed moving that the Bill be now read the the law; but in Ireland the case is difsecond time, said: My Lords, the object ferent, and it has not been much obof this Bill is to repeal the Ecclesiastical served. Indeed, it was stated by Dr. Titles Act of 1861. That Act is very Moriarty, a very distinguished Roman short, containing only four clauses. The Catholic Prelate, before a Committee of 1st clause declares and enacts that any the other House, that great inconvenibrief or bull proceeding from the Pope, ences would result from its strict obpretending to establish any jurisdiction servance by the Bishops, and that such in this country, shall be deemed un- observance was, in point of fact, imposlawful and void. The 2nd imposes a sible. There have been some other conpenalty of £100 on the procuring or sequences; it is alleged, for instance, that putting in use any such brief or bull; inconvenience has resulted with regard to and on any person, other than a person bequests, for it has not been possible so to authorized by law, who shall assume describe Bishops of the Roman Catholic any ecclesiastical title of any city, town, Church that property could be vested in or district no suit, however, being them to be held by successive Bishops brought without the consent of the At- for charitable purposes. I am bound to torney General. The 3rd clause, which say that that inconvenience has been exis not quite consistent with the rest of aggerated, and that a Committee of this the Act, relieves from penalties the House was quite justified in reporting Bishops of the Scotch Episcopal Church; that, although inconvenience had been and the 4th reserves the operation of felt, and much circumlocution had had the Charitable Bequests Act of 1844. I to be resorted to in constituting trusts need hardly recall the circumstances under which these charities should be under which the Act of 1851 was passed. Most of us can remember the excitement which was caused by the promulgation, in September, 1850, of the Pope's Bull, the great agitation which followed throughout the country, and the protracted debates in Parliament which resulted in the passing of the Act. That excitement having long passed away, I am quite sure that your Lordships will now discuss the subject on both sides in a spirit of calmness and impartiality. I will first state what have been the practical results of the Act; secondly, the special circumstances which, in the opinion of the Government, necessitate its repeal; and thirdly, what the position of the law will be in the event of this Bill being passed. Now, as regards the enforcement of any penalties, the Act has been a dead letter, for no one has been sued for any penalty under it; but I by no means imply that the Act has been altogether ineffectual. It has, unfortunately, been the cause of considerable inconvenience, and has, perhaps, to some extent, accomplished the intentions of its promoters. As the penalties apply held, in practice no serious evil had arisen. In Ireland, under the Charitable Bequests Act, which is specially saved by the 4th clause, machinery is provided by which Roman Catholic charities are regulated without inconvenience. If, however, these results have not been such as to cause any serious evil, I cannot say as much for the general effect of the Act-especially in Ireland. As soon as it passed very great irritation was produced; and whereas previously there had been friendly intercourse between the Roman Catholic Bishops and the Irish Government, it is not too much to say that such intercourse then almost entirely ceased. I am aware that when the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Abercorn) was Lord Lieutenant there was an instance of intercourse between Cardinal Cullen and the Government; but Cardinal Cullen having a title to which the Act does not apply, his position is an exceptional one. Any one of your Lordships on either side of the House who has been responsible for the Government of Ireland must have felt the cessation of that friendly intercourse as a serious evil. Whatever we may special clause in last year's Act, Bishops think of the opinions of the Roman Ca- who may be appointed in that Church tholic hierarchy, we must all be aware will come under the provisions of the that they certainly exercise great in- Act of 1851. Dr. Leslie, for example, fluence over the majority of the people who was recently consecrated Bishop of of Ireland who are Roman Catholics; Kilmore, may at present use that title; and though it is not necessary that the but after the 1st of January he will be Government should conform to their ad- liable to penalties if he does so. It is vice, it is desirable that, in the event of impossible then, as your Lordships will points in their policy affecting Roman see, that the law can remain unaltered. Catholics, it should communicate with We might, no doubt, exempt the Bishops their Prelates in a free and friendly way, of the Protestant Church in Ireland in in order to hear their objections, to re- the same way as the Bishops of the move them if possible, and to be on the Scotch Episcopal Church; but after your same footing with them as with all other Lordships-many of you at the sacrifice classes of Her Majesty's subjects. I con- of strong personal feelings have dessider, therefore, that the result of the Act troyed the Irish Establishment, in order in this respect has been most prejudicial by a great act of justice to remove all to the Government of Ireland, and that grounds of discontent as regards equality alone, I hold, would make its repeal ex-in matters of religion, could you mainpedient. A person exceedingly well qualified to speak on this point, the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in his evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, said tain this one vestige of inequality, that the Protestant Bishops should be exempted from the penalties to which Irish Bishops are exposed from the Act of 1851? I am sure no one in this House would deem "As the law now stands, I see no reason to ex such a course expedient. It would, inpect that there will be a renewal of cordial per deed, be a melancholy result if, after sonal intercourse between people in authority in that great act, we were to leave a misersecular affairs and those who rule the Catholic able shred of disability as a source of Church in a spiritual fashion. I think that is a constant irritation to those whom we great calamity, especially in a country like Ire-have made such great sacrifices to con land, as there, in a special manner for the purpose of arranging social affairs and maintaining law and order, you want all the help which can be got from any quarter." Now, everyone who has in any degree been connected with the Irish Government will agree that in Ireland all the help we can get from any quarter is not too much in order to maintain law and order. I am bound, however, to admit that these were not the views which were taken of this subject by the Committee of your Lordships' House which sat in 1868, which reported by a majority against a repeal of the Act; though the Committee of the other House in 1867 decided by the casting vote of the Chairman to recommend such repeal. If the matter stood now as it did then, I should have to contend against the authority of the former Committee. But circumstances have greatly changed. The Church of Ireland has been disestablished; and I contend that this circumstance amounts to a special reason for the repeal of the Act of 1851. In the first place, after the 1st of January next, apart from the titles of precedence enjoyed by particular individuals who then hold bishoprics, and who are saved by a The Earl of Kimberley ciliate. For these reasons the Government have introduced this Bill for the repeal of the Act of 1851. I will now proceed to describe what I conceive the state of the law will be if your Lordships assent, as I trust you will, to the passing of this Bill. In the first place, let me observe that the Bill does not propose to deal with the clause in the Emancipation Act of 1829, which prohibits the assumption by Roman Catholics of title held by a Bishop of the Established Church, the object of which cannot be better explained than by quoting Sir Robert Peel's remarks in introducing that measure. He said Church. any "I propose that the episcopal titles and names made use of in the Church of England shall not be assumed by bishops of the Roman Catholic I maintain it is not seemly or decorous for them to use the styles and titles that properly belong to prelates of the Established Church."-[2 Hansard, xx, 776.] I do not profess to attach much importance to that clause; but when applying a remedy to a particular evil the remedy need not go further than that evil. After next January the clause will not apply to any Irish Bishop; for as there will be no bishoprics established by law in Ire land there will be no titles which the Bishops of any Church will be prohibited from assuming. As regards England, the people of this country are naturally sensitive on this matter; and I doubt whether any of your Lordships would not feel some annoyance-though that word is not strong enough-if a Roman Catholic Prelate took the title, for instance, of Archbishop of Canterbury. If ever-which I do not think is probable the Roman Catholics should be so ill-advised as to take such a step, I am sure it would cause a revival of agitation among the Protestant people of England which might lead to unfortunate measures being taken. When, moreover, the Roman Catholic authorities were establishing their hierarchy in England in 1850, special care was taken and that justice must be done to the Pope-not to infringe the clause of 1829 by conferring on their Bishops titles of sees identical with those of the Established Church. I know that there was one apparent exception-St. David's; but, as was explained in the evidence taken by the Committee, though that is the official title, the title by which that Prelate is known is Bishop of Newport, which was adopted in order to avoid clashing with the see of St. David's. As to what will be the state of the law if the Bill passes, I speak with great diffidence-especially as I am to be followed by a noble and learned Lord who, I regret to say, has given Notice of an Amendment for the rejection of this Bill. Instead, therefore, of asking your Lordships to rely on my opinion, I will quote an authority which I think noble Lords opposite will recognize. Dr. Ball, Attorney General for Ireland under the late Government, in answer to a question by a Member of the Committee (Earl Granville) said "The view I take of the law is this-looking only to the Acts of Henry VIII. declaring the Crown's supremacy; in particular the 26 Henry VIII., c. 1, in England, corresponding to the 28 Henry VIII. c. 5 in Ireland, my opinion is, that from the time those statutes were passed (and they are declaratory Acts) by the law of England, any such documents as are described in the first section of this Act were absolutely null and void. To make this more certain, there is an Act of Henry VIII., the 28 Henry VIII. c. 16, which was repealed by Philip and Mary, and was revived by the 1 Eliz. c. 1, which is absolute and express as to the nullity of those bulls, briefs, and rescripts. The law I take to be exactly the same in England and Ireland, because the VOL. CCI. [THIRD SERIES.] 28 Henry VIII. c. 5, Irish, is precisely the same as the 26 Henry VIII. c. 1, English-that is, as that a clause of a declaratory Act in England were to the supremacy of the Sovereign; and, supposing omitted in an Irish Act, in my opinion the Irish Courts would still be bound to construe the law according to the English Act, because the English Parliament, having declared the common law by that Act, and not created a new right or a new Ireland to determine what was the rule of the enactment, that would operate in the Courts in common law. Therefore, I take it that as regards the law in England and Ireland, even though there might be some variance of the words in some of the statutes on this subject in each country, the same principle would apply in both, and that from the reign of Henry VIII. the proposition affirmed in the first clause of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Act is absolute and undoubted law." By the common law, therefore, the bulls and briefs prohibited by the Act of 1851 are illegal, and the further enactments declaring the common law are still in force. I am aware that in 1844 the penalties imposed by some of those enactments were abolished; but I believe that against which they were directed is still a misdemeanour. The Bill I now propose is carefully guarded both by a proviso and a Preamble. The Preamble expressly states that "It is not competent for any foreign Prince, Prelate, or Potentate, or any other person whomsoever other than the Sovereign of this realm, to confer any title, rank, or precedence, or any subjects of the realm, and all assumption of such anthority or jurisdiction whatsoever, over the authority or jurisdiction is wholly void." That repeats in a formal manner the declaration that, in proposing to Parliament to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, we do not intend to affect the general law of the country as it existed previous to the passing of that Act. There is also a provision in the Bill which touches specially upon the titles proposed to be created in 1851, and says that "Such repeal shall not, nor shall anything in this Act contained, be deemed in any way to authorize or sanction the conferring or attempting to confer any rank, title, or precedence, of this realm by any foreign Prince, Prelate, or authority or jurisdiction, on or over any subject Potentate, or person whomsoever other than the Sovereign of this realm." "That the Bill be now read 2"." will remain precisely as it was before. (that Act; but believing, as I do, that I have always understood that the main the Act adds no security to the enjoyobject of the Act of 1851 was to protest ment of our own religion, at the same against what was termed the Papal ag- time that it causes great irritation to a gression; and, as far as it was a protest, considerable number of Her Majesty's I think it was a not unnatural protest subjects, and that the law, after this Act upon the part of the people of this is repealed, will be quite sufficient to country, and that it was probably un- mark the determination of the English avoidable for the Government and for people that no foreign jurisdiction shall the Parliament of that day that they be exercised in this country, I trust the should join in giving expression to this House will agree to the Motion for the deep and general feeling by their solemn second reading of the Bill. declaration. Looking back upon what Moved, has occurred, it is perhaps to be re-(The Lord Privy Seal.) gretted that this protest did not assume the form of a declaratory Act, or of an Address to the Throne by both Houses, which would have accomplished the same object and have been free from the objections that are raised to this Act. But, be that as it may, I should be extremely sorry if it were understood that, by this Bill, Parliament and the country were receding in any manner from that attitude which they have ever maintained both before and since the Reformationan attitude of steady and resolute resistance to any encroachment or any attempt to establish jurisdiction in this country by any foreign Power whatever. I wish to add one word more. I should be sorry that any misconstruction should be put upon my motives because I am the mover of this Bill. Nothing can be further from my wish than to say a word that would hurt or wound the feelings of my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in the slightest degree. I have been always earnestly desirous that they should enjoy the fullest share of religious freedom and perfect equality of civil rights with all other subjects of the Queen; but I am at the same time bound to add that no man can be more strongly opposed than I am to the system of the Roman Catholic Church. And if it were possible that my aversion to it could be increased this would have been done by the extravagant pretensions put forward by the Court of Rome in the Syllabus and Schema which have lately appeared, pretensions which if they could be-and happily they cannot be carried out would, I believe, be fatal to civilization, and would stop the whole current of human progress. If I thought the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill could in the slightest degree diminish our power to resist such pretensions as these I would be no party to a Bill for the repeal of The Earl of Kimberley LORD ST. LEONARDS said, that he was one of the supporters of the Act of 1851, and he then made a compact with himself that if, in his lifetime, any attempt were made to repeal that Act, whatever might be his position, and even though he might have retired from public life, while Providence enabled him to come down to the House and give a vote he would steadily oppose the attempt. It had pleased Providence to prolong his life to the present time, and he had now come down to redeem his pledge. It was necessary to remind their Lordships of the circumstances which had led to the passing of that measure. At that time, the feeling of the country was expressed in so outspoken and unmistakable a manner on the encroachments which led to the measure, that no Government that ever existed, however strong, would have dared to run counter to the national convictions. It so happened that he could speak as strongly as anyone as to the feeling of the country in December, 1850, after the Brief of the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman's Letter had been published in this country. He had never in his life attended an open-air public meeting, except when he was addressing his constituents as a Member of the other House; but, on this occasion, he did attend, as a simple country gentleman, a meeting that was summoned in his own county to take into consideration the propriety of opposing those measures of the Pope and the pretensions of the Cardinal. There was a large and most respectable meeting, and when they knew that he was there they did him the honour to ask him to move one of the Resolutions. He wished their Lordships could have heard the sound of the voices of many, many hundreds of men, |