§ On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Religious Opinions Relief Bill,
§ MR. ESCOTThad to propose certain 631 additions to the Bill, because it did not contain provisions which would give perfect relief to the individuals sought to be affected by it. He did not believe that this measure would in any degree endanger the Established Church; and that notion had been abandoned by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis). Indeed all persons connected with the Establishment repudiated the principle of maintaining penalties for the security of that church.
LORD J. RUSSELLwould at once state the course he proposed to take when this Bill went into Committee. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Escott) had said that the object of some of his amendments was to carry into full effect the intentions of the framers of the Bill. There could be no doubt, he thought, that some of the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Winchester were not consistent with the intentions of those by whom this Bill was introduced. Some of those amendments were similar to clauses contained in a Bill introduced during the present Session by the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Watson), to remove certain penalties and disabilities which attached under the Act 10 George IV. When the House went into Committee on that Bill, on the question that the preamble be postponed, an Amendment was moved, "that the Chairman do now leave the chair;" the Committee divided, and there were—ayes, 120; noes, 80; so that in a House of 200 Members the Bill was rejected by a majority of 40. He need hardly say that it was not to be expected, at this period of the Session, that they could have the attendance of 200 Members, or that the Members who might attend would be the same who had taken part in the previous discussion on this subject. He believed that the Bill now before the House would carry into effect generally the intentions of the House of Lords, by whom it had been sanctioned; and it was not likely, if they were to send the Bill back to the other House with a number of amendments which altered the substance of the measure, that it could receive the consideration of many of those Peers by whom it had formerly been discussed. He thought, therefore, that the fairest course in this state of the Session would be to abstain from discussing the amendments of the hon. Member for Winchester, and to endeavour to render any amendments they might adopt consonant with the intentions of the House of Lords, by whom 632 the Bill had been sent down. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Winchester that he should withdraw the amendments of which he had given notice, and bring forward the subject next Session.
§ MR. HENLEYconsidered it most unfair that at the end of the Session a small minority of the House should rescind a decision adopted by a large number of Members at an early period of the Session.
§ MR. ESTCOURThad divided the House on the second reading of the Bill; and as the House had then expressed an opinion on the subject, he thought at this late period of the Session it would be unbecoming in him to throw any further obstacle in the way of the Bill, provided it was allowed to retain its present form. If, however, the hon. Member for Winchester persisted in his amendments, he (Mr. Estcourt) should feel justified in opposing the Bill.
§ MR. SHAWconcurred in the view taken by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Estcourt.) He (Mr. Shaw) had voted the other day against the second reading of the Bill, not from an opinion that there were not some harsh and obsolete laws on the Statute-book, which it was desirable to repeal, and in so far he did not object to the present Bill; but because there were other provisions contained in the Bill affecting the Established Church, and certain salutary restraints upon the Church of Rome, which he thought had not been sufficiently considered. However, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Estcourt) did not mean to divide the House upon the question of the Speaker leaving the chair, neither would he, provided that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would firmly oppose any extension of the present measure—such as was involved in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Winchester (Mr. B. Escott).
The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREYsaid, that if the hon. Member for Winchester persevered in bringing forward his amendments, he would vote for them; but he recommended the hon. Gentleman not to revive the discussion which had previously taken place on the same subject.
§ House in Committee.
§ On the Third Clause being put,
§ MR. ESCOTTproposed the introduction of the words in part of it "or consequent thereon," which would have the effect of doing away with penalties.
§ MR. SHAWobjected to the Amendment. He saw nothing absurd or inconsistent in 633 the provision as it then stood—the effect of which would be to repeal the extreme penalties to which the offence was liable, under the 2nd of Elizabeth; but in the words of the clause that "in all other respects the law should continue the same as if that enactment had not been made," it had been obviously the intention of the framers of the Bill that while the excessive punishments under the old Act should be abolished, the offence should still continue prohibited by Statute, and punishable at common law.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that his object was to carry this Bill in the form in which it had come down from the House of Lords. It had been prepared by Lords Lyndhurst, Campbell, and Brougham, and the whole of the matter had been fully and duly considered. They did not propose to make that lawful which was previously illegal by common law, but only to abrogate the penalties imposed for that which was now allowed to be no fault. His desire was to carry the Bill as it came from the Lords.
The SOLICITOR GENERALcontended that the clause as it now stood was perfectly correct, and better without the proposed words than with them. The Bill took away the severe penalties, but left any breach of the common law just as it stood before.
§ MR. ESCOTTbelieved that the noble Lord was of his own opinion, and he thought the opinion of that House ought not to be made to succumb to that of the House of Lords.
LORD J. RUSSELLobjected to the discussion being taken on the point at that late period of the Session, when but a small number of Members interested in the subject was present.
§ The Committee divided on the Question that the words be inserted:—Ayes 10; Noes 53: Majority 43.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Arundel and Surrey, Earl of | Pechell, Capt. |
| Wakley, T. | |
| Bridgeman, H. | Williams, W. |
| Browne, hon. W. | Yorke, H. R. |
| Collett, J. | TELLERS. |
| Duncan, G. | Escott, B. |
| O'Connell, M. J. | Strutt, E. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Anson, hon. Col. | Brocklehurst, J. |
| Baine, W. | Brown, W. |
| Bellew, R. M. | Byng, rt. hon. G. S. |
| Blackburne, J. I. | Collins, W. |
| Bodkin, W. H. | Cowper, hon. W. F. |
| Craig, W. G. | Nicholl, rt. hon. J. |
| Cripps, W. | Owen, Sir J. |
| Douglas, Sir H. | Palmer, G. |
| Duncannon, Visct. | Parker, J. |
| Dundas, D. | Philips, M. |
| Ebrington, Visct. | Pigott, rt. hon. D. |
| Estcourt, T. G. B. | Rich, H. |
| Fuller, A. E. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. | Shaw, rt. hon. F. |
| Gladstone, Capt. | Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. |
| Gore, hon. R. | Sheridan, R. B. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. | Somerville, Sir W. M. |
| Hatton, Capt. V. | Spooner, R. |
| Hawes, B. | Thornely, T. |
| Hayter, W. G. | Troubridge, Sir E. T. |
| Henley, J. W. | Turner, E. |
| Jones, Capt. | Walpole, S. H. |
| Labouchere, rt. hon. H. | Wawn, J. T. |
| Layard, Capt. | Wilshere, W. |
| Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. | Wyse, T. |
| Morpeth, Visct. | TELLERS. |
| Muntz, G. F. | Hill, L. M. |
| Newdegate, C. N. | Tufnell, H. |
MR. REDHEAD YORKEappealed to the hon. and learned Member for Winchester (Mr. Escott) to consider whether, having regard to the late period of the Session and to the paucity of Members present, it would not be the wiser course to withdraw for the present the other amendments of which he had given notice.
§ MR. ESCOTTconsented to acquiesce in the suggestion, observing that he was principally influenced thereto by the advice of the noble Lord (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey), by whose opinion in a matter of that kind he was most desirous to be guided. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it was perhaps the best course to withdraw the other amendments; but in doing so he wished to state, that he did not feel at all contented with what the Committee had done in negativing his Amendment, nor did he think it probable that on a future occasion the House would express its satisfaction at the conduct of the Committee in this respect.
§ MR. SPOONERobjected to the next clause, on the ground that it would violate the oath of supremacy and the oath taken by Members of that House, which set forth that no foreign pontiff should be allowed to interfere in any way with the religious opinions of the subjects of this realm; whereas the Pope would have the power of issuing bulls affecting the opinions of the people of this country by this Bill. He pressed the noble Lord to postpone the clause until next Session, in order that it might be more fully discussed. He moved the omission of the objectionable words, and expressed his intention of dividing the House on the subject if the 635 explanation of the Government was not satisfactory.
§ MR. SHAWhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) would not divide the House on his Amendment. His hon. Friend did not seem to understand the distinction between an offence existing by the common law, and punishable at common law. If a statute created an offence, or prohibited any act from being done, the common law could punish the offence, if committed, as a misdemeanor. The punishments under the old Act were admittedly too severe. His hon. Friend himself did not desire to retain them; and if he would look to the concluding words of the paragraph he sought to omit, he would find they were—"That in all respects, save as to the said penalties or punishments, the law shall continue the same as if this enactment had not been made."
LORD J. RUSSELLdid not think that the clause in question was at all at varience with the oath of supremacy. If he understood the clause aright, its object was to revoke certain severe punishments which were inflicted by statute on the introduction of bulls and writings of the See of Rome. The statute imposing these penalties took its rise in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and was attributable to the circumstance that the Pope was supposed to have assumed an authority to depose the Queen of those realms, and that a bull to that effect had been posted on the churches of London. The Act was supposed to be necessary, because it was thought there were many in the country who believed that the Pope really did possess that power. By the clause in the Bill now under consideration, it was sought to do away with the penalties which, in the opinion of our ancestors, were rendered necessary by the exigencies of the case, but which must now appear to every enlightened mind totally superfluous and unnecessary. There were now no such dangers as were formerly apprehended; and there need be no such punishments. Again, he asserted, he did not see anything in the clause at variance with the oath of supremacy. He had his doubts as to the propriety of the oath; but he was certain that there was nothing in it inconsistent with the fact as it was now, and as it would be after this Bill should have passed. The Bill proposed to take away the whole of the penalties which were heretofore inflicted, but in no other respect did it alter the pre-existing state of the law. It would not render legal for the future that which 636 was heretofore illegal according to common law; nor, on the other hand, would it render that unlawful which until now was legal. He confessed he could not bring himself to put the same construction on the oath of supremacy as the hon. Member for Birmingham. He (Lord J. Russell) did not think that he or any one else meant to convey by that oath their opinion that the Pope was not to have any influence over the minds of persons in this country who conscientiously regarded him as possessing spiritual supremacy, and who recognised him as the head of their church, and the persons, as such, who should regulate the affairs of that church. So far as that assertion went, it was utterly impossible to deny that there were in these countries persons who did hold that belief; and to punish them for holding that belief would be the grossest absurdity, as well as the grossest tyranny. Why, it was not very long ago that a rescript from the Pope arrived in this country, in which he declared his opinion, that, it being the peculiar duty of the Roman Catholic bishops to attend to spiritual matters, it was not desirable that they should interfere in political matters in Ireland. [Mr. SHEIL: That they should interfere so much.] Be that as it might—and he was willing to take his hon. and learned Friend's version—it did not affect his position. It was for the bishops to decide whether the Pope possessed that jurisdiction over them that it would render it imperative on them, in deference to his rescript, to refrain from taking part in political discussions. It was not for him (Lord J. Russell) to inquire whether the Pope ought or ought not to have this power. One Roman Catholic might perhaps say that it was beyond the Pope's legitimate jurisdiction, while another might maintain that it was very proper, and quite consistent with the constitution of the Catholic church that it should be so, and that the bishops were accordingly bound to obey. These were considerations into which he would not enter. But there was one point of view in which he wished to present the case to the hon. Member for Birmingham, who protested so energetically against the introduction of bulls and rescripts. If the Catholic bishops had withdrawn from Conciliation Hall, and refrained from taking part in the discussion of secular affairs, would the hon. Member have advised that they should be prosecuted for obeying the Pope's rescript?
§ MR. ESTCOURTthought that the construction of the oath contended for by the noble Lord, and his explanation of this measure, not only would justify him in supporting the Bill, but even rendered it imperative on him to give it his advocacy. The noble Lord had stated most distinctly that the Bill would leave the law in these matters just as it was, with the exception of doing away with the penalties.
§ MR. SHAWobserved, that from the very text of the Bill, it was clear that the state of the law was not to be changed in any respect but in the abolition of penalties. That which was not heretofore lawful according to the common law, would not be legalized under the present law. The old punishments, however, were irrational and severe; and he was glad they were abolished.
§ MR. SPOONERdissented altogether from the construction put upon the oath of supremacy by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. However, seeing the feeling of the House, he would not divide on the Motion, but would content himself with merely protesting against the Bill. The noble Lord had asked whether he (Mr. Spooner) would have advocated the prosecution of the Roman Catholic bishops in the event of their yielding obedience to the Pope's rescript by withdrawing from Conciliation Hall? But he would put the converse of the proposition; and ask whether, in case the rescript commanded their attendance there, and that they were prosecuted by the Government for high treason, the noble Lord would be satisfied if they were to reply by saying, "We meet there in obedience to the bull of the Pope, whose jurisdiction and authority you yourselves acknowledge?"
§ MR. SHEIL, by way of applying an anodyne to the conscience of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and of showing that the construction of the supremacy oath contended for by the noble Lord was the correct one, begged leave to refer to the Bequest Act of last Session. By that Act it was specially provided that Roman Catholic bishops who were appointed by the Pope, in the exercise of his spiritual jurisdiction, should have seats at the board; and thus collectively, but most emphatically, had the spiritual capacity and jurisdiction of his Holiness been acknowledged. At first the phrase in the Bequest Act was, "Ministers of the Roman Catholic church exercising episcopal authority;" but it was subsequently altered to "bishops" and 638 "archbishops," for the express and specific purpose of recognising the Catholic church in Ireland.
§ MR. SPOONERconfessed that this explanation was very far indeed from satisfying him. It only proved that they were going from worse to worst. If the present Bill were passed, bulls at first of an innocent character would be introduced; but they would gradually change their complexion, and there was no knowing where the mischief might end.
§ MR. ESCOTTfound it impossible to reconcile the remarks which had just been made by the right hon. Member for Dungarvon with the vote that Gentleman had just given against his Amendment. The right hon. Member's vote was virtually a vote in favour of retaining the old penalties for the conscientious exercise of religion. The day was close at hand, however, when this whole system should be changed. All this rubbish of laws persecuting men for conscience sake must be done away with, and the injustice of punishing men for their religious belief must soon and for ever be abolished.
§ The various Clauses of the Bill were agreed to without Amendment, and the Bill passed through Committee.
§ The House resumed. Bill reported, and ordered to be read a third time.