§ Order of the Day for the Second Read-in of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill read.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLMr. Speaker, I now have to inform the House of what has occurred since I last addressed it, and to state the course which I purpose to pursue. Since I last addressed the House the public has been put in possession of a statement made by Lord Stanley with respect to his attempts to form a Government, and the reasons why those attempts were not successful. It is not my intention to make any comment on those reasons; but I feel it right—especially after the rumours which 1075 have been spread on this subject—to say that it appears perfectly clear that Lord Stanley had full power and opportunity to form a Government, and that no request he thought it reasonable to make was denied him in the progress of his negotiations. Sir, I stated on Friday last, that Her Majesty had been pleased to send for the Duke of Wellington, in order to learn his opinion on the present state of affairs. The Queen saw the Duke of Wellington on Saturday, and late yesterday evening Her Majesty received a written communication from his Grace. I had the honour of an audience of the Queen this morning at 12 o'clock, and Her Majesty having received the opinion of the Duke of Wellington, that, in the present state of affairs, the best course Her Majesty could pursue was to invite her former Ministers to resume office, Her Majesty was pleased to desire that Her former Ministers should resume their offices accordingly. Sir, after what has occurred—after the failure of the repeated attempts which have been made to form a Government, as has been stated to the House—I and my Colleagues thought that we could not perform our duty to Her Majesty and the country otherwise than by accepting the offer which Her Majesty had been pleased to make. Having entered so fully the other day into the subjects which have recently formed matter of debate, I will only say now that I trust the House will allow us till Friday next before proceeding with matters of public debate, by which means we shall have an opportunity of considering the various measures we purpose introducing, and the state of public business generally. I purpose proceeding with the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill on Friday, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on moving the second reading of that Bill, will state what amendments and alterations it is intended to make in it when it shall go into Committe. I therefore propose that the second reading of the Bill shall be fixed for Friday, with the intention of taking it as the first Order of the Day. Before, however, proceeding with the Orders of the Day on Friday, I will state the course which the Government mean to pursue with respect to other business before the House—as far, at least, as fixing the time at which it shall be brought under consideration. On that occasion I will answer the question put to me the other day, which I was not then in a position to answer, as to the time at which we 1076 shall proceed with the Budget. On Friday I shall be prepared to state the day on which the Budget will come on, and the course which we are prepared to pursue on that subject. I now move that the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill be postponed to Friday next.
§ MR. B. OSBORNEDoes the noble Lord intend to persist in the Budget which has already been open to the House?
§ LORD J. RUSSELLI have said I will state on Friday next on what day the Budget will be proceeded with. It would be exceedingly wrong in me, in the present state of public business, to enter into further explanations.
§ MR. KEOGHwould ask the noble Lord if it would not be reasonable, after all that had taken place, not to proceed farther on Friday night than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary? The noble Lord had stated that the second, third, and fourth clauses, if they were not altogether withdrawn, were at least to be materially modified. Now, it was but reasonable that the people of Ireland should have time to consider those modifications, for the effect of those modifications might be to make it an entirely new measure. He would suggest, therefore, to the noble Lord—and he was sure the noble Lord would be willing to concede whatever was reasonable under the circumstances—that he should postpone the measure for a week or ten days, to allow time for consideration of the alterations.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLI should be quite willing to make any reasonable concession on this subject, but I do not think that the statement of my right hon. Friend need affect the second reading of the Bill. Indeed, it is rather unusual that the Amendments, which can only be proposed in Committee, should be stated before the second reading; but I am anxious that these Amendments should be made known as early as possible to the people of Ireland; and it will be for hon. Members, having heard the statement on Friday, to say whether they will agree to the second reading or not.
§ MR. M. GIBSONwas afraid the second reading of the Bill would take up a very considerable portion of time, and have the effect of postponing to a very remote period the financial business of the country. He would make an appeal to the noble Lord—not, he could assure the House, in any spirit of levity—whether it was right to 1077 give a measure of this sort an undue precedence over the general public business of the country? He had ventured to say, on the very first day the noble Lord proposed an adjournment of the question, that it would be unwise to proceed precipitately, and he thought the noble Lord would admit now that what he again suggested was not unreasonable, seeing what might subsequently happen, and seeing also that the Bill as it now stood was positively objected to by all parties in the country. He understood that Lord Stanley had stated elsewhere that he was not prepared to legislate at all on the subject at present—that he thought the country precipitate—and that legislation ought to be preceded by cautious and deliberate inquiry. If ever there was a question more likely than any other to inflame the passions of the people, and to lead to inconsiderate legislation, it was a question of this nature; and therefore he, for one, protested against any undue precipitation of the measure. It appeared that all the people of the country, Lord Stanley himself included, condemned the Bill as it now stood. This was a proof that the House had proceeded with this legislation in haste, and without due deliberation. He hoped now that ample time would be given for full consideration of the subject; and, above all, that the measure should not take precedence of the important financial business of the country; that that business would not be postponed to a late period of the Session; but that it might be afforded a fair chance of being deliberately considered at an early day.
§ LORD J. MANNERSsaid, that, looking to the peculiar circumstances under which the reconstruction of the Cabinet had taken place, he was sure he gave expression to the universal feeling of Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, in assuring the noble Lord that from them would proceed no factious or unnecessary opposition to his policy. But, while expressing what was the general feeling of the Members on that side of the House in that respect, he felt it necessary to say that, should their assent be asked to any measures in antagonism to their general principles—whether with respect to finance, or the great social and industrial questions which had already occupied the attention of the House for several days—it would be their unpleasant duty to withhold it. Nay, more, he thought he might say, tha should Ministers unfortunately take no 1078 notice of the agricultural distress, which had been acknowledged by Her Majesty's advisers, he had but little doubt that at a fitting opportunity, so as not to interfere with the conduct of public business, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire would ask the opinion of the House on some measure which would have for its object the relief of that admitted distress.
§ MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that with every possible anxiety to respond to the wishes of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to avoid discussion, he felt that if he did not make a few remarks on the present occasion, he should be abandoning his imperative duty. He confessed that, after all which had occurred during the last fourteen days, he had heard the declaration of the noble Lord with reference to his Ecclesiastical Titles Bill with very considerable disappointment. He had hoped that the upset of the State coach, if he might use the expression, would have involved the necessity of getting some new passengers. He had entertained a hope that there would not have been so much determination expressed to proceed with this bad Bill. He fully joined in the remark made by the right hon. Member for Manchester that there ought not to be so much precipitancy about this Bill, and that it ought not to be introduced to the prejudice of other and more important questions. The speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon on Friday night, had afforded him and the Catholic Members of that House much pleasure and satisfaction; and for that speech he (Mr. Reynolds) availed himself of that opportunity to offer to the right hon. Baronet his sincere and heartfelt thanks. He felt that as a Catholic he was bound to offer him his thanks, and he did so. What had the right hon. Baronet told them? Why, that he was opposed to all legislation on this angry subject. The same sentiment had been quoted by Lord Aberdeen. He (Mr. Reynolds) presumed that the illustrious Duke, whose name had been mentioned that night by the noble Lord as having advised Her Majesty to restore her former Ministers, was of the same opinion; and yet, in the teeth of all this, the noble Lord had just stated that he would move the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill on Friday next. He (Mr. Reynolds) objected to be left in the dark on this subject. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Athlone that the House 1079 ought to know now whether the second reading of the identical Bill, or of an entirely new Bill, was to be proceeded with on Friday. He observed that the noble Lord bowed assent, and he understood by that movement that the second reading of the same Bill was to be moved on Friday. He was glad to hear it, for such an intimation would be a public notice, at all events, to the Irish Members who felt as he felt that they ought to be present to offer opposition. He had deemed it his duty to offer it all the opposition in his power up to this date. He had not altered his determination; and now he wished to declare this publicly that he would offer opposition to it in all its stages. He might be told that his opposition was of no avail. He feared it would be of little avail unless the Irish and English Members stood together; and if the Irish liberal Members stood together—without using any remark that could be construed into a threat—he defied the noble Lord to pass the Bill. And he told the noble Lord now—and he had some experience on the subject—that even if he passed the Bill, a Bill of pains and penalties, a Bill that contained a declaration of war against the Catholics of the united kingdom, there was one part of that kingdom, at all events, in which it would be a dead letter, and that part was Ireland. He was not now speaking for England. The Catholics in England were only a small fraction of the people in numbers; but what they wanted in numbers they made up in respectability. He believed they, also, were determined to offer opposition to the Bill; at all events, the Catholics of Ireland were determined to make common cause with the Catholics of England, and they were not prepared to take any part that would have the effect of inflicting pains and penalties on the latter. He had been told that the people of England had demanded the Bill. He did not believe it. He believed the millions of England did not care about it—that they were more anxious for enlightened legislation, for a repeal of the window tax, for a popular Parliamentary franchise, for a lightening of the pressure of taxation, and not for what was proposed in that House—a lightening of the pressure of taxation on the rich, and an increase of it on the poor. He had looked over the list of petitions, and found that the aggregate number of petitions presented to the 24th of February, in favour of the noble Lord's 1080 Bill, was about 600, and that the number of signatures attached to them was about 120,000; and this out of a population of 16,000,000. And what had he further found? Why, that up to the same date the number of petitions presented against the Bill was about 500, and that to these were annexed 150,000 signatures. Therefore 120,000 were in favour of coercing the creed of the people, while 150,000 were against it. He would suggest to the noble Lord that before bringing forward this Bill to coerce the creed of ten millions of people, he would act upon the suggestion of Lord Stanley, that there ought first to be inquiry by a Committee, but that they should not proceed in a railway hop-step-and-jump sort of legislation on a question of this kind, on a pretence that the people of England required it. He had a right to offer his opinions on this subject, because the twenty Irish liberal Members had received the thanks of their constituents for having taken the linchpin out of the stage coach. He now gave notice that on every future stage of this Bill of pains and penalties—this insulting Bill, which was a violation of the Emancipation Act—there was not an Irish liberal represesentative who would not attend and record his vote against it, no matter how it might be modified. An hon. Gentleman had said the other night, that Scotland had nothing to do with it. He (Mr. Reynolds) observed that the right hon. Secretary at War intimated as much as to say that Scotland had had something to do with it; but there had scarcely been any petition from Scotland calling for coercion. He had been informed by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale that the great majority of Protestants and Presbyterians of Ulster were totally regardless of the Bill. The movement had, therefore, been of an artificial description; but it succeeded in diverting attention from other more substantial pursuits; for here they had been sitting a month, and what had been done for the nation during that time? Nothing but scolding the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman. He hoped the noble Lord would give him some assurance whether he really intended to proceed with the second reading of the Bill on Friday. At all events the Catholic Church derived its power from authority to which every temporal authority must bow; and could, therefore, laugh at their puny efforts to enslave it through the means of a petty, ill-advised, and bigoted Act of Parliament.
§ MR. OSWALDwished to put one question to Her Majesty's Government, whether in the Bill, as it was to be modified, the noble Lord still intended to prohibit, as the Bill now before the House did, the bishops and deans of the Episcopal Church of Scotland taking the titles of their dioceses, as they now did?
§ LORD J. RUSSELLI am not going now to enter upon that question. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will state on Friday what alterations are to be made in the Bill; and I may state, in reply to I the hon. Member for Dublin, that he does not seem to recollect that it is necessary for the Bill to be read a second time before any amendments can be made, as those amendments can only be made in Committee.
§ MR. WAKLEYhoped the noble Lord would consider this matter deeply before Friday next. He hoped that the noble Lord would review the whole course of his proceeding with regard to this Bill—that he would not press its second reading at the present moment, but either shelve it for the Session, or refer it to a Committee, which would have the same effect. After the speech of the light hon. Member for Ripon, it was perfectly impossible to pass the Bill during the present Session. He (Mr. Wakley) was firmly satisfied that this Bill could never be passed under its present title, and that a great alteration must be made, not only in its title, but I also in its character, before it could receive the assent of the House of Commons, As it now stood, it never could possibly become the law of the land. Did the noble Lord see what would be the effect of opposing this proposition? It would only, be to give force to an adverse party. The House had been sitting for a month, and yet nothing had been done for the good of the people. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) who was at the head of the party in another place, had, in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion, in the most manly, frank, and noble manner, stated the course which he intended to pursue. He thought that the noble Lord had acted in a way that entitled him to the warmest thanks of the House and of the country. He (Mr. Wakley) perfectly agreed in the propriety of the; course which the noble Lord had intended to pursue. He trusted that the same course would be pursued in this House, The noble Lord the Member for Colchester had told the noble Lord at the head of the Government that no factious opposition to 1082 that Government would be given by his party. Why, he (Mr. Wakley) considered that party a decapitated party, and any opposition from it would be factious. When he called it a decapitated party he only applied to it the description given of it by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) in another place. The noble Lord had said, that of his 270 followers in the Commons there was only one of them that had any official experience; that he could not take him, and, as to the others, he would not have them at any price. That was the statement of their acknowledged leader in another place. That noble Lord had, with a frankness for which he gave him great credit, given a full exposition of the policy he intended to pursue. That noble Lord had stated that he meant when he came into office to impose a duty upon the food of the people. The noble Lord, in the most frank and undisguised manner, stated what were his intentions; whilst the course pursued in that House—the Commons—was of an opposite character. The hon. Gentleman opposite made out a case for the owners and occupiers of land. What the owners had to complain of he could not discover, whilst as to the distress of the occupiers he deeply deplored it. The remedy the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) proposed was the imposition of a higher price upon food brought into this country. This, then, it was for which they were to fight—this was to be the battle at the hustings, a high price, or a low price, on the food of the people [Cries of "No, no !" from Protectionist Members]. He was but telling them that which their leader had said in another place. Under these circumstances, lie trusted the noble Lord at the head of the Government would bear in mind what had been the declarations made elsewhere. The noble Lord should consider the unreserved mode in which that declaration had been made, and lie now told the noble Lord that the country had a right to expect great candour on the part of the Administration. He trusted that the noble Lord would alter the decision to which he appeared to have come with respect to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill; and that he would tell them at an early period on Friday what was to be the budget in its newly-constructed form. They saw that they were threatened with import duties on food. To that the people were opposed. What they wanted was a reduction of the expenditure, and thus leasening the burdens of taxation. To the noble Lord credit was given for 1083 sincerity and ability; but great regret was felt that he had not more efficient Colleagues; and the wish was that he would look about and see if he could not be aided by men with a greater capacity for government. The people were careless whether they were governed by Whig or Tory. All they wanted was cheap, honest, and good government.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had paid a well-deserved compliment to Lord Stanley, for the statesmanlike and moderate speech he made in another place; but the hon. Gentleman went on to say, that the noble Lord had confessed he was unable to form a Government, because he could find only one person of official experience in that House, and that that person was one in whose sentiments he did not agree.
§ MR. WAKLEYexplained that what he said was, that Lord Stanley had declared he could find only one person of official experience in that House; and in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion that person was of the wrong kind.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYwas anxious not to be led into a corn-law debate on that occasion, but he must be allowed to state that what Lord Stanley did say in the House of Lords—[Cries of "Order!"]—well, in another place, was not that he wished to raise the price of the food of the people, but that he thought a revenue might be obtained by means of a moderate duty on foreign corn, without materially raising the price of food.
§ MR. MOOREsaid, he was not going to discuss the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, but he did think it necessary to urge upon a bewildered House, and upon a ruffled Administration, the necessity of taking time—the one to recover its senses, and the other again to try its wings, before they entered upon a course of legislation which more than any other required a serenity of mind and a well-formed judgment, which the events of the last few days were very much calculated to destroy. If they were determined to legislate upon this question, they should not at all events depart without chart or pilot upon that troubled and unknown sea on which the Administration had once already foundered, and on which some of our most experienced and ancient mariners had declined to spread their sails. He thought it would be generally admitted that a species of legislation like this, however necessary, was so caculated 1084 to excite angry animosities, so calculated to stir up bad passions and sectarian hatred amongst the people, that whatever legislation they might be compelled to adopt, should at all events be conclusive. He was afraid that the noble Lord's Bill would lead to a species of experimental legislation, to persecution by instalment, and a succession of blisters calculated to keep alive every old sore, and awaken every dormant susceptibility amongst the people upon the question of religion. Besides, the operation of this Bill would apply chiefly to that part of the empire with regard to which they had too often been in the habit of making mistakes in legislation, and with regard to which it was of the utmost importance that such mistakes should be made no more. The noble Lord had had three months in which to mature his measure, and now that it had been brought forward, the noble Lord confessed that it would not produce the effects which he intended it should produce. The noble Lord had consequently stated, that it was his intention in a few days to introduce such a Bill as he thought would better answer his purpose. Under such circumstances, then, ought not the noble Lord at least to give some notice of the provisions of his new Bill before he pressed it to a second reading?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEwished to be informed whether there was any objection to lay before the House copies of the Addresses which had been presented to Her Majesty from different parts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, with regard to the present Papal aggression?
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, they had been already ordered to be printed.
§ MR. SADLEIRhad not been able to gather from the statement of the noble Lord, whether it was his intention to expunge some of the clauses of the Bill now before the House on Papal aggression. If such was his intention, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought to state which of the clauses it was intended to expunge, and also the precise nature of the clauses which it was intended to introduce. As it might be the noble Lord's intention to introduce an entirely new Bill, he appealed to him whether it was unreasonable to demand that at least ten days should be allowed to the Roman Catholics of the united kingdom to consider its nature? He had no desire to meet the noble Lord on this subject in any factious spirit; 1085 but the noble Lord knew perfectly well, that if he attempted to coerce the Irish Members, they would take such a step as would compel the Government to afford them ample time to consider the probable consequences of the Bill.
§ Second Reading deferred till Friday,